State education leaders discuss tax credits, special ed, classroom policies at IASA conference

From left to right: Andy Grover, executive director of the Idaho Association of School Administrators; Kurt Liebich, president of the Idaho State Board of Education; Debbie Critchfield, state superintendent; and Quinn Perry, deputy director of the Idaho School Boards Association, discuss recent legislation affecting public schools on Aug. 7, 2025, during IASA’s annual leadership conference in Boise. | Kaeden Lincoln, EdNews BOISE (Idaho Ed News) — Idaho lawmakers were on trial Thursday during the Idaho Association of School Administrator’s annual leadership conference in Boise. In a wide-ranging conversation, a panel of public school advocates and state education officials broke down policy changes affecting schools after a hectic 2025 legislative session. And they didn’t have many positive things to say about the decisions made by the Legislature’s Republican supermajority this year. The panel — which featured state superintendent Debbie Critchfield and Idaho State Board of Education president Kurt Liebich, along with leaders of public school advocacy groups — covered how administrators should market their schools among newly subsidized private alternatives. Critchfield also teased her upcoming plan to address a special education funding gap, after lawmakers rejected her proposals this year. And the panel offered advice on controversial new laws affecting public school classrooms, like a prohibition on “political” displays and a mandate to show fetal development videos. Here’s what they said: House Bill 93 The most robust conversation Thursday revolved around House Bill 93. The Republican-backed legislation created Idaho’s first private school choice program, which offers tax credits to private school and home-school families. Quinn Perry, deputy director and director of government affairs for the Idaho School Boards Association (ISBA), which strongly opposed the bill, said public school leaders can no longer assume that traditional public schools will be an automatic choice for the families in their communities. “It’s time for you to start marketing yourself,” Perry said. “You need to make sure that you’re out there (as) a competitor for being the school of choice in your community.” Liebich agreed. Idaho’s public education system is “strong,” he said, but schools need to better market their students’ outcomes, from test scores to post-graduation successes. The “weakness” of HB 93 was its lack of accountability measures, Liebich said. “Nobody’s talking about outcomes. The money’s just going out the door.” Andy Grover, the IASA’s executive director, predicted that lawmakers will try to increase funding for the tax credit — which is currently capped at $50 million — as other states with similar programs have done in recent years. Liebich said lawmakers shouldn’t expand the tax credit until three questions are answered: Where did the dollars go — and is it just a tax break for wealthy private school families? Is the money improving student achievement? Is it disproportionately harming rural public schools? “Until we can answer those three questions…we’d be crazy to add money to it,” he said. Whether to expand the state tax credit isn’t the only private school choice decision looming before state policymakers. Critchfield was asked Thursday whether Idaho will opt into a new federally funded private school choice program. Part of President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the program offers federal tax credits for donations to “scholarship granting organizations” (SGOs) that fund private education. States must opt in to participate in the tax credit program, and Critchfield said Idaho should go down that road. It’s an opportunity to supplement limited state resources for expanding school choice, she said. “We’re investigating all of that so that we understand what’s before us,” Critchfield said. “But I definitely think it’s worth pursuing.” The Legislature will have to pass a bill creating an SGO, and that process will likely raise many of the same questions that plagued HB 93, such income eligibility limits and discrimination policies at private schools. States will have the ability to shape their own program, Stateline reported. Special education funding Critchfield Thursday hinted at what her K-12 budget request will include when she sends it to Gov. Brad Little at the end of the month. Unlike the current fiscal year’s budget that was approved by the Legislature, Critchfield’s upcoming request will include an increase in discretionary spending for school districts, she said. And it will take a stab at addressing Idaho’s special education funding shortfall, which has grown to $85 million, using state dollars. This year, Critchfield proposed a bill that would have distributed school districts’ discretionary funding using “weights” based on students characteristics such as special needs. The Senate passed the bill, but the House didn’t vote on it. Senate Republicans also narrowly rejected a bill to create a $3 million fund