Transcript Highlights:

• . education. education.
• We have home education. We have private education.
• </c> education, including home education. education, including home education.
• </c> child's education. child's education.
• </c> Education Committee. Education Committee.

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Special Education. ...by creating an Office of Special Education with a named deputy by the Secretary
• of Education.
• Our office is federally funded, and we are not able to even supervise gifted education if gifted education
• The Office of Special Education and a Deputy Secretary of Special Education would ensure compliance,
• Act and state education law.

Committee: House House Government, Elections & Indian Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Elevating the importance of career education and career technical education in our changing economy.
• Of career technical education.
• Department of Education?
• Would it be the Department of Education administering the Career Technical Education Incentive Grant
• While this is not part of the career education, this council is part of the master plan for career education

Transcript Highlights:

• our Educator Preparation Program.
• Education and teacher education would benefit from the same kinds of communities of practice that have
• These would be math, science, special education, and bilingual education.
• and special education folks.
• that includes everyone who works in the field of education, including early childhood education.

Transcript Highlights:

• We brought the education, national education union for, several international organizations.
• We brought the education, national education union from England here.
• Achievement gaps in education remain stark.
• Achievement gaps in education remain stark.
• Educators are committed.

Committee: House Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Texas Arts Education Campaign.
• Funding arts education not only supports the arts but also leads to improved access to education.
• It supports teacher pathways in high-needs areas like special education and bilingual education.
• I've been in education for 28 years as a general education and special education teacher. teacher, counselor
• Then we have the special education allotment, which adds on state money for special education.

Bills: HB2 , HB2

Committee: House Public Education

Transcript Highlights:

• And I care deeply about education in this state. And I'm a fourth-generation educator.
• Education.
• Education.
• We also support our future educators, and we're also supporting current educators in the field through
• education.

Committee: House Education

Transcript Highlights:

• technical education in our changing economy, making sure that our education programs are relevant to
• Department of Education. Good morning.
• So, rest assured, on career technical education as well as general education courses or general programming
• Would it be the Department of Education administering, you know— Would it be the Department of Education
• Those are out of county offices of education.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance heard an overview of the governor’s new Career Education Master Plan and related budget items. Labor Secretary Knox described the plan as an effort to reduce fragmentation across K-12, community colleges, workforce boards, and other systems by improving statewide and regional coordination, data sharing, skills-based hiring, career pathways, and wraparound supports such as child care, housing, food, and transportation. Members asked how success would be measured, how the plan would serve disconnected youth and adults, and whether the proposed data integration would rely on Cradle to Career; the secretary said it would. The Department of Finance said it was available to answer questions on the education side. The committee then reviewed existing CTE funding and oversight. The LAO, CDE, and Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office described the major ongoing programs, including CTIG, Perkins, K-12 Strong Workforce, and Community College Strong Workforce, and noted that many programs overlap in purpose and administration. Members repeatedly raised concerns about duplication, annual applications and reporting burdens, lack of clear outcome metrics, and whether funding incentives should be better aligned to regional collaboration. CDE and the Chancellor’s Office said they support alignment and dual enrollment, and Finance and CDE said LCFF/local match dollars are part of the funding structure. The committee also discussed child care as a barrier to participation and the need for better tracking of enrollment, completion, and job outcomes. On the consolidated application proposal, Finance proposed a study directing CDE to examine whether three long-standing CTE grant programs—Specialized Secondary Programs, CTIG, and California Partnership Academies—could be streamlined into a single application and reporting process. The LAO supported reducing administrative burden but noted that the largest programs, CTIG and K-12 Strong Workforce, were excluded from the proposal even though districts most often cite them as burdensome. CDE said it did not oppose the study but warned that statutory differences may limit consolidation. Members said the proposal should better address regional coordination, multi-year funding stability, and outcome measures rather than only simplifying paperwork. Finally, the committee heard a proposal for a $5 million ongoing California Education Interagency Council. GovOps said the council would provide a neutral venue for statewide coordination across education and workforce systems. The LAO opposed the proposal, arguing that existing bodies already provide coordination, the proposal does not change agency incentives, and the council would lack authority to implement decisions. Members expressed mixed views, with some supporting a coordinating body and others questioning whether it would differ from past efforts. No votes were taken during the portions summarized here, and the committee indicated it would hold some items open for further discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• public education.
• teachers special education education teachers special education teachers<00:25:07.720><c> a</c><00:25
• </c> special education or a general education special education or a general education setting<00:27:
• education paperwork.
• </c><01:53:10.280><c> Educators</c><01:53:10.719><c> or</c> parents or Educators Educators or parents

