Readers of Mountain States Policy Center’s work will see certain economic and governance terms used frequently. To help provide context for our recommendations and analysis, here is a description of what these terms mean. Capitalism – An economic system driven by individual actors using market factors (supply and demand) to determine the free exchange of goods and services, rather than economic activity dictated by central government control and intervention. A hallmark of capitalism is private ownership of both property and the means of production. Communism – An economic system developed by Karl Marx that focuses on class warfare with the goal of government ownership of all property and centralized planning of economic activity. The theory of communism is that each person will work and be paid based on their abilities and needs instead of the economic value of their actual production. Core functions of government – The core functions of government are those activities not easily replicated in the private sector such as public safety, coordinated infrastructure, general order, and the protection of private property and individual rights. Education choice – Education choice is the principle that parents, no matter their economic status, should have the ability to choose how best to educate their children. Education choice options include the freedom to attend any public school (not be limited by zip code), public charter schools, private schools, homeschooling, Education Savings Accounts, and other tools that empower parents to meet the individual educational needs of their child. Education choice recognizes that families and parents are in the best position to determine the individual educational needs for their child’s success. Federalism – Federalism is the governing process that defines specific limited powers for the federal government with the remaining governing authority reserved for state governments. The U.S. Constitution embraces a balance of power shared by the national and state governments. The strong role provided for local governance is protected by the 10th Amendment. Free market/enterprise – The free market/enterprise is best understood as an economic system that allows individual actors to voluntarily engage in the exchange of goods and services with prices determined by supply and demand instead of government restrictions. A key component of a free market is voluntary economic activity instead of government coercion on the exchange of goods or services. Individual liberty – The concept of individual liberty is the freedom to make decisions for oneself and exercise control over daily activities free from undue government control or manipulation. The role of the government in a system that respects individual liberty is to limit any intrusions only to those activities that protect individuals from the encroachment of actions from others. Limited government – Under a system of limited government, legal restrictions are placed on government bodies and officials to avoid abuses of power and consolidation of influence. Open government – The foundations for an accountable government can be found in strong citizen oversight, and one of the most critical tools for this goal is open government laws. Requirements for access to public records, open meetings, public comment periods, and legislative transparency are critical tools necessary for citizens to maintain control over the government they have created. Republican form of government – Power held by the people and not a select few is the underpinning of a republican form of government. Citizens elect representatives to serve the public interest and the government remains responsive to the people via regular elections to reflect the will of the electorate. Separation of powers – A critical protection to avoid government abuse is the separation of powers. This is commonly referred to as checks and balances and is a division of government power and responsibility between distinct branches of government to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a few. Socialism – Socialism is a political and economic system that provides the government with the authority to make all economic decisions about the production and distribution of goods and services. Under socialism, some private control and ownership of resources are allowed, whereas under communism everything is owned by the government.

There’s a reason it comes first. Article One, Section One of the U.S. Constitution says, “all legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” State Constitutions follow a similar path, vesting first powers in the people via their elected representatives – before anything or anyone else. Policymaking is the exclusive prerogative of the legislative branch of our government. But over the past few decades, a virus of executive overreach and lawmaking from the bench seems to have sullied the notion of separation of powers. The consistent and appropriate theme from recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions has been a return to a constitutional framework for making laws. The recent court ruling on the Biden Administration’s attempt to forgive $430 billion in student loans serves as an example. Congress never approved such a policy. In fact, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, “People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.” Initially, even President Biden acknowledged this fact when he said in a February 2021 town hall when asked if he can cancel student debt, “Because I don’t think I have the authority to do it by signing the pen.” Despite this, the President moved forward unilaterally with the policy. The White House was using an interpretation of a 2003 law to justify the debt forgiveness. Much to the dismay of activists and some politicians, the Supreme Court said the Administration didn’t have authority to do that. Specifically, justices have been relying on something called the “major questions doctrine.” Put simply, it asks whether Congress has clearly delegated authority to resolve major policy questions. If it hasn’t, then Congress must decide the issue. Immediately after the student loan forgiveness case was announced, the President tweeted “student loan relief is good for working and middle-class Americans. It’s good for our economy. It’s good for our country.” That may or may not be true, but the constitutional way to pass such a policy is via the people’s elected representatives. The same can be said for other recent controversial cases. If you want affirmative action, pass a constitutional amendment. If you believe in capping greenhouse gases, convince enough of your fellow citizens and lawmakers to pass a law, and get the president to sign it. If you can’t convince your fellow lawmakers, you have the authority to vote those lawmakers out of office. Throughout the COVID pandemic and even since, state governors have sought to use more executive power. In Washington state, Governor Jay Inslee held on to emergency powers for nearly 1,000 days. Many other states moved to rein in their executives with new laws that required emergency orders over to receive legislative approval after a certain period of time. When Donald Trump ran for president in 2016, he was rightly criticized for proclaiming about the nation’s problems that, “I alone can fix it.” Our constitution does not give any one person the authority to fix anything. The judicial and executive branches are not responsible for implementing a preferred policy simply because going through the normal constitutional process is too cumbersome. Let’s remember there’s a reason the people, via the legislative branch, comes first in our founding documents.

