March 18, 2026 · Budget Subcommittee No 3 Education Finance · 20,428 words · 9 speakers · 297 segments
Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Budget Subcommittee Number three on Education Finance. I am Chair Alvarez. I welcome you all to today's hearing and thank you for being here. Today's hearing is going to really be focused on the Educator Teacher pipeline. There have been tremendous investments over the last few years to address this, this issue, this situation, this dynamic, and it is dynamic as it differs from region in our regions, in our state, from one region to another. So I'm looking forward to the discussion on those investments, on where they've paid off dividends, on where perhaps we can be doing better, and certainly on identifying better ways to capture the data to help us make the informed decisions on a going forward basis. So that'll be a theme you hear throughout the panels in my questions and comments. So with that, I'd ask issue one panel to please come forward. This panel will provide an Update on the $2.1 billion in recent budget act investments and the outcomes in increasing the educator candidate pipeline and retaining high quality educators. Panelists and public comment may identify policy and investment opportunities outside the January budget to address the ongoing educator shortages. So with that, I welcome all the panelists and again, thank you for being here. And we will start with the Legislative Analyst Office on today's panel. Welcome.
Good morning OR Good afternoon.
Mr.
Chair, my name is Dylan Hoxof Lutso with the Legislative Analyst Office. We were asked to provide some brief overview on the state's recent spending on teacher recruitment and retention. If you look at the table on pages seven and eight of your agenda, you'll see the state has spent over $2.1 billion on teacher recruitment and retention over the last decade. These programs include a variety of methods for bolstering and recruitment and retention. Some are direct grants to teacher candidates and some are district level supports. Some of these programs, including the two largest, the Teacher Residency Grant Program and the Golden State Teacher Grant Program, are currently set to exhaust their current funding in either 2025, 26 or 2026-27. Others have funding for the next several years, depending on the demand for the programs. Both the Student Teacher Stipend Program and the National Board Program received significant funding in the 202526 budget. That concludes my comments. I'm happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.
Thank you. We'll get to questions in a minute. We have the Commission on Teacher Credentialing here. Welcome.
Thank you.
Chair Alvarez and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be with you today. On behalf of the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, I'M excited to share with you preliminary data from the upcoming April Teacher Supply Report today. So three broad takeaways. First, teacher supply is rebounding but is still not likely sufficient to meet elevated demand. Second, more teachers are entering the profession, but too many are leaving, so shortages and over reliance on substitutes and emergency permits continue. Third, the result is workforce instability, inequitable access to students for students to qualified teachers, and added risk to a still fragile post Covid student recovery. So while the Commission's teacher supply data are a strong positive sign that state investments are helping rebuild the pipeline for teachers into California schools and must be sustained, it is not yet a success story. Until we make more progress on early career retention, schools will remain stuck in a cycle of backfilling the vacancies of teachers that leave rather than building a stable workforce. I've provided you with a handout that has some of the data preliminary data from our 24.5year and I'll be referencing that as we go. And I'm going to start with the good news. Teacher supply is rebounding. In 24. 5, the Commission issued more new teaching credentials than at any point in the last decade. This includes 10 year highs for single subject and multiple subject credential issuance. During the same period, education specialist credential issuance reached its second highest level. Teacher credentialing production by California institutions also showed a strong rebound from COVID lows supplemented by growth in LEA based preparation and out of state sources. After steady increases in the issuance of emergency type permits and intern credentials between 2020 and 2024, we saw a 5% decrease in the issuance of permits in the 24.5Data and a modest increase in the deployment of interns. While total enrollment in California's teacher preparation programs increased by 4.5% in 24. 5, enrollment of new candidates increased by almost 14%. So now for the less good news. Despite this growth that we're seeing in 24. 5, CBED's data reported by the California Department of Education includes reports from counties regarding their estimated need to hire teachers in the coming year. The estimated number of teacher hires indicates that anticipated teacher demand continues to exceed supply from all sources. However, this figure should be interpreted cautiously as it is an estimate and not a direct measure of actual hires. So while nearly 20,000 new teachers were credentialed in the 24.5year estimated demand for 2526 projected at just over 23,000. When compared with new teacher credentials by the commission in 2024, there is an estimated surplus of almost 2,600 multiple subject teachers we provided. In other words, we credentialed 2,600 more teachers in multiple subjects than was the anticipated demand for that year, an estimated shortfall of almost 900 special education teachers. Also in the same year, persistent and estimated demand for single subject teachers in the areas of English, math, school, social sciences, and physical education and the science also were reiterated in this particular pending report. Two thirds of the estimated teacher hires would occur in 10 counties as indicated on page six of your handout, with Los Angeles accounting for about 18% of these new hires. So these data suggest that state investments are producing clear gains in teacher supply at the same time, anticipated demand remains high despite both increased supply and demand and declining student enrollment. So implications of these data Findings this points to a larger challenge for California's educator workforce. State investments are clearly helping to rebuild teacher supply, but demand remains high even as student enrollment declines, which suggests that workforce churn and pre retirement attrition continue to put substantial pressure on the system. That pressure shows up in schools through continued reliance on underprepared personnel and emergency type permits and substitutes to fill persistent vacancies. Teacher assignment monitoring helps illuminate this problem at the state, county, and school site levels by showing where staffing challenges are translating into inequitable access to appropriately assigned teachers and those conditions are not born evenly. Low income students, students of color, English learners, and students with disabilities are more likely to experience inconsistent access to fully prepared and and appropriately assigned teachers. That instability matters for student learning. It disrupts continuity of instruction. It undermines equitable access to qualified educators and threatens the fragile recovery many students are still working to achieve. Taken together, these data suggest that California's progress in increasing teacher supply is real, but that supply gains alone may not be sufficient to produce a stable and equitable workforce. They also suggest that understanding the state's staffing challenge requires attention not only to preparation and entry, but also to the workforce conditions associated with continued turnover. So, in closing, we see four or five opportunities that we'd like to just reinforce for you. We believe it is critical to sustain investments in high quality, high retention education pipeline programs and service scholarships, loan forgiveness, and the student teaching stipend. These investments provide access to teacher preparation for a greater and more diverse number of prospective teachers. Secondly, we believe it is critical to target investments to high needs regions and credential areas, particularly special education. AB 1119, which was authored by Assemblymember Patel last year, is driving the Commission's exploration of streamlined opportunities for earning both general and special education credentials concurrently. Third, several county Offices of Education, Sacramento, Humboldt, Santa Clara and Tulare are on the verge of being registered teacher apprenticeship program providers. State support for these counties to deploy pilot teaching apprenticeship programs in hard to staff schools and credential areas could create a template for other counties to follow apprenticeship as staffing intervention, if you will. Fourth, school administrators play a central role in creating effective working conditions in schools. Legislation signed into law last year will enable the Commission to strengthen leadership preparation and pathways to support retention. And finally, sustaining proven strategies like early career induction and National Board certification are essential for retaining our teachers in the profession for the long term. That concludes my remarks. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I think we're going to hear from the Learning Policy Institute next.
Yes, thank you so much. Good afternoon. My name is Tara Kinney. I serve as the Chief of Policy and Programs at the Learning Policy Institute where I've been part of a team studying the educator workforce in California for over a decade. I want to share our latest research with you today. And I do want to thank the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the California Department of Education, and the Student Aid Commission for sharing the data that enabled this research. Research is clear that teacher preparation, certification, experience and stability matter for student achievement. A Learning Policy Institute study of positive outlier districts in California found that California districts with more fully credentialed and experienced teachers had higher student achievement. This was particularly true for black and Latino students. Research also indicates that teachers without full preparation leave at two to three times the rate of fully prepared teachers. So that's what contributes to our shortages and really undermines school improvement efforts. As Mary mentioned, we've seen a real increase over the past decade or so in substandard credentials and permits. These have more than tripled since 2013, with the greatest increases in the number of emergency style permits. In 2425, there were nearly 8,000 emergency style permits issued, and teachers who were not fully prepared made up about 8% of California's total educator workforce. The highest need schools were nearly three times as likely to fill teaching positions with interns and emergency permit holders than the lowest need schools. A forthcoming study that we just completed as part of the Getting down to Facts project finds that there are three major drivers of teacher demand in the state right now. The first is high teacher turnover, which is about 14% across the state. And that means that more than 85% of new hires in 202324 filled vacancies that were left by departing teachers and most of those for teachers leaving for reasons other than retirement. The second driver of demand is greater student needs. Despite the declining enrollment in California, teacher demand has not fallen proportionately and that's really in part because of the educational and support needs of our have intensified over time and California continues to have one of the highest pupil teacher ratios in the nation. The third driver is policy related demand. So the expansion of transitional kindergarten, Prop 28, arts and music funding and career technical education programs are additional drivers of demand. The good news that we're seeing as you just heard, is that teacher supply is really beginning to turn. We're seeing that uptick in new preliminary teaching criteria credentials issued to California prepared individuals which have increased by about 40% in the past two years. So pretty substantial uptick. And our pipeline is increasingly diverse. Teachers of color comprised about 65% of entering teachers in 202425 and they now make up well over 40% of the educator workforce in the state. You heard from our colleagues at the Legislative Analyst Office, the state's invested over 2 billion in recruiting, preparing and retaining teachers with the most substantial investments coming since 2021. And the data just I just shared suggest that these programs may be having a difference. We are really leading the nation in teacher residencies, which are partnerships between preparation programs and districts that really strengthen preparation while making it more affordable, diversify their workforce workforce and retain more effective teachers in the preparation in the profession longer. About 10% of teacher candidates now in the state enter through residencies and more than 70% of those are candidates of color. Studies have found these are studies in California that residency graduates feel better prepared than those from any other pathway, pass the teacher performance assessment at higher rates and they're more likely to teach in high need schools. I believe we'll hear more about this program on a later panel. Turning to the Golden State Teacher Grant program. Since its launch, that program has supported more than 28,000 aspiring teacher and pupil personnel services candidates. Our research indicates that the program is doing more than subsidizing candidates who would have pursued teaching anyway. Based on data from a survey that the Student Aid Commission put out to all Golden State Teacher Grant recipients, nearly three quarters of respondents said that the grant influenced their decision to pursue teaching and 2/3 said it influenced their decision to teach in a high need school. And nearly 9 in 10 recipients teach in priority schools are 55% or more unduplicated pupils. Most plan to stay beyond their service commitment. So the programs those two I talked about so far are not only recruitment programs. I want to point out they're also retention strategies because candidates can commit to serving in California public schools for a particular period of time. I think that's really important. Another element of our retention strategy is the National Board Certified Teacher Incentive Program. Research consistently shows that those board certified teachers support greater student achievement not only for their own students, but also for the beginning teachers that they mentor. And I think this program is perhaps a really good example of leveraging one time dollars in an ongoing like way because that program as we heard, is funded through at least 2030. A couple of other investments worth mentioning for which funding has now ended are the Integrated Teacher Prepare Integrated Undergraduate Teacher Preparation Program which provided grants to launch or expand undergraduate pathways. Our forthcoming study shows that undergrad candidates are a growing share of California prepared completers. They're now 9% of completers, up from from just 6% a few years ago. So additional policies may be needed to really stimulate more preparation at the undergraduate level. The Classified School Employee Teacher Credentialing program has been particularly important for preparing new ed specialists. And I think we see that in the data. I want to, before I close, just mention the challenge posed by our high cost of living in California to teacher recruitment and retention. Our salaries are high in the state relative to other states, but they're not competitive with other college educated professionals and we have the highest cost of living. So teachers purchasing power just doesn't go as far here. One third of our teachers carry student loan debt which further reduces their take home pay. Our forthcoming study finds that higher teacher turnover is associated with lower district salaries, which I think just points to the importance of compensation and working conditions. So to close, we've made substantial investments in our teacher workforce, but that early impact could diminish if the one time funds lapse. So we need reliable investments and I'm here to answer questions as we move through the day.
Thank you very much. Next we'll hear from San Francisco State University College education.
Welcome.
Thank you. Good afternoon.
Let me get to the beginning here.
Good afternoon, Chair Alvarez and members of the committee. I'm Cynthia Grutzik. I'm the dean of the Graduate College of Education at San Francisco State. I've been working in educator preparation for 30 years and in the CSU for 19 of those. First at Cal State Dominguez Hills and at Long Beach State and now at San Francisco State. I'm here on behalf of CSU Assistant Vice Chancellor Sherene Pavri representing educator preparation programs in the csu. And I think my comments will take us into some of the insights from implementation of some of these programs, Specifically the student teacher Stipend program as we know it so far, as you heard, the California State University. Well, as you heard some of the data already, I want to add to that by saying that the California State University prepares about half of the teachers in California. Of the 13,128 credentials from colleges and universities issued in 2023, 24, 6400 of those, or about 48% were from the CSU. So I really appreciate the opportunity to represent our sector here today. The Student Teacher Stipend program is so important, it's refreshing and it represents a major shift in centering student teacher candidates and what it takes for them to become teachers, much the way that the residency program does as well. At this point, we only know what's been outlined in the authoring legislation and what was being clarified on the CTC website, which has been a helpful starting point. Universities like mine are in the process of contacting our districts where we place student teachers to line up our collaboration in preparation for applying for funding on behalf of our student teachers and also to find out which districts will be willing and prepared to apply. Last week I met with seven of the districts we work with just to share what we know. And we've been having conversations among the CSU deans about this program. So today I want to outline five ideas that have surfaced through these initial conversations to be considered in strengthening the program and moving it forward successfully. First, we must acknowledge and attend to the complexity and issues around capacity. Not to say they're not surmountable, but they're really important. This program is an opportunity to make student teaching placement process robust, visible and accountable across systems in a way that currently it is not. This requires all of us to level up in how we track student teacher placements and maybe the first time that numbers of student teachers can be tracked annually. We do track completers, we track credential recipients, but we haven't tracked student teachers. We have two systems that really need each other. Districts need our university programs for their teacher recruitment, and we need them too for fulfilling the requirements of our programs. It's a multi layered and interdependent but loosely organized ecosystem. Not every district and university partnership is coherent or well staffed. Even if There is an MoU in place at the university level, making and tracking student teacher placements has been a challenge for a long time. Sometimes it's systematic, sometimes it's pretty ad hoc. And as I've observed over the years, the capacity demands on the district side can be enormous, especially when there's not a separate position set aside to handle student teaching. So these are things that we're all thinking about and attending to as we move forward together because we really don't want to be in a situation where there might be one student teaching seminar where some of the students have a grant and some do not because of the capacity of districts and of us to work together. The second point is the necessity of consistent and widespread messaging. Especially in the early months of the program. It would be really great for districts to receive information directly from the Department of Education rather than relying on universities to contact them, which could result in inconsistent messaging and missed submission opportunities. There are things I learned that there are things districts want to know that I just don't know how to tell them about. How to get the money directly to students, how the taxes work. We've learned from residency programs. Sometimes those student teachers are employed and so they're paid. That's how they get their stipend. And sometimes they get it a different way, but it's different. My third point is that the cadence of the program doesn't yet align with the cadence of student teacher placements. The startup is this July 1st, which seems to give us time to prepare for the fall semester. But placement conversations have already started in most universities and districts, and in July, most university faculty are off contract and many district staff are too. So we'll be scrambling to get that up and running and we'll do it. But I just think it's important to note that eventually it'd be good for the cadence of the program to align with more like a March October cadence. My fourth point is just wondering whether there's enough funding set aside in this first year out of the total 300 million to ensure that every student teacher gets the stipend if they're applied and eligible. As the data show that there are about 9,900 traditional credentials issued statewide in 2023 by universities. That's probably a good proxy for student teachers. With 100 million set aside for the first year, will that be enough to make sure everybody gets a stipend? There's a first come, first serve note in the statute that sets up a competitive climate. That's not what we want. We already heard it from districts like, should I be the first one to submit the names? Let's hurry and get this in so we make sure. I think the idea is to make sure student teachers get a stipend. Maybe it's possible to enlarge to increase the first year amount just while we see how it rolls out. And then Kind of adjust as we go. Another question came up from my special education department. And as we've heard, special education is a high need area. Eligibility for the funding comes through LEAs, which are districts, county offices, and charter schools. However, a good number of student teachers in special ed are placed in regional centers, non public schools, especially in early childhood education. There's a question about whether the eligibility could be expanded to some of these sites that serve our student teachers, too, and they're authorized to do so through our agreements and our standards. And then finally, I want to circle back to the csu. I want to reiterate that half of the educator preparation is located in the CSU in our colleges of education. There's no differential funding set aside in the CSU for educator preparation. We get the same allocations as other programs in all the other colleges. So in my university, there are six colleges. Mine is one. We all get funded out of the same bucket. And we know that the state funding for the CSU has not kept up with need, and educator preparation is a critical need. It's important to recognize that CSU funding directly impacts our ability to hire the faculty who prepare future teachers and thus impacts our capacity to prepare teachers. So when I joined San Francisco State in 2018, for example, it was typical for the campus to hire 40 or 50 new faculty every year. Yet for the last two years, our campus has not hired more than three faculty for the whole campus each year. Our special education program at SF State is probably the largest in the state. We have 235 candidates enrolled across five programs. But since I've arrived, our faculty team has shrunk from 12 to just six. And we have large application numbers, but we worry about turning people away because we just don't have capacity. So when I think about the consequential ways to increase enrollment in educator preparation programs, I always come back to the need for a fully funded CSU system. So to sum up, the Student Teacher Stipend program meets a long standing and quite urgent need to recognize and support what it takes for students to become teachers. And as we learn more about this program, we are seeing ways to strengthen it. And we are grateful for the opportunity to represent the CSU's perspective and participation here.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Next we'll hear from Twin Rivers Unified School district representative from CTA. Welcome.
Hi. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee members. My name is Anna Aguilar. I'm a sixth grade teacher at Babcock elementary in the Twin Rivers Unified School District. I'm also an executive board member of the Twin Rivers United Educators and here representing very proudly, cta. CTA believes that recruiting, retaining and training qualified educators and staff is essential in advancing educational equity and ensuring all students thrive. The state has made a number of investments in recruitment, including removing the financial barriers of entry into the profession such as test fees, cost of induction, the Golden State Teacher Grant, and most recently the Student Teacher Stipends program, which provides $10,000 for a student teacher while they're doing their 500 hours. CTA also supports the governor's budget proposal of $250 million to augment the Teacher Residency Grant program. All of these investments would benefit by substantial funding over time. It isn't just bringing credentialed teachers into the classroom, it's creating systems in a supportive environment to keep them. Teachers will not stay in places they are not supported. Students with behavioral challenges, complex learning challenges, and a diverse language make up a diverse language makeup compounded with high class sizes makes for a Sisyphean task for educators in my district, Twin Rivers United educators right now are fighting for more prep time in elementary grades, class size caps in middle school and high school classrooms, and in addition asking the district to take into consideration students with complex needs while looking at caseloads in special education classrooms for speech and language pathologists, counselors, and the need for school nurses at every school. Twin Rivers unified started the 2526 school year with 83 vacancies being filled by long term subs. That's approximately 2000 students without a regular credentialed teacher, many in special ed classes where students IEPs might not be fully met without the fully credentialed and stably placed educators and paraprofessionals to perform those services. Even veteran teachers are retiring early or as soon as they can, barely crossing the finish line again because of the Sisyphean tasks that's placed on educators. More tasks are placed on us without anything being taken off. From combo classes to many students in general ed classes on IEPs and 504s and high stakes state testing, educators are tasked with doing more with less health care. Costs are skyrocketing, salaries are not keeping up with inflation, and yet we are the ones who are guilted into doing it for the kids. Of course we want what's best for our students, but on the backs of teachers, unpaid labor and mental health? Absolutely not. California continues to face a severe educator shortage with nearly 407,000 teaching positions statewide either unfilled or filled by under qualified, underprepared instructors. In CTA's State of California's Public Education Survey released this January, over 73% report a serious educator shortage at their school. Over half no co workers who left careers in education because of financial strain. 40% are considering leaving education in the next few years. Retention is also an employment issue. What are the conditions at a school site that makes a teacher want to teach there? As many of you know, the Twin Rivers United educators have been on strike for 10 days. There is a need for the district to be thoughtful in responding to this question. This is not a new question, and teachers in Twin Rivers and around the state have been asking for an answer for a long time. We cannot keep waiting for that answer. The urgent need of now is not merely about a lack of applicants, but rather a weak pipeline that needs to address high attrition and provide meaningful supports for teachers at each stage of their professional training and career development. In addition to good compensation and health benefits that allow teachers to take care of their families, teachers look at school climate to determine if they want to work there. We know from our members that teachers want to work at schools that have manageable class sizes so students can get the individual attention that they need and that they deserve. Teachers want to work at sites that are healthy and safe for students and the community. Teachers want to work at sites where they can learn and grow from their peers to improve their own practices. Teachers want to work at school sites that have supportive and effective administration. All of this takes sustained resources. The state is currently holding $5.6 billion from students and schools. What could the state do with those dollars? Before our strike and in the past two weeks, all I've heard from my colleagues is that our teachers want more for our students. Our working conditions are their learning conditions. The previous site I worked at had a very high turnover year after year and in the seven years that I worked there, at least 1/3 of the staff was a brand new educator which included a revolving door of principals. I saw so many good people who were in it for the kids be broken by a system that fails our students by failing their teachers and their principals. It is not only hard to work in constant change, but even harder for children to learn in an unstable environment. We had a whole grade level cohort go from third to grade to eighth grade without a stable teacher for them year after year. The only stability they had was that they could expect a new substitute tomorrow, next week, next month, whenever we did have several times where people would walk out in the middle of the day if we do not make education funding stable and a budget priority. Now, when will we. Our children can't wait, our teachers can't wait, and our communities can't wait. The time is now. Thank you for having me here and I'm happy to answer questions.
Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. Appreciate it. Definitely have questions for all of you and I'm going to try to do this in an orderly fashion. I am really appreciative of this panel and the testimony. We have panels often and obviously some of that goes thanks to our consultants for organizing this, but where specifics and details aren't necessarily put on the table. And from all of you, I've heard specific recommendations and specific solutions, which is really what we're looking for. And I think what I'd like to first start to acknowledge is where our teacher spoke at the end, which is how are we going to sustain the support that is needed for teachers? And I think that's the goal of this. And I think we all believe that a strong teacher pipeline is an important component of supporting the work that happens at our schools on a daily basis. So in the spirit of wanting to accomplish that, I think want to know about where we are, what we've done, what we've done well, where we have fallen a little bit short and what are the opportunities going forward, including, as was mentioned by our teacher here, Ms. Aguilar, the, the potential funding in the budget on a going forward basis. Because if you want to sustain this, you've got to be committed to it. And we've been committed to some of these programs, but they all have some sort of sunset currently. And I think we need to decide whether channeling or communicating or expressing sunsets to this program, what message that sends to those who are seeking to potentially seek a career in teaching and in education. So I think that's why that all matters. So with all that said, let me see if I can do this in an orderly fashion, given all the thoughts I've written down here. Let's start with the commission, please, because this is, I think, fundamental to the whole conversation. If we don't know how many teachers we need and where we need them, then the investments can not have the impact that we wish that they would have at the schools that we know that it's needed. So in terms of total numbers, what is the commission's current assessment of the teacher shortage in California?
Well, I think that we are making great progress. I mean, some of the data that I speeded through in my testimony, it appears on slide number two on the handout that I gave you, you can see that our numbers have gone up. They've been going up significantly since COVID The numbers.
I do want to talk about this. I actually want to start with a fundamental sort of basic question of what is the need?
What is the need?
Yeah. I'm assuming you must be the keeper of that important information in the state of California.
Oh, wow.
Okay.
Would that that were. So let me tell you what I do know. The data that I reported from today was from cbeds. This is California Department of Education data. Every year they, they get estimates from county offices of education about what the projected need for hiring is, is for the coming year. That number's been going steadily up until 2425 when we saw the first downward turn. In 2324, we had estimated hires of around just almost 25,000. In 2526, it went down to. Excuse me. For 2526, the estimated hires went down to 23,000. So a small decline in what they're anticipating their need to hire is. But if you look at slide number five, what we have is a kind of rundown of in what areas, what types of credentials are we seeing shortages in. The biggest shortage that county offices are estimating that they have is in multiple subject, the self contained classroom. 28% of the estimated hires were indicated by counties for that particular credential. Which is interesting given that we issued 9,000 multiple subject credentials last year and the estimated need for multiple subject teachers for the 25, six year was 6400.
Before we get into. Before we get into the. Because I want to ask those specific questions, I want to get going granular with all this. So the data you've presented to us in your slide presentation, slide 4 and 5, 5 is by subject area, but it's the same number as is in, in slide 4, which is the estimated number of teachers that need to be hired to fulfill all the needs of all the schools throughout the state is 23,078, according to the self reported data by every district in the state of California.
Rolled through the counties? Yes, through the counties reported in CBEDs.
Okay. I just want to make sure we're in agreement that that's what we've got to work with. So I'd ask the lpi, the college CTA representative. Does that sound like, you know, is that what you base your analysis on, your decision, your recommendations? Is that the number that you're focusing on, focused on as well you should go next?
Well, I think that's one indicator of the Shortage the estimated need through the CBEDS data. Another indicator of the shortage is the number of substandard credentials and permits issued each year.
What number is that?
13,670 were issued in 24 5. About 7,000, 7,500 of those were for emergency style permits and about just about 6,005 to 6,000 were for intern.
So we have roughly speaking 13,000 classrooms currently staffed by individuals who don't have a full credit teaching credential in addition to the need of identified by subject area through the county office of education.
What is not reported here are substitute teachers.
Okay.
For vacancies and for leaves. There's a large number of substitutes and
the 13,000 number does not include then substitute teachers.
No, it doesn't.
How many substitute teachers do we have today?
I don't have that number handy, but a colleague of mine.
Yeah, if anybody has it, that'd be great. In terms of how many of those teaching are in a classroom on a supposed to be temporary basis but often becomes very permanent. I have a child in one class at middle school whose teacher has been out quite a bit with substitutes. And so I'd like to see what the equivalent of a full time teacher is in substitutes that are being utilized because that really is what tells us and you're not going to have 100% of every single classroom filled by a credentialed teacher. Life happens. People have children, they take care of families, they take a sabbatical, any number of reasons. So there will always be some vacancy factor. But I think understanding what a reasonable vacancy factor is is important to talking about then now the, the, the programs and how we're going to fill whatever that number is, which to me at the moment is at least given the 13,000 and the 23,000. We're talking about nearly probably 40,000 need of fully credentialed teachers today.
I don't know that I would add those numbers together. I think that the estimate that counties are giving us are the number of classrooms that they think at the, at that moment they need to fill for the following year. And they may fill them with the emergency type permits, they may fill them with interns, but what they'd like is 23,000 fully credentialed teachers. So the fact that they are filling classrooms with sub underprepared teachers isn't necessarily additive to that. If they had the 13,000 fully credentialed teachers, they would.
Okay, appreciate that I expansion. Are we all in agreement with that potential assessment? Okay, again, just, I think it's important that we all try to work our way backwards from what the need is. And, and so I just want to make sure. Does our teacher representative have anything to add on that is that is. Do you guys have data that you are tracking from cta?
Well, we do.
And let's see.
So we did take a survey and I did list them earlier, that there are 73% of our members that report a serious educator shortage at their school. So those are folks that are in the classrooms, you know, with colleagues who are, you know, temporarily based.
And I'm going to take that testimony and ask a question more detailed about that. So thank you for reminding me about that. Let me ask generally about the these programs. Let's get to the programs now a little bit. They are all really focused around, you know, newer teachers and people coming into the pipeline for the most part. We've got National Board Certified, which is not typically, you know, your first few years of teaching, but these are focused on new teachers. At the same time, we now this year and if any indication from both the governor's proposal, but also the Laos analysis, next year's budget deficit is not looking budget does not look good. And so we're already starting to see the impacts to school districts. I've hear from, you know, I would say hundreds of people now, whether it's cbo, superintendents, all teachers, obviously administrators talking about budget impacts locally to their own schools. And we are now seeing pink slips being issued in some states. If I don't think we could invent a better disincentive to people who want to seek teaching careers and a teacher pathway than letting them know that every year you're at the risk if you enter this profession of being laid off on March 15, given that the teachers that are benefiting from this program are the ones who would be the first to receive these pink slips, how does this, how does this work? Are we seeing who's collecting the data on whether we've invested in these teachers with as we should with these programs, but perhaps now are at risk and no longer being teachers because of pink slips. Is that being tracked by the commission?
We are, I believe. Sullivan, give me a nod or not. I believe we. Well, I know we are tracking participation in the Residency program and the classified grant program, all of them, every bit of the way. And some of these are forgivable. In other words, you need their service, you need to provide services. So I believe we've accommodated the problem of variability in your employment with if you have to pay back two years of service, you have five years to do it. Don't quote me on those numbers, but that's the concept that I'm trying to articulate. So I am not sure the state of our data on that at this moment, but that's a very important question as pink slips are going out and new teachers are coming through these programs.
Now, I don't know what to do about that, but it just sounds like not a good faith, bargain or deal, right? We're telling you, go and take out the debt and become a teacher and we're going to cover you as long as you teach five years. And then you say, well, I'm glad you wanted to teach five years, but you're not going to be able to, but you still got to pay it back. That just seems like. And again, I'm not saying that I have a solution to that, but it just seems like perhaps we need to think that through a little bit better. And I'm not saying that we're going to now impose because I respect the bargaining process that those teachers, you know, not get. Pink slip. But there's certainly something wrong with a system that perhaps may see more of this, given the dynamic of a weird dynamic of budget and how Prop 98 funding works and. And yet these commitments to these investments to bring in new teachers every year and then perhaps making cuts because of budgetary needs and constraints. Does anybody have any thoughts on that? Because I. Shouldn't we be a little bit concerned about falling into that?
Did you want to go first?
Yeah, I do have a thought on that. Because CTA strongly opposes the governor's proposal to underfund Prop 98, guaranteed by $5.6 billion. And if we're talking about creating not just a good start for educators, but to keep them in classrooms, taking that money away and then like you say, from one year to the next, not knowing if you even have a job, it doesn't make people want to continue this. It's a struggle to get there. It's a struggle in the classrooms. And then you have budget constraints that are. You have nothing going for you. And so there are so many points where teachers are being failed over and over and over again.
Thank you for sharing that. Do you have some thoughts on.
Yeah, I'll add. I think that is a really interesting question. My sense is that it would play out differently across the state in different districts and regions. We even know that about teacher demand, that it looks different depending on where you are. I remember when I was in Long beach, there just wasn't as much a demand in Long Beach Unified as there was up to 605. And then also I want to point to the commission approved induction programs that support our new teachers for the first two years of their work. They're required to do these induction programs as part of their continued licensure to earn a clear credential. So the way that those are supported with district funding and the way that teachers are supported there I think can go a long way towards helping a new teacher have a really positive first couple of years. That said, back to your original question, there's just no way to know what the budget then. Also just that a pink slip isn't a layoff, it's a notice. Right. So those are often rescinded and we hope they can be rescinded in May. But yeah, I think it's interesting thing to track for sure.
Yeah. Before I forget, I would love to get your testimony in writing because you had a lot of specific, I think you had five specific recommendations that if I had, I'd probably ask you more questions about them because I, I'm interested in all of them.
I'll send it to Aaron.
