Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education

They said she was on her way. Okay.

Senate Budget Subcommittee Number 1 on Education will come to order. Welcome to all of you. This is our sixth hearing on education in this session, and we've worked our way through a number of issues. And today we will be talking about literacy, expanded learning opportunities, special education, and nutrition.

And I will take comment when we're through all four items. And as usual, I'll take a survey to see how many people are here and wish to speak and then judge the time based on that. And if you cannot wait to the end of the hearing and you want to weigh in on any of the issues, you can do it through our website, both digitally or in writing. And we would be anxious to hear from you if you have any comments.

And if you are waiting and you are limited and you wanted to give a white paper annotated with footnotes, you could submit it to us or you could use it to expand and revise your comments. So just make sure that if you have an opinion that you really want expressed that we have it. And I will ask for a roll call.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. And Senator Ochoa Bogh's on her way, and when she gets here, I will note her for the purposes of roll call. So we'll move immediately to item number one, which discusses various literacy proposals.

And on the panel will be Hugo Solis Galeana from the Department of Finance, Nate Williams from the Department of Finance, Dylan Hawksworth-Lutzow from the Legislative Analyst Office, Michael Alferes from the Legislative Analyst Office, Cheryl Cotton from the Department of Education, Bonnie Garcia from the Department of Education. And I think there's exactly enough chairs for the panelists.

And if you would move forward. I would just say that we're going to discuss various literacy proposals. And we have put them all together under one item. And they include the Statewide Literacy Network, round three of literacy coaches with new addition of math coaches, professional development for literacy screeners, the adjustment of the reading and literacy supplemental authorization incentive grants, transitional kindergarten, English learner assessment tools and implementation, and the English language arts, English language development instructional materials guidance.

And I would note that Senator Ochoa Bogh has arrived for the roll call. And so we will move to the panelists. And I know some of you might be here to answer questions and not present, but we will go in the order I mentioned, which will anyone from the Department of Finance, anyone from the legislative analysts, and anyone from the Department of Education. So let's begin with the Department of Finance.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Hugo Solis Galeana with the Department of Finance. I will be providing you with an overview of various investments included in the Governor's Budget focused on literacy instruction. As noted in the agenda, the state has undertaken a number of recent initiatives aimed at strengthening a literacy approach that supports equity, inclusion, evidence based instruction, and high quality learning.

To align and maximize the impact of these investments, the Governor's Budget proposes $25 million one time Proposition 98 General Fund to be available through the 2029-2030 fiscal year for the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence to convene, in consultation with the State Department of Education, a statewide literacy network.

The network will convene literacy leads to support statewide implementation of evidence based practices aligned to the English Language Arts, English Language Development Framework, the English Learner Roadmap, the Literacy Roadmap, and the use of data to support effective instruction. The network will also curate a clearinghouse for evidence based literacy resources and highlight best practices from high performing districts.

The Administration sees the literacy network proposal as the place to align and maximize the impact of existing literacy initiatives within the statewide system of support and present California's comprehensive view of literacy and available literacy resources to local educational agencies seeking to improve outcomes for the state's students.

The Governor's Budget also proposes $500 million one time Proposition 98 General Fund to expand upon the existing Literacy Coaches and Reading Specialists program to provide training and credentialing for literacy coaches and to establish a Math Coaches program.

For the Literacy Coaches program, we are allocating $235 million for local educational agencies to develop school literacy programs, employ and develop literacy coaches and specialists, and develop and implement interventions for pupils in need of targeted literacy support.

For training and credentialing, we are including a $15 million investment for the Superintendent of Public Instruction to select one or more county offices of education to provide training for educators to become literacy coaches. The funds will also provide credentialing opportunities for educators to become reading and literacy specialists as well as bilingual specialists working with the California Reading and Literature Project, the California Writing Project, and other experts.

Lastly, for the Math Coaches Program, we are providing a $250 million investment for local educational agencies to support math coaching and specialists for eligible schools as well as for plans to support one or more trained coaches or specialists with training aligned to the math framework.

This proposal will also provide funding to educators to obtain math credentials and authorizations. Additionally, the Governor's Budget includes $40 million one time Proposition 98 General Fund for local educational agencies that administer literacy screenings to pupils in K-2 for risk of reading difficulties.

They must spend these funds on any part of the implementation of the screener, including the Administration of the screener to pupils in grades K through second, excluding transitional kindergarten, in order to assess for risk of reading difficulties using screening instruments recently approved by the State Department of Education.

The funding will be allocated at a per pupil rate using prior year school enrollment data from the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System. The Administration also proposes changes to the Reading and Literacy Supplementary Authorization Incentive Grant Program that will increase the grant award amount to eligible recipients from $2,500 to $6,000.

