Budget Sub1 — 2026-05-20 (partial)

Today we will be hearing the Governor's May revision proposals for TK-12 education. We will begin with issue one on the Proposition 98 overview. We will invite the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst Office to the witness table. I believe we have both Alex Shope from the Department of Finance and Kenneth Kapan from the LAO's office here. And you all may get started whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ken Kapan with the Analyst's Office. We'll speak from our publication that we released yesterday. I'll focus my remarks on Proposition 98 and the architecture of the plan, and then we'll get into some of the detailed comments in the later panels. So turning to page one, the starting point for this analysis is the $6.4 billion increase in the Proposition 98 guarantee relative to January. That's, of course, across the three-year window, but most of that reflecting a spike in 25-26. It's reflecting a combination of higher general fund revenues, partially offset by some lower property tax estimates. Turning to page two, another significant adjustment is a $3.8 billion reduction in baseline costs for the local control funding formula. That's generally reflecting the May revision throwing up to more recent data from the Department of Education. This doesn't increase the Proposition 98 guarantee, but it has a lot of the same effect because it gives you more funding for other school priorities. You've undoubtedly heard a lot about declining enrollment from school districts this year, and that adjustment reflects some of those savings becoming available for other school priorities. Scaling back the Settle Up proposal also means that there's another $1.6 billion available in this year's budget. Turning to page three, we think the estimates of both the Proposition 98 guarantee and the LCFF savings are reasonable. The states had, or we've seen very strong stock market performance lately, driven by artificial intelligence. Revenue collections have been strong. And the mayor vision is building on estimates that are consistent with all of those trends, although we're still concerned about the risk of a market drop and the indicators suggesting the stock market might be overheated. For schools, you heard that test one is operative for Proposition 98. That means there's this direct link where for every dollar of subsequent changes in state revenue estimates, the Proposition 98 requirement would change about 40 cents Regarding the Settler proposal we have the same basic assessment as we have in January I think the governor has a reasonable concern about short forecasting risk but delaying that payment sets up larger deficits and more difficult decisions in subsequent budgets. We think the smaller amount in the mayor vision is an improvement, but we'd still recommend an alternative in which the state sets aside enough funding to fully cover its estimates of Proposition 98, reduces non-Proposition 98 spending as part of a broader plan to balance the budget and uses that additional $3.9 billion to build resiliency for school programs. So turning to page five and the spending architecture, the plan before you has $17.8 billion in new spending proposals. $10.9 billion of that is from the governor's budget, and then the mayor's vision is adding another $6.9 billion on top of that amount. Bulk of that new spending is one time, $10.3 billion of the total, but the ongoing amount is still significant, $7.5 billion in increases to ongoing programs. To understand the package, really two-thirds of all of that new spending is related to three specific proposals, a very large one-time discretionary block grant, a little over $5 billion, $3.8 billion for larger cost of living adjustments and base increases, and then $2.4 billion for a very large increase in special education, what a 42% increase in base rates. So turning to page six, the other really large items to keep track of in this budget are the proposals from January, eliminating the payment deferrals, ongoing funding for community schools, and the full restoration of the Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant. All of those amounts carried over from the Governor's January budget. There are two newer proposals in the Mayor's vision worth tracking. Those are the additional one-time funding for community schools and additional funding for literacy coaches. We'll cover both of those proposals a little bit later. Turning, skipping ahead to page nine in our assessment, thematically we think this mayor vision revolves around three main ideas, discretionary funding, support for district cost pressures, and increases to existing programs. About 70% of the new spending that's in this mayor vision proposal is for flexible grants and other augmentations that would benefit generally all districts and school districts have already received some very large increases since 2019-20, but they still do face some fiscal challenges. Those range from inflationary pressure, managing the end of some large one-time federal and state grants, rising special education costs, some increases in non-personnel costs like insurance and utilities, and discretionary funding would help districts address some of those issues and their other local priorities. Then the other 30% of the new spending is for targeted grants that come with some specific requirements. As with the January proposal, these aren't really new programs, but they are expansions or extensions of existing programs. So turning to page 10, there are some advantages to taking that approach of funding higher COLA and base increases in special education. Those mechanisms get funding to districts quickly, they're efficient to administer, and they're easy for districts to incorporate into their budgets. Mayor of Vision is one reasonable approach, but you could have a different balance, more COLA, less special education, or vice versa, for example. Turning to page 11, one question that's important for any budget is to ask how it would address a downturn. And one positive feature of the Mayor of Vision is that it contains a cushion, about $4.5 billion in ongoing funds that are set aside for one-time activities. And that creates a buffer because if the Proposition 98 guarantee drops in the future you can simply let that one spending expire rather than backpedaling on ongoing programs So it one powerful tool you can use to manage some of the uncertainty An important distinction here is that nearly all of that buffer, 4.4 out of the 4.5 billion, is within the portion of Proposition 98 set aside for schools. For the community colleges, almost all of the ongoing funding is dedicated to ongoing programs. The cushion is only about 127 million, and so they're a little bit more exposed to risk than schools are. We also think the Proposition 98 Reserve deposit is prudent. That $10.3 billion is equivalent to a little more than 8% of total school and community college spending in 26-27. That's not huge in that context, but it could be very, very valuable if revenue drops quickly and the state needs to stabilize programs. So we'd recommend you deposit at least as much as what the governor is proposing in the mayor vision. Turning to page 12, the plan before you wouldn't fully insulate schools from the next downturn. That's still something you'd have to think about and schools would have to prepare for. But it would probably let the state weather the first year of a mild downturn or perhaps whether a mild downturn or maybe the first year of a more severe drop. If you think back a couple years ago, the last time the state had a really severe revenue drop was three years ago. and the fact that the previous budget back then had adopted some of these same features, reserve deposits and cushions, meant that schools and community colleges came through that big drop better than most other parts of the state budget. Given the risks, we think you might want to explore building more budget resiliency, and we think you have at least two promising options in addition to reserves. One could be giving districts an advance payment toward their 27-28 allotments at the end of this year, end of 26-27, and that's essentially flipping the script on deferrals by giving districts their payments a month early, and so the next time the state needs savings, it could simply reverse that payment instead of implementing a deferral. Another option could be to focus on pension costs. That means either setting aside money to address unfunded liabilities and reduce district contribution rates over an extended period, or to offset increases as a buffer the next time the pension systems need to raise rates. To the extent that you reject any of the governor's proposals or take an alternative on the settlement proposal, you would have more one-time funding available, and both of those options would use those funds to give you a little bit more protection for ongoing programs. So turning to page 13, the bottom line is that we think this is a reasonable starting point. There are many ways to adjust the specific proposals and the amounts, but the estimates of the guarantee are reasonable, and there are some prudent features here that would help you build resiliency and protect core programs and priorities. One final postscript, turning to page 14, there are some notable differences here between schools and community colleges. One we already mentioned, there's a much larger buffer for schools than there is for community colleges. Another one is that this mayor vision simply has more new spending proposals for schools, not just in absolute dollars, but as a percentage of existing spending on each of those segments. And that distinction reflects a couple issues. One is that the May revision is setting aside a percentage of funding from Proposition 98 in 25-26 and 26-27 for each segment. It's based on the historical split. And the Proposition 98 pot, the pie, is growing, so both segments are receiving more than they were under the January proposal. But for community colleges, a much larger share of the increases is being absorbed by higher baseline costs and enrollment growth, leaving less for new programs. The opposite situation for schools, falling enrollment is freeing up a lot of funding that's being repurposed for new priorities in this budget. So this is certainly not a bad budget for the colleges overall, but Compared with schools, they're in a tighter position and a little bit more exposed to risk. That concludes our comments. Happy to take questions.

