Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Bill 5263 would raise special‑education multipliers and remove cap; districts, advocates urge full funding
Summary
Engrossed second substitute Senate Bill 5263 proposes increasing excess‑cost multipliers for special education to 1.32, removing the 16 percent enrollment cap, lowering safety‑net thresholds and funding statewide supports; superintendents, OSPI and parent advocates testified that the changes are needed to close large funding gaps.
The Senate Appropriations Committee received a staff briefing and extensive public testimony on engrossed second substitute Senate Bill 5263, which would raise the special education excess‑cost multiplier to 1.32 for all ages, remove the 16 percent cap on funded special education enrollment, adjust the basic education amount (BEA) calculation for special education to use the greater of district BEA or the statewide average, and authorize a small OSPI set‑aside for statewide technical assistance and an online IEP system.
Why it matters: OSPI staff told the committee roughly 154,000 students in kindergarten and above receive special education services in the state. OSPI’s fiscal note estimates a state‑funding impact of about $915 million in the 2025–27 biennium and roughly $2.0 billion over a four‑year outlook; including Department of Children, Youth and Families impacts, staff cited a total fiscal note near $966 million for 2025–27 and $2.1 billion over four years. Staff cautioned costs could be higher depending on enrollment responses to cap removal.
James Mackison (committee staff) explained the bill’s technical changes, including multiplying BEA by a single 1.32 multiplier for K–12 special education (removing the prior in‑class/time‑based tiers), increasing pre‑K and early‑intervention multipliers to 1.32, removing the 16 percent cap and authorizing OSPI to set a statewide percentage for redirecting general apportionment funding to special education. He described optional set‑aside uses including professional development for inclusionary practice and a statewide online IEP system developed with educational service districts.
OSPI and education groups strongly supported the bill. Misha Chernisky (OSPI) urged continued removal of the cap and noted 70 percent of districts above the cap have fewer than 1,000 students — meaning small and rural districts would benefit most. Larry Delaney (Washington Education Association) and numerous district leaders described districts diverting levy dollars to cover special education costs and pushed for multiplier increases and cap removal. Bellevue Superintendent Kelly Aramaki and Seattle Superintendent Brent Jones testified the bill would reduce large special‑education deficits; Jones said Seattle’s special education funding deficit is “around $74,000,000 a year” and growing.
Some public commenters urged caution. One online speaker (identified in the record as Eric Fisk) argued against removing the 16 percent cap, contending that federal law intends special education for a much smaller subset of students and warning the change could incentivize over‑identification; he urged prioritizing other funding approaches and stronger identification practices.
Committee action: staff presented fiscal analyses and the committee accepted public testimony; no committee vote was recorded in the hearing. Supporters urged legislators to keep the bill’s funding levels in the budget; staff noted the fiscal note assumptions and potential additional costs if enrollment grows beyond projections.
