Systemness.

The State Board of Education didn’t invent this word, to be fair. But the board uses systemness, a lot, as a shorthand description for what it wants to see in higher education. More collaboration. Limited duplication. A statewide network of two- and four-year colleges and universities that functions like a system — spending tax dollars efficiently, while offering students as many options as possible.

Fair warning: Expect to hear systemness at some point at next week’s State Board meeting. Maybe multiple times. That’s because two of Idaho’s two-year schools want to offer four-year degrees.

Nampa-based College of Western Idaho wants to add a bachelor of applied science, or BAS, degree in business administration. Across the state, in Idaho Falls, the College of Eastern Idaho is looking at a BAS in operations management.

There is a precedent; the Twin Falls-based College of Southern Idaho already offers an operations management degree. As CWI President Gordon Jones likes to point out, state law has long given Idaho’s community colleges the authority to pursue four-year programs.

But the State Board has to sign on.

Whatever the State Board does, it’s going to make someone unhappy. Either the two-year schools or the four-year schools are liable to walk away disappointed.

Jones and CWI’s board of trustees are all-in on their business administration proposal. Since the program would offer a four-year degree at community college prices — and allow students to put career-technical credits toward a baccalaureate — CWI believes it can serve students who wouldn’t be interested in a traditional business program.

“It’s just creating more access and opportunity for students,” board Chair Molly Lenty said last month, after trustees passed a resolution endorsing the bachelor’s program.

The four-year schools are opposed — which is no surprise, they already offer bachelor’s degrees in business administration. Boise State University is particularly salty. In their official comments on the proposal, submitted to the State Board, Boise State officials accuse CWI of going it alone and refusing to collaborate, and even work in a jab over CWI’s low graduation rates. And Boise State says CWI is simply trying to duplicate existing programs.

“The assertion that ‘CWI is poised to reach a market that is underserved by four-year institutions’ is inaccurate, unsupported and frankly outright misleading,” Boise State writes.

Well, that doesn’t sound very systemness-y.

This all puts the State Board in a position it cannot possibly relish. Whether they want to or not, board members will be forced to pick sides.

Relatively speaking, these board members have probably had it easier than their predecessors. It wasn’t that long ago when higher ed turf wars were commonplace — with college and university presidents egged on by parochial legislators. These days, the presidents of Idaho’s four four-year schools routinely appear together before lawmakers, stressing their solidarity and touting their partnerships with the state’s community colleges.

So the public battle over bachelor’s degrees is an outlier. But not necessarily a one-off.

Last month, Jones hinted that CWI might augment its business administration bachelor’s degree with similar degrees in other high-demand fields: education and health care. If those proposals come down the pike, the State Board could again find itself playing referee. 

When the State Board met at Lewis-Clark State College in October, President Cynthia Pemberton read off the list of changes in Idaho higher ed: the community colleges’ proposed bachelor’s offerings; the University of Idaho’s proposed University of Phoenix acquisition; Brigham Young University-Idaho’s plans to offer three-year bachelor’s degrees. All of this comes at a time when high school enrollment is declining in Lewis-Clark’s backyard, foreshadowing a demographic cliff that is going to affect all colleges and universities in the next few years.

“The higher education context and landscape is complicated and challenging,” she said.

And Pemberton didn’t bring up yet another change: Idaho Launch. This year, high school seniors will have up to $8,000 they can use to continue their education — at a four-year school, a two-year school or in a career-technical or workforce training program.

It’s unclear where students will spend this year’s $75 million to $80 million; the state’s Workforce Development Council is still sorting data from the first application period, which closed last week, executive director Wendi Secrist said Wednesday. But it’s clear there will be some competition for a share of the money from Launch — and competition to provide the courses and programs that meet the goal of preparing young adults for in-demand careers.

More options for students is clearly a good thing.

But options can be messy for the policymakers who are trying to stretch dollars and avoid redundancy.

The lines between two-year schools and four-year schools are blurry already. For example, high school students can apply their dual-credit classes — funded by taxpayers through the state’s Advanced Opportunities program — for a two-year associate’s degree at Boise State. By the same token, it’s probably inevitable that the two-year schools would look to move into the bailiwick of four-year degrees.

Next week’s State Board meeting will provide a little better idea of what systemness looks like.

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday.

It’s a straightforward request.

Idaho Education News wants emails, texts and other public records containing the words “Project Neptune:” the code phrase for the University of Idaho’s proposed University of Phoenix purchase.

But straightforward does not mean inexpensive. The U of I wants to charge EdNews nearly $2,400 before it will release the “Project Neptune” paper trail.

“The university will not expend the time and resources necessary to identify, gather, and review responsive records at the risk of taxpayer funds; consequently, you will be required to deliver advance payment in certified funds in the amount of $2,370.95, before the university commences this process,” Karl Klein, a senior associate general counsel for the U of I, said in an email to Idaho EdNews Friday.

Idaho’s law reads as follows: “There is a presumption that all public records in Idaho are open at all reasonable times for inspection.” The law requires agencies to cover up to two hours of staff time to process records requests. Agencies can bill to cover additional costs — but they are not required to do so.

The U of I, Idaho’s land-grant institution, is one of the largest public agencies in the state. Its 2023-24 budget of $189.6 million comes largely from state tax dollars and student tuition and fees.

What we know about ‘Project Neptune’

First off, it doesn’t look like the U of I coined “Project Neptune.”

Phoenix — a massive for-profit online school serving some 85,000 students — used “Neptune” as a code name as it quietly explored a possible sale to the University of Arkansas, the Arkansas Times reported in February.

In February, the U of I began looking at a Phoenix purchase — and soon latched onto the phrase preferred by the publicity-averse private university.

U of I legal counsel Kent Nelson and vice president of finance and administration Brian Foisy use the phrase in early March emails, obtained by EdNews through a previous public records request. So does State Board member Bill Gilbert. And so do officials from Tyton Partners, the New York-based financial advisers Phoenix hired to work on a sale.

Those emails prompted a followup public records request.

EdNews’ records request

On Nov. 15, EdNews requested “any emails, text messages or internal or external documents containing the phrase ‘Project Neptune,’” from Jan. 1 through June 30. The request focused on the U of I’s upper management: President C. Scott Green’s office; Provost Torrey Lawrence’s office; Nelson’s office of general counsel; and Foisy’s division of finance and administration. (EdNews limited a previous records request to these four offices, at the U of I’s suggestion, in order to focus the scope of that previous request. The U of I fulfilled this previous request free of charge.)

On Friday — the U of I’s deadline to respond to the Nov. 15 request — the university delivered only an email and an invoice.

In his email, Klein did say the university had identified at least 4,000 documents that might fall within EdNews’ request, including 2,073 emails. He said the U of I would first need to review each email before then reviewing other documents, such as attachments to the emails.

The U of I says attorneys would need to spend 35 hours reviewing these documents — at labor costs of $64.29 an hour — before releasing the records. The lawyers’ fees account for the bulk of the U of I’s bill.

And Klein said “many, if not most” of the records would be exempt from release anyway — falling under attorney-client privilege and/or trade secrets and proprietary information. Since spring, most of the State Board and U of I discussions with Phoenix have remained cloaked in secrecy, because Phoenix insisted that the public entities enter into non-disclosure agreements. These agreements remain intact.

Public records issues at Boise State

The U of I’s records response comes two days after BoiseDev broke an explosive story about public records issues at Boise State University.

Don Day’s Nov. 29 article outlined a series of allegations Boise State associate vice president Nicole Nimmons leveled in a court deposition. Nimmons said the university renamed a Google Drive document titled “Big City Coffee,” the name of a coffee shop suing Boise State. The document was renamed “B C C,” which means it wouldn’t turn up in a public records search for “Big City Coffee.” (According to Day’s report, Nimmons said the change was made by Lauren Griswold, Boise State’s chief communications and marketing officer. Griswold is a member of Boise State President Marlene Tromp’s executive team, and at $264,160 per year, is one of the university’s highest-paid employees.)

Nimmons also said university officials were instructed to keep some politically sensitive topics out of public records, Day reported.

Day’s article also outlined several public records disputes between BoiseDev and Boise State. He cited EdNews’ records disputes with Boise State — including the university’s short-lived attempt to bill EdNews more than $700 for emails mentioning controversial political science professor Scott Yenor.

In an EdNews interview Monday, Tromp answered questions about the BoiseDev report — and the university’s approach to public records requests.

“There’s not an effort to direct people to be surreptitious,” Tromp said during the taping of an EdNews podcast interview.

Tromp declined to talk in detail about the Big City Coffee records, citing the shop’s ongoing lawsuit against Boise State. She didn’t directly say whether she has spoken to her staff about BoiseDev’s report, but says she has talked to staff “on many occasions” about how the university responds to records requests.

Tromp noted that she assigned a staff member to field records requests in a consistent and timely manner. “It (isn’t) just some add on to somebody’s job.”

But Tromp also said she expects employees to be careful about what they put in an email.

“To tell people to be judicious. I think, is totally appropriate,” she said.

Coming Friday: In the next Kevin Richert Podcast, Tromp and Boise State senior officials discuss an ambitious capital campaign, enrollment, Statehouse politics and public records.

Further reading: Do you have questions about the proposed Phoenix purchase? Get answers here.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both Democrats, are leading an effort to oppose the controversial Idaho law. Passed by the GOP-dominated 2023 Legislature, Idaho’s Senate Bill 1100 mandates that students use bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their “biological sex.”

The law remains mired in federal court. A U.S. Court of Appeals panel put the law on hold in late October.

“Allowing students to use bathrooms and changing rooms that correspond with their gender identity helps them feel accepted and does not pose a threat to anyone,” Ferguson said in a news release. “In Washington, where the rights of transgender students are protected, public schools report no instances of transgender students harassing others in bathrooms or locker rooms.”

The attorneys general filed a brief in federal court Thursday opposing the Idaho law. The coalition includes attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, D.C.

Laura Guido of the Idaho Press first reported on the brief Thursday.

And some well-heeled donors are beating the rush, pouring tens of thousands of dollars into legislative races, even though candidates cannot begin filing for office until March 4. And for those who don’t live and breathe Idaho politics, the May 21 primary seems far off in the future.

The early money knows what’s on the line. This primary represents the next bitter, high-stakes showdown between mainstream and hardline Republicans — for control of the Legislature and, perhaps, even control of the Idaho GOP. At its essence, it’s a debate over the proper role of government, in education, infrastructure and tax policy. And after 2022, when a handful of legislative primaries carried six-figure price tags, the cost of Idaho politics is clearly climbing.

“It’s a different level of intensity than we’ve seen in past cycles,” said Sean Schupack, director of government affairs for Idaho Associated General Contractors. “The game’s changing.”

Who is giving money — and why

In this game, campaign finance reports provide a ton of statistics.

For now, legislative campaigns need only report $1,000 donations — the maximum an individual or a business can contribute. More detailed annual reports, listing smaller donations, won’t come in until early next year.

These sunshine report snapshots still tell an important piece of the story. After hardline conservatives gained ground in the 2022 primaries, especially in the Senate, some big PACs are pushing back. Some of the biggest and busiest donors have largely supported mainstream Republicans and a handful of Democrats:

• Clearwater Paper, based in Spokane, Wash., has contributed to 48 legislators and legislative candidates. The company hasn’t been as active in Idaho elections in recent years, and is playing catchup this time around, communications director Julia Angelen Joy said Thursday.
• The Idaho Association of Realtors has contributed to 33 candidates.
• BNSF railway, headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, has contributed to 16 candidates.

The money isn’t just flowing from businesses and PACs.

Richard Larsen runs a hay farm based in Dubois in Clark County, Idaho’s most sparsely populated county. His political reach has long extended beyond rural Eastern Idaho; he said he has contributed to Republicans “since Bill Clinton got elected.” And he said he will support next year’s Republican presidential nominee, whoever that turns out to be.

In the meantime, Larsen and his wife Peggy have contributed more than $100,000 to Idaho candidates and PACs, including more than two dozen GOP legislative candidates. Larsen, who describes himself as a conservative Republican, is putting money behind candidates who will be squaring off against hardline opposition. After watching “the radical right-wing libertarian people” seize control of the Republican Party, he says he’s never been involved in a more important election.

“We’re just trying to get our party back and save what we’ve got,” he said.

Meanwhile, hardline incumbents and challengers are working their own base of financial support. SMC Properties of Eagle has given maximum $1,000 donations to eight candidates; its owner, North Carolina metals dealer Stefan Gleason, has doubled down with an additional $1,000 contribution to former state Sen. Christy Zito, R-Hammett. Idaho Falls law firm Smith, Driscoll and Associates — and attorney Bryan Smith, an Idaho Freedom Foundation board member and GOP national committee member — have given maximum donations to six conservatives.

Where the money is going

Idaho’s northernmost legislative district is a battleground in the GOP’s internal war — and a bellwether for a costly election cycle.

Incumbent Sen. Scott Herndon, R-Sagle, already has reported $19,000 in contributions, including $1,000 apiece from SMC Properties and Smith, Driscoll and Associates. Former state Sen. Jim Woodward, ousted by Herndon in the 2022 primary, has reported $32,000, including $1,000 from Clearwater Paper, $1,000 from Richard Larsen and $1,000 from Peggy Larsen. (Woodward has also beefed up his war chest with a $20,000 loan.)

Considering that Herndon and Woodward spent nearly $215,000 in the months leading up to their 2022 election, a big-money rematch is all but preordained. And the outcome could have a significant impact on education policy. Herndon is one of several hardliners on the Senate Education Committee and one of the most conservative members of the budget-writing Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, having replaced Woodward on both committees.

Fundraising is also off to a quick start in several other primaries that could have profound implications for education:

• In another rematch involving a Senate Education hardliner, Nampa Republican Sen. Brian Lenney has raised $6,000, including $1,000 from Smith. Former Sen. Jeff Agenbroad, defeated by Lenney in 2022, has raised $5,000, including support from Clearwater Paper and the Larsens.
• Bolstered by donations from AGC, the Larsens and Clearwater Paper, Middleton Republican Lori Bishop has $32,000 on hand, as she takes on Sen. Tammy Nichols, R-Middleton, a Senate Education hardliner and an ardent school choice advocate. Bishop’s early war chest includes a $25,000 to her campaign. Nichols has reported $2,000 in donations, including $1,000 from Freedom Foundation board member Doyle Beck.
• Senate Education vice chairman Benjamin Toews has loaned his campaign $40,000, even though no opponent appears to be raising money to challenge the Coeur d’Alene Republican.
• House Education Committee Chairwoman Julie Yamamoto has reported $8,000 in donations; her likely primary opponent, fellow Caldwell Republican Kent Marmon, has raised $3,000. Yamamoto is under fire from the right — partly because her committee stymied school choice legislation in 2023, and partly because she opposed a bill that would have banned libraries from distributing “harmful” materials to minors.
• Yamamoto’s committee vice chair and political ally, Lori McCann, R-Lewiston, has raised $6,000. And McCann already has two opponents raising money ahead of the GOP primary; Moscow Republicans David Dalby and Colton Bennett have raised $2,000 and $1,000, respectively.

Why now? 

The fundraising arms race will continue — and intensify — between now and May. That’s an outgrowth of Idaho law. While some states prohibit lawmakers from fundraising during a legislative session, Idaho has no such ban.

But Boise State University political science professor Jaclyn Kettler says the early fundraising push should come as little surprise. Candidates and their supporters have ample incentive to start out fast. An early infusion of money can discourage some would-be opponents from jumping into the race. And fundraising tends to feed on itself, helping candidates attract support from other direct donors. It can also help candidates catch the eye of third-party groups that can put unlimited money into campaigns.

“There is some suggestion, particularly for primary elections, that these early donations can help establish the viability of candidates,” Kettler said.

That’s long been the strategy for Avista, a Spokane-based utility that has so far supported 10 legislative incumbents, including McCann. The utility tends to endorse incumbents — and well ahead of the May primaries. “We haven’t really diverted from this methodology,” said Jared Webley, Avista’s communications manager.

AGC, meanwhile, is consciously speeding up its calendar.

AGC has sent maximum $1,000 donations to Bishop and five other candidates, and will likely send our more checks in December, Schupack said. Generally, AGC tries to get donations out before the session begins in January — but now, the group wants to help candidates get ahead of bitter primaries and a potential surge of out-of-state money.

“The earlier you provide resources to good candidates, the more effectively those resources can be deployed,” he said.

The primary may be 173 days away, but this long election has started early.

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday.

Gov. Brad Little and Lt. Gov. Scott Bedke were among the speakers during the 77th annual Associated Taxpayers of Idaho conference Wednesday in downtown Boise.

Speaking to a politically savvy, influential audience, Little and Bedke highlighted the Idaho Legislature’s efforts to cut property taxes, reduce income taxes, bolster the state’s rainy day savings accounts and spend down a record state surplus through investments in public education, state parks, roads and infrastructure projects.

“We have in recent years offered more tax relief per capita than any other state,” Little said.

Governor touts Idaho Launch program as way to meet the needs of in-demand careers

During his almost 20-minute speech, Little highlighted his Idaho Launch grant program. Idaho Launch provides Idaho high school seniors with up to $8,000 they can use for career-technical education, workforce training programs, two-year colleges or four-year colleges for in-demand careers. The Idaho Legislature expanded the Idaho Launch program during the 2023 legislative session by passing House Bill 24.

“The one limitation on the workforce that I hear is … that we have got to have more skilled workers,” Little said.

“For every single Idaho kid who walks across the podium in May and gets their (high school) diploma, there’s going to be resources for them to go on to become a welder, to become an electrician, to become a lineman, plus all the traditional jobs,” Little added.

Officials highlight Idaho past budget surpluses

During his speech, Bedke highlighted how the Idaho Legislature used the state’s record $2 billion surplus from 2022.

“So what did we do with all that money?” Bedke asked. “We invested back in Idaho. We returned money back to our taxpayers back-to-back-to-back times. We paid off every callable bond that we could. We filled up every savings account that we could. We changed the law to make the savings accounts larger to accommodate more money. We invested back into our roads and bridges and our water systems – all the vital, strategic infrastructure that the state needs going into the future. We invested back into our schools, our kids. And we’ve done that in what I think is a very responsible way.”

Neither Little nor Bedke unveiled any specific new policy proposals for the 2024 legislative session on Wednesday.

Little did say Idaho’s days of record, billion-dollar surpluses are likely in the past because of multiple rounds of tax cuts that reduce state revenue collections.

Associated Taxpayers of Idaho is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that represents taxpayers’ perspectives to policymakers through research and education.

First held in 1946, the conference attracts a who’s who among Idaho’s business and political leaders. For decades the conference has had a reputation for serving as the unofficial kickoff to Idaho’s annual legislative session, which begins next year on Jan. 8.

Other speakers and panelists at Wednesday’s conference included Little, Bedke, Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane, State Controller Brandon Woolf, Ada County Assessor Rebecca Arnold and Speaker of the Idaho House Mike Moyle, R-Star.

Little’s father, David Little, was one of the founding members of Associated Taxpayers of Idaho.

During his presentation, McGrane discussed several new data visualization reports available on the Idaho Secretary of State’s website, including a new report showing Idaho is becoming more conservative based on the party affiliation of voters moving here from other states.

Aside from elected officials, economics and tax experts also spoke during Wednesday’s daylong conference. Several presenters said they were studying mixed economic signals and were unsure whether to expect a mild recession, a significant recession or continued economic growth without any kind of recession in the short-term future.

Idaho Capital Sun is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Idaho Capital Sun maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Christina Lords for questions: info@idahocapitalsun.com. Follow Idaho Capital Sun on Facebook and Twitter.

In a court motion Monday, Labrador’s legal team asked for permission to question Jenifer Marcus, a deputy attorney general assigned to the State Board of Education.

The motion is the latest twist in a lawsuit challenging closed-door discussions of the University of Idaho’s proposed purchase of the University of Phoenix. The open meetings case is a civil matter. However, both sides agree that if Labrador prevails in court, it could torpedo the controversial $685 million acquisition.

