Transcript Highlights:

• a member, and I'm very glad to be on the special education committee.
• funding gap where there are not enough special education funds, and then general education funds have
• of Administrators of Special Education.
• Linda is a retired educator and administrator who serves as an educational advocate for families across
• We have to fully fund special education.

Keywords: special education, funding gap, dyslexia, House Bill 2, Senate Bill 568, House Bill 3928, disability penalty

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on special education funding, with significant discussions around House Bill 2 (HB2), Senate Bill 568 (SB568), and House Bill 3928 (HB3928). Key speakers advocated for increased funding to close the estimated $1.7 billion annual gap that affects special education in Texas public schools. Several witnesses, including educators and students affected by dyslexia, provided personal testimonies about the impact of insufficient funding and the disability penalty, which penalizes schools financially for identifying students needing special education services. The committee demonstrated a strong commitment to advocate for changes that would improve special education resources and training for teachers, thereby ensuring that all Texas children receive the educational support they need to thrive.

Transcript Highlights:

• We learned today in the education finance committee that federal funding on education is mainly through
• We learned today in the education finance committee that federal funding on education is mainly through
• now we learned today in the education now we learned today in the education finance<00:03:46.519
• For education?
• Department of Education?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: Minnesota Senate Democrats held an education finance press conference focused on concerns that the Trump administration may dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and freeze or reduce federal education funding. Speakers said such actions could jeopardize Title I, special education, English learner, school meal, transportation, and other programs, and noted that federal education aid is often reimbursed after districts have already spent the money. They argued that even a 10% cut would amount to roughly $1 billion and could leave districts unable to cover costs they have already incurred. Several speakers also raised concerns about broader federal actions, including school vouchers, curriculum restrictions, and access to student and Treasury data by Elon Musk and others, warning about privacy and the possible targeting of DEI, ethnic studies, truth-and-history curriculum, and efforts to recruit and retain teachers of color. They said the instability makes it impossible for districts to plan budgets and maintain staffing, and that the harm is already being felt through frozen aid and other disruptions. The speakers criticized Republican colleagues for downplaying the threat and said Republicans were inconsistent because they had recently highlighted teacher shortages and school infrastructure needs while now minimizing potential cuts. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the press conference; the event was a call for public pressure on Republican lawmakers to oppose the federal changes and protect Minnesota schools and students.

Transcript Highlights:

• House File 6 covers several of the education priorities of the House Republican caucus for education.
• House File 6 covers several of the education priorities of the House Republican caucus for education.
• Omnibus chapter 55, the 2024 Education Policy Omnibus chapter 109, the 2024 Education Finance chapter
• Omnibus chapter 55, the 2024 Education Policy Omnibus chapter 109, the 2024 Education Finance chapter
• > 2024<00:05:01.000> education<00:05:01.880> Finance chapter 109 the 2024 education

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard presentation on House File 6, an education omnibus-style bill advanced by Representative Peggy Bennett and other Republican members. Bennett said the bill reflects caucus priorities around literacy, parental engagement, local control, and school flexibility. She described three articles: Article 1 on revisions to the READ Act and the science of reading; Article 2 on education innovation and parent-friendly school information; and Article 3 on funding flexibility and temporary relief from several new mandates enacted in recent biennia. On Article 3, Bennett said school boards would be allowed to transfer certain funds and delay implementation of specified mandates through the 2028-29 school year, including provisions tied to recent early childhood and education omnibus laws as well as paid family and medical leave and earned sick and safe time. She framed this as giving districts time to implement requirements carefully and with fidelity, and said such decisions would be made by local school boards in public meetings. She also argued the bill would reduce the burden of new mandates and preserve local decision-making. Representative Mueller then presented Article 1, saying it strengthens the state’s commitment to the science of reading, ends the Department of Education’s partnership with CAREI, repeals some 2024 requirements she said were ideological, and restores expectations for teacher preparation and assessment. Representative Bakeberg presented Article 2, which would require a more user-friendly school performance report, consolidate certain innovation-related programs into a new chapter, and replace the Department’s equity/diversity/inclusion center with an Office of Achievement and Innovation focused on academic achievement. He said the office’s guidance would be advisory only and that local districts would retain final authority. The chair then laid House File 6 over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill and further consideration at a later date.

