project education impact washington state

Some recent highlights of our various engagements include:

Do you want to see your group on this list? Invite us to a future meeting by reaching out at [email protected].

• Good Earning Wage
• Policy Platform
• Add New Event
• Charting Our Future

Funding the Future: Achieving Equity in Washington’s K-12 Education System

• July 20, 2023

We acknowledge that many advocates across Washington State believe it is time to rethink how Washington funds public education. As an ally and advocate for education justice, we offer these recommendations for consideration in achieving equity in Washington’s K12 education system.

The policy decisions about how much we spend and how to invest and allocate that funding significantly impact the day-to-day experiences of students and their future opportunities. For all the focus on bespoke programs and nuanced policy, research shows that simple, straightforward increases in school funding levels might just matter more than anything else when it comes to long-run student outcomes in terms of higher wages and reductions in adult poverty.

Washington made significant changes to the way schools are funded in 2018, following the state Supreme Court ruling in the “McCleary” case that Washington had not been meeting its paramount duty to fully fund basic education for decades. The changes implemented by the State Legislature did result in an overall increase in state funding to education and made important progress towards leveling out funding disparities between school districts. This was real progress, but the work should not stop. Our current state funding system is still structured in a way that perpetuates funding inequities, and we should rewrite key aspects of our school funding systems to ensure that they align with our values and goals for all Washington students. 

There are four key areas in school funding policy in Washington that we believe perpetuate funding inequities across our state and should be revised:

• The type of formula used to distribute school funding.
• Consideration of student characteristics.
• Inclusion of local revenue.

Accountability Management

K-12 education formula and structure.

All states use a formula to distribute their school funding. How these formulas are structured is important as it determines whether or not equity concerns are at the center of formula considerations. In Washington, our K-12 education funding formula is called a “ resource-based ” funding model. Under this approach, the amount of money that school districts receive from the state is based on the cost of delivering education, primarily in the form of teacher and staff salaries, but also including course materials. The more common funding formula is a “ student-based ” model, in which the amount of state funding a district receives is driven by the count of students in the district. 

A robust analysis of these two funding models clearly suggests that a strong funding formula should be student-based rather than resource-based. With this method, the focus is on the individual student, and district funding is based on the unique needs and characteristics of the students in that particular district. 

In Washington, we should rewrite our prototypical school funding model to no longer be resource-based and instead adopt a weighted, student-based formula . There are two aspects to this approach:

• The formula should begin with a base amount that meaningfully reflects the costs of educating a single student and is uniform statewide. In other words, it should be sufficient to cover the per-student share of competitive teacher salaries, materials, support services, technology, etc.
• The base amount should be adjusted upwards, i.e., “weighted,” for students from low-income families, English language learners, and students with disabilities.

Consideration of Student Characteristics

After the funding formula type and structure, the next big consideration is how Washington’s education funding system should provide additional resources to districts to support students from low-income families, English language learners, and students with disabilities. In Washington, our current funding model does, in fact, provide increased funding for English language learners and students with disabilities.  And increased funding for districts with higher concentrations of low-income students. But because our education funding formula is resource-based rather than student-based, we don’t have the ability to apply a straightforward weighting to the per-pupil base amount. 

In Washington, we should change the way we meet the needs of students from low-income families, English language learners, and students with disabilities and apply simple and generous weights to the base funding amount for every student in a district that falls in one of these categories . If a student is an English language learner from a low-income household, the weighting should reflect the full value of both weights. 

But how much more funding should be provided to serve students from these groups adequately? One study estimated that school funding systems should provide 2 to 3 times as much funding for students with additional needs than those without. That would be a big price tag, but policymakers should not dismiss the research and should set the following long-term student-based funding goals for Washington:

• We should aim to provide 100% to 200% more funding for students from low-income households than for students from higher-income families.
• We should target 100% to 150% more per-student funding for English language learners.
• Additional funding to support students with disabilities should be based on their unique needs. Washington’s current special education funding approach provides the same amount of funding for each student with disabilities, regardless of varied conditions and diagnoses. Instead, we should adopt a multiple-weight system to provide funding for students receiving special education services. Students ought to be assigned to different tiers based on their diagnoses and the associated instructional costs.

Local Revenue

In most states, including Washington, education funding includes a combination of state and local dollars. Most states have a local share policy, in which the state first establishes a funding formula and then dictates responsibility for fulfilling each district’s formula amount between the state and the school district. 

In Washington, our formula amount is fully funded at the state level, but local districts can raise and keep supplemental revenue through property tax levies. There is a cap on how much local districts can add to their revenues through levies. Despite efforts to address funding inequities , a district’s ability to pass local funding levies still drives disparities across Washington.

It does not need to be this way. The state of Vermont funds its schools entirely out of state revenue. When all education dollars are pooled at the state level, the state has the greatest ability to ensure that funding is equitable and that students’ resources are not dependent on the wealth of the local community. 

In Washington, we should levy a designated education tax—a state property tax, the proceeds of which are collected in a state education fund that is used to fund all districts, and districts should not be allowed to raise local revenues. This full pooling of education dollars at the state level completely cuts the tie between funding amounts and local wealth levels, providing for funding equity without complicated systems for transferring local dollars between districts.

While the McCleary decision invested more resources into Washington’s public education system, disparities, particularly among English language learners, those living in poverty, and students with disabilities, have remained relatively the same or worsened. This indicates that little to no change is being made with increased funding, and we believe it is partly due to the lack of accountability and transparency for the resources allocated to districts.

Lacking an accountability management system will continue to prevent Washington from realizing true equity in the state’s education system. To position Washington State as a national leader in education achievement and enable conditions for economic mobility, we must consider how we hold ourselves accountable to the resources that fund our schools. We should:

• Be transparent about system design and monitor funding going to districts and the aligned success measures tied to funding.
• Show clear and transparent data on how much funding schools receive yearly and align success measures over time. 

As we’ve laid out here, reforming our K-12 education funding model is important on a substantive level in order to address short-term school district budget challenges, and the deeper the inequities that are baked into the system. But we would also say that funding reform would be politically smart for state leaders to prioritize. From a purely political standpoint, it’s a bad look for Washington State that we put more money into the schools in our wealthiest areas. 

