SB 5307
In CommitteeSenate
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 enrollment cap, increasing funding multipliers, and expanding access to safety net funds for high-need students. It also strengthens statewide efforts to promote inclusion and reduce disparities in identification and service delivery.
- Eliminates the cap on the percentage of students in a district who can receive special education funding, allowing districts to be fully funded regardless of enrollment rates.
- Increases the special education cost multiplier for students in inclusive settings (80%+ in general education) from 1.2 to 1.6381, and for others from ~1.0–1.12 to 1.5289 and 1.447, respectively.
- Expands eligibility for safety net funding by lowering the threshold for high-need students from 2.3x to 1.5x the average per-pupil expenditure, effective starting in the 2025–26 school year.
- 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 certain high-cost students in out-of-state nonpublic placements, if prior-year awards are in place and student placement remains unchanged.
- Requires OSPI to develop a simplified, standardized safety net application process by 2025–26 based on feedback from small districts to reduce administrative burden.
Who is affected
- Public school districts — School districts—especially smaller and high-need districts—may receive increased state funding to cover the full cost of providing special education services, reducing or eliminating the need to use local funds for these services.
- Students receiving special education services — Students with disabilities may benefit from more inclusive educational settings and more consistent access to services, 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 reduced financial burden on districts, which can improve educational outcomes and equity.
- State education agencies (especially 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 benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Students with disabilities — especially those in inclusive settings — benefit from significantly increased per-pupil funding and reduced financial barriers to inclusion. The bill’s removal of the enrollment cap and lowered safety net threshold means more high-need students qualify for support, directly improving access to services and reducing the risk of underfunded IEPs. The 24-point reading and 18-point math gains cited in the preamble support the academic impact of inclusion.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(i) (multiplier increase for inclusive settings: 1.2 → 1.6381); Sec. 5(7) (safety net threshold lowered from 2.3x to 1.5x starting 2025–26); Sec. 5(6) (quarterly payments for out-of-state placements).Small and rural districts — which often lack dedicated special education billing and compliance staff — benefit from a simplified, standardized safety net application process and feedback-driven improvements. This reduces administrative burden and improves equitable access to safety net funds, especially for districts with limited capacity to navigate complex application requirements.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 5(4)(b) (requirement to survey small districts and develop simplified application by 2025–26); Sec. 5(4)(a) (annual district satisfaction survey).The bill strengthens efforts to reduce racial and socioeconomic disparities in special education identification and service delivery — a long-standing issue in Washington. By mandating data review and technical assistance, it may help prevent over-identification of marginalized student groups and promote more equitable access to general education and supports.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 3(a)(i) (annual review of disproportionate identification); Sec. 3(a)(ii) (technical assistance for districts with disproportionate data); Sec. 3(b)(i) (professional development in inclusionary practices).Families of students with disabilities benefit from more predictable access to services and reduced financial pressure on districts, which can improve educational outcomes and reduce the need for costly out-of-district or private placements. The emphasis on inclusion aligns with research showing improved academic and social outcomes for students in general education settings.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(i) (multiplier increase for inclusive settings); Sec. 2(2)(b)(ii) (removal of enrollment cap); Sec. 5(7) (lowered safety net threshold).By increasing funding for inclusive placements and streamlining payments for out-of-state placements, the bill may reduce the need for long-distance transportation to private or residential facilities — potentially lowering transportation costs and improving student access to local, inclusive services. However, this is a secondary effect and not the bill’s primary focus.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(i) (multiplier increase for inclusive settings: 1.2 → 1.6381); Sec. 5(6) (quarterly payments for out-of-state placements).
Potential Concerns (5)
Increases state special education funding, which improves district budgets and reduces pressure to divert general fund money to special education — but the increased state spending must be funded through general fund or other revenue sources, potentially crowding out other K–12 priorities or requiring tax increases. The bill’s cost is significant and not fully offset, placing upward pressure on the state budget.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(i) (multiplier increase for inclusive settings); Sec. 5(7) (lowered safety net threshold to 1.5x),Smaller and rural districts may benefit from simplified applications and expanded eligibility for safety net funding, but the administrative burden of documenting and tracking compliance with new inclusion and reporting requirements may disproportionately fall on small districts with limited staff. The bill does not provide dedicated administrative funding for these new OSPI-mandated activities.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(ii) (removal of enrollment cap); Sec. 5(7) (lowered safety net threshold to 1.5x); Sec. 5(6) (quarterly payments for out-of-state placements); Sec. 5(4)(b) (simplified application process for small districts).The bill strengthens oversight of disproportionate identification and promotes inclusive practices, which may reduce over-identification of certain student groups (e.g., Black, Indigenous, and low-income students) in special education — but success depends on OSPI’s capacity to deliver consistent, high-quality technical assistance statewide. Without dedicated staffing or funding for OSPI’s expanded role, implementation may be uneven.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(a)(ii) (technical assistance for disproportionate identification); Sec. 3(b)(i) (professional development in inclusionary practices); Sec. 5(4)(b) (survey and simplified application process).The bill promotes inclusion by raising multipliers for students in 80%+ general education settings and requiring professional development in inclusive practices — but this may incentivize districts to place more students in inclusive settings regardless of individual needs, potentially leading to misplacement or inadequate services if not paired with strong oversight and IEP fidelity checks.
EducationRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(i) (multiplier increase for inclusive settings); Sec. 3(b)(i) (professional development in inclusionary practices).Quarterly safety net payments for students in out-of-state placements improve cash flow predictability for districts — but this only applies to students already placed in such settings in prior years, limiting broader impact. It does not address the root cause of high-cost placements (e.g., lack of in-state residential options), and may indirectly encourage districts to seek out-of-state placements to access faster funding.
EducationRef: Sec. 5(6) (quarterly payments for out-of-state placements).
Who Is Most Affected
Smaller districts with limited special education staff and billing capacity stand to benefit significantly from simplified applications, expanded safety net eligibility, and increased per-pupil multipliers — but may struggle with new reporting and monitoring obligations without added staffing or funding.
Large urban districts with existing special education infrastructure may benefit from increased state funding and inclusion incentives, but face less relative administrative relief from simplified applications. They may also be better positioned to absorb new compliance requirements.
Families of students with disabilities, especially those from low-income, Black, Indigenous, or multilingual backgrounds, are more likely to experience over-identification or under-service. The bill’s focus on reducing disparities and expanding inclusion may improve access and outcomes for these students.
OSPI gains expanded authority and responsibility for monitoring inclusion, reducing disparities, and simplifying applications — but success depends on whether the legislature appropriates adequate staffing and funding to support these new functions.
Nonpublic and out-of-state residential providers may see increased placement stability for students already in their programs due to quarterly payments, but the bill does not directly increase reimbursement rates or create new placement options.