Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, people based on their income levels.
• uh people based on their income levels. uh people based on their income levels.
• So, yes, of course, that Council side.
• <01:04:30.800> one by the entity that certifies level one by the entity that certifies level
• executive level. executive level.

Transcript Highlights:

• It basically instructs from the executive level.
• This program allows students to concurrently earn their high school diploma. and a Level 1, Level 2 certificate
• called a level 1 or level 2 certificate.
• Of course not.
• entering into the next grade level.

Bills: HB 120, HB20, HB150, HB6, HB 100, HB 124, HB210, HB215, HB1393, HB1587, HB 1151, HB 1268, HB142, HB451, HB39, HB 102, HB 126, HB290, HB300, HB2143, HJR2, HB147, HJR6, HB 120, HB20, HB150, HB6, HB 100, HB 124, HB210, HB215, HB1393, HB1587, HB 1151, HB 1268, HB142, HB451, SB1

Keywords: career readiness, education reform, workforce training, public schools, financial aid, applied sciences, career education, high school diploma, certificate program, work-based learning, job placement, high-growth jobs, technical training, cybersecurity, state command, information resources, data protection, incident response, mental health, telehealth

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:18:21.360> of that show kind of elevated levels of that show kind of elevated levels of
• And as those levels fluctuate, others.
• returning back to kind of average levels returning back to kind of average levels of<00:43:51.040
• Um, albeit a more normal level.
• So, uh, statewide, and then, of course, statewide, and then, of course, positioning<01:47:42.000>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Let's talk about data level versus entity-level exemptions that are in several other states.
• Let's talk about data-level versus entity-level exemptions that are in several other states.
• Of course there are. Of course there is.
• Of course there.
• I'll start with the entity-level exemption versus the information-level exemption.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a package of Massachusetts privacy and technology bills, especially measures to ban the sale of location data, establish a comprehensive consumer data privacy law, and regulate biometric recognition and surveillance pricing. Chairs and sponsors argued that self-regulation has failed, that data brokers and large tech companies routinely collect and monetize sensitive information, and that state action is needed because federal protections are weak or absent. Several speakers tied the bills to reproductive health, gender-affirming care, domestic violence, children’s data, and other sensitive uses of location and biometric information. Supporters included legislators and advocates who backed H. 86/S. 197 (Location Shield), H. 78/S. 45/H. 104/S. 29 (comprehensive privacy bills), H. 99/S. 47 (surveillance pricing in grocery stores), and H. 36/S. 36 (biometric recognition accountability). They emphasized data minimization, bans on selling sensitive data, consumer rights to access, delete, and opt out, and in some cases a private right of action. Several witnesses said Massachusetts should lead or align with other states, while others argued that stronger protections are needed because data can be weaponized by stalkers, anti-abortion actors, abusive partners, insurers, or law enforcement. Industry and coalition witnesses urged the committee to favor a more standardized, interoperable framework modeled on laws already adopted in other states, warning that novel definitions, data-minimization rules, and private rights of action could create compliance burdens, confusion, and costs for businesses, including small businesses. They argued that entity-level exemptions for sectors already covered by federal laws like HIPAA or GLBA promote consistency, and that Attorney General enforcement is preferable to private lawsuits. Committee members questioned witnesses on patchwork concerns, the scope of exemptions, and whether the proposed bills would harm or help consumers and small businesses. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing; written testimony was noted as due later, and the committee continued taking testimony from multiple panels and virtual witnesses.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, there's different levels, but yeah, definitely some do.
• If you're a private business owner, of course, you have to do that.
• And of course, we have government appropriations.
• Of course, is it a for-profit, non-profit, or government hospital?
• Us that we keep in mind and looking and asking, of course, Secretary Armijo and of course LFC in the

Transcript Highlights:

• And, of course, thank your staff.
• This is level funding for Visit Florida.
• This is level funding for Visit Florida.
• And, of course, our colleagues in the federal government—there have been several efforts, of course,
• And, of course, our colleagues in the federal government—there have been several efforts, of course,

Bills: S0048

Keywords: housing, accessory dwelling units, affordable housing, local government, zoning regulations, military families, density bonus, homeownership, property taxes

