This bill amends RCW 28A.175.100, 28A.175.105, and 28A.175.115 to modify existing law governing dropout reengagement programs. It authorizes school districts to enter a model interlocal agreement with an educational service district (ESD), community or technical college, or other public entity, or to enter a model contract with a community-based organization, to provide dropout reengagement programs for eligible students. If a student’s resident district does not enter such an agreement or contract, the ESD, college, other public entity, or community-based organization may petition a different school district to enroll the eligible student under RCW 28A.225.220–28A.225.230 and enter the interlocal agreement or contract with that petitioning district. The amendments preserve districts’ existing contracting authority under RCW 28A.150.305 and 28A.320.035 and do not prevent districts from directly offering such programs. The bill defines required program elements and participant eligibility. A dropout reengagement program must include academic instruction (including preparation to earn a high school equivalency certificate per RCW 28B.50.536, academic skills instruction, and college and work readiness), credit generation applicable to a high school diploma or college credit under RCW 28B.50.535, and case management, counseling, and assistance accessing services. Academic instruction must be provided by Washington-certified teachers or community or technical college instructors with college-established credentials. If the provider is a community or technical college, eligible students must be offered the opportunity to enroll in college courses that lead to a degree or certificate and may not be charged tuition for that enrollment. The bill specifies who is an “eligible student”: a person under 21 at the start of the school year who is eligible for high school enrollment and is not accumulating sufficient credits to reasonably complete a diploma before age 21, or who is recommended by DSHS or the juvenile justice system; and who is enrolled or enrolling in the student’s resident district, an institutional education program (per RCW 28A.190.005), or a nonresident district under RCW 28A.225.220–28A.225.230. It also defines “full-time equivalent eligible student” criteria to be adopted by OSPI, requiring that FTE be based on community or technical college credits for college providers and on a minimum amount of planned programming and minimum attendance (rather than seat-time hours) for community-based organization providers. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) must adopt and amend rules to implement RCW 28A.175.100–.110 and must consult specified state and local partners (including ESDs, colleges, SBCTC, Workforce Board, DSHS, juvenile justice, and providers). Important details are not included in the extracted text: the specific content of RCW 28A.175.110 (the model interlocal agreement and model contract), the precise criteria OSPI must adopt for defining full-time equivalent eligible students, the contents and timelines for the required OSPI rules, and any effective dates, funding provisions, or other related amendments.

If enacted, the law creates a clear option for school districts to use state model agreements or contracts so educational service districts, community and technical colleges, other public entities, or community‑based organizations can run dropout reengagement programs for eligible students; it also lets those providers ask a different district to enroll the students if the resident district does not participate. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction must write the implementing rules and the model interlocal agreements and contracts, and existing district contracting authority is left intact. The groups most affected are school districts, ESDs, community and technical colleges, and community‑based organizations. Districts gain more options to outsource or partner on reengagement services but also face new administrative choices about whether to enter the model agreements; colleges must provide eligible students the opportunity to take college courses without charging tuition, which could shift costs or program responsibilities to colleges; community organizations will have enrollment counted by planned programming and attendance rather than seat time. Important details that would affect costs and funding flows — the exact model agreement language, the specific OSPI rules, and the precise full‑time equivalent criteria that could affect funding — are not provided here.