Bills / H.B. 463 / Transcript

H.B. 463 Special Education Funding Modifications: transcript

Everything said about this bill in committee and on the floor, speaker by speaker. Each time links to that moment in the official video. Back to the bill: summary and every vote →

Transcribed from the Legislature's recordings by software, with speakers identified from the video; it can contain errors. Check the recording before quoting anyone.

House Education Committee, Feb 20, 2026

Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)32:02
Grateful to have you here. Alright, Representative Miller, uh, we're on house bill 4 63 special education funding modifications. Um, thank you for joining us Representative Miller. The time is yours.
Rep. Tracy Miller32:17
I don't think I'll be as fast as the last one, but I'll try.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)32:21
No, that's okay. We're we're, we've got, uh, we do have a full agenda, but we're grateful for your, uh, bill presentation this morning and looking forward to it.
Rep. Tracy Miller32:30
Thank you. I'm joined with Amanda Bollinger, who is the vice chair of the Utah State Board of Education, and there's a handout coming around for you. Um, also, approximately 14% of students in Utah's public schools receive special education services. That number has been gradually increasing and so has the cost. At the same time, our expectations for serving students well has grown and we're integrating more students, um, with disabilities into general education classrooms, which is a good thing. Research consistently shows that students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers have better academic and social outcomes when they learn together. But integration also comes, um, with real cost. It often requires additional staffing supports and specialized services delivered across multiple classrooms. Our current funding structure incentivizes keeping kids in self-contained classrooms rather than in general education classrooms. And at the same time, we, um, have been underfunding some of our children with the highest special needs. And so that is the issue that, um, we've had multiple conversations with and, and discussing and, and feel like it's time to look at our special education funding formula. So there is a chart that's being, um, passed around a table that shows, uh, currently how we are funding special education. So a student in resource, which is less than 180 minutes, um, gets the general K 12 WPU and then also gets a special education WPU. So they, uh, get two wpu. We have students who are in self-contained, um, classes, which is 180 or more minutes that get the special ed, WPU, the self-contained WPU, which is two wpu. So we're giving the same amount of WPU for a student that needs two hours during the day as a student who needs all day one-on-one, um, and help. So this proposal creates a new special education self-contained add-on WPU, um, for our self-contained students, bringing them to three, um, three wpu. And then, um, the reason it's a separate add-on is because there's also a provision in there where 25% of this new add-on can be used in general education. So right now our current, um, special education wpu have to be used, uh, just for special education, but we're putting a 25%, um, allowance to be used in general education because we want to incentivize LEAs to integrate our special education students, um, into, into general education as much as possible. Um, so if you're looking at the, the bill, there's also a bill summary that L-A-L-R-G-C did for me. Um, but if you're looking at the bill itself, this new add-on is starts lines one 19, uh, through 1 42. And that is the only part of this bill that is actually, um, new. There's a ton of red in this bill. And the reason for that is, um, because when I, we started having this discussion and looking at it, um, discovered that all of our special education funding actually has not been codified. It is in board rule at the state level. And so most of what this pill is, is taking what is currently in board rule and, uh, codifying that. Um, and that is something that, you know, we started looking into this, the staff really recommended that we do that. We, um, um, get codified what's already in board rules. So there's one there. We do have one piece in code that's being repealed, that it was just very small, had like a sentence for five different programs. And, um, this new, this new reorganization will now have a separate section of code for each of the special education programs. Um, so that's, that's basically what's in the bill. And I'll turn it to, uh, Dr. Bollinger.
Amanda Bollinger, Utah State Board of Education36:47
Thank you. Um, just for this committee's awareness, sorry,
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)36:53
Just for the record. Yep. Please state your name and who you represent. Yes, thank you. We know you, but for the record,
Amanda Bollinger, Utah State Board of Education36:57
Thank you. Amanda Bollinger, vice Chair, Utah State Board of Education. Thank, thank you. So one of the things I just wanted to mention here is that this is actually one of the policy recommendations that we made as a state board. For those of you that serve on the interim education committee, this is a code policy change that we did request specifically, it said, amend the WPU funding formula and distribution for students with disabilities in code. And just to add to that, speaking from my own experience, I have, I was a special educator for, for 15 years. I've taught both self-contained and resource and then worked as a assistant special education director. And during that time, this is when this really, this issue really became, uh, came to my attention because we had students that had very intensive services. Some of them are even at special schools, the average cost of those students, about $43,000, and they're receiving two WPU. That's the same WPU that a student like Representative Miller mentioned that a student with resource services that was coming to me for only like a 30 minutes of math or 30 minutes of resource, is getting the same funding overall as somebody that's either in a special class or all day long. The other concern with that is that when we're trying to mainstream students to follow federal law, which is to serve students in the least restrictive environment, and that is determined by a parent as part of an IEP team on what services can be, um, it provided in a general ed setting, um, there's not funding that supports that. So with this bill that she's presenting, it allows some flexibility for some of that extra WPU to support students to be in that least restrictive environment. Um, during my time as a assistant special ed director, we, there was what they called an intensive services grant. And as a, we applied for that as a district and it took so many hours and hours to put that application together. And I think we got just over a hundred thousand dollars is how much we got. So minimal amount of money, it didn't really move the needle. And so I, we, I, I feel like this really supports the need of the special education students and serving what parents are hoping for and balancing services in a general ed setting as much as possible, as well as those extra services that they're providing. So we really appreciate Representative Miller for her willingness to take on this policy change that we've asked for as a state board. Thank you.