So obviously the reduced amount does reflect that improved revenue outlook. I think that obviously kind of going back to the sort of top of my presentation, seeing some of the kind of big changes, you know, this year in the guarantee, right, about $28 billion just in the budget window over the Budget Act. Obviously, those are pointed to big increases, but I think it also represents a level of volatility and uncertainty that we're still looking at. You know, obviously for 25, 26, you know, we're still gathering data at that time. We'll have a clearer picture of it next year, you know, when we're kind of doing our governor's budget projections in the fall. And I think, you know, I would just sort of return to the overall intent of the settle up proposal. You know, we want to make sure, right, in light of that uncertainty that we are getting to the right number. you know, there are those statutory restrictions, right, that exist that, you know, if there should be a big downturn or kind of a big decrease in revenue, you know, that would basically mean, you know, we'd be overappropriated, you know, general funding to be used to pay for Proposition 98. Um, so I think that, you know, maintaining, uh, that amount, uh, at some level, even if it is reduced, um, you know, kind of just, I think, I think reflects, you know, the, the reflects the uncertainty and, and, you know, just, just our, uh, I think caution and trying to eventually get to that right number.

I can probably speak to more of the general economic certainty, But I think what makes us concerned is how reliant the state revenue structure is on the small handful of tech firms that are invested in artificial intelligence and how much of the state's revenue is driving off of the business and investment income coming from the fortunes of those small companies. They continue to do well. State revenues could continue to exceed projections next year, and the state could be in line for a large windfall. If that very small segment of the economy falters, though, those reductions could quickly become very large. But I think to the chair's point, we share that perspective on the settlement proposal. The state absolutely does need to be thinking about volatility, and we won't have final revenue data for 25-26. That really won't be locked down until May of 2027. But we think there are better options for managing that volatility than delaying the settlement payment or not setting aside enough funding to cover that.

That's right. We would start by saying set aside enough funding in this budget to fully cover the estimate of the Proposition 98 guarantee that you'd adopt. That's really step one. And then step two is what kinds of ways could address volatility while still funding the guarantee. The most direct example would be putting that funding into the Proposition 98 reserve. If revenue meets expectations, okay, great. We have that funding available for some kind of potential downturn in the future where it protects ongoing programs. If funding drops, the state can also then just take back that deposit that exceeds the Proposition 98 minimum with no effect on school programs. That's not the only option, but that's probably the most straightforward one that the state has available is this optional deposit into the Proposition 98 reserve where the funding is fully set aside to cover those Proposition 98 estimates.

You mentioned that we're in May and we're at the end of the current fiscal year, the 25-26 year, and so we should have more certainty. I believe, I think that's what you were getting at. I do just want to point out, so the 25-26 fiscal year takes half of its revenues from half of the 2025 calendar year and the other half from the 2026 calendar year. We don't pay our taxes. Personal income tax is a huge driver of our state revenues. We don't pay our income taxes for 2026 until this time next year, April of next year. So although it feels very much like we should have more certainty at this point in the current fiscal year about what our revenue outlook is going to be, the reality is we still have the rest of 2026 to make it through and to have strong revenues from before we know for sure what those revenues are. So in addition to the concern about the AI bubble, obviously some things have changed between where we were at at governor's budget and where we're at now, including things like the Iran war and increases in inflation. So there are some things out there that we're still very concerned about for 2026 that could impact 2025-26 even after we've paid all the money and that could create a need to reduce

what the amount of settle up should or could be. I think what this reflects is our general estimate of where we think volatility could lie. If you look back at 22, 23, and obviously that was a different situation because we had late tax returns that year, but we were off by about $8 billion. And so there's certainly precedent for a significant shift in the amount of the guarantee, especially when we're dealing with economic uncertainty, which we are now and we were last year, just to be frank.

Yes, so we think on the 3.9 million, yes. That is going to require likely some more difficult decisions on the non-Proposition 98 side of the budget, probably some reductions to programs. That obviously a challenge You already talking about reductions This would mean more of them But we think that ultimately going to be necessary anyway and so this is the time to start putting together a plan to get the overall budget back in balance The May revision does make some progress on that. It brings down the state structural deficit from a little over $20 billion to around $10 billion, but still more action is needed, and so we think you could address that. Set aside funding for the $3.9 billion as part of a broader plan to continue attacking that deficit. On the advanced payment idea, the way this would work mechanically is that we envision the state would normally give schools and colleges 12 payments at the end of each month. What would happen is that in 26-27, so June of 2027, the state would give districts basically an extra payment, so 13 payments in 26-27. That wouldn't be to spend in 26-27. That would just be a down payment on what they would normally get in 27-28. So it's reversed normally with deferrals. When we need savings, you only give districts 11 payments to get the savings. This time we reverse that. We give them 13 payments. That's prepaying our obligations in some sense in order to hedge against the possibility we might need those savings or have a tough time providing the regular 12 payments in the future. Important clarification that this would not at all change the Proposition 98 guarantee. This is just about giving districts some of their funding they would receive anyway a month ahead of schedule.

I'd see if one of my colleagues could speak about the meals. But there weren't a huge, there's some pretty large increases in the number of meals served and increasing those costs more than I think what was anticipated when the universal meals was first adopted a couple years ago. But there aren't significant new increases in that in this mayor vision compared to what was projected previously.

Good. I want to express my appreciation for the work you're doing. Certainly the governor is trying, but when we meet in a full committee, we're going to take your viewpoints and we're going to fight back, no doubt, and see what adjustments we can make because I think with the reserves that we have there, there might be some more wiggle room there, especially if you settle up a little bit better than the 3.9. So I guess look for that because I see that hopefully there's room for that. But I thank you for your presentation.

So I guess the question is the possibility of grabbing a little bit over the next four years rather than, as you mentioned, doing it all at once. And that's allowable under settle-up law. So if you look into that plan, some sort of a deferred payment plan per se, to have a goal that it will be wrapped up in X number of years, whether it be three or four, whatever it might be, that might feel better to the committee is what I'm saying. It would be a plan of action that we can look to. Thank you. Madam Chair, it's all yours. So a couple of things. I know that, you know, as a Senate, right, we've had our plan and we've proposed fully appropriating Prop 98 and 2526. and appropriating half of the new 2526 revenues using the DOF accounting method or an internal cash borrow. So I would love, Kenneth, if you could just speak a little bit to what we did for, I think it was 2223, when we did the Prop 98 proposal and what that looked like and how that operated so that we're able to address this concern that she just raised.

And the use of that maneuver assumes that the state will be able to continue to float that amount of cash for that period of time. Thank you Kenneth is it your position that that the case that things have changed so dramatically from a cash-on-hand perspective that we would face challenges in trying to replicate what we did in 22-23?

Thank you. I appreciate that. I had one more question. I wanted to ask, using the governor's May revision revenues, what would it look like for both Prop 98 and the general fund sides of the budgets if we unified the state preschool program under Prop 98 and re-benched it for the 2025-26 costs?

Thank you. I also wanted to ask a little bit about the discretionary deposit. The May revision makes a discretionary deposit of $1.6 billion into the Prop 98 reserves. What's the rationale behind the discretionary deposit?

