Transcript Highlights:

• And my understanding is based on enrollment.
• It’s due to more enrollment.
• In pre-enrollment, there are 16,285.
• In pre-enrollment, there are 16,285.
• And then for 2025–2026, waiver enrollment went up.

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the conference report on House Bill 501E, the General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2026-27. Budget chairs presented the major spending areas, describing a $114.5 billion overall budget that they said was fiscally responsible and below the prior year’s spending. Highlights included pay increases and retirement adjustments for public safety employees, education funding for K-12, higher education, health and human services, criminal justice, transportation, environmental programs, and agriculture/regulatory agencies. Members then questioned chairs on several items. In education, senators discussed K-12 declining enrollment funding, teacher salary set-asides, private school scholarship spending, mental health funding, preeminence funding for universities, the Hamilton Center at UF, and charter school PICO funding. In health and human services, questions focused on the iBudget waiver waitlist, provider rates, ADAP/HIV funding and the return of Biktarvy to the formulary, KidCare, rural health funding, SNAP-related IT and error reduction efforts, and the IDD managed care program. In criminal justice, senators asked about correctional officer pay, prison staffing and infrastructure, air conditioning in prisons, juvenile justice facilities, law enforcement recruitment, and court system funding. Environmental and transportation questions covered Florida Forever, water quality, state parks, water projects, housing, elections funding, and emergency management. Several specific actions and explanations were given during debate: the budget includes $8.8 million for state attorney competitive area differentials but no funding for public defender CAD requests; assistant state attorneys will start at $70,000 and assistant public defenders at $65,000; the battery disposal issue was described as a temporary study/preemption approach; and the Senate said the budget does not fund Medicaid expansion, preeminence funding, or the SunBucks Summer EBT state share. Senators also noted that some proposals discussed in committee did not make it into the final budget. The transcript ends with debate statements from members praising the budget process and Chair Hooper, while also expressing concerns about public schools, health care access, affordability, and the lack of funding for certain priorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• And these trends are not expected to change. So our funding system has to change.
• The bill changes.
• That's a change.
• That's a change.
• The number would not change, and the number would not change for the reasons that you gave.

Summary: The committee first heard the Pre-K-12 education budget proposal for fiscal year 2025-26 and voted to adopt it as the committee’s recommendation to the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The proposed $34.7 billion budget includes increases for the FEFP, Family Empowerment Scholarships, VPK, school safety, the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind, school hardening, Jewish day school security, and an education enrollment stabilization fund. Members asked no questions on the budget before it was advanced, and staff was authorized to make technical corrections. The committee then passed CS/SB 1402, which expands eligibility for dropout retrieval services to any individual who has withdrawn from high school and clarifies how school grades are calculated for virtual instruction providers that offer only dropout retrieval services. An amendment to clarify the grading calculation was adopted without objection, and the bill was reported favorably after a roll call vote. The committee also took up SPB 7030, a comprehensive scholarship-program bill sponsored by Senator Gates, which would separate Family Empowerment Scholarship funding as its own categorical, expand the education stabilization fund, create fall and spring application windows, require a single scholarship application and more documentation, assign student IDs, change payments to a monthly schedule, require background checks for paid instructional providers, mandate annual FTE audits by the Auditor General, and standardize reimbursement and eligibility procedures. After extensive discussion and public testimony, the bill was adopted as a committee bill and reported favorably, with Senator Osgood voting no. Finally, the committee considered CS/SB 508, which requires private schools participating in the Family Empowerment Scholarship Program to disclose in writing what accommodations, modifications, and services they will provide for students with existing plans such as IEPs, 504 plans, or ELL plans. An amendment was adopted to require public schools to consult with private schools about equitable services, and the bill was reported favorably. Public testimony included support from parent-choice advocates and concerns from private-school representatives about administrative burden and the scope of the required disclosures. The meeting concluded after the final roll call votes and adjournment motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because I'm looking at the enrollment trends.
• And my understanding is based on enrollment.
• It's due to more enrollment...
• In pre-enrollment, there are 16,285.
• There are 1,070 that are enrolled today.

