Connect with us

Idaho

Analysis: Through inaction, the Legislature makes Idaho’s special education crisis even worse

Published

on

Analysis: Through inaction, the Legislature makes Idaho’s special education crisis even worse


Idaho’s special education budget crisis will almost certainly be worse in 2026.

Because of what the 2025 Legislature did — and didn’t do.

Lawmakers weren’t going to fix this problem overnight. But instead of addressing it, they neglected it, kicking an $82.2 million can down the road for one more year.

And what’s more, lawmakers had the kind of hard numbers and solid evidence they say they look for — in the form of a detailed report from their own oversight group.

Advertisement

The Office of Performance Evaluations report delivered a strong indictment of the state’s K-12 funding formula — which, for all of its complexities, essentially delivers money based on student attendance.

“The state’s funding formula does little to adapt to the specific challenges districts face,” the report said. “As a result, some districts, regardless of size, may struggle to secure resources to meet their students’ educational needs.”

And with special education, part of the problem comes back to a false assumption and a lowball estimate.

The funding formula assumes about 6% of Idaho students are in special education, and boosts funding to match. But in truth, about 11% of Idaho students are in special education, nearly 33,000 students.

So Idaho does spend more per special education student, about 20% more, but neighboring states spend much more. Oregon spends 73% more per special education student, the OPE report says. Washington spends 106% more. Utah spends 143% more.

Advertisement

And it isn’t just that Idaho isn’t keeping up with its neighbors. It isn’t keeping up with its needs.

In 2023, Idaho’s $336 million in special education spending came from a patchwork of sources — including federal funding and the state’s funding formula. But the feds and the state don’t cover everything, leaving local schools to use voter-passed supplemental property tax levies and other sources to cover the rest. That gap, according to the OPE report, comes in at $82.2 million.

The OPE’s report had been in the works for almost a year. But the timing of its March 7 release seemed fortuitous, at least at first.

At the time, the House was poised to take an incremental step on special education. House Bill 291 proposed a $3 million fund to reimburse schools with “high-needs” students — students that need a full-time ASL interpreter or aide, for example. Schools could receive a maximum of $100,000, for costs they are scrambling to cover.

On March 12, five days after the release of the OPE report, the House passed HB 291. The margin couldn’t be closer. The bill passed, 36-34, over the objections of all four members of GOP leadership.

Advertisement

But on March 25, the Senate rejected the high-needs fund, on a 17-18 vote. Six of the eight Senate Republicans on the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee voted no.

Some opponents actually used the OPE report as an argument against HB 291, saying the $3 million program would inevitably swell to $82 million. That argument fundamentally misinterpreted the purpose of the high-needs fund — a narrow plan to reimburse costs of at least $15,000.

The high-needs fund — one of state superintendent Debbie Critchfield’s top priorities, endorsed by Gov. Brad Little — might have been a new concept to Idaho legislators. But lawmakers had no such excuse when it came to revamping Idaho’s aging, 1994 vintage K-12 funding formula.

This year’s stabs at addressing the formula were in play when the OPE report came out. Senate Bill 1096, Critchfield’s preferred version, would have moved about $400 million of school funding into a weighted formula to address student needs. (Special education students would have qualified for the biggest of the weights, a 150% per-student increase.) House Bill 279 — a slow-rolling competing bill from Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, contained no weights. Instead, it offered a pledge to address the idea in a future legislative session.

Still, nothing new here. Education leaders and elected officials — including but by no means limited to Critchfield and Horman — have been talking about rewriting the formula for nine years. All to no avail.

Advertisement
Sen. Dave Lent, R-Idaho Falls (Brandon Schertler/Idaho EdNews)

On March 18, the Senate actually passed SB 1096. This 20-15 vote was no small breakthrough, marking the first time either house has passed a funding formula rewrite. But the House never heard SB 1096 or HB 279.

“I was disappointed again,” said Senate Education Committee Chairman Dave Lent, R-Idaho Falls, a veteran of the funding formula fight, and a supporter of SB 1096. “I thought this year we had a good piece of legislation. … My disappointment is we couldn’t get it through the House.”

