Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education

On education to order, and I will have a roll call to establish a quorum when the other Members formally arrive. This is the fifth hearing of the budget Subcommitee, number one on education and will cover some crossover issues to kindergarten through 12 in higher education. There are seven items on today's agenda. These might not be the highest profile items compared to doing Proposition 98 and UC and student aid and some of the other ones.

But we make it a point to air every single issue so that it has been discussed along the way and we can take input and make sure that we feed it into the may revise and to the deliberations between the houses. And as you'll see if you've seen the agenda, the last few items do fit together in terms of teacher shortages, credentialing, expediting the process and other things, even though we have them listed out as individual items in the hearing.

And so we will go through each of the seven items and then we will do public comment after the seven items. And so let me remind everybody that if you have comments and you're watching this and not able to be here, we welcome the comments at the website or at the care of the Senate Budget Committee. And so while now under the rules, compared to what happened in the pandemic and post pandemic, we don't allow telephone testimony.

We do like to make sure people know that they can write and participate through the website if they cannot be at the hearing in person, to offer comments at the end of the session. So with that, we will move to issue number one, the California College Guidance initiative. And we have Melissa Ng from the Department of Finance, Tessa Deroy from the California College Guidance Initiative, Madison Jablonski Sheffield from the California Student Aid Commission and Jackie Barrocio from the Legislative Analyst Office.

And we will go in that order. And I understand that the microphone that people were having problems with last week has been fixed. And the trouble is, apparently people were turning it off when they thought they were turning it on and it didn't look like it worked. So we will work to make sure that that that's a functional microphone as we go through the hearing. So we'll begin with the Department of Finance. Welcome to the Committee.

Good morning. Can you hear me? Is it on? Okay, thank you. Good morning. Chair Melissa Ng with the Department of Finance. I'll be presenting on the Governor's Budget proposals for the California College guidance initiative, or CCGI. The Governor's Budget includes an increase of 5.084 million. Proposition 98 General Fund for CCGI to continue scaling its services as part of its role as the operational tool of the cradle to career data system. The additional funding will be used for increased personnel costs and to meet the rising infrastructure costs as CCGI continues to scale.

CCGI is entering year three of a planned five year scaling process in which it will expand provisions of its tools and services to all local educational agencies serving students grades six through 12. This request is in line with previous projections for scaling and will ensure CCGI has the resources to continue adding partner districts, integrate with higher education applications, and develop college and career planning tools and technology to better serve students and educators.

Currently, CCGI is partnered with a little over half of the eligible districts, with many districts potentially facing greater barriers to entry. The increase proposed in Governor's Budget will bring the total ongoing appropriation to 23.7 million. With this increase, we believe CCGI is at the limit for cost for scaling, barring inflation or other unforeseen factors, and we would not anticipate future major funding increases, especially since certain increases like vendor costs could be offset by improved internal operational efficiencies. When CCGI is at scale.

CCGI's purpose and function are codified in Education code Section 60900.5, and this budget request is on track with early projections for the cost to fully scale this work statewide. CCGI is also required to provide transcript informed accounts to all 9th through 12th grade students by June 2026, which is the end of phase one implementation of the cradle to career legislation. So the agenda does a good job of laying out the proposed amendments included in trailer Bill Language.

So I won't go into the details to describe each amendment, but overall the purpose of a majority of the amendments is to help facilitate the implementation of transportation transcript informed partner accounts for all 9th to 12th grade students and to help ensure that student records are accurately recorded and students get credit for the courses they complete.

This includes requiring local educational agencies to enter a data sharing agreement with CCGI by January 1, 2026 and standardizing a common structure to data elements that are reported to CCGI to streamline ways of submitting data and reduce the need to clean data and to store and report data elements in accordance with the California high school transcript and student record portability standard. That concludes my remarks and I also have with me Tessa De Roy from CCGI to answer any programmatic questions you may have on the CCGI proposals.

Okay, thank you very much. And you don't want to make a presentation, you'll just need to remark four things before we get to the Student Aid Commission. We're going to pause and have a call of the roll to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Okay. With one person here and one person present, we've established a quorum. Thank you very much. Now we'll move on to the California Student Aid Commission. Thank you for being here.

Madison Sheffield, as California Student Commission also, no comments, but happy to be here for any questions.

Okay, thank you. And then we'll move to the Legislative Analyst's office.

Jackie Barocio, Legislative Analyst Office with regards to the trailer Bill Language, it seems like the proposed system changes may make it easier for districts, especially small districts, to partner with CCGI. But in our analysis, and it's included in your agenda, we just lied that the Legislature may want to consider any potential workload implications on districts or other state entities.

And then with regards to the proposed funding augmentation, again, given the Proposition 98 shortfall that we've discussed in details in prior hearings, we're just recommending that the Legislature reject any new augmentations. And to the extent that rejecting the augmentation would result in delays in statutorily required activities, the Legislature could also just push out those implementation dates.

We would flag that one potential budget solution within CCGI is to the extent that costs come in lower in the current year in 2324 just using those carryover funds to further offset baseline costs in 24-25. Last year in 22-23 there were some carryover funds of around $3 million. So if that were to occur again, just proactively scoring the carryover and reducing baseline costs in 24-25.

And does that complete your comment? Thank you very much. Then I have a couple of questions and I'll see if, okay. Please note for the record, Senator Wilk deferred to me. Yes, but I hope it's a pattern. One thing I wanted to ask is our agenda is really clear on the numbers that we have moved to, but it's clear that there's a bunch of districts that aren't yet partnering.

So speak to, I don't know who's better, maybe the CCGI speak to who hasn't done it yet, what your expectation is and how that fits to sort of the program costs and maybe whether it fits to other things such as the smaller school districts not having the capacity. I was curious as to why people haven't joined us yet.

Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for the question. So the reason that largely where we are seeing gaps in the state at this point is in the north state and the eastern sierras, obviously, those are districts with much smaller enrollment and fewer staff. So it's parts of the state where it's difficult to implement many things.

One of the nice things about the work that we do and the proposed strategy that we're pivoting to is that there are essentially six private companies that manage student information systems for all of the districts in the state, right? So these are the systems where all the records are kept about attendance, about courses and grades, about vaccination, all of the information. Right.

So unlike many things that are difficult to implement in these smaller districts, in this work, we have worked with the Department of Education and the three public higher education segments in the state to establish the first ever California high school transcript standard.

So it's a set of rules about how student records should be captured and transmitted across systems to alleviate the burden on students and to make sure that the higher ed systems have the information they need to make decisions about things like admission and placement, financial aid.

And so the proposed language is about ensuring that the private sector student information system providers comply with that standard, meaning that they create actual data fields where information can be stored in a way that benefits students as they're trying to apply to higher education and get credit for things like a through g courses that they've taken in other districts, for example, which right now cannot be stored, or dual enrollment courses that they took during high school. But that it's very difficult.

There isn't uniformity in how the student information systems are capturing that right now. And so it's creating chaos around how students are or are not getting credit for the coursework that they've come across completed. So a lot of the language is about ensuring that those systems, those student information system vendors, comply with the standard and then build out what's called an advanced programming interface, which is just a real time data exchange. It's something that they can do readily because they're technology companies that districts cannot do.

So, historically, what you will see in terms of our growth and our scale has been, there was a whole bunch of early adopter districts. Most districts that serve more than 5000 students at this point are in partnership with us because those are the districts that tend to have dedicated data and technology staff who have enough sophistication on how to generate the queries that we need in order for them to upload data to us.