With property tax assessments increasing rapidly in Wyoming, some have begun to discuss whether there should be changes to the Cowboy State’s tax structure. It is important to first remember that assessed property values do not necessarily drive the actual property tax bill. Instead, that tax obligation is primarily set through the budget process by the amount to be spent (whether approved by government officials or voters through levies). Concerning Wyoming’s current tax structure, as one of just a handful of states without a personal income tax, extreme caution should be taken to avoid losing this economic competitive advantage. This is especially true with any discussion of imposing a highly volatile and unpredictable income tax on capital gains. Taking effect for the first time this year, Washington is now the only state in the country to impose a standalone income tax on capital gains (other income tax states tax it as ordinary income as part of their income tax codes). The policy choice has resulted in national tax rankings removing Washington’s prior standing of not having a personal income tax. The federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has made it very clear that a capital gains tax is an income tax. Our friends at the Washington Policy Center posted this letter from the IRS clearly explaining this fact. IRS: “This is in response to your inquiry regarding the tax treatment of capital gains. You ask whether tax on capital gains is considered an excise tax or an income tax? It is an income tax. More specifically, capital gains are treated as income under the tax code and taxed as such." Imposing taxes on capital gains income is not a recipe for predictable state revenue. As explained by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO): "California's tax revenues have numerous volatile elements, but among the more significant sources of revenue volatility are the state's tax levies on net capital gains through the personal income tax." The CA LAO further cautions: “Capital gains depend heavily on movements in financial markets. As such, capital gains revenue is extremely volatile and difficult to predict. In any given year, there is significant risk that capital gains revenue could fall below budgetary expectations.” If the goal of structural state tax reform is to improve budget stability and avoid boom-and-bust tax collections, an income tax on capital gains is the worst possible choice Wyoming policymakers can make.

A standoff in the American west is occurring between two iconic symbols - ranchers and the Greater sage grouse. The sage grouse is a threatened species and ranchers and other resource users are struggling to balance changing conservation science with economic feasibility. This stand-off is repeated history, as states made great strides to protect the bird without federal oversight in 2015. Now once again, some states are restricting private property rights to discourage federal overreach. The sage grouse is the largest grouse in North America, a chicken-like bird. The remarkable mating ritual is its most known characteristic, but with low intelligence and survival traits the bird struggles to adapt to changing climates. The unique bird finds its protection and food sources in the sage brush habitat, spread across public and private lands in 11 western states and 2 Canadian provinces. The bird’s extreme dislike for habitat disruption is costly. Private landowners, resource developers, and taxpayers designate millions of dollars annually to improve conditions for the sage grouse, but with only marginal success. Eight years ago, Wyoming led out on sage grouse conservation but those previous efforts seem to have generated little goodwill. In 2015, Wyoming’s state mandated sage grouse Intervention Team designated core habitat across public and private lands. Many ranchers and other resource holders awoke to find that their lands were core habitat and certain future uses were no longer possibilities or were surrounded with excessive red tape. Despite stepping on many private landowners rights, the sage grouse population has continued to decline. In 2020, Wyoming created mitigation credits for sage grouse conservation, hoping to offset the challenges for landowners. This year, the federal government has once again proposed increasing oversight and conservation efforts for the Greater sage grouse. Increased federal oversight through agency management and/or listing as an Endangered Species are both unfavored options. States argue that localized management is more successful for population growth and balancing local priorities, versus generic federal control. To hopefully prevent federal oversight of the Greater sage grouse, Wyoming is currently designating more core areas and restricting