Educators urge committee not to cut National Board stipends; substitute bill would reduce bonuses to $3,000

The Senate Ways & Means Committee heard extensive public testimony opposing a proposed substitute to Senate Bill 5,737, which reduces annual bonuses for National Board Certified Teachers (NBCTs). Under the proposed substitute, the base NBCT annual bonus would be set at $3,000 in the 2025–26 school year and then increase with inflation in subsequent years; an additional high-poverty school bonus would also be reduced to $3,000 and indexed to inflation thereafter. Committee staff estimated the substitute would produce state savings of roughly $37.6 million in fiscal year 2027 and about $115 million across a four-year outlook.

Educators, district leaders and statewide associations testified strongly in opposition. Larry Delaney, president of the Washington Education Association, said the state has valued NBCTs for 25 years and described the certification as rigorous. Derek Sarley, representing the Washington State School Directors Association, told the committee national board stipends should not be the place to find budget savings. John Holman, superintendent of Lake Washington School District, described supporting hundreds of NBCTs in his district and asked the committee to maintain the stipend.

Multiple NBCTs and school counselors testified about the certification process and its classroom impact. Josh Peterson, an NBCT with 22 years of experience, said the certification “takes up to 400 hours beyond my teaching responsibilities” and argued that NBCTs improve student outcomes. Zenovia Clark, an NBCT in Highline Public Schools, noted that 35% of Washington NBCTs work in high-poverty schools and said reducing stipends would disproportionately harm the students who most need experienced educators.

OSPI also testified opposed; Jenny Plaja said reductions would harm a largely female profession whose salaries already trail comparable private-sector jobs. Testimony highlighted retention and pension impacts: several speakers noted the stipend is pensionable pay and that cuts would reduce retirees' pensions and could push experienced teachers toward leaving the profession or delaying retirement.

Why it matters: legislators weigh program savings against potential impacts on teacher recruitment, retention and student outcomes, particularly in high-poverty schools. Supporters of altering the stipend cited the need to identify savings in a tight budget; opponents framed the stipend as an established retention and quality measure.

What was not decided: no committee vote was recorded during the hearing. Committee staff and witnesses discussed the projected savings and the number of NBCTs affected (staff estimated approximately 7,700 certificated staff for the base bonus reduction and about 3,000 staff in high-poverty schools for the additional bonus reduction). The committee will need to reconcile budget pressures with educators' concerns about retention and pension effects.

Context and next steps: testimony shows broad union, district and educator opposition. Any change to the stipend would also affect retirement calculations and long-term career decisions; committee members asked for additional information about affected populations and fiscal offsets.