Skip to main content

Pullman Public Schools

#PROUD2bePSD!

Popular Links

  1. District
  2. Washington State’s School Funding Dilemma - FAQ

Washington State’s School Funding Dilemma - FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

  • Yes, many school districts across the state are making significant cuts to their staff, programs, and services because funding provided by the state is not enough to cover their basic education expenses. A handful of other school districts are in what is called binding conditions, meaning they cannot balance their budgets. This list of news articles (which is not all-inclusive) shows the vast number of school districts in challenging financial situations

  • The funding formula used to provide state money to schools in Washington is inadequate and does not reflect the actual needs and costs associated with running a school district. State leaders use a funding distribution “formula” that’s based on the needs of an “average school.” This one-size-fits-some solution for allocating state money to schools isn’t working because it doesn’t recognize the unique needs and costs of individual school districts with varying circumstances in all corners of the state.  There are three primary factors (along with many more) that have created budget challenges for Washington’s public schools. They include:
     
     
    1. Student needs have grown. Even before the start of the pandemic, Washington students experienced mental health disorders at a higher rate than national averages. The disruption and social isolation of the pandemic only made the problem more intense. Teachers also report that they are seeing more challenging behaviors, especially in younger students. School districts used temporary federal relief funding to fill the gap between actual student needs and what the state funds for counselors, school nurses and psychologists, academic recovery and prevention programs, and more. The temporary federal funding ended in the 23-24 school year. School districts can no longer rely on these funds to offer the academic, social, and behavioral supports our students still require.
     
     
    2. Special Education funding from the state is insufficient. Special Education is an important and necessary support and a state and federal requirement. However, the state puts a cap on the percentage of students in a district covered by state and federal special education funding. This cap means that some districts with a high percentage of students who qualify for special education have to use local levy funds. Although the Legislature raised the funding cap to 16% this year, that increase amounts to an investment of only $19.6 million for 2024-25. In the 2022-23 school year alone, special education expenses that were unfunded amounted to $529.8 million. 
     
     
    3. Higher operating costs mean actual expenses exceed state funding. The price of the things that schools need to support students has skyrocketed, but the money schools get from the state isn’t even close to catching up.
    • Food Service: The prices of food have increased dramatically in recent years. For example, milk has gone up more than 33% in the Western United States since 2018. This adds up to a big impact on school budgets across the state of Washington. SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
    • Transportation: The price of fuel has gone up 39% in the Western United States since 2018. State funding doesn’t come close to covering these costs, even before record inflation. In the 2022-23 school year alone, $80.7 million in state-wide school transportation expenses were left unfunded by the state. SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; OSPI
    • Utilities: Since 2018, the average cost of electricity in the Western United States increased by 37%. The price of natural gas for heating increased by 62%. SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
    • Insurance: Just like a homeowner or a business, local school districts must carry insurance. Since 2020, the cost of insurance for Washington’s school districts has increased by nearly 60% (through 23-24). Costs continue to increase. The state only pays for a portion of the total cost, leaving the school district to foot the bill for more than $73.7 million in 2023-24 alone. SOURCE: Insurance company invoices from all school districts across the state

  • Yes, as Washington State’s operating budget has increased, the percentage dedicated to funding K-12 education has not kept up. Five years ago (immediately following changes to the way schools are funded by the state), about 52.4% of the state’s general fund budget was dedicated to K-12 education. Now, it’s down to about 43.1%, even though it is the state’s constitutional responsibility to provide adequate funding to support basic education services. Further, Washington ranks well below the national average for investment in K-12 education as a percentage of Gross State Product (the state’s output) at 3.11%. SOURCE: OSPI

  • Both short-term help and long-term solutions are needed to fix school funding challenges in Washington State.
     
    In the short term, schools need:
    • Full funding for student support programs and staff
    • Full funding for the actual costs of special education
    • Increase funding allocations for transportation, supplies, insurance, and other school operating expenses to match actual and rising costs.
     
    the long-term: 
    • The McCleary “Solution” must be reexamined to fix some of the structural issues and develop a school funding mechanism that recognizes the unique needs and differences of Washington’s 295 school districts. One size does not fit all.

