English
Spanish
Idaho Statecraft: Educational Freedom, Learning, and Stewardship
Foreword
Civic education is a hot topic right now across the country and in Idaho. The semiquincentennial of the Declaration of Independence reminds us how fortunate we are to be Americans, but it also reminds us that we—and future generations—have a responsibility to sustain and strengthen our fragile democracy.
The Idaho Legislature has proposed a variety of measures to encourage improved teaching of civics in our public schools (see Senate Bill No. 1336).
As these proposals are debated, it would be wise for stakeholders and lawmakers to carefully read a piece my friend Jim Goenner wrote for us on “Idaho Statecraft: Educational Freedom, Learning, and Stewardship.” Jim spoke at Bluum’s legislative dinner in January and has been working with us in Idaho on a variety of issues related to improving our public charter schools. His perspective on how civics should be taught in 2026 is well worth reading, and we are pleased to share it here.
Terry Ryan, CEO Bluum
*****************************
Jim Goener, CEO National Charter Schools Institute
I. Public Education as Civic Infrastructure
Public education is not a program. It is civic infrastructure.
When it works, it equips young people to learn, to contribute, and to participate in civic life. It strengthens families, communities, and the long-term vitality of the state. When it fails, the consequences are not abstract — they show up in diminished opportunity, weakened trust, and a less resilient democracy.
From its founding in 1890, Idaho has understood the connection between education and self-government. That understanding is embedded in Idaho’s Constitution and reflected in the state’s long-standing commitment to freedom, individual responsibility, and limited but effective government.
The challenge before Idaho lawmakers today is not whether education matters. It is how the state should govern education in a world that no longer fits a single model.
II. Being Bold by Choice: Idaho’s Structural Turn
Nearly thirty years ago, Idaho made a consequential decision. With the passage of its charter school law in 1997, lawmakers embarked on a strategy to move away from the “one best system” of public education—where a single provider (the school district) held an exclusive franchise that could take its customers for granted—and began moving toward a more open system that could learn, adapt, and improve over time.
That decision was not accidental. It was bold by choice.
Opening public education required courage. It introduced complexity. It asked the state to govern outcomes rather than control inputs. But it also reflected confidence—in Idaho families, educators, and communities—to rise to greater responsibility when given greater freedom.
Over the last decade, the pace of change has accelerated. Charter schools have matured and expanded. At the same time, homeschooling, education savings accounts, virtual learning, and private-school mechanisms are growing rapidly. Idaho is now operating within a plural education landscape.
The question for lawmakers is no longer whether pluralism exists—it does. The question is whether Idaho will govern this openness intentionally, or allow it to expand without coherence, clarity, or public trust.
As one scholar of pluralism has put it:
“Pluralism isn’t the absence of a system—it’s a different kind of system.”
III. Constitutional Duty: Guardians of Opportunity for All
Article IX of Idaho’s Constitution assigns the Legislature a clear and enduring responsibility: to establish and maintain a general, uniform, and thorough system of public, free common schools. This language defines purpose, not a single delivery model.
- General speaks to access for all.
- Uniform speaks to fairness and public accountability—not sameness.
- Thorough speaks to quality that endures as conditions change.
This makes lawmakers the guardians of opportunity for all Idaho students.
That guardianship does not disappear as the system becomes more diverse. It becomes more important. As educational options expand, the Legislature’s responsibility is to ensure opportunity remains real and accessible—regardless of geography, income, or circumstance—and that public education continues to serve the common good.
IV. The End in Mind: Learning and Citizenship
To govern a plural system well, Idaho must be clear about its end in mind.
Education, schools, and learning are often used interchangeably. They are not the same.
- Schools are institutions.
- Education is a system.
- Learning is the outcome.
If the ultimate purpose of public education is better learning and stronger citizens, then much of our inherited system design must be reconsidered. Systems built primarily around compliance, seat time, and institutional preservation are poorly aligned with how learning actually happens.
Learning cannot be mandated into existence. It depends on motivation, relevance, feedback, rigor, and high expectations. That is why Idaho cannot regulate its way to excellence. But neither can the state ignore failure when learning is not occurring.
Governance exists to keep institutions aligned with purpose when drift occurs.
V. Choice, Voice, and the Role of the State
Educational freedom changes the balance of power in the system.
When families have meaningful choices and resources follow students, schools can no longer assume enrollment. They must earn trust. Voice and exit become powerful feedback mechanisms—surfacing quality over time without the state attempting to pick winners.
That pressure is a feature, not a flaw.
But markets alone do not protect children, taxpayers, or the common good. Freedom requires guardrails, and pluralism requires stewardship.
The state’s role is not to choose models. It is to:
- Set a minimum bar
- Protect against harm
- Make performance visible
- Intervene decisively when standards are violated
Accountability is widely supported in principle. The real test comes when accountability requires enforcement. Systems lose credibility when they hesitate—when waste, fraud, abuse, or persistent failure is tolerated in the name of flexibility.
You cannot regulate your way to excellence.
But you can enforce your way out of failure.
VI. A Civic Floor for a Plural Education System
As Idaho’s system becomes more diverse, lawmakers need a practical framework that aligns freedom with responsibility. One effective approach is to establish a civic floor—baseline expectations that apply across publicly supported education, while allowing wide diversity above that floor.
The Civic Floor Should Include (for any setting receiving public funds):
- Student protections
Health, safety, welfare, and clear nondiscrimination obligations consistent with law. - Fiscal integrity
Transparent use of public dollars, strong audits, and anti-fraud controls. - Learning transparency
Clear articulation of learning goals and honest reporting on whether learning is occurring. - Civic purpose
Preparation for participation in civic life and respect for constitutional principles and the rule of law.
Above this floor, methods should vary. Innovation should flourish. Families should choose. Schools should differentiate.
A simple principle lawmakers can rely on:
The more public money involved, the stronger the public obligations.
VII. Stewards of Possibility: Governance in an Open System
In a plural system, the role of the State Board of Education, the State Department of Education, and authorizers must evolve.
Their job is no longer to manage a single delivery model. It is to:
- Define and defend the public purpose
- Build tiered accountability aligned to funding
- Ensure transparency across models
- Protect students most at risk of falling through cracks
- Oversee the overseers
Authorizers, in particular, become essential. They operate where rules run out and judgment must begin—approving providers, clarifying promises, monitoring performance, and acting when commitments are not met.
In this way, authorizers serve as the state’s stewards of possibility—keeping the system open to innovation while insisting on responsibility and enforcing standards when trust is violated.
Strong authorizing is not anti-choice.
It is what makes choice durable.
VIII. The Work Ahead: Statecraft, Not Side-Taking
Idaho is not choosing between sectors. It is designing how a plural system remains constitutional, coherent, and worthy of trust.
This is statecraft in its truest sense:
- Purpose before politics
- Structure before scale
- Judgment before ideology
Lawmakers were bold by choice when they opened public education.
They remain the guardians of opportunity for all under the Constitution.
And together with boards, agencies, and authorizers, they must be stewards of possibility for the future.
If Idaho keeps the end in mind—better learning and stronger citizens—then freedom and accountability do not compete. They reinforce one another.
That is the work ahead. And it is worthy of Idaho’s history, values, and constitutional responsibility.
