A bill wending its way through the Legislature could boost School Board directors’ pay from $50 to $100 a day, with an annual cap of $13,750.
It would be the first substantial change in board directors’ compensation in nearly 40 years if it passes.
Senate Bill 5860, which the Senate Ways & Means Committee moved to the Rules Committee on Tuesday, also mandates that School Board directors get free financial training. Directors would also be able to recoup child care expenses incurred to attend meetings.
The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction requested the bill. Supporters — including the bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Adrian Cortes, D-Battle Ground — say increasing school board director pay could help ensure school board governance better reflects the communities those boards serve.
“At the end of the day, let’s face it, we want a more responsible representation on our School Boards, and not just individuals who are affluent enough to afford to be able to serve on a School Board or who are retired and have the time available,” Cortes said. “We want working-class families, and working-class people to be able to serve on the boards, that have a lot of real-world and broad experiences that they could bring to the board.”
Cortes said financial training was “essential” for directors.
Supporters of the legislation say directors hold sway over about 43% of the state’s budget, and mandatory financial education could help them become better stewards of taxpayers’ dollars.
Seven school districts — Mount Baker, Prescott, Yelm, Shelton, Mabton, Bellevue and Marysville — are on binding conditions, requiring state oversight, because of financial challenges. And this month, Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal petitioned to dissolve the 206-student Prescott school system due to insolvency.
But even supporters have concerns about the proposal to pay for the training and compensation. The bill proposes using excess local levy dollars to compensate directors, which critics and supporters alike say is a problem. Not every district can raise additional funds locally, and using levy funds to pay directors diverts money from students, they said.
Taxpayer John Axtell testified at the Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education Committee this month that it would be an illegal and “gross misuse” of levy dollars to take money raised for enrichment and student activities to pay directors. Jeff Pack, from Washington Citizens Against Unfair Taxes, opposed money paying for child care.
And with the state budget crunch, it’s unclear whether there’s money this session for the financial training.
Sen. Cortes said he could envision a scenario where the bill passes this session, but the financial education component is delayed until funding is secured next year. He also said that the levy-based funding source for directors’ compensation could change in the future.
A fiscal note released this week said that the bill will have a nearly $50,000 impact on the state's general fund through 2031.
The Washington State School Directors’ Association, which will be tasked with providing the financial training, estimates it will cost about $37,500 to make the training available to directors in the first year, according to the bill’s fiscal notes. If all 1,477 directors took the required training next year, it would cost $162,470.
Cortes stressed that the bill will only authorize local districts to increase directors’ compensation up to a higher threshold, not require them to do so. Compensation, now capped at $4,800 annually, has not kept up with inflation and the cost of living, he said. Under the bill, compensation would be reviewed and adjusted at least every five years.
Cortes acknowledged some districts can’t tap levy funds to pay directors.
“It’s about local control,” he said. “Communities raise those local funds. They vote for them, but they also have to decide what is appropriate to pay their School Board members. Ensuring that their communities support the compensation is essential.”
School Board members’ compensation varies across the country, from none in New Jersey to significant, attendance-based sums in California. Board members in Los Angeles, for example, whose salaries are set by an independent committee, are paid $130,063 if they don’t have another job or $52,025 if they do, according to a district spokesperson.
Delaying the financial education mandate, which would go into effect next January, might address one of WSSDA’s concerns.
The bill calls for training to help directors understand state and local funding, budgeting and fiscal accountability. New members will be required to take the courses in their first year and sitting members within a year of the bill going into effect. The financial education portion of the bill becomes moot without state funding.
WSSDA, which already offers financial training, including sessions on state and federal funding and understanding school district budgets, said it would need more time to offer the courses the way the bill envisions.
Representatives from the organization said members have mixed feelings about the bill. While they support efforts to raise compensation and increase diversity, they worry about tapping local levies to do so, said Logan Noel-Endres, the organization’s director of strategic advocacy. Most members do not take the stipend, he said.
The additional compensation could allow directors to take time off from work, cover child care costs and travel to board-related meetings out of town, he said.
“In general, in concept, we absolutely support school board compensation,” he said. “We would appreciate increases, and we’d like to see state funding included.”
Liza Rankin, who represents Seattle’s Director District 1, supports both the compensation and the mandatory financial education. The public, she said, doesn’t always get a full picture of the time directors commit to the job beyond the public meetings. It’s also in the state’s best interest to ensure that community volunteers overseeing a sizable chunk of the state's budget know what they are doing, she said.
“If we are serious about improving board governance, improving oversight, improving education, improving representation, we have to invest in those things,” Rankin said. “There are no shortcuts … If you want people to be better trained, have stronger PD, you have to provide opportunities for them to access that. And if it’s only accessible to people who have a ton of time, in districts that have more resources, that’s not going to improve things for the whole state.”
© 2026 The Seattle Times. Visit www.seattletimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