for high-needs special education students. Without getting into specifics, Critchfield said her budget proposal will “maximize” existing state dollars. “If we can’t get all the way to the modernization that I want to get to right now, then we need to start at step one, which is using the money that we have in a better way,” she said. Public school lobbyists, however, doubted that lawmakers will be convinced to invest in special education. In conversations about House Bill 291, the high-needs student fund, some lawmakers didn’t believe it could cost up to $100,000 to educate one student, Perry said. And among those that believed in the high costs, many didn’t think educating these students is the state’s responsibility, she said. “I need you to know that the conversations that I heard from lawmakers in the context of students that we are serving was, frankly, disturbing to me,” Perry said. “…Our current Legislature does not believe that this special education gap is real.” Classroom flags and banners Critchfield also shed light on IDE’s process for evaluating complaints about classroom displays. This year, GOP lawmakers passed House Bill 41, which barred classroom banners and flags that promote political, religious or ideological viewpoints. And the Idaho Department of Education (IDE) is charged with enforcing the law. EdNews this week reported on the first complaint filed under the new law. The complainant argued that a sign with the United States’ official motto — “In God We Trust” — in a Lake Pend Oreille (Sandpoint) school violated the law’s prohibition on religious displays. Critchfield responded that the sign is permitted because it complies with a different law that allows the display of the national motto. On Thursday, Critchfield said she’s working to assemble a panel that can evaluate similar complaints moving forward. “Although I didn’t get elected to be the flag and banner person, here’s where we are,” she said. “We want to put together a panel that can have a conversation about it.” If IDE receives a valid complaint, the department will send a letter to the district, but there’s no penalty. Critchfield advised that school leaders don’t need to check every classroom for displays that could violate the law. “That’s not a great use of your time,” she said. “We want you talking about whether or not your kids can read.” Liebich said he expects HB 41 will attract litigation. It’s an example of recent legislation — along with Senate Bill 1198, barring diversity, equity and inclusion on college campuses — that has come “dangerously close” to impeding free speech and academic freedom, he said. “I don’t know how we preserve our education system, or frankly, our democracy, if we’re not willing to stand up for freedom of speech and academic freedom,” Liebich said. Fetal development video Thursday’s panel also discussed Senate Bill 1046, another controversial new law from the 2025 session, which requires that public schools show fetal development videos in grades fives through 12. The content — mandated during instruction on human biology, contraception or sexually transmitted diseases — must include a “high-definition ultrasound” showing the development of the brain, heart, sex organs and other vital organs. Videos must also include “a high-quality, computer-generated rendering or animation showing the process of fertilization and every stage of human development inside the uterus.” Legislative sponsors, Sen. Tammy Nichols, R-Middleton, and Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, pointed to an example of a video that would qualify. The three-minute video was produced by Live Action, a Virginia-based anti-abortion nonprofit, and asserts that life begins at conception. Critchfield said that Idaho Digital Learning Alliance has identified another option that districts could use. Districts should consider asking parents to opt in for their children to watch the videos — which could be deemed inappropriate for children as young as fifth grade. Perry also noted that IDE and ISBA, during the legislative session, pushed the bill sponsors to limit how often districts are compelled to show the video. Students could be required to watch the video seven years in a row, she said. “We were unable to get to consensus there,” Perry said. “We will probably reach out to you after the school year to see how this video was received by your parents and your patrons.” Heading into 2026, Perry said public school advocates at the Statehouse, like herself, should be more willing to criticize legislation. “In hindsight, I wish I would have stood up more and talked about how I don’t think that bill is age-appropriate for children who are in the fifth grade,” she said. “In the Capitol, it’s really easy to be targeted as a ’social justice advocate,’ when in fact, you are actually having to weigh in on these very serious things…for our children.” https://www.idahoednews.org/jspt/jspt.jsThe post State education leaders discuss tax credits, special ed, classroom policies at IASA conference appeared first on East Idaho News.
Source: eastidahonews.com