Transcript Highlights:

• 2nd grade with the kids because the world looks better through the eyes of a 5 or 6 year old lots of times
• Uh, uh, a complete turnaround from whenever the first time I visited up until recently.
• So that is during school time. So they are providing direct services to students.
• If we have time, can we come back to you for additional questions?
• I think for a really, really long time.

Transcript Highlights:

• $119 times a weight of 3.6.
• , full-time student or otherwise.
• After that time, that number drops.
• We didn't quite make it this time because of whatever.
• in their off time, not when they're going to school.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Higher Education Funding Committee met to discuss possible changes to North Dakota’s higher education funding formula, with a particular focus on separating the UND School of Medicine and Health Sciences MD program from the general formula. Dr. Jenkins outlined several options for the MD program, including a fixed-funding model, a hybrid model, or keeping it in the formula, and emphasized the need to preserve strong support for medical education while making future funding clearer. He also discussed efforts to increase the share of North Dakota students in the MD program through ND85, expanded recruiting, early acceptance pathways, MCAT prep, a four-plus-one program, and the Primary Care Accelerated Track, along with future cost pressures such as AI licensing and residency growth. The committee then reviewed a simplified funding model from the University System Office that would base funding more heavily on student FTE, credentials awarded, and a few incentive factors such as small institution and research adjustments. Members questioned the use of placeholder numbers, the lack of a clear methodology for the small institution and research factors, and whether the model would adequately account for differences among institutions, high-cost programs, and graduate education. Several members raised concerns that arbitrary factors would be hard to defend politically and could distort funding or create competition between schools, while others said the exercise was useful as a starting point for discussion. Alex presented a second alternative that kept the current SIP-code structure but increased CTE weighting, added a progressive economic size factor, and separated out the MD program. His model also added an on-campus face-to-face headcount component and a credentials component, with the intent of rewarding in-person enrollment and completions. Members questioned the use of headcount instead of FTE, how hybrid, online, dual-credit, and off-campus students would be treated, and why face-to-face enrollment was weighted more heavily than completion. No formal votes or final actions were taken; the committee instead continued discussion and asked members to provide direction on which elements, if any, should be developed further.

Transcript Highlights:

• Based on the hours worked, whether it's a full-time position, part-time position, as well as the funding
• How does this look over time?"
• Thank you for your time today.
• But they still need support from time to time.
• I was not in Sheridan at the time.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We spent extensive time briefing that committee and sharing information about our contract and specifically
• We had a mix-and-match of part- and full-time, part-timers cobbled together to make full-time, but we
• You know, those things take a lot of time. It takes a lot of time to go back.
• of time.
• at that time or any time.

Keywords: 970, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:10:55.080> that prais core talked about at times that prais core talked about at times
• Thank you for your time.
• <04:36:29.320> that alert the the parents in of time that alert the the parents in of time
• suggest that over the course of time suggest that over the course of time this<04:59:09.440>
• This is about missed class time.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee heard testimony on House Bill 71, which would bar public elementary and secondary schools and higher education facilities from being used as shelters for certain non-citizens, with a stated exception for short-term emergency sheltering of up to 72 hours and for community-wide emergency use. Prime sponsor Rep. Juliet Harvey-Bolia said the bill was modeled on federal and out-of-state proposals and was prompted by examples in New York and Massachusetts where schools or other facilities were used as shelters, causing disruption. She argued the bill does not truly “ban” anything, but instead places a condition on receipt of state funds, and said the fiscal note’s projected loss of federal funding was unsupported and should have been described as undeterminable. Committee members questioned the bill’s scope and practical effects, including whether it would apply to vacant school-owned buildings, schools used during summer, charter schools, and situations where other states send people without advance notice. Harvey-Bolia said vacant buildings not functioning as schools would not be covered, and that the bill would still allow short-term emergency sheltering and community-wide use during weather events. She also said the bill would not prevent remote learning, and that its purpose was to avoid displacing students. Several members pressed her on the fiscal note and whether any federal or state program would actually be at risk; she said she found no evidence that funding would be lost and that DHHS had not identified a real threat. A witness from the New Hampshire Association of School Administrators, Jerry FW, raised practical concerns about who would determine eligibility at a shelter site, how the 72-hour limit would be enforced, and whether the bill would apply to charter schools. He also noted that remote learning is no longer an option in New Hampshire, making one of the bill’s stated concerns less relevant. The discussion also included clarification of the terms “refugee” and “asylum seeker,” with members and the sponsor debating the distinction and whether refugees are vetted. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• You are at a time. Can you wrap it up, please?
• It could instigate unfounded complaints that take staff time to address, time that would be better spent
• Thank you for your time.
• I would just position that against what we hear time and time again from first-grade teachers.
• At this time, can we have a motion?