Bold K-12 education funding reform could help Washington be a state that offers pathways to high-paying jobs and long-term economic stability, and generate a stream of good news stories about rising education outcomes. This would be great primarily because it’s a good idea on the merits, but it would also give state elected officials the opportunity to tout how they have passed some good laws that will make substantial improvements to our K-12 education system.

Friday Forums | Resources Mentioned on Funding Relief, Part I

Collaborative Action Network’s Virtually Convene

Tacoma Teens Win Regional Apollo Landing Challenge

THANK YOU TO OUR GENEROUS SPONSORS

© 2024 All rights reserved​

Professional Learning Network

Inclusionary practices.

AESD Inclusionary Practices (IP) supports coordinated professional learning for school leadership teams. Its purpose is to support educators and school leaders with developing and implementing sustainable systems, structures, and practices that support all students with meaningful access and engagement in inclusive learning environments.

IP Home   |  Statewide Support   |  School Leadership Teams   |  OSPI IPTN Partnership   |  News & Tips

Inclusion in the classroom

Currently, Washington is one of the nation’s least inclusive states, ranking 44 out of 50 for inclusivity. Inclusion is the belief and practice that all students have the right to meaningfully access academic and social opportunities in general education settings. It’s also a vision and philosophy based on the fundamental belief that all children are competent, capable, and should be held to high expectations.

Students with disabilities, especially those with an individual education plan (IEP) are often excluded from core instruction.

AESD’s Inclusionary Practices (IP) seeks to address educational inequities experienced by students with an IEP by supporting professional learning for school leadership teams that focus on creating more inclusive education environments using the lens of Universal Design for Learning (UDL).

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Results 2019-2022

More students in general ed classrooms for more time.

More effective teacher instruction.

Improved student engagement & increased opportunity for social/emotional skill building.

Increased statewide support for inclusive practices.

What we’re doing.

Regional coordinators provide professional learning, coaching and implementation support for leadership teams, using the framework of Universal Design for Learning (UDL).

In partnership with Novak Educational Consulting, national experts in UDL, the regional coordinators can share access to over 180 clock hours of professional learning, providing options and choices that best meet the learning needs of school teams across the state. The courses highlight key elements necessary to improving inclusionary practices and implementing Universal Design for Learning.

Inclusionary Practices Toolkit

AESD is working closely with AWSP and WASA to develop an Inclusionary Practices Toolkit for school and district leaders across the state of Washington. We encourage you to check back frequently as tools will be continually added.

Visit Toolkit >

OSPI Inclusionary Practices Technical Assistance Network website

Mtss inclusionary practices community of practice sessions at a glance.

AESD IP Coordinators worked closely with MTSS Regional Implementation Coordinators to design and deliver a community of practice to network and support school leaders in identifying and implementing Tier 1 non-negotiables in inclusive settings. Explore the professional learning materials by session to find new resources, ideas, and guidance for improving the accessibility and effectiveness of Tier 1 instruction.

Regional Coordinators

AESD Network Inclusionary Practices is supported by a group of dedicated ESD leaders committed to a more inclusive future. If your district is interested in participating, or for more information, please contact your regional coordinator or Cassie Stevens , Project Director.

Lindsay Hicks-Frazer

Kathleen Lenihan

Gahlya Auel

Jenny Parker

Mary Waldron

Kelley Correio

Cassie Stevens

Two Locations, One Quality Program

Summit West October 16-18 | SeaTac, WA

Summit East October 17-19 | Spokane, WA

Join us for three transformative days at the AI Innovation Summit, where district and building teams will explore the power of artificial intelligence in K-12 education.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

About The Road Map Project

In pursuit of more equitable systems

Addressing systemic barriers to racial equity. Amplifying community voice. Building stronger systems. These actions are the cornerstone of our work.

The Road Map Project is a collective impact initiative to boost student success from early learning to college and career in seven King County, Washington school districts: Auburn, Federal Way, Highline, Kent, Renton, (South) Seattle, and Tukwila. Together, this region is home to more than 127,000 K-12 students.

Our multisector partnership is comprised of hundreds of individuals and organizations: school districts, postsecondary education institutions, community-based organizations, businesses, government agencies, teachers and parents, students and youth, and many more.

Learn more about why we do this work ,   how we work together , and read our Theory of Change .

Our vision & values

We want every child and youth in South King County and South Seattle, particularly those who are low-income or of color, to thrive in their education, communities and life. The Road Map Project core values guide our approach to the work and help us hold ourselves accountable to children, youth and families.

We believe in greater access to opportunities, power and, resources so that every child can reach their full potential, with a focus on populations that have historically been furthest from opportunity.

We believe in providing every child and youth access to the experiences, resources, and support that allow them to flourish.

We believe in creating environments that are welcoming and respectful to every child and youth, and reflect the changing demographics of our region.

We believe in the wisdom and common ground gained through shared experience. We seek out the perspectives and voices of the many communities in our region so community aspirations guide the work.

We believe in moving society and systems toward fairness, compassion, and greater respect for human dignity. We address the root causes of educational inequities not just manifestations by dismantling individual, structural, and institutionalized racism.

We believe that by working together, greater outcomes will be achieved than what is possible when individuals, organizations, or systems work alone. Building community trust and strong relationships, and valuing a diversity of perspectives are central to this work.

We believe that in collective impact work, assuming responsibility for the results and impacts of our action or inaction is critical in order to change system performance for the benefit of children and youth.

We believe in being open and honest about how, why and by whom decisions are made, including decisions involving policies and resources.

By 2020 , we will increase equitable policies and practices in our education systems and dramatically improve outcomes for children and youth, from cradle through college and career; so that:

By 2030 , we will eliminate the opportunity and achievement gaps impacting students of color and low-income children in South King County and South Seattle, and 70 percent of the region’s youth will earn a college degree or career credential.

Our history

Data show discipline practices and disparities in the Road Map Project region

Suspensions and expulsions in our region have declined since 2010, but students of color are still more likely to receive such disciplinary actions. This brief points to data coding alignment as a barrier to helping us understand what’s happening in schools.

Family Engagement Institute draws more than 250 attendees

The 2018 Road Map Project Family Engagement Institute was a powerful opportunity for parent leaders, school and district teams, and community partners to connect and build stronger family engagement practices across the Road Map Project region.

Practitioners get resources to create equity-based learning environments

Youth Development Executives of King County organized the Social and Emotional Learning Symposium for Road Map Project region practitioners and system leaders.  YDEKC also released a landscape scan that shows what systems and structures are in place to support whole child outcomes in each of the Road Map Project school districts.

Open Doors Improvement Network for reengagement program staff launches

The Open Doors Improvement Network supports teams that include reengagement program staff, educators, and students to strengthen capacity and improve outcomes for youth disconnected from school and work.

Community Leadership Team continues to build network power

The Community Leadership Team  spent its first year together creating work plans, developing a shared purpose, and building relationships. The team hosted a community celebration at the end of DiscoverU week to create access and raise awareness around college and career pathways for our youth of color.

'College Promise' programs gain momentum

The Puget Sound Coalition for College & Career Readiness  has been working on a proposal for a King County Promise program, which would help historically underserved students access and succeed in college. Coalition members were also involved in the expansion of the Seattle Promise program. Read what two members have to say about the importance of community and technical colleges in light of the new To and Through report.

Speak Your Language campaign welcomes inaugural team of community language organizers

Community language organizers are part of the  Speak Your Language campaign’s work to expand the positive message and availability of dual language learning and bilingualism in South King County. The community leaders are developing their own base of leaders in their schools and school districts.

Road Map Project moves forward with new strategic direction

Out of the “refresh” discussions, the Road Map Project moves forward with new ways of working, including the formation of a Community Leadership Team; the development of System-Wide Racial Equity Essentials ; and updated vision, values, and goals.

Updated Road Map Project goals announced

The Road Map Project announced new goals in the 2016 Results Report : By 2020, we will increase equitable policies and practices in our education systems so that by 2030, 70 percent of our students will earn a college degree or career credential and opportunity gaps by race and income will close.

Historic dual language bill passes

For years, Road Map Project partner OneAmerica, our English Language Learner Work Group , and other ELL advocates worked to push state lawmakers to pass state House Bill 1445. They succeeded in 2017. The bill expands funding and capacity for dual language programs in early learning through high school.

Region unites for action, hosts Forum for Black Student Success

With few local spaces for those working with Black youth to connect, align, and collaborate, the Forum for Black Student Success was held to serve this purpose. The program was designed by students, parents, and the Black Student Success advisors. More than 200 people attended.

College & Career Leadership Institute kicks off

In its first year, the College & Career Leadership Institute worked with 12 high schools serving more than 16,000 Road Map Project region students. The institute collaborates with educators—including, teachers, guidance counselors, and administrators—to make system improvements so low-income students and youth of color are better supported to pursue their college and career plans.

Inaugural Community Leadership Team meet

The first Community Leadership Team, comprised of 13 leaders who strive to improve educational and economic equity for local youth, is formed. The group provides visionary leadership and community accountability as the region works to achieve Road Map Project goals.

Speak Your Language campaign launches

Formally known as the Home Language Campaign, the English Language Learner Work Group and Road Map Project partner OneAmerica refreshes the effort as  Speak Your Language .

Start With Us shares Black youth’s experiences in our schools

Start With Us   examines systemic issues that affect the educational experience of Black youth in South King County and South Seattle. Students share what they need from the education system serving them.  

Reengagement system expands to 16 programs serving nearly 3,000 opportunity youth

Opportunity youth have more options because of K-12 Open Doors program expansion. The King County Reengagement Provider Network has developed systems for shared outreach, common metrics, and professional learning.

The Road Map Project hits “refresh” button

While the Road Map Project has made some progress to improve education outcomes, the partnership acknowledges the region is not on track to reach its 2020 goal of doubling the number of students who graduate from college or earn a career credential. Nor was it close to closing opportunity gaps for youth of color and low-income students. Project partnership begin strategic planning to determine the work moving forward.

Reconnect to Opportunity helps link youth with education and careers

Also known as ReOpp , this outreach effort was developed by the Opportunity Youth Advisory Group with the King County Youth Advisory Council. ReOpp harnesses the power of peers to find, empower, and connect young people with education, employment, and postsecondary training opportunities.

Celebration of Success recognizes education efforts

The Road Map Project and partner Puget Sound Educational Service District hosted a celebration for 30 successful education efforts in the South King County and South Seattle region.

School District Family Engagement Leaders begin to collaborate

School district staff working on family engagement officially formed as a professional learning community to build the capacity of district staff to improve family engagement in schools.

Region hosts Family Engagement Institute

Inspired by Harvard programming, family engagement school district leaders and other Road Map Project partners held the region’s first-ever Family Engagement Institute for educators, parents, community leaders, funders, and school board members.

High schoolers explore careers by visiting local employers

A new partnership with Challenge Seattle gives hundreds of students access to some of the region’s most well-known employers.

Report examines success at local community and technical colleges

The Community Center for Education Results, the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, and postsecondary education partners publish a report looking at outcomes for the region’s youth who attend local community colleges.

First social and emotional learning symposium held

Youth Development Executives of King County hosts a first-of-its-kind symposium on social and emotional learning in the Road Map Project region.

Youth development work group reorganizes

The Youth Development Organizations for Education Results Work Group reorganizes into two action teams: Social and Emotional Learning and Expanded Learning Opportunities .

Road Map Project school districts reach graduation rate milestone

For the first time, all Road Map Project region school districts have on-time (four-year) high school graduation rates of 70 percent or more .

Second family engagement cohort goes to Harvard

About 60 Road Map Project region leaders attend Harvard University’s Family Engagement in Education: Creating Effective Home and School Partnerships for Student Success.

Road Map Project endorses Best Starts for Kids initiative

Best Starts for Kids , which ended up passing later in the year, is an initiative to improve the health and well-being of King County residents by investing in prevention and early intervention for children, youth, families and community.

Regional leaders form Cradle Through College Coalition

Leaders from early learning, K-12, postsecondary education, and youth and family services organizations band together to advocate for a cradle-through-college state investment strategy. This coalition is also known as C2C .

YDEKC launches School & Community Partnerships resource

This repository by Youth Development Executives of King County offers research briefs, tip sheets, and other practical tools on topics related to cross-sector collaboration to support student success.

Data Dashboard unveiled

The regional Data Dashboard launches and provides the self-service data on the school and district level, beyond what’s published in the Project’s annual Results Reports .

King County Reengagement Provider Network kicks off

The network brings together reengagement providers on a monthly basis to coordinate efforts to help youth return to school or find employment opportunities. King County Employment and Education Resources joins in 2016 as official cosponsor of the network.

