Committee debates House Bill 1450 to tighten rules for transition‑to‑kindergarten programs

House Bill 1450, a proposed statute that would revise and tighten the state's Transition to Kindergarten (TTK) program, drew a mix of support and concern during a public hearing before the House Education Committee.

Megan Morgacki, committee counsel, briefed members on differences between current law (including the 2023 bill that renamed transitional kindergarten to transition to kindergarten) and the bill before the committee. She said the bill would require OSPI to implement an application process for districts to operate or expand TTK by December 31, 2025; authorize OSPI and DCYF to coordinate site approvals; limit enrollment to certain birthdate ranges and to children without access to other high‑quality state or federal early‑learning programs; require coordinated enrollment plans and memoranda of understanding with local providers; and align program elements with ECAP performance standards and the state's quality rating system, Early Achievers.

Sponsor Chair Sharon Tomiko Santos (who introduced the bill in the House) said the bill is intended to protect Washington's mixed delivery early‑learning ecosystem as the state implements an entitlement in 2026. She said school districts have used basic‑education funding to expand TTK, sometimes without coordination, and that the bill is meant to prevent school districts from undermining private and nonprofit early‑learning providers in communities already designated as child‑care deserts. Chair Santos read legislative findings emphasizing that TTK is not intended to become part of the state program of basic education.

Testimony offered both support and opposition. Colleen Condon of the Washington Child Care Centers Association urged passage, saying uncoordinated district expansion destabilized private providers in her community and forced layoffs after her local district expanded from four to 24 TTK classrooms. She said HB 1450's site approval, application and enrollment caps would protect existing providers and promote coordinated enrollment.

Other witnesses urged caution. Julie Salvi of the Washington Education Association opposed provisions that would prevent elementary‑endorsed teachers from teaching TTK without additional training, saying the requirement duplicates preparation educators already have and could be costly and disruptive. Trina Hall, who helps implement a blended ECAP/TK model in Ferndale, described significant unfunded costs if TTK must meet all ECAP/Early Achievers requirements in a public‑school context, including paid staff time for training, mandated curriculum purchases, additional staffing ratios and administrative burdens.

District superintendents and rural representatives warned that the bill, as drafted, could reduce funding available to programs and impose new costs on small districts. Jim Kolkowsky, director of the Rural Education Center, said some language could lead to reduced funding compared with current practice and noted a statutory clause that would make the bill null and void if specific funding is not provided by June 30, 2025. James Everett, superintendent of Meridian School District, warned of a potential talent drain from community providers when districts can offer more competitive salaries and benefits.

Supporters of TTK highlighted early‑learning outcomes. An elementary principal who operates an early‑learning center said TTK has helped move some Part B preschool students (ages 3–5 eligible for special education services) into less restrictive settings: "we've been able to provide 28% of our Part B students that were age 4 eligible for TTK ... were able to move 28% of those students to the least restrictive environment," she said. A Quincy teacher reported that WA‑KIDS readiness results showed 47% of current kindergarteners ready in five to six domains versus 66% readiness among the TTK cohort.

State agencies weighed in. Allison Kreutzinger from the Department of Children, Youth and Families said DCYF sees TTK as part of a mixed delivery system that can expand access and has helped districts preserve ECAP contracts in some communities. Jenny Plaja with OSPI said the agency supports clear guidelines and local coordination but cautioned that parts of the bill add duplicative requirements that could make it difficult for districts to operate without additional funding; OSPI also noted that WA‑KIDS is the same screening tool used in ECAP and Head Start.

Other policy details raised in the hearing: - Proposed enrollment limits would prioritize children who turn 5 between Sept. 1 of the year of admission and the following Aug. 31 and would exclude children who already have access to a federal or state program that provides high‑quality early learning. (Morgacki briefed the committee on this language.) - The bill changes funding mechanics in some sections: current law bases funding on the prototypical school‑funding model while the draft bill ties some funding aspects more closely to ECAP mechanisms. - The bill directs DCYF and OSPI to build a data system using a single student identifier across state‑funded early‑learning and K‑12 programs and asks the Education Research and Data Center to collect longitudinal data on children attending TTK.

No formal vote was taken; members and witnesses indicated the bill will be revised and that the House will pursue substitutions to address concerns about unfunded mandates, certification crosswalks and coordination with community providers. Chair Santos said she expects further changes intended to protect private and nonprofit early‑learning capacity while ensuring access in early‑learning deserts.