Marcus, the State Board’s longtime in-house attorney, is a key figure in the five-month-old legal struggle between Labrador and the board. In their own depositions, board members said they relied on Marcus’ advice before holding three closed executive sessions to discuss the Phoenix purchase. The board cited an open meetings law exemption covering transactions that pit an Idaho public agency against out-of-state public bidders.

Deposing Marcus is necessary, deputy attorney general Gregory Woodard said in Monday’s motion. He said the sworn statement would address the sole question at the heart of the lawsuit: whether the U of I was in competition for Phoenix, competition that would justify the closed-door discussions.

While the case centers on this one question, Monday’s motion illustrates the intricacies of this legal struggle. While Marcus remains assigned to the State Board, the board has hired independent counsel to handle the case. While Marcus is not involved in the lawsuit, a judge has ordered Labrador and his staff to have no contact with her about the case.

Woodard acknowledged the court’s order in the motion, but suggested the court’s order does not preclude Labrador’s office from taking a deposition. The request for the court’s permission reflects “an abundance of caution,” he wrote.

Woodard said he would hope to schedule a deposition in December.

A trial in the case is scheduled for Jan. 22.

No problem. Let’s catch up.

What’s the skinny on the purchase?

The U of I wants to acquire Phoenix — a for-profit online education behemoth, which serves some 85,000 students nationally. The purchase price: $685 million.

Whoa, that’s a lot of money. What’s it going to cost taxpayers?

Nothing, if it goes according to the U of I’s plan. U of I officials have set up an affiliated nonprofit — now known, after a short-lived branding dispute, as Four Three Education, a nod to Idaho’s status as the 43^rd state of the union. Four Three would finance the purchase and oversee Phoenix, which would continue to operate under its existing brand. The U of I expects Four Three to cover the bond payments on its own, from Phoenix’s operating revenues. But the U of I might offer $10 million a year as a taxpayer-funded backstop, in case Four Three can’t make payments.

So, the deal is a wash?

No, U of I officials are hoping it’s a moneymaker. They project that the U of I will collect $10 million a year in revenues from Phoenix’s operations, for starters, and they expect this number to grow over time. In its own “frequently asked questions” page on the purchase, the university says this money “may be reinvested in strategic initiatives.”

Is it all about the money? 

Not according to U of I President C. Scott Green. He believes the Phoenix affiliation will reach beyond the U of I’s traditional student cohort — serving older students who are juggling work and family commitments, place-bound students who can’t or won’t move to a campus and rural students who live far from an Idaho college.

Meanwhile, demographics are changing, because of a declining birth rate dating back to the Great Recession. As colleges and universities compete for a shrinking number of 18- to 22-year-old students, Green says, they face an existential crisis. “Frankly, in my opinion, not all institutions in this country will survive,” Green told Idaho EdNews in June. (Click here to listen to this interview in podcast form.) 

If Phoenix is doing so well, why is it on the auction block? And what’s in it for them?

Phoenix is owned by Apollo Global Management — and is part of a private equity fund that has reached its termination date. That makes Phoenix a motivated seller.

With only about 400 students in Idaho, Phoenix sees the rural stretches of the state as a potential growth market. Phoenix officials also say the nonprofit status will help them focus on academics. “You’re gonna see a very different University of Phoenix than you read about,” university President Chris Lynne said in an Idaho EdNews interview in August. (Click here to listen to this interview in podcast form.)

Doesn’t Phoenix come with a lot of baggage?

Well, yes. Founded in 1976, the university later went online and rapidly went viral, with enrollment swelling to 470,000 students by 2010. But problems accompanied the growth — culminating in 2019 with a $191 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, stemming from complaints of deceptive advertising.

And just in September, the Biden administration said it would write off $37 million of Phoenix student loan debts.

Green has acknowledged Phoenix’s spotty reputation, and the challenges that come with it. But he says most of Phoenix’s problems occurred under previous leadership.

The U of I has refused to release documents addressing its risks from loan writeoffs. But the U of I has downplayed the risk, partly because Phoenix would turn over $200 million in cash to Four Three if the purchase goes through.

Who signed off on this deal?

The State Board of Education, which serves as the U of I’s board of regents. In May 18, the board voted unanimously to give the deal the go-ahead — after a 90-minute discussion, and without taking any public comment. This was the board’s only public meeting on the proposal, which was disclosed only one day earlier.

“We’re going to face an enrollment cliff. … all across the country,” State Board member Kurt Liebich said during the meeting. “I think we’ve got to be bold and innovative.” 

Really, one public meeting? How’d we get to this point? 

The process was hush-hush — at Phoenix’s insistence. The for-profit university made U of I and State Board officials agree to keep negotiations under wraps.

With the secrecy came a sketchy timeline. At first, U of I officials said Phoenix had approached them in March — but this was contradicted by the university’s own internal documents, obtained by Idaho EdNews through a public records request. (The U of I later changed its story, and said the discussions began in February.)

This much is clear: the State Board held three closed-door meetings to talk about the purchase. Board members have said much about these “executive sessions” — including a May 15 meeting that came only three days before they approved the deal. It took a series of court depositions to shed some light on the details. (Click here for our in-depth coverage.)

The State Board is on board. But there are skeptics, right? 

Absolutely. It’s a pretty long list, from across the political spectrum.

• State legislators — who weren’t briefed on the deal until May 17 — have openly grumbled about being cut out of the loop. A skeptical Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee peppered Green with questions during a probing hearing in June. “We feel we should have been involved in that process,” said Sen. C. Scott Grow, R-Eagle, the committee’s co-chair. “We see that this transaction has potential, but we also see that it has risk,” said Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, Grow’s House counterpart. “We want to trust but we must verify.”
• Within about 24 hours — after the proposal went public, and before the May 18 State Board vote — board members received more than two dozen emails urging them to vote no or go slow. Some of these emails came from U of I faculty, staff or alumni. (The board received just one email in support, from a U of I professor.)
• Three Democratic U.S. senators — Richard Durbin of Illinois, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — urged the U of I to walk away from the deal. The lawmakers decried Phoenix’s “long record of poor student outcomes, deception of veterans, and entanglements in federal investigations and enforcement actions.” A testy Gov. Brad Little fired off a letter telling the senators to butt out and focus on passing federal budgets and securing the border.

• Other state officials are more skeptical than Little. State Treasurer Julie Ellsworth, a Republican, has questioned whether the purchase could jeopardize the state’s lofty credit rating. And Attorney General Raúl Labrador, perhaps Little’s most prominent rival within the GOP, is trying to torpedo the purchase in court.

What are the grounds for the lawsuit?

It all goes back to the State Board’s three closed meetings. The board cited a section of state law, which allows closed-door discussions of negotiations that pits Idaho against public agencies from out of state.

It’s an open meetings lawsuit, a civil complaint. But Labrador has made no secret of his distaste for the Phoenix purchase. The June 20 lawsuit decries the state’s rush “to acquire a for-profit college beset with financial, moral and legal challenges.”

The political stakes also transcend the open meetings dispute itself. Both sides agree that the lawsuit could stymie the Phoenix deal. If Labrador wins, the State Board’s May 18 vote will be voided. Not surprisingly, the State Board and its hired attorney are launching an all-out and spendy defense against Labrador’s lawsuit.

What are the lawyers arguing over?

Competition.

The lawsuit challenges an underpinning of the closed meetings: the assertion that the U of I was in competition with other would-be Phoenix buyers.

U of I and State Board officials have stood by their narrative, but they have never offered any specifics.

Labrador’s team is skeptical — especially because the University of Arkansas’ board of trustees voted in April to walk away from a Phoenix purchase.

Ada County District Judge Jason Scott has rejected several of Labrador’s legal arguments, except for the competition question. A trial is scheduled for Jan. 22.

Is this the only obstacle facing the purchase?

No. The lawsuit is definitely a hurdle, but not the final one.

Financing is a big obstacle. Four Three will have to go into the market to secure bonds for Phoenix financing. Green has said he hopes Four Three can sell bonds early next year, but the lawsuit more or less puts financing on hold.

The U of I also needs signoff from its accrediting body, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.

Phoenix’s accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission, endorsed the deal earlier this month.

What’s the timeline for all of this to happen?

The U of I and Phoenix hope to close the deal early next year.

If that doesn’t happen, there is an opt-out date. Either party could walk away from the table after May 31.

And specifically, the two-year college’s proposal to offer its first four-year degree.

In written comments to the State Board of Education, Boise State minced no words. CWI’s two-year graduation rate is “dismal,” and branching into a bachelor’s program won’t help. CWI’s claim that its four-year business degree serves a new higher education market is “inaccurate, unsupported and frankly outright misleading.” And CWI “has not reached out” to Boise State about its idea.

Boise State’s comments are uncommonly blunt, but not isolated. The University of Idaho and Lewis-Clark State College also oppose the CWI proposal, saying it duplicates existing bachelor’s programs. Idaho State University did not submit comments to the State Board.

The rift between CWI and the four-year schools leaves the State Board in the middle. In December, the board will decide whether to approve CWI’s plan to offer a bachelor of applied science degree in business administration, starting next fall. It would be CWI’s first four-year degree.  It also would be only the second bachelor’s degree offered by an Idaho community college; the College of Southern Idaho offers an operations management degree aligned with the food processing industry.

Earlier this month, CWI trustees unanimously endorsed the business bachelor’s program.

A bachelor of applied science degree differs from a traditional bachelor’s degree, since students can put career-technical education courses toward their 120-credit requirement. CWI says it can offer a bachelor’s at a lower cost — about $20,000 in tuition. And college officials say their program would cater to students unlikely to pursue a traditional four-year degree: older students; students who have taken CTE courses; and high school graduates who are worried about the cost of four-year school.

However, all four of Idaho’s four-year schools offer business administration degrees. And in their comments to the State Board — their formal response to the CWI proposal — competition was a recurring theme.

“Boise State is offering a wide variety of flexible degrees in business or with business focus and that the assertion that ‘CWI is poised to reach a market that is underserved by four-year institutions’ is inaccurate, unsupported and frankly outright misleading,” Boise State wrote.

Like Boise State, Lewis-Clark invoked “systemness.” This is the word State Board members frequently use to describe a collaborative higher ed network with limited overlap.

The U of I suggests a Plan B: a joint program that would give CWI’s place-bound Treasure Valley graduates a “smooth transfer pathway” into a U of I online bachelor’s program.

At several points, Boise State’s written comments struck an almost personal tone.

While saying CWI might be its most important education partner in the state, Boise State also pointed out that CWI’s on-time, two-year graduation rate is 14%, the lowest in the state. “Simply offering a four-year program … will not move the needle on graduation rates.”

Boise State also sounded blindsided by the proposal. “CWI has chosen not to collaborate with their closest neighbor.”

On Monday, CWI said the four-year schools were responding to an earlier version of the bachelor’s proposal, and the college says it has used the criticisms to “refine” its proposal. CWI also took issue with Boise State’s graduation rates comments, noting that 27% of students graduate within three years, a rate on par with other Idaho community colleges and slightly below the national average.

CWI also released letters of support for the proposal, with signees including the Nampa Chamber of Commerce; Ball Ventures Ahlquist CEO Tommy Ahlquist; and Jamie Scott, president of the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Family Foundation.

The CWI proposal isn’t the only bachelor’s program on the State Board’s docket — and it isn’t the only proposal facing pushback from the four-year schools.

The College of Eastern Idaho also has proposed adding a four-year degree in operations management. Idaho State says the program would overlap with programs it already offers, less than an hour’s drive from CEI’s Idaho Falls campus.

“CEI’s proposed degree, if approved, would constitute a wasteful duplication of programming resulting in the inefficient use of taxpayer resources,” Idaho State said in its comments to the State Board.

Disclosure: Idaho Education News is funded through a grant from the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Family Foundation.

The attorney general’s office and the State Board of Education have spent months arguing about closed meetings.

Now, they’re fighting about who should pay the lawyers.

Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s office is refusing to pay for the State Board’s hired outside counsel — for legal bills that already exceed $81,000. Labrador’s staff says the State Board has “unilaterally” hired a lawyer — and is paying too much in the process.

The latest salvo in this legal battle centers on a section of state law, which governs the hiring of outside attorneys.

Under the law, a state agency is responsible for paying its own outside legal bills — unless the governor consults with the attorney general beforehand, and governor decides the agency needs outside counsel.

“That did not happen,” chief deputy attorney general Phillip Broadbent said in a letter Tuesday to State Board Executive Director Matt Freeman.

The State Board hired outside counsel days after Labrador sued the State Board, saying the board violated open meetings law by holding three closed-door meetings to discuss the University of Idaho’s proposed purchase of the University of Phoenix.

Labrador filed his lawsuit on June 20. In a June 30 letter to Labrador’s office, Freeman said the board was forced to hire its own independent counsel to defend itself in court. And even before that, on June 26, Boise attorney Trudy Hanson Fouser began billing the State Board for her work, according to invoices previously obtained by Idaho Education News through a public records request.

If Gov. Brad Little’s staff and Labrador’s staff had talked beforehand, Labrador’s staff would have been able to appoint an attorney to the case, at a rate of $185 an hour, Broadbent wrote. Fouser is receiving $300 an hour as the State Board’s lead attorney in the open meetings lawsuit.

“That decision to hire outside counsel without following the proper process and to pay significantly greater attorney fees was not justified,” Broadbent wrote.

Through spokesman Mike Keckler, the State Board issued a terse response Thursday afternoon. “We are reviewing the attorney general’s analysis used as the basis for the denial.”

The open meetings lawsuit is one of several obstacles in the path of the U of I’s proposed $685 million purchase of Phoenix. And the stakes are high. If Labrador prevails in court, this would void the State Board’s May 18 vote to greenlight the purchase.

The lawsuit now hinges on one question: Did the U of I face competition from another public bidder in its pursuit of Phoenix? The State Board cited competition as a rationale for its three closed-door meetings.

The question will go to trial. Ada County District Judge Jason Scott set a Jan. 22 trial date on Thursday.

Phoenix’s accreditors have signed off on the deal, which would turn the giant for-profit online university into a nonprofit operating under the U of I’s umbrella.

Accreditation is crucial for colleges and universities; for one thing, it ensures students can transfer one school’s credits to another school. And Phoenix has been fully accredited since 1978; the Chicago-based Higher Learning Commission granted the university a 10-year renewal earlier this year. But that renewal came before the U of I announced plans to pursue a $685 million acquisition of Phoenix.

As a result, the commission needed to approve a “continuation of accreditation” under Four Three Education, the U of I-formed nonprofit which would finance the purchase and assume oversight of Phoenix.

The commission approved Phoenix’s request on Nov. 2 approval. But U of I President C. Scott Green broke Phoenix’s news Tuesday, in an email to university employees. (A Higher Learning Commission spokesperson confirmed the accreditation decision in an email Wednesday morning.)

“This is great news and a big step closer to finalizing the affiliation,” Green wrote.

But still several big obstacles remain in the path of the purchase.

The U of I still needs the go-ahead from its own accreditors, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.

“(We) will meet with them soon to ensure their support,” he wrote.

There is no timeframe for NWCCU to take up the matter, U of I spokeswoman Jodi Walker said late Tuesday.

Green downplayed another obstacle: Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s lawsuit, which accuses the State Board of Education of breaking state law when it met behind closed doors to discuss the Phoenix purchase.

The case will go to trial, likely sometime within the next three months. A district judge has rejected several of Labrador’s complaints. Now, the trial will focus on one question: whether the U of I faced competition from other public bidders as it pursued a Phoenix purchase. The State Board cited competition as justification for the closed-door executive sessions.

Green dismissed the complaint as a “technical question,” adding that the State Board “believes it will prevail on this question as well.”

And if the U of I’s accreditors endorse the deal, and the State Board prevails in court, another big obstacle remains. Four Three would then have to go to the bond market to finance the purchase. U of I officials maintain that Four Three can swing the purchase without any state support, using Phoenix’s revenues to cover bond payments — but U of I could wind up offering up to $10 million a year as a taxpayer-funded backstop, in case Four Three fails to make payments.

The U of I also maintains that the deal could provide the university with $10 million or more in annual funding, gleaned from Phoenix revenues.

The U of I hopes to finalize the complicated, controversial purchase early next year. If a deal is not in place by May 31, either party can walk away.

Like Green, University of Phoenix spokeswoman Andrea Smiley expressed confidence that a deal will be completed.

“University of Idaho and University of Phoenix will continue their work together, and with our regulators, as we work to finalize our agreement,” she said Wednesday. “We are highly confident in our future affiliation and its benefits for our students, staff and faculty, and alumni.”

It’s a little too late for voters, but we have a lot more information about fundraising in the Nov. 7 school board elections.

Candidates and campaign treasurers didn’t have to turn in October sunshine reports before Election Day. Those reports are rolling in now, bringing fundraising into closer focus.

The reports cover fundraising and spending through Oct. 31. The November reports won’t come due for another month.

A couple of quick facts:

• Unsuccessful West Ada candidate Tom Moore put the most money into his war chest: $50,809, made up almost entirely of personal loans to his campaign. Through Oct. 31, Moore spent $9,572.
• The biggest spender, so far, appears to be James McAndrew, the winner in an open trustee’s race in Coeur d’Alene. Through Oct. 31, McAndrew spent $23,839.
• Here’s a look at every race that cleared the $5,000 fundraising plateau. (Victorious candidates are listed in red.):

West Ada, Zone 5: $61,420

Tom Moore: $50,809. Includes $50,067 in loans from the candidate.

Rene Ozuna (incumbent): $10,611. Includes $1,000 from Meridian Mayor Robert Simison and $1,000 from Engineered Structures Inc., a builder with ties to the West Ada School District.

West Ada, Zone 4: $17,163

David Binetti (incumbent): $7,761. Largely self-funded.

Miguel Deluna: $7,423. Includes $1,000 from Moore.

Mari Gates: $1,979.

Kuna, Zone 1: $22,264

Hillary Lowe: $14,409. Includes $1,000 apiece from Tyler and Constance Youngkin, San Ysidro, Calif., and Quincy Youngkin, Kuna, $1,000 from W. Scott Schirmer, Phoenix, and $1,000 from William Brownlee, Peoria, Ariz.

Joy Thomas (incumbent): $7,855. Raised largely from Democratic donors, including former gubernatorial candidate and Boise school trustee A J Balukoff ($1,000), Susie Balukoff ($1,000) and House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise ($1,000).

Kuna, Zone 2: $18,304

Kristi Hardy: $16,804. Includes $1,000 apiece from Tyler, Constance and Quincy Youngkin, Schirmer and Brownlee.

James Grant: $1,500. Entirely self-funded.

Kuna, Zone 5: $7,746

Michael Thornton: $7,345. Includes $1,000 apiece from Tyler and Constance Youngkin and $995 from Hardy.

Russell Johnson: $401. Self-funded.

Blaine County, Zone 5: $28,120

Lara Stone (incumbent): $18,780. Includes $200 from former House Minority Leader Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, and Jim Jaquet and $200 from retiring School Board chair R. Keith Roark.

Bailey Brooks: $9,340. Includes $1,000 from Push Back Idaho and $20 from fellow Blaine County trustee candidate Nora Roebuck.

West Bonner, Zone 1: $18,332

Margaret Hall (incumbent): $11,807.

Alan Galloway: $6,525.

West Bonner, Zone 5: $8,864

Carlyn Barton (incumbent): $4,714.

Kathy Nash: $4,150. Includes $699.64 from recently recalled trustee Keith Rutledge and $85 from state Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard.

West Bonner, Zone 3: $6,116

Troy Reinbold (incumbent): $3,558. Includes $699.65 from Rutledge and $85.10 from a second recently recalled trustee, Susan Brown.

Elizabeth Glazier: $2,558.

Lake Pend Oreille, Zone 1: $9,844

Scott Wood: $5,500. Entirely in a loan from the candidate.

Jennifer McKnight: $4,344.

Rebecca Holland: No fundraising activity.

Idaho Falls, Zone 1: $5,200

Jeremy Westwood (incumbent): $3,000. His latest report lists only one donation, of $3,000, but does not identify a source. On Wednesday, the secretary of state’s office said the money came from Westwood himself, which would make it a legal campaign contribution.

Jordan Oseen: $2,200. Entirely self-funded.