I will say when there is turnover, and there's a lot right now, we do go through periods where there was one person in a district who knew how to do that, and now they don't anymore. By systematizing this through the private sector systems that they purchase, it actually will make sure we have continuous data from all districts, not just from smaller.

The thing let me go into the two other issues, which is capacity and money. But given what you described, it sounds like that's really hard for a rural district to have the capacity to do that. Am I missing that, or do they contract with this company and they do it?

Yeah, so the companies. They already have these contracts with the companies. Every district has some kind of a student information system. Only Los Angeles and Fresno use homegrown systems. Every other local educational agency has some form of student information system, and this.

Comes from their Local Control Funding Formula, money as part of.

I don't know exactly how every district funds it because they may use different sources, but, yes, it is part of their. It's used their ADA and their LCAP.

Their local control, so that if some of these rural districts have student information systems that are compatible with just doing this, then it's not an additional cost.

It actually reduces. It's no additional cost, and they all have them, so there is no additional cost. The workload actually gets reduced and the barrier to entry gets reduced. So right now, what you have is staff in districts who generate files and upload them to us. Some have automated that because they have a certain level of sophistication on how to do that. Some have to manually pull it as often as they're uploading, which is generally somewhere between weekly and once a month.

In this shift in strategy, when all of these student information systems can do this in an automated fashion, it is a one time setup that I could do, and I'm not a technology person, where you would literally go in and say, here are the data elements that are needed for these student transcript records. Yes, please send this. No, please don't send that by checkbox. And then hands off. And the technology just talks to each other, which, again, makes it a lot easier on the districts, also makes it easier on my students.

And the one question I would have as a follow up to that is, do the districts know? Do they understand? Do these small districts understand what it would take to do this? Because if that's where the people haven't been signing up and you represent that, it might save the money. It leads me to believe they don't understand that that's true.

Well, we're not there yet, right. So we're on the front end of creating the integrations that will make it easier for them to sign up. So there's work to be done to, to make that possible. So we are beginning those partnerships with the student information vendors, but they're not all going to do it on the natural, it's not required of them. Then it's not going to rise to the top of their priority list for development.

Which is why we're requesting that it become a requirement of doing business with school districts in California is their ability to comply with this set of standards. The districts that we have met with the school, small school districts Association talked it through with them. We talk with a lot of small districts who, I mean, some of them are moving into the system irrespective because they are able to do the lift on the data that they need to do.

Our experience has been that the districts that we're not yet partnered with are districts where there's literally no one who is dedicated to college and career, so they don't show up in the same places where all the other districts gather to talk about those issues. And that's why they don't know about it.

And let me ask, because the Legislative Analyst was concerned about the additional money, what can be done given what we're talking about with the current money and what would require additional money to do as we scale this up?

So the budget proposes 5 million for CCGI to continue this work. Reach out to these just

5 million above where it is now or continuing 5 million.

Ongoing 5 million

But it's already ongoing. Or this establishes 5 million that's never been funded before, that then becomes ongoing additional 5 million. Okay, thank you.

What the Legislative Analyst Office pointed to we will have carry forward at the end of this year. So actually we don't need the full 5 million any that we had originally proposed. I can run additional projections, but we're right now looking at about a $3 million carry forward.

I'm confident everybody's going to be interested in that.

I know they will.

But then the other question is, you do the 3 million, ask for five, so it's 2 million more. What doesn't happen if the Legislative Analyst's recommendation were adopted that we not do a new additional thing? What is missing by not getting that $2 million that would be added to the carryover?

I think as La pointed out, there might be a need to kind of delay the requirements in statute because there is a timeline for when these partner accounts need to be online and it's 2026.

But am I to deduce from that answer that the thing that we wouldn't get is get it on time and we would have to delay it, is that what you're saying? I'm trying to figure out if we use the carryover toward the 5 million and we don't do the 2 million that are on top of it, what do we lose? That's what I'm trying to get.

Can I, may I. The policy changes, the adjustments that are proposed, like putting these requirements on the student information system vendors, that actually will save money in terms of our operations. It builds efficiencies for us that will allow us to actually operate with a little bit less money than we otherwise would.

But not till the future year, correct?

It will take a couple years, but.

That we're preparing for this year.

I understand.

Truly budgetary myopic fashion.

Yeah, no, I understand. And so I can happily run additional projections and provide them to staff to answer that question in detail.

Then let me ask the Legislative Analyst if you'd like to make a comment on the discussion we've been having here.

I think we noted that to the extent it does get in the way of just the timing of certain activities being achieved, delaying those in statute, but the conversation around the trailer Bill, at least to the extent of adopting those standards, in theory, those aren't necessarily have costs associated with it, because it would be an expectation placed off on the private vendors to modernize their systems to comply with that.

And that would be a step in the direction and a step needed to comply with those like overall state goals. So there is that ability to adopt the TBL change, acknowledging that that's the first step in the process, using any carryover funds, if the Legislature chooses to, for that partial augmentation and then revisiting. Okay. After we adopt that first stage next year, come back, what additional resources are needed?

Or has that adopting the standards already freed up internal capacity where that $2 million is no longer needed?

Okay, thank you. Let me ask my colleagues again if there's any questions on this, then let me sort of close by saying this has been a good discussion. I think it has aired it out in a way that between now and May 15 or maybe June 15, we know the discussion we need to have, and there's ways to do some of this that doesn't require cost.

There might be a carryover, that's an issue, and then there's a decision about whether we go over the carryover and what gets lost in the process. But I think that there's a puzzle here that can be pieced together. So I would thank everybody for their comments and feel like we have a path for discussions for the next period of time. So thank you.

Then we'll move to issue number two, math curriculum professional development. We have Megan Sabbah from the Department of Finance, Cheryl Cotton from the Department of Education, and I note that the Legislative Analyst did not switch out, so we know who will be there. And let's go in that order. So when you're ready, let's begin with the Department of Finance.

Good morning, chair Members of the Committee, Megan Sabbah, Department of Finance I'll provide a brief overview of this proposal. The Governor's Budget includes 20,000,001 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 Math project, the funds would be available through June 2028. That concludes my comments.

Thank you very much. And then we'll move to the Department of Education. Welcome.

Good morning, everyone. In 2023, the State Board of Education adopted a new mathematics framework to help educators align classroom teaching with California's mathematics learning standards to provide additional support for educators in aligning the 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 proposed budget language is in alignment with Senate Bill 1115, authored by Senator Limon and sponsored by state Superintendent Thurman, which authorizes the CDE to create partnerships to provide targeted, cohesive professional learning for all teachers, specifically in support of the new math framework. Given the status of mathematics access and achievement, California and the United States have needed to develop new approaches for deepening math learning, addressing achievement gaps, and modernizing instruction to meet the demands of a fast changing world.

These demands require new approaches that draw from proven, evidence based outcomes for pupils and research on effective educator knowledge and instruction. We want to provide the kind of professional learning support that improves student engagement, combats inequities, and serves educators where they are appealing to their varied responsibilities, and meeting them at their current career stages and roles.

While California saw less pandemic decline than other states on national math tests, we still see, I'm sorry, we still rank below the national average on fourth and 8th grade math assessments. In 2022, only 33% of students met or exceeded assessments in mathematics, and substantial achievement gaps continue to exist, especially for African American indian and Alaska native and Latino students.

The proposed Mathematics Professional development project entails a collaborative effort between the California Department of Education, a select County Office of Education, and the California Mathematics Project, this partnership seeks to address the critical need in our education system, the development and provision of comprehensive training for mathematics coaches and educators. So over the last year or so, we've had many discussions with teachers and teacher leaders and administrators in schools where students are thriving in mathematics classrooms.