Thank you. But you, you also started to talk about a topic that I wanted to, to bring up which is the regional differences and, and how do we, I'm glad to see, I'll be very honest, glad to see that the commission is tracking by subject area the need. But just because 28% multiple subject credential is the highest need statewide, it may not be the highest need in Long beach, it may be in the Central Valley, it may be in the Bay Area, it may be in San Diego. I like to know how we are tracking the programs, the multiple programs that we have here and how they are producing not just a pipeline of teachers in the subject areas but in the regions where they are needed. And I think it's easy to say, well they're needed everywhere. But I'm not sure that that's the case unless somebody's got evidence to demonstrate the opposite. I think it varies region by region. So maybe we'll start with El Paso lpi since I haven't given you a chance to respond to this or others.
Just to your earlier point about pink slips and layoffs and the long term impact that can have. I think we're starting to see, we're just wrapping up this study I mentioned for the Stanford getting non effects project and you may recall that after the, during the great reception we laid off about more than 30,000 teachers in California. And we're seeing in the data now Our long term trends, that there's actually this big decline in mid career teachers.
Right.
Because that bubble of teachers, they left and they never came back to the workforce. So we don't want that to happen, especially given the investments that we're making. I think as you are thinking about policy design, some of these, you know, all of these programs were really launched to target the highest need schools and highest need subject areas. And that's varied over time and we've changed the parameters on that. For example, Golden State Teacher grants started just with education specialists. That's a long standing persistent shortage area. And we're seeing increasing numbers and proportion of students in California who have IEPs and need those services. So I just think thinking about how programs are targeted, both the particular shortage areas based on the statewide data and the commission's data, and for the highest need schools which over, you know, consistently see greater numbers of underprepared teachers.
I want to ask the commission to provide some input on this question and the reason why it's sort of very prevalent in my mind. I just in preparation of this hearing, doing some research, staff found for me the West Ed briefing that just came out in February and it relates mainly to the bilingual teacher supply issue. And one of the findings in the briefing that was stated, which I found a little bit troubling, which is again why I was actually very happy to see that there is some data was that it is unclear whether the increasing of BLA attainment, bilingual attainment, expanded California's capacity to deliver bilingual education or if those basically. Or if those teachers were just maybe doing something. Now obviously if you're multiple subject depending on your credential, it's more likely that you're going to be doing that particular job. But I'm just curious whether there's that follow through, whether the service required with some of these programs is within, yes, the school, but also the subject specifically. So I don't know if the commission wants to reply to that.
All I can say is that we don't have that particular kind of data as of now in terms of how people are serving on their bilingual certification.
Not on bilingual. What about on the other in the other credentialed areas? Special education. If someone's getting a special education degree, are they actually being a special education teacher or are they transferring over to just a classroom?
I think the closest data collection that we do is assignment monitoring where we're looking to make sure that the person serving in a classroom has the right credential for that. But that's not the question you're asking, you're asking about whether people who have a special education credential are deployed in special education settings. And that is something we don't have a good handle on. We don't have good access to employment data to track that particular point very well. We. We're working to get to that. So is the Cradle to Career data system working to get to that point where we'll have a stronger ability to see where everyone is deployed? But we don't have a clear answer
on that right now.
When is the Cradle to Career going to have this information?
I'm not sure. I think it's pending, but it has been pending for a while. I would defer to.
No one's here from Cradle to Korea, are they? No. Did you want to respond to this question that Cradle to Career. Okay.
Oh, this is Erin Skubel from the Commission on Career Teacher Credentialing.
Thank you.
I just wanted to build upon what Executive Director Sandy shared regarding the educator assignment data and the assignment monitoring that the commission does. We do that in cooperation with the California Department of Education. And so they're actually the holders of educator employment data. They receive that through CALPADS monitoring of LEAs. So LEAs report all teacher assignments, all administrator and other service provider assignments through their CalPads data system. And so the commission actually is not the owner or the recipient of any of that data. So that is kind of where we're
hindered in our ability to do those
deep comparisons and look at where someone is employed and working and connect it to maybe those grant programs.
So while we have statutory authority to
do that directly for educator assignment monitoring and identify if someone is serving in the appropriate credential area for the credential they hold, we don't necessarily have the direct authority to connect that data to other areas of teacher indicators or employment or any of those interesting areas that we'd really like to be able to do that.
Sorry that I'm going to respond this way, but it's a little frustrating to hear that, that we have data. Someone's collecting the data, but it's not you collecting the data and the date you're not getting the full data. Even though your job, your mission is to make sure that we're prepared, that we have the teachers that are prepared to be in the classrooms. It just, it's a little bit frustrating to hear that. Let me just pause on that and think about it a little bit more before I go keep going on that rant. Let's talk a little bit and then I'm going to transition and hopefully bring this this panel to an end to hear from others. The just clarifying, I think it was Ms. Kinney who said 14% of teachers are departing the turning over.
About 7% of teachers are leaving teaching entirely in California public schools and the other 7% are either leaving their school or leaving their district.
Okay, but seven are leaving teaching profession.
Yes, as a whole. But however, whether they're moving schools or moving districts or leaving overall, they're creating a vacant like their departure creates a vacancy that their school needs to fill.
Okay, let me ask you especially the professor from the College of Education. We have a system of credentialing that requires a four year degree and then a one year typically credential program and then teacher student teaching, which can happen I think at multiple times. I guess. If we were to revisit the model of our teacher education programs, would we would we today rebuilt it the same way? Is there a way to integrate the learning that has to happen? I have a lot of educators in my life. Three out of my four sisters in law are in education. My wife's in education, have a lot of friends who have wanted to be educators. The process has not always been the simplest, especially for those who are maybe wanting to go into the profession, change a profession and go back to what they really love. But maybe because we grew up in the 2000s, the pink slips kept them away from going to school. But the and so I'm just curious, is there a different model that could work to prepare teachers? Because I kind of feel like those who my point of view, sharing my personal connections is that I feel like people who enter the profession almost always know pretty soon as opposed to someone like me that took me a couple of years to get a major because I couldn't figure it out. Educators seem to those who want to teach seem to know pretty early on that that's what they want to pursue a model that really was responsive to that to serve those needs to get this pipeline to run a little smoother, to create less debt for students who now don't have to take five years of education and take on the loan and the debts that may be associated with that. And then those who cannot get paid then have to work for free, which we will talk about that too. Is there a different model that could create a better system of pipeline to prepare our teachers?
Well, it's great to hear that you're an educator at heart and actually it takes a lot more people similar to your experience sometime to find that they want to do this career. And the question is actually very current. We are working on this across the state in collaboration with the CTC and that is to refine what we're doing around integrated teacher education preparation. So it's evolved in really good ways from being sort of a giant major where you tried to fit in all the subject matter standards into this special major that would give you a credential and a BA at the same time in five years and 135 units to now more institutions, including my own, developing a four year integrated teacher education program. We've done this with the Child and Adolescent development major in our university that has pathways into early childhood Special education. So we've got a four year there. We're building our multiple subject as a four year. We've got a four year as a liberal studies major. So this is the question. I mean the commitment California had for years and years was that you really should know the subject you're going to teach so that you're really an expert and in multiple subject. That was also emphasized working with our colleagues across the university though in recognition of maybe building a smaller subject matter major to tag onto a credential program to finish in four years. The thing is though, that not all freshmen know that they want to be a teacher. So with those tightly organized four year programs, if you don't come in as a freshman, it better be transfer friendly. And those are the ones that we're trying to build right now so that we can work with our community college partners, make sure that those students are taking the under the GE courses that they could take. So when they transfer in two more years will get them a credential and a ba. So that's the goal. And I think the more we do that, the more we'll know. I know the CSU is also closely considering a Bachelor's in Education now that the legislation allows that. And what would be the pros and cons? What's the difference between having a four year ITEP with a major or a Bachelor's in education? I think we'll be looking at both of those models then. I also want to just say that the work that the K16 collaborative grants have done around the state in education have been really interesting in looking at the pathway from high school all the way up because that's where we see we could do a lot more to get high school kids plugged into education pathways.
Yeah, I agree with that. I've seen some phenomenal programs up and down the state through Those collaboratives of, again, kids who know when they're in high school that they want to be teachers and they start to work on that pathway. Let me transition, by the way, I don't want to forget because you mentioned this and I. No one is watching, so they will not attribute this to you. CSU's budget is something I've been talking about because I also chair this part of the budget. And at San Francisco State, we've noted not meeting the enrollment targets of students. So it really saddens me to hear that you've got a demand for your program and that you're not being funded for that. Again, not for attribution, but I will have discussions in that part of my subcommittee to ensure that we are aligning our high, our higher education funding to the programs that are needed to produce the workforce that is needed. And it's clear that there's maybe a missed opportunity here.
So, yeah, I would say that's. That's typical across the CSUs where the undergrad program.
Can you get closer to your.
Oh, the undergrad programs are really where we're seeing the struggle in enrollment. So where we see postbac and masters, they're pretty rigorous. Yeah. So the differentiation between those types of programs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before we move on to get back to your question about whether or not we have employment data or should have access to it, a simple statute change could provide us the access to those data. We are mandated in statute to do this teacher supply report every year, and this could become a component of it that you'd like to hear from my son. We'd be happy to work with your team on that.
I think Erin had noted that when I took that pause. So, yeah, thank you. Thank you for sharing that. I now want to talk to sort of the big picture, because you all have shared and I wouldn't say convinced me, but certainly there's evidence from practicing to theory to research, that a teacher pipeline, a stable program to achieve that, is important. If we also address all the things I talked about, which is identifying where the needs are and making sure that the pipeline delivers in those ways. And so there is this funding potentially available in the unappropriated current budget by the governor, we're talking potentially up to 5.6 billion. And obviously when the may revise comes, we'll see what that is. But I think, I don't think there won't be potentially some opportunities to utilize some of those funds potentially to establish these programs. One of the things I'd be interested in is in your feedback is of the programs that we have. Which ones are the ones that we should really be looking at to ensure that. And that's why your five recommendations, Professor, I'd like to see them because I think some of those may fit the definition of this question. Where should we be looking to establish that permanency, if you will? Because we will always need teachers because people retire and they move on. Sometimes it'll be a big number and sometimes that number will be smaller, but there will be a need. And so how do we establish the programs that are successful in the long term with the utilization of some of these funds to get us these really successful evidence based programs that are producing the results that we are intending to produce. So maybe we'll start the other way around with our teacher from
evidence based teacher recruitment practices in California should focus on creating sustainable pipelines through teacher residencies. Grow your own programs, financial incentives and early hiring practices, particularly targeting high need areas like special education, bilingual education and stem. We've been talking about teacher residencies. Grow your own programs where classified staff are brought in. They're already doing the work anyway. Why not give them a pathway to be able to get that credential so that they can have their own classrooms and be retained in our profession, especially people who know they love it and want to stay in it and supporting for credentialing and retention. And it's really those retention pipelines that need to really be shored up.
Thank you for reminding me about that one. That program, I believe is one of the ones that has no new funding dedicated for it. So I appreciate that's a big call out the commission. Do you have some thoughts on that?
Absolutely. So in terms of the existing pipeline, the programs that are that actually prepare people like teacher residencies I think are a very important part of our growing infrastructure for a number of reasons that have been articulated here and need the steadiness of predictability. I would also argue that the student teacher stipend and the Golden State Teacher Grant or some kind of forgivable loan format is important to retain. But also, and I really want to underscore this, the new teacher induction is a critical part of our retention strategy in this state. And renewal of the Educator Excellence Block Grant or some kind of funding structure that supports new teacher induction and the mentoring work that's happening in the schools is also very high priority. As I would say is the national Board piece.
Thank you.
Appreciate that feedback.
I think I've spoken to some of the research we have on the existing Investments. I guess what I would say is that we have a long history in the state of starting good programs and then letting them disappear. The funding runs out and that's demoralizing to teachers and candidates. I think when it's gone, somebody else got it. Now it's no longer there. For me. There's a lot of startup and roll down costs to the state. So thinking about what's the efficient way for us to use our resources to build that pipeline and retain teachers long term would be something I would encourage the state to think about. I think all of the programs I've spoken to today, including a couple that for which funding has run out, there's strong evidence that they're making a difference. The student teacher stipend program will help cover the, you know, subsidize the cost of, of folks for their student teaching. The Golden State teacher grant does that also on the front end so that people can afford to even begin their program and start coursework. So I think they can actually work in tandem. Residencies are really important and they're one year accelerated pathways for people, especially people who may not know as undergrads they want to become teachers but are coming in mid career. And then that board certified incentive program is meaningful incentive and compensation boost to our most accomplished teachers who are serving in the highest need schools. So I think it's a multi pronged approach. But that stability of funding is a need that we see in the research.
Thank you. Appreciate that last word on this.
Sure. I'll just add to the systems points I was making earlier and to piggyback on what Tara was saying to keep the programs that are working well and I can't think of one that's not right now would help all of us in the sense of learning how to build the system. Now we figured it out, let's keep going. And it just becomes the way we do. And we learn from these programs ourselves, like the residency program. We're learning how important it is to have this deeply immersive experience. How important it is for cooperating or mentor teachers to be compensated as part of the process, which currently they are not. They do all that work on their own backs too. Talk about our teacher retention strategy. And then also in terms of recruiting students, we're able to point ahead and to say this is something that's coming to you. It might be that they change shape over time. Like I know we've made adjustments to some where we just reduce how much is available.
Excuse me.
Or to which areas it covers. But the program stays. So, yeah, I think that really helps to have consistency that way.
Thank you. You've all provided one excellent testimony and really, I think really, really good substantive material for us. I really appreciate all the work that you each do. Thank you so much. If you can stick around because we have more panels and maybe there's some intersection here and so we may. But if you have to go, thank you so much for being here.
Thank you.
This item was an informational item, so we will move on to one of the specific programs, the Golden State Teachers Program. The panel review the implementation of the program and hear the January budget trailer bill proposal from the governor. So if I can ask the Department of Finance, the LAO and SUNY Commission, who are the three panelists to please come forward? All right. We will kick it off with the Department of Finance to hear about the budget trailer bill proposal.
Good morning or afternoon. Hugo Solis, galena with the Department of Finance. The governor's budget includes a $14.4 million general fund reappropriation for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program to be spent in the 2026-27 academic academic year. This reappropriation comes from unspent funds from the program's original 500 million one time general fund appropriation from the 2021 Budget Act. And this will fund the grant for approximately 1,450 students. Those are all my remarks and I'm happy to take questions at the appropriate time.
Okay.
Lee Elio, we don't have any comments or concerns with this proposal.
Okay. And let's hear from the Student Aid Commission.
Thank you and good afternoon. Chair Alvarez, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for having us here and to provide comments on the administration of the Golden State Teacher Grant program. I just wanted to mention, and I'm probably aging myself here, that I have been at the Student Aid Commission for decades and initially started with the role of overseeing several teacher incentive programs back from 1981. And many of those programs I witnessed the impact of students participating in these programs, including one of the programs we had was the Assumption program of Loans for Education, where it was we called a Buy now, pay later where students as juniors would sign an agreement to pursue their credential. And at the end, after completing their credential program, they would provide years of service as their commitment without receiving the benefits. And it was a very successful program that continued to receive additional funding every year that increase not only the loan assumption benefit for these students, but also for their retention. So I've had that opportunity to witness those programs and how they support students through their teacher preparation programs in their first years of teaching. These programs are successful in getting students to think about becoming a teacher or a counselor or even go back to their communities to teach because they themselves have experienced the need of those teachers who connected with them. I appreciate the report from LPI and on the Golden State Teacher Grant program and agree that this program is a successful program as it's showed in the data that's reported in the report. It does make a difference in these teacher candidates decision to pursue their credential and to teach in a priority school. These programs work and when they're defunded like Apple was, we lose teacher candidates who could, who could have but couldn't with their financial resources, complete their program successfully and earn a teaching credential. We're passionate and deeply committed to our work in administering various financial aid programs to support students to complete their educational goals, including teachers and counseling credentials
the
report that you have had if you've had the opportunity to read the report on strengthening the Educator Pipeline through service scholarships on the first five years of the Golden State Teacher Grant program, it highlights how the program has changed over time and the number of recipients that have has increased every year with, as was stated earlier, 28,000 teachers candidates receiving a grant to support the cost of obtaining their credential. And we're proud to say that the GTSG program likely Contributed to the 23% increase in the number of California prepared teacher candidates who earned a preliminary credential between those years. This is a significant impact in filling new teachers in targeted priority schools and retaining them as the Golden State Teacher Grant has. These teacher candidates commit to teaching in these areas for two to four years. CISAC believes that the GTSG is influential in supporting aspiring teachers and PPS school candidates with high financial need and candidates of color to enter the teaching profession and teach in priority schools. However, the program's funding from 100 million a year investment to 50 million in the current 2526 year and a 14.4 million proposed for the 2627 fiscal year reduces that number of teacher candidates to qualify for the grant and to bring in new teachers in these priority schools. Also, as you may already know, there are major changes to the federal student loan lending enacted in HR1 that will take effect on July 1, 2026. This will drive more students into risky private loan market compared to the federal loans. The private student loans usually offer worse terms and fewer protections for borrowers. These students who may not be eligible for a GSTG because of the funding reduction, may need to seek those types of student loans. So we have a handout. The handout shows you that when you look at page one, you're seeing the direct impact to the state investment. And it's very clear where the state is generous to the Golden State Teacher Grant program. And you see the number of applications and the total awards going up. Why is that important? It's really the second page, and in the second page, the smaller blue text that shows 91% of grant recipients plan to continue working at a priority school after fulfilling their service obligation. And 88% said that GSTG was influential in their decision to pursue a career in teaching or pupil personnel services, with 54% identifying it as very influential. So the GTSG is a key teacher incentive and retention program that is serving the entire state of California, and 91% of them actually want to stay in those communities. We see the GSTGP as the early part of the pipeline in helping students decide to pursue their education to earn their credential. And we're also at the end of the pipeline in helping those students stay in those communities that they have agreed to teach in. We have. We recommend continued support for the GSTG program. And to fully support the. To keep up with the existing demands and also to provide stability to address the regional teacher gaps, we recommend a minimum of 100 million to better administer the program over two years. Thank you.
Thank you. We have a issue three panel, which is the state. Sorry, the teachers residencies program. I'm going to ask if you could all just stay there, because I think my questions anyway may be pertinent to both. So if you can all stay there. But I'll ask now panel three to come forward. I know some of you are already here at the table, but first we'll hear from finance on this expansion proposal. From the January budget, it's a $250 million additional proposal. And then we'll hear from the Legislative Analyst office if there are any comments, and the commission once again. So let's kick it off with financ.
Hi, good afternoon, Chair Alvarez, Liz Meyer with the Department of Finance. So, as we have all heard, educator residencies provide high quality, clinically rich preparation for teachers and school counselors, with residency program participants having higher program completion and workforce retention rates than non residency prepared teachers. Residents also tend to be more diverse, with programs serving a higher percentage of candidates of color than traditional pathways. To further the impact that these residencies are having on California's educator workforce, the Governor's budget proposes 250 million one time proposition 98 general fund to continue educator residency programs, which includes teacher and school counselor residencies through 2029-30. Happy to take any questions.
Thank you. Does the LAO have anything to share?
We recommend adopting this proposal if it is aligned with the legislature's priorities. We covered this proposal in our recent 2627 budget brief on K12 proposals. Some of the main points are on page 21 of your agenda and the full report can be found@leo.ca.gov to boil it down, there is research showing this program can help produce well prepared teachers who stay in the profession longer on average. And districts facilitating these residencies can use them to ensure that they're able to fill the specific teacher shortages that they have. Residencies can, on the other hand, be harder to get up and running for smaller, more rural districts and districts that are farther away from the institutions of higher learning they need to partner with for this program. If the legislature would like to provide funding to address teacher shortages in this budget, we recommend adopting this proposal but note is less likely to help those smaller, more rural districts. That concludes our comments.
Thank you, ctc.
Yes, thank you. Erin Sullivan, Commission on Teacher Credentialing I don't have much to add. These residency programs are incredibly robust and the uptake on these programs since the grants have been available has been consistent. Most recently January 30th, we had our most recent round of applications. We received 47. We were able to conditionally fund 38 of them. So since its inception, the legislature has provided for $640 million for residency programs. And to date, we have awarded 616.4 million of those dollars the carve out there. The difference is when the legislature added school counselors to that, we carved out some money and sort of set it aside to make sure that we would have opportunities to award the school counselor who isn't. There wasn't anything carved out in authorizing legislation. So we made a best guess. We made a wise guess. And those do continue to have greater uptick as well. I think that's about it. They are very valuable programs.
Okay, thank you. Let me start with ctc. There's some data that we have that there's a growth in residency residents actually failing some of the exams that are required. Is that a trend? What. What are we. What have you been able to gather from that data?
