The COVID-19 pandemic cast a dark shadow over the educational landscape, including in the great state of Idaho. Schools struggled with shifting policies, student attendance fluctuations, and an ever-changing financial outlook. However, one bright spot emerged from the crisis: the shift from Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funding to enrollment-based funding.

Under the ADA model, business managers and superintendents were tasked with predicting not only how many students would enroll in the coming year but also estimating their daily attendance. If their projections were off, the financial ramifications were severe. In contrast, the enrollment funding model required districts to estimate only the number of students enrolling—a significantly more manageable and stable approach. For many school districts, it was the first time they experienced true financial predictability.

Unfortunately, as the pandemic waned, so did enrollment-based funding. Many legislators reverted to the idea that public schools should only be funded when students are in attendance, forcing districts back to the unstable ADA model.

Fast-forward to the 2025 State of the State address, where the Governor announced his support for $50 million in school choice funding and the legislature’s introduction of House Bill 93 (H.B. 93). The bill introduces a Parental Choice Tax Credit, providing families with $5,000 per student per year—or $7,500 if their child qualifies for special education—to homeschool or enroll in private school. H.B. 93 recently passed the House with a 42-28 vote, moving the proposal one step closer to becoming law.

Here’s where the contradiction becomes apparent: The funding for H.B. 93 will be distributed based on enrollment—the very model that ensured stability for public schools but was taken away. This raises critical questions. Are homeschool and private school students worth more than their public school counterparts? Why are public school students only funded when they attend, while private and homeschool students are funded merely for enrolling?

Beyond the funding disparity, H.B. 93 raises serious legal concerns. The Idaho Constitution explicitly prohibits public money from being used to support sectarian institutions. Article IX Section 5 of the Idaho constitution states that no public funds may be appropriated “in aid of any church or sectarian or religious society” or “to help support or sustain any school… controlled by any church, sectarian or religious denomination.” Given that many private schools receiving these funds are religiously affiliated, this raises significant questions about whether H.B. 93 aligns with Idaho’s constitutional protections. If public tax dollars cannot be directed toward religious schools, how can this bill justify funneling millions in public funds toward private institutions, many of which are faith-based?

If enrollment-based funding is the gold standard for school choice initiatives, why is it not the standard for public schools? Public schools are being asked to educate students under an increasingly stacked deck, forced to operate under one funding model while another, more stable model is used elsewhere.

Legislators must address this glaring inconsistency. If Idaho truly values all students equally, then public schools should receive the same stable, predictable funding as private and homeschool families. The future of our schools—and the students they serve—depends on it.

I encourage readers to contact their state senators and ask them why they would support a bill that provides stable funding for homeschool and private school students but not for their counterparts in public schools. Also, ask them how they justify using public tax dollars for private institutions when Idaho’s Constitution explicitly forbids it. Idaho’s public school students deserve the same financial stability as every other student in the state—without violating the law.