Senator Archuleta, did you have any other questions or comments? I'm good. All righty. We'll go ahead and we'll wrap up then with issue one. I appreciate you all answering your questions. And we'll move on now to issue number two for the May revision proposals under the Department of Education. We start with the Department of Finance and have the Legislative Analyst Office and the Department of Ed at the table and you all are free to get ready or get started whenever you ready

Good afternoon Edgar Cabral with the Legislative Analyst Office So on the earlier panel my colleague Mr Coupon gave you an overview of our overall comments related to the overall prop and need structure. In this item, I wanted to just highlight a few areas where we have some comments or concerns with elements of the governor's proposal or areas where we have some issues for you to consider as you decide whether or not to adopt these proposals. So I'll just highlight a few of those issues that we have comments on. So first on LCFF and special education, we talked about earlier, we think the overall structure makes sense, and we think setting aside ongoing funding for those activities makes a lot of sense. In terms of the exact mix of the amount, we think the legislature could consider different amounts. We do recommend sticking with at least the same amount of ongoing funding, no more ongoing funding than is in the governor's May revision. Just to give you, in terms of special education, to give you a sense of the magnitude, it's a significant increase. We estimate that right now school districts pay for about 60% of their special education costs with their own local funds that's beyond the state and federal categorical programs. Under this proposal, we estimate that the percentage that they cover would go down to less than half. And so it's a significant improvement in reduction in the share that they would be paying. But even a lower special education increase could make a substantial progress to reducing the amount that comes out of local funds. In terms of the LCFF, we would just note that the May revision includes $927 million that would be provided beyond the statutory COLA. and the administration has indicated that would be an increase of 4.3%. Based on our estimates, we think that $927 million is not enough to get you to a 4.3%. It would be more like a 4.04% amount. If you did want to get to the same 4.31% that's in the May revision, we estimate you would need an additional $211 million. Shifting to community schools, there's $485 million in additional funding and one-time funding for community schools. This is essentially reappropriating funds that had been set aside from the one-time program that's currently operating that it would no longer be necessary if we shifted the program to ongoing. Of the $485,000, there's $34 million that we think makes a lot of sense to adopt to help build capacity and implement the model statewide, and that's funding that's set aside for doing a study of the program design for temporarily increasing technical assistance and for developing the certification process, which is what would provide sort of the accountability to make sure that schools are implementing the model as expected. And then there's $6 million for helping to integrate behavioral health services. We think those are good uses of one-time funding to help build capacity. The other aspects of the proposal we have concerns about and we would recommend rejecting, that's $401 million, is additional one-time funding for community schools grantees. Under the way that the program is currently designed, essentially the first three years are startup and they have time and that funding to help build up their programs. And so we don't see a clear rationale for providing even more one time, especially because part of the goal is to make the ongoing part of it sustainable. We don't see a need to provide that ongoing, that one-time funding. And similarly, there's funding set aside for secondary school redesign, which we recommend rejecting. It's separate from the implementation of the specific program. There are a few areas where we, other areas where there's addition funding that we would recommend rejecting that these are one-time funding that we've provided before, but we don't see strong justification for augmenting the amounts. And that's related to literacy coaches and the math professional development. We just provided some increases last year. And I think with both of these programs, it's not clear that there is a rationale for providing additional funding beyond that. A couple more I want to highlight. On the Multitudes screener, there's $5 million on an ongoing basis to cover the costs associated with maintaining that. A Multitudes literacy screener would go to the UCSF Dyslexia Center. I think we would recommend rejecting it. The ongoing costs to maintain the screener are unclear. The only specific requirement in there is to translate it to different languages. And I think we would note that this is a free screener, and part of the condition on receiving these funds is that the screener continue to be free. There are two other screeners that are also available for free. There's $25 million for awards for inclusive colleges. I think this is one where we would recommend rejecting because we have concerns about the lack of detail and legislative input regarding how those grants would be spent. So the funding, there's a lot of flexibility given to the California Center for Inclusive College to decide how to spend it. And it is contingent upon the Department of Finance reviewing a plan, but that doesn't give the legislature any input into what that plan is, what are the priorities that are being funded with those funds. Shifting over to the additional funding for students experiencing homelessness. We don't have a specific recommendation on this one. I think we would just note, we do think that it's $30 million over three years for grants to help districts build the capacity to identify students who are experiencing homelessness and help provide them services. We think that this could be beneficial. In particular, the language targets the program to districts that have not benefited from the existing federal program because the federal program is not available for every district in California. So we think that could add value. I think the one concern we would raise just as you're thinking about it is it doesn't provide on For this to be successful districts need to continue to do these activities moving forward And so this doesn't do that and there's no guarantee that that would happen And then finally I wanted to touch on the the proposal for Paid pregnancy leave we don't have specific recommendations, but if you want to just highlight a few things as you deliberate on that proposal. So that proposal would require providing up to 14 weeks of paid pregnancy leave. It essentially removes that, discussions about that from collective bargaining. This, like many and most all other salary and benefit conversations, are determined locally. So this would be the state kind of taking that out of the negotiation process. It would increase district's costs, meaning that there is less funding available for other types of compensation increases or other K-14 programs. We think the exact cost estimate is unclear. We know the way that the proposal is being presented, it is tied to that funding in addition to COLA. It's very well likely that that amount is more than sufficient to cover the cost associated with it. But it does mean that for planning purposes districts are getting a 4 increase but they they would have significant costs associated with this specific bill And we don know what those costs exactly would be It can be very complicated because this proposal could interact with existing leave policies and it would affect things like leave balances, payouts, and interact with sick leave conversions to service credits. There's a lot of different ways that this could have a cost, and so I think we just recognize that uncertainty. We do think that the state, given the complexity, could fund the requirement in a different way. You could, for example, create a new ongoing categorical program that would fund it. That does potentially create more transparency around the cost and the utilization of the benefit, but that also makes it more administratively burdensome both for the state and for districts. We also note that the proposed paid pregnancy policy is likely to be to be complex and interact with various other proposals and because it's in trailer bill typically trailer bill takes effect immediately so this could go into effect July 1 the beginning of the next year. We think that this might be a case where you could set a later implementation date so that you could allow more time for districts to work through those implementation details. And I will stop now. That concludes all of my comments. I'm happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

We also are appreciative of the investment for the students supporting experiencing homelessness. We want to ensure that the definition aligns with the advocacy we're doing under AB 673 for the transitional youth who are unaccompanied minors. 16- and 17-year-olds are often at the highest risk of dropout, And so we'd like to see priority given to those students and to ensure clarification that that temporary shelter is included. This is aligned with our budget request and the bill that we have with Assemblymember Jackson. Further, we are appreciative of the continued investment in the literacy coaches and mathematic coaches. We are seeing that these investments are well worth it with metrics moving across the dashboard. So the continued investment we think is consistent with our goal of reading by the third grade and moving the needle for literacy Further we do want to highlight. I do want to address the pupil nutrition and food assistance We believe that is an accurate and sufficient funding so I know that was asked earlier and I just want to confirm that However we did receive the feedback when SB411 was vetoed that it needed to be done through the budget and we put in a BCP to ensure that California Department of Education could fund permanent positions and have a statewide system for the application for some bucks. It's currently done at the local level, and we have an issue with verifying the eligibility, and often the state is left to pay back inaccuracies. because there is no data control from the state top down. That BCP was denied, and we would encourage the legislature to reconsider because it does overall improve the veracity of the program, the data of the program, and also streamlines it for the LEAs so that they're not responsible for this burdensome requirement and can continue participation in some bucks. We were appreciative to see the cost of living super COLA. However, we were disappointed to see it did not carry over to our preschool program. While we are appreciative of the additional COLA, we would like to see it consistent across the board. Parity is really important in stabilizing these programs for better recruitment and retention. We also are pleased to see the investment in our Quality Rating and Improvement System block grant. That is an investment that will go far in ensuring that our block grantees do not have services cut. And finally, we are appreciative of the investment in the Holocaust and genocide education. And with that, that concludes my comments. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Hi. Hi, Jessica Holmes, Department of Finance. So in regards to the first part of your question about the overall package, so the largest investments that you're seeing are in both the LCFF and speaking specifically on the TK-12 side, LCFF and special education. We focused on those two areas knowing, A, that we have a lot of districts who are dealing with a lot of fiscal pressures of varying types. One that is consistent with every district we've talked to is special education, but really wanting to ensure that LEAs can manage whatever it is that they're facing, whether it's declining enrollment, whether it's impact from federal immigration laws or actions, whether it's increasing enrollment, which we do have some LEAs that have that. We wanted to make sure that they could address those issues. In terms of paid pregnancy leave that is part of our overall package on teacher recruitment and retention So we have several proposals in the budget specific to both recruiting and retaining teachers some professional development some in regards to eliminating the need for teachers to take the CSET This is one piece of that. So in terms of ensuring that teachers have the lead that they need when they have children, many of our teachers come into education because they love children and they have children of their own. And this is one more piece of potential retention package that the state could provide. I can give an overview of the pregnancy disability proposal if you'd like.

