|
Overview
Idaho does not have a state-funded preschool program. It does provide a small
state supplement (about $1.5 million) for Head Start.
State Policy
Idaho provides no funding for prekindergarten services.
Eligibility Criteria
No program.
Program Length/Duration
No program.
Funding
Idaho provides no funding for prekindergarten services except for a small
supplement of $1.5 million to Head Start.
Quality Standards
No program.
Delivery of Preschool Services
No program.
Requirements for Student Assessment
and Program Evaluation
No program.
Education Clause in State Constitution
The education clause of the Idaho constitution provides that it is the legislature’s duty to establish
and maintain a “general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common
schools.”
Summary of Case Law on School Finance System
The Idaho courts have generally upheld the school funding
formula, stating that the state constitutional provision requiring a “uniform” system
does not necessitate uniformity in funding, and that the formula did not violate
the Equal Protection clause. However, the Idaho Supreme
Court has determined that the “thorough” system of public schools mandated
by the State Constitution requires “facilities that offer a safe environment
conducive to learning.” Following that decision, the district court ruled that
the state’s
system of capital funding for school facilities was constitutionally deficient
because of its exclusive reliance on local property taxes and bond levies to
fund major repairs and replacement of dangerous structures. In 2005,
the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district
court’s conclusion
and ordered the Legislature to come up with a facilities funding scheme that
would meet constitutional requirements.
In 2002 the district court had appointed a
special master to identify all of the deficient school facilities. The state
legislature attempted to abolish the pending suit through restrictive legislation,
but the Idaho
Supreme Court ruled the legislature’s actions were unconstitutional.
Summary of Case Law on Preschool
None of the cases have addressed preschool issues.
Idaho Const. Art. IX, § 1
The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the
intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho,
to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public,
free common schools.
Is Education a Fundamental
Right under the State Constitution?
“[E]ducation is not a fundamental right because it is not a right directly
guaranteed by the state constitution.” Idaho Sch. for Equal Educ. Opportunity
v. Evans, 123 Idaho 573, 582, 850 P.2d 724, 733 (1993) (“ISEEO I”).
“[W]e refuse to classify the right to education as a fundamental right which
compels the state, for the purposes of financing, to wipe out local entities
and finance on the basis of revenues raised by some sort of statewide system.” Thompson
v. Engelking, 96 Idaho 793, 805, 537 P.2d 635, 647 (1975).
School Finance Cases in Favor
of Plaintiffs:
Idaho Sch. for Equal Educ. Opportunity v. Evans, 123 Idaho 573, 850 P.2d
724 (1993) (“ISEEO I”)
The Idaho Supreme Court held that students, parents, school districts, and
an association of school superintendents had standing to maintain a cause of
action against the state alleging that the state’s educational funding system
does not provide a thorough education, as required by the Idaho Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled, however, that a subgroup of plaintiffs suing solely
as citizen-taxpayers lacked standing to pursue that claim. The taxpayers’ claim
challenged the amount of funding provided for schools, not the method
of obtaining that funding, and they had not suffered a “distinct palpable injury” as
a result of the alleged lack of school funding.
The Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim based on the constitutional
requirement of a “uniform” school system, finding that the “uniform” provision
requires only uniformity in curriculum, not uniformity in funding.
Idaho Sch. for Equal Educ. Opportunity v. State, 128 Idaho
276, 912 P.2d 644 (1996) (“ISEEO II”)
Following the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision in ISEEO I, the Idaho
legislature changed the school funding formula, enacted a statutory definition
of “thoroughness,” and substantially increased the annual appropriation for
education. The district court determined that these changes made the issues
moot, and granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Idaho Supreme Court
reversed, holding that there still “remain[ed] the fundamental issue whether
a thorough education had been provided by the State as mandated by art. 9, § 1
of the Idaho Constitution.”
Idaho Sch. for Equal Educ. Opportunity v. State, 132 Idaho
559, 976 P.2d 913 (1998) (“ISEEO III”)
The Idaho Supreme Court held that the thoroughness mandate of the State Constitution
requires the State to “provide a means for school districts to fund facilities
that offer a safe environment conducive to learning,” and reversed the district
court’s summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim that the level of school
facilities funding provided by the state was constitutionally inadequate. The
case was therefore remanded to the district court for trial to determine whether
the Legislature has satisfied its constitutional mandate.
