Transcript Highlights:

• I will note that of the over 7,000 students that were reported to us, 617 students that were submitted
• So on those 614 students, funding has been released on those students.
• those students.
• students in our data systems.
• They are their students.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But I'm talking about the teachers themselves, where they bond with the students, because the students
• Because of this, more students feel supported, more students feel like they belong, and more students
• . students, middle and high school students are left out.
• Because of this, more students feel supported, more students feel like they belong, and more students
• of color, low-income students, especially Black students and English learners.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals for universal school meals, the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), and community schools, with the kitchen infrastructure grants, Tier 2 ELOP funding, and ongoing community schools funding as the main budget issues. For universal meals, the Department of Education and the Department of Finance supported continued investment in school meal infrastructure and explained that federal changes, inflation, and underreporting in meal counts could affect future funding. The LAO recommended rejecting a fourth round of kitchen infrastructure grants, arguing prior rounds are still being spent and that future funding should be tied to clearer goals and data. Several public commenters and school groups supported continued kitchen grants and universal meals, citing supply-chain delays, workforce needs, and benefits such as more freshly prepared meals and higher participation. For ELOP, the administration proposed $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding and an additional $62.4 million to set a minimum Tier 2 rate of $1,800 per pupil. The LAO recommended fully fixing the Tier 2 rate at $1,579 and tying future changes to program requirements, while CDE supported the proposal and said the program is improving attendance and academic outcomes. Senators and witnesses discussed whether ELOP should remain a standalone program or be folded into LCFF, with concerns raised about accountability, flexibility, and whether the program should better serve older youth. CDE said new CalPADS reporting and the biennial report will provide more data soon, and public testimony largely supported stabilizing Tier 2 funding while also asking for more support for middle and high school students. For community schools, the Governor proposed $1 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding to expand the model to thousands more schools and to support existing sites, along with new accountability through annual self-certification and future accreditation. The LAO recommended continuing the current one-time grant approach instead of creating a new ongoing categorical program, warning about reduced flexibility, administrative burden, and the state’s capacity to support a much larger number of grantees. CDE strongly supported the ongoing funding and asked for additional support for county offices and technical assistance. Committee members questioned how accreditation would work for a model meant to be locally tailored, and administration staff said technical assistance would come first, with schools losing eligibility only if they failed to meet standards after support. Public testimony was overwhelmingly supportive of community schools, with parents, students, county offices, and advocacy groups describing gains in attendance, graduation, mental health supports, family engagement, and student belonging, while some commenters urged clearer eligibility rules, stronger reporting, and continued support for related programs such as MTSS and homeless student services.

Transcript Highlights:

• student.
• Eighth place, a carpentry student, and ninth place, a welding student.
• that the students in FFA, those are our students.
• And that’s where he recruits his students, thus our students.
• The Heckner Student Center. It's the main student union over there. Heckner Student Center.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , getting the students what they need and hearing the student voice.
• students belong, engage, and thrive. students belong, engage, and thrive.
• by student.
• student.
• A student is considered a student like.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• older student is going to take an NDAA than a younger student?
• we have a breakdown with students within students without.
• I had students who are 10th- and 11th-grade students.
• Every single student counts in that top half because every single student is a student.
• , not just students in special education. ...piece is for all students, not just students in special

