Transcript Highlights:

• > that students.
• These wonderful students that students.
• I'm joined by my student, Claire Alrech. She is a third-year student at Minnesota Law.
• students. Thank you. students. Thank you. >> Thank<00:26:39.840> you.
• feel like that's safe for your students. feel like that's safe for your students.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• performing students internationally. performing students internationally.
• This disadvantages students who are English learners, students with communication challenges, and students
• what the students teaching the students what the students are<00:32:20.000> eventually<00:32:
• students to see that.
• students to see that.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• underrepresented student teacher grants and<00:05:53.120> student<00:05:53.440> loan<00
• :05:53.680> debt<00:05:54.000> counseling and student loan debt counseling and student
• assistance for post-secondary students assistance for post-secondary students grants<00:09:15.360
• For dependent students to 100% of the parental contribution, setting the student aid index, parental
• And this loses state student aid.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Charter school students, students that go to charter school, they're left out of safe school aid.
• It's the students.
• Our students that happen to be students in charter schools, they should have a safe place to study.
• > to<00:05:08.160> be<00:05:08.320> students students that that happen to be students
• students that that happen to be students in<00:05:08.720> charter<00:05:09.120> schools,

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• more costly than that of a student more costly than that of a student that's<00:36:55.319> uh
• per student.
• eligible, around 1,500 students.
• preschool students out of state students preschool students out of state students and<03:45:57.040
• students being enrolled are the students students being enrolled are the students who<04:01:25.720

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in executive session on HB 563, which revises the adequacy education grant formula, including differentiated aid for free and reduced-price meals, English language learners, and special education, and also restores fiscal capacity disparity aid. Members explained that for FY 26 the formula largely stays the same with the usual 2% increases, while FY 27 would raise the base cost and several aid categories, including a substantial increase in special education differentiated aid. Supporters said the bill recognizes higher special education costs and separates fiscal capacity disparity from the extraordinary needs grant, which they argued better targets property-poor communities. A major point of discussion was the fiscal capacity disparity aid component. Some members asked for more detail on how the formula affected individual towns and how much money was being allocated. The sponsors said the spreadsheet showed the impacts and estimated the fiscal capacity disparity portion at about $13.3 million, benefiting roughly 40 communities, with Manchester the only municipality expected to receive less under the new approach. They also said the change partially rebalances money that had shifted heavily toward larger cities under the extraordinary needs grant and that the special education increase is new money, not taken from the hold harmless or extraordinary needs funds. Several members supported the amendment as a good-faith step and a bipartisan compromise, while others expressed frustration that they did not have enough time or information to review the spreadsheets in detail before voting. After extended debate, the committee recessed for lunch to allow the spreadsheet to be distributed and reviewed, with the understanding that the bill would continue later in the day and then move on to the other bills on the docket.

Transcript Highlights:

• When the bell rang, I asked an admin to escort student A to class while I escorted student B.
• expelled student. expelled student.
• those students who need good teachers. those students who need good teachers.
• students would be expelled for a year? students would be expelled for a year?
• IEPs and students who have students with IEPs and students who have done<00:27:23.679> this<00

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call, and a declared quorum. The chamber excused an absent senator, approved the prior journal, received House communication that the House had passed HB 168, 185, 249, and 455 and requested concurrence, and heard committee reports advancing SB 37 and SB 214 from Agriculture, SB 157 and SB 189 with a committee substitute from Banking and Insurance, and SJR 54 with a committee substitute from Families and Children. The Senate also introduced SB 226 on pre-need burial contracts and SR 113 honoring Robert Connley Young. The main floor debate centered on SB 101, an act relating to children, which would require a mandatory 12-month expulsion for students in grades 6-12 who assault a school employee, with exceptions for certain students with disabilities under an IEP and for incidents involving provocation by a school employee. The bill also creates a mandatory reporting requirement for assaults and penalties for intentionally failing to report them. The sponsor argued the measure responds to widespread, underreported assaults on teachers, citing 25,000 reported incidents since 2021 and sharing testimony from a teacher whose career ended after repeated assaults. Supporters said the bill would improve school safety, accountability, and classroom control, while opponents argued it is too harsh for children, could permanently remove students from school, and should leave more discretion to principals and districts. After debate, the Senate adopted Senate Committee Substitute 1 for SB 101 and then proceeded to final passage. Several senators spoke for and against the bill during roll-call explanation, with supporters emphasizing teacher safety, parental responsibility, and consequences for repeat offenders, and opponents warning about lost educational opportunities and the need for second chances. The transcript cuts off during the roll call, but the chamber had already adopted the committee substitute and moved to vote on SB 101 as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Students work to get by, to be able to survive in Los Angeles.
• Most students now are working over. They're working over.
• So like we said, we had an over-representation of UCLA students. majority of LSRP students go to UCLA
• Students aren't just balanced.
• So really allowing students to work less.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• STUDENTS ENROLLED IN THIS PROGRAM VARY FROM TRADITIONAL UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS TO WORKING PROFESSIONALS
• THE STUDENTS FOR THE NEXT SET OF JOBS THAT WE WANT OUR STUDENTS TO FACE AS THEY MOVE FURTHER.
• STUDENTS BE?
• BECAUSE NOT ALL STUDENTS OF COURSE BUT SOME STUDENTS ARE NOT PRODUCING CRITICAL THINKING NOW.
• STUDENTS WILL USE THAT.