Transcript Highlights:

• before, education budgets.
• My master's is in educational leadership and completing my doctor in educational leadership higher ed
• before, education budgets.
• But the State Board of Education, of course. Education local funds are very important to education.
• Department of Education.

Summary: The committee held its first meeting and received an overview of the Pre-K-12 education appropriations jurisdiction and base budget. Staff explained that education funding is driven largely by enrollment and per-student formulas, with most money coming from state and local sources. The presentation highlighted the major budget areas: early learning, the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP), non-FEFP K-12 programs, federal programs, and the State Board of Education. Members asked about instructional materials funding and how scholarship students who return to public schools are counted and funded; staff explained that instructional materials remain in the base and that funding depends on survey timing, with districts ultimately funded through the enrollment count process. The committee then reviewed federal IDEA funding for students with disabilities. Department of Education officials explained how IDEA Part B funds are split between state set-asides and local educational agencies, and noted that Florida ranked fourth nationally in total IDEA Part B funding and received a 95% state determination for meeting IDEA requirements. They also described the bureau’s responsibilities, including monitoring, dispute resolution, instructional support, and the Hope Florida unit for ages 3 to 5. Members asked for more information on student performance outcomes and how the state measures success beyond compliance, and the department agreed to provide follow-up data. The final major topic was the Florida Diagnostic and Learning Resources System (FDLRS), including associate centers, multidisciplinary centers, and specialized centers for deaf/hard of hearing and visually impaired students. Presenters described services such as child find, family support, assessments, professional learning, accessible instructional materials, and technical assistance. Committee members focused on whether families and schools have equal access to services across the state, how IEP disputes and reevaluations are handled, and whether more support is needed for parents, teachers, and rural districts. FDLRS representatives said they do not write IEPs but help connect families to districts, provide training and assessments, and support compliance and data collection; they also emphasized staffing and resource needs, especially for low-incidence disabilities and multilingual family outreach.

Transcript Highlights:

• share of special education costs. share of special education costs.
• special education in private schools. special education in private schools.
• or how to invest in special education. or how to invest in special education.
• education that's going to be impacted. education that's going to be impacted.
• funding educational bill um educational funding educational bill um educational funding hostage.<

Bills: HF3490, HF4040

Keywords: education finance, scholarship-granting organizations, charitable purposes, student scholarships, nonpublic schools, K-12 education, tax credit, advance payment, Minnesota tax law, child education expenses, taxpayer assistance, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• the educators.
• So, we would like to, you're looking for solutions here, educate the education.
• Now educating the educator—that needs to happen because... ...the educator, that needs to happen because
• Educate us. Help educate our tribal leaders.
• Educate us. Help educate our tribal leaders. seats. Educate us.

