Tuesday, March 24, 2026
Home Blog

Guest Columnist ID Representative David Leavitt: The Law of Compensation

0

March 22, 2026

The Law of Compensation
What service requires of those who choose to stand

By: Idaho Dist. 25 Representative David Leavitt

ID State Representative David Leavitt (LD25); Photo Credit: David Leavitt

There are two very different ways people approach public office, and over time, that difference becomes impossible to ignore.

Some enter into it with the expectation that it will give them something. It may not be stated that way, but the reality shows itself in how they operate. Relationships are protected, difficult issues are avoided, and decisions are shaped by what maintains stability rather than what challenges it. The position becomes a place of security, influence, and access. Something to preserve.

Others step into it with a different understanding. They recognize from the beginning that the role is not designed to benefit them personally, and that if they are doing it honestly, it will likely cost them something.

Over the past few days, many of you have seen what Senator Glenneda Zuiderveld has been walking through. She and her husband made the decision to serve knowing it could impact their business and their livelihood, and now it has. What she shared was not a complaint. It was a clear acknowledgment of a reality that is often left unspoken.

There are always those who will try to dismiss that reality. They will reduce it to self-interest or convenience, as if the cost only matters when it becomes personal. What they fail to understand is that when a stand begins to carry a real cost, that is not when principles begin. That is when they are proven.

Here is Glenneda’s story.

There is a natural law that applies here just as much as it does anywhere else. You do not receive something without giving something in return. Every benefit carries a cost, whether it is recognized or not. Like Newton’s Third Law of Motion, every action carries an equal and opposite reaction. That is the law of compensation, and it does not disappear in public office.

This principle is not new. It is woven into the foundation of this country.

At the close of the Declaration of Independence, the men who signed it pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. They understood exactly what that meant. Many of them paid that price in full. They lost businesses, homes, and security. Some lost their lives. They were not reckless men. They were disciplined, deliberate, and fully aware of the cost, and they chose it anyway.

The law of compensation has not changed. What has changed is the willingness to acknowledge it.

In public office, the question is not whether there is a cost. The question is what someone is willing to give.

For some, the exchange is subtle but consistent. They accept comfort, stability, and protection, and in return they give up independence. Over time, those decisions accumulate. A vote here, a relationship preserved there, a line that is never crossed. Eventually, the position is no longer about representing the people. It can become about maintaining the system that benefits them.

For others, the exchange moves in the opposite direction. They give up comfort in order to keep their independence. They accept risk so they can stand on principle. They understand that doing the job honestly may carry financial, professional, and personal consequences.

Before I ever stepped into this role, I understood that reality. One of the first decisions I made was to give up my Social Security Disability Insurance, something I had earned through my military service and the injuries I carry from it. That was not a symbolic gesture. It represented about a third of my income, along with medical insurance, and I knew that once I walked away from it, it was gone for good. I made that decision so that I could serve you without hesitation and without compromise.

At times, it would be easier to go along with a vote or stay quiet when difficult issues arise. Most people understand that. The difference is whether you act on it.

I don’t.

What we are seeing now makes that distinction clearer. When someone refuses to bend on issues like illegal immigration, when they choose to represent the people instead of the industries that benefit from the status quo, pressure follows. It does not always appear publicly. In many cases, it is quiet and targeted. Sometimes it is financial. Sometimes it affects business relationships or future opportunities. It is not driven by failure, but by refusal to comply.

That is not something to complain about. It is something to recognize and expect.

The law of compensation still applies. The only question is what someone is willing to give in exchange for what they receive. Some choose comfort and security, and in doing so they give up the ability to act independently. Others choose to give up that comfort so they can stand without compromise.

Understanding that, what are you willing to give?

I made that decision knowing it would come with a cost, and it already has. That is not unique, and it is not something I expect sympathy for. It is simply part of doing the job honestly.

We are not reckless. We understand exactly what this requires, and we accept it.

It takes discipline to stand when it would be easier to step aside. It takes conviction to hold the line when pressure builds behind the scenes. It takes a willingness to give something up in order to protect something greater.

Not everyone is willing to do it.

We are not here to accumulate power or preserve a system that feeds on the people it is supposed to represent. We are here to serve. To stand. To act as a barrier between the people and those who would take from them without restraint.