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development heard presentations on the Governor’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2026-27 and then considered one bill, CS/SB 48 on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The Governor’s office outlined a $117.4 billion overall budget, with transportation and economic development receiving about $18 billion statewide and $601 million in general revenue. Agency heads then presented priorities for Commerce, Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Military Affairs, State, Transportation, Emergency Management, and the Florida State Guard, emphasizing workforce development, housing, tourism marketing, aviation and space infrastructure, law enforcement recruitment, emergency preparedness, and military readiness. In the Commerce presentation, Secretary Kelly highlighted funding for housing programs, the Hometown Heroes program, the Florida Job Growth Grant Fund, rural infrastructure and workforce grants, Reconnect and Florida WINS systems, law enforcement and firefighter recruitment bonuses, defense support, Visit Florida, Space Florida, and SelectFlorida. Senators asked about Visit Florida’s private match requirements and whether the agency fully leveraged prior appropriations; Visit Florida’s CEO said the match was met and exceeded, though it is difficult but important. The Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles presentation focused on trooper pay, pursuit vehicles, aviation assets, and enterprise data systems, with questions about immigration enforcement and body cameras. Military Affairs requested funding for readiness centers, training facilities, education and health benefits for Guardsmen, and maintenance of existing armories; members discussed Guard deployments, staffing levels, and a proposed firing range project. The Department of State requested funds for automated election audits, a conservation lab, and historic preservation, and defended its arts grant process and rule changes. Transportation’s budget emphasized a $14.3 billion work program, road and bridge maintenance, aviation and aerospace, safety initiatives, and seaport investments, while Emergency Management requested funding for preparedness, flood mitigation, WebEOC, grants management, and alert systems; senators also asked about the Alligator Alcatraz detention facility. For CS/SB 48, Senator Gates explained that the bill would require local governments to allow property owners to voluntarily create ADUs, while preserving local authority over setbacks, construction, and permitting. An amendment removed reusable tenant screening reports and clarified that conforming ADUs would be allowed by right without a separate hearing. The Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association supported the bill, saying ADUs could help provide long-term housing for service workers. After questions about local government and HOA authority, the committee adopted the amendment and then reported CS/SB 48 favorably by roll call vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• They also can look at the long-term effects of graduate-level education.
• We teach them in every single course.
• into what we call a career integrations course.
• students register for a course.
• That course is approved in the state.