Yeah, so Audrey Bezos, Department of Finance. So this would provide 14 weeks of paid pregnancy disability leave to all community college and K-12 employees. The LCFF and SCFF include cost of living adjustments well above and beyond sort of what the estimated cost of this would be. We are estimating total annual costs of $218 million, $195 million for K-12, and $23 million for community colleges. And that is assuming a substitute teacher needs to be hired for the full 14 weeks of leave. And that's how we estimated. We assumed a 2% utilization rate among female employees for that benefit, and then multiplied by the average daily rate for substitute teachers. So as Jessica said, this is mainly a recruitment and retention tool that we think will be helpful for retaining and recruiting teachers to the classroom. In addition, we note that there's a disparity in the amount of sick leave that teachers are able to sort of convert into retirement years, years of service. and that it's about 0.28 years of service credit that a female is able to convert and 0.41 that men convert at the end of their service and so we think that'll narrow that inequity and allow women to be able to convert the same amount hopefully as men at the time of retirement. Yeah, we just note that this would also not impact any of the current provisions regarding the leave that's currently available. Teachers have parental leave currently. They have 12 weeks of parental leave. But however, they're required to exhaust all of their sick leave. And then when sick leave is exhausted then they are going to differential pay, which is essentially the difference between the cost of a substitute and their own salary but not to fall below 50% of their salary. So that is an additional 12 if they choose to take it in addition to the disability portion of the leave.

So, you know, certainly we've become more and more aware of the impacts of immigration actions, and we've started to get some data on potential impacts to things like attendance from concerns of families who could be impacted by immigration actions. But unfortunately, we don't have great data at the state level of precisely how much of an impact it has had. Generally speaking, these folks are not saying, hey, I'm not coming to school because I'm concerned about immigration rates. Sometimes they do provide that information, but many times they don't. So in terms of our overall package, we felt it was really important to provide a significant amount of discretionary funding, as I mentioned before, so that LEAs could use those funds to address whatever it is that they are dealing with at the time. Some have been heavily impacted by immigration actions, some have not. Some are dealing with other fiscal pressures. So this allows them to utilize those resources to support their populations as needed and in recognition of the fact that a lot of the information that we have around the impacts of immigration are not entirely clear.

Yeah, and I saw that included outside of this section of the budget. And obviously, this hearing is related to this section of the budget. And so I can appreciate the investment into legal services, but we do have resources that are located on campuses right now, both K through 12 campuses, as well as community college and four-year institution campuses, such as Dreamer Resource Centers, that we use to offer resources to immigrant students and to students in mixed status families. So I think that there's kind of like a very kind of clear nexus that we can use. I know there's some community schools that are doing innovative things. And in addition to that, I know that there are some students that are keeping better track of the impacts that this is happening, having on their campus than others. What I found as I've been talking with local education agencies across the state is having supportive resources on campus for students and their families is really critical. And these events come up at kind of a moment's notice, right? Suddenly a student will have both parents of the household be taken and so then that student is suddenly head of the household for two small children In other cases, one parent is taken, but that parent was the breadwinner, and so there might be some economic needs there. I've heard of other stories where a student was asking an administrator, how do I set up a bank account? Because they suddenly had to figure out how to set up a bank account so that they could support their siblings. So there's all sorts of kind of nuanced challenges that come up in these situations. And I can appreciate the discretionary funding that you're suggesting, but I think that there's also a need to be very targeted in that approach, right? Unfortunately, there is a lot of political opinions about immigration, and so whether or not funds get applied a certain way is going to depend on what that local education agency's preferences might be. And because immigration is considered a hot political button issue, whether or not somebody identifies that as a need might be driven more by their political opinions rather than the need that's actually happening within the district. And so I think having a bit more of a targeted approach when we know that this has become such a significant problem is necessary.

I'm going to go ahead and turn it to Senator Archuleta. Senator Archuleta, do you have questions?

Well, so under the administration's proposal, they're adding, I believe, $10 million over three years, so a total of $30 million to McKinney-Vento. And we at Department of Education have been advocating for greater resources and expansion of the McKinney-Vento proposal and the homeless coordinators, particularly for the transitional youth and the 16- to 17-year-olds, so those that are at the greatest risk of dropout. So there's a lot of alignment between what they're proposing and what we're proposing. So we think that there's some synchronization that can happen where we can do early intervention and tie those dollars together, including around transitional and temporary housing. There's a limitation on what kind of housing qualifies that we're making recommendations and have been working with the different policy committees on. So we just are expressing our interest and support of those investments, but would also like to see, frankly, we believe it's about a $45 million ongoing cost. There's about $9,000 unaccompanied minors currently in California. So this is a really good starting point, especially as we expand the program and look to see how we can do early interventions for students that may not be traditionally homeless or even how we describe homeless because I think a lot of students that may be homeless may not consider themselves homeless, but they don't have that wraparound support. So while we'd like to see more investments, we are really appreciative of it and hope that we can work through the language

Nothing to add. Oh, okay. The only thing I would say to your point is I do think that the role for community schools does align with the goal for the homeless coordinator and the use of the McKinney-Vento funds, including especially the behavioral health initiative that's included in this most recent May revise. I do think schools, especially post-2020, have become a big community hub, and they provide a source for food, a source for additional aftercare. And so all of those align with kind of the early intervention and supports needed for these students.

I'm happy to share. So we do have the $1 billion for community schools still included in the budget. And the intention behind the $30 million one-time for students to support students experiencing homelessness is to really help schools provide one-time funding to increase the identification of these students with the goal that once the infrastructure for identifying students who are homeless are in place, then they can blend and braid with other sustainable funding, such as community schools, to be able to provide those services to homeless youth after these one-time grants are completed.

I've heard the discrepancy between a woman and a man at retirement. They add up what the woman should be getting versus the man because the male side of it never took time off. The female did. And then they're penalized at the other end. Have we addressed that discrepancy, and how are we doing it?

Okay. The bell has rung.

But it balance out a lot more than history has given us or else it wouldn have been brought up I guess And I want to bring that up because you know obviously the governor is concerned about it and we and the entire committee are concerned about you know an equal opportunity but equal pay for the women and the men But at the end, they should have that equal pension as well after, you know, 25, 30 years, whatever it might be. And the other thing that I'd like to bring up is special education, that we're at $2.4 billion that may revision, which reflects an increase. And thank God for that, because these special students and special educators who work with our special needs kids, it's vital we do that. How healthy are we with that?

We're talking about the special needs and how important it is. And I know it's important to the committee, it's important to the governor, and I see that we've allocated enough funding for it. But is that going to be enough? Are we paying good attention, close attention to that? Because it's something that we have to address. So enlighten me how we stand with all that.

Well, you know, obviously a 40% increase, 43% exactly. That makes a statement. And I've been at schools and the parents have come to me about their children and how sometimes they feel they're put aside and so on. But, you know, I want to emphasize that they're all God's angels, and we need to treat them and give them as much as we possibly can. So for the parents that are out there watching, you know, we've not forgotten those children that are disabled to a degree. We want them in school. We want them to be given that education and opportunity to grow and go on and be part of society. And hats off to the governor for doing that. And I really appreciate it. And I'm glad we've got it in the budget, and I'm sure when it gets to the full committee, we'll promote that as well. And I want to thank you. Madam Chair, it's all yours.

