Transcript Highlights:

• We have so much work to do in every educational sector.
• It's more than higher education.
• Parents don't have to make that choice anymore, which is so exciting.
• we know promote long-term learning and success in education.
• I always love that education too.

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met with a quorum and focused on School Readiness, specifically the new provider reimbursement rates and the School Readiness Plus program. The chair gave an overview of how School Readiness is funded and administered, noting that the Legislature now sets county-based reimbursement rates using market and cost data, and that School Readiness Plus was created to help families who would otherwise fall off the subsidy “cliff” at 85% of state median income by extending assistance up to 100% of state median income. Panelists from the Children’s Forum, the Association of Early Learning Coalitions, and the Division of Early Learning described the programs as major workforce and family-support tools that help parents stay employed and help providers recruit and retain qualified staff. Testimony emphasized that higher reimbursement rates increase parental choice, help providers cover rising child care costs, and support better staffing and lower turnover. The panel also said School Readiness Plus is easing the pressure on families to turn down raises or promotions for fear of losing child care assistance, though uptake is still early because the program only began in late 2024 and is only available to current School Readiness families at redetermination. The Division of Early Learning reported about 275 children enrolled in School Readiness Plus as of March 10, with expenditures of about $161,420 through January 2025, and said participation is increasing. Members asked about the federal-state funding split, wait lists, reverted funds, coalition accountability, county-based rate differences, and whether the entrance eligibility threshold should be raised or shifted to state median income. The panel said roughly 70% of School Readiness funding is federal, about 4% has typically reverted in recent years, and the wait list is around 12,000 children, with reasons including income ineligibility, lack of available seats, and funding limits. They argued that raising the entrance threshold would expand access but would require additional funding, and they also discussed the need to reduce workforce barriers such as in-person testing and training requirements. The meeting ended with no formal action beyond the presentation and member discussion, and the subcommittee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Early Learning K-12 Education Committee.
• His amendment in the education committees ensures that parents and families participate in this process
• His amendment in the education committees ensure that parents and families participate in this process
• We are educators, specialists, professors, and parents.
• general education.

Summary: The committee held public hearings on three K-12 bills focused on behavioral health, literacy, and review of education mandates. On House Bill 1634, staff and Rep. Milin Tai described a framework for OSPI and educational service districts to coordinate with state and local partners on behavioral health technical assistance and training for schools, aligned with the Washington Thriving prenatal-to-25 plan. Testifiers, including students and education/behavioral health representatives, said the bill would improve coordination, early intervention, and access to supports for students and families. The bill was presented as having no fiscal note because it relies on existing funding, and testimony emphasized parent and student engagement in the framework. On House Bill 2636, staff and Rep. Skyler Rude explained that the bill creates a Public Education Review Steering Committee to identify existing policies and funding provisions for JLARC review, with the goal of determining whether they achieve intended outcomes, improve student performance, are cost-effective, and should be maintained, modified, or repealed. Supporters said the bill is intended to help reduce burdensome or ineffective requirements on school districts and free resources for students, while some members questioned how the committee would define policy and whether it could affect future mandates. A representative of the Washington State School Directors Association supported the concept as a meaningful review of unfunded mandates. The committee also heard House Bill 1295, which would require evidence-aligned literacy curriculum updates after 2027, require comprehensive K-4 literacy programs using structured literacy practices, direct PESB to revise literacy endorsement standards, require literacy-related continuing education, and direct OSPI to develop educator literacy training. Supporters, including parents, educators, students, dyslexia advocates, and district staff, argued that structured literacy is supported by research and would improve outcomes for struggling readers and students with dyslexia. One witness from the Washington Education Association supported the bill but raised concern about adding another continuing-education requirement. Testimony on the bill was extensive and largely in favor, with some discussion about whether the approach would address older students and how it would interact with existing district and ESD efforts. After public hearings, the committee moved into executive session and approved three gubernatorial appointments for confirmation recommendation. It adopted an amendment to House Bill 1796 and advanced the bill to Ways and Means, passed Engrossed House Bill 2317 to Rules, and adopted a striking amendment to Substitute House Bill 2594 before advancing it to Ways and Means. All actions were taken by voice vote, with no opposition recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have 33 years of experience as an educator, and I am also the parent of two sons with disabilities.
• If those 7,000 children had access to quality early childhood education, their parents would stay in
• Parents should not have to choose between work and their child's education.
• But let's think about the early childhood educator who educates them first.
• I am not only educating children, I'm educating parents on how to be better parents.

