Transcript Highlights:

• line and spent close to $4,000 more per student than districts with over 500 students.
• The matrix is funded based on 500 students. So this is the amount for 500 students.
• Districts with fewer than 351 students spent almost three times more per student than the lowest per-student
• student amount.
• student as well.

Summary: The joint education committee continued its adequacy study with a detailed Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, covering how Arkansas school districts and charters spend foundation and other funds on matrix and non-matrix items. Staff explained the methodology for mapping expenditures, the district and school categories used in the analysis, and key findings showing that districts spend more per student from all fund sources than the foundation amount alone. The presentation highlighted that classroom teachers account for the largest share of matrix spending, while operations and maintenance, student support staff, nurses, and other lines also drew significant attention. Members asked for additional breakdowns by district type, size, rural/urban status, and trend data, and several questions focused on how waivers affect funding and spending, especially for library media specialists and other positions. The committee then discussed non-matrix spending, including instructional aids, non-technology-related facilities, school safety, mental health services, dyslexia support, food service, gifted and talented, career and technical education, and other items not explicitly defined in the matrix. Staff reported that non-matrix spending exceeded $2 billion in 2025, with most of it coming from other fund sources, and that the top superintendent-identified unmet needs over recent surveys were mental health services, school safety, and dyslexia support. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, possible over-identification, and whether some support costs are being coded in ways that obscure the true spending picture. There was also discussion of facilities funding, the building fund, and the Department of Education’s partnership program for school construction and maintenance, with staff agreeing to provide more information and potentially bring department officials back for a future meeting. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly requested more granular data and clarifications, including waiver counts and funding impacts, trend lines for superintendent-reported needs, district-by-district spending spreadsheets, and definitions for certain matrix and accounting terms such as salary enhancement, LEA indebtedness, and other employee health insurance. The chair noted that the committee would continue the adequacy process over the coming months and use the worksheet in the binder to develop recommendations for the next biennium. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; instead, the committee received the report, asked for follow-up data, and agreed to continue the discussion at future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• around student loans.
• who are here on student visas.
• students about their eligibility.
• I don't blame that on the student.
• Somehow, out of those 100,000 students, these 2,000, Students, somehow out of those 100,000 students,

Summary: The joint Sunset Review Oversight Hearing focused on the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) and its reauthorization, operations, enforcement, fiscal condition, and student protections. Committee leaders and DCA officials praised the Bureau’s recent improvements in data systems, licensing, inspections, and enforcement, while noting the Bureau’s role has become more important as federal higher education oversight weakens. Bureau Chief Deborah Cochran said the agency has met its inspection mandate for the first time since the law was enacted, increased citations and disciplinary actions, reduced pending complaints, and used data tools to identify risk and monitor institutions more effectively. A major portion of the hearing centered on student harm, especially school closures, transcript access, predatory recruiting, and the Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF). Members asked how the Bureau protects students when schools close, whether bad actors can reopen under new entities, and whether enforcement tools are strong enough. Cochran said the Bureau can cite, fine, place schools on probation, revoke licenses, and order refunds, but it is seeking new authority to deny approval to operators who previously closed schools improperly or failed to refund students. She also said the Bureau is tracking ownership data and is concerned about institutions targeting immigrant and visa students. On STRF, Cochran explained that the fund is currently healthy, assessments are at zero because the balance is above the statutory target, and the Bureau paid about 1,100 claims totaling roughly $17 million over the last four years. Several members questioned the fairness of the assessment structure and discussed alternatives such as surety bonds, but the Bureau said STRF is working well and no change is needed at this time. Fee increases and the Bureau’s structural deficit were another major topic. Cochran said the Bureau reduced costs by eliminating positions, streamlining inspections, improving data analysis, and shifting some student-relief costs to STRF, but that legislative action is still needed to address the deficit. She said the proposed fees were based on workload analyses and that application fees generally match service costs, while annual fees are designed to cover most of the Bureau’s revenue needs. Some members and stakeholders criticized the proposed increases as too high, especially for out-of-state registration and campus fees, while others argued the Bureau needs sufficient resources to regulate effectively. Public commenters from private schools, Northeastern University, San Joaquin Valley College/Carrington College, and TICAS generally supported the Bureau’s mission and reauthorization, but urged changes such as risk-based oversight, better transcript protections, stronger limits on repeated provisional approvals, and more targeted fee and STRF reforms. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with no formal action beyond discussion and receipt of testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• What's the percentage of students that end up getting a refund versus students that take the courses,
• The EASE, as Sean said, is $3,500 a student. EASE Plus is about $850 a student.
• But remember that this is a student grant that goes to the student, and the student and parents can make
• That's a Pell-eligible student that is, you know, these are not wealthy students.
• That's a Pell eligible student that is, you know, these are not wealthy students.

