FutureReady Frequently Asked Questions

The questions and answers below are the best answers we have available at this time regarding the State Board of Education's draft FutureReady proposal. Some of these answers may change as the proposal gets finalized this fall.

Answers are current as of July 15, 2026 and reflect the Board’s current thinking.

General Questions 

What is the Board’s role in updating requirements?

The initiative aligns squarely with the Washington State Board of Education's statutory authority. As part of our duties assigned by state law, the State Board of Education is responsible for setting graduation requirements, regularly reviewing them, and proposing changes to the state Legislature (paraphrased from RCW 28A.305.130(4) and RCW 28A.230.090).    

Why is the Board changing graduation requirements?

Washington's graduation requirements have evolved over many years through individual policy changes, resulting in a framework that has become increasingly complex for students, families, and educators to navigate. Rather than continuing to add new requirements one at a time, FutureReady provides an opportunity to take a comprehensive look at the entire system and ensure requirements works together as intended. 

This work is also informed by what we've heard from communities across the state. Students have told us they want learning to feel more meaningful and connected to their goals after high school. In fact, nearly one in three (32%) 10th- and 12th-grade students who participated in the 2023 Healthy Youth Survey said their schoolwork is seldom or never meaningful. Educators and counselors have shared that the current framework has become increasingly difficult to implement, while employers have identified a growing need for graduates to develop the knowledge and skills needed in today's workforce. 

At the same time, there is growing interest in adding new graduation requirements in areas such as financial education. Rather than making piecemeal changes, the Board believes this is the right time to modernize the entire graduation framework so that it maintains strong academic expectations while creating more meaningful, flexible, and relevant learning experiences for students.

When will proposals take effect and what students will be impacted by these changes?

The earliest any new requirements proposed through FutureReady could take effect would be with the entering ninth grade cohort of students in the Class of 2031. Even then, updated requirements may be phased-in to allow for adequate support and effective rollout. A longer phase-in will be built in for bigger adjustments. The State Board — with input from the FutureReady Task Force, subcommittees, and community partners — will develop appropriate timelines and identify necessary resources and supports at both the state and local school district level to ensure successful implementation of proposed changes. 

How do I stay informed as this process moves forward?

The best way to stay informed is to sign up for the Board’s FutureReady newsletter. When you sign up for this, you will receive updates about the initiative’s progress and announcements about opportunities for community input and informational sessions.

Process & Recommendation Development 

How are the needs of students being included in discussions?

Throughout proposal, the voices of hundreds of students have been considered through inclusion on the FutureReady Task Force, in structured listening sessions, and through public comment received by the Board. 

Two current high school students serve on the FutureReady Task Force and actively contribute to all conversations. Their voices have played an important role in shaping our early visioning work, which serves as the foundation for recommendations. These students serve on the State Board of Education and are members of several student-based organizations, including the Association of Washington Student Leaders, and actively gather student input from those groups to share during FutureReady meetings. 

In addition to the students on the Task Force, the State Board has helped facilitate community listening sessions which have gathered input from students across the state. Populations included in these listening sessions include: 

  • Reengaged youth 
  • Multilingual families 
  • Migrant families 
  • Families with lower incomes 
  • Military-connected families 
  • LGBTQIA+ individuals 
  • Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) 
  • Students from rural school districts 
  • Youth who have recently graduated high school and now attend college. 
How have educators, counselors, and school administrators been consulted through this process?

A number of educators and school administrators serve both of the FutureReady Task Force and its subcommittees. Their input has been fundamental in guiding our discussions and play an important role in shaping the recommendations we will make. 

In addition to representation on our Task Force and subcommittees, the Board has received input from dozens of educators and other school staff across the state through listening sessions and presentations with associations, including, but not limited to: 

How have community voices been included in this work?

FutureReady was intentionally designed to be different from traditional policy-development processes. Rather than developing recommendations first and seeking feedback later, FutureReady was designed to foster a cross-collaboration of ideas between the Board and the Task Force. The Task Force meets every other month, with Task Force meetings typically held in odd months, and Board meetings typically being held in even months. This approach has ensured a continuous thread of bi-directional discussion, allowing for an iterative process where both groups remain aligned and inform one another’s work 

We made a particular effort to include voices that have historically been underrepresented in education policy conversations, including students with disabilities, multilingual families, migrant families, youth in foster care, and other underserved communities. Task Force members serve as two-way connectors, bringing community perspectives into the process and sharing updates with the communities they represent. 

