Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Education Finance

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Assembly Budget Subcommittee number three on Education Finance. I am Chair, Assemblymember David Alvarez, and we will be starting with our hearing today. We're going to try something a tiny bit differently today. If you are here to give public testimony, sometimes it's useful.

The public testimony comes ahead of some of our presenters as we will be hearing information that might be helpful for Members of the panel to listen to some of the testimony and be able to ask some questions to our panelists. So we're going to try this out today. It's the first time we do this. We'll see if it works out. What we'll do is if you have short testimony, you'll have an opportunity to go first.

Prior to our panels. You will be asked not to testify at the end if you've already testified in the beginning. And if you have a little bit of a longer testimony, then you can wait till the end. So I'll give that option again. We're going to try it out. We'll see how it goes. If anybody would like to testify now on anything on the agenda today, this would be a time to come forward. Nobody wants to come now. We have somebody. Okay. Remember, keep it short.

Sure. Alex Graves with the AICCU. We represent 90 private, nonprofit colleges in the state. Just want to speak briefly to the Golden State Teacher Grant Program. That program has been incredibly effective for our program for recruitment. I know the analysis has some questions on it. We would just note we have about twice as many schools of education as the CSU.

So when you see some of these number discrepancies, I just want to note that that's probably partly contributing to that and would just really encourage the state and policymakers to think about how we can extend that program moving forward given the budget situation. Thank you.

Possible solutions the Legislature could consider. One option is reverting any unspent grant funds that could include the programs that were included in the agenda, and some of them do note current update on unallocated unspent funds. Of course, the Legislature would have to consider its priorities in determining which programs it would want to revert back if that's an option, but just highlighting that one budget solution.

Thank you. As a great example of testimony here early on. So if you have similar testimony, now's your opportunity.

Sara Bachez, Children Now. Thank you so much for the opportunity. My comments are directed overall on the Golden State Teacher Grant as well as all of the teacher programs. Just making sure that as the agenda, rightfully so, outlines common definitions, making sure that we're not putting new teachers in the most high needs schools, making sure that there's alignment so that districts that have the most difficulties in raising the matching requirements are recognized, and opportunities for flexibility so that we can really generally grow the pipeline for educators workforce. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Last call. All right. Anybody else who wish to make a comment can do so at the end of today's panels. So with that, we will get started. Making sure I'm on the right. We're going to start with Educator Credentialing Program oversight. We have a panel consisting of Cheryl Cotton from the Department of Education, David Dwyer from the Commission teacher credentialing, and Jackie Barraccio from the Legislative Analyst Office. Please come forward and. Well, Cheryl, would you like to go first?

Sure. Can you hear me? Okay, great. Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm Cheryl Cotton, Deputy Superintendent of our Instruction, Measurement, and Administration Branch at the California Department of Education. I'm presenting to you today on behalf of our State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurman. As you're aware, the time during and since the pandemic has brought many early retirements and resignations from teachers, which has intensified our persistent national teacher shortage.

California's districts continue to report having more teacher vacancies and difficulties attracting new teachers again this year. The Learning Policy Institute estimates that California needs to produce 20 to 25,000 teachers annually, but this number is impacted by attrition and new demand. 90% of new demand for California teachers is due to attrition. New demand is also due to the increased need for educators to support learning recovery, including programs that impact teacher to - pupil to teacher ratios and implementation of universal TK.

Enrollment numbers impact teacher demand, of course, and demand could also decrease once learning recovery programs end and if state programs are reduced. Districts reporting to the California Department of Education estimated needing 22,000 teachers as of October 2021. That same year, the state only issued 19,600 preliminary credentials. The state also issued 12,000 substandard credentials and permits, which is a strong indicator of shortages because they are only issued - that these types of permits are only issued when districts cannot fill a vacancy or with a fully credentialed teacher.

The CDE is engaged in several efforts to address this shortfall, including the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification Incentive Program, which is funded with $250,000,000 over five years, incentivizes teachers to pursue and maintain certification through the National Board for Professional Teaching standards. This award provides eligible teachers $5,000 per year for five years at the end of each year that they serve in a high priority school.

In addition, the program provides $2,500 subsidy to cover the cost of certification for teachers at high priority schools to initiate or complete certification. The program now also offers an additional subsidy allowance of $495 for qualifying teachers to renew their certification due to the 2023 legislative season. Per the statute, the CDE and CTC developed an application process for both programs that was approved by the State Board. All LEAs certify that participants are eligible through a database that was built by CDE.

More than a decade of research shows that National Board Certified teachers have a positive impact on students with high needs. I'm pleased to announce that since the program's inception, the number of teachers in California pursuing National Board Certification in high priority schools has increased from 415 in 2021 to 2,240 teachers. This year, California funded a record high of 2,461 teachers working in high priority schools to start or continue their national board journey.

I do also want to highlight that currently 79% of all national board candidates in California are teaching in high priority schools and that we've seen an increase in the number of our BIPOC so our black, indigenous and people of color seeking national board certification. With a 62% increase in the subsidy and 51% of those folks who are in teaching in high priority schools.

I will close by saying that there are opportunities to build from these existing workforce programs and we look forward to assisting the Administration, Legislature, CTC and other relevant entities to address the teacher shortage. With me today, I have several directors who administer these programs and we're happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Good morning. Chair Alvarez, Member Fong. My name is David DeGuire and I'm the Director of the Professional Services Division at the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Our division is responsible for all things related to the preparation of educators in California, including the administration of some of the state's investments in the teacher workforce grant programs. The initial question asked in the agenda for this panel is whether investments in teacher pipeline programs need ongoing funding or if one time infusions are sufficient.

In order to answer that question, it may be helpful to look at the most recent data regarding the teacher preparation pipeline and school staffing. This year's teacher supply report, as required by Education Code Section 44225.6, is due to the Legislature on April 1, and I can share that initial data show the following. The number of individuals issued a new teaching credential during the 2022/23 school year declined for the second straight year at 14,310.

This is the lowest number ever reported since the inauguration of the teacher supply report for the 1997/98 school year. The number of new credentials earned by completers of commission approved preparation programs at institutions of higher education also hit an all time low of 10,665. While the overall enrollment in commission approved teacher preparation programs increased by just over 1% in 2022/23 to 40,739 candidates, the number of new enrolled candidates fell by 11.7% from the previous year.

The number of short term staff permits and provisional intern permits or emergency licenses issued in 2022/23 jumped almost 80% from the previous year to 7,306, which is higher than pre pandemic levels. A recent biannual application processing report from our certification division that was submitted to the Legislature on March 1 indicated that 6,474 of these permits were issued just in the six months ending January 1, 2024. That number is also higher than pre pandemic levels.

Taken together, these data suggest that California's local education agencies continue to have significant struggle staffing their schools with fully credentialed teachers. That said, the state's investments in educator workforce grants are having measurable positive impacts on the teacher preparation pipeline.

The demographics of candidates who are participating in classified school employee teacher credentialing, local solutions, and teacher residency grant programs much more closely match those of California's TK12 students than teacher preparation candidates in general. Teacher residency grants are significantly increasing the number of teachers who complete a high retention preparation pathway, and our reporting data show that residents are staying in the profession at a higher rate than teacher preparation candidates in general.

Last year, the Commission awarded a five year, $20 million State Teacher Residency Technical Assistance Center Grant to a consortium of county offices of education led by Santa Clara County. The center is now providing support to local education agencies across the state on best practices in both starting teacher residency programs and on how to make the program self sustaining. Now I'd like to return to specific questions contained in the agenda.

It has taken some time for all of the entities involved with teacher preparation to understand and implement the funding made available through one time infusions. However, yesterday at a California Council on Teacher Education Conference, preparation programs reported that they have figured out how to braid funds together from different funding sources so that many teacher candidates can pay for their preparation and have enough to live on while they complete their preparation program.

Having all of that work die because of the one time infusions run out or remaining funds are clawed back would be heartbreaking and send another message that it is too hard to become a teacher. Our grants team has analyzed remaining funds and recommends that the Teacher and School Counselor Residency Program would benefit from an extended liquidation period to continue the progress grantees are making. Our agency advertises our grant programs in many ways.

In addition to presenting at many conferences and working directly with educational partners like preparation programs, county offices, labor and professional organizations, and holding different sets of office hours, we have a team of eight career counselors who work with individuals who are interested in becoming an educator.

These career counselors have created a number of resources regarding the different pathways to become a teacher that are written in easily understood language and they call, email, chat with, and set up online meetings to help potential educators understand their options and the funding opportunities available.

It is difficult to say if multiple subject areas have become less impacted to the point where funds could be targeted just as severe shortage areas. The CDE's 2021/22 teacher assignment monitoring outcomes report showed that over 10% of the almost 125,000 multiple subject full time equivalency assignments were staffed by a teacher who either did not hold the proper credential or were not authorized by a local assignment option.

Regarding the classified staff grant awards, I believe there may have been some misunderstandings regarding the amounts previously reported. After the first round of awards, which totaled over $56 million, there was $68 million left for future awards. In rounds two through four of funding, an additional $41 million was awarded. The design of the program is to allow for a maximum of $4,800 per candidate per year. Based on program evaluation recommendations, the Commission has made the following changes to the classified staff program.

The Commission provides additional structure in the request for applications or RFA to set more explicit expectations of LEAs. The RFA has been updated to include standardized, allowable expenditures across all programs, a cap on program administration funds to 10% of grant awards, assurances that plans are in place to support participants securing preservice placements and teaching positions, and a description of the plans for data collection and continuous improvement.

The Commission requires articulation agreements between local education agencies and partner institutions of higher education to clarify expectations and desired outcomes for their collaboration and to encourage stable leadership and management. The Commission has expanded required data collection fields to support continuous improvement across all programs, including all allowed expenses. to identify the broadest possible scope of financial support for participants. The Commission published a program management guide that includes reporting requirements, rules, procedures, and allowable expenses on the classified grant webpage.

Under resources for classes for funded classified grant program grantees. All grant managers have access to the published guide to safeguard continuity during management changes. Published resources for grantees also provide clarity that classify grant program funds can be received by participants in addition to receiving alternative sources of financial aid such as the Golden State Teacher Program, other scholarships, grants, and loans. The Commission hosts office hours for grant managers and any additional staff.

Grant managers include to ask the Commission and the broader classified staff grant community questions and to share best practices. Five sessions were hosted during the 2022/23 fiscal year, and nine are planned for the current fiscal year. Additionally, the Commission provides ongoing technical assistance opportunities to classify grant programs individually and as a group to support programs with ongoing program implementation. After office hours are held, questions and their respective answers are published on our webpage and disseminated to all grantees.

To strengthen the classified program's outcomes, the Legislature could consider increasing the amount of funding per candidate. Classified employees are generally the lowest paid staff, and the $4,800 per candidate per year for four years often barely covers tuition. Unlike the Classified Grant Program, the Teacher Residency Grant Program did not have an outside evaluation as part of authorizing legislation. With that said, the Commission collects and analyzes data each year, and West Ed, funded by philanthropic entities, conducts research in collaboration with the Commission.

One of the early findings from that research was identifying the need for a statewide technical assistance center for residency programs, and that was funded in the 2022/23 state budget and is being led by the Santa Clara County Office of Education. Eight of the LEAs that received 2018 Teacher Residency Planning Grants have applied for new capacity grants in the 2021 Teacher Residency Program. And finally, the Statewide Residency Technical Assistance center.

Regional hubs at Humboldt and Tulare County offices have experience working in and with small and or rural LEAs and are sharing best practices with interested LEAs. We are not sure additional resources are needed at this time, and I also brought staff with me and we are happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

Thank you. LAO.

Jackie Barocio. Legislative Analyst Office. No specific comments on certain programs, but just reiterating and highlighting our overall budget comments regarding we are projecting that the budget deficit may come in higher than the initial Governor's January estimates.

Thank you. Let me ask just a few questions on this, and I think I'll be more specific with each of the programs as we get into them. So I heard figures. The Learning Policy Institute says 25,000 new teachers annually is the estimated number. I heard that from CDE. Only. The CTC testified here that only 10,000 individuals were credentialed in the last year, which is 22/23.

It was 14,310.

Oh, I thought you said those were the number enrolled in programs?

No, that's the number who received a preliminary credential.

Okay, and what was the 10,000 number?

That's the number of new credentials earned at institutions of higher education. So we also have people coming in from other states and we have people who are in their credential through an LEA program.

So. Just clarify. So then we would add those two numbers and that's how many teachers were credentialed?

No, the 10,665 is a subset of the 14,310.

So 14,000 credentials. Got it. Of the. I also heard a figure of 79%. I think this was CDE's testimony. 79% of, I think the National Board Certified Teachers, I think it was in reference to, are in high priority need schools.

That's correct.

So the others are in non high priority schools.

Yes. So the purpose of the incentive grant was to encourage those who have national board certification to receive an incentive for working in high priority schools.

So the ones, the 21% that are not, those did not receive an incentive, they just opted to become nationally board certified?

Some have, yes, they have opted to become nationally board certified. All these teachers have made that decision. But there are teachers who made a decision to work in a high priority school or a high need school with their certification, partially because of the incentive, I believe.

And if a teacher is not at a high priority needs school, they don't receive the incentive.

They're not receiving the incentive. No.

Okay, I think that's it on this. I am going to be asking on all of the specific programs that we'll be discussing right after this. The status, I heard different figures than what we had here. Status of those programs in terms of utilization, numbers, and also be prepared for that, for the folks that you both brought with you. One other question that just came to mind.

