California Assembly Bill AB1391

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/21/25
• Refer: 3/24/25
• Report Pass: 3/24/25
• Refer: 3/25/25
• Report Pass: 4/21/25
• Refer: 4/22/25
• Report Pass: 5/1/25
• Refer: 5/1/25
• Refer: 5/14/25
• Failed: 2/2/26

Caption

An act to amend Section 42238.03 of, and to add Section 42238.027 to to, the Education Code, relating to education finance, and making an appropriation therefor.

Summary

AB 1391 would revise California’s school finance rules to provide additional state funding for transitional kindergarten (TK) pupils in basic aid school districts and in certain necessary small schools. The bill adds a new Education Code section requiring the Superintendent of Public Instruction to allocate funding, beginning in the 2025-26 fiscal year, for TK average daily attendance in these districts and schools using the same LCFF components that apply to TK funding generally, including base, supplemental, concentration, and TK add-on amounts. It also states the Legislature’s intent that these districts and schools be able to offer quality TK programs without cutting other parts of their budgets. The bill also amends the LCFF transition provisions to ensure that basic aid districts receive a minimum level of state funding that reflects TK attendance, and it directs the state to appropriate from the General Fund whatever amount is needed to make the required allocations each year. In practical terms, AB 1391 would change how state aid is calculated for basic aid districts and certain necessary small schools by adding TK-specific funding into the minimum funding floor and by making those payments an ongoing annual appropriation. The bill is framed as an education finance measure and includes an appropriation, meaning it would have direct fiscal effects on the state budget. Its main legal impact would be on the Education Code sections governing LCFF transition funding and TK funding calculations. The bill would not broadly rewrite TK eligibility rules, but it would alter the funding treatment for districts that otherwise rely heavily on local property tax revenue and may not receive standard LCFF apportionments. It would also affect necessary small school districts that qualify under the bill’s definitions, while leaving charter schools and most other LCFF rules largely unchanged. The overall sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears favorable. The bill received an 8-0 do pass vote in committee, suggesting unanimous support among those voting at that stage. No committee transcript or recorded opposition was provided, and the bill’s stated purpose—to help districts absorb the costs of expanding TK without harming other programs—presents it as a targeted funding fix rather than a controversial policy shift. The main point of contention, based on the text itself, is fiscal rather than policy-based: the bill requires an unspecified General Fund appropriation and would increase state obligations to basic aid districts and certain small schools. Another technical issue is that some dollar amounts in the bill text are left blank, which suggests the measure may have been incomplete or still under negotiation at the time of amendment. The affected parties are primarily basic aid school districts, necessary small school districts, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the state General Fund.

Impact

AB 1391 would amend Education Code Section 42238.03 and add Section 42238.027 to create a new state funding allocation for transitional kindergarten attendance in basic aid school districts and certain necessary small schools. It would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to calculate and apportion TK funding using LCFF-based components and would appropriate the necessary General Fund amount each fiscal year beginning in 2025-26. The bill would therefore increase state aid obligations and modify how minimum funding is computed for affected districts, while applying toward the state’s constitutional minimum funding requirement.

Sentiment

The available legislative history suggests generally positive sentiment. The bill advanced from committee with an 8-0 vote to do pass and be re-referred, indicating no recorded opposition among voting members at that stage. The bill’s stated goal of helping basic aid districts and necessary small schools provide TK without cutting other programs likely contributed to its favorable reception.

Contention

The principal contention is fiscal: the bill would create an ongoing General Fund obligation to backfill TK funding for basic aid districts and certain necessary small schools, which could raise concerns about cost and budget exposure. A secondary issue is technical and drafting-related, because the text contains blank dollar amounts for one TK add-on calculation, suggesting unresolved funding parameters. No explicit policy opposition is documented in the provided materials, but any disagreement would likely center on state cost, allocation formulas, and whether basic aid districts should receive this additional TK-specific support.