Revise laws related to educating children receiving in-state inpatient treatment of serious emotional disturbances
HB 669 revises Montana law governing educational services for children who are receiving in-state inpatient treatment for serious emotional disturbances at qualifying facilities such as children’s psychiatric hospitals, residential treatment facilities, and therapeutic group homes. The bill keeps the core requirement that these children be provided an appropriate educational opportunity, and it clarifies how the superintendent of public instruction may contract with facilities to deliver those services.
The bill also tightens the funding framework. It requires the superintendent to set a daily rate for each facility based on actual documented costs, excluding costs already reimbursable under other state or federal law or insurance. It specifies that the child’s resident school district must pay 40% of the tuition per-ANB amount, while the state pays the remainder from appropriated funds. It further bars facilities from charging supplemental education fees or tuition beyond what the statute authorizes, and it allows the superintendent to use either OPI staff/contractors or the local school district if a facility fails to provide education or negotiate a contract.
HB 669 clarifies the superintendent of public instruction’s rulemaking authority over tuition calculations, fund distribution, and responsibility assignments among facilities and school districts. It also requires facilities contracting with the state to provide educational data and regular progress reports, and it directs the superintendent to report biennially to legislative education committees on implementation, daily rates, and program effectiveness. The act takes effect July 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact is primarily on Title 20 education statutes, especially sections 20-7-419 and 20-7-435, by refining how educational services for these medically and behaviorally complex students are funded and administered. It affects the Office of Public Instruction, qualifying treatment facilities, and school districts of residence, which may be responsible for part of the tuition or reimbursement costs. It also reinforces that funds for these programs are deposited in district miscellaneous programs funds and are not subject to certain budget limits.
Overall, the bill appears to have broad support, passing the House unanimously and later advancing through the Senate with majority support. The Senate process shows some procedural resistance or delay, including a motion to table and a failed motion to take the bill from the table, but the bill ultimately moved forward and was concurred in both chambers. The main points of contention appear to have centered on whether and how to advance the bill procedurally in the Senate, rather than on the underlying policy itself.
HB 669 amends Montana Code Annotated sections 20-7-419 and 20-7-435 to clarify the superintendent of public instruction’s authority to adopt rules, calculate tuition and daily rates, allocate costs between the state and school districts, and oversee educational programming for eligible children in in-state inpatient treatment settings. It establishes a more detailed payment structure, limits extra charges to families, requires reporting and data-sharing from facilities, and authorizes alternative service arrangements when a facility does not provide or contract for education. The bill directly affects the Office of Public Instruction, qualifying treatment facilities, public school districts, and the districts of residence for eligible children.
The general sentiment around HB 669 was favorable. It passed the House unanimously and later received majority support in the Senate, indicating broad agreement with the goal of ensuring educational services for children in inpatient behavioral health treatment settings and clarifying the funding mechanism. The Senate’s procedural delays suggest some hesitation or strategic disagreement about timing and handling, but not strong opposition to the bill’s substance.
The most notable contention was procedural in the Senate, where the bill was tabled and a motion to take it from the table initially failed before the measure was eventually revived and advanced. The available record does not show substantive committee testimony or organized opposition to the policy itself. Any underlying policy tension appears to involve the cost-sharing and administrative responsibilities assigned to school districts, the state, and qualifying facilities, but the voting record suggests these issues were ultimately acceptable to most legislators.