That requires strength. It requires resolve. It requires men and women who are willing to bear the cost without complaint and without compromise.

That has always been the standard.
It still is.

And we intend to meet it.

Guest Columnist Idaho Senator Brian Lenney: Parents? Who Needs THOSE?

0

March 20, 2026

Parents? Who Needs THOSE?
A disturbing trend (Idaho is not immune)

By: Idaho Senator Brian Lenney

The Left thinks they OWN your kids…

Check out this small clip from a hearing on Friday about Idaho schools secretly transing your kids. We passed a bill to say they can’t. Some leftists showed up in droves to oppose it.

This should not surprise anyone…

And it’s part of a several-decade-long trend to take away parenting from parents and outsource it to the schools, the state, even social media. Or how about a combo of all three?

Because yesterday, the House and Senate passed a bill to make billion-dollar social media companies AND the state of Idaho the new Mommy and Daddy.

H0542. The “Stop Harms from Addictive Social Media Act.”

Sounded great, right? Protect kids from Instagram and TikTok?!

Except I voted no, and here’s why (full debate, my part starts at 13 minutes).

We all want to protect kids…

I think to some extent, every single person in that chamber does (although, obviously we all define it differently and have different goalposts).

This bill (H542), to its credit, was aimed in the right direction. Because it didn’t go after app stores or device manufacturers. It targeted the platforms themselves. That was the right call. And Meta came out against it (they had five lobbyists running around the building trying to kill it, from what I heard).

So let’s look at who was lobbying against this bill:

  1. The Washington Post reported in August 2025 that Instagram’s chatbot helped teen accounts plan suicide (and parents can’t disable it).
  2. Court documents from last month showed an internal Meta researcher warned of 500,000 child sexual exploitation cases per day, English-speaking markets only, and their own employee wrote “we expect the true situation is worse.”
  3. TIME Magazine reported that Meta had a 17-strike policy for sex trafficking. Sixteen violations before your account got suspended. Their former head of safety testified to this under oath.

That’s who was fighting this bill.

But here was my problem…

I’m also old enough to remember when conservatives said “we don’t co-parent with the government.”

And although I really wanted this to work, I couldn’t vote for it. Because it was presented as a bill that “put parents in the driver’s seat” and “protected kids” but the kids who needed this most got nothing!

Section 48-2103(2) said these platforms have no obligation to verify age on accounts that existed continuously for seven years.

Say your daughter lied about her age at ten and has been on Instagram ever since. The algorithm shaped her entire adolescence. Eating disorder content at midnight, comparison culture wrecking her self-image, all of it.

By seventeen this bill owes her nothing. But Meta got seven years of her data.

Why? Because verifying old accounts is expensive for Meta. For TikTok. For any of these companies. So this bill carved out the most damaged kids to protect their balance sheets and we’re calling it “child protection.”

Parents don’t need a bill to put them in the driver’s seat.

They’re already there.

Because your thirteen-year-old doesn’t have a phone unless you bought it. Instagram? You allowed that. You can take it away tonight if you want. No bill required.

But Section 48-2103 requires platforms to track cumulative usage. Twenty-five hours, fifty hours, every hundred hours after that. Detailed usage histories tied to identifiable users. That’s a surveillance apparatus for your kid. Run by the same companies that connected groomers to two million minors. And now we’re trusting them to protect your daughter?!

And this is where it got insulting to me…

Section 48-2106(3) says parents can’t waive the requirements. You understand the risks, you make an informed choice about your own child, and the state says nope. Your judgment doesn’t count.

So we mandated that billion-dollar social media companies monitor your children for you. While overriding your authority to make decisions about your own family.

Because apparently parenting is too hard and the government knows better.

That’s not conservative.

I don’t know what it is but it’s not that.

And then there’s the compliance theater aspect of all this..

Section 48-2105(2)(d) says platforms aren’t liable if they used “reasonable means” to comply.

Meta’s lawyers are going to camp out in those two words. So will TikTok’s. So will every platform with a legal team. Every violation will turn into a multiyear court fight about what “reasonable” means.

Meanwhile your kid keeps scrolling. Not protected.

They already know who these kids are. They target ads to thirteen-year-old girls interested in fitness with surgical precision. But now they have a legal excuse to play dumb.

