Washington lawmakers are on the cusp of eliminating a special education funding cap, which critics said was straining school finances, hurting students and putting the state at risk of a major lawsuit.
On a 97-0 vote, the House amended, then passed Senate Bill 5263 on Wednesday to put Washington, for the first time, on a course to fully fund special education in its public schools.
It also adjusted two other funding levers in the bill to drive more dollars for special education to the state’s 295 school districts. All told, roughly $870 million more will be sent out over the next two budgets. That sum is a compromise with the Senate, which wanted to spend closer to $2 billion.
Rep. Gerry Pollet, D-Seattle, who called the cap “unconscionable and maybe unconstitutional,” said its elimination is “a historic achievement.” It commits the state to amply fund the education of every child with a disability, he said.
Ditching the cap “is the very first step to saying we’re going to fully fund special education. This is going to absolutely help our schools,” said Rep. Travis Couture, R-Allyn, who has three children with individualized education plans, or IEPs — plans developed for every public school student who needs special education services.
“It represents something we should all be proud of,” he said. Couture urged his colleagues to guard against any weakening of the legislation in the final stages of budget talks.
Also Wednesday, the House passed a Senate bill to send additional dollars to districts to cover materials, supplies and operating costs — MSOC in state budget lingo. These costs, which cover non-employee-related expenses tied to a district’s daily operations, have surged in recent years.
“This is a bill that will literally keep the lights on in schools,” said Rep. April Berg, D-Mill Creek, a former school board member.
The House amended, then passed Senate Bill 5192 on an 85-12 vote. It would boost the amount of state funding per student for MSOC to $1,614, an increase of $35. An additional $214.94 is provided for each high school student. That’s four dollars more than the current rate.
Couture opposed this legislation, saying it’s too small an increase to help the most needy districts.
“I don’t think an extra $35 will keep the lights on,” he said.
Cap would be removed
Special education is the area where the gap is largest between what districts receive from the state and what they pay for with local dollars.
In the 2022-23 school year, districts spent $590 million of local levy receipts to make up the difference, according to a performance audit issued in January by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee.
Washington uses two key mechanisms for determining what a district receives.
First, there is the cap on the percentage of a school district’s student population that can receive extra dollars for special education services.
Under current law, the state only provides additional funding for up to 16% of a district’s student population. In other words, if 20% of a district’s population requires special education services, the district cannot get additional money for the remaining 4%.
Second, the state distributes an amount of money for each student enrolled in a school, plus additional dollars for each special education student under a formula known as the multiplier.
Senate Bill 5263 removes the enrollment cap and increases the multiplier to send more dollars to districts.
It also simplifies the formula used by the state to determine how much will be provided per student. And it makes it easier for districts to qualify for additional special education dollars through a safety net program run by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, and Senate Minority Leader John Braun, R-Centralia, are the bill’s co-sponsors.
Pedersen, prior to the Senate vote, acknowledged the state’s tight budget situation this year but said Washington’s Constitution “is very clear that funding basic education is our paramount duty.”
“The fact that it is expensive doesn’t change that on the ground we’ve got kids with special needs who are in our charge and are relying on us to make sure that they get the education to which they’re entitled,” he said.
Initially, the House upped the multiplier and safety net but left the enrollment cap in place.
Pollet continued to press for the cap’s erasure as he has for the past 13 years. This time he prevailed. Changes made Wednesday will pump out $870 million to districts over the next four fiscal years, he said.
If House Bill 2049 passes, it will be more, he said.
That bill would allow an increase in annual property tax growth from the current 1% cap to the combined rate of population growth plus inflation within a taxing district, not to exceed 3%. This would apply to the state’s property tax, also known as the common schools levy.
The bill would also make other changes that could help districts receive more taxpayer dollars.
A fiscal analysis estimates that uncapping the state property tax would bring in an additional $200 million in the next biennium and $618 million in the 2027-29 budget. School districts collectively could raise another $900 million locally over four years. The legislation is slated to be voted on Friday in the House Finance Committee.
Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: info@washingtonstatestandard.com.
I find it hard to believe that one in five students have special education needs and then on the other hand with declining student outcomes maybe all the children need special education. I read recently that between federal state and local that 55 percent of all jobs associated with school were administrative. Maybe we really don’t need more money we just need to rid ourselves of the administrative redundancy.
Jim, regardless of your claim, I do believe that autism is a problem, especially for parents of autistic children. I never claimed otherwise. I have also heard the statistic of 1 of 31. There is news on autism that our federal government, having reduced spending on research, will know the cause by September, according to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I do not believe him. From my reading about the 1 of 31 figure, it is the result of data analysis on autism that I believe is faulty.
Finally, why would you refer someone to an article that does not verify your claim? If the article does not say 55%, why say it does?
Federal, state and local departments of education all are responsible for different, and sometimes overlapping aspects of education. I don’t doubt that some duplication can be eliminated, thus saving money for the taxpayers. At the Edmonds district level I have read in a recent My Edmonds News article that the school board is working hard to save $190,000 by consolidating some classes. Finding inefficiencies is an unending process. I appreciate people who keep our government accountable by using accurate and relevant information.
My point schools say they say they need more special funding because they have a growing percentage of children with special needs I point to government data about the rise in autism as correlation of a problems maybe there are multiple contributors would it be worth trying to figure out why? the federal government says they are going to look Into It. I doubt they will have a answer soon or a cure but the path we are on before long we are going to have half the kids with special needs or more. But hey let’s raise taxes and hire a bunch more administrators that will fix it.
Great idea, Jim. A recent report in My Edmonds News indicated that state legislators this year intend to fully fund public education in accordance with an order by the State Supreme Court. Perhaps then, as you suggest, “administrators can fix it”.
While reading this article I learned that if a district has one-in-five students (20%) needing some kind of special educational services, that district will only get funding assistance from the state for up to 16%. No where does the article say that one-in-five students in Washington require special education services. Perhaps that many do, but the article does not say this. Each school district will have its own individual needs. I believe it is easy to overlook the many differences children may have. Some may have a dyslexia of letter reversal like “d” and “b”. Others will be more complex. Parents expect individualized instruction in groups based on the needs of their child. And parents deserve this level of care.
Who knows where people get information not mentioned in this article. It is helpful when writers point out the source of their information. This allows one to verify its accuracy and relevance. Fifty-five percent administration could be true, especially when including all the work done at the federal level to provide assistance to the thousands of schools in the country, then the state offices along with the local school district officials. Administration is more than the school principal, assistant principal and counselor. Shall we also include janitors, cafeteria staff and maintenance workers in the 55%?
Certainly some schools may have more of a need than others the article indicated lifting of the current cap of 16% this would indicate at least in some schools probably many schools they have more than 16% need, I find that troubling. Recent reporting says one in thirty one children are being diagnosed with autism sorry if you don’t think it is a problem.
https://www.americanexperiment.org/district-admin-growth-10x-greater-than-student-teacher-growth/
This article doesn’t sight my claim but shows huge growth in administrators