Idaho's ed choice parents are helping save the state budget - they deserve our thanks

Much has been said about Idaho’s new $5,000 education tax credit and the $50 million price tag attached to it. Critics have framed it as a costly new entitlement at a time when the state faces budget pressures. But there’s a critical fact missing from much of the debate: When a student leaves the public school system and uses the tax credit instead, the state saves money.

Here’s why.

Idaho spends roughly $9,000 per student, per year, of state funds on public education. Under the new program, a family that opts for an alternative—whether private school, microschool, tutoring, or homeschooling—can receive up to $5,000. If that student would otherwise have been enrolled in a public school, the state is no longer responsible for the $9,000 expenditure. Instead, it provides a tax credit.

That’s a net savings of approximately $4,000 per student - perhaps more - as not all students will get or need the full amount.

The total appropriation for the program is $50 million, and current estimates suggest more than 20,000 students could apply when all is said and done. The program prevents students from being enrolled in a public school and being eligible for the credit at the same time. It’s one or the other.

So the key question is how many of those students would be using the public schools without the help of the credit?

Currently, Idaho has roughly 310,000 students in public schools and about 35,000 in private schools or homeschooling. That’s roughly a 10-to-1 ratio — ten public school students for every one outside the system.

If participation in the tax credit program mirrored that ratio, the overwhelming majority of applicants would come from public schools. Under that scenario, the fiscal savings would be substantial – at least $72 million.

Of course, it’s unlikely that participation will mirror that ratio exactly. Many families are satisfied with their local public schools and have no desire to change. Others who already homeschool or send their children to private schools may apply for the credit to offset existing costs.

But even if we assume a far more conservative estimate — say, that only half of the 20,000 participating students would otherwise have been enrolled in public schools — the numbers are still striking.

If 10,000 students leave the public system:

·       The state avoids approximately $90 million in public school spending (10,000 × $9,000).

·       The state provides $50 million in tax credits (10,000 × $5,000 for those students, plus credits for those already outside the system).

·       The net savings to the state from those 10,000 students alone would be about $40 million.

And that estimate considers only state-level spending.

Local school districts also incur costs per student — administrative expenses, materials, and other variable costs that decline as enrollment declines. In other words, education choice is not just about empowering families — it can also ease budget pressures.

Critics often portray school choice as a drain on public education funding. But funding formulas are based largely on enrollment. When enrollment declines, state obligations decline as well. The tax credit simply allows a portion of those dollars to follow students into alternatives that better meet their needs — at a lower overall cost to taxpayers.

Importantly, this conversation should not pit parents against public schools. Idaho’s public school system serves the vast majority of families and will continue to do so. But public education funding is not an end in itself; it is a means to educate children. When families choose different educational settings, the funding structure should reflect that reality.

Education choice introduces competition, flexibility, and innovation into the system. It gives families options tailored to their children. And in Idaho’s case, it may do so while reducing state expenditures.

In a year when lawmakers are wrestling with budget constraints and competing priorities, that’s worth serious consideration.

If even a modest share of participating students come from public schools, Idaho could see tens of millions in net savings — dollars that can be redirected to core services, tax relief, or strengthening education itself.

The “dirty little secret” in this debate is simple: empowering parents does not have to mean expanding government. In Idaho, it may very well mean the opposite.

And parents taking advantage deserve a thank you.