The thirty-day loophole is almost “funny” too…

Section 48-2104(7)(b) says when a platform flags a child’s account, the kid gets thirty days to dispute. Infinite scroll stays on during that window. Autoplay too. The exact features we’re supposedly banning keep running while compliance happens on paper.

Imagine you find out a kid is being abused in a group home. You don’t remove them for thirty days because the home needs time to “dispute the findings.” That kid stays in the same environment, same exposure, same harm, while paperwork gets shuffled around.

That’s what this bill does. We identified the harm. We just gave it a month to keep happening.

And the billion-dollar threshold? Discord walks. Tumblr walks. Roblox probably walks too (they make their money from Robux, not ads, and this bill only covers advertising revenue). The next TikTok walks. Any platform under a billion in ad revenue operates freely while Meta and Snapchat build compliance systems their competitors can’t afford.

So really, we just protected their market position and called it regulation.

All these billion-dollar corporations have to do is hire some compliance officers, build a dashboard, let the lawyers handle the edge cases. The ones who can’t afford it? Free pass.

Kids on Discord? Unprotected.

Kids on Roblox? Unprotected.

But Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat get a compliance shield and call it a win.

The bill passed by four votes in the Senate.

I wasn’t one of them.

Because I’ve been against these types of bills for years and I’ll keep being against them. But my reasons and Meta’s reasons are not the same.

They wanted this bill weaker. I wanted it to actually hurt them.

But, still, I can’t really blame anyone who voted yes. A billion-dollar organization that’s harming our kids hired five lobbyists to kill this thing. That says something. So I can understand why people voted the other way.

But I voted no because Idaho kids deserve a bill that actually kneecaps these companies. One that protects kids without offloading parenting to the same social media companies that are actively harming them.

This one didn’t get us there.

Protecting kids matters. But at the end of the day I just don’t think outsourcing parenting to Meta and the state of Idaho is how we do it.

Pocatello PD Telephone Scam Alert: Impersonation of Idaho State University Public Safety

0

(Pocatello Police Advisory, March 23, 2026)

The Pocatello Police Department has been made aware of a scam in which someone is falsely posing as Idaho State University Public Safety.

The scammer is contacting individuals by phone and claiming that evidence has been located in their vehicle and that they are under investigation unless immediate action is taken.

Remember: Scammers often use fear and emotional manipulation to pressure people into acting quickly. Law enforcement agencies will not demand immediate action or payment over the phone.

If you receive a call like this:
• Hang up immediately
• Look up the official phone number of the agency claiming to have called you
• Call the agency directly to confirm whether there is a legitimate investigation

If you believe you have been targeted by this scam, please report it to your local law enforcement agency.

Help protect others by sharing this information.

Idaho Fish and Game To Do Second Fish Survey in the Snake River below American Falls Reservoir

0

(Idaho Fish and Game Press Release, March 23, 2026)

On March 24 and 26, Idaho Fish and Game’s Southeast Region will be surveying fish populations on the Snake River below American Falls Dam from Oregon Trail Boat Launch to Pipeline Boat Launch.

This is a repeat of the fall survey completed last November to get a post-winter abundance estimate for comparison. Plus, fisheries teams will be tagging trout to help track angler catch rates and evaluate how fish survival varies by timing and locations of stocking. Angler tag reports will also shed more light on fish movements, including when fish get passed through American Falls Dam into the Snake River or emigrate to Walcott Reservoir.

Anglers who catch tagged fish are encouraged to report tag numbers and capture details through Fish and Game’s Tag You’re It! | Idaho Fish and Game program.

Fish surveys and tagging efforts reveal important information about fish populations which helps inform management decisions moving forward.

During the survey last fall, fisheries staff captured and released 312 rainbow trout, 17 mountain whitefish, 13 smallmouth bass, 11 brown trout, and 8 cutthroat trout. Other fish documented in the survey included Utah chub, Utah sucker, and yellow perch, though these species were not targeted by the survey.