Summary: The Committee on Education Postsecondary held an informational hearing focused on how Florida’s public colleges and universities are aligning bachelor’s degree programs with workforce needs and improving student outcomes. Chancellor Kathy Hebda described Florida College System enrollment growth, the state college system’s workforce-oriented bachelor’s degrees, approval and accountability processes for those programs, and outcomes data showing strong completion and wage results, especially in health care. Emily Sykes of the Board of Governors outlined the State University System’s program review practices, performance-based funding metrics, strategic emphasis programs, and the MyFloridaFuture tool that lets students compare earnings, debt, and employment outcomes by major and institution. University and college leaders then described campus-level workforce initiatives. Florida Gulf Coast University highlighted employer-driven microcredentials, digital badges, internships, career fairs, service learning, and partnerships with regional employers. UCF discussed its career navigator requirements, major industry partnerships such as Lockheed Martin, nursing and faculty career-integration efforts, and a centralized career development center. Northwest Florida State College and the University of West Florida emphasized their bachelor’s programs, transfer pathways, teacher and nursing outcomes, military and defense-related workforce pipelines, cybersecurity training, and stackable credentials tied to regional labor needs. During member questions, senators asked how microcredentials and military experience translate into college credit, whether credentials transfer across institutions, and what legislators can do to help. Witnesses said the state’s common course and articulation systems already support transfer, and they encouraged continued legislative support for innovation, faster curriculum alignment, internships, and specialized transfer degrees. No bills were voted on, and the meeting ended with no public comment and an adjournment motion adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's, of course, before the... So I was fired with the Susan.
• And, of course, there is the flood memory half-life.
• And, of course, there is the flood memory half-life.
• Of course it's on water supply and Of the $30-plus billion spent every year on water, of course, it's
• But of course then you have the second problem: water rights.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on flood risk and flood management in California, with opening remarks emphasizing that flooding is a statewide and growing threat due to climate change, including the possibility of extreme losses in a worst-case event. Members noted recent flooding in places such as San Diego, the Tulare Basin, and Pajaro, and framed the hearing as a way to better understand prevention, response, and how to capture excess water for later use. Jeffrey Mount of PPIC gave the main overview, describing California’s high flood exposure, the different flood types the state faces, and the mix of structural and non-structural tools used to manage them. He stressed that levees, dams, bypasses, land-use planning, flood insurance, and emergency response all matter, but that risk is rising because current standards are based on past hydrology rather than future climate conditions. He also warned that flood management is underfunded, that the National Flood Insurance Program is weak, and that federal support is increasingly uncertain. Members asked about groundwater recharge, permitting, NOAA and federal cuts, and which communities are most at risk; Mount said recharge can help but does not eliminate flood risk, and that small Central Valley communities and heavily developed floodplains are especially concerning. State officials Laura Hollander of the Department of Water Resources and Jane Dolan of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board described the state’s role in forecasting, emergency response, grants, planning, and the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. They highlighted aging infrastructure, the need for better coordination, and the state’s special liability in the Central Valley after the Paterno decision. Dolan reviewed the history of major floods and said the plan calls for about $1 billion per year over 30 years to meet current needs, while Hollander said the state works with local and federal partners on preparedness, response, and subventions projects. Both emphasized that floodplain planning, regional coordination, and faster permitting are important, but that more consistent funding is needed. A later panel from local flood agencies and districts reinforced those points, arguing that the state’s annual flood funding is below identified needs and that a proposed statewide flood and dam safety bond was reduced substantially in the broader climate bond package. Witnesses urged more routine maintenance funding, support for regional flood planning, and continued federal-state-local partnerships to reduce risk and maintain eligibility for federal assistance. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the informational hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• not at the system level, driven down.
• <00:13:46.959> and determined um at the campus level and determined um at the campus level
• system level response. system level response.
• income, relying on uncertain course income, relying on uncertain course assignments<01:10:00.719
• It's, I believe, it's 30/70 at the state level, 40/60 at the college level.

Bills: HF4479, HF4368, HF4889

Keywords: higher education, public university, college campus, postsecondary institution, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, University of Minnesota, town hall, town hall meeting, elected official, legislator, public forum, constituent meeting, campus access, free meeting space, parking fees, civic engagement, public outreach, chapter 135A, HF4368, Minnesota State

Summary: The committee approved the April 9 minutes and then took up House File 4479, which would require public postsecondary institutions to make space available for town halls and similar official events by elected officials, with limits intended to keep the events on the official side and not campaign-related. Representative Frederick said the bill is meant to prevent universities from creating barriers such as fees or parking charges and to ensure a neutral, accessible venue for community conversations. The bill was laid over for possible later action. The committee heard supportive testimony from Jim Dimmick of Minnesota State University, Mankato, who argued that town halls should be public, open, moderated, and dialogic rather than speeches, and said universities should be centers for public discourse. He also said charging fees can undermine neutrality and that using partisan student groups to sponsor events can create the appearance of bias. Minnesota State official Mr. Omen said campuses often host these events, fees are set locally to cover costs, and student government sponsorship can sometimes avoid charges; he also noted the fee at Mankato is discounted and depends on room size. Several members raised concerns about the bill. Representative Scott, Chair Robbins, Representative Schwarz, Representative Allen, and others argued that campuses should not be required by statute to give legislators special treatment, that fees and parking costs cover real expenses, and that universities should remain focused on education rather than political events. Questions also focused on who would decide what room size is reasonable, how disputes would be handled, and who would pay for security if protests or safety issues arose. Representative Frederick responded that room selection would be a good-faith partnership with the university, that the bill does not require a town hall or guarantee a specific room, and that security funding is not spelled out in the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then, of course, maximum reduction in tax.
• Of course, that's going to happen.
• And of course, one versus five, it's 20%.
• a predetermined level in production as opposed to having them..."
• And, of course, their price of oil as well. So just comment on that.