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee heard and advanced House Bill 1145, which clarifies that public charter schools may participate in the CAP Grant Fund. The bill’s amendment expanded a separate “money-back guarantee” concept for state colleges, requiring participating institutions to offer six eligible programs and refund tuition if graduates do not find qualifying employment within six months under standardized job-search requirements. Members asked about refund rates, student notification, fiscal impact, and whether the proposal accounted for disability or out-of-state job searches. Public testimony on the amendment and bill was in support from Nathan Hoffman of the Foundation for Florida’s Future, and the committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably as a committee substitute by a 16-1 vote, with Representative Aristide voting no over the charter school issue. The committee then received presentations on the William L. Boyd IV Effective Access to Student Education (EASE) Grant and the private nonprofit college sector. Department of Education staff explained that EASE, created in 1979, provides tuition assistance to eligible full-time undergraduates at participating private institutions, with a 2024-25 maximum award of $3,500 and an additional EASE Plus incentive of up to $850 for students in high-demand fields. The department reviewed the program’s funding history, disbursement process, and accountability metrics, including access, affordability, graduation, retention, and postgraduate employment/continuing education. Members asked about award proration, eligibility for other aid, religious-program restrictions, and why some institutions had low or unavailable graduation-rate data. ICUF President Robert Boyd argued that EASE is a strong return on investment and described ICUF institutions as not-for-profit, four-year schools serving many Pell-eligible, adult, military, and minority students. He said the sector produces a significant share of Florida’s bachelor’s, graduate, nursing, and education degrees, and highlighted ICUF’s dashboard with additional transparency metrics, program earnings data, and net price calculators. Boyd and members discussed graduation and completion rates, NCLEX passage rates, affordability, institutional flexibility, and whether schools with lower graduation rates should be compared differently because of their student populations. The presentations ended with no further business, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• students drops substantially. students drops substantially.
• of student behavior challenges. of student behavior challenges.
• students.
• challenging students in their schools. challenging students in their schools.
• IEP students? IEP students?

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee received an Office of Education Accountability presentation on student discipline data in Kentucky schools for the 2024 school year. OEA said the study used Safe Schools data, educator and student surveys, site visits to 12 schools, and principal surveys. The report found that about 1 in 10 schools have major behavior-related challenges and up to one-third have at least moderate challenges, with the most common concerns varying by level: high schools cited vapes, cell phone misuse, apathy, and tardiness; middle schools cited apathy, vapes, and cell phone misuse; and elementary schools reported more extreme classroom behaviors such as throwing objects, overturning furniture, and screaming. OEA also noted that 14% of students had at least one behavior event in 2024, but repeated events were rare, and event rates alone do not reliably measure the severity of behavior problems in a school or district. The presentation emphasized that many disciplinary consequences do not align consistently with statutes or local expectations. OEA said law violations made up 19% of more than 250,000 recorded behavior events, while most were board violations, and that some serious incidents resulted in minimal consequences. The report highlighted concerns about weapons, threats, and assaults: only 9.2% of weapon events led to expulsion or alternative placement, few threats resulted in those outcomes, and fewer than 10% of assaults led to expulsion or alternative placement, including some first-degree assaults. OEA also said the Safe Schools data do not identify victims, limiting analysis of assaults on staff or students, and recommended clearer statutory definitions and better data reporting. A major theme was the difficulty schools face in addressing chronic disruption and severe behavior while complying with federal protections for students with disabilities. OEA said principals reported the biggest challenges were federal limits on disciplinary removals and a lack of alternative placement options. The report described variation among districts in how they implement federal requirements, with some administrators discouraging alternative placements or avoiding discipline because of perceived legal risks. Site visits found that many schools lacked chronic-disruption policies, and teachers often reported frustration with minimal consequences and repeated classroom removals. OEA recommended that KDE collect more information from educators, identify promising practices for alternative instructional settings, and develop clearer guidance and training. In discussion, committee members said the findings showed reporting gaps and resource strains, and OEA staff clarified that some underreporting reflects local discretion, while law violations should still be reported.