Committee: Senate Education Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• The educators aren't doing a good job.
• As our students navigate the world of early adolescents, our work as educators is to create educational
• One key way has been through Gloucester education foundations or local education fund, but there have
• As education leaders, we must balance innovation with inclusion and embrace tools that empower educators
• We save the students' educations.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

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:

• The Senate Budget Subcommittee Number One on Education will come to order.
• The special education funding stream...
• education local plan area, or SELPA, will receive the same base rate per pupil for state special education
• We would like to speak to the special education funding.
• environments. special education.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> they' expect those resources to educate they' expect those resources to educate and<00:11:25.920
• Department of Education to the New Hampshire Department of Education.
• </c><01:16:30.760><c> or</c> education and Department of Education or education and Department of Education
• If a district is educating a special education student, they're going to receive special education differential
• Oh, special education.

Summary: The Department of Education’s Bureau of School Finance provided an adequacy-funding training for Division II, led by Mark Mello. He walked the committee through the adequacy formula using Albany, Allenstown, and Alton as examples, explaining average daily membership, base adequacy aid, and differential aid for free/reduced-price meals, special education, and English language learners. He also noted a recent change requiring home-education differential aid and emphasized that these aid streams are generally unrestricted district funding rather than money tied to specific students or programs. A major focus was the ongoing litigation over the adequacy base amount and the statewide education property tax, or SWEPT. Mello explained the historical basis of the current base amount, the 2008 legislative report that set the original methodology, and the later court ruling that the adequacy amount should be $7,356, which is now before the Supreme Court. He also described how SWEPT currently raises a fixed statewide amount of $363 million and how that revenue is used to offset the state’s adequacy obligation. For the example towns, Albany and Allenstown receive state adequacy grants because their SWEPT revenue is below their calculated adequacy cost, while Alton is an excess SWEPT community because its local SWEPT revenue exceeds the cost of adequate education. The discussion then turned to the pending “excess SWEPT” issue in the Supreme Court and what would happen if excess collections had to be remitted to the state. Mello said the Department is preparing a hypothetical walkthrough and explained that, if the court upholds the Superior Court ruling, DRA would likely be directed to collect excess SWEPT. Members raised concerns about whether SWEPT must be used for educational purposes and about the cash-flow burden on towns if money had to move from municipalities to the state and then back to districts. Mello and members discussed possible administrative workarounds, such as credits against other state aid distributions, and noted that the committee would continue reviewing the mechanics if the court decision comes down during budget work.

Transcript Highlights:

• and the tech education programs.
• Is the Education Trust West still here?
• Currently, substitutes work 30 days in a general education classroom and 20 days in a special education
• special education, alternative education, court schools, migrant education, foster youth, homeless student
• special education, alternative education, court schools, migrant education, foster youth, homeless student

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• of Higher Education.
• Down to special education, line 35 shows the special education transportation reimbursement reduction
• Special education assistants are the vital link in special education, building relationships and fostering
• Minnesota is facing an educator shortage crisis due to the chronic underfunding of public education for
• education assistant cadre for early childhood special education.

Bills: HF1388

Committee: House Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• I call the Education Finance Committee to order.
• I would like to welcome the Assistant Commissioner from the Minnesota Department of Education. of Education
• Our Department of Education has resources for these educational leaders who have been here for three
• To the community education formula.
• with educators.

