The measure cleared the House 58-12 and it now heads to the Senate for consideration.

The plan would help high students move through their coursework faster by paying most of the cost for online, summer and overload courses. Students who begin taking extra classes in junior high can finish their high school education by the beginning of what is typically thought of as the junior year.

The yearly cost for the program could be as high as $2.5 million, with the state paying $225 per online course and families paying $75 per class. Students who do not pass their extra classes will be required to pay the full course costs in order to proceed in the program.

Thayn says by rushing students through high school, the state could save up to $7 million in college costs.

The real savings, he believes, will come to families in the program. If students take courses more quickly and graduate after their sophomore year in high school, they can then take dual enrollment college course and graduate with an associate’s degree around the time their peers earn their high school diplomas.

Because students can take concurrent enrollment courses while still in high school, Thayn says families will save money by not having to spend as much on tuition, fees, books, food and other college-related expenses.

The program is not for everyone, however. Participation will be limited to 10 percent of the statewide student population and, even then, students must be motivated to take part. “It really depends on the willingness of the student to take extra classes and do extra work,” Thayn said.

Rep. Mack Shirley, R-Rexburg, the vice chair of the House Education Committee, spoke in favor of the measure, urging lawmakers not to be scared away by the newness of Thayn’s idea. “The thinking is outside the box. It’s a little unusual,” Shirley said. “But the concept is good.”

Shirley recognizes that some details of how the program would operate are still sketchy and will have to be worked out, but said the idea is worth the work.

There was some concern by members of the budget committee about how they would find money to fund the $2.5 million figure, but Thayn said he’s spoken with Jason Hancock, a top aide at the Department of Education about the issue and has been assured funding can be found if the bill clears the Senate and is signed by the governor.

Thayn, presenting a bill to get students through high school more quickly, brought his daughter Carly to the House Education Committee Monday to talk about her success in using online courses to graduate early from high school.

The younger Thayn, a junior set to shave a year off her high school career, told members of the House Education Committee that motivation is critical in utilizing online courses. “If you have the will to do it, you can do it,” Carly Thayn said. “It’s not that hard.”

The elder Thayn’s bill, House Bill 426, helps students graduate early by paying for a share of summer school courses, taken either online or in class. The state would pay $225 per summer school course for each student and families would pitch in $75. If students do not perform well enough in the classes, the state support will end and families will be asked to pay the full class costs moving forward in the program.

The bill moves to the House floor after a unanimous vote of approval from committee members.

There was concern about how to pay for the program among committee members. The startup cost for what Thayn is calling the “8 in 6” program would be about $2.5 million, with the money going to pay for summer school courses for interested students.

But Thayn sees the costs as an investment, helping students take courses in high school and eventually requiring less state funding for college education. He estimates that the state could save as much as $14 million annually through the program.

He also believes families could save money because early graduation would mean students could stay at home and take dual enrollment courses instead of going off to college and incurring extra housing, food and tuition costs.

Taking dual enrollment course in high school could also boost Idaho’s rate of high school kids going to college. Some 46 percent of ordinary students go on to college or trade school after graduation, but that number is much higher for kids who utilize dual enrollment classes. Jason Hancock, a top state education agency aide, told committee members that about 80 percent of students who take dual enrollment classes in high school go on to college.

Hancock dubbed the dual enrollment courses as “rocket fuel” in the push to get more kids into college or trade school.

The younger Thayn didn’t address college, but did say her courses have made her a better learner and an independent thinker. “You don’t learn what your teacher needs you to learn, you learn what you need to learn,” she said.

Rep. Brian Cronin, D-Boise, supported the idea because it’s another way to get more students into college. “I appreciate your constant willingness to think outside the box and your creative approach,” said Cronin in referring to Rep. Thayn, though he believes the idea will need some refinement if it is implemented into law. “I think this is a good concept.”

Rep. Rich Wills, R-Glenns Ferry, expressed similar sentiment. “I just hope we get the bugs worked out before it becomes law,” he said.

