Transcript Highlights:

• , where together the state progressed significantly in a range of critical education programs on behalf
• education programs on behalf of education programs on behalf of Minnesota<00:13:04.399> students
• It is a technical language strike in the American Indian education aid program to, with the elimination
• and then going into the higher education setting to teach there, and the intention of this program was
• and then going into the the program and then going into the higher<00:49:03.599> education<00

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There are 41 educator preparation programs in our state, known as EPPs.
• Twenty-two of our 41 educator preparation programs in the state offer a total of 367 separate alternate
• program.
• program.
• So they can't teach if the high school has an approved career and technical education program.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• preparation program. to complete a bachelor's degree and enroll in an educator preparation program.
• In special education, we certified more than twice as many teachers as the next two largest programs
• Senate Bill 2 establishes the Educational Freedom Accounts Program.
• Teacher retention initiatives fail when they do not oversee support for teacher education programs.
• They do not oversee support for teacher education programs. One more sentence with integrity.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and to tailor leadership programs to support students on career technical and education pathways.
• Regarding educator workforce, we support full funding for the GSDG and NBCI programs and suggest for
• The big one is the adult education program and the high school strong work force program.
• Fund for individualized education program template translations.
• So our program sees It's 98% high school graduation with over 90% pursuing higher education.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Department of Education.
• programs.
• program.
• program.
• ABC programs.

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the prior minutes and then shifted to an update from Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith on early childhood education, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. They said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ABC as a large state program with about 23,800 funded slots and roughly $114 million in annual appropriations. Department officials said they are reviewing slot allocations because about 1,000 seats are funded but unfilled, while more than 2,000 families are on waiting lists, and they plan to reduce or reallocate slots from providers that have not filled them over several years. They also said they are examining whether income thresholds, curriculum expectations, daily rates, and summer programming should be updated, and members raised concerns about access, local control, transportation, and whether the program should better align with K-12 choice and school readiness goals. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical data and other information for future discussion. The committee then received a legal presentation from BLR attorney Taylor Lloyd on the constitutional and statutory framework for education adequacy in Arkansas. She reviewed the Dupree and Lake View cases, explaining that the state must maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools, and that adequacy and equity are distinct but related concepts. She emphasized that the General Assembly is responsible for defining adequacy, studying whether the system meets that standard, and reacting to the evidence, while the courts ultimately decide constitutional compliance. Lloyd also explained the current adequacy definition, the role of the matrix as a funding tool rather than a spending mandate, and the distinction between unrestricted foundation funding and restricted categorical funding. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum followed with a historical overview of how Arkansas responded to the court cases and developed the current adequacy process. She traced major legislative actions from the 1980s through the Lake View litigation, including the creation of funding formulas, categorical aid, isolated funding, declining enrollment funding, and the 2003-2004 adequacy study that led to the Continuing Adequacy Evaluation Act and the matrix used to set foundation funding. She also described later changes to the adequacy statute, the financial reporting requirements for districts, and the ongoing use of surveys, stakeholder testimony, and consultant studies in the biennial adequacy process. Members asked questions about whether private or homeschool programs could use public funds for expenses like utilities, whether stakeholders should include those groups, the difference between average daily membership and attendance, and whether school board members are surveyed; staff said those issues would need further research or were outside the scope of the presenters’ role.

Transcript Highlights:

• bigger programs.
• programs.
• programs.
• programs.
• program.

