The Senate Tuesday narrowly rejected a new fund for high-needs special education students. 

House Bill 291 would have created a $3 million fund to help public schools cover the costs of particularly high-needs students. Sponsoring Sen. Camille Blaylock, R-Caldwell, gave a list of examples from school districts in her area: 

• A student who requires an around-the-clock American Sign Language interpreter costs the school district $55,000. 
• A student who needs occupational therapy, speech therapy and a communicator device costs $65,000. 
• Students who require one-on-one behavioral or nursing support cost between $51,000 and $89,000.

“These are not hypothetical numbers,” Blaylock said. “These are real students in real classrooms with real costs.”

A recent nonpartisan report from the Legislature’s Office of Performance Evaluations found that Idaho’s school funding formula is failing to account for students’ particular needs. And there’s an $82 million gap in special education funding statewide.

HB 291 sought to alleviate a small portion of this gap, and the House narrowly approved the bill. But the Senate rejected it by one vote.  

The bill initially appeared to pass, but Sen. Ben Adams changed his vote from “yes” to “no,” swinging the decision the other way.

“We already have funds that are set up for that,” Adams, R-Nampa, said after Tuesday’s debate.  “We should be able to close that gap with the funds that we already created, rather than creating a new fund, a new bucket, and putting more money in that.”

Debating in favor of the bill, Sen. Dave Lent noted that the state is required by law to educate public school students with special needs. And public school districts are covering the cost of high-needs students using locally raised property taxes. 

“The state is trying to, again, step in and help alleviate some of that local burden on our communities,” said Lent, R-Idaho Falls. “We’ve done this in many ways, but this is not new money.”

The Senate took action on a few other education-related bills Tuesday, including:

LGBTQ+ instruction 

On a party-line vote, the Senate approved a bill prohibiting classroom instruction on LGBTQ+ issues.

Sponsored by Rep. Dale Hawkins, R-Fernwood, and Sen. Cindy Carlson, House Bill 352 directs school districts to adopt policies that ban education on “sexual orientation or gender identity” from kindergarten through 12^th grade.

“I think parents need to take the lead in determining how and when to introduce these topics to their children,” said Carlson, R-Riggins.

Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, argued that the bill “intentionally” limits the ability for people to talk about their lives. And it puts another “burden on teachers,” she said, which signals “we don’t trust you to teach what is appropriate.”

The bill now heads to Gov. Brad Little’s desk.

Sexual education opt-in 

Also along party lines, the Senate cleared a bill mandating that parents opt-in to public school instruction on “human sexuality.”

House Bill 239 would require two weeks’ notice of upcoming instruction on sexuality. Currently, Idaho law requires that school districts allow parents to opt out of sex education.

“Parents are the primary stakeholders in their children’s upbringing,” said Sen. Tammy Nichols, R-Middleton, who co-sponsored the bill with Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls. “This bill ensures that they retain that right to make informed decisions about what their children learn in school.”

Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, said parent complaints about sex education should be handled locally. “When parents are dissatisfied with something that’s happening in their school district, they grab their local legislator…But that’s not really the way the system is designed to work.”

The bill now goes back to the House, which already approved the bill but must concur with Senate amendments.

English as official language

A proposed constitutional amendment making English Idaho’s official language also cleared the Senate Tuesday — nearly along party lines.

House Joint Resolution 6 reads, in part: “Except as required by federal law, English shall be used in all public proceedings, public documents, public instruction, and any other public acts of any public institution in the state of Idaho.”

Twenty-nine Republicans and Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, supported the resolution.

The question will now appear on a future ballot for voters to weigh in. A joint resolution does not need the governor’s approval.

Fast-track virtual charter school bill heads to Senate floor

A late-session virtual charter schools bill is moving quickly.

The Senate Education Committee sent Senate Bill 1188 to the floor Tuesday afternoon — one day after the bill was printed, and after an abbreviated and on-the-fly public hearing, scheduled earlier in the day.

But SB 1188 almost certainly won’t remain intact. The committee sent it to Senate’s amending order, and one of the bill’s co-sponsors already has a couple of changes in mind.

The bill is directed largely at one virtual charter — the Malad-based Idaho Home Learning Academy, which enrolls about 8,000 students statewide. And as it now stands, the bill would make major changes in virtual charter school governance.

Virtual charters would have to operate under the umbrella of the state’s Public Charter School Commission. IHLA had been part of the Oneida School District, during years of rapid enrollment growth, and is operating for the first year as a charter school, under the Oneida district’s supervision.