Rep. Tracy Miller39:22
Okay. Thank you. And that concludes my presentation. Alright,
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)39:25
Thank you. Very good. We have a couple of questions. So I'm gonna go to first Representative Eliason.
Rep. Joseph Elison39:31
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, you may have just answered the question, but on line 1 35 and may help educate me, 'cause maybe this is already something that's going on where it talks about 25% of the money distributed goes to support general ed. If this is special ed focused, um, is that already happening? Is that why that's just kind of a carryover or can you kind of explain that?
Rep. Tracy Miller39:54
So, uh, currently our special ed ed, our special ed add-ons have to just be used for special ed. And so this is something new that this new add-on that, that I'm requesting will allow 25% of that to support general education costs.
Rep. Joseph Elison40:11
And that's to help support the, the special ed side of things, or
Rep. Tracy Miller40:15
That's to help, um, integrate our special education students into general education classes.
Rep. Joseph Elison40:20
Okay, perfect. Thank you. Yeah,
Rep. Tracy Miller40:22speaker not certain
If you explain that better. Yeah.
Amanda Bollinger, Utah State Board of Education40:23
Okay. So we call it what we call mainstreaming. So like I said, federal law requires us to serve students in the least restrictive environment, meaning that we want them with their students, their peers that have, don't have disabilities as much as possible. So currently the funding structure does not allow any money to be spent in general education. Where if we are having students that are self-contained push into a class, let's say they go into a PE class or an art class, there's no funding that supports that service.
Rep. Joseph Elison40:51
Okay. Perfect. Thank you.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)40:53
All right. Thank, you've got a lot of lights here. We're gonna go to Representative Hayes.
Rep. Sahara Hayes40:57
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got just a couple questions if that's okay? Yep. Please go Ahead. Thank you. Okay. I wanna make sure I'm understanding this 'cause I think this is probably great, but I also don't quite know what's happening. Um, so is this, is this giving more hours of sped time? Like how does this work? Because my, my only question I guess is I keep hearing about how there aren't enough, um, educators or like trained educators in SPED classrooms. And so does this address that in any way? Or is this just creating more like I I just think I'm a little lost in the weeds. Yeah,
Rep. Tracy Miller41:35
So it's creating more funding for our students that need more special ed services. So our students that, um, are getting a hundred who need 180 minutes plus of services, it's generating more funding for them.
Rep. Sahara Hayes41:49
Okay. And what does that funding go towards?
Amanda Bollinger, Utah State Board of Education41:53
Yeah, if I could add to that, to your point of currently when we say special ed is underfunded, it is hard to fund additional support, whether that's, um, educational support personnel or additional teachers. By having this additional funding, it actually allows for us to hire more individuals to support those services that are required on individual education programs. It doesn't change what their services are required, we're already required to provide those, but what's happening in our local LEAs is they're having to cover a lot of these special ed services from their general funds because there's not funding to support that.
Rep. Sahara Hayes42:25
Okay. Okay. So to recap, to make sure I'm understanding, this is gonna generate more money for SPED services, which is gonna go directly to that program, which could look like hiring more personnel. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)42:38
Alright, thank you. We're gonna go to, uh, representative Voxer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I still have a number of lights, so if your light's on, just no one coming to you. Okay.
