Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance

Okay. Good afternoon. We'll start today's Budget Subcommitee Hearing on Education Finance today is hearing a very narrow TK through 12 hearing on education and the arts, focusing on the implementation of the recently passed Prop 28, as well as looking at the existing California funding streams, including the Arts and Music Block Grant. And lastly, the budget proposal for culture passes arts and enrichment with that issue. Number one, we're going to bring up our first panel.

We can start coming up to you after LAO and CDE, as well as Create CA. But first, we're going to begin with Austin Beutner, who's not with us today in person. But Austin is available via Webex. And of course, Austin is the principal behind Prop 28, which the voters gave the stamp of approval for in the fall of 2022 to fund more arts program in our schools. Austin, if you just start talking, we'll be able to see you on our video.

Can you hear me okay? Yeah.

Can you start over? Because I had the mute button on. So start over.

Yeah. I started just with a thank you, Assembly Member McCarty, for having me, all of you, for allowing me a chance to share a few thoughts. And then I'd be delighted to answer any questions you might have.

And if it's okay, I'll just give a little bit of context and what our intent was in authoring this initiative and then go into a few of the implementation details that I think we're all wrestling with trying to do the best for kids at the moment, if that's okay by you.

Sure. Thanks. Yes.

Good. All right, so I'll start with. I think with this group. It's a little bit of preaching to the choir, but why arts and music? I think all of us who've been in schools, all of us who were in school, which I think covers just about everybody in this room, understand the importance arts and music plays in the complete education for children. It's not just art for art's sake, but arts is a part of a complete education where it leads to higher attendance.

It's part of social emotional wellness. The same parts of the brain that are activated in music and dance and theater are the same parts of the brain that are involved in critical thinking and academic skills. So lots and lots of reasons why arts and music in schools is a good thing. But unfortunately, we were presented with a dilemma, which is barely one in five public schools in California have a full time prudential arts and music educator, and that's not sufficient.

So we decided to go to the ballot to make sure that there's funding of sufficient funding on an ongoing basis to allow schools to build truly world class arts and music programs in their schools. And by the way, when I use arts and music, I'm not speaking as literally as the state standard. Where art encompasses all, music is one of the medie.

So when I say arts and music, please accept that as a lay term for all of the different forms art and creative expression may take. And I think, as you're all aware, the initiative lays out the broad range of those from more traditional forms like song and dance, to more current forms or contemporary forms like animation and visual arts and the like. We went out to get signatures.

I think, as you know, in less than 90 days, more than a million California voters signed on to the cause. We put together an amazing coalition, and really, for the first time in a long, long time, not just laboring schools, but labor outside of schools. Community organizations, businesses, the school community and all united in support of public education. That led to more than 64% support amongst voters.

That's the biggest margin of victory in California history for an education initiative, and it's going to lead to the largest investment in arts and music in public schools in our nation's history. That's something we as Californians can be proud of. And I know we're going to again lead the nation in what happens in our public schools.

I'm sure some of what your Committee and others in the Assembly will wrestle with is let's make sure the money's put to best use and helps kids in the greatest way possible. So a few of the details around implementation I'll speak to. And sometimes it's inferred in the language of the initiative. Sometimes we use simple terms where 10 pages might have been well substituted for one paragraph.

But we thought it was important that voters understand the essence and the intent, as opposed to actually write all of the details. It starts fundamentally with equity. We built a formula where every school child, preschool through 12th grade, in the State of California will benefit all 6 million. And then we doubled down and made sure a second dose went to every child whose family lives below the poverty line. So, in effect, two for one in high need schools.

In terms of the amount of funding, I think the formula is pretty clear. It may cause some heartburn because we've included preschool students, but I'm sure the state keeps good records and can look at the whole system, preschool all the way through twelveth grade to make sure the money is appropriately allocated. The second is we left it up to the school to decide. As a former school administrator, I think I can speak to this authentically.

I feel programs like this are best decided by that local school community, educators, the students and families they serve. Getting together and deciding whether it is song or dance, theater, or animation will best serve the children in their schools. Whatever they spend the money on needs to be for arts and music and only for arts and music, and needs to be aligned with the state standards in the arts. We have made it clear the money should be used to supplement, not supplant.

And let me speak to that because I think it's important. The intent of Prop 98 is for the new funding to increase arts programs in schools and not be a substitute source of funding for existing programs. For example, if a school is spending $200,000 in arts and music in this current school year 22-23 the school needs to continue to spend at least that amount for arts education next school year 23-24 before accessing Prop 28 funds.

The language in the initiative mirrors well established federal guidelines for the use of title one schools funds for schools, by example, which set forth clear and enforceable rules in this area. The language in the initiative and the intent of the authors I think is clear. The funds are going to be used to add to additional programs in arts and music. It doesn't matter what the source of funding was for an existing program. Prop 28 funding is meant to build on the current effort at schools.

There's a challenge. We probably will need to bring about 15,000 educators into schools to properly serve students in California. We recognized this will take some time, so we built a ramp. Schools have in any year, a three year period over which to spend those funds, and we hope schools are looking at their programs over the long term, not necessarily the short term.

We built in some safeguards to make sure the lion's share, 80 plus percent of funds, are spent on school staff that can be certificated or classified. That might create pathways for CTE and other programs the state have to bring practicing artists, professional artists, into schools as teachers, as instructional aides or teaching aides. We built in further ramp to make sure that the money is not siphoned off for administration purposes, so no more than 1% can be spent by schools or school districts on administration.

We think that's a sufficient amount and hopefully that's put to good use but the lion's share is meant to be spent in schools. Continuing on that path, let me just state I think our intent is to have the money be put to work as soon as possible and as reasonably as possible on behalf of students. And that three year on ramp is meant to launch a program.

