Senate kills funding for high-needs students

BOISE — The Idaho Senate on Tuesday narrowly killed a bill that would have provided $3 million to fund services for high-needs students.

The bill came the same year an independent evaluations office released a report that found the state’s K-12 public school funding was not covering the costs to serve students with special needs with a total gap of $82.2 million.

House Bill 291 looked like it was going to pass, but Sen. Ben Adams, R-Nampa, changed his vote, and it died 17-18.

Under the bill, districts that had already spent $15,000 on special education services — such as nursing, specialized equipment, interpreting and speech therapy — would be able to request reimbursement for additional spending on those services for up to $65,000, and an 80% reimbursement of expenses beyond that up to $100,000 per student.

Bill sponsor Sen. Camille Blaylock, R-Caldwell, highlighted examples in the Caldwell School District, such as a student who requires an American Sign Language interpreter, which costs $55,000 a year and is not covered by insurance. She cited another student who requires a behavioral interventionist, occupational therapy and speech therapy as well as other services that cost a total of $65,000 a year with minimal insurance coverage.

“This Legislature has asked that our local school boards take their budgeting seriously and do it efficiently,” Blaylock said. “They can’t plan for every student that walks through the door. This bill recognizes that uncertainty and creates a mechanism for them to address their students in the ways they need it and the way that the federal courts require.”

The bill would require districts to exhaust all other funding resources before asking to be reimbursed through the new fund.

Idaho currently provides special education funding at a rate of about 1.2 times the rate for general students, according to the report from the Office of Performance Evaluations. The rate is much lower than the additional support provided by neighboring states, such as Utah that gives 2.43 times the rate of the general student for special education.

The bill would designate “high-needs” students as those with a disability whose services related to their individualized education program, known as an IEP, cost more than $15,000. Blaylock, amid questioning during debate, noted that other funds for special education do not designate additional funds for high-need students.

Sen. Tammy Nichols, R-Middleton, said she appreciated the “intent” of the bill, but opposed it because it created another fund when there were existing pots of money for special education.

“The real concern here that I have is how this bill contributes to the broader issue of government growth,” Nichols said. “The Office of Performance Evaluation has suggested that special needs could absorb $82.2 million in funding, and this is exactly how government grows.”

Nichols said new programs are “well meaning,” but “they expand year after year without results or accountability, ultimately leading to more government and more taxpayer dollars being spent with little to no return on investment.”

Sen. Dave Lent, R-Idaho Falls, said, “I would want to be careful when I would say ‘little or no return’ if I was speaking to a parent of a student who benefited from these dollars.”

Lent said an effect of supporting private education, as the Legislature did this year by providing a $50 million tax credit that may go toward private school tuition, “is that we’ll see more and more of those students who are not accepted at those schools come to our public setting.”

He argued that it wasn’t “new money,” because districts are required to provide these types of services and are having to make room in their budgets to do so, often through property taxes.

Sen. Brian Lenney, R-Nampa, argued the bill “seems to fly in the face of what’s going on at the national level.”

“We’re closing the Department of Education,” Lenney said. “We got the Trump train going full steam ahead and this bill seems like a little sidecar pumping, going the opposite direction. We should be prioritizing efficiency over expansion, and we should be cutting and consolidating what we already have instead of creating brand-new, multi-million-dollar programs.”

Sen. Julie VanOrden, R-Pingree, noted that in efforts to dismantle the federal Department of Education, there have also been discussions of keeping the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act — which is what requires public school districts to provide services to students with these needs.

“So we are going to have some requirements to meet and we don’t know if the funding is going to be coming,” VanOrden said. “So for us to be able to meet those needs for those students in the future, we’re going to have to have something like this.”

HB 291 narrowly passed in the House in a 36-34 vote. 

Upon the first tally of the senators’ votes, the bill would have passed Tuesday. However, members get the option to change their vote.

Adams asked to be changed from aye to nay. The bill died 17-18.

Adams later said that his concern was that it created a new fund when there were existing ones that could be used.

“If we want to close that gap,” he said in regard to the OPE report, “we should only use the funding sources that we have.”