Local School Enrichment Levies. Local enrichment levies can be approved by voters within a school district as a property tax for enrichment beyond the state's statutory program of basic education. Enrichment levy collections are capped for school districts at the lesser of $2.50 per $1,000 of assessed property value in the district, or $2,500 per pupil adjusted for inflation—$3,149.69 in 2024—for school districts with less than 40,000 students. School districts with 40,000 or more students, subject to a per-pupil limit, are allowed to collect up to $3,000 per pupil adjusted for inflation—$3,779.63 in 2024. The inflation measure used is the consumer price index for all urban consumers, Seattle area (Seattle CPI). 

Local Effort Assistance. The state provides additional local effort assistance (LEA) funding to school districts that would not generate an enrichment levy of at least $1,550 per student based on prior year enrollment when levying at a rate of $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value. An eligible school district's maximum LEA 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 student multiplied by the district's prior year enrollment. The $1,550 per student limit, also known as the state LEA threshold, is adjusted annually by the Seattle CPI.

Enrichment Levies. Beginning in the 2026 calendar year (CY), a school district's maximum per-pupil limit for enrichment levy purposes is increased as follows:

• the maximum per-pupil limit is increased by an inflation enhancement of $500 above Seattle CPI for all school districts in CY 2026;
• the maximum per-pupil limit is increased for school districts with fewer than 40,000 students by an inflation enhancement of 3.3 percent above Seattle CPI each year from CY 2027 to CY 2030; and
• beginning in CY 2031, the maximum per-pupil limit is $5,035 for all school districts, to be increased by Seattle CPI annually thereafter. 

Improving Equity in Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Funding. The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) is required to convene a kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) funding equity workgroup to analyze options for revising K-12 funding formulas to be responsive to students' needs, including economic, demographic, and geographic differences. The SPI is authorized to contract with higher education and public, nonpartisan research entities to support the workgroup's analysis. The SPI may determine the composition and meeting frequency of the workgroup, provided that it includes representation from education and community partners that are demographically and geographically diverse and groups representing educators, school and district administrators, labor unions, families, students, community partners who support groups disproportionately impacted by inequities, and legislators.

The workgroup's analysis must address:

• impacts of changes to per-pupil funding formulas and local revenue;
• compensation factors;
• distribution trends from the prototypical funding formulas; and
• formulas that benefit specific populations, like the Learning Assistance Program, the LEA, and small school factors.

The SPI must use the workgroup's analysis to consider options for revising school funding formulas. By November 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, the SPI must report progress and any proposed options to the fiscal and education committees of the Legislature, which must include options that address:

• system and resource inequities;
• state, local, and regional needs;
• potential adoption of student weights; and
• metrics to monitor equitable access to resources.

The statute establishing the workgroup expires December 1, 2027. 

PRO: The McCleary Supreme Court did not tell the Legislature to cut levies, it said that the state needed to fund basic education. Levies are decoupled from state funding as they are enrichment of basic education. Restoring levy authority would give every district the opportunity to benefit and everyone would have an equitable opportunity to use this tool. Without enrichment levies some programs will have to be funded privately by participants which means they will only be available to students that can pay. Increases from local levies can be used for classroom and teacher supports, increased student services, and mental health and counseling programs. The funds can also be used to avoid deep cuts and maintain current programs that families rely upon.

CON: This bill does not contain local effort assistance (LEA) provisions, effectively severing the link between local levies and LEA. The state should at least match the original LEA funding that was in the bill initially as LEA eligible districts cannot afford to ask their voters for more dollars. Of the seven levies voted on yesterday only two passed. This policy widens funding gaps and shifts burdens onto already overburdened communities. Massive tax increases will make it impossible for middle class families to afford to live and will create a two-tiered system that divides rich and poor. This will result in a lawsuit like McCleary. The state needs more basic education funding, not local levies.

OTHER: The state shouldn't be afraid to pass a bill with one funding tool for school districts just because it doesn't help all districts, because districts need all the funding tools they can get. However, there are concerns that the reduction in LEA and the proposed levy cap increase will widen the gap between property rich and property poor districts. Current levy limits and state funding have not kept up with real costs, however not all communities have the luxury to levy more.

PRO: Jodi Boe, Olympia Education Association; Regen Lorden, Bellevue Education Association; Jared Kink, Everett Education Association; Girard Thompson, Seattle Education Association/WEA; Andi Nofziger, Edmonds Education Association; Derona Uzzle, Issaquah Education Association; Chris Reykdal, Superintendent of Public Instruction.