Summary: The Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee met with a quorum, approved the March 17, 2026 minutes, and heard a lengthy update from Tax Commissioner Brian Croshys on property tax relief programs. He reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting increased relief after House Bill 1158 and House Bill 1176, but also discussing how some households “income adjust out” of eligibility over time. Members asked about indexing income thresholds, expanding eligibility by age alone, simplifying administration, county-level notices, and whether the county and state systems could be streamlined. Croshys said the programs are heavily used, largely administered at the county level, and that the department is still refining compliance and reporting; he also said there were no material findings or overarching concerns in the latest review. The committee agreed more detailed PRC information would likely come back in a September meeting, and the chair announced an afternoon recess for lunch before later reconvening. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase report, the zero-growth report, and a statistical report on property values and tax levies by class. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and identified counties and cities with the largest percentage changes in growth or decline. She also summarized recent trends: agricultural values remain relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed values have risen over the last five years; in 2025, residential property accounted for the largest share of statewide property tax levies, followed by commercial, agriculture, and centrally assessed property. Committee members asked about unusual zero-growth figures, the effect of annexation and land-use changes, and whether the 3% levy cap was forcing political subdivisions to use reserves or defer spending. Myers said many counties complied by using reserves, delaying capital projects, or limiting increases, and that some counties had not used their full cap. The committee then moved to the stripper oil extraction tax exemption. Commissioner Croshys reviewed the state’s oil tax structure and estimated the revenue impact of keeping stripper wells exempt from extraction tax while still paying production tax. He said the exemption saves operators hundreds of millions of dollars over a biennium, while the state still collects production tax on those wells. He also discussed projected impacts if the exemption were changed for future wells and noted that future outcomes depend on oil prices, production declines, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly explained the historical difference between the 35-barrel and 30-barrel thresholds for certain wells, citing differences in completion costs and lateral lengths. The committee then heard from EERC CEO Charles Gorecki, who presented an analysis of oil well life cycles and said most oil is produced before wells reach stripper status, but that refracturing or other reinvestment can significantly extend production and keep wells above the threshold for years.

Transcript Highlights:

