Budget Sub1 — 2026-04-30 (partial)

The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Education will come to order. Before we begin, let's establish a quorum. Consultant, can you please call the roll? The consultant notes of quorum has been established. Before we begin, we will be pulling issues 3 and 5 from the agenda today. Today we will be hearing the Governor's proposals on universal school meals, expanded learning, and community schools. We will begin with issue 1 on universal school meals, including another round of the kitchen, Infrastructure and Training Grants Program. We will start with the Department of Finance, and whoever is here and ready to present, please go ahead.

I had a couple of questions just in regards to some of the federal policies as well as federal investments that we've received for school meals. I know last year I was really pleased that we were able to participate in the SunBucks program and we received that money. that's been able to be applied towards summertime meals is my understanding in providing that cash benefit to families so that they can purchase food when school's out of session. I've written a bill in that space, so I was really happy to see the governor include that in his budget and us receive that federal funding. And so we'd love to hear about the financial impacts of that, as well as any indicators that some of the federal immigration policies may impact school meals programs. I think that's also been a big concern for us. Obviously, you know, we serve all students, right, regardless of immigration status. And I think it's really a thoughtful policy that we have here in the state of California. But understand that that's unfortunately something that the federal government has been weaponizing to target states that do have programs that are focused more on meeting needs rather than assessing citizenship status.

you asked for. If she does, I'd invite her up. Yeah, thanks. Kim Prinzel, Department of Education and Nutrition Services. So we're incredibly thankful for your support for summer EBT, both Department of Social Services and Department of Education, serving those families right when school is out of session and they need those $120 of benefits. So we're continuing to apply for that. We anticipate that USDA will be approving our 2026 plan very soon, and that does require a 50% state match for those federal dollars that we bring in for the admin costs. So we're working through that with Department of Finance now. And certainly standing up a statewide application is something that we really leaning into as well and thinking about what that will look like to help families have easier access to the summer bucks Regarding just immigration and changes federally with SNAP benefits, we certainly know that with community eligibility that we will have fewer children this next year, fewer students in this next cycle. that are directly certified. And so that will impact our meal counts in categories in the paid and reduced price. So thinking that could be a pressure point for our state dollars for universal meals. And so we're watching that. So we're really working with our schools. Thankfully, 75% of our school sites are on a community eligibility provision. And so that really does help to maximize our federal dollars and really lean into the minimize our impacts on the state funding. And so it's really important for schools to be thinking about and we're working with them. This is the last cycle, the four year cycle for community eligibility that the SNAP benefits before they change. And so schools are really looking at their numbers now. We're working with them for this next cycle.

Okay, good morning Chair and members, Shadi Nari of the Department of Finance.

Good morning, Sarah Cortez with the Legislative Analyst's Office. We recommend rejecting the fourth round of the Kitchen Infrastructure Training Funds because the second and third rounds of funds, which is $755 million, are still being spent or still being awarded. Given the wide range of allowable uses, so these can be used for cooking equipment, service equipment, refrigeration, training, staffing and costs associated with procuring foods, And it's really difficult to say what the unmet need is here. If the legislature provides funding in the future, we recommend funds be restricted for specific goals set by the legislature. And then that data is collected to measure progress towards achieving these goals. That concludes my remarks, and I'm happy to take questions.

Yeah, thank you. It's a great program, no doubt. My concern is because of the issues the federal government they're facing, are we going to be able to backfill and keep the program going? Bottom line.

Madam Chair, I just want to point out how serious this is and how much it's touched so many students across California that it's so vital. And we've got to do whatever we can to keep it going. And I thank you for all your efforts.

Thank you. Ideliz Perez with the Department of Finance. The Governor's budget provides a total of $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund to support the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program in 26-27. ELOP provides year-round access to enrichment activities and before and after school supplemental education programs for all TK to 6th grade children in low-income communities. This program reached full implementation in 25-26 to provide children with access to subsidize before, after, and summer school. The Governor's budget proposes $62.4 million ongoing Proposition 98 general fund to provide a minimum of $1,800 per pupil in 26-27 and ongoing for LEAs with TK-6 grade and less than 55% of unduplicated pupils, which are known as Tier 2 LEAs. And with that, we're available to take any questions. Dylan Huxlitz with the Legislative Analyst's Office. We recommend modifying the proposal in the Governor's budget to make the tier two rates fully fixed. The Expanded Learning Opportunities Program is the state primary before and after school program and it pays out rates based on two different rates based on the district share of English learners and low students as the Department of Finance just said The change last year in the 25-26 budget increased funding for the program by $600 million to change the threshold between the fixed Tier 1 rate, that's $2,750 per qualifying student, and the lower Tier 2 rate that fluctuates based on remaining program funds. This year's proposal would set the minimum Tier 2 rate to $1,800. This proposal would still allow the rate to fluctuate above this minimum. This proposal, we think, could be helpful as Tier 2 rate uncertainty makes LEA planning difficult. However, we recommend going further and fully fixing the Tier 2 rate at $1,579 the rate's been at for the last two years. Additionally, we recommend that any future rate changes be tied to changes in the programming requirements because right now we do think that the rate would be sufficient for the current requirements of the program. Thank you. That concludes my comments. Happy to answer any questions.

We are supportive of the proposal, including the Tier 2 investments. We, especially with declining enrollment for some of our cuspers, have – it's a little volatile, whether they're Tier 1, Tier 2. And providing that additional funding and stability really helps ensure that we get the participation we desire. We're also appreciative of the language that we saw last year where allowed opt-out, because we are now seeing that those that want to participate are, and we think that will improve the audit findings. We only had 51 schools opt out, largely charters, and those that continue to participate are engaging and better understanding the proposal and what they need to do. And so we have our report coming out, our biennial report shortly, and it really emphasizes the benefit of the ELP program. And that is that 32.9% of the students that participated were represented in the largest student body. and what we saw was that they exhibited higher scores on their mathematics assessment. They improved their English language art scores, and we saw overall attendance improve. We think these investments are solid. They're netting the results that we desire, and we think that coupled with the additional programs of 21st Century and ACEs, we are offering the whole child goal that has been the desire of the legislature for some time. Thank you.

On behalf of CDE, I can say that. The ELOP program is apportioned, so it's through the LEAs, and we don't have the site-specific information. However, we have just started collecting data for the 2025-2026 school year, so we will have in the mid-2027, we expect to have data that will help indicate better how the money is being used in the age groups that are being served, as well as we do expect to see a little bit of a shift. But the distinction in ELOP is that it's locally apportioned, so there's a little bit of a disconnect that we have to rely on the reporting, which will cause a delay in our numbers. Italy Spedas with the Department of Finance. So to your question on just like the potential of expanding this to further grades, specifically beyond grades six and above. We don't have a proposal in this in the governor's budget. However, we're happy to have further conversations with the legislature on this as we're working to build an agreement for this spring. But yes, thank you. I agree with the Department of Finance, with the Legislative Health Office. So I think we've made a number of recommendations around this issue in the past. So we do have the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program, which particularly for Tier 1 districts is intended to serve all students. Many of those districts are also receiving ACES funding that they receive funding for specific sites. We do think that the ELOP funding in and of itself is enough to offer the program that the legislature expects. And so there is an opportunity to rethink about how to distribute those funds overall. Some of the ACES funds go to middle schools, is my understanding, but most of it is still in the elementary school space. But there could be an opportunity to just to kind of realign those programs so that some additional portion of those funds go to middle school or high school students. The one, I think, the one challenge in some cases is that the ACES funding itself is from a ballot measure. And so that money requires a two-thirds vote to make changes to that program if you wanted to, say, realign that program in order to, you know, big picture with our two programs combined, serve both TK through six and middle and high school students. Thank you.

senator in terms of the kind of a decision about expanded learning whether it be a separate program or within LCFF I think the main trade-off and that the main I think reason why it was created as a separate program is because it as the separate program has these specific requirements in particular that you that school districts serve all low students and English learners or if you a Tier 1 district that all students receive an expanded learning program meaning that you you have the potential to be part of a nine day program I think we have heard some of the concerns that you mentioned from some districts that they would rather have the funding in a more flexible way right now as being ELP the main over generalizing but essentially that funding can be used for outside of the normal instructional day for the wraparound program. So, you know, if they want to use it for tutors or something like that, they often they were restricted. And we've heard some districts say we would rather use it during the school day than outside. I think the tradeoff is that then by doing that and putting it in LCFF and giving flexibility, it does mean that they could choose not to offer that program. And I think that was part of the I think the original intent is that families know that, you know, everywhere in the state, if you're a low income student, essentially, you are supposed to be eligible for participating in an expanded learning program so I think those are the that is like the main the main trade-off of whether you have it in LCFF or you have it in in a separate as a separate program I think on the on the issue of

And I do just want to piggyback on some of Edgar's comments, especially the goal of doing before and after really helped families. and ensure one of the main things that we saw with these programs is an uptick in attendance and that's largely because parents are able to have their students on campus for up to nine hours a day and that meets the families where they're at and so it is difficult. I think growing the base is really important, addressing our ratios is crucial to the success of our students but the value add of this program, it's a little apples to oranges because it's looking more at the whole child and that flexibility is really important because they do offer high dosage tutoring. They can offer additional meals. And so it's really allowing the schools to focus on what the needs of not just their students are, but the community itself. And we think that's the benefit of the ELOP program. But I don't envy the position you're in to make those decisions. But I do just want to emphasize where the benefit is and why we think it's important to keep it as its own standalone program versus the flexibility of putting it within LCFF, because we do see that there's the reality that there probably would be encroachment and it would, you know, a slippery slope of the hours being focused during the school time and not on the programs after and before, which gives a full nine-hour day.

And just in terms of data, we do expect for you guys to have more shortly. it was in 2023 where the legislature passed reporting on the CALPADS for the 2025-2026 school year. So that is a new reporting requirement. So you will have more data shortly. And then additionally, our biennial reporting will be coming out in the next month. And that gives you a picture of the benefits of the program. So that doesn't speak to mandates or other metrics, but you will have more information shortly as a result of legislative actions in the

Elise Bettis with the Department of Finance. So to add on further, yeah, in addition to the CALPADS data, there's also the ELOP plans that further detail, like just the scope of the intention of the program submitted by the LEAs that are receiving this funding. And to the point that just about the intent of ELOP, while there are like certain like parameters of how the funding can be used, there, you know, it still provides some sense of flexibility for these LEAs to be able to tailor like the funding to their specific needs. So in one instance, you know, we've heard from one school district who has used ELOP funding to provide a Saturday academic and tutoring program for migrant students because that particular school identified that sense of need to ensure that, you know, the students were able to get further support on the weekends. But that's just one example about, like, how the school could really, like, utilize this funding to consider the whole child approach as well as being able to tailor it to the specific student population needs at that school. And as far as for the point about the LCFF funding, we can take that feedback back to our counterparts and have further discussions on that as well. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Okay. Good morning Chair Members, Shadi Neri, the Department of Finance. The state has invested $4.1 billion one-time Proposition 98 general fund to implement community schools, a whole-child school improvement strategy focusing on community engagement, providing wellness services, and professional development to support positive school climates and joyful learning opportunities during an expanded school day. The investment has enabled nearly 2,500, nearly one in every four schools in the state to adopt the model, with data indicating that the first cohort of schools that benefited from this investment, showing significant reductions in chronic absenteeism, reduced suspensions and improved test scores, and academic achievement with the largest gains for historically underserved students. The Governor's budget builds on this prior investment and proposes $1 billion ongoing Proposition 98 general fund to expand the community schools model to up to 3,700 more schools and provide ongoing funding to support all existing schools. The goal is for all schools in the state that have an unduplicated people percentage of 65% or more to implement and sustain the community schools model. The administration does not propose a cohort model for the ongoing apportionments program. schools will be able to opt into the funding as soon as this fall. Existing community schools will continue to be funded by the one-time implementation grants and will be able to opt into the apportionment funding once their implementation grant ends. To support the significant expansion of community schools from over 2,500 to over 6,000, the administration proposes alignment of this initiative to the statewide system of support, strengthened technical assistance, and accreditation to support the alignment to the California community schools framework. The community schools model provides a framework for authentic engagement to address student needs and enable joyful and rigorous learning environments. Community schools engage key interest holders to engage in asset mapping and needs assessment, matching barriers to learning with student-specific supports, and continuous improvement which are key strategies utilized by the state LEA-focused system of support. Page 12 of the committee agenda shows the four key components of the community Schools model. These pillars align to several of the priority areas that LEAs must address in the development of their Local Control Accountability Plan or LCAP. Planning done through the community school's development process provides cohesion between LCAP strategic planning, blending and braiding funding for several key state funding streams, for example, expanded learning opportunities, universal school meals, universal pre-kindergarten, and meaningful community engagement, positive school climates and shared governance. In recognition of this alignment between community schools and the LCAP, the administration's proposal explicitly aligns county-level community schools' implementation to the universal and targeted assistance that county offices of education are required to provide to their local educational agencies. This makes particular sense given the numerous studies that indicate community schools result in positive impacts on student attendance, school climate, and academic achievement, all of which are tracked on the California School Dashboard and are addressed by a statewide system of support. The proposal also includes ongoing funding to support the existing statewide and regional Transformational Assistance Center structure, STAC and ARDTAC. The TACs will continue in their supportive role to assist schools with implementing community schools with fidelity to the framework. To ensure that community schools are implemented with fidelity and aligned with the California Community Schools Framework as adopted by the State Board of Education, the proposal emphasizes increased accountability through annual self-certification and the development of a future accreditation process as has been done in several other states. As mentioned previously, the proposal aims to better integrate within the larger statewide system support by clarifying that universal and targeted assistance that county offices of education are required to provide to their school districts and charter schools includes coordinated partnership and services to support community schools implementation of their county. Because of how impactful and transformative the community schools model can be, particular for students with the greatest need. The administration's vision is for community schools whole child's approach to education to be the way California serves students and families. That concludes my remarks. I am joined by Jess McCombs from the Department of Finance. I'm happy to take any questions.

I'll just kind of stick to three major concerns that we have with the proposal and associated recommendations. So the first is that the new recipients of community schools funding would have no substantive requirements for the first three years of receiving funding with a progress report on their community schools implementation plan not being due until 2029-30. Based on our conversations involved with implementing the community schools model, the application requirements under the current one-time program help districts begin to identify their community needs, identify key challenges, and access technical support earlier in the process, even before they were awarded funding. We would recommend setting annual planning and reporting requirements for schools and districts consistent with the current requirements under the one-time program to encourage schools receiving funding to begin their planning and accessing technical support earlier on in the process. Secondly, we raise concerns about the state's capacity to support such a large influx of new grantees. For context, the state has funded the 2,500 current grantees over four cohorts, And under the proposal, this could result in an additional 3,700 new schools receiving funding, many of which may have little to no experience in many community schools. To address this, we recommend initially targeting a narrower scope of schools and then expanding eligibility over multiple years. For example, instead of sending the unduplicated pupil percentage threshold at 65%, you can set it at 85% and then kind of scale that down over time. The last concern I'll highlight is around the accreditation process. There is not really a lot of specificity in the language about how the process will be determined. The broad discretion is given to technical assistance centers and CDE to develop the accreditation process, so we recommend establishing in statute some specific timelines for key milestones associated with the process. At a minimum, we think that requiring a status update, including draft guidelines and estimated costs, and to require adoption of the accreditation process several months before schools would go through the accreditation process. We also recommend staggering the accreditation process based on when schools initially receive funding to make it more manageable for the state to provide the oversight. proposed currently 6,000 schools would be up for accreditation in 2033-34 and every seven years thereafter which could limit the ability for the state to provide effective oversight. I'll just stop there to end my presentation happy to answer any questions. Kimberly Rosenberger with CDE on behalf of the State Superintendent of Public instruction. We are incredibly appreciative and supportive of the $1 billion commitment. We think that by providing ongoing dollars we are ensuring greater access stability and improving the safe supportive and high learning environments California is setting a national standard for what it means to truly support the whole child and we are at one in four schools having community schools. The impact has been incredible. We do align with the LAO's concerns around additional support for the Transformational Assistance Centers and our County Office of Eds. we would recommend an additional $20 million for a county office of eds because the infrastructure matters. Through the State Transformational Assistance Center, our eight regional technical assistance centers, our county office of ed, and direct support from the California Department of Education schools are receiving hand-on guidance, professional learning, and continuous improvement support. One of the things that I think really demonstrated that is the amount of time from when we first did our cohort one on the planning and implementation to when we've moved through the more recent cohorts, schools are up and ready really quickly. And because of that additional support they're receiving, they're able to serve students sooner. We think to scale to the level that's proposed in this, we would want to make sure we have robust investments in the technical assistance because it is imperative that they have that both County Office of Ed and regional support to ensure they're meeting the metrics and also understanding what's needed as we add an accreditation aspect to this proposal. That concludes our testimony, and I'm happy to provide any additional questions and answers. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I have a couple of questions very quickly, and then I'm going to turn it to my colleagues who might have questions and comments. What are the consequences of a community school failing to meet accreditation standards or self-certification standards? How does that process work? Because the proposal requires an annual self-certification process to begin in 2930 and an accreditation process to begin in 3334. So, to answer your question, I think overall just stating our intent with the accountability measures and the accreditation self-certification process, that is in recognition of how impactful the administration recognizes the community schools model to have been thus far, as I've stated in my opening remarks regarding the positive improvement to student outcomes. And in terms of the accreditation process, so schools that have met the 65 percent or the eligibility requirements of the 65 percent UPP, the administration is envisioning in 2033-34 when the accreditation process to begin, that schools will be accredited. And then if, for example, a school halfway through that period, three years out of the seven years, doesn't meet the eligibility requirements anymore, they still have the remaining four years of that seven-year accreditation period essentially functioning as a whole harmless for them to plan if they're not able to meet that eligibility requirement. That's after. I don't know if my colleague Jessica Holmes wants to add anything. Jessica Holmes, Department of Finance. So I think you're talking about what's the penalty. And what we are proposing is that certainly they'd have to self-certify. If they don self they not eligible for the funds But to the extent that they not meeting accreditation standards that they would be eligible for support through the technical assistance system but then if not meeting the standards after receiving that support, that they would no longer be eligible. I think the one other thing I would mention on that is I think it is our intent to allow them to re-enter the program to the extent that they can begin to meet those criteria again. So really, from a 10,000-foot level, the idea would be very similar to our system of support, that we want to encourage people to adopt these models and to be successful in adopting the model with fidelity. So technical assistance first, but then penalizing by not being eligible for the funds second. Okay, so accreditation is a compliance-oriented process, but community schools are intended to be the result of this kind of organic shared decision-making