Summary: The Select Committee on Native American Affairs held a historic hearing at Table Mountain Rancheria focused on tribal education, culture, resilience, leadership, and trust. The opening prayer and remarks emphasized the significance of holding the first committee hearing on tribal land. Members said the hearing was intended both to hear testimony about ongoing problems in schools and to identify next steps for legislation and policy, especially as the session neared its end. The committee also referenced recent efforts supporting Native students’ right to wear regalia at graduation and broader concerns about representation in education and state institutions. The first panel centered on Native students’ experiences in public schools. Bella Garcia described a two-year fight with Clovis Unified over wearing tribal regalia at graduation, including a restrictive approval form and administrators who she said denied Native identity and made her feel invisible. Morningstar Ghali connected those experiences to the legacy of boarding schools, racial profiling, suspensions, and the “boarding school to prison pipeline,” and called for culturally responsive education, Native educators, counselors, Native studies, and restorative justice. Janet K. Bill, from the Attorney General’s Office of Native American Affairs, described her own path from tribal Head Start to Stanford, law school, tribal council, and state service, and said education, justice, and sovereignty are linked. Members asked about restorative justice, representation, and how to build pipelines into leadership and education roles. The second panel focused on solutions. Chairwoman Michelle Heredia Cordova urged a reimagined education system that is more personalized, experiential, culturally grounded, and balanced with land-based learning, while also recruiting Native teachers and creating stronger tribal partnerships. Chairman Leo Sisku said schools should educate educators, stop tokenizing Native students, and create accountability and consequences for discriminatory behavior; he also supported stronger tribal-school partnerships and more positive outreach. Chairman Fred Bean emphasized consistent engagement from tribal leaders at every level of schooling, stronger transitions from elementary to college, and programs that prepare Native youth for leadership, trades, and higher education. Chairman Shaineto of Tule River argued that schools and administrators should face consequences for violating Native students’ rights, and that Native people should not have to keep educating institutions about basic cultural respect. Committee members responded by discussing possible statewide solutions, including regional tribal boards, better enforcement of existing laws, stronger pipelines into teaching and leadership, and improved representation on boards and in state agencies. Several members raised the need to implement existing laws, fill vacant Native appointments, and consider broader protections for Native regalia and cultural expression. No formal vote was taken in the transcript, but the hearing concluded with a clear call for continued collaboration, accountability, and legislation driven by Native voices.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm education funding. reassure them. I'm education funding.
• special education. special education.
• . education. education.
• agency's<03:39:47.200> cost The local educ education agency's cost The local educ education
• . education. education.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We've got the Division of Educator Support and Higher Education, so Steve Appelby is right behind me
• Support and Higher Education.
• State Board of Education.
• So those are the licensing fees that the educators pay. Educators pay? Yes, thank you.
• Education the Department of Education Education the Department of Education calculates<02:39:26.080

