HB 1310
In CommitteeHouse
Special education funding
Concerning special education funding.
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 fully funds special education by removing the state-imposed cap on student enrollment for funding, raising multipliers used to calculate state aid, and expanding eligibility for safety net funds for high-need students. It also strengthens oversight and support for inclusive education and reduces administrative barriers for districts seeking additional funding.
- Eliminates the cap on the percentage of students in a district who can receive special education funding (previously capped at 16% of total enrollment).
- Increases the special education cost multiplier for students in inclusive settings (80%+ in general education) from 1.0075/0.995 to 1.5289/1.447 and for younger students (ages 3–4 and kindergarteners not yet enrolled) from 1.2 to 1.6381.
- Expands access to safety net funding by lowering the threshold for high-need students from 2.3× to 1.5× the state average per-pupil expenditure, and adds eligibility for students served in residential, juvenile detention, and jail-based programs.
- Requires OSPI to conduct statewide activities to monitor and reduce disproportionate identification of students with disabilities, provide technical assistance, and support inclusive teaching practices.
- Mandates quarterly safety net payments for qualifying high-cost students placed out-of-state, if prior-year awards are in place and no changes occurred.
- Requires OSPI to develop a simplified, standardized safety net application by 2025–26 based on feedback from small districts to reduce administrative burden.
Who is affected
- Public school districts — School districts—especially smaller or higher-need districts—may receive increased state funding to cover the true cost of providing special education services, reducing their need to use local funds or incur deficits.
- Students receiving special education services — Students with disabilities may benefit from improved access to inclusive education and more consistent, equitable services across districts, as the bill removes enrollment caps and strengthens support for inclusion.
- Families of students with disabilities — Families of students with disabilities may experience more predictable access to services and fewer barriers to safety net funding, especially if their child has high-cost needs.
- Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) — The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) will take on expanded responsibilities—including statewide monitoring, technical assistance, and simplified application processes—for special education funding and inclusion efforts.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (5)
Eliminating the 16% enrollment cap removes a structural distortion that previously penalized districts with higher-than-average concentrations of students with disabilities. This prevents districts from being forced to under-identify students or divert local funds to cover special education costs—reducing pressure on local property tax levies and local bond measures.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(ii) repealedThe requirement for OSPI to develop a simplified, standardized safety net application—based on feedback from small districts—reduces administrative complexity and time required to apply for critical funding. This is especially helpful for small districts with limited staff capacity.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 5(4)(b) and Sec. 6Quarterly safety net payments for out-of-state placements (with stable placement and prior-year award) improve cash flow predictability, reducing the need for short-term borrowing or budget balancing that strains local reserves.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 5(6)State-level monitoring and technical assistance to reduce disproportionate identification of students with disabilities supports compliance with federal law (IDEA) and helps prevent over-identification of certain demographic groups—promoting equity and reducing legal risk for districts.
EducationRef: Sec. 3(a)(i) and (ii)The multiplier increase for inclusive placements (from ~1.0 to ~1.5) aligns funding with research showing inclusive education improves academic outcomes—creating a financial incentive for best practices that benefit all students.
EducationRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(i) and Sec. 2(2)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill significantly increases state funding for special education by eliminating the 16% enrollment cap and raising multipliers—especially for younger students (from 1.2 to 1.6381) and inclusive placements (from ~1.0 to ~1.5). This directly benefits districts serving high numbers of students with disabilities, particularly those in high-need or rural areas that previously faced funding shortfalls. Evidence shows inclusive placement improves academic outcomes, and the multiplier changes align with actual excess costs of special education.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a) and (b)(i)Lowering the safety net eligibility threshold from 2.3× to 1.5× the state average per-pupil expenditure expands access for smaller and mid-sized districts, which often lack the scale to absorb high-cost student placements without state support. This reduces pressure on local property taxes and prevents deficit spending by districts that serve high-need students.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(e) and (f); Sec. 5(4)(a)Mandating OSPI to provide technical assistance and develop a simplified, standardized safety net application by 2025–26—based on feedback from small districts—reduces administrative burden, especially for under-resourced districts. This improves equity in access to funding and reduces time spent by district staff on complex paperwork.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 3(a)(ii); Sec. 5(4)(b)Quarterly safety net payments for students placed out-of-state (if placement and prior-year award remain unchanged) improve cash flow predictability for districts, reducing the need to front high costs and helping avoid budget deficits—particularly beneficial for districts with fewer reserves.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 5(6)The bill’s emphasis on inclusive settings (80%+ time in general education) with higher multipliers incentivizes inclusion, which research shows improves academic outcomes for students with disabilities. This supports equity and long-term social mobility for students who have historically been segregated.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(i) and Sec. 2(2)(a)
Who Is Most Affected
Smaller and rural districts—especially those with high proportions of students with disabilities—will benefit significantly from expanded funding access and reduced local funding pressure. They lack economies of scale and previously faced caps that disproportionately harmed them.
Students with disabilities—particularly those in inclusive settings or with high-cost needs—will benefit from more consistent access to services, reduced segregation, and improved academic outcomes. Families in low-income or marginalized communities are most likely to have been previously underserved due to funding caps.
OSPI gains expanded authority and resources to monitor equity, provide technical assistance, and streamline applications. This increases its capacity to enforce inclusion and IDEA compliance, though it also adds administrative burden.
Large urban districts may benefit less than smaller ones, as they often already exceed the old 16% cap and have more capacity to absorb costs. However, they still gain from the safety net expansion and simplified application process.
Private providers of residential, juvenile detention, and jail-based educational programs gain eligibility for safety net funding, potentially increasing state contracts and stability of revenue streams.