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on several budget requests tied to health and human services. Louisiana Children’s Advocacy Centers asked for continued support and a supplemental appropriation of $1.173 million for infrastructure and standardization, explaining that the money would expand use of the Guardify digital evidence system, improve chain of custody, and reduce reliance on DVDs. Baton Rouge and statewide CAC leaders said prior funding helped eliminate a therapy wait list and speed services for abused children. Members asked detailed questions about the digital system, MDT coordination, and how the request related to SB 237, which would strengthen multidisciplinary review of child abuse cases. The Alzheimer’s Association sought $824,000 to sustain the dementia care specialist program, saying it helps families navigate services, keep loved ones at home longer, and reduce Medicaid costs. AARP and the Live at Home Coalition also testified for 750 additional Community Choice waiver slots at a state cost of $3.3 million, arguing that home- and community-based care is cheaper than nursing homes and that the current wait list is more than 11,000 people. Legislators discussed the size of the need, the state’s long-term care spending mix, and whether more support should go to family caregivers and community-based options. Testimony also focused on disability support services, substance use treatment, and developmental disability provider rates. A parent and direct support worker described the Children’s Choice waiver’s 20-hour cap and low pay, saying it makes it hard to retain caregivers and meet the needs of medically fragile children. Odyssey House and O’Brien House asked for higher Medicaid reimbursement rates under ASAM 4, warned that removal of room-and-board payments and weak Medicaid eligibility pathways are reducing access, and called for more oversight of sober living homes; members questioned outcomes data, length of stay, and links to homelessness. Finally, the Arc of Louisiana said the LDH rate study confirmed underfunding and supported a $53.6 million increase in state general funds, with local ARC leaders describing the services they provide and the need for higher direct support professional wages.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, if we're really concerned about parents' rights and parents' involvement, why don't we give parents
• </c> to include more parents? to include more parents?
• </c> two parents. two parents.
• This is one way that we can incentivize parents to say, get involved in your child's education, because
• This is one way that we can incentivize parents to say, get involved in your child's education, because

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, they will be expanding parent and student awareness of our career and technical education programs
• , you know, not only did they encourage reading, my parents I know for me, as a child, my parents, you
• I know for me, as a child, my parents, you know, not only did they encourage reading, my parents were
• So I think that's our problem in education.
• This is my 28th year in education.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education met with a quorum and first heard a Department of Education program review on three district support programs: assistance to low-performing schools, the Florida Partnership program, and regional literacy teams (RAISE). Dr. Paul Burns described how the Bureau of School Improvement supports schools with D/F grades through regional teams, classroom observations, professional learning, and targeted funding, noting that 104 of 168 low-performing schools improved after 2022-23 and that the share of failing schools fell from 6% to 4%. He also outlined the Florida Partnership’s $4 million annual appropriation for advanced-course teacher training and student access, and the RAISE literacy program’s $5 million funding, universal/targeted/intensive supports, and progress monitoring results. Senators asked about rural participation, post-COVID reading data, parent support, and how long schools remain under monitoring after improving; Burns said rural districts can participate statewide, parents can access school and department support, and schools continue to receive monitoring after exiting low-performing status to prevent recidivism. The committee then received a presentation on the school district education foundation matching grants program from Suzanne Pridgen, who explained that the Consortium of the Florida Education Foundations administers the grants, which require private matching funds and support tutoring, literacy, STEM, career education, professional learning, books, and supplies. She said the program leverages about $1.44 in private support for every state dollar. The committee then moved to the regional education consortia, where representatives from PAEC, NEFEC, and Heartland, along with several rural superintendents, described the consortia as member-led organizations that provide economies of scale, professional learning, HR, risk management, purchasing, legal and operational support, crisis assistance, and leadership development for small and fiscally constrained districts. Superintendents from Lafayette, Holmes, Calhoun, Union, DeSoto, and Hendry counties testified that the consortia are essential because rural districts often have very small staffs, multiple-duty administrators, and limited in-house expertise. They cited support with insurance and hurricane recovery, training for new finance and HR staff, instructional coaching, CTE and leadership programs, and help with turnaround schools. Members emphasized that these districts can be high-performing despite limited resources, and several senators praised the consortia’s value. Senator Gaetz asked about additional back-office collaboration, possible regulatory relief, and FEFP issues tied to scholarship-related enrollment swings; rural superintendents responded that more local control would help. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn, which was adopted without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Other persons is defined in the bill as other students, parents of students, or volunteers.
• Is it a parent phone call? Is it something I can... ...each student. Is it a parent phone call?
• It's an overreach and educators are not going to be able to do the job.
• The bill doesn't just help parents and students.
• The bill doesn't just help parents and students.