So, for instance, the 80% threshold to make sure the money is spent on school staff the first year, a school might need to spend a little more than 20% if it's an instrumental program. Well, we hope if that school decides to apply for a waiver, they're able to show CDE a three-year program where it might be 30% the first year for instrumental, but 10% non-school staff the next two years because they bought the instruments.

And after that, a little bit of training, perhaps a little bit of sheet music, whatever might be needed. But then the lion's share should be spent after that on school staff. So schools, we hope, look at this programmatically, but the perfect could be the enemy of the good as this goes forward, because students are in schools today and they can benefit from this funding beginning in the new school year, which starts actually in July.

And some schools may decide the best use of the funds is to begin in summer school and start offering students access. For instance, I was asked a question the other day. Well, the amount is still wiggling a little bit. Well, we purposefully set the amount based on prior year Prop 98 funding, knowing that those funds would be more or less set. The Legislature governors still fine tune that through the course of a year.

We know how it works and I'm told that the adjustment may be as much as 19 million. Well, 19 million on the 941,000,000 which Prop 28 will supply to schools is less than 2%. So rather than the perfect being in the enemy of the good, if schools were told and allocated 95% of their dollars today, they can start their program. It could be trued up later and the plus or minus 2% dealt with.

But if we allow perfection to be the enemy of the good, then children will bear the consequence because every child who's able to participate in arts and music is going to have a brighter day and a better future. So the sooner we can put the funds to work in schools, the better we are. And with that as a little bit of background, Assembly Member McCarty, be happy to answer questions, issues, or delve deeper into any of the topics that might make sense.

Thank you. We certainly can come back next. We'll hear from our panel. With us today the Department of Finance, LAO, CDE, and Create CA.

Chairman, Members. Chris Ferguson with the Department of Finance. The Governor's Budget does include an estimate of $941,000,000 to support the implementation of Proposition 28 to support arts and music programs in the state. We'll certainly adjust that estimate at the May revision. We are working with interested parties to determine if there are any particular areas of clarity that would need to either require guidance and or potential trailer bill language. But at this point we have put forward no trailer bill language and we haven't sought specific guidance.

With that, I'm happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. I would note one last thing, though, and that is the Proposition 98 guarantee would be rebenched in future years to accommodate the payment this year. So the structure of the initiative is such that that 941,000,000 would be permanently baked into the guarantee starting in 24-25.

Okay, thank you. LAO.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members. Michael Alferes, Legislative Analyst Office. As noted in your agenda, the California Department of Education has several suggested modifications. We were able to review these modifications and don't have any specific concerns with them at this time, but can follow up in the future if any specific concerns arise. Happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Okay, thank you. CDE.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Aaron Heredia from the Department of Education, speaking on behalf of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurman. Proposition 28 was passed in November 2022, establishing the Arts and Music in Schools Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act with the goal of creating minimum funding that is dedicated to arts program education, which includes instruction, training, supplies, materials, and partnership programs in the various areas of arts or music education.

Beginning with the 2023-24 fiscal year, the Proposition requires the state to provide a minimum level of funding for arts and music programs to support public school preschool through grade 12 schools, including charter schools, and the state special schools. Arts is a necessary part of a well-rounded education, and research shows that arts educational experiences have remarkable impacts on students' academic, social, and emotional outcomes. Additionally, there is evidence that arts education has a positive impact on student attendance.

The team at CDE is working hard on the implementation of this program. We are currently working with the Department of Finance, the Legislature, interested parties to clarify some program provisions and ensure that the program is implementable. As outlined in the agenda, we have identified several issues with the language around the allocation of funding at the school site level for preschools. For example, the CD does not currently collect enrollment data for the California State preschool program in accordance with the requirements of the allocation formula of the Proposition.

We have submitted suggested cleanup language to Finance and to the Legislature for consideration. There are a few issues we are working together with Finance on that subject. We have received questions and concerns from the field regarding the supplement not supplant requirement, in particular in the statute.

The main concern centers around the baseline funding requirement, in essence, what constitutes existing funding as defined in the statute, and how that impacts whether a school is supplementing or supplanting funding for their programs. The current language does not provide explicit direction for how this requirement interacts with various possible scenarios, for example, treatment of one-time funds, whether they be from state or federal sources or otherwise treatment of funds from PTA organizations, charitable donations, philanthropy, et cetera.

That may be one time ongoing and also fluctuating year to year. If there's not technical cleanup language adopted to alleviate some of the fiscal implementation hurdles, then it's unclear how soon the CD will be able to begin apportioning funds to leas pursuant to the current statute. We're also working with Finance, as I mentioned, to get dedicated staffing and implementation resources for this program.

Currently, the work is being spread over multiple divisions within the Department and does not have subject matter experts at this time for the program. Just this week, the CDE did post a Prop 28 web page on our public website with some FAQs that LEAs and others can avail themselves of. That concludes my presentation at this time. I also have with me Pete Callis from the Career and College Transition Division to answer any additional programmatic questions you may have. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next, Create California.

Thank you, Chair McCarty and Members of the Assembly Committee. My name is Tom DeCaigny and I'm the Executive Director of Create California. Some of you may have known us formerly as the California Alliance for Arts Education. We've been around since 1973. Create California advocates for high quality arts education for all students by providing policy expertise and mobilizing a statewide network of advocates and allied partners. We're the largest statewide coalition of parents, students, educators, and business leaders dedicated to arts education in the United States.