Transcript Highlights:

• technically when you have the students technically when you have the students that<02:08:18.639>
• <02:12:35.840> And number of students in the state. And number of students in the state.
• preparation pilot program for students preparation pilot program for students with<03:36:16.800>
• The students are there.
• helped the students in New Hampshire. helped the students in New Hampshire.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to protect student identity.
• We we have a number of initiatives related to college career advising, student success, getting students
• What we have to do is we have to have better student services to make sure the students we have get the
• I believe that... student services at the schools for every student that we have becomes critical.
• . students everything that they lost.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , how to deal with motivating students, how to deal with handling<00:25:01.760> student<00:25:
• Student, that's fine, but it might be very appropriate for another student.
• were losing students previously.
• enrollment and student needs.
• on student enrollment and student needs. on student enrollment and student needs.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• WE HAVE MANY STUDENTS WHO NEED A LEG UP.
• STUDENTS ARE HOME EDUCATION STUDENTS THAT PARTICIPATE IN DUAL ENROLLMENT.
• SYSTEM AVERAGE STUDENT.
• STUDENT.
• SO WE DON'T ALWAYS KNOW WHY A STUDENT IS IN BIOLOGY BUT THERE ARE MANY STUDENTS IN BIOLOGY.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The money goes where the students go.
• Students, not the school.
• Listen, student life has become... ...and letting the free market and the students choose.
• It's about supporting students, our most vulnerable students.
• It's about supporting students, our most vulnerable students.

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The money goes where the students go.
• Students, not the school.
• Listen, student life has become... ...and letting the free market and the students choose.
• Student life is becoming very important.
• It's about supporting students, our most vulnerable students.

Summary: The Senate Education Committee met to hear several education-related measures. It reported favorably, without objection, on House Bill 1215, which would transfer certain removed historical statues and monuments to the Office of State Parks, prohibit re-erection in the parish where they were removed, and require interpretive signage. The committee also advanced House Bill 682, which creates a school guardian program for honorably discharged veterans employed or contracted by local school systems or charter schools; testimony emphasized that guardians would be unarmed, trained, and used for mentoring and school safety. House Bill 1079, giving enrollment preferences in charter schools to children in early childhood programs, military families, foster children, and children in custody disputes, was also reported favorably, as was House Concurrent Resolution 81, directing the Department of Education to study options for districts facing declining enrollment. The committee then took up House Bill 1084, which would allow public postsecondary institutions to raise tuition and mandatory fees by up to 15 percent annually, with higher increases requiring Board of Supervisors approval. The bill drew extended debate over affordability, TOPS, student retention, and whether universities should have more autonomy to set prices. Members raised concerns about fee burdens on families and whether the state should first study the issue; supporters argued the bill would increase transparency and let institutions respond to funding needs and market conditions. Senator Mazzell offered an amendment lowering the cap from 15 percent to 10 percent, and the committee adopted the amendment before reporting the bill favorably as amended. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 342, which would shift the burden of proof in special education due process hearings from parents to local education agencies. The author and parents testified that the current system places an unfair burden on families of children with disabilities, who often lack access to records and legal resources, and that schools already control the documentation and should have to show compliance with IEP obligations. Jefferson Parish school officials opposed the bill, arguing it would increase legal costs, require more staff and attorney time, and potentially lead to more hearings; they also questioned the fiscal note. The Legislative Fiscal Office said the fiscal impact was indeterminable, and the committee continued hearing testimony from parents and school representatives as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• think bringing choice back to students think bringing choice back to students and<00:04:37.360><
• students develop healthy choices. choices. choices.
• that students can pick, and it benefits farmers.
• that students can pick, and it benefits farmers.
• behind this legislation as uh students behind this legislation as uh students could<00:13:48.399