Are we still primarily all of these programs focused on or not focused, but are the program utilization, is it primarily by recent undergraduates? We're not talking about individuals who are in a different profession that are reentering education as a profession or choosing to enter education as a profession, or most of these programs being utilized by individuals who sort of recently graduated and are pursuing a teaching career? Or do you have a breakdown of that?

We do not have a breakdown of that. So that would include people who are getting their credential as an undergraduate, people who are doing it as their fifth year, and people who are coming back later in life.

And you don't have a breakdown of what that is?

We don't.

Okay. When these were originally thought of as incentive programs. Was there conversation, I don't know if either of you were around of either supporting undergraduates to continue on to getting their credential and becoming teachers, or was it about trying to attract others into the profession? Because I know that's been part of the conversation and probably the LAO may have some input on that as well. Do you have any comments on that, on what the approach was?

I was not here, I was not in California when these programs were started.

Edgar Cabral with the LAO. I don't think there's as much explicit - that explicit conversation program by program. I think the one I would say that is more likely to be more of a mid career later is the classified program because that's part of the goal of that was there might be staff who have been working in a school for many years and people think are really good with kids and just don't have the credentials to be a classroom teacher.

And so I think that one in particular I don't have the data offhand, is when I would expect there would be more likely to be older participants in the program. I think the others, at least in the conversations, have always been about what are the different pathways of getting people from their undergraduate degree to the credential program.

Also, just to add, sure, when we look at pathways and we're thinking about pathways, currently I don't know about the inception of these programs, but currently we do think about all of the different types of candidates who may be considering coming into the program. We are doing heavily - CDE is heavily focused on Cal Volunteers, which is 10,000 undergrads who are interested in, possibly interested in teaching.

But we're also looking at lots of different pathways for second career folks coming into the program as well as we focused also last year on retirees who were coming back to help out in the classroom, cover some classes until we could get teachers hired.

Has anybody, either Department, CTC or a third party, done an analysis on how many students begin their college career with the hopes of becoming a teacher and actually end up becoming a teacher? I have a feeling that perhaps there's a big drop off there. There's nothing you sign up for to become a teacher, I don't think in your early couple of years, but at some point have you collected any data on that?

I'm wondering if perhaps some people may not pursue their career just because they don't have at the undergraduate level, the support systems which you've talked about are being built up in order to provide that support with the assistance centers and things like that. But do you have any data on that? How many begin with that aspiration and how many teachers actually are credentialed?

So I came to California from Wisconsin in 2021, and I can tell you that we did some research like that in Wisconsin, and I think it's generalizable. And that found that about 10% of high school juniors and seniors indicate an interest in education as a field when they're doing interest inventories and planning for careers. So 10% of high school students indicate interest in becoming a teacher or something in education.

Okay.

And you're right, we don't get very many of them. There are some high schools who have started future teacher clubs or educators rising clubs to try and get those students while they're still in high school, get them interested, and then connect them to either community colleges or four year programs that have credentials. So there is some work, but it's very localized.

It is localized. We're also seeing some CTE programs. So those career pathways that high school students are participating in, there are some teacher pathways that we see across the state as well. As I know, San Joaquin County Office of Ed has a model program supporting students with dual enrollment in high school to then get into a local CSU with a focus on getting their teaching credential and an incentive around teaching. So there are models like that. I know .. as well, has a similar model. There are models like that around the state that are encouraging students at the high school level to consider teaching as a profession.

Okay, thank you. Have questions by Committee Members. Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you. I apologize for arriving late. And so, sheriff, you can cut me off if I've asked a question that's already been asked. So we talked about several programs to try to incentivize and support more people to become teachers. Do these teacher pipeline programs need ongoing funding or are one time funding sufficient?

So we're seeing across several measures that school districts are really struggling to find credentialed teachers to staff their schools. So I would say, yes, we need ongoing funding. I noticed that the Golden State Teacher Grant is going to be in the next panel and that that money is running out. And that's the one that I hear from preparation programs that they're especially concerned about because they have found ways, as I said, to braid funds from different programs together. But that one's usually at the center of it because it's $20,000. It's quite a substantial opportunity.

So, basically, because the need is so great, it's not like the nature of the programs needing ongoing sustained funding for programs to be able to plan for, but rather that because the need is so great that the more money we get, the more teachers we can support.

And the ongoing funding makes it clear that the money is going to be there. So if someone is hearing as a freshman in college, hey, there's this funding that you could potentially become a teacher by the time they get to a junior year, the funding is still there. That's a concern that I've heard from programs is we're finding students younger in freshman sophomore year who are interested in becoming teachers. But now we're worried that we're not going to be able to give them the Golden State Teacher Grant.

I think to that point, I'm sorry, specifically with National Board Incentive, we had a program similar to this in the early 2000 s and with the Great Recession in 2008, I believe it was terminated. That created a lot of distrust around when we brought this program back, whether teachers really felt confident and comfortable moving forward with this. Not sure if they were going to really see it all the way through, if the Legislature or the state would see it all the way through.

So there are other implications as well around kind of trust. And we want our teachers to feel supported. We want them to feel like we want them, we support them and we encourage folks to come into this profession. And I would just be very cautious about how we're making those decisions.

And one other thing I could add about the National Board Grant is that there are a couple support centers around the state that have developed. And as Dr. Cotton said, we're really seeing a huge number of candidates of color who are joining that. And that's particularly because these centers have sprung up and are supporting those candidates. And if the funding disappears, then those centers disappear. So it again gets at that trust issue as well.

While we're talking about trust issues, I know one of the biggest concerns that I have and a lot of my colleagues have know as we're going into these tough budget years and school districts may have to issue layoff mean, is there any data that shows how the boom and bust cycles of California's budget, how that's impacted the interests of students to become teachers?

So as far as layoffs go, it's just anecdotal stories we've heard. My Boss actually lives in San Diego and there have been some significant layoffs from not only San Diego Unified, but other districts in the area. So I'm sure in the coming months we will be hearing a lot more about that.

All right, thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we will move on to the next issue which we'll be discussing today. This is the Golden State Teachers Program oversight and proposals. We have the Department of Finance, Legislative Analyst Office and the California Student Aid Commission as our panelists today. So we'll kick it off with the Department of Finance. Talk about the program. Welcome.

Good morning Chair and Members. I'm Amin Singh with the Department of Finance. I'll be providing a summary of the Golden State Teacher Grant program. The Governor's Budget will provide nearly 7500 Golden State Teacher Grant awards to students enrolled in teacher preparatory programs in the 2024/25 academic year. The 21/22 Budget Act provided 500 million in one time General Fund to the Golden State Teacher grant program. The objective of this program is twofold.

First, it's to bolster education workforce across the state, and second, it's to make teacher prep programs more affordable and accessible to students who are seeking a teaching credential. This $500 million allocation was intended to be spent over the course of five years. The program will reach its expected expiration in 2025/26 and for some context, we're currently in year three of five. The Governor's Budget does not propose any funding changes to the Golden State Teacher Grant program.

It's essentially left unchanged. Despite the state's current fiscal position. The Governor's Budget indicates that the entirety of the initial $500 million allocation will reach its intended recipients. That concludes my summary. I'll be happy to take questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

As Department of Finance mentioned, this proposal was supposed to be a multi year initiative. In our General budget analysis, we estimate that as of January 2024, about 220,000,000 of Golden State Teacher Grant funds remain unspent. But based off of current trends, we then estimate by the end of this fiscal year 23/24 that remaining balance will be lower at about 130,000,000.

Again, to address the projected budget deficit, we're just making the overall recommendation that the Legislature may want to revisit and if possible, pull back any recent one time augmentations. This will just make it easier to one spend less in reserves so that it can hold us over in future years to the extent that we continue to experience a budget deficit, but then also maintain ongoing core funding commitments. With the Golden State Teacher Grant program in particular.

Given that these funds are being continuously awarded to the extent that the Legislature did want to revisit the funding levels, it may want to do so earlier or sooner in order to maximize the savings it could achieve.

Thank you.

Madison Sheffield. Assistant Deputy Director of Policy and Public Affairs at California Student Aid Commission. The overview that's given your agenda and by my colleagues here matches what I was going to provide. So I'm primarily here for any questions you have on this program.

Thank you. My first question would be on the, given the constraints to the budget and trying to focus our resources in the communities and in the schools that really need the support the most, the high need requirement was removed. Was that in last year's budget?

I believe that's correct. In 22/23 was removed.

Okay, maybe since you're the implementer of the program, what have you seen in terms of changes of the types of schools where the recipients are working at and teaching? Can you give me a sense of, I don't know how you're measuring it. Are they title one schools, what areas are they in?

And your question is specific to changes because of the removal of the high needs aspect?

Yeah, if you've noticed changes.

So as a reminder, we're only in the third year of the program, so we really only have limited data. We have data for the most part. We have data on students who are completing their teaching credential and are receiving the funding. It's very few at this point have actually gone to work in those high need schools. Some have, but we're so early on the program that we have very limited data for students who are working in high need schools.

But regarding the ones who are, what kinds of institutions students are in, I can get back to you and your staff on kind of trends because of the removal of the high needs requirement. We do collect it by segment. I'm not sure if we collect it in terms of the further delineations that you may have mentioned. So I can't comment this time in terms of trends ....

So the data you are collecting now, do you know what schools, and I get that it's in the third year. So you've only had probably really two years of people who have received the award. And in the first two years, I believe it was a requirement to be in a high needs school, you must have been collecting the data of what schools they were going to to make sure it was a high needs school or in a high needs field, I should say. It's not a school. So you're tracking high needs field, but you're not tracking. You were for the first few years, but not anymore, or are you still collecting that data? It up for the third year.

I will have to get back to you on that. I'm not sure if we've kept it up on our application or not. I think it's still there, but I'd have to get back to you on that.

Okay.

It may just not be required anymore.

Thank you. So I want to make sure I understand the Golden State teacher program removed the requirement on high need or shortage fields. So that is only as to the bilingual ed, the STEM, the special education, those requirements.

Right. There's the two part requirement. There's what field. They get a teaching credential in their subject matter, and then there's where they actually do their service requirement. That is still a requirement that they work in a high priority school. Okay.

And you said that or someone said that the current unspent amount of the Golden State teacher program is around $220,000,000 and the projected is 130,000,000. Was that the Department of Finance? No, it was the Lao.

Okay. And so does anyone have any, what are the major reasons why we have a projected $130,000,000 to be unspent?

Yes.

Amin Singh from the Department of Finance. So we're currently on year three of this five year program, and the 2324 academic year is well underway. After the end of this school year, we expect roughly 144 $45 million to remain from that original 500 $1.0 million pot of money. The majority of that will have been spent in academic year 202425 based on our projections, and we estimate that an amount of roughly 10 to $20 billion will remain in 2526.

At the start of the Golden State teacher grant program, there was an intention that the spending would occur somewhat evenly across the five years. But this program has been really popular, as the previous panel indicated, and it ramped up really quickly. So a lot of the spending has already occurred, but we still project that the program will reach its natural expiration in 2526.

Okay.

And if I just may add on briefly, when this program was funded in the 500 million in 2122 the program was designed by policymakers as kind of a first come, first serve basis. All comers that come in the door that are eligible receive a grant up to $20,000. So there's very few restrictions. And as we've discussed, one of the primary restrictions for eligibility was removed in 2223 which opened the doors even further.

And so we are administering the program to all that come in the door. And so we do anticipate that the funding will be fully spent ahead of the five year timeline that it was originally given based on how the Legislature decided the program.

So, given the number of people that have received funding through this program so far, bottom line, has this program produced more, supported more people to become teachers than any other.

Zero, than any other program?

Any other of the programs that we discussed in the first.

Zero, I would defer to colleagues in terms of its comparability to other programs.

Does the LAO have that data?

We don't have the comparison, but I think it would be difficult for that specific question of did this attract people who otherwise would not have become teachers? I think that question is not answerable with the current data we're collecting, and we haven't necessarily done that program by program analysis on that particular question of are we getting people that otherwise would have not come through the door?

Yeah. My question is not getting people who would otherwise not come, but in terms of supporting the largest number of people to become teachers, has this program benefited.

More that we don't have at our fingertips, but we can look into it to see what would be comparable.

Okay, I see Department of Finance. Reason.

Yeah. And saying from the Department of Finance, we don't have a comparison in front of us to other programs. But in the three years, including the current year, the Golden State teacher grant program has awarded roughly 24,000 awards. As my colleague indicated, a lot of those students are still in their programs and haven't necessarily entered the workforce yet. But there is a significant number of individuals who've received awards and are on the path toward becoming teachers.

And I'll also just note the generosity of the program. There are many different programs, both federally and state, that support students who are interested in pursuing teaching credentials. And the up to $20,000 grant award is one of the highest. So it's a significant amount of support for students that are becoming teachers.

And according to the staff analysis, more than 8,467 students have received funding through this program so far, I believe.

Amen. Just mentioned the kind of total across the three years. I think your notes in the agenda are for a one year time span, I believe.

Okay, thank you very much.

This question might be for CTC, so if someone can come forward. I remember reading about surveys done after participation in certain programs. Is this one of the programs where a survey is conducted? I know it's not your program that you implement, but is this something that you're collecting data on?

No, it is not something that.

Remind me which program you are collecting data on, since this is not one.

Of them teacher residency.

Hold on a second. Let me make sure.