Thank you so much for this opportunity to present today and address the implementation of Proposition 28. I believe this may be the first hearing ever dedicated to arts education in the state's history, and maybe the country. And this historic measure, as noted by our proponent Austin Beutner, was passed by over 64% of California voters. A clear mandate. I think you've heard the rationale behind Prop 28, but I just want to note that our research backs up the points made earlier by Austin Beutner.

A recent study by SRI Education, commissioned by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, found that in 2019-2020 school year, only 11% of California schools provided the required standards based course of study in the visual and performing arts. Insufficient funding and a lack of proper training of teachers and dedicated staff remained the two biggest barriers identified, according to the study, as a barrier to arts education, and Prop 28 offers us the opportunity to remove those barriers.

It will ensure that we have the necessary funding and staffing to ensure all students across the state receive a quality arts education. At first review Create California believes that we support the department's implementation recommendations presented today. We would like more time to review them with our coalition partners across the state, but we want to emphasize that we absolutely support the department's request for staffing to be sure to implement this measure as outlined by voters.

We have a few other points we'd like to raise today as we look towards implementation. Data collection is going to be key to ensure appropriate implementation of Prop 28. We urge the consideration of utilizing CALPADS as the data system for course offerings and enrollment for both elementary and secondary data. This will help ensure proper monitoring and oversight of the Proposition for years to come. We support the policy of allowing multiple school sites.

This is an issue that has come up across the state towards implementation to pool funds to hire itinerant teachers and or contract district wide arts partners, especially when this advances educational equity within the district. We think this will be particularly important to our rural communities in the state. We encourage the Department of Education and CTC to designate VAPA as a qualified teacher shortage area to help potential students leverage financial aid programs aimed to build the teacher pipeline.

As noted, we anticipate this Proposition will allow us to hire 14,000 to 15,000 new teachers. And we know, as in many subject areas, we need to build that pipeline of future teachers.

Create California strongly also encourages the Legislature to protect the arts, music and instructional materials discretionary block grant also on today's agenda as these funds are one-time and been dedicated to schools in our already in planned use and are separate for uses from Prop 28, and they include diverse uses well beyond arts and music, including teacher pensions and other structural costs. Thank you again for the opportunity to present today.

Create California is excited to be a partner with the Department of Education to have worked with Austin Beutner in the Proposition, our Teacher Association partners, and the many nonprofit arts organizations across the state to effectively implement this measure as directed by voters. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Before we proceed, for the first time, we're going to take roll today because we actually have a vote later on today.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Question for this panel? Mr. Alvarez.

First of all, I want to acknowledge the work of the advocates to get this before us. I think it's really important that we provide opportunities, especially for a lot of children that don't, in the arts. The data is quite clear. Over the years, repeatedly has demonstrated that children that receive arts education schools perform better. So I think this is a good thing overall. One of the things that, I have a question from the testimony that was presented by Tom, I believe. Yeah.

Tom from Create California. Was you mentioned something about the need for teachers, which we see as a high need all around. But you mentioned something about making sure that those who want to pursue careers in VAPA are eligible for programs. Are they currently not eligible for some of the teacher aid programs that exist out there?

We know if it was a designated shortage area, they would have greater access. There are some programs they would certainly be able to access. We've been working with, instance, the CDE foundation Teacher Residency Lab to make sure that the visual and performing arts disciplines and credentials are included in their work. And we know private philanthropy is looking to support that work. But we believe the shortage designation would help open up additional opportunities.

Okay. I would agree with that. On the issue of the supplant versus, what's the phrase? Supplant versus... We don't want this money to supplant existing funding for arts that might exist at a campus. What is the current discussion, maybe from LAO, Administration, anybody of CDE that can help me understand what direction this might be headed in so we know exactly what to expect. How are we going to count or score any existing programming at some of the schools as it relates to this funding?

Mr. Assembly Member, I'd also be happy. I appreciate where the question was directed after CDE or DOF comment. I'd love to comment after their remarks. Answer the question.

Yeah, certainly the Department of Finance hasn't provided any formal guidance. What we would do at this point is we'd point back to the terms of the proposition and the way it's structured. And it does say that the funds shall supplement and not supplant, and it defines what it means to supplement.

And specifically it says that it shall mean that these funds shall be used to increase arts and music programs, and it defines what art and music programs mean in the proposition as well and shall not supplement existing funding sources. So some of the question around what counts toward existing expenditures, whether one time resources, PTA resources, I think, are things that we're looking at.

But holistically, the terms of the proposition itself do say in the definition that they're intended to increase the amount of expenditures or the amount of funding, not expenditures, supporting arts and music programs.

Thank you.

Sir, if I might add, I think that increase is the operative language. The precise source of existing funding, we knew going into this wouldn't necessarily be easy, but the answer, we think, is obvious, which is to increase. And let's talk about philanthropic supportive schools, for instance. Most of it is structurally one time. It may recur, but it's structurally one time. And by no means was the effort or the intent of this initiative to replace existing philanthropy with public dollars.

We hope that philanthropy will continually be built on. So whether it's PTA led or other forms of private support, they structurally are, in effect, one time. But we didn't want to replace those, meaning supplant with public dollars. The same would be true with school budgets.

Having worked in a large and complex school system, what gets translated from Sacramento to schools and the making of that sausage is not simple. And the host of one time monies that effectively recur at the state level, we wanted to stay out of that and make it crystal clear, supplement means more, supplant means replacing existing funding irrespective of the source. And I know that's going to cause some heartburn, but that was our intent.

Thank you. That's it, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Fong.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And thank you to all our arts advocates and to all our colleagues here today for the presentation. And thank you to Mr. Beutner for his leadership and efforts around Prop 28, and the team. Question I had was, just echo Mr. Alvarez's comments on the arts workforce.