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee met without a quorum at first and began as a subcommittee, with the chair outlining hearing procedures and several bills on consent. The committee heard and advanced AB 1581, which would improve collection of tribal affiliation data for California students so Native students are more accurately counted and better served; supporters said current systems undercount Native students and erase their needs. AB 1586 also passed, requiring school resource officers who volunteer to carry naloxone to receive opioid overdose response training every two years; supporters emphasized student safety and the need for rapid response to overdoses on campus, while one school employees’ group raised concerns about retaliation protections for non-volunteers. Both bills were moved do pass as amended to Appropriations, with roll calls held open for absent votes. The committee then approved AB 1943, which updates school notices about secure firearm storage by making the information clearer, more visible, and more likely to reach families at key moments such as counseling or discipline interventions. Supporters from gun violence prevention groups, educators, and parents argued that many school shooters obtain guns from home and that plain-language, digital, and timely notices could help prevent child deaths and suicides; the author shared a personal story about a child accessing a gun at home. AB 1792 also advanced, directing the Instructional Quality Commission to consider updating health education to address digital safety issues such as deepfakes, extortion, grooming, and AI-generated exploitation; supporters said students need instruction that reflects modern online risks, while an opponent objected to language referencing LGBTQIA+ and gender-diverse students. AB 1653 passed as well, adding heat-illness guidance to the health framework after a young Girl Scout described students suffering during extreme heat and not recognizing symptoms. Later, the committee approved AB 1861, which would require the California Department of Education to create a public database of special education investigation reports with personal information redacted; supporters said families need better access to complaint outcomes and accountability, while an opposition witness warned of unintended consequences, misuse of incomplete information, and added burdens on districts. AB 1721 also moved forward, creating a stakeholder work group to review and streamline school safety plan requirements so plans remain practical and focused on emergency preparedness. AB 1631, which would make kindergarten mandatory, received mixed testimony: supporters argued it would help close achievement gaps and improve readiness, while opponents framed it as an intrusion on parental choice; the bill was held on call after a split vote. Finally, AB 1809, extending job order contracting authority for school and community college districts, was also held on call after opposition from contractors who argued project labor agreement requirements raise costs and reduce competition. The committee then began hearing AB 1659, aimed at improving transitions for court school students back to their home districts, with testimony describing re-enrollment barriers and the need for a designated district contact.

Transcript Highlights:

• So when you talk about timing of sure.
• We know that new methods of over time.
• for them at that time. for them at that time.
• This time it's 16. 16. I get it. This time it's 16. >> You<01:44:05.440> forgot.
• <04:42:43.280> a you could meet a couple of times a you could meet a couple of times a month

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um I really very part-time realtor.
• first time. first time.
• <00:31:55.880> home What's burdening our first time home What's burdening our first time home
• Just here in the nick of time.
• shared ground to move forward on. shared ground to move forward on.

Bills: HF2715, HF2499, HF3420, HF3657, HF2303

Keywords: HF2715, homestead credit refund, property tax refund, property tax relief, homeowner tax relief, homestead credit, co-pay reduction, Minnesota property taxes, tax rebate, state refund, income thresholds, inflation adjustment, property tax circuit breaker, housing affordability, elderly homeowners, fixed income, taxation, Minnesota Statutes 290A.04, renters credit, income tax

Transcript Highlights:

• It's time for us to send a message, colleagues.
• It's time to make sure that we understand that boundaries matter.
• And it's time for us to make sure that we do not... ...boundaries matter, and it's time for us to make
• This is one of the first times I felt ashamed.
• This is not the time.