We're collecting data on teacher residency, the classified staff grant, the local solutions grant, the integrated undergraduate grant, the computer science and the reading literacy authorization.

So then I think, are you collecting data as to whether those who are in the CSAC, those who are entering this particular program, whether they would have entered the career, would it not be for this program or any of that kind of data related to that?

Yeah. So the statute requires that CSAC, in partnership with CTC, does an evaluation of the program to, quote, determine the effectiveness of the program in recruiting credential candidates and employing credential holders at priority schools and California preschool programs. And there's a little bit more mentioned in terms of the, this is the.

Assessment done in 26/27 or so.

Correct, 2025, because we need several years to see if students have eight years to complete four years of the work service requirement. And so if it started in 21 and 22, if the person was the fastest person, they did one year of teaching credential, and then they did finish their four years of teaching of service requirement by 2025, they would have done that. But that would be the fastest track possible.

But are you not collecting data upon enrollment so that you know exactly where they're coming in on and whether, again, this is something they would have pursued if it weren't for this particular program?

Yeah. I'll have to get back to you in terms of all of the data that we request when they actually enroll, essentially what's on the application. As my colleague mentioned from the LEO, that the question of whether they would have pursued a teaching credential if it wasn't for this funding. I'll have to get back to you. And if that is the exact question, we're definitely pursuing what is required by a statute. So I'll look into the application.

Yeah, I think that's a way for us to be able to measure whether utilization of this program is driving more teachers, as Mr. Muratsuchi was asking. So, Mr. Fong, do you have some questions?

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And a question for the LaO. In terms of the teacher shortage, can this be more described as more severe uncertainty, geographical areas, or is it the shortage based on certain areas like STEM, bilingual education? Would love to have your thoughts on that.

As was previously mentioned, when this program was initially created, it did have those two criteria, both looking at shortage high need subject matters or areas, and then looking at high need school or high priority schools. In 202223 the state dropped the shortage area requirement. I think as the Legislature is thinking about not only budget solutions, but to what extent can those budget solutions potentially be paired with further targeting of resources?

That is also one option is thinking about how could these funds be further targeted, as we're trying to think about ways to refine some of these resources that are going out. But of course, as was mentioned, we're in year three of a year five program and additional changes that would be made. There's also that administrative workload, but then also needing to advertise those programmatic changes midstream in an initiative. So those are just potential benefits and trade offs that would need to be considered.

Okay. Thank you so much. And a question to csac. I know you talked about the restrictions that were on the funding before, but now it's been much more broad. Do you have any recommendations as to how we can continue to prioritize funding going forward, as we know that we're in a challenging budget situation?

Yes. This body has deliberated in the past around ways that the program could be further targeted. Of course, defer to yourselves and the Administration on how to prioritize funding for this program. Some of the ways that have been discussed in the past have been having eligibility requirements based on financial need which do not currently exist in the program, setting application deadlines at this moment, people can apply at any time. And then, of course, you can narrow the focus of the program to certain high needs fields.

The program used to have certain credentialing institutions, further limiting the schools in which grant recipients could complete their service requirement.

Things such as that. Of course, all of those come with various benefits and downsides, so we would defer to Legislature on how to do that.

Sounds good. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. You piqued my interest on the response to Mr. Fong's question about the individual does not have to be someone with financial needs. So that means that individuals from families who might otherwise be able to afford this could also be receiving the $20,000 grant. Are you tracking that information as to the income or eligibility or through linking it through FAFSA, are you able to track who the recipients are from a socioeconomic status?

Right. The program was designed in statute. It does not take into account financial need. As we've discussed, the requirement is that the grant funds should be used to supplement and not supplant other sources of grant financial aid. And then I believe it's supposed to be up to their cost of attendance. I'll have to double check myself on that. And that's a calculated number that is determined based on their financial aid package.

So I'll look into if there's kind of what we collect on the application regarding financial need, despite the fact that it's not required in the statute.

You do have access, though, CSAC does, to financial aid applications from students. So you could link your students to what they're expect. I don't know what it's called now, the old EFC expected family contribution, or obviously to just income for the applicant. You have access to that information, right.

If it was something the Legislature wanted to do in terms of limiting it to high needs fields, we would have various ways to do that for sure. Of course, we're not doing that now because it's not required by statute.

Yeah, well, I'd like to have the information to make that determination. If you could help us get more information about what types of households these.

Are that are participating.

The other question I would have is, is anybody tracking whether people are usually stacking this program with other programs, or is this typically a standalone? Is that being measured or tracked at all?

Yeah, in the previous panel, I believe that was mentioned that there's a lot of braiding of funding going on for these students and that because up to $20,000 is so generous that it is a significant portion of students funding for students that are pursuing teaching credentials. There are other federal and state programs. I do have some data on the stacking that happens with the other state programs that exist.

So Cal grant has a teaching credential portion of the program that they can get an extra support if they complete their teaching credential in essentially a fifth year of Cal Grant. Same with middle class scholarship. And so students can stack GSTG, Golden State Sugar grant together with those two. That is, having all those three is relatively rare because of the various, different overlapping and requirements of those various programs. So it's under 100 students in a single year would be getting all those three.

Is our estimate based on a single year.

So only 100. Mr. Muratsuchi.

Could you remind me why the high need fields. High need public schools requirement was taken out?

The high needs fields that they must be completing the teaching credential in.

They were both taken out. Right. The high need fields and the high need public schools.

The public schools is kept in. Okay, that's still there.

Okay, then the high need fields.

I have to defer to others that were around during those deliberations. I'm not certain why the Bahalas makers chose to take out that. It may just be simply a conversation around. We need teachers. Demand for teachers is so great that they wanted to remove this additional barrier for eligibility. Defer to others on additional comments there.

LAO, do you remember?

Yeah, I think that was partly part of, and I think initially in the first years maybe when the program was more restricted, there was less utilization of the program. And so obviously, as you can tell, an hour ahead of schedule in terms of getting funds out, I think also during, I can't remember exactly what year, but we did remove that.

But obviously, coming out of the pandemic, there was a concern of are we going to have a broader teacher shortage that is going to be affecting lots of other, not just the high needs fields, but others as well. But obviously, having a focus on high needs means that your program is targeting the areas that have the greatest need for additional teachers.

So if this Committee have to consider prioritizing more limited resources, that would be one option to restore that focus on high need or shortage fields.

That's right.

And, yeah, so the goal was to meet the teacher shortage in the high need fields and not necessarily to provide financial aid for teachers. For students seeking to be teachers, the primary goal was to address the shortage in the high need fields and the high need schools.

That's my understanding. Obviously, students have other financial aid packages that are intended to address kind of the student specific financial situation.

So I think with the granted, is this an additional funding that's available that can be used to encourage, potentially you could have more people coming into the field, but then for those who are already interested in the field, maybe they would focus on an area that is of greater need and go to teach in a school that has a higher likely of having a shortage issues.

Okay, thank you.

My last question will be to continue on this line of questions on how we're going to focus these resources. I caught something also that I think was triggered this question. The grant is up to $20,000, but it doesn't mean everybody gets $20,000. So it is more likely that someone who attends a private institution will receive the $20,000 because it's more costly to attend a private institution. Are you collecting data? I know you're collecting data on what schools they're going to. Are you collecting any date?

Well, I guess you're not to my earlier question, because you're not linking financial needs. So you don't really know. Can you tell me generally maybe you can't, but are the private school grants being utilized closer to the 20,000 than the UC or CSU grants? Like, are they utilizing less of it.

In terms of the average award size, essentially, per individual. Yeah, the average award size. Trying to remember, I don't have the data right in front of me. Obviously, we do track the average, you know, the awards that we actually distribute. So we do have that. Regardless of if we're tracking financial need, we do know how much we send out. I don't have right in front of me, the average award size of a student going to a private institution compared to a public or other institution.

Okay. We have the data on the actual awards and applications, but we don't have the data on the average awards.

Yeah.

If you could get that back to us as well, that would be informative.

Yeah, for sure.

All right. Thank you. Move on to issue number three, educator basic skills and transcript preview proposals. Review proposals. Excuse me.

Thank you.

We have again the Department of Finance, the LAO, and the CTC. Once again here, the panel will review the January budget proposal to restrict basic skills assessment requirements for the Commission on Teacher credentialing. An additional proposal in the same Department of Finance trailer Bill section to create a new career technical education teacher elementary and arts supplemental authorization will not be heard by the Budget Committee. This proposal has been referred to the Assembly Education Committee for a policy hearing, which is chaired by Mr. Muratsuchi.

So we will begin today with the Department of Finance.

Good morning, chair Members of the Committee. Megan Sabah, Department of Finance this morning, I will give you a brief overview of the educator basic skills, proficiency and transcript review proposals included in the Governor's Budget. The 2021 and 2022 budget acts provided numerous multiyear investments to better prepare, train, recruit and retain a diverse expert workforce of administrative, credentialed and classified staff in California's K 12 schools. While we are beginning to see evidence that these investments are paying off, staffing shortages continue to persist.

To this end, the Governor's Budget proposes nonfiscal changes to streamline processes and reduce costs for well qualified teacher candidates to earn a credential. These changes include trailer Bill Language to explicitly exempt credential applicants with a bachelor's degree or higher from a regionally accredited institution of higher education from the basic skills requirement. There are also a number of code sections included in this language that clean up statute to remove reference to basic skills proficiency language where a bachelor's degree or higher is required.

The Governor's Budget further proposes trailer Bill Language directing the Commission to ensure that subject matter domains are aligned for coursework review. Additionally, the language encourages the Commission to leverage its accreditation system to ensure programs utilize transcript review for assessment of subject matter competence. This concludes my remarks for this issue. I'm happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. Move on to the LAO.

In our analysis that's laid out in your agenda, we found that one for the basic skill proficiency exams. What we are currently hearing anecdotally is that in some cases, it does create barriers for otherwise effective teacher candidates. And as it relates to the transcript review process for subject matter competency, CTC recently did a report where they did find that the current screening tool or tool used to evaluate whether coursework does fulfill that requirement is complex, burdensome.

So with that said, based off of those findings, we do recommend that the Legislature approve these proposed changes.

Thank you, CTC.

The Commission has discussed the basic skills exam at a meeting last year, and the Commission believes that it does not add anything to the determination of who is classroom ready. So the Commission is strongly in favor of allowing the bachelor's degree to meet the basic skills requirement.

Thank you. I'll just ask maybe some pretty basic questions. So the proposal, to be very clear is just as long as you have a bachelor's degree, is it in any field, you would be exempt from CBEST? CBEST would still be required. Don't we require a bachelor's for someone to be a teacher? So essentially, we're eliminating CBEST as an assessment tool altogether.

There's at least one credential that would potentially still require the CBEST, and that is a short term sub permit for people who are completing a preparation program. So someone who says an undergraduate, they're in their junior or senior year, they've completed most of their program. They have not completed their bachelor's degree yet. So they would still need to demonstrate their competency and basic skills. They could do that through, I think, one of nine ways, including a number of assessments or through coursework.

But there may be some who just think it's easier to take the CEST.

Okay. And is this going to be for individuals who receive a bachelor's degree in state and out of state?

Yes, as long as the bachelor's degree is from a regionally accredited college or University.

Okay. And let me just clarify what you said about someone who might be in a prep program. So just to be, again, very clear, if you still have not received your bachelor's and you're in any number of programs on your pathway to becoming a teacher, you would still be required to take the CBEST unless you met the coursework requirement, which is outlined, I'm sure, somewhere or other assessments. Yeah. Correct. Okay. All right. Anything else anybody wants to add to that?

Nothing further to add from finance.

All right, Mr. Fong. Mr. Muratsuchi. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Moving on to number four, educator shortage areas, program oversight. This panel will provide oversight for recent major budget investments in educator shortage areas. We will have, once again, CTC, the Commission teacher credentialing, Department of Education, and the Department of Finance to present.

So we will begin with, on this one, the Commission for Teacher Credentialing.

I'd like to provide you some updates on three grant programs. First of all, the Local Solutions to the teacher to the Shortage of Special Education Teachers. This program was created in the 2018-19 state budget for the recruitment, preparation, and support of new special education teachers. The authorizing legislation provided a total of $50 million for competitive grants to eligible local education agencies and provided up to $20,000 per participating teacher to grantees to implement locally identified solutions to identify the shortage of special education teachers.

Over the four years of the program, 4743 teachers were supported. Grantees consistently reported that the program was extremely successful, especially because they were allowed to use the funds in ways that met local needs. Of the local solutions participants who received one or more of these three types of financial support towards tuition, 92% were hired in the grantee LEA or another California LEA. And that program ended June 30, 2023. The second program is the Computer Science Supplementary Authorization Grant Program.

$15 million was appropriated in the 2021-22 budget. In four rounds of funding, $1,650,000 has been awarded to 12 LEAs. The latest applications were due last Friday, but before that, there was $13,000,350, $350,000 remaining in that program. The Reading and Literacy Supplementary Authorization Incentive Grant Program was created in the 2022-23 budget with a $15 million appropriation. In two rounds of funding, $642,500 has been awarded to two LEAs.

With this program also, applications were due last Friday, but more than $14.3 million was remaining in that grant program. The uptake on these last two grant programs has been less than we had hoped. We believe part of the reason is that teachers have not been taking advantage of professional development opportunities pretty much across the board during the last few years. Part of that reason is likely that the stress and burnout from COVID pandemic continues to affect our teacher workforce.