Anything that we can do with CDE and our higher education partners to advocate for the development of additional workforce in the arts, in music, media, arts, dance is critical as we continue to look at the implementation of Prop 28. And also want to emphasize that we're looking at supplementing funds and not supplanting funds, as well, to increase arts and music education. So really want to highlight that as well.

In terms of data reporting, when we look at the reporting for metrics on this and the reporting expenditure templates for school sites and LEAs, how are we going to capture that data, and how are we going to ensure that the reporting includes and distinguishes existing Non-Prop 28 funded arts programming in these reports.

I think most of that work is still under development, but I do have the Division Director that will be programmatically implementing that, Pete Callas, here in the audience as well, if he may want to come up and opine or add more.

Thank you.

Come on up, Mr. Callas. This is your moment.

So really on the reporting piece, as Mr. Heredia said, we're still working on this part. I mean, it's a new program to my division. It's a Career and College Transition Division. So we're picking up this piece and really making it part of our division. So it's going to take us some time to develop this reporting piece, but we are working on it. We're working on getting some more staff to support it.

Great. I just want to make sure that it looks at non-Prop 28 funded arts programming, along with Prop 28 as we look and implement arts program here in California. I've heard from a number of arts advocates throughout the state and my district as well, and they're very excited for this funds and want to make sure that it's being supplemented versus supplanted. So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, thank you. Just a few issues here. So I guess the big picture is the voters agree that arts matter to public education. I think research shows that well rounded education isn't just the basics, writing and reading and arithmetic, of the classroom, but arts and music and sports and other activities help students learn and sometimes stay in school. And I think intuitively the voters agreed and they voted for this. And so, as Mr. Fong noted, they voted for more.

And so I think the next issue on the agenda is perplexing. He giveth and taketh away. So $1 billion more for arts and a billion less in the block grants for arts and music. And yeah, they're different, but if you ask someone on the street, they're probably the same thing. And so they kind of scratch their head. So we'll get to that later. But I guess just, maybe just walk us through how this works. And so the money is going to go right to. I'm not sure who should answer this. Right to... Maybe LAO. It'll go right to the existing thousand school districts on a formula or per capita, what have you.

Yes, that's correct. It would go to LEAs that would then distribute among their school sites based on enrollment. There's a certain portion of the funding that goes based on total enrollment and then another portion of the formula that goes based on students that I believe are low income, eligible for free, reduced price meals.

So it goes right from state treasury through CDE to LEAs or straight from the state controller?

So it would be, at this point, the plan for the design of the apportionments. It would be paid as you described, where through CDE, through the principal apportionment. So the same way that LEAs receive, like their LCFF funding, AB 602 funding, and those other programs that are in... So it would be on a monthly schedule once we get implementation up and running.

And then since education, as we know, is run here in California, not so much through Sacramento, but local control through a thousand school districts, that's how we set it up. Local government, too. And so how do we know and follow up the rules as far as all these elements to make sure that school districts know what to do and are following the policies and procedures with staffing, no supplanting, workforce, all that?

Right. There are provisions, and perhaps Mr. Beutner may want to speak to some of the intent on those as well, possibly. But there are provisions for adding some of the different requirements into the audit guide. So there would be an annual check there in terms of how districts are meeting the requirements, things like certifying that the funds will be used in accordance with their plans, in accordance with the requirements of the Proposition.

So it's really kind of more, and then, like my colleague Mr. Callas mentioned, there's that reporting element to the Department that we're still developing. So it's kind of a few different pieces working together in the long run to help make sure that LEAs are accountable to the requirements.

I'm happy to add to that if that's helpful, sir.

Sure. Mr. Beutner.

First, and let me just trace back quickly to Assembly Member Fong's comments about the teacher pipeline. One area that the state I know is looking at carefully as ways of assisting the pipeline of artists into schools as teachers. There's the traditional single subject credential that exists. There's an opportunity for a practicing artist to become an instructional aide or a teacher's aide as a classified member of school staff that exists. And I know that careful thought is being given to whether a teaching artist at a school might classify under CTE authorization as a teacher in a school. And we think that's a fine idea.

I hope that the state can support that because that's going to just open up a much broader pipeline of talented people to schools to provide instructions to children. Our language, or certainly the intent, was that this use of funds would be subject to audit just like every other piece of school funding is on whatever regular basis or schedule CDE or state officials think is appropriate.

In addition, there's a requirement that each school community and each school district prepare a report which shows the answers to three questions at a school level. What was the money spent on, how that aligned with state standards, and what impact do the expenditures have on kids? The idea there is to help the wisdom of the crowd provide the audit, if you will, at the school.

So to empower school families, not only to make the choice of the program at the school, but to see that the money is being put to good use. Because they'll be able to compare their program with a school down the street or a school across the state once they have access to that information. So we hope that provides a useful tool for state and local officials to look and see what's happening in schools, how the money is being spent, and to elevate good programs.

And as those are shared around the state, we think the programs in schools will get better and better. So we built in a new mechanism, a little bit of an experiment at schools. But we think if we're giving agency to families and making the choice, we need to make sure they continue of agency with good information about the program at their school so they can weigh in and help the school continue to do better on behalf of their kids.

Okay, thank you. Just two more issues to approach, just a bit more on the supplanting. So as far as monitoring and enforcing for the thousand school districts across California, walk me through how that will work. I'm still not straight here.

So the language of the, well, now the statute, right. But of the initiative, talks about a local educational agency certifying that those funds would be used to supplement, not supplant, and then that it would be subject to the annual audit. So that's one way that they would be held accountable to that requirement.

