OSPI outlines options to centralize education for youth in juvenile justice facilities

Misha Cherneski, an OSPI staff member presenting on behalf of the superintendent of public instruction, told the Senate Early Learning & K–12 Education Committee that state law (House Bill 1701) directs OSPI to develop a timeline for assuming responsibility for delivering basic education in juvenile justice facilities by 2027 and that OSPI has submitted preliminary recommendations to the joint select committee.

The recommendations emphasize student‑centered delivery of the full basic education program, stronger statewide governance, consistent data collection, and a regionally deployed education model in which Educational Service Districts (ESDs) would oversee instruction at juvenile detention centers (JDCs). Cherneski said the plan would include statewide contracts and possible state procurement of services such as online curriculum so small local programs could access them affordably.

OSPI presented the recommendation as one of two main options the joint select committee asked it to explore: (1) a primary model with regional ESD delivery and (2) a model that preserves local school district operation for some facilities while strengthening statewide expectations and supports. Cherneski also noted a substitute bill pending in the Senate, Substitute House Bill 1827, would preserve the role of school districts for JDCs that districts already operate while extending statewide supports; the substitute also pushes the 2027 deadline out by one year.

Why it matters: Students in juvenile justice facilities are dispersed across dozens of sites (OSPI cited roughly 21 JDCs, plus community facilities and long‑term institutions), and current local practices vary. Committee members and OSPI staff said inconsistent staffing, credit awarding, access to special education services and counseling, and sparse outcome data are complicating attempts to measure and improve these students’ educational progress.

Key details and debate

- Student focus and data: Cherneski said a priority is that students "have access to the full program of basic education" and that statewide data must capture interim gains (for example, credit increases during a placement), not only graduation rates. OSPI said outcome data across sites are limited and that tracking credit gains statewide is a priority for monitoring progress.

- Governance and delivery options: OSPI’s preliminary recommendation would have OSPI create standard contracts with ESDs to deliver instruction in JDCs; ESDs (and in some cases districts) would provide staff and manage transitions in and out of facilities. OSPI described pilot projects as a likely next step, and staff said they are pursuing funding now to support education advocates and other infrastructure prior to any full transfer of responsibility.

- Local district and labor concerns: Simone Bowe of the Washington Education Association told the committee her members who teach in JDCs prefer remaining under their home school districts. Bowe said district affiliation provides access to curriculum continuity, registrars, special‑education staff, mental‑behavioral health supports, professional development negotiated in collective bargaining agreements, and an existing network that helps retain experienced educators. "We might be a tiny part of the system, but our roles as teachers have implications in the state system as a whole," Bowe said, urging lawmakers to consult district educators on proposals.

- Staffing and employment: WEA and district representatives warned that shifting delivery to ESDs could trigger contractual reassignments or reductions in force and risk losing experienced teachers who would revert to district positions. OSPI and ESD representatives said consistent funding and clear contracts would be necessary to avoid destabilizing staffing.

- Community placements and legal constraints: Senator Emily Wilson (committee member) described a related bill (referred to in testimony as bill 5296) that would allow youth to remain in local community placements for up to 90 days to keep them connected with family and schools; Wilson and OSPI staff said placement decisions are also driven by adjudication and security requirements and that some facilities (Green Hill or Echo Glen) are required intake sites under current practice.

- Private facilities and access: Senator Wilson raised Martin Hall, the only privately contracted juvenile facility the committee discussed, and asked whether access and oversight differ at private sites. OSPI said it would ensure consistent contract language and statewide expectations regardless of the operator, and will follow up on access and equity concerns for privately operated facilities.

Discussion vs. decision

Committee discussion clarified options and raised risks; no formal votes were taken. OSPI described the state’s statutory deadline and asked the committee to continue stakeholder work, pilot delivery models, and seek funding for education advocates. The committee pressed OSPI and ESDs on staffing, data, crediting, and access at privately run facilities.

Next steps and context

OSPI said it will continue stakeholder engagement, pursue funding for education advocates and pilots, refine contract language with ESDs, and return to the Legislature with more detailed proposals. The joint select committee’s final report asked OSPI to examine both the ESD‑led model and a hybrid model that preserves local district delivery for some facilities; a substitute bill under consideration would extend the implementation deadline by one year.

The discussion continued a review that began at the committee’s prior meeting and included presentations from ESDs and educators; members asked OSPI to include youth voice in follow‑up work and to provide clearer statewide outcome measures for students served in JDCs.