Patrick Jackson: No fundraising activity.

Nampa, Zone 2: $6,196

Adam Schasel: $5,422. Includes $100 from Reclaim Idaho co-founder Luke Mayville.

David Jennings: $774. Includes $491.74 from Nampa trustee Brook Taylor.

Caldwell, Zone 3: $13,391

Travis Manning (incumbent): $10,861. Includes $1,000 from A J Balukoff, $1,000 from Conservation Voters of Idaho, $333.34 from Caldwell school trustee Marisela Pesina, $100 from former Boise school superintendent Don Coberly, $100 from state Sen. Janie Ward-Engelking, D-Boise, $100 from state Rep. Soñia Galaviz, D-Boise, and $100 from former state Rep. John McCrostie, D-Garden City.

Nicole Trakel: $2,530. Includes $200 from state Sen. Cindy Carlson, R-Riggins, and $50 from Kent Marmon, a Republican legislative candidate in Caldwell.

Coeur d’Alene, Zone 2: $44,449

James McAndrew: $27,963. Includes $500 from retiring Coeur d’Alene school trustee Casey Morrisroe, $200 from former Lt. Gov. Jack Riggs, $100 from former Coeur d’Alene Mayor Sandra Bloem and $50 from former North Idaho College trustee and state Sen. John Goedde, R-Coeur d’Alene.

Yasmin Harris: $15,884. Includes $100 from Brent Regan, chairman, Kootenai County Republican Central Committee.

Paul Mahlow: $602. Entirely self-funded. Mahlow later donated his $602 to state Rep. Heather Scott. 

Coeur d’Alene, Zone 3: $7,305

Heather Tenbrink (incumbent): $11,297. Includes $500 from Morrisroe and some self-funding.

Richard Blatt: $6,820. Includes $300 from Regan and $500 from RHINO PAC.

Lakeland, Zone 2: $7,861

Ramona Grissom (incumbent): $5,211.

Cherish Hansen: $2,650.

Lakeland, Zone 3: $5,793

Michelle Thompson (incumbent): $3.493. Includes $100 from Regan and $99 from Grissom.

Sheila Holfeltz: $2,300.

Moscow, Zone 1: $5,609

Cody Barr: $4,347.

Jim Frenzel (incumbent): $1,262. Includes $100 from Latah County Commissioner Tom Lamar.

A judge has ordered a trial in the case to settle one legal issue: Was the University of Idaho in competition with other bidders as it pursued the $685 million Phoenix purchase?

Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s lawsuit is one of several big obstacles standing in the way of the Phoenix purchase. Accreditors for the U of I and Phoenix must approve the deal, and a nonprofit must go into the bond marketing to line up financing.

And the clock is ticking.

U of I and Phoenix officials hope to close the deal by early next year. Either party can walk away from the table after May 31 if no deal is in place, State Board of Education Executive Director Matt Freeman said in a recent court deposition.

The trial will push the legal dispute closer to that May 31 date, although the timeframe isn’t set. Ada County District Judge Jason Scott has set a Nov. 16 hearing to set a trial date. In his order, issued Wednesday, Scott said he wants to finish the trial within three months.

After that, either side could appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court.

While Scott’s 33-page ruling kept the June 20 lawsuit alive, it also narrowed the scope of the case considerably.

Scott rejected several arguments from Labrador’s legal team. He said the State Board’s May 15 closed-door discussion met one criteria of the law, since board members were holding “preliminary negotiations” about a possible Phoenix purchase. Scott also rejected Labrador’s objections to the agenda for the State Board’s May 18 meeting — its one open session on the issue, which ended in a unanimous board vote supporting the purchase.

The State Board, which doubles as the U of I’s board of regents, held three closed-door meetings to discuss Phoenix. Board members said the closed meetings were justified under a section of law which allows closed meetings for “preliminary negotiations” of a transaction that pits an Idaho public agency against public bidders from other states or nations.

One public bidder for Phoenix, the University of Arkansas, appeared to drop out of the running on April 24, when its board of regents voted down a purchase. State Board and U of I officials have insisted the bidding process was competitive, although no one has named any other suitors publicly.

In a statement, Labrador conceded that the court had dismissed several of his arguments, but claimed vindication.

“For months, the State Board of Education has resisted accountability and has loudly claimed that my office was pursuing baseless claims,” Labrador said. “The court’s decision demonstrates just how credible this case has always been.”

In a statement Monday, Freeman predicted the State Board will prevail at trial — while decrying the legal battle that began five months ago.

“The State Board of Education is pleased that Judge Scott dismissed all but one of the attorney general’s claims,” Freeman said. “It is unfortunate, though, that the public has to bear the expense of having the invalid claims dismissed.”

More reading: Court documents provide a detailed look inside the State Board’s closed-door meetings.  

Voters stuck with incumbent trustees. Generally.

Money didn’t help challengers break through and win. By and large.

Voters were willing to put their property tax dollars into schools. More often than not.

There were plenty of trends in Tuesday’s school elections, but plenty of exceptions as well. National politics, and white-hot social topics, have certainly shaped Idaho’s education debate. But the elections themselves remain hyperlocal, confounding and contrarian — and that’s a pattern in and of itself.

Let’s delve deeper into the trends and the outliers:

Some ideological candidates struggled. In a pair of well-established Republican strongholds, Caldwell and Coeur d’Alene, voters rejected hardline candidates who would have moved their school boards sharply to the right.

The three Caldwell elections weren’t particularly close. In the most one-sided race of the night, two-term incumbent Travis Manning rolled up 63% of the vote, trouncing Nicole Trakel, the wife of conservative Republican state Sen. Chris Trakel.

In Coeur d’Alene, voters rejected a pair of hardline candidates that ran with the endorsement of the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee — the construct of committee chairman and Idaho Freedom Foundation board member Brent Regan.

The message from Caldwell and Coeur d’Alene was clear: In these red communities, voters wanted something more than strident archconservatism. The message in other red communities — such as Nampa and Kuna — is tougher to decipher.

Incumbency helped. Well, a little bit more than it has in the past.

In all, 72 incumbent trustees were on the ballot Tuesday, and 43 won. This translates to about a 60% success rate.

Two Novembers ago, 26 of 47 incumbents won — a barely-better-than-a-coin-flip success rate of 55%.

Incumbents fared better in larger districts, like West Ada, Caldwell, Lakeland and Moscow. In each of these districts, three incumbents were up for re-election. They all won.

In seven other school districts, however, multiple incumbents lost. In St. Maries, voters ousted three sitting trustees, flipping the board’s balance of power in one night.

Money did not guarantee success. Tom Moore was a candidate in a hurry. Saying he had no time to go out and raise money, he simply loaned his campaign more than $50,000. This may or may not have been a record loan for a volunteer Idaho trustee’s race — but it was undebatably eye-popping.

The loan bought a lot of campaign signs for Moore and his West Ada running mate, Miguel Deluna, but it didn’t buy success. Moore received 34% of the vote, and Deluna received 32%.

We don’t know exactly how much Moore spent, nor do we know exactly how much René Ozuna spent to retain her seat. State law allows campaigns to file updated sunshine reports after the election — a grace period that serves candidates and their treasurers well, but does voters no good.

But we do know Ozuna went to the building community for fundraising help — and with no apologies, saying local businesses have a stake in good schools. We also know that incumbent David Binetti pledged to self-fund his own race, and pledged to spend whatever he needed to fend off Deluna and a third challenger, Mari Gates.

In other districts — like Coeur d’Alene and Blaine County — challengers put considerable but not Moore-esque money into their races, and still lost.

Yet money was likely a factor in the turnover in Kuna. Challengers Hillary Lowe and Michael Thornton outraised their incumbent opposition. Much of their money came from out-of-state donors, although Lowe claimed she knew little about her supporters.

Lowe and Thornton won easily. But their running mate, Kristi Hardy, received money from the same circle of supporters, and received a meager 32% of the vote in an open race.

Again, nothing fits easily into election patterns.

Bond and levy results were mixed. In several districts, a $168.2 million election day didn’t go according to plan.

Shelley voters rejected a $67.8 million bond issue to build a new high school. In Pocatello-Chubbuck, voters turned down a $45 million bond issue to cover work at two high schools, including fire-damaged Highland High School. Supplemental levies, totaling $4.7 million, failed in Basin and Mountain View.

With that, Tuesday became a $50.7 million election day.

In the aggregate, the bond and levy results weren’t surprising. The two-thirds supermajority threshold to pass a bond issue remains daunting — no matter when a district takes a proposal to the people. Supplemental levies, requiring a simple majority for passage, tend to fare much better — and 10 of these levies did pass on Tuesday.

And Tuesday’s elections probably signaled the start of a new trend: an uptick in school ballot measures in November. The 2023 Legislature’s property tax overhaul also eliminated the standalone March school election date, which had been the most popular time to run bonds and levies. With only three remaining options on the calendar, look for more school districts to run their bonds and levies in November — even if school administrators don’t want their elections running alongside races for mayor, governor or president.

To sum up a contrarian day at the polls, what better place to end than the most turbulent school district in Idaho?

Two months after voting overwhelmingly to recall two trustees, West Bonner voters decided to keep two of three incumbents on the job. But even this wasn’t so simple. Zone 3 voters rehired Troy Reinbold, an ally of the two recalled trustees and of former Superintendent Branden Durst, hired this summer. Zone 1 voters re-elected interim board chair Margaret Hall, who opposed the Durst hire. But Zone 5 voters booted trustee Carlyn Barton, a Hall ally who also opposed Durst’s hire.

In this small district — and really, most districts — school board elections are essentially neighborhood elections. This is local politics at its most basic level, defying prediction and pattern.

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday.

State Board of Education members put their trust in one employee: University of Idaho President C. Scott Green.

As they considered the U of I’s proposal to buy the University of Phoenix, board members received almost all of their information from Green and his team. “It was their deal, they were presenting it to the board,” said State Board President Linda Clark.

Board members didn’t contact Phoenix or Tyton Partners, the New York-based financial partners working the sale on Phoenix’s behalf. They didn’t press for details about other bidders — even after another state university publicly walked away from a Phoenix purchase. When Green said the U of I was in competition with other bidders, board members took him at his word.

Board members placed similar faith in Jenifer Marcus, their longtime attorney. Without asking questions, they heeded their deputy attorney general’s counsel and took their discussions behind closed doors. “If Jenifer Marcus provides her opinion on an issue related to education law or open meeting law, I trust her implicitly,” State Board member Kurt Liebich said. “She’s forgotten more about that topic than I could ever know.”

Since the spring, the State Board’s deliberations about the $685 million Phoenix purchase have been cloaked in secrecy. The board held three closed executive sessions to discuss the idea. Then in one single open session on May 18, members unanimously endorsed the deal — without taking public comment.

‘The board only received information from President Green or his negotiations team regarding the University of Phoenix transaction.’ State Board of Education Executive Director Matt Freeman, from a recent court deposition.

Attorney General Raúl Labrador has sued the State Board — questioning the legality of the closed meetings, and the underlying contention that other public entities were bidding against the U of I. An open meetings lawsuit is a civil complaint. But both sides in the ongoing dispute agree on one point: If Labrador prevails in court, the Phoenix megadeal could be dead.

Idaho Education News researched this story by reviewing 450 pages of draft transcripts of recent court depositions. EdNews also reviewed hundreds of pages of additional documents, obtained through public records requests filed with the State Board of Education and the University of Idaho.  

In October, Labrador’s team deposed three State Board members and the board’s executive director. Depositions are sworn statements, taken under oath. The interviews are combative — punctuated by snippy exchanges between Josh Turner, Labrador’s acting solicitor general, and Trudy Hanson Fouser, the State Board’s hired independent counsel. Turner’s questions are pointed and adversarial. And the process continues; Labrador’s legal team wants to depose Green, but that interview hasn’t taken place, U of I spokeswoman Jodi Walker said Wednesday.

Through spokesman Mike Keckler, the State Board declined to comment on the depositions. But the legal documents provide a delayed but detailed glimpse into closed-door talks leading up to a controversial decision. The decision could be a moneymaker for the U of I, or a drain on taxpayers. The decision could also reshape higher education in rural Idaho, and the state’s 134-year-old land-grant institution.

March 2023: Before the first board meeting

The U of I and Phoenix first began talking in February, signing a confidentiality agreement at the for-profit university’s behest. That agreement, which remains intact, has shrouded many details about the purchase.

Liebich was brought into the conversation soon after.

“It was early March when President Green called me and said, ‘Hey, Kurt, we have potentially a really interesting opportunity here,” Liebich said in his deposition. “And I did what almost anybody would do in that situation. I Googled University of Phoenix and started reading some of the public information.”

The fact-finding process quickly became more formal.

In early March, Liebich and fellow State Board members Bill Gilbert and David Hill spent time perusing a virtual “data room” set up by the sellers. The data room provided a “very thorough” but confidential window into Phoenix’s finances, Liebich said. Access to the information carried a tradeoff. Liebich said he immediately recognized “a moral and ethical duty” to abide by Phoenix’s confidentiality agreement.

On March 9 and March 14, Green and his negotiating team met with State Board Executive Director Matt Freeman, Liebich and Gilbert. Liebich and Gilbert were brought into the early discussions because of their business experience. Liebich, the head of a Boise wood products firm, holds an MBA from Harvard University. Gilbert, the co-CEO of a Boise investment firm, holds a finance degree from the U of I.

Meanwhile, behind-the-scenes discussions between the U of I and the sellers intensified.

In a March 13 email — sent to Liebich, Gilbert, Hill and others — Green said he had just spoken to Greg Finkelstein, managing director of Tyton, Phoenix’s financial partner. Green and Finkelstein discussed competitors. “He shared that there are two others interested,” Green wrote.

The email’s subject line included a cryptic code name: “Re. CONFIDENTIAL: Project Neptune.”

On March 13, Finkelstein emailed Brian Foisy, the U of I’s vice president for finance and administration, and a point player in the negotiations. Finkelstein requested a “non-exclusive and non-binding indication of interest” — in writing, by March 17. The letter made clear that Phoenix could discuss a sale with other bidders, and Phoenix reserved the right to turn down the U of I, “even if your proposal represents the highest purchase price offered.”

And the letter forbade the U of I from contacting any Phoenix students, past or present employees or corporate partners, without approval in advance.

March 22: Executive Session No. 1

Serving the final weeks of his term as State Board president, Liebich had to decide when, and how, to bring the full eight-member board into the discussion.

He scheduled a closed-door executive session for March 22.

‘We were told that there was a significant interest and competition and that that was one of several reasons why we needed to move fairly expeditiously.’ State Board of Education President Linda Clark, from a recent court deposition.

His decision marks a defining moment, setting the stage for the legal dispute unfolding in Ada County district court. Labrador filed a lawsuit on June 20, contending that the March 22 meeting, and the other closed meetings that followed, violated the state’s Open Meeting Law.

The lawsuit places Labrador at odds with one of his own lawyers. Marcus — the deputy attorney general assigned to the State Board — advised the board to meet behind closed doors, and attended the meetings.

In their depositions, Liebich, Clark and Freeman staunchly defend Marcus, who has worked with the State Board for more than a decade. Clark, a career public educator and former West Ada School District superintendent, went so far as to say she hasn’t actually read Idaho’s open meeting law herself. Instead, Clark said she trusts Marcus. “I’ve been on the board for eight years and she has never yet steered us wrong.”

Marcus is not representing the State Board in the open meetings lawsuit, and she has cited a conflict of interest. Marcus continues to work as the State Board’s deputy attorney general on other matters. The board has hired Fouser, a Boise attorney, as outside counsel in the open meetings case.

The closed meetings, recommended by Marcus, fall under a specific clause in state law. The language covers “preliminary negotiations” on a transaction pitting Idaho against “governing bodies in other states or nations.”

The depositions paint the picture of a preliminary discussion. “(These were) very, very high level conversations introducing the board to the topic,” Freeman said.

For some board members, like Clark, it was their first chance to hear about the idea and ask questions.

“It was more about gaining knowledge about trying to understand the transaction rather than deliberation,” said State Board member Cally Roach.

Money may or may not have come up, although Liebich said he wasn’t sure.

It’s “very possible” that Green threw out a ballpark figure on a purchase price, just to get a sense of the board’s interest, Liebich said. “That would not be atypical for a buyer to do that.”

Competition did come up. Green and his team made it clear that the U of I wasn’t the only bidder.

Roach did not ask for specifics. And she didn’t recall other board members asking either. But one name may have come up.

“I believe the University of Arkansas was mentioned at that first meeting.”

April 25: Executive Session No. 2     

Arkansas’ interest in Phoenix had been a matter of public record for months.

And Liebich was watching Arkansas warily. In his deposition, he said he was concerned that the State Board would expend “a lot of brain power and money” exploring the U of I’s bid, only to watch Arkansas seal the deal. In an April 19 email to Freeman and Gilbert, Liebich suggested bankers aligned with the Arkansas bid were using Idaho “as a stalking horse,” all to get their deal done.

On April 24, the picture changed abruptly. On a 5-4 vote, Arkansas’ board of regents rejected the Phoenix purchase.

The next morning, Freeman and a couple of board members got on the state’s plane to travel to a regularly scheduled board meeting in Moscow. Freeman found an article on the Arkansas regents vote, called it up on his phone and passed it around.

Not surprisingly, Arkansas came up in the State Board’s April 25 executive session. Green told the board that the U of I was still in a competitive bidding process, but without going into specifics. The depositions identified no other states or nations — public bidders that would meet the legal requirement for the closed State Board’s meetings.

Arkansas, of course, is a public entity, and Liebich still considered Arkansas a competitor.

“I didn’t view that Arkansas was completely out of the hunt,” he said. “They had done a lot of work on this deal to walk away at the last minute.”

Green talked the State Board through other thorny issues. He walked the board through a slide deck, spelling out financing options and the U of I’s “due diligence” in legal and regulatory topics, Freeman said. Green also reminded the board that the clock was ticking. Phoenix wanted to have a buyer nailed down by May 19, its deadline to get on the agenda for the November meeting of its accrediting body, the Higher Learning Commission. (The commission is meeting this week, and accreditors for Phoenix and the U of I must sign off on the purchase in order for it to go forward.)

Board members didn’t deliberate during the April 25 meeting, Liebich said. “We weren’t there yet. … We were still trying to understand … what the risks were.”

The Phoenix discussion wasn’t the State Board’s only closed meeting that week. The board also held executive sessions for performance evaluations of the university presidents, including Green.

Ultimately, presidents answer to the State Board, which has hiring and firing authority. But on April 25 — and at other Phoenix-related meetings, before and since — board members turned to Green for answers.

May 15: Executive Session No. 3 

With Phoenix’s deadline looming at week’s end, the State Board reconvened in Boise early on a Monday morning.

‘The only way we were going to get this deal done is to manage it the way we did. … We’re trying to strike the best deal for the state of Idaho.’ State Board of Education member Kurt Liebich, from a recent court deposition.

First, they met in open session to approve statewide tuition and fee increases, including a 5% increase at U of I, and raises for the school’s college and university presidents, including a 5.5% raise for Green.

Then the board went behind closed doors for one last discussion of the Phoenix purchase.

Competition came up once again. The U of I said other bidders might “potentially” come forward, Roach said, but they weren’t identified.

But the board and the U of I both were about ready to make a move.

“By May 15 we had completed nearly all of what we viewed as all the due diligence,” Liebich said in his deposition. “They were obviously very far along in negotiating the terms of the transaction.”

Far enough along, evidently, to jump the gun.

On May 15, apparently unbeknownst to State Board members, U of I attorney Kent Nelson filed articles of incorporation with the state of Idaho. The filing christened NewU Inc. — a nonprofit separate from the U of I, but governed by a board that included Nelson and other U of I administrators. The nonprofit would be in charge of securing financing for the purchase, and would ultimately assume oversight of Phoenix as a rebranded, nonprofit school. (NewU has since been renamed Four Three Education, after Washington, D.C.-based NewU University demanded the U of I drop the original name.)

Nelson’s filing didn’t remain secret for long. By week’s end, the filing was a rallying point for the Idaho Freedom Foundation, a libertarian-leaning think tank vehemently opposed to the Phoenix purchase. But in their depositions, Clark and Roach said they knew nothing about the filing when the board met on May 15.

