State Board of Education budget pitch centers on IT, school safety and $15 million workforce grant

Kevin Campbell, Budget and Policy Analyst with the Legislative Services Office, presented the Office of the State Board of Education (OSB) FY2026 request and described the office’s responsibilities under Idaho Code §33‑101 and its three divisions: OSB administration, IT and data management, and school safety and security.

Campbell said the office “currently has 84.25 authorized FTPs with 8 vacancies” and showed that OSB’s largest division is administration; IT and data management was described as the next largest with roughly 27 FTEs and the school safety program was described in the presentation as having a smaller complement (presented as 7.5 FTP and a base budget of $1,300,000). Campbell explained the office relies on a mix of funds, including indirect cost recovery (SWICAP), miscellaneous revenue from registration of private postsecondary institutions and, per statute and presentation, an annual $300,000 transfer from the public school income fund to the School Safety and Security Assessment Fund.

The presentation listed recent transfers and enhancements that have driven growth in the OSB budget: a $30 million ongoing Empowering Parents grant created by the Legislature in FY2024; the FY2025 transfer of a $5,000,000 broadband program from the State Department of Education; the transfer of IT and audit staff from individual institutions into OSB; and the move of a school safety program into OSB in FY2022.

Campbell and OSB staff described the largest FY2026 enhancement request as Governor Little’s proposed one‑time public‑private workforce capacity grant of $15,000,000. As presented, the grant would fund institutional infrastructure that expands capacity for workforce training in in‑demand careers; awards would require private matching. The presenters said the proposed matching ratios in the request are 1:1 for Boise State University, Idaho State University and the University of Idaho, and 1:2 for Lewis‑Clark State College and the four community colleges.

Joshua (Josh) Whitworth, Executive Director of the State Board of Education, and Board president Dr. Clark answered committee questions. Whitworth described a board objective he summarized as addressing ‘‘systemness’’—centralizing some functions to reduce duplication and improve coordination. He told the committee the board has centralized internal audit, risk management and certain IT functions to provide uniform policies and to help smaller or rural institutions access needed technical support. Whitworth said centralizing school safety under the board allows staff to “survey all those districts” and administer assessments statewide.

Legislators pressed on the pace and scale of centralization. Representative Petzke said, "Why are we still growing this centralized agency so much?" and asked whether money and staff should go directly to institutions instead of into the central office. Whitworth replied that some transfers were intended to reduce duplication (for example, moving audit and risk staff under OSB) and that IT and safety work provide statewide services for roughly 300,000 students, including rural districts with limited local technical capacity.

Committee members also asked for additional data and follow‑up: Representative Petzke requested OSB’s long‑term IT plan and more information about Independent Study Idaho, a flexible, mostly user‑fee financed program Campbell described as historically paper‑based and used by a few hundred students a year; Campbell said the program charges roughly $160 per credit but that fee revenue has not kept pace with program costs and that the budget request includes a base funding revision for independent study. Senator Cook and others asked for current contractor expenditures and clearer performance metrics for IT positions and for Independent Study Idaho.

On DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) work referenced in discussion, committee members and OSB staff said most efforts referenced in committee materials were funded by student fees and not by general‑fund appropriations. One participant summarized committee materials as stating there are “no appropriated funds going for any of the program services or centers that are focused on historically marginalized communities,” and reminded the committee that student fees are subject to the opt‑in rules passed previously by the Legislature.

Several members asked the OSB to return to the committee with follow‑up materials: (1) a list of which FY2026 requests would require legislation; (2) a long‑term IT plan and contractor‑to‑FTE cost comparisons; (3) a refined list of programs that would be eligible for the proposed workforce capacity grant and the outcomes OSB expects; and (4) clearer performance and maintenance backlog metrics for IT projects.

Ending: OSB staff agreed to supply additional documentation to the committee—detailed IT plans, program lists and data on Independent Study Idaho—so members can vet tradeoffs in the coming work‑group deliberations.