And then what about, I think about in history of last 20 years, we've had significant ballot measures that have great goals and made a difference, like Prop 63, the then millionaire tax for mental health. I think it was going to generate a billion dollars. I think now it's like 7 billion. And then right when it launched, I think, like in four-ish, it was our current mayor, he just left. He was in between the Assembly and the Senate.

And then the recession hit, and then counties started... They had supplanting language in there, and they started using that to hire. And the goal was, the notion was, well, we wanted to do more mental health, and whether or not we hire here and fire here, it's all the same. So how will that work here if the economy tanks and there's a recession? So how will those two things play? So you're not supplanting. So this thing stays constant. But this is a staffing, really. It's a people initiative. So you could potentially reduce on the other end in some type of economic crisis.

Yeah, I can speak to that. I think there's a few components to unpack there. In terms of the language, it is 1% of the guarantee. So the expectation is that that would be every year. While that amount could fluctuate from one year to the next, districts would still be held to expend at least that much on their programs. And of the amount that's being allocated, 80% would have to support direct salary.

However, within the terms of the Proposition, it does provide the state with one opportunity to suspend some of the allocation of these resources in the event that it also suspended the Proposition 98 guarantee, which is very rare and has only happened during my career one time. I believe that was in 2010-11. So very rare occurrence.

Those are sort of the two components that are in there, but it's largely designed to be a stable funding source from one year to the next so that districts and schools can plan from one year to the next. Sure, there will be fluctuation there, but there will be a lot of stability as well. And the terms of the initiative, and now the statute, it's 1% of the prior year guarantee moving forward has to be expended on or support arts and music programs. So not only does it rebench the guarantee upward, it then permanently requires 1% of that guarantee to support the programs.

Okay, and then just one final question before I go back to Mr. Alvarez. Mr. Beutner said it's the intent to allow waivers for a 20% cap for arts materials. I want to ask CDE if do we believe that authority is clear to do that. Or Department of Finance or LAO.

So from Finance's perspective, we would have to get back to you on that particular provision. I do know that there is a waiver provision in the initiative itself, but I am not familiar with the specifics of the provision.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Alvarez.

Assembly Member, if I could just add. I'm sorry.

Mr. Beutner, go ahead.

The idea was that that would be linked to the three year time period to use an allocation of funds. So to start a program, sometimes the materials or the training, educator training, or supplies might be more than 20%. But there was no intent or desire to allow a recurring waiver, if you will, for that provision. The idea was over a period of time, buy the instruments up front if you have to, train the professionals, then run the program.

So I think it's important to look at those two things together, not in isolation, because I'd be disappointed, personally, to see schools apply for continuing waivers when it was our intent to make sure the lion's share, the 80 plus percent of the dollars, went to school staff who have an ongoing relationship with the program, students and families in the school and so on. All the benefits we know of having properly trained staff providing instruction at school.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Alvarez, back to you.

Just one question just for clarification because I might have just misunderstood. The funding is required to go specifically to the school based on, the allocation is based on the student population at the school. Is that correct? Not to the district?

That's correct. It's calculated at the school site level.

It's calculated and also granted or allocated directly to the school?

So the funds will go to the LEA, but they will know from us how they were calculated and then, yes. So there would be some transparency there in terms of them knowing what they generated.

Thank you. Appreciate that.

Okay, further questions or comments? Seeing none. This is an informational item. We will hold this issue open and revisit it later in the budget process. Issue number two, arts, music and instructional materials discretionary block grant. Department of Finance, LAO, CDE.

Sure, once again, Chris Ferguson with the Department of Finance. So the Administration has put forward a reduction of roughly 1.2 billion to the Arts, Music, and Instructional Materials Discretionary Block Grant in recognition of the passage of Proposition 28, which is now providing an ongoing funding source for arts, music and instructor or arts and music programs. So, certainly, we recognize that that's a $1.2 billion one time reduction.

We also utilize those resources to support the overall Proposition 98 package that's been put forward, which, as you may recall, does not reflect any ongoing reductions. All of the ongoing programs are fully supported. So certainly those resources were used to help balance that approach. But we recognize certainly that there are LEAs, local educational agencies, that are concerned with that reduction. But we think, holistically, in the short term, that it's a reasonable approach to support long term fiscal stability.

Thank you. LAO.

Michael Alferes with the LAO. We would like to highlight, as Mr. Ferguson mentioned, that the proposed reduction in the Arts, Music, and Instructional Block Grant is needed to fund other proposals included in the Governor's Budget while maintaining spending at the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee. LEAs were notified of their allocations in the fall and half of the funding was dispersed in December. Our understanding is that many LEAs have adopted plans for how to spend their funding that have used community input and arts groups. Or employee groups, rather.

Reducing the black grant by one third would be disruptive to local planning as they would have to revisit the plans that they've already adopted and could require changing larger aspects of their local budget plans. Given that, we recommend the Legislature take actions that would minimize or eliminate the proposed reduction to the block grant.

For example, as we talked about in a previous hearing, we were recommending rejecting $250 million in funding for literacy coaches, so this would free up $250 million that could be used to minimize the reduction to the arts grant, for example. Happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Okay, thank you. CDE.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Dr. Mike Torres. I'm from the Department of Education, speaking on behalf of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond. The funds for the Arts, Music, and Instructional Materials Block Grant are much more flexible than Proposition 28 funds. The block grant funds can be used in five general areas, including obtaining standards aligned professional development and instructional materials for specified subject areas.

These subject areas include visual and performing arts, world languages, mathematics, science, English language arts, including early literacy, ethnic studies, financial literacy, media literacy, computer literacy, and history, social science. So far, more than just arts and music. In addition to these content areas, the second area of block grant fund use is for obtaining professional development and instructional materials for improving school climate.