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division II committee heard a Department of Education budget presentation from Commissioner Frank Edelblut and CFO Tammy Valen-cour. The department outlined its organizational structure and emphasized that it functions largely as a flow-through agency for school funding. The commissioner reviewed general fund and Education Trust Fund items, including state aid, dropout prevention, special education, building aid, lease aid, charter schools, Education Freedom Accounts, and the district adequacy calculation. He also highlighted the public school infrastructure fund, saying the state has invested well over $50 million in school safety since 2018 for measures such as access controls, locks, and window film, and argued that safety spending should be ongoing rather than reactive. Members asked about the variability in the school infrastructure line, special education aid, and the Discovery Education learning platform. Edelblut explained that some safety funding had come from one-time surplus appropriations rather than the agency line, and said special education aid was underappropriated because districts submitted more invoices than expected; he said the governor added $16 million to address the shortfall. He also described CTE renovation funding, noting four projects were initially proposed but only Jaffrey and Milford were still moving forward, with local votes required and the state covering 75% of costs. He said Milford’s project was omitted from the governor’s budget by oversight. The department also reviewed enrollment trends, noting public school enrollment has fallen from about 230,000 students in 2002 to about 185,000 today. Edelblut clarified that charter students are not eligible for Education Freedom Accounts, while EFA students attending non-public schools are counted as EFA students. He described several one-time surplus-funded initiatives, including Student Clearinghouse, MTSSB work, civics curriculum development, computer science education, and adult education. He also discussed a $4 million CTE tuition and transportation grant, saying it was kept as a competitive grant rather than a formula grant to avoid creating an ongoing maintenance-of-effort commitment that could jeopardize federal Perkins funding. In the final portion, Edelblut identified prioritized needs in the department’s budget, especially funding for a state administrator for assessment to support the legislatively required civics assessment, and additional support for the Discovery Education platform. He said every school in the state is using the platform and cited more than 1.5 million educator engagements, while a member raised concerns about mixed reviews and uneven district awareness of the program. No votes or formal actions were taken during the presentation and question period.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill also seeks to ensure that money appropriated for public education is used for public education
• Educational agencies.
• I'm with Educators for Excellence, and I'm an educator in high school, and I support AB 1454.
• I'm with Educators for Excellence, and I'm an educator in high school, and I support AB 1454.
• I spent over 20 years teaching in special education and English learner education.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee heard AB 84, a charter school accountability measure focused on non-classroom-based charter schools and fraud prevention. The author and supporters said the bill was intended to respond to the A3 charter fraud case and related scandals by strengthening audits, transparency, authorizer oversight, and funding determination rules, while ensuring public education dollars are used for public education. Supporters included FCMAT, CSEA, CTA, and CSBA, who argued the bill would improve oversight and protect taxpayers. Opponents, including the California Charter Schools Association, Green Dot, many charter parents, educators, and charter operators, said the bill was too broad, would impose major new costs and bureaucracy on all charter schools, and could reduce options for families, especially those using flexible, homeschool, or special-needs charter programs. After extensive testimony and committee discussion, the bill passed on a 5-1 vote and was sent to Appropriations, with the item left open for additional votes. The committee then approved a consent calendar of 11 education bills, including AB 542, AB 563, AB 731, AB 753, AB 784, AB 964, AB 988, AB 1034, AB 1233, AB 1255, and AB 1381, all moving to Appropriations. The consent calendar passed unanimously. Later, the committee heard AB 1454, a literacy and reading instruction bill authored by Assembly Members Rubio and Revis. The bill would require the state to create professional development resources for evidence-based literacy instruction, update English language arts and English language development instructional materials, and revise administrator preparation standards to include literacy training. The authors and a broad coalition of supporters, including CTA, EdVoice, Families in Schools, Decoding Dyslexia, school administrators, and parent advocates, described the measure as a compromise aimed at improving reading outcomes and addressing California’s literacy crisis. There was no opposition testimony at the hearing, and members voiced strong support for the bill and its collaborative approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• education in Texas.
• than those who are educators or experts in their field in education.
• Make Texas higher education thrive.
• Without liberal arts classes, my education and my peers' education will suffer.
• As well as in higher education, and we know that in public education in particular, we have concerns.

Bills: SB 37

Keywords: fetal development, education, public health curriculum, middle school, age-appropriate instruction, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This includes providing higher education for our members who often return home with skills and education
• The primary reason: they want to become educators, because to be an educator, you have to have a master's
• The Bureau oversees private postsecondary education, making sure these programs meet minimum educational
• in the Education Code.
• Noncredit education is adult-serving, short-term education providing anyone with high-quality, cost-free

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee met with a quorum and first approved a consent calendar containing AB 341, AB 1098, and AB 1316, sending those measures to the Human Services, Judiciary, and Appropriations Committees respectively. The committee then heard AB 977, which would require CSU to audit surplus land and work with California tribes to identify three regional burial sites for Native American remains that cannot yet be repatriated. Supporters, including tribal leaders and archaeology groups, said the bill is needed to honor ancestors and address the large number of remains still held by CSU; CSU said it is committed to repatriation but had no formal position. The bill passed to Appropriations on a 5-0 vote. Members also heard AB 1093, creating a California-Mexico higher education exchange program, and AB 1035, expanding the California College Promise to cover tuition for students pursuing community college bachelor’s degrees. AB 1093 drew support for strengthening cross-border educational and economic ties, but some members raised concerns about border-region sewage problems and the bill’s budget implications; it was held for later consideration. AB 1035 received strong support from community college leaders and faculty who said it would help low-income and first-generation students complete workforce-focused bachelor’s degrees, but several members questioned whether it would stretch Prop. 98 funding and whether the state should prioritize broader affordability concerns. AB 1035 passed to Appropriations on a 3-2 vote. The committee next approved AB 922, which would let the University of California keep access to federal criminal-history information for hiring background checks, avoiding delays and added costs if statutory authority is required. UC said the bill is needed to maintain safety and hiring operations, and it passed to Public Safety on a 5-0 vote. AB 1346, protecting military dependents from losing in-state residency status because of family travel, also passed unanimously to Military and Veterans Affairs. AB 1212, allowing UC to use low-income housing tax credits to build affordable housing for faculty and staff on UC land, drew support from UC and labor groups but opposition from members concerned about preferential access to public resources; it was held for later action. Finally, the committee approved AB 500 and AB 684, both aimed at increasing transparency around UC admissions policy changes and UC BOARS decision-making, sending AB 500 to Education and AB 684 to Governmental Organization, each on 5-0 votes. The hearing then moved on to AB 1122 on dual enrollment, with the author and witnesses presenting the bill as a way to expand college access for high school students.

