Lawmakers asked Idaho superintendent for budget cut plans. She refused

Earlier this week, Idaho Superintendent Debbie Critchfield received an unexpected letter on behalf of the Legislature’s budget-setting committee asking her to look for ways to cut the budget for public schools.

In her response, sent Thursday, Critchfield made clear she wouldn’t do it.

“I will not be recommending further cuts to the public schools budget for FY 2026 or FY 2027,” she wrote in the letter provided to the Statesman. “The public schools budget is more than numbers on a spreadsheet. It represents every one of our students, classrooms, teachers and communities.”

Critchfield said she had already revised her budget and made cuts. Fiscal year 2026 runs through June 30.

In August, when she first submitted a budget proposal for next fiscal year, it included a $50 million ask for special education to start to close the gap between what districts spend to educate students with disabilities and the money they receive from the state. Late last year, she submitted a revised budget that nixed that earmark, acknowledging the challenging budget situation the state faced. She said she also included millions more in cuts to align with current attendance data.

Lawmakers and state officials have been grappling with how to deal with the predicted budget deficit. In August, Gov. Brad Little ordered all state agencies – except public schools – to cut spending by 3% for the 2026 fiscal year. During his State of the State address earlier this month, he proposed extending the cuts into next fiscal year, but again called for maintaining funding for public schools.

On Monday, leaders of the Legislature’s Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee asked most state agencies to look for ways they could cut an additional 1% or 2% from their budgets for this and next fiscal year. At that point, public schools still appeared safe. On Wednesday, the public schools budget, which is over $3 billion, was added to the list.

In the letter, Critchfield warned budget cuts to public schools could mean fewer programs for students, larger class sizes and a disproportionate impact on rural schools. She also said she had “serious concerns” about legal risks for “unmet needs” for children in special education. A 2% budget cut to public schools would be about $55 million.

“Whether we are talking about the biggest district in the Treasure Valley or the one-room schoolhouse in Lowman, schools are deeply woven into the fabric of Idaho communities,” she wrote in the letter. “When funding is cut too deeply or carelessly, student opportunities shrink, programs disappear, and costs shift to local taxpayers.”

Critchfield put forth ‘leanest budget’

Critchfield told the Idaho Statesman she felt like she had put forth the “leanest budget” she could. She thought she got ahead of the ask. She described the budget she proposed as a “maintenance budget” that would avoid forcing districts and charter schools to make staffing cuts – particularly mid-year.

Little proposed a way to balance the budget, she said, noting his recommended cuts to virtual school funding. Little recommended a $23 million cut, primarily for supplemental learning funds that students in some virtual schools in Idaho receive to buy enrichment materials and other learning resources. That cut followed a report from the Office of Performance Evaluations that found the state had little regulation on how families could use those funds and that some families used them for costs such as Disney+ subscriptions and water parks.

Balancing the budget is important, Critchfield said in the interview, but she questioned why the Legislature isn’t looking at what’s already been proposed to get there, particularly this early in the session.

Even without cuts, school costs are going up and putting pressure on district budgets.

“Their operations have increased,” Critchfield said. “Even at a flat budget, so to speak, that is a reduction in the dollars that are available for schools to use, whether it’s fuel or utilities, extracurricular activities.”

Critchfield previously said her priority was to protect public schools and maintain their funding. Little offered a similar sentiment during his State of the State address earlier this month.

Critchfield said she understands everything is on the table right now. Her role, she said, is to answer questions, provide information about the potential impacts of further cuts and explain why she thinks the budget she proposed is what schools need.

“We did make cuts. We did make changes anticipating all of this,” she said. “That’s why I’m not coming back and saying, ‘Oh, here’s a bunch of new places that you can cut.’ I feel like we did that. That was what we put forward.”