• Of course we need to know. Of course we need to know, and that gives us visibility.
• and can give us information beyond grade-level proficiency.
• about seven grade levels.
• So that’s at the school committee level, that’s at the superintendent level.
• So that’s at the school committee level, that’s at the superintendent level.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education heard testimony on several bills centered on school accountability, receivership, graduation requirements, charter school access, community schools, school libraries, and student voting rights. Much of the discussion focused on the Thrive Act, S. 374, which would end state receivership and change the state’s accountability approach. Supporters, including educators, parents, advocacy groups, and students, argued that receivership has not improved outcomes in districts such as Lawrence, Holyoke, Southbridge, Boston, and the Dever, and that local communities should have more control, with greater emphasis on community schools, wraparound services, and broader measures of school quality. They also supported related bills on community schools and school library standards, and several witnesses backed a bill to expand student representative voting rights on school committees. Opponents of S. 374, especially charter school leaders, parents, students, and some education advocates, focused on Section 4 of the bill, which would change the charter school net school spending cap in the lowest-performing districts. They argued that the provision would reduce access to charter seats in communities where families are seeking more options, and that schools such as Roxbury Prep, Excel Academy, Brook, Veritas Prep, and Libertas Academy have produced strong results for students, including students of color, low-income students, and students with special needs. Several witnesses said the section would force schools to shrink or close and would remove opportunities for families in districts with long waitlists. Committee members questioned witnesses on both the effectiveness of receivership and the charter school cap language. Chair Lewis and Chair Gordon emphasized the need for a better accountability system and noted concerns about whether current measures, including MCAS-based designations, accurately reflect school quality. Some witnesses said they had discussed the possibility of removing Section 4 from the Thrive Act and suggested it might be addressed in separate charter reform legislation. No votes were taken during the hearing; testimony was received and the committee later closed testimony on S. 374 and several related bills before moving on to the student voting rights bill, S. 367.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:58:06.280> also soil and in doing so of course also soil and in doing so of course also
• Of course, that gives those lands next to these areas some level of protection for their farmland, typically
• not completely out of control of course not completely out of control of course and<01:09:20.560
• get that to you I um I can't of course get that to you I um I can't of course could<01:21:24.360
• deficit with their Staffing levels deficit with their Staffing levels compared<01:33:35.360>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We are also closely monitoring developments at the federal level.
• We need more of this political will at the state and the local levels.
• Of course, you all are too.
• Secondly, of course, financing. And Mr.
• Of course, not every family can avoid eviction.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing opened its second hearing of the session with remarks from Chairs Haggerty and Cyr emphasizing that the hearing was a broad look at Massachusetts’ housing crisis rather than a single bill. They highlighted topics including zoning, permitting, rental assistance, public housing, homelessness prevention, and housing production. The first witness, Housing and Livable Communities Secretary Augustus, reviewed implementation of the Affordable Homes Act and the state’s new housing plan, citing a 1.6% vacancy rate, a projected need for 222,000 new homes over 10 years, and ongoing efforts such as ADUs by right, fair housing enforcement, eviction record sealing, seasonal communities planning, and new funding for affordable housing, public housing, and the Momentum Fund. He also discussed infrastructure support for municipalities, technical assistance for ADUs, and concerns about possible federal funding cuts. Committee members questioned the secretary about ADU financing and technical assistance, the likely unit yield from the Affordable Homes Act, infrastructure barriers in suburban and rural communities, public housing waitlist management, supportive housing, and federal budget risks. MassNAHRO then testified that public housing authorities are facing rising operating and capital costs, a statewide waitlist nearing 300,000, and uncertainty over federal Section 8 and HUD funding. Witnesses described recent state support for operating subsidies, capital improvements, vacancy turnover teams, and resident service coordinators, while warning that proposed federal cuts could sharply affect voucher issuance and agency operations. CDAC’s executive director Roger Herzog described the agency’s role as a quasi-public source of early-stage financing and technical assistance for nonprofit housing developers, noting its loan capital, supportive housing bond programs, home modification loans, and preservation work under Chapter 40T. He said CDAC has helped produce or preserve more than 55,000 units and stressed the importance of patient capital and preservation tools. CHAPA CEO Rachel Heller urged the committee to focus on production, preservation, planning, and political will, supporting goals for affordability, supportive housing, and homeownership, and endorsing policy changes such as YIGBY, clearer site plan review rules, stronger fair housing funding, and more support for vouchers and public housing. MassHousing then outlined its financing role, including mortgage lending, down payment assistance, the Community Climate Bank, and the Momentum Fund, while noting that permitting delays, capital gaps, and possible federal changes could affect production. Members also asked about transparency, prevailing wage compliance, and a recent internal restructuring related to diversity and business engagement.

Transcript Highlights:

• Supports and services at the local level, which is fantastic.
• And then, of course, beholden to their communities.
• So I'll give a high-level response and, of course, let these ladies get into a little more granular answers
• The same level investment, you'll still serve 220,000 children.
• The same level of investment, you'll still serve 220,000 children.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• It is at the city level; it is at the state level.
• and Zoning reform at the state level and Zoning reform at the state level that<00:24:39.799>
• <00:25:59.559> um<00:25:59.679> and level it is at the state level um and level it
• uh sort of leveled off with that<01:44:47.080> level<01:44:47.320> of<01:44:47.679>
• <01:46:07.800> making resource perspective of course making resource perspective of course