Thayn, a former teacher himself, proposed Thursday what he calls his “8 in 6 Program,” a process through which he says high school students can graduate early, take college courses and cut two years off their educational career.

This is the second time in three years Thayn has brought such legislation. In 2010, he championed the Mastery Advancement Pilot Project (MAPP), a program allowing students to graduate early and earn state-funded scholarships for doing so.

But unlike MAPP, 8 in 6 requires state money to function the way Thayn envisions. MAPP allows students to test out of courses to graduate early and the money they save by leaving school early is split among the state, the district and the pupil. Typically, students are given $1,400 in scholarship money to be used at in-state colleges and universities.

The startup cost for 8 in 6 would be about $2.5 million, with the money going to pay for summer school courses for interested students. Thayn says students, utilizing summer and online courses, can graduate up to two years early, allowing them enough time to take college courses at their high schools and graduate with an associate’s degree around age 18. Students would start taking extra classes in junior high school in order to shave two years off high school graduation.

The state would pay $225 per summer school course for each student and families would pitch in $75.

The program’s appeal, Thayn believes, is the savings associated with it. Though the upfront cost may scare off some lawmakers, the program aims to save the state—and families—money in the long run.

Based on how much the state spends per each university student, Thayn says the state could save as much as $40 million down the road if at least 2,100 students take part in the program.

He also believes families could save about the same amount because they would have to pay for only two years of living expenses, tuition, books, fees and other college-associated costs. The program, if executed correctly, would also get students in to the workforce quicker, increasing the lifetime earnings potential.

The plan was introduced in the House Education Committee Thursday. Thayn hopes it will receive its official hearing sometime next week.

Department of Health and Welfare officials are asking for $44 million more in state funding next year, bringing the total allotment to $481 million if approved.

If lawmakers OK that amount, it would represent the greatest share dedicated to Medicaid in recent years. The $481 million would represent 17.17 percent of the governor’s proposed $2.8 billion budget for 2013.

If lawmakers provide a conservative estimate for state revenues, it’s possible that percentage could jump even higher, though the $44 million request isn’t a sure thing.

Medicaid is typically seen as a medical services safety net. More than 230,000 Idahoans utilize Medicaid services, with the majority of them being children. Medicaid covers basic services, like some doctor visits, therapy, some chiropractic and emergency dental work.

In 2007, the state spent $340 million on Medicaid, representing 13.9 percent of that year’s $2.57 billion budget. The low point of the last few years came in 2009, when the state spent $327.5 million on Medicaid, amounting to 12 percent of that year’s spending.

Even with the added $137 million to 2012 Medicaid spending, which brought the program’s yearly total to $436 million, Idaho spent 17.09 percent of its $2.55 billion budget on the program.

The state money is $15 million less than it could have been, however. Medicaid is a shared expense, meaning the state picks up a portion and the feds cover the rest. Traditionally, the split works out to the state paying 30 percent and the feds paying 70. In fiscal year 2013, the federal government’s share will jump from 69.86 percent to 70.81 percent, saving the state $15 million.

In all, Medicaid is asking for $1.978 billion for 2013, with an increase of $161 million, including state, federal and dedicated funds.

Rep. Steve Thayn, R-Emmett, a member of the House Health and Welfare Committee, says he is “not at all” comfortable with expansion of the Medicaid budget. Thayn, who gave a presentation on cutting health care costs to his panel Monday, said the Medicaid budget hurts other state programs, like roads and public education.

“It’s consuming other state budgets,” Thayn said.

The Emmett Republican is exploring legislation to cap Medicaid spending as a share of the state budget, but didn’t indicate what that percentage might be. He said that a cap could be phased in over time with smaller, multi-year reductions.

If implemented, Medicaid funding would be set as a percentage of the state’s yearly budget and policymakers would be forced to work within that figure.

Thayn didn’t say if the legislation might come this year.

