Transcript Highlights:

• around student loans.
• who are here on student visas.
• students about their eligibility.
• I don't blame that on the student.
• Somehow, out of those 100,000 students, these 2,000, Students, somehow out of those 100,000 students,

Summary: The joint Sunset Review Oversight Hearing focused on the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) and its reauthorization, operations, enforcement, fiscal condition, and student protections. Committee leaders and DCA officials praised the Bureau’s recent improvements in data systems, licensing, inspections, and enforcement, while noting the Bureau’s role has become more important as federal higher education oversight weakens. Bureau Chief Deborah Cochran said the agency has met its inspection mandate for the first time since the law was enacted, increased citations and disciplinary actions, reduced pending complaints, and used data tools to identify risk and monitor institutions more effectively. A major portion of the hearing centered on student harm, especially school closures, transcript access, predatory recruiting, and the Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF). Members asked how the Bureau protects students when schools close, whether bad actors can reopen under new entities, and whether enforcement tools are strong enough. Cochran said the Bureau can cite, fine, place schools on probation, revoke licenses, and order refunds, but it is seeking new authority to deny approval to operators who previously closed schools improperly or failed to refund students. She also said the Bureau is tracking ownership data and is concerned about institutions targeting immigrant and visa students. On STRF, Cochran explained that the fund is currently healthy, assessments are at zero because the balance is above the statutory target, and the Bureau paid about 1,100 claims totaling roughly $17 million over the last four years. Several members questioned the fairness of the assessment structure and discussed alternatives such as surety bonds, but the Bureau said STRF is working well and no change is needed at this time. Fee increases and the Bureau’s structural deficit were another major topic. Cochran said the Bureau reduced costs by eliminating positions, streamlining inspections, improving data analysis, and shifting some student-relief costs to STRF, but that legislative action is still needed to address the deficit. She said the proposed fees were based on workload analyses and that application fees generally match service costs, while annual fees are designed to cover most of the Bureau’s revenue needs. Some members and stakeholders criticized the proposed increases as too high, especially for out-of-state registration and campus fees, while others argued the Bureau needs sufficient resources to regulate effectively. Public commenters from private schools, Northeastern University, San Joaquin Valley College/Carrington College, and TICAS generally supported the Bureau’s mission and reauthorization, but urged changes such as risk-based oversight, better transcript protections, stronger limits on repeated provisional approvals, and more targeted fee and STRF reforms. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with no formal action beyond discussion and receipt of testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• What's the percentage of students that end up getting a refund versus students that take the courses,
• The EASE, as Sean said, is $3,500 a student. EASE Plus is about $850 a student.
• But remember that this is a student grant that goes to the student, and the student and parents can make
• That's a Pell-eligible student that is, you know, these are not wealthy students.
• That's a Pell eligible student that is, you know, these are not wealthy students.

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee heard and advanced House Bill 1145, which clarifies that public charter schools may participate in the CAP Grant Fund. The bill’s amendment expanded a separate “money-back guarantee” concept for state colleges, requiring participating institutions to offer six eligible programs and refund tuition if graduates do not find qualifying employment within six months under standardized job-search requirements. Members asked about refund rates, student notification, fiscal impact, and whether the proposal accounted for disability or out-of-state job searches. Public testimony on the amendment and bill was in support from Nathan Hoffman of the Foundation for Florida’s Future, and the committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably as a committee substitute by a 16-1 vote, with Representative Aristide voting no over the charter school issue. The committee then received presentations on the William L. Boyd IV Effective Access to Student Education (EASE) Grant and the private nonprofit college sector. Department of Education staff explained that EASE, created in 1979, provides tuition assistance to eligible full-time undergraduates at participating private institutions, with a 2024-25 maximum award of $3,500 and an additional EASE Plus incentive of up to $850 for students in high-demand fields. The department reviewed the program’s funding history, disbursement process, and accountability metrics, including access, affordability, graduation, retention, and postgraduate employment/continuing education. Members asked about award proration, eligibility for other aid, religious-program restrictions, and why some institutions had low or unavailable graduation-rate data. ICUF President Robert Boyd argued that EASE is a strong return on investment and described ICUF institutions as not-for-profit, four-year schools serving many Pell-eligible, adult, military, and minority students. He said the sector produces a significant share of Florida’s bachelor’s, graduate, nursing, and education degrees, and highlighted ICUF’s dashboard with additional transparency metrics, program earnings data, and net price calculators. Boyd and members discussed graduation and completion rates, NCLEX passage rates, affordability, institutional flexibility, and whether schools with lower graduation rates should be compared differently because of their student populations. The presentations ended with no further business, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hancock has two high schools where students would go, and we would be paying for our resident students
• Hancock has two high schools where students would go, and we would be paying for our resident students
• Yeah, so the issue is you paying for your students, just not another municipality's students.
• So if a family chooses a student to our district, they are our student.
• Rural students matter.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a hearing on two late-file bills. H. 4867, relative to school choice, drew testimony from leaders, parents, and educators in Hancock, Warwick, Richmond, and Worthington, who said DESE’s interpretation of Chapter 76, Section 12B(k) requires small districts without high schools to pay secondary tuition for nonresident school choice students after they leave the elementary grades. Witnesses said the resulting gap between the $5,000 school choice payment and high school tuition of roughly $13,000 to $18,000 per student has forced some districts to stop accepting school choice students, hurting class sizes, budgets, and rural families’ access to local schools. Committee members questioned how the current rule works, whether students have home high schools to return to, and whether a broader statutory fix could address all districts without secondary programs; testimony indicated the affected districts are a small number of rural communities, with some others having found alternative arrangements. Representative Barrett described the bill as a general solution to an issue that had gone unenforced for years, and the hearing ended with testimony closed on the bill. The committee also heard H. 4927, relative to protecting access to applied behavior analysis (ABA). Educators and ABA providers testified that the bill would clarify that qualified ABA providers, including BCBAs and RBTs, may deliver services in schools while preserving school safety and operational rules. They argued that better access to ABA would help students with autism make progress on IEP goals, remain in the least restrictive environment, and reduce conflicts between families and districts. A parent described repeated delays in getting promised supports for her young son and said the bill would help ensure follow-through and accountability. The committee then closed testimony on H. 4927 and adjourned after a motion and second.

Transcript Highlights:

• around student loans.
• who are here on student visas.
• other students might be able to.
• students about their eligibility.
• I don't blame that on the student.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• around student loans.
• who are here on student visas.
• So the students— The student tuition recovery fund does work like an insurance program.
• students about their eligibility.
• I don't blame that on the student.

Summary: The joint Sunset Review Oversight Hearing focused on the Bureau for Private Post-Secondary Education (BPPE) and its reauthorization, with committee chairs and members emphasizing the Bureau’s role in protecting students, overseeing private postsecondary schools, and responding to a changing federal higher education landscape. BPPE and the Department of Consumer Affairs reported that the Bureau has modernized data systems, improved enforcement, increased citations and inspections, reduced pending complaints, and is now meeting its statutory inspection mandate. They also said the Bureau faces a structural budget deficit and has reduced costs through staffing cuts, streamlined inspections, and shifting some student-relief functions to the Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF).

Transcript Highlights:

• We have over 6,000 students.
• We are here to talk about the two programs for our students with our students.
• Again, depending on the needs of the students, so there are students who wish...
• students.
• Students who are inducted into this student organization have earned in May...

Committee: All TASK FORCE ON AUTISM

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• line and spent close to $4,000 more per student than districts with over 500 students.
• The matrix is funded based on 500 students. So this is the amount for 500 students.
• Districts with fewer than 351 students spent almost three times more per student than the lowest per-student
• student amount.
• student as well.

Summary: The joint education committee continued its adequacy study with a detailed Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, covering how Arkansas school districts and charters spend foundation and other funds on matrix and non-matrix items. Staff explained the methodology for mapping expenditures, the district and school categories used in the analysis, and key findings showing that districts spend more per student from all fund sources than the foundation amount alone. The presentation highlighted that classroom teachers account for the largest share of matrix spending, while operations and maintenance, student support staff, nurses, and other lines also drew significant attention. Members asked for additional breakdowns by district type, size, rural/urban status, and trend data, and several questions focused on how waivers affect funding and spending, especially for library media specialists and other positions. The committee then discussed non-matrix spending, including instructional aids, non-technology-related facilities, school safety, mental health services, dyslexia support, food service, gifted and talented, career and technical education, and other items not explicitly defined in the matrix. Staff reported that non-matrix spending exceeded $2 billion in 2025, with most of it coming from other fund sources, and that the top superintendent-identified unmet needs over recent surveys were mental health services, school safety, and dyslexia support. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, possible over-identification, and whether some support costs are being coded in ways that obscure the true spending picture. There was also discussion of facilities funding, the building fund, and the Department of Education’s partnership program for school construction and maintenance, with staff agreeing to provide more information and potentially bring department officials back for a future meeting. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly requested more granular data and clarifications, including waiver counts and funding impacts, trend lines for superintendent-reported needs, district-by-district spending spreadsheets, and definitions for certain matrix and accounting terms such as salary enhancement, LEA indebtedness, and other employee health insurance. The chair noted that the committee would continue the adequacy process over the coming months and use the worksheet in the binder to develop recommendations for the next biennium. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; instead, the committee received the report, asked for follow-up data, and agreed to continue the discussion at future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• 1001 to 250 students and even better, 1 to 200 students.
• And so for a student, 4 times 4 is 16, each student is worth 16 shared accountability units.
• I don't have students that are one student.
• And students are well informed and involved, students are more likely to succeed.
• or a group of students.

Transcript Highlights:

• student.
• Districts with fewer than 351 students spent almost three times more per student than the lowest per-student
• per-student amount for student transportation.
• than three hundred fifty one students spent almost three times more per student amount for student transportation
• student as well.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> harm in a student? harm in a student?
• Students, uh, seclusion is used on students.
• </c><00:40:39.200><c> in</c> students, American Indian students in students, American Indian students
• :21:48.400><c> student</c><01:21:48.640><c> had</c> with the student, the student had with the student
• </c> student as well. student as well.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, 112,000 students diagnosed with asthma may be at risk of severe 112,000 students diagnosed
• So there's baseline requirements for the contract, which would be student ages, grade level, student
• Is it possible that some students that are not low-income, that are high-performing elementary students
• the student to where the student goes.
• We're funding the students and where those students decide to take their dollars to be educated.

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Pre-K - 12 Education

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education met with a quorum and took up several education bills. SB 1150, by Senator Calatayud, was presented as a measure to help school districts retain school social workers by removing an exam requirement unrelated to the profession. With no questions or debate, the committee voted the bill favorably. The committee then moved to SB 1514, by Senator Smith, on anaphylaxis response in public schools. After adopting a delete-all amendment and a late-filed amendment clarifying FDA-approved epinephrine devices and weight-based dosing, the committee heard support from Orange County Public Schools and reported the bill favorably. The most extensive discussion centered on SB 1708, also by Senator Calatayud, which would expand Schools of Hope by broadening the definition of low-performing schools from those in the bottom 10% in both math and reading to those in the bottom 10% in either subject, and would authorize co-location of Schools of Hope in underused public school facilities. Senators questioned how co-location would work, who could enroll, how liability and contracts would be handled, and whether the bill would help the specific students most in need. Many public speakers opposed the bill, arguing it would strain already underfunded public schools, reduce space and resources, and unfairly favor charter operators. The sponsor said the bill would not reduce classroom space in use, would require contracts to address safety and liability, and would provide a net positive to districts through a $600-per-student facility payment plus associated funding. After debate from both supporters and skeptics, the committee reported the bill favorably. The committee also considered CS for SB 822, by Senator Rodriguez, which would give charter schools more autonomy over governance and operations, including deadlines, enrollment caps, student conduct policies, and data sharing. The Florida Charter School Alliance supported the bill, arguing it would create parity and reduce burdens on charter schools, while committee members pressed the witness on claims of district “harassment” and the basis for those concerns. The bill was reported favorably after a roll call vote. At the end of the meeting, members recorded votes on prior tabs, thanked staff, and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The students do.
• our students still pay the price.
• The Lawrence school has about 150 students, and the other two schools are about 180 students.
• The student then gets sent back to the sending district and they then place the student?
• These impacts are greatest for low-income students, students of color, and students receiving special

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a lengthy hearing on a large slate of bills focused primarily on charter school policy and vocational technical education. Committee members opened with ground rules for testimony, including a two-minute limit, written testimony acceptance, and a live-streamed format. The committee then heard testimony on bills to expand collective bargaining rights in Horace Mann and Innovation Schools, reform charter school funding and reimbursement, allow enrollment preferences for high-need students in charter lotteries, and require BESE to consider district impacts when approving new or expanded charters. Several witnesses, including union leaders, parents, educators, and legislators, argued that charter growth has strained district budgets and that funding formulas should be reworked to better protect public schools; charter advocates and alumni countered that charter schools serve high-need students well and should not be penalized for their success. A major portion of the hearing focused on vocational technical education bills, including proposals to expand access and capacity, create a large grant program, and increase MSBA reimbursement rates for vocational school construction. Supporters described long waitlists, strong labor-market demand, and the higher cost of building and maintaining vocational schools, while municipal officials emphasized the tax burden on local communities. The committee also heard testimony on charter school reimbursement bills that would extend the state’s reimbursement schedule, with witnesses from districts such as Boston, Worcester, Fall River, and New Bedford describing large net losses to charter tuition and arguing for longer reimbursement periods and structural reform. The committee took no final votes during the hearing. In one instance, the chair said a bill would be held open until a missing senator could testify. Members asked several detailed questions about charter admissions lotteries, special education placements, funding formulas, and the practical effects of proposed charter caps and reimbursement changes. The hearing remained informational, with witnesses and committee members presenting sharply different views on whether the bills would improve equity and opportunity or harm existing public school systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have over 6,000 students.
• We are here to talk about the two programs for our students with our students.
• We know that the students who are degree-seeking students with Supporting their success.
• And those are typically graduate students as well as the academic coaching students who help students
• students.

Committee: All TASK FORCE ON AUTISM

Summary: The meeting opened with routine business, including approval of the January 13, 2026 minutes, and a brief recognition of Autism Awareness Month. The task force then heard a presentation from the University of Arkansas College of Education and Health Professions on two student support programs: the Empower Program for non-degree-seeking students ages 18–24 with mild intellectual disabilities, and the Autism Support Program for degree-seeking students with autism. Speakers described academic coaching, peer and career coaching, residential supports, person-centered planning, internships, and scholarship/fee structures, noting that both programs charge a $5,000 per-semester fee and rely on scholarships and fundraising to offset costs. Members asked about dorm arrangements, individualized plans, and how students transition in and out of supports; presenters explained that Empower students remain in the program throughout, while Autism Support Program students may enter or leave services as needed. The committee next heard from Pulaski Technical College’s 3D program, a three-year transition and post-secondary program for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities focused on culinary, baking, and hospitality training. Presenters outlined integrated classes with traditional students, faded support over time, internships, and outcomes such as 97 students enrolled since the program began, 57 graduates, strong completion rates, and many graduates obtaining and retaining jobs in the food service industry. Members asked about how success is measured, why rates are not 100 percent, the role of integrated classes, tuition, and community partnerships; staff explained that grading includes technical and professional skills, tuition is $5,700 per semester, and scholarships such as GETS and FAFSA help reduce costs. They also noted plans to expand offerings and pursue accreditation through the Inclusive Higher Education Accreditation Council. Finally, the task force received a presentation from SLS Community, a Fayetteville nonprofit serving neurodivergent adults through residential supports, supported employment, community activities, and advocacy. Leaders described a long-term vision tied to the Cato Springs mixed-use development, where housing, jobs, clinical services, and community amenities would be integrated in a “live, work, play” model. They discussed a residential program, a new vocational program called Program Forge, community events, and the challenges of the “services cliff” after age 21, especially for adults with complex support needs. Members and parents spoke about the importance of trained direct support professionals, ABA-based supports, and the need for better funding and service models for adults. The meeting ended with announcements about upcoming autism-related events and a request for future discussion on task force appointments and broader issues around ABA oversight and misuse.

Transcript Highlights:

• It protects students from predatory financing for private loans and... ...students from predatory financing
• We put up enough roadblocks in the world for our students or future students. ...world for our students
• outcomes for all of our students.
• Who are the staff that are working with the students? We are on the ground with the students.
• This continues... ...that trend of enabling our campus to serve students and serve students well.

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee met for a policy hearing on several higher education bills. AB 1534 (Irwin) would create a California approval process for short-term workforce Pell Grant programs; supporters said it would expand access to job training with consumer protections, while a neutral witness urged more work on implementation. Members raised concerns about the bill’s $4,000 tuition cap, but the measure passed 5-1 with an urgency clause and was sent to Labor and Employment. AB 1831 (Irwin) would cap compensation for certain CSU administrators, bar raises in years when tuition rises, and repeal a 2025 executive pay resolution; the author said she would amend the bill to remove retroactive repeal, narrow the scope, and clarify that it applies to base salary and non-represented managers. CFA, students, and labor groups supported the bill as an accountability measure, while CSU opposed it, arguing the cap would hurt recruitment and retention. The committee approved the bill 4-1-3 and sent it to Appropriations. The committee also advanced AB 1555 (Hadwick), which would allow up to 200 students to qualify for in-state tuition at College of the Siskiyous under a cross-border regional arrangement; it passed unanimously to Appropriations. AB 1552 (Jackson), requiring the community colleges and CSU and requesting UC to report recommendations on civic engagement and democracy education, also passed to Appropriations after some members objected that such programs could be used for partisan activity. AB 1829, which expands CalWORKs student-parent support by allowing more direct aid and waiving a 25% work-study employer match at the colleges’ discretion, passed 8-1 and was re-referred to Human Services. The committee later added on consent items and adjourned after announcing its next hearing date.

Transcript Highlights:

• The academic goals for students were to graduate academically competent students, and as Elizabeth and
• The academic goals for students were to graduate academically competent students, and as Elizabeth and
• As far as its public education students or public school students, As far as its public education students
• students, white students, economically disadvantaged students, which in Arkansas refers to students
• So across all three subjects, English learner students had the lowest percentage of students scoring

Summary: The committee received a lengthy Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on Arkansas academic standards, accountability systems, and adequacy-related requirements. Staff reviewed the history of state curriculum and accreditation laws, the current standards for grades K-12, required high school units and graduation pathways, and recent changes such as career-ready pathways, embedded instruction requirements, and the distinction between courses required to be offered versus courses actually taken by students. Members asked for a chart comparing the 1997, 2003, 2015, 2017, and later law changes, and staff agreed to provide one. The presentation then turned to the federal ESSA plan and Arkansas’s state accountability system. Staff summarized ESSA requirements, Arkansas’s long-term goals for proficiency, English learner progress, and graduation rates, and recent data showing that 2025 proficiency rates remained well below the 80% goal, while English learner progress and graduation rates were also below long-term targets. The committee discussed school support and improvement, equitable access to educators, report cards, and the apparent lack of evidence that equity labs are currently being conducted. Members requested follow-up from the Department of Education on equity labs, report card data, and whether the ESSA plan can be changed. The presentation also covered state assessment results under the Arkansas Accountability Act, including ATLAS, DLM, ELPA 21, ACT, and NAEP data, along with teacher access measures and geographic shortage districts. Staff reported that Title I and high-poverty schools tend to have more emergency/provisional teachers and less experienced staff, and that shortage districts are concentrated in parts of the state. Members asked for additional information on test highs and lows, the number of assessments students take, dropout data, and whether higher teacher salaries have affected shortage areas. The committee also discussed district levels of support under the state accountability system, including the possibility of state intervention at the highest level of support.