more private property rights to prevent onerous federal oversight. Ranchers and other resource users are discouraged and frustrated, as their previous efforts and sacrifices go unappreciated, and they are still blamed for the bird’s continued decreasing population. The state has listened to the frustrations, and recently extended the comment period on the current proposal for core habitat. The comment period on the proposed core area map is extended to July 28th. Governor Mark Gordon said, “While I understand their agency's desire to move forward efficiently, folks affected by the potential addition of sage-grouse core areas need additional time and the opportunity to discuss the state's process. These are not insignificant matters. I know – I ranch in a sage-grouse core area." But Wyoming’s method of widespread designations of Core Areas across public and private lands is not the only path. Other states, like Idaho, work collaboratively with landowners, encouraging voluntary projects to promote habitat, while carefully applying a tiered designation approach. Idaho weighs critical habitat against the results to grouse populations and the cost to livelihoods. Both plans were approved, so maybe Wyoming might want to take a more particular stance, and carefully designate habitat while still respecting property rights. Or look at Washington’s Voluntary Stewardship Program that is gaining momentum as landowners and counties work with state agencies to foster good conservation practices, without onerous regulations that cause animosity and are difficult to implement. The concern of increased federal oversight is valid, but unduly restricting private property rights is self-sabotage. Wyoming needs to collaborate with landowners, beyond their compensatory attempt through mitigation credits, and selectively designate land, leaving plenty of room for a successful and voluntary partnership between landowners and conservation efforts. Actions like this will end the stand-off between sage grouse and ranchers, as both sides are able to appreciate the efforts being taken on their behalf. Picture Source: https://www.blm.gov/programs/fish-and-wildlife/sagegrouse/blm-sagegrouse-plans

We previously highlighted how the Mountain States compare on national tax rankings. For the most part, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are ranked near each other with modest-to-low tax rankings while Washington consistently ranked unfavorably in comparison. With the start of the new fiscal year and state tax changes taking effect, these rankings may change in the next year. For example, taxes continue to be reduced in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming while Washington is taking the opposite approach by imposing the state’s first income tax (starting on capital gains income) and dramatically increasing energy prices with a new cap and trade environmental policy. The Evergreen State’s cap and trade program has already earned Washingtonians the dubious distinction of having the highest gas prices in the country. The various approaches to tax policy can best be summarized by the governor of each state. Considering the following comments: “With all due respect, our billionaires do not need a tax cut right now in the state of Washington. And when you give a general tax cut, you’re giving breaks to billionaires in the state of Washington. I don’t really think we need that right now,” Gov. Inslee (WA) – Dec 2022 o Recent WA tax changes: Imposed 7% income tax on capital gains above $250,000; imposed 0.58% payroll tax on all workers for long-term care; imposed cap and trade policy resulting in a price of $56.01 per ton of carbon. In comparison, California's price is $30.33 per ton of carbon. "Since I took office, we have delivered more than $2.7 billion in tax relief to Idahoans – more than any other state per capita … Idahoans are clamoring for additional tax relief, and the Legislature’s actions are a step in the right direction on this longstanding issue," Gov. Little (ID) - March 2023 o Recent ID tax changes: Reduced graduated income tax rate of 6.5% down to a flat rate of 5.8%; income tax rebates; property tax rebates. “We recognize the importance of keeping property taxes low so families can remain in their homes and communities,” Gov. Gordon (WY) - April 2023 o Recent WY tax changes: Property tax rebates. “Montanans overpaid their taxes, and we’re giving it back. I look forward to getting this money back into Montanans’ pockets where it belongs," Gov. Gianforte (MT) - June 2023 o Recent MT tax changes: Reduced top income tax rate from 6.75% to 5.9%; income tax rebates; property tax rebates. It will be interesting to see how these tax changes impact the Tax Foundation's next edition of tax rankings for the Mountain States.