Rep. Tiara Auxier42:46
I just have a few questions. Um, we keep hearing about the self-contained kids, but then wanting to push them into regular classrooms, and so then they're not really self-contained anymore. So I don't know if, you know, that puts a lot of pressure on the other kids who aren't getting any extra resources adding to them. And, and I think, you know, we have a little over 11,900 self-contained special ed kids. So 56 million extra dollars for 12,000 kids feels like a lot to me. Um, I think that if there is underfunding, this is definitely something we should look at and really like dig into the numbers rather Juab than just doing a full, um, WPU. Um, I think also, you know, if you're talking about a, a kid with 30 minutes getting a full WPU, maybe that's what we need to look at. Maybe they don't need a full WPU to only get 30 extra minutes. And so, um, I just think like, this seems like a very big shift and a lot of money. Um, and I don't know if that would even get funded this year, but I would be very much, um, more inclined to send this to an interim study. And I think that, um, if, if we think about the self-contained kids in the classroom, they have less kids in their classroom than other ones. And so we, we might say, well, you know, they're, they're not getting as much money as, as some other kids who are coming in just sped. Um, but those resources that they're already getting are going further because they have less kids in their classroom in, in my opinion. So those are just some of the things that I've been thinking about is I, I know we talk a lot about the least restrictive and we're talking about how to integrate these kids better, but there's a reason why they're self-contained right now. And it, I don't think it's fair to push more and more into classrooms with kids who aren't getting extra resources who are also struggling and those teachers who don't have those extra resources. And so I would, you know, it's, it's super disruptive sometimes, especially when there's, you know, different issues happening that we hear about a lot. And so I'm, I'm really hesitant to make such a big change in funding without really digging into everything
Unknown speaker45:13speaker not certain
All. I think, oh, sorry, go ahead. No, please
Amanda Bollinger, Utah State Board of Education45:14
Go ahead. I just wanna clarify when we say self-contained, it doesn't mean that they're necessarily in a special class or in a special school. So for example, when I was a resource teacher at an elementary school, there were students that were in a regular general education class, a fifth grade class, a sixth grade class. Uh, self-contained is just specifically the number of minutes they were serviced in a smaller setting. So if they came to me for both for reading, writing, mathematics and some extra support, they were still in that general ed class as one of their students, but didn't get any general education funding. So this doesn't necessarily just take self-contained kids from special classes into general ed. It actually is also students that are in general ed at least half of the day and then in special ed half of the day, but don't get any general education funding. It doesn't change the service minutes. Those are all required, um, depending on individualized education programs that parents help support. And we did actually when we were looking at funding models, to your point of, does a student that only needs 30 minutes of resource, do they really need a whole WPU? The hard part about that is that service minutes change anytime parents have the right to adjust an IEP at any time during the school year. So a student could start out as 30 minutes and then a month later have 60 minutes or 90 minutes. And so because that flexibility, uh, of minutes can change at any time, it's really hard to calculate that, uh, in a way that makes sense, in a way that allows continuous funding. It also, when we talk about resource students, you could have somebody that is receiving math and language arts services in elementary school for 60 minutes, but they also have occupational therapy, they have speech therapy, they have, um, guidance minutes on their IEP. So it's not even just a special education, a service class for reading, writing, and math. It also includes any kind of additional support related services.
Rep. Tiara Auxier47:04
Okay, cool. I think, I think it would be great to kind of look at that, you know, and, and while it might be hard to look at that 30, 60 or 90 minutes that could be changing, maybe that is, is something to look at. And you know, I do like the idea of the 25% being able to be used in, in general education then, but I don't know if I'm still on board with the other stuff.
Rep. Tracy Miller47:21
And then just to add to that too, um, if the student is in a general education classroom and, and you're right, that teacher, you has a lot of students with a lot of different needs, but this actually would provide more, provide the resource to help the special ed student in that general education classroom so that the general education teacher, you know, can focus on the other students that, that have needs too.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)47:43
Thank you. We're gonna go to Representative Moss. Thank you, representative Voxer.
Rep. Carol S. Moss47:47
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have a comment and then I have a question. Um, my understanding, because I have a son-in-law that changed careers a few years ago and he's teaching special ed. Um, so I've learned a lot more about it than I knew in the past. Um, I, I am concerned, this is my question. I hear that some, it's hard for teacher sped teachers to keep those IEPs up to date because there's, as you said, they change all the time. And I think some schools have been outta compliance and some teachers because of this, you know, this, as you say, they have some in self-contained and some in regular classes. And then I, so if you'd address that, but then one more thing, um, I hear from a lot of elementary teachers, and not just in granite, but in, uh, canyons and others, that they have as many, in fact, one of them is, uh, someone who's retiring this year as a result, uh, they have as many as eight kids from special ed in their regular classes, and there are disruptions that occur and their time and attention is, is put on these kids to the, um, detriment of the other kids. So can you just address those two things and tell me if those are part of the, what if we call the problem and what you're trying to address here?
Amanda Bollinger, Utah State Board of Education49:14
Yeah, thank you for that question. Representative Moss and, and yes, IEPs are fluid, it's all dependent on the progress of students and that's where special education teachers are responsible for making sure students are making progress. So if a student is in, um, whatever service pattern they have and the number of minutes they have, if they're not making progress, then it is the responsibility of the special education teacher to reconvene the IEP team, including the parents to discuss how that might need to change as far as services. So that could change in the middle of the year or any point where they might need more SER services or they might need less if they're doing doing well and they are showing progress, we're trying to serve them in a least restrictive environment. So there are a lot of moving parts and pieces and it compliance on paperwork is something that is very challenging and very difficult and we have lots of, uh, processes and procedures in place for auditing that as well. Um, and to your, to your point on as far as, um, students in a general ed class, that's gonna vary statewide, we're about 14%, like representative, uh, Millard had mentioned 14% special education. So it does depend on the number of students in the grade. It could vary and the services those each of those students need could vary. Uh, one of the things you mentioned in an elementary resource class is special ed teachers also help support with behavior goals. They do sometimes have psychologists or social workers that do help with that. This additional funding could and may provide opportunities where if there's need additional support, it may be in a, as a educational support professional that could push into the classroom with that student to help support those behaviors to help alleviate some of the stress of the general ed teacher.
