Transcript Highlights:

• Um so that's what at the federal level.
• It might be fairly state level.
• Um situation is going at the US level.
• And I think one thing that's level.
• clear that we know at the federal level clear that we know at the federal level that<00:10:22.000

Keywords: 00:02 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:55 FB 2026-2028 Executive Branch Budget 15:17 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The committee held its first meeting on budget instructions for the 2026-2028 state budget, as required by KRS Chapter 48. Staff from the Office of State Budget Director outlined three recommended changes: restructuring Form B4 for additional budget requests to emphasize the problem, solution, and quantitative data; adding page numbers to the Record P report so agencies’ additional budget requests can be located more easily; and updating the budget calendar to reflect the December 20 presentation of the consensus forecast to LRC under changes made by House Bill 360. Members asked follow-up questions about contribution rates, debt service template rates, and employee health rates. Staff said the fiscal 2026 KS non-hazardous contribution rate is 42.76%, but fiscal 2027 and 2028 rates have not yet been set; debt service rates would be posted later; and employee health rate assumptions are still being discussed with the Personnel Cabinet. Members also asked how program reductions or terminations would be handled, and staff explained that agencies base requests on statutory and federal requirements, while budget reductions are handled through the appropriations act. The committee discussed whether Form B4 should ask agencies to describe alternative options considered and how they were evaluated. Staff said the current instructions do not specifically require that, though some implications may appear in narrative responses, and members agreed to continue working on the instructions. The committee then adopted a motion directing the co-chairs to work with LRC staff to finalize the 2026-2028 budget instructions and present them for adoption, with the motion approved by roll call. Members also noted that federal budget developments, including possible SNAP cost shifts to states, are being monitored but are too early to incorporate into the instructions at this time.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, so this question is directed to the LAO on a very high level.
• of service at a lower cost, but some of them do affect service levels.
• The legislature may want to pay closer attention to the savings that affect service levels.
• On a very high level, what are the impediments to their resolution?
• We also need to match the security level.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But this year is very different, given the substantial changes that occurred at the federal level with
• , but the child and dependent care tax credit does phase out at higher income levels at the federal level
• But I did want to clarify that it is phased out at the federal level.
• I believe it does phase at the federal level that you're talking about on the forms.
• Was that the same level of change that was needed, and if not, why? Mr.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The joint House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees met to hear identical conformity bills, HB 2153 and SB 1106, which would align Arizona tax law with the federal Internal Revenue Code as of Jan. 1, 2026, including some retroactive provisions for tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bills would exclude three federal provisions: the higher federal SALT deduction, the new senior deduction as written in H.R. 1, and the deduction for interest on new car loans. They would instead include a $6,000 retirement-income deduction for taxpayers age 60 and older, a $6,000 Roth IRA contribution deduction, a higher dependent tax credit, and a deduction for child and dependent care expenses above the federal credit. JLBC estimated the package would reduce general fund income tax revenue by about $441.3 million in FY 2026. Members also discussed that the Department of Revenue’s forms had been issued assuming full conformity, and staff and supporters argued the bills were needed quickly to avoid confusion and amended returns during filing season. Committee members and sponsors largely framed the bills as tax relief and a way to provide certainty for taxpayers and preparers. Supporters said the package would help families, seniors, and workers, and noted that the Arizona version was negotiated to keep the overall tax relief roughly comparable to full conformity while shifting benefits away from the SALT deduction and toward child credits, retirement income, and child care. The sponsors also criticized the governor’s executive action and urged prompt passage so taxpayers would know how to file. Opponents argued the bills would reduce state revenue, worsen the budget outlook, and disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers and corporations. Several witnesses and members also raised concerns about the child care deduction, the retirement-income deduction, and the business expensing provisions, while supporters responded that the bill was designed to help working families and encourage saving and investment. Public testimony was mixed. The Arizona Society of Certified Public Accountants and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club supported the bills, emphasizing early conformity, filing certainty, and reduced confusion for taxpayers and software providers. Opponents included Save Our Schools Arizona, the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, Opportunity Arizona, and several individuals, who argued the package would deepen budget problems and favor the wealthy. One witness objected to a federal school-choice-related provision she said was being tied to the bill, though committee members said the measure before them was a tax conformity bill and not a school finance bill. The hearing included extended debate over the fiscal impact, the governor’s prior requests for some of the same tax changes, and whether taxpayers would need to file amended returns if the legislature later changed course. The transcript ends during testimony from NFIB, with no final committee vote or action shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, there's levels just like anything else. There's levels of intoxicated driving, too.
• um but is now a rise to a felony level um but is now a misdemeanor<00:51:48.559> level<00:51:
• programs at all levels. programs at all levels.
• , that oversight of the higher level, that oversight of the higher level, especially<01:22:41.280
• So there are different levels and we talk a lot in here about, um, you know, the different levels of