In his deposition, Freeman said the board did not — and could not — act on articles of incorporation on May 15. Open meetings law explicitly prohibits an agency from making any decision in an executive session. “Our deputy attorney general never would have allowed that.”

But Freeman also sought to downplay the issue. The early filing was necessary in order to ensure the state could meet Phoenix’s May 19 deadline, and it didn’t preempt the State Board.

“If the board had not approved the creation of NewU Inc., then that entity was just a shell that would have dissolved,” he said.

May 18: The open meeting

Within 90 minutes, the deal was done. The State Board gave the go-ahead for NewU, and Green’s ambitious plan to acquire Phoenix.

The unanimous vote seemed like a foregone conclusion. It certainly appeared that way to one person with a deep understanding of the process. “You and your board were able to accomplish what I could not,” University of Arkansas President Donald Bobbitt wrote in a morning email to Green, hours before the vote. “Our loss will be a significant gain for your institution and your state.”

In open session that afternoon, board members discussed the risks — and the fact that the U of I might have to commit up to $10 million a year to backstop the loan payments. They discussed the reputational risks that come with acquiring a for-profit behemoth with decades of bad press and baggage.

But ultimately, board members seemed swayed by profit potential — and new opportunity. The U of I says it could receive at least $10 million a year in profits off of Phoenix, which serves 85,000 students nationally. And university officials said Phoenix’s online delivery infrastructure, honed over nearly half a century, could enhance learning opportunities in rural Idaho.

And in their depositions, board members didn’t just defend their decision. They beamed about it.

The U of I had beat out the competition, Clark said — including, she insisted repeatedly, bids from other state institutions.

“It just stands to reason that this would be (highly competitive),” she said. “It isn’t rocket science here. If anyone is up to date on the issues of education today they know what direction it is taking. Online education is powerful.”

Liebich was more succinct. “We just got the golden goose, or we’re trying to get the golden goose.”

And at one point in his lengthy and sometimes tense deposition — taken remotely , while Liebich was in New York City on a family vacation — the State Board member let his exasperation show.

Turner, Labrador’s solicitor general, asked Liebich if he would have been able to vote for the purchase on May 18, without the information he’d gleaned from the three closed sessions.

“That’s the craziest question I have ever heard,” Liebich said. “To do a transaction, you need to do three months of work and due diligence. …

”I mean, that’s just a crazy question, man.”

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday.

He also used the occasion to talk up one of his pet projects: the fledgling Idaho Launch post-high school incentives program.

“There are multiple pathways to success,” Little said Wednesday, at a proclamation ceremony in Meridian marking November as Idaho Apprenticeship Month. “We need more young Idahoans to go on to postsecondary education, and we’ve been very intentional about expanding ‘go-on’ to include opportunities outside of the traditional four-year college degree – including apprenticeships.”

Idaho now offers about 2,400 apprenticeships, a number that has increased by 40% over the past three years, according to a Wednesday news release from Little’s office.

The state has put more than $10 million into building apprenticeship programs over the past five years, and starting next year, the state will put about $75 million of additional money into Launch.

High school seniors can now apply for Launch grants of up to $8,000, which they can put toward two- or four-year college, career-technical education or worker training programs. Grants will go out next summer.

With Tuesday’s school elections just around the corner, let’s take an updated look at campaign finance reports.

Our top 10 list of the spendiest school board elections hasn’t changed much, although there is one newcomer to the list, some shufflings in the rankings and a smattering of new contributions in the past two weeks.

Here’s the top 10 (plus two other races that have cleared the $5,000 threshold):

West Ada, Zone 5: $59,845

Tom Moore: $50,784, including $50,067 in loans from the candidate.

Rene Ozuna (incumbent): $9,061, including $1,000 from Meridian Mayor Robert Simison, and $1,000 from Engineered Structures Inc., a builder with ties to West Ada. 

Coeur d’Alene, Zone 2: $34,009

James McAndrew: $17,523, including $200 from former Lt. Gov. Jack Riggs and $50 from former North Idaho College trustee and state Sen. John Goedde, R-Coeur d’Alene.

Yasmin Harris: $15,884, including $100 from Brent Regan, chairman, Kootenai County Republican Central Committee.

Paul Mahlow: $602, entirely self-funded. 

Kuna, Zone 1: $21,614

Hillary Lowe: $14,159, including $1,000 apiece from Tyler and Constance Youngkin, San Ysidro, Calif., and Quincy Youngkin, Kuna; $1,000 from W. Scott Schirmer, Phoenix; $1,000 from William Brownlee, Peoria, Ariz.

Joy Thomas (incumbent): $7,455, largely from Democratic donors, including former gubernatorial candidate and Boise school trustee A J Balukoff ($1,000); Susie Balukoff ($1,000) and House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise ($1,000).

Blaine County, Zone 5: $20,144

Lara Stone (incumbent): $10,804, including $200 from former House Minority Leader Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, and Jim Jaquet.

Bailey Brooks: $9,340, including $1,000 from Push Back Idaho, and $20 from fellow Blaine County trustee’s candidate Nora Roebuck.

Kuna, Zone 2: $17,454

Kristi Hardy: $15,954, including $1,000 apiece from Tyler, Constance and Quincy Youngkin; Schirmer; and Brownlee.

James Grant: $1,500, entirely self-funded.

Caldwell, Zone 3: $10,898

Travis Manning (incumbent): $9,240, including $1,000 from A J Balukoff; $1,000 from Conservation Voters of Idaho; $100 from former Boise school superintendent Don Coberly; and $100 from former state Rep. John McCrostie, D-Garden City.

Nicole Trakel: $1,658, including $200 from state Sen. Cindy Carlson, R-Riggins, and $50 from Kent Marmon, Caldwell.

West Ada, Zone 4: $8,947

Miguel Deluna: $2,901, including $1,000 from Moore.

David Binetti (incumbent): $5,321, entirely self-funded.

Mari Gates: $725.

Coeur d’Alene, Zone 3: $7,305

Heather Tenbrink (incumbent): $5,295.

Richard Blatt: $2,010, including $100 from Brent Regan, Kootenai Republican Central Committee chairman and an Idaho Freedom Foundation board member.

West Bonner, Zone 1: $6,050

Margaret Hall (incumbent): $5,207.

Alan Galloway: $843.

West Bonner, Zone 5: $6,024

Carlyn Barton (incumbent): $4,714.

Kathy Nash: $1,310, including $699.64 from recently recalled trustee Keith Rutledge.

Nampa, Zone 2: $5,936

Adam Schasel: $5,122, including $100 from Reclaim Idaho co-founder Luke Mayville.

David Jennings: $814, including $491.74 from Nampa trustee Brook Taylor.

Lake Pend Oreille, Zone 1: $5,344

Jennifer McKnight: $4,344.

Scott Wood: $1,000.

Rebecca Holland: No fundraising activity.

Other notable races

• In another Caldwell race, challenger Nicole Hyland has received $2,633 — including $500 from state Sen. Chris Trakel, R-Caldwell, and $521.49 from fellow trustee’s candidate Ray Horrell. Incumbent Andrew Butler has raised $1,025.
• Challengers have outraised incumbents in the three contested races in Moscow. Cody Barr has outraised Jim Frenzel, Gay Lynn Clyde has outraised Dulce Kersting-Lark, and James Gray holds a fundraising edge over Dawna Fazio.
• Trustee elections are nonpartisan, but the Valley County Republican Central Committee has contributed $1,000 to McCall-Donnelly candidate Jim Cole and Cascade candidate Paula Bartlett.

So while state superintendent Debbie Critchfield hopes to address some funding issues during the 2024 legislative session, special education isn’t on the list.

“We’re not ready with something,” Critchfield said Monday, after her ad hoc school funding formula committee spent the morning talking through a range of issues.

Officially, the Critchfield committee is charged with looking at ways to modernize Idaho’s 30-year-old K-12 funding formula. And Idaho’s special education funding approach, spelled out in a 1975 state law, might be even more outdated.

The problem quickly came into focus Monday morning.

The bottom line: the state isn’t covering schools’ costs for serving special education students. The gap is at least $65 million, deputy state superintendent Ryan Cantrell told the committee.

“It’s probably much higher than that,” he said.

That’s because schools are often reluctant to fully report their actual costs of serving special education students. Under federal law, a school cannot cut its special education budget — so in effect, school administrators can paint themselves into a corner by fully reporting their spending.

In 2022-23, Idaho schools served about 38,000 students with disabilities, according to State Department of Education data. This translated to about 12% of overall enrollment. However, about 6% of a school’s budget is earmarked for special education, Cantrell said, regardless of their special education enrollment.

And that’s a fundamental flaw, said committee member Linda Clark, the president of the State Board of Education and a former West Ada School District superintendent.

“In a world of averages, real needs are not met,” she said.

That’s certainly the case in a district like Salmon. Critchfield told the committee that she visited Salmon schools last week, and learned that 16% of their students are in special education.

“It’s an absolute budget buster,” she said.

While Critchfield doesn’t plan to overhaul special education funding during the 2024 legislative session, she wants to free up some money to address the problem. Her 2024-25 budget request includes $55.8 million in “weighted” per-student funding. Schools could use that money on special education, or for programs serving English learners or economically disadvantaged students.

The $55.8 million is a centerpiece of Critchfield’s 2024-25 budget request, released in September.

Critchfield has proposed a $120 million increase in K-12 spending, about a 4% hike.

She would like to put $40 million of this money into an outcomes-based funding line item — aligned to goals such as kindergarten through third-grade reading skills; fifth- through ninth-grade math skills; and high school graduation rates.

Critchfield won’t get the last word on any of her budget requests. Gov. Brad Little will make his budget recommendations in January, and legislators will then write and pass a series of K-12 spending bills, which ultimately go to Little’s desk.

But after Monday’s meeting, Critchfield said outcomes-based spending is among several funding formula changes the Legislature can make next year.

The committee will meet again in November. The 2024 Legislature convenes on Jan. 8.

Coming Wednesday: Idaho EdNews’ Sadie Dittenber takes an in-depth look at special education in Idaho. Watch for her story here.

It could be several months before a district judge rules on a lawsuit on the University of Idaho-University of Phoenix megadeal.

Or this judge could throw out the lawsuit entirely — at any time of his choosing.

A 90-minute court hearing left the high-profile lawsuit in play, but also in limbo. And the ongoing lawsuit, in turn, continues to cast a shadow over the U of I’s $685 million bid to buy Phoenix, a for-profit online giant.

A lawyer for the State Board of Education says the case could affect the U of I’s ability to finance the purchase — and could cause accreditors to balk at the deal. And the lawsuit might not just delay the purchase. If Attorney General Raúl Labrador ultimately prevails in court, his lawsuit could stymie the purchase, because it would void the State Board’s May 18 vote that gave the deal the go-ahead.

Against this backdrop, a Labrador deputy and the State Board’s attorneys argued the lawsuit in an Ada County courtroom Thursday afternoon. At its heart, Thursday’s arguments and June 20 lawsuit center on questions of transparency. Did the State Board violate the open meetings law this spring, when it discussed the Phoenix purchase in a series of three closed-door meetings? Or did the State Board properly cite an exemption in the law, which allows closed executive session to conduct “preliminary negotiations” when an Idaho public entity “is in competition with governing bodies in other states or nations.”

Deputy attorney general Greg Woodard offered up several arguments against the meetings. He said State Board members did not even know the reason for the executive sessions when they held their first closed-door meeting on March 22. He said the board did not try to find out if the U of I was really in competition with other public bidders — especially after University of Arkansas regents pulled out of the Phoenix sweepstakes on April 24. And he said the State Board failed to adequately post notice of its May 18 open meeting — the meeting that ultimately provided the U of I with the green light.

Much of Woodard’s oral argument centered on the competition question, and the State Board’s failure to press for details. “It is a critical point: What they knew, and how they applied that.”

Trudy Hanson Fouser, the State Board’s hired independent counsel, accused Labrador’s legal team of looking for a series of “gotcha” moments designed to keep their four-month-old lawsuit alive. The notice of the May 18 meeting — which was widely emailed, if not necessarily posted publicly — met the “spirit” of the open meeting law. And she said the board had reason to believe the U of I was in a potential bidding war, since other public universities are looking to enhance their online reach into rural communities.

“Everyone believed this was a competitive situation and they were reasonable in believing that,” Fouser said.

Ultimately, the State Board’s legal team didn’t get what it was looking for — a summary judgment that would have killed the lawsuit entirely.

Instead, District Judge Jason Scott took no action Thursday, and offered a rather cryptic glimpse into the future. He didn’t rule out a summary judgment, but he didn’t reject the idea out of hand. He said he might decide to take some of the arguments to trial — and said he would schedule any trial within three months of a ruling.

The delay continues what has has grown into a high-profile political fight between Labrador and Gov. Brad Little’s appointees on the State Board. Woodard briefly addressed the politics Thursday.

“This isn’t a grudge match,” he said, noting that Labrador is legally obligated to enforce open meetings law.

The U of I and Phoenix have said they hope to have the deal approved by early 2024. But several things stand in the way.

Two accrediting bodies — overseeing the U of I and Phoenix — each much approve the blessing.

Four Three Education, the U of I’s nonprofit arm, would need to secure financing for the purchase.

And as of Thursday, the open meetings lawsuit remains a variable.

(UPDATED, 10:31 a.m. Friday, to reflect that Jeremy Cutler has withdrawn from the West Ada election.)

The COVID-19 pandemic and culture wars have transformed school board elections — across the nation, and perhaps forever.

This is happening in Idaho, in spots. But not everywhere.

Even in some of the state’s biggest school districts, Nov. 7’s trustee elections remain a mixed bag — a mishmash of spendy races and sleepy races, often within the same district.

Three of Idaho’s largest and fastest growing school districts — West Ada, Kuna and Caldwell — illustrate the effect money is having, and isn’t having, on races for volunteer trustee seats.

West Ada

Tom Moore doesn’t think his campaign strategy is a big deal. He didn’t have time for traditional fundraising, he said in an interview last week, and he didn’t want donors to think he owed them something. To save time, he made one loan to his war chest.

“50 seemed like a good number.”

As in thousand. An almost unheard-of amount in an Idaho school board race.

Who’s running in West Ada, and how much money they have raised so far:
 
Zone 2: Lucas Baclayon, incumbent ($0); Susie Schuetz ($1,232).
 
Zone 4: David Binetti, incumbent ($5,000); Miguel Deluna ($6,165); Mari Gates ($725).
 
Zone 5: Tom Moore ($50,784); René Ozuna, incumbent ($9,061). Jeremy Cutler has withdrawn from the race.

A commercial real estate broker and retired Navy aviator, Moore moved to Meridian in 2014 and has no children or grandchildren in West Ada schools. But he is blunt about his run. The administrators in the “puzzle palace” at district headquarters don’t understand what is going on in the classrooms, he said. And in a district with 40,000 students, an 87% graduation rate is unacceptable.

“When I see 5,000 kids that this district has failed, that makes me angry,” he said. “I got tired of this crap. Of this constant failing.”

Not surprisingly, Moore’s high-priced, self-funded campaign has caught the attention of his incumbent opponent.

“(It’s) super concerning to me,” said René Ozuna. “I’m not sure why anybody would put that kind of money into that.”

Four years ago, Ozuna ran unopposed and raised no money. This time around, she has raised much of her money from the development community, and she makes no apologies for it. “Strong schools are important to the community and to our property values.”

Moore sees it differently, and notes that one of Ozuna’s donors, Engineered Structures Inc., is a contractor with West Ada. “I don’t like being indebted, or thought to be indebted, to developers or contractors.”

The most prominent evidence of Moore’s money can be found along thoroughfares in the suburban district: large campaign signs touting Moore and his ally, Miguel Deluna. Moore won’t say whether he plans to spend his entire $50,000 on the campaign.

A third candidate, Jeremy Cutler, has withdrawn from the election, and now supports Ozuna.

The race between Moore and Ozuna could turn out to be the most expensive school board race in Idaho this fall — and even an outlier within West Ada, the state’s largest school district.

Deluna’s largest single donor is Moore, who gave his running mate a maximum $1,000 donation. “He’s not wealthy like I am, so he can’t self-fund,” said Moore, who added that he wants to have an ally on the five-member board, in order to make changes in the district.

Like Ozuna, incumbent Dave Binetti is closely watching the flow of money in his race. Appointed in 2022 after spending months pushing back against West Ada’s pandemic-era facemask requirements, Binetti is also taking a self-funding approach to his campaign. Website development, direct mail and signs for doorknobs will likely come from his own pocket: “I’ll spend what is necessary to retain this seat.”

Meanwhile, West Ada’s third trustee race involves two candidates who would just as soon not raise money at all.

Incumbent Lucas Baclayon only began fundraising last week, setting a modest $3,200 goal on a GoFundMe page. He says he’ll put the money into social media. “Hopefully I didn’t get started too late, but we’ll make this last push and see what happens,” said Baclayon, appointed in 2022.

Susie Schuetz said she was planning to campaign largely by going door-to-door, until she broke an ankle. She quickly loaned her campaign $330 to cover postage for some mailers, and has taken a “phone-a-friend” approach to last-minute fundraising.

It’s as low-key a race as it is a low-budget race. Baclayon says she and Schuetz share the same goals. Schuetz says she’s running for the seat, not to oust an incumbent.

“I feel like that our race is the way it should be, other than I hope no one breaks their ankle,” she said.

Kuna

Some big-money campaign donors have unclear connections to this Ada County bedroom community.

Tyler and Constance Youngkin of San Ysidro, Calif., have poured $6,000 in the Kuna races. Both have given maximum $1,000 donations to three upstart candidates: Hillary Lowe, Kristi Hardy and Michael Thornton. Lowe and Hardy have also received $1,000 apiece from Quincy Youngkin, who lists a Kuna address.

Who’s running in Kuna, and how much money they have raised so far:

Zone 1: Hillary Lowe ($14,159); Joy Thomas, incumbent ($7,455).

Zone 2: James Grant ($1,500); Kristi Hardy ($15,954).

Zone 5: Russell Johnson, incumbent ($0); Michael Thornton ($3,995).

Hardy and Thornton did not respond to interview requests. But in a telephone interview, Lowe said she knew nothing about the Youngkins.

“I don’t personally know them,” she said. “They haven’t told me of an agenda that they have. …  They brought me checks, and I said, ‘Thank you.’”

Two other big-dollar donors — William Brownlee, listing a Peoria, Ariz., address; and W. Scott Schirmer, listing a Phoenix address — have each given $1,000 apiece to Hardy and Lowe. Again, Lowe said she didn’t know the donors, their occupation or their connection with Kuna.

However, a quick internet search connects some dots. Brownlee and Schirmer are partners in M3 Companies, an Idaho- and Arizona-based development company working on several planned communities in the Treasure Valley, including one in Kuna. Brownlee and Schirmer did not respond to requests for comment.

The two incumbents say they are wary about developers’ interest in the election. Districts cannot impose impact fees on new growth; the idea has been a nonstarter at the Statehouse for years. Instead, Kuna has made some headway working with city officials and the development community, negotiating some voluntary mitigation fees.

Now, the incumbents worry that this work is in jeopardy.

“The developers aren’t the enemy to me,” said trustee Russ Johnson. “I haven’t declared war on developers.”

Johnson hasn’t raised any money for his re-election campaign, and he says he doesn’t plan to. He will do some outreach on social media, and put out some yard signs he purchased in 2019 — when he wound up running unopposed. “I never even put the signs out,” Johnson said of his election four years ago.

This time around, Johnson has an opponent. So far, Thornton has raised $3,955 — including maximum donations from Constance and Tyler Youngkin; $995 from Hardy; and $750 of his own money.

The spendiest and most contentious race pits Lowe against eight-year incumbent Joy Thomas. In October, a report first surfaced that Thomas was arrested in 2010 on seven felony counts of injury to a child. Thomas later pleaded guilty to three misdemeanors, the Idaho Statesman reported. Thomas has posted links to stories about the case on social media sites, and says the issue has not come up as she campaigns door-to-door.