Rep. Carol S. Moss50:50
Thank you. Could I just ask one more question, Mr. Chair? Yes. Quickly. Um, so it is clear to me, I think in my getting this correct, that we have to follow the law and if they change, uh, the parents change and wishes and desires for their kids, change that we don't have any choice. This is the law and we have to provide those services. Is that correct? So I think this is a good step toward making it possible to have that, uh, ability. Thank you.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)51:22
Thank you Representative Moss. We're gonna go to, uh, Representative MacPherson, get your light on. Sorry about that.
Rep. Matt MacPherson51:31
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so my questions are, are similar vein, so $68 million fiscal note. Um, and, and there's been discussion around lack of funding, but at the same time, our special ed funding has increased 20 fold in the last 10 years. Um, dramatic, dramatic increases the vastly largest growing portion of the public ed budget. And so I'm, I'm curious because of some of this discussion and whether or not based on what we've dec deciding are some of the problems is, is that there's a, a a lack of the balance of the resources being applied because some students may need far fewer, uh, resources than other students, but the formula is flat across all the students. And there may needs to be, as I think representative said, maybe a look at how we can better balance these formulas or look at how we can better balance the resources that we've already put into the pools, um, rather than necessarily just, um, adjusting the formula further, um, in order to kind of catch the, the, the large utilizer outliers that might be, um, uh, uh, a strain on the system. So I'm just curious if you can help me understand, um, if I, I I agree with the problem and I'm just curious if this is providing the right solution.
Rep. Tracy Miller52:51
Yeah. Um, so I had at one of my districts do some digging into, you know, costs and, and, and you're right, we don't have all the data that we need to, to really determine if, if, um, you know exactly who's getting what and where it needs to go. Um, there are students that are costing six times as much, this is only asking for one extra WPU per student, but there are students that are costing six times as much as, um, of, of, of others within the special education system. And so, um, my, where I'm coming from is just that, that we're really underfunding the highly special needs students and this would provide money to that particular area. But you're right, this is,
Rep. Matt MacPherson53:36
And Mr. Chair, if I can follow up, doesn't make a balance. Well, that another question. Yeah, Go Ahead then. Um, so I guess to to, to build on with that, um, is it fair to say that if you have some students that are costing six times as much, you have other students that are costing less than the actual allocation? And, and help me understand too, when it comes to, 'cause I'm not certain how, when it, after it leaves the state allocation here and it gets to the state board, that funding, is that actually to the student level or is that funding going to the LEA to the school based on those counts? And then, um, so essentially are, are, is that if it's a $5,000 w WP add-on dollar amount, is that allocated to the actual student level and you can't draw from the in total pool or how is that actually working?
Amanda Bollinger, Utah State Board of Education54:30
Yeah, that, thank you for that question. It, it typically is at an LEA level. So because the funding, when we as the state board give it, uh, any of the funding, we're just passing through the state board, it does go to an LEA level based off of their WPU. Um, but like Representative Miller mentioned, for those that may have, you know, 500 students in special schools that cost an average of $43,000 each and they're only getting two WPU, then it really does create a situation where then districts are having to dip into other funds to cover currently is what's happening. So right now, there's not enough funds to cover the cost of students. Even with that balance, to your point of where some might be, uh, you know, might not cost three WPU if, if there are, well, if they're self-contained student, I guarantee they cost a three WPU. But if they're a resource student, they may be like 1.75 WPU. And so sometimes that balances out for some pieces, but the amount of money it costs to provide services for our intensive students is far beyond that. Even, for example, students that are medically fragile and require a one-on-one, one certified nurse all day long in addition to the teacher and the ratio of students to teachers is three to one.
Rep. Matt MacPherson55:43
I appreciate that clarification. I think that helps me understand this. But I, I think it still gets to the concern that if we increase the bucket in total, then we might be coming back here again, as those numbers fluctuate, might make more sense to try to study this and try to figure out if there's adjustments that can be made on capturing how, how can we best provide the resources where they're needed rather than just into the entire bucket. But I appreciate this approach and I'm very interested in seeing where it goes.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)56:12
All right. Very good. Last, uh, question from our committee members is Representative Pucci.
Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck56:17speaker not certain
Thank you. And we are thoroughly vetting this bill this morning, and I think that's important. This committee does a good job. I am just wondering, uh, you and I have talked about this before and I know over interim, excuse me, there was a discussion around how much the district puts in. So there's a state portion and the state to representative McPherson's point, we have been trying to increase this, but even when we do that, I feel like there's this, um, disconnect from what's happening on the ground because we're constantly hearing special ed's. Underfunded. It's underfunded. And I know when I talked to our fiscal analysts end of last session, there were concerns of, well, we don't know how much the district's putting towards this in addition to state and federal dollars. Can you walk through that?
Rep. Tracy Miller57:04
Um, so I, I just, I have data just on, on one district, um, and it depends, I I think it depends on the LEA 'cause some LEAs aren't equipped, you know, to handle some of the more high, um, special needs students. So they end up in, in other LEAs. So I think it depends on, on what resources they're providing. Um, but let me see. Um, it, so anyway, the one, the one district I talked to, uh, subsidized it by 12 million this last year and this year they're estimating 16 million.
Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck57:50speaker not certain
So do you know what that is per student?
Rep. Tracy Miller57:53
I don't because This request, is it 50? Sorry, I'm pulling it up. 56 million.
Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck58:00speaker not certain
So it's 56 million on top of, do you know what we're currently putting in? And I'm not trying to grill you, I'm trying to understand, right, Yeah. We put double 56 million in. So we put 120 million in. We'll ask for another 56, and then the district is putting 12 to 16 in, is that sound right? Yeah, just
Rep. Tracy Miller58:27
One district. Yes. That's just one district, correct. Yes. Yes. And I'm pH a friend For district. That's okay.
Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck58:31speaker not certain
I, I'm just trying to get a handle on how we fund this, because I think that's where there's this gap in us understanding. 'cause we feel like we're funding it, but then I'm just wondering where that's at. My second question is, I know like in Jordan School district, thank you, they have Kari Sue Hamilton, which is fantastic. I volunteered there in high school. It also, to your point, parents are moving in to that area so their kids can go to Kari Sue. Right. And so my question would be in a situation like that, is our current formula helping or hurting them because they are going to have a disproportionately high number because they have found a way to customize learning for those students. So I just would be curious how the, to McPherson's point, what the formula looks like for that school.
Rep. Tracy Miller59:15
And I did phone a friend and, and yes, correct. Currently putting in 56 million in self-contained, so this doubles that amount. Okay. Um, okay. What was the other question?
Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck59:28speaker not certain
Uh, the second was, so like, say Jordan School District with Kari Sue Hamilton, you have more and more students moving into that area who are, have higher needs, uh, because it's a great service and it's, I think it's a cool way to customize learning experience. But I'm wondering with our formula the way it is, are we actually, um, decenting innovative solutions like that? Or are they, or is it accommodating for that kind of resource?
Rep. Tracy Miller59:56
Yeah, no, with our, our current formula, um, is, is yes, it's just grossly underfunding that level of services. Um, so like we're, we're de incentivizing, you know, providing the services to the students that need it the most because you really have to have an LEA that can, um, dip into their general education funding to fund Okay. Services like that. So this would help, um, LEAs be able to provide more intensive services. Okay.
Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck1:00:23speaker not certain
Okay. Thank you for clarifying.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:00:25
Alright. Thank you Representative Pucci. Uh, that concludes our clarifying questions. Uh, are the members of the public that are here to speak to this bill? 1, 2, 3. We're gonna take three members of the public. Uh, if you'll, I'm gonna set the timer for one minute. Please come up. We'd love to have your public comment today. Thank you.
Nate Crippes, Disability Law Center1:00:46
Good morning committee members. My name is Nate Cripes. I'm the public affairs supervising attorney at the Disability Law Center. Uh, I just wanna come and speak in favor of, uh, the bill. Um, you know, I think some of the questions around, um, funding, I, I think we need to increase special education funding. Absolutely. Um, but I really appreciate the, the, um, the policy idea of here of trying to, to include some funding to, um, increase, uh, the likelihood of mainstreaming students. I think we should be trying to mainstream students with disabilities as much as possible, trying to get them in the gen ed classroom as much as possible. Admittedly, I have no idea to some of the questions whether 25% of the funding of this new WPU is, is enough or too much. I do think so. I think the only thing I would say is I would hope that the state Board of education, um, and, and you all and the legisla legislature would be tracking that issue to make sure that we are like actually achieving the policy outcome. We're trying to, and with that, I I thank you for your time.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:01:33
Thank you. And I'll just note, uh, that to the members that are speaking, you can use both seats there. So feel free, uh, come on up. Uh, state your name, tell us who you represent, make sure you sign in.
Lori Kopasz, special education teacher1:01:43
Please go ahead. Uh, I'm Lori Copaz. I'm a special education teacher in Salt Lake City School District. I've been working with self-contained students for 27 years. Um, I think that this bill is great. We've been underfunded the whole time I've been a special ed teacher. Um, I do wanna just say that every district has innovative ways of serving students, not just Kari Sue. Um, and this would allow us to continue to serve these self-contained students. Um, in a way, I also just wanna mention that Medicaid funding is a way that we also fund some self-contained students. And that is on the line right now. And so for you to increase the state funding, I don't know if anybody's looked at that, but we do get funding from Medicaid and they're making massive cuts to Medicaid. So this might help districts be able to continue to provide the intensive services that self-contained students need.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:02:47
Thank you for your comments. Please go ahead.
