Board hears briefing showing a continuing special‑education funding shortfall of about $3.4 million

The Tacoma School District Board of Directors on Thursday received a detailed briefing from Budget Director Kristen on how state and federal funding for special education is calculated and why district expenditures continue to exceed revenues.

Kristen said Washington school districts "are legally required to serve all students with disabilities regardless of the cost," and she explained the district's special‑education funding relies on a mix of state general‑purpose, state special‑purpose and federal special‑purpose dollars as well as reimbursements from other districts for students placed here.

The presentation laid out the main elements of the state formula: special‑education funding is built on the district's basic education (general‑purpose) allocation plus a special‑purpose enhancement. The special‑purpose portion treats students ages 3–5 separately and divides ages 5–22 into two tiers: Tier 1 students who spend 80% or more of the school day in general education, and Tier 2 students who spend less than 80% in general education. Kristen said the district is projecting a special‑education population of 15.29 percent, which is below the state formula's 16 percent cap on enhanced funding, but that the funding within that cap still does not cover the district's costs.

Kristen also described the state's safety‑net provision: if the cost to serve an individual student exceeds a statutory threshold ($41,763 as described in the presentation), the district may apply for additional safety‑net funding; that funding has both state and federal components.

The budget director showed the district's financials for the most recent full year and said district expenditures for special education exceeded state revenues by about $3,400,000 for that year. When asked to clarify how the ages 3–5 counts work, Kristen said that the category is students identified as having an Individualized Education Program (IEP) aged 3–5 and that some of those students may receive only limited services delivered outside a district program.

Dr. Greig, speaking in the superintendent's report context, framed the briefing as part of a broader fiscal reality: "We are not a district that has a large fund balance," he said, and indicated that the district will need to consider program changes beyond special education if revenues and reserves do not improve. He listed possible changes the district could examine, including fee‑based extracurriculars, naming rights for facilities, and other cost reductions.

A board member returning from Washington, D.C., summarized meetings with congressional leaders about IDEA funding and reported that several lawmakers told the delegation they had limited ability to make immediate changes to federal special‑education funding; the board member described that feedback as "disempowering and very frustrating."

Why this matters: the briefing explained the technical mechanics of state special‑education allocations and made clear that, even with recent funding increases, the district is carrying a multi‑million‑dollar gap. Board members said the presentation should inform upcoming budget choices and the district's legislative and federal advocacy.

Board discussion during and after the presentation included clarifying questions about how the state counts preschool‑age students, how safety‑net applications work, and whether the district has options to change services or program delivery to reduce the deficit. Board members did not take formal action on the briefing; it was presented as informational.

The district plans to use the briefing material to inform budget development and upcoming decision points; board members were told staff will return with more detailed recommendations as the budget process advances.