Not surprisingly, Lowe and Thomas have different takes on fundraising.

Lowe says donations have helped her run a campaign that is hamstrung by the seasonal nature of her job; her family owns Lowe Family Farmstead, a corn maze and pumpkin patch that gets most of its visitors in the fall. She believes her donors are looking to support a “conservative voice,” and notes that Thomas has received much of her backing from Democratic donors.

The minority chief of staff at the Idaho House of Representatives, Thomas has drawn support from a long list of prominent Boise-area Democrats, including former gubernatorial candidate and Boise school trustee A J Balukoff; House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel; Senate Education Committee members Janie Ward-Engelking and Carrie Semmelroth; and House Education Committee members Steve Berch and Soñia Galaviz. Thomas said every one of her donors “is a fierce supporter of education, and particularly public education.” Lowe’s claims that she knows nothing about her own big-money donors strike Thomas as, at best, odd.

“I would be calling to see what in the heck they were giving me money for.”

Caldwell

Earlier this year, Caldwell became a flashpoint in an emotional statewide debate over school bathrooms.

At a January meeting, state Sen. Chris Trakel, R-Caldwell, berated trustees over a policy that would have allowed students to use facilities aligned with their gender identity. The board abruptly adjourned this meeting, and later put the proposal on hold during a tense February meeting. Within weeks, Idaho passed a law requiring students to use facilities aligned with their gender assigned at birth — overriding Caldwell’s proposed policy.

Who’s running in Caldwell:

Zone 2: Manuel Godina, incumbent ($575); Ray Horrell ($0).

Zone 3: Travis Manning, incumbent ($9,240); Nicole Trakel ($1,658).

Zone 4: Andrew Butler, incumbent ($1,025); Nicole Hyland ($1,347).

Still, that battle serves as a prologue to Caldwell’s trustee elections, which are rife with partisan overtones.

Trakel’s wife, Nicole Trakel, is running for a board seat — and her donors include a hardline GOP senator, Cindy Carlson of Riggins, and Kent Marmon, a former Caldwell school trustee who plans to oppose House Education Committee Chairwoman Julie Yamamoto in the May GOP primary.

Nicole Hyland is also seeking a board seat, challenging incumbent Andrew Butler. Hyland has financial support from both Chris and Nicole Trakel and Marmon.

Trakel’s opponent, two-term incumbent Travis Manning, is a former Democratic legislative candidate. Several of his donations came from Democrats, including a maximum $1,000 donation from Balukoff. In a recent interview, Manning said he considers Balukoff a mentor.

Trakel did not respond to interview requests. And Hyland and Manning seemed to try to downplay their donations.

Asked if the Trakel and Marmon donations are indicative of her political base of support, Hyland wrote, “I’m not exactly sure if I understand your question here.” (Hyland requested her written responses printed in full; click on them here.)

Manning says school policy should not be politicized, and he notes that his donor list includes two former Republican lawmakers from Canyon County, David Kerrick and Dorothy Reynolds.

The Caldwell elections are not as expensive as other trustee races around the state; Manning has raised $9,240, by far the most of the six candidates for three board seats.

But even in Caldwell, the politics of trustee elections is changing.

“All three incumbents have challengers and that does drive up the cost for each race,” said Hyland, who has raised $1,347 to date. “So, for a race like (the Caldwell School District’s), I do consider fundraising and/or donations to be very much important.”

Manning says he didn’t have to raise as much money for his first election in 2015, and then he was unopposed in 2019. This year, he is using money for what he calls “campaigning 101,” identifying voters and getting them out to vote. He is paying some college students to work phone banks and distribute campaign literature.

In Caldwell — overlapping with a legislative district with the state’s lowest percentage of registered voters — getting the word out is crucial. “It’s a bit of an information desert out here.”

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday.

The problem isn’t likely to just go away.

“We think there’s a gap right now,” said Christina Sedney of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, “(and) we think that gap is projected to grow over time.”

And that means Idaho high-tech employers are forced to look out of state for workers — and they might decide to expand their businesses elsewhere.

Last week, WICHE shared a report on the graduate shortages to the State Board of Education. The numbers were grim:

• Idaho employers expected to have about 1,950 engineering openings this year. The state’s public institutions are expected to produce less than 900 engineering graduates. Private schools — particularly Brigham Young University-Idaho — narrow the gap somewhat. But public and private schools are still expected to award fewer than 1,300 engineering degrees.
• Employers expect to have nearly 1,600 computer science openings. The state’s public and private schools are projected to have barely 900 computer science graduates.

Sticking to the status quo isn’t going to help much; the number of engineering and computer science graduates would increase only slightly, said Sedney, WICHE’s director of policy and strategic initiatives.

WICHE recommended a series of systemic changes: beefing up high school math, so students are better prepared for college; bridging the gender gap and encouraging more young women to pursue engineering and computer science degrees; and supporting engineering and computer science students, so they are less likely to switch to a different major.

Employers will look to other states for graduates, even if they’re pleased with the quality of students coming out of Idaho schools, said Patrick Lane, WICHE’s vice president for policy analysis and research.

The state commissioned the WICHE research after the 2022 Legislature funded the study.

After hearing the results Thursday, State Board members seemed to agree on the need to take the case to the Legislature. But lawmakers also need to hear from industries affected by the shortage of graduates, board member Bill Gilbert said.

“We can only do so much,” he said.

And on Thursday, State Board of Education members chewed on some conflicting numbers.

On the one hand, board members heard more details about the state’s chronically low college go-on rate — a problem that only got worse during the pandemic.

On the other hand, board members also heard encouraging data about the demand for college scholarships — a sign that students are more interested in going on.

Here’s a look at what the board learned on Thursday, in a pair of back-to-back, data-heavy presentations.

The go-on rates

No surprise here, and a trend we’ve written about before: More than half of Idaho’s high school graduates are doing something other than going straight to college.

In 2022, only 42% of high school graduates went to college in the fall, continuing a sharp COVID-19-era decline.

But only five years earlier, the go-on rate had reached 51%. The dropoffs began before the pandemic, State Board senior research analyst Briana Krebs said.

That’s what troubled several board members Thursday.

“We just can’t blame everything on COVID,” board member Cally Roach said.

Krebs’ presentation focused on one demographic factor, a chronic problem that we’ve also written about before: Young men are less likely to go to college.

In 2021, 36% of male high school graduates went straight to college, compared to 52% of female graduates.

The conventional wisdom is that this is tied to the economy — young men are more likely to try their hand in the workplace after high school, especially when high-paying jobs are plentiful. But the data says high-performing male students are most likely to put off college, at least right away, Krebs told the board. Many of these young men eventually enroll in college, and the gender gap narrows, but it never completely vanishes.

The college gender gap is not unique to Idaho, but State Board member Kurt Liebich called it the biggest diversity issue facing the state’s higher ed system.

A few minutes later, Liebich doubled down — after warning that he was about to say something that might be politically incorrect.

“My personal opinion is the days of Title IX have passed us by,” said Liebich, adding that relaxing some restrictions on male collegiate athletics would help get some more young men onto campuses.

Title IX, a landmark gender equity law, is federal statute. Its fate is outside the State Board’s bailiwick.

The Opportunity Scholarship

OK, here’s a question that falls under the State Board’s purview.

What’s the best way to divvy up the $20 million-a-year Opportunity Scholarship program, Idaho’s signature financial aid offering?

The state has long had more qualified scholarship applicants than it has scholarship money. About 1,000 eligible students are on a waitlist, said Cate Collins, the State Board’s principal research analyst.

The scholarship kept up with demand during the pandemic, when college enrollment dropped. But now, the state has one of those quintessential good problems to have. Idaho received 7,445 new applications for Opportunity Scholarships this past year, a 30% increase.

That’s exciting news, Collins told board members. It’s also a stark contrast to the state’s perennially dismal go-on numbers.

So here’s the question: Does the State Board want to change the guidelines for the scholarship? Does the board put money into more students’ hands? Or does the board increase the maximum scholarship award for the first time since 2017, to try to keep up with rising costs?

The board has a little bit of money to move around. Community college-bound students will now get aid through the new Idaho Launch grant program, and will no longer be eligible for the Opportunity Scholarship. As a result, Collins said, nearly 750 Opportunity Scholarships will fall off the books.

Contemplating the board’s options, State Board member William Gilbert directly addressed University of Idaho President C. Scott Green, who was watching the meeting from the audience.

“I think we’ve got to follow you guys on that one.”

A State Board decision will come in April.

Putting it together

It is not news that many high school graduates aren’t going on. They’re taking time off to work, serve a church mission or serve in the military. Some eventually go to college. Others don’t.

It also makes sense that more of Idaho’s college-bound students need financial aid and want a state scholarship.

Both things can be true at the same time. And both things almost certainly are true.

Addressing both factors — and any number of other variables — is why policymaking is difficult.

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday.

Idaho parents could have more options for spending their share of taxpayer-funded education microgrants.

The State Board of Education signed off Wednesday on a series of changes to the Empowering Parents program.

Last year, the state offered $50 million in federally funded grants, in hopes of helping families cover out-of-pocket education costs. Much of the money went into covering the cost of technology or internet access — largely because parents couldn’t find another way to spend the money, state superintendent Debbie Critchfield told her board colleagues.

“We’ve got to build something, and that’s what this is about,” said Critchfield, urging the board to approve the slate of recommendations that could remake the popular but troubled Empowering Parents program.

The recommendations would open new options for families, in two ways:

• First, the state would explicitly expand its list of eligible Empowering Parents purchases. The expanded list would include educational camps and classes, P.E. equipment and pay-to-play fees, musical instruments and tutoring and supplies such as backpacks and computer cases, among other items.
• Second, parents would be able to purchase items on their own, and apply for reimbursement later. Currently, parents must use their grants through Empowering Parents’ online marketplace, buying through a pool of vendors. The marketplace streamlines the program. But it limits parents’ buying options, especially in rural communities.

However, reimbursement is a complicated process. In order to pull it off, the State Board would probably need to convince the Legislature to add staffers to review the purchases and handle the reimbursements.

The State Board has some experience in this arena. In 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the state used $50 million of federal pandemic aid for a separate, one-shot microgrant program, Strong Families, Strong Students. This predecessor to Empowering Parents reimbursed parents for their out-of-pocket purchases.

The state controller’s office added five temporary, full-time staffers to review the purchases, but State Board staffers had to decide whether to approve or reject a reimbursement. “It was not (an) insignificant workload for our office,” State Board executive director Matt Freeman said.

Critchfield conceded it would take more staffers to make a reimbursement system work. “We’re not trying to create a worse mess here.”

Empowering Parents got off to a rocky start in 2022 and 2023. After flagging a number of improper, taxpayer-funded grant purchases, the State Board launched an internal review of the program. The state’s Empowering Parents contractor, Primary Class, agreed to reimburse the state $180,000 for the improper purchases. Gov. Brad Little has also ordered a third-party audit, which is ongoing.

Nonetheless, Empowering Parents could be here to stay. The 2023 Legislature renewed the program, putting $30 million of state money into a new round of grants and signaling support for a permanent program. The next grants could be available later this fall.

A seven-member parental advisory group spent the summer reviewing the startup of the Empowering Parents program, agreeing on the recommendations the State Board endorsed Wednesday.

“These were some really difficult conversations to have, and it was really robust conversation,” said Jenn Thompson, the State Board’s chief planning and policy officer.

Other State Board business

Diversity statements. With limited discussion, the State Board unanimously approved a policy that bans “diversity statements” in higher education hiring.

The four-year schools will no longer be able to require applicants to sign diversity statements.

The policy comes as little surprise. The State Board in April passed a resolution banning diversity statements. The policy basically implements that resolution.

Lewis-Clark enrollment. It isn’t a big increase, but Lewis-Clark State College President Cynthia Pemberton touted it nonetheless.

The Lewiston-based college this week reported a fall headcount of 3,789 — up six students from a year ago.

The numbers are something of a mixed bag.

Enrollment is up in health-related majors and in the college of education.

But enrollment is down by 11% in career-technical programs. This might be a reflection of the economy, Pemberton said, as more adults are going into the workforce instead of enrolling in job-training programs.

Pemberton said Lewis-Clark faces significant competition for students. The state’s two-year schools are working to offer limited bachelor’s degrees. Eastern Idaho’s Brigham Young University-Idaho is looking at offering three-year degrees. The University of Idaho’s proposed purchase of the University of Phoenix poses another challenge.

But Pemberton pointed out that Lewis-Clark has committed $500,000 to marketing and admissions and recruiting, and she said the money is helping to keep enrollment stable.

“We’re going on the offense.”

Lewis-Clark is hosting this week’s State Board meeting, which concludes Thursday.

The State Board of Education has already racked up more than $81,000 in legal bills, as it defends itself in an ongoing open meetings lawsuit.

Trudy Hanson Fouser, the State Board’s hired attorney, has submitted $81,018.97 in invoices over three months. Idaho Education News obtained the bills Wednesday, through a public records request.

The bills — which run through Sept. 30 — reflect a portion of the public costs of a politically charged legal showdown over open meetings and the University of Idaho’s plan to purchase the University of Phoenix.

Attorney General Raúl Labrador filed a lawsuit on June 20, saying the State Board violated state law by discussing the $685 million Phoenix purchase during a series of closed-door executive sessions. The State Board has vehemently defended the meetings — saying the meetings constituted preliminary discussions of a purchase that was approved in a May 18 public meeting.

It is unusual for the attorney general, which provides legal counsel to state agencies, to sue one of those agencies. And the State Board responded within a week of the lawsuit.

State Board executive director Matt Freeman contacted Fouser on June 26, and Fouser’s Boise law firm began racking up billable hours that day. On June 30, Freeman sent a pointed letter to Labrador’s office, saying the board “now requires legal counsel who is both experienced in litigation and acting independent of Attorney General Labrador.”

According to the invoices, Fouser and her legal team have spent more than 330 hours working on the case through Sept. 30 — at billable hourly rates ranging from $150 to $300.

The invoices indicate that the state has paid none of these bills to date. In his June 30 letter, Freeman said the State Board would send its invoices to Labrador’s office for payment.

Labrador’s office did not immediately respond Wednesday to questions about the payments.

But whether the State Board or Labrador’s office pays the $81,000, taxpayers will be on hook for two sets of legal bills — including the attorney general’s costs of pressing the lawsuit.

Nearly four months in, the lawsuit remains unresolved.

A hearing on the case is scheduled for Oct. 26 — and at that time, Ada County District Judge Jason Scott could issue his ruling.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

But state Treasurer Julie Ellsworth is skeptical. She isn’t sure the purchase is constitutional — or even necessary, if the U of I merely wants to work with an online partner.

And the unusual nature of the transaction — creating a U of I-affiliated nonprofit to purchase and manage what is now a for-profit university — also gives Ellsworth heartburn. “I’m very concerned with the fact that this vehicle does not exist elsewhere.”

On Monday, Ellsworth convened a meeting of the state’s Credit Rating Enhancement Committee — which is charged with making sure the state can secure low-cost financing in the bond market.

The hour-long meeting focused somewhat on risk — and whether Idaho’s lofty AAA credit rating could be in jeopardy.

No state has experienced a credit downgrade due to the acquisition of a for-profit university, the U of I said in its presentation. And there’s a degree of separation, said Ryan Conway, the  managing director of PFM Financial Advisors, which is working with the U of I on the Phoenix purchase. In reviewing the state’s rating, analysts are unlikely to drill into the U of I’s credit posture — or the status of Four Three Education, the nonprofit that would take over operations of Phoenix, on the U of I’s behalf.

But there isn’t as much separation between Four Three and the U of I, and credit analysts reviewing the university could wind up lumping the two entities together, Conway said. That’s why university officials have said the purchase could result in a downgrade of the U of I’s credit rating, from its current A2 rating to an A1 rating. University President C. Scott Green has said the U of I would still retain an “investment grade” bond rating, but a downgrade could increase financing costs.

Through much of Monday’s meeting, Ellsworth and state Rep. Josh Tanner, R-Eagle, peppered Conway and university officials with pointed questions.

Ellsworth cast doubt about the U of I’s due diligence process, since some of its advisers, including PFM, would benefit financially if the purchase goes through. “I just see conflicts there.”

Tanner, a member of the Legislature’s Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, again said lawmakers had been cut out of the discussion. He asked if lawmakers would have more time at the beginning of the 2024 session to review the purchase.

U of I and Phoenix officials have hoped to complete the purchase early next year, and university legal counsel Kent Nelson didn’t promise any flexibility in the timetable.

“The timing of this transaction is the timing of this transaction,” he said.

Ellsworth said her committee is planning a Nov. 17 meeting with Green and Gov. Brad Little’s office to further discuss the purchase. The committee will also prepare a report to the Legislature.

A couple of followups:

Measles vaccinations. Last school year, only 80.7% of kindergartners had two doses of the “MMR” vaccine, Sarah Leeds, manager of the Idaho Immunization Program, said in an email Friday.

The MMR vaccine covers measles, mumps and rubella — and Health and Welfare is tracking the state’s largest measles outbreak in two decades.

The MMR immunization was higher than the overall kindergarten rate, which takes in other recommended vaccinations. The overall immunization rate came in at 77.6%.

Regional breakdowns? Normally, Health and Welfare also provides copious details of the immunization rate — with numbers by county and health district, and even by school.

The breakdowns from last school year aren’t ready yet. (We’ll follow up when the numbers are available.)

In past school years, vaccination rates have tended to run lowest in North Idaho, and in rural pockets of Central Idaho. Those trends are likely to continue when the new numbers come out, Leeds said in a recent interview.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford rejected a motion to dismiss this federal case, saying the lawsuit raises issues that are “ripe for review.”

March for Our Lives Idaho, a student-led group, and Alliance for Retired Americans, a nonprofit focused on retirees’ civil rights, have said the voter ID law violates the 26^th amendment of the Constitution, which says the right to vote “shall not be denied or abridged.”

The Legislature passed two related election laws, one banning the use of student IDs, and a second creating a free form of voter ID.

Brailsford’s ruling comes barely a week after Ada County District Judge Samuel Hoagland dismissed a separate lawsuit, which argued the laws violate the state Constitution. Plaintiffs in this case plan to appeal.

More about Wednesday’s federal court ruling from Laura Guido of the Idaho Press.

A controversial transgender school bathroom law will go into effect within three weeks, after a federal judge’s ruling Thursday.

But the legal battle continues, because the judge also stopped short of dismissing a lawsuit seeking to overturn the law.

“This is a difficult case,” David Nye, Idaho’s chief U.S. district judge, wrote in a 37-page ruling on Senate Bill 1100.

Passed by the 2023 Legislature, SB 1100 mandates that students use the school bathroom, locker room or changing facility that aligns with their “biological sex.” The law voided policies in dozens of Idaho schools, which allowed students to use school facilities aligned to their gender identity.

The law went into effect on July 1. Less than a week later, a Boise middle school student and a Boise High School LGBTQ+ filed a lawsuit, saying the new law discriminated against transgender students.

In August, the federal court temporarily blocked enforcement of the law. But on Thursday, Nye lifted this block, and denied the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction. In his ruling, Nye said he didn’t believe the plaintiffs would be able to make a successful case to overturn the law.

“The state of Idaho has an interest in protecting the privacy and safety of its youth while at school, wrote Nye, noting that the law requires schools to make alternative accommodations for students who say they cannot use facilities aligned to their biological sex. “That not all people agree with the law is the reality of living in a pluralistic society where everyone cannot have everything they want according to how they see the world.”

Nye also took a dim view of the state’s arguments.

“While they move to dismiss all claims, defendants do so in a perfunctory manner, with little explanation,” Nye wrote.

Meanwhile, the scene now shifts to Idaho schools. With the clock ticking.

“Because the court’s decision today will take time to implement, the court will extend the (temporary restraining order) for 21 days,” Nye wrote. “This should provide enough time for school districts to identify and designate restrooms, changing facilities, and overnight accommodations in a manner consistent with SB 1100. Once the 21 days have elapsed, SB 1100 will be in full force and effect.”

A proponent of SB 1100 hailed Nye’s ruling — but did not mention that the law remains under a legal challenge.

