Mr. Landgill / Land Grill (questionable) — A name was being clarified for the upcoming presenter; the transcript is uncertain.
Lauren Bailey — The speaker turned the presentation over to Lauren Bailey, who then introduced herself as a principal evaluator with the Office of Performance Evaluations and began presenting the report.
Lauren Bailey — Lauren Bailey responds to a question about curriculum requirements, explaining that ILA and every school are statutorily required to provide a free curriculum. She adds that supplemental learning funds may be used for additional or alternative curriculum, and notes that many families choose to use an alternative curriculum.
parents of ILA students — Parents testified previously and were described as speaking passionately about supplemental learning funds.
Carrie Semmelroth — Representative Pickett asked for clarification about the student achievement comparison, specifically how results played out in the years beyond the first year, and requested that any remaining clarification be provided later if it was not covered in the planned remarks.
Christopher Shank — Christopher Shank, a senior evaluator with the Office of Performance Evaluation, presented findings from an evaluation of student achievement at ILA. He explained that the analysis looked at students who transferred in, stayed multiple years, or later left, and found that students transferring from brick-and-mortar schools tended to experience lower growth in their first year at ILA compared with the prior year. Students who left ILA showed a rebound in growth after returning to brick-and-mortar schools, and the office recommended that ILA add more scaffolding to support students during the first-year transition. He then briefly reintroduced himself, noted that the presentation had been condensed from the full report, and offered to provide additional detail if needed.
Janie Ward-Engelking — The speaker appears to be responding to a representative's question.
Janie Ward-Engelking — Is recognized to ask a follow-up question about the total cost per child in the ILA program.
Mr. Shank — Concludes his remarks and opens the floor for questions.
Mr. Shank — Was asked whether he could return with a number comparing overall average costs, including smaller schools, against ILA students.
Mr. Shank — Passed the question to colleague Lauren Bailey.
Mr. Chang — Mr. Chang explains, using his flow-of-money diagram, that supplemental learning funds do not represent additional funding. Instead, they are created by converting staffing dollars into discretionary funding, meaning the money is reallocated rather than newly added.
Dave Lent — Dave Lent is repeatedly addressed as Mr. Chair/Mr. Chairman throughout a continuous question-and-answer exchange. The discussion includes brief acknowledgments, follow-up questions, and responses to members such as Representative Pickett, Representative Nelson, and Mr. Schenck, with Lent thanking participants and continuing the same procedural conversation without a substantive topic change.
Paul — Responded that he did not have the number immediately but would provide a comparison later; then recalled ILA's per-student cost as about $6,100.
Mr. Schenck / Mr. Shank — Mr. Schenck/Shank explained that the numbers cited came from ILA and had not yet been validated against Idaho's internal funding figures. He added that to answer the question accurately, the comparison would need to be apples to apples, noting that differences in district size or student populations could affect statewide averages.
Mr. Gideon-Tolman — Mr. Gideon-Tolman is referenced as having been present at the December hearing where the cost figures were discussed. The discussion notes that the $6,000 to $7,000 ILA number appears correct, while the higher statewide cost figure has not been validated; it is also stated that he was present when those numbers were presented.
Mr. Scheng / Mr. Shank — Said the ILA per-student figure around $6,000 to $7,000 was correct, but the statewide comparison had not been validated.
Unidentified committee member — Said the comparison should include smaller rural schools because that reflects the actual cost to educate students in traditional brick-and-mortar schools.
Unidentified committee member — Raised a question about whether provider funds go to volunteer staff or six-figure administrative salaries.
Mr. Schenck — Said the office did not review the third-party providers' financial statements and therefore could not say where profits go.
Mr. Schenck — Mr. Schenck responds to questions about dual-enrolled students and athletics, saying he does not have a firm answer about whether some dual-enrolled students play sports at their home district and adding that he is not aware of any funding mechanism that gives schools money specifically for student athletes.
Braintree — Braintree is discussed as one of the education service providers present, and a financial point is clarified: the $5.4 million associated with Braintree is not profit but contracted payments that were not used for supplemental learning funds.
Education service providers — The witness said some providers are for-profit and some are nonprofit, and noted representatives from Braintree and HomeEd 360 were present.
HomeEd 360 — Named as one of the providers represented in the room.
Ms. Bailey — Ms. Bailey responds to a question about whether other virtual schools offer supplemental learning funds by explaining that there are 11 total Idaho programs, including ILA, that they were able to confirm based on last year.
Mrs. Bailey — Mrs. Bailey explains that some students are dual enrolled and that this is a policy available for any school district to use, though she does not know how many students are enrolled that way.
Mr. Shane — Mr. Shane discusses funding for virtual and charter schools, clarifying that virtual schools do not receive facilities funding. He explains that, as a charter school authorized by the Oneida School District, student funding does not flow through the district but goes directly to the school, though he notes the arrangement may have been different previously. He then suggests that other states have used alternative funding approaches, including models based on total enrollment and average daily attendance.
Haley Sweeten — Introduces herself as the incoming director for Idaho Home Learning Academy and begins testimony.
Ms. Sweeten — Addressed directly and thanked for being present.