Dear Governor Little,

I want to begin by thanking you and your administration for all of your efforts to improve education in Idaho. You have earned your legacy as a champion of education and as a friend to teachers. Additionally, I want to express sympathy for the decision in front of you in the form of House Bill 93. As a leader who, on a much smaller scale than you, has to routinely weigh the disparate viewpoints of stakeholder groups, I do not envy the tough decisions that you are routinely asked to make.

With that being said, I believe that your well-earned legacy on education is now in danger of being eradicated. When you announced your willingness to send $50 million in public funds to non-public schools, many of your voters were shocked and saddened. In the speech, you referred to a “growing desire to expand school choice” in Idaho. Perhaps this desire is increasing, but is there a desire to give taxpayer money to private, for-profit schools?

According to information acquired by Idaho EdNews via a FOIA request, 94% of the public input sent to elected officials in regards to this bill were oppositional. I applaud the decision of your office yesterday to establish a simple way for the public to call in and give feedback on this bill. If the majority of those constituents calling in remain opposed to this bill, it will be difficult not to wonder about whose views are most heavily influencing your thinking. Is it President Trump, who proved that he has no knowledge of Idaho public schools when he claimed in front of millions on Inauguration Day that “we have an education system that teaches our children to be ashamed of themselves” and “to hate our country”? Or are you listening only to the sponsors and supporters of the bill? When Senator Hartog and Representative Horman point to non-existence research about voucher schemes benefiting students or characterize public education as some sort of monopoly, they too sound far-removed from what really goes on in Idaho schools. I urge you to listen to all your constituents and not the uniformed with ulterior motives trying to exert political pressure over you.

Moreover, despite what supporters claim, this program would put public schools in “competition” with other types of schools. Schools are not businesses, and teachers are not driven by profit. We do our best for students because we love them. Competition is the wrong mindset for education; indeed, as Paula Kellerer asked in her op-ed in Idaho EdNews, if competition is desirable, “who wants losers in education?”

So, if you feel that you must support school choice programs, I hope you adhere to your own principles. Once you declared your support of school choice legislation, you also attempted to soften the blow by saying that “any school choice measure I would consider must be done the Idaho way, which means it is fair, responsible, transparent, and accountable.” As you said, Idaho’s public schools are currently overseen with these four tenets. Yet it is clear that House Bill 93 falls well short of these standards. If public schools are asked to compete, we will do our best, but House Bill 93 does not provide us a level playing field with all of the private schools, charter schools, microschools, learning pods, and homeschooling programs. To wit:

-Public schools must help students meet certain standards (developed by Idaho teachers), and our students are heavily tested.

-The “academic institutions” mentioned in HB93 must only teach English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies, and they can teach them in whatever manner they choose.

-The results of these standardized tests in public schools are published to the public.

• “Academic institutions” would not be best tested on publicly-determined standards. Indeed, they need only compile “a learning portfolio” for their students.

-Public schools must accept any student living in their tax district and have very little leeway in denying admissions to students from outside of their boundaries.

• Since HB93 states that “academic institutions” do not have to “alter their admissions policy, or curriculum in order to accept students whose payment of tuition or fees stems from a refundable tax credit,” these institutions continue to have the freedom to deny admissions to whoever doesn’t fit their creed.

-Public schools must employ certified teachers. Such certification, whether obtained via the traditional means (bachelor degrees) or non-traditional means, are incredibly expensive and time-consuming for the teacher, who often must incur large amounts of debt to obtain their degrees and certifications.

-After reading the full text of HB93, I see no mention of certified teachers or even a requirement of background checks for “teachers” at “educational institutions.” This makes the safeguards between Idaho children and potentially harmful teachers much too porous.

-The certified professionals at public schools will continue to be supervised by the duly-elected public officials serving on their local Board of Trustees.

-Teachers and administrators at “educational institutions” are free to sell parents on whatever educational approach they feel will get them in the building.

Now, I admit my arguments here somewhat castigate non-public schools, but I do that only for rhetorical purposes. I have no doubt that a majority of non-traditional schools are safe, academically-rigorous environments staffed by passionate and caring teachers. But until they are regulated and tested to the extent that public schools are, they are not deserving of public money.

Governor Little, you know that our public schools are the backbones of Idaho communities and neighborhoods. They are one of the few uniting entities in this age of modern cultural division. Homecoming games, holiday concerts, grandparent lunch days and so many more events bring us together with those in our community. We show up for “our kids” in our communities and neighborhoods and mingle and laugh at those events regardless of race, religion, class, or political affiliation. We are all invested in the success of public schools, and, no matter how you slice it, sending public money elsewhere will inevitably weaken public schools.

Parents in Idaho already have choices. They can choose to advocate for their students and be our partners in education. They can choose to attend parent-teacher conferences and help teacher teams make a plan to best meet the needs of their child. They can choose to volunteer in schools or serve on the school board. And they already can choose an alternative placement for their student. But when they do so, I should not have to financially support their choice. I’m already invested in public schools for my own children and the others in my community.

You know our public schools, Governor, and you know our teachers. You invalidate their training and their expertise when you sign this bill. Instead, please continue to do what you have always done: support them as our most essential workers, as professionals, experts, and as big-hearted lifechangers who are shaping the future of our state.