HB 1746
In CommitteeHouse
School local effort assist.
Providing local effort assistance for public schools.
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 expands state funding to help school districts—especially those with lower local property tax levies—raise more money for schools. It also extends similar support to tribal-education compact schools (starting in 2022) and charter schools (starting in 2025), using a per-student formula tied to local levy rates and inflation.
- Starting in 2025, the state provides 'local effort assistance' funding to help public school districts supplement local enrichment levies—especially districts with levy rates below $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value.
- For districts with levies below $1.50, the state funding is proportional to how much their levy falls short of $1.50, up to a maximum per-student amount of $2,000 (adjusted for inflation since 2019).
- Starting in 2022, state-tribal education compact schools receive per-student funding based on the host district’s levy rate, up to the inflation-adjusted maximum.
- Starting in 2025, charter schools also receive per-student funding using the same formula as tribal-education compact schools.
- The state local effort assistance threshold is $2,000 per student, increased annually by inflation as measured by the consumer price index for the Seattle area.
- Special rules apply for high school/nonhigh school district relationships and for schools in innovation academies, to ensure fair enrollment-based funding.
Who is affected
- Eligible public school districts — School districts with enrichment levy rates below $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value receive state funding to help make up the difference, up to a maximum per-student amount adjusted for inflation.
- State-tribal education compact schools — State-tribal education compact schools receive per-student funding based on the levy rate of the host school district, up to an inflation-adjusted maximum.
- Charter schools — Charter schools receive per-student funding based on the levy rate of the host school district, up to an inflation-adjusted maximum, starting in 2025.
- State of Washington (fiscal impact) — The state budget must allocate funds to cover the increased cost of local effort assistance payments beginning in 2025.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill directly targets inequity by providing state补足 to districts with levy rates below $1.50 per $1,000 assessed value—typically rural, small, or high-poverty districts with limited property wealth—helping them raise more revenue without overburdening local taxpayers, thus narrowing the funding gap between wealthy and low-wealth districts.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)State-tribal education compact schools gain per-student funding tied to host district levies, improving access to equitable resources for Native students who historically face underfunding—especially important since many tribal schools operate outside traditional district structures and lack local tax bases.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c)Starting in 2025, charter schools receive state补足 based on host district levies, helping newly chartered or low-enrollment schools gain financial stability and compete more fairly with traditional public schools—potentially expanding educational options for families in underserved areas.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(d)The $2,000 per-student threshold is inflation-adjusted annually using the Seattle-area CPI, providing predictable, long-term funding growth—though not fully cost-based, it offers more stability than flat-dollar formulas and helps districts plan multi-year budgets.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1) & (e)Special rules for high/nonhigh district relationships and innovation academies ensure fair enrollment-based allocation, preventing double-counting and ensuring students in shared programs receive proportional funding—improving accuracy in complex district configurations.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(5) & (6)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill reduces local control over school funding by capping the state’s补足 amount at $2,000 per student (inflation-adjusted), which may disincentivize districts from raising levies above $1.50—since districts above that threshold receive no additional state help, while those below receive proportional补足, creating a flat-rate benefit structure that rewards low-levy districts but does not fully restore equity.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)The bill explicitly states that local effort assistance is *not* part of the state’s basic education funding under Article IX, §1 of the state constitution—meaning this funding does not count toward the state’s constitutional duty to fully fund basic education, potentially undermining long-term adequacy claims and leaving districts reliant on local levies for true equity.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3)The $2,000 per-student cap (inflation-adjusted from 2019) is below current actual cost-of-education estimates—e.g., OSPI’s 2023 Basic Education Cost Study estimated $13,200 per K–12 student—so while the formula helps low-levy districts, it does not close the full funding gap, limiting real impact on classroom resources.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a) & (c)-(d)Extending the same funding formula to charter and tribal-education compact schools creates administrative complexity and may divert attention from long-standing inequities in tribal school funding—since tribal schools receive funding based on the *host district’s* levy rate, not their own local capacity, potentially underfunding tribes in high-wealth districts or overfunding those in low-wealth ones without regard to tribal-specific needs.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c) & (d)The $1.50 levy threshold creates a policy cliff: districts at $1.49 receive full proportional补足, while those at $1.50 receive nothing—encouraging districts to cap levies just below $1.50 to maximize state aid, distorting local fiscal decisions and potentially suppressing local investment.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-wealth school districts (e.g., rural, small, or high-poverty districts with levy rates below $1.50) gain significant additional state funding, helping them close per-pupil revenue gaps without raising local taxes—this is a clear positive impact for these districts and their students.
High-wealth districts with levy rates at or above $1.50 receive no additional state补足, meaning they bear no extra cost but also gain no benefit—this is neutral for them, though they may indirectly benefit from reduced political pressure for equity reforms.
Tribal-education compact schools gain new state funding, improving access to resources—but since funding is tied to the *host district’s* levy, tribes in low-levy host districts may be underfunded, while those in high-levy districts may receive more than needed, creating uneven outcomes.
Charter schools gain state补足 starting in 2025, improving financial predictability—but since they lack local tax authority, this funding helps them compete, though it may also intensify competition for students and resources with traditional public schools.
State and local governments face increased fiscal pressure: the state must fully fund 2025补足 regardless of prior-year distributions, and local districts may reduce levy efforts knowing补足 will fill gaps—potentially straining the state budget and reducing local fiscal autonomy.