Three questions about education spending in Idaho, and where we go from here

Idaho’s latest education budget debate reveals a familiar pattern: rising spending, declining enrollment, and persistent claims that it’s still “not enough.” But a closer look at the numbers—and the rhetoric—raises three important questions policymakers should no longer avoid.

Let’s start with the basic reality: Idaho is increasing public education spending even as student enrollment levels off or declines.

In fiscal year 2026, lawmakers approved a roughly $2.75 billion public school support budget—an increase of over $100 million from the year prior. Now, the newly approved fiscal year 2027 budget pushes total K–12 spending to about $2.77 billion. When federal funds are included, Idaho will spend $3.1 billion.

At the same time, enrollment growth has slowed and, in some areas, reversed. That means the system is receiving more total funding to serve fewer students.

This is not an argument against public education. It is simply a statement of fact. And it matters, because it challenges the dominant narrative that Idaho schools are being “starved” of resources.

The truth is more complicated: spending is rising, but outcomes and expectations remain a separate—and largely unaddressed—question.

Despite the increases, the public is repeatedly told that school funding is still insufficient.

But insufficient compared to what? That question is almost never answered.

Idaho spends billions annually on K–12 education. Legislators and Governor Little have significantly increased funding over the past decade. They rarely get the credit.

Furthermore, the general public – which pays the bill - rarely gets a clear definition of what level of funding would actually be considered “enough.”

Is it a national ranking? A per-pupil target? Specific student outcomes? A percentage of the state budget?

Without a defined benchmark, “more funding” becomes an open-ended goal rather than a measurable policy objective.

That creates a problem for both taxpayers and policymakers. If there is no agreed-upon standard, then no level of funding can ever be sufficient—and no amount of spending can ever be evaluated as successful.

A serious conversation about education funding should include not just how much we spend, but what results we expect—and when we can say the investment is working.

Perhaps the most persistent claim in recent years has been that education choice programs “take money away” from public schools.

The data tells a different story.

Even as lawmakers have debated and implemented education choice policies—such as tax credits—public school funding has continued to grow. The system has not been cut one penny to fund choice; it has expanded alongside it.

Meanwhile, education choice programs themselves remain limited.

The current tax credit program is capped at $50 million and is likely to face demand exceeding available funding. In other words, while public education spending continues to rise, families seeking alternatives may soon find themselves on waitlists.

This creates a clear imbalance in the policy conversation.

Families who choose different educational options have been criticized for “diverting” resources. Will those families receive an apology?

Public school funding has continued to increase regardless. At the same time, choice programs are tightly constrained—even as demand grows.

If the goal is to support students, not systems, then this disconnect deserves honest reconsideration.

None of this suggests that Idaho should reduce its commitment to education. But it does suggest the need for a more transparent and grounded discussion.

We are:

• Spending more overall

• Serving fewer students

• Increasing funding year over year

• And still being told it’s not enough—without a clear definition of what would be

At the same time, we are:

• Expanding rhetoric around education choice

• While limiting access to those options in practice

These realities can coexist—but they cannot be ignored.

If Idaho is going to have a serious conversation about education, it should start with three simple principles: clarity about the numbers, honesty about tradeoffs, and accountability for results.

Until then, the debate will continue to revolve around a single word—“more”—without ever answering the more important question: More for what?