The largest trout captured was a 26.7-inch brown trout. The largest rainbow trout was 22.2 inches with the majority of rainbows measuring between 16 and 20 inches. Rainbow trout were the only species with a large enough sample to estimate abundance.  In other words, without biologists finding and counting every rainbow during the survey, the sample size was still big enough to give biologists a good understanding of how many fish use that stretch of river.  In this case, fisheries staff estimate that there were about 2,000 rainbow trout in that mile-long stretch of the Snake River during the survey. In fact, this level of abundance is quite typical for Idaho rivers where rainbows are found.

For more information about this upcoming survey and other work being done to manage Southeast Region fisheries, please contact Regional Fisheries Manager Patrick Kennedy at 208-236-1262 or pat.kennedy@idfg.idaho.gov.

U.S. Announces Release of Dennis Coyle from Afghanistan

0

March 24, 2026

Washington, D.C.–The U.S. State Department today announced the release of American linguist Dennis Coyle from detention in Afghanistan:

Today, after more than a year of captivity in Afghanistan, Dennis Coyle is on his way home. President Trump is committed to ending unjust detentions overseas – Dennis joins over 100 Americans who have been freed in the past 15 months under his second term in office.

We thank the United Arab Emirates for its support in securing Dennis’ release. We also appreciate Qatar’s continued support and advocacy for Americans unjustly detained in Afghanistan.

While this is a positive step by the Taliban, more work needs to be done. We are still seeking the immediate return of Mahmood Habibi, Paul Overby, and all other unjustly detained Americans. The Taliban must end their practice of hostage diplomacy.

On the Coyle family’s website, FreeDennisCoyle.com, the family states that:

On January 27, 2025, Dennis was detained without charges by the Taliban General Directorate of Intelligence while legally working to support Afghan language communities as an academic researcher. To this day, he has not been charged with any crime.

Dennis has been held in near-solitary conditions, requiring permission even to use the bathroom, and without access to adequate medical care. His family is deeply concerned for his health and well-being.  On June 2, 2025, the U.S. State Department officially declared that Dennis is being Wrongfully Detained in Afghanistan under the Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act.

AG Labrador Defends Idaho’s Authority to Regulate Sports Betting

0

(Attorney General’s Office Press Release, March 23, 2026)

BOISE, ID — Attorney General Raúl Labrador joined a 39-state coalition challenging a federal agency’s attempt to claim authority over sports betting that Congress never granted. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) now claims fifteen-year-old laws passed to regulate Wall Street after the 2008 financial crisis also gave them the power to override state gambling laws nationwide.

In January 2025, online platforms Kalshi and Crypto.com began offering sports betting by calling it “events contracts” on federally-regulated futures exchanges. Users can bet on game scores, player performance, and other sports outcomes. The platforms marketed this activity as sports betting and the public used it that way. Kalshi reported over $1 billion in Super Bowl bets alone in February 2026.

For roughly a year, the CFTC declined to endorse the legality of these contracts. In September 2025, the Commission issued an advisory warning the platforms it had never approved such contracts and cautioned them that state law could result in the termination of their sports betting products if states chose to.

Under new leadership in late 2025, the CFTC reversed course. When Nevada sued the platforms to enforce its gambling laws, the CFTC filed a brief siding with the platforms. The CFTC now argues that these contracts qualify as financial instruments called “swaps,” federal law gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction and prevents states from regulating this activity.

“States like Idaho that choose to ban sports betting would be prevented from enforcing those bans under the CFTC’s theory,” said Attorney General Labrador. “An unelected federal agency claims it discovered hidden authority in fifteen-year-old financial reform laws to override state gambling laws nationwide. Congress never granted that power, and Idaho will continue defending our right to regulate gambling as we see fit.”

The coalition’s brief makes four main arguments. First, federal agencies have no special authority when interpreting the scope of their own jurisdiction, especially when claiming new powers that expand their authority. Second, under Supreme Court precedent, broad claims of federal agency authority over significant topics require clear congressional authorization. Congress never clearly authorized the CFTC to regulate sports betting when it granted authority over Wall Street swaps. Third, when Congress intends to shift traditional state powers to federal control, it must speak clearly. Gambling regulation has long been a core state function. Fourth, the CFTC itself has previously acknowledged it lacks expertise in gambling regulation and has no clear statutory mandate to regulate it, while states have extensive experience with age limits, addiction programs, and consumer protections.The brief notes the CFTC allows platforms to self-certify their contracts with no pre-approval and has no gambling-specific regulations. States that have legalized sports betting impose licensing requirements, background checks, age verification, responsible gambling programs, and integrity monitoring. States that ban sports betting would be unable to enforce those bans if the CFTC’s position prevails.

