School funding and finance are complex topics. When we start talking about funding to the nearest 1/100 of a student, we quickly lose people. Making updates and changes to school funding is hard work. That’s why there have been no significant changes to the funding model since the 1990s and the newest line items originated in 2008.
I support the emphasis on stable funding for Idaho’s public schools, arguing that financial consistency is paramount for maintaining high-quality education. While the call for predictable funding is understandable, it is essential to recognize that the current challenges in Idaho’s educational system stem not solely from funding instability, but also from the inadequacy of the current funding model and the resulting inequitable distribution of resources. I have proposals on the table that will make changes and they are currently being debated. The changes are intended to maximize the dollars that get appropriated, utilize existing dollars, reflect student populations as they exist in our districts and charters and take into account that the answers for education cannot always just be “more money.” Our school leaders know this too. They work the budgets every day and know all too well that operations are more costly than ever and that the needs of students have changed. We all share the goal of providing resources to our schools and charters in the ways that serve them best.
Ensuring stable funding is critical, but without addressing the adequacy of these funds, schools may continue to struggle to meet the evolving needs of their students. We can’t demand that our districts adapt and change with the times and hope that outdated funding mechanisms will fill that request.
Idaho’s diverse student population includes varying needs, from rural districts with sparse populations to urban schools with higher concentrations of economically disadvantaged students. I believe that implementing a weighted per-student funding formula, as I have proposed, aims to address these issues by allocating resources based on specific student needs, ensuring that all students have access to quality education regardless of their circumstances.
The educational landscape is continually evolving, with new challenges such as technological advancements, changing workforce demands and multi-faceted student needs. A funding mechanism that only accounts for stability and doesn’t include adaptability may hinder a school’s ability to innovate and respond to these changes effectively. Flexible funding mechanisms that allow for adjustments based on current student needs and numbers can empower schools to implement programs and strategies that better serve their students.
School funding relies on multiple factors and I recognize that those differences can create uncertainty for some schools and charters. From the location of a school to the makeup of the student body, stability of funding will mean different things in different places. This aspect of funding matters, but it is a different question from how we fund to best meet the needs of individual students. Asking the legislature to provide consistent funding for a dynamic educational landscape is a legitimate ask.
As our student populations change, I will continue to advocate for state support and reliable funding, but that is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Having a portion of the budget that is student-centered means changing how we send out some of the dollars. It also means attention to other areas of the budget that aren’t changing as rapidly.
We can do both, and I am hopeful that our legislators and education partners will see the benefits of solid investments in a very dynamic educational landscape.
