Freedom for — or from — religion? Idaho’s fight over private school funding marches on
READ MORE
Religion in Idaho Politics
This five-part series by state politics reporter Ryan Suppe examines how people of faith help shape politics in Idaho.
Expand All
On July 3, Pastor Mark Bryan from Harvest Church in Meridian dedicated much of his sermon to the U.S. Supreme Court. The pastor of the Christian church had reason to celebrate.
In just a couple of months, the court had issued a series of rulings backing religious interests in the public arena. Maine had to give taxpayer money to religious schools, a public school football coach had the right to pray with his players, and the city of Boston had to allow a Christian group to fly their flag at city hall, the court ruled in three separate cases.
“Praise God for Christian liberty being protected by our Supreme Court,” Bryan said during the sermon on the eve of Independence Day, which was streamed on YouTube. “We have been raised in a nation founded on Christian principles, and we are Christians.”
Emboldened by the court’s new direction, Idaho religious and political leaders are seeking fresh opportunities to chip away at the state’s longstanding prohibition on government support for religious institutions, particularly in education.
One opportunity is on the doorstep, as a yearslong debate over subsidizing private schooling with public funds could come to a head in the new legislative session, which starts next month. Supporters say they want families to be able to choose a religious education, regardless of their income.
But opponents say the push for “school choice” in Idaho is part of a nationwide effort to undermine public education.
“This is not about parental choice,” said Rod Gramer, president and CEO of Idaho Business for Education, a statewide nonprofit made up of hundreds of business leaders who rally behind public schools. “This is about control. This is about money. And it’s about power.”
‘School choice’ clash on the horizon
Idaho lawmakers in recent years have rejected several so-called “school choice” proposals that would have directed public funding to private school families. But this legislative session could prove different.
Last year, legislation to create a grant program to subsidize education-related expenses, including private school tuition, cleared the House but failed in the Senate by one vote.
A potential “school choice” showdown is lining up on the new Senate Education Committee, which Gramer expects will be “very voucher friendly.” The committee, which considers draft legislation before it’s sent to the floor for a vote, includes new and returning lawmakers who railed against critical race theory and advocated for “school choice” on the campaign trail.
It’s unclear what a policy proposal would entail, but opponents are preparing to combat school vouchers or education savings accounts — both common terms describing some form of public subsidies for private school expenses.
Opponents say directing state funds to private schools would siphon limited money from public schools and burden taxpayers to make up the difference, particularly in rural areas, where typically no private education options exist.
Activists with Reclaim Idaho, a nonprofit that advocates for increased support for public education, plan to circulate an anti-voucher petition and organize hundreds of people to testify at the Legislature, co-founder Luke Mayville said Wednesday.
“It would weaken our public school system in ways that we might never reverse,” Mayville said during a virtual meeting with Reclaim Idaho members from across the state. “The vast majority of Idahoans support public school, they want public schools to be fully funded, and they oppose school vouchers that would transfer money out of public schools in order to subsidize private school.”
An October survey commissioned by the Statesman found that 63% of Idaho adults don’t believe taxpayer money should fund private education. About 58% said the state spends too little on public education.
Opponents also say that “school choice” proposals won’t have intended outcomes. A new, expanded education savings account system in Arizona, which has no income cap for families seeking aid, attracted primarily applicants who were already enrolled in private school, the Arizona Mirror reported.
“Vouchers have become a subsidy for families that have never sent their kids to public school at any time,” Gramer said.
National groups are driving much of the conversation around “school choice” initiatives, Gramer said. In 2021, Yes.Every.Kid., an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit that lobbied for Idaho’s Strong Students Grant Program legislation, was the top spender among Idaho lobbyists, dishing out more than $113,000, according to the secretary of state’s office.
“Idaho, it’s not an island,” Gramer said. “It’s just the next target by the privatizers.”
A case for religious education
Mistaken motives are being attached to “school choice” advocates, said Sen. Lori Den Hartog, R-Meridian.
Den Hartog objected to the claim that those pushing for education savings accounts, scholarships and other “school choice” proposals oppose public education.
“The exact opposite is true for me,” Den Hartog told the Statesman by phone. “Our public education system, I would love it to be the best in the nation. And I think competition can play a role in that.”
Den Hartog co-sponsored last year’s bill to subsidize education expenses. Estimates put the cost of the program at $30 million in one-time federal funds and $10 million annually from state funds. Den Hartog said she can’t see how that money would be taken away from Idaho students, “if that kid is getting the right kind of education, or the one that fits their needs.”
“We’re just putting the funding where the child is,” she said.
Den Hartog’s three children attend a private Christian school. She and her husband sought an education that reinforces what their kids learn at home and in church on Sunday, Den Hartog said.
“For our kids, that’s integral to who they are,” she said. “I would like people of all means to have access to the education that best meets the needs of their child. That’s really what it comes down to.”
Den Hartog pointed to literature from ExcelinEd, a Tallahassee, Fla.-based think tank, that summarized research — commissioned by “school choice” advocates — finding positive academic outcomes among students in private education choice programs.
