I was elected Idaho’s Superintendent of Public Instruction in the November 7, 1978, General Election.

Proposition 1 was also on the ballot.  It was a measure restricting governmental ability to collect taxes in excess of one percent of property value.

During the campaigns of candidates seeking statewide office and legislative seats, it was a hot topic.  Eventually, I was the only Republican candidate for statewide office that was officially opposed to Prop 1.

It was interesting that most candidates from both political parties expressed strong support for funding public schools at a much higher level in 1978, especially raising teacher salaries.

Yet many of these same candidates supported Prop 1.  I found this dual support a real dichotomy.  It was almost like suggesting we travel north and south at the same time.

Nevertheless, Prop 1 was approved by the voters with a 164,817 to 118,102 margin.

I raise this history because it is so similar to the situation we find today.  Strong support for our schools, while at the same time cutting taxes in dramatic levels.

An interesting side note, the percent approval of Prop 1 was almost identical to the margin by which I defeated my opponent for the State Superintendent’s office.

Following the election, there was considerable discussion whether or not Idaho had too many school districts.  The discussion centered around the words, “EFFICIENCY” and “ECONOMY”.

School district consolidation became a hot legislative topic.

Proponents of consolidation often cited examples of the number of school districts in Canyon County, and the Washington County districts Midvale and Cambridge.  Those two small districts were only eight miles apart and each had a small high school.  The other example cited was Shoshone School District which entirely surrounded the Dietrich School District.

Most proponents were clear that they were not particularly interested in closing schools, but were interested in greater governmental efficiency, especially of administrative units.

Proponents of consolidation often cited the administrative cost per pupil in smaller districts which had their own accounting systems, payroll systems, transportation systems, purchasing, audit and legal services.  They would say, “Consolidation will yield the same services in more efficient manner.”

Thus, there was a desire to consolidate the smaller districts into more EFFICIENT, cost-saving units.  But, obstacles like politics, geography, roads, and bond debt prevailed and nothing happened in the seventies and eighties when interest was high. All of this leads me to the situation we have today with Idaho’s public charter schools.

For all practical purposes, Idaho’s public charter schools have the same status as “traditional” school districts.  In essence they are school districts, but with fewer statutory requirements, such as collective bargaining and the accountability of publicly elected boards.

The current Idaho legislature and governor are busy slashing taxes that fund public schools.  They should also be slashing small district administrative costs—a bureaucracy they created and continue to support with almost eighty public charter schools!  Take a look at this enrollment chart for Idaho’s public charter schools.

Twenty public charter schools enroll fewer than two hundred students, and 40 of them enroll fewer than 400 students.  Rest assured, however, that each has its own administration, all of the costs associated needed to operate independently.  And, seven of them had carryovers above 100% of their current year’s budget.  According to Idaho Education News, March 18, 2025, those seven public charter schools are:

• Kootenai Bridge 336.9%
• Island Park 155.5%
• Chief Taghee 142.2%
• North Idaho STEM 128%
• Gem Prep 118%
• Liberty 114%
• iSucceed 100.2%

The INEFFICIENCIES and costly duplication of administrative costs that were concerns years ago are now increasing at an alarming rate.  Why?

Because the legislature and the Idaho Charter Commission seem to approve more public charter schools each year, WITHOUT EVER CONSIDERING EFFICIENCIES and ECONOMICS.

It is time to consider both EFFICIENCY and ECONOMY of scale once again, only this time we should do something about it!

The proliferation of public charter schools is a direct result of the Idaho legislature’s pandering to their lobby and the creation of the Idaho Charter School Commission.  At the beginning, the charters of a proposed charter school had to be approved by their contiguous traditional school district’s publicly elected school boards.  At the beginning, there were some measures of ACCOUNTABILITY, and consideration of EFFICIENCY and ECONOMY.

But the Idaho legislature gave that away when it revised the original charter school law over 100 times and established the Idaho Charter School Commission, which has become a foot on the gas pedal to continue the duplication and overlap.

Perhaps it is time for a study to make recommendations that would reestablish relationships between public charter schools and local school districts to develop both ECONOMY and EFFICIENCY measures.

As my Dad used to say, “If every day you dig yourself deeper into a hole, the least you should do is stop digging.”