In addition, both programs require LEAs to provide matching funds, so there may be some disincentive for LEAs to participate for that reason. Finally, LEAs may not need teachers with these authorizations as much as anticipated.

Several credentials already authorized teaching of computer science, and as far as the reading and literacy authorization, through the CDE, the state has invested $250 million to develop literacy coaches across the state. And that position does not require either of the literacy authorizations sponsored by this grant program. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. CDE.

Hello again. Cheryl Cotton, Deputy Superintendent of our Instruction, Measurement, and Administration Branch at the California Department of Education, again, presenting on behalf of our State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond. Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to present today. Please know that CDE is supportive of the Administration's efforts to address California's teacher shortage.

As I mentioned in my prior remarks, not only are we facing an educator shortage that was exacerbated by the pandemic, but with significant investments in pre K through 12 programs, we're seeing schools struggling to implement these new, important programs due to difficulties in hiring qualified staff. CDE supports the CTC and LEAs in their teacher recruitment efforts and has hired a full time staff to support recruitment efforts statewide. We have partnered with efforts to invest in public service announcements to highlight the importance of this career path.

In addition, CDE maintains an email and hotline to help prospective teacher candidates reach an expert at CDE or connecting them to CTC who can help them navigate the process of becoming a teacher. There's no question that teachers are being asked to take on an additional immense workload and navigate challenges in this new reality, and it's important to focus on workforce proposals that incentivize and assist teacher candidates entering the teaching profession so schools can retain their talent and reduce teacher turnover that is particularly problematic in high need schools.

Along those lines, we also recommend multiple entry points for all teachers working with our learners, such as partnerships with accredited credentialing programs, providing support for teachers such as tuition, academic, and advising, et cetera, and bringing coursework to LEA campuses and elevating known apprenticeship and residency programs. Further, the Superintendent also puts heavy emphasis on robust professional development for mathematics and reading and is sponsoring an effort to provide additional training for 160,000 teachers in each of those areas.

We'll keep pushing to recruit and retain the best and the brightest educators. Our students deserve that, and so do our educators. CDE continues to work to strengthen the educator pipeline and bolster capacity of the existing workforce through several ongoing investments. Some of those investments include the Educator Workforce Investment Grants, or EWIG. They consist of three programs that support English Learner Roadmap Policy and EL programs, special education, and computer science. To date, EWIG EL Roadmap, which was from 2020 to 2023, has reached over 12,500 educators.

The EWiG Computer Science, which launched in March of 2022, has already reached approximately 1550 educators across the seven regions of the system, the statewide system of support. While 3307 schools participated in activities under the special education portion of EWIG with specific training in universal design for learning principles, including general education, special education teachers, administrators, instructional coaches, and school psychologists, and paraeducators.

Additional investments from the 2022 Budget Act are focusing on professional development for teachers and paraprofessionals to support effective language acquisition programs for EL students, universal design for learning, and high quality computer science instruction. The combined reach of these additional investments have reached over 2100 educators. The 21st Century California School Leadership Academy is dedicated to the professional learning and support of California's educational leaders, teacher, site, and district to create more equitable learning environments that ultimately improve success for underserved students.

The 21CSLA consists of a center located at the University of California at Berkeley and seven regional academies that are located in geo-regions established by the California System of Support and is designed around three main professional learning structures, communities of practice, localized professional learning, and leadership coaching. The second 21CSLA cohort began July 1, 2023. In addition, the 2021 Budget Act provided $2 million of state funds to be allocated to 21CSLA.

Those funds are supporting specialized programs to support the expansion of Universal TK, expanded research for equity centered professional learning, and the impact on marginalized youth, expanded coaching models, and activities.

The Department has also awarded the California Math Science Computer Science Professional Learning Grant to the California, I'm sorry, to the San Joaquin County Office of Education, working with a consortium of partners including Santa Barbara County Office of Ed, Monterey County Office of Ed, the California Math Project, and the California Science Project, and UCLA's Computer Science Equity Project. These funds are vital to expand existing statewide infrastructure and capacity to provide educators with professional learning and coaching in mathematics, science, and computer science for grades 4 through 12.

These efforts are aligned to relevant California content standards, support family and community engagement, and are coordinated with the Early Mathematics Initiative operated by the Fresno County Office of Education. Statewide asset mapping, professional learning activities, and communities of practice are currently underway. The CAL-MSCS has established statewide and local implementation communities to support educators in mathematics, science, and computer science.

The Early Math Initiative addresses the demand for innovative professional development, communications, and resources to provide mathematics achievement outcomes for students in early education and beyond, which becomes even more essential as TK expands. The Early Math Initiative continues to support the professional learning and coaching of early educators. The Early Math Initiative also receives funds to expand current efforts to build the capacity of educators, facilitators, community partners, and families serving children from birth to age eight.

The grantee and key grantees will develop professional learning content and family engagement tools on early math, science, and computer science to encourage daily activities and conversations about these topics. Prior Early Math Initiative content will inform what resources to develop and implement around these topics. Lastly, during this expansion the grantee will create resources and guides for educators and parents or guardians to use in classroom settings and everyday routines.

Finally, the Early Education Teacher Development Grants consist of $100 million awarded to 72 awardees that represent a total of 894 LEAs statewide, though that dollar figure only covers two thirds of the amount of the amount requested by those awardees. This grant program supports increasing the number of highly qualified CSPP and TK teachers and bolstering targeted competencies for CSPP, TK, and K teachers, kindergarten teachers. The grantees reported their recruitment, training, and partnership plans with institutions of higher education to hire qualified TK teachers or to enhance qualifications of the TK staff already employed.

In the grant application, 60% of grantees reported in their applications they will use funds for teacher candidates to obtain multiple subject credentials, while 56% of grantees reported in their applications will use funds for their current TK teachers to obtain coursework to fulfill the apportionment requirements of UTK statute. According to the most recent reporting collected in September of 2023, grantees are currently supporting 831 teacher candidates across the state with stipends or tuition assistance.

Additionally, over 1000 administrators and 5000 teachers working in CSPP, TK, and kindergarten have been reached through professional development opportunities to support developmentally appropriate practices. We would also like to highlight that LEAs are working to maximize the impact of different fund sources by braiding funding. For example, 79% of all of the EETD grantees specifically identified in their applications the strategy of braiding that funding with other grants with other grant sources to train, recruit, and provide coaching for UTK teachers.

Blended funding sources include those from CDE, CTC, Quality Counts California, First 5 California, and others. We look forward to the Administration, Legislature, and CTC, and relevant state entities as we determine the best way to move forward with these workforce proposals and are ready to support these programs in any way we can. Thank you and we're happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Department of Finance.

Megan Sabbah, Department of Finance. I defer to the Commission and the Department for an overview of these issues, though I am happy to help answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. We don't have the Legislative Analyst Office listed on this panel. Is there any comment you'd like to provide at this point? Okay, you might get some questions. I want to start just with acknowledging the fact that there are a lot of very small programs that are all intentioned with hoping to, obviously, attract individuals to the profession. I think that's certainly worthwhile goal. But as we hear about Golden State Teachers Grant Program being such an important tool that locals are using.

I'm just curious on these other programs how difficult or challenging it might be for districts to participate in some of these other programs, and how long it takes for these programs to roll out, and to the extent that we've got several programs with funding still available and unutilized. So I guess the question would be, have you heard any feedback from the districts on how to more effectively, from their standpoint, deal with teacher shortages? Are they saying, we want these programs.

This is exactly the program we need. Or I'm going to make an assumption and say they probably would like to figure out what areas they have deficiencies in in terms of teachers, and probably would like to create programs or support teachers in programs that would help them get those needs that exist at the school level, at the school district level. Do you get any feedback from school districts, either CTC or CDE?

The one district that we've heard from is LA Unified, and they expressed interest in more funding to develop bilingual teachers. I believe CDE did get some grant funding this past year or the current budget, but that's the only area that we've really heard.

Okay.

I would say across the board our districts appreciate the funding, want to be able to commit to ongoing funding. I think that is really what folks are looking for. The support around the EWIG grants, sorry. Particularly with special education and computer science, I think both are very useful and helpful, particularly with a focus around computer science, again for 4 through 12, but also looking at our earliest learners as well. With the Early Education Teacher Development Grants, the Early Math Initiative I think is imperative.

Understanding and knowing our scores, I support our assessment division as well. Understanding and knowing the need to improve student understanding of math concepts. I think it's very important to focus on that Early Math Initiative as well as developing our teacher leaders. One, as a pathway to keep folks in the profession, but also to prepare our principals, to prepare district leaders to be ready to support our teachers in the best way possible. All of these, I think, are imperative.

I've heard lots of positive things about all of these programs. Sitting in with 21st Century CSLA, the California School Leadership Academy program, it is a game changer, and it is also encouraging and supporting teachers of color and leaders of color to come into the profession and really understand how to best lead and support their schools.

Again, I guess some programs definitely do stand alone, like the one you just mentioned. But we've got a computer science program and then we've got a computer science supplementary authorization incentive program. Two different programs, computer science. We've got special education for professional development opportunities, and then we've got Local Solutions for the Shortage of Special Education Teacher Grants. And so I think that's where it just seems like... I'll have conversations with my local school districts.

But it just seems like, the initial conversations I've had is, yes, we want the continuity. Everybody always says that in education in particular. But also, how do we keep it simpler? We had a hearing, I believe it was last week on CTE, where we had a very similar conversation. Lots of different programs, lots of different places, and it's just becomes more of a bureaucratic nightmare to handle from the district's standpoint.

And so I'm interested in how many teachers are actually being, coming through the pipeline as a result of each one of these programs. That, to me, is a measurement of success. But compared to, again, Golden State Teacher Grant Program, which from testimony I've heard from all of you today, is one of the most successful programs. So should we be thinking about consolidating and making sure the resources are used more efficiently? Obviously, in a year like this is something that I think you'll hear more questions around from me.

Can I just ask one thing? With the computer science and the computer science, it looks like they are duplicating, and they're not. I think that the focus of those programs, while it is to support computer science or to support special education, the focus of those programs and the use of those dollars are very different. And so it's not the same funding, it's not the same program, it's not the same focus. One is on bringing folks into the profession, the other is on once they're there, how do we support them.

Right. And the Golden State Teacher Grant Program is also about bringing folks into the profession in fields like computer science. So, again, that's what I'm referring to. I think there needs to be some streamlining, and I understand that these were all decisions made, certainly, partially by the Legislature in the past. So this is the program that we've got to work with.

But thinking forward is how are we more efficient and more effective, ensuring that we get the supports to create that, strengthen that pipeline and get the teachers that we need, given the numbers are still way below. I'll turn to my colleagues on the panel. Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you. Mr. DeGuire?

Yes.

So did I hear you right that the Computer Science Supplemental Authorization Incentive Grant Program, of the 15 million allocated, only 14.3 has been, or 14.3 million remains unspent?

That's in the, 14.3 is in the Reading and Literacy Supplemental Authorization. In the Computer Science Supplementary Authorization Grant, $13,350,000 is remaining.

Okay. And this program is to support the preparation of teachers to earn a supplementary authorization in computer science. Can you explain what that means?

So it's to help someone who has already earned a preliminary credential or cleared their credential to add computer science authorization. And they do that through taking a number of courses at a college or university in computer science. So the grant provides up to $2,500 per teacher with a $2,500 match from the district to pay for tuition for those courses.

Okay. And this is timely because there are proposals to require computer science as a graduation requirement. How is the State of California overall in terms of having enough teachers to meet such a proposal for high school graduation? For every California high school student to be required to take a computer science course.

If it were a graduation requirement, we would need more people, more teachers who have that authorization. But right now, for example, someone who holds a multiple subject credential can teach computer science within their self contained classroom. Someone who holds a mathematics credential can teach computer science. And then a couple of the CTE credentials also allow teaching computer science. So we've got some people out there. But if it were a graduation requirement, probably would not be pulling math teachers to teach computer science because we do struggle with having enough teachers in math.

So we would be having English teachers teaching computer science.

So going back to my days as a principal, I'd be looking at who doesn't have a full time contract and encouraging those people to get the authorization so that they can be full time.

And what would be the most likely candidates for...

Probably non-core areas.

Such as?

Such as CTE areas are often not full time positions. What's been your experience?

I'm hearing this conversation. I think that really tapping into that CTE community, those folks who retirees, folks who are transitioning careers, who have some background with computer science. I think that would be kind of that targeted group, as well as folks who are coming in or want to teach part time, who don't want a full load but want to engage students with computer science and teach in that area.

Okay. Clearly, it's disappointing that we created this incentive grant program, but 13 out of $15 million remains unspent.

And that's after four rounds of applications.

Okay. Which highlights that perhaps there are larger issues, like not paying teachers enough that are qualified to teach computer science to attract them to become teachers. But on the more positive side, I noted you said the Local Solutions for the Shortage of Special Education Teacher Grants was extremely successful.

Yes.

I'm looking at a breakdown in the staff analysis, page 29. The largest number of students that benefited from this program, they benefited from efforts to identify, recruit, and prepare new special education teachers. And another, in the second largest, assisting the special education candidates with tuition. Are those the primary reasons why you describe that program as being extremely successful?

I describe it as being successful because that's what we've heard from grantees across the board. They would have loved this program to continue beyond last June 30, but what they really appreciated was they could steer the money. You can see there's many different opportunities, many different funding categories. They were allowed to spend the money however they needed most.