Despite the upheaval of the past several years and our performance, our student performance at this time, they've told us a few things. They've said that we need instructional coaches. Instructional coaches are critical for building teacher math knowledge and improving instructional practices. Teachers on special assignment and math coordinators who act as teaching coaches and leaders of professional development are effective in modeling lessons for both new and veteran teachers.

As was highlighted that we've seen through powerful professional learning, multiple districts have reported that getting administrators to understand the math framework and what they should be looking for in mathematics classrooms is an important part of the effort.

To raise the quality of math instruction and provide consistency across classrooms and school sites and then buy in from teachers is important for effective professional development and providing a variety of choice in what kind of professional development they need and how they receive it allows teachers to enter professional development where they feel they need the most support and in ways that will most positively translate into improved math instruction.

Funding for the Mathematics Professional Development project along with state for I'm sorry Senate Bill 1115 will equip instructional coaches and educators with the tools and training needed to enhance the quality of math instruction delivered in our classrooms. I do want to add that SB 1015 goes further to provide evidence based professional learning across a wider range of school districts. So thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much and we'll move on to the Legislative Analyst.

Also mentioned in your agenda is there is proposed trailer Bill Language to clarify that the learning recovery block grant can be used for mathematic framework professional development activities. And given that we just view that the proposal for the $20 million seems duplicative with that clarification. So again, given that overlap, but then also the state budget condition recommend rejecting the $20 million proposal. We do acknowledge that one drawback is we're relying on locals to make the decision on what type of mathematic framework professional development to provide.

Rather than adopting this more statewide approach. If the Legislature wanted to do a more statewide approach, it could just try to identify what existing Fund sources do we have that could absorb this additional $20 million cost and potentially or a Fund source that maybe we can just set aside a portion of dollars to support this specific initiative as opposed to providing new money. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Then my one question is to the Department of Finance, and it's off of that, like, what will be provided by the 20 million that wouldn't be provided otherwise? And is it or is it not sort of duplicative of what's going on? How would you speak to that?

Megan Sabbah, Department of Finance so the Learning Recovery Emergency Block grant, the provision included in the Governor's Budget trailer Bill, it, it is an example of various supports that are allowable uses of those funds. So while an LEA can use their emergency block grant funds for training aligned with the new mathematics framework for teachers, there's no guarantee that they will.

So carving out this $20 million proposal ensures that there are funds available for leas or local educational agencies to ensure that educators get this training and that they have resources to meet this new framework.

Okay. Let me ask if there's questions from my colleagues here.

That was the question I had. So it comes down to question of priorities. So I'm hoping the priority is this program, because, accoring, you look at the data, it's much needed. I don't no, Questions?

No. That's a helpful comment, Senator Min then I think we've just had the discussion that sets up your discussion for between now and the end of the budget time.

And of course, it'll be influenced by the fact of whether we have money in the universe. That's why anything that's new is really subject to real questioning as we move ahead. But I feel like we dealt with that issue. So thank you. We appreciate your comments. And we're going to move to issue three, the literacy screener professional development.

We have two return witnesses, and then Nancy Brynelson from the Department of Education will join us and we will go in that order, starting with the Department of Finance.

Megan Sabbah, Department of Finance so I'll give you a brief overview of this proposal. The Governor's Budget as a reminder, the 2023 Budget act, rather, required local educational agencies, or leas, to begin screening pupils in kindergarten through second grade for risk of reading difficulties by the 202526 school year. The screenings will be a tool that leas can use to identify pupils experiencing difficulty reading.

To support the implementation of the screenings, the Governor's Budget includes an increase of 25 million ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund to the mandates block grant beginning in 202425 to support training for educators to administer the literacy screenings as required by the 2023 Budget act trailer Bill Language provides an allocation methodology for those funds.

So so, commencing with the 202425 fiscal year, the language proposes to allocate funds to leas at a per pupil rate using fall one census enrollment data for pupils in kindergarten through grade two, consistent with the requirement in law. This concludes my overview.

Thank you and then welcome. We'll go to the Department of Education.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair and Members of the Subcommitee, I'm Nancy Brynelson, statewide literacy co Director for the California Department of Education.

Presenting today on behalf of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond, I will begin by supporting the implementation of the screening for risk of reading difficulties along the timeline outlined in Education code 53,008, which would mean that this coming school year 2024-25 is a planning and preparation year, and then the following year would be when all school districts in California would need to implement this screening for students in kindergarten through grade two.

I will outline some of those preparation steps that districts need to take so that you see their importance and the fact that districts will incur some upfront costs this coming school year related to professional development, and I'll talk a bit more about what that will entail, the selection of an instrument or instruments from the approved list and the development of plans to implement the screening that will include staffing and scheduling and reporting and communication strategies, etcetera.

Not funding these startup costs this coming year will push back implementation, most likely beyond the beginning of the 25-26 school year, as districts need to ramp up and really consider how they will implement these new requirements.

Importantly, the effective use of new screeners for risk of reading difficulties depends on implementing them within a comprehensive assessment system that informs data based decision making within a multi tiered system of support that begins with screeners at the universal level of instruction for early identification and to determine if any additional assessment or interventions are needed. However, screeners alone are not sufficient. A comprehensive system also includes diagnostic assessments.

Should further assessment be indicated by the screening, periodic benchmark assessments to determine student progress and response to instruction, and ongoing classroom formative assessment processes? In addition, all of this must be accompanied by high quality curricular and instructional resources, including interventions for students who need them. So what specifically do districts need to do? So starting in the fall? Yes, we won't have a list in September.

Leas need to analyze their own systems of assessment, curriculum, instruction, and intervention to create the infrastructure needed to implement this in the event that they aren't already doing it. Or perhaps they are. Furthermore, they need to determine the professional learning necessary to build knowledge of reading difficulties including dyslexia. Leas can look to what the panel is doing now, the reading difficulties risk screener selection panel that was appointed by the State Board in January, and they're developing criteria for the evaluation of those instruments.

And so districts could be looking to provide professional learning for their educators in all of the domains enumerated in the education code. Educators also need to learn about screening and assessment, considerations for multilingual and culturally diverse students, and appropriate interventions for those individuals. And they need to know about evidence based classroom interventions for any student who is identified as having a risk for reading difficulty. So that's the fall we're ramping up. We're planning.

Then in the winter and spring, after the list is established, the district needs to turn its attention to actually reviewing the instruments that are approved, perhaps piloting them. That would be a best practice involving their faculty, all their educators, compensating teachers for their staff time to review these instruments and selecting the instruments that are most appropriate for the student populations. So keeping the intent of the screeners to ensure early identification of students who need additional reading support and not the diagnosis of disabilities.

So that's an important point, is that this does not automatically qualify a child for any particular service, but it does indicate either risk or possible existence of a disability and then the need to do further work. The other provision that's probably important to note here is that in the ED code, it encourages the identification of instruments in the home languages of students, should those be available and meet the criteria.

There are provisions for additional or alternate methods of determining students risk of reading difficulties that would be conducted by the LAA should an instrument not be available. And so districts are going to need to plan for that, provide professional learning staff for that, etcetera. So all in all, there is work to be done, and it needs to be done thoughtfully within a comprehensive system, and we recommend that we stay on track and that we support districts with the resources necessary to do the job.

Thank you. I'm sure we'll have some questions. Let's move to the Legislative Analyst.

As noted in your agenda, in our review of the proposal overall, we recommend delaying the implementation date of this screener requirement specifically because, as it relates to the training funds, the $25 million is not necessarily tied to anything in particular because, one, the screener tools have yet to be developed, the list of possible screening tools, and local education agencies have yet to select which screening tools they would use, and then the number of educators that would need to be trained to administer these tools.

