After years of debate, many words have been expended in Idaho’s private school choice saga, but it may be settled with just four — fair, responsible, transparent and accountable.

These are Gov. Brad Little’s conditions — along with safeguarding the public schools budget — for supporting a bill that directs state funds to private education. Little, who has the authority to sign or veto private school choice legislation that reaches his desk, promised $50 million for a bill that meets his standards. 

But Little has only hinted at how these standards could translate into policy. Does he support requiring standardized testing in private schools supported by taxpayers? Does he support mandated financial disclosures? A spokeswoman declined to comment.

“The governor’s office does not comment on pending legislation,” press secretary Joan Varsek told Idaho Education News by email.

Lawmakers, advocates and academics have their own ideas. There are as many different opinions circulating the Statehouse as there are legislators, according to Rep. Wendy Horman, co-sponsor of a private school tax credit proposal that’s scheduled to debut Wednesday.

“It turns out that 105 legislators define those terms differently,” Horman said in a recent interview with EdNews.

Here’s what fairness, responsibility, transparency and accountability could look like, according to researchers, private school choice supporters and public school advocates. 

How to make private education subsidies accountable, according to researchers

As a young policy analyst studying private school vouchers in the early 2000s, Josh Cowen says he was “fairly optimistic” about how the programs could work. These were the “pilot days,” he said earlier this month during Idaho Business for Education’s annual Legislative Academy event at the Statehouse.

Idaho Business for Education, an advocacy group for business leaders, has staunchly opposed private school choice legislation in recent years. The group invited Cowen to warn Idaho policymakers and others of the potential hazards linked to subsidizing private education. 

“When you test things, whether it’s in a lab, whether it’s in public policy, you see how it goes, and then you make adjustments,” Cowen said. “A lot of bad stuff happened since the pilot phase, and some of us adjusted, and some of us didn’t.”

Now an author and education policy professor at Michigan State University, Cowen is an outspoken critic of programs that send public funds to private schools through vouchers, education savings accounts or tax credits. (Cowen uses the term “vouchers” to refer to each of these mechanisms.)

What is private school choice? And what’s the difference between vouchers and tax credits? Click here for a guide on terms and ideas in the school choice movement.

Last year, Cowen published “The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers,” which highlights the negative academic outcomes stemming from school voucher programs and explores the well-funded political interest groups exploiting culture war anxieties in their push to privatize education. 

Today, most U.S. states have a private school choice program, and more than 20 states have created or expanded their programs since 2021. 

In an EdNews interview, Cowen said he hasn’t seen “an actually good” bill subsidizing private education in 20 years. But this doesn’t mean it can’t happen, he said, if there’s “tough, serious, sober-minded transparency and accountability.” 

In a recent report for the National Education Policy Center, Cowen and co-researcher Ryan D. Nowak, also of Michigan State University, identified 12 policy recommendations “to ensure that new or existing voucher systems follow evidence-based practice.” The recommendations fall under four categories: accountability, access, transparency and research and evaluation.

Accountability

Cowen and Nowak urged lawmakers to mandate background checks and certification for all teachers, including in private settings. And they recommend that private schools be subjected to the same accountability measures as public schools, including standardized testing. 

In his book, Cowen describes the shift over time in testing results for students enrolled in private school choice programs. From 1996 to 2002, these students saw “small positive impacts” after switching to private schools. Between 2005 and 2010, research found no impacts, positive or negative. And since 2013, as state programs have expanded, studies from multiple research teams found that “vouchers cause some of the largest academic declines on record in education research,” he wrote.  

In an EdNews interview, Cowen stressed that states should mandate the same standardized test that’s required of public schools. This way, parents can easily weigh a student’s progress after they move to private school and parents can compare different private schools’ overall performance on test scores. 

“Shouldn’t we know whether we’re giving them an anchor or a lifeline?” Cowen told EdNews. “Testing is the way to do that.”

Out of 65 private school choice programs across the country, 40 have a testing requirement, according to the Education Commission of the States, a nonprofit that tracks education policy. In some states that don’t require testing, including Utah and New Hampshire, parents or teachers must maintain a portfolio that documents student learning.

Transparency

Cowen and Nowak recommended mandated financial disclosures and audits of private schools benefiting from public funds. 

Cowen also told EdNews that states should implement measures to ensure schools are financially viable in the long-term, such as only allowing schools that have been open for a period of time to benefit from taxpayer funds. 

In states with private school choice programs, taxpayer subsidies have created a market for what Cowen calls “subprime pop-up schools” that often fail. School closures affect academic performance and student behavior, and hamper future education or work prospects, research shows. 

Florida requires participating schools to “demonstrate fiscal soundness and accountability” by being in operation for at least three years or by obtaining a surety bond or letter of credit equal to the public funds they receive. 

Three years is typically the “escape velocity” for long-term survival among private schools and public charter schools, Cowen told EdNews. “If they can make it three years, it doesn’t guarantee they’ll make it 20, but most closures come in the first year or the second.” 

Access

The argument for private school choice — that it provides opportunities for children outside of one-size-fits-all public schools — is “only as good as the extent to which” these programs provide “meaningful access” to private schools, Cowen and Nowak wrote. Private schools can be exclusive under federal law and many are.

“This is particularly an issue for students with special needs, students from single-parent or divorced families, and those who are either LGBTQ+ or have LGBTQ+ parents,” the researchers wrote. 

