Mark Sauter — Responded that he had a few minutes and moved to approve the minutes from February 2nd and February 3rd.
Mark Sauter — Representative Sauter was addressed by Mr. Petty, who checked whether Sauter’s light was on, and Sauter then asked whether there is an active effort or ongoing discussion to review the education funding formula in light of the report and sentiment in the building.
Mark Sauter — Moves to send House Joint Memorial 11 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Dan Garner — Dan Garner moved to introduce RS 3-1308 and then asked to be excused so he could attend another committee after the motion vote.
Casey Petty — Casey Petty introduced himself as a principal evaluator with the Office of Performance Evaluations and presented findings from a K-12 districts characteristics and funding study. He outlined the presentation, noted that the report compares districts of different sizes, referenced colleague Chris Schenk, and explained that smaller districts serve proportionally more special education students while larger urban districts face different challenges. He then summarized the major takeaway and introduced Idaho’s cohort resource-based funding model and related education funding approaches.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Clint Hostetler questioned why Idaho uses the support unit funding model instead of per-child funding and followed up by asking whether research had been done on how switching to a different model would affect state spending.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Ben Furman is introduced and identifies himself as Representative Ben Furman of District 30, Bingham and Butte counties, stating that he is there to discuss House Joint Memorial No. 11. The chair then briefly asks him to sit down while testimony proceeds.
Mr. Petty — Mr. Petty responded to questions about Idaho’s support unit funding model, saying he did not know why it was chosen and that no research had been done on the spending impact of switching models. The discussion then shifted to whether state funding aligns with district needs, with Mr. Petty being asked for an example and explaining that a chart illustrates how funding may not align with district needs.
Mr. Petty — Explained that Medicaid was excluded because the report focused on general fund expenditures and revenues, and noted Medicaid would be in a 200-level program/fund code.
Mr. Petty — Said his office is not privy to any talks about changing the funding formula and intentionally avoids political conversations about it.
Mr. Petty — Confirmed the dashed lines show slight changes but said they were not statistically significant and do not indicate a real trend.
Chris Mathias — Representative Chris Mathias asked for an example of how state funding may not align with district needs and also raised concerns about messy charter school data, treating both as part of the same line of questioning about funding and data issues.
Chris Mathias — Chris Mathias asked about the role of data and return on investment in special education, specifically whether there are important outcomes or aspects of special education that cannot be measured but should still be considered when evaluating the request.
Chris Mathias — Representative Matthias asks whether other states have passed similar memorials or resolutions, then states his strong support for the motion while also voicing concern that a federal response could have unintended consequences, such as reducing the IDEA funding threshold rather than fully funding it.
Jack Nelsen — Jack Nelsen asked whether removing outliers or averaging the data would tighten the distribution and reduce variation in district special education spending, particularly for small districts, so the information would be easier to understand and more useful.
Jack Nelsen — Jack Nelsen asked about a pattern in his local districts where special education requests are increasingly coming from parents, often related to student behavioral issues, and wondered whether this trend may have predated COVID or been handled differently before the pandemic.
Dave Lent — Addressed as Mr. Chair.
Dave Lent — In a sustained exchange, the speaker questions Mr. Petty about the support unit formula and how positions and funding are allocated, including follow-up questions about whether the issue resonates and how smaller districts struggle with staffing. Mr. Petty explains that each support unit provides classified employee positions and funding, notes that smaller districts have difficulty hiring certain staff because of limited scale, and later clarifies that Medicaid was excluded from his report because it focused on general fund expenditures and revenue.
Michael Veile — Michael Veile explained Idaho’s support unit funding formula, focusing on how exceptional education creates large funding variance in small districts because districts near divisor thresholds can generate very different support units from small changes in ADA. He described the minimum support units available, noted that even one special education student can generate support units, and gave examples showing how districts just below a divisor can receive substantially more funding than those just above it. He compared Idaho’s approach with neighboring states and suggested the formula could be flattened and then adjusted for higher-need districts rather than relying so heavily on divisor thresholds. He also clarified that support units are constant within a district but vary between districts and charters because of differences in salary and benefit apportionment, and that the cited $119,200 figure was a statewide average rather than a fixed per-unit amount.
Barbara Ehardt — Asks why Medicaid was excluded from the special education analysis and why it would increase the gap.
Barbara Ehardt — Barbara Ehardt asked whether increased awareness is the key and raised concern that some students may be incorrectly placed in special education, asking how to distinguish students who truly need special education from those who do not. She was then addressed by the chair and later referenced again as the member who had asked the earlier question.
China Harrisaki? — The chair attempted to introduce the first witness and asked for pronunciation confirmation.
China Herosaki — China Herosaki, Director of Special Education for the Boise School District, introduced herself and then responded to questions about the rise in autism diagnoses. She said she did not know one single cause, but suggested that improved evaluative measures and earlier intervention may be contributing to more students being identified.
Douglas Pickett — Representative Douglas Pickett was recognized and then asked the witness why autism diagnoses have increased by 25% over the last five years.