Hundreds of students rally in Olympia for financial aid

Road Map Project partners organized an advocacy day at the Washington State Capitol Building, calling for lawmakers to increase funding for the College Bound Scholarship and State Need Grant. This event was a building block for the eventual expansion of the State Need Grant in 2018.

Road Map Project Awards honors regional work

The ceremony at the Museum of Flight celebrates work in South Seattle and South King County to advance equity and close student opportunity gaps.

Vroom pilots in Road Map Project region

Vroom , which offers resources and learning tips for parents and caregivers of children five and under, is first offered in South Seattle and South King County.

Data warehouse developed

The Community Center for Education Results develops an education data warehouse to aggregate information from multiple sources.

Juneteeth event lays foundation for Black student success work

Road Map Project partners and Black-led organizations co-hosted a Juneteenth lunch, where more than 100 participants honored the holiday’s legacy and examined the current state of education for the region’s Black children.

Rapid Resource Fund begins grants

Members of the Aligned Funders group  create a pooled resource to provide timely investments in regional work.

Record 96% low-income students sign up for College Bound

A record 96 percent of students from low-income families enroll in the state’s College Bound Scholarship.

First cohort attends Harvard family engagement program

More than 40 Road Map Project region leaders attend Harvard University’s Family Engagement in Education: Creating Effective Home and School Partnerships for Student Success.

Opportunity Youth Advisory Group launches

This multisector action team works to improve outcomes for 16- to 24-year-olds who have not completed a high school or college credential and are not employed.

Washington state lawmakers pass Seal of Biliteracy Legislation

The English Language Learner Work Group played a key role in advocating for the Seal of Biliteracy Bill, which strengthens systematic support and positive recognition of bilingual students statewide.

King County Reengagement Provider Network begins meeting

This network brings together reengagement providers on a monthly basis to coordinate efforts to help youth return to school or find employment opportunities. King County Employment and Education Resources joins in 2016 as official cosponsor of the network.

Seattle and Green River school boards endorse Road Map Project

Seattle Public Schools School Board and the Green River Community College Board of Trustees pass resolutions supporting the Road Map Project.

Hundreds of parents and community members attend Parent Forum

The Road Map Project Parent Forum draws more than 850 parents and community members to Tukwila’s Foster High School for a day of workshops, talks, and a resource fair.

DiscoverU kicks off

DiscoverU begins as a day of college and career exploration for our K-12 students. It’s now an annual weeklong event with participants all over the Puget Sound region.

Aspen Institute invites region to join the Opportunity Youth Incentive Fund

The Community Center for Education Results and other Road Map Project partners become part of a consortium of collective impact strategies to reengage young adults who are disconnected from school and work.

Road Map Project region wins ‘All America Cities’ title

Seattle and seven South King County cities are named All-America Cities by the National Civic League and the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading for its ambitious plan to ensure more children are reading by third grade.

Six school districts endorse the Road Map Project

The school boards of Auburn, Federal Way, Highline, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila pass resolutions in support of the Road Map Project.

Region’s school districts awarded $40 million grant

The Road Map Project’s seven school districts teamed up to apply for, and was granted , $40 million in federal Race to the Top funds. The Puget Sound Educational Service District becomes the fiscal agent and manager of the seven-district consortium.

First Results Report published

The Road Map Project released the first in a series of annual reports showing regional work and progress toward its goal.

Social impact firm coins ‘collective impact’

FSG writes about the concept “ collective impact ,” which first appears in the Stanford Social Innovation Review : “large-scale social change requires broad cross-sector collaboration.” The concept of collective impact is fundamental to the Road Map Project.

Road Map Project action teams form

The following groups begin to meet and develop action plans to advise the Road Map Project: Birth to Third Grade, High School to College Completion, Data Advisors, Youth Development Organizations for Education Results, and English Language Learners. The groups are staffed by partners Community Center for Education Results, OneAmerica and Youth Development Executives of King County.  Other project-wide groups begin meeting, including the Project Sponsors, Aligned Funders and Community Network.

91% of eligible youth sign up for College Bound

The Road Map Project leads a coordinated campaign with its seven school districts to boost participation in the College Bound Scholarship. A record 91 percent of eligible eighth graders signed up, compared with 74 percent the previous year.

Data sharing agreements signed

All seven school districts plus the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction enter a partnership to share data to help the Road Map Project track regional progress.

Baseline report shows troubling state of education

The Road Map Project Baseline Report shows only 24 percent of South Seattle and South King County high school graduates are earning a college degree or career credential.

CCER forms as a nonprofit

The Community Center for Education Results is founded to staff the Road Map Project initiative. The Seattle Foundation supports the start-up phase acting as the organization’s fiscal sponsor and incubator. Mobilization and outreach begins.

Education Results Networking meetings start off

An early group of Road Map Project stakeholders, the Education Results Network (now Education Results Networking Meeting), met throughout 2010 to determine Project vision and goals. Harlem Children Zone’s Geoffrey Canada attended the November meeting as a keynote speaker.

Indicators of Student Success selected

Action teams develop the Indicators of Student Success, a common set of measures to track how the region is progressing on a range of student outcomes.

Partners determine 2020 goal

Road Map Project partners establish the original goal: Close achievement gaps and double the number of students in South Seattle and South King County who are on track to graduate from college or earn a career credential by 2020.

Road Map Project formally launches

More than 500 regional community and education leaders attend the Road Map Project kick off conference.

Project 2025 and education: A lot of bad ideas, some more actionable than others

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, rachel m. perera , rachel m. perera fellow - governance studies , brown center on education policy jon valant , and jon valant director - brown center on education policy , senior fellow - governance studies katharine meyer katharine meyer fellow - governance studies , brown center on education policy.

August 12, 2024

• Project 2025 is rife with bad ideas that, if enacted, would inflict harm on students and schools across the country.
• Many proposals would require an unlikely degree of cooperation from Congress, though others could be enacted unilaterally by a second Trump administration.
• Parts of Project 2025 are more closely aligned with a white Christian nationalist worldview than a traditional, conservative education policy agenda.

Project 2025 outlines a radical policy agenda that would dramatically reshape the federal government. The report was spearheaded by the right-wing Heritage Foundation and represents the policy aims of a large coalition of conservative activists. While former President Trump has attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, many of the report’s authors worked in the previous Trump administration and could return for a second round. Trump, himself, said in 2022 , “This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do.”

In other words, Project 2025 warrants a close look, even if the Trump campaign would like Americans to avert their gaze.

Project 2025’s education agenda proposes a drastic overhaul of federal education policy, from early childhood through higher education. Here’s just a sample of the Project 2025 education-related recommendations:

• Dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
• Eliminate the Head Start program for young children in poverty
• Discontinue the Title I program that provides federal funding to schools serving low-income children
• Rescind federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students
• Undercut federal capacity to enforce civil rights law
• Reduce federal funding for students with disabilities and remove guardrails designed to ensure these children are adequately served by schools
• Promote universal private school choice
• Privatize the federal student loan portfolio

It’s an outrageous list, and that’s just the start of it.

More from Election '24

Katharine Meyer, Rachel M. Perera, Michael Hansen

April 9, 2024

Roxana Muenster

July 22, 2024

William A. Galston, Jon Valant, Chinasa T. Okolo, E.J. Dionne, Jr., Bill Baer

March 6, 2024

We’ve reviewed the Project 2025 chapter on education (Chapter 11), along with other chapters with implications for students. We’ve come away with four main observations:

1. Most of the major policy proposals in Project 2025 would require an unlikely amount of congressional cooperation

Project 2025 is presented as a to-do list for an incoming Trump administration. However, most of its big-ticket education items would require a great deal of cooperation from Congress.

Proposals to create controversial, new laws or programs would require majority support in the House and, very likely, a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in the Senate. Ideas like a Parents’ Bill of Rights, the Department of Education Reorganization Act, and a federal tax-credit scholarship program fall into this category. Even if Republicans outperform expectations in this fall’s Senate races , they’d have to attract several Democratic votes to get to 60. That’s not happening for these types of proposals.  

The same goes for major changes to existing legislation. This includes, for example, a proposal to convert funding associated with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to no-strings-attached block grants and education savings accounts (with, presumably, much less accountability for spending those funds appropriately). It also includes a proposal to end the “ negotiated rulemaking ” (“neg-reg”) process that ED follows when developing regulations related to programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The neg-reg requirement is written into HEA itself, which means that unwinding neg-reg would require Congress to amend the HEA. That’s unlikely given that HEA reauthorization is already more than a decade overdue—and that’s without the political baggage of Project 2025 weighing down the process.

The prospect of changing funding levels for existing programs is a little more complicated. Programs like Title I are permanently authorized. Eliminating Title I or changing the formulas it uses to allocate funds to local educational agencies would require new and unlikely legislation. Year-to-year funding levels can and do change , but the vast majority of ED’s budget consists of discretionary funding that’s provided through the regular, annual appropriations process and subject to a filibuster. This limits the ability of one party to make major, unilateral changes. (ED’s mandatory funding is more vulnerable.)

In sum, one limiting factor on what an incoming Trump administration could realistically enact from Project 2025 is that many of these proposals are too unpopular with Democrats to overcome their legislative hurdles.

2. Some Project 2025 proposals would disproportionately harm conservative, rural areas and likely encounter Republican opposition

Another limiting factor is that some of Project 2025’s most substantive proposals probably wouldn’t be all that popular with Republicans either.

Let’s take, for example, the proposed sunsetting of the Title I program. Project 2025 proposes to phase out federal spending on Title I over a 10-year period, with states left to decide whether and how to continue that funding. It justifies this with misleading suggestions that persistent test score gaps between wealthy and poor students indicate that investments like Title I funding aren’t paying off. (In fact, evidence from school finance reforms suggests real benefits from education spending, especially for students from low-income families.)

The phrase “Title I schools” might conjure up images of under-resourced schools in urban areas that predominantly serve students of color, and it’s true that these schools are major beneficiaries of Title I. However, many types of schools, across many types of communities, receive critical support through Title I. In fact, schools in Republican-leaning areas could be hit the hardest by major cuts or changes to Title I. In the map below, we show the share of total per-pupil funding coming from Title I by state. Note that many of the states that rely the most on Title I funds (darkest blue) are politically conservative.

Of course, the impact of shifting from federal to state control of Title I would depend on how states choose to handle their newfound decision-making power. Given that several red states are among the lowest spenders on education —and have skimped on programs like Summer EBT and Medicaid expansion —it’s hard to believe that low-income students in red states would benefit from a shift to state control.

What does that mean for the type of support that Project 2025 proposals might get from red-state Republicans in Congress? It’s hard to know. It’s worth keeping in mind, though, that the GOP’s push for universal private school voucher programs has encountered some of its fiercest resistance from rural Republicans across several states .

3. Project 2025 also has significant proposals that a second Trump administration could enact unilaterally

While a second Trump administration couldn’t enact everything outlined in Project 2025 even if it wanted to, several consequential proposals wouldn’t require cooperation from Congress. This includes some actions that ED took during the first Trump administration and certainly could take again.

Here are a few of the Project 2025 proposals that the Trump administration could enact with the authority of the executive branch alone:

• Roll back civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students
• Roll back Title IX protections against sex-based discrimination
• Dismantle the federal civil rights enforcement apparatus
• Eliminate current income-driven repayment plans and require higher monthly payments for low-income borrowers
• Remove protections from predatory colleges that leave students with excessive debt

Federal education policy has suffered from regulatory whiplash over the last decade, with presidential administrations launching counter-regulations to undo the executive actions of the prior administration. Take, for example, “gainful employment” regulations that Democratic administrations have used to limit eligibility for federal financial aid for colleges that leave students with excessive loan debt. A second Trump administration would likely seek to reverse the Biden administration’s “gainful employment” regulations like the first Trump administration did to the Obama administration’s rules . (Then again, with the Supreme Court striking down Chevron , which provided deference to agency expertise in setting regulations, the Trump administration might not even need to formally undo regulations.)

Other Project 2025 proposals, not explicitly about education, also could wreak havoc. This includes a major overhaul of the federal civil service. Specifically, Project 2025 seeks to reinstate Schedule F, an executive order that Trump signed during his final weeks in office. Schedule F would reclassify thousands of civil service positions in the federal government to policy roles—a shift that would empower the president to fire civil servants and fill their positions with political appointees. Much has been written about the consequences of decimating the civil service, and the U.S. Department of Education, along with other federal agencies that serve students, would feel its effects.