So it's very difficult to assess the accuracy of cost at this point in time. Secondly, the funding mechanism going through the mandates block grant. Traditionally, we provide funds after the activity has been implemented and we have a sense of actual cost. So we're proposing dollars through the Mandate Block Grant earlier than traditional practices.

So overall, we recommend again delaying the overall implementation date of the screener tools because this would allow the Legislature to properly assess ongoing costs, not just training costs, but any other associated assessment costs that would result from the screeners. It would also allow the Legislature to determine what mechanism to Fund these activities. Should we go through the block grant or make an annual budget appropriation that the Legislature could monitor and have the flexibility to adjust on an ongoing basis?

But then also, again, it would avoid adding an additional ongoing cost at this time when we're forecasting that 98 cannot support even existing commitments. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Let me start by asking my colleagues if there's questions. Senator Min

I guess without, I don't mean to sound flip like, is it hard to tell if people have literacy issues and what are the existing tools? Do any of our leas already have tools in place? And I guess that would be Department of Education.

Many leas have purchased screening instruments to use. The intent of a screening instrument is to be brief and to assess a whole range of issues from phonological awareness, Alphabet knowledge. There are about 10 specific things I could name. And so these instruments need to be carefully designed to, to be brief, appropriate for the age of these students, and to yield valid and reliable results.

So, I mean, teachers always have a sense, but the purpose of universal screening is to make sure that no child falls between the cracks. And the advocates for this would say that too many children have in the past and show up later in third grade and fourth grade as having significant difficulties in perhaps even qualifying for special education because they didn't get the type of support earlier on that would have avoided that.

I appreciate the answers that I guess I follow up and ask, I mean, how would you respond to the Laos point, which I think is a fair one, and we're in a very budget constrained environment. We're talking about, you know, pulling back on a lot of different sources of funding. This is a program that will have an ongoing cost that many leas may already be doing to some degree. I mean, I guess.

Can you make the case to us that this is, look, I think we all think literacy is crucial, and literacy screening seems like a valuable tool, but it's a tool that will require training, purchasing the tools. And I know that many of our teachers are already overworked as it is. They have a number of resources available to address literacy.

So I guess, you know, what's the case we should make for funding this program now, as opposed to maybe in the future when perhaps we have more money.

The advantage of assessing students early on in the school year, and I'm talking about the 25-26 school year, is that we can plan instruction appropriately for the remainder of the year or identify children who need further assessment. That means if we do some backwards mapping here, we need to identify the instruments, we need to do specific professional development for those instruments, create schedules and perhaps even higher staff to do that. That's going to be a big question.

Classroom teachers may be the ones doing these assessments, but they may need to be supported by additional staff so that they have the time to do so, the right time for professional learning is spring and summer so that you can implement in the fall. That's the cycle that almost every school district is on.

And so for a shift, a legislative cycle as well, for a shift this massive, we can't wait till school opens in August and then say, zero, by the way, you know, in two weeks you'll need to do this and we need to give you a schedule, tell you how to talk to your parents, et cetera, et cetera.

So we just feel strongly that all the planning needs to occur so that purchasing happens in the spring of 25 and professional learning begins and all the infrastructure for intervention is established.

Then let me ask a follow up question, because this has been a very high level discussion about budget and process, and I'm trying to understand if I'm a kid that's struggling with learning, how do I see this? How do I see my needs addressed? How does it come out of the end of all?

Ah, so what is it we're going to do as a result?

No, do it from the vantage point of a student. You're talking about all the things up to the student. I want to know, how does a student see this and how does a student benefit?

A student benefits because they are supported to stay on track with the skills they need to learn to be proficient in literacy. Students who become further and further behind in the primary grades experience trauma. Their parents.

Let me ask it a different way. I'm a student that's behind in the earlier grades. How does this reach me? When does this actually get to me? How do I experience, there's a difference in my experience because of this program.

It gets to you almost immediately. Because if we're using the multi tiered system of support and the continuum of support, we have universal support instruction for all students. We have supplemental support for students who have specific needs that can be in class. It can be supported by paraprofessionals, by reading language arts specialists, and then for students with more intensive needs, we have intensified support right away. And so thus begins a process. In kindergarten and first grade, I was a former school principal.

We used to be told, you gotta wait till there's a gap in between their potential and their performance. And we waited till third and fourth grade. Those kids didn't catch up. Okay, we need to design that system to make sure that continuum of support is really implemented. So this is a bigger issue than just the screener. This is really making sure that leas understand how to create this. Now, we've been working on this for a long time.

It's in our framework, it's in professional learning that we already do. But as the student, they should start to see changes. They may need more instruction on a particular skill, and they may need intensified instruction in this skill so that they can.

This actually at some point really does get to them.

It has to get to them.

I know it has to. I'm asking if it does, because that's the thing that worries me, that we have a perfect process and it never quite gets to them.

It really depends on the LEA putting into place the plans for that continuum of support and making sure that all teachers have high quality professional learning and that they have the instructional materials needed to implement such a program. This needs to be carefully planned, carefully constructed, carefully monitored, step by step. So that indeed, just what you're saying.

So as long as there's a lot more money and a lot more effort and a budget constrained thing, this will work.

I would say that this has all the potential to work if we pay attention to the implementation of universal screening and all of the attendant

Finance doesn't Usually want to talk, but they have asked to talk.

Megan Sabbah, Department of Finance I just wanted to kind of quickly color some of the comments that my colleague from the Department is making with more of a fiscal perspective. So the current requirement in law requires that leas begin screening pupils in the 25-26 school year in that kindergarten to second grade grade span. We have data, and I'll leave it to my colleague to color that data further, that students are falling behind in reading and literacy right now.

So if we delay implementation of this requirement, we delay identification of reading difficulties and reading disabilities in students. And I want to note here, too, that parents are also brought into this conversation when they get the results of the reading screening. So this makes parents aware that there may be reading or literacy difficulty going on with their child. So delaying this would delay identification.

So I can't really speak to further screening, but I can speak to the identification component, which every child would have access to in California under the current proposal. And then to speak a little bit more to costs. I want to quickly recognize, say that the Administration recognizes that upfront costs of implementation will likely be higher.

And so this language of providing the $25 million carved out upfront avoids dilution of the funds and acknowledges that the shape of these funds may likely change over time as we start to see mandate test claims come through the process. And we would likely see those costs come down in the out years.

Why? Why would they come down in the out years?

They would come down and sorry, they would come down in the out years because the upfront cost of implementation training, adopting screening tools for LEAs, it's more costly once they have given the costs of disproportionately frontline.

Okay. And then I had another follow up question. I've noticed in what said it's that every student and every student has been mentioned, but how do you make sure that English learners and kids that might be multilingual in different ways are not, are caught in this and that their issues are actually addressed?

So my fellow panelists from the Department talked a little bit about this. The proposed trailer Bill requires that professionals professional development is consistent with the screening instruments adopted by the State Board of Education. Current statute requires that those screening instruments provide assessments for both English speaking and non English speaking pupils in languages reflecting the primary languages of the pupils in the local educational agency in which that tool is administered to the extent that assessments in those languages are available.

Okay, and before we start to wrap up, this has been a dialogue between the Department of Education and Finance. Since you talked, is there anything you would like to add after hearing this?

I think a couple of things that we would flag is one, the understanding of upfront costs may be higher. However, I would just reiterate our point that we don't even have the necessary information to assess whether the 25 million is an accurate assessment of those higher upfront costs because, again, we don't know the type of screener tools that will be adopted, how leas will propose to use those screener tools, and the necessary training activities that would come after that.

