Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education K12 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears K-12 funding bill that shifts monthly apportionment and reduces LEA counts for some online students
Summary
The Ways & Means Committee held a public hearing April 23 on House Bill 2,050, which would change the monthly apportionment schedule for K‑12 state funding and reduce the student count used to calculate local effort assistance (LEA) for districts with large alternative learning experience enrollments.
The Ways & Means Committee held a public hearing April 23 on House Bill 2,050, which would change the monthly apportionment schedule for K‑12 funding and alter how local effort assistance (LEA) is calculated for districts with high enrollments in alternative learning experience (ALE) programs.
Kayla Hammer, staff to the committee, told members “the bill before you is House Bill 2,050 relating to K‑twelve savings and efficiencies.” She summarized two parts: a shift in the monthly apportionment schedule across two school years and a rule reducing the student count used to calculate LEA when a district’s ALE enrollment exceeds 33 percent of average annual full‑time equivalent students.
The apportionment change reduces the February–April monthly proportions and increases the amount paid in August for the 2026 and 2027 school years, Hammer said. On LEA, she explained that if a district has more than 33 percent of its AAFTE enrolled in ALE courses, the district’s LEA‑eligible enrollment would be reduced by the number of ALE students above the 33 percent threshold. “If a school district has a total enrollment of a hundred AAFTE students and 50 of those students are enrolled in ALE, the total enrollment would be reduced to 83 students for the purposes of calculating LEA,” Hammer said.
Speakers from the superintendent’s office and districts described cash‑flow and program concerns. Tyler Munch, testifying on behalf of the state superintendent of public instruction, said the apportionment shift “disrupts district’s ability to plan and operate” and warned districts with low fund balances could be forced to borrow to meet payroll. He asked for flexibility so OSPI could determine a payment schedule if the change is adopted.
Valley School District Superintendent Mandy Raine said her district operates an in‑house ALE partnership that serves students with medical needs, severe behavioral issues or other barriers to on‑site attendance and relies on LEA money to provide interventions. “The 33% you’re considering in this bill, we stand to lose approximately $300,000,” Raine said, adding the district could face layoffs if funding is reduced.
Other district leaders and associations — including the Washington Education Association, the South Sound Superintendents and the Washington State PTA — urged caution or opposition. Testimony repeatedly urged either removal of the apportionment shift or, if the change is kept, additional short‑term funding and flexibility so districts do not have to borrow to cover payroll in fragile months.
Hammer referenced a fiscal note and summarized OSPI’s estimate that the bill produces general fund savings mostly driven by the LEA change, with an amount presented to the committee during the hearing. She also noted the apportionment timing change was estimated to net to zero over four years.
No final committee action was recorded at the hearing. The committee first suspended the five‑day notice rule to consider the bills on the agenda; that motion was moved, seconded and approved without opposition before the public testimony began.