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the March 4, 2026 minutes, and received a lengthy Department of Public Instruction presentation from Stanley Schauer Jr. on North Dakota student performance data in math and ELA, with comparisons between students with disabilities and students without disabilities. Schauer explained the assessment systems used, the 1% alternate assessment cap for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, the absence of 2019-20 data due to the pandemic, and how state standards are set by North Dakota educators. Members asked about cohort trends, the role of alternate assessments, grade-level patterns, and whether the state should focus more on reducing the novice category than on moving students from approaching to proficient. Schauer also discussed the new NDA Plus assessment, the state’s planned growth model, and the possibility of future breakdowns by disability category or by schools using science-of-math approaches. Special education educators testified that students with disabilities continued to receive services during COVID because of FAPE obligations, which likely helped limit learning loss, and emphasized that IEP teams focus on individual growth rather than only proficiency buckets. Committee members then shifted to special education funding and possible funding models. Brandon Bombach of Grand Forks Public Schools presented on the state aid formula, focusing on the special education weighting factor and arguing that the current formula does not adequately respond to growing student needs because it counts enrollment but does not adjust when the number of students with IEPs rises. He used examples to show that a district can have the same enrollment and receive the same weighting even if the number of students needing services increases. Members discussed whether the formula should be tied more closely to actual need and accountability, and the chair indicated that the committee would continue gathering data and ideas for a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• to our students.
• their students are.
• to include 6th grade students with secondary students and increase the factor for all students in grades
• 2,000 students times $14,000 per student?'
• for those students.

Transcript Highlights:

• Ten percent of those students are students with disabilities, and all of our students take the same assessments
• Our students are treated just like university students.
• full-time students away. full-time students away.
• > students.
• Our students are exceptional students. Our students are exceptional students.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The meeting focused on Kentucky school choice and innovation, with discussion of the state constitution’s “common schools” requirement and how that has been interpreted alongside newer education models. Chairman Tipton described model laboratory schools, Gatton and Craft Academies, magnet and virtual programs, and said these options show that Kentucky has long expanded opportunity through innovation. He then turned the discussion to Senate Bill 207, which he said was designed to support schools of innovation. Senator Steve West reviewed the history of Kentucky charter schools and explained that SB 207 was modeled on a South Carolina approach. He said the bill allows a local school board to contract with a third-party entity to manage an existing school, seek waivers from certain state rules, and receive SEEK funding while also allowing outside private investment. He emphasized that the district initiates the process, that the school remains public, and that the bill includes accountability through a time-limited contract that can be ended if the school is not performing. Members asked about the difference between SB 207 and the earlier charter school law, whether schools could cherry-pick students, and whether teachers would remain district employees. West and Tipton said the new model is tied to an existing school rather than a new charter, cannot cherry-pick students, and keeps teachers as district employees. Representative Brown raised concerns that charters and exceptions could leave some children out, especially lower-income students, while West responded that the proposal is intended to expand choice for families who may not otherwise have it and cited examples from other states where similar models improved low-performing schools. No vote or formal action was taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• , whether the student chose public or not. ...follow the student, whether the student chose public or
• This includes both public school students and scholarship students.
• moves from a traditional public school student to being a homeschool student or a scholarship student
• Duplicate students.
• A lot of that we are taking students in, kindergarten students, right?

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met to review how Florida’s Education Finance Program (FEFP) works, receive an update from the Department of Education on the October 2024 FTE survey and third FEFP calculation, and hear from three county superintendents about forecasting enrollment and reconciling scholarship students. The chair explained that FEFP is funded by both state and local dollars, is recalculated multiple times during the year, and is now closely tied to school choice policy. Department staff said the third calculation was still being rerun but should be completed soon, and described the forecasting process as collaborative among districts, DOE, and the Education Estimating Conference. Superintendents from Polk, St. Lucie, and Hendry counties said enrollment shifts, especially students moving to Family Empowerment Scholarships, homeschooling, or private schools, make budgeting and staffing difficult. They said districts often must hold back funds to protect against midyear losses, which affects collective bargaining, staffing, transportation, and classroom organization. Several members raised concerns about duplicate counting, transparency, and whether students receiving scholarship funds can also remain in district classrooms. DOE said districts can access scholarship information through a secure portal and that scholarship funding organizations are paid quarterly, with a new process requiring certification and possible future payment adjustments to reduce duplication. The superintendents urged better real-time tracking of students through a statewide ID or student information system and suggested scholarship students should be funded separately from district FEFP calculations. Members also discussed whether more frequent or daily attendance-based calculations would improve accuracy, though some warned that daily attendance could create new problems for high-poverty districts. The committee also briefly discussed categoricals, including mental health and ESE funding, with DOE saying it evaluates programs through studies, reporting requirements, and legislative direction. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with a motion to rise and adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• by students in the UC system.
• of its students today.
• the needs of our students.
• voting student members.
• And thank you to our student speakers for your testimonials about student voice and student representation

