Transcript Highlights:

• 150 students.
• 150 students.
• students for students who service students for students who service students<01:05:18.559> support
• services for students students support services for students who've<01:05:20.039> been<01:05:
• around taking on student loans, how to repay student loans at the back end.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• on student outcomes.
• students, our undocumented students, our Black and Brown students, our English learner students, our
• colleges serving our students.
• component for incarcerated students, as it does for most other students.
• students.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing focused on California Community College budget proposals. Chair Alvarez opened by emphasizing the system’s role in access, transfer, workforce training, and serving more than 2 million students, while also noting persistent challenges in enrollment, persistence, transfer, and graduation. Public commenters and system representatives broadly supported COLA, enrollment growth funding, deferred maintenance, student support block grants, and additional flexibility for districts facing uncertainty. The first major panel covered the student-centered funding formula, COLA, and enrollment growth. The Department of Finance said the Governor proposes a 2.43% COLA ($230.4 million) and 0.5% enrollment growth funding ($30.4 million). The LAO said the COLA was reasonable and recommended funding at least the proposed growth amount, citing uneven enrollment recovery and regional differences. The Chancellor’s Office supported both proposals and asked for additional changes, including using the greater of current-year or three-year average for apportionments and lifting the 10% local enrollment cap, arguing these would better fund growing districts. Members questioned how the formula works, whether SCFF is improving outcomes, and how much additional funding would be needed under different growth scenarios. The committee then reviewed categorical program COLAs, Rising Scholars, career education proposals, IT proposals, and student housing. The Governor proposed a 2.43% COLA for selected categorical programs ($31.9 million). For Rising Scholars, the Governor proposed $30 million ongoing and removal of the cap on participating colleges; the LAO urged waiting for outcome data before doubling funding, while the Chancellor’s Office said the program is serving more students and supports equity for justice-impacted students. On career education, the Governor proposed $50 million for credit for prior learning and $50 million for a career passport; the LAO supported more reporting on credit for prior learning but recommended rejecting the career passport as too undefined, while the Chancellor’s Office supported both. On technology, the Governor proposed $162.5 million for a common cloud data platform and $168 million for a common ERP system; the LAO said both were premature or lacked sufficient planning and recommended rejection, while the Chancellor’s Office argued they would improve real-time data, security, and systemwide efficiency. The committee also heard an update on student housing: the administration said the 2024 shift to a lease-revenue bond model remains in progress for 13 approved projects, with 11 still active, and members asked about withdrawn projects and possible use of any returned funds. No votes were taken, and several items were held open for further discussion and May Revision updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• visa student visa.
• are students.
• These are students who have...
• I was one of those students.
• She is our student. Let's keep the promise of opportunity alive for every student in Texas.

