This bill creates a new statutory duty and modifies existing laws to address chronic absenteeism and dropout reengagement. It adds a new section to chapter 28A.310 RCW requiring each educational service district, subject to appropriations, to work with the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to develop and maintain capacity to offer training and coaching for educators and district staff on early warning systems to identify and locate chronically absent students and connect them to supports. It amends RCW 28A.175.025 to direct OSPI, subject to available funds, to create a "building bridges" grant program for local partnerships to provide a statewide dropout prevention, intervention, and retrieval system. The bill changes definitions and program rules in chapter 28A.175, adding or revising definitions for "building bridges program," "dropout reengagement program," "eligible student," and beginning a definition for "full-time equivalent eligible student." It defines "chronically absent" as missing 10 percent or more of school days for any reason and lists examples of "necessary supports" that programs may provide. The building bridges program may include either a menu of supports or a set of specified components (risk identification using local predictive data including state assessments in grade four and up, coaches/mentors, staff to coordinate community partners, retrieval/reentry activities, and alternative educational programming). Grant funds may be used by community-based organizations, tribes, and community and technical colleges for family engagement, home visits, academic, economic, behavioral and physical health supports, and incentives for improved attendance. The bill makes procedural and reporting changes: OSPI, consulting with the workforce training and education coordinating board, must set grant criteria, monitor requirements, require collection and reporting of specified data elements (demographics, assessment scores, dropout and graduation rates, credentials, absenteeism/truancy, credit retrieval), encourage flexibility, disseminate successful practices, and may require alignment with the Washington school improvement framework. Selection of recipients under RCW 28A.175.135 must use a streamlined application process for proven programs. One fragment indicates that when a program provider is a community-based organization, program measurement should be based on a minimum amount of planned programming and minimum student attendance rather than hours of seat time; a parallel rule for community or technical colleges is present but the text is incomplete. Important elements are missing or incomplete in the provided text: the remainder of the "full-time equivalent eligible student" definition is truncated, the community or technical college measurement provision (subpart a) is incomplete, and appropriation amounts, detailed application procedures, award timelines, and other operational details are not included.

If enacted, educational service districts would be expected, when funded, to build and keep up training and coaching so school staff can spot students who miss 10 percent or more of school days and connect them to supports like family engagement, home visits, food, transportation, health services, and attendance incentives. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction would, subject to available funds, run a "building bridges" grant program that could pay community organizations, tribes, community and technical colleges, and local school partnerships to run early warning systems, mentors and coaches, community coordination, retrieval/reentry work, and alternative programs to prevent dropouts and reengage older students (generally age 16–20). The practical effects are likely more local programs and supports for chronically absent and at‑risk students and more administrative work for OSPI and grant recipients to collect and report demographic, assessment, graduation, dropout, attendance, and credit retrieval data; proven programs may get a faster application process. Costs and capacity increases for ESDs, OSPI, schools, and community providers depend on whether the Legislature actually appropriates money; several important details are missing or incomplete in the available text (exact funding amounts, timelines, the full definition of full‑time equivalent eligible student, and the unfinished rules for college providers), so implementation scope and timelines are uncertain.