The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is requesting $33.552 billion from the general fund–state (GFS) for 2027–29. That’s $3.027 billion (9.9%) higher than enacted 2025–27 appropriations. Of the increase, $926.9 million is the carry-forward change, $3.9 million is the maintenance level change, and $2.096 billion is proposed new policy. The new policy would cost $2.993 billion in 2029–31. (See the box below for more on this terminology.)

The carry-forward in the request includes, for example, automatic inflationary adjustments for K-12 salaries and materials, supplies, and operating costs (MSOC).

The largest of OSPI’s new policy proposals is labeled “Legal Basic Education.” This would increase GFS appropriations by $1.199 billion in 2027–29 and $1.879 billion in 2029–31. The proposal would:

• Treat utilities and insurance costs as discrete categories within MSOC. It would increase funding for them by 18% in SY 2026–27 and then by 8% thereafter. OSPI would create a safety net under which the state would pay districts “the difference between the actual allocation and funding provided by district.” The proposal would also increase the overall MSOC allocation by $162 per pupil and provide a $100 per pupil MSOC allocation for the Learning Assistance Program, Transitional Bilingual Program, and Highly Capable Program. Together, these MSOC changes would increase spending by $871.9 million in 2027–29 and $1.111 billion in 2029–31.
• Increase salaries for classified employees by 2% a year (on top of the existing inflation adjustment). This would increase spending by $225.1 million in 2027–29 and $328.3 million in 2029–31.
• Increase allocations for substitutes for teachers, nurses, and paraeducators, which would increase spending by $99.8 million in 2027–29 and $260.0 million in 2029–31.
• Provide a safety net to cover more of the costs of transporting homeless students, youth in foster care, and students with disabilities, which would increase spending by $180.0 million in 2029–31.

The request repeatedly asserts that the prototypical school funding model has “fallen out of alignment with the actual, documented cost of delivering core elements of basic education.” It cites the state Supreme Court’s 2012 opinion in McCleary, which said, “If the State’s funding formulas provide only a portion of what it actually costs a school to pay its teachers, get kids to school, and keep the lights on, then the legislature cannot maintain that it is fully funding basic education through its funding formulas.”

However, in a 2017 order in the McCleary case, the Supreme Court said that the quote referred to the 1970 formulas, not the new prototypical model. Further, the Court rejected the idea that the prototypical model is insufficient if it doesn’t account for actual costs, saying that the system “is not designed to dictate reimbursements to school districts for their actual expenditures on the components of basic education.”

The proposal from OSPI would be a policy level choice for the Legislature. Although basic education is the paramount duty of the state, legislators are not obligated to fund increases and enhancements to the program of basic education. Nor are they obligated to reimburse districts for expenditures.

Other major proposals from OSPI include:

• $701.4 million in 2027–29 and $884.1 million in 2029–31 to change the Learning Assistance Program funding model. The base model would be adjusted to account for the local property tax base and the high poverty funding model would be changed so that it is tied to actual percentages of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch. Additionally, the proposal would target 30% of high poverty funding to math instruction.
• $70.4 million in 2027–29 and $82.9 million in 2029–31 to increase funding for high school librarians and require districts to use the funds for library services.
• $45.5 million in 2027–29 and $63.2 million in 2029–31 to restore funding for Transition to Kindergarten to 2025 levels and add an inflation factor.