Originally posted on IdahoEdNews.org on February 19, 2026

BOISE, ID – Officially, it’s known as a “joint memorial.” Colorfully and more accurately, Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, recently called one of these memorials “a hanky in the wind.”

By whatever name, it’s the Idaho Legislature’s vehicle to send an axe-grinding or spleen-venting letter to the federal government. And aside from providing the satisfaction that comes with a well-aired grievance, the joint memorial accomplishes … not much. For the most part, the Legislature could just go ahead and mail a pre-crumpled joint memorial, saving Uncle Sam the work.

Joint memorials never really mean a lot. But given that as the low bar, some of them mean more than others.

Which brings us to House Joint Memorial 11, which the Legislature formally threw into the winter winds Tuesday.

HJM 11 calls on the federal government to cover 40% of states’ special education costs. This doesn’t sound like much of an ask, until you consider the feds’ abysmal record on this issue.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the landmark 1975 federal special education law, made a 40% funding commitment. But over time, that pledge in IDEA has been more than a nice idea. The feds have never come close to the 40% mark — under Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, Trump I, Biden and Trump II.

Say what you will about the feds’ failings on special education funding, but you can’t call it partisan.

In Idaho, the feds’ indifference equates to a measly 12% funding share.

The HJM 11 debate wasn’t surprising, on any level. Supporters argued that it falls to the state — and local property owners — to pick up after the feds. Opponents accused their colleagues of outright hypocrisy.

“You cannot claim to be a fiscal conservative and then govern like this,” wrote members of the Legislature’s self-proclaimed “Gang of Eight,” a hardline faction with a penchant for poking at legislative leadership. “You cannot lecture Washington about spending and then demand handouts.”

And in the end, HJM 11 was an easy vote for everyone, with no lasting consequences. A yes vote for special education money that Idaho doesn’t actually have to find. Or a no vote encased in talking points about the federal debt.

But what makes HJM 11’s passage significant is that it shows that a majority of legislators at least recognize that special education has a funding problem — affecting 41,200 students and state and local taxpayers. A nonbinding resolution, especially one telling somebody else to solve the problem, is only a modest breakthrough, but a breakthrough nonetheless.

Are lawmakers serious enough about special education to do something about it this session? When actual state money is on the table and new programs are in play?

Maybe they are, if Wednesday afternoon’s surprising Senate Education Committee hearing is any indication.

On the docket was Senate Bill 1288 — which would address a sliver of Idaho’s special education crisis. It would create a state fund for “high-needs” students who require full-time staff support or costly services.

The Senate rejected a similar bill last year, by a single vote. This year, the price tag is $5 million — still modest, in the context of a $5.5 billion state budget, but up from the $3 million cost attached to last year’s bill. But in a session defined by tight budgets and spending cuts, state superintendent Debbie Critchfield has tried to make her request relatively painless, by planning to divert the $5 million from other Idaho Department of Education accounts.

Bonneville School District special education director Wendy Landon put the request into human terms. Several students in the eastern Idaho district need full-time respiratory aides, she said, and one student requires two full-time aides simply to stay alive. Districts are required to provide these services regardless of cost, and regardless of the bills the state and the feds leave unpaid.

The arguments for the high-needs fund haven’t changed, but the tone around the Statehouse could be evolving rapidly.

Just one month ago, Critchfield took a grilling from Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee members — unconvinced about the high-needs program and the much-larger $100 million gap between local special education costs and state and federal funding. Wednesday afternoon’s Senate Education hearing was a breeze. After a few low-key questions, the committee voted unanimously to send the high-needs bill to the Senate floor.

That committee vote was eye-opening, and potentially telling. Three Senate Education Republicans — Sens. Cindy Carlson of Riggins, Tammy Nichols of Middleton and Christy Zito of Hammett — opposed last year’s high-needs bill on the Senate floor. The committee vote suggests Critchfield could have more than enough support to get her high-needs bill across the Rotunda to the House, where last year’s high-needs bill eked by on a 36-34 vote.

The apparent momentum behind a high-needs program could also bode well for Critchfield’s companion bill — which would create regional service centers that would help rural schools share hard-to-find special education staff. Senate Education is scheduled to take up that $1 million proposal Monday.

The 2025 Legislature essentially neglected special education a year ago — even after a March report from legislative staff put the crisis in stark terms, and even though lawmakers easily found $453 million for tax cuts and credits. The high-needs program and the regional service centers won’t fix everything. But starting a pair of special education initiatives in this austere 2026 session would be a significant starting point.

And if that happens, the Legislature’s letter to Uncle Sam would prove to be both a hanky and a harbinger.

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday.