HB 2026
In CommitteeHouse
Education funding
Creating the fairness in education funding act.
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 aims to equalize education funding across Washington by eliminating local enrichment and capital levies and replacing them with uniform state funding per student. It sets new minimum salary levels for school staff and establishes new state-funded enrichment and facilities support, contingent on voter approval of a constitutional amendment banning local levies.
- Abolishes local enrichment levies and excess capital levies (effective if a proposed constitutional amendment passes), replacing them with equal state funding per student.
- Sets new statewide minimum salary allocations for certificated instructional staff ($100,033), certificated administrative staff ($179,857), and classified staff ($71,082) starting in the 2026-27 school year, adjusted for inflation.
- Provides $1,550 per student in enrichment funding and $1,000 per student in facilities funding to all districts, charter schools, and state-tribal compact schools starting in 2026, with eligibility tied to not collecting local levies for those purposes.
- Requires school districts to track enrichment spending by source and activity type, and prohibits using more than 25% of enrichment funds for administrator salaries.
- Repeals multiple statutes related to local levies, local effort assistance, and school district division rules, effective if the constitutional amendment passes.
Who is affected
- School districts in higher-income census tracts — School districts in wealthier areas will no longer be able to collect local enrichment levies or excess capital levies, and will instead receive equal state funding per student for those purposes.
- School districts in high-poverty census tracts — School districts in lower-income areas will gain access to new state-funded enrichment and facility funding without relying on local levies, helping reduce resource gaps.
- Public school students statewide — All public school students will receive more equitable state funding for teacher, administrator, and staff salaries, and for enrichment and facilities, regardless of local property wealth.
- State education and budget agencies — The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and Office of Financial Management will need to implement new funding formulas, reporting requirements, and fiscal note processes.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Universal per-pupil enrichment and facilities funding will significantly increase resources for high-poverty districts that currently rely on local levies — which they cannot raise at comparable levels to wealthy districts — directly improving access to arts, sports, technology, and facility upgrades for underserved students.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(a): '$1,550 per average annual full-time equivalent enrollment for enrichment funding' and (1)(b): '$1,000 per student for facilities funding'State-mandated minimum salaries will lift wages for certificated and classified school staff across the state — especially benefiting lower-paid educators and support staff in high-poverty districts where local salary supplements were previously constrained by limited tax capacity.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2 (new minimum salary thresholds: $100,033 instructional, $71,082 classified, $179,857 admin in 2026-27)By eliminating local levy disparities and replacing them with equal per-pupil state funding, the bill directly addresses the constitutional mandate for 'basic education' to be uniformly funded — reducing the $10,000+ per-student funding gap between wealthy and high-poverty districts and advancing equity.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (findings), Sec. 3 (state-funded enrichment/facilities), Sec. 2 (statewide salary minimums)Explicit inclusion of early learning in enrichment activities expands access to preschool and early intervention services in districts that previously lacked local levy capacity — supporting child development and reducing long-term remediation costs.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 4 (amending RCW 28A.150.276), subsection (2)(a)(iv): enrichment includes 'activities associated with early learning programs'State-funded facilities support for technology infrastructure will help modernize outdated school buildings — particularly benefiting districts in older, under-resourced communities where facility conditions directly impact learning environments and student health.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 6 (amending RCW 28A.320.330), subsection (2)(f)(i): capital projects fund may be used for 'technology systems, facilities, and projects'
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill establishes new statewide minimum salary thresholds for school staff that exceed current district averages in many lower-income districts, potentially increasing payroll costs for districts that already pay above the current baseline — though the state intends to fund these, implementation risks include delayed or underfunded allocations, creating budget uncertainty for districts.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2 (amending RCW 28A.150.410), new minimum salary thresholds ($100,033 instructional, $179,857 admin, $71,082 classified) effective 2026-27By explicitly excluding enrichment and facilities funding from the definition of basic education, the bill may weaken future legal arguments for equitable per-pupil funding in court challenges, potentially undermining long-term equity goals despite the bill’s stated intent.
EducationRef: Sec. 3(2): 'The funding provided under this section is not part of the state's statutory program of basic education'The bill eliminates local levy authority and related statutes only if a constitutional amendment passes — creating a high-stakes, politically uncertain process that could delay or prevent implementation, leaving districts in limbo for years and increasing administrative burden during transition.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 7 (repeal of RCW 28A.500.010 et seq. and other statutes), Sec. 9 (contingent effective date tied to constitutional amendment)The 25% cap on administrator salary use for enrichment may constrain districts’ flexibility in staffing enrichment programs, especially in districts where administrators already play significant roles in extracurricular coordination — potentially reducing program quality or forcing restructuring costs.
EducationRef: Sec. 4 (amending RCW 28A.150.276), subsection (3)(a): 'portion of administrator salaries attributable to that purpose may not exceed twenty-five percent of the total district expenditures for administrator salaries'The bill adds complex new accounting requirements (e.g., tracking enrichment by source, mandatory transfers between funds for technology and maintenance), increasing administrative overhead for small and rural districts with limited financial staff.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 6 (amending RCW 28A.320.330), subsection (1)(b): enrichment revenue subfund and (2)(f)(ii), (g): capital projects fund transfers for technology and preventative maintenance
Who Is Most Affected
High-poverty districts gain $2,550 per student in new state funding and guaranteed minimum teacher salaries, reducing reliance on local property taxes they cannot raise effectively. However, they lose flexibility to set local salary scales above state minimums and face new reporting requirements.
Wealthy districts lose the ability to raise additional local funds via levies, reducing per-pupil revenue in districts where local levies previously added $2,000–$5,000+ per student. They gain uniform state funding but may see reduced overall resources unless state funding fully offsets local losses.
Teachers and classified staff in high-poverty districts benefit from higher base salaries and expanded enrichment programs. However, staff in districts that previously paid above the new minimum may see frozen or slower wage growth if districts cannot supplement beyond state minimums.
State agencies gain authority but face major implementation costs — including new reporting systems, fiscal note development, and constitutional amendment coordination. Local governments (counties, cities) are unaffected directly but may see indirect impacts from school district fiscal changes.
Students in high-poverty districts benefit from expanded access to enrichment, technology, and facility upgrades. Students in wealthy districts may see reduced program diversity if districts cannot supplement state funding — potentially widening non-financial equity gaps despite financial equalization.