Conference committee considers conditional fee to let approved independent high schools charge supplemental tuition

A House–Senate conference committee meeting on June 12 reviewed proposed bill language that would let certain approved independent receiving schools charge an additional fee equal to up to 0.05 of the foundation base for each student in grades 9 through 12, provided several conditions are met.

The language discussed would amend Section 27 (an amendment to section 823 in Title 16, described in the bill draft as the tuition section for all grades) to add a new subsection allowing a receiving school to charge an additional fee only if the receiving school (1) is an approved independent school functioning as an area career technical center or meets education quality standards, (2) receives approval from the State Board of Education to charge the fee under rules the board adopts, and (3) the electorate of each sending school district with at least one student attending that receiving school approves supplemental district spending sufficient to cover the fee.

Legislative Council staff described the proposal as “a change to section 27, which is an amendment to section 8 23 in title 16, which is currently the elementary tuition section,” and explained that the money-follows-the-student language in subsection a remains unchanged and that the new subsection b would apply only to grades 9–12. The staff summary stated that “a receiving school may charge, and a sending school shall be required to pay an additional fee in the amount of the product of the base amount and up to 0.05 for each student attending the receiving school in grades 9 through 12 only if all of the following conditions are met.”

The State Board of Education would be required to adopt rules governing the approval process. The proposed rules must require a receiving school to demonstrate that the additional fee is necessary to educate the specific students to whom it would apply and that the fee revenue would be used to educate those students rather than shift costs elsewhere in the receiving school’s budget. The draft sets a deadline for the State Board to adopt those rules on or before July 1, 2027.

Conference committee members emphasized that the subsection b provisions would take effect later and only under explicit contingencies. Legislative Council staff said subsection b would take effect on July 1, 2028, only if two contingencies are met: new school districts are operational and the cost-factor foundation formula report required under section 45a contains evidence that it costs more to educate students in grades 9 through 12 and the General Assembly has failed to enact legislation to add a secondary student weight. The staff noted the repeal language in the bill remains unchanged and that subsection a’s “money follows the student” rule would take effect contingently along with other foundation-formula language.

Committee members voiced differing framings of the proposal. One committee member said, “I think what we are trying to do is address your concerns that, it seems that what you are looking for is essentially a guarantee today that, that independent schools will get what they need,” and another countered, “The only thing I'll say just to I'd say we don't agree with that framing. I think what we're talking about is default, not guarantee.” Members discussed trust in the multi-year process, concerns from small and rural districts about disruption or potential closures, and interest from larger districts in avoiding destabilizing changes. A member referenced Addison County as an example, saying, “If you take Addison County as a whole, if it were its own district … I'd like to go back to my district, my county, and be able to say, I can guarantee you that you won't be disrupted by this.”

One participant suggested increasing the Joint Fiscal Office appropriation for consultant support to broaden the range of consultants available, saying that an increased appropriation to JFO might “ease any concerns about sort of a wider range of consultants that might be brought on.” Another committee member framed the effort as balancing equity and tax impacts: “We're all here because we want all of our kids to have a real chance at a quality education,” and said the bill is an attempt “to keep tax rates low” while setting a “level playing field.”

Discussion vs. decision: the committee discussed the draft statutory text, implementation timelines and contingencies and possible increases to consultant funding for analysis. No formal motion, vote or final action on the bill text was recorded in the transcript excerpt; members indicated further work and caucus support were needed before any final action.

Next steps recorded in the discussion: legislative counsel will walk committee members through the language and the State Board must begin rulemaking if the bill advances; the conference committee signaled it would continue deliberations and seek caucus backing but did not adopt final language or record a vote in the provided transcript.