Transcript Highlights:

• . education. education.
• > adequacy education excuse me educational adequacy education excuse me educational adequacy system
• of an educate education. of an educate education.
• . education. education.
• public education? public education?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Whether it's in the public higher education space, K through 12 education, the MBTA, regional public
• Whether it's in the public higher education space, K through 12 education, the MBTA, regional public
• and education. in front of us to make thoughtful investments that support education and transportation
• Patrick Tukwil, Secretary of Education.
• So that we're not just educating for the sake of educating, but that we're actually creating synergy

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 55, the governor’s FY25 supplemental budget proposal to spend about $1.3 billion in surplus Fair Share revenue. House and Senate chairs framed the bill as a one-time opportunity to invest fairly in education and transportation, while also noting the need to protect the state’s long-term fiscal balance. Administration officials said the proposal should be considered alongside the FY26 budget and related bills, since the governor’s broader Fair Share plan aims for roughly an even split between education and transportation over time. Secretary of Administration and Finance Matthew Gorzkowicz, Transportation Secretary Monica Tibbits-Nutt, and Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler outlined the administration’s priorities. Transportation funding would go mainly to the MBTA and related reserves, including money for the Federal Transit Administration reserve, MBTA stabilization reserve, low-income fares, winter resilience, RTA workforce support, MassDOT workforce and project delivery, and micro-transit grants. Education funding would support universal preschool expansion, early education and care capacity, early literacy tutoring, adult basic education and ESOL, early college and career technical education, MyCAP expansion, and special education circuit breaker funding. The administration emphasized that many of these investments are one-time or multi-year measures designed to address current needs without creating unsustainable recurring costs. Committee members raised concerns about regional equity, especially the large share of transportation money going to the MBTA versus regional transit authorities and rural areas. Several members asked for more detail on how the proposal would benefit Western Massachusetts and other non-MBTA regions, and whether micro-transit and Chapter 90-related investments would be sufficient. Education questions focused on special education reimbursement shortfalls, federal funding cuts to school districts, and how CTE and vocational investments would align students with workforce needs. The administration said it would provide additional data on MBTA versus RTA investment and explained that the special education circuit breaker and transportation reimbursement changes were intended to improve predictability and relief for districts. After the administration panel, Jessica Tang of AFT Massachusetts testified in support of using Fair Share funds to protect public education amid federal uncertainty and cuts. She argued that schools are facing a fiscal cliff, that vulnerable students would be hit hardest by funding losses, and that the Fair Share revenue should be used to preserve services and support students’ needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• of the California Department of Education.
• I also serve as president of California Virtual Educators United representing over 1,100 educators across
• Christopher Anderson 25-year educator in career tech education president of Stockton Teachers Association
• Equitable education funding is about outcomes.
• Department of Education.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• colors educators of Minnesota educator colors educators of color<00:15:16.880> grants<00:15:17.440
• expenses for the special education paras to special education aid.
• expenses for the special education paras to special education aid.
• expenses for the special education paras to special education aid.
• investments in education last bianium. investments in education last bianium.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of Higher Education.
• of Higher Education.
• to working together to keep educ to working together to keep educ education<00:46:38.640> strong
• Thank you. educate. With this decision, Minnesota educate.
• Education Minnesota is facing an educator shortage crisis due to the chronic underfunding of public education