Summary: The Senate took up the conference report on House Bill 501E, the General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2026-27, with Chair Hooper and the appropriations chairs walking through the $114.5 billion budget. Major highlights included pay increases for state law enforcement, firefighters, park rangers, and correctional officers; funding for teacher salary increases and K-12 enrollment stabilization; workforce and university funding in higher education; major Medicaid, nursing home, waiver, and opioid-related investments in health and human services; corrections and prison-capacity funding; transportation, housing, and emergency management spending; and large environmental appropriations for Florida Forever, Everglades restoration, and water quality projects. Members then asked detailed questions about specific items. Senators pressed on the Hamilton Center at UF, the difference between assistant state attorney and public defender pay, declining student enrollment funding, private school scholarship vouchers, mental health funding in schools, the lack of preeminence funding, APD’s iBudget waiver wait list and provider rates, ADAP premium assistance and the return of Biktarvy to the formulary, prison staffing and air conditioning, Florida Forever land-buying versus easements, SNAP and Sun Bucks funding, Hope Florida, election audit funding, and the IDD managed care program. Chairs generally explained the negotiated compromises, noted where funding was flat or omitted, and in several cases said items would be revisited next year or depended on agency implementation. Several senators used debate to praise the budget while also criticizing major policy choices. Leader Berman argued the state should have expanded Medicaid, invested more in public schools instead of vouchers, and accepted federal summer EBT funds. Other senators highlighted local wins such as Biscayne Bay restoration, Tri-Rail, housing assistance, ADAP funding, and declining enrollment support. The transcript ends with debate remarks thanking Chair Hooper for his work on the budget; no final vote is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:32:57.320> on 0188 um to 440 and the only change on 0188 um to 440 and the only change
• Now, so there is a definition change to open enrollment public school online's 1617.
• <05:56:15.520> open<05:56:15.760> enrollment in they are an enroll open enrollment
• in they are an enroll open enrollment school<05:56:17.400> and<05:56:17.680> they<05:56
• We cannot support open enrollment.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up HB 662, which would require discussion of abortion procedures and the viewing of certain videos in public school health education. Members argued the bill went too far by naming specific videos and involving the Attorney General in enforcement, and they said curriculum decisions should be left to educators. The committee voted ITL on HB 662 by a unanimous 18-0. The committee then considered HCR 6, a resolution calling for the removal of the superintendent of District 67. Members said the resolution targeted an individual and that the underlying dispute was already in court, so the matter should be left to the legal process. The motion to ITL passed 18-0. Next, HR 9, urging the Department of Education to emphasize STEM education, received broad support as a nonpartisan statement of priorities, and it also passed 18-0. HB 440, concerning educator licensing and shortages in Career and Technical Education, was amended to clarify that the bill applies to initial licensure only. After discussion about whether the amendment was necessary, the committee adopted Amendment 0188 unanimously and then voted OTPA on the bill as amended, 18-0. HB 222, which repealed the requirement for an MOU between charter schools and districts on services for students with disabilities, drew testimony that districts already provide substantial oversight through IEP processes and that the MOU requirement was burdensome and largely unenforced; the committee voted OTP 18-0. The committee then took up HB 719, which would repeal the right of first refusal for charter schools to purchase or lease unused district facilities. Supporters said the existing law had not generated complaints and could impede charter expansion, while opponents said the issue had not proven to be a problem and local control should be preserved. The committee voted ITL 17-1, with one member opposed and no minority report. The chair then postponed HB 184, a study committee bill on school start times, because it was scheduled for the next day, and the committee moved into a work session on bullying-related bills, discussing HB 108, HB 384, and HB 673 without taking final action in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next enrolled act is Enrolled Act No. 64.
• Next enrolled act is Enrolled Act No. 65.
• Are there any are there any changes? Are there any changes? changes? changes?
• Speaker are there any changes? changes? changes?
• Are there any Are there any changes? Are there any changes? changes? changes?