Lent believes that the long-term answer to the special education crisis is a new funding formula, and he might be right. But Lent also floated and dropped a short-term fix. Pushing his own version of a private school bill, Lent proposed putting a separate $30 million into special education. He yanked this language from the bill — and the idea never surfaced again.

But when it comes to the funding formula, the OPE report should have given lawmakers a call to action. The report pointed out that there’s nothing new about spending some additional money to support special education students — as well as English language learners, low-income students and other high-need demographic groups. “In comparison to neighboring states, Idaho’s school funding formula contains fewer or weaker adjustments for district and student characteristics.”

Rough translation: Do better.

Advertisement

The needs cut across several demographic groups. But the situation is all the more urgent for special education — funded, to no small degree, by Uncle Sam. State officials, including Critchfield, hope the second Donald Trump administration will provide states full federal funding, in no-strings-attached block grants. And Trump has pledged to continue to fund special education. But, as the Hechinger Report covered in detail this week, Trump’s pledge to dismantle the federal Education Department casts even more uncertainty over special education.

What happens on Capitol Hill is beyond the Legislature’s control. But the Legislature had their own chances to address special education this year, and didn’t.

Unwittingly, the Legislature might have even made matters worse.

Rep. Monica Church, D-Boise (Brandon Schertler/Idaho EdNews)

House Bill 93, Idaho’s controversial private school choice law, offers tax credits of up to $5,000 per student or $7,500 per special needs student. Rep. Monica Church — a Boise public school teacher — says she’s already hearing from her district. More parents are asking their neighborhood schools to run special education screenings on their kids, to see if their families qualify for the $7,500 credit.

In the long run, Church worries that these students will qualify for special education, but remain in public schools that are mandated to provide special education. In the short run, the school districts are incurring the cost of special education screenings.

Advertisement

“It is an unintended consequence,” said Church, D-Boise. “The cost on the front end, we’re bearing right now.”

Another consequence in a session of consequences.

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday.



Source link

Advertisement

Idaho

Secretary of State: Idaho’s rapid growth is reshaping state politics

Published

on

Secretary of State: Idaho’s rapid growth is reshaping state politics


Rapid population growth is reshaping Idaho’s politics and creating new tensions across the state, Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane said Wednesday to the Boise business community. 

“If there’s anything to reflect on, it’s just how much Idaho is changing, the rate of growth that we are seeing, and the rate of growth we’re going to continue to see,” McGrane said at an event hosted by the Boise Metro Chamber. 

According to data by the U.S. Census Bureau, Idaho had the second-highest population growth in 2025, which was the largest nationwide in the past five years. With a 10.4% increase comes people from all walks of life.  

McGrane pointed to Boise’s evolving skyline and with that comes new business. Idaho business filings have increased from 425,000 in 2020 to roughly 650,000 in 2025 — a 50% increase.  

Advertisement

But it isn’t just the economy driving these newcomers. Natural disasters and people exhausted from their home state’s politics are also a force. 

Look no further than California: the largest group of migrants to Idaho. McGrane noted that northern Idaho farmers picture them as “blue-haired hippies from the Bay Area.” In fact, it’s the exact opposite.

Seventy-seven percent of Californians moving to the Gem State are registered Republicans. 

Phil McGrane speaks to Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce members at the Grove Hotel on Wednesday, June 3, 2026. (Colby Kistner/IdahoEdNews)

“When you see the fires in LA, what I see is people moving to Idaho,” McGrane said. “Your home burned down, you’re probably not going to build it where you’ve just burned down, you’re going to find someplace else to move.”

It isn’t just California refugees contributing to the significant increase in Idaho’s Republican makeup. Migrants from all across the country are sharing similar sentiments, highlighting the 58% to 62% increase of registered Republicans since McGrane first took office in 2023.

Advertisement

Migration patterns are creating more of a divide within the Republican Party of Idaho, he said. Multi-generational Idahoans are concerned with agriculture and water rights, while newer residents are fixated on social and policy debates. 

Voter turnout has been an issue nationwide, spilling into the Gem State. According to data from Idaho.gov, about 73% of its voting-age population is registered to vote. That means over a quarter of Idahoans who are eligible to vote aren’t registered.

To emphasize the importance of voter participation, McGrane pointed to a phrase often expressed by Gov. Brad Little: “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” 

Just 12% of Idaho’s voting-age population participated in the primary election to select a party nominee for governor. That figure underscores how primaries carry lots of weight in Idaho.

