Committee hears foundation-opportunity budget model (HB772) and broader funding proposals including special‑education changes

The House education committee spent the afternoon reviewing HB772, a comprehensive “foundation opportunity budget” bill, alongside bills that would raise the defined base adequacy and change the statewide education property tax (e.g., HB675). Sponsors and staff described how HB772 would calculate a district‑level budget, then fund it with a mix of a local contribution and a state grant.

How the model works: Representative Ladd and other sponsors explained the framework: the department would calculate a foundation opportunity budget for each district using a base per‑student amount and weighted counts for student characteristics (for example, weights for special education, free and reduced‑price eligibility, English‑language learners and district size). Representative Ladd summarized the flow: “First dollars are local dollars and up to $5.38 per thousand,” he said—the bill uses that capped local rate to calculate a predictable local share, then the state fills the remaining need. Sponsors said the cap would be recalculated so local shares together target roughly 52% of the statewide budget and the state share would cover the remainder (testimony cited a target state share of about 48%).

Adjustments, phase‑in and efficiency: Sponsors described two calibration steps that reduce the calculated budget to produce the state grant: an “efficiency” reduction (90% of the calculated budget) and a phase‑in factor (the bill applies an initial 0.86 factor in the first year of implementation in committee discussion). Committee members asked staff to explain those mechanics and requested town‑level simulations and fiscal notes.

Special education, transportation and small schools: Lawmakers spent substantial time on special education financing. Committee members discussed combining current special‑education categorical funding (catastrophic aid) with other allocations, lowering the threshold where state support kicks in (for example, shifting reimbursement triggers and possible advance payments rather than year‑end reimbursement), and treating some high‑cost services (notably special‑education transportation) separately because costs vary widely by district geography. Several members emphasized that small, remote districts have inherently higher per‑pupil costs and that the bill’s district‑level weighting and a school‑size adjustment were intended to address that.

Open questions and next steps: Staff and sponsors said they would provide a spreadsheet model (with district-level outputs) and a draft fiscal note; lawmakers asked the Legislative Budget Assistant to run an independent simulation. Members emphasized the need for reliable, disaggregated expenditure and student‑level data to validate weighted factors before considering statutory change. No committee votes occurred during the session.

Ending: Sponsors said HB772 is an effort to define a uniform funding target and make state support predictable; members agreed there are unresolved technical questions and asked staff for detailed modeling and fiscal cost estimates before advancing any bill.