Committee advances overhaul to school funding formula; sponsors propose weighted per‑student distribution and two‑year hold harmless

The Senate Education Committee voted to advance Senate Bill 10‑96, a policy bill that would change how a portion of Idaho’s K–12 funding is distributed by using a weighted per‑student mechanism for the discretionary portion of the public schools budget.

Sponsor Senator Woodward told the committee the proposal focuses on distributing discretionary funds by student attributes—economically disadvantaged status, English‑language learner status, special education, small‑school factors, gifted and talented and at‑risk students in alternative settings. “What we're gonna add this amount to ... is the base amount with an additional factor to determine the distribution of these funds,” he said, explaining that weights stack when a student has multiple qualifying attributes.

Why it matters: The sponsor described the bill as an incremental step toward a broader funding‑model rewrite. Rather than immediately changing the entire salary‑based apportionment, the bill targets the discretionary portion of the budget (the sponsor highlighted roughly $379 million of discretionary funding in the budget book) and would shift certain statutory line items into that pool so local districts and charters could allocate them based on student needs.

Protections and transition: The bill includes a hold‑harmless provision for fiscal years 2026 and 2027: if a district or charter would receive less under the new distribution, it would be held harmless at its prior funding level for those two years. Sponsors and witnesses emphasized that the approach is intended to be revenue‑neutral in the transition and to avoid large, immediate “cliffs” in funding for local education agencies.

Questions and concerns: Multiple superintendents and district representatives supported the concept but urged caution. Cambridge School District superintendent Anthony Butler said his district faces a projected discretionary reduction of roughly $70,000 (about a 20% drop of that district’s discretionary funding) after the hold‑harmless period, and urged more work to avoid creating “losers” among small rural LEAs. School administrators and associations (Idaho Association of School Administrators, Idaho School Boards Association) generally supported the reform but warned that the hold‑harmless period would need follow‑up investments to prevent hardship in later years.

Department view and rationale: State Superintendent Debbie Critchfield said the proposal shifts money “to students and not systems,” enabling districts to use resources more flexibly for particular student needs. She noted that some existing line items are decades old and that the department has worked with stakeholders to identify line items that could be moved into the discretionary pool to support students with higher costs.

Testimony for special needs: Brian Darcy of Idaho Educational Services for the Deaf and Blind said low‑incidence, high‑need students frequently require expensive assistive technology and specialized personnel; the weighted model, he said, would “help public schools level a playing field for students with special education needs.” Parents and administrators described staffing costs, high paraprofessional turnover, and the challenge small districts face when a single special‑needs student requires costly support.

Budget mechanics and implementation: The sponsor repeatedly distinguished this policy change from appropriation decisions. He pointed to the legislative budget book and agency budget requests; changes to the total amount available remain subject to the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee and are not enacted through this policy bill. He also said the department would provide spreadsheets and modeling to lawmakers to refine weights and address district impacts.

Committee action: After testimony from district leaders, advocates and the department, Senators moved and seconded that the committee send Senate Bill 10‑96 to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation. The motion carried by voice vote; the transcript does not record a roll‑call tally.

Next steps and monitoring: The bill moves to the Senate floor. Sponsors and witnesses emphasized the need for ongoing modeling, stakeholder outreach and possible follow‑up appropriations to avoid long‑term cliffs for small rural districts once the hold‑harmless period ends.