It is an exciting day for Mountain States Policy Center. As we prepare to celebrate our one-year anniversary, we're updating the organization with a new, more modern look. Successful organizations have a memorable logo that makes a strong first impression. Our new logo sets the foundation for what we do, and it separates us from other organizations. The new look features the same colors as before - those familiar in the Mountain States. But it also includes an "M" and "S" built into a mountain scape. MSPC board member Bonnie Quinn Clausen and our communications and marketing team took the lead in designing this updated look, and we are delighted with the final product. What do you think? Nothing changes regarding our work and our commitment to factual research based on free markets. Our slogan remains "Free Markets First." But we believe this updated logo helps set the stage for our future - which begins now. And you're invited to be a part of it. Anyone who starts a monthly, recurring contribution today will receive a gift featuring our new logo. Your support makes this work possible, and we're thrilled to be able to share this moment in our history with you. Thank you!

The United States Supreme Court recently announced it will be reviewing Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which has the potential to overrule a four-decade-old precedent that has plagued the regulatory scheme, the Chevron doctrine. Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 800 (1984) is a pillar of administrative legal analysis, and every lawyer today could recite the two steps in their sleep, engrained in their memories from the lecture hall of administrative law class. The two-step process states that in the event Congress did not clearly define the language within a statute or directly speak to a given scenario, the agency tasked with carrying out this specific statute is provided deference in what that ambiguous term means. Originally, the idea was that the agency is in the best position to determine certain ambiguous matters due to their “expertise” and familiarity on a specific area or function of our government. However, that thought process has gotten out of hand. For context, in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 800 (1984), the Supreme Court sided with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interpretation of what a “stationary source” meant within the Clean Air Act. In 1984 when the decision emerged, this was a win for the Reagan administration. Then, the conservative EPA cut back the regulations of the Carter administration. Little did America know, Chevron would transform into one of the biggest legal hurdles, hindering the efficiency and autonomy of people and businesses alike. As the decades have passed since the Chevron decision, agencies have gained power within the Courts through unchecked deference; thus, creating an impossible burden for parties opposing agency regulation. The Loper case defines the very problems associated with Chevron - small businesses and individuals mandated to interact with the regulatory scheme simply cannot keep up with demands agencies put forth. The Loper amicus brief said it best in the summary of their argument - “Over the past forty years and counting, [Chevron] has wreaked havoc in the lower courts upon people and businesses.” Here, Loper Bright Enterprises is suing the Secretary of Commerce, Gina Raimondo, due to the harsh effects the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has on the commercial fishing industry. As the regulation stands, Loper, a family-owned herring business operating out of the New England area is being oppressed by the regulation which requires a NMFS agent be present on every fishing expedition to oversee and enforce federal regulation. This burden extends beyond the encroachment of a federal agent intently watching a small business’ every physical move – these businesses are required to cover the expense of the federal agent’s time, amounting to an average of $700 per day. For Loper, this was around 20% of daily profits. In any business, a 20% profit loss per day cannot be considered positive. Loper is going tell the Supreme Court the story of multiple American industries and their interactions with federal and state agencies. It is anticipated that this is the Court to overturn Chevron, especially since the textualist majority has not been shy in their sentiment that statutory interpretation should be utilized instead of the overly broad power Chevron provides to regulators. Notably, Clarence Thomas in a 2020 dissenting opinion stated, “Chevron also gives federal agencies unconstitutional power.” The fact the Court took this case, is encouraging to anyone who has or will litigate against an agency. For far too long, Chevron has tipped the scales in the government’s favor, causing an imbalance in the delicate powers of our American governmental system. Agencies have arguably become just as powerful as Congress, despite the people not having a voice as to who the decision-makers are. On the flip side to this, there is an argument that agencies are representative because they are an arm of the executive branch, and because the President is elected, agency decisions reflect the President’s values. If the Court revokes Chevron, this holds our representatives in Congress directly accountable, given Chevron only comes into analysis when Congress has not been entirely clear in the legislative process. By reversing Chevron, Congress is held accountable to answer big policy questions, with clarity.

