Douglas Pickett — Douglas Pickett commented for the committee on his experience following ILA’s evaluation and trying to understand its unique model and benefits for students. He praised the district’s innovation during COVID for filling an important educational gap, acknowledged the growing pains associated with ILA’s growth, and noted that OPE staff had clearly articulated those concerns. He also emphasized the collaborative effort among ILA, the committee, and OPE to address the issues.
Barbara Ehardt — Representative Pickett asked the witness to identify himself and clarify the analysis, then followed up by asking how students performed in years beyond the first year and requesting that any remaining clarification be provided later if it was not already addressed in the planned remarks.
Christopher Shank — Christopher Shank, a senior evaluator with the Office of Performance Evaluation, presented findings from a review of ILA. He explained the student achievement analysis, including how transfer students were grouped and how first-year transfers tended to show lower growth, while students who remained at ILA for multiple years showed more growth in later years. He then shifted to funding policy, describing ILA as a case study for virtual school financing in Idaho. He explained that virtual schools can report attendance based on coursework completed rather than seat time, allowing ILA to claim attendance for a higher share of students than the statewide average and thereby increase funding. He also described how ILA uses part-time teachers and converts a large portion of salary-based apportionment into discretionary funds, how health benefits appropriations can similarly become discretionary funding when not fully used for staff benefits, and introduced transportation funding as another area where virtual schools can claim reimbursement for items like internet and computer equipment.
Mr. Shank / Christopher Shank — Mr. Shank concludes his prepared remarks and opens the floor for questions, then immediately responds to a question by returning to the flow-of-money diagram to explain the funding structure.
Paul — Responded that he did not have the number immediately but would provide a comparison later; then recalled a prior hearing figure for ILA per-student cost.
Mr. Schenck / Mr. Shank — Said the cited numbers came from ILA and had not been validated against Idaho's internal funding numbers.
Mr. Gideon-Tolman — Referenced as being present at the December hearing when the numbers were discussed.
Mr. Scheng / Mr. Shank / Mr. Schenck — Responded that the ILA number around $6,000 to $7,000 seemed correct, but the higher statewide cost figure had not been validated.
Mr. Shank — Mr. Shank was asked whether he could come back with the requested statewide average cost number. In response, he deferred the question to his colleague Lauren Bailey.
Mr. Schenck — Said the office did not review third-party providers' financial statements, so it could not say where profits go.
Mr. Schenck — Said he does not have a definitive answer, but suspects some dual-enrolled students play sports and noted funding generally depends on attendance.
Mark Sauter — Representative Sauter is called on by the chair and then asks whether ILA students can access the curriculum without their families having to pay supplemental learning fees.
Lauren Bailey — Identified as the colleague who will answer the question.
Mrs. Bailey — Explained that ILA must provide a free curriculum and that the base curricula are approved by the Oneida School District.
Mrs. Bailey — Said some students are dual enrolled and that school districts can use that policy, but she does not know the number or tracking method.
Ms. Bailey — Ms. Bailey responded to questions about supplemental learning funds and curriculum approval, explaining that 11 Idaho virtual schools, including ILA, were confirmed as eligible to offer supplemental learning funds based on last year’s data.
Mr. Shane — Mr. Shane discussed funding mechanisms for virtual and charter schools. He explained that his research has focused more on mechanisms other than facilities, confirmed that virtual schools do not receive facilities funding because students not physically attending cannot generate those funds, noted that charter school funding does not flow through the authorizing district but goes directly to the charter school, and suggested a possible policy approach for virtual school funding based on total enrollment scaled by a modifier such as average daily attendance.
Haley Sweeten — Identified herself as the incoming director for Idaho Home Learning Academy and began responding to questions.
Cindy Carlson — The speaker references working with several representatives, including Gallivies, Pickett, and Handy, and then later mentions Representative Ely as part of the same broader discussion of colleagues involved in the matter.
Clay Handy — Mentioned as one of the representatives working collaboratively on forthcoming legislation.
Jack Nelsen — Jack Nelsen is referenced in a single discussion where he is identified as the representative asking a question and being discussed in relation to the report.
Michael Veile — Michael Veile is introduced as the next questioner and then asks how the veracity of online school or state testing can be guaranteed, focusing on the reliability and integrity of online testing.
Ms. Sweeten — Addressed as the witness being thanked for being present.
Dave Lent — The speaker addressed the chair and committee members.
Chris Scheng — Ms. Bailey says she will pass the presentation to Chris Scheng to discuss the virtual school funding framework.
Tony Wisniewski — Representative Wisniewski asks whether the distribution of supplemental learning fund spending will be similar in the future after House Bill 93.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler asks for the total cost of supplemental learning funds paid out.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler follows up after the presentation with a question about the ILA program, asking whether supplemental learning funds increase the cost of education per child and seeking clarification on the total per-child cost.
Douglas Pickett — Representative Pickett asks whether the evaluation compares students to their own prior performance rather than to traditional or other virtual schools.
Douglas Pickett — Representative Pickett asked how the average annual per-student cost at ILA compares with the cost of a traditional public school student. The response said the exact number was not immediately available but that a comparison of ILA per-student funding relative to other schools in the state would be provided later.