process, right, to provide integrated services and expanded learning to students in the community. So how does the administration envision and expect local education agencies to balance a community-driven process against the rigors of accreditation, especially because community schools are going to look different depending on where they're located and the needs of the specific student population and the surrounding community, community school in Oakland versus the Central Valley versus Los Angeles. I used to work at one, I was a high school. All of those schools are going to have different programs that are set up. So I'm trying to envision how the administration is going to create some sort of accreditation process for something that I think we almost designed to not be cookie cutter. Yeah, absolutely. And I think from our perspective, that's why an accreditation model is to be preferred when evaluating the efficacy and quality of a community school. You're right. The whole point of community schools is that no two schools look the same. And if we look at something like WASC accreditation, And we don't have we'll have more details on accreditation in the May revision. We don't necessarily spell this out currently. But I think, you know, WASC accreditation, they go in and they actually do a deep dive on not just are you meeting this, but how are you meeting this? What is what is your what have you done? What have you created with your community to to align with the pillars? It's not necessarily a box check. It's more of a holistic conversation. and additionally you know it's it's not always in accreditation a yes or a no answer it's a you know accreditation can happen you know we'll accredit you for one year and then we'll come back and take a look and see what you've done you know come back after three years and see how you've done so I think we actually feel like because it is so open to being more evaluative and qualitative instead of just you know do you check this box do you check this box accreditation actually is a great model for something like community schools where it's not necessarily going to look exactly the same and we don't want to look exactly the same. Okay I'll see if my colleagues have any questions or comments. Senator Archuleta. Thank you Madam Chair. You know I would like to begin by acknowledging the teachers in the community schools because it's them who are working above and beyond working in the normal setting but the young people that are in the community schools the other ones that need a little more help, a little more time, a little more effort. So that means the teachers have got to give a little bit more. And the accreditation, that's a business side. But I'm talking about the teachers themselves where they bond with the students because the students that come in, especially at the high school level, They couldn't make it, but they're not giving up. And neither is the parents, neither is the community. And that's why it's so vital to have our community schools. And I've seen it succeed where the graduation rate has increased. And I've seen the students where they'll finish a year or two there and go back into their schools and be competitive again because of the time and effort that was given to them. So it's important. So I think the state needs to know how important they are. But we have to tighten our belt, no doubt. We have to understand it's a special need here. And I think that our funding has got to reflect the success and the accreditation, the success, the graduation rate. So with that question, and we're finding some of our schools that are up in the 80 and 85 and even 90 percent graduation rate. Where are we with the community schools in line with the normal schools competitive-wise? I hate to overuse this phrase, but it is an apple and oranges kind of scenario, but we have found where we looked at the schools that are similarly placed to those of their peers that we are seeing market improvements in math, in English, and most importantly the chronic absenteeism rates have improved. So they may not be above on the national level, but when we've compared them directly to schools that were similarly performing, their overall improvement has, I think, appreciated about 30% for attendance. And I think that improvement is reflective in their confidence. They go back into the school if they left. And we know sometimes they have a problem and they're shipped over to the community schools, And then there's the teachers trying to rehab to a degree and get them prepared to go back or to prepare to graduate. So it's a different role. And I think we have to understand that. So I think the investment that the state of California must make into that group and the teachers and everyone else is vital. And, yes, it sounds like you want us to be a little more tolerant, apples to oranges. But at the same time, it's accreditation. It's the student to give them a good quality education. and the tutoring is so vital to find out where they fall in between the cracks and help them get back and to be competitive. So I salute those that are in that category, but we have to keep going on and look at it financially as well. So let's work on the accreditation and let's make it as competitive as possible. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Archuleta. Senator Atrobo, do you have any questions or comments? No, I'm just, you intrigued me by the California Department of Education, you intrigued me by your comment on it's hard to compare apples and oranges. Curious, why would you consider it apples and oranges on that front? Well, so there are targets for who benefits first from community schools, so they're going to have lower than the state average test scores, attendance, etc. So when we're saying what their performance looks like, we're making sure we're comparing it to schools that were in similar rankings to them of schools that were already maybe above the state average. And so that's why I say in terms of competitiveness, they may not be the highest scores of the state, but it's when you look at schools of community schools and where they were compared to their peers that had similar scores, we're seeing like attendance rates go up 30%. we're seeing on the LCAP markers. They're going up above all of those. So when I say it's apples to oranges, I saying we not comparing them to the statewide average We comparing them to where they were to similar situated peers And we think that provides a better understanding of how community schools are improving the overall effects of both learning literacy efforts and attendance than if we were to just compare it on a statewide average Okay. And I'm glad you clarified that because I was looking more of – I'm looking as when you talk about the growth, I'm looking at the base of where they started before the community schools were implemented to after, you know, and what that growth – that to me is the growth that we should be looking at. They're based to – comparison to after they were implemented as community schools. Also, I just want for the record, many of our community schools are probably also already receiving ELUP funding. So it's a combination of both programs coming in and really wholeheartedly. But I think moving forward, I think at this rate, the growth for these schools should be hopefully very progressively growing to a point where I think it would be at some point, ideally, we'll be leveraging out with other schools that are non-community, higher advancing average schools in California. And that is my hope, that that's where we're aiming for at some point. Thank you. Seeing no further questions or comments, we will go ahead and move on now to public comment. If there's anyone in room 2100 who wants to provide public comment items that are on today's agenda, then please sign up. We ask that you limit your testimony to one minute. I will be timing you all. And if we go past 1130, I will likely be giving the gavel over to Senator Ochoa Bogue. Now let us begin. Good morning, Madam Chair. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. First, we would like to express our support for the governor's proposal to provide $1 billion in annual ongoing funding for community schools. Los Angeles County has the largest concentration of community school adopters in the nation. As such, it would be significantly impacted by the proposed trailer bill language that reduces current funding while potentially adding close to 1,000 new community schools that would need to be supported throughout the county. So first of all, we'd like the committee to consider staying within the framework of the existing community schools program. Also, we urge support for the proposed 65% funding threshold in the draft trailer bill language as an absolute threshold. And next, maintain and strengthen fidelity with integrity to the community schools framework. Next, we urge that you increase funding for the R-TACs, who will play a pivotal role in ensuring the successful implementation of the expansion. And lastly, we urge your support for the $20 million California multi-tiered system of support funding. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We look forward to working with you. Good afternoon, all. My name is Miley Del Cid. I'm a junior at Hawthorne High School in L.A., and I am a member of the statewide student advisory board with CFJ. Before community schools my passion for storytelling and art didn have a place to grow Through a theatre program brought to my school by community schools I discovered my voice and that opportunity led me to sign with a professional talent agency This is what strategic investment looks like Community schools don just fund programs they unlock potential expand access, and create real pathways for students. This investment of $1 billion is an investment in students like me, in untapped talent, and in stronger, more equitable communities. I'd also urge you guys to understand the importance of how community schools affects electives and just opportunity to grow in your passion and also the eight block period schedule is also something really important which I think community schools funding could you know help out in that area thank you good morning everyone I am the parent of Miley del Sid which has spoke to you guys just recently right now my name is Alvi Ventura as a community school parent of a student. These schools do more than educate. They create opportunity. They connect families to resources and strengthen their communities. Community schools give students a chance to explore different trades, careers, and pathways early, helping them to discover the interests that they have for their future. I've seen the impact of services like community closets that provide clothes and basic necessities for families in need. When we invest in our community schools, we invest in our students' success for a stronger future for everyone. Please continue to support them. Thank you. Good morning members of the subcommittee. My name is Christopher Martinez and I'm a freshman at San Bernardino High School. Student organizer with Inland Congressions United for Change and here with PFL California. I'm here because my school is not a community school yet, not because we don't need it, and not because our district doesn't support the model, but because there's still a lot of misunderstanding about what a community school actually is. While we've been waiting for clarity and research, I've been watching neighboring schools transform. They've gained mental health supports, tutoring, family engagement programs, all the things that help students feel connected and stay in school. Meanwhile, my classmates and I have missed out. We see what's possible just a few miles away, but not on our own campus. That's why the ongoing $1 billion investment matters so much. It gives schools like mind the stability and time to plan, apply, and finally make a community school a reality. I'm asking you to continue this funding so students at San Bernardino High School and Carl San Bernardino County don't get left behind. Thank you. Good morning members of this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Rocio Ruiz. I'm a parent within the San Bernardino City Unified School District and also organizer with ICUC and here with the California Partnership for the Future of Learning. I support the ongoing $1 billion investment in community schools. In San Bernardino, many parents are working long hours, and our kids face challenges that do not disappear when the school rings. Community schools help fill gaps by providing academic support, mental health services, and trusted adults who know our children by name. The results are in abstract. According to statewide data shared by the California Department of Ed, community schools have helped reduce chronic absenteeism by creating stronger relationships with families and offering on-site supports that remove barriers to attendance. That's why stable, ongoing funding matters. Our children can't rely on programs that appear one year and vanish the next. Consistency is what allows us to trust and grow outcomes to improve. I know this committee cares deeply about strengthening families and ensuring every child has a real chance to succeed Community schools do exactly that Thank you Hi everyone Good morning My name is Yesenia Reyes co director at Californians for Justice I come to you here also as a mom of a five going to public school and also an LAUSD graduate. Californians for Justice is a statewide grassroots organization working with black and brown youth at the intersection of racial and education justice. It is an honor to be here on behalf of CFJ and the California Partnership for the Future of learning. We believe racially just, relationship-centered community schools are one of the most powerful interventions we have in dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline. When students have shared power and families are genuine partners in shared decision-making, deep trust develops between communities and educators, and real transformation follows. The community schools model has become the vehicle for that transformation, improving outcomes for students across California. This approach has already been making a difference. The question before this committee is whether we can scale what is working or leave thousands of students without the conditions they need to succeed. Our young people and families are ready and waiting, and we ask for you to meet them there. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. Leticia Garcia with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. We're here in support of two items. Item two on the ELOP, so the stability in Tier 2 funding to ensure more thoughtful and effective planning from year-to-year programming. And then on item number four, community schools support the proposed funding. We also ask that there be continued and dedicated funding for a county office of education coordinator position, specifically for community schools, to provide technical assistance and support for effective implementation of the grant. And this is going across school districts within, for our county, it's across 23 school districts. So as you can see, it's a very organic process. It's very site-based. But the county does have a role in identifying countywide partners that can help multiple districts in very different areas of the county. So that's what we believe that position is very important. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Deborah Bautista-Zaval on behalf of the California Suburban School Districts Association. Thank you for your opportunity to provide comment. On universal school meals, districts remain committed to this critical program and grateful for its reach. However, ongoing challenges with kitchen infrastructure and workforce capacity persist. We respectfully urge the legislature to continue investing in kitchen infrastructure training grants, and particularly for districts that have not been able to pass local bonds. On the ELOP program, ELOP remains essential for students and working families alike. we appreciate the proposal to establish the consistent Tier 2 rate and encourage continued expansion of access with flexibility to reflect the real needs of families and staffing realities on the ground. On community schools, we encourage systems and investment to support existing sites and expand access to new communities, ensuring long-term success and stability. Thank you for your continued commitment. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Andrea Ball here on behalf of the Orange County Department of Education and a coalition of local educational agencies and nonprofits in support of the community school's ongoing funding and also of a request for an additional $20 million to support and sustain the California multi-tiered system of support. More than 30 local educational agencies and nonprofits signed on to the letter we submitted to the subcommittee outlining this request. We know community schools are how we organize services around students and the MTSS is the instructional engine that makes those services translate into better academic and behavioral outcomes. By strengthening best first and and using data to guide decisions, multi-tiered system of support helps schools use the community school's pillars, strategically monitor the impact and make the adjustments over time. The request is not to start something new, it's to sustain the MTSS infrastructure the state's been investing in for over 10 years with Orange County Department of Ed and the partner Butte County Office of Ed as the state leads. We think this is important to connect community schools to make the whole child investments work together as one coherent, prevention-oriented system so your investments truly work for every student. Thank you. Darby Kernan on behalf of In Child Poverty California. We support the community schools. We partner with them. We work with the Promise Neighborhoods and the Cradle to Career programs. We believe the unallocated $485 million, $200 million of that should go in an incentive grant program for community schools to work with their promised neighborhoods or cradle-to-career programs. They are the ones with the community outreach and doing that work today. Community schools where promised neighborhoods are have a 30% reduction in absenteeism and an 89% increase in graduation rates. They are the ones who are in the communities helping our community schools outreach to and get connected. Together they can be stronger. We believe that they should have a one-time role with the county administrators to do this work. We're working with Assemblymember Bonta on this request and appreciate your support. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. My name is Conrad Crump with Disability Rights California, and we're in strong support of community schools. Community schools bring mental health care, family support, and real coordination onto campuses. And that's not theoretical. That's actually the real thing that students really need to learn and to thrive. But there is a truth that we keep avoiding. Disabled students, particularly those who live at the intersection of race and disability, are often and, you know, quite frankly, disproportionately removed from classrooms. suspended and pushed out at higher rates than their peers. And this is not on occasion. This is not in isolated cases. This is actually consistently across districts statewide. And that's not discipline. It's exclusion. So when you remove a student from the classroom, you're not correcting behavior. You're cutting off access to education. So we have a contradiction. We say we believe in the whole child, but we continue to exclude the same children from the system that's supposed to support them. Community schools give us that different path, restorative practices, trauma-informed care, coordinated supports that deal with what's actually going on in a child's life. If we fund this model, we're choosing to keep students in classrooms. If we don't, we're choosing to keep pushing them out. And if we already know who's being pushed out, and we do, then this is no longer a question of data, it's a question of decision. So we respectfully ask you to continue with the funding of community schools. Thank you. Hello, my name is Day Sun with Catalyst California and the California Partnership, and I'm a constituent of Senate District 25 in Alhambra. The community schools approach is a proven strategy that's transforming outcomes for students, and California risks undoing this progress without long-term funding. Research shows that community schools produce significant learning gains, the highest for black students, followed by English learners and students in low-income households. For example Black students gained an equivalent of 130 extra days of math instruction In places like LA County that have been hit hard by attacks from the federal government and immigration enforcement community schools have also been a lifeline for families and students to come