Summary: The committee heard several education bills, with most of the discussion focused on Senate Bill 1835, Senate Bill 784, Senate Bill 1049, Senate Bill 2942, and Senate Bill 2928. SB 1835 would raise from 5% to 20% the cap on nonresident students who can receive resident tuition and fees through competitive scholarships at certain regional universities in slower-growing workforce development areas, provided the schools have capacity as determined by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Supporters, including West Texas A&M University, said the bill would help fill underused capacity, attract students who may stay and work in Texas, and support regional workforce needs. SB 784 would strengthen a prior law allowing peace officers’ children to transfer between public school districts for safety reasons by requiring both districts’ approval, making clear that districts of innovation are not exempt, and prohibiting tuition charges. SB 1049 would require districts and open-enrollment charters to excuse students, at a parent’s request, for religious release-time instruction for up to one hour per day and five hours per week; witnesses said the program is constitutional, voluntary, and already operating in other states and some Texas districts. Each of these bills was left pending after testimony, with no public witnesses opposing them. SB 2942 would expand and adjust the state’s adult charter high school pilot program. Senator Creighton said the bill is intended to help the estimated 7 million Texas adults without a high school diploma by removing barriers to expansion, aligning legal protections with ISDs, changing TEA’s disapproval window for expansion amendments to a 30-day period after receipt, and updating funding to reflect part-year attendance. A committee substitute kept the upper enrollment age at 50 and removed a proposed testing change. Testimony from New Heights students and leadership described the program as life-changing, emphasizing that it combines diplomas with career credentials, childcare, transportation, and other supports to help adults stabilize their families and enter better-paying work. TEA witnesses explained the expansion process and said adult charter schools are overseen by the commissioner rather than the SBOE. The committee substitute was adopted, public testimony closed, and the bill was left pending. SB 2928 would set a uniform school start date for public school districts at the third Wednesday in August, while preserving existing district-of-innovation flexibility for current DOI districts and allowing year-round systems to continue. Senator Creighton argued the bill would reduce the patchwork created by DOI exemptions, support students and families, and preserve summer employment and tourism revenue. A committee substitute was adopted. Testimony came largely from tourism, hospitality, and recreation interests, including hotel, water park, zoo, chamber of commerce, and camp representatives, who said later start dates would extend the summer travel season, improve staffing and revenue, and give students more opportunities for summer jobs and camps. Several witnesses cited large economic impacts from tourism and said early school starts reduce August business. Some senators raised concerns about charter schools being excluded and about year-round calendars, but the bill was left pending after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• The teacher yells to two students or one student, go get the school nurse.
• As this... ...the teacher yells to two students or one student, go get the school nurse, as the same
• one minute, that student is safe.
• We need to provide educators and student support staff with the tools to understand when a student is
• student enrollment.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a public hearing on a large slate of bills, with the chairs emphasizing time limits, written testimony, and grouping similar measures together. Early testimony focused on opioid use disorder education in schools (S.382), with Senator Keenan arguing that students should be taught about the risks of substance use disorder and naloxone use as part of health curricula. Representative DeCost also briefly introduced H.551, a narrow bill concerning parent rights for children in third grade and younger. Several bills were then closed without testimony, including measures on type 1 diabetes informational materials and other diabetes-related proposals. A major portion of the hearing centered on school health and emergency response bills. Supporters of H.652/S.342 on diabetes management in schools described inconsistent district practices and urged clearer standards so students can receive care in classrooms rather than being sent out of instruction. Bills on epinephrine access and seizure disorders drew extensive testimony: advocates for stock epinephrine in schools argued that unassigned epinephrine can save lives and should be funded in a cost-neutral way, while a pediatrician opposed one version as an unfunded mandate. For seizure-safe schools (S.422/H.635), students, parents, educators, and advocates described missed or delayed responses to seizures, stigma, and the need for staff training, seizure action plans, and emergency medication protocols. A separate bill, H.645, allowing anti-seizure medication on school buses, was supported by a parent and student who said current law forces costly and restrictive transportation arrangements. The committee also heard testimony on youth skin health bills (S.334/H.600/H.619), which would let students carry and apply sunscreen at school and camp without a physician’s note. Supporters from melanoma prevention, dermatology, and industry groups said the bills would remove unnecessary barriers and promote sun-safe habits, while one witness cautioned about drafting details and unintended consequences. The hearing then moved to CPR/AED education for graduation (S.456), where Senator Tarr, a student advocate, and the Red Cross all supported requiring hands-on CPR certification for high school students. Finally, the committee took testimony on healthy school lunches (H.539/S.401): supporters from the Healthy School Lunch Coalition and school food directors backed stronger nutrition standards and a standing advisory council, while Consumer Brands Association witnesses opposed the bill as too vague and potentially disruptive. A nutrition scientist also warned about unintended restrictions on medically necessary or innovative foods. The chairs closed the hearing on the healthy lunch bills and then opened testimony on universal school meals for virtual schools (H.700), with Superintendent Patrick Latuka supporting access for students in Commonwealth virtual schools who currently receive no meal support.

Transcript Highlights:

• This designation benefits not just Latino students, but every student regardless of race or ethnicity
• Latino students account for nearly half of the CSU student population, and of our 22 universities, 21
• who have typically been left out: adult learners, students who have stopped out, and students who are
• who have typically been left out, adult learners, students who have stopped out, and students who are
• Students in their region.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• per student funding rate.
• I'm a second year PhD student at UC Merced and the current UC student regent.
• students.
• students in 22-23 to roughly 116,000 students in 23-24.
• students in need.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• slide um our student demographics slide um our students<00:42:51.920> are students are students
• <00:43:03.440> are students um M most of our students are students um M most of our students
• students, but the resources we get is only for 50 students.
• students, but the resources we get is only for 50 students.
• focus<00:59:28.200> on that students our students can focus on that students our students

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• students. Thank you, Mr. President. students. Thank you, Mr. President.
• learning to motivate our students. learning to motivate our students.
• And oh, six students,<00:44:35.200> six<00:44:35.520> students.
• , six students.
• May I uh have students, six students.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• for students in recovery and students trying to maintain sobriety to receive this continuing support
• students per year, whereas the VOTEC schools have doubled that capacity to graduate 600 students per
• Disabilities do not disappear once a student graduates high school, nor do students outgrow them.
• What happens to me as a student?
• It's really exciting to work with students, and most of them are first-semester students.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Higher Education held its fourth public hearing, opening with remarks about the importance of protecting and expanding access to higher education amid federal disinvestment. The chairs also announced future informational hearings on the impact of federal cuts and on ASAP models. The hearing then focused on several bills, beginning with S. 951/H. 1462, An Act to Support College Students in Recovery, which would require recovery-focused housing on public campuses and expand naloxone access and overdose training. Senator Rausch, medical professionals, students, and advocates testified in support, emphasizing the prevalence of overdose risk among college students, the value of recovery housing, and the need for campus naloxone; committee members asked about implementation details and the existing state pilot program. Deb Schmill and Rep. Tarski gave especially personal testimony in favor of the bill, and the committee discussed broadening the naloxone language to opioid reversal agents. The committee also heard testimony on H. 1461, which would expand MassReconnect scholarships to practical nursing students at vocational and technical schools to help address the long-term care workforce shortage. Rep. Stanley argued that vocational schools graduate more practical nursing students than community colleges and serve many low-income students in areas without nearby community college programs. The committee then took up H. 1433, which would require public higher education institutions to accept IEPs and 504 plans as sufficient documentation for disability accommodations. Advocates from the National Center for Learning Disabilities described the high cost and burden of repeat testing, the lifelong nature of disabilities, and the need for more uniform access across campuses; committee members raised questions about documentation freshness, campus autonomy, and how to preserve the integrity of accommodations. Later, the committee heard S. 919/H. 1454 on modernizing the Community College Endowment Match Program so community colleges could receive state matching funds for current-use donations as well as endowments and capital gifts. Community college foundation leaders said the change would help fund immediate student needs such as food pantries, child care, emergency aid, and equipment. The hearing then moved to faculty-related bills: S. 933 on UMass faculty rights and tenure transparency, S. 930/H. 3948 on contingent faculty rights and career advancement, and S. 940/H. 1429 on an Adjunct Bill of Rights. Testimony from faculty and union representatives focused on low pay, lack of benefits, job insecurity, and the need for clearer pathways to full-time positions and fairer treatment for adjuncts who teach large shares of courses. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and asked clarifying questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• student performance. student performance.
• students.
• for each of those students. for each of those students.
• students.
• , non-IEP students, and IEP students, non-IEP students, and because<01:45:38.840> and<01:45:39.520