The Administration has heard from the field that the cost of courses to obtain this authorization is higher than the sum of the grant award and the local educational agency match, which would result in teachers having to cover the additional cost. This has contributed to low uptake of the program.

Additionally, the proposal replaces the one to one match requirement with a match requirement equal to one third of the grant funding received. This keeps the match amount close to the original even though the award amount is increasing. And finally, the proposal extends the encumbrance date to June 30, 2030.

Finally, the Governor's Budget includes $250,000 one time non-Proposition 98 General Fund to develop supplemental guidance for English language arts, english language development that complements the ELA ELD follow up adoption. Proposed trailer bill specifies that this supplemental guidance would be based on the criteria provided in the 2014 English Language Arts, English Language Development Framework and would include foundational skills, language development, content knowledge, meaning making, and effective expression.

It would also incorporate the Model Library Standards, including media literacy content, in its criteria for evaluating instructional materials. I'll now turn it over to my colleague Nate Williams to provide an overview of the English Learner Screening Instrument for Transitional Kindergarten students. However, before doing so, I did want to note that I also have with me Stephanie Gregson from the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence to assist with questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Hugo, and thank you, Mr. Chair. With the expansion of transitional kindergarten, there's an increased need and opportunity to support our youngest multilingual learners. Early identification done in a developmentally appropriate manner is key to providing early support and in improving educational outcomes. The Governor's Budget includes a $100 million one time Proposition 98 General Fund investment for the selection and statewide use of a screening instrument for multi-language learners in transitional kindergarten.

The proposed statutory changes instruct the Department of Education to select, with the approval of the State Board of Education, a suitable screening instrument along with the necessary trainings and make those resources available to local education agencies. Schools may begin using the screening instrument to screen students as soon as 26-27, with the requirement for all schools to begin screening students using the instrument in 27-28. I'm happy to take any questions you have on the proposal.

Okay, thank you very much. Then we will move to the Legislative Analyst.

Good morning, Chair, Members. My name is Dylan Hawksworth-Lutzow with the LAO. We have comments on the screener for reading difficulties, the literacy and math coaches, and the transitional kindergarten English learner screener proposals. I'll be speaking on the first two, and then my colleague Michael Alferes will discuss the third. For, regarding the literacy screeners... Okay, sorry.

We think this is the $40 million for literacy screeners is a reasonable estimate of the costs associated with training staff and the implementation of the required screeners in grades K through 2. We will note that $25 million was provided in the 24-25 budget for training regarding these screeners.

So we recommend reducing proposed funding to 15 million in the 25-26 budget, which combined with the 25 million from last year should cover the early implementation costs. Regarding the literacy and math coaches proposal, we have a couple concerns that lead us to recommending approving these proposals with some modifications.

The state does score relatively low on math and reading exams. Less than half of students score proficient on these tests, and the state has historically scored below average on the National Assessment of Education Progress, though that gap has closed in recent years. This gap is driven primarily by the outcomes for economically disadvantaged students. So the Governor's Budget includes $500 million for or one time Proposition 98 funding for literacy math coaches.

This is broken down into $235 million for literacy coaches for expanding the eligibility range by 1 percentage point down to 94% unduplicated pupils, $15 million for literacy coach training, and then $250 million for the new math coaches proposal, which is at an eligibility range of 90% unduplicated pupils and above, or 75% unduplicated pupils and above in rural schools.

We recommend adopting this proposal with some modifications. First, we recommend limiting the grant eligibility to elementary schools. The research that we've seen supports using math coaches at elementary schools specifically because those teachers are less likely to have math expertise. We recommend setting the minimum grant amount.

Currently, the proposal for math coaches does not have a minimum grant amount, so it is unclear whether the allotted funding would end up covering their required activities by the required by the grants. We recommend requiring funds be spent only at eligible school sites.

Currently, the proposal directs math coach funding to districts rather than the schools that earn or that have the high enough unduplicated pupil percentage to be eligible for that funding. So it's possible that that funding could be directed to districts that have lower shares of English learner low income students or unduplicated students.

And lastly, we recommend considering the Legislature consider automatic eligibility for the math coach grants rather than an application process. This would reduce administrative burden for the smallest districts who might still be able to benefit from this program. Also for the coaches proposal, we recommend considering the mix of literacy and math coach funding.