Idaho Sch. for Equal Educ. Opportunity v. State, Case No.
94008, District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho, Ada County
(2001)
Following the 1998 decision of the Idaho Supreme Court, the district court
ruled in February 2001 that the state’s system of school finance was constitutionally
deficient, largely because of its substantial reliance on local property taxes
and bond levies to fund major repairs and replacement of dangerous structures.
The district retained jurisdiction but deferred to the Legislature to “make
a good faith effort to deal with the problem.”
Idaho Sch. for Equal Educ. Opportunity v. State, Case No.
94008, District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho, Ada County
(2002)
In December 2002, the district court determined that the Legislature was not
dealing with the problem, and decided to create a remedy itself. To begin,
the court appointed a special remedial master to gather information regarding
deficient school facilities. (That appointment was stayed pending determination
of the constitutionality of HB 403 and appeal of the underlying issues.)
Idaho Sch. for Equal Educ. Opportunity v.
State, 140 Idaho 586, 97 P.3d
453 (2004) (“ISEEO IV”)
In May 2003, the state legislature adopted HB 403, which attempted to abolish
the plaintiffs’ ability to sue the state. HB 403 imposed particular procedural
rules upon the ISEEO plaintiffs and was “aimed at essentially disbanding the
ISEEO case and restructuring it in a manner that destroys the Plaintiffs' cause
of action against the Legislature.” HB 403 also allowed the district court
to impose an “educational necessity levy” when it found that a school district
could not otherwise remedy an unsafe school condition. The Idaho Supreme Court
held that HB 403 was an unconstitutional “special law” contrived to eliminate
the pending suit, and also violated the separation of powers doctrine by requiring
a court to levy taxes.
Idaho Sch. for Equal Educ. Opportunity v. State,
142 Idaho 450, P.3d 1199 (Dec. 21, 2005) ("ISEEO V")
In ISEEO V, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed
the district court’s determination that the existing State school funding
system does not provide school districts the means to fund facilities that
offer a safe environment conducive to learning. The Court agreed that the
district court’s legal conclusions were supported by "overwhelming evidence
in the record documenting serious facility and funding problems in the state’s
public education system." The Court directed the Legislature to fashion
an appropriate remedy that would satisfy Idaho’s constitutional provisions.
Although the Court outlined some legislative options used to fund facility
repair and construction in other states (reducing the majority necessary
to pass a bond, using state general funds, designating corporate income tax
revenues for facilities), it left the policy decisions up to the Legislature.
The Court also retained jurisdiction over the case to consider whether the
forthcoming legislative initiatives meet the constitutional requirements.
Standard for a Constitutionally
Adequate Education:
None.
School Finance Cases against
Plaintiffs:
Thompson v. Engelking, 96 Idaho 793, 537 P.2d 635 (1975)
The Idaho Supreme Court held that the state’s school financing system, which
relied heavily on ad valorem property tax and resulted in differences in amounts
raised and spent per pupil among the several districts because of differences
in assessed valuations of the districts, did not violate the state constitutional
requirements of a uniform system of public schools and equal protection of
the law.
Decisions Ruling School Finance
Issues Were Non-Justiciable:
None.
Cases Related to State-Funded
Preschool:
None.
Pending School Finance Cases:
None.
There is no state-funded preschool program in Idaho.
Provisions Expressing State Policy on Preschool:
None.
Eligibility Criteria for State Preschool Program:
None.
Program Length/Duration:
None.
Scope of State’s Responsibility to Provide Preschool:
None.
Scope of State's Responsibility to Fund Preschool:
None.
Source of Funding for Preschool Program:
None.
Scope of Child's Right to
Attend Preschool:
None.
Curriculum Content Standards for Preschool Program:
None. Idaho has promulgated Early Learning
Standards for use in its Preschool Special Education classes.
Teacher Certification/Qualification Standards for Preschool Program:
None.
Other Quality Standards for Preschool Program:
None.
Delivery of Preschool
Services:
None.
Requirements for Student
Assessment and Program Evaluation:
None.
|