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the previous minutes and then focused on an update from the Department of Education on early childhood programs, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ongoing work to review ABC slots, which have been flat for years at about 23,800 slots and roughly $114 million. They said about 1,000 slots statewide are currently unfilled despite a waiting list of more than 2,000 families, and the department is shifting toward paying based on enrollment rather than guaranteed slots. Members asked about school choice, income eligibility, year-round access, curriculum flexibility, transportation, and whether funding should be increased or rebalanced; the department said it is collecting data, may survey providers more formally, and is considering whether to modernize income thresholds, daily rates, and other program rules. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical information on income limits and other program details. The second major portion of the meeting was a legal presentation on the framework for Arkansas school adequacy by BLR education attorney Taylor Lloyd. She reviewed the constitutional basis for a “general, suitable, and efficient” public school system, the Dupree and Lake View cases, and the principle that adequacy and equity are different but related: adequacy asks what resources are needed, while equity asks whether those resources are distributed fairly. She explained that the General Assembly must define adequacy, study it, and react to evidence over time, and that the current adequacy definition includes curriculum and career/technical frameworks, the 38 mandatory Carnegie units, state testing standards, and sufficient funding. She also described the matrix as a funding tool, not a spending mandate, and noted that categorical funds are separate from the matrix. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum then gave the historical framework, tracing legislative responses from Dupree through Lake View and into the present. She highlighted major changes such as the creation of equalization funding, fiscal distress and academic distress laws, the adequacy study process, the Educational Adequacy Fund, facilities and transportation changes, declining enrollment and student growth funding, and later adjustments to teacher salaries, isolated funding, and categorical programs. She explained that the adequacy study has evolved through committee hearings, surveys, site visits, and outside consultants, and that recent changes include updates to accountability references and the addition or removal of certain funding categories. Members asked follow-up questions about how the matrix is used, whether homeschool or private-school funding raises comparable issues, whether stakeholders include private and homeschool participants, whether school board members should be surveyed, and whether the state should revisit average daily membership versus attendance-based funding. No votes were taken on the adequacy presentations, but the committee did agree to continue the early childhood discussion in a future subcommittee meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• revenue programs, uh, a brief overview of special education revenue, not to supersede what we heard
• revenue programs, uh, a brief overview of special education revenue, not to supersede what we heard
• Take a close look at a few selected general education revenue programs, a brief overview of special education
• educ education programs is in special educ education programs is also<00:42:06.079> kind<00:42
• > in<01:44:13.320> whole education program that's funded in whole education program that's

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That does not include the $13 billion in local funds included in the Florida Education Finance Program
• Obviously, the biggest driver in the Pre-K-12 budget is the Florida Education Finance Program, or FEFP
• We also provide the voluntary pre-K education program, which is a universal pre-K program for all four-year-olds
• So a little bit more about our voluntary pre-K education program: as stated earlier, VPK offers free
• , under the cap, personalized education program — the personalized education program that the Legislature

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee held its first interim meeting, took roll, and established a quorum. Members introduced themselves, many noting backgrounds in education, school boards, local government, or parenting, and Chair Jenna Persons-Mulicka outlined the committee’s goal of building the fiscal year 2025-26 Pre-K-12 budget. She also reviewed the fiscal year 2024-25 education budget, noting that the Pre-K-12 portion totals about $21 billion, with the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) as the largest driver, along with major funding for VPK, school readiness, and school recognition. She explained that federal COVID relief funds have ended and that recent school choice legislation has affected budget structure. Commissioner Manny Diaz and department leaders then gave overviews of their divisions. Diaz highlighted Florida’s education rankings, record graduation rate, progress monitoring, expanded school choice participation, charter school growth, and teacher salary investments, while emphasizing a focus on literacy, math, and early learning. Carrie Miller described the Division of Early Learning’s school readiness and VPK programs, their funding, eligibility, accountability systems, and the importance of kindergarten readiness. Paul Burns outlined the Division of Public Schools’ work on educator quality, literacy, standards, certification, family outreach, federal programs, and school improvement. Suzanne Pridgen reviewed finance and operations functions, including budget management, FEFP calculations, grants, procurement, transportation, and emergency management. Adam Emerson described parental choice programs, including scholarships, charter schools, schools of hope, virtual education, and home education. Darren Norris detailed the Office of Safe Schools’ responsibilities for risk assessments, compliance inspections, threat management, grants, and training created after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas tragedy. Members asked questions about several issues, including whether the Safe Schools office recommends changes to the school safety grant distribution formula, whether early learning eligibility should shift from federal poverty level to state median income, how scholarship payments are verified to avoid funding students who return to public school, and whether daily attendance systems could improve funding accuracy. Other questions addressed hurricane-related survey disruptions, VPK provider reimbursement rates and instructional hours, teacher salary increases, school start time costs, and how voucher schools handle IEP accommodations. Department officials generally said some issues remain under review, supported moving school readiness eligibility to SMI, noted that scholarship and enrollment data are cross-checked and adjusted when needed, and said progress monitoring now helps schools support mobile students. On school safety, officials said exemptions are allowed in statute for some items but not for classroom doors, and that district-specific conditions matter. No votes were taken and no formal actions were reported beyond receiving presentations and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Program.
• That's a program at NMSU designed to act as a hub of best practices for STEM education.
• As I just mentioned, the Public Education Reform Fund's whole purpose is to evaluate the impact of programs
• program.
• education.