The state has already spent about $500 million on on literacy coaches in previous rounds of funding. So with the introduction of math coaches, it becomes a trade off of expanding or further expansion of literacy coach access as compared to wider initial access for math coaches. I'm going to turn it over now to my colleague Michael.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Michael Alferes with the LAO. So we wanted to note that this proposal for the multilingual learner screeners in transitional kindergarten is in response in part to recent legislation that exempted students in TK from being assessed using the English Learner Assessment for English proficiency in the current school year moving forward.

So we are recommending adopting the proposal given students in TK are no longer screened for English proficiency using the English learner assessments. The proposal would provide districts a developmentally appropriate tool to help identify TK students that would benefit from additional English language development support.

Though we want to highlight that under the proposal there are no specific service requirements that districts would have to provide to students that are identified as multilingual learners with the with the screener. The Legislature may want to consider setting some specific service requirements for these students. Having specific requirements would give the state greater assurance that districts will provide early language development supports to benefit students, but this would likely increase districts associated costs.

And we would note that districts are no longer receiving any additional state or federal funding for students that would be multilingual learners in TK given that that additional funding is specifically for English learners.... Sorry, English learner designations and not for multilingual students.

If the Legislature wanted to provide funding to support multilingual learners, there are a variety of options Legislature can consider, including modifying LCFF to account for multilingual learners, to generate supplemental concentration grant funding, or to provide funding through a separate targeted grant. Concludes our comments on the proposal. Happy to answer any questions.

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

Thank you. Good morning, Chair, 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 here with Bonnie Garcia, our Co-Director of State Literacy. She's also with the California Department of Education.

We're presenting today on behalf of our State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurman, to advocate for a vital, cohesive program aimed at enhancing literacy and math education across our state. As this issue addresses multiple literacy and mathematics proposals, we'll begin with our presentation on the Statewide Literacy Network.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. The funding proposal for the Statewide Literacy Network will build on the work that the literacy leads have engaged in with the state Statewide System of Support. This proposal addresses the critical need to have a network focused on literacy, ensuring targeted support, coherence across initiatives, and direct measurable outcomes. Currently, the System of Support, coordinated by CCEE and CDE, convenes state and federally funded leads on multiple initiatives supporting various state indicators. Literacy, however, is not the sole focus of the State System of Support.

The State Literacy Network will provide this dedicated space for collaboration as well as implement practices that are aligned to the ELA ELD Framework, the EL Roadmap, the Literacy Roadmap, and the use of data to support effective instruction as well as new literacy policy and guidance. The 25 million investment in the statewide Literacy Network is necessary to sustain and expand literacy efforts. This funding will allow California to move the work forward in improving student literacy and lifelong outcomes.

Our next proposal, which the Department strongly supports, is the Literacy Coaches and Reading Specialists Grant Program. This proposed funding seeks to expand support for literacy and math instruction in California schools while continuing to fund literacy initiatives that have already made a significant impact on students.

It builds on the past three years of efforts to increase literacy coaches and reading specialists through a $473 million grant program which has supported school literacy programs, educator training, and student interventions. The California Department of Education advocates for adding a third cohort of schools to further this work and ensure more students benefit from improved literacy instruction.

Additionally, the proposal includes a Math Coaches and Specialists Grant Program to help educators align instruction with the newly adopted 2023 Math Framework. It provides resources for LEAs to hire and train math coaches and specialists, ensuring effective implementation of state learning standards.

Existing state initiatives have laid a foundation for professional learning, but targeted local investments are necessary to maximize their impact. By funding these initiatives and sustaining literacy efforts, the state aims to strengthen both literacy and math instruction, ultimately enhancing student outcomes and securing long term educational success.

The funding for the Literacy Screener Professional Development also plays a critical role in improving student outcomes and ensuring long term educational success. Since approval of the list of screening instruments in December and the release of funds and the release of the 25 million from the 2024 budget in January, just three months ago, LEAs have been preparing for the implementation of screening, engaging in professional development, developing plans, and selecting instruments for their boards to approve by June 30th of this year.

The 25 million that's allocated has been essential in this preparation. However, as LEAs understand what is being asked of them, they have shared this funding alone is not sufficient for sustainability and for some to do this work at all. The proposed 40 million funding that allows for additional professional development and procurement of materials, which is different from the 2024 funding, is therefore essential in continuing this work next year and annually thereafter.

The Legislature seeks to continue progress on students' literacy outcomes rather than a one time effort, and if we truly want to move the needle and ensure that our students are reading by third grade and beyond, the field needs this additional funding.

Thank you. For the Transitional Kindergarten English Learner Assessment Tools and Implementation proposal, I'd like to highlight that since the passage of AB 26, 2268, the CDE has taken several steps to support LEAs in communicating with parents about TK multilingual experiences. Additionally, the CDE is exploring developmentally appropriate screeners to identify multilingual learners in TK.

