Saved analyses
General fund spending, 2013-14 vs 2024-25
Question: How much did Seattle Public Schools' general fund spending grow from 2013-14 to 2024-25?
Result: General fund spending rose from $611.7 million in 2013-14 to $1,195.9 million in 2024-25, up 95.5%. In 2024-25 dollars (Seattle prices) it rose 33.0%.
Operation: Sum of all general fund expenditure rows (fund 1) reported on form F-196 for district 17001 in each year; percent change between the two years.
Scope: Seattle School District No. 1, general fund, school years 2013-14 and 2024-25 (actuals).
View this analysis
- General fund only: excludes capital projects, debt service, transportation vehicle and student body funds.
- Nominal growth includes inflation and enrollment change.
Enrollment by three measures, start and end of the period
Question: Did Seattle Public Schools' enrollment stay about the same from 2013-14 to 2024-25?
Result: K-12 AAFTE was 48,528 in 2013-14 and 48,570 in 2024-25 (+0.1%). OSPI's per-student count rose 1.1% (49,980 to 50,542) after peaking at 55,303 in 2019-20. October K-12 headcount fell 4.1% from 2014-15 to 2024-25.
Operation: Compare three published enrollment counts at the start and end of the period, and record each count's peak year.
Scope: Seattle School District No. 1.
View this analysis
- AAFTE for 2015-16 to 2021-22 is not in the sources used, so the AAFTE series has gaps.
- The three measures count different students and are not interchangeable.
General fund spending per student, actual and 2024-25 dollars
Question: How did Seattle Public Schools' spending per student change each year, before and after inflation?
Result: Spending per student rose from $12,239 (2013-14) to $23,661 (2024-25), up 93%. In 2024-25 dollars it rose from $17,987 to $23,661, up 31.5%; it reached $23,613 in 2021-22 and has been roughly flat since.
Operation: General fund expenditures divided by OSPI's per-pupil enrollment for each year; inflation-adjusted series multiplies by the ratio of 2024-25 to that year's school-year average Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue CPI-U.
Scope: Seattle School District No. 1, 2013-14 to 2024-25.
View this analysis
- The per-pupil denominator includes some special-education preschool headcount and institutional students; it differs slightly from AAFTE.
- CPI measures consumer prices, not the costs schools pay; see the deflator sensitivity analysis.
Robustness checks
Real growth in spending per student under three price indexes
Question: How sensitive is real per-student growth to the choice of price index?
Result: Prices rose 47.0% (Seattle CPI), 35.4% (U.S. CPI) or 36.2% (state and local government index). Real growth in spending per student was 31.5%, 42.7% or 41.9%.
Operation: Per-student spending growth 2013-14 to 2024-25 divided by each index's growth over the same school years.
Scope: Seattle School District No. 1.
View this analysis
- None of these indexes measures school costs directly.
Robustness check for:
General fund spending per student, actual and 2024-25 dollars
Seattle compared with all Washington districts
Question: Did Seattle's spending grow faster than the statewide total?
Result: Statewide general fund spending also nearly doubled (+95.9%) and per-student spending rose 86.8% ($10,371 to $19,371), 27.1% after Seattle-area inflation. Seattle per student rose 93.3% and in 2024-25 was 22% above the state average.
Operation: Same calculations for the statewide total of district general fund expenditures and OSPI's statewide per-pupil enrollment.
Scope: Washington public school districts, charter and tribal schools, 2013-14 and 2024-25.
View this analysis
- Statewide totals include districts with very different costs and enrollment trends.
Where the increase went, by program
Question: Which programs account for the growth in Seattle's general fund spending from 2013-14 to 2024-25?
Result: Basic education accounted for 35.5% of the increase (+$207.5 million) and special education 31.9% (+$186.4 million). Special education spending rose from $85.9 million to $272.3 million, 3.2 times as much.
Operation: Sum expenditures by OSPI program code into groups; change and share of the total increase ($584.2 million).
Scope: Seattle School District No. 1 general fund.
View this analysis
- Program grouping is FactHub's; OSPI added or renumbered some codes during the period.
Where the increase went, by type of cost
Question: How much of the growth was pay and benefits?
Result: Salaries and benefits made up 81% of the increase: certificated salaries 42.2%, classified salaries 19.3%, benefits 19.5%. Purchased services added 17.9%.
Operation: Sum expenditures by F-196 object code; change and share of the total increase.
Scope: Seattle School District No. 1 general fund.
View this analysis
- Object codes show what was bought, not why; they don't separate raises from added staff.
General fund revenue by source
Question: Where did the extra money come from?
Result: State general-purpose funding rose from $267.2 million to $569.8 million and state special-purpose funding from $82.4 million to $231.8 million. Local levy revenue rose 16%, from $162.6 million to $189.4 million, after dropping in 2018-19 and 2019-20.
Operation: Sum revenue codes 1000-9000 (top-level categories) by year.
Scope: Seattle School District No. 1 general fund, 2013-14, 2018-19 and 2024-25.
View this analysis
- Other financing sources include interfund loans and transfers, which are not new revenue.
Revenue minus spending by year
Question: When did Seattle's general fund start spending more than it took in?
Result: The general fund took in $38.1 million more than it spent in 2018-19. It spent $23.7 million more than it took in during 2024-25 and budgeted a $89.9 million shortfall for 2025-26 and $21.2 million for 2026-27.
Operation: Revenues and other financing sources minus expenditures; actuals from F-196, 2025-26 and 2026-27 from the adopted budget.
Scope: Seattle School District No. 1 general fund, 2013-14 to 2026-27.
View this analysis
- 2025-26 and 2026-27 are budgets, not actuals.
- 2024-25 other financing sources include an interfund loan; revenue alone fell $66.0 million short of spending.