“All students — but especially our girls — deserve safety in vulnerable places like school bathrooms, changing rooms, and showers,” Blaine Conzatti, president of the Idaho Family Policy Center, said in a news release. “We’re thrilled that the federal judge agreed with what we’ve been saying all along — that this law is constitutionally sound and protects the privacy rights of all students.”

In a statement Friday, Attorney General Raúl Labrador said his office will continue to make the case for the law. “This is a significant win for our office. SB 1100 is a law designed to protect students.”

An attorney for the plaintiffs criticized the decision.

“This ruling puts transgender students directly in harm’s way by stigmatizing them as outsiders in their own communities and depriving them of the basic ability to go about their school day like everyone else,” said Peter Renn, senior counsel for Lambda Legal. “For years, transgender students have been able to use restrooms consistent with their gender at many schools across Idaho, without causing harm to anyone else.”

This latest subpoena, dated Tuesday, centers on one of the key points of Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s June 20 lawsuit: Was the U of I competing with other suitors in its bid to purchase the University of Phoenix?

Labrador has said the State Board violated open meetings law when it met behind closed doors to discuss a possible purchase of Phoenix, a for-profit online university serving 85,000 students. The board, which acts as the U of I’s governing board of regents, has said the three closed-door meetings are legal — under a section of law covering preliminary discussions of a purchase that pits an Idaho bidder against competitors from other states or nations.

The subpoena demands that Green turn over a host of records by close of business Friday:

• Documents discussing any other bidders for Phoenix.
• Documents outlining the University of Arkansas’ interest in Phoenix. In late April, Arkansas’ board of regents voted against pursuing a Phoenix purchase.
• “All documents and communications” regarding the State Board’s May 18 meeting, when the board voted unanimously to greenlight the U of I’s $685 million bid to acquire Phoenix.
• Communications with the State Board involving the formation of NewU, the separate U of I nonprofit which would take over Phoenix’s operations. NewU has since been renamed Four Three Education.

Labrador’s legal team has also ordered Green — or a university official of his choosing — to appear at an Oct. 24 deposition.

The U of I didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday on the subpoena.

The latest subpoena and demand for a deposition come as the politically charged civil lawsuit continues to escalate.

The attorney general’s office has filed several similar requests with State Board members and staff, Phoenix, and Tyton Partners, the financial advisers working on a sale on Phoenix’s behalf. The State Board’s hired attorney has called the requests a burdensome “fishing expedition.”

Last week, Ada County District Judge Jason Scott instructed Labrador’s legal team to start by deposing only four State Board members, not the entire eight-person board.

A hearing in the lawsuit is scheduled for Oct. 26, and Scott could issue a ruling at that time.

Idaho’s childhood immunization rates, already low, fell once again last school year. The data suggests that more than 10,000 school-age children were not fully vaccinated for a host of diseases — such as measles, chickenpox, mumps and polio.

It’s a long and troubling trend, stretching back for years. But the news here is that Idaho just got what should be a stern warning. After two decades of near dormancy, measles has made an unwelcome comeback in Idaho this fall — with 10 new cases and counting.

So today, let’s talk about a few things no one really wants to think about in post-pandemic 2023: low immunization rates, infectious disease outbreaks, and what it might mean for schools.

The discouraging numbers

Idaho’s kindergarten immunization rate fell below 78% last school year — down eight percentage points from pre-pandemic levels. And that’s more or less typical. The state Department of Health and Welfare also tracks immunization rates in first, seventh and 12^th grades, and these numbers fell across the board.

The immunization rate “peaked” at 82.5% for first-graders — still a far cry from a 95% “herd immunity” rate that could blunt a measles outbreak.

Meanwhile, more kids are attending school without proof of vaccination. More than 12% of kindergartners were in class on a vaccination “exemption,” and that rate has climbed by more than four percentage points during the pandemic.

Idaho has long had one of the nation’s highest vaccine exemption rates. In 2021-22, the state’s kindergarten exemption rate topped the nation, according to a January Centers for Disease Control report. One reason is that it is extremely easy to opt out. A parent doesn’t have to provide an explanation, or even fill out a form. “You could write it on a Kleenex,” said Sarah Leeds, manager of Health and Welfare’s Idaho Immunization Program.

The downward trend began before the pandemic, but the pandemic didn’t help.

For one thing, it was just more difficult for parents to get their kids an appointment for their vaccination.

For another thing, the politicization of vaccines took a toll — even the COVID-19 vaccine has never appeared on Health and Welfare’s list of recommended childhood immunizations. Misinformation hasn’t spared any vaccine — not even a durable measles vaccine with a 97% effectiveness rate. “It feels like we’re always responding to (misinformation), rather than being ahead of it,” Leeds said.

There’s another possible factor.

In 2021, in their post-pandemic session, the Legislature passed House Bill 298, which requires schools to provide parents with information about vaccine exemptions. The bill arose, at least in part, from concerns that the state might push the emerging COVID-19 vaccines. (Idaho has never included the COVID-19 vaccine on its list of recommended childhood immunizations.)

Passed with bipartisan support, the law went into effect on July 1, 2021.

And in 2021-22, the number of children attending school with a vaccine exemption increased by nearly 21%.

The measles outbreak

Health and Welfare reported one case on Sept. 20, involving an unvaccinated man who contracted measles on a foreign trip. A week later, four unvaccinated children were exposed in the man’s Nampa home.

The number of cases has now reached 10.

To put that number in perspective, Idaho has had only two measles cases in the previous two decades, and none since 2019.

As throwbacks go, this isn’t a good one.

It isn’t kid stuff either, as state epidemiologist Christine Hahn explained recently. One in five unvaccinated adults who catches measles ends up in the hospital. (The Southwest Idaho man who contracted measles on his recent foreign trip was hospitalized.) Measles can cause a pregnant woman to go into premature labor, or deliver an underweight baby.

Measles also is airborne and highly contagious. The virus remains in the air — and potent — for up to two hours. It can easily spread on a plane ride home. Or in a kindergarten classroom, where perhaps one in five students are unvaccinated. Or even more, in some pockets of the state, where anti-vaccine sentiment travels as fast as an airborne virus.

What schools — and the state — can do

To a large extent, school officials and Health and Welfare can only wait and watch. They can wait to see if the current measles outbreak is an isolated one-off, or a portent of things to come. And watch the immunization numbers get worse.

Three years after the COVID-19 pandemic, the decreasing immunization rates are “concerning” but unsurprising, Idaho School Boards Association deputy director Quinn Perry said. There’s only so much school officials can do — and they have to carry out a law that could be making matters worse.

In 2021, the ISBA testified against the bill requiring schools to provide information on exemptions, saying it would further relax immunization rules and put students and staff at greater risk. Now, Perry said, “We’re required to comply with state statute, and that’s what school leaders are doing.”

Schools do try to piece together the holes in their immunization data as best they can. That’s a big undertaking; last school year, nearly 15,000 students attended school even though their immunization records were incomplete. This number — like the opt-out numbers — continues to climb.

By gathering more data, schools can better protect their students. For example, Perry said, schools can better assess the risk for an immunocompromised student who cannot get a vaccine.

Ultimately, schools have the authority to close their doors during a disease outbreak — as illustrated, dramatically, by the COVID-19 pandemic and by more routine shutdowns during flu season. During an outbreak, schools can exclude a student who has an infectious disease, or a student “suspected” of carrying the disease.

That’s where the immunization records become a factor, especially if a measles outbreak hits a school. If a parent has turned in an exemption — or has failed to provide complete records — their child might be forced to stay home until the outbreak dissipates.

While waiting out the current, unexpected measles outbreak, Health and Welfare faces a difficult challenge in trying to reverse years of troubling immunization numbers.

The agency has to fight anti-vaccine rhetoric: “If somebody plants a seed of, ‘This vaccine might affect fertility,’ that’s a really big ‘might,’” Leeds said. But the agency also has to fight a basic reality. Because a parent can simply turn in a slip of paper and ask for an exemption, opting out is the path of least resistance. And it means health officials and school officials never exactly know who’s vaccinated and who isn’t.

None of this is new news.

And none of this is changing.

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday.

On Sept. 22, Idaho Education News requested “reports, analysis or other data compiled by the University of Idaho or its consultants, regarding the exposure created by University of Phoenix student loans.” Student loan risk is one of the big questions surrounding the proposed $685 million purchase. The issue ramped up on Sept. 20, when the Biden administration announced a plan to write off $37 million in Phoenix student debts — a move that could affect the U of I.

The U of I has sought to downplay this risk, and on Friday, the university refused EdNews’ records request. U of I special counsel Kent Nelson cited three reasons for the denial:

• Records identifying Phoenix student loans belong to Phoenix, a for-profit online university. And as such, the records fall under a nondisclosure agreement that has shrouded many details of the proposed purchase. “To the extent the University of Idaho possesses any such records, they are exempt from disclosure,” Nelson wrote.
• Individual student loan records fall under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
• The U of I says its internal analysis is confidential, due to attorney-client privilege. “(The records) comprise advice by our attorneys and the underlying work product for that advice,” Nelson wrote.

But is the $37 million loan writeoff — affecting some 1,200 former Phoenix students — also going to affect the U of I or Four Three, the offshoot nonprofit that would take over Phoenix?

If it is, U of I officials aren’t saying. In an email responding to EdNews’ records request, Nelson added a response from legal counsel, outlining the U of I’s review of the issue.

The U of I assembled a team of advisers, including auditors and attorneys, to review the potential risk from student loan writeoffs. The due diligence identified “several tools … to mitigate exposure,” the U of I says.

In addition, Phoenix would leave $200 million on the balance sheet after a sale — and the U of I says Four Three would also be able to use this money to “hedge or mitigate risk.”

The League of Women Voters is appealing a ruling that upheld a law that banned the use of student IDs as voter ID, KTVB reported Friday.

The announcement comes just four days after Ada County District Judge Samuel Hoagland rejected a lawsuit from the League of Women Voters and the advocacy group BABE VOTE. The groups said the ban on the use of student IDs would disenfranchise young voters.

Hoagland rejected this argument, and said the state has an interest in creating a consistent voter ID standard.

In addition to passing a bill banning the use of student IDs as voter ID, the 2023 Legislature passed a separate bill creating a free identification card voters can use at the polls.

While procedural, District Judge Jason Scott’s ruling represented a setback for Labrador — and a win for the State Board’s hired lawyer — in an ongoing and politically charged lawsuit over the University of Idaho’s plans to purchase the University of Phoenix.

Labrador sued the State Board in June, saying the board violated state law by discussing the controversial $685 million purchase in a series of closed-door executive sessions. His team’s recent legal maneuvers were at issue Thursday.

Labrador’s legal team has pursued a series of far-reaching subpoenas, seeking a broad range of documents from the State Board, Phoenix and Tyton Partners, Phoenix’s financial advisers on the sale. Labrador’s team also sought to depose all eight State Board members individually, part of a series of more than a dozen depositions.

Trudy Fouser, the Boise attorney hired to represent the State Board, has called the requests a burdensome and costly taxpayer-funded “fishing expedition.”

Scott instructed Labrador’s team to cast a narrower net. He said the attorneys could depose four board members, briefly, and concentrate on open meetings issues.

“It seems to me to be a reasonable place to start,” Scott said.

The open meetings dispute centers on one section of state open meetings law, which allows agencies to go behind closed doors to hold preliminary discussions about a transaction, if they are in competition with other states or nations. The State Board used this section of law to justify three closed-door meetings about a possible Phoenix purchase. The board gave the purchase the green light on May 18, three days after the its third executive session.

Labrador’s lawsuit contends that the closed-door meetings were not preliminary at all — and has questioned whether other bidders were pursuing a Phoenix purchase.

In curtailing Labrador’s requests, Scott seemed to side with the State Board’s interpretation of the law. He suggested that a preliminary discussion could cover any talks before a contract is signed, and that the idea of competition could hinge on a “reasonable” assessment on the marketplace.

The next step in the case is a hearing scheduled for Oct. 26 — and Scott could rule at that time.

Josh Turner, Labrador’s deputy solicitor general, suggested his team might need more time before that hearing, but stopped short of asking for an extension. “We’re not interested in dragging this out.”

The U of I and the State Board have said the ongoing legal battle could jeopardize the Phoenix deal, and on Thursday, Fouser urged Scott to keep the case on schedule. “Time is not on our side.”

Idaho Launch has kicked off with plenty of hype — thanks to its No. 1 fan, Gov. Brad Little.

The governor has made the rounds at high schools and college campuses to tout Launch, and the $75 million the class of 2024 can use to continue their education past high school. The flashpoint in the P.R. campaign came Tuesday, when the Launch application window opened.

Photo opportunities aside, the real work of Launch will take place behind the scenes, and over the course of the school year. College and career counselors will have the difficult job of steering 9,000 to 10,000 high school seniors through a new grant program that is a definite work in progress.

Counselors are uniformly hopeful about Launch, but some are apprehensive about the kickoff.

“I want it to work. I really do,” said Mallory Essman, college and career counselor at Nampa’s Skyview High School. “I’m just scared that this has been pushed so quickly.”

In an interview last week, before Tuesday’s kickoff, Essman described her mixed feelings. The nine-year counselor said she will always advocate for her students — and help them get as much financial support as possible — but she’s uneasy about offering advice on Launch, when she has so many unanswered questions.

For instance, she’s worried about what will happen if the $75 million runs out. Right now, any senior can apply for $8,000 for community college. But if applications exceed funding, the grants will go only to students pursuing one of the 242 occupations on the state’s list of in-demand careers. And when the nearby College of Western Idaho is the No. 1 postsecondary choice for Skyview grads, Essman says some of her students could find themselves shut out of Launch grants.

Essman also worries about what will happen if her students change their plans and goals — as young adults often do. If students drop out or choose a different career path, will they have to pay back their Launch grants? Launch is, for now, a “pure grant,” state program coordinator Sherawn Reberry said this week. But, like young adults, legislators also are known for changing their minds.

Reberry spent Monday and Tuesday fielding a long list of Launch questions, joined by her boss, Workforce Development Council executive director Wendi Secrist. As school counselors from across Idaho convened at a conference in Boise, Secrist and Reberry tried to walk advisers through the nuances of the new program.

After the last of five breakout sessions with counselors, Reberry acknowledged that counselors have a lot of logistical questions. But she also said she picked up on a lot of excitement in the meeting room, as counselors could see Launch finally coming to fruition.

In some cases, excitement is tempered — or overshadowed — by confusion.

“It’s a mess,” one counselor muttered to herself, as she snapped shut her laptop and left a Monday afternoon session.

Counselors from the state’s largest school district don’t want to talk about Launch — even after attending this week’s conference. West Ada School District spokeswoman Niki Scheppers would not make any counselors available for an interview, because the staff still has unanswered questions.

In a prepared statement, however, West Ada expressed excitement about Launch. “While we expect kinks and possible hurdles, as with any new program or endeavor, our college and career counselors are ready and willing to assist students explore their next steps and take advantage of Idaho Launch.”

Other counselors are talking about Launch, and with optimism.

Donna Decker, a college and career counselor at Boise’s Timberline High School, praises state officials for getting so much information out about Launch, and so quickly. “I feel like we have enough to get started for sure.”

Annie Peterson, the Twin Falls School District’s workforce coordinator, says the state has had to sift through some “muddy water.” It wasn’t immediately clear, for instance, whether students could put Launch toward four-year college; the Workforce Development Council says that is OK, as long as the coursework is aligned to in-demand careers. Peterson says she’s ready to help students navigate Launch, a versatile grant they can use for college, career-technical courses or job training. “There’s really no reason why they cannot go on.”

Katie Omercevic says college and career counselors will have to work through the new program. But when she made a presentation to her students at Boise’s alternative Frank Church High School, Omercevic says Launch resonated immediately. “Students who were, like, nose in their phone or nose in their desk, when I got to that part about how all of you could be eligible for $8,000 … some jaws were dropping.”

The opening of the application window marked a milestone for Launch — but ultimately, just one incremental step.

After all, seniors will be able to apply through April 15. Even when students do apply, counselors will have to spend time making sure students meet Launch’s other requirements — such as career pathway paperwork, which must be filled out sometime during senior year. Omercivic knows she will have to do followup through the school year, a big task in a school with 30% to 40% absentee rates.

Application numbers will be the only real Launch metric this year. It will be years before anyone will know if Launch is delivering on its promise: preparing young adults for high-paying and hard-to-fill jobs. Nothing will ever win over Launch’s staunch opponents — the hardline lawmakers who almost killed Little’s proposal in 2023 — but Little and his legislative allies will surely be watching the application numbers for signs of success.

“I just hope the Legislature gives us enough time for us to see results,” Decker said.

Essman also hopes Launch will succeed in the long term. But as she prepares to help Skyview’s class of 2024 navigate the new program, she has more immediate concerns. “We decided we wanted to do it and we wanted to do it quickly, rather than we wanted to do it and we wanted to do it right.”

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday.

The League of Women Voters and BABE VOTE, an advocacy group, sought to toss out the 2023 laws — which also created a free voter ID to replace the use of student ID. They argued the laws disenfranchised young voters.

Ada County District Judge Samuel Hoagland was not sold.

“Plaintiffs seek to equate student identification cards as (a) form of age discrimination against younger voters, but not all young people are students and not all students are young people,” he wrote in his ruling Monday.

Hoagland also said the state has a valid interest in making sure voter IDs are consistent — one of the arguments legislators made in support of the laws.

Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s office defended the laws on behalf of Secretary of State Phil McGrane, the state’s chief elections officer.

“This was a meritless lawsuit from the beginning,” Labrador said in a news release Tuesday. “Rather than encouraging young people to obtain their free state voter IDs, advocacy groups took legal action against the state, alleging age discrimination.”

“We are of course disappointed with this result but are closely reviewing the court’s decision and will be deciding in the coming weeks whether to appeal,” BABE VOTE said in a statement to Idaho Reports Tuesday.

Idaho Launch officially got off the ground on Tuesday morning.

The state began taking applications for the new postsecondary grant program — which could provide financial aid for 9,000 to 10,000 high school graduates pursuing a job in an in-demand career.

Some students got off to an early start. The application portal opened at 8 a.m. MDT, and 19 seniors applied within the first 15 minutes, said Sherawn Reberry, the Launch manager for the Workforce Development Council, the state agency in charge of starting up the program. Meanwhile, the liftoff began with more than a few questions about the new program — and with some ceremony.

On Tuesday morning, an hour after the kickoff, Gov. Brad Little was on the Boise State University campus, signing a proclamation hailing the Launch program.

“I really want to urge all Idaho students to sign up now, and get in the queue,” Little told reporters during a signing ceremony at Boise State’s Micron Center for Materials Research.

The $75 million in Launch grants won’t really go out on a first-come, first-served basis — and high school seniors can apply through April 15. But as he urged students to apply as quickly as possible, Little noted that many job training programs have limited space.

Launch recipients can receive $8,000, covering up to 80% of tuition and fees. Students can put their money toward four-year college or community college, career-technical education or job training. The top priority is to support students pursuing an in-demand career: 242 occupations that require some education or training beyond high school.

Supporters see Launch as a way of supporting high school graduates who aren’t necessarily looking for a four-year college degree, and might want to enter the workforce more quickly. They also say Launch will help Idaho businesses find qualified applicants for hard-to-fill job vacancies.

For Little, the start of the Launch program represents a milestone more than a year in the making.

In September 2022, he convinced legislators to put $80 million a year into an in-demand career fund. The one-day session provided funding and impetus for Launch, which passed a deeply divided Legislature, with some hardline conservatives dismissing the program as a giveaway to Little’s political allies in the business community.

Since Launch’s passage, the state’s Workforce Development Council has been working to implement Launch, setting up the application portal, settling on a master list of in-demand careers, and bringing school counselors up to speed on the new program.

And while Little went across the state Tuesday to promote Launch — with proclamation signing ceremonies scheduled in Rathdrum and Moscow — Workforce Development Council staff were meeting with high school counselors at a Boise conference. During a Monday afternoon session, council staff fielded a battery of questions about how graduates can use their grants, when the money will be available, and how the new program meshes with the state’s Opportunity Scholarship, which is geared to four-year college.

