State Board outlines multi‑year “Future Ready” review of Washington high‑school graduation requirements

The Washington State Board of Education told the House Education Committee Monday that it is launching a multi‑year “Future Ready” initiative to review and modernize the state’s high‑school diploma framework, focusing on equity, student agency and alignment with postsecondary and workforce expectations.

The board’s executive director, Randy Spalding, said the initiative will examine the High School and Beyond Plan, the 24‑credit framework, graduation pathways and assessment practices, and will center input from students and communities that have been historically underserved. “I appreciate the opportunity to share about the board’s Future Ready initiative,” Spalding said during the committee presentation.

The board is not proposing changes at this time. Jaylee, deputy executive director of the State Board of Education, told lawmakers the presentation described “the approach and process the board is taking to review the requirements and develop thoughtful recommendations,” not a pre‑determined package of changes. She said the work will culminate in a legislative proposal for the 2027 session and any changes would be phased in to support implementation.

Why it matters: Board staff said business and education data point to a gap between what businesses increasingly require and the credentials students leave high school with. The board cited a Washington Roundtable report finding that roughly 75% of job openings in the state will require postsecondary credentials and noted that only about half of Washington high‑school graduates enroll in postsecondary education within a year — about 12 percentage points below the national average. Students and board members also described survey results and listening‑session feedback saying many students find coursework unclear or not meaningful.

What the board will review: Spalding and Jaylee outlined three broad elements tied to the diploma: (1) the High School and Beyond Plan, which now begins with a 7th‑grade interest inventory and includes periodic updates, FAFSA/WASFA supports and alignment with IEPs for eligible students; (2) the 24‑credit framework, a state requirement adopted by the Legislature in 2014 and phased in over several years (implementation dates cited included 2019 with waivers and full phase‑in by 2021); and (3) graduation pathways and assessment options used in place of a single high‑stakes test, including Smarter Balanced, SAT, ASVAB and certain dual credit or CTE options. Spalding noted that the board sets threshold scores for exam‑based pathways but does not have statutory authority to add new pathways.

Student perspectives: Two State Board student members joined the committee and described how course availability, inconsistent counseling and a lack of flexible, real‑world learning opportunities affect students’ engagement. Alex Norkson, a student board member, told lawmakers: “Our current graduation framework has a very narrow defined focus on core subjects like English, history, math, and science…restrictions include things like not having room within the credit requirements for graduation, or not having the ability to obtain credit for out‑of‑school means, like jobs or internships.” Caslo Gonzales, the other student board member, described inconsistencies in implementation of the High School and Beyond Plan and urged more frequent advising and interchangeability of pathways.

Process and timeline: The board plans a cross‑sector task force of roughly 30–40 members, subcommittees on technical topics (examples given: financial education, computer science, and implementation), and six compensated community liaisons who will conduct local listening sessions and bring community input into task‑force meetings. The board said it expects an interim report by December 2025 and aims to deliver a legislative proposal in fall 2026 for consideration in the 2027 session. The board requested modest funding to support robust stakeholder engagement and noted the initiative was included in the governor’s proposed budget.

Points of constraint and policy context: Spalding reminded legislators of the statutory foundations that shape the board’s authority — the Legislature sets the policy framework and the board sets graduation requirements and assessment scores within statutory limits; OSPI (the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction) adopts state standards. The board cited the governor’s executive order on pro‑equity/anti‑racism and the Nothing Without Us / About Us Act as part of its engagement approach. Committee members asked about the equity implications of prior assessment‑based graduation rules and how the pathways model altered those dynamics.

Requests to the Legislature: Board staff asked lawmakers to avoid introducing separate, subject‑specific requirements outside the board’s comprehensive review process while the initiative is underway, arguing that piecemeal legislative requirements could preclude a coherent, equity‑centered outcome. They also asked the Legislature to consider maintaining the modest engagement funding included in the governor’s budget.

Next steps: The board will finalize task‑force recruitment, begin meetings (the board indicated task‑force meetings will alternate months with board meetings), and advance the community‑engagement work described. Staff committed to return with updates; the committee’s chair and ranking member said they expect a follow‑up report to the House Education Committee later in the year.

Ending: The committee did not vote on any rules or legislation at the hearing. No formal motions or decisions were recorded; the presentation and question‑and‑answer period were informational and designed to solicit legislative and public input ahead of the board’s work.