Transcript Highlights:

• students who they themselves, Zone or that area, or will it be only those students who they themselves
• So there's baseline requirements for the contract, which would be student ages, grade level, student
• and school safety, Requirements for the contract, which would be student ages, grade level, student and
• the student to where the student goes.
• We're funding the students and where those students decide to take their dollars to be educated.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education met with a quorum present and took up several education bills. SB 1150, which would remove an unrelated exam barrier for school social workers to help districts retain them, was briefly explained and reported favorably. The committee then heard SB 1514 on anaphylaxis in public schools, which would require emergency action plans and training for school personnel; amendments narrowed and clarified the bill, including applicability to K-8 schools and FDA-approved epinephrine devices. Orange County Public Schools waived in support, and CS/CS/SB 1514 was reported favorably. The committee spent the most time on SB 1708, which expands Schools of Hope and creates a co-location framework allowing high-performing charter operators to share space in underused public school facilities, with the sponsor explaining that agreements would address safety, supervision, grade levels, emergency protocols, and liability. Members raised concerns about who would be served, lottery access, accountability, and whether the bill would worsen inequities or strain public schools; many public speakers opposed the bill on similar grounds, arguing it would divert resources from already underfunded schools. The sponsor clarified that Schools of Hope recruitment is exempt from lottery, that the bill would not use classrooms already in use, and that districts would receive $600 per student plus associated funding for vacant space. Despite mixed debate, CS for SB 1708 was reported favorably. Finally, the committee considered CS/SB 822, which updates charter school governance by limiting sponsor-imposed deadlines, preventing enrollment caps below facility capacity, improving data sharing, and allowing high-performing charter schools to assume existing charters. A charter school advocate supported the bill as a fairness and efficiency measure, while senators pressed him on claims of district “harassment” and the basis for the bill’s deadline changes. After brief debate, CS/SB 822 was reported favorably. The meeting ended with members recording votes on prior tabs and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Western students are impacted the most.
• Central had the lowest state per-student funding, but Central currently has the lowest total per-student
• student funding, but Central currently has the lowest total per student funding, and that's every year
• We have really strong student enrollment.
• This bill's directive to study essential student services further grounds future funding in what students

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on House Bill 2070, which would create state funding parity for Western Washington University by tying appropriations to a per-student funding ratio. The prime sponsor and Western officials said Western has long been the lowest-funded public four-year institution on a per-student basis, leading to budget cuts, reduced student services, and delayed graduation. Students, faculty, and university leaders testified in support, while some members questioned whether the bill should instead address a broader higher-education funding formula for all institutions. Central Washington University also supported the bill but suggested a broader approach. No vote was taken on HB 2070. The committee then heard House Bill 2671, which would expand eligibility for state financial aid to certain nonprofit out-of-state branch campuses operating in Washington if they meet specified accreditation, duration, and authorization requirements. Rep. Timmons said the bill is intended to help students in an accelerated nursing program at Northeastern University in Seattle access aid and support workforce needs. Northeastern’s dean testified in support, saying the bill would align financial aid law with prior changes to degree-granting statutes and would not increase state spending. The hearing on HB 2671 was then closed. House Bill 2617, dealing with the higher-education “fund split,” drew extensive testimony. The bill would gradually shift more of employee compensation increases and central services costs to state funding, and would require a study of essential student services. The sponsor and many university, faculty, staff, and student witnesses argued that the current funding practice shifts costs to tuition, contributes to layoffs, program cuts, larger classes, and reduced student support, and creates instability across public higher education. Community and technical college representatives also said underfunding COLAs harms operations and students. The committee then moved to executive session on Senate Bill 6258, which would authorize the Washington Medical Commission to create a non-disciplinary pathway for voluntary license relinquishment; the committee approved it 14-0 with a due-pass recommendation, with three members excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> students drops substantially. students drops substantially.
• </c> of student behavior challenges. of student behavior challenges.
• students.
• </c> challenging students in their schools. challenging students in their schools.
• </c> IEP students? IEP students?