Transcript Highlights:

• EOG-eligible students.
• students.
• We started with 40 students in 2009, 40 medical students, and you can see We now have over 1,334 students
• students, approximately 90% of our students are women.
• 100,000 students.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The students do.
• our students still pay the price.
• The Lawrence school has about 150 students, and the other two schools are about 180 students.
• The student then gets sent back to the sending district and they then place the student?
• These impacts are greatest for low-income students, students of color, and students receiving special

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a lengthy hearing on a large slate of bills focused primarily on charter school policy and vocational technical education. Committee members opened with ground rules for testimony, including a two-minute limit, written testimony acceptance, and a live-streamed format. The committee then heard testimony on bills to expand collective bargaining rights in Horace Mann and Innovation Schools, reform charter school funding and reimbursement, allow enrollment preferences for high-need students in charter lotteries, and require BESE to consider district impacts when approving new or expanded charters. Several witnesses, including union leaders, parents, educators, and legislators, argued that charter growth has strained district budgets and that funding formulas should be reworked to better protect public schools; charter advocates and alumni countered that charter schools serve high-need students well and should not be penalized for their success. A major portion of the hearing focused on vocational technical education bills, including proposals to expand access and capacity, create a large grant program, and increase MSBA reimbursement rates for vocational school construction. Supporters described long waitlists, strong labor-market demand, and the higher cost of building and maintaining vocational schools, while municipal officials emphasized the tax burden on local communities. The committee also heard testimony on charter school reimbursement bills that would extend the state’s reimbursement schedule, with witnesses from districts such as Boston, Worcester, Fall River, and New Bedford describing large net losses to charter tuition and arguing for longer reimbursement periods and structural reform. The committee took no final votes during the hearing. In one instance, the chair said a bill would be held open until a missing senator could testify. Members asked several detailed questions about charter admissions lotteries, special education placements, funding formulas, and the practical effects of proposed charter caps and reimbursement changes. The hearing remained informational, with witnesses and committee members presenting sharply different views on whether the bills would improve equity and opportunity or harm existing public school systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• , economically disadvantaged students, ESL students, and special education students.
• Chelsea is the most affected district on a per-student basis, at $1,200 per student.
• or 100 students.
• My students.
• students, and diverse learners.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education opened a hybrid public hearing on a large slate of bills related to school buildings, school finance, technology, data privacy, safety, and related education issues. Chairs Jason Lewis and Ken Gordon outlined procedures for the hearing, including two-minute testimony limits and the plan to group similar bills together. Several bills drew no testimony and were closed without further discussion, while others drew extensive testimony from legislators, school officials, parents, advocates, and educators. A major theme was school safety and student well-being. Lori Al-Hadeth testified in support of bills on alert systems in public schools, describing the loss of her daughter in the Parkland shooting and urging adoption of Alyssa’s Law-style panic alert technology. Representative Gallagher and disability advocates also supported a bill authorizing, but not requiring, airway clearance devices in schools, arguing they could save lives in choking emergencies and provide an option for people who cannot use the Heimlich maneuver. Another bill on reducing cafeteria waste drew support from a legislator and a Lexington sustainability official, who said installing dishwashers during construction would reduce waste and long-term costs. Much of the hearing focused on Chapter 70 school funding and the inflation cap. Senator Pavel Payano, Senator Sal DiDomenico, Representative Senna, and multiple local officials and school committee members from Bridgewater, Chelsea, Groton-Dunstable, and other districts argued that the 4.5% cap on inflation adjustments has left schools underfunded during years of high inflation, forcing layoffs, larger class sizes, and cuts to programs and student supports. They urged bills to eliminate the cap, restore lost funding, increase the Commonwealth’s share of the foundation budget, or create commissions to study reforms. Testimony also highlighted the impact on special education, English learners, and low-income students, with Chelsea witnesses saying the cap has cost their district about $7 million annually. School construction and MSBA reform were the other major topic. AIA Massachusetts, Boston Public Schools, Lynn officials, and AFT Massachusetts described aging facilities, overcrowding, deferred maintenance, and the difficulty of financing new schools under current reimbursement rules. Boston officials said the district has many pre-World War II buildings and has only built a handful of new schools in decades, while Lynn leaders said reimbursement rates have fallen well below the statutory 80% because of caps and ineligible costs. Witnesses urged modernization of the MSBA program, higher reimbursement rates, and more resources for school construction. The committee also heard support for a bill to study the adequacy and equity of the school building program, and chairs indicated some bills would be closed after no one signed up to testify.

