A new report brings renewed attention to a sprawling K-12 virtual school system and the billions in taxpayer funds involved. This week, a sharp spotlight focuses on how a multimillion-dollar virtual school operated financially in Idaho.
In the 2024-25 school year, the Idaho Home Learning Academy redirected $22.5 million of public money that had been earmarked for teacher salaries and staff benefits. The district saved much of this by employing part-time teachers and maintaining a significantly smaller staff than what the state funded.
IHLA then funneled $20.6 million to three private education vendors. Those vendors subsequently disbursed $12.6 million as “supplemental learning funds” to IHLA families—payments ranging from about $1,700 to $1,800 per family. Much of this money financed computers, sports fees, or musical instruments or lessons. However, some funds supported private school classes—contrary to IHLA guidelines—and a variety of other items such as streaming services and gardening supplies.
Although nothing in this money flow is explicitly illegal, IHLA and other virtual charters operate in a public policy gray area, following practices that neither are expressly permitted nor prohibited by current law.
Questions about IHLA’s business model aren’t new. Lawmakers raised concerns about IHLA’s spending during the 2025 session, but no legal changes were enacted.
The long-awaited 129-page report from the Office of Performance Evaluations, the Legislature’s watchdog arm, could intensify scrutiny of IHLA and the broader virtual school sector. The report proposes several policy changes, including safeguards for funding. A number of lawmakers indicated openness to reforms on Tuesday, and Gov. Brad Little urged the Legislature to act.
A crowded, tense hearing produced a few notable exchanges
OPE presents these reports to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee, a bipartisan House-Senate panel with four Republicans and four Democrats. The hearing room was quickly filled, prompting an overflow shift from a Senate hearing room to the Lincoln Auditorium to accommodate a large crowd, largely composed of IHLA families wearing matching gray hoodies.
What was planned as a two-hour session stretched to three hours as legislators pressed staffers, an IHLA administrator, and IHLA vendors for details about the school’s finances, test results, and curriculum.
The discussion was heavy on specifics and light on theatrics. Yet lawmakers from both parties found moments to speak up. Senator James Ruchti (D-Pocatello) voiced strong concern about how taxpayer money was moved around within a charter school, saying, “If this were a traditional public school district, the Legislature would go crazy.”
House Education Committee Chair Douglas Pickett defended IHLA, citing survey data indicating many families choose IHLA due to dissatisfaction with traditional schools. “These responses are very significant,” Pickett noted.
Senator C. Scott Grow (R-Eagle) urged caution on curriculum matters, highlighting that parents seeking virtual options often want real influence over what their children learn. His remarks drew applause—the only visible reaction as the hour dragged on.
The report highlights opportunities for misuse
The 129-page document covers multiple concerns that have shadowed IHLA since it opened nine years ago. Curriculum is a notable topic: while IHLA’s core curriculum aligns with state standards, families can opt for supplementary materials, and the report notes these supplements aren’t reviewed by the Oneida School District, IHLA’s authorizer.
Student performance raises red flags as well. IHLA’s test scores trail state averages, with English language arts and mathematics proficiency lagging by about 12 and 18 percentage points, respectively. Although scores tend to improve after the first year, overall student growth remains behind other Idaho public schools, the report states.
Much attention, however, centered on how IHLA spent its $47.8 million in state funding for 2024-25. “IHLA is following the funding rules,” said evaluators, but those rules don’t distinguish well between traditional schools and virtual schools. The model relies on fewer teachers and greater parent-directed learning.
Although the state funded 373 full-time teaching positions for IHLA, the school staffed only 232. Savings largely benefited private vendors, and by hiring mostly part-time teachers—an arrangement preferred by many IHLA staff—the school reduces benefit costs while channeling more funds to vendors.
A sizable portion of vendor payments ultimately reaches families as incentives. The report notes that 71% of surveyed parents would remove their children from IHLA if these payments disappeared.
Yet the report also identifies concrete problems. At least $92,000 in public funds went to private school classes and programs, and IHLA lacks a policy to prevent such use. In another case, one family financed two paddleboards—one for the child and one for the parent, supposedly for safety—illustrating how reimbursements can invite misuse.
Idaho families are choosing online learning
IHLA has grown dramatically since its modest beginnings nine years ago, when it served 238 students. Enrollment surged during the COVID-19 pandemic and reached 7,600 students last school year. About 11 other districts in Idaho run similar online programs, according to evaluators.
Supporters argue that Idaho families are voting with their feet, favoring a flexible, interactive online education. IHLA vice principal and incoming executive director Hailey Sweeten stated that families are seeking more engagement and adaptability.
Vendors defend the model
Representatives from IHLA’s vendor network defended the virtual approach. When asked about vendor profits, one vendor claimed their company budgets only a 4% profit margin, arguing that educating students is a passionate mission. Emilee Bodily, executive director of Braintree Educational Services, noted the company managed $12.9 million of IHLA funds last year.
For lawmakers, Tuesday’s findings serve as a wake-up call. In a Monday letter to OPE, Governor Little described the report as thorough yet troubling, stating that statutory safeguards are insufficient, oversight is inconsistent, and accountability hasn’t kept pace with IHLA’s rapid expansion. The conversation now turns to whether policy changes will be enacted and how to better protect taxpayer funds while preserving parental choice.