Bills: HF2430 , HF2433

Committee: House Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Education will come to order.
• The special education funding stream...
• education local plan area, or SELPA, will receive the same base rate per pupil for state special education
• To cover special education costs.
• special education.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals on dual enrollment, reading difficulty screeners, special education, school facilities, and Commission on Teacher Credentialing programs. For dual enrollment, the Department of Finance described a $100 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund proposal to expand the Dual Enrollment Opportunities Grant Program, add flexibility for regional occupational centers, support justice-involved youth, prioritize higher-need LEAs, and allow funds for teacher professional development, along with a reduction in required instructional minutes for some dual enrollment students. The LAO recommended rejecting the new funding, saying it did not address a clear implementation barrier, while CDE supported the proposal and suggested reserving $10 million for technical assistance. Members and public commenters largely supported the expansion, with some urging additional technical assistance and broader access, including adult dual enrollment. The committee then discussed the reading difficulty screener proposal, which includes $40 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund for implementation costs and statutory changes that would delay formal screening until the 91st day for kindergarten and the 46th day for grades 1-2. Finance said the timing was intended to reduce over-identification and align screening with sufficient exposure to instruction; the LAO recommended rejecting the funding and redirecting it to a discretionary block grant. CDE supported the investment but cautioned about the timing restrictions, and several members and public witnesses argued the proposed deadlines were too rigid and could delay early intervention, while others supported the structured timeline as a way to improve accuracy and reduce misidentification. On special education, Finance presented a proposal to increase the statewide base rate to $99 per ADA through a $509 million ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund augmentation, plus COLA and a negative growth adjustment. The LAO said the proposal should be adopted but estimated it could be achieved with less funding; CDE strongly supported the increase, citing rising enrollment and local cost pressures, and district and SELPA representatives described large local funding gaps and growing expenditures. The committee also reviewed school facilities funding under Proposition 2, with Finance and the Office of Public School Construction describing $1.5 billion in proposed bond spending, existing balances for new construction and modernization, and the use of bond authority for natural disaster recovery, including projects related to recent fires. For the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the committee heard about the Student Teacher Stipend Program, the Golden State Teacher Grant, state operations funding for misconduct investigations and SB 848 implementation, and a $250 million proposal to extend the Teacher Residency Grant Program; CTC supported the proposals and highlighted new data systems and technical assistance, while public testimony broadly backed the investments and urged continued or additional funding for teacher recruitment, literacy screening support, and special education.

Transcript Highlights:

• What are we doing in our higher education?
• and the tech education programs.
• for the Education Committee.
• Currently, substitutes work 30 days in a general education classroom and 20 days in a special education
• special education, alternative education, court schools, migrant education, foster youth, homeless student

Summary: The committee began without a quorum and first heard AB 302, which would prohibit schools from requiring students to use addictive social media feeds as a condition of participating in extracurricular activities and would require schools to offer a non-social-media way to communicate with students and families. The author and a student witness argued the bill protects minors from being forced onto addictive platforms, while senators asked how coaches and clubs would communicate; the author said email, built-in messaging, and other direct methods would still be allowed. The bill was held on call for absent members. The committee then took up AB 2504, creating a pilot program to train creative-industry workers for AI-related changes through partnerships among community colleges, employers, unions, and tech companies. Supporters from WME and the Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office said the program would help workers adapt to rapid industry change, while senators discussed the pilot’s size, geographic diversity, and sunset date. The bill passed on a due-pass motion to the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee. AB 1534 followed, adding state guardrails for federal Workforce Pell short-term training programs, including limits on tuition, restrictions on certain financing products, and transparency rules for partnerships with unaccredited entities. Support came from TICAS, EdTrust-West, and the Campaign for College Opportunity; senators questioned the scope of state authority and why private institutions were not clearly included, and the author said the broader approval framework was being handled in trailer bill language. The bill passed on a due-pass motion to the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee. The committee also heard AB 1381, a gut-and-amend proposal to strengthen screening for school teachers with histories of egregious misconduct while balancing due process and privacy concerns. Supporters and opponents both emphasized student safety and the need for reliable information-sharing, and members noted the bill was similar to a previously held measure; the author said amendments were still being worked out. The bill passed to the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee. AB 2202, which would create a Closing the Achievement Gap Commission to coordinate statewide efforts, drew broad support from school board and education groups but also concern that it could duplicate existing work and add bureaucracy; after extended debate about whether the commission would identify causes or solutions, it passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Finally, AB 1547, requiring a UC feasibility study for a branch medical school in Kern County, drew local support but opposition from a senator who argued the Legislature cannot direct UC’s internal operations under the state Constitution; the chair said the Legislature can make recommendations and the bill remained under discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• education funding.
• The Minnesota Office of Higher Education will establish a working group on higher education financial
• group on higher education working group on higher education Financial<00:02:39.800><c> stability</c>
• </c><00:03:38.920><c> education</c><00:03:39.480><c> attainment</c> higher education education attainment
• and P20 Educational Partnership.