Yeah, I'm. I'm glad that you asked about that. So it's not. The trend is not what it appears to be. So the dashboards that have been available to all of you, those are updated annually for each year of the residency program. So currently it appears that in the first year 23%, only 23% were having trouble passing. And by the most recent reporting year, it's about 74. I think in actuality, that first year may have been about 74, but since each year more candidates pass those exams, those numbers are updated. Does that make sense?
No. Yeah, sorry.
So the 23% was likely about 77 or 75%.
Okay, I got that part. Yeah.
As those candidates have continued because the exams aren't one and done. So as they continue to retake those exams, each year a greater number of historic folks pass as well as the current year folks. So that number is adjusted annually.
Well, shouldn't we be seeing the number go down then?
It does. So that's the reason why the first year looks at. Looks like the first year shows 23% now instead of 75.
Okay, so then the, can I call it the failure rate is about 75 on a regular basis annually. And then obviously after time it would
seem to be okay. And we do have some. We can dig into that data a little bit more.
Those dashboards, are we seeing persistence though beyond, you know, are people feeling okay, I failed? And I mean, what's.
Yes, they are persisting. That's how that first cohort of folks went from maybe 75% to 23.
Sure.
Continuing to take those. Part of our analysis of that is that Rica, the RICA exam was one of those big hurdles for folks for a very long time and of course that has now sunsetted. They take a literacy performance assessment as part of their two part performance assessment. They're getting that literacy content through the standard and TPEs within their programs. So yeah, we're thinking with Rika sunsetting, we're going to see that number.
And tell me about the evaluation that you're preparing. When would the program. Would there be a full evaluation of the program that you're preparing or what's.
It's due to the legislature in 2029 at this time, December 2029.
And that would give us how many years worth of at that point is it eight years?
I think so. I believe the. Well, no, because initially funding was for capacity. So originally we awarded money to programs to evaluate and maybe build the capacity to offer a residency program. Since then it's really been focused on implementation and expansion grants. Yeah.
So we may still want to see if we could get some data with some analysis or evaluation priority in the next few Years to determine sort of going forward basis, any potential changes to the program to make it stronger. But to that point, and we can discuss that another time. But to that point, does this funding, the 250 in this proposal, does it include some of those programs to help get the programs up and running or is it just to fund the existing programs? Maybe this is a question to the Department of Finance. Is it for capacity building or is it just status quo? Fund the current existing programs.
Yeah, so capacity building is one of the allowable uses. There's not a specific amount that's called out in our proposal, but yeah, it's not prohibited and that.
Thank you. And then to clarify the figure of 30 something awards. It's not 30 something individuals. These are. We're talking about, right, that research.
We're talking about LEAs.
Yeah, I just wanted to put that on the record because someone who hears that is like, oh, 39 teachers. Great. All right, let me ask about. And then I'm going to go over to the Golden State program. You heard the earlier conversation about the teacher shortage, particularly in regions or in subject matters. What data do we have currently on the residency program and people who are entering the profession in special education, bilingual education, which are the two that. There are others as well, but those two really stand out in terms of needs statewide.
So how many candidates in those areas? I do not have that data prepared for you, but I can answer that.
We have it. Yeah, that would be helpful. Similar to your CTC presentation on this table by subject area on page five. That would be helpful to understand since that seems to be at least some of the indicators that you are able to track. It sounds like. Let me now ask about the Golden State teachers program. The same question in terms of are we seeing any particularly in special education and in bilingual education, are we seeing that the Golden State Teacher Grant program is. There's an uptake that's significant there with those particular specialties or no.
So in the first year of the program, which were DEA funds that were funded for specifically for special education students as well as the second year, and there were the. The shortage areas, the high demand and high subjects were prioritized. In the second year, however, we did see based on that, because they were prioritized, we did see the increase in bilingual education and special education because those were earmarked for those specific subjects. But currently the awards are offered to students that are pursuing to teach to earn a credential in any area as long as they provide their teaching service in a priority school
given and Maybe this is where the folks who already came up, maybe the commission and even yourself at csac. Given that we've identified that there are different needs, does it not make sense for us to use the data that's available to us in terms of where the needs are and try to make sure that we serve those needs with program like Golden State teacher?
Yes, I believe that would be we would be able to reimagine what type of credentials are need to be prioritized and then again also continuing to meet the need in the Title 1 schools. So there would be an opportunity for us to look at the criteria right now if it's if the award or the if it's a competitive process. We do look at need. So we look at the student aid index and so the majority over 3,000 students are low income students. So it would be the same to prioritize and apply higher points to those students that are pursuing those types of credentials.
Any other thoughts from the commission on this? Okay. I would ask finance to consider this for the may revise to identify the highest of needs. There are a lot of needs but certainly if we have seen data that shows bilingual programs and special education programs that there's an uptick given the severity of the shortage in those areas in particular, especially if we're not being regional with this approach at the minimum on a statewide basis those two seem to be areas of need. And I would hope that you would consider that when you return back to us. Let me ask about something I know less about and maybe did you have a comment?
Sorry, I did.
I just wanted to bring something up because it is important the kind of the conversations around less of a robust uptake of the residency programs, for instance in rural areas, the srtac, the state residency assessment, teacher assessment. Yes. Since the regional hubs for that have been developed and the one that is up in Humboldt, the uptake for rural communities has really gone up. So with those SRTAC regional hubs it's been really, really helpful at addressing those needs for the rural communities and helping them figure out how to make that work.
Good. I'm glad you reminded me because that was brought up by the LAO that the rural communities and we always want to make sure we're addressing the needs statewide. Thank you for. I was going to ask about something that I said I don't know enough about because this is more on the federal level. But a question that we have here is are there any additional one time federal funds available to supplement specific subject areas idea obviously for special education I don't know if there's new conversations in that space. And then Title 3 for bilingual educators, is that something that's out there as a potential.
Well, so nothing is included in the governor's budget that that has that. But we do usually get updated estimates for what the federal awards are going to be in the year around springtime. And so I think once we get those numbers we can evaluate and see how much is available and also like the other needs given the federal uncertainties and go from there.
So you'll have those by, by May revised and I believe a sense of that. Okay. Yeah. If you could just outline those for us to help us keep track, that'd be helpful. Again, the IDEA program, Title 3 for bilingual educators and any other specific subject areas. I'm not sure if the federal government's discussing that or not, but those two others obviously are existing long term programs. And then one last question to CSAC on the evaluation of the program and the effects. Are there any specific data points that you've identified that we should know about that you want to highlight that specific trends similar to the question I asked earlier.
So yes, I believe that as you know that there are students that right now are pursuing their undergraduate degrees. They are receiving these low income students are receiving some form of Pell Grant, federal Pell Grant or CAL Grant program. And when they finish their undergraduate program and graduate, they are seeking additional funds because most of them have exhausted their eligibility for the federal program and the CAL Grant program. And so the other options are either programs like the Golden State Teacher Grant program that provides in that additional $10,000 to cover those costs of that fifth year or loans. And so I think it's in particular given that the changes in the federal program, I think it's really critical for us to allow the opportunity for programs like this to cover their costs and of course reduce the debt. We also see that it is inspiring teachers and as you see in the report on the the race and ethnicity that we are encouraging students to pursue these, these credentials and to enter into the workforce and teaching classrooms where students can connect to them.
Thank you, appreciate that. Is there anything else from previous panelists, this panel that we haven't asked or I haven't raised about the teacher residency or Golden State Teachers program that you really want to get on the record right now? I don't see anybody raising hands or coming up the mic. We have one here at the panel.
Now I just want to clear up something. It was mentioned before that in teacher residency the funding cannot be used for the mentor to pay the mentor teacher. That's not actually correct. They can use that money for the mentoring that's needed for teacher residency.
Okay, thank you for putting that on the record. Appreciate that.
And I had one more. So we did start an interest list for the 26th, 27 years. You know that many students now are receiving notice if they're going to be accepted into a program for the 26, 27 year. And right now we have about 1300 students who are interested in the program for the coming year. And again, the projections of the 14.4 million of what would be a rollover. We are doing everything right now to reach out to institutions and working with the institutions to qualify students and retroactively award them this award. So it may be less than the 14.4 that we may have remaining.
Okay, appreciate you clarifying that as well, seeing nothing else on issues three and four. Sorry, issues two and three, we will hold them both open, but for issue number two. Well, we're going to request that CDE provide CTC and the LAO with parameters for how state level three funds could be allowable for bilingual Teacher Preparation Grants and how Title 2 could be used for the Golden State Teachers Program that we've discussed with that. Again, we'll hold that issue open. Issue number two. Thank you to the panel on issue two. And thank you to the panel on issue three. Hold that issue open as well. And we will move on to issue four, the computer science authorization proposal. In the January budget for this, we'll have Finance LAO and then ctc. So we'll kick it off with Finance.
Liz Mai with the Department of Finance. So the Computer Science Supplementary Authorization incentive grant provides one time grant awards of up to $2,500 per participating teacher to local educational agencies so that they can support credentialed teachers to obtain a supplementary authorization in computer science and provide instruction in computer science coursework in settings authorized by the underlying credential. The program includes a 100% match requirement for each grant dollar received, which can be actual funds or in kind contributions. So the Governor's budget proposes statutory changes to the Computer Science Supplementary Authorization Incentive Grant program that will increase the award amount to eligible recipients from $2,500 to $6,000. It would also reduce the match requirements to 1/3 of the grant funding received and extend the encumbrance date of the funds to June 30, 2030. These amendments are aligned to the amendments made to the Reading and Literacy Supplementary Authorization Incentive Grant program included in the 2025 Budget act similar to that grant program, the administration has heard from the field that the cost of course is to obtain their computer science supplementary authorization is higher than the sum of the grant award and the LEA match, which can be an in kind match. And this often results in teachers having to cover the remaining costs which we've heard has made the program kind of cost prohibitive for those teachers. So happy to take any questions.
Thank you very much. Does the LIO have comments?
We recommend rejecting this proposal. Only one fifth of the original program funding has been awarded after nine rounds of funding. We think the grants currently offered by this program, assuming it is not just in kind match, are sufficient to attain computer science supplementary authorizations in both the CSU and UC systems. So we don't think increasing the grant size will significantly increase demand for the program. Happy to answer questions.
Thank you. Commission.
Commission has nothing to add.
Okay, thank you. Let me ask what is the total amount of the proposal?
The original appropriation was 15 million in the 2021 Budget Act.
And how much is has been utilized?
Approximately 3 million.
There's still 12 million in this proposal and that the 12 million is part of this proposal?
Correct.
Okay, and is it. Has there been an analysis done as to whether the reason why they there wasn't participation at the levels expected that with a new increase in the maximum grant that is there any evidence to demonstrate that then this will be used more widely? And to what extent do we anticipate the funding to last? Is it for the next fiscal year? For the next few fiscal years, the
funding would be available through the 2930 fiscal year? We believe that. So looking at the cost of programs and courses, we generally see that the cost is around 5, $6,000. And so we believe with increasing the award to that $6,000 that would fully cover the cost.
So have we identified. So I'm trying to do the rough math. So we're talking about potentially 22,000, not 22,000 individuals participating in this at 12 million total 6,000 per teacher. 2000 times 6,000 is 12 million, I believe. And so do we expect what is finance expectation on utilization in each of the years? Is that so we'll have 500 teachers now over the next four years. Is that what the expectation is?
I don't think that we necessarily like portioned it out year by year, but I mean assuming that it's all roughly equal uptake across the years, that would be a fair assessment.
Does the CTC have any recommendations on how to make the authorization more attractive to. I assume Rurals here again you talked about this earlier may be more challenged in participating in these programs. In this case, I think we've seen the same effect. Are there any further recommendations on rural areas being able to participate more in this program?
There's not at this time. We really tried to get the word out in every possible venue that we have that these are available. I believe at this point, given the number of years and the amount of money that the legislature has been providing grants through the CTC programs are pretty well aware that we're a good place to go to see if there's money available as well. So I really, I truly don't have
anything to offer and you don't have any data, I don't expect you would of people who've asked and then they realize it's only whatever it is and they say well that's not enough for me. So I don't want to participate like people who are not being served, not
individuals, but LEAs who are receiving this. I mean anecdotally we're saying the match and the amount per candidate is not quite robust enough to really influence greater uptake, greater participation. So it's possible that this could result in more computer science conversations.
All right, that's it. Although I do want to ask the commission and this may be better suited for Dr. Sandy who presented at the beginning in one of the opportunities and sorry for the other folks that are here, but I had forgotten to ask opportunities page. The third bullet talks about a registered apprenticeship program and I actually don't know what that is and how that differentiates from teacher residency programs. If you could provide some. It's. I think it's on. It is hopefully
the chief deputy director.
Thank you. Is that on?
Good afternoon to the chair. So a registered teacher apprenticeship program, it is based on either an intern credential or a normal credential based on student teaching. And what it is is when an organization has taken the step to register their program with the division of apprenticeship standards, then they are eligible to offer registered apprenticeship programs, which makes them eligible to receive different funds, different workforce funds. The practical differences of a registered apprenticeship program are that they are based. They're governed and overseen locally by a joint apprenticeship committee that includes labor representatives, the Institute of Higher Education that's providing the educator preparation services and the district. So there's a joint committee that oversees the registered apprenticeship at the local level. By Registered apprenticeships are also historically in California have been debt free pathways where you earn while you learn. They're also associated nationwide with Higher retention.
I think I'm understanding what it is. I'm not understanding how someone like who would go to this program and how it's funded not through our education funding. It sounds like it's funded maybe through labor workforce.
There are funds through that that mechanism. However, the student teacher stipend also allows local education agencies to be reimbursed for costs incurred for paying wages to apprentices. And the teacher residency grant program also allows for applications for people that are going to deploy apprenticeship programs, but they have to meet all the same requirements.
Okay, so if you have a resident of a apprenticeship program that's approved and registered, you can offer some of those slots with teacher residency. While they won't be getting the teacher residency compensation, they'll be compensated that and probably more above that.
Is that what happens with the residency? It could be used to offset costs for and correct me if I'm wrong, Aaron, could be used to offset costs for tuition as well as to offset costs the employer to provide wages. And similarly with the student teacher stipend, the funding instead of going to the person receiving the stipend, it goes to the employer to offset wages or costs incurred perhaps with paying for tuition.
But does have to be a wage paid to the teacher for which that stipend is being potentially given to the county office of it.
I guess in this case, yeah, there must be a wage that progresses in steps paid to the apprentice as they move through the different.
And so who. This would not be for a student in college.
This is
who goes to these programs
for the registered teaching apprenticeship programs. They are designed primarily for post baccalaureate apprentices but also designed to link up very intentionally with pre baccalaureate feeder programs.
So if someone gets their bachelor's degree and wants to pursue this route, they can. Do you have this program in San Diego County? Just curious.
I know San Diego Unified is one of the districts that is in the queue to to have their standards reviewed
by the San Diego Unified. Did you mean San Diego county or County?
It's the USD Is the. Is the.
Okay. So in addition to county offices, school districts are also.
Yes.
Participating in this. Okay, thank you. Well, took us a little bit off topic, but appreciate the feedback. Maybe more questions offline. Thank you. Thank you to the panel on issue four. Appreciate. We will hold this issue open and move on to issue number five. Non Certified and Private School Employees Data System or SB848. There's a BCP budget change proposal for this and we will ask finance to present the proposal.
Hi Liz, my department of finance. So the Governor's oh so sorry.
Trying to avoid that.
The governor's budget proposes 1.4 million ongoing general fund and 10 positions for the Commission on teacher Credentialing to implement specific provisions of Senate Bill 848 that was signed in October of 2025. Specifically, these resources will allow the commission to develop a statewide data system that includes information relating to investigations of allegations of egregious misconduct of individuals serving in non certificated positions at a local educational agenc or in any position for a private school. So though the bill would require the Commission to serve only as the data administrator for records submitted to the statewide data system, the Commission is required to conduct its own review upon receiving specified documentation alleging misconduct against a credential holder. So to the extent that allegations of egregious misconduct submitted to the data system are about a classified or private school staff who also holds a teaching or services credential, the commission will have to investigate those allegations. So the resources provided in the Governor's budget will also address increasing workload coming from that interaction and happy to take any questions.
Thank you. Does the LAO have any comments? No comments. CTC any comments?
Nope.
Happy to answer any questions.
All right. Thank you. I think that was very clear presentation. Appreciate that I have no questions. So we will move on and hold this issue open. Thank you to all the panel members. Brings us to our final issue which is teacher subject matter competency and examinations in the trailer bill language that was presented. So we'll hear the proposal from the Department of Finance and again comments potentially from the LAO and the ctc. We'll kick it off with Finance.
All right.
Lisbon Department of Finance. The Governor's budget proposes various statutory amendments to reduce testing barriers that can often stand in the way of change climate qualified teacher candidates. Specifically the changes allow for the expansion of degree majors that can count towards a candidate's subject matter competency for single subject, multiple subject and PK through three early childhood education specialist credentials. Other statutory changes directs the commission to help support streamlining of transcript review to establish subject matter competency for teacher candidates including review by higher education institutions and happy to take any questions.
Thank you. The LEO no comments at this comments and CDC no comments. Okay, I have a question here that prepared ahead of time. Should California now invest in a restructuring of ihe teacher credential programs to incent a shift to a four year program? You heard a preview of that question earlier in my exchange on the first panel with professor from the university and just curious on the thoughts you have. A new set of panelists, especially from the commission folks that are here.
I don't have anything to add aside from what Executive Director Sandy communicated as well as Dr. Gritsik from San Francisco State University, other than with the lifting of the prohibition against an education
bachelor's degree.
As Dr. Grutzik communicated. More and more institutions are already sort of looking at this, how they can streamline these programs for their candidates. I. I'm certain the candidates would be more than happy.
Yeah. What role can the Commission play in facilitating more of our of the segments, primarily csu, given half of the preparation occurs there. But privates also contribute quite a number of teachers. What role can CTC play in facilitating more of that type of academic program? What role do you play now
in terms of helping them think about the structure of their programs? That's kind of a campus by campus decision they have to make based on their own resources. Turning around an existing program and turning it into something different can be quite an undertaking. The Commission has strong relationships with the private post secondary institutions, the CSUs and the UCs. And we're always available to be thought partners with them. And that goes both ways. So you heard mention of the dual credentialing bill 1119. We are working closely with other institutions to think about how a dual credentialing program could be better facilitated. Is there something in our standards, is there something in our accreditation structure that could somehow be modified? Still ensure quality, but streamline the process either for the institution or the candidate and better if it's for both.
Right. Okay. Look forward to that. Any other thoughts? Anybody else? Okay. Thank you again. Appreciate all of you. We will hold this issue open and we'll ask the CTC to provide technical amendments to section 44259 to more clearly define the parameters of a major in a subject area. Closely related. That's what the language says now. Appreciate your help in further defining that and what that should be for purposes of the PK through three credential subject matter areas. With that, thank you all for being here. Thank you to all the panelists on all the issues. And we will now turn it over to public comment. If you are here to provide comments on an item that we heard today, I welcome you to come forward to the microphone. Identify yourself. We'll give you a minute to provide your feedback on any of the issue areas that were addressed in today's hearing. So we will start with our first speaker. Welcome.
Good afternoon.
Mr. Chair Dorothy Johnson at the association of California School Administrators want to express our strong support for issue number five, the SB848 database. As we know, unlike certificated positions, there is no such database in place for classified employees. The only information we have is applicant provided. So despite other changes in SB848, we are still lacking information despite best efforts by school employers to find trusted adults. So we do strongly support issue number five, funding. And I will also express support on behalf of the California association of School Business Officials.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Chair Briana Brens on behalf of the California County Superintendents, addressing the education workforce shortage has been a long standing policy
priority for our organization.
We've historically supported many of the programs
highlighted in today's hearing, including the Golden State Teacher Grant Program, classified School Employee
Teacher Credentialing Program, Teacher Residency Grant Program and others. Thank you for hearing this important topic today. In this year's budget, we strongly Support the additional 250 million one time funds to augment the Teacher Residency Grant program
for the reasons that were expressed during the panel.
Also, in relation to item 6, we
support the expanded definition of subject matter competency that's included in the Governor's budget.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Chair Alvarez and members on Iokamedes on behalf of Los Angeles Unified, very much in support of the ongoing efforts of the Legislature and the administration to support various efforts to increase the teaching pipeline. In addition, Los Angeles Unified supports the revisions the computer science supplementary authorization proposed in the Governor's budget. The changes are based on the reading and literacy supplementary authorization revisions that were adopted in last year's tbl. Along with our higher education partners, Los Angeles Unified believes these changes will make it much easier to recruit and train teachers authorized to teach in computer science. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Alvarez and members. My name is Stephen Almasan, the Director of Policy and partnerships at EdVoice. I'm here on behalf of EdVoice and 60 organizations representing students, families, parents, community members and advocates to urge you to continue funding the Golden State Teacher Grant program. With a $100 million investment in the 2627 budget, teachers are the most important school based factor for student success. Yet 1 in 7 teachers in California are not fully credentialed. This impacts an estimated 750,000 students, especially in our highest need schools. The GSTG program works has helped place more than 22,000 qualified teachers in high need schools and as you heard earlier today, 91% plan to stay beyond their service commitment. While we appreciate the governor's $14.4 million reappropriation, it is not enough to sustain the Program. If a permanent general fund commitment is not possible, we urge you to continue the core principles of the Golden State Teacher Grant program through popsicle proposition 98. We urge you to invest $100 million to continue funding the GSDG program. And thank you so much for your consideration.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, chair and members.