  • Understandably, our community members may have questions about the recent passage of our local levy and the fact that our school district is now making adjustments to reduce the budget shortfall. The bottom line is that our levy is a separate, local enrichment funding source, intended for enrichment opportunities. Fully funding basic education is the constitutional responsibility of the state, but unfortunately, Washington is not fulfilling its duty to fund basic education.

    • Voters approved our local levy this past February, and our district is very thankful for local support. While local tax measures are important, they are intended to fund things that “enrich” basic education, such as extracurriculars like sports, drama, and music programs.
    • Local levy dollars are very important. The levy approved by our local voters is preserving the programs that our community values but that are not considered “basic education” and therefore not funded by the state.
    • The state of Washington is supposed to fully fund “basic education,” but the state doesn’t provide enough money to schools to cover their actual basic education expenses. As a result, local levies (a separate locally levied enrichment funding source) are increasingly tapped to pay for the rising costs of things that should be paid for by the state.
     
    How schools get funding:
    Schools get funding from a few primary sources - the state and federal government, locally approved funding measures (levies and bonds), and other miscellaneous sources like grants. These funds all exist in different “accounts” and support many different things.
    • State funds are allocated based on a funding allocation formula called the Prototypical School Funding Formula, which uses an “average school” and its needs to assign funding for things that qualify as “basic education.” Basic education does not include many of the “enrichment” programs that students and communities count on, like sports, drama, choir, and band, for example.
    • Local levies and bonds are brought forward as voting measures and must be approved by local communities in order to begin collecting money for schools. Levies support education services and resources outside of what the state considers essential “basic education”. Basic education does NOT include extracurricular activities (e.g., sports, band, drama), facility updates and new school buildings, updated technology, etc.

  • While it's understandable that community members are looking for solutions to financial challenges, the elimination of the superintendent's position would not make up the funding shortfall and could make problems worse for the district.

    • The superintendent’s salary is only .01% of the overall budget. The budget challenges we face cannot be solved by eliminating one or even several positions.
    • The superintendent serves as the “CEO” of the school system and eliminating a position that is central to many important functions could destabilize our district and compromise our ability to deliver high-quality education.
    • The superintendent's role is integral to the smooth operation and strategic direction of the school district, and their expertise and leadership are essential, especially during times of financial hardship.
      • Leadership Role: The superintendent is the chief executive officer of the school district, responsible for implementing the policies set by the school board and overseeing the day-to-day operations of all schools within the district. This role is crucial for maintaining a consistent and effective educational environment across the district.
      • Expertise and Experience: Superintendents are highly qualified professionals with extensive experience in education and administration. Their expertise is vital in making informed decisions that impact the quality of education and the well-being of students and staff.
      • Compliance and Legal Responsibilities: Superintendents ensure that the district complies with all state and federal educational laws and regulations. This oversight is critical to avoid legal issues that could have significant financial and reputational consequences for the district.
      • Financial Management: One of the key roles of a superintendent is to oversee the district's budget, including resource allocation, financial planning, and ensuring fiscal responsibility. Their expertise is crucial in navigating financial challenges and ensuring that funds are used effectively to support educational goals.
      • Long-term Consequences: While cutting a high-salary position may offer short-term financial relief, it could have long-term detrimental effects on the district's ability to provide quality education. The absence of effective central leadership could lead to decreased performance, lower staff morale, and potential loss of public trust.

  • In an organization facing budget challenges the size of our school district, broad and widespread cuts are necessary to make an impact on the budget deficit. For example, that means things like the elimination of programs as a whole are needed rather than cuts to parts of a program.

    Our community continues to hold our school district accountable for the ongoing delivery of quality education to our students. This important endeavor takes the same amount of work, even if there are fewer staff to do the work.