The Cruelest Irony How Many of Idaho's Rural Legislators Let Down Their Schools

Guest Editorial by Former Idaho Superintendents Don Coberly, Wil Overgaard and Geoff Thomas

In the run-up to the passage of the H93 voucher bill during the 2025 session of the Idaho Legislature, opponents pointed out the many flaws in the legislation. Among them were:

• There was no accountability, for achievement, admissions, or funds, in the proposal.

• In other states with similar legislation, most applicants were already enrolled in private schools, defeating the “getting out of failing schools” argument posed by supporters.

• Some private schools have raised tuition after voucher legislation is approved.

• Many Idaho counties (20 of 44) have no private school options for potential applicants.

• Idaho’s “refundable tax credit” voucher program allows applicants to receive a tax refund over and above their income tax liability, at a time when the legislature is struggling to make cuts in state programs serving all Idahoans.

• In states where vouchers have already been implemented, general fund budgets are being severely strained by the rapid expansion of voucher programs. School districts and charters in Idaho will see budgetary consequences in the long run.

• As has been the case in other states, Idaho’s rural schools will ultimately see significant harm from the voucher program.

• The effect on rural schools was an especially poignant argument against vouchers, since Idaho is a rural state. One would think that legislators from rural areas would have run away from the proposal, as opponents focused on the impact vouchers would have on their schools.

Ironically, though, many legislators from rural Idaho instead supported H93, knowing the damage it would do to schools in their service areas, and that it would shift funding from their rural schools to (mainly) urban private schools across the state. We must call them out for their votes if we hope to stop the irreparable harm the voucher movement will do to education in Idaho.

For example, H93 was approved in the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, after it became clear that it had no hope to pass out of House Education. It passed out of that committee, 8-7.

The legislators who voted to send H93 to the floor represented a wide swath of small rural Idaho school districts and communities, including Homedale, Wilder, Parma, New Plymouth, Fruitland, Payette, Weiser, Cambridge, Meadows Valley, Salmon River, Council, Grangeville, Clearwater Valley, Kamiah, Prairie, Melba, Marsing, Blackfoot, and Arco.

If even one of the legislators representing these small rural districts and communities had voted to hold H93, the damaging effects of vouchers could have been allayed for at least another year. Instead, the bill passed in the House and Senate and was signed by the Governor, even as input from nearly 90% of callers to his office urged a veto.

Since then, of course, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that nothing prevents Idaho from operating two separate school systems. Unfortunately, Idaho cannot adequately operate one educational system; if the voucher program continues and expands, the public school system (and especially rural school districts) will suffer the fate of other systems across the country. Idaho voters should hold the legislature accountable and stop the further spread of this Idaho school virus.

House Bill 93 passed the Idaho House on a 42-28 vote, and passed the Senate 20-15 before the Governor signed it.. If you’d like to know which legislators voted in favor of and against H93, access the record here. It’s time to hold accountable those who voted to irrevocably change our k-12 education system for the worse.