Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
Great, thank you for that presentation. I have a couple questions. I actually just wanted to build on the comments that you just made, Kimberly, on behalf of CDE. So you said that you would intend on using, CDE would intend on using $10,000,000 for the dual enrollment opportunity gap program of the 100,000,000. How else do you envision allocating the 100,000,000 between the two programs, both the college and career access pathway grants and the early college high school programs, and middle college high school programs?
So we would build off
Speaker 4
the existing $200,000,000 and continue putting the dollars out there. We have over 1,000 schools that currently partner, but
Speaker 4
which would require a change in the current proposal to put $10,000,000 towards CDE, we would help expand partnership and participation so that we think there would actually be greater opportunities for students because right now we do see not everyone does take up because they are kind of confused on how the structure works. So outside of that 10,000,000 we wouldn't change the current structure.
Speaker 1
And then what would be some of the trade offs if we were to reduce the number of instructional minutes for students duly enrolled?
Speaker 6
Amber Alexander with the Department of Finance. The reduction that you see in terms of the instructional minutes is really to provide flexibility locally to enhance planning efforts both on scheduling at the LEA side and course offerings on the community college side. So we believe that by reducing the instructional minutes, it will provide for greater flexibility to provide these opportunities to students locally and in line with the investment expand to access to dual enrollment programs and increase participation in those programs.
Speaker 7
Yes, thank you. In reference to the $10,000,000 that you just mentioned, you had $10,000,000 for technical assistance. Would you describe what exactly that means?
Speaker 4
Sure. So, mirroring how we have technical assistance centers for our, community schools, This would be something that we would do at a statewide level, and we would be both responsive to the community colleges that are participating, as well as our LEAs, and in that we would help with the program design, the partnerships with the community colleges, so doing that outreach and connecting them with interested parties and helping align the curriculum going back to the shift in instructional minutes, making sure that they are maximizing education opportunities and utilizing the schedule so they overlap and best enhance the program participation.
Speaker 7
You know, I find this program fantastic because when the kids feel the sense of power, the sense of engagement and participation, to be able to look ahead and almost like having a grade 13, where they finish the twelfth grade, that they have no choice. They've got to go right into 13, which opens doors for further education and then on for the four year degree. And I think it's a great program. We just have to make sure that we're very careful with the monies that are allocated and to expand it as much as we can, and to make sure we have the professors and teachers on the other end to welcome them, because that's what it is. Kind of a PR thing.
And I think when the community is able to see their young graduates, students, go into the community colleges and on, they have to feel like they're being, still looked over and looked at and protected. I appreciate what all you're doing and allocating those funds for me. It's a great program. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 1
Good. I don't think I have any other questions so we will go ahead and move on now to issue two for the proposal on the reading difficulty screener, professional development and implementation. We'll start with Department of Finance again and you all can get started whenever you're ready.
Speaker 5
Good morning, Chair and Member. I'm Elena Powell, Department of Finance. The Governor's budget proposes $40,000,000 one time Proposition 98 General Fund to support implementation costs related to the screening of kindergarten through second grade students for risk of reading difficulties. This funding is provided in recognition that there are costs that local educational agencies are incurring while mandate claims are being filed with the Commission on State Mandates. The budget additionally proposes statutory amendments that establish requirements for when local educational agencies can implement screening for the purposes of at risk identification for reading difficulties for pupils in kindergarten through second grade.
Additional statutory amendments recommend that screening instruments be administered to pupils on a one on one or small group basis for best practices. The proposed language changes address longstanding concerns around increasing over identification in special education by establishing that, for purpose of identifying a student as at risk, local educational agencies must wait at least ninety one school days in a school year before administering the screening for kindergarten pupils and at least forty six school days for pupils in first and second grade. These new requirements would not prohibit schools from screening students at the beginning of the school year, nor would it prevent schools from using the results of those screenings to inform instruction or provide varied tiered services that their students may need. What this language is intended to do is ensure that at risk flags would only trigger the broader process of evaluation for special education services only after sufficient exposure to foundational reading instruction has occurred. While intervention provided at an early age requires less time to remediate skill deficits, that is only true when early identification of a student is valid.
A false flag does not accelerate help and in fact can often result in negative social, emotional, or educational impacts for the student involved. This proposal ultimately aims to avoid the risk of over identification for our youngest learners. That concludes my remarks, and I'm happy to take questions at the appropriate time.
Speaker 8
Afternoon or good morning. Sarah Cortez, LAO. We think the cost of administering the screeners are likely lower than what the administration proposes. The $40,000,000 figure is the same that was provided for the first year of implementing the screener. And then, moving into the second year, we'd anticipate the cost would be lower since LEAs already completed the relatively large lift of training all staff, and likely wouldn't need that same level of training in the second year of implementation.
We would note that LEAs are required to provide targeted support to students identified by the screener. The cost of doing this are really unknown given that there is a lot of discretion for LEAs on the level and types of support to provide. Given these considerations, we recommend rejecting the $40,000,000 that's specifically for the costs associated with administering the reading difficulty screener. If the legislature is interested in providing additional funding to cover some of the costs associated with this, it could redirect those funds redirect the funds in the proposal to the discretionary block grant. And this would give LEAs the flexibility to use funds for reading difficulty screening or any priority.
That concludes my remarks. Thank you so much.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Kimberly Rosenberger with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. We are supportive of the 40,000,000 investment. We think it's consistent with the move proposed recommendation to assess children in a one to one or small group setting. In addition, the legislation proposes to restrict initial screening to the ninety first day of instruction for children in kindergarten and 46 for children grades one through two.
We see a lot of merit in ensuring that children have had sufficient instruction and foundational reading skills prior to assessment. Screening students, especially those in kindergarten who may be seeing a formal classroom for the first time, is not likely to yield appropriate results. Likewise, waiting until too late in the school year, we have heard which some districts are doing, is also inappropriate as that limits the time to notify parents and guardians of potential risk and to provide timely supports. We are prepared to work with LEAs in the coming year to ensure that the best decisions are made regarding the timing of screening, provision of needed services, appropriate assessment practice for English learner students, and more. 2025 and 2026 was the first year of implementation of screening requirements in California, and we have learned a lot of lessons that can be used to improve the process going forward and to ensure that young children are appropriately and expeditiously screened and served.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Great, thank you. I had a couple of questions about the budget and particularly in the governor's proposal just wanted to kind of tease that out a little bit. I was really concerned regarding the language that would prohibit the administration of this screener prior to ninety one days into the school year for kindergarten students, and forty six days into the school year for first and second graders. That seems, one, incredibly and prescriptive, and two, I would worry is going to actually interfere with successfully implementing a program like this in schools. So just kind of want to better understand where the arbitrary number of ninety one and forty six came from, the research that was used to substantiate that.
Yeah, I'm concerned that this is going to create real conflict for local school districts.