Brent Bills, Washington County School District1:02:49
Uh, thank you Brent. Bills Washington County School District. I'm the business administrator there. Just wanted to state that, uh, more special ed funding is one of the, uh, JLC, that's our, uh, school Board Association Superintendent Association, um, priorities is to get additional funding in special ed. Um, wanted to address a couple things. The first thing is is with special ed, you've heard about a shortage in special ed teachers. Part of the problem is that nobody wants to be a self-contained teacher because the caseloads are so hard and, and so large. And this would help with that because we'd be able to lower those caseloads. Um, there was a co, uh, comment about how much money was going into special ed. I took a look at it. The state was putting, uh, 5 460 1 million into special ed in 2019 and 2026, it's 5 96, which is a 29.8 28, 29 0.28% increase. CPI went up 25.54% over the same period of time. So it's not really the kind of increase that we're, we're hearing about. And, uh, we do have kids moving into, uh, from rural districts to larger districts where they can get better services and this would really help with that. So thank you.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:03:59
Thank you. We appreciate those public comments. We're gonna close our public comment and uh, we're gonna go to the committee for action items. I'm gonna go to Representative MacPherson.
Rep. Matt MacPherson1:04:09
Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm gonna make a motion to hold and I'd like to speak to that,
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:04:14
That motion is an order. Please go
Rep. Matt MacPherson1:04:16
Ahead. Um, I think that there's, um, a obvious problem. We know that there is one, we've discussed this before. Um, I think that there's a lot of, uh, uh, misunderstanding of how we fund public education. Um, how it went from weighted pupil units and multipliers to now add-ons and additional, uh, ways. Um, I appreciate this approach, but I'm not certain that this is getting to the core issue. I would suggest that we bring this to an interim, study it and actually find out if there's a combination of reallocations as well as perhaps funding increases. But, uh, the, the, uh, legislature has been dramatically increasing funding, uh, in this category for many, many years. And the word that we get all the time is, is that we are underfunding it. Um, and the number of students in this space have exploded dramatically as well. And we have to try to, um, wrap our heads around how this is actually getting from the state to the state board down to the LEA and then into the classroom to the actual student. And just, uh, increasing the pot might make a a difference potentially. But I'm concerned that we're not actually solving the problem. And I would suggest that we study this and then we have a chance to kind of go in it into great depth and then come out with a committee bill that can really be funded from the get go. And, 'cause there's also the likelihood that this will not see any funding, um, and will not pass anyway. And I would prefer if we actually come out of this committee with a really strong plan on how to solve this moving forward with funding behind it. And that would be my motion.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:05:59
Alright. Thank you Mr. Thank you. Uh, Representative MacPherson. So the motion is to hold house bill 4 63 special education funding modifications and, uh, with the recommendation to send this to an interim study so that we can spend more time, uh, figuring out the issues, uh, Representative Miller to the motion to hold.
Rep. Tracy Miller1:06:18
Yeah, thank you. I, uh, appreciate that. Um, motion. I mean, obviously I would love to see this move, move forward right now and get funded. We, we have spent a lot of time digging into, you know, different formulas in the best way to address this problem with the data and the system that we have right now. This was the system we're be able, we were able to come up with. Um, I'm not opposed to doing a much deeper dive and, and getting the whole committee on board, um, with the solution. So.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:06:48
Alright. Thank you Representative Miller. We're gonna go to the, if your light is on, it's to speak to the motion to hold. I'm gonna go to Representative Eliason.
Rep. Joseph Elison1:06:56
Uh, Ms. Chad, like to reserve the right to make a substitute motion, but speak to it before I do. Is that okay?
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:07:02
Uh, depending on the motion, that motion is an order. Okay. Well, the substitute motion that I would, I think the substitute can only be to amend or to, uh, uh, to amend or to adopt a substitute. Just so you know, on your substitute motion, if you reserve the right to make a motion, uh, Excuse me, reserves the right to make a motion. Yes. Yeah. If you reserve the right to make a motion, I think the motion can only be to amend or to substitute. Yes. The existing motion. The previous motion, right. Yeah. Yeah. So if you want to, so if you wanna make a substitute motion that's not one of those two, you probably should make the motion and then speak to it, sir.
Rep. Joseph Elison1:07:38
No, I'm not gonna do that. Well, okay, then I will make a motion that we, um, a substitute motion that we actually pass this out favorably, but I'd like to speak to as to why.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:07:47
Okay, that's fine. So that motion is an order. So the, the substitute motion is to recommend favorably house bill 4 63 special education funding modifications. Go ahead.
Rep. Joseph Elison1:07:57
Okay. So I hear what everybody's saying in the committee, and I do agree. I guess my question would be to move this forward, how do we ensure guardrails around the funding? Right? And then number two, I, I'm specifically concerned about that 25%, maybe fixing some of the wording on that where it goes to general ed. I struggle with that because I think a lot of people always have that fear that, okay, we're going to do special ed funding, but then we carve out 25% that can go. And I understand why, right? Because of the question I asked earlier. But the way that's worded, it really doesn't have to go that way. Right. And I'm very sensitive to this issue is, you know, this is my wife's world. Um, if we're gonna fund special ed, then I think it needs to be funding special ed, but also to everybody's concern, you know, making sure that our, is this actually all going to go to special ed and it's not creeping somewhere else and it's, and it's actually doing what it's supposed to do otherwise I am in favor of holding the bill If we can't get to that point before this bill moves forward, if it, if that makes sense.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:08:58
Yeah. So the same, So sorry, I have to go to the maker of the original motion and then I can come back to you. So Representative MacPherson.
