Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tuition Funding Children In Treatment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor seeks to separate tuition rules from mental‑health funding after OPI reports hundreds of thousands in reallocations
Summary
Rep. David Beatty said HB669 would clarify how tuition is calculated when local districts educate children in qualifying psychiatric facilities and would remove language allowing the superintendent to divert funds; OPI warned the change could disrupt an established emergency funding mechanism that has distributed up to $383,000 in recent years.
Representative David Beatty opened the hearing on House Bill 669, describing it as a cleanup to Montana Code Annotated 27‑4‑35 that would clarify tuition calculations when education for children in psychiatric hospitals or treatment facilities is provided by the school district where the facility is located.
Beatty said the bill aligns the tuition method used in those cases with existing out‑of‑district calculations so the same process applies rather than creating a separate statutory formula. He also asked the committee to remove a subsection that had allowed the superintendent of public instruction to divert funds — arguing that if the state wishes to fund broader student‑mental‑health programs, that should be done through explicit appropriations and transparent statute rather than as an embedded diversion in the tuition code.
Lance Melton of the Montana School Boards Association spoke in favor of the cleanup, warning that conflicting subsection language invites audit risk and recommending the committee strike or reconcile the conflicting provisions so districts and OPI are not left with unclear deployment rules.
Susie Hedalen, Superintendent of the Office of Public Instruction, said she appreciated the sponsor’s work but urged caution about striking the language abruptly because the department has used a significant‑needs grant process to help districts containing high‑need students. Hedalen said the amount distributed varies by year — ranging from $0 in some years to $383,000 in fiscal year 2024 — and that small districts can face student‑level costs that exceed $100,000. She asked the committee to consider a replacement or transition approach so schools and special‑education cooperatives are not harmed.
Members asked technical questions about which lines of the statute interact and whether the proposed change would shift funding responsibility to districts; the sponsor and Hedalen said the bill’s intent is to preserve dedicated funding for educating children at qualifying facilities while removing an unrelated diversion from the tuition statute and to increase transparency about where money is allocated.