“The overwhelming majority of decisions were just made on the May 19 election,” McGrane said.

Advertisement

Consequences of low voter turnout are often visible in tight-knit elections, he added. In 2020, there was a race for the Ada County Highway District commission, featuring Rebecca Arnold vs. Alexis Pickering. 

The contest ultimately came down to two votes out of roughly 40,000 ballots cast. Around 10,000 voters skipped the race entirely, which illustrates how a small number of ballots can determine elections.

McGrane said those dynamics will continue shaping the fast-growing state’s political sphere.

“One of the biggest decisions that we have as a state is just who gets engaged, who participates and who votes in our elections,” McGrane said.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Idaho

Idaho state troopers identify Billings man missing in traffic accident

Published

on

Idaho state troopers identify Billings man missing in traffic accident


The Idaho State Police say that Robert Giesick, 40, from Billings is the man missing in a crash on State Highway 55 near Cascade, about 80 miles north of Boise.

A pick-up truck driven by Giesick ended up in the Payette River after a head-on crash with another pick-up truck.
Watch Idaho crash story here:

Idaho state troopers identify Billings man missing in traffic accident

Advertisement

“I was able to find some people that saw a male, an adult man, swimming for the shore from the truck,” said Idaho State Trooper Richard Knapp, who attempted to rescue Giesick. “Unfortunately he didn’t make it. He got swept downriver. Witnesses lost sight of him, and that was the last time anybody saw him.”

Knapp says search crews looked extensively for the 40-year-old, but after 24 hours, it became a recovery effort for the Idaho Mountain Search and Rescue Unit.

After that on Monday came the monumental task of removing the pickup truck from the raging water.

“It was an intensive a recovery, honestly, our operators were tested, their knowledge was tested,” said Mark Boisvert, Code Red Towing owner. “They said it was a very extreme recovery for them, more than usual.”

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Idaho

Boise lawyers give advice on how to comply with new bathroom bill

Published

on

Boise lawyers give advice on how to comply with new bathroom bill


Idaho business owners have less than a month to decide how to comply with a new state law criminally banning trans people from using restrooms that align with their gender identity.

The law is set to take effect July 1, which would make it a misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for subsequent offenses within five years.

It’s currently being challenged in federal court by the ACLU of Idaho.

On Tuesday, a panel sponsored by Idaho Employment Lawyers encouraged companies to prepare now as if the law will remain in effect as litigation continues.

Advertisement

Cody Earl, a lawyer for St. Luke’s Health System who spoke on the panel in his personal capacity, said there are several paths businesses can take.

Converting all bathrooms into single-use, gender-neutral facilities is one option, though it could be costly for larger businesses. Earl said companies could take other steps to make the transition more affordable.

“Even if it is a gender-specific restroom, [adding signage] that indicates where the closest gender-neutral restroom is so you could at least show that you’re giving employees an option or a choice,” he said.

Simply adding locks and only allowing one person at a time to a multi-stall bathroom is another choice, though panelists said that could be problematic for businesses with large amounts of customers, like restaurants and bars.

Idaho Employment Lawyers owner Pam Howland said companies also need to consider how this will affect their staff.

Advertisement

“This could definitely create some culture issues,” said Howland. “Do you have the policies you need to ensure your expectations as an employer of respect and civility are being followed? Possibly code of conduct provisions related to that? How about privacy?”

Those policies could include limiting or outright banning recording at the workplace.

Another legal wrinkle to complying with the law, the panel said, is that precedent in both the U.S. Supreme Court and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals prohibit discrimination based on someone’s gender identity.

Gender dysphoria, a mental health designation that causes severe distress to someone when their sex doesn’t align with their gender identity, has been considered a protected condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act in certain cases.

Republican state lawmakers argued earlier this year that Idaho needs to take this first-in-the-nation step to protect women and girls when they use the restroom in private businesses.

Advertisement

A 2025 study out of UCLA hasn’t found any increased risk to safety by allowing transgender people to use restrooms aligning with their gender identity.

A federal court in Boise will hear arguments over whether to approve or reject a preliminary injunction on June 5.

Copyright 2026 Boise State Public Radio





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending