Transcript Highlights:

• Call the Special Education Funding Committee to order.
• special education into the general fund.
• special education into the general fund.
• So we have six different funding levels that we fund special education at.
• It's on the special education fund.

Summary: The committee met to discuss special education funding and retention, beginning with approval of the prior meeting minutes and then hearing a presentation from North Dakota United on a statewide special education survey and retention rubric. Presenters described how the rubric and survey were developed from special educator input around four domains: paperwork and due process support, workload, student and staff safety, and paraprofessional management. They reported high levels of stress and burnout, including increased workload, difficulty taking prep and lunch time, concerns about mental health, and widespread difficulty filling special education positions. Committee members questioned the survey’s lack of a general-education comparison group, the interpretation of terms like “rarely” and “sometimes,” and whether results could be broken down further by district size, unit, or disability area. The survey results showed the weakest area was workload, with respondents reporting caseloads increasing without corresponding adjustments, little additional support or compensation when workloads rise, and few negotiated-agreement protections. Paperwork and due process also scored poorly, with many teachers saying they rarely receive dedicated time during the duty day, often work outside contract hours without compensation, and take work home on evenings and weekends. Student and staff safety scored somewhat better but still showed gaps in crisis follow-up, notification about violent behavior, protective gear, and leave options after incidents. Paraprofessional management also drew concern, especially low pay, insufficient staffing, limited administrative support, and the burden placed on teachers to supervise and train paras. Several teachers then testified directly about the practical impact of these issues. One special education teacher described the job as combining instruction, legal compliance, and paraprofessional supervision, often requiring work beyond contracted hours and contributing to burnout and turnover. Another testified that special education case managers are effectively doing three full-time jobs and that the paperwork and caseload demands are a major reason people avoid or leave the field. Committee members discussed whether the problems are primarily local or state-level, whether more funding would solve them, and whether changes to the funding formula or weighting for high-cost students might be needed. No formal vote or action was taken beyond a recess and return to order for the next presentation, which continued the discussion of possible special education study objectives and potential policy directions.

Transcript Highlights:

• This spreadsheet details the general fund changes and the special revenue fund changes as a result of
• </c><00:04:26.000><c> revenue</c> fund changes and the special revenue fund changes and the special revenue
• Line nine begins the special revenue fund changes.
• </c><00:08:43.120><c> general</c> special revenue fund from the general special revenue fund from the
• for</c><00:08:52.480><c> the</c><00:08:52.640><c> 2627</c> special revenue fund change for the 2627 special

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• The chair of the Texas Commission on Special Education Funding, Dr.
• This change will more effectively allocate special education funds while also increasing the funding
• Woefully insufficient funding for special ed.
• Unless the special ed allotment generates funds beyond the BA, but those funds are for special ed, and
• First, we need to increase special education funding.

Bills: SB568 , SCR5 , SB57 , SB1447 , SB27 , SB24 , SB 57 , SB 24 , SB 27

Committees: Senate Education , Senate Education K-16

Transcript Highlights:

• The other thing that we did is we created funding for a special ed teacher pipeline that has been hugely
• for a special is we created uh funding for a special ed<00:04:06.640><c> teacher</c><00:04:07.280><c
• Well, first of all, special ed is a priority for us, and funding special ed is a priority for us.
• special education fund and you mentioned special education fund and you mentioned the<00:19:27.760><c
• </c> have enough money in your special have enough money in your special education<00:19:31.080><c> fund

Transcript Highlights:

• Why would we create a special fund when we already have the harbor special fund?
• We have a harbor special fund.
• We have a harbor special fund.
• with the special fund there?
• </c> the harbor special fund, do would would the harbor special fund, do would would that<00:29:56.880

Bills: SB2816

Committee: House Tourism

Summary: The committees heard House Bill 2195, HD1, which would replace the existing transit accommodations tax on cruise ships with a per-passenger infrastructure fee collected by the Department of Transportation and deposited into a new cruise ship special fund. Testimony included support from Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings and comments from the Tax Foundation of Hawaii warning that the bill should remain narrowly tied to harbor-related uses to avoid potential Tonnage Clause issues. The Department of Transportation testified that cruise-related harbor work includes pier repairs, dredging, terminal upgrades, and shore power, and said a dedicated revenue stream would help prioritize cruise infrastructure needs. The Attorney General’s office said it had submitted written comments but did not address questions about the litigation or constitutional background. Members questioned whether the new special fund was necessary when the existing harbor special fund already finances similar improvements. DOT said the funds overlap and suggested the bill could be amended to use the harbor special fund with a separate cruise subaccount, while still preserving a dedicated revenue stream and separate accounting. DOT also said it currently collects port entry, dockage, and per-head passenger fees from cruise ships and that existing cruise-related expenditures from the harbor special fund have not been challenged. The chair ultimately recommended moving HB 2195 forward as introduced, while continuing discussions about the fund structure and awaiting further clarity from the Attorney General and DOT. In decision-making, the committees voted to pass HB 2195, HD1, as is. They also voted to pass House Bill 916, HD1, relating to the low-income housing tax credit, which would allow certain state low-income housing tax credits to offset state transient accommodations taxes in the same county and make Act 129 of 2016 permanent. Both the Committee on Tourism and the Committee on Economic Development and Technology adopted the chair’s recommendation to pass HB 916, HD1, unamended. The hearing was then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• fund, the birth defects special fund, the accessible parking special fund, and the Hawaii organ and
• tissue special fund.
• special system special fund, fund, fund, federal<00:23:44.920><c> reimbursement</c><00:23:45.480><c>
• </c><00:24:06.000><c> fee</c> fund and special school special fee fund and special school special fee
• <c> fund</c> fund and the mass transit special fund fund and the mass transit special fund and<00:24:

Summary: The committees met in decision-making sessions and considered a long list of Senate bills, with no oral testimony taken. Several measures were advanced unamended, including SB 2178 on industrial hemp, SB 2277 on hospital price transparency, SB 2387 on digital financial asset transaction kiosks, SB 2688 on compassionate release, SB 3132 on syndromic surveillance data reporting, SB 3219 on housing infrastructure growth bonds, and others. Many bills were also advanced with technical or substantive amendments, including SB 2114 on collective bargaining grievance rights, SB 2601 on procurement penalties, SB 2698 on cruise ships/transportation, SB 2757 on digital asset charters, SB 2948 on insurance fraud, SB 2002 on water governance, SB 2022 on state water code penalties, SB 2190 on inclusionary zoning, SB 3294 on wrongful imprisonment compensation, and SB 17, SB 2407, SB 2811, SB 2907, SB 2930, SB 3084, SB 3103, and SB 2808 in the later agenda segment. The committee also discussed SB 2080, relating to the psychology interjurisdictional compact, where one senator objected to interstate compacts as opening local jobs to out-of-state professionals; despite that objection, the measure was adopted. SB 3133 on preventive medicine drew amendment discussion to remove unnecessary language about committee members not being state employees and to delete an immunity subsection, while preserving ethics-code coverage and provider immunity. SB 3000 on insurance was amended to remove a savings clause, and SB 2921 on fund transfers received extensive amendments removing or revising numerous special funds and revolving accounts across agencies. Most votes were unanimous or near-unanimous, often with members present voting aye or with reservations. A few measures drew recorded no votes or reservations, including SB 2080, SB 3133, SB 2921, and SB 2401, where one member voted with reservations and the committee report was to reflect the Attorney General’s comments. In each case, the committee adopted the recommendation and moved the bills forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• To a service intensity-based formula for special education funding.
• Today we're focusing on special education funding weights.
• Senate Bill 568 to revamp our special education funding formula.
• It is a mistake to fail to fund special education.
• The special education allotment funds are for special education services. this, and should not be used

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• The other thing that we did is we created funding for a special ed teacher pipeline that has been hugely
• The other thing that we did is we created funding for a special ed teacher pipeline that has been hugely
• The other thing that we did is we created funding for a special ed teacher pipeline that has been hugely
• for a special is we created uh funding for a special ed<00:03:06.120><c> teacher</c><00:03:06.799><c
• Well, first of all, special ed is a priority for us, and funding special ed is a priority for us.

Transcript Highlights:

• The special education funding stream...
• The special education funding stream receives growth and cost-of-living adjustments.
• I do also just want to note how the special education-based funding is supported: it takes the greater
• We would like to speak to the special education funding.
• Kyle Highland on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals on dual enrollment, reading difficulty screeners, special education, school facilities, and Commission on Teacher Credentialing programs. For dual enrollment, the Department of Finance described a $100 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund proposal to expand the Dual Enrollment Opportunities Grant Program, add flexibility for regional occupational centers, support justice-involved youth, prioritize higher-need LEAs, and allow funds for teacher professional development, along with a reduction in required instructional minutes for some dual enrollment students. The LAO recommended rejecting the new funding, saying it did not address a clear implementation barrier, while CDE supported the proposal and suggested reserving $10 million for technical assistance. Members and public commenters largely supported the expansion, with some urging additional technical assistance and broader access, including adult dual enrollment. The committee then discussed the reading difficulty screener proposal, which includes $40 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund for implementation costs and statutory changes that would delay formal screening until the 91st day for kindergarten and the 46th day for grades 1-2. Finance said the timing was intended to reduce over-identification and align screening with sufficient exposure to instruction; the LAO recommended rejecting the funding and redirecting it to a discretionary block grant. CDE supported the investment but cautioned about the timing restrictions, and several members and public witnesses argued the proposed deadlines were too rigid and could delay early intervention, while others supported the structured timeline as a way to improve accuracy and reduce misidentification. On special education, Finance presented a proposal to increase the statewide base rate to $99 per ADA through a $509 million ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund augmentation, plus COLA and a negative growth adjustment. The LAO said the proposal should be adopted but estimated it could be achieved with less funding; CDE strongly supported the increase, citing rising enrollment and local cost pressures, and district and SELPA representatives described large local funding gaps and growing expenditures. The committee also reviewed school facilities funding under Proposition 2, with Finance and the Office of Public School Construction describing $1.5 billion in proposed bond spending, existing balances for new construction and modernization, and the use of bond authority for natural disaster recovery, including projects related to recent fires. For the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the committee heard about the Student Teacher Stipend Program, the Golden State Teacher Grant, state operations funding for misconduct investigations and SB 848 implementation, and a $250 million proposal to extend the Teacher Residency Grant Program; CTC supported the proposals and highlighted new data systems and technical assistance, while public testimony broadly backed the investments and urged continued or additional funding for teacher recruitment, literacy screening support, and special education.

Transcript Highlights:

• cats, and various revenue and funding sources for the special fund.
• fund um are establishing a special fund um are violated<00:15:36.480><c> because</c><00:15:36.720><c
• fund and who specifically the special fund and who the<00:22:46.360><c> appropriate</c><00:22:46.840
• the the revenues from the special and the the revenues from the special fund<00:25:26.080><c> will</
• deposited in the special fund the special<00:25:39.320><c> fund</c><00:25:39.640><c> shall</c><00:25

Committee: House Culture & Arts

Summary: The Committee on Culture and the Arts heard testimony on HB 547 HD1, which would create a spay-neuter special fund to reduce pet overpopulation and support spay/neuter services, funded in part through a tax return check-off and other sources. The Department of Taxation said it could implement the check-off; the Attorney General and Budget and Finance raised drafting and placement concerns about which department should house the fund; and the Hawaii Humane Society strongly supported the bill, emphasizing statewide need and the importance of distributing funds to areas of greatest need, including neighbor islands. The Tax Foundation opposed the measure on special-fund grounds, arguing there was no sufficient nexus between the bill’s purpose and the proposed revenue source. The committee later recommended HB 547 HD1 with technical amendments and sent it to Finance, with members voting aye and no objections noted. The committee also heard HB 925 HD1, relating to arts funding, which would impose a 1% fee on ticket sales from concerts at state venues and direct the proceeds to a dedicated arts fund. The State Foundation on Culture and the Arts supported the measure, while the Attorney General suggested defining “concerts” for clarity and Budget and Finance was available with comments. In discussion, the committee chair asked about how other states fund arts programs, and Director Ewald said many states use dedicated funding sources such as concert fees, bond funding, cultural trusts, and hotel lodging taxes. The committee recommended HB 925 HD1 with amendments, including a preamble, a new Performing Arts special fund, a definition of “concerts,” and a defective date, and the recommendation was adopted. Finally, the committee considered HB 1378, also related to the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts. Based on the Attorney General’s testimony, the committee proposed deleting a section of the bill, creating a Performing Arts special fund, specifying revenue sources such as legislative appropriations, foundation charges, grants, gifts, and interest, and using the fund for coordination, planning, promotion, marketing, and execution of performing arts events. The amendments also added a definition of Performing Arts, granting standards, and a defective date, while blanking out the appropriation amount for the committee report. The committee voted to adopt the recommendation on HB 1378 with amendments, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The special education funding stream...
• The special education funding stream receives growth and cost-of-living adjustments.
• funding.
• We would like to speak to the special education funding.
• Kyle Highland on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Christy Sovereign, CEO of the 2026 Special Olympics USA Games.
• I'm a proud athlete of Special Olympics Minnesota.
• Yes, thank you. support uh the Special Olympics it's it support uh the Special Olympics it's it has<00
• Chair. is some of the special events that is some of the special events that surround<00:10:22.839><c
• </c> addition to seekings the state funding addition to seekings the state funding it<00:11:02.480><c

Transcript Highlights:

• And do districts receive sufficient funding to evaluate students and provide special education services
• Historically inadequate funding for special education may be set to improve with new legislation.
• To determine whether district funding was adequate to provide necessary special education services, which
• , they would not receive any additional special education funding unless they later applied for and were
• , and for most districts, state and federal funding for special education was insufficient to cover their

Committee: Joint JLARC I-900 Subcommittee for SAO Performance Audits

Summary: The JLARC I-900 Subcommittee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on special education services, focused on comparing student needs, district identification practices, and funding. Auditors said Washington does not appear to under-identify any particular population for special education, though districts face ongoing challenges with identification, documentation, staffing shortages, and inconsistent referral tracking. They explained that their analysis used statistical models because the true prevalence of disabilities is unknown, and found Washington districts generally clustered near the national average, with little evidence that any demographic group was systematically under-identified. The audit also found that special education funding has historically been insufficient, with districts collectively covering about $500 million in costs not paid by state or federal sources, and that districts spent about 26% more per student than they received in funding. Auditors noted recent legislative changes that removed the special education enrollment cap and changed the safety net process, but said it was too soon to assess their effects. Their recommendations to OSPI included clarifying what counts as an official special education referral, requiring districts to report referral data even when no evaluation follows, and ensuring the new statewide data system is developed with district input, training, and possibly a mandate for uniform use. OSPI staff said they concurred with the report and appreciated the work of the auditor’s office and JLARC. During member questions, Representative Paulette raised concerns that the audit did not directly examine prevalence of specific disabilities, such as autism and dyslexia, in vulnerable populations or compare Washington’s identification practices to medical and peer-reviewed prevalence data. Auditors responded that medical prevalence is not known in a systematic way, that educational eligibility differs from medical diagnosis, and that the report’s conclusions should not be read as proving no populations are under- or over-identified. No public testimony was offered, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> works of art special fund which we then works of art special fund which we then use<00:19:50.159
• </c><00:31:24.760><c> source</c> of the special fund based on its source of the special fund based on
• Keep art special funds.
• Keep art special funds.
• ><c> general</c><01:11:23.800><c> funding</c> special funding and the general funding special funding

Summary: The joint committees first heard House Bill 229, which would establish a statewide speed restriction for motor vehicles under certain circumstances. Testimony on the bill was limited and came in support from the City and County of Honolulu’s transportation services, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. No one testified in opposition, and there were no questions. The committees then took up House Bill 860, which would grant immunity from liability to the state or counties when they repair or maintain a street whose ownership or jurisdiction is disputed between them. The Department of Transportation and the Department of Land and Natural Resources submitted written testimony, and the Hawaii State Association of Counties, Maui County Council Chair Alice Lee, Hawaii County Council member Heather Kimble, and the Iolani Homestead Community Association for Justice testified in support. The Ho Association for Justice opposed the bill, arguing the immunity was too broad and that the issue had already been addressed by prior legislation. In discussion, members raised concerns about liability and asked whether a different approach, such as extending the 2017 law transferring Oahu roads in limbo to the counties, would be acceptable; county representatives said that path could be considered if immunity were removed. House Bill 1161, which would authorize counties to use a road usage charge mechanism similar to the state’s, drew support from the Department of Transportation, the Energy Office, the Hawaii State Association of Counties, several county and city offices, and the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. Rental car companies and industry groups supported the concept but asked for amendments, including a flat fee instead of a per-mile charge, relief for plug-in hybrid vehicles, and a delayed implementation date. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii also supported relief for hybrids. Members questioned the rental car representatives about the flat-fee proposal, and they said a per-mile charge would be difficult to calculate and pass on to customers. At the end of the joint agenda, the committees deferred decision-making on HB 1161 to Tuesday, March 18 at 3:00 p.m., and the Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs committee also deferred the three measures to that date and time. The Transportation and Culture and the Arts committee then began hearing House Bill 925, which would create a Performing Arts Special Fund, and House Bill 1378, which would establish a Performing Arts Grants Program and Special Fund and revise the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts’ responsibilities and funding sources. HB 925 received support from the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts and written support or comments from DBEDT, the Hawaii Arts Alliance, and others. HB 1378 drew extensive testimony and discussion focused on preserving arts funding while addressing concerns about the use of Works of Art Special Fund dollars for positions and programming. The Governor’s office said it supported the intent but had concerns; the Attorney General warned that the bill’s cap and transfer provisions were unclear and could affect the tax-exempt status of bond-funded dollars; and the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts opposed the measure, urging an audit, tracking of deposits, and a shift of positions and programs to general funds instead of changing the law. The chair explained that the bill was intended to protect arts funding while tightening the legal guardrails around bond-financed dollars and preserving federal support, and asked testimony to focus on new points as the hearing continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• The special education funding stream...
• The special education funding stream receives growth and cost-of-living adjustments.
• I do also just want to note how the special education-based funding is supported: it takes the greater
• We would like to speak to the special education funding.
• Kyle Highland on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals on dual enrollment, reading difficulty screeners, special education, school facilities, and Commission on Teacher Credentialing programs. On dual enrollment, the Department of Finance described a $100 million one-time Proposition 98 investment to expand the Dual Enrollment Opportunities Grant Program, along with changes to make regional occupational centers eligible, add funding for justice-involved youth, prioritize higher-need LEAs, support teacher professional development, and reduce daily instructional minute requirements for some dual enrollment students. The LAO recommended rejecting the new funding as not clearly addressing implementation barriers, while CDE supported the proposal and suggested reserving $10 million for technical assistance. Committee members and public commenters generally supported the expansion, with some asking for technical assistance and broader access, including adult dual enrollment. The committee also reviewed a $40 million one-time Proposition 98 proposal for reading difficulty screener implementation and related trailer bill language that would require screening after 91 school days for kindergarten and 46 school days for grades 1-2. Finance said the timing was intended to reduce over-identification and align with evidence from preliminary data; the LAO recommended rejecting the funding and redirecting it to a discretionary block grant. CDE supported the funding and the general approach but acknowledged the need for local support and training. Several committee members and public witnesses raised concerns that the proposed timing restrictions were too rigid and could delay early intervention, while others supported the delay as a way to improve accuracy and avoid misidentification. For special education, Finance proposed ongoing Proposition 98 increases to adjust for COLA and enrollment changes and to raise the statewide special education base rate to $99 per ADA, equalizing rates across SELPAs. The LAO said the proposal should be adopted but estimated it could be funded for less than the Governor’s figure. CDE and multiple local education representatives strongly supported the increase, citing rising special education enrollment, cost pressures, and large local funding gaps. The committee also heard a brief overview of the school facilities proposal, which continues $1.5 billion in Proposition 2 bond funding for the School Facility Program; OPSC reported significant remaining bond authority but also substantial pending demand, and explained that natural disaster school rebuilding draws from the broader new construction and modernization pools. Finally, the committee reviewed Commission on Teacher Credentialing proposals, including the already-funded $300 million Student Teacher Stipend Program, new state operations resources for misconduct investigations and grant administration, and a $250 million one-time continuation of the Teacher Residency Grant Program. CTC said its grants management system is ready and that it expects better data tracking; public testimony broadly supported the educator workforce investments and urged continued funding for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and additional support for rural and leadership pipeline programs. No votes were taken, and the hearing adjourned after public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our district spends $2.9 million in local funds to cover the shortfall in special education funding.
• Data from school districts for a pilot study will inform the new special education funding system.
• Increase funding through special education allotment, but also in the 25-26 school year, establish a
• education. need for Texas to fully fund special education services for our most vulnerable students
• the implementation of a new funding system for special education.

Bills: HB2 , HB2

Committee: House Public Education

Keywords: public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, disaster preparedness, emergency management, flooding, mass fatality, mass casualty, fatality tracking, body recovery, autopsy, justice of the peace

Transcript Highlights:

• money that goes into the special revenue account, and then 50% of those funds.
• money that goes into the special revenue account, and then 50% of those funds.
• money that goes into the special revenue account, and then 50% of those funds.
• money that goes into the special revenue account, and then 50% of those funds.
• /c><00:10:18.240><c> to</c><00:10:18.480><c> prevent</c> special Revenue fund for uh to prevent special

Transcript Highlights:

• Now we know that in education spending there's the general fund and then there's the special education
• fund, and you mentioned the cross subsidy, where you don't have enough money in your special education
• </c> fund and then there's the special fund and then there's the special education<00:04:15.120><c> fund
• Many other education funding formulas are pupil based, and special education in Minnesota uses reimbursements
• Many other education funding formulas are pupil based, and special education in Minnesota uses reimbursements

Transcript Highlights:

• in internal service funds, and $33,727,600 in special revenue.
• , $161,000 federal fund, and $84,000 special revenue or enterprise funds.
• , $161,000 federal fund, and $84,000 special revenue or enterprise funds.
• , $161,000 federal fund, and $84,000 special revenue or enterprise funds.
• general fund and $1,000 of special<00:21:43.919><c> revenue.

Bills: SF0032 , SF0010 , SF0001 , HB0001

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• have to come from somewhere if adequate funding for special education is not provided.
• > and</c> funding for special education and funding for special education and therefore<00:46:39.319>
• would</c> increase special Aid funding you would increase special Aid funding you would go<01:08:12.200
• <01:44:54.960><c> for</c><01:44:55.159><c> special</c> funding for special funding for special ed<01:
• ><c> it's</c> special education funding because it's special education funding because it's uh<02:02:

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.