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee met for a hearing with one item on the agenda, ACA 18, a constitutional amendment to expand student representation on the University of California Board of Regents. The authors, Assemblymembers Celeste Rodriguez and Anamarie Farías, said the measure would double the number of student seats on the board and ensure both an undergraduate and a graduate student voice, arguing that students are the primary stakeholders and should have more meaningful input on decisions affecting tuition, housing, basic needs, and other campus issues. The authors accepted committee amendments that cleaned up language and the appointment process for student regents and their nonvoting designates. Supporters included UC student leaders, alumni, and advocacy groups. Testimony emphasized that the UC system has far more students than the current single voting student regent can represent, that student input has helped shape policies on housing, basic needs, campus policing, and tuition, and that the UC should align with the CSU and community college systems, which already have two student voting members. No opposition testimony was presented. Committee members voiced support, with several noting the importance of student voice and representation. The committee then voted to pass ACA 18 as amended and re-refer it to the Committee on Appropriations. The roll call ultimately finished at 9-0 in favor, and the measure was reported out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• , including foster youth students.
• I mean, if we had that for all of our underserved students, low-income students, Black and brown students
• Of students that they've served.
• And any community college student, any UC student, any CSU student will tell you that.
• My name is Indy Lee, a student at East San Barbara, on behalf of the UC Student Association and students

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard May Revision proposals covering higher education, including the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the University of California, California Community Colleges, the California Student Aid Commission, UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and trailer bill reporting changes. For the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the administration proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan taken to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to adjust for a pending legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about an interest-free loan under Proposition 26. Senators asked about whether the $10 million would cover the litigation and about the estimated $245,000 in interest savings. For UC, the May Revision maintained the Governor’s ongoing support and included budget language requiring campuses to grow by 2,968 California undergraduates in 2026-27. UC also sought $1.5 million in one-time General Fund support for the First Star foster youth program. UC described strong outcomes for the UCLA program, while the LAO recommended rejecting the new spending because UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and because the need for new state funding was not clear. Senators debated whether the proposal duplicated existing services and discussed the program’s reported college-going and completion rates. The committee also heard a request for $1 million ongoing General Fund for UC College of the Law, San Francisco, to maintain campus safety services; the college described its shared-campus model and public-interest mission, while the LAO noted the college was also raising tuition and that the proposal would maintain, rather than expand, current security spending. The committee then reviewed community college proposals. Finance outlined a larger May Revision package centered on a 4.31% SCFF COLA, enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, a one-time Adult Learner Demonstration Project allocation, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time items. The Chancellor’s Office supported the package but asked for more enrollment growth funding, a higher growth rate, and additional policy changes. The LAO recommended at least funding the statutory 2.87% COLA, then considering whether to redirect remaining funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time priorities; it recommended rejecting the Adult Learner Demonstration Project. Senators questioned the use of the discretionary COLA to cover paid pregnancy disability leave, the impact on hold harmless and basic aid districts, and whether the state should instead create a separate categorical. The Chancellor’s Office and Finance said the COLA approach was intended to provide flexibility, though Finance said it was open to further discussion about districts that would not receive direct funding. For student aid, Finance described May Revision changes to Cal Grant and the Middle Class Scholarship, including a one-time reduction tied to lower estimated costs and a later true-up, as well as proposals for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. CSAC supported the financial aid investments but urged more time and clearer implementation planning for Workforce Pell, noting the need for state approval processes, data linkages, and likely ongoing administrative workload. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding and cautioned that the Workforce Pell trailer bill and one-time funding were premature given the new federal rules and unclear workload. Senators also raised concerns about the Middle Class Scholarship reduction, the need to support students facing higher living costs, and the decline in CADA/DREAM Act applications, with CSAC saying the drop did not reflect reduced need and that outreach should be strengthened. The final item was a set of technical trailer bill changes to shift some UC, CSU, and community college reporting from annual to biennial and consolidate reports; Finance said there were no programmatic changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• student is right around 2,185, thereabouts, $2,185 per student times the number of students, it's a
• Um, we had 10,588 students. Multiply that times four... Students.
• Uh, again, the students only students that are enrolled and uh receiving the disperse...
• students ...
• students student it basically allowed students receiving<01:29:07.280> the<01:29:07.600> EFA