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the educators.
• Educate us. Help educate our tribal leaders.
• Educate us. Help educate our tribal leaders. seats. Educate us.
• Having to talk to my parents about this and try to have them educate me on a situation where my dad's
• You know, and having to talk to my parents about this and try to have them educate me on a situation

Summary: The Select Committee on Native American Affairs held a historic hearing at Table Mountain Rancheria focused on tribal education, culture, resilience, leadership, and trust. The opening prayer and remarks emphasized the significance of holding the first committee hearing on tribal land. Members said the hearing was intended both to hear testimony about ongoing problems in schools and to identify next steps for legislation and policy, especially as the session neared its end. The committee also referenced recent efforts supporting Native students’ right to wear regalia at graduation and broader concerns about representation in education and state institutions. The first panel centered on Native students’ experiences in public schools. Bella Garcia described a two-year fight with Clovis Unified over wearing tribal regalia at graduation, including a restrictive approval form and administrators who she said denied Native identity and made her feel invisible. Morningstar Ghali connected those experiences to the legacy of boarding schools, racial profiling, suspensions, and the “boarding school to prison pipeline,” and called for culturally responsive education, Native educators, counselors, Native studies, and restorative justice. Janet K. Bill, from the Attorney General’s Office of Native American Affairs, described her own path from tribal Head Start to Stanford, law school, tribal council, and state service, and said education, justice, and sovereignty are linked. Members asked about restorative justice, representation, and how to build pipelines into leadership and education roles. The second panel focused on solutions. Chairwoman Michelle Heredia Cordova urged a reimagined education system that is more personalized, experiential, culturally grounded, and balanced with land-based learning, while also recruiting Native teachers and creating stronger tribal partnerships. Chairman Leo Sisku said schools should educate educators, stop tokenizing Native students, and create accountability and consequences for discriminatory behavior; he also supported stronger tribal-school partnerships and more positive outreach. Chairman Fred Bean emphasized consistent engagement from tribal leaders at every level of schooling, stronger transitions from elementary to college, and programs that prepare Native youth for leadership, trades, and higher education. Chairman Shaineto of Tule River argued that schools and administrators should face consequences for violating Native students’ rights, and that Native people should not have to keep educating institutions about basic cultural respect. Committee members responded by discussing possible statewide solutions, including regional tribal boards, better enforcement of existing laws, stronger pipelines into teaching and leadership, and improved representation on boards and in state agencies. Several members raised the need to implement existing laws, fill vacant Native appointments, and consider broader protections for Native regalia and cultural expression. No formal vote was taken in the transcript, but the hearing concluded with a clear call for continued collaboration, accountability, and legislation driven by Native voices.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:31.760><c> also</c> The Office of Higher Education also The Office of Higher Education also
• Um, so it's increased from 79% of the parental contribution to 100% of the parental contribution.
• And of those independent students, many, many, many were parents and many were single parents.
• Um, traditionally, in my parents.
• </c> cost and the stress on those parents. cost and the stress on those parents.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Higher Education Conference Committee reviewed differences among the Governor’s, House, and Senate proposals for state grant parameter changes and their effects on state grant spending, North Star Promise spending, and average student awards. Nonpartisan staff explained that the proposals use different combinations of parameter changes, with the Governor’s and Senate plans modeled to avoid or minimize rationing, while the House plan would require rationing to balance the program. Staff reported projected biennium balances of a positive $29.836 million for the Governor’s proposal, a negative $60.758 million for the House proposal without rationing, a positive $994,000 for the House proposal with rationing, and a positive $3.623 million for the Senate proposal; North Star Promise balances also varied, with the Senate showing a positive balance and the Governor and House with rationing showing negative balances. Staff also said the Senate proposal would extend availability of the state grant appropriation and suspend surplus procedures through fiscal year 2029, allowing the balance to carry forward. The committee then focused on the House-only tuition and fee cap provision, which would limit the tuition recognized for state grant purposes for four-year programs to the University of Minnesota Twin Cities level, with 1% annual increases in fiscal years 2026 and 2027. House members said the cap was intended to address rising tuition, especially at the University of Minnesota, and to produce savings in the state grant program. The governor’s office confirmed the provision was not included in the Governor’s bill. Representatives from the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Private College Council opposed the cap, arguing it would reduce awards for low-income students and shift costs to students rather than address underlying tuition pressures; they also said it could discourage enrollment at higher-cost institutions. Supporters from Minnesota State argued the cap would improve fairness because students at lower-tuition institutions are effectively capped lower, while students at more expensive institutions receive larger awards, and they said the legislature should intervene in a variable that has grown substantially over time. Committee members questioned how the cap would work and whether it was tied to the Twin Cities campus rate. Testifiers clarified that the state grant formula is tied to the University of Minnesota level, but because Minnesota State institutions are below that level, the cap effectively limits their students to their own lower tuition while allowing higher awards at the University of Minnesota and private colleges. No formal vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the chair indicated the committee would continue with item-by-item review of the remaining parameter changes and hear additional testimony from agencies and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Parental controls aren't working.
• It actually sidelines parents.
• That's government replacing parents.
• As an educator supporting families in crisis, I've held students and parents left to live with these
• As an educator supporting families in crisis, I've held students and parents left to live with these

Summary: The House Appropriations Committee held public hearings on several bills related to artificial intelligence, student employee bargaining, and online safety. For HB 1170, staff explained that the bill would require certain large generative AI providers to offer provenance detection tools and include latent or optional manifest disclosures in AI-generated audio, image, and video content, with enforcement by the Attorney General under the Consumer Protection Act. Committee discussion focused on whether the bill would apply to AI-generated text code, and staff clarified that it would not. Testimony from the Washington Technology Industry Association opposed the bill as written, citing enforcement ambiguity, definition changes, and interoperability concerns, while noting support for continued work on the issue. For HB 1570, staff described the underlying bill as extending collective bargaining rights under the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act to student employees at several state higher education institutions, with a striking amendment narrowing the bill to non-academic student employees at Western Washington University and listing covered job classifications. Staff estimated the original bill’s fiscal impact at about $1.5 million per biennium, reduced to roughly $200,000 per biennium under the striking amendment. Testimony from labor and student representatives supported the narrowed bill, emphasizing student worker safety, organizing support, and the need to move forward after prior union votes. The committee also heard substitute HB 1833, which would create the Spark Act grant program in the Department of Commerce to support innovative uses of AI, with grants requiring a state benefit and shared technology, and with Commerce consulting the Attorney General’s AI Task Force. Staff estimated administrative costs of about $160,000 per year plus grant funding that could bring total annual program costs to roughly $660,000 to $1.6 million. Representative Keaton said an amendment would update dates and incorporate changes. Testimony was generally supportive from industry and retail representatives, who framed the bill as a pro-innovation public-private partnership. Finally, the committee heard a proposed third substitute for HB 1834, which would prohibit addictive feeds for minor users and restrict push notifications during evening and school hours unless parents consent, while allowing all users to limit feeds and privacy settings. Supporters, including the Attorney General’s Office, Children’s Alliance, and a parent who lost a child to social media harms, argued the bill would protect children and reduce behavioral health costs. Opponents from technology, civil liberties, and industry groups raised constitutional, privacy, and vagueness concerns, warning that age determination could function like age verification and that the bill could restrict access to beneficial content. No votes or executive action were taken; the committee concluded public hearings and announced amendment deadlines for upcoming executive sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• But as we look at shifts in expectations of parents, how we're delivering education, what the needs of
• The parent has to agree to what that is. And so if a parent is.
• We need to draw that line in education. We need to have our educators educating.
• We need to have our educators educating.
• and education options.

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The committee heard a lengthy presentation on the K-12 public school support budget, including how support units, career ladder funding, health insurance, discretionary funding, transportation, facilities, and the Public Education Stabilization Fund (PSIF) work. Legislative Services explained that FY 2026 support units were revised downward, creating a $22.3 million ongoing general fund reduction, and walked through the FY 2027 agency request and governor’s recommendation. The governor recommended no increase for population forecast adjustments, but did recommend some statutory and policy changes, including shifting certain interest earnings to the general fund and reducing funding for some virtual school and IDLA-related items. The agency request also included one-time proposals for a high-needs special education fund and a regional service model for related services. Members asked extensive questions about how career ladder dollars are distributed, how health insurance and discretionary funds interact, why the health insurance increase in the budget differed from current plan estimates, and how facilities money under House Bill 292 is used. There were also questions about the size and use of the Idaho Career Ready Students fund, the maintenance-of-effort implications of special education funding, and whether some special education costs are being used for student housing or other noninstructional expenses. The superintendent and budget staff emphasized that many of the budget lines are formula-driven or statutorily required, that local districts determine actual staffing and spending within those formulas, and that special education costs continue to outpace available funding. Superintendent Debbie Critchfield then framed the budget request around enrollment trends, shifting demographics, and the need for more flexibility in how districts use existing dollars. She highlighted proposed categorical flexibility for some funds, changes to digital content and curriculum distribution, continued literacy gains, growth in career technical education programs funded through Idaho Career Ready Students, and the importance of endowment and Millennium Fund support. She also described the special education proposals as a temporary bridge while the state considers larger formula changes and noted a near $100 million gap between special education spending and funding. She further outlined planned federal waiver requests on assessments and flexibility, and said the department is seeking more state control over testing and reporting requirements. The committee did not take final action on the budget during this portion of the meeting. Members raised concerns about interest transfers from dedicated funds, the complexity of the funding formula, special education accountability, and whether the state should revisit the overall school funding model. Several follow-up data requests were made, including information on health insurance participation, regional special education service needs, and school contingency fund balances.

Transcript Highlights:

• Parents are able to work and go to school.
• These are programs that parents choose.
• Parents choose.
• Parents choose.
• So, last question: Can parents pay more?

Summary: The committee heard first from LFC staff on a brief about New Mexico’s universal child care expansion. Staff said child care assistance has clear benefits for parents and families, but LFC has not found evidence in New Mexico that it improves children’s educational outcomes; they argued pre-K is the better tool for that goal. The brief highlighted four concerns with universal access: an estimated annual cost of about $849.7 million, a sharp decline in registered homes, possible crowding out of lower-income families, and reduced access for children under age two. Staff also suggested possible mitigations such as prioritizing slots for low-income and at-risk families, reinstating sliding-scale co-pays, and tying quality improvements to workforce wages. Members raised questions about the cost estimate, funding sources, provider quality, and whether the data showed actual crowding out. Several lawmakers expressed support for child care generally but concern about the fiscal impact and whether universal access would divert resources from the families most in need. Others emphasized the importance of child care for workforce participation, rural communities, and family stability, and questioned how registered homes are counted and regulated. LFC staff clarified that the cost estimate was for child care assistance only, not the entire ECECD budget, and that the data showed declines in the share of lowest-income children and infants/toddlers served, though not causation. The ECECD secretary then presented the department’s response, saying universal child care is intended to complete a cradle-to-career system and that the department has already seen strong uptake, increased capacity, and rising workforce participation. She said 6,206 families were found eligible in the first month, the share of infants and toddlers served rose, and new provider applications and licensed slots increased after the November rollout. The department also emphasized wage increases, quality improvements, and a new wage scale/career lattice, while projecting a lower near-term cost than LFC’s estimate and requesting additional funding for child care, early pre-K, home visiting, workforce systems, and capacity-building. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided; the discussion was informational and focused on questions and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, as outlined in the legislation, this will be referred to the State Department of Education.
• They are the business of parents. Follow-up? Yeah, go ahead. Thank you, Chair.
• and that the rights of parents were supported.
• And do parents with this also not have the opportunity for a private cause of action?
• I can't talk to my parents about it. What is the school supposed to do in that situation?

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I have 33 years of experience as an educator, and I am also the parent of two sons with disabilities.
• If those 7,000 children had access to quality early childhood education, their parents would stay in
• Parents should not have to choose between work and their child's education.
• But let's think about the early childhood educator who educates them first.
• I am not only educating children, I'm educating parents on how to be better parents.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• /c><00:07:09.360><c> public</c> experience in education and public experience in education and public
• Thank you. nominated in the education side nominated in the education side paytoplay<00:08:59.440><c>
• </c><00:09:21.440><c> and</c> education chair. and education chair. and GM774<00:09:23.440><c> has</c
• These education boards and authorities play a vital role in formulating statewide educational policy,
• Miss Tol received her parents.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened with all 25 members present, approved the prior day’s journal, and heard several introductions, including visiting staff, guests, and Lieutenant Governor Sylvia Luke, who was recognized for her work with the food bank and noted as acting governor that week. The chamber also received House communications returning several Senate concurrent resolutions adopted unamended, and one House-amended resolution, SCR 192, was taken up. Senator Wakai moved to disagree with the House amendments to SCR 192, the motion was seconded and carried, with conferees to be named later. Standing committee reports were then taken up, including reports 1931 to 1939 for one-day notice and report 1940 for adoption, which was adopted without objection. The Senate then considered a series of advice-and-consent nominations, beginning with education-related appointments. Senators spoke in support of nominees to the Hawaii Teachers Standards Board, the State Board of Education, and the School Facilities Authority Board, while Senator Awa and others raised objections to several nominees, arguing that campaign donations by some appointees created the appearance of “pay to play.” Despite those objections, the nominations were ultimately confirmed. The chamber also confirmed Dwight Takamini as chair of the Hawaii Labor Relations Board after strong support from multiple senators who cited his labor, legislative, and public service background. The Senate next confirmed Christine Sakuda as chief information officer for the Office of Enterprise Technology Services, with supporters emphasizing her IT leadership and public service and noting she is the first female and Native Hawaiian to hold the post. The chamber also confirmed Kahuanoi AD Jackson as judge of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit and Sonia H. Toma as judge of the District Family Court of the Second Circuit, with senators highlighting their prosecutorial and public service experience and the favorable testimony received in committee. After these confirmations, senators introduced the new appointees and their families in the gallery. Later, the Senate adopted additional standing committee reports on House concurrent resolutions and passed SB 849 HD2 on final reading, relating to wildlife conservation, by unanimous consent. The body also reconsidered and reversed earlier disagreement on House amendments to SB 116 and SB 946, agreeing that the amendments were technical and giving one-day notice for final reading. The meeting concluded with a late introduction of the Honokaʻa Jazz Band, which was praised for its national recognition and community service, and senators invited members to a later concert in the rotunda.

Transcript Highlights:

• Freedom Account program versus the education account program versus the education tax credit.
• students are being educated.
• The data's all there, parents have access to it. We just need parents have access to it.
• In other words, do the parents sign off, waive all their rights to special education?
• </c> career technical education. career technical education.

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:

• as Teachers, parent education, early learning, early intervention for children birth through age five
• Because I think that if you could expend all your energy to K-12 education, maybe Parents as Teachers
• Because I think that if you could expend all your energy to K-12 education, maybe Parents as Teachers
• Page 653 is the core for Parent Education and Development Screening, recommended by the governor for
• This is the funding for the Parents as Teachers Parent Education Program for children birth through kindergarten

Summary: The committee first heard the Office of the Governor’s FY 2027 budget request from Adam Gresham. He explained the office’s staffing and noted a $500,000 core reduction, along with a reallocation of three positions and about $168,000 from the governor’s office to the mansion operating fund to better reflect where those employees work. Members asked about the National Guard emergency line, which Gresham said had already spent about $63,457 in FY 2026 and could be used again for disaster activations, though he did not expect to use the full $4 million. He also said the agricultural resiliency transfer fund had not been used and had no current transfer plans. Several members commented on the size of the governor’s cut and whether the judiciary and other offices were also being asked to reduce budgets. No votes were taken. The committee then moved to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Office of Childhood and early childhood-related budget items. DESE staff described funding for the Office of Childhood, MoQPK child care provider grants, LEA pre-K grants, early childhood special education, Parents as Teachers, First Steps, preschool coordination, after-school programs, and child care subsidy. Members asked extensively about the MoQPK grants, including why Head Start providers were eligible, how curriculum approval works, and what safeguards exist against fraud or improper payments. DESE said it conducts physical inspections, desk reviews, payment-system checks, and investigations as needed, and that it had not had findings in this area. Some members questioned whether DESE or DSS was the right home for early childhood programs, while others defended the partnership and the role of early educators in identifying child needs. A major portion of the discussion focused on early childhood special education and the child care subsidy program. DESE explained that First Steps serves children birth to age three, while early childhood special education covers ages three to five and is driven by IEP eligibility; members asked for more data on diagnoses, trends, and how many children come off IEPs. The committee also discussed the child care subsidy budget and the governor’s proposed shift to paying providers based on authorization and at the beginning of the month. DESE said the change is being piloted, that a wait list is expected to begin around March 1, and that a May rollout is being considered, but only if software testing and fiscal projections show the system is sustainable. Members expressed frustration that promised changes had been delayed and that providers had been told different timelines, while DESE said the delay was driven by software issues, fiscal caution, and the need to avoid repeating prior payment problems. The hearing ended with the committee in recess before later resuming discussion of the subsidy program; no final votes or actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• “Naturally, I am fearful of losing my parents.
• I recently was meeting with my parents and with our family's attorney about my parent, who is going through
• My name is Irene Tansman, and I'm the parent of a 37-year-old man with severe autism, I am the parent
• I am the parent of a son who is... I am the parent of a son who is eight years old.
• efforts lead to improved education outcomes for kids.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities held a hybrid hearing focused largely on DDS-related bills, with chairs Kennedy and Livingstone outlining strict time limits, accessibility procedures, and a 5 p.m. stop to preserve ASL and CART services. The committee heard testimony on several measures, including a bill from Sen. Mike Moore to create a centralized electronic education records system for students in out-of-home placements, which supporters said would improve communication, preserve IEP continuity, and reduce missed services. Paul DePaulo also testified in support, describing the educational and justice-system harms that can follow when foster youth do not receive coordinated records and supports. A major portion of the hearing centered on H. 242/S. 149, a bill to enhance standards of care for people with autism and intellectual and developmental disabilities. Rep. Garballey and many advocates, parents, clinicians, and disability leaders supported the bill, saying it would require provider training, statewide standards, and better emergency department practices to reduce misdiagnosis, trauma, and unnecessary ER boarding. Testimony described sensory and communication barriers in medical settings, lack of provider training, and the need for continuing education and license-related requirements. Related testimony also supported H. 213/S. 111, which would improve access to behavioral health services for children involved with state agencies by requiring better discharge planning, coordination with hospitals and agencies, and more appropriate post-hospital placements. The committee also heard strong support for H. 256/S. 102, requiring universal changing stations in public buildings, from parents, advocates, and the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council. Witnesses said current restroom accommodations often force unsafe or undignified changes on floors, in cars, or in inaccessible spaces, and argued the cost of adding changing stations to new or renovated buildings would be modest compared with the benefits to dignity, safety, and community access. Another major topic was H. 261/S. 155 on supported decision-making agreements for certain adults, which supporters described as a less restrictive alternative to guardianship that preserves autonomy while providing trusted support. Finally, testimony on Tommy’s bill (S. 168/H. 282) described a preventable death after a hospital discharge and urged clearer communication and training requirements for residential staff handling life-sustaining equipment; the bill was presented as a safeguard for people with disabilities relying on such equipment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Education is power.
• So please don't take the education away from them and allow them to be able to be educated here in Florida
• They are paying for their education.
• They are paying for the education.
• These are hardworking parents who contribute to churches, local economies, and the social fabric, parents