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The interview focused on Senate File 3687, a Minnesota bill that would expand school milk choices in the National School Lunch Program. The senator said the measure is modeled on recently passed federal legislation and would allow schools to offer whole milk, 2% milk, flavored milks, and non-dairy alternatives when requested, reversing what he described as the 2010 federal limits to skim and low-fat milk. He argued the bill is about choice rather than mandates and said it could reduce milk waste, increase student consumption, and support healthier decision-making. The senator said the bill has broad bipartisan support and only limited criticism, with the main concern in committee being whether schools would face added stocking burdens. He responded that schools would not be required to offer any specific milk and could adjust orders based on student demand. He also said the bill would benefit Minnesota dairy farmers and local economies by increasing demand for milk produced and cartoned in the state. The interview also touched on Senate File 3686, a separate proposal to create a pilot program for rotational grazing funded through the environmental trust fund. The senator described it as a small but meaningful effort to help beginning farmers, improve pasture management, and support conservation lands, with grants covering up to 50% of fencing or grassland establishment costs, capped at $25,000 per recipient. The segment ended with a lighthearted milk tasting, reinforcing the theme of offering more choices.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some students automatically apply, or some students automatically are eligible, yes. Mr.
• It's a few hundred students. And so, But the numbers are low. It's a few hundred students.
• It's a few hundred students. And so, but the numbers are low. It's a few hundred students.
• So there again, we've got students who are celiac or have certain So there again, we've got students
• , would we have enough students there that would The direct certification students, would we have enough

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• at no cost to the student or their parent or guardian.
• Some students automatically are eligible, yes. Mr.
• Some students automatically apply, or some students automatically are eligible, yes. Mr.
• It's a few hundred students. And so But the numbers are low. It's a few hundred students.
• With the direct certification students, would we have enough students there that would qualify for direct

Summary: The Legislative Management Committee met to address the fiscal impact of Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3, which would require public schools, public school districts, and public charter schools to provide breakfast and lunch at no cost to students and allow reimbursement from the state, with implementation beginning in the 2027-28 school year. The committee first filled a vacancy created by Representative Jared Hagert’s resignation by appointing Representative Berg to the committee. Legislative Council and DPI staff explained the measure’s requirements, including federal reimbursement participation, possible use of the legacy earnings fund if other funding is unavailable, and the authority of the Legislature and superintendent of public instruction to clarify implementation details. Linnell Johnson of DPI testified that the estimated fiscal impact for the 2027-2029 biennium is between $124 million and $134 million, based on participation assumptions, federal reimbursement rates, and the extent to which schools continue to collect applications or use community eligibility/provision 2 options. She also noted a likely additional administrative cost of about $300,000 for DPI to operate the program. Members asked about school participation, Title I implications, special diets, staffing, and whether the measure could reduce federal reimbursements if families stop applying. Johnson said the estimate is uncertain and could be higher if applications decline, but that schools would still have incentives to participate in federal programs because of reimbursement and other funding ties. After discussion, the committee adopted a motion to report a fiscal impact range of $124,300,000 to $134,300,000 per biennium to the Secretary of State. The committee then received an informational update from Legislative Council attorney Dustin Richard on the ongoing redistricting litigation. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais, while the district court-imposed map remains in effect for now. No action was taken on that update, and the meeting adjourned after members noted minutes from the prior meeting were not yet available for approval.

Transcript Highlights:

• Many, many students.
• <00:05:17.639> I<00:05:17.720> think students many many students and I think students
• I just want to say that it's very, very successful because those students, they're wonderful students
• student, whatever it is, okay.
• We want students to have access.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So there are a lot of students coming to law school and a lot of students with interest in public service
• We use financial incentives to pull students—I'm sorry.
• We use financial incentives to pull students to law school.
• opportunities for those 1L students.
• opportunities for those 1L students.