Speaker 22
Hi, Elena Powell, Department of Finance. I'll take that question. So the dates were selected to allow for pupil exposure to curriculum before screening in order to reduce the over identification of pupils at risk for reading difficulties. We have seen preliminary screening data that there is a sharp drop off at the ninety first for kindergarten and 46 for first and second grade for students who are initially identified with reading difficulties who are then continually identified after that point in time. We feel that this is a sign that the in the first couple of months, students in especially kindergarten, but first and second grade as well, are being exposed to curriculum for often the first time, depending on their home environments, and so it is giving them a chance to be exposed to this curriculum before having that identification flagged for them.
Speaker 5
While the work and research are still ongoing, we have just seen that this data is across several screeners showing the steep decline at those points in time, which is how those dates were particularly identified. The proposal reflects an attempt to prevent harm resulting from over identification of students who aren't in need of these services at the beginning of the school year.
Speaker 4
I also just want to emphasize that this proposal is a modest shift that's mirrored in several other states, including Colorado, Texas, Massachusetts, but there is nothing in it that's prohibitive of early intervention. Instruction observation and universal support begins on day one of school, and so this is just the formal screener,
Speaker 4
we have webinars, technical assistance. We work with our schools regularly to do early identification, and we don't believe that this undermines or prevents that kind of early screening that teachers are trained to do.
Speaker 27
I know that there's some school districts that are already doing screening right now, and so are there school districts that might already be doing screening that are ahead of this deadline? Like I just kind of question why we should be so specific in providing guidance around a program that we're trying to ensure that school districts are successfully implementing. And I don't know what kind of strategies are currently being used, but it's my understanding that there might be some school districts that are currently screening ahead of this kind of ninety one and forty six day timeline. So it's my recommendation that this language not be included because I think it gets way too into the details in terms of the implementation process when we're talking about, you know, hundreds of different school districts across the state that are potentially working with different vendors, and some that already have programs that they've taken to implementation. I mean, you talked to folks that are currently operating and doing screening within school districts right now?
Speaker 4
We do have districts that are on both ends, early inter screening, and then later, and we, that's why we do with kind of a more cohesive structured timeline so that we can get consistent results and also avoid over assessments where we're putting students in support they may not need that has unnecessary cost and also can be stigmatizing, and then on the back end, we don't want it too late where they're not getting the early interventions necessary before we see them leave for breaks. I would also like
Speaker 5
to note just for the Department of Finance that while it would establish that the at risk screening has to happen at the ninety first and forty six day mark after that point, that is specifically the screening that triggers special education resources, additional screening, etcetera. There's nothing preventing in the language schools or local educational agencies from screening and providing services to students before that point as a baseline.
Speaker 1
And you said the two states that are doing this already are Colorado and where else? Let's see here.
Speaker 5
Colorado, Texas, and Massachusetts all have a variety of versions of this. Colorado adopted a dyslexia screening timeline that adheres to that ninety day instructional minute timeline. The Texas Education Code outlines that kindergarten and first grade students must be screened at the end of the school year, so it's a bit different than this, and the Massachusetts guideline recommends that initial screening for kindergartens not be before September, so that they can have that initial exposure to reading.
Speaker 4
In Texas, for grade one, it's no later than January, so it falls along the same timeline for that initial first grade.
Speaker 1
Okay. In Colorado, Texas, and Massachusetts, they utilized that timeline, but that has led to results for students in all of those cases. So in all of those cases, they saw literacy improve for children as a result of these programs.
Speaker 4
Consistent, accurate identification. So the students that were identified with those shifts tended to stay within those IEPs or additional support versus other states that have greater variations. Variations.
Speaker 1
I do want to note that Professor Young Sook Kim wrote to the committee, as originally written, Ed Code 53,008 allows LEAs the flexibility to administer screeners based on local needs. The proposed language would prohibit screening until the ninety first or forty sixth day of school for kindergarten students and first and second graders respectively. These restrictions conflict with evidence based practices. Most validated screening tools, including some selected by the State Board of Education's Reading Difficulties Risk Screener Selection Panel, are designed for beginning of year administration. Research shows that early and repeated screening supports timely intervention and states with strong literacy outcomes, such as Mississippi, screen within the first thirty days of school.
These proposed restrictions are counterproductive, run counter to the original intent of the bill and research, and risk delaying early identification and support for students. So I'm going to be honest with you, and I understand what you're saying. I also understand the concerns that are being raised, right, by this member of the State Board of Education. I think what I would like to see, if you happen to have it, and I would hope we'd have it, I imagine someone like the Education Trust West might have it, is actual information that looks at a variety of states that have used screening tools and seeing what the best tool is and what the best timeline is. Because picking three states out of a habit, and I don't know how many other states are doing screening and determining what is going to be most successful is I think for me, like what's most important, and making sure that we're not creating arbitrary rules that are creating more challenges for local districts that are trying to implement these policies.
When what we want to ensure that we're doing is all school districts are successfully screening, is really important to me. Like that's what I want to get to, is all school districts actually utilizing these things, rather than them being so confused by the timeline that they end up not going going into implementation at all. When would you all be able to provide that information and look into some of that?
Speaker 4
I can get back to you with a timeline. I believe SBE is working on that request, and so we'll follow-up shortly.
Speaker 35
Yeah, Madam Chair, my question would be the literacy screener expert, when we use the word expert. Literally, you know, the literacy screen expert, we're talking about remedial reading. We're talking about people getting engaged with the student and having this passion that I believe all students share with their teacher and they could feel when a teacher really cares, and I think this is such a terrific time when the student and the teacher come together, because they can see the progress that's being made. But tell me about the other end. If this is a screener that establishes this child's lacking something, whether it be physical, mental, whatever it might be, and where does it go from there?
Speaker 7
What is our outcome at the other end for success? We're obviously putting the money on the table. What's the outcome at the other end? What are we looking for? And who determines that?
Speaker 7
And while she's coming up, I'm gonna, if I may, madam chair, tell you a story. There was a young man, a young boy, who was pushed along year after year after year. And, in the eighth grade, there was a missus Perez, LA Unified School District that said, we'll call him Johnny. Little Johnny, you're not a troublemaker, you're not a bad kid, but somewhere along the island, you lost what you should be doing. You lost it.
Let's find it. And she sat him down and convinced him that every day after school, this teacher would meet with this young boy and she gathered all the books from the first grade, then she gathered the books from the second grade. Took almost a year, every day after school. And the bond was there, the love was there, and the passion to succeed with this young boy. Well, that young boy finally was able to go on into the ninth grade and become an honor student.
Change environment with the kids he ran with, with the kids who were reading and writing, and straight A students, so on. And he was able to go on and be very successful in life. So that remedial reading that I call it, it was because of that one teacher, and this is why I'm so proud of the teachers that are in the room and the educators that are here, because I see it as a calling, not as a career or a profession, but as a calling. So the outcome is what I'm asking. Where does it go from there?