School climate includes training on deescalation and restorative justice practices, asset-based pedagogies, anti-bias, transformative social emotional learning, media literacy, digital literacy, physical education, and learning through play. The third through fifth uses of the block grant go way beyond curriculum and professional development, including developing diverse, culturally relevant, and multilingual school library book collections, paying for operational costs including retirement and health care cost increases, and towards Covid-19 related costs necessary to keep pupils and staff safe and schools open for in-person instruction.

As you can see from the description of the uses for these funds, the block grant allows a much wider range of expenditure at the local level than Prop 28 funds. We'd like to note that Prop 28 calls out funding for the California State Preschool Programs provided by leas, while the Arts, Music, and Instructional Materials Discretionary Block Grant does not include the CSPP programs operated by LEAs.

As the LAO mentioned, per requirements, we too have heard that LEAs have already adopted plans by their local governing boards for how to use these funds. Reducing these funds would require the LEAs to revisit their budgets and get new local board approval. CDE issued the first apportionment of $1.8 billion directly to LEAs in November of 2022.

The second apportionment was scheduled to be released in May of 2023, but has been delayed until the summer of 2023 pending the outcome of the Governor's proposal that would reduce the appropriation for this program from $3.5 billion to $2.3 billion. This approach avoids needing to recover the overpayment of funds from all LEAs should the reduction proposal be adopted. With the flexibility of these funds, the CDE recommends that the funding for the Arts, Music, and Instructional Materials Discretionary Block Grant not be reduced.

These funds will help LEAs meet many of their competing needs. I have with me today Aaron Heredia, who you heard from in the first issue from the School Fiscal Services division, to help answer any fiscal related questions you may have, and I'm happy to answer any programmatic related questions at the appropriate time.

Okay, thank you. Questions or comments? Do we have any information so far on roughly how districts utilize this, or are there trends? It was discretionary. We list many categories, and there are more than us in the title. Do we have any clue as far as early actions from school districts?

So the discretion is, again, as you mentioned, to the LEA, and those plans needed to go before their local school board. So there was no provision for the plans to go to CDE. So we do not have that information.

Yeah. Does LAO have any insight? Have we seen anything as far as...

No, we haven't.

Are they spending it yet? I know a lot of school districts are sitting on a lot of one time money with pandemic money, whether it's federal or state. An infusion for one time money here can be spent over four years. I assume it's the same thing we face in all these issues, is that it's one time. It's hard to find people to do these tasks.

Yeah. Edgar Cabral with the LAO. I don't think, we don't know, similar to not knowing how the funding is being spent or planned to be spent, we're not sure in terms of the timing. They do have several years to spend those funds, so we would expect that that funding would be spread out over a period of time. I think, to your point, McCarty probably also depends on the specific activity.

So if you're buying supplies, maybe that's more front loaded, because that's just a matter of going out and purchasing them, assuming you don't have kind of supply chain issues or anything like that. But when it comes to personnel, that might be something that's more spending related to staff that would be spread out over a longer period of time.

Questions? Yes, Ms. Dahle.

So I think this is for LAO and CDE. So previously from CDE, we have the literary coaches, the 250 million that was requested, correct?

That's correct, yeah.

Okay. And want to keep that in the budget as it moves forward, as well as the discretionary block grant, which is 1.2 billion. But just the list that you just mentioned of all the ways that they could be spending the 1.2 billion block grant, would literacy coaches fall underneath of that? Could they use that with block grant funding?

So should the local school board, should the plan include that and the local school board approve it and consider that to fall within those five categories, then the answer would be yes.

I need to go back and look at the language. I'm not completely sure they could use this specific pot, but we also provided the biggest one time pot of funding we did last year was the Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant. I probably got the name somewhat wrong, but you get the idea. I think it was about $8 billion. And that funding, we think would be, literacy coaches would be an allowable use because that specifically is related to helping students learn to read by third grade. It's aligned with trying to help address learning loss. So maybe not with this particular pot of funding, but we think that other block grant would be allowable.

Because it was a recommendation of the LAO, not to, the 250 million for literacy coaches was to not to continue that forward, correct?

Yeah, we recommended not providing the additional funding proposed in the budget.

Was part of that recommendation because there was pots of, I hate to say pots of money, but funding available in different...

Yeah, that actually wasn't the specific. I mean, that is also a good point that that is in allowable use. I think districts could use any LCFF funding, other kinds of things if they thought it was a priority. I think in part we thought as well that this was something that we just did one round of funding last year. We still don't know anything about what's going on and how successful that is going. And so we thought that was another reason to pause.

And again, in this case, we are removing something from last year's budget, and we know that that causes a lot of disruption. And so rather than doing that, we would prefer to not do new things. I think that was just the general approach.

Thank you.

No more questions here? Okay, we'll hold this issue open as well. Next item.

Okay, we'll start with Department of Finance, Lao, then Cde.

Good afternoon, chair and Members Paula Fonacier Tang with the Department of Finance. The Governor's Budget includes 100,000,001 time Non Proposition 98 General Fund to provide all class of 2024 high school seniors with access to off campus learning experiences at arts and cultural institutions, museums, and other activities. Funding will be allocated to local educational agencies based on the proportionate enrollment of current 11th grade students who make up the class of 2024.

These funds may be used for admission and transportation to arts and cultural institutions and museums, live art and cultural performances such as operas and plays, and arts and cultural enrichment workshops. This proposal has a different focus than the first two programs that were discussed in previous panels. As previously mentioned, the arts, music, and instructional materials block grant is discretionary, designed to be used broadly for various purposes, from instructional materials to covering operational costs. Additionally, Proposition 28 requires funding to primarily be used to hire arts educators.