Keywords: 0:00:03 - Call to Order and Roll Call 0:00:43 - Approval of October 14, 2025 and November 4, 2025 Minutes 0:01:15 - Acceptance of Office of Education Accountability Report: Analysis Of Student Discipline Data in Kentucky Schools 0:02:10 - Implementation Update on 26 RS HB 257 0:49:38 - Career and Technical Education in the Assessment and Accountability System 1:13:50 - Office of Education Accountability Annual Report 1:47:27 – Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Education Assessment & Accountability Review Subcommittee approved the minutes from its October 14 and November 4 meetings and also approved the Office of Education Accountability report analyzing student discipline data in Kentucky schools. The main presentation came from KDE Commissioner Dr. Robby Fletcher on implementation of House Bill 257, which he said has two major parts: selection of a statewide college entrance exam through a new procurement process, and development of locally designed indicators of quality for accountability. On the college exam, Fletcher explained that the state had to reopen procurement after Senate Bill 197, with the RFP released May 21, vendor questions handled through the Finance and Administration Cabinet, proposals due June 22, and scoring and review expected in July and August, with a vendor decision not likely until October. He emphasized that the exam is a norm-referenced college-readiness measure, not a test of Kentucky academic standards, which are assessed by the KSA. Members asked about the science requirement in statute, the possibility of multiple vendors or district choice, and whether the CLT could participate; Fletcher said vendors must address science in the RFP, multiple vendors could be possible, and any vendor could submit a proposal if it meets the rubric. He also noted that ACT and SAT differ in structure, that either can meet college-readiness benchmarks, and that there were no major complaints about the SAT during its first year of use. The second major topic was the locally developed indicators of quality under House Bill 257. Fletcher said these are intended to let districts measure themselves against their own goals rather than compare districts statewide, while still aligning with Kentucky standards. He described examples such as achievement, growth, student well-being, safety, fiscal responsibility, civics, internships, apprenticeships, project-based learning, and defenses of learning. He said districts may use local assessments such as MAP, STAR, and I-Ready alongside state data, and that local models should be developed with families, community members, and workforce partners. He added that KDE is providing technical assistance, has applied for a federal CGSA grant, and will use a one-time $15,000 cost offset for districts implementing local accountability models, with a superintendent webcast planned for August.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:20:47.200> student absolutely student safety and student absolutely student safety and student
• . students. students.
• . students. students.
• One out of five students, four out of six students, two out of four students, one out of five students
• Um parents and students. students. students.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's 60% of our students.
• to students in other states.
• specific students.
• , for your students?
• When technology is put into students' hands, the state must protect students from the onset.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• this are students. this are students.
• by the students. by the students.
• needs of students. needs of students.
• This is the student going from students.
• our student body. our student body.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Interim Joint Budget Review Subcommittee on Education met for its first summer interim meeting, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and took roll. The first presentation came from Jerry Gels, principal of Ignite Institute in Erlanger, who focused on the rising cost of dual credit. He said dual credit tuition has increased from about $150 to $290 for a three-credit course over roughly five years, which he argued is discouraging participation, especially for working-class and low-income students. He cited Ignite data and broader college outcomes to argue dual credit improves college persistence, shortens time to degree, and reduces student debt, noting that many of his students enter college with substantial credit and that low-income students at Ignite have increasingly participated after targeted efforts and scholarship use. He also said the instructional labor is largely paid by county school systems, so he questioned the size of the tuition increase and said the committee should examine how the costs are being set and whether college tuition should be stabilizing as more students arrive with credits already earned. Members asked about who pays for dual credit, the role of state scholarship support, and whether tuition varies by institution. Gels said students in his district generally pay the dual credit cost themselves, though some districts may cover it, and he noted the dual credit scholarship now covers fewer classes than before. He said the price appears to be set centrally rather than varying by university, and he emphasized that the higher cost is creating barriers even though the courses are taught largely by local teachers on school payrolls. He also described Ignite’s efforts to expand access for free- and reduced-lunch students, saying participation among that group rose from 27% with no dual credit to about 90-92% taking at least one dual credit class. The committee then heard from the Goldwater Institute, represented by Michael Frazier and Dr. Tim Minella by Zoom. They argued Kentucky’s public universities should face stronger accountability and transparency, citing declining public confidence in higher education, rising costs, and what they described as administrative growth and research spending that does not clearly benefit students or the Commonwealth. They proposed requiring a 10-year accounting of staffing growth by category, comparing it to enrollment and low-income Kentucky enrollment, and limiting non-STEM faculty teaching releases for research unless approved under a baseline consent process. They also criticized certain university-funded research projects as examples of misdirected spending and said public reporting should distinguish Kentucky residents from non-residents more clearly, pointing to a reported decline in low-income in-state undergraduate enrollment. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• The student would get paid for that student or how would that work?
• If District A sends a student to District B, District A receives the funding for that student.
• And if a district was not sending students, no students. students who are participating in that pathway
• Does the student... Is it anticipated that the student... and gets agreed for this course.
• . students.