4. Project 2025 reflects a white Christian nationalist agenda as much as it reflects a traditional conservative education policy agenda

If one were to read Project 2025’s appeals to principles such as local control and parental choice, they might think this is a standard conservative agenda for education policy. Republicans, after all, have been calling for the dismantling of ED since the Reagan administration, and every administration since has supported some types of school choice reforms.

But in many ways, Project 2025’s proposals really don’t look conservative at all. For example, a large-scale, tax-credit scholarship program would substantially increase the federal government’s role in K-12 education. A Parents’ Bill of Rights would require the construction of a massive federal oversight and enforcement function that does not currently exist. And a proposal that “states should require schools to post classroom materials online to provide maximum transparency to parents” would impose an enormous compliance burden on schools, districts, and teachers.

Much of Project 2025 is more easily interpretable through the lens of white Christian nationalism than traditional political conservatism. Scholars Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry describe white Christian nationalism as being “about ethno-traditionalism and protecting the freedoms of a very narrowly defined ‘us’.” The Project 2025 chapter on education is loaded with proposals fitting this description. That includes a stunning number of proposals focused on gender identity, with transgender students as a frequent target. Project 2025 seeks to secure rights for certain people (e.g., parents who support a particular vision of parental rights) while removing protections for many others (e.g., LGBTQ+ and racially minoritized children). Case in point, its proposal for “Safeguarding civil rights” says only, “Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.”

These types of proposals don’t come from the traditional conservative playbook for education policy reform. They come from a white Christian nationalist playbook that has gained prominence in far-right politics in recent years.

At this point, it’s clear that the Trump campaign sees Project 2025 as a political liability that requires distance through the election season. Let’s not confuse that with what might happen during a second Trump administration.

Related Content

Douglas N. Harris, Michael Hansen, Katharine Meyer, Rachel M. Perera, Jon Valant, Kenneth K. Wong

December 19, 2023

Katharine Meyer

December 18, 2023

The authors thank Rosalia Dalton for her research assistance.

Early Childhood Education Education Access & Equity Education Policy Higher Education K-12 Education

Congress Political Parties Political Polarization Presidency

Governance Studies

U.S. States and Territories

Brown Center on Education Policy

Election ’24: Issues at Stake

Online Only

11:00 am - 12:30 pm EST

Joshua Cowen

September 1, 2022

August 29, 2022

• Israel-Gaza War
• War in Ukraine
• US Election
• US & Canada
• UK Politics
• N. Ireland Politics
• Scotland Politics
• Wales Politics
• Latin America
• Middle East
• In Pictures
• Executive Lounge
• Technology of Business
• Women at the Helm
• Future of Business
• Science & Health
• Artificial Intelligence
• AI v the Mind
• Film & TV
• Art & Design
• Entertainment News
• Destinations
• Australia and Pacific
• Caribbean & Bermuda
• Central America
• North America
• South America
• World’s Table
• Culture & Experiences
• The SpeciaList
• Natural Wonders
• Weather & Science
• Climate Solutions
• Sustainable Business
• Green Living

Project 2025: A wish list for a Trump presidency, explained

It is billed as a policy "wish list" for the next Republican president that would vastly expand presidential powers and impose an ultra-conservative social vision on the US.

Donald Trump has disavowed the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 document, though many of its authors worked for his previous administration.

Links between the Trump campaign and Project 2025 have been highlighted by the former president's critics, and this attack line will likely continue at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago this month.

Here's your guide to what the document contains.

Who wrote Project 2025?

It is common for Washington think tanks of all political stripes to propose policy wish lists for potential governments-in-waiting.

The conservative Heritage Foundation first produced policy plans for future Republican administrations in 1981, when Ronald Reagan was about to take office.

It has produced similar documents in connection with subsequent presidential elections, including in 2016, when Trump won the presidency.

A year into his term, the think tank boasted that the Trump White House had adopted nearly two-thirds of its proposals.

The Project 2025 report was unveiled in April 2023, but liberal opposition to the document has ramped up now that Trump has extended his polling lead.

The Republican nominee himself has distanced himself from the proposal.

"I know nothing about Project 2025," he posted on his social media website, Truth Social. "I have no idea who is behind it.

"I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."

But the team that created the project is chock-full of former Trump advisers, including director Paul Dans, who was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management while Trump was president.

Mr Dans left the project in late July, clearing the way for Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts to take over. He said he was leaving during the presidential election season in order to "direct all my efforts to winning, bigly".

Russell Vought, another former Trump administration official, wrote a key chapter in the document and also serves as the Republican National Committee’s 2024 platform policy director.

More than 100 conservative organisations contributed to the document, Heritage says, including many that would be hugely influential in Washington if Republicans took back the White House.

The Project 2025 document sets out four main policy aims: restore the family as the centrepiece of American life; dismantle the administrative state; defend the nation's sovereignty and borders; and secure God-given individual rights to live freely.

Here's an outline of several of its key proposals.

Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies such as the Department of Justice, be placed under direct presidential control - a controversial idea known as "unitary executive theory".

In practice, that would streamline decision-making, allowing the president to directly implement policies in a number of areas.

The proposals also call for eliminating job protections for thousands of government employees, who could then be replaced by political appointees.

The document labels the FBI a "bloated, arrogant, increasingly lawless organization". It calls for drastic overhauls of this and several other federal agencies, as well as the complete elimination of the Department of Education.

What does the Republican party platform say?

The party platform includes a proposal to "declassify government records, root out wrongdoers, and fire corrupt employees", pledges to slash regulation and government spending. But it stops short of proposing a sweeping overhaul of federal agencies as outlined in Project 2025.

Immigration

Increased funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border - one of Trump's signature proposals in 2016 - is proposed in the document.

Project 2025 also proposes dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and combining it with other immigration enforcement units in other agencies, creating a much larger and more powerful border policing operation.

Other proposals include eliminating visa categories for crime and human trafficking victims, increasing fees on immigrants and allowing fast-tracked applications for migrants who pay a premium.

Not all of those details are repeated in the party platform, but the overall headlines are similar - the party is promising to implement the "largest deportation programme in American history".

What a Trump second term would look like

Climate and economy.

The document proposes slashing federal money for research and investment in renewable energy, and calls for the next president to "stop the war on oil and natural gas".

Carbon-reduction goals would be replaced by efforts to increase energy production and energy security.