“I think there’s going to be significant interest in the program,” council executive director Wendi Secrist told a room full of counselors.

While the application window opened Tuesday, it will be months before a senior actually receives a Launch grant.

Acceptance letters could start going out by Dec. 31 — but seniors have to graduate high school before they can get a grant, and the money won’t be available until July 1, the start of the next state budget year.

Coming Thursday: Are high school counselors ready to help seniors navigate Launch?

The Republican primary is months away — really, several months away — but two competing lobbying groups are already rolling out 2024 legislative endorsements.

The early selections break some news on several GOP primary contests between current and former legislators. And not surprisingly, there is zero agreement between the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry endorsements and the Idaho Freedom PAC picks, foreshadowing another bitter Republican primary next spring.

IACI, a powerful Statehouse business lobby, unveiled 34 Republican endorsements over social media last week. Idaho Freedom PAC, the campaign arm of the Idaho Freedom Foundation, announced its first six GOP endorsements on Monday, with more to come in November.

A few highlights:

The head-to-head races. IACI is endorsing two former senators looking to return to the Statehouse against a pair of Freedom PAC-backed incumbents: Jeff Agenbroad of Nampa, looking to unseat Sen. Brian Lenney of Nampa; and Jim Woodward of Sagle, seeking to avenge a 2022 loss to Sen. Scott Herndon, also of Sagle. (Woodward had announced his candidacy in September.) Lenney and Herndon both sit on the Senate Education Committee.

Freedom PAC is endorsing former House and Senate member Christy Zito of Hammett, who has already announced her run against IACI-endorsed Sen. Geoff Schroeder of Mountain Home. Freedom PAC is also backing former Rep. Karey Hanks of St. Anthony, who is running against Rep. Rod Furniss of Rigby.

Other targeted incumbents. IACI is looking to unseat two other Senate hardliners, endorsing Lori Bishop over Senate Education member Tammy Nichols of Middleton and Alex Caval, who is challenging Glenneda Zuiderveld of Twin Falls. Freedom PAC is endorsing Brandon Shippy, who is opposing Sen. Abby Lee of Fruitland; and Rob Beiswenger, who is challenging Rep. Matt Bundy of Mountain Home, one of two teachers serving in the Legislature.

Other education connections. IACI is endorsing several moderates on the education committees, who figure to face opposition from the right in the primary. That list includes Senate Education Chair Dave Lent of Idaho Falls; House Education Chair Julie Yamamoto of Caldwell; vice chair Lori McCann of Lewiston; and House Education members Mark Sauter of Sandpoint; Greg Lanting of Twin Falls; Jack Nelsen of Jerome.

What’s next? Really, a lot of waiting.

The IACI and Freedom PAC endorsements are noteworthy, in part, because they are so early.

Legislative candidates can’t begin filing for office until March 4.

The primary elections are slated for May 21.

And before that happens, voters will go to the polls next month for school trustee and city elections.

IACI endorsements

District 1: Senate, Woodward; House Seat A, Sauter.

District 6: House Seat B, McCann.

District 8: Senate, Schroeder; House Seat A, Bundy; House Seat B, Megan Blanksma.

District 9: Senate, Lee.

District 10: Senate, Bishop.

District 11: House Seat A, Yamamoto; House Seat B, Sarah Chaney.

District 13: Senate, Agenbroad; House Seat B, Kenny Wroten.

District 14: Senate, C. Scott Grow.

District 20: Senate, Chuck Winder.

District 21: Senate, Treg Bernt; House Seat A, James Petzke.

District 23: House Seat A, Melissa Durrant.

District 24: Senate, Caval; House Seat A, Chenele Dixon.

District 25: Senate, Linda Wright Hartgen; House Seat B, Lanting.

District 26: House Seat B, Nelsen.

District 27: Senate, Kelly Anthon.

District 28: Senate, Jim Guthrie; House Seat A, Rick Cheatum.

District 29: House Seat A, Dustin Manwaring.

District 30: Senate, Julie VanOrden.

District 31: Senate, Van Burtenshaw; House Seat A, Jerald Raymond.

District 32: Senate, Kevin Cook.

District 33: Senate, Lent; House Seat B, Marco Erickson.

District 34: House Seat A, John Weber; House Seat B, Britt Raybould.

District 35: Senate, Mark Harris.

Idaho Freedom PAC endorsements

District 1: Senate, Herndon.

District 8: Senate, Zito; House Seat A, Beiswenger.

District 9: Senate, Shippy.

District 13: Senate, Lenney.

District 31: House Seat B, Hanks.

At issue is a battery of subpoenas and calls for depositions, as Labrador continues to press his lawsuit against the State Board, and the closed meetings leading up to the board’s May 18 vote supporting the University of Idaho’s purchase of the University of Phoenix.

The attorney general’s far-ranging requests — and Monday’s pointed response from Trudy Fouser, the State Board’s hired outside counsel — reflect the escalating legal battle over the Phoenix purchase. The political staredown pits Labrador against Gov. Brad Little’s allies on the State Board. State Board and U of I officials have said the dispute goes beyond politics, since it could jeopardize the $685 million Phoenix purchase.

The latest legal maneuvers began on Sept. 11, when Labrador’s office issued the first of a series of subpoenas. The subpoenas seek a broad range of documents from the State Board, Phoenix and Tyton Partners, the financial advisers working on the sale on behalf of the for-profit online university. Some of the requests focus on a key question in the lawsuit: whether the U of I faced competition with other would-be Phoenix suitors.

For example, Phoenix and Tyton Partners are expected to produce correspondence with “any governing body in any state or nation who expressed interest in acquiring the University of Phoenix.”

Labrador’s office also requested no less than a dozen sworn depositions — all within an eight-day period spanning from Oct. 6 to Oct. 13. Ten depositions target the State Board, including eight separate sessions with each individual board member.

Fouser said the subpoenas, and an “absurd” compressed schedule of depositions, amount to an attempt to harass board members and delay the purchase. Fouser again accused Labrador of trying to torpedo the Phoenix deal, by using his open meetings lawsuit to question the “wisdom” of the purchase.

“Rather than focus on the issues at hand, plaintiff seeks to use discovery to delve into the merits of the transaction, to harass defendant and third parties, and to undertake a fishing expedition, all at significant expense to all involved, including Idaho taxpayers.”

Labrador spokeswoman Beth Cahill declined comment Tuesday afternoon, but said Labrador’s office will file a written response in court Thursday.

It’s unclear what will become of Fouser’s motion. She asked District Judge Jason Scott to take up the matter as soon as possible.

Fouser’s motion requests a protective order against Labrador’s office. In civil cases, a protective order is designed to shield a party from costly or burdensome subpoenas.

Labrador’s June 20 lawsuit focused on the State Board’s closed-door meetings to discuss a possible Phoenix purchase. The board held three closed executive sessions from March until May. The final meeting took place three days before the board met in open session and gave the purchase the go-ahead.

Labrador has said the meetings went beyond preliminary discussions of a purchase. And he has questioned whether the U of I was actually competing against other potential suitors — the board’s stated rationale for the closed-door meetings.

U of I and State Board of Education officials downplayed Wednesday’s news, and said it doesn’t change U of I’s plans to purchase Phoenix.

“These allegations do not reflect (the) University of Phoenix we know today,” U of I spokeswoman Jodi Walker said Wednesday. “We value the student focus and vision University of Phoenix has today and stand by our commitment to affiliate.”

The writeoffs — known more officially as borrower defense discharges — will affect 1,200 students who attended Phoenix between Sept. 21, 2012 and Dec. 31, 2014. And the decision stems from an unsavory chapter in the for-profit online university’s history: a $191 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, which accused Phoenix of deceptive advertising.

The writeoffs stem partly from the FTC’s 2019 investigation.

“A national ad campaign from Phoenix misled prospective students by falsely representing that its partnerships with thousands of corporations, including Fortune 500 companies, would benefit students by, for example, giving them hiring preferences at those companies,” the U.S. Department of Education said in a Wednesday news release. “In fact, Phoenix’s corporate partnerships provided no such benefits to students.”

The next steps — and the possible impacts on the U of I — are uncertain.

In October, the U.S. Department of Education will begin contacting affected borrowers, letting them know their loan balances have been zeroed out, and telling them to expect refunds on any loan payments they did make.

“The department also intends to initiate a recoupment proceeding against Phoenix to seek repayment of the liabilities associated with these approved claims at a later date,” the department said Wednesday.

But if U of I and Phoenix officials have their way, the $685 million Phoenix sale could be a done deal by early next year. The move would turn over Phoenix to Four Three Education, a nonprofit affiliated with the U of I, which would assume ownership of Phoenix.

Since announcing the proposed purchase in May, U of I and State Board officials have touted the assets Four Three would acquire — including an online education apparatus built over a half century. But as Wednesday’s news illustrates, Four Three also stands to acquire Phoenix’s liabilities.

Phoenix and U of I officials have acknowledged Four Three could be liable for loan writeoffs. Phoenix has pegged the exposure at $1.5 million a year, while U of I has said the number could hit $5 million to $7 million, or more.

Meanwhile, the federal government appears to be stepping up its efforts to write off student loans connected to for-profit schools. In August, the feds wrote off $72 million in Ashford University student loans — a move that could affect Ashford’s public higher ed partner, the University of Arizona.

In a statement Wednesday, State Board President Linda Clark did not address the issue of financial liability, and suggested Phoenix’s problems were behind them.

“University of Idaho President Scott Green and his team have gone to great lengths to ensure due diligence throughout this transaction including evaluating potential reputational issues associated with the University of Phoenix’s past practices,” she said. “Those practices are indeed in the past, and I am confident in the vision President Green has for this affiliation moving forward.”

Saying Phoenix remains committed to partnering with the U of I, spokeswoman Andrea Smiley said Phoenix officials “adamantly disagree” with the Education Department’s latest accusations.

“While the university is not against relief for borrowers who have valid claims, we intend to vigorously challenge each frivolous allegation and suspicious claim through every available legal avenue,” she said.

NAMPA — Idaho Launch will officially launch next month, and some students are counting down the days.

Hundreds of high school seniors have already signed up for notifications about the Launch application window, which opens on Oct. 3, Gov. Brad Little said Thursday. That’s at least a sign of early interest in the new, $75 million program, which would provide high school graduates up to $8,000 for training tied to in-demand careers.

“We’re hopeful we run out of money,” Little said Thursday, as he toured the College of Western Idaho campus to promote Launch.

Thursday’s brief news conference was heavy with photo-opportunity optics. Little and CWI President Gordon Jones took turns at the podium — with a fleet of heavy construction rigs as a backdrop, and with a line of CWI students standing in the audience. Also in attendance were several Treasure Valley lawmakers, Republican and Democrat alike, who supported the polarizing proposal during the 2023 legislative session.

Thursday’s objective was just to help get the word out.

“This is the fastest, most affordable pathway to great jobs,” Jones said.

And a menu of jobs. The state’s Workforce Development Council, the agency overseeing Launch, agreed last week on a master list of 242 in-demand occupations: careers with at least 50 openings a year, requiring at least some formal training.

Before Oct. 3, seniors can sign up for Launch notifications at the state’s Next Steps Idaho website. And while seniors won’t get Launch grants until next summer, and after graduation, state officials are encouraging students to sign up early — since there will be only enough money to provide grants for about half of Idaho’s Class of 2024.

Little expects the rollout to occur in waves. By about November, he said, the state will have a pretty good sense of interest in the program. By the end of December, students will get preapproved for their grants, pending graduation. Then by January, the state will begin to find out if Launch recipients will be able to find the job training programs they’re looking for.

“We’ve got a lot of fuel on this fire, and there’s going to be little range fires here and little range fires there,” Little said Thursday.

Launch recipients will have a variety of options — coursework at CWI and the state’s three other community colleges, career-technical certificate programs, or other job training programs. But for some training programs, there will likely be more applicants than seats. As a result, the state will allow Launch recipients to hold onto their grants until they make it through a waiting list.

More than 120 would-be CWI students have already asked about Launch, Jones said. But some of these students might have problems finding a seat. Metal welding programs are already full, for example.

If other programs follow suit, CWI could face what Jones called “a high-class problem:” meeting the growing demand of students and employers.

“If this has the kind of surge enrollment that could happen, we’ll want to work with the Legislature to understand where we may need capacity,” he said.

The state has sent out close to $6.7 million in safety and security grants so far — and in the next few months, an additional $13.3 million will be on the way.

Katie Francis, the state’s school safety and security grant coordinator, walked an advisory committee through the program’s rollout Tuesday.

A few quick facts and figures:

• So far, 71 districts and charter schools have gotten a share of the grants.
• The bulk of the grants have gone into new or updated security cameras — 173 projects in all.
• Other popular projects include building access controls (54 projects), public-address systems (39 projects) and fences (36 projects).

Funded by the 2023 Legislature, the $20 million in grants are designed to cover one-time capital projects. Districts and charters aren’t supposed to use the grants to hire school resource officers or other security staff.

The state’s School Safety and Security office is in charge of sending out the grants. Through Oct. 15, the state is taking applications for $16 million in project grants.

After that, the state will award $4 million in competitive grants, to cover larger projects.

Meanwhile on Tuesday, the state’s school safety advisory board heard about a couple of other funding possibilities:

A federal grant. Idaho has applied for a five-year, $5 million grant, designed to help states work with local school districts on facilities management.

The biggest share of Idaho’s grant would go toward a third-party review of state building maintenance.

The grants will be awarded in the fall. The U.S. Department of Education has said it expects to award eight to 13 grants, totaling $40 million.

Nonetheless, School Safety and Security Manager Mike Munger is hopeful. “It appears the odds are ever in our favor,” he said Tuesday.

A new position? The state could hire a $121,000-a-year analyst to monitor security and safety programs on Idaho’s college campuses — if Gov. Brad Little and the Legislature sign on.

The request is part of the proposed 2024-25 higher ed budget submitted earlier this month.

The analyst would do a job that falls under School Safety and Security’s bailiwick. “We just don’t have any capacity to meet that, as it stands now,” Munger said Tuesday.

Gov. Brad Little vehemently defended the University of Idaho’s proposed University of Phoenix purchase — and told three U.S. senators to butt out of the debate.

In a letter sent Friday — and shared on Little’s account on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter — the governor called out Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

“If you spent as much time focused on securing the U.S.-Mexico border as you did the University of Idaho, we would have fewer drugs pouring into our country,” Little wrote. “We are taking control of our future in Idaho, and we urge the U.S. Senate not to interfere with efforts to make education more attainable in rural America.”

And while he was at it, Little added another item to the senators’ to-do list: “Perhaps you should focus your attention away from Idaho and do your job by passing a responsible federal budget so our government can function properly.”

On Monday, Durbin, Warren and Blumenthal wrote U of I President C. Scott Green, urging him to ditch the $685 million Phoenix purchase. They said the deal threatens the U of I’s good name and its balance sheet, since it could leave the U of I on the hook for thousands of federal student loan writeoffs. They also suggested that Phoenix is pursuing a sale so it can work around federal laws limiting its ability to collect federal financial aid offered under the GI Bill.

Little’s letter addressed neither issue. But Little, a U of I alum, offered perhaps his strongest defense to date of the Phoenix acquisition.

“We have asked our universities to explore innovative steps toward funding and expanding access to affordable learning opportunities for Idahoans,” he wrote. “This deal has the potential to shift many more Idahoans toward rewarding careers, further strengthening our economy, communities, and families, especially in rural Idaho.”

More coverage: Why the University of Idaho-University of Phoenix affiliation is a federal case.

Nye took no action on the motion. But the law is currently on hold. The U.S. District Court imposed a temporary block on the law on Aug. 10, after a Boise middle schooler and a Boise High School LGBTQ+ organization filed a July 7 lawsuit, saying the new state law discriminates against transgender students.

Senate Bill 1100, signed by Gov. Brad Little during the 2023 legislative session, prevents transgender students from using the school bathroom, locker room or changing facility that aligns with their gender identity. Instead, students must use facilities that align with their “biological sex,” or sex assigned at birth. If a student is unwilling or unable to use the bathroom corresponding with their sex assigned at birth, they can request that the school make accommodations for them to use a single-use restroom or alternate facility.

A private action clause in the law allows students to seek a minimum of $5,000 in damages if they encounter a transgender student in a bathroom that doesn’t align with their biological sex.

School administrators requested that lawmakers pass SB 1100 to clear up confusion about hot-button school bathroom policies, which have gained attention on local school boards over recent years. The law briefly took effect July 1.

Nye heard arguments Wednesday on a motion for preliminary injunction, another temporary action that would preserve the status quo until the courts make a final decision. The hearing was the latest movement in the suit since Aug. 10.

Peter Renn, an attorney from Lambda Legal, argued that SB 1100 violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 by singling out transgender youth, and preventing them from using the bathrooms that align with their gender identity — a decision cisgender students get to make every day.

Renn said the law disrupted Idaho’s status quo, and forced some districts (like Boise) to reverse their inclusive bathroom policies, despite a lack of evidence that such policies were harmful.

Renn said 60 districts and charters had inclusive policies prior to the passage of SB 1100, and none of those policies resulted in documented instances of cisgender students pretending to be transgender, or of transgender students causing harm in the bathrooms. That lack of evidence, he said, is critical to the case.

“The government is not allowed to just rely on its own imagination,” he told the court Wednesday.

By singling students out, exposing their identities and violating their right to privacy, Renn said SB 1100 could cause serious psychological harm to transgender students, who are already at a higher risk for depression, anxiety and suicide.

Lincoln Wilson, a lawyer from Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s office, defended SB 1100.

Wilson said the law upholds the status quo: sex-separated, male and female bathrooms. He denied that the law was implemented with any malice toward transgender youth, arguing that by including an option to receive single-use restroom accommodations, lawmakers wanted to avoid causing harm to students.

Wilson went on to challenge Renn’s arguments, taking shots at testimony from Stephanie Budge, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who founded a collaborative intended to improve research on trans, Two Spirit and nonbinary individuals. Budge submitted testimony about the importance of gender-affirming social transitions for transgender students, including the use of bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.

Wilson called Budge an “admitted activist” for LGBTQ+ causes and said her research is “not reliable.”

Wednesday’s arguments revealed two different conceptualizations of sex and gender identity under the law. While Wilson argued that sex is “biological,” “binary” and “immutable,” Renn said the existence of transgender, nonbinary, intersex and other identities proves that it’s a spectrum.

“The government has to grapple with that reality,” he said.

After a 90-minute hearing, Nye adjourned court. He said he’ll have a decision soon, but the ruling could be delayed due to his upcoming vacation.

And they want some $7.8 million to help cover these costs.

The requests went to Gov. Brad Little’s budget team; like all other state agencies, the colleges and universities were required to turn in their spending plans by Sept. 1.

All eight two- and four-year schools asked for similar line items — to cover what is called “operational capacity enhancement,” in budget parlance.

Getting past the jargon, let’s look more closely at the requests, obtained by Idaho Education News last week. Here’s what the colleges and universities want, and how they would spend the money:

Boise State University: $2.5 million.

The money would go entirely into staff salaries, and offset the university’s costs of providing pay raises. The state approves higher ed pay raises, but it doesn’t fully fund these raises, leaving the colleges and universities to siphon off tuition money to cover the balance.

Since 2020, Boise State says it has absorbed more than $10 million in salary and benefit costs.

And despite it all, Boise State says it is dealing with 20% annual turnover rates, “as employees leave to double or even triple their salaries in equivalent positions with local companies.”

University of Idaho: $2.1 million.

The bulk of this money, $1.4 million, would go into salaries, especially at the lower end of the pay scale. These raises are needed to keep up with the job market, and help keep pace with inflation.

The rest of the money would cover six full-time positions in U of I’s cybersecurity programs. In three years, the undergraduate and graduate programs have grown rapidly, taking on 95 students. The programs are at teaching capacity — at a time when other states are aggressively expanding into this high-growth field. “With a meaningful investment from the state of Idaho, our state’s higher education institutions will have the resources to compete, and to attract and retain cybersecurity faculty and students.”

Idaho State University: $1.9 million.