If IHLA winds up under the state’s authority, it won’t be going there eagerly.

“The Oneida School District understands the vision of the program,” said IHLA executive director Terri Sorensen, who called the idea of state oversight “scary.”

“It does leave some uncertainty for us,” said Sorensen. “Will they accept us?”

A charter school advocacy group is even more blunt. In a mailer Tuesday, the Meridian-based Coalition of Charter School Families said SB 1188 would move virtual charters “into a broken charter application system,” handing over all control “to unelected bureaucrats with no online learning expertise.”

Several IHLA parents extolled the virtual learning experience, saying it has worked for their children who struggled in a traditional school. Tani Sapp said she enrolled her kindergartner, first-grader and third-grader in IHLA for a different reason, and she said it had nothing to do with the high-performing traditional schools in her hometown of Troy.

“I want them to be together, to learn together, to grow together.”

Senate Education heard from less than half of the 17 people who signed up to testify — and just a sampling of the audience that crammed into the committee room. And Senate Education wasn’t even scheduled to meet at all Tuesday. Committee chairman Dave Lent, an Idaho Falls Republican sponsoring SB 1188, said he scheduled the last-minute hearing to accommodate SB 1188 opponents, who converged at the Statehouse Tuesday to rally against the bill.

Several speakers and committee members criticized the rushed process. And while IHLA and other virtual charters wouldn’t have to move under the state’s umbrella until 2026, Sen. Christy Zito urged colleagues to move more slowly, and make sure IHLA and its students aren’t hurt in the transition.

“When we have something that works,” said Zito, R-Mountain Home, “it’s incumbent upon us to protect that.”

Lent said the bill won’t affect IHLA or its students. He said his goal, in the waning stage of the session, is to pass a bill that would allow the state to get its arms around the growing virtual education sector.

“We want to do that in a way that doesn’t negatively impact students who need this kind of educational setting,” he said.

Zito’s motion to hold the bill, and effectively kill it for the year, failed on a 3-6 vote. The committee then sent the bill to the Senate floor for amendment, on a 7-2 vote.

Lent says he is planning two amendments. The first would soften language about the virtual schools’ sometimes controversial contracts with education service providers; as now written, all of these contracts would be subject to charter commission approval. The second amendment would allow school districts to continue to run virtual programs serving students beyond their borders.

However, when a bill is up for amendment, any lawmaker can suggest any change, and the Senate has to vote on every change.

Bill to rework Idaho Launch introduced

A late-session proposal to rework the Idaho Launch program debuted Tuesday. 

The House Ways and Means Committee quickly introduced the bill. It would make many four-year degrees ineligible and put a legislative committee in charge of selecting which “in-demand careers” qualify for Launch scholarships. 

“It’s a good move in the right direction,” said sponsoring Rep. Steve Miller, R-Fairfield. “It’ll reorganize the advisory committee in the way that works and give us some opportunities to work better in the future.”

Pushed by Gov. Brad Little, Launch offers up to $8,000 in state funds to Idaho high school graduates pursuing a college degree or career-technical training in an in-demand career. While popular among students, the program has been controversial among Republican lawmakers. An earlier bill proposed sunsetting Launch next year, but it has yet to receive a hearing.

Here’s what the new bill would do: 

• Limit eligibility to certificates and degrees that require two years or less of coursework. Four-year degrees in health care, engineering and information technology would still be eligible. 
• Move oversight of Launch from the Workforce Development Council to a new advisory committee, made up of three House members, three Senate members and three members of the public, appointed by the governor. 
• Require eligible institutions to comply with the state’s critical race theory prohibition, “provided that any provisions relating to religion shall not apply to parochial institutions.”
• Prohibit eligible institutions from requiring diversity statements as a condition of enrollment or employment. 

House Ways and Means Committee members voted along party lines to introduce the bill. 

Rep. Todd Achilles, D-Boise, asked several questions, including why a nine-member “political board” would be more beneficial than the 36-member Workforce Development Council, which currently oversees Launch. 

“I don’t know if we’re going to get a broader perspective, because there’s no commitment to the skill sets on the new advisory board. There’s no commitment to bipartisanship.”

Miller responded that a new matrix guiding the advisory board will be similar to the one currently shaping eligible career paths. “It becomes a selection process that you work out, you test, you see what the results are, and then the group figures out if that’s really where we’re going to be.”