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the journal, and adoption of the special order calendar for the day. The chamber then took up House Bill 1B on immigration, along with discussion of anticipated Senate changes. The sponsor described the bill as creating a chief immigration officer housed in the Department of Agriculture, establishing an Office of State Immigration Enforcement, expanding cooperation with federal immigration authorities, increasing criminal penalties for certain offenses by unauthorized aliens, ending undocumented-student fee waivers, and providing substantial appropriations for enforcement and related programs. Members also questioned the Senate version’s proposed mandatory death penalty provision for certain capital offenses involving unauthorized aliens, as well as pretrial detention, 287(g) participation, DMV reporting requirements, and the bill’s effects on schools, teachers, social workers, and local agencies. The sponsor and supporting members repeatedly said the bill required broad cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and that existing federal law would control where conflicts arose. A major portion of the debate focused on whether the bill would allow or require immigration enforcement in schools and other sensitive settings, and whether teachers, school resource officers, and social workers could be placed in conflict with federal privacy or professional obligations. Members also raised concerns about detention based on suspected status, the standard of proof for immigration-status determinations, prison and jail impacts, workforce shortages, and the fiscal effects on counties and state agencies. The sponsor said the bill did not provide DMV funding, that the state would need to study some implementation questions, and that the appropriations included $25 million for a local law enforcement participation incentive program and up to $350 million for broader implementation and coordination. Several amendments were offered and failed. Representative Chambliss proposed protecting schools, churches, and places of worship from enforcement activity; Representative Escamani offered amendments to preserve in-state tuition for Dreamers and to grandfather currently eligible students; Representative Woodson offered a similar Dreamer-related amendment; and Representative Bartleman proposed barring local law enforcement from entering schools during school hours to detain children solely for immigration status. Supporters of these amendments argued they would protect children, preserve educational access, and prevent trauma in schools and houses of worship. The House rejected each amendment by voice vote, and the transcript ends during debate on the Bartleman school-safety amendment before final disposition is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• And Kate, also my Israel, I'm a professor of educational technology and computer science education at
• We need to educate them.
• We've launched parental controls.
• One as an educator, one as a parent as an educator, we just had our students at our Tallahassee school
• I was in the parent, right?

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm just very proud of Minnesota for having put this forward, both as a farmer, a parent, an educator
• I'm just very proud of Minnesota for having put this forward, both as a farmer, a parent, an educator
• I'm just very proud of Minnesota for having put this forward, both as a farmer, a parent, an educator
• I'm just very proud of Minnesota for having put this forward, both as a farmer, a parent, an educator
• Both as a farmer, a parent, an educator, and a food safety educator, you're just doing excellent work

Keywords: 1187, senate, all