This proposal is intended to support high school seniors who may not be able to utilize the full extent of Proposition 28 programs that could still be in the ramp up stage next year with opportunities to engage in immersive and handson art and cultural learning experiences that are outside of the typical classroom. The Administration recognizes the positive impacts that art and cultural experiences can have on student achievement, mental health and well being, and engagement with school and learning.

Although schools could use other sources of funding to support these activities, oftentimes funding from these sources, like the arts, music, and instructional materials block grant or the Local Control Funding Formula, is for broader use, and schools may have other competing priorities for these funds.

Providing designated funding for this purpose will allow schools to see the value of these types of experiences for their students and if the program is successful, encourage schools to prioritize ongoing funding that they receive to provide future students with similar off campus art and cultural experiences, especially for students who would not otherwise be able to access these opportunities. That concludes my remarks, and I'd be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Okay?

Michael Alferes with the LAO we would note that this proposal is also related to the previous panel. This proposal is funded with the cut to the arts, music and instructional Materials block grant. We're recommending rejecting this proposal as it is limited in use. As I said, it's for one specific set of activities and only for one specific cohort of high school seniors.

To the extent that providing these types of activities is a local priority, we think that districts can use their LCFF funding or likely the portion of Proposition 28 that isn't restricted for staffing to be able to provide these access to these activities using these other funding sources would allow them to provide these activities across all grades, not just for high school seniors. Happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Cde.

Good afternoon again, chair and Members, I'm Dr. Mike Torres from the Department of Education, speaking on behalf of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond. We support the Governor's Budget proposal of $100 million to leas for cultural enrichment for high school seniors and applaud the intention behind this Bill. The purpose of the funding is to increase student engagement with California's arts and cultural institutions, museums, and art enrichment experiences that are offered outside of normal school offerings.

With this funding, seniors can access cultural enrichment experiences across the state, such as field trips to museums and live performances. Expenditures may include, but are not limited to, the cost of admission and transportation to California arts and cultural institutions and museums, live performances and cultural activities, workshops, and learning experiences. This proposal aligns with the California State Board of Education adopted Arts Education standards from 2019 and the adopted Arts Education Curriculum Framework from 2020.

While the standards represent the what of instruction, the frameworks serve as the how. They provide guidance on the field on how to best meet the expectations of the standards while meeting the needs of all students. Now, frameworks provide specifications for the publishers to develop materials that reflect both the standards and the researchbased best practices highlighted in them. Frameworks are organized by grade level or grade span and include chapters on assessment, instructional strategies, and professional learning. They also include classroom examples and supporting materials and appendices.

So 1 may wonder, what do the arts education standards and curriculum frameworks say about art related experiential learning? The art standards are comprised of, in part, the artistic processes in visual arts. The presenting process speaks to the following enduring understanding objects, artifacts, and artworks collected, preserved, or presented either by artists, museums, or other venues communicate meaning and a record of social, cultural, and political experiences resulting in the cultivation of appreciation and understanding.

In Chapter seven of the arts education framework, each grade level standard in visual arts includes skills that relate to the arts in the environment, including museums and other venues. The framework also discusses the ways museums provide primary sources of study for the visual arts and describes approaches to understanding art in physical and virtual web based galleries and museums. The framework always frames museum visits and experiential opportunities in arts through the support of museum educators who are also part of the primary audience for the curriculum framework.

Without this proposed program, through a variety of reasons, many students would not have this important opportunity to experience the arts. Research shows that culturally enriching field trips lead students to a greater interest in arts, greater tolerance for people with different views, and boost their educational outcomes, according to a 2022 study at Brigham Young University. I'm happy to answer any questions you have at the appropriate time.

Okay, questions, Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. I had a question for Department of Finance. Where did this idea come from?

This was a priority that was identified by the Administration. Providing off campus art and cultural enrichment opportunities for students is one of the priorities. And so we decided, including Governor's Budget.

Was there like a specific experience or program that inspired this proposal?

I'm not aware of any particular experience, but I'd like to pass that question off to my colleague, Chris Ferguson.

Yeah, certainly there are other programs internationally that have been put forward in this space. We know that the European Union has arts and cultural enrichment passes that all students can utilize, but I think it's part of the broader framework that we think about when we think about education, which is providing those opportunities to volunteer, those opportunities to engage in the arts that just help produce a well wounded californian that understands different aspects understands different aspects of their communities. I think that's really where it's generated from.

Is there any provision for equity, similar to Local Control Funding Formula, that districts with higher populations of disadvantaged students receive more funding? Is that incorporated as, as part of this proposal?

Currently, as this proposal is in trailer Bill, the funding will go out based on the proportionate enrollment of 11th grade students. So it's approximately $200 per student, regardless of factors such as considerations of unduplicated pupils or other factors.

So I know that my daughter's middle school is taking a trip to Washington, DC, as well as I believe there's another trip to Japan, actually. And I suspect that not all school districts are sending their kids to places as far as Japan, much less Washington, DC. But clearly, I was surprised that kids in my district have the money to be able to go to these wonderful excursions to see the world and be the well rounded Californians that we all want to see.

But it just seems like this money we're talking about giving $200 to every kid, every 11th grader or every senior based on the 11th grade count, regardless of whether they're going to these museums and other wonderful activities on their own.

Anyway, again, ideal world, $200 for every kid to be well, round in California sounds great, but given our overall budget constraints, I'm concerned that, again, as a former school board Member, I know my default is local districts know best what their kids need, and I'm concerned that we're doing this at the expense of that local control that districts may be able to use better with the discretionary block grant to Fund what they see as the greatest needs for their kids. So thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Other questions? I concur with you, Mr. Muratsuchi. A couple things is that one I see, you said when the budget was put together, we got the budget in January. The budget was probably printed in mid December. Those ideas were cooked in September, October, November, very different than the economy today. So things change, things evolve. And I get it when we had plenty of one time money looking to do things.