Rep. Darrell Bolz, R-Caldwell, a vice chair of the budget committee, told IdahoReporter.com he is concerned with Medicaid’s rising costs, but doesn’t believe a hard cap on the program is the correct answer. “I don’t like putting percentages on things,” Bolz said, adding that budget fluctuations are too volatile for hard caps to be instituted.

Bolz blames the economy for the skyrocketing Medicaid costs, but he wants lawmakers to work to address health expenses. “We cannot continue to have costs escalate,” Bolz warned.

The measure, part of Senate Bill 1108, directed districts to notify teachers that there are a number of liability coverage options available to them, with teachers required to return a form to the district office acknowledging they had received notification. Districts also provided a list of companies to teachers.

What resulted, according to one superintendent in southeast Idaho, was some panic among the state’s teachers wondering if they weren’t covered. A few teachers in his district and many others statewide, he says, purchased private coverage. He agreed to speak on condition that his name would not be used.

Rob Winslow, executive director for the Idaho Board of School Administrators, agrees that the liability notification law caused confusion among teachers. He says the provision was not needed because districts already provide liability insurance. “We just don’t find it necessary, and so since districts already cover their employees, we would like to see that eliminated. It’s just not necessary.”

Winslow says his organization is “working on legislation along with the Idaho School Boards Association (ISBA) to try and eliminate that. I’m not sure if legislators just didn’t understand that, why you’d have a bill when something already existed.”

Julie Hart, communications director for ISBA, echoed Winslow’s concerns. District liability coverage “covers them from the time of their employment, but just like any other insurance, it doesn’t cover criminal acts. So, it covers accidents and things like someone getting hurt on a field trip when somebody (district employee) drove, or something like that. There is no insurance for criminal acts.

“But, insurance covers them unless they are terminated, at which point they are no longer a district employee so they are not covered,” she said, adding, “There will be legislation presented to remove that part of Idaho Code.”

Rep. Steve Thayn, R-Emmett, a member of the House Education Committee, said the reason for the provision was to allow equal access for all parties that sell liability insurance, specifically, the Northwest Professional Educators (NWPE). “The Northwest Professional Educators offer insurance for teachers. In the past, they have tried to get access during the first part of school, when teachers are coming back to school and talking about getting insurance and different things, and were denied access. …  The teachers union would go to the administration and say ‘we don’t want these people here.’ So, they didn’t really have equal access to the teachers. So, I think it’s incidents in the past like that, which was never explained in the bill. It just said teachers should have choices and anybody that sells this should have access to teachers to provide it.”

While Thayn disagrees with Winslow and Hart on the need for the legislation, he does agree with them that the liability provision will likely be amended by the 2012 Legislature. “I talked about getting it (the bill) changed toward the end of (2011) session. I think it’s clumsy and it takes a lot of paperwork, and something needs to be done to change it. It wasn’t a well-written part of the bill from the very beginning.”

Seemingly in the midst of the controversy is NWPE, which describes itself as “a nonpartisan, non-union professional educator organization partnered with the Association of American Educators that provides career protection, caring support and helpful services for teaching professionals such as teachers, administrators and support staff in Washington, Idaho and Oregon.”

Cindy Omlin, executive director for the organization, told IdahoReporter.com that while districts in Idaho do have liability policies, the policies are there for the district’s interests, not the individual teachers. “Teachers are responsible to protect their own license and livelihood. Sometimes there are conflicts of interest between a school district and the employee. Districts have been known to make settlements (even when teachers are innocent) to save money or diminish the negative publicity a district might incur from a teacher’s case. This might not be in the teacher’s best interest. That is why they need their own policy.”

Furthermore, Omlin explained that the policy her organization provides is a personal policy, with the individual being named the beneficiary, and that the NWPE policy is twice what the teachers union policy is in coverage parameters.

Omlin provided several examples from across the country, though none from Idaho, of teachers, not districts, being held liable.