Okay, so as we go forward, we should try to design programs that are more taking the lessons from the Local Solutions program and maybe being a little more skeptical about grant programs for... Well, yeah, that are under subscribed.

I would also say, though, particularly with the computer science, there are a lot of things that are out there that the public is not aware of, that our schools are not aware of, and are not promoting. I think, a recruitment effort and really factoring that piece into these types of grant programs, I think it would be really important as well. It's not that no one's interested. It may be that folks are not aware of what's available to them.

So to that point, how are these, like this particular Computer Science Supplementary Authorization Grant Program, how is that advertised?

That one, we have gone a lot further than we usually do. We've worked with the County Superintendents Organization, with the Association for School Boards, and even code.org to recommend, hey, please help us get the news out. But we still have not seen a big uptake.

Okay. And then you talked about the Reading and Literacy Grant Program. Of the 15 million appropriated, only 14.3 million remains unspent.

Correct.

And you talked about how you contrasted that to what I believe is the success of the Literacy Coach Program. And so perhaps if we want to focus on effective literacy programs, we can consider reallocating the money from the program that remains grossly undersubscribed to programs like the literacy coaches that have been successful.

That certainly is an option. And again, these authorizations are not required to be a literacy coach.

Okay. And last but not least, in the staff analysis, there is also discussion on $10 million that was appropriated for professional learning opportunities to implement the California English Learner Roadmap Policy. Given that California has 20% of our students are English learners, I would think that this would be an important priority to continue. But does the Department of Education have any thoughts in terms of...

We were just awarded the Bilingual Teacher Professional Development Program, and that program is designed to meet the growing demand for bilingual teachers to support dual immersion and bilingual programs out there. That is kind of the next step in terms of continuing to support our bilingual education and supporting bilingual teachers.

Yes, certainly we need more bilingual teachers, but we also are trying to make sure that the implementation of the English Learner Roadmap Policy goes beyond just getting more bilingual teachers. And so I would hope that we can continue to support that program also. Thank you very much.

Thank you. To the CTC, in our report, we have a figure of $50 million for the Local Solutions for Special Ed Teachers, but I thought I heard you say $15 million in your testimony. Can you just make sure...

It was 50 million for the Local Solutions.

50. Okay.

And that program is now finished.

Oh, it's been utilized. So what we're seeing in our report on the number of participants in funds expended on page 29, is that just for the current year, the 11 million, or is that cumulative over the lifespan of the program?

I believe that was for the 2022-23 year, but let me check on that and get back to you.

Probably the final program?

The final year.

Okay. I know it was more funding, but I'm just curious as to why we went with a local solutions approach that was driven by an RFA with local responses on how to address this issue and why, for example, in the computer science, or maybe it was done the same way. Was it done the same way or was that done differently? Did we request LEAs to submit response to an RFA with different tactics on how to address the issue of computer science?

The computer science and reading and literacy authorizations are much simpler RFAs because they're basically just telling us how many teachers they would like to earn those credentials, earn those authorizations.

Okay.

Whereas Local Solutions, it was more extensive with what's your plan? How do you anticipate spending the money including these different categories?

Okay. So perhaps the exercise of locals not thinking through how to use those dollars and what the plan is, could that have led to an undersubscription of, particularly, the Computer Science Program? Or what questions did you get or what responses did you get for that program?

For the computer science?

Yeah.

I would say we haven't gotten that many questions. I don't think we have denied a single application that we've received.

Okay. The last question really should have been like one of the first questions, I think, was asked, among CDE, maybe even DOF and CTC.

There was testimony about the Learning Policy Institute that provides some analysis on teachers needed. What is the standard that we are utilizing as a state to identify our shortages by subject area, by grade level, and by region? Which data source are we using to identify what those shortages are so that we can make sure that our programs are actually matching those shortages? Do any of you refer to--I think you refer to the Learning Policy Institute in your comments, Dr. Cotton--is that who CDE uses as the source of data?

Learning Policy Institute is a research organization that provides information about our schools. What we use is primarily CALPADS data. And I have one of my-

The reason I ask, as you're taking a seat here, is we are seeing a decline in the number of students in our schools. And so while there's a shortage, we also have this really weird situation of: students are declining. And so we do want to ramp up to meet the demand that's needed today. But then what happens in the out years when we have less students, and how are we planning for that?

Okay, that's a little different question.

Let me first get information on where we get--source your data anyway.

Okay. So we actually have a data sharing MOU with the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, but we use CALPAD's data in which we send over so they can utilize it for their CalSAAS data. But we're looking at what the federal government asks of us when we report teacher shortages is looking at: do we have vacancies? Do we have teachers that are under-credentialed for the courses that they're teaching? So I'm a history social science teacher, but I'm teaching English. So I'm teaching outside of my credentialed area. And so that's primarily it. So vacancies, and do we have somebody that's teaching it that shouldn't be teaching it, but we couldn't find anyone else to fill that position.

So you make that data publicly available, or do you report it on an annual basis or a regular, consistent basis?

We report it to the federal government annually. And you can look up on their website what we've reported. Yes.

Okay. Anything to add on that? Seems like you share information.

Oh, yes. We work quite closely--there is, I don't think, a single number that tells us, because in addition to what Kristin was talking about, one of the things we look at is the number of, basically, emergency permits that are issued. So short-term staff permits, because those tell us how many positions districts could not find a fully credentialed candidate for.

One thing that gets lost that we really don't have a way to quantify is if a district is unable to find a teacher for a certain assignment, they may just decide not to offer that set of courses, or they may decide to use fewer teachers if it's in the elementary grades, larger class size. Those are things that aren't really reported to either agency.

Your number might be a little bit underreported, but it does give us some pretty good flavor. And then on the question of the declining enrollment versus ramping up teachers, you had another comment you wanted to mention. You said it was a different question, so I think you wanted to answer that.

The question you asked was a different question. I didn't have an answer necessarily for it. The declining enrollment is something, again, locally that LEAs are trying to balance staffing with their current enrollment, and we're seeing that more and more at this point.

Okay. All right. Thank you all. We will move on to our next item. Dyslexia screener proposal. The panel will review the January budget proposal to add implementation of dyslexia screener in the education Mandate Block Grant. We have the Department of Finance, we have the Legislative Analyst Office and the California Department of Education to present on this proposal. And so we will start with the Department of Finance.

Hello again. Megan Sabbah, Department of Finance. I'll be presenting a brief overview of the literacy screening proposal included in the Governor's Budget. As a reminder, the 2023 Budget Act required local educational agencies, or LEAs, to begin screening pupils in kindergarten through second grade for risk of reading difficulties by the 2025-26 school year. The screenings will be a tool that LEAs can use to identify pupils experiencing difficulty reading. Difficulties can include but are not limited to dyslexia.

To support the implementation of the screenings, the Governor's Budget includes an increase of $25 million, Proposition 98 General Fund, to the Mandates Block Grant beginning in the 2024-25 school year--I mean, pardon--fiscal year to support training for educators to administer literacy screenings as required by the 2023 Budget Act. Trailer bill language provides an allocation methodology for those funds.

That language states that commencing with the 2024-25 fiscal year, this language will allocate funds to LEAs at a per pupil rate using fall one census enrollment data for pupils in kindergarten through grade two per the screening requirement. This concludes my overview. Happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Legislative Analyst Office.

Jackie Barocio, LAO. As noted in your agenda, we find that the proposal is overall premature for two reasons. One of the reasons is, as was noted, the screening tool will not, or the list of approved screening tools will not be finalized likely until the end of this calendar year 2024, released sometime in January 2025. And then with that, these dollars are not necessarily then anchored to any screening tool itself. So it makes it difficult to assess the appropriateness of the funding proposal.

But then also, the mechanism in which these funds would be provided is through the K-12 Mandates Block Grant. And that typical process is we don't provide funds upfront. Actually, we provide funds once the activity has been implemented and then districts or local LEAs, they'll submit claims and then we'll reimburse them based off of actual cost. Where this proposal we're providing funds earlier than needed through that traditional mandate claim process. So for those two reasons, and again with the backdrop of the overall budget deficit, we recommend that the legislature could consider delaying the overall implementation date of the screening requirement.

And this would allow the legislature more time to: one, more accurately estimate cost associated with this requirement, including training costs, once we have that list of approved screening tools; and then it would also allow the legislature more time to--once we have that more accurate estimate of cost, whether or not it makes sense to provide funds through an annual appropriation, that would be an upfront investment or to go through the regular mandates claim process, which would be: let the activity be implemented and then we'll reimburse based off of actual costs later on.

Also, delaying--it would allow the legislature just more time to consider again, given the budget deficit and the potential that it will continue in future years, make a decision as to when the budget conditions could support this additional activity.

Thank you. Department of Education.

Good morning, Chair Alvarez and members of the committee. I am Nancy Brynelson from the California Department of Education, co-director of statewide literacy, speaking on behalf of Superintendent Tony Thurmond. We would argue that it is imperative that the screenings for reading difficulties, including dyslexia, be implemented in the 2025-26 school year. This has been a lengthy conversation among advocates and educators across the state.

For the purposes of the 24-25 school year, with the proposed $25 million for the K-12 Mandate Block Grant, we have noted a number of activities that school districts will need to engage in in order to be ready for the 25-26 school year. To successfully implement this new requirement, LEAs will incur upfront costs, in next school year, related to the selection of an instrument or instruments from the approved list, which will be available in December. And school districts are following this very closely.

They're watching every meeting, so they'll know when the panel makes its decisions: the development of plans to implement the screening, and also the provision of professional development for impacted school personnel. Not funding the startup costs in 24-25 will have the effect of delaying implementation of these screenings until later in the 25-26 school year, which is counter to the purpose of this legislation, which is to identify children as early as possible in kindergarten, first and second grade who may have reading difficulties or be showing signs of potential dyslexia. So let me talk a bit more about what it is that districts have to do. Okay.

The effective use of these new screeners for risk of reading difficulties depends on implementing them within a comprehensive system of assessment that informs database decision-making in a multi-tiered system of support in literacy. A comprehensive assessment system starts with screeners for the universal level of instruction, for early identification, and to determine what, if any, interventions are needed. However, screeners alone are not sufficient. A comprehensive assistant also includes diagnostic assessments, should further assessment be indicated by the screener.

Periodic benchmark assessments to determine progress and response to instruction and ongoing classroom formative assessment processes. In addition, assessment must be accompanied by high-quality curricular and instructional resources, including interventions for students who need them. Beginning in 2024 at next school year, LEAs need to analyze their own systems of assessment, curriculum, instruction, and intervention to create the infrastructure needed for successful implementation of these new screeners.

Furthermore, LEAs need to determine the professional learning necessary to build knowledge of reading difficulties, including dyslexia. LEAs can look to what the panel is including in their criteria for selecting the instruments and as named in the legislation: domains such as oral language, phonemic awareness, letter-sound knowledge, rapid automized naming, and other provisions that are in the legislation. Educators also need to look to learn about how screening and assessment considerations for multilingual and culturally diverse students and how relevant demographic data will impact results.

Importantly, educators need to learn more about how to provide evidence-based classroom interventions according to screening data in the specific domains. So bottom line, in the fall of next year, school districts need to be very clear about what their system is for assessment, curriculum, instruction, and intervention and shore up any of that and really be looking at the issues of reading difficulties and dyslexia.

Come spring--winter, spring--once we know what the instruments are, then they will turn their attention to selecting the screener or screeners, creating the schedules, procedures, staffing plans, and reporting tools that they will use during implementation. Evaluation of the screening instruments will require staff time; teachers, administrators, specialists to review the instruments.

Best practice would be to pilot those instruments and to do a thorough review of each one. Keeping the intent of the screeners--which is to ensure early identification of students with reading difficulties, but to not over-identify children or under-identify them--letters and other tools for communication will need to be developed to make sure that parents are understanding the information they receive and what will be the appropriate next steps.

There are other key provisions of this legislation related to multilingual learners, individual students identified as English learners, and it is hoped that there will be screeners in languages other than English. If screeners are identified, are approved by the panel for languages other than English, school personnel will need to be identified who can conduct the screenings in those languages. LEAs will also need to develop alternative procedures to determine the risk of reading difficulties for students whose languages do not have a screener.

So that's another provision of the bill. There's a great deal of work that school districts will need to do to be ready to implement all of this successfully. Once the screener or screeners are selected and approved by the local school board--and they're required to do that by June 30 of 2025--then LEAs will need to provide professional development on the specific screeners that they have selected--not only how to administer them, but how to interpret the results of those screeners.

This professional development should begin no later than spring of 2025 and move into the summer. We've talked to several school districts lately about this issue, and they say they're already thinking about it. They know that they need to hit the ground running. They need to purchase the screeners in the spring, they need to bring in the professional development, and summer is prime time for doing this kind of work with teachers.

We know that instituting anything new--and it's interesting, this is more new than even I realized, for school districts--takes time, and it takes thorough planning and vetting. We want to make sure that we provide the proper time and funding for them to do an effective job. So not funding them for that in this coming school year will be a problem in terms of implementing these provisions in a timely way.

Considering delaying the entire initiative--I think a number of advocates would find that unacceptable in terms of what children need in literacy. Some of the questions that were in the agenda I will address. There was a concern about estimating costs. We estimate the cost of not only purchasing the screener, but doing all of this planning, staff consultation, which you have to pay folks money, stay after school, et cetera, and do the professional learning at about $20 a student, give or take.

