State Funding for K-12 Education. The general apportionment formula provides foundational state funding to school districts for basic education. The amount received by each school district varies based on certain characteristics of the district, with enrollment being the largest factor. Generally, enrollment drives the number of certificated, administrative, and classified staff, and the associated salaries and benefits, allocated to the district, as well as the allocation of funds for other non-employee related costs.
State funding formulas for special education, learning assistance, highly capable, transitional bilingual, institutional education, and transportation programs all use student enrollment as a primary factor in determining allocation amounts.
Local Enrichment Levies. School districts are authorized to raise funds locally through enrichment levies, which are voter approved and limited in duration. A district's maximum enrichment levy is limited to the lesser of $2.50 per $1,000 of assessed value or the maximum per pupil limit, which is $2,500 per pupil for districts with fewer than 40,000 students and $3,000 per pupil for districts with 40,000 or more students. A school district's prior school year average annual full-time equivalent enrollment (FTE enrollment) is used for determining the maximum per pupil limit.
Local Effort Assistance. Local effort assistance (LEA), also known as levy equalization, is state funding that is provided to a school district that does not generate an enrichment levy of at least $1,550 per student when levying at a rate of $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value. An eligible school district's maximum LEA amount is the difference between the district's per pupil levy amount, based on a rate of $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value, and $1,550 per pupil, multiplied by the district's FTE enrollment. Districts that are eligible for LEA but levy below a $1.50 per $1,000 rate receive LEA in proportion to their actual levy collection. A school district's prior school year FTE enrollment is used for purposes of determining LEA eligibility and calculating maximum local effort assistance.
COVID Enrollment Stabilization Funding. The 2021 Operating Budget provided general apportionment and categorical program enrollment stabilization funds for local education agencies if FTE enrollment in the 2020-21 school year was less than the funded FTE enrollment in the 2019-20 school year. This enrollment stabilization funding was reduced by the amount of total federal funding available to the local education agency under the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER II).
Through ESHB 1476 (2021), the Legislature revised the enrichment levy formulas in the 2022 calendar year, requiring that 2019-20 enrollment be used in place of 2020-21 enrollment if the 2019-20 enrollment was greater and the district was open for in-person instruction to all students by the beginning of the 2021-22 school year.
State Funding for K-12 Education. If a local education agency's combined state revenue generated in the 2021-22 school year is less than what its combined state revenue would be using the 2019-20 annual average enrollment values and formulas in place for the 2021-22 school year, then the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction must provide proportional enrollment stabilization amounts in the 2021-22 school year.
Combined state revenue includes the amounts from the following allocations:
A local education agency's proportional enrollment stabilization amount is equal to the statewide net enrollment impact (difference in combined state revenue generated using 19-20 and 21-22 enrollment) multiplied by its local education agency low enrollment impact (difference in local education agency's combined state revenue using 19-20 enrollment and 21-22 enrollment) divided by the statewide low enrollment impact (the sum of low enrollment impacts for all local education agencies).
Local education agencies include school districts, charter schools, and state-tribal compact schools. Amounts allocated may be used for any allowable cost within any of the programs, and are not part of the state's program of basic education.
Local Enrichment Levies. The revisions to the enrichment levy formulas authorized under ESHB 1476 (2021) are extended for the 2023 and 2024 calendar year. In the 2023 calendar year, 2019-20 enrollment must be used in place of the district's 2021-22 school year enrollment if the 2019-20 enrollment was greater and the district was open for in-person instruction to all students by the beginning of the 2021-22 school year. In the 2024 calendar year, 2019-20 enrollment must be used in place of the district's 2022-23 school year enrollment if the 2019-20 enrollment was greater and the district was open for in-person instruction to all students by the beginning of the 2021-22 school year.
Local Effort Assistance. For purposes of determining LEA eligibility and calculating maximum local effort assistance in the 2022 calendar year, "prior school year" means the 2019-20 school year if the 2019-20 enrollment is greater than the 2020-21 enrollment. For purposes of determining LEA eligibility and calculating maximum local effort assistance in the 2023 calendar year, "prior school year" means the 2019-20 school year if the 2019-20 enrollment is greater than the 2021-22 enrollment.
PRO: Beginning in January, school districts will need to start returning money due to enrollment declines. Right now is not the time to be pulling resources away. Federal money may be used to hire temporary staff, but not permanent staff. Districts are worried about piecing together a team amid staffing shortages, reducing positions, increasing class sizes, and eliminating essential services. This bill will help provide continuation of service and lend stability to the staffing process. Staff have been working tirelessly throughout the pandemic in the face of great challenges, and are necessary to continue providing in-person education in a safe environment. Enrollment has declined 4 percent statewide, and sometimes drops in the middle of a school year due to new variants. These enrollment fluctuations primarily affect the K-5 grades. Skill center nursing programs are at half capacity, and losing funding would result in having to close the program which would be hard to start up again.
OTHER: Numbers show that what was destabilized was not funding but rather student learning. Emergencies are lost opportunities and students need direct public aid to hire others.
PRO: The pandemic resulted in enrollment declines and reducing funding would exacerbate funding shortfalls that already exist. ESSER funding was provided, but costs to districts exceed the amounts provided. The decline in enrollment is temporary as has been shown in dips in enrollment mid-year that relate to spikes in COVID. The annual school district budgets expected rebounds in enrollment and contracts are in place with staff already, so stabilization funding is needed. Funding the bill will provide needed support to students. Local Effort Assistance will be reduced due to the temporary enrollment drops. Declining enrollment was already anticipated and some districts are already staffed tightly. The enrollment drops are felt significantly by small districts and they need support in unforeseen times. Kids that need the support the most during these times will feel the impact the most, specifically kids enrolled in special education. Skill Centers have been impacted by declining enrollment and they need to be held whole so they don't have to close programs. Skill Centers rely on apportionment funding alone and feel the impact of declining enrollment. It is important for students to have consistency during these challenging times and reductions in staff could be disruptive to students. With the enrollment declines it is important to include the levy provision in the bill as it passes through committee.
CON: Political indoctrination of students has led to parents removing their students from schools. This is not a temporary decline and schools should be held accountable.
OTHER: The closing of schools has been damaging for students. This is reflected in the poor test scores. The state is an academic emergency and adding more funding will not solve the problem. The state should not fund empty seats in schools.