Bills: HB20, HB 120, HB20, HB120

Keywords: applied sciences, career education, high school diploma, certificate program, work-based learning, job placement, high-growth jobs, technical training, career readiness, education reform, workforce training, public schools, financial aid, fraudulent solicitation, disaster relief, nonprofit organizations, criminal penalties, consumer protection, fraud prevention, charitable donations

Transcript Highlights:

• We know we want students to connect.
• How do we engage communities in supporting their students in accelerating and improving student outcomes
• of students earning a C or better.
• Asian Pacific Islander students.
• So our students are getting this opportunity to do that, to really build this asset lens for students

Summary: The joint informational and oversight hearing focused on community schools in California, with members emphasizing that the purpose was to examine effectiveness, implementation, and sustainability rather than the Governor’s budget proposal. The California Department of Education described the California Community Schools Partnership Program, created in 2021 and funded with more than $4 billion, including planning, implementation, extension, and county coordination grants. Officials said nearly 2,500 schools are participating and highlighted the statewide technical assistance structure, including the State Transformational Assistance Center, eight regional centers, county offices, and CDE support. Researchers from the Learning Policy Institute and UCLA presented early findings and implementation data. LPI reported reductions in chronic absenteeism and suspensions, along with gains in math and English language arts, with especially large benefits for Black students and other historically underserved groups. UCLA described the Annual Progress Report as a statewide improvement tool showing growth in capacity-building, shared decision-making, whole-child supports, and continuous improvement. Members asked about how the reports measure outcomes, how to interpret outliers, and how to distinguish community schools effects from other concurrent initiatives; presenters said matched comparison methods and deeper case-study work are being used, with additional statewide findings expected in June. Panelists from Oakland Unified, LAUSD/UTLA, San Diego Unified, and advocacy organizations described key elements of success: integrated student supports, strong family and student engagement, collaborative leadership, community partnerships, and school-site decision-making. They gave examples such as wellness centers, dual enrollment, student senates, parent leadership, and community campaigns that built trust and increased participation. Members also raised concerns about sustainability, implementation fidelity, and whether community schools improve participation in LCAP processes. Presenters said major barriers include unclear early guidance, the need for a mindset shift away from top-down models, and uncertainty about long-term funding for coordinators and other staff. The panel’s recommendations centered on stable ongoing funding, stronger technical assistance, shared governance, and embedding community schools practices into district and county systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• Student support staff line.
• Districts with fewer than 351 students spent almost three times more per student than the lowest per-student
• spent almost three times more per student than the lowest per student amount for student transportation
• and 5,000, where per-student spending increases to over $16,000 per student.
• student as well.