The case has implications beyond sports betting. If a federal agency can claim authority over an entire field of traditional state regulation by reinterpreting decades-old statutes passed for different purposes, the constitutional balance between state and federal power becomes meaningless. The coalition argues courts should reject such claims absent clear congressional authorization.

The Ninth Circuit is reviewing consolidated cases in which Nevada has enforced its gambling laws against prediction market platforms. The 39-state coalition filed this amicus brief supporting Nevada’s position that states retain authority to regulate gambling regardless of how platforms rebrand it.

Read the coalition’s brief here.

Sugar City Mayor to Discuss Natural Rights, Declaration of Independence at SUFI Town Hall, Wednesday, March 25

0

(Stand Up For Idaho Press Release, March 22, 2026)

Idaho Falls–Wednesday, March 25th – Steven Adams, Mayor of Sugar City, ID

Natural Rights and the Declaration of Independence

Steven will compare the concept of Natural Rights and the political systems built on that idea with the modern understanding of Civil Rights and the concerns this brings to good government and liberty. He will discuss the origins of natural rights in political philosophy and the importance of that concept in the modern political policy.

Steven has spent his career in education innovation. He currently works with affordable higher education programs serving students all over the world. He has also served as the Director of Charter, Virtual and Home Education at the Florida Department of Education where he worked with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. He also started or managing several charter and private schools in Idaho and Utah.

Steven holds a Master’s and Ph.D. in History and Philosophy of Education with focus in education policy and religious intolerance through educational systems. He lives in Sugar City where he serves as Mayor. He is married to the former Michelle Winters, has seven children and seven grandchildren.

Attendance to our Town Halls is free but donations are greatly appreciated. We are an IRS 501(c)3 nonprofit organization and donations are tax deductible.

Snake River Event Center (Shilo Inn), 780 Lindsay Blvd., Idaho Falls
6:30pm (Doors open at 6:00pm)

About Stand Up For Idaho: We are a nonpartisan, nondenominational, nonprofit organization striving to inform and educate the public on a wide range of topics that affect people’s lives. We advocate for the common good, well-being, and civic betterment for all Idahoans, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Idaho.

Blackfoot Resident Ethan Neff Announces Candidacy for Idaho State Senate in District 30: Bingham & Butte

0

(Neff4Idaho Campaign Press Release, March 20, 2026)

Blackfoot resident Ethan Neff is announcing his candidacy for the Idaho State Senate to represent the people of Legislative District 30, Bingham and Butte Counties. Through his work with families, students, and community members, Neff has seen firsthand the importance of strong representation for the conservative principles that have long defined Idaho: individual liberty, responsible government, and respect for local communities.

Coming from farm country, Neff chose Idaho as his home because of what the state represents: a place where families can work hard, raise their children, and live with greater freedom and less interference from government. After building his life in Blackfoot and becoming active in the community, he says protecting Idaho’s traditions of independence, personal responsibility, and constitutional government is what ultimately led him to run for the Idaho Senate.

Neff believes Idaho must stay true to the principles that made people want to live here in the first place. For Neff, the best way to protect those values is to step forward, offer clear leadership, and give voters a strong conservative voice in the Idaho Senate.

Neff believes Idaho’s future should be guided by the same principles that built the state in the first place: personal responsibility, strong families, respect for the Constitution, and a government that answers to the people. He is running to ensure that the voices of District 30’s Bingham and Butte families, workers, farmers, gun owners, and small business owners are clearly represented in Boise and that the values of Southeast Idaho remain strong in state policy.

Website: Neff4Idaho.com

Guest Columnist ID Senator Glenneda Zuiderveld: The Cost of Standing Firm

0

March 20, 2026

The Cost of Standing Firm
When Principle Comes at a Price

By: Idaho Dist. 24 State Senator Glenneda Zuiderveld

ID Senator Glenneda Zuiderveld (Photo Credit: Glenneda Zuiderveld)

Before deciding to run for the Senate, Tom and I did not make that decision lightly. We spent an entire year weighing what it could cost us. We talked about the impact on our marriage, our family, our friendships and even the possibility of losing our business. I remember reading what our Founding Fathers gave up, and why they ended the Declaration of Independence with the words, “we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” That is what it took to secure our liberties and freedoms, and it is what it will take to keep them.