We've seen estimates for the screeners themselves at about $10. Now we're seeing some at $14. So that's a very rough estimate. At about 1.3 million students in kindergarten through second grade, that cost would--I actually calculated it as $26,336,440, which exceeds the $25 million. I think I've answered the question about why we believe that it's necessary to fund this this next year. And then the last question was, are there other technical assistance considerations for this? And the answer would be yes.

Cost to CDE and regional technical assistance providers such as County Offices of Education have not been considered in any of these funding proposals. CDE anticipates many inquiries about this and will need to plan for workload considerations. Providing technical assistance to LEAs will be important as there is the potential for misunderstanding in communicating with families, with parents and guardians that could potentially trigger LEA costs due to child-find requirements to identify, locate and evaluate all children with disabilities.

All right.

With that, I'm finished. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Muratsuchi, do you have some questions on this item?

Yes. Thank you. Given the Department of Education laid out the importance of being prepared, even though the approved list of these screeners is not going to be available until January, if we allocate it in this year's budget, don't we need that $25 million to allow districts to start that training, start that getting prepared in the winter and the spring? For the LAO?

I think it's a broader conversation of: does the legislature want to provide upfront funding? Because I think with the proposal, the fact that the mechanism is through the Mandates Block Grant is just a bit confusing because again, traditionally with the Mandates Block Grant, we reimburse local education agencies after the fact. If the legislature did want to provide some upfront funding, it could do so just through a regular annual budget appropriation.

I think then another question is, should that upfront funding be ongoing or one-time? The governor's proposal is ongoing, but again, as we flagged, we still do not have a sense of what screener tools and what the actual estimated cost would be once LEAs select the specific screener tools they will be using. So I think it's kind of: answering those broader questions will kind of then give the legislature a better sense of the pathway forward. If you do want to fund activities through the K-12 block grant, there is that trade-off of we're not providing costs or funds upfront, we're reimbursing them on the back end based off of actual claim data.

I understand the points made about the block grant approach, but I think the CDE's point is well taken that the whole point of this effort is the detection as early as possible with early intervention having the greatest return on the investment, from a strictly budgetary perspective as well as a pedagogical perspective. I would support at least having some kind of funding to make sure that we can roll out this dyslexia screener--reading difficulty screener as soon as possible. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me ask about the requirement to screen. What does the statute say in relation to when the screening must occur for the students?

Megan Sabbah, Department of Finance. Currently statute implements the requirement in the 2025-26 school year. So as my fellow panelists at the department and Member Muratsuchi have pointed out, this would give LEAs--if included in the 2024 Budget Act--this funding would give LEAs about six months of lead time to adopt a screening tool and begin rolling out training for qualified staff for administering screenings. Funding at a later date would effectively delay implementation of the requirement.

But there's no requirement that this be done in the fall within the first few weeks of school. So school districts could do it whatever they want.

Correct, within the school year. However, I would note that if not funded in the 2024 Budget Act, LEAs would not have adequate time to implement within the 2025-26 school year.

How long is it going to take to implement?

So on the current timeline, if this proposal is adopted in the 2024 Budget Act, this would give--the State Board of Education would adopt screening tools in December of 2024, and then LEAs would have approximately six months before the start of the 2025-26 school year to adopt tools and train qualified staff to implement throughout the school year.

So they're required to not--I heard the adoption is June 30 of 2025. So they wouldn't have to adopt any screen or tool until the end of that fiscal year.

Correct. But they would need adequate time to adopt the tool, understand it, and then train staff on it.

No, I get that. And ideally they do that, but they don't have to. So that means some of them might not. There is no requirement for them to adopt in January or in February or in March or in April or in May or-- They have until June to adopt.

So there could be conversations locally among advocates, for example, for English learners, that the tool that they're discussing perhaps is not the right tool, and therefore these discussions could take them all the way through June, excuse me, to when they are required to, which means they make a decision then, and then they have to sort of, sort of jump start everything, which then takes time.

So I get that we want to do this as early as possible, but in reality, we're not requiring them to do them as early as possible. We're just hoping that they do it as early as possible. Is that correct?

Nancy Brynelson, CDE. Yes, school districts that operate effectively will be planning as far in advance as possible to implement this.

I think that answers the question. I think if our intent and our desire is for them to actually follow a specific, which I think you've laid out the right approach, you select, you plan, you do professional development, you pilot, and you get it ready to hopefully implement in the fall so that you can work with these students throughout the school year. But if you don't do that, then you are going to miss out potentially that year of ensuring that.

I would say that to the extent we believe that this can actually happen and that the funding should be allocated for this, for this next fiscal year because that is the actual cost and because this is the type of funding that we'll need it, which we don't know. We haven't assessed the cost really yet, then we should probably come back with requirements for this money to be spent in those ways. Otherwise, we're giving money in a block grant potentially for something that's not going to happen.

Our desire is for there to be assessments and for there to be interventions, and if that doesn't happen, we will have lost a year. So I think we have to rethink about if we're going to spend this money first, is this the right amount? Is this what's going to cover the cost when we don't know what the tool is, or do we create the flexibility in this funding? Do we put language into this funding that rolls over? I don't know.

I think we got to think about this. We've done a lot of one time funding with a lot of programs in education and we have not executed. We cannot continue to fund programs without executing with the intent of what we all desire. And so I think this requires us to think through a little bit more. But again, I think you've laid out what ideally should be the pathway forward. So with that, I don't think we have any other questions.

So we'll move on to issue number six, which is a math coaching proposal. We have Department of Finance, Legislative Analyst Office and Department of Education once again. The panel will review the January budget proposal to appropriate 20 million in one time money for math coaching. I'll ask the Department of Finance to introduce the proposal, please.

Hi there. Megan Sabbah, Department of Finance. I'll provide an overview of the proposal. The Governor's Budget includes 20 million one time Proposition 98 general fund for one or more county offices of education or a consortia of county offices of education to partner with the California Mathematics Project to develop and deliver training, including training for mathematics coaches aligned with the 2023 California Math Framework. This language allows the grantee to partner with other well qualified entities in addition to the California Mathematics project.

The funds would be available through June of 2028. The Governor's Budget further proposes statutory changes to clarify that allowable uses of the Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant include professional development aligned to the new mathematics framework. This concludes my overview. Happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. We'll hear from the Legislative Analyst Office.

As noted in your agenda, in our initial analysis of the proposal, and similar to kind of questioning that members of the Committee brought up in prior items, we do feel like this proposal may be duplicative in nature. As the Department of Finance noted, they are proposing language to further clarify that the Learning Recovery Block Grant can be used to support mathematic framework professional development activities. Math coach training could be one of those type of professional development activities that LEAs choose to do on their own.

So given that overlap of purposes across the two proposals, we recommend the Legislature reject the additional funding for math coaches. We do acknowledge that one of the trade offs is that we're foregoing kind of a more statewide approach and shifting the professional development activities to the locals and leaving it up to their local discretion on whether or not they take up those types of mathematic framework professional development activities.

So to the extent that the state wanted to ensure a certain type of statewide professional development framework as it relates to the mathematic framework and ensure certain activities occur, the Legislature could consider maybe requiring LEAs use a portion of their Learning Recovery Block Grant for specific mathematic framework professional development. Or you could also take a portion of the Learning Recovery Block Grant and use that as the alternative fund source for this more statewide initiative.

Thank you. Department of Education.

Thank you. In 2023, the State Board of Education adopted the new mathematics framework to help educators align California teaching with California's mathematics learning standards. To provide additional support for educators in aligning their mathematics instruction with the new framework, this project aims to create training programs and assistance for math teachers to effectively deliver high quality instruction. The project's main goal is to communicate to teachers the instructional shifts in the new mathematics framework based on research and best practices from around the globe.

The framework calls for mathematics instruction to be organized around major conceptual ideas at each grade level and for instruction to be formatted as student investigations that work to find solutions to real world problems. It promotes mathematical discourse and authentic data over worksheets and pages of problem sets. It emphasizes lessons and activities that are meaningful and relevant to students' lives in the 21st century.

Helping students develop the thinking skills and content knowledge necessary to master the standards is critical to improving academic performance and creating conditions for later success. While California saw less pandemic-related decline than other states on national mathematics tests, we still rank below the national average on 4th and 8th grade math assessments. In 2022, only 33% of students met or exceeded mathematic proficiency standards on our California Smarter Balance assessments. The substantial achievement gaps continue to exist, especially for black, American Indian, Alaskan, native, and Latino students.

By equipping coaches and educators with the tools and training they need, we aim to enhance the quality of math instruction delivered in our classrooms. The impact of this project will extend far beyond the realm of the individual classroom. By investing in professional growth for our math educators, we're investing in academic success for our students. In closing, I urge you to support this critical initiative that promises to elevate mathematics in our state.

By allocating resources to this project, we're not only investing in the present, but also securing a brighter future for generations of students to come. Thank you for your time and consideration. With me, I do have one of my division directors to assist with any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm quite familiar with the math projects and the programs. One of my first part time jobs in college and as I was going to pursue a math degree when I was in college, so very appreciative of the focus, certainly what the work the Department has done. I, however, have questions on just very specifically what the goal of this particular one time funding would accomplish? What are we talking about specifically? How many people would be trained?

What exactly do we expect to get from the use of these resources over the next three years if approved?

So, the specifics of the program, the proposed Mathematics Professional Development project. It entails a collaborative effort between, as you stated, CDE, the California Math Project, and a selected county office or consortium of county offices. This partnership seeks to address the critical need in our education system, which is the development and provision of comprehensive training for mathematics coaches and educators.

So are we hoping that every math educator in California will receive this training within the three years with this funding?

Would receive some type of support from that, whether it be from a coach who was trained or whether it be from them attending professional development themselves.

So every single credentialed teacher who teaches Mathematics?

That is the intent.

Okay, wondering if there is-- So, we currently fund programs, and funding exists for programs to do professional development. I'm assuming there is some math professional development that occurs today in some way that I assume no longer will be provided because we have these new standards. And so why do we need additional funding, and why can't we use existing funding, professional development funding, to fund with these new standards in mind?

The standards haven't changed. The framework has changed the way the standards are being taught. And so it is a definite shift in what teachers are doing around mathematics, is what is in the math framework and what we are proposing to make sure that every math educator in the state understands. That's the intent of that.

Yeah, no, I understand the intent is to teach the new framework on the standard that you've developed, which is updated and all of that. But there is existing math professional development and other programs that I assume exist to help increase skills in math for teachers. We currently don't do nothing in math professional development. Or are you saying we don't do anything today?

I'm saying that these funds are designed to support and help folks understand the new math framework, and that's not necessarily written into the other funding sources that we have available to us.

Do you know how much we do in math professional development statewide on annual basis currently?

I don't have that information right in front of me, but I can provide that to you.

Okay. Thank you. What about to the Department of Finance, to the LAO's comments on utilizing the Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant or potentially the Educator Effectiveness Block Grant that we fund on an annual basis to help fund this initiative. Why can't we do that with those funds?

Thank you for your question, Mr. Chair. Megan Sabbah, Department of Finance. So I would note that currently the Governor's Budget is proposing to expand the Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant to allow use of those funds. So I would also note that there are many competing priorities within those funds that LEAs are assessing. So noting that professional development for the new math framework may be lower on the list of priorities for an LEA for use of those funds.

So this is really meant to avoid dilution of the funds, if you will.

But singling out this as a priority, couldn't we single that out as a priority in the existing effectiveness block grant programs, Educator Effectiveness Block Grant program or the Learning Recovery Block Grant program?

So those funds are for our prior year investments, and they are already sort of in flow at the LEA level. Many LEAs have already committed some of those funds. I really can't speak to the level at which LEAs have committed those funds. I don't have that information, and I would defer to the Department who may have more programmatic information on that. LEAs really have much more flexibility with those funds in terms of allowable use.

If the Legislature were seeking a carve out, I don't know how feasible that would be, considering much of the funds are out the door already.

Do you know how much we fund in the Educator Effectiveness Block Grant on an annual basis? That was a one time allocation which is still being utilized. I believe LAO may have some--

Yeah. Edgar Cabral with the LAO. It was a $1.5 billion funding that was provided. I'm forgetting whether it was 21-22 or 22-23 that was, I think, eligible. That could be used over a five year period. So for each LEA, it'll depend on how much funding is still remaining that they could use for that purpose. But the funding could be used over a multi-year period.

And you don't have an assessment of how much has been utilized?

No, we do not.

So so far, LEAs, as of September 2023, LEAs have reported using $3.16 million so far-- 316 million. Sorry, that's very different. See, math framework is really important. See that? No, $316 million over that has been spent so far in the past two years of reporting. Those funds were prior to allocation. Districts were required to take a plan for board approval. So those funds have been planned out from 21 to 2026.

Those plans were submitted to the Department?

They were not submitted to the Department. They are required to have them. And we will be auditing at the end of the grant period.

So, at the end of 21-26, once they've spent all the funds.

We have, yes. Although we are requiring reporting each year on how those funds are being used, where they're focusing, again, the use of those funds.

Okay.

Which has primarily been around coaching and mentoring.

Outside of that, are there federal? I understand there might be federal resources. Specifically, is it Title II funding that might be available for this type of work? I'm not as familiar with the federal funding sources, obviously.

We'll have one of my division directors help with that.

Yes, there are Title II, Part A professional development or professional learning dollars that are allocated annually, based on our federal grant to local educational agencies. And they can be used in a variety of ways. They can use them for professional learning. They can also use them for class size reduction. There's a variety of different--

How do schools receive those, through the Department, through allocation? How does that get funded?

