This bill reenacts and amends RCW 28A.150.260 and changes how the state allocates basic education funding. It modifies the distribution formula (a procedural and funding allocation change), requires the governor to and allows the superintendent to recommend the formula to the legislature, and clarifies that the formula is for allocation purposes and generally does not direct districts how to spend basic education funds except where other RCW sections or federal law require. It does not create new criminal penalties. The bill requires the superintendent to publish a user-friendly, per-pupil allocation report for each district on the superintendent’s office main website and requires school districts to link to that report. The distribution formula is based on minimum staffing and nonstaff costs using prototypical schools (defined as 600 FTE for high school grades 9–12, 432 FTE for middle grades 7–8, and 400 FTE for elementary grades K–6) and adjusts allocations based on actual annual average FTE students, small school adjustments, and omnibus appropriations act factors. It specifies minimum classroom and non-classroom staffing units, class-size and instructional-hour assumptions (including laboratory science and career and technical education ratios), per-FTE materials/supplies/operating allocations for 2023–24 with annual inflation adjustments, minimum district-wide support staffing per 1,000 students, and a central administration staffing percentage. The superintendent is given rulemaking authority to implement proportional allocations for K–3 class-size funding (applying only to documented actual K–3 class sizes), for proportional allocation of certain support staff (nurses, social workers, psychologists, counselors, safety staff, parent involvement coordinators) with prioritization for staff holding specified certificates, and to require districts to use additional 2024–25 allocations to increase staffing, prevent layoffs, or increase certain salaries and to report on their use. The bill also sets allocation rules for career and technical education courses and skill centers, and specifies learning assistance program (LAP), transitional bilingual instruction program (TBIP), and highly capable program allocation formulas (including minimum extra-instruction hours and a 15-students-per-teacher assumption), provides high-poverty school tiering beginning 2026–27 with transition rules for community eligibility and no-charge meal participation for 2024–25 and 2025–26, requires biennial review of the basic education distribution formula by the governor and superintendent with legislative approval or rejection procedures, directs OSPI to define FTE students by rule (to be included in the superintendent’s biennial budget request) and makes any change to that definition subject to approval by the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees, and requires OFM to conduct a monthly review of reported FTE counts. The text excerpt is incomplete (it ends mid-sentence) and some referenced subsections, numeric table formatting, and any substantive provisions specifically expanding the learning assistance program are missing from these excerpts, so further details and full implementation mechanics are not available here.

If enacted, school funding would be distributed using standardized “prototypical” school staffing models and per-student allocations for many staff roles and operating costs, and districts would see money adjusted to their actual student counts, demonstrated K–3 class sizes, and documented ratios of support staff. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction would be required to publish and keep a user-friendly per-pupil allocation report that districts must link to, adopt rules controlling how some targeted funds are used (including prioritizing staff with appropriate certificates), and require that additional 2024–25 funds be used to add or preserve paraeducator and noninstructional positions or increase those salaries, with data collection on those uses. The groups most affected are OSPI (new reporting, rulemaking, and review duties), common school districts (changes in how much funding they receive for teachers, support staff, materials, CTE, learning assistance, bilingual and highly capable programs, and new distribution and reporting obligations), and various school staff categories who are likely to see funding tied to staffing ratios or prioritized hires. The bill creates predictable per-student and prototype-based funding but leaves key implementation details unclear in the provided text—several subsections, some numeric table formatting, and the promised learning-assistance expansion language are missing, so exact dollar amounts, staff-unit conversions, and final tiering rules cannot be confirmed from these excerpts.