Because this one teacher stayed with him the entire year. Obviously we can't do that today, but the program, which is so vital, I see it. So, we're putting all the money on the table, what are the results we're looking for?
Speaker 24
What we're looking to do, and I'm Nancy Brindleson, co director of statewide literacy for the California Department of Education. What we're looking to do from this early signal is to investigate further what may be triggering this flag for risk of reading difficulty. And then, actually plan a program for that child based on either the information at hand or further diagnosis to provide the instruction or if needed the remediation, the intervention needed to ensure that the child achieves grade level standards for either kindergarten, first, or second grade. So, the legislation is broad in terms of the types of supports and services that can be offered, to the student and the parent needs or guardian needs to be informed of the results of the screening and the supports and services that will be provided. And those can be anything from one to one tutoring, as you've described, which is very powerful, to small group instruction, further diagnosis, perhaps a recommendation for assessment for special education.
Speaker 11
This is not an automatic, should not be an automatic referral to special education. But you're right, all of those services need to be considered and the school needs to carefully plan for those children.
Speaker 7
And I really think that our public schools have got to be as competitive as possible versus private schools. But the tools that you have are there, no doubt. This expert is so important. Is that position a special position that's given by the school district, the principal? How is this screener pulled out from the rest of the population of teachers.
Who is this special person?
Speaker 11
Oh, who conducts the screening? The again, there's a lot of latitude about who may conduct the screening needs to be a school employee, could be the classroom teacher, and we see a lot of benefit to having the classroom teacher actually conduct the screening because then she or he has the information. But it also there's benefit in having perhaps a team of individuals specially trained come around and do the screening more expeditiously, because if you have 20 to 30 children in a classroom, and it takes anywhere from ten to fifteen to twenty minutes each, then that takes time. So, the instruments are such that you don't need amazing expertise to actually conduct the screening. The expertise comes in planning what the program will be afterwards for someone who is identified.
Speaker 7
Yeah, because earlier we talked about getting the kids into a pathway to school and college and so on. Yes. And this is so very, very important, and I congratulate you for fighting for it and asking for the funds to continue it, and I'm going to do everything I can to support the program. Madam Chair, thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. That concludes this item. We'll go ahead and move on to issue number three on special education, and again, we're going to start with the Department of Finance.
Speaker 5
Good morning again, Chair. Elena Powell, Department of Finance. I'll be providing an overview investments
Speaker 5
2026 Governor's budget. In recognition that there are often additional costs to serve students with disabilities, the budget annually appropriates special education funding outside of the local control funding formula. The special education funding stream receives growth and cost of living adjustments. The Governor's budget proposes an increase of $144,900,000 ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund to reflect a cost of living adjustment of 2.41%. The budget proposes a decrease of $35,100,000 ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund to reflect a growth adjustment of negative 0.592%.
Additionally, the Governor's budget proposes an augmentation of $5.00 $9,000,000 ongoing Proposition 98 general fund to increase the special education base rate. This infusion of funding along with the proposed cost of living adjustment equates to a new statewide special education base rate of $999 per average daily attendance. At this level, special education rates across the state will be fully equalized, meaning every special education local plan area or SELPA will receive the same base rate per pupil for state special education funding. That concludes my remarks, and I'm happy to take questions at the appropriate time.
Speaker 8
Good morning. Sarah Cortez, LAO. We recommend the legislature adopt this proposal, as it will help address district cost pressure. Based on our review of historical spending data, districts have had to increasingly rely on local funds, which is largely LCFF, to cover special education costs. The legislature could adopt the governor's proposal with less money.
This estimate will shift with as we update cost of living adjustments and attendance data, but we currently estimate it would cost $322,000,000 to bring the base rate up to $999 not the $5.00 $9,000,000 currently included in the governor's budget. That concludes my remarks, and I'm happy to take questions.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Kimberly Rosenberger with CDE on behalf of State superintendent of public instruction, Tony Thurmond. And also I have an eye injury that makes me, like, sensitive. This isn't like
Speaker 4
So California serves 870,000 students with disabilities. That cost has been growing exponentially. This is a significant and much needed investment of $5.00 $9,000,000 This increases the amount to $999 per ADA on top of COLA, and maintains the commitment to ensure that equalization, which promotes fairness for students with disabilities in all regions, urban and rural, have access to comparable resources. Specifically, the feedback we received is this is much needed in a small SELPA in Tahima. For instance, they had an 850,000 funding shortfall.
Speaker 2
This proposal would help completely make up that shortfall. So it's very much needed and we think it helps get away from students support being based on their zip code and allows SELPAs to address the structural changes such as transportation, workforce shortages, etcetera, to best serve students. In terms of the policy and implementation considerations, our data shows special education enrollment is rising, 13 to 15% amongst TK through 12 students despite overall enrollment declines. So this pressure is real in our LEAs and these funding really helps address long standing insufficient funding. Additionally for the SIP proposal we are appreciative of the extension of the encumbrance date of that funding.
Speaker 4
It is a five year project where we have spent nearly two thirds of it, but that additional time allows us to provide the much needed support at LEAs for an additional year, and we are ensuring that there is great transparency and oversight to best make sure those funds are tied to student outcomes. We have provided through SIP clear and measurable results, and we also have SIP, providing additional submitted plans to ensure that they are spending down those unspent funds, and so we're appreciative of the extension and supportive of that proposal. That concludes my remarks. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you for the presentation. I have heard from a number of school districts all across the state about the need for more special education funding and supports. I think one of the dynamics that we've been seeing happen in some of our public school districts has been that enrollment is declining, but the number of students that are special education students has continued to rise, especially as we've improved our screening process for identifying students that have special needs. So I was actually pleased with the Governor's proposal to increase the special education base rate, which I think is really necessary and is something that will continue to I think be really important to school districts. I guess what do you all anticipate?
I noticed that the LEO's office argues also that they think that it's an overestimate of what our school districts need, think is kind of surprising. This is something that I'm hearing about constantly, especially as we're continuing to see enrollment drop overall. You know, given those trends, what do you anticipate the future is going to look like for some of our local school districts, and how can we better address some of the fiscal challenges that our local school districts are facing?
Speaker 8
Sarah Cortez, I just want to clarify, we're saying the estimate is more, is an overestimate to get to the nine ninety nine level, so the governor's budget proposes putting that raising the rate to nine ninety nine per student, and we're saying you could do that, but it doesn't cost as much money to do that. Not we're not making a statement about need here. We did we do recommend adopting the proposal, because we do see kind of signs within the data that there are a lot of cost pressures in special education.
Speaker 8
I'm so sorry, just wanted to clarify the recommendation. Could you repeat the original question?