As lawmakers in various states continue to debate several ideas for expanding education choice options for families, cumulative research is continuing to show positive results. For the past four years, researchers at the non-profit EdChoice have compiled every newly published study on education choice models to determine effectiveness and impact on students participating in the education choice option, but also students who stay in a traditional public school setting. This year, they added a review of Ohio’s Educational Choice Scholarship Program and Income-Based Scholarship Program, as well as the Kansas Tax Credit for Low Income Students Program. In total, 187 studies have been reviewed showing the impact of education choice - and 84% of them show a positive effect. The research isn't just limited to one state or region - it is comprehensive, across states large and small, red and blue, rich and poor. Other than school safety (a new data point added this year), the highest positive impact comes from the category of parental satisfaction: "Parent satisfaction studies have examined three ESA programs, seven voucher programs, eight tax-credit scholarship programs, and at least seven privately funded scholarship programs across thirteen states and Washington, D.C. Of the 33 studies examining the effects of private school choice programs on parent satisfaction, 31 have found positive effects, one study found no visible effect, and two studies found negative effects." Regarding the impact on Program Participant Test Scores: "These studies examined three voucher programs and five privately funded scholarship programs across five states and Washington, D.C. Of the 17 random-assignment studies examining participant test scores, 11 have found positive outcomes for either the full sample or at least one subsample of students studied. Four found no visible effect for any group of students, and three found negative outcomes for all or some group of students." On Program Participant Educational Attainment: "These studies examined four voucher programs, one tax-credit scholarship program, and one privately funded scholarship program, across five states and Washington, D.C. Of the seven studies examining program participants’ educational attainment, five have found positive outcomes for either the full sample or at least one subsample of students studied, and two studies found no visible effect for any group of students. None of these studies found negative educational attainment outcomes for any group or subgroup of students." On Public Student Test Scores: "These studies examined nine voucher programs, one tax-credit scholarship program, and one privately funded scholarship program across eight states and Washington, D.C. Of the 29 studies examining the effects of private school choice programs on public school test scores, 26 found positive effects, one study found no visible effect, and two studies found negative effects." On Civic Values & Practices: "These studies examined two voucher programs and at least three privately funded scholarship programs across four states and Washington, D.C..Of the 11 studies examining the effects of private school choice programs on civic values and practices, six found positive effects, five studies have found no visible effect, and zero studies found negative effects. On Racial and Ethnic Integration: "These studies examined five voucher programs across three states and Washington, D.C. Of the eight studies, seven found positive effects on integration in schools. One was unable to detect any effects, and none found negative effects." Regarding Fiscal Effects: "Analyses reviewed here cover 24 voucher programs, 18 tax-credit scholarship programs, three education savings account programs, and one privately funded scholarship program across 23 states and Washington, D.C. Of the 74 studies on the fiscal effects of individual private school choice programs, 68 found net savings for taxpayers. Five found that programs were cost-neutral, and five studies estimated that a program generated net costs. Four of these studies estimated a range of fiscal effects and reported net costs in the short run and net savings in the long run." And finally, on School Safety and Climate: "These studies examined five voucher programs and three privately funded scholarship programs across four states and Washington, D.C. Of the eight studies examining educational choice’s impact on school climate and safety, eight found positive outcomes. None of these studies found negative outcomes for school safety." All 187 studies included in the report are referenced and linked to by the researchers. The analysis concludes that conversation surrounding education choice doesn't end with this data. "We live in a world where conversation is driven by short op-eds and even shorter tweets, with discussions about school choice research limited to a few studies, at most. In contrast, we present this comprehensive guide as a convenient way to see the relevant studies on a variety of topics. This resource should inform the debates about school choice."

Americans will be celebrating the 247th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence on July 4. While this is undoubtedly the biggest birthday party we will participate in this year (please avoid putting Roman candles on the cake), it is important to remember what the 4th of July is all about. The Continental Congress declared on July 4, 1776 (in part): “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” The signers of the Declaration of Independence then went on to list a series of grievances against King George. After winning the Revolutionary War, our founders then turned their attention to governing a new country with the hope of avoiding these types of problems again in the future. They did this by creating a republican form of government with strong separations of power and protection of individual rights. This brilliant design of self-governance is not guaranteed to be perpetual, however, and requires vigilance from the citizens. This is why Benjamin Franklin warned when asked what type of government Congress had created: “A republic, if you can keep it.” President George Washington implored Americans in his farewell address to protect our republican form of government and its critical checks and balances: “It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” While a study of our country’s history must include an honest acknowledgment of the times when our leaders have failed to adhere to the principles espoused by our constitution (the greatest of these sins being slavery), the inevitable failings of man should not be an indictment on the mosaic masterpiece that is the American experiment of self-governance. Our republic is worth keeping and celebrating but its future depends on all of us working together to protect it by adhering to the principles and framework loudly declared 247 years ago.

