Transcript Highlights:

• schools based on the performance of their schools.
• , the Nevada School Performance Framework, or District Performance Framework.
• system under the NSPF, our existing school performance framework.
• There's also requirements for schools, districts, and charter schools that are working on performance
• In Section 20.5, specifically, if a school district is low-performing or underperforming, and a school

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• DISTRICTS THOSE PROGRAMS WILL BE THE ASSISTANCE TO LOW PERFORMING SCHOOLS, SCHOOL DISTRICT EDUCATION
• WE LOOK AT OUR LOWEST PERFORMING SCHOOLS AND THOSE SCHOOLS ARE SCHOOLS THAT EITHER EARNED A FIRST TIME
• THE BUREAU OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ALSO HELPS ASSISTING IS LOW PERFORMING SCHOOLS AND ACTIVELY PROVIDES
• THOSE LOW PERFORMING SCHOOLS BUT ALSO ANOTHER PART OF OUR WORK IS TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY SCHOOL THAT
• FORWARD, KEEPING SCHOOLS OUT OF TURNAROUND STATUS AND MAINTAINING HIGH-PERFORMING SCHOOLS.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We perform financial audits of colleges, universities, and district school boards.
• resource officers prior to them performing work for the school district.
• And these type of audits, these charter school audits, these are not performed by our office.
• We are the, we receive all the charter school audit reports from, they are performed by external CPAs
• audits, these charter school audits, these are not performed by our office.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Auditing Committee received a presentation from Auditor General staff on recurring findings from audits of district school boards, colleges, and universities. For school districts, the main issues discussed included missing or outdated safe-school officer training documentation, weak purchasing-card controls, vendor banking-change fraud risks, incomplete background screenings and disqualification-list procedures, missing website budget disclosures, excessive or untimely IT access, late deactivation of former employees’ access, missed emergency drill deadlines, inaccurate capital outlay and resiliency education records, weak tangible property inventories, adult education reporting errors, untimely bank reconciliations, and improper use of workforce development funds. The auditors said many of these issues are repeated from prior years and are summarized in their annual report on significant findings and financial trends. For universities and colleges, the auditors highlighted similar control weaknesses, including vendor information change controls, IT access issues, cash and investment reconciliation problems, purchasing and procurement deficiencies, personnel and compensation issues, and student fee compliance concerns. Specific examples included a UF consulting contract totaling about $6 million, FAU underreporting carry-forward balances by about $77 million, UCF’s payment loss of about $107,000 from an email scam tied to vendor changes, and a North Florida College unauthorized transfer involving a few hundred thousand dollars. The committee asked questions about the UF consulting work, the FAU carry-forward issue, and whether the listed findings meant every named entity had every issue; auditors clarified that the lists reflected entities with findings in those categories, not necessarily each specific problem. The committee then turned to enforcement for entities with long-standing uncorrected audit findings. Staff reported 144 entities with 197 findings repeated in three or more successive audit reports and recommended sending letters requesting updated corrective-action status, including for late-filed 2022-2023 reports where appropriate. The committee approved the staff recommendation and directed letters to be sent. The meeting ended with members emphasizing the importance of audit oversight and taxpayer accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• Through our work on the school safety special audits and other school district performance audits that
• Presentation of fiscal years 2027 and 28 school district performance audit schedule. of fiscal year's
• 2027 and 2028 school district performance audit schedule.
• School District performance audits assess districts operational efficiency and effect A.
• In total, we randomly selected 26 school districts and C-TEDs for performance audit during the fiscal

Summary: The committee first heard an update on Topok Elementary School District’s long-running noncompliance with Arizona’s Uniform System of Financial Records. The Auditor General’s office explained the USFR noncompliance process and reported that Topok had made substantial progress, correcting many deficiencies in areas such as open meeting law, procurement, payroll, attendance reporting, property control, and information technology. The district’s superintendent and staff described the corrective actions they had taken, the use of outside consultants, and their plan to maintain compliance through stronger leadership, training, and consistent procedures. Members praised the district’s progress and asked about the remaining deficiencies and the status of the 3% state-aid withholding, which the Auditor General said would be addressed by the State Board of Education. The committee then considered a request for a fourth school safety special audit, tied to concerns raised by Representative Martinez about Phoenix Union High School District and school violence response practices. The Auditor General said the proposed audit would be a new topic focused on policies and procedures for responding to credible threats of violence and allegations of staff misconduct affecting student safety, and could include Phoenix Union in the sample. Representative Martinez described a fatal 2024 shooting, weapons incidents, and concerns about district oversight. The committee approved the motion 10-0. Next, staff presented the fiscal years 2027-2028 school district performance audit schedule, describing 26 randomly selected school districts and career and technical education districts, plus 84 planned follow-ups. The Auditor General said the schedule is intended to shorten the average time between audits and that the school audits division is now fully staffed. Members asked about county coverage and the inclusion of ESA accountability, but the schedule was ultimately presented for review rather than approval. The committee also heard a detailed federal compliance audit presentation on the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administered by DES. The Auditor General reported repeated findings involving missing provider documentation, questioned costs, and FFATA reporting errors, including a 2024 sample that led to questioning $2.88 million in costs. The office recommended stronger documentation, record retention, reporting procedures, and staff training; DES concurred and said it would correct the findings in 2026. Members discussed the limits of the single-audit scope, the possibility of a broader special audit, and the federal government’s recent actions on CCDF oversight in other states. Finally, the committee considered and discussed a special audit request for CCDF that would broaden review to provider oversight, licensing, site visits, and billing accuracy across multiple state agencies, with estimated costs of $547,000 to $625,000 and a projected report date of July 31, 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• boards, and charter schools.
• a couple performance audits.
• In addition to financial, operational, and performance audits, we perform attestation engagements.
• a couple performance audits.
• In addition to financial, operational, and performance audits, we perform attestation engagements.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Auditing Committee met to receive annual overviews of its oversight responsibilities and the work of the Auditor General and OPAGA. Committee staff reviewed the committee’s authority over state and local governments, enforcement of audit-report filing requirements, repeated audit findings, Transparency Florida reporting, and lobbying compensation audits. Auditor General Cheryl Norman described her office’s independence, audit standards, quality control, and major audit areas, including the state’s annual financial and single audits, school district and university audits, operational and performance audits, and attestation work. She also noted staffing shortages, recruitment efforts, and a request for carry-forward funds to study salaries. Members asked about whether audits can quantify recoverable dollars, how school district spending comparisons are handled, and how to raise concerns about DCF-related audits or a local city audit that has been pending for years. Norman said her office can quantify findings when possible, sometimes compares costs across districts in operational audits, and that members can bring specific concerns to the appropriate deputy auditor general or the committee. She also explained that citizen or local-government audit requests may require payment of audit costs. OPAGA Coordinator Kara Collins-Gomez outlined OPAGA’s role as a legislative research unit that conducts studies directed by law, the presiding officers, or the committee, and described its policy areas, methodologies, contract monitoring, and recurring statutory reports. Deputy Auditor General Matthew Tracy explained how to read operational audit reports, including findings, criteria, condition, cause, effect, recommendations, and management responses. Deputy Auditor General Greg Senators explained financial audit reports, including audit opinions, required supplementary information, internal control and compliance findings, federal program compliance, and management letters. The meeting concluded with thanks to the presenters and a motion to adjourn, which passed without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• and have the resources to perform at their maximum.
• We have six schools in the top 100.
• We have six schools in the top 100.
• So these classifications are how we compare our schools to similar schools nationwide.
• Is it kind of capped per school?

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education received a presentation from Tim Jones, Senior Vice Chancellor and CFO for the State University System of Florida, on the system’s funding methodology, budget structure, tuition, and performance-based funding. He outlined the system’s scale, including 12 universities, more than 430,000 students taking classes, about 78,000 employees, and a roughly $20 billion operating budget. He also reviewed tuition levels, noting Florida’s low resident undergraduate tuition, the lack of tuition increases since 2013, and the distinction between state-set resident tuition and Board of Governors authority over other tuition categories. Jones described several funding components, including performance funding, preeminence funding, faculty recruitment and retention programs, universities of distinction, nursing pipeline and matching programs, and operational enhancements. He explained that performance funding is based on a 100-point model tied to retention, graduation, employment, and other metrics, with student success plans required if scores decline or fall below 70 points. He said the current performance funding allocation is $350 million and the legislative budget request seeks $400 million. He also said the new SUS 30 strategic plan will lead to updates in the performance metrics and benchmarks, with some changes possibly phased in over time. Senators asked questions about how the new strategic plan will affect future scoring, how long universities have to improve after declining scores, and how out-of-state enrollment and tuition are handled. Jones said universities will be evaluated on the current metrics for the upcoming budget cycle, while the new plan’s changes will be developed later and may include glide paths. He also said there is no statutory cap on nonresident students, though the Board of Governors has a 10% systemwide guideline under discussion, and that graduate out-of-state tuition varies by program and requires institutional and Board of Governors approval. No votes were taken, no public testimony was offered, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• In terms of um the academic performance framework, there are three that our schools uh perform on.
• > any<00:25:50.240> given the schools are performing at any given the schools are performing
• Do is a high performing charter school.
• >> So all the low performing schools are Title I schools. >> The lowest performing schools are...
• ready to learn. performing schools oftent times um performing schools oftent times um community<02:36