Speaker 1
So where do you anticipate things are going, just given the trends, what do you think we can do, I guess, to better resolve some of the fiscal challenges and dynamics that our school districts are facing that most districts are facing, decreasing enrollment, and yet an increased, dramatic increased rise in the number of students requiring special education.
Speaker 8
Sarah Cortez, Aleo. Yeah, just to kind of, you mentioned the trend. So declining enrollment, the formula is based on the enrollment of census enrollment. So the entire ADA of an LEA rather than the number of students identified for special education, and that number is increasing. So, if that trend continues, we anticipate seeing additional cost pressures in the future.
Speaker 9
Hi, Liz Meyer with the Department of Finance. I do also just want to note how the special education based funding is supported is it takes the greater of the current year ADA, the prior year ADA, or the, second most, prior year ADA just to try and kind of mitigate, those large drops in enrollment, that we do see with the increasing, special education identification.
Speaker 1
In terms of providing a long term solution, I think, to some of these challenges, Do you have any thoughts about that? This is just a question that comes up so often, you know, from school districts that are facing this and just the financial needs that they have to meet the special education needs of their students. Yeah, what do you think about, like, terms of long term solutions to try to resolve this?
Speaker 4
I think some of the long term solutions that are needed is because the base rate was so low, these structural issues that I mentioned earlier have been kind of put off, and they're just doing the immediate need, which is instructional time, which is the teachers, but greater investments allow them to stabilize and build into a structure that has greater support and consistency, so schools are actually able to grapple the full need of the students. And so that's why we're appreciative of the investments as we do see these growing needs and especially for high cost students where there's greater infrastructure need, increasing the base allows schools to make necessary investments that they've been putting off for some time.
Speaker 1
Well good, and I'm hoping that raising that base rate will help our school districts and will help to resolve some of these issues. If we were to meet all of the special education needs for students across the state, what would that look like? I mean does this base rate actually meet that, this nine ninety nine or what would we have to get to in order to meet all the special ed needs of all of our students?
Speaker 8
I don't have numbers in front of me. I'm just looking through my papers today. So there's different ways and different goals to kind of cut like get an estimate at like what is need. A way we've looked at it and I can follow-up with you, with your staff on this. A way we've looked at it would be, like, well, what is the various contributions of the three different funding sources?
So, there's federal, state, and local. So, we know what local is about right now. It's about 60% based on the recent data that we've looked. So, what would it take to decrease the local contribution and increase the state contribution to like make up that? I don't have numbers in front of me right now, but I will follow-up with your staff to kind of get some of that information to you.
Speaker 1
Okay, yeah, would love to take a look at those numbers and you know, see how we can get close to addressing and permanently closing that gap and what it might look like. Okay, well that concludes this item. We will go ahead and are moving on now to the school facility program administered by the Office of Public School Construction. Welcome to the committee and again we'll get started with the Department of Finance and you all can begin whenever you're ready.
Speaker 4
Good morning. Ethan Schroeder with the Department of Finance. I'll be providing a high level overview of the school facilities proposals within the governor's budget. Proposition two or the governor's budget continues to allocate 1,500,000,000 in proposition two bond funds for the school facilities program in 2627. Proposition two was a bond measure passed by the voters in 2024 to pay to renovate or build new t k twelve public school and community college facilities.
Speaker 13
The proposition authorized a total of 10,000,000,000 in state general obligation bonds. Of this amount, proposition two provides 8,500,000,000 specifically for TK 12 schools to be allocated through the school facility program, which is administered by the Office of Public School Construction. I'll be happy to take questions later.
Speaker 8
Sarah Sarah Cortez, LAO. No prepared comments today, but I'm happy to take questions.
Speaker 14
Good morning, Madam Chair. Rebecca Kirk. I'm the executive officer for the Office of Public School Construction, and happy to address any questions today. Thank you.
Speaker 1
What is the status currently of bond funding, and what are the implications of appropriating a larger share of the Prop two funds this year?
Speaker 14
Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. I'd be happy to address that. As of our most recent state allocation board meeting on March 25, we had approximately $2,800,000,000 available for new construction specifically in addition to $330,000,000 that had been set aside for new construction specifically for small school districts. Also, as of that same date, approximately $3,000,000,000 in available bond authority for modernization, in addition to $400,000,000 specifically set aside for modernization of small school districts, and $115,000,000 set aside from Proposition two Bond Authority, for modernization, specifically for a new program addressing testing and remediation of lead in water at school facilities. And then, on our demand, we do have significant demand in applications in house.
As of the end of last month, March 31, we had approximately $1,500,000,000 worth of requests for state funding for new construction specifically, and in total approximately $3,900,000,000 in state funding requests for modernization specifically.
Speaker 1
Sorry, wasn't sure if you were gonna say something about you, we were moving towards the mic. Was wondering, I noticed there were some prop two funds that were applied towards the rebuilding of schools particularly in areas that were impacted by the fires and some of that bond funding. So is that included in, I know we have you know like funding that's available for the following purposes and it listed out and you mentioned some of it just now, so is that something that we've taken into account already? I know there were investments made initially just to begin the plans and the building of that infrastructure, but are we continuing to set aside money to prepare to rebuild those schools?
Speaker 26
So, as you mentioned, Proposition two did establish new authority for the state allocation board, specifically to provide natural disaster assistance for school districts or county offices of education impacted by a natural disaster for which the governor declared a state of emergency. We have, since that time, promulgated regulations implementing those new provisions, and concurrently, particularly with the devastating fires in the Eaton and Palisades fires in January, we did also have sort of concurrently some requests related to natural disaster assistance going through while we developed those regulations. So in August 2025, we did see the Board provide the first two sets of funding from that new authority. Specifically, there was funding provided, for L. A.
Speaker 14
Unified School District, for a state contribution for some of the portable classrooms that they acquired for temporary facilities at two of their schools that had been destroyed by the Palisades fire. Additionally, there was natural disaster assistance funding provided to Berry Creek Elementary School, which is in the Pioneer Union Elementary School District up in Butte County, and had lost its school due to a prior fire as well. Proposition two, although it establishes that new authority for the board to provide natural disaster assistance, there was not a specific amount earmarked from the bond authority for that purpose. So it draws down from the broader pools of new construction or modernization funding, depending on which is most appropriate to the scope.
Speaker 1
Okay, so, but it's one of several pots of money that are being pulled from as we're going through this rebuilding process for those schools, is that correct to say?
Speaker 14
Yes, that is correct. So, rebuilding of schools damaged or destroyed would come from the overall bond authority, either new construction or modernization. But as we receive those requests for funding, anything related to an imminent health and safety issue, including natural disaster impacts, is prioritized and given first priority for review and funding consideration from available funds. Okay.
Speaker 1
Alrighty. I think that's it for this item. So, we will go ahead and move on to our next item which is the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. I will go ahead and give a moment for folks to switch their seats and play musical chairs and then we will get started whenever they're ready.
