ESB 5772
In CommitteeSenate
Student enrollment
Calculating student enrollment for local effort assistance.
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 changes how Washington calculates and delivers state funding—called 'local effort assistance'—to help school districts supplement local enrichment levies. It sets a per-student funding threshold, adjusts payments based on how much districts levy locally, and adds new rules for tribal compact schools and special education programs.
- Starting in calendar year 2026, the state will provide 'local effort assistance' funding to help school districts supplement enrichment levies (local property tax-based funding).
- School districts with enrichment levy rates below $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value receive partial assistance proportional to how much their levy falls short; those at or above $1.50 receive full assistance.
- State-tribal education compact schools receive funding based on the host district’s levy rate and their own prior-year enrollment, capped at $1,550 per student (adjusted for inflation).
- The state local effort assistance threshold is $1,550 per student, increased annually by inflation (based on the consumer price index for the Seattle area).
- Student enrollment for funding includes only full-time equivalent students, with special rules for alternative learning experience (ALE) programs and for districts in 'high/nonhigh' or innovation academy relationships.
Who is affected
- Eligible public school districts — School districts with enrichment levy rates below $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value may receive state funding to help make up the difference, up to a set threshold per student.
- State-tribal education compact schools — State-tribal education compact schools (e.g., tribal-run schools operating under state compacts) receive funding based on the levy rate and student enrollment of the host school district, up to a per-student cap adjusted for inflation.
- Innovation academy participating districts — School districts that participate in innovation academies (joint programs between districts) will have student enrollments reallocated among participating districts for funding calculations.
- Students in alternative learning experience programs — Students in alternative learning experience (ALE) programs may affect how enrollment is counted, especially if ALE enrollment exceeds 33% of total enrollment.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Districts with low local property wealth and levy rates (e.g., rural, working-class communities) receive targeted state assistance to help close the gap between local levy revenue and a baseline per-student funding level ($1,550 + inflation), reducing inequity between wealthy and poorer districts.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a), (4)(c)State-tribal compact schools gain dedicated, formula-based funding tied to host district levy rates and prior-year enrollment, improving predictability and access to resources for tribal-run schools that have historically been underfunded or excluded from state funding formulas.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c), (4)(b)By setting a state-wide per-student funding threshold ($1,550 + inflation), the bill establishes a baseline for what the state considers sufficient to supplement local levies—providing clarity and a measurable standard for equity, even if imperfect.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a), (4)(e)The bill clarifies enrollment counting for innovation academies and high/nonhigh relationships, reducing ambiguity and potential disputes over funding allocation—benefiting participating districts and students by ensuring more transparent and consistent funding.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5), (6)The inflation adjustment to the $1,550 threshold helps preserve purchasing power over time, preventing erosion of assistance value due to rising costs—though it does not fully account for education-specific inflation (e.g., special ed, mental health services).
FinancialLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill caps state assistance at $1,550 per student (inflation-adjusted), meaning districts with high actual costs—especially those in high-cost regions or serving high-need students—may still face significant funding gaps, even after receiving assistance. This creates a de facto two-tier system where districts with lower local property values benefit more proportionally, but districts with high costs (e.g., special education, transportation, housing for students) may remain underfunded despite receiving assistance.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a), (3), (4)(a), (4)(c)The exclusion of 33% of Alternative Learning Experience (ALE) enrollment from funding calculations disproportionately harms students in ALE programs (e.g., at-risk, foster, incarcerated, or homeschooled students), as districts receive less funding per student in these programs—even though ALE students often require more intensive and costly services.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(f), (4)(e)State-tribal compact schools receive funding based on the host district’s levy rate—not their own local capacity—which may result in underfunding if the host district has a low levy rate or if the compact school serves a higher proportion of high-need students. This may undermine tribal sovereignty in education by tying funding to external, non-tribal district parameters.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c), (4)(c)The eligibility threshold—based on whether a district’s $1.50 levy generates less than $1,550/student—creates a cliff effect: districts just above the threshold receive no assistance, while those just below receive full assistance, regardless of actual need or fiscal stress. This may incentivize districts to artificially depress levy rates to qualify, distorting local fiscal autonomy.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)The bill explicitly states that local effort assistance is *not* part of the state’s basic education program deemed compliant with Article IX, section 1 of the state constitution. This weakens the legal foundation for challenging underfunding and signals that this funding is discretionary—not a constitutional obligation—potentially undermining long-term equity claims.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Rural and lower-wealth districts benefit significantly: they receive targeted state assistance to offset low local property tax bases and levy rates. However, districts already at or above the $1.50 levy cap gain no additional help, and those with high costs (e.g., special education, transportation) may still be underfunded.
Tribal compact schools gain new, formula-based state funding, improving fiscal stability and access to resources. However, funding is tied to host district levy rates—not tribal capacity—potentially underfunding schools with higher student needs or located in low-levy host districts.
Students in ALE programs face reduced funding per student due to the 33% exclusion rule, which may reduce program quality or access—especially for vulnerable populations (foster youth, incarcerated students, at-risk learners) who rely on these services.
Local governments (school boards, superintendents) gain clarity and predictability in funding formulas, but lose flexibility in local levy decisions due to the cliff-effect eligibility rules and constitutional disclaimer limiting enforceability.
State taxpayers benefit from a more transparent and formula-driven funding system, but may face future budget pressures if enrollment grows or inflation outpaces the CPI-based adjustment—especially if demand for special education or mental health services rises faster than general inflation.