HB 2116
In CommitteeHouse
School enrichment funding
Updating school enrichment funding.
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
HB 2116 raises the maximum amount school districts can levy for enrichment programs and adds state matching funding to support districts with lower local levy rates. It increases the per-pupil cap over time and ties adjustments to inflation and specific annual enhancements.
- Raises the maximum enrichment levy cap from $2.50 to $3.00 per $1,000 of assessed property value starting in 2030 (or lower if the per-pupil limit is smaller).
- Sets a per-pupil enrichment funding cap: $2,500 or $3,000 (depending on district size) through 2030, increasing by inflation and annual enhancements; $5,035 per student starting in 2032 (plus inflation).
- Requires school districts to submit and get approval for an enrichment levy spending plan before voters approve the levy.
- Starts state matching funding (local effort assistance) in 2028 to help districts that levy below a set threshold ($1.50–$2.00 per $1,000, depending on year), with per-student assistance up to $2,600 (plus inflation and enhancements).
- Includes special rules for districts in high/nonhigh relationships and for schools in state-tribal education compacts, ensuring fair enrollment counting and funding allocation.
Who is affected
- All public school districts in Washington — School districts with fewer than 40,000 full-time equivalent students can raise up to $2,500 per student (adjusted for inflation and enhancements) in enrichment levies through 2030; those with 40,000 or more can raise up to $3,000 per student during the same period. Starting in 2031, all districts are capped at $5,035 per student (adjusted for inflation).
- Students and schools in state-tribal education compacts — Students in state-tribal education compact schools may receive additional state funding to support enrichment levies, up to $2,600 per student (adjusted for inflation and enhancements) starting in 2028.
- Property owners in Washington — Local property taxpayers may see changes in their school levy rates depending on their district’s enrollment size and actual levy rate relative to state thresholds, especially as the state increases its matching assistance starting in 2028.
- School districts in inter-district cooperative arrangements — School districts that operate high schools serving multiple districts (high/nonhigh relationships) or run innovation academies with multiple participating districts must adjust student enrollment counts for funding calculations.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
The state matching funding (local effort assistance) starting in 2028 will significantly reduce the financial burden on lower-wealth districts that levy below the threshold, helping them close part of the per-pupil funding gap—especially impactful for districts where political resistance prevents higher local levies, and where residents cannot afford high property taxes.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a), (2)(d)(i), (2)(g); Sec. 1(1)(a)Explicit inclusion of state-tribal education compact schools in the matching program ensures that students in those schools receive dedicated state support for enrichment, addressing historical underfunding of tribal education partnerships and promoting equity for Native students in Washington.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(c): special rules for state-tribal education compact schoolsRaising the long-term per-pupil enrichment cap to $5,035 (plus inflation) helps ensure districts can fund modern enrichment programs (STEM, arts, mental health, college/career readiness) without being constrained by outdated statutory limits—especially beneficial for districts seeking to expand programs but previously capped at $2,500–$3,000.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b), (2)(c)(ii): $5,035 per student cap starting in 2032Clarifying enrollment allocation for inter-district cooperative arrangements (e.g., high/nonhigh relationships, innovation academies) prevents funding distortions and ensures fair distribution of enrichment resources across participating districts—reducing disputes and administrative friction.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3), (4); Sec. 2(6), (7): enrollment counting rules for high/nonhigh and innovation academiesRequiring districts to submit and get approval of an enrichment levy expenditure plan before voter approval improves transparency and accountability, helping voters make informed decisions and potentially reducing wasteful or misaligned spending—though this adds a layer of oversight that may slow implementation.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(5): expenditure plan approval before voter submission
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill increases the per-student enrichment levy cap over time, but the state matching funding only applies to districts levying *below* a threshold ($1.50–$2.00 per $1,000), meaning districts that already levy at or above that rate receive no state help—effectively rewarding districts with higher local property wealth and existing levies, while poorer districts must rely on state matching that phases in slowly and only partially offsets their lower levy capacity.
FinancialRef: Sec. 1(1)(a), (2)(c)(i); Sec. 2(2)(a), (2)(d)(i)The state matching formula is *progressive in intent* but *regressive in effect*: districts with lower levy rates get a larger *relative* boost, but the actual dollar amount per student ($2,600 + inflation + enhancements) is capped and may still leave high-poverty districts significantly underfunded relative to wealthier ones, especially since the matching only applies when the district levies *below* the threshold—so districts that can’t afford to levy more due to political or fiscal constraints get no help.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a), (2)(d)(i), (2)(g); Sec. 1(1)(a)By explicitly stating that state matching funds are *not* part of the basic education program, the bill reinforces the legal distinction that enriched learning is *optional*—not a right—under Article IX, §1 of the state constitution, potentially weakening future legal claims that all students deserve equitable access to enrichment regardless of district wealth.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3): 'not part of the state's program of basic education' and Sec. 1(5): voter approval required for levy expenditure plansBecause enrichment levies are property-tax-based, the bill indirectly reinforces the regressive nature of school funding tied to property values—wealthier districts with higher assessed values can raise more revenue even at the same levy rate, and the state match does not fully compensate for this structural inequity, especially in districts with stagnant or declining property values.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a), (2)(c)(i); Sec. 2(2)(a), (2)(d)(i)The requirement for districts to submit and get approval of an expenditure plan before voter approval adds administrative burden and delays for local school boards, especially smaller districts with limited staff capacity—though this may improve transparency, it may also reduce democratic responsiveness in time-sensitive budget cycles.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(5): 'must receive approval of an enrichment levy expenditure plan before submission to voters'
Who Is Most Affected
Lower-wealth districts benefit significantly from state matching funds, reducing their reliance on politically difficult local levies; however, districts already levying above the threshold gain little or no benefit, and all districts face new administrative requirements.
Higher-wealth districts benefit from the higher per-pupil cap and may see modest property tax relief if they reduce levies to qualify for state matching—but many already levy above the threshold and thus receive no state help, making the net effect modest or mixed.
Property owners in districts with low levy rates may benefit from reduced local tax burden due to state matching, but those in high-levy districts may see little change or even higher effective rates if districts reduce local levies but maintain program spending.
Students in state-tribal education compact schools gain dedicated state funding for enrichment, directly improving access to expanded learning opportunities; this is a targeted equity intervention with strong positive impact.
Local school boards gain flexibility to expand enrichment but face new administrative burdens (expenditure plan approval, enrollment allocation rules); the net effect is positive for districts with strong capacity, but negative for under-resourced ones.