Clint Hostetler — Commented that the memorial is a statement and important to make.
Clint Hostetler — Emphasized that the memorial is a statement and that the committee is limited to making a statement in many situations.
Clint Hostetler — His point that the memorial is a statement continues into this section.
Clint Hostetler — Said the memorial is a statement asking Congress and the federal government to pay for what they have put Idaho into.
Clint Hostetler — Argued that emotional narratives are distracting and that the federal government should pay its bills.
Clint Hostetler — Said Idaho taxpayers and lawful immigrants are footing the bill and criticized emotional narratives used to expand the program.
Clint Hostetler — His argument continues that the memorial is just a statement and that emotional narratives are distracting.
Clint Hostetler — Argued that the Supreme Court renders opinions, not laws, and supported the memorial as a statement about costs imposed by the courts.
Clint Hostetler — Recorded as voting yes.
Dale Hawkins — During the closing exchange, the speaker thanks Chairman Hawkins, and the chair responds by noting that roll call has been requested, there are no more lights, and no one else is signed up to testify.
Dale Hawkins — Called on to proceed with the roll call vote.
Dale Hawkins — Chair Hawkins is addressed during the exchange, responds to a motion by noting that testimony remains, later asks for contact information from a testifier, and then closes out the discussion as the meeting moves toward adjournment.
Clay Handy — Recorded as voting yes in the roll call.
Ron Mendive — Recorded as voting yes in the roll call.
Barbara Ehardt — Called during roll call; vote not captured in the transcript fragment.
Tony Wisniewski — Recorded as voting yes.
Dan Garner — Recorded as voting yes.
Mark Sauter — Called during roll call; vote not captured in the transcript fragment.
Kent Marmon — Recorded as voting yes.
Douglas Pickett — Douglas Pickett is introduced, then presents House Bill 883 and answers a series of questions about its design and implications. He explains that the bill includes a 2029 review, considers whether districts or charter schools have passed levies or sought other revenue, and stands for questions. In response to concerns about benchmarks, he says the thresholds are somewhat arbitrary and were negotiated to fit different contexts for districts and charter schools. He adds that meeting the state average would raise expectations over time, creating year-over-year performance improvement rather than a one-time standard. When a technical question arises about salary apportionment, he asks that a drafter be brought in. Later, he discusses broader growth concerns, saying the issue may require additional policy work and that if the bill succeeds it could lead to wider discussion of school funding formulas.
Douglas Pickett — The chair invites Representative Pickett to close the presentation, and Pickett delivers a brief closing remark thanking the chairman and committee, expressing appreciation for the discussion, and implicitly supporting the bill.
Michael Veile — Recorded as voting yes.
Michael Veile — Michael Veile thanked Ms. McClure and Representative Pickett for their work on House Bill 883, saying the proposal could foster innovation and better results for both charter and regular school districts. He added that perfect should not be the enemy of good, described the bill as an excellent directional experiment, and expressed gratitude for the effort behind it. He then moved to send House Bill 883 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Michael Veile — Pickett thanks Representative Veile for engagement and good-faith work on the bill.
Tammy Nichols — The transcript appears to intend Representative Galaviz, who asks a question about the bill’s academic benchmarks.
Kevin Cook — The transcript says 'Vice Chair Handy,' but the expected member list does not include a Handy member; likely a mis-transcription of a committee member reference.
Kevin Cook — Expressed support for the bill and asked about the meaning of salary apportionment in school district earned autonomy.
Kevin Cook — Asked whether salary apportionment means groups of salaries rather than individual salary adjustments.
Kevin Cook — Asked for an estimate of how many public schools might qualify under the bill’s standards.
Emily McClure — Emily McClure, speaking for the Idaho Charter School Network in support of House Bill 883, answered questions about the bill’s funding-flexibility language, explaining that it is intended to apply broadly across funding types. She estimated that about 7 to 10 school districts and roughly 15 individual charter schools might qualify, and after the main question period, she was invited to add further explanation about how charter schools operate under authorizer contracts with agreed academic, governance, and finance benchmarks.
Ms. McClure — Ms. McClure explained how the bill tries to align accountability standards for charter schools and school districts. She described charter school evaluation in academics, governance, and finance, noting that schools serving 100% at-risk students are judged more on growth than proficiency. She then outlined the district academic criteria, including ISAT scores, district IRA scores, and go-on/advanced course completion rates, and said the goal is year-over-year improvement for struggling students. She added that the bill attempts to account for different student pathways, such as CTE certificates and IB diplomas, and described the IRA benchmark and reduction in students scoring below basic. In response to questions, she clarified that the bill applies only to brick-and-mortar charter schools, excludes virtual charter schools, and referenced a specific virtual school example. The discussion then briefly shifted to a related question about graduation requirements and whether the three-percentage-point-above-state-average standard could create issues.
Mr. McClure — Answered that only a limited number of districts are expected to meet the 3 percentage point graduation threshold initially.
she — An unidentified female testifier is being called back to provide information.
Kate French — Introduced herself as chief operating officer of American Classical Schools of Idaho and testified in support of House Bill 883.
Emily — An unidentified testifier is referred to as Emily and asked whether she has anything more to add.
Dave Lent — Addressed as Chairman.
Dave Lent — Addressed as Chairman.
Dave Lent — Addressed as Chairman.
Dave Lent — Addressed as Chairman.
Dave Lent — Addressed as Chairman.
Dave Lent — Addressed as Chairman.
Dave Lent — Addressed as Chairman.
Dave Lent — Intervened to clarify that the study is being requested of the federal government, not the state.
Dave Lent — Addressed as Chairman.
Dave Lent — Responded that legislating from the bench is a slippery slope and that the federal government is imposing requirements without helping bear the cost.
Dave Lent — Invited the presenter to give a closing before the committee proceeds to voting.
Dave Lent — The presenter responds that he can do a closing now.
Dave Lent — Gave closing remarks supporting the memorial and said it should go forward.
Dave Lent — Argued that the memorial focuses on the issue itself and should go forward to open more discussion.
Dave Lent — Said the federal government is overstepping its bounds by telling Idaho how to educate.