Transcript Highlights:

• students, like English learners, Specific student groups, like low-income students, like English learners
• students?
• For our students.
• Systemic stuff with targeting the needs of individual students and student groups.
• systemic stuff with targeting the needs of individual students and student groups.

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation on strategic resource management in public education. LESC staff and PED officials argued that New Mexico has increased school funding, but local budgeting and planning remain fragmented and overly compliance-driven. They described long-term pressures including declining enrollment, rising special education costs, falling cash balances, changes in federal funding, and leadership turnover, and said schools need more intentional multi-year planning tied to student outcomes. They also outlined the many disconnected planning requirements schools must complete, compared New Mexico’s current approach with Ohio’s three-year budget forecasting model, and recommended continuing multi-year appropriations, adding $2.5 million for state grants in the unified application, and directing LESC, LFC, and PED to develop a long-term financial planning proposal. PED said it is working to reduce administrative burden through school accreditation, a unified application for federal and state funds, and internal alignment of guidance and coaching, with pilot schools reporting time savings and better alignment. Members raised concerns about four-day school weeks, the burden on small districts, the need for outcomes and return on investment, and whether the state should move toward a two-year or three-year planning cycle; staff clarified that the proposal was to streamline or eliminate redundant requirements, not add another layer. The committee then received an update on the Educator Fellows program. PED described it as a Grow Your Own pipeline that employs candidates as supplemental educational assistants while they work toward licensure, providing salary, benefits, paid leave, mentoring, and coursework support. Officials said the program helps address teacher shortages, improves student-to-teacher ratios, increases workforce diversity, and supports the Martinez-Yazzie action plan. They reported 370 current fellows across 86 LEAs and about 180 schools, with many fellows being people of color, first-generation college students, or second-career educators; roughly 85 are expected to become certified this year. A local HR director from Belen testified that the program has been especially valuable in small communities, where fellows are already rooted in the community and several have moved into teaching roles. Members asked about high school recruitment, tuition, retirement and benefits, the relationship to the Higher Education Department’s Grow Your Own scholarship, and the role of university partners. PED said fellows choose among accredited higher education partners, the program is separate from the scholarship but complementary, and the state is also building an apprenticeship model and seeking to expand the program to more LEAs, though some districts are on a waiting list because of funding and local match requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• student.
• Districts with fewer than 351 students spent almost three times more per student than the lowest per-student
• per-student amount for student transportation.
• than three hundred fifty one students spent almost three times more per student amount for student transportation
• student as well.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The joint education committee continued its adequacy study with a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, covering how Arkansas school spending is mapped to the adequacy matrix and how expenditures are split between foundation funds and other funding sources. Staff explained the methodology, district and school categories used for comparisons, and key findings for matrix spending, including that classroom teachers account for the largest share of matrix expenditures and that districts spend more per student than charter districts in most categories. Members asked for additional breakdowns on waivers, trend data, and more detailed spending by district type, and staff agreed to provide follow-up information. The committee then reviewed non-matrix spending, including instructional aides, facilities, school safety, mental health services, dyslexia support, gifted and talented, career and technical education, and other items not explicitly in the matrix. Staff noted that non-matrix spending exceeded $2 billion and that superintendents consistently identified mental health services, school safety, and dyslexia support as important needs not fully captured in the matrix. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, school safety, facilities spending, and whether some items such as food service should be included in adequacy calculations. Staff and Department of Education representatives explained that some expenditures are difficult to isolate because of coding and commingled funds, and that certain items are funded outside the matrix or through separate programs. In the final section, staff summarized total spending across matrix and non-matrix items, noting that districts spent more than the foundation amount per student and that most total spending was on matrix resources. They also highlighted data limitations, including two matrix lines that cannot be fully tracked through current accounting codes. The chair then proposed postponing the second part of the presentation until a May meeting after the fiscal session, with additional time set aside to address questions for both staff and the Department of Education. The committee agreed, and the meeting adjourned without any formal vote on policy changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• > students are losing students or certain students are losing students or certain students along<
• . students. students.
• student outcomes. student outcomes.
• can parenting students so that students can parenting students so that students can really<00:45
• our students are low-income students. our students are low-income students.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, 112,000 students diagnosed with asthma may be at risk of severe 112,000 students diagnosed
• So there's baseline requirements for the contract, which would be student ages, grade level, student
• Is it possible that some students that are not low-income, that are high-performing elementary students
• the student to where the student goes.
• We're funding the students and where those students decide to take their dollars to be educated.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education met with a quorum and took up several education bills. SB 1150, by Senator Calatayud, was presented as a measure to help school districts retain school social workers by removing an exam requirement unrelated to the profession. With no questions or debate, the committee voted the bill favorably. The committee then moved to SB 1514, by Senator Smith, on anaphylaxis response in public schools. After adopting a delete-all amendment and a late-filed amendment clarifying FDA-approved epinephrine devices and weight-based dosing, the committee heard support from Orange County Public Schools and reported the bill favorably. The most extensive discussion centered on SB 1708, also by Senator Calatayud, which would expand Schools of Hope by broadening the definition of low-performing schools from those in the bottom 10% in both math and reading to those in the bottom 10% in either subject, and would authorize co-location of Schools of Hope in underused public school facilities. Senators questioned how co-location would work, who could enroll, how liability and contracts would be handled, and whether the bill would help the specific students most in need. Many public speakers opposed the bill, arguing it would strain already underfunded public schools, reduce space and resources, and unfairly favor charter operators. The sponsor said the bill would not reduce classroom space in use, would require contracts to address safety and liability, and would provide a net positive to districts through a $600-per-student facility payment plus associated funding. After debate from both supporters and skeptics, the committee reported the bill favorably. The committee also considered CS for SB 822, by Senator Rodriguez, which would give charter schools more autonomy over governance and operations, including deadlines, enrollment caps, student conduct policies, and data sharing. The Florida Charter School Alliance supported the bill, arguing it would create parity and reduce burdens on charter schools, while committee members pressed the witness on claims of district “harassment” and the basis for those concerns. The bill was reported favorably after a roll call vote. At the end of the meeting, members recorded votes on prior tabs, thanked staff, and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have over 6,000 students.
• We are here to talk about the two programs for our students with our students.
• We know that the students who are degree-seeking students with Supporting their success.
• And those are typically graduate students as well as the academic coaching students who help students
• students.

