Policy whiplash.
That’s an apt descriptor for Idaho’s recently concluded legislative session when it came to K–12 education. On one hand, lawmakers advanced policies that expanded school choice and granted meaningful flexibility to public schools. On the other, they enacted highly prescriptive mandates that move toward one-size-fits-all solutions for educators, students, and families.
Lawmakers deserve credit—and the Governor as well—for passing House Bill 741. This law establishes “earned autonomy” for high-performing public charter schools and school districts, allowing them greater flexibility over funding and relief from certain regulations. Schools that meet clear benchmarks in academic performance, graduation rates, and financial stewardship can earn the freedom to make decisions that best serve their students.
This is how education improves: when we trust educators, empower them with flexibility, and hold them accountable for results. Students benefit when those closest to the classroom have ownership over how learning happens.
Of course, trust must come with verification. More on that shortly.
In contrast, the Legislature also passed Senate Bill 1336, mandating a statewide civics curriculum. The intent behind this law is understandable—even commendable. As the nation approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, reinforcing civic knowledge and patriotism is a widely shared goal. Few Idahoans would argue against preparing students to be informed, engaged citizens.
The problem is not the goal—it’s the approach.
SB 1336 moves beyond setting standards and instead prescribes curriculum in statute. It outlines a long list of virtues, values, and historical content—many of which already exist in Idaho’s civics standards. Codifying curriculum at the state level risks creating a rigid, one-size-fits-all system that does not reflect the realities of teaching and learning. It also runs counter to the principles of school choice, which should give parents meaningful options across different instructional models into how their children are taught.
There is an important distinction here: state standards define what students should know and be able to do; curriculum determines how that knowledge is taught. In Idaho, standards have traditionally been developed at the state level, while curriculum decisions have been left to local educators, districts, and charter schools. The state can—and should—provide access to model curricula and offer professional development for those who want support.
That balance has served Idaho well.
In fact, the state recently updated its social studies standards through a formal, statutorily authorized process led by the State Superintendent. These updated standards already strengthen civics education in meaningful ways.
Meanwhile, schools across Idaho are innovating. High-quality civics and history curricula—such as those developed through the Hillsdale Barney Charter School Initiative—are being successfully implemented by American Classical Schools of Idaho (ACS-I). Not surprisingly, ACS-I is growing, with more communities expressing interest in bringing these schools to their regions. Idaho parents are deciding for themselves what they want when it comes to their children and how they learn to become citizens. This is the fruit of school choice efforts over decades now.
Recognizing this, Idaho’s public charter schools will have the option to seek exemptions from SB 1336. Many will do so—not to avoid teaching civics, but because they are already doing it well, often exceeding the expectations outlined in the law.
This brings us back to the principle of “trust, but verify.”
Idaho has long embraced this approach. In 2015, the state required students to pass a civics exam to graduate from high school. Over time, this assessment has become more rigorous, evolving beyond a basic naturalization test to include key constitutional principles and foundational documents.
This is a model worth building on: the state sets clear expectations and measures outcomes, but leaves the methods to educators. If we believe in limited government, local control, and accountability, we should apply those same principles to civics and history education policy.
The role of the state is not to dictate every lesson taught in every classroom. It is to set high standards, ensure transparency, and hold schools accountable for results. When schools meet those expectations, they should be trusted with the freedom to do their work.
Idaho has already shown the way. Policies like earned autonomy, and civics assessment and a robust and growing school choice market reflect an approach that values both responsibility and results. They trust educators while ensuring taxpayers receive a return on their investment.
Mandating curriculum from Boise—however well-intentioned—moves us in the opposite direction, toward centralized control and away from the local innovation that has long defined Idaho education.
We can achieve strong civics education without sacrificing local control. We can promote patriotism without prescribing pedagogy. And we can hold schools accountable without tying their hands.
The path forward is clear: set the bar high, measure outcomes, encourage school choice and trust Idaho educators to deliver.