• A student injured on a field trip resulted in a $42,000 judgment against the teacher (not district).
• A teacher was sued for improperly disciplining a student with a behavioral IEP (individual education plan) in place. Case was dismissed, but the teacher had to pay personal defense costs.
• A student injured during gym class resulted in an $80,000 judgment against the teacher.
• A teacher was accused of sexual molestation and acquitted on all charges.  However, the teacher had to pay $13,000 in attorney fees.

Omlin agrees with Thayn about the law’s clumsiness in its writing, saying “The current law, unfortunately, is inadequate to meet the needs of educators desiring choices for liability protection and professional support. The intent of the current law was to inform educators of their options. Because the law was poorly written, however, its implementation has been largely ineffective in raising teacher awareness of their liability protection options. For example, professional educator associations, which are in the best position to provide personalized teacher support and liability protection to Idaho educators (such as NWPE), were not allowed on the list of liability options.

“Instead, nearly a hundred insurance companies, few of which even provide educator liability insurance, were placed on a liability list and distributed to teachers causing more confusion than true assistance. When I called the first five companies on the list, four of the companies did not provide educator liability insurance and the fifth never answered the phone,” said Omlin.

The Idaho law opens the door for many more options, according to Omlin. “A notification of educator liability options law is necessary because for decades, one organization, the Idaho Education Association (IEA), has enjoyed monopolistic control over the flow of information regarding teacher options for liability protection. This monopolistic control has been exercised through use of abusive tactics against administrators such as threats of legal action if they allow distribution of information about teacher options.”

A call to the IEA for comment was not returned.

Photo courtesy of teachersalary.org

His view echoes comments made to IdahoReporter.com by Reps. Steve Thayn and Lynn Luker, who said reducing the amount of unemployment benefits is a must for the Gem State. Idaho is one of a handful of states allowing up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.

Rep. Thayn, R-Emmett, is looking for a dramatic change in the unemployment system inIdaho. “Unemployment needs to be reduced to about six weeks. So that way we can reduce the cost of unemployment insurance so the private sector can have more money to put back into production. As we have more production we’ll have more wealth generated, more taxes generated.”

Rep. Luker, R-Boise, agrees with Thayn about reducing the number of weeks of unemployment, but thinks six weeks may be a little low. “I think six weeks is a little much. I think the original 26 weeks for unemployment is where we should be.”

In a letter to Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, as well as to Reps. Raul Labrador and Mike Simpson, Madsen implored them to reject a proposal by the federal government to once again extend unemployment benefits and give money to states.

Several reasons were given, but perhaps the one that stands out the most is the last bullet point in Madsen’s letter: “Extended unemployment insurance benefits are adding billions of dollars to our national deficit because they are not fully funded. They are borrowed dollars. Moreover, I believe unemployment insurance has become, in the eyes of many claimants and business owners, an ‘entitlement’ or ‘welfare’ program rather than one based on basic unemployment insurance principles that have served the program well with minimal controversy for decades.”

Madsen believes some Idahoans will be angry with his position on this issue, but insists his recommendation is in the best interest of the state. “Our goal is to get Idaho citizens re-employed so they can receive a paycheck instead of an unemployment benefit check,” Madsen said. “ButIdaho’s legislators and business owners also need to regain confidence in this very important social program. Putting our federal fiscal house in order is the one thing I believe will make our country’s unemployment insurance program stronger.”

The amount of extended benefits, not standard unemployment benefits, that Idahoans have received since the start of the economic downturn in 2008 is attention-getting.

According to IDOL, “Since the recession began, 150,000 Idaho workers – 20 percent of the state’s labor force – have received over $750 million in federal extended benefits beyond the basic 10 to 26 weeks of benefits offered through the regular state unemployment program. Over 12,000 of them exhausted those additional benefits – between 27 and 73 additional weeks – without finding a job through the end of October, and about 100 more are exhausting those benefits every week. The federal extended benefit program is currently scheduled to expire at the end of December.”