The paper sets out two competing visions on tariffs, and is divided on whether the next president should try to boost free trade or raise barriers to imports.

But the economic advisers suggest that a second Trump administration should slash corporate and income taxes, abolish the Federal Reserve and even consider a return to gold-backed currency.

The party platform does not go as far as Project 2025 in these policy areas. The platform instead talks of bringing down inflation and drilling for oil to reduce energy costs, but is thin on specific policy proposals.

Abortion and family

Project 2025 does not call outright for a nationwide abortion ban.

However, it proposes withdrawing the abortion pill mifepristone from the market, and using existing but little-enforced laws to stop the drug being sent through the post.

The document suggests that the department of Health and Human Services should "maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family".

On this issue at least, the document differs fairly substantially from the Republican platform, which only mentions the word "abortion" once. The platform says abortion laws should be left to individual states and that late-term abortions (which it does not define) should be banned.

It adds that that access to prenatal care, birth control and in-vitro fertilisation should be protected. The party platform makes no mention of cracking down on the distribution of mifepristone.

Tech and education

Under the proposals, pornography would be banned, and tech and telecoms companies that allow access would be shut down.

The document calls for school choice and parental control over schools, and takes aim at what it calls "woke propaganda".

It proposes to eliminate a long list of terms from all laws and federal regulations, including "sexual orientation", "gender equality", "abortion" and "reproductive rights".

Project 2025 aims to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs in schools and government departments as part of what it describes as a wider crackdown on "woke" ideology.

Project 2025's proposals in this policy area are broadly reflected in the Republican platform, which in addition to calling for the abolishing the Department of Education, aims to boost school choice and parental control over education and criticises what the party calls the "inappropriate political indoctrination of our children".

Social Security

Although Heritage has long supported reforming the country's public pension plan, Project 2025 barely touches this third rail of American politics.

The platform says Social Security is a "lifeline" for millions of retired Americans and Republicans will "restore Economic Stability to ensure the long-term sustainability" of the programme.

The plan's future

Project 2025 is backed by a $22m (£17m) budget and includes strategies for implementing policies immediately after the presidential inauguration in January 2025.

Heritage is also creating a database of conservative loyalists to fill government positions, and a programme to train those new workers.

Democrats led by Jared Huffman, a congressman from California, have launched a Stop Project 2025 Task Force.

And many of the proposals would likely face immediate legal challenges from Trump's opponents if implemented.

Four surprises that could upend the 2024 US election

Where biden and trump stand on key issues, four things that could decide who wins us election.

Improving Higher Education Outcomes for Students from Foster Care and Unaccompanied Homeless Youth

Passport contact list.

This contact list is intended to be a first-stop resource for Washington Passport Network members to find and connect with campus contacts who support PTC scholars and programs. To use the directory effectively, here are some definitions to keep in mind:

• Designated Support Staff (DSS)   is the main contact for PTC student support related questions, including academic services for scholars,
• Financial Aid Administrators (FAA)   is tahe main contact for questions related to financial aid for PTC scholars, including scholarships, awarding, disbursements, etc.
• Passport Campus Leadership (PCL)   is the person in a leadership role who oversees the operations of the PTC program on campus.

This list is organized by location and institution.

The Washington Passport Network is a statewide collective impact initiative committed to supporting students who have experienced foster care and/or unaccompanied homelessness and the adult professionals they rely on. We empower professionals supporting these students with information, knowledge, and tools to improve practices and student outcomes.

If you are a professional working to support students from foster care, or those experiencing unaccompanied homelessness, in accessing, persisting, or completing post-secondary education or apprenticeships in Washington state, then we consider you a member of the Washington Passport Network. 

Learn more about the WPN ›  

News & Updates

Helping youth navigate transitions: highlights from the 2024 passport to careers state conference.

Jul 11, 2024

The 2024 Passport to Careers conference featured sessions on supporting LGBTQIA+ youth in foster care, curriculum design, navigating transitions and more.

2024 Legislative Session Update

Jun 25, 2024

The 2024 legislative session wrapped up with some positive outcomes for education overall, but with an unfortunate outcome for Passport funding. See how the final budget impacts topics relevant to the WPN and look ahead to our plans for next session.

• Professional Education

Why Not Understanding These 10 Project Management Knowledge Areas Could Have a Devastating Impact on Your Career. 

• Categories Professional Education
• Date August 16, 2024

Understanding the 10 project management knowledge areas is crucial for any aspiring project manager looking to excel in this field. These knowledge areas provide a comprehensive framework for effectively managing projects from initiation to closure. Let’s examine each area and uncover how they equip professionals with the tools needed for any project regardless of scope and complexity.

1. Project Integration Management 

What It Is: Integration management ensures that project elements are properly coordinated. It involves making trade-

offs among competing objectives and alternatives to meet or exceed stakeholder needs and expectations.

Why It Matters: This knowledge area is vital for maintaining project cohesion and ensuring that all aspects of the project work together seamlessly. It addresses market fears of disjointed efforts and project failures due to lack of integration.

2. Project Scope Management 

What It Is: Scope management involves defining and controlling what is and is not included in the project. It ensures that all the work required—and only the work required—is completed.

Why It Matters: Effective scope management prevents scope creep, which can derail projects. This addresses market concerns about time commitment and ensures that projects stay within their defined boundaries.

3. Project Schedule Management 

What It Is: Schedule management entails planning, developing, managing, and controlling the project schedule. It ensures timely completion of the project.

Why It Matters: Managing schedules effectively helps in meeting deadlines and boosts confidence in project deliverability, directly addressing fears of time overruns and project delays.

4. Project Cost Management 

What It Is: Cost management involves planning and controlling the budget of the project. It includes cost estimating, cost budgeting, and cost control.

Why It Matters: Proper cost management helps ensure that the project is completed within the approved budget, addressing concerns about financial investment and ROI.

5. Project Quality Management 

What It Is: Quality management ensures that the project will satisfy the needs for which it was undertaken. It involves quality planning, quality assurance, and quality control.

Why It Matters: This area ensures that the project outcomes meet the required standards, addressing fears about the course’s credibility and the practical benefits of the skills learned.

6. Project Resource Management 

What It Is: Resource management involves identifying, acquiring, and managing the resources needed for the project, including human resources, equipment, and materials.

Why It Matters: Efficient resource management ensures that the right resources are available at the right time, enhancing project efficiency and effectiveness.