Transcript Highlights:

• special education services.
• educate Sean in the general education setting.
• > classes</c> education and general education classes education and general education classes and<00:
• c> with</c> educ education for students with educ education for students with disabilities<02:00:41.560
• </c> same fund that guarantees adequate educ same fund that guarantees adequate educ education<02:34:

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Budget Subcommittee Number One on Education will come to order.
• The special education funding stream...
• education local plan area, or SELPA, will receive the same base rate per pupil for state special education
• To cover special education costs.
• special education.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals on dual enrollment, reading difficulty screeners, special education, school facilities, and Commission on Teacher Credentialing programs. On dual enrollment, the Department of Finance described a $100 million one-time Proposition 98 investment to expand the Dual Enrollment Opportunities Grant Program, along with changes to make regional occupational centers eligible, add funding for justice-involved youth, prioritize higher-need LEAs, support teacher professional development, and reduce daily instructional minute requirements for some dual enrollment students. The LAO recommended rejecting the new funding as not clearly addressing implementation barriers, while CDE supported the proposal and suggested reserving $10 million for technical assistance. Committee members and public commenters generally supported the expansion, with some asking for technical assistance and broader access, including adult dual enrollment. The committee also reviewed a $40 million one-time Proposition 98 proposal for reading difficulty screener implementation and related trailer bill language that would require screening after 91 school days for kindergarten and 46 school days for grades 1-2. Finance said the timing was intended to reduce over-identification and align with evidence from preliminary data; the LAO recommended rejecting the funding and redirecting it to a discretionary block grant. CDE supported the funding and the general approach but acknowledged the need for local support and training. Several committee members and public witnesses raised concerns that the proposed timing restrictions were too rigid and could delay early intervention, while others supported the delay as a way to improve accuracy and avoid misidentification. For special education, Finance proposed ongoing Proposition 98 increases to adjust for COLA and enrollment changes and to raise the statewide special education base rate to $99 per ADA, equalizing rates across SELPAs. The LAO said the proposal should be adopted but estimated it could be funded for less than the Governor’s figure. CDE and multiple local education representatives strongly supported the increase, citing rising special education enrollment, cost pressures, and large local funding gaps. The committee also heard a brief overview of the school facilities proposal, which continues $1.5 billion in Proposition 2 bond funding for the School Facility Program; OPSC reported significant remaining bond authority but also substantial pending demand, and explained that natural disaster school rebuilding draws from the broader new construction and modernization pools. Finally, the committee reviewed Commission on Teacher Credentialing proposals, including the already-funded $300 million Student Teacher Stipend Program, new state operations resources for misconduct investigations and grant administration, and a $250 million one-time continuation of the Teacher Residency Grant Program. CTC said its grants management system is ready and that it expects better data tracking; public testimony broadly supported the educator workforce investments and urged continued funding for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and additional support for rural and leadership pipeline programs. No votes were taken, and the hearing adjourned after public testimony.