Summary: The Assembly met after a quorum call and prayer, then handled a series of procedural motions, guest introductions, and floor actions. Members welcomed student groups from Hope International University and Vacaville High School, and later recognized several guests connected to public safety dispatch. The chamber also adopted multiple re-referrals and procedural requests, including moving bills between committees and taking up AB 100 on concurrence from the Senate. A major portion of the session was devoted to ACR 34, designating April 14 as Sylvia Mendez Day. Assembly Member Ta and several colleagues spoke in support of honoring Sylvia Mendez and the Mendez v. Westminster case as a landmark in civil rights and school desegregation. The resolution drew extended partisan debate over the framing of the measure and broader issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion, but it ultimately passed on a roll call vote, with the resolution adopted. The Assembly also recognized Dolores Huerta on her 95th birthday through guest introductions and celebratory remarks, then moved through several bills and resolutions. AB 471 on air district board compensation, AB 677 on pupil records and access to screenings for housing-insecure students, ACR 31 designating California Public Safety Telecommunications Week, and AB 1150 on airport customer facility charges all passed. HR 30 recognizing Khmer New Year also was adopted with broad support. The most contentious policy action was AB 100, the early action budget bill. Supporters said it provided funding for wildfire prevention, hospital payments, Medi-Cal, and recovery in Los Angeles fire areas, while opponents criticized the bill for health care spending and high-speed rail. After a failed attempt by Assembly Member DeMaio to amend the bill and an unsuccessful appeal of the chair, the Assembly concurred in the Senate amendments and sent AB 100 to the Governor. The day ended with consent calendar approvals and adjournments in memory for several community members, including Larkin Carol Wells, Carmen O. Perez, and Oscar B. Ramos.

Transcript Highlights:

• Multiply that times four... Students.
• And time is tracked per employee, obviously, for ETC time and EFA time. >> Go ahead, Representative Noble
• It's something that they can run multiple times a year.
• At this time? Thank you very much.
• If I advise you counts, I hit this one every time we... Right. Yeah.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Freedom Account Oversight Committee met on March 27 and approved the agenda, adding a request for clarification on how the Children’s Scholarship Fund separates applications for the EFA program and the education tax credit program. The committee also approved minutes from December 30, 2025, and March 27, 2026, with a request that the March minutes include a link to the live stream. Members discussed the status of pending Legislative Budget Assistant audit reports on EFA and special education, noting the reports were still not released and would likely come later in the summer after review by the Department of Education and the Children’s Scholarship Fund. A major topic was the EFA program’s administrative fee, which statute allows up to 10% of deposits. Children’s Scholarship Fund representatives said current administrative costs were under 8%, that staffing had been reduced through the ScholarVia platform, and that any unused amount is reconciled and returned to students at year’s end. Members asked for historical administrative-cost data and a written explanation of how the withholding and reconciliation process works. The committee also reviewed the distinction between the EFA and education tax credit funding streams and was told the two programs use separate applications and separate funds, though both use the same platform. The committee spent substantial time on assessment and accountability. Department of Education staff explained that EFA students may satisfy annual assessment requirements through a portfolio, a norm-referenced test, or the statewide assessment; only about 10 EFA students took the statewide assessment, while most used portfolios or standardized tests such as the California Achievement Test and NWEA. Staff described how statewide assessment data are kept separate by student identifier and can be aggregated for EFA reporting, and members asked for breakdowns by grade, test type, and school district. The department also discussed linking assessments through Lexiles and Quantiles and said it could provide a list of commonly used formative assessments in New Hampshire districts. The committee additionally discussed a possible PSAT addition to the state contract and the costs of the statewide assessment program. Another major issue was special education eligibility and services within the EFA program. Members questioned the rule allowing a medical certification of disability from a licensed professional anywhere in the United States as an alternative to an IEP-based determination. Department staff said the current system allows either pathway, that about 1,000 EFA students are identified as special education students, and that the program does not track growth or service alignment on an individual basis. Members expressed concern that the medical-certification route may be too broad and asked for data on the disability categories used. The committee also discussed career and technical education access for EFA students, noting that Senate Bill 491 would provide guidance and that House Bill 1817 would address access and funding issues, but that current law still allows EFA funds to be used to pay CTE costs. The meeting ended with a request for future agenda items and a decision to leave the next meeting date open until fall, pending further information from the LBA audit process.