Speaker 9
Good morning, madam chair. Liz Meyer with the Department of Finance. So the 2025 budget act appropriated 300,000,000 one time proposition 98 general fund to establish the student teacher stipend program. The program, which is administered by the commission on teacher credentialing, is intended to support teacher candidates while they complete their student teaching with stipends of $10,000 beginning 07/01/2026. The commission will allocate up to $100,000,000 per year for three years.
Of that 300,000,000 that was appropriated, 6,000,000 was allocated specifically for the Kern County Office of Education to conduct a multimedia campaign encouraging specified individuals to pursue a teaching career, as well as develop a grants management system for the commission to streamline administration of all of their educator recruitment and retention programs, and then also contract for an independent evaluation of the stipend program. And that evaluation is due to the legislature, 07/01/2029. That concludes my remarks, but happy to take questions at the appropriate time.
Speaker 15
Erin Sullivan, Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Just would add that we are very enthusiastic about this program and, on track to implement.
Speaker 1
Great. What's the status of the grants management system, and will it be prepared to manage the teacher residency grant program, if approved?
Speaker 15
Yes, thank you for that question. We, at the Commission, staff just held a very exciting sort of kickoff presentation to the Commissioners at their public meeting last week, where we brought the vendor, Linian, who has helped us build the grants management system, and presented that information to the Commission. So, the grants management system itself is done. It's prepared. It's ready, for our July 1 kickoff, and, the nice thing about that is we now have three months to do technical assistance, kind of an online roadshow, if you will.
We're inviting, participants, LEAs and IHEs both, to come and have an opportunity to walk through that system, see how it's going to work, understand the simplicity that we've really built into that system to encourage the maximum amount of participation. So, that system is it's done, We're very happy with
Speaker 1
it. Great. I know that there were, well two, we have the student teacher stipend program and then there were also the Golden State Teacher Grant program. Can you just describe to me the difference between the two?
Speaker 3
Right, so the student teacher stipend program is meant to basically provide student teachers with compensation while they're doing their student teaching, which is like a very specific portion of their teacher prep program. The Golden State Teacher Grant program separately is available for college students who might not necessarily be in their preparation program yet, or are going to enter their preparation program, who commit to teaching at a high priority school. So, right, the student who applies for that grant could be just doing their bachelor's degree, not necessarily in their teacher prep program yet, and that is kind of helping fund to get to that point. Or they could be entering into their teacher prep program and that funding through GSTG would be available during the entirety of that program and not just specifically during their student teaching portion.
Speaker 15
I would just add, I know it's included in here, but the Golden State Teacher Grant is managed by the Student Aid Commission, while the Student Teacher Stipend is the Commission on Teacher Credentialing's purview. Yeah.
Speaker 1
Very cool, and it's great to see this. We obviously need many more folks going into the teaching profession and to attract and incentivize them there. Are we gathering and collecting that data just so we're monitoring the success of folks that are participating in this program and how it's leading to these folks becoming teachers successfully? Those I things are always important to highlight, especially as we're making state investments, and to make the argument to continue to grow our investments.
Speaker 15
Yeah, we are excited actually to be gathering some data, because we haven't done anything like this in a very long time. I mistakenly said this was precedent setting recently, and somebody with many more years experience than me pointed out that there was a student teacher stipend many, many years ago. But we are very curious, as are some of the other lawmakers that we've already spoken to, about kind of the uptake and where is it happening most. So, we able to reach the rural school areas where these student teachers are, all of that. So, we are system is built in such a way that we can gather data on participation by LEA and by IAG.
Speaker 1
Is that information that you'll be able to provide us and we can have access to as well, just so we can see the results of what that's looking like by region, particularly in some of the regions where, you know, we need to be making investments?
Speaker 15
Yeah, of the more exciting things, at least for the Commission, about the Grants Management System is that after all of this investment, we are finally going to have a really nice system that allows us to more easily get at data, so that we can provide it to the policymakers who put it there. So, one of the next rounds of things that we'll do with that Grants Management System is start to import data from all of our other grants that we've been operating for the legislature for a number of years, so that we eventually will have this beautifully built out system that allows us to more nimbly provide that kind of data to you when you ask for it.
Speaker 1
Excellent. Great. And then, I think that's actually pretty much it in terms of the questions that I have. Yes, I will move on now to our next item which is issue six related to the state operations of the Commission on Teacher credentialing. And we will go ahead and start with Department of Finance.
Speaker 9
Yes, again, Liz Mai with the Department of Finance. So, pages thirteen and fourteen of the agenda, I think, give a really great overview of all the various operations requests that were approved. So, I'll just go through kind of the high level ones. So, the government's budget proposes a total of 3,400,000 general fund, 537,000 teacher credentials fund, and 26 positions to support various responsibilities at the commission. Specifically, the budget proposes 1,500,000 ongoing general fund and 11 positions to address increasing, educator misconduct workload in a backlog of cases, at the commission's division of Licensure Enforcement.
And the budget also proposes 1,400,000 ongoing general fund and 10 positions to implement, some provisions of SB eight forty eight, which, as you know, was signed in October 2025. So those resources will allow the Commission to develop a statewide data system that includes information relating to investigations of allegations of egregious misconduct of individuals serving in a non certificated position at public LEAs or in any position at a private school. And so, to the extent that allegations are made against those non certificated staff or private school staff And those staff members have a credential. The commission will have to investigate those allegations. So, the resources that you're seeing is really to help address that, the resulting increase in workload from managing that data system.
And then finally, one last thing I'll highlight is that the budget proposes 132,000 ongoing general fund in one position to support increased grant administration workload as a result of that student teacher stipend program.
Speaker 8
Sarah Cortez, LAL. So, no, we don't have any comments on the governor's January proposal. We are anticipating updates at the May revision. As we review those updates, we'll notify the committee if we have concerns.
Speaker 15
Hi, Erin Schubel, Commission on Teacher Credentialing. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Yeah.
Speaker 1
I appreciate you mentioning SB eight forty eight as it was my legislation and really excited for you all to take that to implementation. Have definitely heard that the CTC looking for some additional support there as you get ready to manage this new data system that's going to be better tracking employees who commit misconduct, as well as those who leave in the middle of a pending investigation because we know that that's a critical time period as well. And so appreciate that you've flagged that there will be a need for additional attorneys. If there are any other additional needs that you all have, please be sure to let my office know. You know, we are working on some cleanup legislation right now and so really want to make sure that we're implementing this effectively.
I think everybody has been talking a lot about the cost of AB two eighteen cases lately, but how we prevent those costs is by stopping the harms to begin with and that's you know ultimately my goal is and wanting to make sure that we're preventing students from ever experiencing these types of tragedies on campus. Yeah. I don't think that I have any questions for this, so I will go ahead and we will move on to our final item, which is issue seven, the teacher residency grant program.