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee received an Office of Education Accountability presentation on student discipline data in Kentucky schools for the 2024 school year. OEA said the study used Safe Schools data, educator and student surveys, site visits to 12 schools, and principal surveys. The report found that about 1 in 10 schools have major behavior-related challenges and up to one-third have at least moderate challenges, with the most common concerns varying by level: high schools cited vapes, cell phone misuse, apathy, and tardiness; middle schools cited apathy, vapes, and cell phone misuse; and elementary schools reported more extreme classroom behaviors such as throwing objects, overturning furniture, and screaming. OEA also noted that 14% of students had at least one behavior event in 2024, but repeated events were rare, and event rates alone do not reliably measure the severity of behavior problems in a school or district. The presentation emphasized that many disciplinary consequences do not align consistently with statutes or local expectations. OEA said law violations made up 19% of more than 250,000 recorded behavior events, while most were board violations, and that some serious incidents resulted in minimal consequences. The report highlighted concerns about weapons, threats, and assaults: only 9.2% of weapon events led to expulsion or alternative placement, few threats resulted in those outcomes, and fewer than 10% of assaults led to expulsion or alternative placement, including some first-degree assaults. OEA also said the Safe Schools data do not identify victims, limiting analysis of assaults on staff or students, and recommended clearer statutory definitions and better data reporting. A major theme was the difficulty schools face in addressing chronic disruption and severe behavior while complying with federal protections for students with disabilities. OEA said principals reported the biggest challenges were federal limits on disciplinary removals and a lack of alternative placement options. The report described variation among districts in how they implement federal requirements, with some administrators discouraging alternative placements or avoiding discipline because of perceived legal risks. Site visits found that many schools lacked chronic-disruption policies, and teachers often reported frustration with minimal consequences and repeated classroom removals. OEA recommended that KDE collect more information from educators, identify promising practices for alternative instructional settings, and develop clearer guidance and training. In discussion, committee members said the findings showed reporting gaps and resource strains, and OEA staff clarified that some underreporting reflects local discretion, while law violations should still be reported.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> they had interaction with said student. they had interaction with said student.
• </c> got that perspective from the students. got that perspective from the students.
• </c> and places students at risk for student and places students at risk for student dropout<01:04:41.839
• </c> needed to adequately meet student needs. needed to adequately meet student needs.
• </c> such a negative impact on our students. such a negative impact on our students.

Committee: House Education Finance

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• If under the bill a student in public health, for example, where I teach a graduate student, gets their
• Washington State graduate students.
• With the loss of both state and federal graduate student loan programs, graduate students are left to
• It's a choice that any student has.
• of HB 2132 because undocumented students and mixed-status students should not have to risk their freedom

Summary: The Postsecondary Education & Workforce Committee held a work session on higher education funding and then public hearings on House Bill 2148 and House Bill 2132. In the work session, OPR staff Kate Henry reviewed enrollment trends, tuition policy, financial aid programs, and funding sources for Washington’s public colleges and universities. Members asked about FTE versus headcount, tuition growth, the Washington College Grant, College Bound, and the Workforce Education Investment Account. Henry explained how state appropriations, tuition, and financial aid interact, and noted that higher education makes up a significant share of the state budget. No votes were taken during the work session. House Bill 2148 would create a “pay-it-forward” graduate student aid program administered by the Student Achievement Council, allowing students to receive tuition support and later make income-based contributions for up to 15 years to fund future students. Sponsor Rep. Reid said the bill is intended to offset the loss of federal graduate loan options and support workforce needs in fields like nursing, teaching, and research. Committee questions focused on repayment terms, possible caps, interest, and program capitalization. Testimony was overwhelmingly supportive, with students and advocates arguing the bill would expand access to graduate education and avoid predatory private debt. House Bill 2132 would limit disclosure and retention of personally identifying and financial information from WASFA applications, generally requiring the Student Achievement Council and institutions to stop retaining that information after one year following the award year unless needed for an audit or appeal. Rep. Leavitt said the bill is meant to reduce unnecessary long-term retention of sensitive student data and improve privacy and security. Supporters, including student leaders and immigrant-advocacy groups, said the bill would protect vulnerable students and increase trust in the aid process. Some members raised concerns about whether shorter retention could affect future record needs, including immigration-related documentation, but the sponsor said students can keep their own records and that the bill preserves audit authority. The hearing ended without a vote, and the chair noted an upcoming busy schedule and cutoff deadlines.