So you are correct in that in the 2025 budget act, there was 10 million provided to support secondary school redesign. And in the May revision proposal, there's 15 million to expand on the state's recent work to redesign middle and high schools, but aligned with a community schools model. model so the distinction is that this 50 million is specifically to support community community school secondary school redesign for the initial pilot the 10 million this provided funding to 14 networks of schools that were selected for secondary the secondary school redesign pilot these grantees are doing active redesign work in 148 schools across 70 districts directly serving more than 140,000 students. And the California Collaborative of Educator Excellence, which is the entity that's administering this program, received nearly 56 applications from networks of schools, representing 107 LEAs or nearly one in four districts that operate a high school. So the intention for this funding is that more networks can be awarded over several years to expand the pilot and meet the demand.

So the May revision reappropriates $485 million in existing community schools grant funding mainly for planning and implementation grants.

Shadding, Area Department of Finance. So to clarify, the $485 million is a reappropriation from the one-time grant program that has been in existence. And so it's two separate funding streams that we're looking at. It's the $1 billion ongoing that will be the community schools apportionment program that school sites will receive. And then additionally, there's the one-time reappropriated $485 million that school sites opting into the program will also receive.

I know originally in the governor's first proposal there was language around reporting requirements for community schools. We talked about that a little bit in the budget sub hearing a couple of weeks ago. Is that something that's still included and that we still want to see included here? I'm not sure if you further refine that language.

So you're leaving it to the County Office of Education to figure out the details around that?

Madam Chair, if I might add, we're still looking at the trailer bill language, and we will let you know if we have some specific comments. But I think I would know. I think one of the issues that came up was about the requirements in the first few years, that the planning requirements didn't kick in until 2930. And I think there's a lot more detail in the May revision around what those reporting requirements are. And then there is a new requirement that the expectation is that there would be a shared governance structure that's established up front. So I think that's one of the key things. We're still continuing to review the language and see if we have specific comments for you.

Hi, good afternoon, Madam Chair and member Liz Mai with the Department of Finance. So the May revision proposes additional state operations for the Commission on Teacher Credentialing that build upon positions proposed in the governor's budget. So specifically, the May revision proposes $125,000 ongoing general fund and one position to provide necessary legal staffing to implement SB 848. The May revision also proposes $807,000 ongoing general fund and four positions to provide necessary legal staffing to address the commission's increase in educator misconduct caseload. And then the May revision additionally proposes $47,000 ongoing general fund to upgrade an analyst two position that was proposed at the governor's budget to an education consultant position to deal with increased grant implementation workload. There's also a number of trailer bill language pieces proposed at the May revise. So first, the May revision proposes statutory amendments that would increase the fee for clear credential renewals from $100 to $125. And these fees are paid once every five years With this funding the administration intends for the commission to develop a statewide transcript review platform so that more teacher candidates would have access to transcript review as a means for establishing subject matter competency instead of taking exams. Related to that, the May revision proposes $5 million one-time Proposition 98 general fund for the commission to partner with a county office of education to create a transcript review platform that they would then implement for teacher candidates. And it would allow the commission to conduct transcript review more effectively. And then for the commission, the May revision proposes two million teacher credential funds in three positions for them to actually maintain that platform and then staff the teacher credentialing portion or not, sorry, the transcript review portion of that work. The May revision also proposes $30 million one-time Proposition 98 general fund for the statewide Residency Technical Assistance Center to continue providing guidance to the field on the teacher residency grant program and provide technical assistance for teacher apprenticeship preparation programs and national board certification. There are a number of other technical amendments in the May revision, including an alignment of the 2018 Teacher Residency Grant Program repayment terms with the 2022 repayment terms, and then some language around facilitating improved data sharing between the Commission and the Department for their teacher supply report. And that concludes my remarks. Happy to take questions at the appropriate time.

Great. So, oh, sorry, were you going to?

Just want to make sure I give you guys time in case you have any comments to make. I wanted to know, obviously, I was very excited to have my bill passed last year, SB 848, and saw that there was legal staffing included in the budget for five additional legal staffing positions. And wanted to know, what is driving the increase in educator misconduct workload that it requires additional attorneys at the Commission on Teacher Credentialing? I recognize that there's been a number of AB 218 cases. Are we seeing them continue to just rise and increase the number of them that are coming out?

Okay. And I'm reading that here now that I missed. It's not 54848. It's five and one is going to be dedicated to 848 implementation.

And obviously, if there are other needs that you all have around that implementation, please let my office know because I want to make sure we troubleshoot with you. It's very important to me that we get that database set up and functioning. As it relates to the CTC's proposal for transcript review system database, will AI play a role, and if so, what will that role be? Are there other examples in state government that uses AI in the same way? We'd love to hear. Adam Ibrahim with the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. I mean, the AI would play a role in the transcript review process, but it would be backstopped by human review. So artificial intelligence would do the process of connecting coursework that is completed from the transcripts with the sort of domains of subject matter competence and organize that and get it all situated, rendering some possible likelihoods, and then it would be reviewed by a human that would verify or dissent or disagree with the findings. I'm unaware of any other use in state government. We did consult with Fresno State University who has developed a proof of concept of using artificial intelligence in a closed environment to match transcripts with domains and produce the results Thank you. And I also wanted to talk a little bit about the proposed increase for the fee that teachers pay from $100 to $125. $25. It says revenues from this fee increase will backfill loss, testing revenues from the subject matter competency exam exemption. How did the administration determine that an increase from $100 to $125 for the new renewal of clear credentials would be sufficient? Is that the exact amount? Did you all calculate that to determine that it was going to be $125? Yeah, so the increase we see more associated with trying to get the transcript review platform up and running and get the human resources to actually do that. And so I think we kind of started there of how much would this database cost and how much would it cost to run it. Even though right now we've proposed at the May revision $2 million for staffing, we kind of know that as the database is actually completed and you guys start kind of – the commission starts ramping up the work that they likely will need more positions. We just don't know what they are. But we felt like four to five million was a pretty good place to land just based off of other departmental units of size and scope that we would anticipate would be needed. And so from there, kind of said how many renewals are done every single year? How much revenue are they generating? How much would they generate at different levels of increasing the fee? Just to note that the last time we had a fee increase was in 2015 when it was increased from $70 to $100. Senator Archuleta, did you want to make any comments? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to the legal staffing, MSETS 5, is that going to be a permanent position to handle the misconduct caseload? Or is that just periodic? Yes, those are permanent positions. So they are permanent? Correct. Okay, all right. And we've allocated the funding for that. Yes. All right. And then the other thing is the backfill that we talked about for the teacher's drill, you know, for the $125, as mentioned, that is sufficient enough to cover additional costs that you're thinking, the fee going from $100 to $125. Yes, Senator Charletta. That will cover the cost associated with standing up the transcript review platform and operating it, and we can come back and continue to work with our partners at the Department of Finance, if anything else. And my last question is talk to me about the residency, the technical residency assistance center and how that works and how that works with retention and recruitment. And because it sounds exciting. So tell me all about it. Yeah the state residency technical assistance centers have been very successful So they really been crucial in helping support the funds that have been allocated as grant funds for residency programs And, you know, we know that the residency program does really support teacher recruitment and retention. They do help with growth and long-term sustainability of that program. Um, they're, because those are grant funds, um, the residency technical centers do help those programs develop long-term funding operational models that can reduce the reliance on those grant fundings. Um, as well, they support, um, rural and remote LEAs, um, to have access to those opportunities to have those, um, residency programs. Um, and as well, they really help support the teacher retention and workforce sustainability, by ensuring that teachers are adequately and appropriately prepared, supported at their local LEA, and have the ability to go out into the workforce fully prepared and want to retain those positions and stay in those jobs. And we're disseminating this excitement throughout the state, to the school boards, and all the way down to that level, right? Absolutely, yeah. The commission is very much highlighting these grant opportunities for LEAs and the residency technical support centers really are statewide, and so they're able to go across the state supporting those programs. Very good. Thank you. Madam Chair? Thank you. That is it for the questions that I have on this section. So we will go ahead and finish out this hearing now, So now, and we'll move on to public comment. If there's anyone in room 2100 who wants to provide public comment on items that were on today's agenda, then please line up. We ask that you limit your testimony to one minute, and I will set a timer. And give me one moment as I get that timer ready. Here we go. All righty, and we'll get started now. Thank you so much, Chair and members. Tiffany Mock, on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, we'd like to urge you to reject the $3.9 billion settle-up creation, reject the 2% state preschool fund cost of living proposal. We'd like you to support the supercola of 4.31%, 1%, support the special education funding for $2.4 billion, support the pregnancy disability leave mandate, and support the discretionary fund amount and being discretionary. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Deborah Bautista-Zabal on behalf of the California Association of Suburban School Districts. Suburban districts appreciate the meaningful progress. In the May revision, I want to highlight three items. First, ongoing increase for special ed funding, which will benefit all students and dedicating more state funding for these services. Second, additional LCFF COLA, which begins to address the longstanding challenges for the base grant. We also are analyzing the costs for the proposed pregnancy disability leave mandate. Third, the increase of the discretionary block grant, which will help districts weather rising operational costs, especially in districts experiencing declining enrollment. And third, the increase of the discretionary block grant, which will help districts weather rising operational costs, especially in districts experiencing declining enrollment. The remaining 3.9 billion Prop 98 settle up gap rather than defer it into deficit years AB 218 higher COLA will help us with breathing space but the COLA doesn sufficiently address or make a solution So highlighting that. Third, the community schools, we support $1 billion ongoing investment, but urge two principals' equity across school sites within the districts because not all schools serve community students. Thanks. Good evening, Madam Chair and Member. I'm Dominique Dene on behalf of Ed Voice. On literacy, we applaud the additional $428 million for the Literacy Coaches and Reading Specialists grant program. As was mentioned earlier, we've heard that the investments are working, and so we are very supportive. However, we remain concerned about the proposed restrictions on literacy screening timelines, particularly for first and second grades. There isn't strong evidence for delaying screening in later grades, and doing so will delay identifying struggling readers when intervention matters most. So we urge you all to preserve local flexibility. We'll be back tomorrow on Golden State Teacher Grant, and we've also submitted multiple letters from our coalition and our organization. Thank you. Sadabatches with Children Now, really excited to align many of my comments with CFT minus two items. On the discretionary block grant, we recommend that funds be distributed in an equity manner based on the LCFF formula so that we target as much available resources to our most vulnerable students. We're also in opposition to the reduction in COLA for preschool, and we're continuing to support the education reform package and investments in paid pregnancy leave, teacher residency, and community schools. And then we do urge, and something you acknowledged today for our immigrant students, an investment in CalNU to make sure that they are supported, as well as UPK coordinators. Thank you. Hello, Paige Clark with the National Center for Youth Law. We strongly support the $30 million in one-time funding for K-12 students experiencing homelessness and encourage the legislature to include the full $45 million request in the final budget. Research shows that targeted interventions are needed to address the unique educational barriers faced by California's almost 300,000 students experiencing homelessness. A $45 million investment will ensure that roughly one-fourth of California's districts can receive funding for this student group. Thank you. Lucy Salcido-Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. We support the increase to the special education base rate as well as the increase to the discretionary block grant. We also appreciate the proposed $30 million to improve the identification of and services for students experiencing homelessness. Even one-time funding will help build capacity and improve practices. And we believe the investment in subject matter testing alternatives, including support for a transcript review system, is much needed to bring additional teachers to the field. We do remain opposed, however, to the proposed withholding of the $3.9 billion in Proposition 98 funds. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. First of all, I'd like to align myself with the comments by our colleague from CFT related to the withholding of Proposition 98 funds and also the reduction in COLA for state preschool programs. On item two, as for community schools, we urge support for the regional technical assistance centers as technical assistance system is currently structured and we are aligned with CDE and supporting ensuring County coordination staff are funded as under existing law. Also under this item, we appreciate and support the $2.4 billion increase of funding for special education and $30 million for students experiencing homelessness. Lastly, under the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, and we too will be participating in comments tomorrow, we encourage and support the continued support of teachers aspiring to become school leaders. Thank you very much for your time. Michelle Warshaw on behalf of the California Teachers Association. We are opposed to the $3.9 billion underfunding of Prop 98, and we want to appreciate the Senate's budget plan released earlier that rejects the governor's proposal, and we urge you to fully fund the guarantee. We are extremely supportive of the paid pregnancy leave, providing a critical benefit to educators that helps make the profession more sustainable. We also want to express support for the 4.31 Supercola and the ongoing funding for special education and community schools. We are opposed to the governance proposal and the changing role of the state superintendent. We believe that this shifts attention away from the classrooms and creates confusion instead of solving real problems. Thank you. Hello, my name is Kristen Howard, and I'm here in support of the budget request from Ben Allen. I am a researcher and early career fellow and leadership facilitator. with the consortium for diverse leadership and science. Our work at the consortium has been jeopardized with the recent federal changes, and our work was also referenced when the governor was defending Trump's $584 million attempt to claw back at UCLA grants. Our organization focuses on advancing equality, leadership, the environment, STEM, workforce, and development and civic engagement. We have supported over 500 fellows who now serve as researchers, educators, and community leaders across California. The May Revise commits a record $5 billion block grant for the Educator, Professional Development, and Historic UC and CSU compact investments. CDLS is the connective tissue for this kind of work. It's how investments reach community college students, first-generation UC and CSU students, K-12 teachers, and veterans, the exact populations that the compacts and block grants are designed to serve. Thank you. Committee members and staff, my name is Justine Wiebold, and