Thayn fought against extending unemployment benefits during the last legislative session. He believes that the longer unemployment benefits are extended, the more the private sector feels the pain.

“Unemployment needs to be reduced to about six weeks. So that way we can reduce the cost of unemployment insurance so the private sector can have more money to put back into production. As we have more production we’ll have more wealth generated, more taxes generated. “

Luker voted to extend benefits during the last session, but says he wouldn’t do it again. He also thinks benefits should be reduced at some point, but feels the six weeks Rep. Thayn prefers may be a little low. “I think six weeks is a little much. I think the original 26 weeks for unemployment is where we should be.”

Having 99 weeks of potential unemployment benefits is a drain on employers, says Thayn. “Unemployment is a drag on hiring and on private sector employment and job growth because we’re taking wealth away from those producing it and giving it to people who aren’t working.”

Not only is the 99 weeks a drain for employers, according to Thayn, but it also gives less incentive for some people to look for work. “I’m very much opposed to the 99 weeks for one other reason. Some people feel that wealth just comes from the sky I guess, and they’re not motivated to go out to look for a job until their unemployment is about over. I think there is a human element that’s involved that some people just won’t look for a job until it’s almost expired,” adding, “We’ve got to reduce the amount of unemployment we are paying.”

A recent study by the Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that studies and analyzes government tax policy, indicated that less than half the states give the full extended unemployment benefits, which is 99 weeks. That’s nearly two years.

Idaho is one such state, and because it did not have enough funds in its unemployment insurance account when the recession hit full force, the state had to borrow money for unemployment benefits from the federal government in 2009 and 2010. Idaho has since paid back the money through bonds, to the tune of $202.4 million.

The loan had to be paid back by Nov. 8, and by paying it back early Idaho saved an estimated $650,000 in interest.

Unemployment benefits can entail a number of benchmarks, each one triggering yet another level of benefits. While unemployed people in Idaho qualify for 99 weeks of unemployment, there are six categories that make up the 99 weeks.

The first category, which is what Luker would like to see, is 26 weeks. The first 26 weeks of unemployment benefits are paid by the state.

Once that runs out, a person can apply for up to 53 weeks from a federal program, which is funded by federal unemployment insurance taxes. Thirteen of those 53 weeks can only be approved if a state has an unemployment rate of over 6 percent, which Idaho does. Idaho’s rate for September was 9 percent and it has averaged that number for the past several months.

Following those 79 total weeks, there is an option for extended benefits, which is a program in which funding is shared by the state and the federal government from unemployment insurance taxes. The first 13 weeks are applicable if the state has an unemployment rate of 6.5 percent, and the remaining seven weeks applicable if the state has an unemployment rate of at least 8 percent, which Idaho does due to an unemployment rate averaging around 9 percent.

Photo courtesy of Indianagrain.com

That was the sentiment Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Director Dick Armstrong shared with members of the House Health and Welfare Committee at a special meeting in the Capitol Thursday.

The meeting, called by committee chair Janice McGeachin, R-Idaho Falls, was intended to study and discuss the creation of a state-based health exchange program, a government-run insurance market system. Exchanges are a major part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in March of 2010.

Armstrong told committee members that the online portal created by the exchange would integrate private and government health insurance options and that low income Idahoans would be directed to taxpayer-funded coverage plans.  According to department forecasts, the exchange would likely bring 100,000 new participants.

More than 233,000 Idahoans, or about 15 percent of the Gem State population, are already on Medicaid. If, in fact, 100,000 people do join Idaho’s Medicaid system in 2014, more than 22 percent of the population would be on the program.

Also helping to add more residents to the Medicaid rolls is a federal raise in the income eligibility limit. As it stands, adults with children typically qualify for the program only if they are extremely low-income, but that is set to change under health reform rules. Tom Shanahan told IdahoReporter.com that a prior to the changes, a married couple would have only qualified for Medicaid if they were making $251 or less each month. That amount, Shanahan explained, has now been increased to $1,655 each month.

