Committee hears calls for funding, pilot testing as OSPI prepares to assume institutional‑education oversight

Alex Fair Fortune, staff to the committee, and Misha Truniska of OSPI introduced the committee to the scope and recent legislation regarding institutional education — the state‑mandated provision of basic education to school‑age students housed in juvenile detention centers, long‑term juvenile institutions and community facilities.

Speakers said multiple agencies operate facilities that house eligible students (counties operate juvenile detention centers; DCYF operates long‑term juvenile institutions and community facilities; DSHS and DOC operate residential habilitation centers and adult prisons that can include small numbers of eligible students), while school districts and Educational Service Districts (ESDs) provide the educational delivery. Alex Fair Fortune summarized a legislative timeline of recent work: task force reports and advisory‑group recommendations in 2020–22 and subsequent bills directing OSPI to develop a plan and timeline for assuming oversight responsibilities for certain youth beginning Sept. 1, 2027.

OSPI staff told the committee that these students are disproportionately male, frequently eligible for special education services and often face homelessness or other instability. OSPI presented enrollment snapshots for school year 2023–24 showing hundreds of duplicated entries and exits across juvenile detention centers (examples included 21 juvenile detention centers statewide and roughly 606 students counted in education enrollment across covered facilities for that school year). Misha Truniska said: “Oftentimes, they’re coming in with IEPs…IEPs that are out of date, maybe IEPs that are incomplete.”

Educational Service District representatives — Linda McKay (Deputy Superintendent, North Central ESD 171) and Aaron Lovell (Superintendent, Olympic ESD 114) — described two ESD roles that currently support justice‑involved youth: (1) educational advocates who help students transition back to their home schools and post‑secondary pathways, and (2) direct basic‑education instruction in juvenile detention centers (four ESDs provide that instruction in nine JDCs across the state). Lovell described intake procedures in a detention setting: each arriving student meets school staff for enrollment, an academic assessment and orientation to the educational program; staff seek transcripts, IEPs and coursework from the home school to preserve continuity.

ESD speakers highlighted a long‑standing funding gap and operational constraints. The existing funding model for institutional education (legislative structure established in the 1990s, as described to the committee) typically funds a single certificated teacher and basic supplies at many county juvenile detention centers and does not provide for classified staff, administrators or broader programming. Lovell said that buying scalable online curriculum seats is often infeasible for ESDs because vendors sell in large minimum lots, and that ESD programs lack the budget flexibility of larger districts. ESDs also noted uneven access for rural students and limited ability, in some cases, to grant course credits without district agreements.

Speakers told the committee that institutional stays vary widely in length: many JDC stays are brief (five days or fewer) but a growing share of stays exceed 90 days, raising different educational needs. Presenters said short stays require nimble intake and trust‑building by teachers, while longer stays require sustained instructional capacity and coordination to avoid repeated restart of coursework when students move among facilities.

ESDs recommended time for pilot testing and a phased transition if oversight or delivery changes are enacted. They said any model change should include adequate state funding for certificated and classified staff, local coordination for course credits and mechanisms to ensure continuity of special‑education services. Linda McKay urged a collaborative approach that preserves local partnerships and addresses staffing, data sharing and credit‑granting procedures across districts, ESDs and facilities.

OSPI noted ongoing work on recommended practices, on‑site visits, consultations with juvenile courts and interim reports required by recent legislation; the office said it will produce additional interim reports (OSPI has published a December 2024 interim report and will produce further reports through 2027) and continue stakeholder engagement as it develops a timeline for assuming additional responsibilities.

Committee members and presenters agreed the subject requires further study and more time for detailed planning. No formal legislative action was taken during the session; ESDs and OSPI asked the committee for additional hearings, a possible pilot period for any new models, and explicit funding to support comprehensive instructional and transition services.