I'm a research fellow, also here to support the budget requests submitted by Senator Ben Allen on behalf of the Consortium for Developing Leadership in Science. We are requesting assistance with a shortage of $24 million in state funding due to federal funding cuts, which has left the organization in an existential crisis. The research I've been involved with for the consortium is critical for coalition building across the arts and sciences to build community resilience for Los Angeles neighborhoods in the face of worsening climate change. This fellowship has been instrumental in growing my leadership and networking skills, assessing needs of communities through survey mapping tools and honing in on my data analysis skills. My mentors involved in this project have been incredible in facilitating connections for my career and doing real boots on the ground work to bridge science and humanities and the public narrative. When I was laid off from my research position on conservation science curriculum development at UCLA in the first round of DOGE funding cuts last year, the consortium's fellowship helped me get plugged into opportunities for community-focused research and coalition building. I'm grateful for this committee for your consideration of funding this life-changing career development program. Good afternoon, Chair and Member Cordo Hampton with the Association of California School Administrators. While we support our proposal of the governor main revision like the five billion dollars for a block grant and the increase special Cheat special education base rates We do remain strongly in opposition to the governor proposal to withhold billion from Proposition 98 and request that those funds be fully paid With regard to the paid pregnancy disability leave proposal, we recognize the importance of this policy and appreciate the intent behind the proposal. At the same time, we have important questions regarding how the program will be funded. We look forward to working with you to ensure all schools have access to funding that sufficiently cover the cost of the associated policy. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Andrea Ball here today on behalf of the Orange County Department of Education. We want to express our appreciation and support for the May revision proposal of $50 million for and the language for multi-tiered systems of support. It's within the reappropriation around community schools funding. We want to thank the administration and the legislature for recognizing the critical role that MTSS plays in supporting California students, educators, and communities. Orange County Department of Ed, in partnership with Butte County Office, has led the statewide MTSS work for over 10 years. This $50 million appropriation will continue that work and solidify the foundation and connection with community schools. Thank you. Leticia Garcia on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. In relation to community schools, we appreciate the ongoing funding for the program. We would like to see the continued funding for the County Office of Education Coordinators to ensure fidelity with the implementation of that program. Also appreciate the increased funding in special education. Appreciate the additional clarifying language on the administration of the reading difficulty screener. And lastly, support for the additional funding in the discretionary block grant and urge for these dollars to go out on an ADA basis so all districts have the funds to offset the rising cost. Thank you. Good afternoon, Gabby Vargas-Buhl on behalf of California County Superintendents. We strongly support the allocations to community schools, however we also support removing the expiration of the County Office Community School Coordinator grants, as ongoing support is key to local sustainability. We support the 14-week paid pregnancy disability leave proposal. However, the proposed LCFF supercola is inequitable for many county office employees whose positions are not funded by the LCFF. We look forward to working with you to ensure county office employees can access this benefit without sacrificing dollars earmarked for student support. We also support the Governor's universal and targeted assistance proposal, student homelessness, and the educational governance proposal. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and member. Ben Murphy with Public Advocates on behalf of the California Partnership for the Future of Learning. We support the $1 billion ongoing apportionment for community schools and appreciate several updates to the May Revisions Trailer Bill language that align with our previous recommendations. We also urge the following recommendations to further strengthen that language. We recommend requiring annual planning and reporting at the school site, LEA, and state levels to begin the conclusion of the 26-27 fiscal year. This is critical because it supports capacity building, continuous improvement, and coherence at all levels. Reporting requirements for the first year or two do not need to be as comprehensive as later years. We cannot wait three years to have any reporting. We also recommend restoring the cap on the maximum level of funding that is retained by a local educational agency, but increasing it to a more sufficient level. This will provide LEAs the funding to administer and support networks of established community schools, while also ensuring that eligible schools have sufficient funds for planning and implementation support continuous improvement at the school site and LEA levels Thank you Good afternoon Sarah Petrowski on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials Overall CASBO members are very pleased with the May revision In particular, they're very supportive of the increased investments in special education. This continues to be an intense cost pressure on LEAs, ensuring that we can serve all of our students with disabilities. We also are appreciative of the increase in the discretionary block grant and like my colleague from Riverside County Office of Education urged those dollars to be allocated on a per ADA basis to recognize the rising cost pressures for all LEAs and finally we are opposed to the withholding of the proposition 98 dollars in 2526. Thank you. Good afternoon Dan on behalf of the California School Boards Association. Like many others we remain opposed to the withholding of 3.9 billion dollars from prop 98 and would uplift the comments of the senate and the senate's plan we do support the additional funding for special education the additional discretionary block grant and ask that it continues to go out on a per ada basis as well as the additional cola though we do have some concerns around the appropriateness of earmarking cola for a specific purpose and just mechanically making sure like county superintendents mentioned that we get that to all programs especially for staff that are categorically funded or at least funded outside of lcff finally we do continue to support the governance proposal but with the latest changes proposed in trailer bill we'd actually actually prefer to see those go through the policy process to refine those and talk about how the state can better support leas thank you good afternoon on ioka medes on behalf of los angeles unified school district um echoing previous comments, we are strongly opposed to the governor's proposal to withhold $3.9 billion and request that that be allocated through Proposition 98 guarantee on this side of the budget this year. In addition, we are very supportive of the 4.31% COLA and do ask that that be extended to our early learning colleagues in California State Preschool Program. Finally, in regards to the discretionary block grant, again, very supportive, but believe it would be more equitably funded if it followed LCFF methodology with additional funds going to districts with higher supplemental and concentration grant pupils. And finally, very supportive of the community schools and special education allocations. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Melissa Bardo, on behalf of EdTrust West, I'd like to express our support and appreciation for increases to the LCFF and SCFF COLA, In addition to the super cola, as well as the pregnancy lead proposal, which is an important recruitment and retention tool for our educator workforce. In addition to the 1 billion ongoing investment in community schools, we also support the dedicated resources to expanding the school redesign pilot. I'd like to align our comments with earlier comments for the discretionary block grant and allocating along LCFF metrics. We also support the additional funding for Mathematics Professional Learning Partnership and the administration's education governance proposal. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair. Jackie Gonzalez, Policy Director at Immigrant Defense Advocates, and I appreciate the Chair's comments on resources for immigrant kids. I'm here to support Senator Wahab's proposal to establish a TK through 12 program to provide immigration legal services at the elementary level. For many years, the state has provided both Prop 98 and general fund dollars at the CSU and California community colleges The model has been incredibly successful not just serving students but also their families and the faculty and the extended community We saw how aggressive immigration enforcement was around particularly elementary schools over the last year in our state And we feel that this is a significant gap that we could begin to immediately address through a proven successful model. We urge your support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Christopher Sánchez with the Mesa Weather Group here on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, Caris, and echoing the comments and aligning them with the previous speaker for Senator Wab's proposal for immigration legal services at K-12 sites. Good afternoon, Aaron Koontz, a basic needs college advocate. I mean, we know this is K-12, and we know that there's new research that shows that students that access public benefits in K-12 have a significantly higher chance of going to higher education. We'll be back tomorrow to talk more about higher education as well. But with college affordability resources shrinking, enrolling more eligible students in public benefits programs like CalFresh is vital for both students and California's economy. Today, 75% of eligible students aren't receiving the help they qualify for. That's why our coalition urges your support for the $10 million request to establish the Innovation Hub for Public Benefits. Thank you. Hi, Chair members. I'm Hossein Ujian with USPIRE. I'm a policy intern and a UCSB student. I'm here to echo what has been said before me and also requesting that you reject the proposed cuts to the middle class scholarship program. And as a student, I'm really surprised to see that on the thing. We also request establishing the Innovation Hub for Public Benefits with a $10 million in one-time investment to provide centralized training, technical assistance, and implementation support to improve public benefits across access and outcomes for college and students across California. We support the workforce Pell implementation and are also requesting a $5.3 million one time for CADA to expand and sustain outreach efforts that increase awareness and completion of the application. Hi, Chair and Member Gabby Davidson on behalf of the California Food Banks. First, I just want to thank the chair for your leadership in child nutrition. And on behalf of the End Child Poverty California and California Food Banks, we're urging the legislature to include $3 million one time and $3 million ongoing to create a statewide online application for SunBucks to make it easier for families to apply and get food assistance. And California Food Banks is also in support of the request to create that innovation hub for public benefits. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Parshan with UASPIRE. So like many of our colleagues before us, we are also here to elevate and support the creation of the Public Benefits Lab as a hub for coordinating around CalFresh completion. We know that we have the ability, if we get all of our students who should be filling out and getting CalFresh there, we have the ability to bring back every single dollar that's being lost because of HR1's impacts. And so this is going to go a long way. We will be there tomorrow as well to talk about it. This impacts K-12 students. This impacts higher ed students. But speaking of our immigrant populations, our CADA numbers have been going down for many, many, many years now. And so we need to do more to get that back up. That's why a number of coalitions, CUHEC, the Affordability Coalition, National Aid for All Coalition, and College for All Coalition, all of us are coming together to ask for $5.3 million to be given for the next two years to focus on bringing the CADA numbers back up. And lastly, WorkforcePAL, we are heartened to see the proposals that have been included in the May revise, but we think we need to do more to make sure that there are also guard layers attached to that and ensuring that those dollars are going the right way to supporting our students in the workforce. So thank you all and looking forward to working with you and see you all tomorrow. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members. My name is John Fuentes. I'm with Bay Area Community Resources and we provide expanded learning programs to thousands of students in the Bay Area in eight different school districts. Also the proud father of a rising 10th grader and rising 6th grader. Here today to urge you to include key expanded learning improvements in the state budget. We appreciate the continued investment into after-school and summer programs, but too many older youth still cannot access these programs. We urge the state to increase expanded learning opportunities for high school students currently left out of the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program and ACES funding sources. High school students continue to express their need for a safe place to be after school, to support their mental health and physical well-being, and their ability to gain and practice the skills consistently and necessary for them to enter adulthood and workforce. So college and career readiness, career exploration, academic support, mentorship, social and emotional learning are all provided through high school expanded learning programs. So we respectfully ask for your support in the state budget. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Atalia Correjo-Eres. I'm a second-year student at UC Berkeley and the Disability Justice Officer for the UC Student Association. I'm here to urge the legislature to fund our request for a $20 million one-time investment into emergency basic needs, housing, and disability services at the UC that I've played a significant role in shaping. Thank you to Chip Perez and the members of the legislature for continuing to support our ask. The UC's $8 million one-time match for the ongoing state funding for disability services is since setting. in the next two weeks, and they've made it clear they have no plans to address the drop in services that this was created or renew the funding. This funding largely sustains our disability specialists and staff who are indispensable for coordinating accommodation requests, proctoring exams, and are the crucial link between students with disabilities and faculty. Though the previous funding allocations and staff increases have drastically reduced wait times from 6 to 8 weeks to 24 to 72 hours, The disability staff to student ratio continues to reach to over 1 to 800 at our universities and contribute to pervasive wait times. 23,000 students at the UC who rely on these programs fear that the drop in funding will bring us back to the previous rates in the fall and we'd be effectively pushed out of our right to an equal education at the UC. As a student who's on the spectrum and partially blind, the current understaffing in our centers means that I will face disparities in receiving service, though they're at the bare minimum allow me to advocate for myself through the centers to professors who push back on my accommodation so that I may operate on the same playing field as my colleagues. This request is our community's last hope and we humbly ask that you'll consider our funding in the future. Thank you. Good morning Chair Perez members My name is Cindy Lee a student of UC Santa Barbara On behalf of UC Students Association and Students Across the State I am here to urge you to support RRAS for the million in a one emergency funding that will address student basic needs and securities and a rising need for disability services as UC enrollment continues to increase and students face disproportionate federal impacts. Our basic needs in disability centers are understaffed with a heightened demand from low-income first-generation students. And this one-time request will support them to continue important retention work for our students. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Bibi Hamidah Hashmat. I'm a political science student at UC Davis, and I am working with the UC Student Association. I strongly support the $20 million one-time investment in emergency basic needs funded for UC campuses. Students across California are struggling with food insecurity, housing instability, and long wait time for disability and basic needs services. many campuses centers are fully booked for weeks and even entire quarters because there's simply not enough stuff to meet the growing demands. I think investing in students is investing in the future, and I urge your support. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair and Board members. My name is Lisa Hickman. I'm here with CTA, and I'm the proud president of the Tustin Educators Association. I would like to express strong support of the $2.4 billion in special education funding. For decades, special education has been chronically underfunded, even as the mandate to serve students with disabilities has remained unchanged. When that funding falls short, districts pull from general education funds, straining resources from across the community. Every dollar invested in special education is dollars invested in the most vulnerable and highest-need students, those that rely on specialized instructions, therapies, and individualized supports simply to access their education. The $2.4 billion is a critical step in the right direction. For California students, it helps protect general ed budgets while strengthening services for students with disabilities. It moves us closer to fulfilling both our legal responsibility and moral obligation to serve every child with dignity, equity, and opportunity. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jess Bracken and I am the proud president of Irvine Teachers Association. I'm here to strongly support paid pregnancy leave for our educators. When a teacher starts a family, they must first exhaust years of accumulated sick leave, even though having a baby is not a sickness. Once those days are exhausted, they're pushed into differential, earning a fraction of their salary. A long-term substitute in my district costs a new mom $1,100 a week. and when they return, they don't have any sick days, no days for when their newborn or themselves get sick. Eventually, they may be pushed into unpaid days. That financial hit doesn't stop there. It follows them into retirement, compounding an equity that they will carry for the rest of their careers. This is a reason that teachers are leaving the profession. This is why young women are thinking twice before entering it. We are losing talented educators not because of their lack of passion but because of the lack of support at a most human moment of their lives Our educators put their heart and souls into other people children and it time to support them as they start families of their own Thank you for your support in keeping teacher maternity leave in the budget. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Addison Peterson with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, and we represent over 200 nonprofit, community-based organizations serving children, youth, and families across all 58 counties. We strongly support the ongoing investment in the California Community Schools Partnership Program and the Chafee Grant for Foster Youth. Community schools are most effective when they reflect true cross-systems partnerships between schools, behavioral health providers, child welfare agencies, and trusted community-based organizations. Our members serve foster youth, youth experiencing homelessness, and young people with complex behavioral needs across all 58 counties. For these students, educational success depends on coordinated systems of care. Not isolated programs. Thank you Good afternoon Cassie Mancini here on behalf of the California School Employees Association to raise two Serious concerns with the charter school accountability proposal in the budget first We're concerned that this proposal would inadvertently limit authorizers ability to raise material concerns about a charter school during the renewal hearing if Those concerns were not already raised during the annual 60-day notification period created by this bill or by this proposal. Authorizers should not be restricted from evaluating a charter school and its performance as a whole during renewal deliberations. We fear this proposal will lead to costly litigation and increase in abuse of discretion appeals, hearings, and potential liability for authorizers. Secondly, the May revise rejects a proposal to audit the calculations that serve as the basis for the non-classroom-based charter school funding determinations. We think that the legislature should reinstate that proposal to prevent fraud, Leaving those calculations unaudited makes non classroom based charter school funding especially vulnerable to fraud and it doesn't make sense in a school auditing bill. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair Committee Member Bryant Miramontes with California Teachers Association. Just want to align my comments with my colleagues at CSCA related to the charter school proposals related to oversight and audit language that are in the May revise. In addition to that want to stress the importance of reinstating the moratorium on non classroom based charters Particularly given that these provisions wouldn't go into effect until 2028 It's incredibly important to reinstate that moratorium until they're fully in effect Implemented to ensure that there is no additional fraud. Thank you Hello Sierra cook with San Diego Unified School District We oppose the withholding of 3.9 billion in the mayor vision proposal We strongly support the investment in special education, the supercola, and the $5 billion discretionary block grant allocated on ADA. We also support the shift to ongoing funding for community schools but we are concerned that the proposal prioritizes expansion over sustainability We are excited to expand our schools The proposal would allow us to grow from 35 to 95 However only six of those schools would receive adequate funding to cover their baseline community school staffing costs. So in order to make sure that this program delivers on its potential, we think it's essential to reconsider the funding allocation to ensure that each school site can actually hire the dedicated staff that implement the strategy. Thank you. Good afternoon, Laura Beebe. On behalf of the California Afterschool Advocacy Alliance, we're a coalition of more than 40 organizations serving half a million students across California. We support and appreciate the $62 million to increase the Tier 2 rate for ELOP to 1800. We also support and appreciate the May revision trailer bill language that increases collaboration between expanded learning and community schools, recognizing that expanded learning is a pillar of community schools and critical to that program's success. And finally, we want to continue to lift up the gap in expanded learning opportunities for older youth. California invests more than $4 billion annually into expanded learning, but high school students receive less than 2% of that funding and middle school students are not far behind. We know that adolescence is a critical period of development and that expanded learning is really important for those students. So we urge the legislature to think about how existing funds could be utilized to start closing that gap for older youth. We'll share more details in writing in our budget letter. Thank you. Good afternoon, Michelle Underwood on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education. Thank you so much to all the speakers who came before me supporting the governor's proposal, as well as you two senators supporting the need for additional funds for special education. It is a big increase. We need more, and we appreciate it. Finally, on behalf of the California School Funding Coalition, with no malice for the policy idea of paid pregnancy disability leave, we would encourage the legislature to think about a more precise mechanism for providing funding than the augmented COLA. There are many types of districts that don't receive funding based on the COLA. Community-funded districts, county offices of education, necessary small schools. Also, on the community college side, hold harmless districts, community-funded districts. So we would recommend a reimbursement pool that would really have a precise 100% reimbursement as those costs come in. We could also explore a categorical program. Again, appreciate the proposal and want to make sure that we're funding it in the most efficient way possible. Thank you. Thank you. concluded the agenda for the hearing and the Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Education is adjourned.