Summary: The House/Joint Education committee continued its adequacy study with a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, focusing first on matrix spending and then non-matrix spending. Staff explained the methodology for mapping APSCN expenditure data to matrix lines, reviewed district and school categories used in the analysis, and highlighted key findings: foundation funding covered a large share of matrix costs but total spending on matrix items exceeded foundation funding, with classroom teachers making up the largest share. Members asked for additional breakdowns on waivers, superintendent survey responses, trend data, and spending by district type, size, and rural/urban status. Staff also noted limitations in tracking two matrix lines—salary enhancement for other employees and all personnel health insurance—because of coding and definition issues. The committee then reviewed non-matrix expenditures, including instructional aides, facilities, school safety, mental health, dyslexia services, gifted and talented, and career and technical education. Staff reported that non-matrix spending remained above $2 billion over the last three years, with most of it coming from other funds rather than foundation funding. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, mental health needs, school safety, food service, athletic transportation, and whether some items should be added to the matrix. The Department of Education clarified that the building fund reflects district-held funds for construction and maintenance projects, while the facilities partnership program is a separate state process for approved projects. In the final discussion, staff summarized total spending as more than $15,800 per student in 2025, with about 69% going to matrix resources and 31% to non-matrix resources. The chair explained the adequacy process and the committee’s role in setting future funding recommendations, and members discussed the recommendations worksheet included in the binder. The chair then proposed postponing the remainder of Part Two of the presentation until a May meeting after the fiscal session, along with inviting the Department of Education back for more detailed questions; with no objections, the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• for our ELL students as well.
• However, for students, there is one requirement related to students as it relates to using assessment
• of students.
• what are we seeing for those students versus the number of students that were utilized?
• For those students, and so what are we seeing for those students versus the number of students that were

Summary: The Senate Committee on Pre-K through 12 Education received a Department of Education presentation from Deputy Commissioner Juan Copa on Florida’s K-12 assessment system, including FAST progress monitoring, end-of-course exams, science, writing, alternate assessments, English language acquisition testing, and VPK progress monitoring. Copa reported year-over-year gains in ELA and mathematics, noted that end-of-course and science results also improved, and explained how assessment data are used for school grades, third-grade promotion, graduation requirements, and other accountability measures. He also reviewed the independent study required by SB 1048, which recommended keeping PM3 as the primary accountability measure, proceeding cautiously on further test-length reductions and remote testing expansion, and using PM1/PM2 only as supplemental evidence in limited cases. Committee members focused on whether the new system is improving student outcomes enough, what supports teachers and schools need to use the data effectively, and how Florida compares nationally. Chancellor Dr. Burns said the department is emphasizing implementation of the new standards, high-quality instructional materials, coaching, professional learning, collaboration, and school improvement support, and also pointed to resiliency education standards and mental health supports. Copa said Florida’s latest NAEP results remain mixed but still generally outperform the nation in some grades, while members pressed for more information on best practices, other states’ approaches, and how districts are using the data. Several members requested follow-up information, including the independent review report, breakdowns of PM1/PM2/PM3 results by grade and subgroup, details on VPK outcomes by provider type and full-day versus half-day programs, and data on use of the CLT versus SAT/ACT for graduation concordant scores. The committee also discussed third-grade retention outcomes, computer-based testing, district assessment calendars, and whether some districts still administer additional local testing. No votes were taken on legislation, and the meeting adjourned after Senator Davis moved to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• The academic goals for students were to graduate academically competent students, and as Elizabeth and
• As far as its public education students or public school students, they were expected to achieve competency
• students, white students, economically disadvantaged students, which in Arkansas refers to students
• White students had the highest four-year graduation rate at 91%, and English learner students had the
• For the five-year graduation rates by ESSA student subgroups, English learner students had the lowest

