Prototypical School Model.  The state's public school funding model allocates funding to school districts based on assumed levels of staff and other resources necessary to support a prototypical school serving an assumed number of students at defined elementary, middle, and high schools levels.  The use of prototypical schools is intended to illustrate the level of resources needed to operate a school of a particular size using commonly understood terms such as class size, hours of instruction, and specified staff positions.

The structure of the formula, which appears in statute, provides allocations for classroom teachers at an assumed class size, plus other building-level staff. Based on these staffing ratios, the state uses salary assumptions for each of the different staff types to generate state funding allocations.  The funding provided to school districts through the prototypical school formulas is for allocation purposes only, and districts have discretion over how the money is spent, subject to some limits.

The staffing ratios for teaching assistants, office supports, and noninstructional aides are as follows:

The staffing ratios for teaching assistants, office supports, and noninstructional aides are increased to the following amounts for the 2024-25 school year:

The staffing ratios for teaching assistants, office supports, and noninstructional aides are increased to the following amounts for the 2025-26 school year:

Beginning in the 2026-27 school year and beyond, the staffing ratios for teaching assistants, office supports, and noninstructional aides are changed to the following amounts:

• Corrects two numerical errors in the phase-in schedule for office support and other non-instructional aides in high school during the 2024-25 and 2025-26 school years, changing "0.77" to "0.077" and "1.54" to "0.154."

The committee recommended a different version of the bill than what was heard. PRO:  Paraprofessionals are crucial in identifying barriers to education and helping students overcome those barriers. They serve the important roles of providing one-on-one and small group instruction, which is essential for students that are struggling or trying to overcome learning loss. This is especially critical for those students who live in poverty or have IEPs. Current staff units are outdated and do not support the social, emotional, and academic needs of students. This bill helps move the levels closer to those suggested by staffing enrichment work group, and brings them fully up to the levels from Initiative 1351.

CON: This bill raises concerns about the additional taxpayer burden, as the cost would be prohibitive. The recent influx of support staff has not yielded improvements in student performance or behavior. Public school teachers have said that recently hired staff have inadequate training, experience, and oversight so funding should focus on training rather than more bodies in the classroom.

OTHER: Funding should be provided equitably rather than equally. Test scores show that Washington has some of the biggest income-based achievement gaps in the country so the bill should be amended to allocate additional FTEs equitably for high poverty schools. This bill is a good step but it promotes itself as a behavioral and mental health bill and doesn't actually fund more mental health positions. The bill should provide greater increases in staff ratios than it currently does. The increase in non-teaching staff would further reduce the ratio of teachers to non-teachers and shift resources out of the classroom.

PRO: Senator Derek Stanford, Prime Sponsor; Julie Salvi, Washington Education Association; Tyler Muench, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction; Charlie Brown, South Sound School Districts ; Sara Betnel, Washington State School Directors' Association; Dune Ives; Robbi Reed, WEA - Northshore Education Association; Bob Cooper, National Assocition of Social Wokers WA Chapter; Jim Kowalkowski, Rural Education Center; Natalya Yudkovsky, Washington State PTA; Justin McKaughan; Rick Chisa, Public School Employees of Washington (PSE); Melissa Gombosky, Evergreen, Vancouver, and Spokane Public Schools.

PRO:  School directors prioritized staffing for this session recognizing the needs across the state.  Districts continue to rely upon local levies so they need more equitable funding from the state.   This bill helps respond to this need.  This bill is focused on the state's role in funding paraeducators.  Over three years this bill implements the recommendations of the state's quality education commission and enacted by the voters in Initiative-1351. It is time to recognize these vital workers in our funding formula.  Classified staff are crucial to school operations and insuring students receive a quality education.  The staff units allocated in the current prototypical model do not provide adequate instructional support staff to the program of basic education and the social, emotional, and the academic needs of students.  We would also like to see these professionals receive a living wage that allows them to live in the communities they serve.  Part of our agenda this session is to drive state funding into districts where we are already hiring and paying staff out of local levies.  Most staffing models are outdated.  It's time to catch-up with today's public schools.  Shoreline, like many districts across the state, is facing a budget crisis because staffing models are not paying for real world student needs; they are relying upon levy funds.  I have observed the benefit of paraeducators working in collaboration with teachers.    Due to the inadequate state funding for schools, our district had to make cuts that directly affect student success. Paraeducators are the duct-tape that holds a school together.  Relying upon volunteers to meet needs is not equitable.
 
CON:  This bill is bad policy because it would cut the ratio of teachers in the schools.  Of the 125,000 school district employees only 50.5 percent are classroom teachers.  This bill would make the ratio of teachers even lower.  Sixty-one percent of students failed the Smarter Balance test for math and 49 percent failed the English test.  In an emergency, every available dollar should be provided to trained teachers.
 
OTHER: This bill does not decrease teacher support.  The recent report of the Education Law Center shows that Washington State is one of the few states that has a regressive education funding system because it provides higher allocation to districts with low poverty rates than it does for districts with high poverty rates.  An amendment to this bill is not complicated; it's been done before for counselors.

PRO: Marissa Rathbone, Washington State School Directors' Association; Malorie Larson, Washington State PTA; Julie Salvi, Washington Education Association; Tyler Muench, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction; Charlie Brown, South Sound Superintendents; Rick Chisa, Public School Employees of WA/SEIU 1948; Hannah Blackbourn, --None--.