The Administration's proposal includes selecting an approved screener and allocating $10 million to make the screening tool and necessary training available to LEAs statewide free of charge to them. It's not free. Free of charge to them. Starting no later than March 1, 2026.

Beginning in the 2027-28 school year, LEAs will be required to screen TK students whose primary language is not English to identify multilingual learners using the approved approved screening instrument. In preschool, California state preschool programs use the Family Language Instrument and the Family Language and Interest Interview to identify dual language learners.

In K-12, the CDE follows a process informed by our federal Title 3 law to access language proficiency and identify English learner students. The CDE does not currently have a screener to identify multilingual learners in TK, and there is no formalized process or tool for this purpose.

It is imperative that we move forward. And finally for our English Language Arts and English Language Development Instructional Material Supplemental Guidance, it's been 10 years since the State Board adopted materials for ELA and ELD. We've seen an increase in attention on the necessary ways to teach reading and improve reading rates for students.

This includes in part, a specific focus on the English language arts literacy results from our CAASPP or our assessment system, as well as reliable research showing the kinds of explicit instruction and phonemic awareness that have proven to be both effective ways to teach children to read.

We believe that new materials re-evaluated and more closely aligned with the evaluation criteria in the existing ELA ELD curriculum framework are needed. And we believe educators should have access to current materials that more effectively support learning and literacy development.

A state level adoption of ELA ELD materials would also allow publishers an opportunity to create materials that better address the circumstances by which children are learning and better support educators with the kinds of effective instruction needed to ensure students first learn to read and then read to learn.

In closing, we urge you to support these critical initiatives that promise to elevate literacy and mathematics in our state by allocating resources to these programs for not only invest investing in the present, but also securing a bright future for all of California students. Thank you for your time and consideration. Bonnie and I, along with our CDE staff, are available for questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. And I'm going to ask a few opening questions and then turn to my colleagues to follow up. And let me begin with the Department of Finance, and let me just ask you, the Legislative Analysts, between the different programs, had a bunch of proposals. Whether it was the minimum grant directed to lower performing schools, like focusing on the elementary schools, doing grants and not applications, and TK identifying targets. How would you respond to that? Are those things that you are considering incorporating into the proposals?

Just to clarify, you're referring to their suggestions on the literacy and math coaches, correct?

Yes, but I added one on the TK as well.

So for the coaches part, we are definitely looking at all our options, especially when it comes to the math coaches funding. We are looking at the allocation formula that we're going to use for that. We wanted to run some, we wanted to get some additional data runs that we weren't able to get into for a Governor's Budget.

So for the May Revision, we plan on using those data runs to more closely inform what criteria we will set for eligible schools. In terms of the transitional kindergarten proposal, I think my colleague Louis might be able to speak better on that. Oh, I apologize. My colleague Nate will be able to speak better on that.

Well, somebody's life just passed in front of me.

Thank you. Nate Williams with Department of Finance. So just to clarify you, I'm responding to the LAOs? Yes. So the Administration is exploring options for addressing the impact of not identifying TK students as English learners as well as the services for them. But this proposal is really focused on the selection of the appropriate screening tool.

And then we anticipate further conversations related to any funding or supports over the next few months. Furthermore, as we're looking at any sort of ongoing funding, a lot of that is going to be determined by what screening instrument we actually select, as far as cost and things like that. So, short answer is we are exploring options for this, and more to come through conversations in the coming months.

But to take both your answers together, it seems to me like you're considering, refining it in some of the ways that have been suggested. I didn't mean to ask such a binary yes or no question, but that's what it sounded like from what both of you said.

I can't share exactly which of their considerations we're considering.

That's what happens when you ask a binary question of somebody from the Department of Finance. But I'm just going... Then let me just say that's my takeaway, is that you're considering looking at this in different ways and seeing if there are possible refinements that can be made.

Then I want to get to the higher level and in just in two ways. The first one is, it seems to me there are many articles about how we're not doing well in literacy at the elementary level. How do you measure it? Is test scores the only way that you measure it or are there are other ways that you're taking a look at whether or not the literacy programs are successful or targeted?

So for the Literacy and Reading Specialists program, we don't have data outcomes on the prior investments of this program, but we do know that research indicates that literacy supports in the early grades is very critical for learning outcomes. And we've also heard anecdotally from the field that schools have seen encouraging support from the initial rounds of funding. As to what specifically we're looking at to measure success, I would defer to the Department on that one.

And the Department is leaning into their microphone, so I anticipate you have a comment here.

