South Carolina 2025-2026 Regular Session

South Carolina House Bill H3974

Introduced
2/12/25  
Refer
2/12/25  
Engrossed
5/7/25  

Caption

Private Providers

Impact

The fiscal impact of HB 3974 may vary across local school districts. A survey of 72 regular school districts and three charter school districts indicated that three districts would not incur additional costs while others anticipate new expenditures related to accommodating private providers. Some districts estimate costs ranging from $500 to $673,000 for implementing the bill's provisions, such as conducting case evaluations, performing background checks, and potentially needing additional facilities. One district indicated an approximate cost of $2,500 per pupil to evaluate students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), highlighting the financial implications this bill could have on educational budgets.

Summary

House Bill 3974 seeks to amend the South Carolina Code of Laws to authorize private providers to deliver medically necessary services within public schools during school hours. The bill stipulates that such services can only be provided upon request from a parent or legal guardian and that local school districts may not prohibit these evaluations or services. The proposed law requires the State Board of Education to develop a model policy that sets parameters for these types of service provisions, including ensuring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Furthermore, the bill establishes criteria for private providers, including necessary certifications and background checks, to help ensure student safety and the quality of care provided.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 3974 appears to be mixed among various stakeholders in the education community. Proponents laud the bill as a means to increase access to vital services for students with disabilities, thereby ensuring that their needs are met in a timely manner within the school environment. Conversely, there are concerns among some committees and districts regarding the implementation costs and logistics, potentially affecting educational equilibrium and resource allocation. The discussion emphasizes the importance of balancing the administrative and financial pressures while ensuring that students receive the appropriate care they need.

Contention

Notably, the bill has garnered some contention especially related to its implications for local governance. While it aims to promote the inclusion of private services in public schools, arguments arise concerning the potential strain on school resources and administrative capacities required for case evaluations. Opponents argue that the bill may create disparities between school districts with differing capacities to absorb the associated costs and logistics of these new responsibilities. Furthermore, the provision allowing services during instructional time, if deemed appropriate, raises concerns over potential disruptions in classroom environments, which could lead to debates on prioritization of educational integrity against access to necessary health services.

Companion Bills

SC H4068

Similar To Suspensions of students in publicly-funded preschools

SC S0430

Similar To Suspension of students in publicly-funded preschools

Similar Bills

CT HB05425

An Act Concerning Special Education.

CT SB00154

An Act Concerning Various And Assorted Revisions To The Education Statutes.

CA SB153

Education finance: education omnibus budget trailer bill.

NJ A5051

Clarifies public school student attendance recording and reporting requirements.

CA SB86

Public social services.

CA AB86

COVID-19 relief and school reopening, reporting, and public health requirements.

TX HB13

Relating to training, preparedness, and funding for school safety and emergencies in public schools.

FL S0112

Children with Developmental Disabilities