7. Project Communication Management 

What It Is: Communication management involves planning, executing, and monitoring the information flow within the project. It ensures that stakeholders are well-informed throughout the project lifecycle.

Why It Matters: Clear and effective communication enhances collaboration and stakeholder engagement, addressing fears of poor team coordination and project misunderstandings.

8. Project Risk Management 

What It Is: Risk management involves identifying, analyzing, and responding to project risks. It includes risk planning, risk identification, qualitative and quantitative risk analysis, risk response planning, and risk monitoring and control.

Why It Matters: Effective risk management ensures that potential problems are anticipated and mitigated, reducing uncertainties and increasing the likelihood of project success.

9. Project Procurement Management 

What It Is: Procurement management involves acquiring goods and services from external sources. It includes procurement planning, solicitation, source selection, contract administration, and contract closure.

Why It Matters: Managing procurement efficiently ensures that the necessary external resources are available when needed, addressing market needs for comprehensive project execution.

10. Project Stakeholder Management 

What It Is: Stakeholder management involves identifying all people or organizations affected by the project, analyzing stakeholder expectations, and developing appropriate strategies for effectively engaging stakeholders in project decisions and execution.

Why It Matters: Proper stakeholder management ensures that all stakeholders are aligned with the project goals, enhancing satisfaction and project acceptance.

Understanding these 10 project management knowledge areas equips professionals with a holistic view of project management. It addresses market needs for comprehensive skill acquisition and career advancement while mitigating fears related to course credibility and investment returns. By mastering these areas, project managers can confidently lead projects, driving success in their careers and contributing significantly to their organizations.

By focusing on these knowledge areas, a project management course not only prepares students for certification but also enhances their practical skills, making them indispensable assets in any industry.

To learn more about the Project Management Certificate at KSU Community and Professional Education, visit here. Click here

Previous post

Fast-Track Your Future: How a Medical Interpreter Certificate Can Open Doors in Just 10 Weeks! 

You may also like.

Whether You Are A Beginner or Experienced, You Will Find Surprising Benefits in Our AutoCAD Essentials Course 

Boost Your Revenue with Advanced Social Media Strategies! 

Heartbeat to Career: Unveiling the Path with Our EKG Technician Certificate Program

• Environment
• Health Care
• Police & Courts
• Election 2024

Rising costs for Washington school districts outpace state funding, report finds

By: grace deng - august 13, 2024 1:35 pm.

(Getty Images)

In recent years, districts are spending a lot more money to keep Washington’s schools running — but state funding isn’t keeping up. 

That’s according to a new report from the League of Education Voters, which found school districts have increased spending on staff by 19.7% between the 2019-20 and 2022-23 school years. 

“We’re using an outdated prototypical school funding model to try to take care of kids in 2024,” said one rural school district superintendent quoted in the report. “It’s like trying to use a geometry equation to solve a calculus problem. They don’t match.” 

There are 295 school districts total in Washington and the report authors say 28 were surveyed that “represent the diversity of school districts across the state” in terms of enrollment, location, racial demographics and other factors. 

Districts are spending well above state-funded levels for operating staff, especially for office support and custodians — 40% of whom are hired using more funds than allocated by state lawmakers. Districts are also spending about 5% more on teachers and 11% more on teachers’ aides, or paraeducators, than they’re funded for by the state. 

Employee salary and benefit costs make up over 80% of district budgets. Spending on other areas that help districts keep the lights on has increased even more than staff spending.

“The cost of literally everything that schools spend money on is going up,” said Jacob Vela, chief policy officer at the League of Education Voters. 

Food costs are up 36%, insurance costs are up 48%, repair costs are up 54% and natural gas costs are up a whopping 76% from the 2019-2020 to 2022-2023 school years. 

Over 60% of the districts surveyed in the most recent school year said inadequate state funding for special education was a “significant and growing challenge.” While lawmakers increased funding for special education this year, it’s still capped at a certain percentage of a school’s population.

The report also notes that district needs are changing as schools get more diverse: There are about 50 more languages spoken by students in Washington schools than there were 15 years ago, Vela said. 

“What’s being asked of schools, what’s being provided to students and families looks very different than it did 20 years ago,” he added. 

Students of color, low-income students and English language learners have all become a much greater proportion of school demographics in the past decade too. Districts are hiring more staff to support these needs: From the 2019-2020 to 2022-2023 school year, statewide hiring of social workers grew 63%. 

Schools in Washington are largely funded by the Legislature, although they also receive money from local levies and the federal government. 

In 2012, the state Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling known as the McCleary decision, finding that the Legislature had failed in its duty to adequately fund public schools. After that, lawmakers changed how schools were funded and bolstered their funding. 

But the report suggests Washington is still failing to comply with the McCleary decision. 

“The Washington State Supreme Court has clearly determined special education and a competitive wage for K-12 staff is part of ‘basic education,’” the report’s authors wrote. “Despite this, many districts use local levy funding to pay staff salaries and to fund special education services for students.” 

“Many superintendents shared that they believe the conditions that led to the McCleary court ruling have been recreated with how districts rely on local levies,” the report continues. 

This is creating an issue for rural schools that don’t have a lot of levy money to rely on, Vela said. Some rural schools interviewed feel as if they’re becoming “feeder schools” for larger schools: Early career teachers are getting experience at rural schools and then moving to larger schools for the pay. 

“It’s a worrying combination of factors that we need to be aware of,” Vela said of the current school funding environment. 

In a statement to the Standard, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction said there’s “no question that the Legislature made significant progress in funding our public schools in alignment with the McCleary decision” but that the investments made only “temporarily filled the hole of prior budget neglect.” 

“We are all feeling the effects of inflation, and schools are no different,” the office said. “Our state still has work to do. Superintendent [Chris] Reykdal’s budget and policy requests for the 2025 Legislature will aim to address these financial challenges.” 

Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our website. AP and Getty images may not be republished. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of any other photos and graphics.

Grace Deng joined the Washington State Standard shortly after graduating from Northwestern University in June 2023. Grace, who currently lives in Tacoma, is a local Washingtonian who was born and raised in Snohomish County. She has previous experience covering statehouse politics and policy for the Minnesota Reformer and the USA TODAY Ohio Network, which includes the Columbus Dispatch, the Cincinnati Enquirer and the Akron-Beacon Journal.

Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom , the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

Related News