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, looking at the total cost of the 3.5% enrollment growth along with the two policy changes...
• The total cost of the 3.5% enrollment growth along with the two policy changes would cost approximately
• But there are a number of campuses...” “...on 0.5% enrollment growth.
• I think in hearing my colleague, there aren't a lot of changes that we make.
• Because we are not enrollment-driven.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard May Revision proposals covering higher education, including the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the University of California, California Community Colleges, the California Student Aid Commission, UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and trailer bill reporting changes. For the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the administration proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan taken to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to adjust for a pending legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about an interest-free loan under Proposition 26. Senators asked about whether the $10 million would cover the litigation and about the estimated $245,000 in interest savings. For UC, the May Revision maintained the Governor’s ongoing support and included budget language requiring campuses to grow by 2,968 California undergraduates in 2026-27. UC also sought $1.5 million in one-time General Fund support for the First Star foster youth program. UC described strong outcomes for the UCLA program, while the LAO recommended rejecting the new spending because UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and because the need for new state funding was not clear. Senators debated whether the proposal duplicated existing services and discussed the program’s reported college-going and completion rates. The committee also heard a request for $1 million ongoing General Fund for UC College of the Law, San Francisco, to maintain campus safety services; the college described its shared-campus model and public-interest mission, while the LAO noted the college was also raising tuition and that the proposal would maintain, rather than expand, current security spending. The committee then reviewed community college proposals. Finance outlined a larger May Revision package centered on a 4.31% SCFF COLA, enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, a one-time Adult Learner Demonstration Project allocation, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time items. The Chancellor’s Office supported the package but asked for more enrollment growth funding, a higher growth rate, and additional policy changes. The LAO recommended at least funding the statutory 2.87% COLA, then considering whether to redirect remaining funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time priorities; it recommended rejecting the Adult Learner Demonstration Project. Senators questioned the use of the discretionary COLA to cover paid pregnancy disability leave, the impact on hold harmless and basic aid districts, and whether the state should instead create a separate categorical. The Chancellor’s Office and Finance said the COLA approach was intended to provide flexibility, though Finance said it was open to further discussion about districts that would not receive direct funding. For student aid, Finance described May Revision changes to Cal Grant and the Middle Class Scholarship, including a one-time reduction tied to lower estimated costs and a later true-up, as well as proposals for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. CSAC supported the financial aid investments but urged more time and clearer implementation planning for Workforce Pell, noting the need for state approval processes, data linkages, and likely ongoing administrative workload. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding and cautioned that the Workforce Pell trailer bill and one-time funding were premature given the new federal rules and unclear workload. Senators also raised concerns about the Middle Class Scholarship reduction, the need to support students facing higher living costs, and the decline in CADA/DREAM Act applications, with CSAC saying the drop did not reflect reduced need and that outreach should be strengthened. The final item was a set of technical trailer bill changes to shift some UC, CSU, and community college reporting from annual to biennial and consolidate reports; Finance said there were no programmatic changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• enrollment, open enrollment charters, and full-time virtual enrollment students, sits just under 5.5
• That's the numbers that are reflected by private school enrollment and homeschool enrollment.
• Should we change those policies?
• Our enrollment is growing.
• So it's not an enrollment-related thing. It's not enrollment. It's not. It's not.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Send me a fan has been overtaken by change and the changes Florida's policy of allowing parents to choose
• So are funding system has to change.
• And that's why we present Spb 70, 30 Mister Chair, which makes changes significant changes to the school
• The change is needed.
• We have enrollment conversations.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• we will discuss CSU enrollment trends and future enrollment plans.
• Therefore, if CSU were directed to roll enrollment expectations for 25-26, we would recommend enroll
• The CSU system has taken strategic and proactive steps to address enrollment, recognizing the changing
• Enrollment.
• I would love to enroll in that major.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This has fundamentally changed the way we work. This has fundamentally changed the way we work.
• Not to the degree that we're having co-admissions and co-enrollments. enrollment.
• rates and to fund enrollment growth.
• Since 2010, our system-wide enrollment... enrollment is up 32% for about 23,000 students, which is like
• They come, you know, they get- ready to enroll, they're not even enrolling yet and all of a sudden they