Speaker 9
Liz Mai, Department of Finance. So educator residencies provide high quality, clinically rich preparation for teachers and school counselors, with residency program participants having higher program completion and workforce retention rates than their non residency prepared peers. Residents also tend to be more diverse, with programs serving a higher percentage of African American candidates than traditional pathways. So, to further the impact that these residencies are having on California's educator workforce, the governor's budget proposes $250,000,000 one time proposition 98 general fund to continue educator residency programs, which includes teacher and school counselor residencies through the fiscal year twenty twenty nine-thirty. That concludes my remarks, but happy to take questions.
Speaker 23
Sarah Cortez, LEO. We recommend adopting this proposal if it is aligned with the legislature's priorities. There is research showing that this program can help produce well prepared teachers who stay in the profession longer and LEAs facilitating these residencies could use them to ensure they're able to fill the teacher shortages specific to their district or region. Residencies can be harder to get up and running for smaller, more rural districts and LEAs that are further from institutions of higher education that they would need to partner with. So, to that note, we think if adopted, this funding would address teacher shortages for certain LEAs that participate, but it would be less likely to help smaller, more rural LEAs.
Speaker 15
Erin Sullivan, Commission on Teacher Credentialing. This is another program that we're very enthusiastic about. It's been a very successful grant program, so we are, of course, in support of the language and trailer bill. I will just, with the utmost respect of my colleague at at the LAO, say that, one of the things that was funded through this was something called the, the SRTAC, which is basically a teacher residency technical support consortium. They have established a number of hubs throughout the state in regional areas, and since the hub was established in Northern California, in the Humboldt area, we've the difficulty for folks to get these residency programs up and running in some of those more remote areas has actually really been mitigated.
Speaker 1
Thank you for that overview. I noticed that the legislative analyst office had pointed out that the teacher residency grant program looks like it's benefiting more urban districts than the smaller rural districts. Are there tweaks that we can make to help address that so that we can address teacher recruitment and retention at smaller rural districts rather than just you know in the urban districts as well?
Speaker 15
I will say that in some cases, it's a little difficult for us to get the data on that, and I'm going to lean back on that grants management system. When we're able to finally put our teacher residency data in there, we'll be able to more quickly really identify areas that we could focus on. But I would just go back to my previous comment that with the regional hubs that are up and running through SRTAC, the reach to more remote areas, including rural areas, has really improved.
Speaker 1
Okay, so you think that with the grants management system, this teacher residency data, so that'll allow us to better have numbers around being able to track this, and you think that there's probably, the numbers probably look better, is what you're anticipating, is when we get this together, we'll see the numbers improve, because there'll be better data tracking?
Speaker 16
Yes, I think having a better opportunity to unpack all of the data that we have, which right now is living on about a thousand spreadsheets, we're managing it as best that we can, but it's very difficult to just sort of pull a report. So, what we're working with right now is the WestEd dashboards that are produced by them annually, but you'll notice that the couple of dashboards that are posted for you here in your agenda, the numbers are a little bit old, so there are a couple of years so, we've got '23, 24. That's the most recent data that we have for residencies. So, the grants management system, yes, at some point, hopefully quickly, we can get the teacher residency data put in there Once we get the student teaching stipend program up and running, and national board up and running, our next focus is to start to push our data into that system.
Speaker 1
Okay. Alrighty. That's all the questions that I have on this item. We'll go ahead and now that we've heard from all members of the public, we'll go ahead and take public testimony. Please use the mic at the railing.
You'll be provided one minute each. I will have a timer. I'll make sure that that timer is turned all the way up so that you all may hear it as well. And you may begin whenever you are ready.
Speaker 9
Good morning, madam chair. My name is Jaylen Woodard, policy fellow with the Alameda County Office of Education. First, we welcome the $100,000,000 investment in dual enrollment opportunities, which will enable programs in our county to train more teachers and expand course offerings. We also appreciate the $250,000,000 for teacher residency programs, as one effective strategy for addressing teacher shortages statewide, but to increase accessibility to teacher preparation, we ask you to consider long term funding for intern programs as well. The additional $40,000,000 proposed to support the implementation of reading screenings and expand the poolers pool of screeners is also crucial.
Speaker 17
However, ongoing funding is needed to support annual staff training. Lastly, we strongly support the 2,200,000,000 investment in special education. This funding is critical to providing much needed relief to school budgets currently burdened by rising special education costs. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Hello, Senator. My name is Renee Hawkins, and I'm a member of Decoding Dyslexia California. We fully support the full 40,000,000, investment in the reading screener to ensure that districts can fully train their teachers and reading specialists and implement the screeners with full fidelity to the research. And for that reason, we also urge you to remove the provisions which would delay the implementation of the screener. My son is profoundly dyslexic.
Speaker 18
Today, he's a successful college student, not because of public schools, but despite them. If he had had access to a screener at the beginning of kindergarten, when we already saw the signs of dyslexia based on his inability to hear rhymes and recite the ABCs, his teachers would have had the information they needed to start the supplemental information, intervention right away. Instead, he fell further and further behind and we had to put him in a private school so he could learn to read. With respect to this panel, there are no benefits to delaying screening or supplemental instruction when a child needs it. The stigmatization happens when a child is embarrassed by not being able to recite his ABCs or read even simple words like cat out loud.
The stigmatization happens when a teacher labels a child
Speaker 1
experiences happen in the first week of school. Please, if you believe in a right to a child's right to read, full funding, and implement the screener right away. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Elaine Good morning. My name is Elise Fang, and I'm a reading specialist. And I'm here on behalf of the Reading League California and 29 organizations representing the California Literacy Coalition. We urge you to preserve the 40,000,000 investment in educator training for reading difficulty screening, and recommend rejecting the proposed statutory restrictions on screening administration timelines. In particular, we strongly urge you to maintain local education agency flexibility around when students are screened.
Speaker 19
The proposed language would require LEAs to wait before administering screeners, and many of the approved evidence based screening instruments are specifically designed and normed to be administered at the beginning of the school year. Administering these tools later can result in misaligned or invalid data, undermining their usefulness for instructional decision making. In addition, these screeners are not diagnostic tools. There is often a misunderstanding of their purpose. They are designed to predict which students are likely to struggle with reading and to identify who would benefit from additional support as early as possible.
Delaying screening delays support. Preserving flexibility ensures districts can use the right tool at the right time to get students the help they need when it matters most. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Good morning, Amy DeLaSalle. I'm a parent in Sacramento. One of my experienced dyslexia and failed to learn to read in school. I want to address this idea of misidentification. A memory came up while I was listening to the Department of Finance, Department of Ed, and I forget who else, but I'm really surprised at their remarks and how they represented this would go down.
