HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 2166

This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent.

Brief Summary of Second Substitute Bill

Requires the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)'s reporting format and school district instructions on collecting and submitting data to include "students from military families."
Requires the K-12 Data Governance Group to develop best practice guidelines for the collection and regular updating of data on students from military families.

Requires the OSPI to report to the Legislature the average number of students from military families who are special education students statewide, by school district, and by school.

Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 17 members: Representatives Santos, Chair; Stonier, Vice Chair; Dahlquist, Ranking Minority Member; Magendanz, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Bergquist, Haigh, Hargrove, Hawkins, S. Hunt, Klippert, Lytton, Muri, Orwall, Parker, Pollet, Seaquist and Warnick.

Background:

The United States (U.S.) Department of Education's (DoE) Impact Aid Program compensates school districts with a high number of military dependent students. In 2010 the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) began reviewing the use of these funds by conducting a web-based survey of all 154 school districts receiving funds under the program and of officials from the Department of Defense and the DoE. The GAO concluded "there are no data available on these students that could be used to assess their academic achievement or educational outcomes, or determine where funding needs are greatest."

The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is required to develop standards for the school data system, including data validation, code validation, decimal and integer validation, and required field validation. The OSPI must develop a reporting format that includes instructions for school districts to collect and submit data on student demographics. This data must be disaggregated by distinct ethnic categories within racial subgroups, but not by military family.

The K-12 Data Governance Group is a workgroup within the OSPI that oversees the development and implementation of a K-12 education data system for financial, student, and educator data.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Summary of Substitute Bill:

The OSPI's reporting format and school district instructions on collecting and submitting data must include "students from military families" by the 2015-16 school year.

The K-12 Data Governance Group must develop best practice guidelines for the collection and regular updating of data on students from military families.

The OSPI must conduct an analysis of the average number of students from military families who are special education students statewide, by school district, and by school, and report this analysis to the Legislature by December 31, 2016.

Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:

The language regarding data on students from military families moved to a different code section that deals with the school data system.

The OSPI must report the average number of students from military families who are special education students statewide, by school district, and by school.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony:

(In support) There is a great appreciation for the military. Many students from military families are transient. To help students, it is important to follow their movement around the state. There are 32,000 school-age military kids in the state. However, there is no data on where these children live and go to school. Homeless kids need to be tracked in the same manner as migrant kids are tracked. The federal government provides school districts with money to support students from military families and needs to know how many kids are in each school district. Several states are now identifying students from military families.

(In support with concerns) It would be helpful and informative to include students from military families in required data collections. That this will be a challenge is made clear in the bill because of a lack of a military student identifier. Deployment of the military takes place at various times in the school year, making data gathering of this type a challenge. Certain districts have more military families, so this bill will impact districts differently. This bill should add more staffing. It is not possible to separate the policy from the cost implications. This work cannot be done with existing staffing levels.

(Opposed) None.

Persons Testifying: (In support) Representative Lytton, prime sponsor; and Mark San Souci, Department of Defense State Liaison Office.

(In support with concerns) Wendy Rader-Konofalski, Washington Education Association.

Majority Report: The second substitute bill be substituted therefor and the second substitute bill do pass and do not pass the substitute bill by Committee on Education. Signed by 10 members: Representatives Haigh, Chair; Fagan, Ranking Minority Member; Carlyle, Dahlquist, Haler, Lytton, Pettigrew, Seaquist, Sullivan and Wilcox.

Summary of Recommendation of Committee On Appropriations Subcommittee on Education Compared to Recommendation of Committee On Education:

School districts must collect and submit data on students from military families for newly enrolled students, including transfer students, rather than all students. A null and void section is added, making the bill null and void unless funded in the budget.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony:

(In support) This bill provides a way to identify in the Comprehensive Education Data and Research System how our military students are doing in our school system as they move in and out of different school districts. The military office worked with the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction to revise the work so that it did not include a work group, reducing the costs from the original fiscal note to no cost. A change to newly enrolled would be okay because implementation wouldn't begin until 2015.

(Opposed) None.