I think it's also the fact that this is going through the mandates block grant. I think we would just flag traditionally, once a cost is built into the Mandate Block Grant, it is fixed in time.

So this is also a new approach in costing things out through a mandates block grant where the Administration is saying it is movable, it is a cost that we can adjust moving forward, which I think from our perspective, why not then just go through the annual budget process if it's a moving target, as opposed to baking it into a funding mechanism that's typically fixed?

I think that the Department of Finance is anxious to talk again.

Megan Sabbah, Department of Finance I do just want to quickly note that while we are, the Governor's Budget does propose to build this $25 million in the mandates block grant. It wouldn't go out to leas the way that mandates typically do because we do not currently have test claims. Funneling this funding through the mandates block grant is an acknowledgement that we recognize that we will see mandate test claims for this requirement.

Also want to note that, and I'm happy to go over it again, too, that there is a separate allocation methodology for these funds, different from the rates methodology provided in the mandates block grant for other mandate costs.

Senator Wilkes been patiently waiting, but just before I get to him, let me ask a follow up question, because it seems to me there's this weird balance here where normally finance is pinching every penny till you have to do it. And here they're recommending not waiting for the after the fact mandate and spending the money upfront. And at the same time doing it outside of the mandate process doesn't lock it in going forward and allows for the kind of difference that was just made.

And so I'm not sure we're going to resolve it here, but I would just call attention as we have discussions going to May 15 and June 15, that those are the issues at play. And if we're sitting here strapped for money, it seems kind of difficult to imagine doing it upfront when we don't have to do it upfront. So just, you know, to make that statement. Thank you for your indulgence, Senator Wilkins, and letting me follow up with that.

Thank you, Mister chair. So many of us who sit in the Legislature come from local government, and a lot of times the local government, you get to see the fruits of your labor, whereas here, many times we don't. And so I was very excited about your testimony today because I was principal co author of SB 691 by Portantino. And we actually had learned about this at an educational conference we were at quite a few years ago. And we were embarrassed, one that we didn't know.

And we were further embarrassed that we weren't doing this because this is just so important. You know, our pro tem today on the Senate Floor is talking about the budget and the budgets of values document. Well, this should be part of our values. We have a moral obligation to every child, which we've been failing. As you said, there been children that have fallen through the cracks. And long term there's going to be an economic benefit, right?

Because if you are not literate by third grade, that's the pipeline to prison. So we're going to be able to lift people up, be more productive Members of society. And this is something that, I know we're pinching pennies, but this is something I don't think we should. And we need to go full steam on. And we didn't even get this through the first time.

In fact, we had a more ambitious proposal, initially doing diagnostics, so now it's screening, which I think I convinced is adequate enough for now. And I know the Governor is very interested in this and has taken a personal interest in it, and I hope that we help him fulfill his vision on this because it's really, really important. So I have no questions.

Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Any last call here from Committee Members? Then I think we've had a good airing of this, and there's some questions that need to be drilled down on before we get to, to the end of the budget, and we appreciate you being here and helping us with that. We're going to move to issue number four, inclusive college technical assistance center.

The panel includes Jody Lieberman from the Department of Finance, Shiyloh Becerril from the Department of Education and Sarah Cortese from the Legislative Analyst Office. So welcome. And we will begin with the Department of Finance.

Good morning. Chair and Members, Jodi Lieberman with the Department of Finance. I will 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 post secondary educational institution, and the UC Davis Mind Institute.

The center has multiple responsibilities aligned with its purpose, which is to increase awareness and access to inclusive and experiential post secondary education and employment opportunities through degree, certificate, or 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 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. That's all, and I'm happy to take questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. We'll move to the Department of Education.

I'm sorry, I was told Red was off. Good morning, chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Shiyloh Duncan-Becerril. I am the associate Director of special education at the California Department of Education, and I'm here on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurman. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I'm here to respond to any questions you might have about this proposal.

Great. Then we'll move to the Legislative Analyst Office.

Good morning. Sarah Cortez, LAO we don't have any specific analytical comments on this proposal, but I do want to point us to our overarching comments that we made at a previous budget hearing to, given the budget condition, rejecting, we recommend rejecting any new discretionary proposals. And that concludes my remarks. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any questions from Committee Members? Senator Wilk, do you have any question or comment? Great. Then this is one of those things that was actually totally self explanatory in the agenda. And I think the question just gets down to the nuts and bolts of whether we have the money when we get to it. And so I'm sorry, this will be the briefest item we ever have. But I appreciate your comments and we will look at that.

We're now going to move to issue number five, which I'm confident will not be as brief, the elementary arts career technical education credential. And we have a returning panelist, Megan Sabah from the Department of Finance Aaron Skobal from the Commission on Teacher credentialing and a return panelist from the Legislative Analyst Office. So let's begin with the Department of Finance.

Megan Sabbah, Department of Finance the Governor's Budget directs the Commission on Teacher credentialing to create a new elementary arts and music authorization for career career technical education, or CTE teachers for additional pathways for experienced artists to provide arts instruction in elementary school classrooms. In addition to providing CTE instruction in grades seven through 12, proposed trailer Bill would allow a teacher with a clear CTE credential in arts, music and entertainment to teach elementary arts and music classes with 24 credits of coursework.

Coursework requirements for the supplementary authorization acknowledge that teaching elementary age students is different from high school students. So the language is recognizing that there needs to be some additional education and mentorship for those teachers. Additionally, the language includes provisions for emergency authorization for those schools that have difficulty hiring arts and music instructors to employ teachers working towards the authorization. That concludes my remarks.

Thank you very much. We will move to the Commission on teacher grade. Welcome to the good morning.

Thank you. Erin Skubal, I'm the certification Director at the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Happy to answer any technical questions you might have.

Jackie Barrocio LAO as noted in your agenda, in our analysis, we just flagged that the Legislature consider the benefits and trade offs of this proposal. It seems like the intent behind it is to assist in increasing the supply of arts and teacher elementary school teachers, especially in the context with Proposition 28. However, there are concerns of whether this will this additional pathway will effectively prepare individuals to teach in an elementary and early childhood setting relative to the existing credentialing pathway for that specific field.

Thank you let me ask a few questions here. And one is just very basic. When the $1.0 billion was passed by the voters to allow more arts and music in the schools, is it funding eligible to do training for teachers to that money?

Do you want to go for it? No. Go for it. Okay. I was just going to say I would defer to my colleagues that go over.

You mean the colleague that just deferred to you?

I believe Amber Alexanderson. Yes, a whole other colleague in the room with us.

Well, yes, because the item in front of us is that we don't have enough teachers to teach it. So if we want to train teachers, so we have enough teachers, is that funding eligible?

Yes, I'm happy to speak to that. So the Proposition was intended to increase funding for arts education program. So that is broadly defined to include things like visual, media, arts, kind of more your traditional arts, music, a wide variety. There is a requirement in the Proposition that if an LEA has an enrollment of 500 students or greater, that at least 80% of their funding allocation be used for employing of certificated and classified staff to teach those arts education programs. So along with that would come their training to be able to do so as well as, you know, salaries, those types of expenditures.

Thank you. Because that's clearly a need given what the staff report is here. And then we have a letter. We have two letters, but. But one from the California Music Education Association that really takes issue with using the technical education part of this as a pathway to credentialing. And let me ask, maybe the Commission, if you would respond to what their concerns were. I don't know. Have you seen the letter?

