A conference committee for education on Oct. 12 agreed to have the House recede to the Senate version of language governing the K‑12 Coordination Council and to further amend the bill’s Section 2 to reduce the appropriation for studies, a move lawmakers said would preserve the council’s ability to contract for research while limiting initial spending.

Lawmakers said the House Education Committee originally approved the proposal with a $120,000 appropriation; later questions about whether the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) had authority to contract for outside studies prompted lawmakers to reconsider the funding level and the authority to spend it. Committee members voted in favor of the conference motion during a roll call, with all members present recording affirmative votes.

The change matters because the K‑12 Coordination Council is intended to bring school-level practitioners and other stakeholders together to vet policy ideas and studies before those ideas reach the Legislature. Supporters said the council could perform technical work — screening studies on issues such as chronic absenteeism, special education service delivery and small-school funding — to help legislators focus on higher‑value proposals.

Members discussed options for steering and paying for the council’s studies. One senator said the council’s membership includes the governor, the superintendent, four legislators and representatives of school boards, principals, teachers, tribal schools and other stakeholders, and argued that the council could provide “heavy lifting” on studies without giving undue control to a single agency. Several committee members said they worried about giving an executive agency like DPI both the funding and sole discretion to contract for studies; they flagged the risk that agency-directed studies could reflect agency priorities rather than the Legislature’s.

Senate committee members said legislative management could be used to approve or direct studies proposed by the council, and one suggestion that carried in committee was that the council propose study topics and legislative management or an interim committee authorize contracts. Committee discussion referenced a per‑study cost estimate of about $30,000–$40,000 and a message from the DPI director asking for funding to support two studies (about $60,000 under that estimate).

During debate the Senate member who moved the conference motion said the committee could reduce the appropriation to an amount sufficient to fund studies and “see how it works” before committing larger sums. The conference motion directs the House to recede to the Senate version and to amend Section 2 so the appropriation reads $30,000 or $60,000 rather than $120,000. The motion was seconded and adopted by roll call; members who voted “yes” on the motion included Chairman Scheibley, Senator Lamb, Senator Axman, Chairman Lauser, Representative Longmire and Representative Hansen.

The committee did not reference a specific statutory citation establishing contracting authority for DPI or for the council; members said only that the question of contracting authority was the reason the House returned the matter to appropriations earlier in the process. The committee’s action restores the Senate approach to the council’s authority and reduces the initial appropriation to a lower amount for studies, leaving further allocation and the process for approving contracts to future decisions.

Votes at a glance

• Motion: The House will recede to the Senate version and further amend Section 2 to read $30,000 or $60,000 rather than $120,000. Moved by Senator Axman; seconded (member not specified). Outcome: approved by roll call; all members present voted yes.

What happens next

The committee’s conference instructions return the item to the larger legislative process with the Senate language restored and a reduced appropriation. Committee members suggested using legislative management or interim committees to approve specific studies the council proposes before contracts are executed.