And this is what happened. We were listening to a podcast together about how it feels to find out you have dyslexia. And I was sitting at the table and I looked at my kid and I go, how did that feel for you? And he goes, nothing. They never told me.
Speaker 34
The state of California and all of our school districts really don't really have any intention at all of teaching all kids to read. 60% of them don't, and there is huge momentum here. That is why advocates and parents got together and show up in rooms like this, to demand some transparency.
Speaker 29
Good morning, Chair Perez. Anna Iokamidis on behalf of Los Angeles Unified. We would like to speak to the special education funding. We are very supportive of the governor's proposal to increase the base rate. That is helpful.
Speaker 21
You asked what the difference was between what it was costing and how much schools were being funded. I don't have that statewide, but I can tell you at Los Angeles Unified, we are currently spending about 1,300,000,000 in general fund that is going to our special education students above what we are getting from the state and the federal government. The federal government only reimburses us about 152,000,000. So federal funding is woefully inadequate, but there is a very large need. And as you very much pointed out, we have declining enrollment while with increasing student needs, particularly students with moderate and severe disabilities who are more costly to serve.
So we very much appreciate the proposal, but more needs to be done. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Good morning. Natalie Shin here on behalf of Californians Together. We are in strong support of the proposed funding for teacher residency programs, as well as increased funding for programs like the Golden State Teacher Program. But we are also in strong support of the proposed funding for professional development on reading difficulty screeners and maintaining a clear instructional window for screeners administered. The Governor's proposal is in alignment with research from UC San Francisco's Dyslexia Center that found the most accurate screeners were administered after ninety days of instruction for kindergarteners and after forty five days for first and second graders.
Speaker 22
When screeners were administered before that, about half of students were misidentified before they had a chance to receive sufficient instruction. This is especially important for English learner students who need sufficient time to receive systemic exposure to English language development and foundational literacy instruction before their skills can be accurately assessed. Otherwise, they are at risk of being misidentified and misdirected towards the wrong pathway of support. That does not address the root need for further language development. Early support matters, but the timing must ensure accuracy and equitable identification.
Thank you.
Speaker 11
Morning, Chair Perez. Cabria Payton on behalf of Ed Trust West and the Dual Enrollment Coalition of California, here to raise our strong support for the proposed $100,000,000 one time investment to expand and create dual enrollment programs. We submitted a letter with over 30 organizations in support to your committee. In addition to supporting this allocation, Ed Trust West aligns our goal with the SPI to respectfully urge legislature to set aside $10,000,000 for technical assistance. TA is essential to expanding equitable access to dual enrollment programs and supporting long term sustainability of partnerships.
Speaker 23
Lastly, we would like to express our support for the proposed $250,000,000 for teacher residencies, and we also respectfully asked for additional $100,000,000 for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program. This is a vital program whose continued investment has been essential to adjusting the teacher shortage. Thank you for your leadership and your consideration.
Speaker 20
Hello, Madam Chair and Committee. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. I'd like to speak to item seven today and address an item that's missing, which we would urge you to consider. That's the Diverse Education Leaders Pipeline Initiative. We are requesting additional funding for 10,000,000 to serve teachers who wish to gain their administrative credentials.
We know right now there's a hardship for many of them, and the one thing that's missing from the educator workforce programs is the leadership program. So, we urge your support for that. We know that we already have established programs at LACO. We provide services to 47 LEAs, 30 other charter schools, and other entities. So, we already have this established.
Speaker 10
All we're asking is that the teachers be able to utilize the program as a type of a scholarship program for them. And we also provide the supports that is identified in the analysis of benefits of creating retention for those leaders, and also urging them all of the support providing them support along the way so that they will be fully prepared when they come on board as leaders. So thank you very much for your support. We know this was previously supported in the budget, so we're asking for reinvestment. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 36
Buenos Dias, Chair members and members of the subcommittee. My name is Jaime Ramirez Mendoza. I'm here on behalf of Ed Trust West in shock support of the proposed $100,000,000 one time investment to establish and expand access to enrollment programs. Dual enrollment is one of the most effective, evidence based strategies available to improve college access, readiness, and long term success. Research consistently shows that students who participate in dual enrollment are more likely to complete college level math and English, enroll in post secondary education, and earn a degree or credential.
Speaker 24
College and Career Access Pathways, or CCAP, is especially impactful because it intentionally expands its opportunities to students who have been historically left out, particularly first generation students, low income students, and students of color. Protecting this investment will ensure students in high need districts continue to benefit from proven pathways that support educational equity in California's future workforce. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2
Good morning, madam chair. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Today, I'm joined I'm with the Partnership for LA Schools, and I'm joined by students and educators because we know the importance of stable, excellent educators that affirm the student's sense of identity and belonging. And we're here in support of the Golden State Teacher Grant, and we'll have some of our students and teachers speak on it.
Speaker 31
Good morning. My name is Joaquin Prado. I'm a student at Santee Education Complex in South Los Angeles where my dad is currently a teacher at. And the reason I mention my dad is because my dad's always been a huge inspiration for me and has shown me what determination and focus has done for him. But the reason I wanna talk to him is reason I wanna talk about him is because of what he the hurdles he had to overcome to become an educator.
Speaker 12
He had to become a student teacher, practically working for free, and he had to work another job in order to support my brother and I financially while simultaneously attending school. And even when he got his own classroom, he still had to pay off student debt, which is exactly why I'm supporting AB nineteen o four to expand teacher paid programs and mentorships and apprenticeships because teachers should feel confident and supported to become educators and students deserve educators that are going to give them their full attention and quality teachers. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 6
Good morning. My name is Arias Williams. I'm I'm also here with the partnership, for Los Angeles Schools. So I'm an educator, and I'm in strong support of stipends for apprentice teachers. Me myself, I went through a teacher residency program and the stipend is what made it possible for me.
Speaker 25
Without it, I wouldn't have been able to commit to the training. So we're asking people to step into classrooms to work full time and learn on the job, but many can't afford to do that without support. So we lose a lot of good people before they even start. These stipends are essential because they open the door to talented, committed educators who would otherwise be shut out. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Hi, my name is Amber Miles. I'm a kindergarten teacher in Los Angeles Unified School District. I'm actually also a nationally board certified teacher. I'm here to talk about the importance of teacher residency programs and the Golden State Grant. I myself was not awarded any access to funding while I was in school to become a teacher.
