Committee members flagged special education as a focused follow‑up after Agency staff showed limited correlation between district IEP rates and per‑pupil spending in the presentation charts. A member contended the statewide identification rate (described in the presentation as around 20%) is well above the national average and called it “a statewide failure” that requires state‑level attention and reforms to reimbursement and extraordinary‑expense rules.

Agency staff rejected any suggestion that the graphs imply special education does not affect spending and said the presentation’s visual analysis simply did not show special education rates as the primary driver of variation across districts. The Agency committed to scheduling dedicated testimony on special education spending and to provide existing Agency reports on the current state of special education delivery for committee review.

Members asked for breakdowns that separate special education spending from other categories to determine whether districts are squeezing other services to cover special education costs. The Agency agreed to return with district‑level analyses and with prior reports it referenced during the presentation.