This bill (House Bill 2142) revises existing law by replacing references to "alternative learning experiences" with the term "remote and hybrid learning" and by amending multiple RCW sections. It provides statutory definitions for remote and hybrid learning courses and related terms (including remote course, site-based course, online course, in-person, instructional contact time, and total weekly time), and it delegates rulemaking authority to the superintendent of public instruction to implement requirements for contact, progress evaluation, documentation, and coordination of student counts for funding. The bill makes procedural and fiscal changes: it authorizes school districts to claim state funding for students enrolled in remote, site-based, or online remote and hybrid learning courses (subject to applicable law), directs OSPI to calculate and allocate moneys for FTE students in such courses, and requires districts to annually report course types, offerings, student counts, and student residency to OSPI. Districts are prohibited from paying parents, guardians, students, or district employees as incentives to increase out‑of‑district enrollment. It requires districts to assess student progress at least annually (with specified assessments for full‑time and part‑time students and exemptions for certain home or private instruction), to report when nonresident students drop out, and to monitor and report costs when contracting for instructional or cocurricular experiences for remote and hybrid students. The bill also amends attendance and truancy procedures to apply in remote and hybrid settings (including notification, conference, and data collection requirements and a definition of unexcused absence that can include failure to meet remote/hybrid attendance requirements) and defines and supports "innovation academy cooperatives" that may use remote and hybrid models. The bill alters how certain state funding and facility formulas treat remote and hybrid students: it directs adjustments to local effort assistance calculations, federal forest fund apportionments, and common school construction allotments to account for remote and hybrid enrollment and permits districts to exclude or submit alternative calculations for remote and hybrid students in pupil counts for funding assistance. The text available is incomplete in places: the detailed calculation for allocating moneys under RCW 28A.232.020 is truncated, many referenced statutory cross‑sections and specific OSPI rules are not included, and no specific deadlines for OSPI rulemaking are provided in the extracted facts.

If enacted, the bill lets school districts claim state funding for students in defined remote, site-based, or online remote and hybrid courses while imposing new duties: districts must annually report course offerings and student counts to OSPI, document each student’s district of residence, assess progress at least annually, notify a student’s resident district when a nonresident drops out, and report costs when contracting for instructional or cocurricular experiences. Districts are barred from paying parents, students, or staff incentives to recruit out‑of‑district students, may buy nonconsumable instructional materials that remain district property, and must monitor contractors; OSPI is given rulemaking authority to set flexible contact and progress rules, standardize truancy procedures for remote/hybrid settings, coordinate student counting so no student is double‑counted, and will calculate and allocate state moneys for each remote/hybrid FTE (the bill’s exact funding formula text is incomplete in the provided material). The people and organizations most affected are school districts and OSPI: districts will face more reporting, contract oversight, attendance/truancy follow‑up, and possible administrative costs, and their state funding and levy or construction entitlement can shift because remote/hybrid enrollment can be counted for funding but also can be excluded or adjusted (including a remote/hybrid enrollment adjustment if remote/hybrid FTE exceeds 33%), which could reduce or reallocate local effort assistance and common school construction aid unless districts submit OSPI‑approved alternative facility‑use calculations. Some details that determine the size and direction of funding changes are missing from the text provided (notably the full funding allocation language and the timing and specifics of OSPI rule definitions), so exact budgetary impacts remain uncertain.