Rep. Matt MacPherson1:09:06
Yeah, and I, I guess my, my only concern with this motion to, to favorably recommend is that with a 58 or $56 million fiscal note with a hundred bills deep on our house board, the likelihood of us actually even passing it on a house floor at this point with we know we have to either have funding in place, um, before or there's, there's a lot of, uh, there's a lot of concerns in addition to what I've already brought up, that even, even without those, um, with, with something with such a large fiscal note that I, I'm concerned that what, how it may be unnecessarily adding, uh, additional workload where we might be able to solve this some other way better. That's concern with the substitute motion.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:09:53
All right. Very good. And two, the sponsor on the substitute motion.
Rep. Tracy Miller1:09:57
Um, I, I appreciate, you know, your concerns about the, the language and I think that is something that I'm willing to work on to ensure that that 25% gets used on special education students and we can work on some, um, changes to the language there. But as far as the distribution goes, I mean, it, it would be the same distribution and out to the districts and out to the schools. Um, that's currently in statute, so none of that changes.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:10:24
Alright. Thank you for your light is honest to speak to the substitute motion representative, vice Chair de Fay.
Rep. Ariel Defay1:10:29
Thank you. Um, so I know the fiscal note is large. I know it's part of a bigger conversation about public school funding. Can you address how this fits into that larger, broader conversation?
Rep. Tracy Miller1:10:43
Yes, the fiscal note is large. Um, and, and it would, I mean, it would be best to do this with new money and realize that this is a year that, that that's not happening. But we're discussing a lot of, um, DA lot of big, uh, funding items this year. And I just think, uh, helping our special education students is something that, that we really need to prioritize. We put a lot of money to a lot of different projects and, um, um, this is something that, that I really think we need to prioritize. I know, um, there's a senator that's also working on this a little bit. I'm working on the funding issue. I'm not sure where that's gonna land, but, um, it's, it's part of the broader discussion. Thank you.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:11:25
Alright, thank you. So, uh, we're gonna go, um, back to the maker of the motion. To sum on the motion on the substitute motion.
Rep. Joseph Elison1:11:35
May I ask her a quick question before I do? Go ahead. Um, so where are we at with A EAC? Has, has there been conversations already in terms of funding? Is there any kind of a sense of momentum here at all? Yeah,
Rep. Tracy Miller1:11:47
I, I mean everyone recognizes it's a problem. Um, there is, there is conversations, but I don't know where they're at.
Rep. Joseph Elison1:11:56
Okay. Um, Mr. Chair, I think I might withdraw my emotion. Um, for the purpose of, uh, I think the arguments are good that this, obviously everybody fills that this is something we need to do, but you're right, if it's not gonna get funded, um, yeah, we, we probably need to put a little bit more emphasis on that so that we can get this. 'cause I'm, I totally want this to happen, but if we don't have the funding, then I, I agree with that mo with that, uh, sentiment. So I think I'm gonna withdraw that motion.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:12:25
All right. So, uh, you, we've, uh, withdrawn the substitute motion. So we're back to the original motion to hold representative. Thank you. Representative Eliason. Representative Thompson.
Rep. Jason E. Thompson1:12:33
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanna thank the, um, the good sponsor for, for, for bringing this bill. Um, we, we do, we do have an issue, um, and we do need to address the issue. I am in full support of what you are, um, uh, what you're endeavoring, um, to, to do here. And it breaks my heart that the reason that we have to sit here and have the conversation about holding is because of the fiscal realities this year and where and where we are. Um, I also, um, uh, appreciate my good colleague for his motion, recognizing the realities of what's on the board. Um, and, and, um, the, the reality is I think the most progress that we can make is gonna be during the interim. And I am fully committed to working with you during the interim to look at, we've got some of the most amazing, um, uh, in my opinion there. There's some brilliant equalization things that we do in our state that, that in a lot of ways work well. And then there's so many other formulas that are all over the place that I'm on exec, uh, I'm on, uh, uh, public appropriations. And, um, it's hard to get your mind around all this stuff and how do you make it work and how do you make sure that these things are having the intended consequences and getting these funds down the road where they need to go. We have very serious, important conversations. We need to have this interim. I'm fully committed to having them with you and really appreciate your work on, on this bill.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:14:01
Okay, thank you. I've got a lot of lights. We have a two hour limit today, so just, uh, I know there's other, other agenda items, just making that note to the committee members. Representative Welton.
Rep. Doug Welton1:14:12
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I realize I'm late to the party and it sounds like there's been some great discussion on this already. Um, I would oppose the motion to hold for a couple of reasons. Not that I don't agree with everything that's been said by my good colleagues. I think this is a really important issue and, and it probably is going to be better fleshed out with a deeper dive, but I've asked for audits on special ed funding because four years, if you talk to anybody in special ed, they will tell you that they are chronically underfunded and they cannot keep, uh, employees to take care of these kids who really, really need help. And we have still yet to address it. And it's always comes back to some you, uh, special ed add-on or whatever, but it's not making it to the end of the row. So, uh, I think if nothing else, maybe this doesn't get funded and I think, uh, good representative, uh, uh, from West Valley City probably has a good point. But if nothing else, this pushes the issue to the forefront and it forces more than just a discussion here on committee. It pushes the, and, and lets EAC and everyone else know that this really is an important issue that needs to be topic or talked about and discussed. So I would, I would favor moving this forward.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:15:22
Alright, thank you Representative Welton and to Representative Moss.
