SCH CD-SPECIAL ED JT AGREEMENT
HB2390 amends the Illinois School Code section governing special education joint agreements among school districts. The bill revises the rules for how districts can enter into, amend, renew, and withdraw from these cooperative arrangements, with a particular focus on withdrawal procedures, public notice, hearings, and the requirement that a withdrawing district submit a comprehensive plan for continuing services to students with disabilities. It also adds detailed requirements for joint agreements to address asset distribution, liabilities, annual budget presentations, and fee calculations, and it preserves existing provisions on governance, staffing, and financing of joint special education programs.
The bill strengthens oversight and procedural safeguards around withdrawal from joint special education programs. For districts seeking to leave a joint agreement, it requires advance public hearings, notice to other member districts, submission of a comprehensive plan, and review by the regional superintendent or intermediate service center. It also clarifies that member districts remain responsible for their proportional share of debt and liabilities, and that joint agreements must include provisions for dissolving assets and distributing them when a district withdraws. In addition, the bill creates a special withdrawal pathway for a specified elementary district meeting certain enrollment and equalized assessed valuation criteria.
HB2390’s impact on state law is to make the School Code more specific and restrictive in how special education joint agreements are managed, especially when a district wants to exit a cooperative program. It ties withdrawal approval to service-continuity requirements under state and federal special education law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and it requires a full continuum of services for students with disabilities after withdrawal. The bill also reinforces fiscal accountability by requiring annual budget and fee presentations and by making withdrawal not a way to avoid existing debt obligations.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The recorded votes were unanimous in both chambers, with large margins in the House and Senate and no recorded opposition, suggesting broad bipartisan agreement on the need to clarify special education joint agreement procedures and protect students’ services during district transitions.
The main point of contention, based on the structure of the bill rather than recorded debate, is the balance between district autonomy and the protections imposed on withdrawal. The bill places substantial procedural and financial obligations on withdrawing districts, which may be viewed as necessary safeguards by supporters but as burdensome by districts seeking flexibility. Another notable feature is the targeted exception for one district, which could raise questions about whether the bill is broadly applicable policy or partly tailored to a specific local circumstance.
HB2390 amends Section 10-22.31 of the Illinois School Code governing special education joint agreements. It changes the legal requirements for joint agreements by adding or revising provisions on withdrawal notice, public hearings, comprehensive transition plans, asset and liability allocation, annual fiscal reporting, and continued responsibility for debt obligations. It also reinforces that districts withdrawing from a joint agreement must still ensure educational services for students with disabilities and comply with state and federal special education requirements.
The bill appears to have enjoyed very strong support. It passed the House 112-0, the Senate 56-0, and House concurrence 115-0, indicating unanimous or near-unanimous approval in both chambers. With no committee transcript available and no recorded opposition in the votes, the general sentiment is that the measure was viewed as a practical clarification of special education governance and student-protection rules.
The most notable policy tension is between making withdrawal from a special education joint agreement possible and ensuring that districts cannot leave without protecting students, finances, and remaining member districts. Supporters would likely emphasize continuity of services, fiscal accountability, and transparency; potential critics could focus on the lengthy 18-month notice period, hearing requirements, and continuing liability for debt after withdrawal. The bill also contains a district-specific withdrawal provision, which may be seen as a tailored exception rather than a uniform statewide rule.