But I will note that our last item was one-time money that could be utilized for just this exact same purpose. And so it's not like saying this is not a terrible idea, but we've tried not to dictate from Sacramento what we want districts to do. That was kind of our mission with the Local Control Funding Formula and then our discretionary money. So, not convinced that these things can't happen otherwise.

You know, one thing I think is spot on is that I hear about these trips that kids are taking--and I, as you know, have an 8th grader, two of them, actually, and they're going on the DC trip to DC and Gettysburg--but all kids don't get to do that. Some of these kids had little bake sales to do that, or fundraising at their campuses, but we don't all have opportunities for that.

So I appreciate the idea here to make sure that we have enrichment and opportunities equal throughout California, which I know we don't, but I think that we'd be better served by redirecting these monies into the block grant that we spoke about a minute ago. So looking for a motion to do that. So moved by Mr. Muratsuchi. Seconded by Mr. Fong. So that'll be the recommendation from our subcommitee with this proposal. Please take the roll on that.

McCarty. Aye. Dahle. Aye. Fong. Aye. Muratsuchi. Aye.

Okay. So that concludes the item.

Chairman, if I may? Just very quickly, the Department of Finance is not in a position to support this action at this time.

Of course. Yes. Well said. For the record. I would hope you would say that, clarify that. Because if that was the opposite, you'd be in deep trouble, Mr. Ferguson. Yes. Thank you. With that, that concludes the actions for today. Light agenda, but not an insignificant one related to our schools and arts. We will now have public comment for individuals in the audience who are wishing to reach us via the phone. Please line up at the beginning of the front of the room. And please proceed 1 minute or less. 60 seconds or less. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jeff Vaca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Edwin Gomez. Dr. Gomez was very supportive of Proposition 28, but we have a unit within RCOE dedicated to VAPA education. In fact, we conducted a Prop 28 boot camp in January. We've gotten a lot of questions about this initiative that we've been hesitant to answer because of the kind of work-in-progress nature of the discussion.

Hold on one second.

Do I need to start over?

Sure.

Okay. Jeff Vaca representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Edwin Gomez. Very supportive of Proposition 28. Our staff conducted a Proposition 28 Boot Camp in January. We've gotten a lot of questions from our districts on implementation issues that, frankly, we've been hesitant to answer because of the ongoing work-in-progress nature of the discussion that you had today. The one thing that I heard today that concerned me a little bit was the discussion about supplement, not supplant.

And I think what I heard was that philanthropic support might be included in the baseline expenditures over which Proposition 28 funding would need to supplement those expenditures. From our perspective, we would view philanthropic support as one-time in nature. And even if it was an ongoing concern such as a PTA or a foundation, those types of priorities can change from year to year. So we'd like to continue to engage on that conversation. As well as--Ms. Gable identified a number of really good questions in her staff comments and the analysis that you didn't delve into today that we'll follow up on in correspondence. So thank you for that.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Andrea Ball here for three organizations talking on issue two. The Central Valley Education Coalition, which is the county superintendents and districts in six counties, over 100 LEAs and 400,000 students. Separately, the Orange County Superintendent of Schools and the district superintendents of Orange County, 28 districts serving about 400,000 students. And the Suburban School Districts Association. Very concerned about the proposed cut to the arts and music block grant.

Your agenda points out that you are going to be facing some tough decisions this year, looking at perhaps cuts in the budget year. The situation, as the chair pointed out, is much different now than it was even this fall economically. Districts understand that. But making a cut this year, in the current year to the arts and music discretionary block grant, I think, would be very disruptive.

Part of those groups also represent county superintendents, and I can tell you: with their responsibility to review district budgets and be concerned about fiscal solvency, for many of them when they saw the language in the block grant that authorized the use for pension obligations, knowing their districts have serious liabilities for pensions, they were advising people, "That's an authorized use of this block grant. That's something you should consider." And so to cut it now when they've made those plans would really be disruptive. Thank you.

Thank you.

Martha Zaragoza Diaz, representing the California Music Educators Association, comprised of approximately 2,000 music teachers throughout the State of California. The annual consistent funding provided by Prop 28 would provide increased opportunities for pupils to access high quality arts and music education programs that are standards-based, aligned, and that are taught by credentialed teachers and accessed by pupils throughout the school day. We forwarded a letter to the committee with our concerns and recommendations.

CMEA is calling for stronger accountability with regards to Prop 28, such as clarifying guidance with regards to what is 'supplanting.' Also clarifying the waiver process and the definition of what is 'good cause.' Also with regards to the reporting of expenditure and data, the required data, so that it results in transparency of how these funds have been expended. We also believe that Prop 28 is very clear that classified staff and certificated staff are to be employed by LEAs to provide arts instruction. We look forward to working with you all with regards to our other comments that we provided, and thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Thank you. Thank you. Looks like we have one individual on the phone. Operator, please proceed.

And if you wish to comment, please press one, then zero at this time. And line 135. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon. Katie Hardeman with the California Teachers Association regarding Prop 28 implementation. We just want to urge the legislature and CDE to ensure that districts implement Prop 28 with fidelity and ensure that they're using the funding to supplement existing programs. We've heard from some districts that are trying to supplant existing funding, so we hope this can be addressed. We also appreciate the support of the committee in maintaining funding for the arts and music block grant included in last year's budget. Thank you.

Thank you.

And, Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue at this time.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. That concludes this hearing. We'll adjourn. Yes. Yes. You can come over here and add on, Mr. Montes.