To support meaningful participation, the Task Force includes six compensated community liaisons who help engage communities across Washington and reduce barriers such as transportation and childcare. They’re from the following organizations: 

To support organic community input, the Board encouraged residents across the state to host listening sessions in their own communities and provide input on questions being considered be the Board at the time. The Board developed resources, including a Listening Session Toolkit, to help community members share information with attendees. Input from these listening sessions were given to the Board and Task Force for consideration as they developed recommendations. 

The Task Force's work is also supported by expert-led subcommittees focused on key topics including math, financial education and life skills, technology and media literacy, implementation supports, and educator development.

Credit & Subject-Area Requirements 

What do credit and subject-area requirements look like under this new proposal?

FutureReady Working Draft Credit Framework
This graphic reflects the new proposal framework using a layout the Board has previously used to communicate graduation requirements. Click here to view the proposed framework using the Board's new infographic layout.

The proposed graduation framework would maintain a strong foundation of required coursework while providing students with greater flexibility to choose courses that align with their individual goals. 

Students would continue to complete core graduation requirements in key subject areas, including English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, health and physical education, and the arts. The proposal would also create more flexibility within the framework by allowing students to select additional coursework connected to their High School and Beyond Plan and postsecondary goals through expanded credits within the Personalized Pathway Requirements (PPRs). 

Key changes under the proposed framework include: 

What courses and credits are included in the expanded personalized pathway Requirements?

Under this proposal, the following items would be included in the PPRs:  

  • A one-credit Financial Education, High School and Beyond Plan, and Life Skills course. Districts could offer the content as a single integrated course or incorporate it across multiple courses.
  • One credit of Career & Technical Education (CTE). Students are expected to complete at least one CTE experience, either as a standalone course or through a CTE course equivalency, unless they decide, per their HSBP, to substitute with an elective.  
  • Half-credit of Physical Education.
  • Half-credit of Health.
  • Two credits of a global language. This would be any two of the same world language, American Sign Language, or Tribal language credits. A student can also meet this requirement by receiving the Washington State Seal of Biliteracy.  
  • A one-credit Senior Year Quantitative Reasoning course. This would be a math-based quantitative course that may include but not limited to math beyond Algebra II, statistics, math-based CTE course, chemistry, physics, AP computer science, and Bridge to College mathematics.
What is the difference between core credits, Personalized Pathway credits, and electives in this new proposed framework?

Within the 24-credit framework, there are three types of required credits/courses: core credits, Personalized Pathway Requirements credits, and elective credits.

Core Courses are ones that must be completed by all students in order to earn a diploma. School districts must offer all requirements on a schedule that ensures students can complete the requirements within four-years during the regular school day.  

Personalized Pathway Requirements are courses most students are expected to take that keep all postsecondary options open. Courses may be substituted on an individual student basis in alignment with preparation for a clear postsecondary plan documented in the High School and Beyond Plan and in consultation with a student's family and educators. School districts must offer all requirements on a schedule that ensures students can complete the requirements within four-years during the regular school day.  

Elective Credits are any courses that allow a student to explore their interests and help reach 24 credits. Districts may waive up to two elective credits for individual student circumstances.

How would the proposal affect student access to Career and Technical Education (CTE) opportunities and funding for schools?

The proposal is not intended to reduce students’ access to Career and Technical Education (CTE) or reduce support for CTE programs. Students would continue to have opportunities to participate in CTE courses, and districts would continue to receive existing financial incentives that support CTE programs so would still be required to offer CTE courses. 

Under the proposed framework, CTE would remain as a default course that most students would complete. Students who have identified another academic, career, or personal goal could choose a different course when that choice better supports their individual plan. These decisions would be intentional and made collaboratively with students, families, and educators through the High School and Beyond Plan process. 

In fact, the proposal would create more incentives for students to take CTE courses by expanding opportunities for CTE coursework to meet multiple graduation requirements. The proposal would revise current CTE course equivalency policy by allowing individual students to earn two credits when a course allows them to demonstrate proficiency in both CTE standards and academic course standards. Under the current system, students can sometimes meet two subject-area requirements while earning only one credit. This change would better recognize the academic and technical skills students develop through CTE coursework while providing greater flexibility within the 24-credit graduation framework.

Would students be able to choose any courses they want under the proposed graduation requirements?

No. The proposed framework is not intended to create unrestricted course selection. 