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Freedom Account Oversight Committee met on March 27 and approved the agenda, adding a request for clarification on how the Children’s Scholarship Fund separates applications for the EFA program and the education tax credit program. The committee also approved minutes from December 30, 2025, and March 27, 2026, with a request that the March minutes include a link to the live stream. Members discussed the status of pending Legislative Budget Assistant audit reports on EFA and special education, noting the reports were still not released and would likely come later in the summer after review by the Department of Education and the Children’s Scholarship Fund. A major topic was the EFA program’s administrative fee, which statute allows up to 10% of deposits. Children’s Scholarship Fund representatives said current administrative costs were under 8%, that staffing had been reduced through the ScholarVia platform, and that any unused amount is reconciled and returned to students at year’s end. Members asked for historical administrative-cost data and a written explanation of how the withholding and reconciliation process works. The committee also reviewed the distinction between the EFA and education tax credit funding streams and was told the two programs use separate applications and separate funds, though both use the same platform. The committee spent substantial time on assessment and accountability. Department of Education staff explained that EFA students may satisfy annual assessment requirements through a portfolio, a norm-referenced test, or the statewide assessment; only about 10 EFA students took the statewide assessment, while most used portfolios or standardized tests such as the California Achievement Test and NWEA. Staff described how statewide assessment data are kept separate by student identifier and can be aggregated for EFA reporting, and members asked for breakdowns by grade, test type, and school district. The department also discussed linking assessments through Lexiles and Quantiles and said it could provide a list of commonly used formative assessments in New Hampshire districts. The committee additionally discussed a possible PSAT addition to the state contract and the costs of the statewide assessment program. Another major issue was special education eligibility and services within the EFA program. Members questioned the rule allowing a medical certification of disability from a licensed professional anywhere in the United States as an alternative to an IEP-based determination. Department staff said the current system allows either pathway, that about 1,000 EFA students are identified as special education students, and that the program does not track growth or service alignment on an individual basis. Members expressed concern that the medical-certification route may be too broad and asked for data on the disability categories used. The committee also discussed career and technical education access for EFA students, noting that Senate Bill 491 would provide guidance and that House Bill 1817 would address access and funding issues, but that current law still allows EFA funds to be used to pay CTE costs. The meeting ended with a request for future agenda items and a decision to leave the next meeting date open until fall, pending further information from the LBA audit process.

Transcript Highlights:

• harm in a student? harm in a student?
• Students, uh, seclusion is used on students.
• <00:40:39.200> in students, American Indian students in students, American Indian students
• :21:48.400> student<01:21:48.640> had with the student, the student had with the student
• student as well. student as well.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The academic goals for students were to graduate academically competent students, and as Elizabeth and
• The academic goals for students were to graduate academically competent students, and as Elizabeth and
• As far as its public education students or public school students, As far as its public education students
• students, white students, economically disadvantaged students, which in Arkansas refers to students
• students, white students, economically disadvantaged students, which in Arkansas, this refers to students

