An act to add and repeal Article 1 (commencing with Section 52100) of Chapter 7 of Part 28 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code, relating to pupil instruction, and making an appropriation therefor. instruction.
AB 865 would create a new, temporary grant program within the California Department of Education to help local educational agencies expand instructional materials for dual language immersion programs. The bill appropriates $5 million from the General Fund for the 2026-27 fiscal year, with grants of $100,000 available to school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools. The program is designed to support both schools teaching in partner languages that are among the five most commonly spoken languages by English learner pupils in California and schools teaching in less common partner languages.
Of the $5 million, $3.5 million would go to up to 35 local educational agencies serving dual language immersion programs in the state’s most commonly spoken partner languages, and $1.5 million would go to up to 15 agencies serving programs in other partner languages. Grant funds could be used to develop standards-aligned materials or purchase supplemental materials in the partner language, such as textbooks and workbooks. The bill also requires each grant recipient to submit a plan for how funds will be used, then later report on expenditures and provide copies or lists of the materials obtained or developed.
The bill would add a new article to the Education Code and repeal it on January 1, 2030, making the program temporary unless extended. It also conditions implementation on a future appropriation in the Budget Act or another statute. In addition, the bill states that the appropriation would count toward the state’s minimum funding requirements for school districts and community college districts under the California Constitution.
The overall sentiment appears favorable. The bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a 9-0 vote with a do-pass recommendation and was advanced as amended, suggesting broad support and little visible opposition at that stage. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate substantive concerns.
The main policy issue is how to distribute limited grant funding between high-enrollment partner languages and less commonly taught languages, while ensuring that each category receives support. Potential points of contention could include whether the $5 million appropriation is sufficient, whether the top-five-language distinction is the best way to target need, and whether the reporting requirements are burdensome for recipients. However, the available record shows no formal opposition or major controversy.
AB 865 would amend the Education Code by creating a new, sunsetted Dual Language Immersion Education Instructional Materials Grant Program administered by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. It would authorize one-time grants to local educational agencies for instructional materials in partner languages, impose application and reporting requirements on recipients, and require the Department of Education to report back to the Legislature. The bill also makes the program contingent on a future appropriation and treats the funding as part of the state’s minimum funding obligation calculations.
The available voting record indicates strong support and no recorded opposition at the committee stage. The Assembly Appropriations Committee approved the bill 9-0 and sent it forward with a do-pass recommendation, which suggests the measure was viewed as a targeted education funding proposal with broad appeal. No committee transcript is available, so there is no documented floor or committee debate reflecting criticism or divided views.
No explicit contention appears in the available record, but the bill’s structure suggests a few possible policy questions: whether grants should prioritize the most commonly spoken partner languages versus less common ones, whether the $100,000 grant amount is adequate to meaningfully expand instructional materials, and whether the reporting and documentation requirements could create administrative work for districts and charter schools. Any disagreement would likely center on funding levels, allocation formulas, and implementation burden rather than the underlying goal of supporting dual language immersion.