They're a direct allocation annually. Our last grant award was approximately $238 million. We anticipate a cut this year. We do not have the exact numbers that this year allocation will be due to the continuing resolutions in Washington. But the grant is based on a formula that is issued--

A per pupil formula? Is that what it is?

Yeah.

Okay.

But the flexibility exists in that program to do teacher professional development of any desire that a local agency?

Yeah. Educator, administrators, teachers, paraprofessionals.

Got it. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Do you have any questions, Mr. Muratsuchi?

Thank you. So, for Ms. Cotton. So I'm reading from the staff analysis. The dollars are for the county Offices of Education to be partnering with the California Mathematics Project to develop the training model for math coaches. Is that correct?

It is a partnership between CDE, the California Math Project, and the selected county office or consortium of county offices.

Okay. So in terms of how that actually reaches classroom math teachers, is the basic model, is the basic approach to that, county Offices of Education, working with the CDE would be having, like, regional trainings for math teachers?

Generally, that's what it looks mean. This has not happened yet, so we have not put out an RFA. We haven't defined that process just yet. But yes, generally it is regions that are supporting. Connecting with the California Math project allows, and they already have a network across the state and working with math educators, that group would also be supporting this work.

And of course, with the new math framework adopted legally, technically speaking, all of our California public schools are supposed to be teaching math consistent with a new framework, is that correct?

That is our expectation. All of our schools are required to teach our math standards.

Okay. But of course, we don't have any framework police in terms of making sure that schools and classroom math teachers are teaching consistent with. All we can do is provide the framework, provide the professional development. But in terms of the actual adoption or the actual implementation in the classroom, that really depends on--

What I can share is that there is a huge appetite in the field for learning about this math framework. We have been going out to multiple organizations and presenting and talking about the math framework. There is a lot of excitement around it. Again, the framework, it teaches the most up to date kind of pedagogy around math instruction. And so that is what folks are looking for.

Obviously, what we're doing needs to be upgraded, needs improvement, and so we want to be able to get that out to the field in a consistent way.

Yeah, no, I think given the statistics that you highlighted earlier about our dismal statewide math performance test scores, that anything. I would normally be supporting more professional development to support our math performance by our California students.

But I think the question now is looking at a difficult budget is the best way to go to basically create a categorical of Prop 98 funds for math coaches or giving the LEA's flexibility, such as going through the Learning Recovery Block Grant program we heard earlier about, despite our best intentions when we try to earmark dollars, that there's dollars left unspent.

And so while I understand the desire to send the signal that this is a priority and this is money set aside for this priority, it seems like ultimately what is adopted by local LEAs and translated into what happens into the classroom depends on what those local LEAs choose to prioritize. And it seems to me like the Learning Recovery Block Grant program provides that option, according to the LAO. I'll just give you the last word on that.

I am an advocate for a consistent approach and ensuring that there is a clear connection between what happens in the classroom and what happens on the math framework. I think that is very important. Local communities do have, they do make choices and decisions about what that looks like. Again, what I'm seeing from the field is that folks are very interested in learning whatever is available.

Partnering particularly with the California Math Project, I think is an asset for us as a state to be able to have consistent introduction to the math framework and be able to really start to see some changes with our math instruction.

All right, thank you.

Thank you. We will hold the issue open, direct staff to work with the Administration, the State Board on Integration of Proposals, outcomes into existing state funding programs, just like the prior issue. And I'm sure we'll have other follow up questions. Thank you all for being here. Appreciate your time and answers to our questions.

We are moving on to science performance assessments and safety handbook proposals, issue number seven on today's agenda. Panel will review the January budget proposal for $7 million one time for a science performance assessment and a $150,000 one time for an update to the CDE Science Safety Handbook. We have Department of Finance, the Legislative Analyst Office, and the Department of Education. Department of Finance. I ask you to start with the proposal, please.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Hugo Solis Galena with the Department of Finance, and I will provide a brief description of our two proposals in this issue, beginning with the curriculum embedded performance tasks for science, followed by our proposal to revise the Science Safety Handbook. For the first issue, the Governor's Budget proposes a $7 million one time Proposition 98 General Fund investment to support inquiry based science instruction and assessment through the development of a bank of curriculum embedded performance tasks.

There are currently no curriculum embedded performance tasks in science to support inquiry based science instruction statewide, so this proposal would build a bank of those tasks for use by California teachers in grades K through 12 across the state. The $7 million would be provided to a County Office of Education to contract with a nonprofit organization to identify and review available science performance tasks for use, lead the development of additional high quality performance tasks, create a platform for the repository, and provide professional development for teachers.

Moving on to the second issue, the Governor's Budget proposes $150,000 one time Prop 98 general fund investment for a selected County Office of Education to coordinate the revision of the Science Safety Handbook. As stated in the agenda this morning, the Science Safety Handbook was last updated in 2014, and changes to legislation and resources mentioned in the handbook since 2014 are not captured in it, and notably, it is currently out of section 508 compliance and as a result, only available by request.

Section 508 refers to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which is a federal law that requires agencies to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to electronic information and data comparable to those who do not have disabilities. This concludes my overview of these proposals. I can take any questions on either issue at the appropriate time.

Jackie Barocio, LAO. Again, given the budget condition, notwithstanding the merits of the proposal, our overall recommendation is for the legislature to reject all new discretionary proposals. But of course, legislature can continue to weigh these proposals relative to its priorities.

Thank you. Department of Education.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm Dr. Mike Torres. I am the director of the Curriculum Frameworks & Instructional Resources Division at the California Department of Education. I'm presenting today on behalf of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond, to advocate for a vital project aimed at enhancing science education across our state. The next-generation science standards for California public schools, kindergarten through grade 12, was adopted by the State Board of Education in 2013.

These standards emphasize an innovative approach to science instruction in three different dimensions: the disciplinary core ideas, the cross-cutting concepts, and science and engineering practices. While the previous standards were adopted in 1998 emphasize the very important disciplinary core ideas of science, the addition of the science and engineering practices and cross-cutting concepts allow students to learn in a way of a scientist with an inquiry-based approach.

The 2016 California Science Framework then shows how classrooms may look different with this approach. Students build knowledge in a dynamic and creative process where content and science practice are integrated and teachers are facilitators of that learning.

Students investigate real-world phenomena using the science and engineering practices and those cross-cutting concepts, leading to a deeper understanding of the disciplinary core ideas. This initiative that you're hearing includes identifying, evaluating, and creating top-notch curriculum embedded performance tasks that will continue to support engaging and inquiry-based science instruction and assessments, which is not specifically part of the California Science Test. These performance tasks will provide students an opportunity to provide an analysis, a product, performance, or solution to a creative or investigative task that might be as short as just a class period or up to several months in length.

The focus is on improving teaching practices and student learning outcomes through these curriculum-embedded performance tasks. Through a contract with nonprofits with education expertise, professional development opportunities will be provided to help educators effectively incorporate these high-quality, curriculum-embedded performance tasks into classrooms. This project will begin by researching and compiling existing performance tasks aligned with the next-generation science standards. New tasks will then be identified through collaboration with California teachers to develop and pilot additional high-quality, curriculum-embedded performance tasks.

A statewide repository that's separate from the CASP assessments will be developed to house these high-quality, curriculum-embedded performance tasks. They'll be available by grade, standard, and domain, and they'll be freely available for all educators to support inquiry-based instruction, and allow students to demonstrate what they know and can do in science. Imagining all of our students involved in hands-on, phenomena-based instruction is very exciting. Along with that comes very necessary considerations in science safety. The Science Safety Handbook is a critical piece of that work.

The Science Safety Handbook, which was originally written in 1999 by a panel of science and safety experts, was issued to provide admins, teachers, and students with the necessary information to conduct safe, hands-on science activities. Since that time, the document has received a few minor updates in regards to updated legislation, but has not been reviewed by our outside agencies and safety experts due to a lack of funding.

The current handbook, as mentioned earlier, is not section 508 compliant and includes links to resources that are just no longer available, so it's subsequently been removed from the CDE website. Let's consider really quickly an example of a hands-on science experiment suggested by the California Science Framework. Middle school physical science standards ask students to analyze and interpret data on the properties of substances before and after the substances interact to determine if a chemical reaction has occurred.

After investigating the combinations of various materials, the framework then suggests an activity in which students design a hand warmer that's powered by a chemical reaction. As you can imagine, guidance and science safety for classrooms, teachers, and students is imperative when working with combinations of materials that can actually produce heat. The CDE handles many inquiries from vendors, county offices of education, school districts, and teachers requesting guidance in science safety.

The absence of a fully updated and aligned handbook providing awareness and guidance regarding safe instruction in science puts the state's students and teachers at risk for accidents and injuries. An updated handbook is a valuable resource to ensure that students receive the best possible inquiry-based science instruction in a safe and supported manner when students are involved in a performance task. That concludes my remarks. I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Let me begin with what I hope will be the simpler question on the one time for the Science Safety Handbook. Why is this cost not something that the department can just take on at the moment?

So the ask for the funding is to be able to really reach out and get science experts out in the field, safety experts, in order to really create this document that compiles all of these best practices.

So you'd have to compensate individuals outside of the department, is that what you're saying?

That is correct.

How many individuals?

I don't have that number in front of me, but I can get it to you. It's part of our budget change proposal that we had submitted to get this put together.

Okay. And then on the one-time science performance assessment, I'm trying to understand exactly what it is I heard about. So it's not the actual assessment tool for the students? Or is it?

So typically when somebody hears the word assessment, they think: end of the year summative assessment. And so we already have that, the California Science Test.

So it's not that.

It's not that at all.

Okay, so what would this tool do?

This tool would be something--it would be a repository and collection of different performance tasks that educators can pick and choose and use within their classroom to help inform instruction.

Would this be like an automated system where it gives them feedback, like on the computer? Or would it be manipulatives? Or what kind of tool would this be? Or we don't know, you're-

Yeah, that's a really good question. I mean, performance assessments can involve multiple things. Performance assessments can involve--kind of like in our California Alternate Assessments, there are things that the teacher then collects from around the classroom to be able to create an opportunity for the student to demonstrate what they know and can do.

These would be very similar to that where there's something in the general classroom, a performance assessment, that then provides some result that can tell the teacher and inform them where students are in their learning.

Would you anticipate every science teacher to have access to this new assessment and for them to actually utilize it?

So using the language within the statute, yes, there would be a repository online that's freely available for educators to be able to tap into and use.

So it's an optional assessment. It would not be a required assessment.

There would be nothing required.

I should have asked this to the previous panels. But these are one-time in nature, or at least in proposal, but yet we've done other one times, and then there's comments being made that we need to continue. Is this really a one-time type of proposal? You think this funding allows you to achieve a utility of how much for how many years? What is the lasting effect of this one-time expenditure?

Well, that's a really good question. I mean, hypothetically, if you build something, there's always going to need to be some form of modification, addition, maintenance to it. So think about the science safety handbook. That was one-time funds back in 1998 to create it, but it's outdated and that guidance needs to be updated and provide science safety for students across California.

So it's one-time for now, but we might need additional funding at some point to update the assessments.

The performance tasks?

Right.

I can't anticipate whether or not there would be a request for additional funding at this time.

Thank you. We'll hold this issue open. Again, all proposals for new, one-time and ongoing Proposition 98 funding will be considered as time moves forward and in context of the May revision proposal. We will take on our final item, issue number eight. Technical assistance center proposals. A panel will review the January budget proposal for state-level technical assistance centers for homeless students and inclusive college practice. Department of Finance will present this proposal, a response by the LAO, and also input from the Department of Education on this. Department of Finance, I'll ask you to please go first.

Good morning, Chair. Jodi Lieberman with the Department of Finance. I'll be going over the investment for the California Center for Inclusive College included in the 2024 budget. The budget includes $2 million ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund to establish a technical assistance center. The technical assistance center will be housed in a county office of education and shall work in partnership with their local regional center, their local public postsecondary educational institution, and the UC Davis MIND Institute.

The center has multiple responsibilities aligned with its purpose, which is to increase awareness of and access to inclusive and experiential post-secondary education and employment opportunities through degree, certificate, and non-degree programs for students with intellectual disabilities, and to establish statewide support and coordination of the dissemination of information of programs for students with intellectual disabilities. Finally, the center will submit a report annually to the governor, the legislature, and the Department of Finance regarding the implementation of this section, relevant data and recommendations to expand evolving best practices. And that's all, I'm happy to take questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Melissa Ng with the Department of Finance. I'll be covering the homeless education technical assistance centers proposal in the Governor's Budget. The Governor's Budget includes $1.5 million ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund to maintain support for the homeless education technical assistance centers, or HE TACs, that were first established through American Rescue Plan Act-Homeless Children and Youth funds available through June 30, 2024. This funding will continue the momentum in increasing homeless youth identification and providing supports to schools serving these students to improve their academic outcomes.

While existing statutes specifies the responsibilities of HE TACs, we are also proposing additional priorities in trailer bill, which provides the HE TACs a more proactive role in supporting LEAs, including specifically providing technical assistance in implementing best practices, fostering relationships between community partners and LEAs in each region, including providing professional development and coaching opportunities to help build capacity locally, providing targeted technical assistance to LEAs for differentiated assistance for their homeless student group, which includes helping LEAs optimize existing funding streams, including LCFF and supplemental and concentration grant funding generated by these students, especially if there are spending gaps between these students and other high need student groups.

