“Idaho once again ranks last in the nation in per-pupil education spending.”

That was the recent headline following the release of the latest National Center for Education Statistics data. The social media reactions were as expected. Suggestions that “we’re failing our students” and “Idaho doesn’t care” were frequent. But before we jump to that conclusion, we should ask a more important question: So what?

So Idaho spends the least. Does that really matter? Because when you actually look at the data, the story falls apart.

According to the latest federal data, Idaho spends about $11,167 per student, per year—the lowest in the country. For a classroom of 25 students, that equals roughly $280,000. Yet on the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—the only test that allows apples-to-apples comparisons across states—Idaho students perform right around the national average in reading and math.

Not last. Not even close. Middle of the pack. If more money automatically led to better outcomes, the highest-spending states would dominate. They don’t.

• Wyoming spends nearly twice as much as Idaho. Its results? Roughly similar.
• Washington spends thousands more per student. Its results? Also similar.
• New York spends more than double Idaho. Its results? Still near the national average.

Meanwhile:

• Utah spends almost as little as Idaho—and outperforms the national average.
• Mississippi, long considered a low-performing state, now ranks among the top in 4th-grade reading—while spending well below average.

There is no consistent relationship between spending and outcomes. None.

For years, the education debate has focused on one metric: how much we spend. But that’s not what determines whether students succeed. The data all shows the most important factors are whether money gets to the classroom, the quality of the instruction, clear standards and accountability, and school-level flexibility and leadership.

Those factors drive results. Spending levels alone do not.

So why does the “we don’t spend enough” narrative persist? Because it’s easier. It’s easier to argue about budgets than results. Easier to demand more funding than to demand better outcomes. Easier to measure dollars than effectiveness. But that doesn’t make it right.

Idaho’s low spending isn’t something to celebrate. But it’s also not the crisis it’s made out to be. The real issue isn’t that Idaho spends too little—it’s whether we’re getting results for what we spend. And right now, the data suggests something important: We can do better without simply spending more.

Instead of asking, “Why don’t we spend more?” We should be asking why some lower-spending states outperform higher-spending ones? We should be asking what policies are actually driving student success and how can we replicate them?

Because students don’t necessarily benefit from bigger budgets. They benefit from better schools. The bottom line: Idaho spends the least, but, comparatively speaking, gets decent results.

If we care about outcomes—and we should—then it’s time to stop fixating on how much we spend and start focusing on what actually works.