Summary: The meeting opened with routine business, including approval of the January 13, 2026 minutes, and a brief recognition of Autism Awareness Month. The task force then heard a presentation from the University of Arkansas College of Education and Health Professions on two student support programs: the Empower Program for non-degree-seeking students ages 18–24 with mild intellectual disabilities, and the Autism Support Program for degree-seeking students with autism. Speakers described academic coaching, peer and career coaching, residential supports, person-centered planning, internships, and scholarship/fee structures, noting that both programs charge a $5,000 per-semester fee and rely on scholarships and fundraising to offset costs. Members asked about dorm arrangements, individualized plans, and how students transition in and out of supports; presenters explained that Empower students remain in the program throughout, while Autism Support Program students may enter or leave services as needed. The committee next heard from Pulaski Technical College’s 3D program, a three-year transition and post-secondary program for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities focused on culinary, baking, and hospitality training. Presenters outlined integrated classes with traditional students, faded support over time, internships, and outcomes such as 97 students enrolled since the program began, 57 graduates, strong completion rates, and many graduates obtaining and retaining jobs in the food service industry. Members asked about how success is measured, why rates are not 100 percent, the role of integrated classes, tuition, and community partnerships; staff explained that grading includes technical and professional skills, tuition is $5,700 per semester, and scholarships such as GETS and FAFSA help reduce costs. They also noted plans to expand offerings and pursue accreditation through the Inclusive Higher Education Accreditation Council. Finally, the task force received a presentation from SLS Community, a Fayetteville nonprofit serving neurodivergent adults through residential supports, supported employment, community activities, and advocacy. Leaders described a long-term vision tied to the Cato Springs mixed-use development, where housing, jobs, clinical services, and community amenities would be integrated in a “live, work, play” model. They discussed a residential program, a new vocational program called Program Forge, community events, and the challenges of the “services cliff” after age 21, especially for adults with complex support needs. Members and parents spoke about the importance of trained direct support professionals, ABA-based supports, and the need for better funding and service models for adults. The meeting ended with announcements about upcoming autism-related events and a request for future discussion on task force appointments and broader issues around ABA oversight and misuse.

