Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are Washington state teacher residency and certification programs facing budget cuts in 2026?
Executive summary
Washington’s 2025–27 budget discussions include proposals to pause or “pause for savings” funding for some teacher residency/apprenticeship programs and leave certain apprenticeship residency lines unfunded in House and Senate proposals, which advocates call effectively a cut for 2025–26 and 2026 [1] [2] [3]. The governor’s budget materials both say they continue support for a teacher residency apprenticeship program while also listing pauses for budgetary savings, and union and advocacy blogs note no state funding in legislative proposals—showing disagreement between agencies and advocates about what will be funded [1] [2] [3].
1. What the official budget documents say: a program “pause” and mixed language
The Office of Financial Management’s budget summary refers to continuing state support for a teacher residency apprenticeship program but also contains a line saying the “Pause program for budgetary savings,” indicating an intention or option to suspend payments to achieve savings in the biennium [1]. The governor’s broader education highlights emphasize maintaining investments in teachers and special education while proposing targeted reductions in allocations “historically underspent,” leaving room for program pauses to balance the budget [4].
2. How unions and advocates interpret those proposals: an effective cut
The Washington Education Association (WEA) and other educator-focused outlets portray the legislative budget proposals as removing funding for specific residency/apprenticeship pathways: WEA posts that the WEA Apprenticeship Residency in Teaching and Emergency Substitute Teacher programs were not funded for the 2025–27 biennium, and their budget analysis explicitly says “neither budget provides any state funding for the WEA Apprenticeship Residency in Teaching program” [3] [2]. That framing treats the absence of line-item funding as a programmatic cut that will affect 2026 operations.
3. Why there’s room for competing claims: different documents, different emphases
Available reporting shows a clear divergence: OFM and the governor’s summaries describe sustaining teacher residency support while mentioning pauses for savings; WEA and advocacy pieces say the House and Senate budgets leave the apprenticeship residency unfunded [1] [4] [2]. This produces two competing narratives—one emphasizing continued commitment with temporary pauses, the other describing absent funding—without a single binding source in the public record that definitively resolves which programs will operate in 2026 [1] [2].
4. Political context and the path forward: negotiations and veto power matter
Commentary from teacher-education advocates and legislative trackers warns that the final FY 2026 budget is far from settled, that Senate resistance could change cuts, and that the governor’s line-item veto power and subsequent negotiations will determine what survives into 2026 [5]. Cascade PBS and university state-relations briefings note the larger fiscal pressure driving proposed reductions and that final outcomes depend on negotiations among House, Senate, and the governor [6] [7].
5. Practical impact on teacher pipelines and school districts
Advocates argue eliminating or pausing teacher pipeline programs—Teacher Quality Partnerships, apprenticeship residencies, and related supports—would worsen shortages in high-need subjects and special education, and districts are already responding to budget pressure with cuts elsewhere [5] [2] [8]. Local reporting and statewide analyses show districts facing budget shortfalls and that non-basic education lines are more vulnerable to trimming, making pipeline programs politically and practically exposed [9] [8].
6. What is not settled or not found in current reporting
Available sources do not mention a final enacted decision specifically naming which residency or certification contracts will be terminated or how many residents would be affected in 2026; nor do they provide a definitive list of programs legally eliminated versus temporarily paused for savings (not found in current reporting). The materials show proposals, advocacy reactions, and summary language, but not an executed, final appropriations list resolving the inconsistency between “continue support” and “pause for savings” [1] [2] [3].
7. Bottom line for readers and stakeholders
At present, the evidence shows credible proposals and advocacy claims that residency and apprenticeship supports face funding pauses or removal in the 2025–27 budgeting cycle—an outcome that would affect 2026 program capacity—yet official summaries leave ambiguous language that could change during negotiations and with the governor’s action [1] [2] [4]. Stakeholders should watch final enacted appropriations and any line-item vetoes closely; until the Legislature and governor resolve differences, both the “paused” and “continued support” narratives remain supported by existing documents [1] [2].