Bills: HF1388

Keywords: BARR Center, Building Assets, Reducing Risks, education finance, school funding, grant appropriation, evidence-based program, student achievement, social and emotional learning, school climate, teacher effectiveness, high school graduation, students in poverty, students of color, BIPOC, equity in education, Minnesota Department of Education, urban schools, suburban schools, rural schools, school coaching

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill also seeks to ensure that money appropriated for public education is used for public education
• Equity in education. Equity in education for all. Alina McLean.
• I'm with Educators for Excellence and I'm an educator in high school and I support AB 1454.
• and special education.
• I spent over 20 years teaching in special education and English learner education.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Bruce Ayers, the House Vice Chair on the Education Committee.
• to educators and decision makers.
• Chair and former vice chair of education.
• This is educational justice.
• But by law, a person remains a school-aged child with a right to education, including special education

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a public hearing on a large slate of bills, with much of the testimony focused on school discipline and student equity. Bills discussed included measures to address inequities in suspension and expulsion, clarify school exclusion rules, reduce discipline for dress and grooming violations, and expand protections related to fair educational practices. Committee members repeatedly reminded witnesses of the two-minute limit and asked for written testimony to supplement oral remarks. A substantial portion of the hearing centered on the RAISE Act and related school discipline bills, including H. 730/S. 376 and H. 731/S. 380. Testifiers from advocacy groups, legal services, and the legislature argued that exclusionary discipline disproportionately affects Black and Latino students, students with disabilities, low-income students, and DCF-involved youth. They said current law is overly broad or unclear in areas such as “assault on educational staff,” indefinite suspensions tied to felony complaints, and definitions of weapons, leading to unnecessary removals from school. Supporters said the bills would add due process, clearer definitions, and better accountability, while one legislator testified in support of the discipline reforms and opposed several other bills on the agenda. The committee also heard testimony on H. 576/S. 368, which would prohibit suspensions and expulsions for dress and grooming violations and require clearer, non-discriminatory dress code policies. Witnesses cited research and personal stories about disproportionate enforcement against Black girls, girls of color, non-binary students, and students wearing religious attire, and said the bill would prevent physical contact used to enforce dress codes. Another major topic was H. 641/S. 349, which would add “special medical status” protections in education; supporters said it would prevent exclusion based on medical decisions or conditions, though members questioned how it would interact with existing disability law and vaccination-related school requirements. The committee also heard testimony on H. 625, which would extend the ban on corporal punishment from public to private schools, with witnesses citing research on harm and disproportionate impact. Additional testimony covered bills on accelerated learning and gifted education, with parents, educators, and advocates saying Massachusetts under-identifies advanced learners and lacks adequate acceleration pathways. A senator also testified for S. 406 on recovery high schools, saying the funding formula should be updated to better support students in recovery. No votes were taken during the hearing; the chair closed testimony on several bill groups and noted that written testimony would remain open for a week.

Transcript Highlights:

• Department of Education.
• Jacob Oliva, Department of Education. Stacey Smith, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education.
• to receive an adequate education.
• Then we have educators.
• the components of an adequate education, and evaluating the costs of an adequate education.