Public charter schools are making a positive difference. That’s the main conclusion from Stanford’s Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO) analysis. The CREDO study has been produced three times – once in 2009, again in 2013 and the latest version in 2023. More than 3.7 million students across 43 states attend charter schools, including in Idaho and Washington. Montana has just recently legalized public charter schools. Charter schools are public schools that operate under governing board that is separate and distinct from local school districts. Doing so allows for flexibility, even as the charter schools must submit to accountability reviews to remain open. Some of Idaho’s charter schools are considered the best schools in the state. Still, opponents have used previous versions of the CREDO analysis as well as other studies to call into question the effectiveness of charter school education. That ends now. The latest CREDO study shows increases in outcomes for just about every student category in nearly all states. The typical charter school student had math and reading gains that outpaced peers in traditional public schools. In math, charter schools advanced learning by an additional six days. In reading, charter school students advanced 16 days of learning each year. While these numbers are national averages, certain state by state data shows even stronger gains. Idaho’s charter school students gained an additional 17 days of learning in reading. Washington’s advancement approached 30 days. In Math, Washington students advanced almost 40 days while Idaho students advanced eight. Researchers at Stanford say the work specifically focuses on a specific outcome – whether the students are making progress over the academic year. Do all students benefit? The CREDO research shows: Black and Hispanic students in charter schools advance more than their TPS peers by large margins in math and reading. Multiracial, Native American and White students in charter schools show equivalent progress to their TPS peers in reading but have weaker growth than their TPS peers in math. Asian students in charter schools showed similar growth to their TPS peers. Charter school students in poverty had stronger growth. English-language learner students attending charter schools had stronger growth. Students receiving special education services had significantly weaker growth in both math and reading. Because the CREDO research has been consistently reviewing the performance of charter schools for more than 15 years, it can certainly be labeled one of the most if not the most credible of major charter school studies. “Findings from the 2023 report take on even more weight when considered in the historical context of the 15 years we have studied the impact of charter schools. Between the 2009 and 2023 studies, against a backdrop of flat performance for the nation, the trend of learning gains for students enrolled in charter schools is both large and positive. Over the 15 years covered by the studies, the reading growth of students in charter schools rose by 23 days of learning each year. In the same period, student learning in math increased by 37 days of learning each year.”

Sometimes it can be hard to remain hopeful when doing my daily news review. Story after story shows the struggles families and small businesses face as they attempt to pursue their American dream. But occasionally there is a story about lemons, lemonade, balance sheets, and encouraging kids to become entrepreneurs. As reported by NBC Montana: “When life gives you lemons, you learn about business. Lemonade Day Flathead teaches kindergarten through eighth graders how to run their own business. Children will set up their own lemonade stands across Flathead County on Saturday [June 24].” The organizers of Lemonade Day Flathead further explain: “Help us empower today’s youth to be tomorrow’s entrepreneurs! Lemonade Day Flathead started in 2020 and is a free, fun, experiential learning program that teaches youth how to start, own and operate their own business – a lemonade stand. The foremost objective of Lemonade Day is to empower youth to take ownership of their lives and become productive members of society – the business leaders, social advocates, volunteers, and forward-thinking citizens of tomorrow. Each child that registers will learn valuable lessons throughout the Lemonade Day program like creating budgets, setting profit-making goals, serving customers, repaying investors, and giving back to the community. Along the way, they will acquire skills in goal-setting, problem-solving, and gain self-esteem critical for future success. Kids keep all the money they make and are encouraged to spend some, save some and share some.” This fun story reminds me of a recent business pitch my youngest daughter made to me to sell cookies in our driveway. If we provide the budding entrepreneurs of today with the tools they need to succeed --- a strong financial literacy education and a favorable tax and regulatory climate as they get older, we can watch their driveway table stands of today turn into the jobs and industries that will drive our economy tomorrow.

