Tigard‑Tualatin board hears that special‑education costs have risen as enrollment shifts and high‑cost reimbursements lag

Tigard‑Tualatin School District officials told the school board on Feb. 20 that special‑education costs have risen substantially in recent years and that state and federal reimbursements have not kept pace.

In a presentation, Director Kinch and Director Singh walked the board through enrollment trends, funding streams and gaps. They said the district’s additional per‑pupil special‑education spending increased from about $11,000 to about $16,000 over the last six years and that the number of students identified with autism and related developmental disabilities has more than doubled since 2017.

Why the district is watching the numbers: Students with higher needs are concentrated in a relatively small group of high‑cost placements. Kinch said the number of students whose programs cost more than $30,000 has risen (from about 175 in 2019‑20 to roughly 190 in the most recent year), and the district reported a growing number of students for whom programs exceed $100,000. That combination, officials said, is a major driver of the district’s special‑education budget growth.

Director Singh described how state and federal funding layers interact. “For each special‑education student at the cap we receive a total funding weight of $22,258,” Singh said, explaining that the state provides a double weight for many IEP students but that the statewide 11% cap limits which students generate that additional weight. Singh added that the statewide high‑cost disability fund is about $55 million per year and that districts’ reimbursements from that pool vary by reporting and participation.

Officials showed how the district calculates what the state does not fund. Singh said the district’s estimate for 2024‑25 is that about $1.3 million in IEP weights are not funded by the state because of the 11% cap; the district also cited a $4.1 million shortfall tied to high‑cost disability reimbursement for the 2022‑23 reconciliation year. “We need a 12‑inch pie pan, not a 9‑inch pie pan,” Singh told the board, using the district’s analogy for adding overall dollars rather than only reshuffling existing K‑12 allocations.

Presenters also summarized other funding sources: IDEA (federal special‑education grants), the state school fund (weighted student funding), the regional services the Northwest Regional ESD provides (for low‑incidence disabilities), and the Student Investment Account, which the district has used to move many assistants from part‑time to full‑time. The presenters said transportation, substitute costs and increased staffing (learning specialists and a life‑works day treatment program) account for a substantial share of the spending increase.

Board members asked clarifying questions about timing and magnitude of the gaps. Kinch cautioned that some numbers are reconciled in later state reporting cycles: the $4.1 million figure was reconciled for 2022‑23, while the $1.3 million estimate is for 2024‑25 and depends on final state calculations in March and May. Board members emphasized that when special education is underfunded, general‑fund dollars still pay required services, creating tradeoffs for non‑mandated programs.

Administrators encouraged board members and the public to review Oregon Department of Education materials, including a Feb. 12 presentation to the House Education Committee and online records (OLIS) for further context about statewide funding formulas.

The board did not take formal action on special‑education funding at the meeting; the presentation was for information and discussion.