Short of requiring open admissions and enrollment policies, states should at least require that private schools benefiting from public funds document and report their reasons for turning away applicants or expelling students, Cowen told EdNews. 

Wisconsin, for instance, prohibits private schools from considering race, ethnic background, religion, prior test scores, grades or recommendations in their admissions decisions for voucher recipients. But the anti-discrimination protections don’t apply to LGBTQ+ students, Wisconsin Watch reported, and the admissions regulations don’t bar private schools from later expelling students.

In Idaho, access is impaired by geography as well. Most private schools are concentrated in urban areas, EdNews previously reported. At least 17 of Idaho’s 44 counties don’t have a private school and nine counties have just one.

Research and evaluation

Lastly, Cowen and Nowak recommend independent evaluations of a state’s private school choice program every five years. And they urged mandated reporting of the percentage of program enrollees who never attended public schools. 

Parents provide ultimate accountability, say private school choice advocates

Horman and Senate Majority Leader Lori Den Hartog, the Idaho Legislature’s leading private school choice advocates, say their proposal to create tax credits for private school expenses includes safeguards for public funds. But these policy provisions don’t match the accountability that comes from parents, who can take their money to a different school if they’re unsatisfied.  

“The strongest form of accountability is the parent making that decision to entrust their child with a school and then monitor whether they’re safe, they’re happy, they’re learning,” Horman said in a recent EdNews interview.  

Horman, R-Idaho Falls, and Den Hartog, R-Meridian, are sponsoring one of a half a dozen or more private school choice bills that could surface this session. One proposal was already introduced as a “personal bill” and won’t advance. Two more bills are scheduled for introduction Wednesday, including Den Hartog and Horman’s. 

Their proposal would create a $50 million refundable tax credit covering education expenses for private schoolers and home-schoolers. The credits would be worth up to $5,000, and $7,500 for students with special needs. Households earning less than 300% of the federal poverty limit — $93,600 annually for a family of four — would have priority access to the funds. 

Horman and Den Hartog have said that the bill will include accountability measures — although likely not many of the measures that private school choice critics have called for. 

To qualify, non-public schools would have to teach math, science, social studies and English/language arts, Horman said during a Jan. 6 news conference announcing the proposal. Den Hartog had previously told reporters that the bill won’t include a testing requirement.

Accountability provisions tied to academics — standardized testing or content standards, for instance — are among the most divisive aspects of private education subsidy proposals. EdNews previously reported that unregulated Idaho private schools have long enjoyed academic freedom, and Christian school leaders, in particular, could sour on a bill that regulates what they teach to an extent they consider burdensome. 

Regulating admissions could be a deal-breaker as well. But Horman earlier this month rebuked concerns that admissions procedures discriminate against students with special needs; private schools

 often admit students with disabilities, she said. 

“If we want to talk about discrimination and segregation, then let’s talk about students who are stuck in schools that are not meeting their needs and need a different option,” Horman said during the news conference. “That’s what this bill is about.”

Horman and Den Hartog’s tax credit would require that potential recipients first apply through the State Tax Commission, which would administer the program. Applicants would be asked to identify their education expenses — tuition as well as tutoring, curriculum and other costs associated with private school or home-school — and each non-special needs child would be eligible for tax refunds up to $5,000, depending on their expenses. 

“It’s not a blanket refund,” Den Hartog said, distinguishing the credit from something like Idaho’s grocery tax credit. “This is more than checking a box. It does require an application. It does require the parent taxpayer to identify what types of eligible expenses they have incurred, what amount those expenses have been.”

Den Hartog and Horman also noted that attempts to defraud the program would carry tax fraud penalties, potentially a felony conviction and jail time.

To hear EdNews’ full interview with Horman and Den Hartog, along with Mountain States Policy Center CEO Chris Cargill, click here. 

Should private schools be held to same standards as public schools?

Little surprised some when he earmarked $50 million for a private school choice program. He’s a longtime skeptic of spending public funds on private education, and he’s remained on the sidelines amid debates in recent years. 

But support among lawmakers has reached a “critical mass,” Little told reporters earlier this month, after his State of the State address. He said he wants “some things” in the bill, which he can’t get if he’s not “part of the discussion.” So far, Little has only hinted at what these things might be — accountability provisions similar to what’s required of public schools.

“It’s a little hypocritical for me to demand accountability for public schools and then give money to somebody else that doesn’t have any accountability,” he said. 

Public school advocates doubt it’s even possible to mirror the kind of oversight that they face. Brian Pyper — president of the Idaho School Boards Association and a trustee in the Madison School District — pointed to academic standards, teacher certification, parental rights laws and student safety and anti-discrimination protections as a handful of examples.

“You will never be able to duplicate the accountability and transparency guaranteed to students, families, educators and taxpayers that’s provided by their public schools,” Pyper said in an emailed statement. “Public schools are one of the most regulated institutions in our country — but many of those regulations exist to provide safety and protection to children.”

Accountability may be a “moving target” for Little, as he negotiates private school choice and all the other items on his agenda, said House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel.

“I suspect that the accountability metrics are among the bargaining chips that will be shuffled,” said Rubel, D-Boise. “While I think it’s not responsible to be handing out public dollars without very serious accountability metrics, I worry that accountability may be sacrificed as the governor’s forced to negotiate.”