Transcript Highlights:

• So students who apply via the Minnesota DREAM Act application are any student who's a resident student
• It also includes students who have asylum pending, students who have temporary protective status, students
• c> student<00:48:44.880> under<00:48:45.200> our student, a resident student under
• undocumented students aren't all undocumented students aren't all undocumented students. students
• . students.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• students who they themselves, Zone or that area, or will it be only those students who they themselves
• So there's baseline requirements for the contract, which would be student ages, grade level, student
• and school safety, Requirements for the contract, which would be student ages, grade level, student and
• the student to where the student goes.
• We're funding the students and where those students decide to take their dollars to be educated.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education met with a quorum present and took up several education bills. SB 1150, which would remove an unrelated exam barrier for school social workers to help districts retain them, was briefly explained and reported favorably. The committee then heard SB 1514 on anaphylaxis in public schools, which would require emergency action plans and training for school personnel; amendments narrowed and clarified the bill, including applicability to K-8 schools and FDA-approved epinephrine devices. Orange County Public Schools waived in support, and CS/CS/SB 1514 was reported favorably. The committee spent the most time on SB 1708, which expands Schools of Hope and creates a co-location framework allowing high-performing charter operators to share space in underused public school facilities, with the sponsor explaining that agreements would address safety, supervision, grade levels, emergency protocols, and liability. Members raised concerns about who would be served, lottery access, accountability, and whether the bill would worsen inequities or strain public schools; many public speakers opposed the bill on similar grounds, arguing it would divert resources from already underfunded schools. The sponsor clarified that Schools of Hope recruitment is exempt from lottery, that the bill would not use classrooms already in use, and that districts would receive $600 per student plus associated funding for vacant space. Despite mixed debate, CS for SB 1708 was reported favorably. Finally, the committee considered CS/SB 822, which updates charter school governance by limiting sponsor-imposed deadlines, preventing enrollment caps below facility capacity, improving data sharing, and allowing high-performing charter schools to assume existing charters. A charter school advocate supported the bill as a fairness and efficiency measure, while senators pressed him on claims of district “harassment” and the basis for the bill’s deadline changes. After brief debate, CS/SB 822 was reported favorably. The meeting ended with members recording votes on prior tabs and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The current students or former students.
• for our students. for our students.
• students.
• Our students are students of color.
• Thank you students are all our students.

Bills: HF3653, HF2717, HF3451, HF3857

Keywords: education finance, safe schools revenue, school safety, charter schools, funding, safe schools, school security, school levy, pupil units, safe schools aid, cooperative units, intermediate school district, school resource officer, peace officer liaison, sheriff liaison, drug abuse prevention, gang resistance education, violence prevention, suicide prevention, mental health services

Summary: The committee first adopted the March 3rd minutes by voice vote after Representative Lee moved them and there was no discussion. Members then reviewed hearing rules on decorum, safety, and participation before taking testimony from Dr. James Densley and Dr. Jillian Peterson of the Violence Prevention Project Research Center at Hamline University. The presenters summarized research on mass shootings and K-12 school shootings, drawing on a database of homicides in school settings from 2000 to 2025 and a smaller set of 15 K-12 mass shooting cases. They said school shooters are usually insiders, most often current or former students, and typically young males. They described common patterns including a noticeable crisis before attacks, perpetrators viewing the shooting as a final act, studying prior shooters online, and “leakage” in which most tell someone in advance. They also emphasized that many perpetrators use unsecured firearms from family members and argued that prevention should combine reporting systems, behavioral threat assessment, counseling, mentoring, secure storage, and other layered interventions rather than rely on a single solution. The presenters also discussed broader violence trends in the Twin Cities, saying much school violence is spillover from community violence and that pandemic-era disruptions and weakened trust in institutions contributed to serious violence. They cited a national survey finding that exposure to gun violence is associated with PTSD, anxiety, depression, and fear of public spaces, especially among young people. During member questions, Representative Wam asked for clarification on the data set and the rural/small-town share of the survey sample.

