Appropriations committee reviews DPI budget; superintendent requests $6 million to cover school-approval contract, flags formula and ESAs

The House Appropriations — Education and Environment Division on Jan. 5 considered the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) budget, with Superintendent Baszler urging the committee to add money to the state contract that supports the school-approval continuous improvement process and discussing multiple large formula and grant items that could change K‑12 funding this session.

Baszler told the committee the long-running contract now billed in some materials as an “accreditation” contract is correctly described as a school-approval continuous improvement contract and asked the committee to fund it centrally so districts do not have to shoulder the costs. “Accreditation is very, very different,” Baszler said, and the state should pay the contract rather than effectively clawing funds back from districts.

Baszler described a proposed increase she said would bring the contract funding to a level that avoids individual districts paying for services that should be statewide. She said the department’s ask is materially larger than recent line-item amounts and noted the figure presented to the committee is substantially higher than the amount shown in prior materials.

The hearing also reviewed multiple large line items that feed the state’s integrated funding formula, including proposals to adjust the funding-source mix between the general fund and the Foundation Aid Stabilization Fund and proposals to change the per-pupil rate. Committee members and DPI staff discussed whether transfers from the Common Schools Trust Fund could be used to cover some of the increased formula costs.

Committee members raised the question of how proposed Education Savings Account (ESA) bills — separate proposals being filed in the House and Senate — would interact with the DPI budget. Baszler recommended that ESA proposals and their fiscal notes be considered separately as standalone bills and not folded into the DPI operating-budget conversation. “House Bill 10‑13 is the public school instruction and supports that we provide,” she said, asking the committee to treat ESA proposals as separate fiscal items.

Other budget items discussed included: funding to administer a summer food program; federal grant authority for a large federal literacy grant; and changes to the integrated funding formula that could reduce or reallocate hundreds of millions of dollars depending on policy choices the Legislature makes this session.

Committee members asked DPI for additional detail on revenue sources and the projected impacts of changing transfers into the Foundation Aid Stabilization Fund. DPI staff said they will return with precise numbers and that several bills pending in both chambers could alter the department’s final appropriations.

The department also reviewed a long list of smaller program grants and pass-through items (adult education grants, AP exam fee coverage implemented statewide, early literacy pilots) and noted where one-time federal and carryover funds had been used in the current biennium and where state support will be needed going forward.

The committee did not take final action on any DPI line items during the hearing; members directed staff and the department to supply additional fiscal detail and to identify statutory or funding changes that would be required if the panel adopts any of the larger transfers or program increases later in the session.

Ending: The committee scheduled follow-up work and asked DPI and OMB staff to return with line-by-line fiscal impacts, including updated numbers for the Foundation Aid Stabilization Fund transfers and the school-approval contract request.