House Education hearing focuses on school funding increase, EL weighting and options for declining‑enrollment districts

The House Education Committee heard testimony on House Bill 1369 during a committee hearing that included school leaders, the Department of Public Instruction and construction trade representatives.

Rep. Pat Heinert, sponsor of HB 1369, told the committee the bill as introduced includes a 3% per‑pupil increase in state aid: $11,400 for the 2025‑26 school year and $11,746 for 2026‑27. Heinert said the governor had proposed 2%, but the House and Senate education leadership had agreed to 3% before the governor released his budget.

Committee members and witnesses focused most of their remarks on three areas: additional funding for English‑language learners (ELLs), the way the at‑risk weighting is calculated, and protections for districts with declining enrollment.

"This bill is introduced with a 3% increase factor for the per pupil payment," Rep. Pat Heinert said. "Now we have heard from our governor who has requested that this be a 2%, not a 3%… it is our choice as a committee if we wanna change that to the governor's recommendation."

Why it matters: supporters said the base increase helps, but districts with large or rapidly growing ELL populations and those losing students still face budget shortfalls. Amy Kopas, executive director of the North Dakota Council of Educational Leaders, asked the committee to consider a higher per‑pupil increase (she suggested a 4%/4% approach) and to change how declining enrollment is smoothed.

"We understand from the last interim education funding committee that there is enough money coming from the Common Schools Trust Fund to manage a 2 and a 2 and enough turn back from last session to manage another 2 and a 2," Kopas told the committee. "So we're respectfully asking to consider at least a 4 and a 4."

ELL funding and district examples: multiple superintendents described rapid growth in newcomer ELL students and a funding gap between weighted funding and actual costs. Dr. Jeff Fosnaught, superintendent of Bismarck Public Schools, said Bismarck had 645 ELL students and experienced a 73% increase in level‑1 students in one year and a further 47% increase the following year; he said Bismarck had about 170 newcomer (level‑1) students as of the prior week. Marcus Luton, superintendent in Dickinson, said Dickinson had 329 ELL students, of whom 126 are level 1 (70 newcomers). He testified Dickinson receives about $360,000 in weighted EL funding but estimated hard EL costs at roughly $900,000 and said full recommended staffing would cost about $2 million.

"Many of our recently arrived EL students are classified as level 1 on the state WIDA assessment," Luton said. "These students frequently come from backgrounds with little or no formal education. Some middle and high school students do not know how to read or write in their native language."

Witnesses asked the committee to make level‑2 and level‑3 ELLs receive the same weight as level‑1 (0.40) or otherwise increase EL weights so districts with concentrated ELL populations get more targeted aid.

At‑risk weighting and formula mechanics: Kopas and others asked that the at‑risk weighting be applied to total average daily membership (ADM) rather than to the percentage of 3rd‑through‑8th‑grade students qualifying for free‑and‑reduced lunch, which is the current method. Adam Tescher, school finance officer for the Department of Public Instruction (DPI), explained how the current method works: DPI uses a rolling three‑year average of the percentage of 3rd‑8th graders on free‑and‑reduced lunch and then applies that percentage to total ADM. Tescher said the state has used that approach historically but acknowledged free‑and‑reduced is an imperfect proxy for behavioral‑health or other needs.

Declining‑enrollment districts: Mike McNiff, superintendent of Rugby Public Schools, and others asked the committee to consider a three‑year rolling average of ADM (or the greater of a three‑year average and on‑time funding) to soften abrupt funding cliffs in small rural districts. McNiff said about 80 districts have declined in enrollment in the last two years and explained how a sudden drop in students can force staff cuts even when a legislature approves an across‑the‑board per‑pupil increase.

Construction and bonding thresholds: Russ Hanson of the Associated General Contractors of North Dakota asked the committee to add bonding adjustments to the bill so public‑project bidding/design thresholds and bonding thresholds match. Hanson flagged a code cross‑reference (48‑01.2‑10) that still lists the older $200,000 thresholds and recommended aligning that bonding threshold to $250,000, the amount proposed elsewhere in HB 1369.

DPI fiscal detail: Adam Tescher walked members through worksheets distributed to the committee showing how the per‑pupil increase and proposed weighting adjustments change district funding, how transition minimums phase down for districts currently above formula amounts, and why increasing per‑pupil payments can move some districts back onto the formula and out of transition minimum status.

What the committee did: the committee closed the hearing on HB 1369 without a final vote. Committee members agreed to take testimony and suggested a range of possible amendments, including: consider changing the per‑pupil increase rate, adopt a three‑year rolling ADM option for declining districts, increase EL weights (particularly for levels 2 and 3), and adjust how the at‑risk weight is calculated. No formal committee amendment or vote on the bill was recorded in the transcript.

Ending: Supporters asked the committee to weigh targeted fixes alongside any per‑pupil increase, and DPI staff advised the committee that other bills (for example, proposals that would make all students eligible for free meals) could materially affect free‑and‑reduced‑based calculations. The committee left the bill open for later amendment and further fiscal analysis.

Speakers quoted in this article: Representative Pat Heinert (bill sponsor), Amy Kopas (executive director, North Dakota Council of Educational Leaders), Dr. Jeff Fosnaught (superintendent, Bismarck Public Schools), Mike McNiff (superintendent, Rugby Public Schools), Marcus Luton (superintendent, Dickinson Public Schools), Russ Hanson (Associated General Contractors of North Dakota), Adam Tescher (school finance officer, Department of Public Instruction).

Ending note: Committee members did not vote on HB 1369 at this hearing; testimony from superintendents, DPI and construction representatives will inform later drafting and fiscal notes.