Rep. Carol S. Moss1:15:25
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Excuse me. Um, I am opposed to holding this bill because I think there's been a lot of work done on it and reading this, um, summary itself and listening to this, that you've really worked very hard to find a solution. Um, I think it should go forward and the discussion continue and it can continue with EAC and maybe we shouldn't cut income tax this year so we can fund this, but this is something that surprise should be a priority, and it's a fact that there are not enough people to teach special ed. I mean, they're not doing it because they don't have the resources and that's, that's not right for our kids and it's not even legal. These kids have a legal right to have accommodation. So I think we should move this forward and we can still continue this discussion if it doesn't get funded. Thank you.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:16:17
Thank you Representative Moss. We're gonna go to Representative Defay.
Rep. Ariel Defay1:16:23
Yeah, I, I was going to vote in favor of the motion to hold, but I think that Representative Welton makes a really good point that we are signaling the importance of this issue. I am doubtful that it'll get funded this year, but I do think it does signal to leadership that this is a conversation we wanna continue having. And if it doesn't get funded, I think we continue this in the interim study and figure out the funding mechanism.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:16:45
Thank you, representative Faye. Representative Libe.
Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:16:49
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, we have lots of bills on the board and we don't need to send a bill to the board to have leadership understand an important issue. I, I support the motion to hold, not because I disagree with the funding. If the funding can be worked out, we have the bill, we can move it forward. I think holding is a wise motion. We don't wanna continue loading up the board with a bunch of bills that we don't think have a great chance of getting funded or passing because it will just hold up the process. I, I would like to hear from the maker of the underlying motion, the conversations he's had with leadership about the importance of funding in this space, because I imagine as the Vice Chair of Education appropriations, he's had those conversations. Um, but I'd like to hear what he has to say about that.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:17:51
Thank you, Representative Lisonbee back to the sponsor on the motion to hold.
Rep. Tracy Miller1:17:56
Well, I really appreciate you, um, hearing me out on this and, uh, recognizing that it's an issue and that, that it does need to be a priority and I will, um, respect the will of the body on what you decide on this one.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:18:09
Thank you. And to the original, to the maker of the motion.
Rep. Matt MacPherson1:18:12
Thank you Mr. Chair. And I know this has been a very long discussion. I think this actually emphasizes why I think the motion to hold is a good idea. I think this discussion will continue on the floor as well. Um, and I, I, I think that when we're talking about the education budget right now and what, you know, we had to identify 290 something million dollars in, in potential cuts from the public education program. And we had several hundred million dollars in additional funding requests. Um, many of them from the state board. Um, this wasn't on the state board's priority list when they gave us the list of their, uh, funding items, I don't believe. At least not on the, the final five items that we got. Um, and it didn't end up on our priority list either. That's my concern is, is that there's, there's not likely going to be any funding for this in its current form, but I fully support trying to solve this issue. And I think that if we could hold this bill in this committee with an intent to move it to an interim study, to actually find a, uh, a committee bill, a consensus bill that we can push out of this committee with the support of the Education committee of the Public Education Appropriations Committee. Um, and that would be a much more powerful message if that's what we're trying to do to leadership, to fund and prioritize an item that has been going on for a long time and needs a solution. Um, but is something that has been, uh, well, well thought out and, and processed through the whole committee. I think there's enough concerns here that if there's a, if there's a chance that this bill passes and it goes to the floor, I, I, I'm okay with that. I just think that we are gonna be holding up the process. We're not likely gonna fund this, and we will be back in an interim committee. I think that, that, that is the best way forward for this, uh, at this point. And, and if we could do that now, then we can save us all some time. But that's just my feelings on that, so I'm sharing that with the committee. Thank you.
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:20:02
Thank you, Representative MacPherson. We're gonna go to a roll call vote. The motion before us is to hold house Bill 4 63 special education funding modifications with the recommendation that A, go to an interim study. Uh, Tisha.
Committee secretary1:20:16
Representatives er yes. Lyson. Yes. Hayes, no. Liz and B, yes. McPherson? Yes. Millard, no. Moss, no. Peck? Yes. Thompson? Yes. Welton? No. Vice chair. Defe? No. Chair. Walter? Yes. Second
Rep. R. Neil Walter (Chair)1:20:43
Close. Seven, five. That motion passes seven to five. Representative Hayes, Millard Moss, Hayes, Millard Moss, Welton, Welton, and de Fay as knows on the motion to hold. Thank you Representative Miller. Thank you. We do appreciate this issue. And I do, I do want to emphasize, uh, I think the committee's, uh, very sincere about their desire to work on this issue and appreciate the, uh, appreciate the time from the committee members.