Thank you. I have not seen the letter, so I wouldn't be able to speak directly to that. But those individuals that are authorized currently to teach arts in an elementary setting would be dependent on their delivery method for that instruction. So if it is a self contained delivery method where that art instruction is being done with all other subjects being taught, that would currently be authorized by a multiple subject.

And let me they were generous enough in their seven paragraphs to put in bold the first sentence that sort of says what each paragraph is about, but they say that the CTE, the career technical education, the CTE instruction in arts, media, and entertainment industry sectors do not exist for teaching elementary arts education. The pedagogy required for children ages four to 12 is not equivalent to energy applications. Dance, music, theater, and visual arts credential teachers are highly qualified. The visual and performing arts are singled out.

There's no need to establish a new credential pathway for elementary arts education outside of traditional credentialing, as two additional pathways currently exist, the short term staff permit and the provisional intern permit. Then they talk about accountability and, and departmentalized General education. Does that give you enough to maybe speak to what their concerns are?

Sure. It sounds to me that their concerns are related to the fact that there are currently pathways for individuals to earn the authorization to teach in this elementary setting for arts, music, theater, and dance, and that those pathways exist through full teacher preparation programs or added authorizations that involve 20 units or more of coursework. So it sounds to me like they're referring to the existing pathways being appropriate and acceptable to serve in these settings.

Okay. And I think there's one question that's in our packet, and the interesting thing, this is a very interesting staff report, because while we were trying to get at the arts, it really listed all the different subjects where there's shortfalls in having teachers that are credentialed and able to teach those subjects. And I don't know exactly how to ask this question, but is this a function of the overall teacher shortage, or is the overall teacher shortage less acute? But it's particularly acute in certain subject matter areas.

I think you could argue both. I believe that, zero, you're ready for elected office. You know, I believe that the overall teacher shortage is definitely impacting all content areas that we're seeing across the board. However, career technical education, where individuals are coming from the private sector, can sometimes be increasedly impacted as well. When we don't see leas offering specific courses such as arts, music, theater, and dance, then we see instances where they're not able to recruit those teachers because individuals aren't seeking that pathway for credentialing.

So it's kind of a if you build it, they will come type of mentality where if, you know, individuals aren't able to find a job in a certain content area, they might seek a credential that authorizes something different. So instead of seeking that art credential, they might be obtaining an English credential because they don't feel like they have the opportunity to obtain full time employment in the arts.

And then let me just ask the Legislative Analyst to sort of talk about what your analysis was, because you wanted us to consider the trade offs in this, and maybe this previous discussion has been a good tee up for what the tradeoffs might be.

In our conversations, it seems like there's a particular concern about Proposition 28, especially potentially increasing a shortfall that could happen within the arts and music and entertainment space. I think in General we acknowledge that, yes, that might be a one time immediate effect, but over time there are these existing pathways in which folks can become credentialed art teachers.

Our understanding is that perhaps in creating a new pathway, it lowers the barriers of entry for individuals that don't want to be full fledged teachers but just have a particular interest in arts and music, and they would find this particular pathway something that just fits that particular interest that they have as opposed to going and getting a single credential and doing additional work beyond what they're interested in doing.

But again, with regards to this particular shortfall, I think as noted in your agenda, there is an art shortfall, but there are shortfalls in other subject areas that are more pronounced. And I think it's also a question of comparing, as we've heard as well, the concern about it takes a particular skill set and also knowledge to teach elementary school and early childhood students to understand how they learn and to create a course that is based off of that cognitive ability.

So to the extent that this proposal, relative to the existing standards, is it enough credits that we're requiring? And also the credits aren't necessarily tied to like a specific program or coursework. It's up to the individual to kind of select, well, which coursework do I want to do that complies with this broader requirement where existing programs, they already kind of have like a structured and packaged program that's specific to and caters to this particular field.

Senator Wilk, do you have any questions here?

I don't have a question. I just have a comment. One, I was a supporter of Prop 28. I spent my entire legislative career on the Joint Committee of the Arts. To me, this should have been going through the policy process, not a budget trailer Bill. And I'm frustrated with that because I think it's really important to get it right. And so no questions. Really just as excited as I was about the last presentation.

This one I find frustrating because, again, I just don't think it's been vetted enough and there are serious questions and we're just going to plow forward and hope it works. And I don't think that's how we should be doing things, but I know that's not on you.

Well, I appreciate your comments, and I'm not being flipped in saying that because I think that's sort of a little bit of what we picked up in the letters. And I just think there needs to be a little more discussion about this and what the right way is to proceed because we know, because the voters approved the measure, we will proceed. And we're, and of course, one of the items, I mean, the next two items are really related to this streamlining, credentialing and then the issue of the Golden State teachers program trying to help people into teaching.

So we're just going to have to consider this also in the context of these other items and how we move people into teaching. So appreciate the discussion and know that this is another one that sounds like it's going to go till the end of the budget. Thank you very much for being here today. We appreciate it. And then we're going to move to the teacher credentialing streamlining and we have the return panelists from the Department of Finance and a return panelist from the Legislative Analyst.

And we have David Deguire from the Commission on Teacher credentialing and we have a strong support person from the Department of Finance. We receded next to Miss Sabah, so let's go through in that same order. We'll start with the Department of Finance.

Megan Sabbah, Department of Finance the 2021 and 2022 budget acts provided numerous multi year investments to better prepare, train, recruit and retain a diverse expert workforce of administrative, credentialed and classified staff in California's k 12 schools. So 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 non fiscal 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 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 Bell language directing the Commission to ensure that subject matter domains are aligned for coursework review.

Additionally, the language encourages the Commission to, excuse me, to leverage its accreditation system to ensure programs utilize transcript review for assessment of subject matter competence. This concludes my remarks.

Thank you very much. We'll move to the Commission. Welcome

David De Gear from Director of the professional services division at the Commission on Teacher credentialing. Thank you. At its June meeting last year, the Commission heard a report, an annual report, on the examinations program, and the commissioners discussed in particular the value of the seabest exam, and they were very clear that they thought it did not provide any additional value in determining who is classroom ready.

So commissioners very much support the proposal to allow a bachelor's degree to meet basic skills requirement. In our report to the Legislature, we said that one thing that we could do without any additional funding was to create a second set of subject matter requirements at the domain level. So at the top level that are clear and consistent for preparation programs to use because right now they look different from subject to subject. So we have started that work. It's taking a little longer than we thought, but we still hope to have that finished in June.

Thank you. Now we'll move to the Legislative Analyst.

In our assessment of the proposal, we did find that for the basic skills requirement, it did seem to create, in some cases, unnecessary barriers for individuals that were already in the teaching field. They just had that one requirement and left to have proved themselves to be effective teachers, but they were struggling in meeting that requirement.

Additionally, as it relates to the transcript review process, we did review the CTC report, and they did provide examples of how it is a complex and burdensome process currently, and it could be streamlined through the recommended changes. So with that said, we recommend that the Legislature approve the two proposed changes.

Thank you. That's very pleasant unity. And normally I should have the sense enough to move on immediately, but I think the one question I would have here, because we have this in front of us right now, is I hear complaints all the time from there's a teacher shortage and people, it costs them extra money. It has all this process. It takes ages for them to get credentialed at a time when we're nearing a crisis in the number of teachers.

And yet at the same time, we have the discussion about the core competencies that actually need to be present for a teacher to be there in the classroom. How do you balance that? Because that's what this item is all about, is that balance. How do you make sure that we sort of test to make sure a teacher is really qualified to move in, but at the same time, we don't have so many barriers that we can't even get to that point. And I don't know, maybe we'll start with the Commission.