The new income limits go into effect regardless if Idaho lawmakers decide to implement a health exchange.

The new participants would have a mixed impact on the state’s health spending.  New enrollees would initially be completely covered by the federal government, but that support slides through a five-year period. The support drops to 96 percent in fiscal year 2016, 94 percent in 2018, 93 percent in 2019, and 90 percent in 2020 and beyond.

Armstrong said that changes at the federal level could mean federal support rates drop even lower than expected. “If we’re going to see a balancing of the national budget, we could see a reduction in the FMAP (the federal support),” said Armstrong.

Idaho lawmakers were forced to increase state Medicaid spending by $137 million this year because the federal matching rate dropped 7 percentage points.

But the situation will likely be more complex than that, however.  Armstrong said that some new participants will likely have children who will be regarded as previously-eligible. Anyone in that category will be covered by the traditional funding split, meaning that Idaho will cover 30 percent of costs and the federal government will cover the rest. That provision, Armstrong warned, could mean legislators will have to appropriate an extra $17 million in health spending in 2015.

Lawmakers aren’t thrilled with the prospect of having more residents on the health welfare program. House Majority Caucus Chair Ken Roberts, R-Donnelly, said more people on Medicaid could mean higher taxes.  “It’s great to have health care for everyone, but you figure out how much it’s going to cost and who is going to pay for it,” Roberts explained. “All of these programs are nice, but figure out how we are going to pay for them.”

Rep. Steve Thayn , R-Emmett, said he thinks it would be “disastrous” for the state to bring so many new participants to Medicaid, particularly because it could force lawmakers to cut state support for public schools.  “You have a choice between controlling entitlement costs … and funding public education,” Thayn remarked. “If we go down this road, we won’t be able to appropriately fund public education.”

One speaker, Edmund Haislmaier from the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank, delivered remarks critical of the exchange program. Haislmaier, in the area because of another meeting in Utah, told committee members that the exchanges in health reforms aren’t the ones originally advanced by his group, but instead a vehicle to get more people on health welfare programs. “This is a welfare income-transfer bill,” he said.

Haislmaeir warned that lawmakers have a tough task ahead of them should they choose to implement an Idaho exchange. “It is going to be incredibly difficult to implement this,” he said, pointing to the myriad of regulations handed down by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services since the initial passage of reforms. “Mind-numbing doesn’t do this justice.”

Moving forward, Haislmaier said, the state should be careful about complying with regulations and taking federal money.  ”There are too many strings attached to that,” he said.

The meeting came less than 10 days after Gov. Butch Otter announced his plan to apply for $30.9 million in federal money for exchange research and upfront implementation costs. Otter explained the move by saying he wants Idaho to have the option to create its own exchange and not have a federally-run system forced upon the Gem State. He also noted Idaho could pull out of exchange creation and return the money in the future.

In early 2010, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) asked the Legislature to approve a co-pay for a service known as the Katie Beckett program, which provides in-home care for disabled children.  At the time, agency officials projected that instituting co-pays would save Medicaid about $200,000 annually, which is funded jointly by the state and the federal government.

According to a report obtained by IdahoReporter.com Tuesday the department has exceeded that goal.  Between May 1, 2010, when billing commenced, and the end of April 2011, the department took in $214,542 from co-pays, which are entirely optional for participants.

But future billings may drop off due to intervention by the federal government. In January, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services required DHW to conduct a survey about the option nature of the co-pays among program enrollees.  The agency sent surveys to 928 enrollees, and of the 213 responses received, about 40 percent of respondents said they were unaware that co-pays are optional and said they planned to opt out of future payments to DHW now that they know.

About 42 percent of respondents said they will continue to pay, even though they know payments are optional.

In all, of the 1,285 families that are co-pay eligible, only 175 families are paying premiums, while 395 families have specifically asked DHW to prevent future billings from being sent.  Another 715 families are sent bills by the department but simply don’t pay them.