Summary: The committee received a lengthy Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on Arkansas academic standards, accountability systems, and adequacy requirements. Staff reviewed how state curriculum and standards have evolved from the 1997 Public Education Act through the 2003 Quality Education Act and the 2017 Educational Support and Accountability Act, including required coursework, standards for accreditation, career and technical education, graduation requirements, and recent additions such as computer science, personal finance, firearm safety, and fetal growth and development instruction. Members asked for a chart comparing the major laws and repeals over time, and staff agreed to provide one. The presentation then turned to federal ESSA requirements and Arkansas’s state accountability system. Staff explained Arkansas’s long-term goals for proficiency, English learner progress, and graduation rates, and reported 2025 ATLAS proficiency results, which remained below the 80% goal across student groups. They also reviewed English learner progress, graduation rates, school support and improvement, and equitable access to educators. Data showed gaps by subgroup and by school poverty/minority concentration, with Title I and high-poverty schools more likely to have emergency/provisional teachers and less experienced staff. Members questioned the lack of recent data for some ESSA measures, including equity labs and school index calculations, and asked staff to follow up with the Department of Education. The committee also discussed NAEP results, ACT scores, and teacher quality measures under the state accountability act. Arkansas’s NAEP performance remained below national averages in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math, and ACT composite scores and benchmark attainment were also reviewed. Members asked for additional information on historical highs and lows, the number of assessments students take by grade, dropout data, and comparisons with other states. No formal votes were taken; the main action was agreement to request additional information from DESE and to schedule department follow-up at a future meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our student body is more than 70% students of color.
• When we cut grants, when we tell Black and brown students, first-gen students, and our female students
• When we cut grants, when we tell Black and brown students, first-gen students, and our female students
• students.
• students compared to continuing students students compared to continuing students and<01:23:14.800

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• students watched from their residence. students watched from their residence.
• our students. our students.
• immigrant and domestic students. immigrant and domestic students.
• and all students. and all students.
• <01:20:45.040> Um, same from students. Um, same from students.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But I'm talking about the teachers themselves, where they bond with the students, because the students
• Because of this, more students feel supported, more students feel like they belong, and more students
• It's about building relationships with students and families to better support how students learn and
• I'm honored to follow two students.
• of color, low-income students, especially Black students and English learners.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals for universal school meals, the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), and community schools. On universal meals, the Department of Education supported continued funding for the Universal School Meals Program and a fourth round of Kitchen Infrastructure and Training Grants, citing meal-count growth, improved meal service, and the need to offset federal uncertainty, inflation, and reduced direct certification tied to immigration-related policy changes. The LAO recommended rejecting another kitchen grant round, arguing prior rounds are still being spent and the state has not clearly defined unmet need. Members also raised concerns about the state’s ability to backfill federal meal funding and about how federal requirements affect programs like Summer EBT/SUN Bucks. Public commenters largely supported school meals and kitchen investments, with some urging support for plant-based milk options and continued infrastructure funding. For ELOP, the Department of Finance proposed $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding, including $62.4 million to set a minimum Tier 2 rate of $1,800 per pupil. The LAO recommended going further and fully fixing the Tier 2 rate, saying rate uncertainty complicates district planning. CDE supported the proposal and said the program has improved attendance and academic outcomes, while noting new CalPADS reporting will provide more data soon. Senators discussed whether ELOP should remain a standalone program or be folded into LCFF, and whether the state should require stronger outcome reporting. Public testimony generally backed stabilizing Tier 2 funding, but some speakers urged more support for older youth and more timely, user-friendly reporting. On community schools, the administration proposed $1 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding to expand the model to thousands more schools and to support existing grantees, along with stronger technical assistance, statewide alignment, and an accreditation/self-certification framework. The LAO recommended continuing the current one-time grant approach instead of creating a new ongoing categorical program, warning about reduced flexibility, administrative burden, and the state’s capacity to support a much larger cohort. CDE supported the ongoing investment but asked for additional county office and technical assistance funding. Senators and public commenters were broadly supportive of community schools, emphasizing improved attendance, graduation, and student engagement, while also debating accountability, accreditation, and whether non-classroom-based charter schools should be eligible. Public testimony strongly favored ongoing funding and highlighted community schools’ role in mental health, family engagement, and wraparound supports.

Transcript Highlights:

• So our role is to continually make the college student-ready and meet students where they are.
• We can make it easier for students.
• So these students are coming... ...students have been receiving, but there's no uniformity in that.
• We believe, knowing our student population, that most of our students can't travel that far to get a
• the tutoring and finding the student where they are, and then making sure that that student is going

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• safety of their students. safety of their students.
• of our students. of our students.
• students who need it. students who need it.
• students to obstruct. students to obstruct.
• to all the students? to all the students?