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee on Housing and Homelessness Prevention heard informational presentations from Housing First Minnesota and the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities on the state of housing in Minnesota. Mark Foster of Housing First Minnesota said the state has a severe housing shortage, with demand outpacing supply since the 2007-09 housing crash, and argued that Minnesota is nearly 100,000 units short of a healthy market. He said new homes are increasingly unaffordable, citing a median new single-family price above $530,000 and declining affordability in the Twin Cities metro, and he urged lawmakers to remove exclusionary zoning and other regulatory barriers that he said make starter homes and smaller-lot housing difficult or illegal to build in many growing cities. He also highlighted the group’s Housing for Heroes projects, including transitional housing for veterans and other crisis housing projects around the state. Members asked Foster about starter-home examples and his view that the committee’s top priority should be reforming residential development approvals. He said most new housing is negotiated through planned unit developments rather than built under base zoning, which he argued adds cost and reduces supply. The committee then heard from Elizabeth Wael of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, who said housing challenges outside the metro are different but equally serious. She said many Greater Minnesota cities face a lack of developers, inadequate infrastructure such as roads and utilities, and gaps in the housing continuum, especially starter workforce housing and senior housing. She thanked the committee for 2023 housing funding and said cities are contributing their own resources, updating zoning, reducing parking requirements, allowing ADUs, and partnering with developers and nonprofits. Wael also urged faster rollout of the Greater Minnesota infrastructure grant program and said the state should consider changes to the housing tax credit and housing TIF rules to make them easier to use. In response, senators said they shared frustration with the slow implementation of the infrastructure program and emphasized the need for state investment and locally tailored zoning reforms. No bills were heard and no votes were taken; the meeting was informational and focused on stakeholder testimony and committee discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm going to just start off at a high level question as to...
• , if this is happening at the UC/CSU level, have you seen the same impact at the community college level
• And it also, of course, affected minority students more than others.
• They're not at the same level.
• And then the last thing is, of course, affordability.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Or did a student take dual credit courses and pass a dual credit course?
• , grade levels.
• Then at the senior level, grade levels.
• level to that proficient<00:43:05.880> level.
• proficient level. proficient level.

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:

• And of course, there's a small are.
• secure resident area with a multi-level secure resident area with a multi-level security<00:32:43.840
• <00:33:08.000> facility available within a multi-level facility available within a multi-level
• if at the community level because uh if at the community level because uh if more<00:46:27.680><
• If you're in level three, you can be taken back one level. That should be made clear.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And it provides an offense level.
• five; current law is level four.
• Aggravated fleeing or eluding goes from a level five to a level six.
• Yes, yes, of course. Thank you guys.
• Theory of knowledge is the only course required Theory of Knowledge is the only course required for the

Summary: The committee took up a series of criminal justice, health, and public safety bills, with several measures reported favorably after brief sponsor presentations and mostly no opposition. CS for SB 1782 on dangerous excessive speeding, CS for SB 306 on Medicaid provider network access, CS for SB 716 on mandatory minimums for certain sexual offenses by registered offenders, CS for SB 1084 on intimate image dissemination and digitally forged images, and CS for CS for SB 1604 on corrections-related litigation and sentencing changes all passed the committee. Members also approved CS for SB 1838, which increases protections for court officials from tampering, harassment, and retaliation, and CS for SB 1252, which directs FDLE to study a statewide pawn data database. CS for SB 468 on fleeing or eluding, CS for SB 490 on off-duty concealed carry for certain officers, and CS for SB 890 on blood clot screening and treatment also received favorable votes, with SB 890 drawing supportive testimony from the bill sponsor, medical and patient advocates, and family members affected by blood clots. The most extensive debate centered on CS for CS for SB 1804, which would create a capital offense for adults trafficking children under 12 or mentally incapacitated persons for sexual exploitation. Senator Martin defended the bill as a response to especially heinous crimes and argued it fit within constitutional punishment principles, while several members raised concerns about the Eighth Amendment, the risk of lengthy and costly litigation, and the possibility of retraumatizing victims. The Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers testified in opposition, citing moral objections, due process concerns, and constitutional precedent; the bill nevertheless was reported favorably. The committee also approved CS for CS for SB 572, the “Pam Rock Act,” which tightens dangerous-dog rules, adds enclosure, microchip, insurance, and penalty requirements, and allows stronger enforcement actions after serious attacks. The Rock family and animal control supporters testified in favor, describing the bill as a response to fatal dog attacks and urging stronger accountability for owners. For SB 572, members discussed insurance requirements, the role of local authorities in classifying dangerous dogs, and whether the bill would affect ordinary pet insurance or only liability coverage after a serious attack. The sponsor said the measure is not breed-specific and is aimed at dogs that have already caused significant harm. The committee also heard testimony from family members of Pam Rock and other victims, along with supporters from animal control and sheriff’s offices. All of the bills taken up in the meeting that were voted on were reported favorably, and no roll-call votes failed.

Transcript Highlights:

• example, or level three teachers?
• Your Level 1 going to Level 2 teachers because they have an incredible workload with their micro-credentials
• , and even the Level 2 to Level 3, all of those different requirements that are getting them to be able
• to go up to different levels.
• So do we really know... ...what they know at our high school level.