SHB 1338
In CommitteeHouse
School operating costs
Concerning school operating costs.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill updates Washington State’s basic education funding formula to reflect current and projected operating costs, including inflation adjustments and new allocations for career and technical education, small schools, and support staff. It also strengthens transparency requirements for how per-pupil funding is allocated and spent across programs.
- Updates the state funding formula for basic education to reflect updated per-pupil operating costs for the 2025–26 school year, with inflation adjustments starting in 2026–27 using the federal implicit price deflator.
- Increases minimum per-student allocations for materials, supplies, and operating costs—including technology, utilities, curriculum, and facilities maintenance—with new higher-level allocations for high school students.
- Adjusts staffing formulas for classroom teachers, administrators, paraeducators, counselors, nurses, and other support staff based on prototypical school sizes (elementary: 400 FTE, middle: 432 FTE, high: 600 FTE).
- Adds new per-student funding for career and technical education courses ($1,799.57 for exploratory courses in grades 7–12; $1,799.57 and $2,159.48 for preparatory courses in high school and skill centers).
- Requires transparency reporting: the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction must publish per-pupil allocations for all major programs on its website, and school districts must link to that report on their own sites.
Who is affected
- Public school districts — School districts receive updated funding formulas and per-pupil allocations for basic education operations, including adjustments for class size, staff ratios, and inflation. They must also publish transparency reports on their websites linking to state per-pupil allocation data.
- K–12 students — Students benefit from updated support for learning assistance, bilingual instruction, career and technical education, and services for students with disabilities or high academic potential. Students in high-poverty schools receive additional targeted support.
- School staff and support personnel — Teachers, principals, counselors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, paraeducators, and other support staff may see changes in staffing allocations, salary support, and program funding depending on district implementation and student needs.
- Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction — The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction must develop rules, collect data, and publish transparency reports on per-pupil funding allocations across programs.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Increases baseline per-pupil operating cost allocations for materials, supplies, and utilities (e.g., technology from $178.98 to $224.11; utilities from $430.26 to $538.74) and ties them to inflation via the federal implicit price deflator—directly easing cash-flow pressure on districts, especially those serving low-income students who rely heavily on state funding to cover rising costs.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(8)(a) & (d)Adds dedicated per-student funding for career and technical education (CTE)—$1,799.57 for exploratory courses and $2,159.48 for skill center preparatory courses—expanding access to high-demand pathways, especially for students in under-resourced schools, and supporting workforce development with measurable, targeted investment.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(9)(a)–(c)Creates a high-poverty-based learning assistance allocation for schools with ≥50% free/reduced-price meal eligibility over a three-year average, ensuring that schools with concentrated poverty receive additional instructional time—targeting resources to the students most likely to fall behind academically.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(10)(a)(ii)Adjusts staffing formulas to reflect updated class-size targets (e.g., K–3 at 17:1, high school at 28.74:1) and adds CTE-specific class-size formulas (23:1 for CTE), supporting more realistic teacher workloads and enabling districts to hire more staff where needed—particularly beneficial in districts struggling with teacher shortages.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(i) & (c)Mandates transparency reporting of per-pupil allocations across programs (general apportionment, special ed, CTE, etc.) on both OSPI and district websites—empowering parents, community advocates, and local school boards to monitor equity and resource distribution, especially in districts with opaque budgeting practices.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandates school districts to publish and maintain a link to the OSPI per-pupil allocation report on their websites, increasing administrative burden and requiring technical resources (e.g., web maintenance, data coordination) that smaller districts with limited IT staff may struggle to sustain.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)Requires districts to demonstrate actual ratios of support staff (nurses, counselors, etc.) to students before receiving funding, potentially penalizing districts that have historically under-provided such services—often in high-need communities—by tying funding to compliance rather than need, and creating a bureaucratic hurdle for districts lacking robust data systems.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(b)(i)The new $16,870.44 per certificated staff unit for small schools provides targeted relief, but only for schools below prototypical size—excluding many rural and urban charter schools that operate outside the prototypical model or are underfunded due to enrollment volatility, limiting the benefit to a narrow subset of small schools.
EducationRef: Sec. 1(8)(c)The temporary use of pre-pandemic (2019–2023) meal eligibility data to determine high-poverty funding in 2024–26 may misrepresent current need, as pandemic-era economic shifts and expanded free-meal access have altered poverty metrics—potentially underfunding districts where need has risen since 2022–23.
EducationRef: Sec. 1(10)(a)(iii) & (a)(iv)Requires superintendents’ enrollment definition revisions to be approved by both House and Senate Ways and Means Committees, adding a layer of political oversight that could delay or dilute data accuracy improvements needed for equitable funding.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(13)(c)
Who Is Most Affected
Public school districts—especially those in high-poverty or rural areas—will benefit most from increased per-pupil operating funds and targeted CTE support, though they face new reporting and data-reporting obligations that strain limited administrative capacity.
Students in high-poverty schools gain from additional learning assistance hours and CTE access, while students in small or rural schools benefit from small-school supplements—though students in districts with weak data systems may face delays in receiving full support due to compliance hurdles.
Paraeducators, counselors, nurses, and social workers may benefit from increased staffing allocations and salary support mandates, but actual gains depend on district implementation—some districts may use funds to prevent layoffs rather than raise wages, limiting direct benefit to staff.
OSPI gains expanded authority to collect and publish funding data, strengthening its role in equity oversight, but must develop new rules and data systems to implement transparency and compliance requirements—adding regulatory workload without additional funding.
Families in low-income households benefit from improved access to learning assistance, bilingual services, and CTE—especially where schools serve ≥50% free/reduced-price meal-eligible students—but may see little direct benefit if districts fail to prioritize spending on student-facing programs.