Students would still complete required core coursework and follow a graduation course taking plan developed through their High School and Beyond Plan. Students would also complete a set of default Personalized Pathway Requirements designed to keep all doors open for students, but could select different courses that are connected to an individual student’s identified academic or career pathway, as demonstrated in their High School and Beyond Plan in consultation with educators and parents. 

What courses could students take to meet the third mathematics credit and senior-year quantitative reasoning requirement?

The third credit of mathematics could be met with either: 

  • Mathematics courses Algebra II or Integrated Math III (the default course that most students would complete)
  • OR Data Science, Statistics, or Financial Algebra

The senior year quantitative reasoning course would be met if a student, during their senior year, takes a a math-based quantitative course that may include but not limited to math beyond Algebra II, statistics, math-based CTE course, chemistry, physics, AP computer science A and Bridge to College mathematics.

The proposal maintains the expectation that students continue engaging with mathematics during their senior year because research shows that continued mathematics coursework helps prepare students for postsecondary success. 

Why does this proposal combine Civics with Contemporary World Problems and what content would be included in the new class?

The proposal is intended to strengthen civics education by creating a more integrated learning experience. 

Previously, Washington embedded civics instruction within Contemporary World Problems before establishing a standalone Civics requirement. The proposed framework would build on that progression by creating a year-long Civics course that incorporates contemporary issues through a civic lens. 

Rather than separating government, current events, and civic participation into separate courses, students would examine real-world issues while developing a deeper understanding of democratic institutions, civic responsibility, and public policy. 

Existing social studies content, including world history and contemporary issues, would continue to be incorporated through the civics framework.  The detailed course framework is still under development and would align with social studies standards as they are updated by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI).

What do health and fitness requirements look like under this proposal?

The proposal would update health and physical education requirements to give students more opportunities to receive health education, particularly mental health education as requested by communities. The proposal would add an additional half-credit of health to the PPRs. Physical Education would be reduced from 1.5 credits to one credit. The remaining credit would be split into two half-credit requirements, with a half-credit remaining as a core requirement and a half-credit moved to the PPRs.  

This gives students more flexibility to tailor coursework based on their High School and Beyond Plan if needed, while still ensuring they receive important instruction that supports long-term well-being.

What is included in the combined Financial Education, Life Skills, and High School and Beyond Course in the proposal?

The proposed Financial Education, Life Skills, and High School and Beyond Plan course is intended to provide students with dedicated time to develop skills and knowledge that support success after high school. This will help students make informed decisions about their education, careers, and future goals by providing structured time for planning and exploration.   

The course would combine several areas that are closely connected to students’ future goals, including: 

  • Financial education, including understanding personal finances and preparing for financial decisions after graduation. 
  • Completing some of the required High School and Beyond Plan activities. 
  • Career exploration and postsecondary planning, including learning about career pathways, education and training opportunities, and options available after graduation. 
  • Life skills, including practical skills that support students’ transition to adulthood. 

For this credit, the Board recommends developing a state model curriculum while allowing local school districts flexibility in how they deliver the content. Districts could offer the content as a single integrated course or incorporate it across multiple courses.

Is the state superintendent's proposed Statewide Postsecondary Launch Course considered/addressed in this proposal?

The Board reviewed Superintendent Reykdal's proposal for a Launch Course, which also would address civics, financial education, and life skills instruction.

While the Board agrees with the goal of this course, based on our multi-year collaboration with the FutureReady Task Force, educators, communities, Tribes, and students, the Board had previously determined that both subjects would require more instructional time and are recommending increasing civics to 1.0 credits and providing 1.0 credits for financial education, life skills and high school and beyond planning. To learn more about our proposal, read “What is included in the combined Financial Education, Life Skills, and High School and Beyond Course in the proposal?” and “Why does this proposal combine Civics with Contemporary World Problems and what content would be included in the new class?”

High School and Beyond Plan & Student Advising 

How does this proposal strengthen the High School & Beyond Plan?

The proposal would strengthen the role of the High School and Beyond Plan as the central tool for helping students connect their coursework to their future goals. 

Students would continue to use the High School and Beyond Plan, along with expanded Personalized Pathway Requirements, to explore interests, careers, and postsecondary options, while developing a personalized course plan aligned with their individual goals. This planning process begins in middle school and continues throughout high school. 

To support this work, the proposal recommends creating a combined Financial Education, Life Skills, and High School and Beyond Plan course that would provide students with dedicated time during the school day to develop their plans, explore career and postsecondary pathways, build financial literacy skills, and prepare for life after graduation. See “What is included in the combined Financial Education, Life Skills, and High School and Beyond Course in the proposal?” for more information. 