Transcript Highlights:

• by students in the UC system.
• of its students today.
• the needs of our students.
• two voting student members, and will allow the UC to keep better pace with student growth as student
• And thank you to our student speakers for your testimonials about student voice and student representation

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee met for its sixth policy hearing of 2026 and considered one measure, ACA 18, the “student empowerment amendment.” The authors, Assemblymembers Solache and Arends, said the constitutional amendment would expand student representation on the UC Board of Regents by adding a second voting student regent, with both undergraduate and graduate representation. They argued this would better reflect the student body, improve decision-making, and align UC with the California State University and Community College systems, which already have two student voting members. Supporters, including current and former UC student leaders and representatives from the UC Student Association, testified that students are the primary stakeholders in the university system and should have more meaningful voting power on issues such as tuition, housing, basic needs, free speech, and campus policy. They said the current single student regent cannot adequately represent the diversity of UC students and that the proposal would strengthen shared governance and accountability. No opposition testimony was presented. Committee members voiced support, with several noting the importance of student voice and representation. The committee accepted the authors’ amendments, then voted the measure out on a due pass as amended motion to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The roll call ultimately finished at 9-0 in favor, and the chair adjourned the meeting after announcing the next hearing date.

Transcript Highlights:

• with an over sample of Jewish students we had Jewish students and non-Jewish students and four-year
• A student walked through the entire crowd of 100-plus students.
• Jewish students.
• This is dark, this is heavy, but our students are amazing—our Jewish students, our students on campus
• are the graduate students, and engaging them... ...students are the graduate students, and engaging

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The meeting opened with approval of the July 9, 2025 minutes and a roll call confirming quorum. DESE Commissioner Pedro Martinez gave his first official testimony, affirming the department’s commitment to preventing antisemitism and societal bias in schools, saying DESE supports the commission’s recommendations and will add staff resources to help develop and disseminate guidance and instructional materials. He said DESE’s rubric and guidance for identifying effective curricula and resources should be finalized in late fall, and commissioners welcomed the partnership and asked about the ongoing Section 98A work. The commission then heard from Professor Eitan Hirsch of Tufts, who presented research on antisemitism and campus climate. He described survey findings showing sharply different Jewish and non-Jewish views on Israel, increasing social pressure on Jewish students, and a growing tendency for Jewish students to hide their identity or feel penalized for participating in Jewish life. He argued that colleges need to do more to teach students how to handle dissent and build cultures of viewpoint diversity, and commissioners asked about best practices, regional differences, and the role of campus climate surveys. Rabbi Fine of UMass Amherst Hillel and student Sky Landau testified about antisemitism at UMass, especially since October 7. Fine described both a thriving Jewish student community and serious incidents including harassment, vandalism, classroom issues, protests, and students hiding Jewish identity; he said the university is working with Hillel and DEI leadership on goals and strategy for Jewish inclusion, and he urged more training and structured dialogue. Landau described antisemitic incidents she experienced or witnessed, including hostile BDS meetings, exclusion of Zionist students, Holocaust denial, threats, and social ostracism, and said Hillel was the only consistently safe space for her. Commissioners discussed reporting pathways, affinity groups, mental health supports, and ways to distinguish criticism of Israel from antisemitism. Later, the commission moved to its recommendations and made several edits before voting, including deleting offensive wording in a footnote, adding a citation to recent FBI hate crime data, and restoring language tied to an existing DESE regulation, 603 CMR 26.05, on classroom neutrality and fact-based instruction. Commissioners also reiterated that criticism of Israel’s government is not inherently antisemitic. The meeting included a brief interruption by a protester, after which the commission recessed and then resumed its work on the draft recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• High-need students are low-income students, ELL students, and students with disabilities.
• for educating students.
• The class sizes vary between about 15 students and 30 students to...
• for that student?
• per student.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused primarily on H. 517/S. 314, a bill to provide a sustainable future for rural schools, and H. 697, a bill to require full funding of regional school transportation. Witnesses from rural districts, school committees, superintendents, students, and local officials described chronic underfunding, declining enrollment, high fixed costs, special education and transportation burdens, and the loss of programs, staff, and extracurriculars. Several speakers argued that rural aid should be funded at $60 million annually and made non-discretionary, while others emphasized that transportation reimbursement for regional districts has repeatedly fallen short of the state’s promise and is driving budget crises and overrides. A number of students testified in support of rural aid, describing cuts to classes, counselors, and activities, and the impact on their schools and communities. Committee members also discussed whether transportation policy should be revisited to address underlying cost drivers, including bus bidding practices and whether regional districts should have more flexibility in transportation requirements. The committee also heard H. 515, concerning Hancock Elementary School and a school choice-related exemption from a state requirement that has created a large financial burden for the district. Hancock’s superintendent and Rep. John Barrett explained that a decades-old regulation, recently enforced by DESE, would require Hancock to pay tuition for choice-in students through high school graduation even though the district only serves pre-K through grade 6 and sends its own students elsewhere for middle and high school. They said the rule creates a significant per-student shortfall and has forced Hancock to opt out of school choice. Committee members asked for clarification about how the arrangement works and how the costs fall on Hancock. Additional testimony supported related transportation bills for non-regional districts, especially Plymouth/Carver and North Middlesex, describing high and rising bus costs, special education and McKinney-Vento transportation expenses, and the strain on local budgets. Speakers repeatedly said that state reimbursement has not matched actual costs and that communities are being forced to choose between transportation and classroom services. No votes or final actions were taken in the hearing; the committee simply received testimony and closed the hearing on the bills discussed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Amazing gains out of their students.
• student to provide ALEs.
• student to provide ALEs. students, districts are still spending increasingly more per student to provide
• decrease of $15 per student from 2023 and more than $260 more than per-student funding.
• learner students but declined within enhanced student achievement, or ESA, per-student funding.