Also working collaboratively with the LEA to utilize available data through the California School Dashboard or other local data to identify achievement gaps and how to implement best practices to help improve academic outcomes. That concludes my remarks and I'm happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Edgar Cabral with the LAO. We don't have any specific comments on these proposals. I think, just consistent with our overall message, we have recommended rejecting all new spending in this budget, given the existing property shortfall and our projections that probably would be lower than even under the governor's proposal.

Just in terms of pointing out the differences here for your consideration, the Homeless Education and Technical Assistance Center is something that--this would be ongoing funding that wasn't provided, but it is an activity that has been funded with temporary federal relief funds, whereas the inclusive college would be a new proposal completely.

Thank you.

Good morning. It is my pleasure to be here today on behalf of the state Superintendent Tony Thurmond. My name is Dr. Deborah Avalos and I am the education administrator in the Integrated Student Support and Programs Office at the California Department of Education. It would be practical for the state to ensure ongoing funds to support the crucial work that the homeless education technical assistance centers, or HE TACs, have provided since their inception on November 1, 2021. The HE TACs were established through a competitive grant process.

Three county offices of education, or COEs, were selected to provide support and technical assistance to other COEs in a regional approach and to ensure they have the capacity, resources and tools required to support their LEAs with the implementation of the education for homeless children and youth, or EHCY Act. Using American Rescue Plan-Homeless Children and Youth, or ARP-HCY, state-level activity funds from 2021 to 2024, each HE TAC received $1.5 million each year of the three-year investment of ARP-HCY, which will sunset September 30, 2024.

The HE TACs have supported the CDE and all COEs across the state for the past two years by including, but not limited to: conducting regional meetings, share-and-learns, and community of practices throughout the state; customizing support and technical assistance by providing professional development opportunities, including planning and facilitating an annual statewide homeless education conference; utilizing and disseminating new and existing training modules, materials, guidance, tools and best practices in various areas of homeless education; building capacity and coaching other COE homeless liaisons within their assigned regions; creating, modeling and helping to sustain partnerships within assigned regions and or counties; and assisting rural counties and LEAs with the issues that they specifically face as it relates to homeless education.

The HE TACs are also responsible for providing statewide technical assistance and professional development, such as hosting an annual statewide homeless education conference, monthly webinars attended by hundreds of liaisons on topics such as: identification; serving refugee immigrant youth; expanded learning; students with disabilities; and leadership engagement. The most well attended and received trainings have been for school counselors and on supporting transportation rights for children and youth experiencing homelessness. This has resulted in increased attendance, fulfilling graduation requirements, and an overall increase in school participation for students experiencing homelessness.

In addition, they developed and maintained the HE TAC website, which is accessed by all LEAs in the state and hosts tip sheets specific to California issues and needs. One of the top priorities for the HE TACs is to always ensure that their work and the work of their COEs is supported by data. The HE TACs continuously work with their COEs to analyze the various data systems, such as the California School Dashboard, Dataquest, and the consolidated application and reporting system available as it relates to homeless students.

The CDE has developed a website entitled Homeless Youth in California Schools to show the state-level educational outcomes and enrollment data for the homeless youth. This website, plus the work the HE TACs continue to do assists COEs and LEAs with implementing California's system of support and meeting the needs of each student served. Along with fiscal requirements, the HE TACs are required to submit an end-of-year annual report which includes an evaluation of each HE TAC being a facilitator, resource connector, and capacity builder.

The report also addresses the pre and post needs assessment data, their collaboration and coordination with community-based organizations, and documentation of meetings. The end-of-year report showed that due to the HE TACs' work, 85% of the COE liaisons felt their confidence increased around offering school personnel professional development. 80% felt that their confidence increased in providing sample templates, forms, and procedures as defined in state and federal legislation. And 75% of the COE liaisons felt that their capacity increased in identifying student needs and services.

Continuation of the HE TAC work is integral to ensure that the COEs and LEAs continue to benefit from the resources, materials, innovative ideas, and professional development offered by the HE TACs on an ongoing basis. Since the inception of the HE TACs, identification of youth experiencing homelessness in the 2022-23 academic year has increased by over 15,000 students, while statewide enrollment decreased by nearly 40,000 students. That concludes CDE's remarks on the HE TAC proposal. I'm happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. I think on this one you've all seen the questions. Certainly interested in whether IDEA funding would be able to support the inclusive college proposal, interested in knowing why the inclusive college proposal is eligible for Prop 98 funds, and then like to know if CDE is anticipating any ... to carryover to be available to support the Homeless Technical Assistance Center proposal. We'll ask if you can submit those responses in writing and we will hold open this item.

Again, all proposals for new one-time and ongoing Proposition 98 funding will be considered in the context of the May revision revenues, which we will continue to monitor. So with that, we will now take public comment that remains in the room. I ask you to please come forward. And you will have a minute to share your thoughts, and I will let you know when the minute has expired. Welcome.

Hi. Good afternoon, good morning, whatever it is now. Katie Hardeman with the California Teachers Association. Want to appreciate the conversation today and the legislature's support in trying to help address the ongoing educator shortage. We specifically support the National Board Certification program, which has been effective in improving quality and diversity of the educated workforce, and not specifically on the agenda today, but wanted to urge the support of the committee on maintaining funding for community schools. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Tiffany Mok with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals. Thank you, Chair, for this hearing and the thoughtful discussion we've had on these items. On issue one, we appreciate the credentialing programs overall. Without them, we'd have a greater shortage. For issue number two, we support the Golden State teacher grants. We further support more unification, streamlining, and greater accessibility to teacher apprenticeship programs. Many apprenticeship programs have helped candidates draw a salary and a stipend to ensure candidates can participate. Apologies, back to number one.

We also wanted to note our support of the classified teacher pipeline and that it's helped many of our members. And while we want to be efficient with our dollars, we support a living wage allocation to support accessibility for all potential candidates. For issue number five, we support the governor's proposal in funding professional development and dyslexia. We also appreciate the Chair's helpful questions that focus the implementation needs for all students, including English learners. And finally, for number six, we support funding of all professional development and growth for our educators. So thank you for reviewing these items.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Alvarez. Mark MacDonald, MGI Advocacy on behalf of National University. On the Golden State Teacher Grant Program: it's one important tool to attract quality teachers. We support the continuation of the program and look to be a partner as you consider potential changes that were discussed today. And thank you for the lively discussion on that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Brianna Bruns with the California County Superintendents representing the 58 county superintendents of schools. Thank you for the hearing on this very important topic today. We support the intent of the investments in the math and science curriculum and professional development proposals, though we urge the legislature to integrate the proposals into existing initiatives. Moreover, we appreciate the efforts to address the educator shortages via the transcript review for subject matter competency and the updated basic skills proficiency. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there. Heather Calomese, EdVoice. In regards to the Golden State Teacher Grant Program funding, school districts in low-income communities across California that serve predominantly students of color are less likely to have experience in certified teachers and classrooms. It's important that diverse and effective teachers and strong staff personnel have major impact and learning on overall success of students. In fact, a recent analysis of California schools found that 40% more teachers in low-income schools lack the necessary qualifications than teachers in higher-income schools.

It's critical that California continues to invest and strengthen programs such as the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and consider alternate options as the money is potentially running out in this budget year and potentially focusing dollars on the highest need schools as we're moving forward to maximize and stretch dollars as well.

In terms of the universal screening for struggling readers, we know that the lack of delay in screening for students that are struggling readers or risk of dyslexia will result in unnecessary delays in receiving supports and intervention. Therefore, we support the proposal moving forward as is in the implementation, so that students are able to receive the services in this coming school year.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair. Ines Rosales with Public Advocates and we strongly support the Governor's Budget proposal to streamline the educator preparation process by recognizing a BA as satisfying the basic skills requirement and improving transcript review to certify subject matter competency, and we request that you support these measures. Streamlining requirements that are redundant is critical to addressing the barriers that some teacher candidates face during this time of teacher shortages. Our teacher credentialing system should be rigorous, supportive, and accessible.

This requirement is simply no longer necessary as requirements have been strengthened to go beyond basic skills and toward demanding highly specialized teachers. We also urge you to protect funding for the Golden State teacher, the teacher residency, and the National Board Certification incentive programs, all of which are really necessary to strengthen and diversify and prepare our teachers in this state. So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is William Magan. I'm a first-generation Latino second-year student studying political science international relations at the University of California, San Diego. Me and my peers will be giving public input today on the prioritizing Cal Grant reform in this year's budget. We know this hearing is concerned with K-12 education and teacher credentialing, but we think investment in the Cal Grant reform will ensure that more students are able to pursue higher education, including teaching careers.

My attendance at UCSD wouldn't be possible without the funding that I am able to receive from the Cal Grant. The Cal Grant is paramount to the financial aid that I am able to receive. Without the Cal Grant, I wouldn't be able to afford much of the tuition at UC San Diego. Me and my family would struggle very much to attend--for allowing me to attend the prestigious university of UCSD. Every student deserves access to higher education, no matter their background.

Making college and higher education more accessible and affordable across California means you are prioritizing an investment in California's economic growth, workforce development, students and its future. If you don't support the Cal Grant reform, students across the state will be denied their dreams and parents' hopes, of their children attaining a better life.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is ... Lopez. I am a third-year political science student at UCSD. As a mom, a wife, and a full-time student, I am struggling to survive. My husband is active duty in the United States Navy. I hold two jobs. And yet we're struggling once again. The Cal Grant is crucial for the most marginalized communities, like Latino students, Black students, first-generation students, or undocumented students have--stop funding prisons and start funding education. Without Cal Grant, I will not be here.

Without Cal Grant, I will have added onto the 52% of student with dependents that were forced to drop out. Without Cal Grant, my daughter will have to be forced to continue checking off high school education or lower. Without Cal Grant reform, what would become of our generation? I am here today to plead to you today to fund the Cal Grant equity framework. This is for our generation, our future generations, and most importantly, my daughter's generation.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Eduardo, third-year student at UC San Diego and I serve as the Vice President of External Affairs representing the over 33,000 undergraduate students at our university. So we would like to highlight the importance of funding the Cal Grant reform. This is important to ensure that students who would like to become teachers and can access--and want to access higher education can do so with reduced constraints, financial constraints.

We understand that there's a budget deficit this year, but the funding of this program would be an investment to the future of this state, including future educators. Students on our campuses are struggling to live with their allocation of financial aid and are struggling to meet their basic needs. The funding of Cal Grant reform will reduce the number of students experiencing homelessness and food insecurity.

The Food and Housing Survey of the California Student Aid Commission found that two-thirds of students were identified as food insecure, along with half were found as being housing insecure. So as you think about ensuring students are adequately prepared for their K-12 education, let's also make sure that they gain access to financial support needed to succeed in higher education and not have them be another statistic on their lack of basic needs as they seek a better future. Support the Cal Grant equity framework. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Shanti Murietta. I'm a third-year poli-sci major at UCSB and I'm currently the Fund the UC campaign coordinator under Associated Students. This coordinating position has really allowed me to grasp how important Cal Grant is for marginalized and underrepresented students and middle-class students like myself.

I am just right above the financial ceiling for receiving any Cal Grant and if the reform were to be passed and prioritized in the budget, it would allow around 137,000 additional students to receive this Cal Grant if the ceilings were raised. So personally, my own parents are both professors in higher education and it's ironic that they can't even afford to comfortably put me through what they teach themselves--and without me having to work two jobs, being on a paid AS position and having to take out loans, which ultimately leads to me not being able to fully delve into my studies, explore postgrad research and career options, and overall experience--more opportunities that would lead me to overall grow, which is ultimately what the point of college is for.

Thank you.

Overall, yeah, just support Cal Grant reform.

Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Anna Stone. I'm a fourth-year student at UC San Diego. Investing in Cal Grant reform is not only investing in the next generation of students, but also investing in our California's teachers. All students should have the opportunity to access higher education regardless of income status. Funding the Cal Grant reform would provide over 130,000 students the opportunity to pursue higher education.

In addition to the critical historic gains this would mean for the Black and Latine community, this would also open the door for 18,000 AAPI students, particularly Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander students who are vastly underrepresented in higher education. If we truly want to address our educator shortage and invest in the diversity of our teachers, the Cal Grant needs to be a top priority for funding as the final numbers for the budget are developed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Ruby Garcia. I'm a first-generation low-income Latine student. My identities are often tied to connotations such as failure, less than incompetent. I'm here to inform you that I do not engender any of those qualities and have been able to prove myself within higher education due to the financial help I receive from Cal Grant reform. Cal Grant has given me access to resources and opportunities I otherwise would not have as both of my parents are convicted felons who do not support me financially. Despite the circumstances I was born into, because of Cal Grant, I'm making a difference and impacting others' lives for the better.

Expanding the Cal Grant equity framework to fit circumstances that are non-traditional would only ensure that we are bettering the future of society, breaking cycles of economic deficit within minority communities, and all in all, finally creating equitable access to higher education. University has nurtured my passion for learning as I stand before you today as a successful, cultivative, and intelligent student whom attends UC San Diego, the most expensive city in the nation.

I am associated in student government as a communications director and I take part in a multicultural organization that strives for academic success and uplifting the community through volunteer efforts. Myself and many of my peers would not be able to continue their education if it was not for Cal Grant. Without it, we would not be able to contribute to society overall.

Thank you very much. Thank you everybody for being here. Thank you for your public testimony. We will adjourn. We have a meeting tomorrow on higher education at 1:30. We're adjourned.