For more than a decade, Idaho policymakers have talked seriously about modernizing the state’s K–12 funding system. Again and again, task forces and legislative committees have reached the same conclusion: Idaho’s school finance model is outdated, overly prescriptive, and poorly aligned with how students learn and schools operate today. Yet despite broad agreement on the problem—and a dramatic increase in education spending—the system remains largely unchanged. Predictably, student outcomes have remained largely flat as well.
This disconnect should force us to confront an uncomfortable truth: more money poured into a rigid, industrial-era system will not produce better results. What Idaho needs now is a smarter approach—one that pairs flexibility with accountability. Nowhere is that opportunity clearer than in Idaho’s high performing public charter schools.
Idaho’s charter sector is growing, in demand, and relatively high-performing. These schools were created to innovate—to rethink staffing, schedules, instructional models, and the use of technology. Yet Idaho is the only state in the nation that subjects charter schools to both strict compensation controls and restrictive staffing rules. In practice, this means charter leaders are often forced into the very instructional models they were designed to escape.
At the center of the problem is Idaho’s resource-based funding formula and its close tie to the state’s career ladder. Charter schools receive funding based on staff allowances and teacher salary placements determined by state-preferred credentials and years of service. Schools may hire talented educators who do not fit those narrow criteria—career-changers, out-of-state teachers, or professionals from industry—but doing so often means sacrificing funding and competitiveness in compensation.
The result is a powerful incentive to comply rather than innovate. Charter leaders report that after meeting career-ladder requirements, documentation mandates, and salary minimums, there is little money left for performance incentives, hard-to-staff subjects like math and science, instructional technology, or new learning models. Staffing flexibility exists in theory, but in practice schools face financial penalties and administrative hurdles if they deviate from the traditional one-teacher-per-classroom structure.
This rigidity is especially damaging at a time when education is changing rapidly. Technology, blended learning, artificial intelligence, and team-based instructional models all offer the potential to make teaching more sustainable and learning more effective. Yet Idaho’s rules still assume a full day of instruction delivered by a single, credential-specific “teacher of record,” documented repeatedly throughout the year. Schools that experiment risk losing funding over technical compliance errors rather than educational failures.
Other states have taken a different approach—and Idaho should learn from them. States like Texas and North Carolina exempt charter schools from traditional salary schedules or convert resource-based funding into per-pupil amounts, allowing school leaders to design compensation and staffing models that fit their mission. Research consistently shows that when schools have real control over teacher pay and staffing—combined with clear accountability for results—student outcomes improve significantly.
This is where the idea of earned autonomy becomes so compelling. Idaho does not need to overhaul its entire funding system to move forward – although we’d support this move if the politics could allow it. Instead, it can recognize that high-performing charter schools have already earned greater freedom. These schools operate under extraordinary accountability: enrollment is voluntary, performance expectations are high, financial audits are mandatory, and authorizers have the authority to close schools that fail to deliver results.
In other policy areas, Idaho has already acknowledged this reality. High-performing charter schools can receive longer charter renewals and access credit enhancements that lower facility financing costs. Extending this logic to compensation and staffing is the natural next step.
Earned autonomy is not deregulation without guardrails. It is a trade: more operational freedom in exchange for continued—and even heightened—accountability for student outcomes. It trusts those closest to students to decide how best to deploy resources, while insisting on clear evidence that those decisions are working.
Idaho’s charter schools are ready to lead. They have the demand, the track record, and the accountability structures already in place. What they lack is the freedom to fully align their resources with their educational vision. If Idaho is serious about improving student outcomes rather than simply preserving systems, it’s time to let its strongest charter schools show what real autonomy can achieve.
Terry Ryan is the CEO of Bluum and Board Chair of the Idaho Charter School Association. Matthew Joseph is a Senior Policy Advisor at ExcelinEd.
Editor’s note: Bluum and Idaho Education News are both funded on grants from the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Family Foundation.
