HB 1267
In CommitteeHouse
Special education funding
Adjusting funded special education enrollment.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill changes how Washington funds special education by adjusting the formula for calculating payments to school districts based on student enrollment and service settings, and adds oversight to prevent overidentification or overprovision of services. It gradually increases the maximum percentage of students a district can enroll in special education while still receiving full state funding, and gives OSPI and the State Auditor new monitoring and enforcement powers.
- Updates how special education funding is calculated for school districts, using a base allocation per student multiplied by a cost multiplier (1.12 or 1.06 depending on how much time a student spends in general education).
- Raises the funded enrollment limit from 16% in 2024-25 to 16.5% in 2025-26, then to 17% in 2026-27 and 2027-28, and fully removes the cap starting in 2028-29.
- Requires the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to monitor districts for overidentification of students or overprovision of services, and to create corrective action plans if needed.
- Mandates the State Auditor to audit districts with special education enrollment above 16% in the year after a corrective action plan is issued, and requires OSPI to reduce funding if corrective actions are not implemented.
- Exempts small districts (under 2,500 FTE students), districts that received safety net awards, and districts with at least 10% military-connected students from the funded enrollment limit.
Who is affected
- School districts and charter schools — School districts and charter schools will be monitored for overidentification of students for special education or overprovision of services; those found noncompliant may face funding adjustments or corrective action plans.
- Students with disabilities — Students with disabilities may be affected by changes in how districts receive funding based on their placement in general education settings and overall special education enrollment rates.
- Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction — The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction gains new authority to monitor, intervene, and adjust funding based on special education enrollment and service delivery practices.
- State Auditor's Office — The State Auditor gains new responsibility to audit districts with high special education enrollment rates to ensure compliance with corrective actions and federal law.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (4)
The requirement for OSPI to monitor overidentification and overprovision—and to create corrective action plans—addresses long-standing concerns about inconsistent special education practices, potentially reducing inappropriate placements and ensuring services align with IDEA requirements. This benefits students with disabilities by promoting more accurate and legally compliant identification and service delivery.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a), (b); Sec. 1(2)(b)(ii)(B) (exemptions)Exempting small districts (<2,500 FTE), safety-net recipients, and military-connected districts acknowledges disproportionate resource constraints and unique enrollment challenges, preventing punitive caps from harming districts already struggling to meet student needs—protecting equitable access for vulnerable rural and transient student populations.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)(ii)(B) (exemptions for small, safety-net, and military-connected districts)The higher cost multiplier for students in 80%+ general education incentivizes inclusion, which research shows improves academic and social outcomes for students with disabilities—aligning financial incentives with evidence-based practices and federal IDEA goals of least restrictive environment.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)(i) (cost multiplier 1.12/1.06); Sec. 2(1)(a)State auditor oversight and funding adjustments for noncompliance provide a mechanism to enforce accountability, potentially reducing wasteful or noncompliant spending and encouraging districts to improve internal special education compliance—though this carries risk of over-punishment if not paired with technical assistance.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2), (3); Sec. 1(2)(b)(ii)(A)
Potential Concerns (5)
The funded enrollment limit caps (16% → 16.5% → 17%) and eventual removal in 2028–29, combined with funding adjustments for noncompliance, create pressure on districts to avoid identifying or serving more students than the cap allows—potentially discouraging appropriate evaluations or over-provision of services, even when warranted by student need. This may lead to under-identification or delayed services for students with disabilities, especially in districts near or above the cap.
EducationIndustryRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)(i), (b)(ii)(A); Sec. 2(3)Mandated audits and funding reductions for districts exceeding 16% (post-corrective action) create a punitive compliance environment that disproportionately targets districts with higher concentrations of students with disabilities—many of which serve low-income, rural, or historically underserved populations—while exempting small districts, military-connected districts, and safety-net recipients. This may incentivize districts to avoid serving higher-need students to prevent audits and funding penalties.
EducationIndustryRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)(ii)(A); Sec. 2(2), (3)The cost multiplier is higher for students in 80%+ general education (1.12) than those in less than 80% (1.06), creating a financial incentive to place students in more inclusive settings—even when less inclusive placements may be more appropriate under IDEA. This may distort service delivery toward compliance with funding incentives rather than individualized student needs.
EducationIndustryRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)(i) (cost multiplier 1.12 vs. 1.06); Sec. 2(1)(a)By tying funding to compliance with corrective action plans and allowing funding reductions for districts failing to meet them, the bill may lead districts to prioritize administrative compliance over robust, individualized interventions—potentially increasing risk of inadequate behavioral or mental health supports for students in crisis, especially those with complex disabilities.
Public SafetyIndustryRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)(ii)(A); Sec. 2(3)The exemption for districts with ≥10% military-connected students may unintentionally create a loophole—districts could inflate military-connected enrollment (e.g., by reclassifying students or using proximity to bases) to avoid the cap, diverting oversight resources and potentially undermining equitable access for other districts with high need.
EducationLean industryRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)(ii)(A); Sec. 2(1)(c)
Who Is Most Affected
Districts near or above the 16% cap face funding penalties and audits, increasing administrative burden and potentially discouraging identification of new students. Small or rural districts may be disproportionately affected if they lack resources to navigate corrective action plans.
Students with disabilities in districts under pressure to stay below the cap may face delays or denials in evaluation or services. Those in high-need categories (e.g., emotional/behavioral disabilities) may be especially vulnerable to under-identification.
OSPI gains new monitoring authority and enforcement tools, increasing its role in special education oversight. This expands its regulatory footprint but may strain resources if districts resist or challenge corrective actions.
State Auditor gains new audit responsibilities, adding to its workload. While this enhances accountability, it may divert resources from other high-priority audits if funding or staffing is not increased accordingly.
Families of students with disabilities may benefit from more consistent and legally compliant services, but could be harmed if districts avoid evaluations due to fear of funding penalties—especially in districts with high enrollment caps.