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the prior minutes and then shifted to an update from Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith on early childhood education, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. They said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ABC as a large state program with about 23,800 funded slots and roughly $114 million in annual appropriations. Department officials said they are reviewing slot allocations because about 1,000 seats are funded but unfilled, while more than 2,000 families are on waiting lists, and they plan to reduce or reallocate slots from providers that have not filled them over several years. They also said they are examining whether income thresholds, curriculum expectations, daily rates, and summer programming should be updated, and members raised concerns about access, local control, transportation, and whether the program should better align with K-12 choice and school readiness goals. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical data and other information for future discussion. The committee then received a legal presentation from BLR attorney Taylor Lloyd on the constitutional and statutory framework for education adequacy in Arkansas. She reviewed the Dupree and Lake View cases, explaining that the state must maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools, and that adequacy and equity are distinct but related concepts. She emphasized that the General Assembly is responsible for defining adequacy, studying whether the system meets that standard, and reacting to the evidence, while the courts ultimately decide constitutional compliance. Lloyd also explained the current adequacy definition, the role of the matrix as a funding tool rather than a spending mandate, and the distinction between unrestricted foundation funding and restricted categorical funding. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum followed with a historical overview of how Arkansas responded to the court cases and developed the current adequacy process. She traced major legislative actions from the 1980s through the Lake View litigation, including the creation of funding formulas, categorical aid, isolated funding, declining enrollment funding, and the 2003-2004 adequacy study that led to the Continuing Adequacy Evaluation Act and the matrix used to set foundation funding. She also described later changes to the adequacy statute, the financial reporting requirements for districts, and the ongoing use of surveys, stakeholder testimony, and consultant studies in the biennial adequacy process. Members asked questions about whether private or homeschool programs could use public funds for expenses like utilities, whether stakeholders should include those groups, the difference between average daily membership and attendance, and whether school board members are surveyed; staff said those issues would need further research or were outside the scope of the presenters’ role.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um, I believe that the education fund as a whole is non-APS, and these monies come from the education
• into regular education special education into regular education is<00:40:05.640> a<00:40:05.880
• higher education.
• > education stipulates the higher education stipulates the higher education institutions<03:26:34.439
• policy education funding or education policy education funding or education policy committee<03:

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard HB 295, which would make school building aid funds non-lapsing/non-APS. Representative Cahill said the bill was intended to keep any unused building aid money available for future projects, potentially helping move projects up the priority list or provide a little more funding for school construction. Members asked about how much money has lapsed in past years, whether the education trust fund and building aid are separate, and whether any lapsing dollars could be used to pay down debt. Department of Education official Jim Carney said about $29.1 million would be available if building aid is funded to the $50 million maximum in FY26, confirmed that the fund currently lapses, and said the department would gather historical lapse data. Committee members also discussed whether a dedicated fund structure could achieve the same goal, and the chair noted that the education trust fund statute includes school building aid as one of its uses. No vote was taken; the hearing was closed and the committee said it would later hold a work session after receiving more information. The committee then took up HB 237, introduced by Representative Dan McGuire, which would prohibit the use of special education state funds and differentiated aid for students not receiving special education services. The New Hampshire School Boards Association, through Becky Wilson, opposed the bill as written, saying it was unclear, potentially unnecessary, and difficult to implement because adequacy and differentiated aid are distributed as part of a districtwide lump sum rather than as student-specific dollars. She explained that special education costs are embedded across district budgets, including staffing, training, transportation, and instruction, and that some staff and services benefit both special education and general education students. Wilson also said differentiated aid is not tied to a specific pupil and is used at the district’s discretion, though it is intended to support students with greater needs. Committee members pressed on whether the bill would require districts to track money by individual student, whether it could conflict with federal special education law, and whether it would affect least restrictive environment requirements. Wilson said making the funds student-specific could create privacy and accounting problems and could make it difficult to staff inclusive classrooms, though she did not give a definitive legal opinion on federal compliance. She agreed that students who are not eligible for special education would not be included in the separate catastrophic/special education aid reimbursement program. The discussion continued into the second section of the bill, with members exploring how adequacy aid and differentiated aid are used in practice, but no action was taken during the portion provided.