Transcript Highlights:

• The other $3.4 billion is for one-time activities.
• But where they differ is in terms of their timing.
• Yeah, I mean, I think we share that assessment.
• Well, I share your concern; I share your questioning. I don't know that we have the perfect answer.
• Long time listener, first time caller.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• is, shall the bill be read a third time? is, shall the bill be read a third time?
• pupil spending next year. pupil spending next year.
• So that leads to reduced time for patient care, reduced time for prevention.
• is, shall the bill be read a third time? is, shall the bill be read a third time?
• fill out and get in in a timely fashion. fill out and get in in a timely fashion.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We see it all the time.
• We see it all the time.
• We see it all the time.
• There’s no time frame when a student might move into your district at any point in time.
• “There’s no time frame when a student might move into your district at any point in time.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I received about this time.
• Thank you for your time. >> Thank you for coming to share all of that with you and, you know, thoughts
• shared. And I heard new stories today. shared. And I heard new stories today.
• Uh, we're over time.
• Uh, we're over time. >> Thank you, Senator. Uh, we're over time.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the $150,000 of allowable costs, three and a half times the average cost per pupil last year was 69,6
• a half times and they get up to 10 times a half times and they get up to 10 times then<00:56:59.520
• The timing was changed.
• The timing was changed.
• The timing was changed.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee Division II met with the New Hampshire Department of Education to review school nutrition programs and related funding. Department staff Melissa White and Kelly Rambo walked through a packet covering the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program, explaining that these are federally funded USDA programs, with some state supplemental funding in certain areas. They also reviewed reimbursement rates for lunch, breakfast, child/adult care, and summer meals, noting that summer rates follow calendar-year timing while most others follow the state fiscal year. Members asked several questions about how the funding works, especially the difference between federal reimbursements and the state match. Staff explained that the state lunch line in the budget is a fixed match amount tied to federal participation, while breakfast funding is broken out by meal type and reimbursement category. They also discussed why FY 2022 federal spending was much higher during COVID, when USDA covered meals at the free rate for all students, and why FY 2023 and FY 2024 dropped as normal income-eligibility rules returned. A committee member also asked about the “severe need lunch” two-cent rate, and staff said they did not know USDA’s formula. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on summer meals and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved sites, which can be open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-operated benefit program that provides funds to families. They said some schools or sites may not qualify under USDA rules, but eligible children can often use another nearby open site, and the department posts an interactive map and phone line to help families find locations. The committee also discussed the Community Eligibility Provision. Staff said New Hampshire currently has three CEP schools, that the eligibility threshold had recently been lowered from 40% to 25% identified students, and that the program allows participating schools to offer free meals to all students while the local district covers the non-federal share. Members asked whether any districts in the 25% to 40% range had joined; staff said no. The department offered to provide the eligibility report in Excel and noted that the CEP intent is to reduce application burden, though the lower threshold can make the local cost share harder for some districts to absorb.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the timing of those payments, uh, is set up to go along with the timing of other payments.
• Your time limit, yeah, I'll wrap up. Um, it's a hard time for schools.
• It happens all the time.
• Fifty percent of the time is considered a full-time student.
• the time is considered a full-time the time is considered a full-time student<01:45:01.520> uh