My name is Maddie Kawahi and I am a former high school teacher. I'm here on behalf of nearly 300 Golden State teacher recipients who signed letters urging the legislature to provide 100 million in new funding for the GSED program in the 2026-27 budget. GSTG is a practical, cost effective investment that helps bring qualified teachers into high need schools and keep them there. The proposed 14.4 million in previously committed funds is not enough to sustain the program. Our students deserve stability and access to great teachers. Please continue funding this vital program with $100 million investment.
Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Maurice Goodman for Innovate Public Schools Black Parent Network. And I organize black families in the Bay Area and throughout the state. And they are the ones who help draft this message. And I need you to hear this clearly. We are running out of time. Right now, one in seven California teachers is not fully credentialed in our schools. Black schools, brown schools and low income schools, that number is even worse. Our children are sitting in classrooms without qualified teachers. Today.
Not someday.
Today. The Golden State Teachers Grant program is the single most effective tool we have to fix this. It has already put over 22,000 credentialed teachers into the schools that need us most. And it is set to disappear in 2026 while our kids are still in the classrooms. Governor Newsom, state legislators, we are not asking. We are demanding 100 million in 2026, 2027 budget to keep this program alive. 200,000 students cannot wait till next year cycle.
The question is not if we can
afford it, it's the fact that we cannot afford not to. The clock is already running. Do not let it expire on our children. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members.
My name is Charay Rogers. I'm a graduate student at California State University, Dominguez Hills. I'm a recipient of the Golden State Teacher Grant and I'm also a teacher resident with the Village Initiative at the Watts of Power foundation in Los Angeles. I am here today because the Golden State Teacher Grant made it possible for me to pursue a career in teaching and serve in a high need school.
Programs like this remove barriers for aspiring educators who want to serve their communities
that need them the most
across California
and you've heard teacher shortages remain a serious challenge.
But even more critically, credential programs can
cost between $32,000 and $50,000 at the university of California System. Since its launch in 2019, the program has helped prepare more than 22,000 educators across our states. Investing in teachers ultimately strengthens communities, and California is a place where bold ideas take root.
Thank you, thank you.
Good afternoon.
Thank you, Chair Alvarez and members of the Subcommittee. My name is rita Abdelmolik with Code.org on behalf of Computer Science for California Coalition, which includes school districts and county offices of education such as San Diego, COE and lacoe in support of making trailer bill changes to the computer science authorization. Our Coalition greatly appreciates staff comments on the item, recognizing that the LEA match may need to be reconsidered more broadly, this is why we are strongly supporting Assemblymember Berman's no cost budget request to make two targeted amendments to the TBL to allow for in kind match supporting computer science instruction and allow the CTC to waive the match altogether for schools with higher shares of unduplicated pupils, including small or rural LEAs. We have consistently heard from our coalition members, especially small, rural and low income districts, that they cannot participate under these two barriers. By removing these barriers, we ensure these grants are accessible to the very schools it was designed to serve and furthers the goals of the Governor's proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Happy to be a resource. Good afternoon. Chair Alvarez on behalf of the California
association of Suburban School Districts, we appreciate the Committee's continued investment in strengthening the educator pipelines. These efforts are critical to building more diverse workforce that reflect the students we serve. Addressing persistent shortages in special ed, STEM and bilingual education. We are concerned that the Golden Teachers Grant program is funded below prior year levels. Additionally, while we support the goals of SB848, we want to highlight that LEAs are taking on additional reporting responsibilities to comply with the new requirements. Successful implementation will require sufficient and ongoing state investment to support both the Commission and local agencies without creating additional unfunded burdens. Cal SSD respectfully urges the Committee to prioritize stability, equity and full implementation support across those investments. Thank you.
Good afternoon. Jessica Sacco on behalf of Children Now, Children now recognizes and honors the foundational and critical role that teachers play in the lives of the children in their classrooms. That's why we have championed for years that the State make ongoing and robust investments in our state's teacher pipeline and address the teacher and plays a critical role in addressing the state's teacher shortage as well as lack of diversity in the profession. Regarding the conversation here today, Children now is proud to sponsor AB 1904, co authored by assembly members Gibson and Mertzucci to set the foundation for California to prepare credentialed educators via an apprenticeship program that made it out of Assembly. Ed this afternoon we call on the legislature to increase funding to the Golden State Teacher grant program for $100 million. We support the continued funding of the teacher Residency Grant program and request that the authorizing legislation be updated to retrospectively apply to 2018 grantees. And finally, we support the Governor's proposal relative to the computer science supplementary authorization.
Thank you.
Thank you. Good afternoon.
Michelle Warshaw, on behalf of the California Teachers association, just want to thank you for putting together today's hearing and especially for our participation in panel one and having the opportunity for one of our members to share her story. CTA supports the governor's proposed 250 million for the teacher Residency Grant program. And I also just want to elevate something that we didn't quite have time
to discuss today in panel one, and
that is paid family leave as a tool for retention. Three fourths of educators are women and they are often faced with a choice when they become pregnant. If they need to leave the classroom, try to schedule their pregnancy around the school year, which doesn't always work out the way that you expect it to. And only after they've exhausted sick leave are they even eligible for differential pay. So that's their salary minus the cost of a substitute. It also has a significant impact on retirement. So women usually receive on average $100,000 less in retirement due to the exhaustion of sick leave that they must take for pregnancy leave. So just want to elevate that as a powerful attention tool.
Thank
you.
Good afternoon.
Caitlin Jung on behalf of the statewide Residency Technical Assistance center and the five county offices that make up srtac, we
are in strong support of issue three,
the Governor's proposed investment in educated residencies. We also working with administration and the legislature to ensure there is also funding to extend and expand the technical assistance of the field so that it aligns
with the proposed grant funding. We will follow up with more information
on the impact of educator residencies and how SRTAC has supported the field since its inception.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon. Chairmember Raquel Morales with FTRUST West. We would like to express our support for the teacher residencies as well as
we would like to respectfully request the legislature to add an additional 100 million
for the Golden State Teacher Grant program.
This program has been a crucial lifeline
for teachers wanting to enter into the profession. Districts are making positive progress towards a more diverse, high quality teacher workforce. But continued investments is needed to impact this long standing gap between students and teachers of color meaningfully. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. McLean Rozanski with the Alameda County Office of Education. Thank you for your attention to the critical issue of staffing shortages, particularly in our special education classrooms and where creative solutions are needed to address the need for long term substitutes. We support residencies and student teaching opportunities as well as additional funding for the Golden State Teacher Grant program. We also strongly support the TRILOGY Language on Teacher subject matter competency examinations which will increase credentialing options for candidates. We feel strongly that additional support and funding options are needed for internships to address shortages and create an education workforce that is more representative of our student body. We would also like to bring your attention to the need for stronger professional pipelines in early education. Existing shortages have been exacerbated by the shift of early educators to higher paid TK positions. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. I'm Alex Melendez. I'm a middle school special ed teacher with San Lorenzo Unified. We have a high turnover rate and 30% of our students are English learners. My home district, Chino has turnover below the national average and 10% of our students are yells. My special ed credential is in high demand. My undergraduate major English less so. The Golden State Teacher Grant gave me a financial incentive to go and to stay where I'm needed rather than where I'm comfortable, which will prevent me from future pink slips. High needs. Districts and subjects need the full hundred million dollar funding from the gsdg. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. Tanisa Herring. On behalf of the NAACP California Y State Conference, on behalf of the state conference's 57 branches and 23 youth units, we urge the 100 million investment in the Golden State Teacher Grant program. The data is clear. Students in high need schools, especially black students, are far less likely to have fully credentialed teachers. And that's an equity issue we cannot ignore. But we do know what works. This program, as mentioned earlier, has helped place over 22,000 qualified teachers in classrooms that need them the most. And 91% of them are choosing to stay. That's just numbers. I'm sorry? That's not just numbers. That's stability, opportunity and stronger outcomes for our communities. If we are serious about closing gaps and investing in our future, we must Continue to fund what works. We ask that you secure the future today. Thank you.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Cordell Hampton with the association of California School Administrators. We support reincorporating 14.4 million for the Golden State Teacher Program. Recommend restoring it to its original structure so all candidates, regardless of income, can
receive access to funding. We also Support the additional 250 million for the teacher Reside Grant program.
Expand allowable majors for subject matter competency, transitioning away from a reliance on standardized testing and moving to towards alternative measures. Additionally, we recommend investing 50 million over a five year period to support the Diverse Educator Leaders Pipeline initiative. Thank you. Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Carol Gonzales, on behalf of HOPE Organized for Political Equality, who has advocated to help extend pathways for economic mobility for Latinas, including higher education access. Too often, financial barriers stand in the way of aspiring educators, especially Latinas, as they navigate cost, debt and competing responsibilities as they enter the workforce. That's why the Golden State Teacher Grant program is so critical. It helps reduce the financial burden of becoming a teacher and creates a clear supported pathway into the profession. As you've heard before, the 2200 teachers that have been placed in high needs to schools, over half of them are Latinx, helping build a teacher workforce that better reflects California students. This is exactly the kind of targeted investment hope's research calls for. Programs that remove barriers, strengthen career pathways and expand opportunities for Latinas. For that reason, we really urge you to support and sustain the program.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. Meli Kuchuku, on behalf of AICCU as
part of the coalition to fully support
and fully fund the Golden State Teacher Grant program.
While the 14 million proposed is appreciated, fully, funding the program at 100 million
is essential to continuing efforts to address California's teacher shortage and support students in high need areas.
Thank you.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair.
My name is Ivan Ivaramora. I'm here on behalf of Alder Graduate School of Education.
In this current year, we're supporting over
500 students access the GSCG. And it's been a huge game changer.
But I also want to elevate one
new additional point for you to consider, and that is, especially as a formerly
undocumented person, our DACA recipients do not
get access to federal financial aid. And therefore the GSTG is a huge, huge factor in their ability to pursue teaching.
So I really want to elevate our DACA recipients as a crucial aspect of.
Of access for. For accessing the gsdg. Thank you.
Thank you. Seeing no other public testimony, I want to thank all of you for coming today. Thank again, all the panels and we are adjourned.
It.