I am curious why the proponents of the ESA bill continue to ignore HSLDA senior counsel who advised against the bill. Claiming Homeschool Idaho is an outlier with hard core homeschoolers and the leftist groups is a little disingenuous. You would think the leading homeschool rights organization with over 35 years of experience would merit mention in the against group. Free legal advice turned down. There are better options that are truly conservative. 1038 is far from it.
Thanks for the update Brian. I agree regarding the Eagle Senior Center. Hopefully we can continue to improve it.
I don't understand why the books in the schools seems like such a tightrope walk for politicians. I oppose the banning or "burning" of any literature to adults. I similarly believe literature and supporting materials should be age-appropriate screened for children, and sexually charged and/or explicit materials removed/barred from elementary schools.
And while I have no horse in the ESA bill I have always supported the idea. When I was LD 14 Chair I had a long conversation with a PC who homeschooled and it was very enlightening. I suspect he opposes the bill. I think if we were bringing legislation about religion and the strongest opposition was from Fundamentalist Christians we should probably listen.
I want to make just one final comment on S1038 bill (Education Savings Accounts, ESAs). I hope people will review CAREFULLY and with AN OPEN MIND what Homeschool Idaho is saying about the bill. While this bill is well-intentioned, many strong conservatives foresee the slippery slope to government overreach ( [sarcasm on] after all, government overreach clearly has NEVER happened before [sarcasm off] ).
The fact that Democrats / Liberals oppose S1038 does not automatically mean that Republicans / Conservatives should support it. Liberals and Conservatives oppose S1038 for entirely different reasons based on entirely different principles of government.
My suggestion for Senators is to send this bill back to the drawing board and reconsider the many valid ways this bill can be improved to accomplish its best goals while avoiding its worst pitfalls.
NOTE: I do not have kids, but I am a taxpayer who cares deeply about Idaho and its future (which includes today's kids).
Despite the co-sponsors of this bill’s assertion that homeschoolers do not understand the intent of this bill, which they claim is not intended for homeschoolers but is designed to address the “public school monopoly,” Homeschool Idaho remains unconvinced and fully opposed to S1038. The inclusion of homeschoolers as eligible recipients and of section 33-6604 is proof that they intend for, or expect, homeschoolers to utilize the program.
We believe that this bill will create a regulatory framework in a presently unregulated sphere: the private family education sphere. It can be used to progressively regulate homeschooling, even with the insertion of line 33-6604. The bill seeks to appoint an un-elected Parent Oversight Committee, and yet provides no clarity as to who these parents will be and how this committee will be formed. The devil is in the details! Indeed, provisions in the bill allow the Department of Education absolute control of eligibility, disbursement of funds, and approval of goods and services, and actually requires parents to enter into a contractual relationship with the DOE in order to participate.
I am curious why the proponents of the ESA bill continue to ignore HSLDA senior counsel who advised against the bill. Claiming Homeschool Idaho is an outlier with hard core homeschoolers and the leftist groups is a little disingenuous. You would think the leading homeschool rights organization with over 35 years of experience would merit mention in the against group. Free legal advice turned down. There are better options that are truly conservative. 1038 is far from it.
Thanks for the update Brian. I agree regarding the Eagle Senior Center. Hopefully we can continue to improve it.
I don't understand why the books in the schools seems like such a tightrope walk for politicians. I oppose the banning or "burning" of any literature to adults. I similarly believe literature and supporting materials should be age-appropriate screened for children, and sexually charged and/or explicit materials removed/barred from elementary schools.
And while I have no horse in the ESA bill I have always supported the idea. When I was LD 14 Chair I had a long conversation with a PC who homeschooled and it was very enlightening. I suspect he opposes the bill. I think if we were bringing legislation about religion and the strongest opposition was from Fundamentalist Christians we should probably listen.
Those who wish to more deeply understand the issues about SB1038 and the City of Eagle Senior Center can check out the following links:
1. A Conservative View from Nicki Truesdell: School vouchers, ESAs, and “funding follows the student”: https://nickitruesdell.com/school-vouchers-for-homeschooling-are-not-conservative/
2. City of Eagle | Just the Facts! | Eagle Senior Center: https://www.cityofeagle.org/2037/Eagle-Senior-Center
I want to make just one final comment on S1038 bill (Education Savings Accounts, ESAs). I hope people will review CAREFULLY and with AN OPEN MIND what Homeschool Idaho is saying about the bill. While this bill is well-intentioned, many strong conservatives foresee the slippery slope to government overreach ( [sarcasm on] after all, government overreach clearly has NEVER happened before [sarcasm off] ).
The fact that Democrats / Liberals oppose S1038 does not automatically mean that Republicans / Conservatives should support it. Liberals and Conservatives oppose S1038 for entirely different reasons based on entirely different principles of government.
My suggestion for Senators is to send this bill back to the drawing board and reconsider the many valid ways this bill can be improved to accomplish its best goals while avoiding its worst pitfalls.
NOTE: I do not have kids, but I am a taxpayer who cares deeply about Idaho and its future (which includes today's kids).
Link to Bill Text: https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/S1038.pdf (Section 33-6604 - STATE CONTROL OVER NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS and Section 33-6605 PARENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE referenced in the below excerpt are on the page labeled as Page 5.)
Link to Homeschool Idaho's FAQs on ESAs: https://homeschoolidaho.org/esa-faq/
Link and excerpt from a 2/26/23 Open Letter to Idaho Senators explaining Homeschool Idaho's reasoning: https://mailchi.mp/homeschoolidaho/update-open-email-to-idaho-senators?e=972f4fc4a8
_______ Excerpt Start __________
Despite the co-sponsors of this bill’s assertion that homeschoolers do not understand the intent of this bill, which they claim is not intended for homeschoolers but is designed to address the “public school monopoly,” Homeschool Idaho remains unconvinced and fully opposed to S1038. The inclusion of homeschoolers as eligible recipients and of section 33-6604 is proof that they intend for, or expect, homeschoolers to utilize the program.
We believe that this bill will create a regulatory framework in a presently unregulated sphere: the private family education sphere. It can be used to progressively regulate homeschooling, even with the insertion of line 33-6604. The bill seeks to appoint an un-elected Parent Oversight Committee, and yet provides no clarity as to who these parents will be and how this committee will be formed. The devil is in the details! Indeed, provisions in the bill allow the Department of Education absolute control of eligibility, disbursement of funds, and approval of goods and services, and actually requires parents to enter into a contractual relationship with the DOE in order to participate.
_______ Excerpt End __________