Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Budget And Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislative budget analyst briefs House education committee on K‑12 funding mechanics and major budget issues
Summary
Jared Tatro of the Legislative Services Office briefed the House Committee on Education on Idaho’s K‑12 funding formulas, how average daily attendance and support units drive distributions, and the top budget items under consideration, including a potential weighted student formula and changes to the transportation formula.
Jared Tatro, deputy division manager for the Legislative Services Office’s budget and policy analysis division, gave the Idaho House Committee on Education an overview of K‑12 funding mechanics, statutory constraints and the top budget issues the committee will face this session.
Tatro emphasized that the legislature allocates funding vehicles rather than setting pay directly: “The legislature does not determine school employee compensation. That is a local decision 100%,” he told the committee. He explained that most school funding is calculated using average daily attendance (ADA) and support units, described how divisors and support unit tables create economies of scale for small and large districts, and reviewed statutory references in Title 33 that direct distributions.
Tatro reviewed current figures the committee uses for budgeting: an estimated statewide enrollment of about 314,100 students, a midterm average daily attendance payment base at just over 295,400 (about 94% of enrollment), and the current appropriation of roughly $3.3 billion in public school funding (including general fund and dedicated funds). He noted the legislature previously provided supplemental funding in response to COVID‑era enrollment/attendance changes and explained how the Public Education Stabilization Fund (PSIF) can be used when statutory distributions leave gaps.
On pending policy matters, Tatro identified three major enhancement requests the committee may consider: (1) a weighted student formula (requires germane legislation), (2) a rewrite of the pupil transportation funding formula and (3) a special‑needs student fund to offset the high costs of special education. He also reviewed Department of Education enhancement requests including a dispute‑resolution specialist for special education and other staffing requests tied to federal special‑education requirements.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about funding mechanics and timing. Tatro said districts generally do not have final, signed budgets until after legislative adjournment and that districts typically get usable estimates when the legislature finishes its work; he reiterated that statutory changes (for example moving from an ADA basis to enrollment) would be a policy decision requiring legislative action.
Tatro also reviewed notable funds and recent one‑time federal ARPA dollars, noting ARPA funds are temporary and are removed from base budgets in subsequent years. He pointed members to the legislative budget book, the fiscal facts pocket guide and online resources for district‑level transparency.
Ending
Tatro told members the committee’s germane role in shaping education policy is critical because many funding details are statute‑driven. He offered to provide follow‑up materials and district‑level detail on request as the budget process moves to JFAC and subsequent floor work.