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And we're holding the schools that the student.
• So I think we'll see some schools having maybe some dramatic changes in specific metrics, and those schools
• And it leads the country in higher education reforms and performance because of the performance-based
• Grants and contracts are highly concentrated at schools with medical schools.
• performance-based funding.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education met to hear two presentations focused on the state university system: an update from the Board of Governors on performance-based funding and a state university efficiency study from Ben Watkins of the Division of Bond Finance. Chair Harrell emphasized accountability, maintaining Florida’s top-ranked higher education system, and getting the best return on state investment. A quorum was present, with several senators excused and one arriving later in the meeting. Sarah Donaghi outlined changes to the performance-based funding model. She said the current model will be used for 2026-27 funding, with only minor benchmark changes for metrics tied to programs of strategic emphasis, reflecting a statutory review that reduced the list of designated programs from about 800 to about 200. She also described a new “PBF 2.0” framework approved by the Board of Governors for implementation in 2027-28 funding, which will combine excellence and improvement measures, update benchmarks to the SUS 2030 strategic plan, reduce “layups” where many schools score perfect tens, expand the affordability metric to include students without loans, remove SUS transfer students from certain graduation metrics, and create a new transfer-student outcome metric. The board will run the new model alongside the current one before using it for funding, and no funding changes will occur this year. Watkins presented findings from an eight-month efficiency study ordered by executive order. Using audited financial data, student outcome data, and personnel data, he concluded that Florida’s universities provide strong value because of low tuition, rising degree production, and improved job placement and earnings outcomes. He said tuition remains the lowest in the country and that state support has increased, while per-student spending has also risen, driven largely by payroll costs. He argued that universities should operate more like business enterprises, with more granular budgeting, clearer financial reporting, and efficiency metrics such as operating expense per student and cost per degree, and he recommended that such measures be incorporated into performance funding and board oversight. Committee members asked about national comparisons, data transparency, payroll growth, admissions selectivity, and whether legislation should require more detailed institutional reporting. The meeting ended with no public comment and adjournment after Senator Bracey Davis moved to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• People call our performance system. People call our performance funding. We produce outcomes.
• People call our performance system.
• There was no way I believed that small schools could actually, even if they performed at a high level
• go into the performance fund. go into the performance fund. >> Right. >> Right.
• performance funding work group. Yeah. performance funding work group. Yeah.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee met for its fifth and final Interim Joint Budget Review Subcommittee on Education meeting, but did not initially have a quorum and approved the minutes later when enough members were present. The Council on Postsecondary Education, represented by President Aaron Thompson and Vice President Bill Payne, opened with condolences for the UPS crash victims and then presented higher education budget recommendations for the 2026-2028 biennium. Thompson emphasized the return on investment from state support for higher education, citing gains in retention, enrollment, persistence, graduation, reduced time to degree, lower student debt, and expanded dual credit participation, while noting that affordability and access remain priorities. Payne outlined CPE’s operating funds request, including $43.3 million in the first year and $86.6 million in the second year for inflation adjustments, plus $30 million and $45 million for performance funding. He said the inflation request would apply across the board to institutions to offset rising costs, and that the KSU land grant match would not need additional funding because the state has already met the matching requirement. He also explained that state support for educating students has not kept pace with inflation over time, creating pressure on institutional budgets and tuition, though tuition increases have been held to historic lows in recent years. A major portion of the discussion focused on the performance funding model and how it affects smaller institutions. CPE proposed two approaches to address institutions that have received little or no performance funding, especially Kentucky State University and Morehead State University. The first approach would create a $20 million minimum distribution pool, providing $1.95 million to each university and $4.4 million to KCTCS, with the goal of giving smaller and rural institutions a base level of support. The second approach would provide direct appropriations totaling a little over $5.6 million to Kentucky State, Morehead State, and five community colleges that have not been receiving performance funding. Members, especially Representative Tipton and Senator West, questioned how the model had treated small schools over time, and CPE officials explained that the original small school adjustment was not large enough to prevent KSU and Morehead from effectively being left out of the distribution. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Through our work on the school safety special audits and other school district performance audits that
• Through our work on the school safety special audits and other school district performance audits that
• Presentation of fiscal years 2027 and 2028 school district performance audit schedule.
• School district performance audits assess districts' operational efficiency and effectiveness and School
• In total, we randomly selected 26 school districts and C-TECs for performance audit during the fiscal