Summary: The work session began with a discussion of expanding opportunities in the legal profession, especially in response to shortages of lawyers in rural Washington and in public service roles. Washington State Bar Executive Director Tara Nevitt described a slowly growing but aging attorney population, noted that younger attorneys have declined, and outlined efforts such as supervised practice pathways to bar admission, reduced admission-by-motion experience requirements, expanded law clerk capacity, rural job fairs and grants, and a pilot program allowing innovative legal service delivery models. Members asked about bar passage score changes, loan repayment assistance, and the former Limited License Legal Technician program; Nevitt said the bar is monitoring other states and remains in dialogue with the court about paraprofessional licensing. Law school representatives from UW, Seattle University, and Gonzaga emphasized public service pipelines, financial barriers, and rural legal deserts, citing LRAPs, scholarships, stipends, clinics, and hybrid or regional programs designed to recruit and retain students in Washington. Seattle U highlighted its FlexJD and hybrid hub partnerships in underserved areas, while Gonzaga and UW reported substantial shares of graduates entering public service, though most still cluster in urban regions. The committee also heard from the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and the Office of Public Defense, both of which described severe recruitment and retention problems in rural counties, with vacancies, low applicant pools, and the need for higher salaries, housing help, internships, and loan support. The Office of Public Defense said its internship and fellowship program, created by SB 5780, has already placed interns in rural counties and produced some commitments to return after graduation. The Washington State Bar’s law clerk program was also presented as a pathway that helps people train locally and remain in their communities, including by supporting succession for aging solo practitioners. The committee then shifted to family law and guardianship issues. On Title 26 guardian ad litem practice, presenters from Northwest Justice Project and private family law practice said GALs can play an important role but that training, oversight, and consistency remain major concerns, especially in domestic violence cases. They described problems such as inadequate training, bias, inconsistent recommendations, high fees, and lack of accountability, and suggested stronger, standardized training, more use of mental health professionals for custody evaluations, and better oversight mechanisms. Members asked about county practices, including rotation systems for GAL appointments and whether King County’s family court assessors provide a useful model. The discussion then moved to minor guardianships under the Uniform Guardianship Act. A Superior Court judge said the 2021 changes increased the need for court visitors and appointed counsel, but courts are struggling to find qualified attorneys and visitors, especially in rural areas. A former commissioner said most of the bill under discussion was technical cleanup to align prior amendments, though it would add some fiscal burdens. Administrative Office of the Courts staff reported that the statewide reimbursement program for UGA implementation has repeatedly run out of money earlier each year, with minor guardianship costs making up most of the expense. The Office of Public Guardianship then described rapid growth in demand for adult guardianship and less restrictive alternatives, noting that referrals and caseloads have risen sharply, but that the office is constrained by a shortage of certified professional guardians and low compensation levels. Finally, the committee began an update on Blake implementation from the Office of Civil Legal Aid, which funds civil legal services related to the decision, before the transcript cut off.

Transcript Highlights:

• So at Santa Fe, students can come in and transfer.
• So at Santa Fe, students can come in and transfer to a university. 70% of our students that apply are
• Our students never touch their campus, and they charge us a student activity fee.
• Is it that the students can earn a lot, that it's a short time period, that... ...that the students can
• Is it that the students can earn a lot, that it's a short time period, that. that the students can earn

Summary: The Careers and Workforce Subcommittee met to discuss apprenticeship education and workforce development, with panelists from Santa Fe College, the Florida Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, ABC East Coast/ABC Institute, and Piper Fire Protection. Members heard that apprenticeships are growing in Florida, with panelists emphasizing that these programs offer paid, tuition-free training, progressive wage increases, and strong job placement in high-demand fields such as HVAC, electrical, fire protection, and construction. Panelists also described efforts to expand into new areas like accounting, cybersecurity, network infrastructure, and surgical technology, while stressing the importance of aligning programs with employer demand. A major topic was funding and reimbursement. Panelists said the current model is complicated and often leaves providers with only a portion of the funds appropriated for apprentices, with one provider saying reimbursement can be as low as 44% and others describing caps, contract delays, and inconsistent CareerSource support. They argued that more of the money should reach training providers, that small businesses need more support to participate, and that transparency and contract reform could help expand enrollment and improve program quality. Several also raised barriers such as instructor approval rules, paperwork, and facility costs. Members asked about admission criteria, program costs, employer incentives, outreach to high school students, and whether apprenticeships should have greater access to other funding sources. Panelists said the main requirements are being employed and willing to work and learn, and that outreach through schools, career fairs, community partnerships, and public awareness campaigns is essential. They also discussed articulation agreements that can provide college credit for apprenticeship training and suggested statewide credit recognition and possible direct funding to providers as policy improvements. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with the subcommittee adjourning.