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The committee received a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on Arkansas academic standards, accountability, and achievement as part of the adequacy study. Staff reviewed how state curriculum and standards have evolved from the 1997 Public Education Act, the 2003 Quality Education Act, and the 2017 Educational Support and Accountability Act, including required course offerings, graduation requirements, career and technical education pathways, and recent additions such as success-ready pathways, Arkansas history, firearm safety, and fetal growth and development instruction. Members asked for a comparative chart showing how the laws and requirements changed over time, and staff agreed to provide one. The presentation then turned to the federal ESSA plan and Arkansas’s state accountability system. Staff explained the state’s long-term goals for 2030, including 80% proficiency in ELA and math, 52% of English learners on track to English proficiency, and 94%/97% four- and five-year graduation rates. They reviewed 2025 assessment results showing proficiency rates generally in the 30s, with English learners and students with disabilities performing lowest and white students highest. They also discussed school support and improvement categories, equitable access to educators, and report card/public reporting requirements, noting that some ESSA-related measures such as the school index, equity labs, and certain 2024 report card data were not currently available or not being calculated. Members questioned whether those ESSA commitments were being met and asked staff to follow up with DESE, including whether the legislature can revise the ESSA plan. The committee also reviewed the Arkansas Accountability Act and related assessment data. Staff described the Atlas assessment system, alternate assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities, ELPA 21 for English learners, ACT results, and NAEP comparisons. They reported that no student group met the 80% proficiency goal in 2025, Arkansas’s ACT composite score declined slightly over time, and Arkansas generally trailed national and SREB averages on NAEP. Members asked for additional data, including historical highs and lows, the number of assessments students take by grade, dropout data, and comparisons with other states. The meeting ended with agreement to invite the Department of Education to a future meeting to answer questions about missing data, equity labs, report cards, and ESSA compliance.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, so here's my student.
• So I'm going to select my student and start the application. So here are my student details.
• for new students, for second...
• Yeah, if we assigned a student ID, a unique identifier to each student, If we assign a student ID, a
• only applying for the one student versus no other students in their household.

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met to continue reviewing how Family Empowerment Scholarship students are funded through the FEFP and the role of scholarship funding organizations. Staff gave a statutory overview of parent, SFO, and Department of Education responsibilities, including application deadlines, eligibility verification, quarterly payment timing, cross-checks to prevent duplicate funding, and the 99% district FEFP limitation for certain awards. The committee then heard demonstrations from Step Up for Students and AAA Scholarship Foundation showing their parent portals, application workflows, reimbursement systems, school enrollment/invoice processes, and marketplace tools for tuition, tutoring, and approved goods and services. Step Up reported major growth since HB 1, saying its scholarship population expanded from about 260,000 to more than 440,000 students, with application processing averaging about 10 days. It also highlighted faster tuition, provider, and reimbursement payments, multilingual support in English and Spanish, and resources such as videos and a call center. Members asked about support for Creole speakers, optional Florida ID numbers, student identifiers, marketplace pricing, tutor qualifications, background screening, and how awards differ from funded status. Step Up said it does not currently support Creole, does not do background screenings for tutors, sets no marketplace prices itself, and uses a unique internal student ID separate from the state ID. AAA demonstrated its revised software for the 2025-26 school year, including an eligibility screener, household and student application steps, messaging with staff, reimbursement requests, and administrative review and payment batching. AAA said the new system is custom-built, more transparent about award value versus available balance, and designed to better handle quarterly funding for UA students. Members questioned AAA and Step Up about student ID numbers, public-school cross-checks, fraud controls, school fee schedules, whether schools must participate, and reimbursement timing. Both organizations said they report quarterly to DOE, receive public-school cross-checks, and recover funds when students return to public school; AAA said its average reimbursement turnaround is about 14 business days, while Step Up said its reimbursement approvals have improved significantly. The committee also requested follow-up information, including one-pagers, data on income levels and demographics, and additional details on forecasting and system costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• THE STUDENT DOES HAVE TO BE ENROLLED IN BOTH SURVEY 2 AND A SURVEY 30 WE LOOK AT THE STUDENTS ENROLL
• Burns: OUR STUDENTS THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS IS PROGRESS MONITORING SO WHEN THE STUDENTS ENROLL THE STUDENTS
• MORE STUDENTS IN ES OL, MIAMI-DADE HAS A LOT OF ES OL STUDENTS VERSUS HOLMES COUNTY.
• IN ADDITION TO MORE STUDENTS GRADUATING MORE STUDENTS ARE EXITING HIGH SCHOOL EARNING ACCELERATED CREDIT
• Copa: I MET IN 195,000 STUDENTS GRADUATE OF A COHORT OF 217,000 STUDENTS SO THAT'S 22,000 STUDENTS DIDN'T