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with Senate Bill 22-FN, which would expand child care licensing background checks so the Department of Health and Human Services can receive fuller criminal history information, including pending charges and other non-conviction records, similar to the system already used for school staff. Grant Bossi, for Senator Pearl, and DHHS officials Melissa Clement and Christine Sheay testified in support, saying the bill closes a gap that can allow people with disqualifying charges to work with children. They explained that the FBI record is a snapshot in time, that juvenile records are not included, and that the bill would apply to child care programs including residential group homes. Questions focused on what “confidential criminal history” means and how often checks are repeated; DHHS said checks are done every five years or sooner if new charge information is received. The hearing on SB 22 was then closed. The committee then took up Senate Bill 23-FN, which would expand the child endangerment statute and remove the word “purposely” from part of the language. Senator Pat Long said the bill is intended to strengthen protection for children and allow more serious conduct to be charged appropriately. Testimony from law enforcement, including Executive Counselor Dave Wheeler, Sergeant Ryan Rooney of Nashua Police, and Nicholas Georgulis of Manchester Police, supported the bill as a way to distinguish routine misdemeanor cases from the most egregious abuse and neglect cases, such as children living in squalor or being exposed to severe danger. Wheeler and some members raised concerns that the language could be vague or overbroad and cited a prior Manchester firearm-in-a-car arrest as an example of possible unintended consequences; supporters responded that the bill still requires knowingly violating a duty of care and that the serious bodily injury or death standard limits its reach. Rooney also described a fentanyl overdose case involving an 11-year-old and said the current misdemeanor charge did not fully reflect the seriousness of the conduct. The committee recessed SB 23 briefly to open and close SB 161, then returned to SB 23, which remained under hearing with no final vote taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<00:04:24.800> they typically at the facility level, they typically at the facility level
• um budget request. they asked for level um budget request. they asked for level funding<00:07:22.800
• There, um, our public health nurses mainly are in our public health clinics and the level twos and level
• <00:32:32.320> funding level funding level funding I'm<00:32:34.159> talking<00:32:34.399
• <00:37:46.560> with everything at the federal level with everything at the federal level with

Keywords: Appropriations - Room 409, 28 January, 2026; 10:30 A.M., 925, all

Summary: The meeting began with testimony from the Nursing Home Administrator Board, whose executive director explained the board’s role in licensing nursing home administrators, the AIT internship pathway, reciprocity, board composition, meeting schedule, and staffing. Members then shifted to an ice-storm-related discussion about nursing home emergency preparedness. Legislators asked whether any facilities lacked power, generators, or water, and urged clearer communication protocols so facilities would report problems directly through the Department of Health and emergency channels rather than through scattered calls to legislators. The board said facilities generally communicate with the Department of Health, that emergency contact information had been distributed before the storm, and that every facility has some form of generator, though not all can power the whole facility. The board also presented a small budget request, including modest salary increases for its two employees and a cloud-migration cost tied to House Bill 1491, with the understanding that statewide funding for that requirement might be handled separately. The discussion then moved to the Department of Health’s budget and operations. Agency leadership said the department has spent the last three years improving county health department efficiency, reducing overhead, and adjusting fees to eliminate program deficits, which has reduced spending by about $10 million and would shift roughly $8 million in general funds away from deficits. The department requested level funding overall, citing inflationary pressures and the possibility of another federal shutdown, but said it could absorb the impact for another year. Members discussed the public health trust created in a prior session, the need to rebuild county health departments, maternal and fetal care initiatives, and the importance of maintaining the $2.9 million in public health program support that has helped expand services such as obesity management, OB care, and home visitation for high-risk mothers and babies. Oversight and compliance issues were also reviewed. Legislators asked about prior problems with grants and sex education funding, and department officials said they had tightened oversight, adopted OpenGov for compliance, and corrected earlier violations so the programs are now in full compliance. They said the agency had improved accountability for both state and federal funds and that transparency remained a priority. The department also highlighted the cannabis program, saying it is now profitable, generating about $9 million in net revenue last year and about $12.5 million this year, with projections of $40 million to $50 million annually as it matures. Officials said they are asking for seed money for the public health trust from cannabis revenue so private-sector donations can be leveraged for long-term public health support. They described enforcement actions including fines, suspensions, license revocations, plant destruction, and referrals to law enforcement, the attorney general, and licensure boards for serious violations. The meeting ended with general support from legislators for the department’s work and acknowledgment of improved health outcomes, including Mississippi moving from 49th to 48th in overall health outcomes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, we have weekly meetings between multiple levels of staff with the Texas Department.
• Which are likely to be arthropod containment level 3.
• of construction and how things were done from the architect and engineer level to the construction level
• So what is the dose that will get you into that level?
• be shown on a parched pavilion, uh, level, very unlikely.