Den Hartog also noted that Idaho has “school choice” policies today. Last year, the Legislature, on a bipartisan vote, opened an “Advanced Opportunities” fund for private school students. The program — which was already available for public school students — gives up to $750 to private school students seeking college credit and career certifications.
Bishop Kelly High School, which is owned and operated by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise, sponsored the legislation. The fund would extend “high-quality education opportunities to all Idaho students,” Bishop Kelly’s lobbyist, Kate Haas, told lawmakers last year, before they overwhelmingly supported it.
Idaho’s Catholic diocese runs 17 private schools across the state, according to its website, and it’s considering opening a new high school in North Idaho. The cost to attend Bishop Kelly ranges from $8,450 to $12,760 a year, according to the school’s website.
Supreme Court backs ‘school choice’
At the heart of the “school choice” debate — and other church/state-separation arguments — is whether the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions, including Idaho’s, allow public support for religious institutions.
Within the U.S. Constitution, the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from establishing a religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which protects freedom of religion, are in tension.
“In the past, the Supreme Court has attempted to strike a balance between these competing clauses by asking questions such as, does the policy in question ‘excessively entangle’ the government with a religious organization?” said Kerry Hunter, Ph.D., a political economy professor at The College of Idaho. “Or, does the government policy have a secular purpose not intended to promote religious belief? Depending on the makeup of the Court these questions have been answered differently.”
Hunter said that denying a religious organization tax-exempt status when it’s offered to a secular organization could violate religious protections, while directing taxpayer money to a religious school could be seen as an establishment of religion.
The Supreme Court “appears to be moving in the direction of thinking that there is no reason why parochial schools cannot receive tax dollars provided that they are engaged in providing the same services as secular schools such as educating the youth,” he said by email.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Maine violated the Constitution by refusing to provide public funding to religious schools while funds were available for secular institutions. Two years earlier, the court ruled that a Montana scholarship program must be made available to all private schools, including religious schools.
The Montana ruling effectively struck down the so-called “Blaine amendments,” constitutional provisions — which exist in about three dozen states, including Idaho — that bar public funding for religious schools.
“I think the recent Supreme Court decision demonstrates that, frankly, the Blaine Amendment is unconstitutional,” Den Hartog said. “Those Blaine amendments were put into state constitutions specifically to go after Catholic schools.”
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions appear to be “opening the door for some interesting and very fraught challenges” in Idaho, Hunter said. In the “most extreme” cases, one could imagine a claim that state subsidies for public schools “require” that private schools receive subsidies as well, he said.
“Ironically, what this could mean is that though Idaho state government and local school boards could retain a good deal of oversight over public schools and universities,” Hunter said, “they may find themselves having to support private religious schools with less oversight than they would have over public ones, as the religious institutions could claim religious freedom as a reason to demand less oversight.”
‘Bringing the Gospel’ to school boards
A push for religious education extends from the Statehouse down to local school boards, which oversee public schools and colleges.
Last month, Treasure Valley voters rejected a slate of conservative candidates who sought to seize control of the board of trustees for the College of Western Idaho. The election drew comparisons to an unfolding controversy at North Idaho College, which has faced board dysfunction and a threat of losing accreditation since a new majority took over and ousted the college’s president.
One of the four CWI candidates, Thad Butterworth, told the Statesman last month that his goals were to strengthen the school’s professional programs and cut wasteful spending.
But he signaled a different philosophy for political involvement at his church earlier this year.
“We are supposed to invade society and take over every area so that we can further the Gospel,” Butterworth said in June, during Sunday service at Harvest Church. “This isn’t just about being in political power so that we can set the rules. This is about bringing the Gospel.”
Butterworth, who lost a GOP primary bid for the Idaho Senate in May before entering the trustee race, told the Statesman that too many Christians avoid getting involved in cultural issues, “especially politics.” Butterworth said he sought a trustee position “to stand up for the individual and to protect their freedoms.”
“That example will naturally draw people to want to learn more about my faith,” he said by email. “Everyone’s religious beliefs influence their political and educational ideology.”
This summer, four Boise school board candidates with ties to The Well Church filed to run for trustee positions, then later withdrew. The church is now launching a private school, according to its website and social media account.
A nationwide effort, driven by ideology and aimed at privatizing education, seeks to take over local school boards, Gramer said.
In an April essay published by local media outlets, Gramer detailed the work done by anti-critical race theory activist Christopher Rufo, who researches and condemns the influence of “Marxist” ideology in public institutions.
In April, Rufo proposed to an audience at Hillsdale College, a Christian liberal arts college in Michigan, a strategy for opposing critical race theory through public school boards and pushing for alternative school choices. Gramer wrote that Rufo’s speech essentially laid out a “playbook” for privatizing education.
“Get the public and lawmakers so worked up over the issue that they confront and attack the local educators and higher education institutions,” he wrote. “Then come in with the ‘solution,’ which is to privatize education under the euphemism of ‘school choice.’”