The money would grow a pair of programs — and pay for a total of 14 full-time positions.

Idaho State wants to add to its student retention program, adding four academic advisers and several support positions. “Current caseloads of up to 400 students per advisor … can impact students’ ability to stay in school.”

Idaho State also wants to add faculty in high-demand physician’s assistant and registered nursing programs.

Lewis-Clark State College: $440,000.

About half of this money would be used to head off tuition increases, by covering the cost of pay raises and operations. Another $160,000 would cover move-in costs and staffing a new career-technical center.

Meanwhile, about $61,000 would go into marketing and promotional efforts, designed to help Lewis-Clark protect its market share against unaccredited for-profit online schools. “Who benefits when awareness about a high-value product at an affordable price is increased?” Lewis-Clark said in its budget request. “Everyone (except those who are offering low value products at unaffordable prices).”

College of Western Idaho: $275,000.

This money would go into salaries for the college’s 400 adjunct faculty members, and its 105 employees in student support positions, such as advisers and financial aid specialists.  

College of Southern Idaho: $257,000.

The money would be used to boost pay in select positions.

“In many cases, our top candidates turn down the position once housing and other costs are considered. … We are not currently competitive in the market.”

North Idaho College: $201,000.

This money would be used to cover state-approved pay raises, without dipping into other funds. “We have made strides catching up to the local labor market pay rates, but (we) still are not competitive.”

College of Eastern Idaho: $97,000.

The money would go into personnel costs. The college’s budget request provides no additional detail.

All told, the four-year schools are requesting nearly $364.3 million in state tax money — a sum that doesn’t include student tuition and fees. This state funding increase would come to 2.9%.

The community colleges — which also collect tuition and local property taxes — have asked for a $62.7 million budget, a 3% increase.

The college and university requests mark the first step in a months-long process.

In January, Gov. Brad Little will present his budget recommendations to lawmakers.

Later that month, the Legislature’s Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee will hear budget pitches from all of the college and university presidents. By March, the committee will write up budget bills for the higher ed system — proposals that need to pass both houses before they can go to the governor’s desk.

More reading: Get details on state superintendent Debbie Critchfield’s K-12 budget request.

Condemning the University of Phoenix’s “pattern of predatory and abusive behavior,” three Democratic U.S. senators have urged the University of Idaho to walk away from a potential purchase.

In the letter Monday, Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., say the purchase threatens the U of I’s financial health. That’s because the U of I could end up on the hook for the cost of student loan writeoffs — as has happened with the University of Arizona, which acquired the online, for-profit Ashford University in 2020.

“UI similarly could face Phoenix’s potential liability for discharged federal loans, including thousands of pending borrower defense claims,” said the senators, who also said the U of I could face financial risk stemming from Phoenix’s $191 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.

Since announcing the $685 million purchase plan in May, U of I officials have downplayed the financial risk. They say the U of I’s affiliated nonprofit will be able to finance the purchase through Phoenix’s revenues, pointing out that Phoenix will transfer $200 million to the nonprofit at the time of purchase.

“Is the $200 million a contingent payment to cover anticipated liabilities?” the senators wrote.

The U of I and Phoenix did not immediately respond Tuesday to requests for comment.

The interest from Capitol Hill is not necessarily surprising. For-profit colleges — and Phoenix in particular — have been on the three senators’ radar for some time.

On May 3, two weeks before the U of I went public with its plans to acquire Phoenix, they co-signed a letter with three other colleagues, accusing Phoenix of running misleading advertisements. That letter went to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Veterans Affairs Director Denis McDonough.

Monday’s letter to Green took on a similar tone — accusing Phoenix of “preying on vulnerable students,” including veterans, low-income students and students of color.

And in the letter, the senators said the Phoenix acquisition also jeopardizes the U of I’s good name.

“We are concerned that UI’s acquisition will allow Phoenix to continue to abuse students under the guise of a trusted, public university.”

Risch: ‘Respect Idaho’s ability to make this determination’

Sen. Jim Risch, an Idaho Republican and U of I alumnus, said his colleagues should stay out of the matter.

“Any transaction like this should be closely examined to determine whether it is in the best interest of the state of Idaho, the university, and Idahoans,” Risch said in a statement Tuesday evening. “The university and the people of Idaho are more than capable of evaluating this matter. The senators from Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Illinois have no connection or interest in this. As a result, they should respect Idaho’s ability to make this determination in the best interest of our state.”

While nonbinding, Monday’s vote foreshadows a school choice debate that appears almost certain to resurface during the 2024 legislative session. The outcome of this debate could reshape Empowering Parents, a popular program that provides taxpayer-funded microgrants to cover out-of-pocket education costs.

So far, most of this money has paid for internet access, computing devices or classroom learning materials. And for much of the summer, a Parent Advisory Panel has looked at tweaks to the program — addressing the problems that have plagued the rollout, and looking for ways to give parents more options about how to spend their share of the money.

On Monday, the committee’s discussion revisited the private school tuition issue. And the committee’s deliberations mirrored this year’s Statehouse debate.

Nampa parent Amy Henry argued for expanding the program. A former public school teacher, Henry said she supports public education — but also said she pulled her daughter out of public school, fearing for her safety. Supporting private school tuition and fees is simply a matter of allowing taxpayers to decide how best to spend their money.

“It’s taxpayer dollars, it’s not public dollars,” Henry said.

Idaho Falls teacher Laura Milton and Marsing school trustee Jason Sevy argued against the idea — saying a tuition or fee credit amounts to nothing more than a tax voucher.

“This is not a voucher program, this is a grant program for families,” Milton said.

Panel member Holly Cook of Boise said an Empowering Parents microgrant — maybe $1,000 per student — won’t make much of a dent in private school costs.

Noting the 2023 Legislature’s impasse on the issue, Sandpoint parent Barbara Schriber urged the panel to stay in its lane. “It is not the role of seven parents to go over something that is up to the Legislature.”

In March, the Senate passed a bill to tack a $12 million tuition and fee program onto Empowering Parents — a pilot to provide 6,000 households grants of up to $2,000. The House Education Committee never took up the proposal.

The panel voted against recommending this expansion on a 4-2 vote, with one committee member absent.

And even before the Legislature weighs in on the tuition and fees idea, the State Board of Education gets the next word.

All of the committee’s recommendations go to the State Board, which will act in October.

During a wide-ranging three-hour meeting Monday, the panel took up a variety of recommendations:

• On a split vote, the panel said the state should allow homeschooling parents to use microgrant money for education co-ops. Parents use these part-time co-ops to supplement their children’s homeschool education, Henry said, but the programs are often costly.
• The panel voted to recommend several new purchases — covering educational camps and classes; backpacks, computer cases and other school supplies; and uniforms and pay-to-play athletic fees. Camps and classes have never been eligible for Empowering Parents money. But some of the other items have fallen into a gray area of sorts, since they weren’t mentioned in the program guidelines. The State Board asked the parents’ panel for recommendations on expanding the list of eligible purchases.
• The panel recommended changes in the way parents can carve up their share of grant dollars. The current program allows grants of up to $1,000 per K-12 student, or $3,000 per household. The panel wants to give parents more flexibility for spending this money, but it was not immediately clear how the spending caps could change.
• The panel also had some recommendations for Primary Class, or Odyssey, the state’s embattled Empowering Parents contractor. The panel said Odyssey needs to improve its communication with vendors on the online marketplace. The panel also wants Odyssey to set up a rating system, so parents can grade vendors.

The recommendations — and a likely school choice debate — come as Empowering Parents reaches a crossroads.

Originally funded with $50 million in federal COVID-19 aid, Empowering Parents will now receive $30 million a year in state funds. This spring, an internal State Board review spotted $180,000 in improper purchases — and thousands of other purchases that might or might not be proper. Gov. Brad Little has ordered a third-party audit.

Just cut the strings and send the state’s tax money to the schools. Let superintendents and locally elected trustees spend that money on neighborhood problems and priorities.

It even sounds like — dare we say it? — local control.

Simple?

If it really was, this would happen quickly and painlessly. And without putting together a committee of education leaders and legislators.

But here’s the reality. Idaho’s elected officials love to say they support local control — and they love to bellyache about the strings attached to federal money. But Idaho’s elected officials have also created a numbingly cumbersome school budget. They’ve built this $2.7 billion Frankenstein’s monster, piece by piece and mandate by mandate.

Now it’s up to that committee, assembled by state superintendent Debbie Critchfield, to take the state’s school funding formula apart and get rid of pieces that no longer make sense.

Good luck with that.

It’s going to take a lot of political skill and political will to kill off budget line items that lawmakers and education stakeholders fought for in the first place.

Critchfield’s endgame is straightforward enough. If Idaho strips out some past-their-prime line items, and gives the money to schools with no strings attached, locals will be better able to leverage the historic increases in state education funding.

When Critchfield’s committee met in Boise last week, members talked about the idea of getting rid of some of the line items.

One of Critchfield’s co-chairs, state Rep. Wendy Horman, talked optimistically about getting rid of the outmoded budget mandates the Legislature passed 20 or 25 years ago, and sending out  80% to 90% of state education dollars as unfettered, “discretionary” spending.

Again, it isn’t as simple as it sounds. As it is, districts spend 80% to 90% of their money on staff salaries and benefits — an unescapable fact when human capital is by far education’s biggest expense and largest investment.

And the biggest K-12 line item of them all, by far, goes straight into human capital. The career ladder injects $1 billion into the teacher salary pool, for districts to put into their local pay plans.

The career ladder isn’t just a state budget line item. Established in 2015, it’s an overwhelmingly popular political statement of purpose, an acknowledgement that the state must make a concerted commitment in order to attract and keep talented teachers. Politically, the career ladder isn’t going away any time soon, and even if it did, districts and charters will still spend the vast majority of their money on staff salaries and benefits.

What about a smaller — but also high-profile — line item?

During last week’s meeting, Horman, R-Idaho Falls, joined other committee members in calling the $72.8 million early reading line item a priority. Considering that literacy is one of Gov. Brad Little’s centerpiece education priorities, that line item isn’t going away either.

But what if the day comes that the literacy initiative has done its job, and the line item seems to be a little much? That would certainly qualify as one of those good problems to have — especially in a state where only 57% of kindergartners through third-graders were reading at grade level in the fall of 2022.

But if that happens, it would be easy to find something else to do with the money, right?

Not really. Legislators — even conservative legislators — are adept at adding pet projects to a budget. They’re not as good at going back and getting rid of them.

So if the committee goes after any line items, Critchfield knows she’s going to run into resistance.

“OK, who are we going to make mad when their sacred cow is now on the roasting grill?” she said in an interview after last week’s meeting.

Between now and January, committee members hope to overhaul a school funding formula that hasn’t been rewritten in 30 years. The committee has plenty of work to do. The group needs to figure out whether to build a formula around student enrollment or student attendance — a seemingly esoteric distinction, but one that has the state’s political leaders polarized. The group also needs to figure out whether, or how, to “weight” funding to provide more money to support special-needs students, or students in poverty.

But three decades of line items and add-ons add up to another big challenge for this committee.

Here’s the dirty little political secret: As much as legislators love to espouse local control, they don’t always walk the walk. And when state revenues account for 60.8% of public school revenues — the seventh-highest percentage in the country, according to a 2021-22 National Education Association report — Idaho lawmakers have no issue with exerting their will over where the money goes.

The result is a K-12 budget that earmarks state money for classroom technology, staff training, college and career counselors, safe and drug-free schools, and more.

Another dirty secret, as Critchfield notes, is that the line items provide some level of “comfort” to local districts. They can make it easier to negotiate contracts. And when local school leaders take heat over lackluster performance, the state’s spending restrictions can be used as a “weapon,” she said.

Nonetheless, Critchfield is undaunted.

“I guess we take the approach that, you know, we like to do hard things,” she said last week.

Like streamlining a funding formula — which is no simple task.

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday.

All told, 309 traditional and charter schools have signed up for the See Tell Now! tipline — up about one third from the previous year.

The growth in signups also translates into an increase in tips. In 2022-23, the tipline logged more than 460 calls. In 27 cases, students said they were worried about their own mental health, or the welfare of a classmate.

“Students know what’s going on with other students and being able to intercede and provide support early on in the process, is really what we are trying to do,” said Mike Munger, manager of the State Board of Education’s School Safety and Security program. “We don’t want to wait until it becomes so severe that the concern becomes an emergency.”

In 2019, the first year of the tipline, only 64 calls came in.

Students can reach See Tell Now! by phone, at 888-593-2835, through the website, or through an Apple or Android app.

The 2022 Legislature provided permanent funding for the tipline, which is free to schools.

Meanwhile, Labrador pushed back against State Board Executive Director Matt Freeman — and the allegation that Labrador sought out confidential information from Freeman before filing his lawsuit.

Labrador made the lineup change — and made his counterclaim — in court documents filed Tuesday, his deadline for assigning a new lawyer to the open meetings case.

On Aug. 25, District Judge Jason Scott disqualified Labrador from the lawsuit, saying he believed Labrador had received privileged information from Freeman during a June 20 telephone call.

Later on June 20, Labrador filed his lawsuit, saying the State Board had violated open meetings law by conducting a series of closed-door meetings to discuss the University of Idaho’s proposed purchase of the University of Phoenix.

In one of Tuesday’s court filings, Labrador offered his own account of the June 20 lawsuit. He described it as a “courtesy call,” and not an attempt to get Freeman to discuss the board’s closed meetings.

“He did not speak freely about anything,” Labrador wrote.

Labrador assigned the lawsuit to Alan Foutz, a deputy attorney general assigned to the state Department of Health and Welfare.

In his ruling, Scott barred Labrador from pursuing the lawsuit, ordering Labrador to find outside or in-house counsel to take up the case.

Foutz will be barred from discussing the case with Labrador, and several members of Labrador’s team. That list includes Theo Wold, Labrador’s solicitor general; Timothy Longfield, a deputy who had previously argued the case in court; and Jenifer Marcus, a deputy assigned to the State Board.

Labrador said the attorneys will not try to “lawyer this case from behind the scenes.”

More coverage: Idaho EdNews’ in-depth University of Phoenix interview, available in story and podcast form.

State superintendent Debbie Critchfield has turned in her budget request for next year — and a sizable request for this year.

She is asking for slightly more than $92 million for the current school year — backfill to cover the transition back to a K-12 funding formula based on student attendance.

“The Idaho Legislature and governor have made historic investments in the K-12 budget … and we want schools to have access to this appropriation,” Critchfield’s State Department of Education says in its budget request, submitted late last week.

The $92 million request marks the latest development in a debate over the formula — and how the state divvies up dollars for 115 school districts and 78 charter schools.

For years, Idaho has based the formula on average daily student attendance. But as in-person attendance dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic, Idaho adopted a model based instead on student enrollment. Many educators say the enrollment-based model is more predictable — and because student attendance lags below enrollment, they say an attendance-based formula will strip tens of millions of dollars from the K-12 budget. Supporters of the attendance-based model, including Gov. Brad Little, say the state should encourage school leaders to address and reduce absenteeism.

Critchfield’s request — designed to offset this year’s projected funding loss — could pit the superintendent against supporters of the attendance-based approach, including Little.

The $92 million does not represent new money, Gideon Tolman, the SDE’s chief financial officer, said Tuesday afternoon. It is money that would have gone out to districts, largely to cover salaries and benefits. But because of the shift to attendance-based funding, the money would instead wind up in state budget reserves.

Critchfield’s budget request begins a process that will unfold over the next several months.

All state department heads, including Critchfield, are required to turn in budget requests by Sept. 1.

Then the governor gets a say, submitting his budget recommendation in January, at the start of the legislative session.

Lawmakers then get their chance to weigh in, and vote on a battery of budget bills drafted by the Legislature’s Joint-Finance Appropriations Committee. All spending bills the Legislature passes go to the governor’s desk.

Usually, it takes until March or April for this work to wrap up. But since the $92 million represents a “supplemental” appropriation — to cover costs for the current budget year, which ends June 30 — it’s likely the Legislature will act on this request earlier in the session.

For the new budget year, which begins July 1, Critchfield is seeking about $120 million in new funding. This would represent roughly a 4% increase in the public schools budget.

This year’s Legislature put about $2.7 billion into K-12.

A few highlights from Critchfield’s request:

Teacher pay: The proposal includes an additional $46.9 million for the career ladder, covering staff salaries and benefits.

Outcomes-based funding. Critchfield wants to tie $40 million to three goals: reading scores from kindergarten through fourth grade; fifth- through ninth-grade math scores; and high school performance tied to college or career readiness. “We are seeking an alignment of investments with goals as a driving factor for achievement,” the SDE says in its budget request.

Student teaching. Critchfield wants to launch a three-year pilot to pay student-teachers. At $3 million a year for three years, the pilot would support up to 500 aspiring teachers attending the state’s colleges of education.

The discussion of the funding formula has already shaped Critchfield’s request.

Critchfield has assembled a committee to look at rewriting the K-12 funding formula for the first time in nearly three decades. As Critchfield foreshadowed during the group’s first meeting in July, she submitted a streamlined plan that would convert seven K-12 budget bills into three bills.

The committee still has its more difficult work ahead — including the question of whether to base funding on attendance or enrollment.

“This K-12 budget request is a critical first step in the continuation of the efforts to update our state’s 30-year school funding formula,” Critchfield said in a news release. “We’re taking a phased approach.”

But not its work.

If anything, the hard work awaits. Between now and January, state superintendent Debbie Critchfield’s hand-picked committee will dive into some of the hard policy questions that dictate school funding. At stake, ultimately, is the way Idaho spends $2.7 billion to support 300,000 students, and the way the money is split among 115 school districts and 78 charter schools. Idaho hasn’t rewritten its school funding formula since 1994.

The panel of education stakeholders and lawmakers is on board with one of Critchfield’s ideas: a structural change. Idaho’s K-12 budget is now carved up into seven separate spending bills, all requiring legislative approval before they can go to the governor’s desk. Critchfield would like to compress the budget into three bills.

These bills would cover three general themes: a “uniformity” piece that includes items such as salaries, benefits and transportation; a “thoroughness” piece including line items such as literacy and Advanced Opportunities; and a bill that provides discretionary dollars to districts and charters.

The goal, she says, is to simplify an arcane budget.

Critchfield wanted to move on this structural change because she is on a deadline. She must submit her 2024-25 budget proposal to Gov. Brad Little’s office by Friday, and she wants to adopt this simplified model.

But that model doesn’t really change how the money is spent.

“Those are conversations that we can and will continue to have after Friday,” Critchfield said at the outset of Thursday morning’s committee meeting.

The committee spent a chunk of Thursday’s two-hour meeting talking about policy. The committee also revisited the debate over using a formula based on student attendance or student enrollment.

Idaho adopted an enrollment-based model during the COVID-19 pandemic, after schools were thrust into virtual learning. But this year, the state returned to an attendance-based approach. Proponents of attendance-based model say they want to encourage schools to do everything they can to get kids into the classroom; opponents say an enrollment-based model better reflects the real cost of providing education.

Both arguments came up Thursday morning.

Anne Ritter, a trustee with Meridian Medical Arts Charter High School, said she wanted to make sure schools address chronic absenteeism. “I don’t want to lose that focus on that child.”

But in Melba, attendance-based funding causes an annual problem. Every year, 20 to 30 migrant students leave Melba in December and January, and return in February, trustee Jason Knopp said. This short-term dropoff in attendance affects funding, but the rural Canyon County district can’t cut staffing during that two-month period.

Meanwhile, in Twin Falls, attendance-based funding is a high-stakes proposition.

Schools reopened on Aug. 16, and attendance is stuck at about 92% — higher than pandemic levels, but below pre-pandemic peaks. An uptick in local COVID-19 cases could be the cause of the increased absenteeism, Superintendent Brady Dickinson said Thursday. But regardless of the cause, attendance rates are critical during the first few weeks of the year, because they are the basis for state funding for staffing.

During the committee’s three summer meetings, members have talked about trying to find some kind of a middle ground, combining enrollment and attendance metrics.

And after Thursday’s meeting, Critchfield said the enrollment vs. attendance issue is the most important question before the committee.

“Right now, that is really at the heart of how we drive the funding,” she said.