Transcript Highlights:

• through higher education and other preparation programs out there.
• We have some credentialing programs through higher education.
• We have something called Educators Rising, and schools have Educators Rising programs, which we might
• Four out of five educator fellows, Grow Your Own, clinical programs. How are those programs?
• The ERB administers the Educational Retirement Act, a program for education employees.

Transcript Highlights:

• Also sitting behind me, we have the director of this program from the Department of Education, and then
• from Department of of this program from Department of Education<01:02:34.640> and<01:02:34.799
• The same could be said about the education tax credit program established by RSA 77-G.
• about the education tax credit program<03:19:35.720> established<03:19:36.160> by<03:19
• , higher education, and all those other programs. are directly looking at the fiscal are directly looking

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard HB 295, which would make school building aid funds non-lapsing/non-APS. Representative Cahill said the bill was intended to keep any unused building aid money available for future projects, potentially helping move projects up the priority list or provide a little more funding for school construction. Members asked about how much money has lapsed in past years, whether the education trust fund and building aid are separate, and whether any lapsing dollars could be used to pay down debt. Department of Education official Jim Carney said about $29.1 million would be available if building aid is funded to the $50 million maximum in FY26, confirmed that the fund currently lapses, and said the department would gather historical lapse data. Committee members also discussed whether a dedicated fund structure could achieve the same goal, and the chair noted that the education trust fund statute includes school building aid as one of its uses. No vote was taken; the hearing was closed and the committee said it would later hold a work session after receiving more information. The committee then took up HB 237, introduced by Representative Dan McGuire, which would prohibit the use of special education state funds and differentiated aid for students not receiving special education services. The New Hampshire School Boards Association, through Becky Wilson, opposed the bill as written, saying it was unclear, potentially unnecessary, and difficult to implement because adequacy and differentiated aid are distributed as part of a districtwide lump sum rather than as student-specific dollars. She explained that special education costs are embedded across district budgets, including staffing, training, transportation, and instruction, and that some staff and services benefit both special education and general education students. Wilson also said differentiated aid is not tied to a specific pupil and is used at the district’s discretion, though it is intended to support students with greater needs. Committee members pressed on whether the bill would require districts to track money by individual student, whether it could conflict with federal special education law, and whether it would affect least restrictive environment requirements. Wilson said making the funds student-specific could create privacy and accounting problems and could make it difficult to staff inclusive classrooms, though she did not give a definitive legal opinion on federal compliance. She agreed that students who are not eligible for special education would not be included in the separate catastrophic/special education aid reimbursement program. The discussion continued into the second section of the bill, with members exploring how adequacy aid and differentiated aid are used in practice, but no action was taken during the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a bill that would create the Building Better Futures Program to increase educational opportunities
• What we're hoping to do with the grant money is is build more programs at other higher education around
• programs.
• House Bill 3296 is a bill that funds a grant program to provide civic education through HBCUs as well
• as infrastructure and training for the student. and faculty in charge of that civic education program

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• programs that are bachelor's degree programs that are not typically found at universities.
• programs that are bachelor's degree programs that are not typically found at universities.
• Are there a sufficient supply of educators out there to start enacting these programs?
• And so high schools started to offer 13th and 14th grade adult ed educational programs one by one.
• And so high schools started to offer 13th and 14th grade adult ed educational programs one by one.