The annual cost for the Katie Beckett program hovers around $37 million.  The aim of the program is to give disabled minors access to in-home care, regarded as a cheaper alternative to institutionalization.

Jim Baugh, a member of the Idaho Council on Developmental Disabilities, told IdahoReporter.com that because the payments are optional, they haven’t necessarily harmed any program enrollees.  “So there hasn’t been any drastic effect on families since the ones who would have been harmed the most simply don’t pay the premiums.”

Co-pays are assessed on a progressive income scale. For those families making $2,500 a month or less, the average bill from DHW is about $10. For those making $10,000 or more each month, DHW asks for about $473.  Co-pays are reduced for those families providing private insurance for their kids enrolled in the Medicaid program.

One lawmaker on the House Health and Welfare Committee, Rep. Steve Thayn, R-Emmett, said that even though the $200,000 savings is small relative to the total $37 million bill for the program, it’s a move that saves taxpayers money and cuts down on the redistribution of wealth through health care entitlements.  “It’s important that they met their goal,” said Thayn.

The chairman of that panel, Rep. Janice McGeachin, R-Idaho Falls, said that even though only a small portion of money is coming back to Medicaid, it helps.  “Everything adds up,” she said.

McGeachin said there are no plans to further alter the billing for the program in the near future.

That wasn’t the case in the 2011 legislative session, though lawmakers reduced state spending by at least $80 million.

One bill, proposed by House Education Committee member Rep. Steve Thayn, R-Emmett, to reduce the amount of time students spend in kindergarten each year, could be described as an option of last resort in the budget fight.  The measure, introduced in the middle of the session, never received a hearing because deeper cuts to public schools – which saw a reduction of $47 million for fiscal year 2012 – weren’t needed.

“The budget deficit ended up being not as great as we thought it would be going into the session,” said Thayn. “People didn’t think it was necessary.” Different projections released in late 2010 estimated budget shortfalls of more than $300 million.  Thayn’s bill would have cut kindergarten spending by two-thirds, or about $33 million annually.

Thayn told IdahoReporter.com that had steeper reductions been necessary for public schools, his measure would have likely seen more consideration. “If it would have been $150 million, It would been on the table,” he explained.

Another member of the committee, Rep. Donna Pence, R-Gooding, disagrees.  When asked if greater school funding reductions would have meant more support for the bill, Pence said no.  “Personally, I don’t think it would,” she explained.

In exchange for cuts, the measure would have given school districts across the state flexibility to craft new kindergarten programs, which could have meant that higher-performing students spend less time in classrooms.

The Emmett Republican told the House Education Committee that he believes not all kindergarten students need 36 weeks of instruction – the current offering – and that some could do more with less time in the classroom.  “We might actually improve the school system by doing a little less,” said Thayn in the first hearing on the bill.

Instead of teachers educating kindergartners, Thayn’s plan proposed to engage parents and asks them to become involved in the process.  While most kindergartners attend half-day classes, Thayn feels that might be too much.  Instead, he wanted students to spend learning time one-on-one with parents.  Though that time might not equal hours spent in the classroom, Thayn says the direct contact will equal out for children.

Under the plan, local districts would have been able to offer limited classes to students with parents unable to educate their own children.

Thayn said even if there are budget shortfalls next year, this version of the bill is dead.  He says an entitlement culture in the Statehouse would make it difficult to move the legislation through both chambers of the Capitol.  “The problem with the bill is that it cut a program that many people think they are entitled to,” said Thayn.  He plans to bring another proposal next year that will allow parents to opt out of kindergarten classes for their children and receive tax credits for doing so.

The death of the 2011 bill is fine with Pence, who thinks kindergarten is necessary for the development of Idaho’s youngsters.  “It’s not a waste of time,” she said.

But more than the cost-savings involved, Pence says that the concept that higher-achieving students would be able to skip much of a school year is wrong.  “You need to move the students along at their own rate,” said Pence.