At a recent school funding listening session in Coeur d’Alene, a public school district Superintendent made a passionate case for increasing education spending. Idaho’s funding model is broken, he argued. Without substantially more money, changing the funding formula would be like rearranging chairs on the Titanic. “Half of not enough is still just not enough,” he said.
Perhaps he’s right that Idaho’s funding formula needs modernization. It hasn’t received a major overhaul since the 1990s, and today’s schools face challenges the formula wasn’t designed to address. But his comments raise a question that is almost never asked. What would be enough?
Education debates almost always begin with the premise that schools need more funding. Rarely do we hear a definition of success. Is it another $100 million? Another $500 million? A billion? At what point would education leaders say, “Yes, this is sufficient”?
Taxpayers deserve an answer before they’re asked to write another check. That question becomes even more important because we’re no longer living in an era of growing enrollment. Nationally, public school enrollment has been declining for years, driven largely by lower birth rates and changing demographics. Idaho is experiencing the same trend.
Over the past five years, Idaho’s public schools have lost more than 2,500 students. More importantly, the steepest declines are concentrated in kindergarten, first grade and second grade. Those aren’t isolated fluctuations—they’re the front edge of smaller student cohorts moving through the education system.
Today’s smaller kindergarten class will become tomorrow’s smaller fifth grade and eventually tomorrow’s smaller graduating class. In other words, the system is being asked to educate fewer students. That doesn’t mean school funding should automatically fall dollar for dollar with enrollment.
Schools have fixed costs. Rural districts face unique challenges. Some expenses rise even when student counts decline. But it does mean the conversation should change.
When an organization serves fewer people, taxpayers reasonably expect it to ask hard questions about efficiency, staffing, facilities and priorities before concluding that the only solution is a larger budget. Instead, education funding debates often skip straight to the conclusion. More money. That may be politically popular, but it isn’t a budgeting philosophy. It is certainly not an accountability standard
If Idaho’s funding formula needs to change, let’s change it. If special education requires additional support, make that case. If teacher salaries need targeted investments, have that debate openly. But don’t ask taxpayers to ignore the most fundamental fact shaping public education today: enrollment is declining.
Public education is entering a new demographic era. Budget discussions should reflect that reality. And before taxpayers are told that current funding is “just not enough,” they deserve to hear something they almost never hear from education leaders: How much would be enough?
Chris Cargill is the President of Mountain States Policy Center, an independent free market think tank based in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Washington. Online at mountainstatespolicy.org.