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Virtual schools in general perform more poorly.
• , and another for PED to develop a performance standard framework specific to virtual schools and revoke
• to cut off schools that are non-performing.
• performance evaluations on school districts.
• I mean, if school districts are not performing and charter schools are not performing, and the Public

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Today we have one performance audit by the state auditor, which is evaluating how charter schools identify
• Today we have one performance audit by the state auditor, which is evaluating how charter schools identify
• So agenda item one is the audit work plan, and then we will hear the performance audit on charter school
• During the 2024-25 school year, there were 17 charter schools operating.
• by all the charter schools?

Summary: The committee meeting began with a brief explanation of the renamed Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee subcommittee, now called the Committee to Hear SAO Performance Audits, and a presentation from the State Auditor’s Office on its current biennium performance audit work plan. The auditor described how topics are selected from a large pool of potential audits and highlighted several ongoing or planned audits, including the Liquor and Cannabis Board, oversight of authorized entities serving students with disabilities, the Quality Home Care Initiative, Medicaid managed care versus fee-for-service costs, the Housing Commission tenant ownership follow-up, DSHS vendor payment patterns, implementation of the Since Time Memorial curriculum, and the Washington State ferry system. Members asked about coordination with JLARC to avoid duplication, and the auditor said the offices exchange work plans, monthly updates, and quarterly coordination meetings. The committee then heard the State Auditor’s performance audit on how charter schools identify and support at-risk students. Auditors reviewed four charter schools—Catalyst Public Schools, Innovation High School, Pinnacles Prep, and Rainier Prep—and focused on English language learners, homeless students, and special education students. The audit found the schools met nearly all legal requirements reviewed, with only one area where two schools partially met a language-access requirement. The schools also used several promising practices, including small-group instruction, culturally responsive environments, and multi-tiered systems of support, though the auditors recommended better documentation of procedures to improve consistency. Families interviewed generally reported positive experiences, while noting resource constraints. Committee members asked about how the four schools were selected, whether the audit compared charter populations to home districts, and how MTSS requirements applied to the schools reviewed. The State Auditor’s Office said the sample was chosen for geographic diversity, student population characteristics, and representation from both authorizers, and that K-2 MTSS requirements were not evaluated because they applied to only one school. Representatives from the Charter School Commission and charter school advocates responded positively, emphasizing technical assistance, collaboration, and sharing best practices across schools. Two public testifiers also supported the report and said it highlighted effective practices that could be expanded across charter and traditional public schools.

Transcript Highlights:

• ABOUT'S DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARDS, SOME OF THE FINDINGS RELATED TO SAFE SCHOOL OFFICERS.
• WORK FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
• WERE NOT PERFORMED AT ALL.
• AND THE LAST SCHOOL WAS PENSACOLA AND THAT RELATED TO NOT PERFORMING SCREENINGS FOR SOME OF THEIR EMPLOYEES
• WE RECEIVE ALL THE CHARTER SCHOOL AUDIT REPORTS PERFORMED BY EXTERNAL CPAS SO WE ARE PLACING THEIR REPORT

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Bills: HB1519, HB1541, HB1737, HB1782, HB1854, HB1860, HB2023, HB2104, HB2276, HB2335, HB2455, HB2468, HB2551, SB177, SB411, SB874, SB2053, SB2069, SB2108, SB2268, SB2360, SB2363, SB2405, SB2407, SB2530, SB2543, SB2568, SB2803, SB2818, SB2851, SB2907, SB2934, SB2969, SB2999, SB3097, SB3103, SB3233, SB3238, SB3245, SB3001, SB3138, HB1946, HB389, HB1510, HB469, HB1573, HB1705, HB1858, HB1875, HB1961, HB1962, HB2001, HB2093, HB2096, HB2097, SB888, SB2169, SB2367, SB2557, SB2575, SB2698, SB3082, HB344, HB939, HB1688, HB1853, HB2443, HCR103, HCR117, HCR180, HCR112, HCR18, HCR105, HCR173, HCR35, HCR98, HCR42, HCR53, HCR181, HCR101, HCR179

Keywords: campaign contributions, lobbyists, transparency, election funding, ethical regulations, HB1541, Act 057, Department of Health, Hawaii State Hospital, Developmental Disabilities Division, civil service, civil service exemption, HRS 76-16, HRS 334-4, mental health program, state hospital, secure psychiatric rehabilitation facility, associate administrator, project manager, security manager