Summary: The committee first approved the March 9 and 10 minutes, then heard a presentation from the Arkansas Excellence in Teaching Fellowship Program featuring three third-grade teachers from Poyen, Drew Central, and Cabot, along with Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva. The teachers described the fellowship as a year-long collaboration among 23 merit-pay recipients from across the state, focused on sharing classroom strategies, data use, and professional support. Members asked about teacher experience, how the fellowship information is shared locally, the role of merit pay, and how teachers are addressing third-grade reading and retention concerns under the ATLAS assessment system. The teachers emphasized early intervention, relationships with students, small-group instruction, progress monitoring, and communication with families; they also described community supports such as churches, food backpacks, and local donations. Several members raised broader questions about poverty, trauma, social services, DHS involvement, and whether similar professional learning should be expanded to more teachers. Secretary Oliva said the fellowship is a small subset of a larger merit-pay program, that participation was voluntary, and that the state is working to improve literacy supports, clarity, and alignment across grades. He also said ATLAS results are now available to schools and families much faster than in the past, often within 24 to 72 hours, and that the state is using the data to identify at-risk students earlier and support intervention before retention decisions are made. The committee then moved to the adequacy/resource allocation presentation from the Bureau of Legislative Research. Staff explained that the report is part of the statutory adequacy review and focuses on state funding sources beyond foundation aid, including categorical and supplemental funds. They noted that districts and charters spent more than $7 billion in the 2025 school year, with roughly 49% from foundation funding and 51% from other sources over the last three years. The presentation outlined the four categorical funds—Alternative Learning Environment, English Learners, Enhanced Student Achievement, and Professional Development—describing their restricted uses, student-based funding formulas, and the ability of districts to transfer some money among categoricals while keeping it within allowable purposes. Staff said categorical funds account for about 4% of total spending, or less than $300 million, and reviewed superintendent feedback on whether those funds met district needs, with responses varying by category and district.

Transcript Highlights:

• students, our undocumented students, our Black and Brown students, our English learners, our veterans
• student counts.
• Where we can say they are serving more students, they are seeing outcomes with those students.
• component for incarcerated students, as it does for most other students.
• Current students, of which 33% are student parents or caregivers, and 70% of our students are either

Keywords: 988, house, all