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So there are no changes from the 2024 Budget Act.
• We will review and discuss the enrollment trends and future enrollment plans.
• , given changes to UC's total core funding.
• That's the issue of enrollment, as we're hoping to enroll more students into our campuses.
• In terms of enrollment, enrollment is strong—UCSF is strong.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Next enrolled act 33. Next enrolled act 33.
• One changes and we've made some changes.
• Further changes. Andrew, I to no. Losh a burger, no to I. Further changes. Further changes.
• Further changes? Camel Kevin, I to know. Further changes? Further<01:54:57.360> changes?
• I to know further<01:56:32.160> changes. further changes. further changes.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, we don't anticipate any change.
• based on their award language change.
• This is an award language change.
• The concern over the current enrollment versus the projected enrollment led to discussions about other
• We want to show opportunity for changing enrollment and making those adjustments where we can with our

Transcript Highlights:

• of the law change.
• of the law change.
• of the law change.
• of the law change.
• The change still provides protections for Minnesotans, including offering individuals in enroll in a

Bills: HF1546, HF2403, HF2389, HF2398

Keywords: fire safety, public safety, statewide fire code, code cleanup, repeal, obsolete statutes, matches, strike-anywhere matches, safety matches, match packaging, match storage, tent safety, flame resistant tents, public assembly tents, flammable materials, fire code modernization, Minnesota Statutes chapter 325F, commerce policy, financial institutions, insurance regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• And directed the UC system to enroll.
• We will review and discuss the enrollment trends and future enrollment plans to the question of what
• And again, as we are hoping to discuss the issue of enrollment, as we're hoping to enroll more students
• We talk about enrollment.
• In terms of enrollment, our enrollment is strong. UCSF is strong.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held an extended hearing focused primarily on University of California budget issues, enrollment, housing, and Title IX. Chair David Alvarez opened by noting the governor’s proposed 8% ongoing General Fund reduction to UC, the deferral of compact funding, and the College of the Law budget item, while emphasizing that no votes would be taken that day. Public commenters, including UC Davis employees and lecturers, urged restoration of UC funding and opposed the hiring freeze, saying cuts would worsen staffing shortages, reduce research capacity, and harm students and patients. On UC core operations, the Department of Finance said the governor’s budget maintains the compact but defers $240.8 million in ongoing support and continues a planned 7.95% reduction, while the LAO recommended rejecting the deferrals and instead making any changes in the budget year. UC San Diego’s chancellor and UC Office of the President argued the cuts and deferrals would create major campus shortfalls, force hiring freezes, larger class sizes, fewer course offerings, delayed projects, and possible layoffs. Committee members questioned whether cuts could be shifted away from students and toward administration, discussed UCOP reserves and bond debt, and noted that UC’s budget structure makes the campus-level impact larger than the headline reduction. The committee also reviewed enrollment trends and nonresident replacement. The LAO said UC resident enrollment has grown and recommended revisiting 2026-27 targets and pausing the nonresident replacement plan if state funding does not improve. UC said it has exceeded California undergraduate enrollment and nonresident replacement goals, but warned that continued growth without funding would force enrollment reductions and harm quality. Members discussed the role of nonresident and international students, tuition rates, and the value of UC as a pathway for California students and a source of talent for the state. A separate housing item covered the state’s Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program. UC reported that recent bond savings could support additional affordable beds at UC Davis and UC Santa Barbara, but the LAO and Finance noted the Legislature would need to decide how to use the $6.2 million in savings from the original projects. The committee also heard a Title IX update from UC’s systemwide civil rights office, which described campus Title IX structures, training, and policy enforcement, and said the system has been working to improve confidentiality guidance and streamline complaint processes after survey feedback showed confusion and lengthy procedures.