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Policy Committee opened a hearing on HB 748, which would establish a local education freedom account (EFA) program. The prime sponsor, Rep. Kevin Verville, described the bill as enabling legislation that would let local voters decide whether to create a local EFA program by petition and ballot vote, with a 60% threshold to approve or repeal it. He argued that public education is about funding rather than a specific school building, said the proposal would expand parental choice, and cited Deerfield’s move from a single high school option to multiple tuitioned options as an example of local flexibility. Verville said the local EFA would be funded at twice the state adequacy amount, with the district matching the state portion, while other aid categories such as free and reduced meals, English language learner, and special education aid would not be doubled. He said students using a local EFA would still count in average daily membership, that unspent EFA funds would revert to the district, and that the bill would prohibit double-dipping with other scholarship or EFA programs. He also said special education services would remain under district discretion and that local EFA participants would still take statewide assessments for accountability. Committee members pressed him on several issues, especially special education, transportation, and fairness. Rep. Woodcock and Rep. Murray asked whether districts would still have to provide special education and transportation services if a student used a local EFA; Verville responded that special education would remain in the local district at district discretion, while transportation would generally become the family’s responsibility unless already required in an IEP. Rep. Cornell raised an equity concern about no income eligibility cap, asking whether higher-income families should receive the same public support; Verville replied that New Hampshire does not means-test public education and that the local EFA is a public funding mechanism, not a tuition subsidy that would cover full private-school costs. No vote or committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The third column average per pupil cost.
• <00:12:27.360> to<00:12:28.160> escape it's time to escape it's time to escape >
• statewide average to one and a times statewide average to one and a half<02:21:50.399> times<
• I think it's something it is timely.
• <03:38:16.880> she and we were talking about the time she and we were talking about the time

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your time.
• A 70-year-old, for the first time, can be spontaneous and go anywhere, any time. Amen.
• Go anywhere, any time.
• Alas, many, many times we have been denied access by ride-share drivers who refuse us entry into the
• Take your time. No need to rush. I think... I never thought I'd say that at the same time.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing opened with the co-chairs introducing House and Senate members and explaining the hybrid format, three-minute testimony guidance, and the deadline for written testimony. The committee then heard extensive testimony on S. 2665, which would require employers to post notice to employees when an I-9 audit or similar federal immigration inspection is underway. Supporters, including immigration attorneys, a pediatrician, a labor leader, and an affected family member, argued the bill would protect privacy, give workers time to gather documents and consult counsel, and reduce fear and wrongful arrests. One witness from Illinois described a similar law there and said it had not caused the problems employers feared, while others said recent ICE enforcement has made notice especially important. The committee also heard testimony on S. 1360, a bill affecting collective bargaining rights for State Police, with the State Police Association arguing that a statutory gap lets departmental rules override their contract and that the bill would restore intended bargaining protections. A separate labor bill, S. 1305, was also briefly supported by the AFL-CIO as part of broader worker-classification protections for app-based delivery drivers. A large portion of the hearing focused on H. 2066, which would impose fines on transportation network drivers who refuse rides to people with disabilities using service animals. Testimony from blind and disabled riders, service dog users, advocates, and the Disability Law Center described repeated ride cancellations, drivers pulling away after seeing a service animal, and the difficulty of enforcing existing anti-discrimination laws through MCAD or other agencies. Witnesses said the current system leaves riders without practical recourse because drivers are hard to identify and complaints can take years, and they argued that fines on individual drivers would create a real deterrent. Several witnesses also described the impact on employment, medical appointments, and daily independence. Committee members asked about service-animal verification, whether refusals are ever appropriate, and whether penalties should target drivers or companies; witnesses said legitimate refusals are limited to misbehaving or unsafe animals and that companies already have policies and some training, but enforcement remains weak. The committee also heard from a witness supporting a related bill on rideshare accessibility and from advocates describing broader transportation discrimination issues. One witness discussed a separate proposal to study service-animal denial, and others noted that Uber’s self-identification feature and company policies have not solved the problem. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the meeting ended after the final witnesses on the service-animal bill and a brief organizational discussion about related legislation and committee business.

Transcript Highlights:

• We ask that you just bless this time that we have.
• We're glad to be here today to share more information with you.
• So, looking at spending per student over time, we can see...
• So take the, take that, spend as much time every time you're down here in Little Rock.
• Spend as much time as you want to on them. Okay. Thank you.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We ask that you just bless this time that we have.
• So I'd be asking for 259 items times... "259 items times one, two, three, four, five."
• We did the one-time funds. I want to say it was 2024.
• We did the one-time funds. I want to say it was 2024.
• So take as much time as you want on them every time you're down here in Little Rock.

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.