So I think AB 130 was a huge. I think AB 130 was a huge step forward in helping the state rethink the value and the place of standardized examinations and by allowing candidates to demonstrate their basic skills, proficiency and their subject matter competence through coursework they've already done.

The hope was that it would save money and time for candidates, and it certainly has had that effect for many candidates, but not as many, I think, as we all would have hoped. It has been our experience that the basic skills has been easier for our preparation programs to review coursework for those meeting the basic skills requirement, but much more difficult in the area of subject matter. So we think that the bachelor's degree for meeting basic skills is a clear step forward for everyone.

It makes sense, and it will save candidates time and money and preparations, programs, time and money with subject matter. In our report to the Legislature last November, we said that probably the best solution would be to have a statewide list of courses that meet the subject matter domains for each subject. But that's something that's going to require time and money. So it's not something that we can take on ourselves right now. But as the LAO suggested in looking at out years when money may become available, that that might be a key thing to look at.

just have a comment. I think this is important. We all know there's a mass, pretty sizable teacher shortage and staff shortage. So anything we can do to expedite that.

Great. Any comments? Legislative Analyst or Department of Finance to add? Okay, then let me double check. Are there any questions from

I think this is, even in a time of budget crisis, I think this is a worthwhile investment.

Okay, thank you very much. I think we managed to really get at this in the brief amount of time that we talked about it. We're going to move to the last issue we have of the seven issues, the Golden State teacher grant program. And we have Aman Singh from the Department of Finance. Chris Ferguson is also going to be here. I think he just walked in.

He is magic on knowing how to make an entrance. And then Madison Jabonski Sheffield again from the California Student Aid Commission. And again, Miss Rossio from the Legislative Analyst Office. Let's start with the Department of Finance. Welcome.

Good morning, chair Laird and Members. I'm Aman Singh with the California Department of Finance. I'll be providing a summary of the Golden State teacher grant program. The Governor's Budget estimates that roughly 7500 Golden State teacher grant awards will be provided to students enrolled in teacher preparatory programs in the 24-25 academic year. The total award package for 24-25 amounts to 134 million.

We recognize that the Governor's Budget presented a point in time estimated and the specific number of recipients and the updated total award amount will be calculated as part of the May revision. This update will include a more accurate student caseload account. For some brief background, the 21-22 Budget act provided 500 million in one time General Fund to the Golden State teacher grant program. This was intended to be spent over the course of five years. The program will reach its expected expiration in 25-26.

For context, we're currently in year three of five of the expenditure period. 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 budget indicates that the entirety of the initial $500 million allocation will reach its intended recipients. That concludes my remarks. I'll take questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. We'll move on to the Commission.

Madison Sheffield, California Student Commission I don't have any specific comments. The agenda goes does thorough background, and my colleague provided additional background. So if you have any questions, happy to answer. Thank you.

Thank you. Then we'll move on to the legislative analysts as noted in your agenda in January 2024. In our initial assessment, we estimated that about $220 million of Golden State teacher grant funds remained unspent. And then based off of current award trends at that time, we estimated that at the end of the current year 23-24 we could expect about $130 million to still remain unspeakable. Of course, this is a multi year program, so that's not an issue.

But given the projected budget deficit, we do recommend that the Legislature consider pulling back any unspent dollars, not just in this program, but across various one time multi year programs. Thank you. Thank you. Let me ask first if my colleagues have any questions on this item. Senator Min okay, then let me ask, and I appreciate what the Legislative Analyst just said about pulling back, but this appears to be a program that has really worked.

And one thing that was unclear from the charts that was just assumed is that if somebody gets this, they're committed to do teaching or follow up. And so we just assume that's happening with everyone here or they have to pay it back. Is that right? Do we know if many people have paid it back or this is just really, truly a pathway for almost everybody that gets a grant into the system? Do we know that?

Madison Sheffield, California Student Aid Commission given that we're only a few years into the program and it takes people, students about a year or two years approximately to complete their actual teaching credential, which they initially get the money to support them in teaching, in obtaining the credential, and then they have eight years to complete four years of service and do the actual service component.

So given that we're only two or three years into the program, we just have such limited data on if people are going to be paying back. Hopefully, it's very rare that people don't complete the service requirement, but we have very, very limited data that I can get you, but it's just so limited that we can't make any kind of grand projections on how many.

And then the other question that was unclear to me was we have what we've been talking about in the previous items, a shortage of teachers. How do we match the numbers in this program against what the shortage of teachers is. I mean, are there bunches of teachers that are able to do this without getting a grant from this program? And so we have a cohort there and then we have the cohort here.

How are we doing against the vacancies that are created or the misassignments that are missing with what's the results of this program?

I can simply comment that, you know, we administer just the Golden State teacher grant program and then of course the Cal grant and middle class scholarship. I would likely defer to Commission and teacher credentialing because they do, we do work with them for the Golden State Teacher Grant data. We do partner with them, so they would probably have the lens that they could line up more accurately. We don't have the full lens on all that are getting the teaching credential. And how many of those are supported by GSTG versus other programs? That would be my advice.

Do you have any comment? Department of Finance?

I don't have the figures in front of me, but I did do a rough calculation that through 23-24 or 24-25 like over 20,000 recipients of the Golden State teacher grant program will be on their way to teaching. So I don't know how that compares to the total deficit of teachers across the state, but this program is reaching a lot of awardees.

And does the Legislative Analyst happen to have a comment here?

I think one thing that we would flag is that data for future evaluation may be limited just given the parameters of the program. For example, to your question about are we able to map out did a Golden State teacher grant recipient become a special education teacher?

Because we know that that's been a longstanding shortage area, we may not necessarily have that information because initially the program, yes, did require that individuals serve, are teaching in a shortage field, but then that was later removed. So to the extent that it's not an existing program requirement, our understanding is that the ability or collecting that information may not be occurring. So it was removed as a requirement. But it seems that then what was also removed is the ability to know where they really went.

I would defer to CSAC on whether or not there's an ability to map out regionally where they went. The priority school requirement is still there, and that was our attempt to. And what I mean by where they went was probably inarticulately asked, but if they went to special education, which was a high need, even though it was taken back as a mandate, my understanding is that potentially that's not currently being collected on a subject matter basis in terms of where they went.

We can map out what schools they went to because that is a requirement that they serve in a. But if we have a deficit due to misassignment, we're not measuring whether the Golden State teacher program is leading to addressing the misassignment problem for deficits in certain subject matters that may not be collected internally within this program. I think then there's a question of, can we do some data matching?

There's a semi anxious Commission staffer standing in the back here, and I don't know, does that microphone work? If he walks up to it.

Not semi anxious. Just wanted to let you know that there currently is a Bill before the Legislature, Senate Bill 1391, which would require CSAC, the Commission, and the State Department of Education to provide data to the cradle to career office of the cradle to career data system so that tracking could be done.

And I assume that Bill costs money.

I don't know that it does because, you know, we collect some data, some of the data that you would need to do the analysis you're talking about. CSAC has some of the data. CDE has some of the data. So I'm not sure that the Bill asks that additional data be collected. It's more that it all began requires that existing data be transmitted. Yeah. To the cradle to career system so that those kind of analyses could be run.

I sit on that board, so maybe I'll see about asking the question coming the other way. We love to have you. Yeah. I would love to not be chairing a hearing and be able to attend more. So thank you. That's really helpful. And I think that that, over time, is also information we'd really like to know.

Far be it from me to suggest something that costs something this year, but if it can be swept in a way that it's collected but just not transmitted and there's transmitting going on anyway, that's a very minimal cost, if any. So just trying to figure that out because we at the high level get asked, how are we addressing the teacher shortage? Are we addressing it where it really needs? And having some of that information would answer those questions for us.

