Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to clarify tuition calculation for students in psychiatric/residential treatment centers draws opposition from OPI
Summary
House Bill 669 would amend how tuition is calculated for students educated at residential psychiatric hospitals or treatment facilities and strike a subsection that allowed the superintendent to divert funds. The Office of Public Instruction opposed the bill, saying the change would remove an established funding mechanism schools rely on.
Representative David Beatty opened the hearing on House Bill 669, telling the committee the bill clarifies how tuition payments should be calculated when local school districts provide education to students placed in children's psychiatric hospitals, residential treatment facilities or therapeutic group homes. Beatty said the bill references existing tuition statutes and is intended as a cleanup to ensure the same formula applies in these placements.
"This bill clarifies how tuition payments are to be calculated when the education is provided by a local school district," Representative Beatty said, describing the statute the bill would amend.
Proponents included Lance Melton of the Montana School Boards Association, who described the bill as a code cleanup. Melton said the strike of a subsection has led to misunderstanding and urged clarification.
Susie Hedalen, superintendent for the Office of Public Instruction (OPI), testified in strong opposition. Hedalen said the provision the bill would remove was enacted with clear legislative intent in 2019 and provides a documented, established process for the OPI to support districts that receive students mid‑year with essential special‑education or other services. She said the OPI uses an application process and said funds historically ranged from $0 up to $400,000 or more in a year depending on placements.
"This is not code cleanup. It's not for mental health support. And it's a thoroughly documented essential program for our schools," Susie Hedalen said, arguing that removing the provision would eliminate an important funding mechanism schools have used to meet urgent student needs.
Representative Beatty replied that if OPI believes the funding stream is essential, the agency should present a clearly defined program to the legislature for specific appropriation rather than relying on what he described as opaque use of excess funds.
No final committee action was taken during the hearing; the hearing record closed with the sponsor's remarks.