Transcript Highlights:

• The system has changed.
• And it begins by basic, The system has changed.
• So the system has changed. It's been forced to change a lot because of these budgetary issues.
• And to be honest, not much has changed. Not much has changed.
• CSU is also using its budget and enrollment reallocation plan and enrollment growth strategy to align

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Because I'm looking at the enrollment trends...
• And my understanding is, based on enrollment, if we match up our declining enrollment in Orange County
• In pre-enrollment, there are 16,285.
• And then for 2025-26, waiver enrollment went up.
• There are 1,070 that are enrolled today.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A note for colleagues: enrollment.
• and because of those changes.
• and because of those changes.
• I'm not aware of a... ...cost pressure is because of declining enrollment and because of those changes
• declining enrollment.

Summary: The committee heard presentations on the Governor’s education budget proposals for the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), Learning Recovery Block Grant, and Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), followed by testimony from State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond. On LCFF, Finance outlined the proposed 2.43% COLA, repayment of prior deferrals, and a trailer bill penalty for LEAs that fail to adopt Local Control Accountability Plans on time. The LAO said its COLA estimate was slightly lower and raised concerns that the Governor’s proposed TK staffing ratio increase may be more costly than estimated. Members also discussed whether the current COLA formula should better reflect California-specific or district staffing costs, and whether TK should be more clearly separated from the K-3 grade span adjustment to avoid larger K-3 class sizes. The chair asked staff to work with the LAO on both the TK/K-3 issue and alternative COLA calculations. For the Learning Recovery Block Grant, Finance proposed restoring the first of three delayed payments, $378.6 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund, while the LAO recommended adopting the proposal but extending the expenditure deadline by at least a year. The LAO reported that districts had spent $1.6 billion of the $6.8 billion received through 2023-24 and said most districts were only now shifting from federal COVID relief to block grant spending. Members questioned whether the large state and federal investments were improving outcomes, citing declining reading and math trends, while Finance and the State Board president pointed to some signs of improvement, especially in math, attendance, and gains for some student groups. Darling-Hammond emphasized that student needs have grown, that recovery spending has gone to devices, ventilation, staffing, tutoring, summer school, and community schools, and that targeted interventions appear to be helping some districts recover faster than others. On ELOP, Finance proposed adding $435 million to expand universal access by lowering the Tier 1 threshold from 75% to 55% unduplicated pupils, bringing ongoing funding to $4.4 billion. The LAO said the estimate was reasonable but recommended delaying implementation for a year, aligning ELOP with ASES to reduce overlap, moving toward funding based on participation rather than enrollment, and considering a fixed Tier 2 rate. Members and witnesses discussed staffing challenges, the use of funds for students with disabilities, and uncertainty in Tier 2 funding caused by unspent dollars and opt-outs. Darling-Hammond supported ELOP as part of California’s broader after-school and summer learning strategy, said most districts are now offering full-day TK and expanded learning, and urged the state to reduce fragmentation across categorical programs and build more unified systems for funding, reporting, and support.

Transcript Highlights:

• we will discuss CSU enrollment trends, future enrollment plans, and I highly anticipate the conversation
• 2024-25 enrollment level.
• , demographic, and migration trends have changed patterns of enrollment.
• I would love to enroll in that major.
• I would love to enroll in that measure.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance met to review CSU and State Library budget issues, enrollment trends, the Capital Fellows program, and a Title IX update. Chair David Alvarez opened by stressing that CSU faces serious financial pressure, including a systemwide deficit and proposed cuts that he and several members said were too large and likely to harm access, course offerings, and student services. Public comment focused heavily on the Braille Institute Library, with patrons, staff, veterans, and advocates urging restoration of funding and warning that the proposed cut would severely affect blind and visually impaired Californians across Southern California. Several CSU faculty, staff, and union representatives also opposed the proposed reductions and warned of larger class sizes, fewer sections, and layoffs. On the CSU core operations item, the Department of Finance explained the Governor’s proposal to reduce ongoing General Fund support by about $375 million and defer a 5% base increase, while the LAO said CSU core funding would be roughly flat once tuition and targeted augmentations were considered, but warned that rising costs and prior shortfalls would still force campuses to cut spending. CSU’s Chancellor’s Office said the proposed cut would deepen existing problems, citing prior-year budget gaps, job losses, reduced course sections, and student-service reductions. Members pressed Finance and the LAO on whether cuts could be made more surgically, especially at the Chancellor’s Office or in institutional support rather than in instruction, and the LAO said the Legislature has flexibility to target cuts more specifically. CSU also described ongoing consolidation efforts, including shared services among campuses and the planned Cal Maritime/Cal Poly San Luis Obispo integration, while cautioning that savings are not yet fully known. The committee then discussed CSU enrollment. The LAO recommended holding enrollment targets flat because the budget does not add new funding, while CSU reported strong recent growth, including more California residents, record first-year enrollment, and expanded direct admissions and transfer pathways. Members questioned why some campuses with high demand turn away many applicants while others continue to lose enrollment, and CSU said it is shifting resources from campuses with sustained declines to those with demand, using a 10% below-target threshold. The committee also discussed whether enrollment declines mirror local population trends, how to improve marketing and program alignment, and whether lessons from Cal Poly Humboldt’s conversion could inform other campuses such as Sonoma State. The Capital Fellows item drew a Finance proposal for a salary increase and an LAO counterproposal for a smaller raise plus future COLA language; the committee kept the item open. Finally, CSU reported progress on Title IX compliance, saying it has completed most State Auditor recommendations, expanded civil rights staffing, and increased training, prevention, and case-management efforts, though members asked how proposed budget cuts might affect those services.

Transcript Highlights:

• The system has changed.
• So the system has changed. It's been forced to change a lot because of these budgetary issues.
• However, not all individual campuses enroll this many transfer students.
• And to be honest, not much has changed. Not much has changed.
• CSU is also using its budget and enrollment reallocation plan, and enrollment growth strategy, to align

Summary: The committee held an oversight hearing on a state audit examining California’s community college transfer process and whether streamlining it could improve access to bachelor’s degrees. Opening remarks from legislators emphasized that California’s transfer system is central to equity and workforce development, but that only about one in five transfer-intending community college students complete a transfer within four years. Members highlighted disparities by race, region, campus, and major, and pointed to confusion created by differing requirements across the UC, CSU, and community college systems, including limits and inconsistencies in the Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT), TAG, and major-specific prerequisites. State Auditor’s staff said the audit found that while UC and CSU systemwide enroll more transfer students than the Master Plan target, individual campuses and high-demand STEM programs often do not. The audit identified barriers including unclear and varying course requirements, limited counseling and education plans, insufficient counselor staffing at some campuses, and weak equity plans. It also found that many students never even apply because they do not accumulate enough units or cannot navigate the process. The auditor described examples where transfer students with strong preparation were denied at selective campuses and noted that articulation alignment across systems remains limited. Representatives from UC, CSU, and the Community Colleges responded that transfer remains a top priority and described ongoing reforms. UC cited a new public dashboard, data-sharing agreements, new transfer pathways, and an ADT pilot at UCLA, while saying campus-level capacity and program differences limit how much can be standardized from the system office. CSU said it admits more than 90% of eligible transfer applicants, is expanding transfer planning tools and direct outreach, and is implementing SB 640’s Transfer Success Pathway Program. Community Colleges said transfer reform must focus on clearer credit mobility, more consistent articulation, and broader ADT adoption. Members pressed the systems on inconsistent major requirements, the need for better coordination, and whether campuses are fully prioritizing transfer students; no votes were taken during the hearing.