In Seattle, the first day of school narrowly avoided becoming the first day of an illegal strike.
High-stakes contract negotiations between Seattle Public Schools and the Seattle Education Association dominated back-to-school news until negotiators reached a tentative agreement at 9:30 p.m. on Sept. 1. Avoiding an illegal strike was welcome news for thousands of families. But more importantly, how long can Seattle Public Schools afford to operate this way?
Seattle is Washington’s largest public school district, operating in one of the state’s wealthiest metro areas. Yet Superintendent Benjamin Shuldiner has described the district as “structurally insolvent” and “broke,” with reported debt approaching $87 million. Shuldiner disclosed that the total wage for Seattle teachers before the new contract is $142,584. This does not include benefits.
The tentative bargaining agreement includes an 8.8% COLA over three years and annual salary-step increases for eligible employees that can add roughly 4% per year. It also adds new district-funded benefits, 40 paraprofessional positions, a regional behavior-support team of 70 paraprofessionals, six school psychologists, 10 teacher consultants, and elementary-school counselors.
Strong schools require adequate staffing and competitive compensation. But long-term commitments are sustainable only when they are matched by realistic revenues and enrollment.
A district cannot credibly declare itself financially insolvent while continuing to make expensive commitments without greater accountability.
Washington’s school-funding problem did not begin with Seattle’s latest contract. It grew out of the state’s response to McCleary, et al. v. State of Washington, which required the state to fully fund basic education and reduce districts’ reliance on local levies for basic education costs.
The court determined that a child’s access to basic education should not depend on the wealth of their neighborhood. But the funding changes also contributed to a system in which compensation commitments could become difficult to sustain as enrollment declined.
Seattle illustrates the challenge. The district has lost roughly 4,300 students since 2019. When enrollment falls, enrollment-based state revenue generally falls with it. But expenses do not automatically decline at the same rate.
Buildings still require heat and maintenance. Buses still operate. Insurance, administrative costs, and debt obligations remain. A system designed for more students becomes increasingly expensive when it tries to preserve the same footprint with fewer families.
This is not just a Seattle problem but a structural issue facing districts across Washington, many of which lack the political will or operational flexibility to reduce costs when enrollment falls.
The first step toward reform is allowing taxpayers and parents to see how their education dollars are being spent.
Seattle’s school board took a positive step by restoring its Finance and Audit Committee after a three-year hiatus. But meaningful oversight cannot end with committee meetings or complicated budget documents.
Districts should provide accessible, regularly updated financial information showing how much is spent on classroom instruction versus central administration, whether staffing matches enrollment, which schools are substantially underenrolled, and how compensation commitments compare with projected revenue.
The public should also be able to see spending on consultants, legal costs, administrative overhead, insurance, and contracts to determine whether major expenditures are producing the intended deliverables and measurable improvements in student achievement.
Transparency is not an attack on public education. It is a prerequisite for public trust.
Washington should also give families more options when traditional districts cannot consistently deliver financial stability, academic quality, or programs that meet students’ needs.
Public charter schools deserve a larger role. They are tuition-free public schools but generally operate with greater flexibility, allowing them to develop specialized models, respond to family demand, operate free of union control, and avoid some layers of centralized bureaucracy.
Washington State’s 2025 Charter School Report shows the state’s charter-school students performed at least as well as, and oftentimes better than, students in traditional public schools when comparing similar students. These findings should not diminish public schools but should encourage Washington to expand charters.
Families also deserve access to federally funded supplemental education services. The new Federal Education Tax Credit program could help eligible students access tutoring, educational technology, specialized equipment, and online instruction without state or local budget impact. As of August 2026, 30 states have announced participation, but Washington students are still waiting on Gov. Ferguson to opt in.
Lawmakers should also consider Education Savings Accounts for eligible students, allowing families to direct education funding toward private-school tuition, tutoring, curriculum, testing, and education-related services.
Washington needs a school-funding model that reflects the actual cost of educating students while giving districts incentives to adapt when enrollment changes.
That means providing transitional funding when districts face rapid enrollment declines, requiring credible plans for consolidating underused schools and reducing excess overhead, rewarding districts that improve outcomes while managing public dollars responsibly, and expanding educational options for families.
Seattle’s threat of an illegal strike should be a warning.
Washington cannot solve a structural school-finance problem by signing increasingly expensive labor contracts at the last minute and hoping enrollment returns.
School staff deserve sustainable compensation. Students deserve reliable services. Parents deserve choices. And taxpayers deserve a public education system that lives within its means.
Above all, Washington’s education system should put children at the center of every spending decision.