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee heard several Senate measures focused on community college procurement, higher education access, and student support. SB 1154 by Senator Reyes would allow community college districts to use best-value procurement for public works projects over $1 million. Supporters, including San Bernardino Valley College, the San Bernardino Community College District, labor groups, and several districts, said it would improve delivery of complex facilities and align community colleges with other education systems. Opponents, including the Associated General Contractors, argued the bill’s skilled-and-trained workforce requirements and labor-compliance scoring would narrow the bidder pool and raise costs. The committee passed the bill to the Assembly Floor on a due-pass vote, with some members voting no or not recorded. SB 1255, also by Senator Reyes, would create a California Hispanic-serving institution designation. Supporters from HACU, the CSU Chancellor’s Office, UC, community colleges, and other education organizations said the designation would recognize campuses that serve large numbers of Latino and low-income students and strengthen accountability and student success. The committee approved the bill as amended and re-referred it to Appropriations, with one no vote. SB 1328, presented on behalf of Senator Cervantes, would require LGBTQ+ points of contact at satellite or branch campuses of CSU and community colleges, either through designated staff or regular office hours. Testimony emphasized gaps in access at remote centers and the need for confidential support; one member raised concerns about staffing, costs, and whether existing systems could meet the need remotely. The bill was passed as amended and sent to Appropriations. The committee also considered SB 960 by Senator Cabaldon, which would expand the circumstances under which community colleges could offer bachelor’s degrees in response to unmet workforce needs, especially where CSU programs are impacted or not realistically accessible locally. Supporters said the bill would help meet workforce demand and expand access for place-bound and adult learners. CSU and faculty representatives opposed unless amended, urging stronger partnership requirements, clearer workforce-need standards, and safeguards around duplication and Prop 98 funding. Members discussed impaction, regional access, and the role of partnerships; the bill was passed as amended and re-referred to Appropriations. Finally, SB 632 by Senator Otagan would extend the California College Promise fee waiver to part-time community college students enrolled in nine units. Supporters said many students cannot attend full time because of work, caregiving, and living costs, and the bill would better reflect student realities; the transcript ends during testimony on this measure, before any vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a program that the Public Education Department (P.E.D.) has created, and this definition comes
• CTE programs.
• Programs.
• We partnered with the Public Education Department to create the Graduation Re-engagement Internship Program
• Educators, 77% of educators say this was enough to get kids back on track.

Transcript Highlights:

• freedom account funds in the education freedom account funds in the same<02:03:04.719> program
• <02:05:32.560> also<02:05:33.119> in education tax credit program are also in education
• you could take in additional students into the education tax credit program.
• could take in additional students into the education tax credit program.
• program for a disrupt the educational program for a number<02:12:33.920> of<02:12:34.079>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and the adult education program.
• The specific categorical programs include adult education, Extended Opportunity Programs and Services
• auto repair programs, CNA programs.
• auto repair programs, CNA programs.
• costs, and that state and federal categorical programs cover about the other Percent of special education