together for mutual support, resources, safety, and connection. It's no surprise then that studies reveal up to a $15 return for every dollar invested in community schools. Investing $1 billion annually into community schools is the responsible choice and a choice we urge you to make. Good morning. Rachel Murphy with Public Advocates and the California Partnership for the Future of Learning. We urge the committee to support the proposed $1 billion ongoing to continue and expand the community schools approach. We believe the trailer bill language can be strengthened by ensuring that the various notification, certification, and accreditation processes and requirements are developed in partnership with education interest holders who have been involved in community schools implementation. Additionally, annual reporting at the school level has been a critical piece of school transformation as it builds capacity and contributes to continuous improvement. It's critical that this start immediately to ensure that those processes to assess needs and develop plans for the next year are happening. We provided detailed recommendations in the materials shared with you this morning and earlier this month, and we'd be happy to discuss further. Thank you. Thank you. Chair Perez had to leave a little earlier to catch a flight, so I'll be chairing the rest of the meeting. And just as a reminder, we have one-minute comment time for folks out here, and I think they said the max. The chair said a 40-minute max time, so I will be having a timer. Good morning. Dan Morwin on behalf of the California School Boards Association. We appreciate the student support and professional development discretionary block grant and do advocate for that to be fully discretionary. We know that the COLA is not sufficient. We have seen a large amount of ongoing funding being delegated to ELOP and community schools, and we do still struggle to meet the day-to-day needs of schools, which is why a discretionary block grant is so important. on differentiated assistance, we just flag that while we are supportive of the three-year time period to reduce churn so that LEAs get more assistance when they are identified, we do need a mechanism to identify LEAs in the middle of those three years, so no one's left out and left to language for two or three years before they get assistance. But then for the criteria, we would really reject the governor's proposal and recommend sticking with the current subgroup identification. Thank you. Michelle Warshaw, California Teachers Association Hi, Michelle Warshaw on behalf of the California Teachers Association and also speaking for my colleague from the California Federation of Teachers. We support the proposed $1 billion ongoing funding for community schools and also recommend that there are meaningful embedding of collaborative leadership and shared governance structures in every layer of the community schools infrastructure. Additionally, we recommend adding minimum eligibility criteria for receiving funds. We also support the governor's proposal to provide $2.8 billion to augment the student support and professional development discretionary block grant and urge that it stays as flexible as possible for LEAs to address their unique needs. Thank you. Good morning. Anthony Chavez here on behalf of the California After School Advocacy Alliance, CA3, on ELOP. We support the recommendation to stabilize Tier 2 rates moving forward. We also urge increasing the dedicated funding for older youth, adolescents. And lastly on community schools we support the ongoing funding with expanded learning being a key pillar of that program Thank you Good morning McLean Rosansky with the Alameda County Office of Education We welcome the additional $1 billion in ongoing funding for community schools, which would build on prior investments and ensure the sustainability of this initiative. While we acknowledge the need for accountability measures for this program, we also caution against extensive reporting and accreditation requirements that may impede programmatic work. We also appreciate the ongoing support for ELOP programs, which are essential for supporting families and ensuring more equitable educational opportunities for young people. We support the $62.4 million investment in ELOP to stabilize rate 2 funding. This funding will provide districts with the fiscal predictability they need to maintain mandated services. Thank you. Sadabatch is with Children Now in support of ELOP Community Schools and assuring every child has access to meals. We're speaking on item five in terms of raising concerns that the DA proposal would eliminate the current accountability system's equity guardrails. So we would want to ensure that the legislature maintains in any updated differentiated assistance system equity guardrails and focuses on closing achievement gaps and opportunity gaps. We're also requesting alignment that any distribution of the discretionary funds aligns with LCFF distribution formula. Thank you. Good morning, Chair. My name is Natalie Shin, here on behalf of Californians Together. We are in strong support of the proposed $1 billion investment for community schools. With this funding, we hope that community schools will be able to continue providing targeted language development, after-school supportment, and linguistically responsive programs that meet the unique needs of English learners. The most effective community school models serve as lighthouses for multilingualism, where students and their families see their languages reflected in the classroom, communication, and leadership. This fosters belonging, improves engagement, and supports academic growth, strengthening not just English learner students, but entire school communities. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Leticia Reyes on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, respectfully in opposition of the provision within the community school program expansion, which would exclude additional non-classroom-based charter public schools from eligibility for the program. While labeled non-classroom-based, this is a misnomer. These are public schools where students regularly engage in in-person instruction, often three to four days per week, while also benefiting from flexible models designed to meet the needs of some of California's most vulnerable students. These schools are already using community school funding in exactly the way it was intended to provide expanded learning opportunities, workforce development, and critical family resources.

And you did just perfectly fine in eloquently expressing your thoughts. Good job.

All right. We want to thank all the individuals who participated in public testimony today. If you were not able to testify today, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you and we appreciate your participation. Thank you to everyone for your patience and cooperation. We have concluded the agenda for today's hearing. the Senate Budget Committee No. 1 on Education is adjourned.