Imagine creating a household budget without knowing your paycheck amount. This is the challenge Idaho’s school districts face. Superintendent Critchfield is working on a weighted student funding model to allocate additional resources to specific student populations, such as those in special education, gifted and talented programs, and English learners. I applaud her efforts and support the concept of weighted student funding. However, changing school funding is a complex process that will not happen overnight. While progress in this area is encouraging, adding money does not always solve the problem. More than increased funding, what I am asking for is stable funding.

Additional state funding is always appreciated to help address maintenance, curriculum, and staffing needs. However, as a school superintendent, I am not asking for more money but consistency. Predictable funding ensures that Idaho’s schools can provide students with high-quality education year after year.

The Challenges of Unstable Funding

Idaho’s current school funding system depends on unpredictable revenue streams, including average daily attendance and supplemental levies. These fluctuations make long-term planning difficult and affect staffing, program development, and facility maintenance. Instead of focusing on continuous improvement, school leaders must adjust budgets in response to uncertain funding shifts.

One of the most significant challenges of unstable funding is its impact on staffing. Teachers and support staff are essential to student success. However, small districts struggle to offer competitive salaries and benefits, making attracting and retaining qualified professionals difficult. Inconsistent funding forces districts to cut or consolidate positions, increasing class sizes and reducing individualized student support.

Post-pandemic, the Ririe School District lost funding for three teaching positions. We used Title I and Literacy Funds to retain these teachers, but in doing so, we displaced classified staff, including classroom aides and paraprofessionals. We were able to use COVID-19 relief funds for a while, but they are now depleted. As we plan for next year, we are struggling to identify ways to retain these essential staff members who support student learning.

Beyond staffing, school maintenance also suffers from financial instability. Deferred maintenance on school buildings is a growing problem statewide. When funding is available, districts can address urgent issues like leaking roofs, aging HVAC systems, and outdated classrooms. But when funding fluctuates, necessary repairs are delayed, leading to more expensive fixes later. Schools should not rely on one-time grants or voter-approved bonds and levies to maintain safe and effective learning environments.

A Flawed Funding Model

To understand Idaho’s unstable funding model, consider a household budget. Families plan their expenses based on a reliable monthly income. However, Idaho’s public school districts must finalize their budgets by June, relying on the funding they hope to receive in February, May, and July. This funding is determined by attendance projections from the first day of school through the first Friday in November and the best 28 weeks of the school year. As a result, schools do not budget with certainty but make financial decisions based on assumptions. Such an unpredictable approach would be unsustainable for any household—yet it’s the reality Idaho’s public schools face every year.

The Burden on Local Communities

One significant consequence of Idaho’s current funding system is its reliance on supplemental levies, which require voter approval. School districts, especially in rural areas, depend on these levies for essential costs. When a levy fails, districts must cut programs, reduce staff, or defer maintenance projects. This unfairly burdens communities, forcing them to campaign for funds to maintain basic school operations.

Educational quality should not be contingent on local election outcomes. While community support is invaluable, the resources available to students should not depend on whether a levy passes. A more stable, state-backed funding approach would ensure that all Idaho students receive consistent, reliable funding regardless of location.

A Path Forward

Idaho must establish a more predictable and sustainable funding model. A new funding model should include the following criteria.

First, move to an enrollment-based model to calculate support units and establish a baseline funding level for each district.

Formula for Support Units:
Support Units = (Total Enrollment) ÷ (State-Determined Enrollment Divisor)

• The Enrollment Divisor should be tiered to reflect economies of scale. Smaller districts would have a lower divisor, generating more support units per student.
• Support Units determine the base operational funding for teacher salaries, benefits, and school operations.

Second, implement a Weighted Student Funding Model, as Superintendent Critchfield has proposed, ensuring equitable funding for diverse student populations. I would suggest that student weights include the following groups.

• General Education Students = 1.0
• Special Education (Mild/Moderate) = 1.2
• Special Education (Severe/Profound) = 2.5
• English Language Learners (ELL) = 1.3
• Low-Income Students (Title I Eligible) = 1.2
• Gifted and Talented Students = 1.2
• Career & Technical Education (CTE) Students = 1.2
• At-Risk Students (Attendance Below 90% or Credit Deficient) = 1.2

Finally, the state should develop a plan that includes funding for infrastructure and capital projects, similar to what House Bill 75 proposes. This would ensure that every district has resources for major projects without relying solely on local bonds and levies.

Funding Mechanism:

• A portion of state sales tax revenue should be allocated to an Idaho School Infrastructure Fund.
• A State Match Program should provide matching funds for approved capital projects based on district needs and local efforts.
• An Emergency Facility Fund should provide immediate funding for critical safety or structural repairs.

Eligibility for Capital Project Funding:

1. Districts must demonstrate facility needs through an assessment process.
2. Local funding efforts (bond or levy) are considered but not required for critical projects.
3. Priority should be given to districts with aging facilities or rapid growth.

Conclusion

While this is a simplified funding model, it addresses core concerns:

• Predictability through an enrollment-based support unit system.
• Equity via weighted student funding.
• Long-term stability with a dedicated infrastructure and capital fund.

Stable funding is not just about financial planning—it’s about ensuring students have consistent opportunities to learn and grow. It ensures teachers have the necessary resources, buildings remain safe, and programs can be developed and sustained. Without it, Idaho’s schools will continue to struggle, making it harder to provide the high-quality education our students deserve.

Education is an investment in the future. If Idaho is serious about preparing students for success, it must take action to provide schools with financial stability. The time to act is now—our students, teachers, and communities deserve nothing less.