Choice and educational freedom are not a foreign concept in Idaho. In 2022, the conservative Heritage Foundation recognized the state as a top-five state in its Education Freedom Report Card. Particularly, Idaho’s commitment to its robust public education choice program stands out as Idaho’s Open Enrollment law is widely considered one of the best in the country, allowing students and families to access public schools within or outside of their assigned district if there is available capacity.

Yet Idaho lags behind other states when it comes to private education options. Without any kind of private school choice programs, the state restricts families without the financial means for private education to attend government schools. In the forthcoming 2024 legislative session, Idaho’s policymakers should seize the opportunity to expand educational freedom by granting every family in the state access to an Education Savings Account so they can access more educational options.

Currently, Idahoan students perform well academically compared to many other states, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. However, there is plenty of room for improvement as only around a third of both fourth and eighth grades were proficient in reading and math in 2022. ESAs can help improve these numbers by placing educational funding in the hands of those who know the students best: their parents. The evidence is clear, too; when families are allowed to customize their child’s education to align with their unique needs, education attainment and test scores improve, as nearly every study done on the impact of private education choice shows positive results. 

For instance, rural families often lack access to courses and extracurricular offerings compared to their peers who live in more populated areas. ESAs could help families afford broadband costs for innovative online courses and curricula that local public schools may not have. 

It may seem counterintuitive, but increasing access to a broader spectrum of educational offerings actually benefits students who stay in traditional public schools. 26 out of the 29 studies examining the impact of implementing a private school choice program on public school student test scores have demonstrated positive effects. It only makes sense that this would be the case as the competitive dynamics of school choice incentivize public schools to enhance their offerings to retain students and the associated funding.

By embracing private school choice, Idaho can improve the quality of public schools through more rigorous market competition and benefit thousands of students who deserve the advantages of a customizable K-12 education system. 2024 represents a crucial juncture for Idaho. If Idahoans can sway the policymakers who represent them by raising their voices in support of establishing an ESA program, it can bring positive change by recognizing the inherent dignity of every Idahoan student, benefiting them and the state for years to come.

Residential assignment determines the school a student attends based solely on the proximity of their home address. Luckily, last month Idaho’s state legislature passed a comprehensive open enrollment law which will end mandated residential assignment for all Idaho students, allowing them to attend any public school within or between districts. The policy will be enacted as soon as the 2023-24 school year. Policymakers in states still lacking public school choice should attempt to replicate Idaho’s example.

Although assigning students to public schools based on their home address may seem practical and harmless, this approach forms the basis of many structural inequities in the American K-12 education system. School zone maps frequently used for residential assignment significantly overlap with the discriminatory color-coded maps previously used for redlining. As a result, students whose families cannot afford to live in wealthier neighborhoods are denied access to higher-quality public schools which would receive more funding from property taxes. This structural barrier relegates students from lower-income families to lower-performing public schools that receive fewer funds—like those highlighted in the ProPublica report.

Lower-income parents or guardians who can’t afford housing in neighborhoods zoned for high-quality schools are faced with a decision: They can either accept the poor public education their child will receive at their assigned school, or send them to a non-assigned school and risk potential jail time or fines. These are risks many parents are willing to take, and indeed many parents will falsify or share their addresses to escape the poor education quality in some of these schools.

But why should there be any risk at all?

Public school choice — also called open enrollment — benefits students from various backgrounds. Studies looking at states that previously implemented open enrollment, such as California and Wisconsin, have reported improved school offerings for all involved as schools must compete with one another to boost their enrollment numbers to gain funding. Moreover, in Wisconsin, after the first initial years of the program, even the districts that lost the most students had statistically significant performance increases, proving that public school choice has the potential to improve public education quality across the spectrum.

If reducing discrimination and improving student outcomes aren’t enough to convince state policymakers to implement public school choice, better electoral results should. According to a recent survey from Morning Consult and EdChoice, open enrollment is extremely popular, as two-thirds of adult voters supported public school choice. It has received bipartisan support in state legislatures as well; Idaho’s recent law enjoyed nearly full bi-partisan support in both state chambers before being signed by Governor Brad Little. Furthermore, recent elections have shown support that school choice can play a deciding factor, and as public school choice becomes more prominent in state legislatures, policymakers would be wise to stay on the side supporting educational freedom.

When students are stuck in crumbling schoolhouses, it’s clear that we need a new approach to school assignment. Idaho legislators significantly expanded student opportunities in the Gem State by ending the outdated practice of residential assignment. Other state policymakers should do the same and attempt to meet the individual needs of the families of the students they represent

In 2021 some Idaho legislators attempted to level the playing field by increasing school choice opportunities with House Bill 215 (HB 215). Nevertheless, HB 215 was stopped in the Idaho State Senate with the help of Republicans, leaving struggling families — especially low-income families — to foot the bill for education costs right when public schools struggled to stay open at the height of Covid-19. Not to be deterred, legislators came back this year with House Bill 669 (HB 669), which — like HB 215 — would have created an Education Savings Account (ESA). The ESA would have provided families with a scholarship of around $6000 to use toward their student’s educational needs, including private education, tutoring, learning materials, and special needs therapies. Once again, the bill was stopped, but this time in the House Education Committee on an 8-7 vote.

The worst part, five Republicans helped stop the bill despite overwhelming evidence pointing to similar private school choice programs having great success for students and families once implemented.

For example, of the 17 studies on private school choice participants’ test scores, 11 show positive results, and only 3 have adverse effects. In addition, of the 30 studies done on parent satisfaction with these programs, 28 had positive feedback. Test scores and parent satisfaction are not the only benefits of private school choice programs either, as studies on school choice programs show higher rates of perceived safety, civic values, and even mental health.

Despite these programs’ success, school choice critics in Idaho often refer to the damaging effects school choice has on local public school students. But this is a myth. Out of 27 studies on public school students’ test scores, after states and localities implemented a school choice program, 25 studies found positive effects, and only one study found any adverse effect. It turns out when you make schools compete for students, schooling improves across the board.

Simply put, school choice is the rising tide that lifts all boats. And Idahoan parents seem to know this: 82 percent of all school parents in the state support the ESA programs that could have been created had Idaho Republicans fought for school choice. Yet, Idaho Republicans ignored their constituent’s wants and needs, allowing an inequitable and broken system to stay intact to the detriment of Idaho students.

Enough is enough. Idaho Republicans should stop kicking the can down the road and make a plan to expand school choice as soon as possible. When it comes to finding an education that works best for their child, a family’s income should not matter. Education has the power to transform kids’ lives for the better. Why should economically disadvantaged Idaho students receive less education access? School choice would level the playing field, giving students an equal opportunity to improve their futures.