Today, we know what it feels like to lose our fortune. I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and to stand on the principles so many of you elected me to defend choosing what is right over what is easy.

One of the top issues I hear about constantly is illegal immigration. Representative Dale Hawkins and I worked on a resolution together in 2023 that ultimately became a competing resolution to Senator Guthrie’s. Ours was stronger in its language, but it did not have the support of the Idaho Dairymen’s Association, Guthrie’s did. I knew that sponsoring our resolution, even though it was “just a resolution”, could come at a real cost to Tom and me if our customers, many of whom are dairymen, chose to retaliate. Our resolution did not make it through both chambers, but Senator Guthrie’s did. I was grateful at the time that we did not lose any customers.

This year, I have signed on in support of immigration bills that passed the House and are now sitting in Senator Guthrie’s drawer. You will hear some say I am ineffective, but if that were true, why did the Governor transfer money to a PAC that spent $100,000 against me in the last election? Why does the Idaho Dairymen’s Association contribute to my challenger?

I share all of this because today [Friday, March 20], before I even walked into the house, Tom was on the phone with a sick look on his face. He hung up and told me that three of our dairy customers no longer want to do business with us because of my politics. I will be sharing the letter and additional screenshots. Tom and I will not be silent.

As William Wallace so powerfully said:

And:

What will we do? We are survivors. We will not let this stop us from fighting for our freedoms, or for the freedoms of our children. We will not bow to fear. Freedom is worth everything, either it is worth sacrificing for, or it is not freedom at all.

Idaho K–12 Budget Moves Forward; Critchfield Questions Disparity in Virtual School Cuts

0

(Idaho Department of Education Press Release, March 20, 2026)

Boise–Idaho’s K–12 public schools budget cleared a key hurdle Friday morning, with lawmakers advancing a proposal that maintains current funding levels despite a tighter state revenue outlook.

The K–12 budget represents one of the state’s largest investments and provides the primary funding for public education across Idaho.

“In a year with real revenue constraints, our focus has been on maintaining support for students and protecting what matters most in the classroom,” Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield said. “The motions put forward today largely reflect the priorities we recommended alongside the Governor, and I’m pleased to see that we were able to maintain current funding levels for Idaho schools.”

Critchfield noted that in the current fiscal environment, holding funding steady is a meaningful outcome.

“In a year with a lot of ups and downs, this is a win for education,” she said. “There were tough conversations throughout this process, but staying focused on students helped guide those decisions.”

However, Critchfield raised significant concerns about how virtual education programs were treated in the budget.

“Throughout today’s discussion, there was a strong emphasis on fairness across virtual schools,” she said. “But when you look at the final decisions, Idaho’s own state-created provider—the Idaho Digital Learning Alliance—was reduced by 52%, while other virtual programs saw cuts of just 1.8%. That is a significant and difficult gap to reconcile.”

“IDLA serves Idaho students with Idaho teachers in communities across our state,” Critchfield continued. “If fairness is the goal, we need to make sure our actions reflect that—especially when it comes to a program that was created to meet the needs of Idaho families.”

Critchfield added that the issue highlights the need for broader conversations about how Idaho funds virtual education and ensures consistency across programs.

“We know there are ongoing discussions about how to modernize our funding formula, including how we account for virtual learning,” she said. “Those conversations are important—but they should result in policies that are consistent, transparent, and aligned with what’s best for students.”

She also highlighted a separate effort advancing in the Legislature to support students with the highest needs.

“We’ve been working with lawmakers on a targeted approach to better support students with extraordinary needs,” Critchfield said. “That proposal has advanced out of committee unanimously, and we’re encouraging Idahoans to reach out to their legislators in support as it continues through the process.”

While Friday’s action marks an important milestone, Critchfield emphasized that the budget process is not yet complete.

“This is a critical first step, but there are still additional steps ahead,” she said. “We remain committed to working with the Legislature to ensure Idaho’s public schools are supported and that these investments translate into meaningful outcomes for students.”