Schools may be on summer break but the education funding debate in Idaho continues to heat up. After the governor and legislature increased school funding by $330 million this year, confusion surrounding how the funds would be distributed has re-started the debate about basing distributions on attendance versus enrollment and whether other changes are needed to the state’s K-12 funding model. As reported by the Idaho Statesman: “This year, the Legislature approved Little’s recommendation to infuse $145 million in the career ladder, the state’s uniform teacher salary system. But school districts often hire more teachers than the state provides funding for, and school finance officers have some discretion to distribute the funds. That means teacher raises will look different in each district. An added wrinkle is the upcoming reversion to attendance-based school funding. Idaho is among a handful of states that fund schools based on attendance. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the Idaho State Board of Education enacted a temporary rule allowing enrollment-based funding, which allowed schools to collect state money based on how many students were enrolled — not on how many attended. The temporary rule stabilized school budgets as attendance dropped during the pandemic, but it’s expiring at the end of this month.” Although some claim that by using attendance-based funding again state officials are breaking a “promise” for the increased education funding, all the dollars allocated this session will remain available for education spending, regardless of how distributed. I confirmed this fact with Jared Tatro, Deputy Division Manager of Budget & Policy Analysis for the Idaho Legislative Services Office: “Any money in excess of the appropriation that was not distributed to schools is deposited in to the public education stabilization fund (PESF). Now PESF is full (at its statutory cap of 8.334% of the state funding appropriated to schools), which means it will be deposited into the Bond Levy Equalization Fund. Bottom line, the money appropriated for schools will stay with schools in one form or another.” See Idaho Code 33-907 According to the Education Commission of the States, Idaho is one of just six states that currently uses attendance-based funding. Here is a comparison of how Western states determine school funding (attendance-based bolded): Alaska – Enrollment Arizona – Enrollment California – Attendance Colorado – Enrollment Idaho – Attendance Montana – Enrollment Nevada – Enrollment Oregon – Average Daily Membership (enrollment) Utah – Average Daily Membership (enrollment) Washington – Enrollment Wyoming – Average Daily Membership (enrollment) There are good arguments for both funding models. Enrollment-based funding advocates say it helps provide more predictability for traditional schools and charter schools to make budget decisions. Attendance-based funding supporters say it helps incentivize school officials to ensure chronic absenteeism doesn’t occur. This isn’t a new debate for Idaho. As reported by Idaho Statesman: “In 2022, the Legislature passed a bill that would have continued enrollment-based funding through the upcoming school year, but Little vetoed it. ‘Gov. Little believes education should be in-person and student-focused in order to improve student outcomes,’ Little’s spokesperson, Madison Hardy, told the Idaho Statesman by email. ‘We will continue to monitor efforts to improve school attendance to pre-pandemic levels and will make any necessary adjustments in collaboration with the Legislature, education leaders and stakeholders.’” I reached out to state officials for their thoughts on what should happen next. State Superintendent Debbie Critchfield told me: “There are valid reasons to prefer enrollment or attendance and both models have their supporters. I think we all agree that what we have isn’t meeting expectations. I’ve started work this summer to convene a group of policymakers and education stakeholders to work towards modernizing school funding. I believe we can provide districts the budgeting consistency they’re looking for while addressing our focus of having kids in school.” Rep. Wendy Horman confirmed that a collaborative effort to update Idaho’s K-12 funding model is occurring: “It is time to modernize Idaho’s school funding model. I am working on a bill with Sen. Lori Den Hartog and education stakeholders with these guiding principles: Modernize Idaho’s public school funding formula to one that incentivizes strategic and effective spending driven by local decision-making in order to accelerate student achievement. The model shall: 1. Be easy to understand, transparent, flexible, and sustainable; 2. Be student-centered; 3. Retain certain categorial funding; and 4. Shift away from seat time to course completion.” No matter which direction the future K-12 funding debate heads, the increased education spending allocated this year according to the Idaho Legislative Services Office will stay within the system: “Bottom line, the money appropriated for schools will stay with schools in one form or another.”