Douglas Pickett — Representative Douglas Pickett thanked Mr. Field for his testimony and written comments, then asked a series of related questions about behavioral issues in children. He questioned whether behavioral special needs should be distinguished from natural disabilities, whether such distinctions are appropriate, why behavioral issues seem to be increasing, and what cultural factors—such as screen time or weaker parent-child relationships—may be driving those trends.
Dale Hawkins — Multiple consecutive speakers addressed Dale Hawkins respectfully as Mr. Chairman, Chairman Hawkins, or Chairman, with brief acknowledgments such as “thank you,” indicating a continuous stretch of committee discussion where he was being directly addressed rather than a shift in subject matter.
Ms. Herosaki — Said awareness and early intervention are key to identifying and supporting students with disabilities.
Ms. Herosaki — Referenced as having previously indicated that early identification is improving.
Ms. Harris-Hawkey — The witness is addressed by a slightly garbled name; the question is directed to her.
Mrs. Harris-Hawkey — Mrs. Harris-Hawkey explained that Idaho’s Special Education Manual contains clear eligibility criteria for students, but that eligibility understanding and application can vary by state. She noted that these differences show up when transfer students arrive from other states and said that while IDEA has clear criteria, she is not sure all states follow them consistently.
Carol — A name at the end of the transcription appears to be a misrecognition or partial speaker cue; context unclear.
Mrs. Harrisaki — Mrs. Harrisaki explained that while serving the Caldwell School District during the pandemic, many students who could have benefited from early intervention did not receive it. She emphasized that early intervention is critical and described how the missed services left a gap in foundational skills, so some children arrived in public school—especially at kindergarten level—without basic readiness and behavioral abilities such as listening, sitting in a chair, and following directions.
Julie Mead — Julie Mead, from Caldwell and serving in the Caldwell School District, testified in support of the resolution by sharing a personal story about her sister Linda, who has an intellectual disability. She described how Linda was initially steered away from a regular school setting, how their mother fought to have her attend the local school, and how the passage of federal special education law improved Linda’s educational and life outcomes. Mead concluded by noting that the legal procedures in special education exist because families had to fight for them, drawing on her own experience in special education leadership at the state and district level.
Soñia Galaviz — Responded briefly, saying 'Amen.'
Soñia Galaviz — Thanked Ms. Mead and said her personal story underscores the importance of the memorial.
Soñia Galaviz — Asked about student qualification and evaluation for special education and whether districts have incentives to qualify more students.
Soñia Galaviz — Addressed as Representative Galaviz.
Soñia Galaviz — Asked the superintendent to explain how a small rural district manages special education funding gaps.
Ms. Mead — Ms. Mead explained that districts do not receive additional federal funding based on identifying more special education students, so there is no incentive to over-identify students. She then discussed how the education system is improving at earlier identification and intervention, and emphasized that special education should ensure students have access to grade-level standards through layered supports.
Unidentified speaker — The speaker argued that strong tier 1/core supports are essential so schools can better identify which students truly need special education. They noted that eligibility and service decisions can vary by district depending on available systems, and emphasized that the goal should not be to simply remove students from special education, but to provide a broad, full tiered spectrum of supportive services for all students.
Kevin Field — Kevin Field, a special education teacher at Discovery Elementary in Idaho Falls working in an autism unit, explained that student needs are increasing due to population growth, greater awareness, and more complex profiles, so resources must grow accordingly. He described the 60-day evaluation process, emphasizing that behavior often reflects unmet communication needs rather than simple misconduct. Field said special education work must be precise, legally defensible, and meaningful, and that he often works 60 to 70 hours per week. He also noted that many important outcomes are not easily measured, such as teaching students to communicate with AAC devices, build confidence, interact socially, and participate in activities like recess and PE. He further explained that manifestation determinations help teams understand whether behavior stems from a disability and guide appropriate responses, including behavior academies and communication instruction.
Kevin Cook — Referenced as Senator Cook in a prior January meeting where he asked whether students are being over-qualified for special education.
Stoney Winston — Stoney Winston, superintendent of Fruitland School District 373, testified in support of House Joint Memorial No. 11 and described how inadequate federal special education funding affects his district. He explained that Fruitland has spent over $1.8 million serving students with disabilities and still faces a local shortfall of about $790,000 after federal, state, and Medicaid offsets. He said that if IDEA were funded at the promised 40%, the gap would be reduced significantly. Winston also described the difficult operational choices the district must make because special education costs come out of general operating funds, including the inability to add desired programs such as culinary arts due to staffing and budget constraints. In response to questions, he shared a personal family example involving an autistic child and emphasized that the district’s goal is to help students progress and exit special education when appropriate.
Clay Handy — Begins asking a follow-up question to Mr. Winston.
Clay Handy — Referenced as having asked a question/comment earlier in the discussion.
Clay Handy — The chair notes there was not a question, then the discussion continues in response to Representative Handy's earlier personal story.
Clay Handy — Thanked for sharing a personal story about special needs and education.
Clay Handy — Referenced again in the context of a personal story about special needs children.
Clay Handy — Addressed by Representative Matthias with a question about similar memorials in other states.
Mr. Winston — Mr. Winston responds to the committee by strongly agreeing that the goal is to mainstream students and help them function in society, and the committee then thanks him for his testimony.