Transcript Highlights:

• We worked with advocates at the national level to continue that program.
• , in part due to a longstanding underfunding of affordable housing at the federal level.
• Long-standing underfunding of affordable housing at the federal level.
• Including highlighting the percentage of people at or below the federal poverty level, for example.
• There are high levels of missingness and concerns about the accuracy of the race and ethnicity data.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities’ Long-Term Services and Supports and Health Equity Subcommittee met to hear a presentation from the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy at Brandeis University. Monica Mitra introduced the institute’s work on disability health equity and long-term services and supports, and staff described several research centers focused on community living policy, disability and pregnancy, and parents with disabilities. The presentation emphasized participatory research, accessible dissemination, and the connection between health equity and access to home- and community-based services. Joe Caldwell discussed the Community Living Policy Center’s work on Medicaid HCBS, the direct care workforce crisis, housing, and policy advocacy, including efforts related to the Money Follows the Person program and the Medicaid access rule’s interested parties advisory group. Sid Pickern highlighted a workforce study interviewing direct care workers, a forthcoming policy brief on the access rule, and housing research including Massachusetts’ Alternative Housing Voucher Program. Teresa Nguyen described the Community Living Equity Center’s focus on disparities in community living for people of color, especially a study on self-direction and community living outcomes, and asked for help recruiting participants. Lauren Bixby demonstrated the community living data dashboard, which compares adults who need LTSS with those receiving Medicaid LTSS using ACS and TMSIS data. She explained that the dashboard can be filtered by state and demographics, but noted major race and ethnicity data gaps for Massachusetts and other states. Commissioners praised the dashboard and the institute’s work, asked questions about data sources and the 1115 waiver, and discussed possible connections to the Health Equity Compact. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with an invitation for follow-up, including a forthcoming direct care workforce brief and the institute’s October 28 lecture.

Transcript Highlights:

• assessment: Level A and Level B.
• what the thresholds are for those two levels of thresholds are for those two levels of risk assessment
• For level B, again, uh, towns with less For level B, again, uh, towns with less than 4,000 inhabitants
• But again, you can see that as the annual revenue or expenditures decreases from level A through level
• E that the from level A through level E that the financial reporting requirements are less stringent

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a bill that's about leveling the playing field to create fair markets for Minnesota small, medium
• This bill is about leveling the playing field to create fair markets for Minnesota small, medium, and
• 00:04:01.599> state<00:04:02.159> and<00:04:02.480> federal<00:04:02.879> levels
• at both the state and federal levels. at both the state and federal levels.
• at the state level, these mandates at the state level, these policies<00:14:37.120> drive<00:

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And so far as it exempts products at a certain lower level, total THC level, such as CBD, and... ...lower
• level total THC level such as CBD and does not disrupt the CBD and that very low intoxicating total
• What are you seeing happen at the federal level?
• My PTSD does not allow me to consume high THC levels.
• I understand this on the chemistry level. I understand it on the operational level.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy held a hearing on a broad set of cannabis and hemp bills, with the chairs opening by emphasizing unfinished work on equity, public health, safety, and market stability. The committee heard testimony on House Bill 146, which would create more efficient cannabis testing standards by increasing batch sizes, reducing or eliminating some environmental testing, standardizing lab reporting, and requiring annual scientific review and public data reporting. Industry witnesses, including a representative of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition, cultivators, and a testing lab owner, said current testing rules are overly burdensome, costly, and inconsistent, and argued the bill would lower compliance costs while preserving consumer safety. A testing lab witness also said some operators switch labs to obtain higher THC results or pass contaminated batches, and urged greater transparency and better sampling protocols. A major portion of the hearing focused on intoxicating hemp and related bills that would bring hemp-derived intoxicating products under a stronger regulatory framework. Legislators and industry witnesses described products sold in gas stations, smoke shops, and convenience stores as often untested, not age-gated, and sometimes mislabeled or far above the federal hemp THC threshold. Testimony from attorneys and cannabis business leaders said states can regulate these products more strictly under the Farm Bill’s non-preemption language, and pointed to New Jersey and other states as possible models. Some witnesses and committee members stressed that any new rules should avoid harming non-intoxicating CBD businesses or lawful hemp farmers, while others argued that the products are effectively cannabis and should be regulated like cannabis for licensing, testing, age limits, and taxation. The committee also heard extensive public-health testimony in support of bills S. 95, S. 96, S. 97 and their House counterparts H. 191, H. 192, and H. 193. Parents, advocates, and public health professionals urged stronger warning labels, THC potency caps, and improved data collection on cannabis-related harms, citing cannabis-induced psychosis, addiction, anxiety, and youth exposure to high-potency products. Several witnesses said Massachusetts has not done enough to track health outcomes or warn consumers, and referenced other jurisdictions such as Connecticut, Vermont, Colorado, Canada, and Quebec as examples of stronger limits or warnings. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:04:55.840> are<00:04:55.919> the<00:04:56.160> ones But now on the state level
• <00:21:43.280> um<00:21:43.520> bringing Local school board level, bringing forward
• You know, um, from my impression, the problem that we have is when, from a leadership level down, if
• You know, um, from my impression, the problem that we have is when, from a leadership level down, if
• You know, um, from my impression, the problem that we have is when, from a leadership level down, if

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have these rigid definitions and formulas that refer to poverty levels and refer to income levels
• But when we zoom out and look at these choice programs at state levels and on national levels, to Robert's
• He was reading on a DRA level of 20, which is the beginning of second grade, working on a math level
• 350% of the federal poverty level, that's correct.
• , personal level, family level, community level, and ultimately educational level, that they can be without

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 convened with a quorum, adopted its committee rules, and heard opening remarks from members introducing staff and outlining priorities for the session. Members from both parties emphasized education as a major issue, while several Republicans framed the committee’s work around school choice and parent empowerment. Senator West and other Democrats stressed protecting public schools, listening to Texans, and considering the effects of vouchers or education savings accounts on school districts and communities. Chairman Creighton laid out Senate Bill 2, the Texas Education Freedom Act, describing it as a universal education savings account program modeled on similar programs in other states. He said the bill would provide about $200 million for a universal eligibility pool and additional funding for students with disabilities and lower-income families, with priority weighting for former public school students. He also highlighted anti-fraud measures, vendor pre-approval, criminal background checks, cybersecurity protections, annual testing requirements for participating students, and the use of the Comptroller rather than TEA to administer the program. Creighton repeatedly said the bill is not a voucher and argued it would not take money from public schools, which he said would receive separate historic funding increases. Members questioned Creighton about the 500% of federal poverty line definition, the adequacy of the $10,000 ESA amount, whether the program would favor students already in private school, how microschools and homeschool pods would fit, and whether the bill protects religious liberty and private-school autonomy. Democrats raised concerns about disability protections, 504 students, foster children, public-school funding, open records, and the historical context of vouchers. Republicans generally supported the bill as a way to expand options for parents and students, while also asking about administration, fraud prevention, and data security. After member questions, the committee began invited testimony, with EdChoice President Robert Inlow presenting in support of SB 2 and citing the growth and reported success of school choice programs nationwide.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you are playing volleyball at sort of an elite level, right?
• I mean, the level of discipline that it requires to not only reach the Division I level, but... ...of
• I level.
• or establishing new proficiency levels.
• or establishing new proficiency levels.

Bills: HB2020, HB2032, HB2033, HB2249, HB2313, HB2318, HB2378, HCR2003

Keywords: interference, disruption, educational institutions, public order, conduct rules, statewide assessment, student testing, academic standards, third grade reading, reading retention, promotion and retention, school accountability, assessment window, testing window, test scores, school report cards, nontest data, graduation rates, dropout rates, education data privacy