Speaker 26
I had to do my student teaching without any access to funds. I had to actually quit my TA job to become a student teacher and pay full tuition while working full time without pay. It was a big hardship on myself, and without the support of my family, there's no way that I would have been able to do it and work in the career that I love so much and am so passionate about today. And not everyone is fortunate as me to be able to have family to support them. So I really advocate that you would support any grant or any funding to get a quality workforce of teachers by giving them a great start from the very beginning of funding them Thank you for your time
Speaker 1
And FYI for folks here, I have a hard stop at noon, so we're going to go until that time, but if you can keep your comments brief, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good morning, my name is Aubrey Acosta, and I'm a teacher at Los Angeles Unified School District with the Partnership for LA. I am a recipient of the Golden State Teach Grant, and this grant transformed my life by removing financial barriers that allowed me to become an educator. I was actually displaced, my first year of teaching, and because of the relationships and commitment that I had to working in a high need school, I remained working in a high need school the following year. This would not have been possible without the Golden State Teacher Grant and without continuing funding of this program. High need schools like mine, will not be able to recruit and educators they need to help students thrive.
Speaker 37
Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Nadia Razi. I'm the Director of Research and Policy at the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools and are proud, one of your constituents from Alhambra. And, I'm a former public school teacher in strong support of the initiatives to strengthen the educator workforce, including the teacher residency grant program, the student teacher stipend program, and the Golden State Teacher Grant. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Oh, very grateful for the opportunity to be able to uplift the voices of our students and teachers today. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Morning, Madam Chair. Kim Lewis representing Children Now. And on Issue one, we urge the legislature to approve the governor's $100,000,000 for dual enrollment, with 82% of California high schools enrolling zero students in community college courses and persistent gaps for Latino and low income students. Dual enrollment is one of the most effective equity strategies. We also support efforts to strengthen the CCAP program.
On Issues six and seven, we support the CTC's position augmentation in the Governor's $250,000,000 for the Teacher Residency Grant Program. We also ask that the current authorization language be applied retroactively to twenty eighteen grantees. Finally, we urge the legislature to continue the Golden State Teacher Grant Program with $100,000,000 investment. The program has placed more than 22,000 qualified teachers in high need schools and must not be allowed to expire. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Roxanne Stellmacher with the California EDGE Coalition. I'm here in strong support of the Governor's $100,000,000 dual enrollment investment. To strengthen this investment, we urge our state leaders to ensure that adult dual enrollment is included in the opportunity to apply for these funds as adult learners who are pursuing a high school diploma or equivalency are often left out. Since SB five fifty four passed in 2019, allowing for adult learners to enroll in dual enrollment courses, The policy has faced real implementation barriers.
This investment in dual enrollment is an opportunity to fix that. Funding should also support strong coordination between colleges and school districts to help ensure equitable outcomes for all dual enrollment students, including adult dual enrollment students. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 17
Good morning. Christina Salazar with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. We support the governor's proposed budget investment in dual enrollment, special education base rate increase, the teacher residency grant program, and we also support the proposed budget on the reading difficulty screeners, and we would align our comments with Californians together. We want to make sure the students have enough instruction before identification. Thank you so much.
Speaker 8
Madam Chair and members, Ian Padilla with the Coalition for Adequate School Housing on Issue four, School Facility Program. The quick version is we are asking for $1,000,000,000 over the proposed amount for the school facility program this year because of the significant amount. There's already a backlog in modernization funding, and we're also asking for funding for deferred maintenance programs, are or deferred maintenance, which is essentially health and safety programs. So thank you very much.
Speaker 25
Morning, Madam Chair. Kyle Hyland, on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education. First, just want to start out by thanking you for your comments on special education today. We agree that we need more funding in there. In fact, we're here today supporting the equalization funding in the Governor's budget, and request that the legislature consider providing more funding.
Speaker 31
As you heard today, identification rates in special education have increased significantly. To ensure LEAs can meet their legal obligations and provide appropriate services for students with disabilities, we ask that you consider additional $300 per ADA to better align funding with these rising needs. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Good morning. My name is Marty Remmers. I'm the San Joaquin County SELPA director. I'm here today representing nearly 12,000 students with disabilities that reside in our SELPA. In our SELPA, nearly 73% of our special education revenue comes from local sources.
Speaker 32
Additionally, our special SELPA special education expenditures are expected to increase by approximately $6,000,000 for the 'twenty six-'twenty seven school year. Today, I ask for your consideration in supporting the $999 base rate, identify the government proposal as part of special education equalization. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Morning. I'm Troy Tickel from Placer County Selpa. I'm here today to represent our 66,000 students. We support the governor's proposal for five zero nine the full $5.00 $9,000,000 towards special education. Districts are confronting sustained cost pressures, driven by higher identification rates and more inclusive educational environments.
Speaker 33
We have experienced a thirty seven percent increase in identification of students with disabilities in Placer County, including a one hundred and twenty percent increase for our students that are deaf or hard of hearing, ninety two percent increase with multiple disabilities, and a sixty seven percent increase in students with autism. Each of these are intensive need areas that require very extensive supports. So, we support the full investment of the $590,000,000 for special education. Thank you.
Speaker 20
the Statewide Residency Technical Assistance Center and the five county offices that make up SR Tech. We are in strong support of Issue seven, the Governor's proposed investment in education residencies. We were also interested in working with the administration and the legislature, and to ensure there's also additional funding to extend and expand that technical assistance, to make sure it better aligns with the proposed grant funding, and we can follow-up with more information about the impact of residency programs, and how SRTAC has been supporting the field since its inception. Also, on behalf of KROP, the Association of Career and College Readiness Organizations, I want to express their support for Issue one and then additional money for dual enrollment programs. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Good morning, Madam Chair. Stephen Almasan with EdVoice. I'm here to urge you to include $100,000,000 for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program. If general fund constraints do not allow that, we would encourage you to build on the student teacher stipend program by maintaining the existing $10,000 stipend and using existing statute that would allow for the state to provide an additional $10,000 for teachers who commit to teach at a high need school. Thank you so much for your consideration, look forward to talking more about this potential solution.
Speaker 13
Afternoon. Abby Ridley Kerr with EdVoice and the California Literacy Coalition. We urge you to preserve the $40,000,000 investment in literacy screening PD and reject the timing restrictions. Delaying screening compresses the window to identify students and provide intervention. As Doctor.
Speaker 36
Young Se Kim has stated, early screening data is predictive and essential for understanding how students respond to instruction, information that educators lose out on if screening is delayed. Districts are already implementing these tools. Changing the rules in year one is premature when there's not full data to justify it. And California would be an outlier. No other states delay screening in grades one and two.
If there are concerns about how screening data is used, this calls for clear guidance and training, not a statutory change. Thank you.
Speaker 14
David Krueger here for Ignite Reading today. I want to align my comments with the Literacy Coalition on the delay in screening. Specifically, the first grade context, these screeners are used also to identify students for interventions. Just in time interventions are very important to avoid more costly interventions later on in a student's education, and so I want to really encourage you to reject that language. Thank you.
Speaker 1
And we're going to go ahead and stop public testimony there. For anybody that was not able to provide public testimony, you can write in your comments here to the committee. We're happy to receive those in writing. I want to thank everybody for participating today. We've concluded the agenda for today's hearing and the Senate Budget Subcommittee is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.