Summary: The committee heard an overview of the May Revision’s Proposition 98 changes for K-12 and community colleges. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, full payment of the prior settle-up, and larger deposits into the school rainy-day fund. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF updates were reasonable, but urged caution about the settle-up approach and recommended using more of the available funding to protect ongoing programs and build budget resilience. Members focused heavily on the size of the proposed $3.9 billion settle-up, the $10.3 billion reserve deposit, declining K-12 enrollment, and how much of the new funding should be ongoing versus one-time. The committee then reviewed the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described the May Revision’s higher SCFF COLA, additional funding for enrollment growth, a student support block grant, apprenticeship adjustments, and continued funding for deferred maintenance, Calbright, Common Cloud, and credit for prior learning. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended prioritizing the statutory COLA increase, noted that more than half of districts are already above current-year growth targets, and said the new adult learner demonstration project should be rejected because districts already have tools to support similar services. Members also discussed a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall, which Finance said was discovered too late for the May Revision and would need to be addressed later. Finally, the committee took up the proposed implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the California Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career to build eligibility and data systems, along with trailer bill changes to set up state approval processes. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, that California lacks the needed infrastructure, and that the state will need emergency regulations, data linkages, and ongoing funding beyond the one-time proposal. The LAO agreed that some initial funding is needed but warned that the amounts and ongoing costs remain uncertain and that the Legislature should carefully draft the trailer bill language. Members asked about timing, other states’ actions, and how the state would ensure the program is ready for students and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• For the literacy coaches program, we are allocating $235 million for local educational agencies to develop
• For the Math Coaches Program, we are providing a $250 million investment for local educational agencies
• Additionally, the proposal includes a Mathematics Coaches and Specialists grant program to help educators
• This grant program seeks to address a critical need in our education.
• Breakfast programs.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• education program makes a huge difference.
• huge childhood education program makes a huge childhood education program makes a huge difference
• <00:27:04.399> Schools education programs so that Local Schools education programs so that
• > program Early Childhood family education program Early Childhood family education program and
• basic education programs.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• All eligible students should have access to the program regardless of the educational model offered by
• McKinney-Vento program...
• I have the great privilege of coordinating the Homeless Education Services Program right here in the
• I have the great privilege of coordinating the Homeless Education Services Program right here in the
• program.

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:

• The goal is to streamline educational pathways and align programs from the institutions so that we can
• CACN represents all baccalaureate and higher education nursing programs in California, and we welcome
• I'm sure you're aware that there are programs for students in ADN programs to advance their nursing education
• The programs that we're looking at expand the nursing education into leadership.
• for the Golden State Education and Training Grant Program.

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee heard a series of bills focused on expanding access to higher education, addressing workforce shortages, student housing, and labor standards on campus projects. AB 662 would create a South County Higher Education Task Force to explore a mixed-use, intersegmental institution in Chula Vista; supporters said South San Diego County is a “college desert,” while the bill passed on a due pass as amended motion to Appropriations. AB 885 would establish a College Access for All Fund to help make CSU and UC attendance more affordable; supporters cited student debt and affordability concerns, and it also passed to Appropriations. AB 730 would provide $15 million to help establish a medical school in the Central Valley to address physician shortages, and it advanced on a due pass motion. AB 1400 would let up to 15 community college districts pilot bachelor’s degrees in nursing; supporters argued it would expand affordable BSN access and keep students local, while CSU, UC, and other higher education groups opposed it as unnecessary and inconsistent with the master plan. The bill passed to Appropriations, with members raising questions about clinical placements, faculty shortages, and possible effects on associate-degree programs. The committee also considered AB 1235, which would require CSU design-build projects to use a skilled and trained workforce, aligning CSU with other public higher education construction standards. Supporters said it would improve safety, training, and local job opportunities, and the bill passed to Appropriations. AB 1247 would restrict contracting out of classified school and community college jobs unless workers meet training and qualification standards and would address pension and training concerns; supporters said it would protect students and classified employees, while school and college groups warned it would disrupt services and add unfunded mandates. The bill passed to Appropriations with one no vote. AB 1470, presented on behalf of Assemblymember Haney, would allow a portion of student housing revolving loan funds to be used for affordable student, faculty, and staff housing in downtown and commercial districts; it was discussed as a housing and downtown revitalization measure, but the committee held off on a motion pending more members. ACA 3, also on behalf of Haney, would require UC to offer limited down payment loans to eligible long-term support staff first-time homebuyers; it drew extensive support from UC workers and unions, while UC and business groups opposed it as costly and outside UC’s mission, and the measure was still under discussion at the end of the transcript.