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from February 18 and March 4, 2026, then took up HCR 2003, the Protect Girls in Sports in Arizona Act. Supporters, including Superintendent Tom Horne and several athletes and coaches, argued the measure would protect fairness, safety, and privacy in girls’ sports and locker rooms by requiring sports to be designated male, female, or co-ed and by limiting access to certain private spaces. Opponents, including the ACLU and Arizona Education Association, argued the resolution was discriminatory, would function as a bathroom ban, and could create enforcement and privacy problems. The committee passed HCR 2003 on a 4-3 vote, giving it a due pass recommendation. The committee then heard HB 2020, which would make certain threats or disruptions at educational institutions by minors a class 1 misdemeanor instead of a class 6 felony, and passed it 4-3. HB 2032, which shifts the statewide testing window later in the school year and changes related score deadlines, drew support from school leaders who said it would better reflect full-year learning; it passed 6-1. HB 2033, allowing school districts and charter schools to choose paper-and-pencil statewide testing by governing board vote, also passed 6-0 with one member not voting. HB 2318, establishing term limits for school district governing board members, was amended to clarify the limit applies only after two consecutive four-year terms beginning after a specified date; it passed 4-3 despite opposition from the Arizona School Board Association over impacts on rural districts. The committee next approved HB 2378, which changes eligibility rules for School Facilities Oversight Board members so certain architect and engineer members may not have school-construction business interests, passing 4-3. HB 2313, which prohibits teacher strikes or organized work stoppages and reduces school funding if a strike occurs, passed 4-3 after testimony from educators who said it was punitive and could worsen staffing shortages. Finally, the committee considered HB 2249, which expands the Parents’ Bill of Rights to require written parental consent and notification regarding school facilitation of social transitioning and creates significant civil penalties for violations. Opponents warned it was vague, punitive, and likely to chill ordinary school interactions, while supporters said it was needed to stop schools from hiding information from parents. After adopting a six-page amendment, the committee passed HB 2249 on a 4-3 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• It starts at the lowest level, so it starts at the district.
• So here's three levels, but what you determine goes within minor midlevel and major infractions, but
• All of these go To our principles, but they should be able to be handled at my level.
• Level because this would be state-coordinated training.
• level, at the state department level.

Bills: SB1632, SB1594, SB2045, SB1251, SB1884, SB1250, SB1630, SB1262, SB1374, SB1292, SB1432, SB1199, SB1790, SB1481, SB1614, SB1734, SB1437, SB1489, SB1718, SB1778

Keywords: career readiness, education reform, high school assessments, workplace skills, state education, credentialing, teacher certification, principal requirements, education administration, special education, Oklahoma education law, SB2045, Grow Your Own Educator Program, teacher recruitment, teacher retention, alternative certification, alternative teacher certification, teacher preparation, tuition reimbursement, course fee reimbursement

Transcript Highlights:

• But that information at the hospital level is not discoverable from that committee's work.
• But that information at the hospital level is not discoverable from that committee's work.
• We need input at all levels.
• We need input at all levels.
• We need input at all levels.

Keywords: Public Health and Welfare - Room 216, 17 February, 2026; 2:00 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and considered three House bills. House Bill 515, described as a measure allowing radiologist assistants to discuss preliminary findings with physicians after a test, was presented as identical to an earlier bill and passed on a title sufficient, do pass motion without debate. House Bill 1637 would create a fetal and infant mortality review panel under the Department of Health to align state law with federal requirements and mirror existing maternal mortality review work. The bill prompted extended questioning about broad exemptions from the Open Meetings and Public Records Acts, with Senator Blunt and others expressing concern that the language was too broad and could shield records beyond individual patient privacy. Dr. Edney of the Department of Health testified that the protections were needed so hospitals and providers would share sensitive information for performance improvement and mortality review work, and that final reports would still be issued. After the debate, Senator Blunt moved to lay House Bill 1637 on the table subject to call, and the motion passed. The committee then took up House Bill 814, which would raise fees for inspections and investigations of food establishments and wastewater systems; it was described as a Department of Health measure supported by the regulated entities because they want inspections. The bill was characterized as maintaining an arm’s-length relationship between regulators and regulated parties, and it passed on a title sufficient, do pass motion. The chair closed by noting the committee had completed its agenda and would not meet the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• The discussion on adequacy, but the SEG incentivizes a specific enrollment level.
• It doesn't go into detail about the actual salaries of, say, principals or a level two or level three
• And so, have we talked on the charter level and on the district level on specifically at HB 63 when we're
• Have we heard about concerns regarding just funding levels?
• Chair, the national level is a whole other level of concern for some of my families that I keep in contact

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have these rigid definitions and formulas that refer to poverty levels and refer to income levels
• income levels and on and on.
• But when we zoom out and look at these choice programs at state levels and on national levels, to Robert's
• He was reading on a DRA level of 20, which is beginning of second grade, working on a math level at beginning
• , personal level, family level, community level, and ultimately educational level, that they can be without