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee adopted the minutes from its February 24, 2026 meeting after a motion by Vice Chair Coulter. The hearing then focused on the impact of federal immigration enforcement, referred to throughout as Operation Metro Surge, on Minnesota college campuses. The chair said the purpose was to document alleged abuses, campus fear, and racial discrimination, and to hear from testifiers about effects on students, faculty, and staff. Representative Novotny briefly objected to the framing, saying the committee should be finding facts rather than making a predetermined presentation, and the chair responded that members should remain respectful and that questions would be held until after all presenters testified. Augsburg University President Paul Pribbenow described what he called relentless and unprecedented disruption, including student stops and interrogations, family separations, and an ICE operation on campus in which armed masked agents allegedly detained a student without a warrant and pointed weapons at students and staff. He said the campus received bomb threats afterward, increased virtual learning options, and saw spikes in student support needs, housing assistance, and leaves of absence. Jenna Chernega of the Inter Faculty Organization said faculty across Minnesota State universities reported widespread student and colleague stress, increased workload, disappearing students, and a need for clearer sensitive-location protections and academic freedom guidance. Mark Grant of Minnesota State College Faculty said community conditions inevitably affect classrooms, that campuses have not yet had an ICE incident but are bracing for one, and that faculty want to support students and may need financial help if enrollment declines. Jennifer Irwin of AFSCME said fear from ICE activity extends beyond campus boundaries and is affecting attendance, work, and daily life for staff and students; she cited a member detained in St. Paul while trying to prove legal status. Student testifiers Brendan Frazier of Concordia University, St. Paul, Jonathan Fitzgerald of Minnesota State Mankato, Sudi Adow of Lead MN, and Will Luther of the University of Minnesota Twin Cities described panic, reduced attendance, food insecurity, disrupted classes, and fear of leaving home or commuting to campus. They urged stronger student privacy protections, support for international and immigrant students, emergency aid, and policies to keep campuses safe. No further committee action or votes were taken after the minutes approval.

Transcript Highlights:

• which the student applies for the grant. which the student applies for the grant.
• students.
• So for um independent students students.
• Our students are staying here.
• students not only at the College of St. students not only at the College of St.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are here to talk about the two programs for our students with our students.
• Three students.
• students.
• students.
• Students who are inducted into this student organization have earned in May Students who are inducted

Summary: The committee heard presentations on three Arkansas programs serving students and adults with autism and other developmental disabilities. University of Arkansas representatives described the Empower Program, a non-degree, four-year inclusive postsecondary program for young adults with mild intellectual disabilities, and the Autism Support Program, which provides intensive academic, peer, and career coaching for degree-seeking students with autism. They explained the programs’ person-centered planning, residential and employment supports, fee structure of $5,000 per semester for each program, and scholarship/fundraising efforts to offset costs. Members asked about dorm arrangements, mentoring, individualized plans, and how students move in and out of support services, and the presenters emphasized independence, integrated campus life, and transition planning. Pulaski Technical College staff then presented the 3D program, a three-year transition program in culinary, baking, and hospitality for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. They outlined integrated classes, internships, job placement outcomes, and data showing strong completion and employment retention rates. Questions focused on how success is measured, tuition and financial aid, and the challenge of securing community partners for practicum and employment sites. The presenters said the program uses rubrics that include technical and professional skills, charges $5,700 per semester, and is pursuing accreditation through the Inclusive Higher Education Accreditation Council. The final presentation was from SLS Community, a Fayetteville nonprofit serving neurodivergent adults through residential supports, supported employment, and community initiatives. Leaders described their vision for a future mixed-use “live-work-play” development at Cato Springs, current residential and vocational services, and community events such as a 5K and a neurodiversity health care conference. Family members testified about the need for adult services, trained direct support professionals, and better reimbursement and behavioral health supports after age 21. No formal votes were taken beyond approving the prior meeting minutes, and members also announced upcoming autism-related events and requested future discussion on task force appointments and ABA-related issues.