The proposal also recognizes that meaningful planning requires dedicated time and support. It recommends providing students with structured opportunities during the school day to engage in course planning, career exploration, financial education, and postsecondary preparation. 

How does the proposal address challenges with counselor capacity and student advising?

The proposal recognizes that meaningful postsecondary planning requires time, support, and access to accurate information. It also recognizes that counselor workload and staffing are important implementation considerations that must be addressed as the proposal moves forward. 

The proposal includes several strategies designed to strengthen planning while making better use of the time students and counselors already have. 

First, it would remove the current Graduation Pathways requirement, which are primarily exam based, and replace them with a default set of courses, the Personalized Pathway Requirements, that prepare students for a wide range of post-secondary goals. This will allow students and counselors to focus more time on meaningful course planning and activities that prepare them to meet their post-secondary goals. 

Second, the proposal would create dedicated instructional time for students to complete their High School and Beyond Plan and engage in course planning, financial education, career exploration, and postsecondary preparation. Rather than relying primarily on one-on-one counselor meetings, every student would have structured opportunities during the school day to develop and regularly update their plan. See “What is included in the combined Financial Education, Life Skills, and High School and Beyond Course in the proposal?” for more information. 

Finally, once Washington transitions to the statewide High School and Beyond platform, SchooLinks, some information about updated graduation requirements will be built into the platform once the changes are finalized. SchooLinks will make information about graduation requirements more accessible and easily available to students and families, so that they can be more informed about their course choices and potential implications of those choices before meeting with their counselor.  

These strategies are intended to strengthen planning and make better use of counselor time, but they are not intended to solve counselor workload challenges on their own. The Board's Implementation Subcommittee continues to examine staffing, scheduling, and resource needs to support successful implementation of the proposal.

Does this proposal include FAFSA/WASFA submission as a graduation requirement?

No. However, current state law (RCW 28A.230.212 (6) (d)) requires that a student receive information about financial aid programs through the High School and Beyond Plan. Student data privacy protections are a priority for the Board.  This proposal would specifically define evidence as locally completing a sample paper form as a required activity (or submission of the FAFSA/WASFA) so that students have a dedicated opportunity to learn more about the process and exposure to the financial aid application forms, should they choose to apply for aid. Districts would be asked to track whether a student has participated in this opportunity, not what students do after completing the sample form.

I see you’re getting rid of graduation pathways. Does that mean we won’t do state assessments anymore?

State assessments have not been a graduation requirement since 2019, with the passage of Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1599 (HB 1599), which passed in 2019. HB 1599 replaced the mandatory testing exit requirement with a system of Graduation Pathway Options, giving students multiple ways to demonstrate readiness for college or the workforce.  

While the Board is proposing removing this graduation requirement, we still believe assessments serve as an important measure of system performance and meeting federal Every Student Succeeds Act testing requirements.  In addition, assessments offer information that should inform later course taking for individual students and/or identify additional areas for support.

Implementation and Funding 

What changes to support educator assignment, certification and endorsements are in your recommendation, especially for the new combined Financial Education, High School & Beyond, and Life Skills course? 

Many districts already offer similar courses using existing staffing models, even though there is not currently a specific endorsement for this type of instruction. Any future changes to educator certification would require additional development and collaboration with the Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB), which is responsible for educator certification in Washington. We have been working closely with PESB staff to co-facilitate the Educator Development and Student Learning Experience subcommittee. Recommendations coming out of that subcommittee will be available soon.

How would the proposal support small and rural districts with fewer staff and fewer course offerings?

The proposal recognizes that implementation challenges may vary across districts, particularly in smaller and rural communities where staffing and course availability may be more limited. 

Any graduation requirement changes identified as having a fiscal impact would not take effect until funded by the Legislature. This approach is intended to ensure districts have the necessary resources before being expected to implement new requirements. 

The proposal also includes the assumption of statewide resources—such as model curriculum, planning tools, and the SchoolLinks platform—to help reduce implementation burdens and provide consistent support regardless of district size. 

Would districts receive additional funding to implement the proposed graduation requirements? 

The proposal recognizes that changes to graduation requirements may create costs related to staffing, course offerings, training, and implementation. 

Under the proposed approach, graduation requirement changes identified as having a fiscal impact would not take effect until funded by the Legislature. Specific funding recommendations would be developed as part of the broader legislative process.