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 convened with a quorum, adopted its committee rules, and heard opening remarks from members introducing staff and outlining priorities for the session. Several senators emphasized support for public education, teacher pay and safety, parental choice, and the combined K-16 jurisdiction of the committee. The chair also reviewed hearing procedures, including public testimony registration and time limits. The main item was Senate Bill 2, the Texas Education Freedom Act, laid out by Chairman Creighton. He described the bill as an education savings account program intended to expand school choice, with a $200 million universal eligibility pool and an additional $800 million targeted to students with disabilities and lower-income families. He said the bill includes anti-fraud safeguards, criminal background checks for vendors, reporting requirements, data protections, and annual testing for participating students, while not imposing STAAR on private schools or homeschoolers. He also said the bill removes a prior hold-harmless provision for public schools and is separate from public school funding and teacher pay legislation. Members questioned the bill’s income threshold, lottery and priority structure, treatment of homeschoolers, microschools, charter schools, religious freedom protections, citizenship/lawful presence language, cybersecurity, open records, and disability-related issues, including whether 504 students and foster children should be included. Creighton said the bill is designed to prioritize former public school students with disabilities or lower incomes, while also allowing universal eligibility within the program’s first funding tier, and that the Comptroller would oversee vendor screening and cybersecurity rules. He said the bill does not direct curriculum or interfere with religious beliefs and that amendments may be offered later on citizenship and other issues. After member questions, the committee began invited testimony, starting with EdChoice representative Robert Inlow, who testified in support of SB 2 and cited national growth in school choice programs and studies he said show positive effects for students and public schools.

Transcript Highlights:

• , what grade levels those students are in.
• Other grade levels, like which grade level should actually participate in these programs.
• So is that something PED should be taking a heavier hand in at the local level?
• Then on cost, did I see that the funding level per student or enrollee is $19,200?
• We just don't get that level of detail.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• New Mexico must strengthen state-level commitments that shield us from sudden Disruption.
• Level 1 teacher minimum.
• We are above numerous states in every grade level. And additional information will be provided.
• Throughout multiple different states and at the federal level.
• What does that look like at the district level?

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , nine different levels of expertise, special education being one of them.
• In 2019, prior to the pandemic, 35% of our third graders met grade-level standards.
• We saw some students who were below grade level. We saw some students who were on grade level.
• We saw some students who were below grade level.
• We saw some students who were below grade level. We saw some students who were on grade level.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 met with a quorum and announced a full agenda, including combined public testimony for two bills related to student personal communication devices. The committee first took up Senate Bill 1262 by Senator Nichols, a school safety cleanup bill following House Bill 3. The bill would allow TEA to commission peace officers for school safety purposes, require annual renewal of good-cause exceptions to armed guard requirements, create a new report based on intruder detection audits and vulnerability assessments, and require behavioral threat assessment teams to include someone with specific knowledge of a special education student’s disability. Committee members asked about the difference between TCOLE licensing and TEA commissioning, the scope of the officers’ authority, and how the good-cause exception would work. The committee substitute was adopted, and public testimony included support from school safety and drone-response advocates, Disability Rights Texas in favor of the special education provisions, and a student witness raising concerns about the mental health impact of repeated lockdowns and the need for immediate, reliable school safety responses. The bill was left pending after testimony, then the committee briefly recessed and later reopened testimony to hear the student witness. The committee then laid out Senate Bill 2252 by Senator Creighton, a major early literacy and numeracy bill for kindergarten through third grade. Creighton said the bill builds on prior literacy efforts by funding teacher stipends for literacy and math academies, providing free and clearly administered screeners and assessments, expanding screening options, clarifying how results are used, supporting high-quality pre-K, and increasing the early education allotment. He emphasized low reading performance and the need for early intervention. Members discussed how the bill differs from earlier academy models and whether the assessments are diagnostic or high-stakes; Creighton and witnesses said the tools are intended to identify students needing support, not to serve as punitive testing. The committee adopted the substitute. Witnesses for SB 2252 largely supported the bill. A Uplift Education representative described strong gains from small-group literacy tutoring and said students receiving targeted support can make more than a year of growth in a year. An education specialist explained that the bill aligns general education screening with existing dyslexia and special education practices and helps districts identify students who need intervention before a disability evaluation is required. A Commit Partnership witness cited statewide reading data, the importance of high-quality pre-K, and the need for transparent, consistent progress monitoring and parent engagement. Members asked about the meaning of the growth data, how dyslexia screening works, and how the bill would help identify struggling students earlier. Before finishing all questions, the committee recessed subject to the call of the chair after the floor session.