Just. Madison Sheffield Student Aid Commission just to clarify, we definitely currently have to collect data related to the Administration of the Program. So we know how many people are getting credentials, and then we also know where they're working, which ones are working, priority schools. If they don't work in a priority school, they have to give the money back.

So we do know as the data comes in and as students actually work in priority schools, we will know where they are working and if they're working in priority schools. So just to clarify that piece.

And let me ask finance one other question. Will the existing money be exhausted by July 1, or is there going to be some carryover money or other money that might help in the budget year with this?

I'm Aman Singh with the Department of Finance. Based on the estimates that we received at Governor's Budget, we are estimating that most of the funding will be exhausted by 24-25. You know, when we were developing the budget in the fall, we were anticipating that some funds may be remaining in 25-26. However, CSAC is currently tracking a really high application rate, and it's possible that those funds may be exhausted by the end of 24-25.

We will be working very closely with the Commission to make sure that we have the most accurate student caseload count for the May revision. But as of this time, it's looking like most of the funding will be exhausted by the end of the 24-25 academic year, which is about a year earlier than we expected at the programs establishment.

And Mister Ferguson, did you have anything you want to add, or do you just want to go on the record for nodding the way you were at everything she said?

I would go on the record, Chris Ferguson for the Department of Finance, and just agree with what Miss Singh had said. Based on our Governor's Budget projections, there was a small amount that would be available in 25-26. However, we update caseload at the May revision, so it is possible that that projection will change.

Okay, I appreciate the discussion. And of course, we ducked the major issue to last about what to do about the money, about this, because we were talking about really how it works. And I would say, we really like this program and believe that it works and believes that we need this as part of what we do to make sure we address the teacher shortage.

But we recognize where we are this year and that we might have to look at that in the whole picture when it gets there. Let me do a last call. Any last questions from Committee Members or comments?

Just one comment.No, Don't say that. You're younger than me. Acronym is what you were saying. You didn't enforce it today. oh, I enforced it a lot of times. But you weren't here when we had the Student Aid Commission and I said that the county supervisors have the same acronym and it's always confusing to me why they have such a strong position on student aid. Okay, I don't not seeing any other questions. I think we had a good discussion about this. We understand the issues that are on the table as we close this out. So thank you for participating in this panel.

That completes the hearing of the seven issues we had today and we have time for public comment. And let me just take an informal poll. Who sitting here wants to make a public comment? 12345 people. Then I will allow up to two minutes each and ask the five people to line up here at the podium and address the Committee with your public comment. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you. I can't tell whether it's still morning or if it's afternoon.

Now it's still morning, but if you all run over, we'll be in the afternoon.

No, I won't be long. My name is Martha Zaragoza-Diaz and I'm here representing Mister Chad Zulinger, who is the President of the California Music Educators Association and had to leave because he teaches music classes and he needed to be there on time. Anyway, I would like to emphasize, first of all, I'd like to thank you for the very deliberate discussion and comprehensive discussion that took place with regards to the CTE education proposal.

I just want to emphasize that there is no need to establish a new authorization or credential in addressing the arts teacher shortage because credentialing options already exist which are faster with regards to having tracks to certification. These include the short term staff permit, the provisional internship permit, and the supplementary authorization. The second point I want to make is that the CTE proposal undermines subject matter competency by allowing those with industry expertise in the arts to teach elementary grades to our most vulnerable students without sufficient preparation.

Subject matter competency is essential for effective instruction as it allows teachers to teach foundational skills and engage elementary school students through sound pedagogical principles. Without it, teachers may struggle to explain concepts, provide feedback to the developmental needs of our younger students, support second language learners, students with special needs, thus leading students to failing behind and losing foundational arts knowledge.

Credential arts teachers are highly qualified educators with a college degree and an expertise and training in arts education and the arts for students in transitional garden through grade 12. Given that the intent of Prop 28 is to provide access to quality arts and music education for all students, we believe this proposal deters from the spirit of the law by lowering teaching standards and instructional outcomes for our students. Elementary school students thank you.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your comments and welcome to the Committee.

Good morning. Raquel Morales on behalf of Ed Trust West, we want to express support for the governor's proposal to provide 20 million for the development and delivery of for educator training along with the 2023 California Math Framework. This training is critical to realizing the full benefits of the new framework and changing the way we think about math and delivery instruction.

The additional training will help teachers improve their strategies to help more Low income students and more low income students and students of color reach their full potential. Additionally, we also want to express our support for the expansion of CCGI to increase access to all 912 grade students students in California. housing. College related processes under one platform can lead to improved family supports by counselors and increased access for students and families.

For example, CCGI is best positioned to support, with implementation of the universal financial aid policy, supporting counselors with information on students that have completed their applications. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you Mister chair Members and staff Jeff Vaca representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. My comments pertain to item number one, the California College Guidance Initiative. Riverside County Office of Education has served as the fiscal agent for the program since 2015. So we've had kind of a unique vantage point in being able to witness not just the growth in the program, but the growth and the effectiveness of the program.

I've been involved in education advocacy on both the higher education and k 12 for longer than I would care to admit at this juncture, and this is a program that really, I think, gets to the heart of the conversations that have taken place in many instances in the Legislature over that period about articulation between k 12 and higher education.

As the previous speaker noted, the support and the assistance that it provides, not just to students but their families as their really, as early as middle school, really is worth the investment. Acknowledging the fiscal challenges the state faces, it does sound from the conversation this morning that there is a pathway forward and we just wanted to express our strong support for the program.

Thank you very much for your comments. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you. Heather Calomese with Ed voice regarding the Golden State Teacher grant program, it is critical that California continues to invest and programs that ensure well prepared teachers are staffed in the highest need schools to ensure students from the most vulnerable communities have access to experienced and credentialed teachers in their classrooms.

Therefore, California should continue to invest in and actually strengthen programs such as the Golden State Teacher grant program to ensure funding is prioritized for teacher candidates staffed in the highest need public schools across the state in terms of the literacy screeners as well. The lack or delay in screening of struggling readers and students at the risk of dyslexia results in unnecessary delays and receiving the appropriate support and interventions.

Due to these delays, the academic gap and learning loss in core content is often very difficult to overcome, even after significant costs and interventions down the line. Therefore, we urge the implementation to move forward as written in the 2025-2026 school year so that students can receive the critical supports needed to ensure their success and their reading throughout their school each time. Thank you.

Thank you. Did you want to make a comment?

I just want to make a comment. I want to thank Ed voice because it was at a conference you guys held that let Senator Porntino and I know what was going on, and I know when we were able to get that pass, I called over to your Executive Director and thanked him. But if you could go back to the entire board and just let them know that you guys do make a difference and really appreciate all the educational time you pour into legislators.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comment. I don't usually. You should also tell them that it's unprecedented to let a Senator interrupt a public comment, and it was allowed because that was such an important comment to the Senator. Here's our last speaker. Please and I will be brief .

... With Children Now echoing the comments of our colleagues from Ed Voice on the Golden State teacher grant program because of its effectiveness. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. We really appreciate your comment. That completes our business, having heard from all the Members of the public. And I want to thank everybody that participated today, whether a panelist or a Member of the public, or those of you watching outside the hearing room. And if you were not able to testify, let me repeat that.

You can submit your comments or questions in writing to the budget and fiscal review Committee, or you can visit the website and make comments that way because your comments and suggestions are important to us, given the complexity of the issues we discussed today and have throughout our entire hearing. So with that, we've concluded the agenda for today's hearing, the Senate budget Subcommitee, one on education stance, adjourned.