Yes. And Bonnie, jump in as well. In terms of how do we know, we know also that our LEAs do provide local assessments, so they do have a good understanding of where students are at the local level. Things I can report to you about our literacy coaches...

And when you say assessments, just for the uninitiated, that's a lot more than just the test scores.

It's a lot...

Why don't you describe them briefly so we...

It could include a reading inventory of students. So sitting down and reading and understanding where they stand with their comprehension and their reading rates. It also looks at a better understanding of across the board how students... I'm sorry, essay comprehension and also support in terms of instructional. I'm drawing a complete blank. This is crazy.

We all live in fear of that.

I'm going to pass to Bonnie and Bonnie can talk to you a little bit more.

Thank you, Cheryl. There's a couple of different assessments that are used at the local level. Anywhere from beginning with screening to progress diagnostic, informal diagnostic assessments to measure certain skills and concepts, progress monitoring, benchmarking. And then ultimately we have our large summative assessments, which could include, you know, just a year long assessments such as CAASPP, but during the school year it's typically your screenings, your informal and your formal assessments, which again include your diagnostics, your progress monitoring, and your benchmark assessments.

So those are all typically done throughout the school year and collected by different school teams and discussed at the local, at the local level. And as Cheryl was sharing, they are, some of our districts that are involved in some of our grants do currently report some of that information.

And when they report it or when they do this, how does this inform you in recommending things to us in moments like this? How do you draw conclusions that it's either being successful or not being successful, needs to be targeted differently or augmented?

It's challenging, and I will acknowledge that. Our state assessments do begin assessing students at third grade, so it does become a challenge.

But isn't by third grade...

Too late? Yes. So we're working with our Smarter Balanced team and working towards and engaging in conversations with State Board as well in looking at what does it look like for K-12 assessments. We do have, through Smarter Balance, our interim assessments, which do go down to kindergarten as well. So we do have some of those.

It's not required or mandated assessments, but we have a number of teachers that are using that across the state and using it very consistently. That's one way. Other ways that we can assess the impact of the program are the number of teachers that are getting trained.

So how many are getting trained to become literacy coaches or reading specialists. We can look at how many are participating in professional learning opportunities and some of the narratives that we're receiving from them as well. So it's both quantitative data, but it's also qualitative data on how students are performing in classrooms with our teachers.

And let me. That brings me to my last question, which is more global, and I think everybody might want to comment. And when you look at our agenda packet and you look at all the individual programs that are going on, it reminds me of the debate over categorical programs in K through 12 where we're just, you know. And I have said in this Committee that I can't remember where I was in my career. I might have been Assembly Budget Chair when we had 80 something categoricals and we got down the 12, and we had to figure out what to do to consolidate.

And now everybody complains about the 12 and has no recollection of the 80 something that existed before. But it seems to me that these fall into sort of three categories, which is statewide coordination, staff development, and then the actual delivery of the literary services, whether it's through coaching or other things.

Why are we not looking at some consolidation of every different individual program into some big block grant with these requirements or something that just doesn't parse it out in the different ways? And I don't know who, I know the Legislative Analysts will probably be happy to jump in, but I don't know first. But I don't know if either the Department of Finance would like to comment out the gate.

Currently at the Department, just beginning or initiated September 2024 by our State Superintendent, we have a new initiative, Move the Needle, which is actually looking at, looking at ways to bring multiple initiatives together. So one of the things that we are working on with this particular group, which includes the 250 districts who have at least one or more of their schools who are eligible for the Literacy Coaches and Reading Specialists Grant.

And we've invited them and we're inviting them also to share some of their local level data, but we're inviting them to also braid their funds. So having them work with these multiple initiatives together. So the Literacy Coaches and Reading Specialists Grant, the Learning Recovery Education Block Grant, the Educator Effectiveness Block Grant, and then might be missing. And there's one more.

But is what you're saying that's a path toward what I'm talking about or is that sort of aspirational? And there's nothing that's really starting to move in that?

It's a path that we're currently taking to, to get, to get there. And I do think it's a, there is some aspiration there. But it's, it's, it's one of our efforts to be able to do things more cohesively. So we're tying things, so we're tying all of these efforts together rather than having them work separately.

Which is what the goal of my question was. It seems to me that's where we should be moving. And now would Finance like to comment.

Regarding consolidating all our literacy resources, that's one of the things we envisioned for the Literacy Network. The proposal, we saw it as a place to align and maximize the impact of existing literacy initiatives that we have, and also as a way to present the states comprehensive view of literacy and available literacy resources for schools seeking to improve their...

But does that mean that the framework under that would be... You have the network that tries to focus it, but you still have all what are in essence categorical programs underneath them? Is that what you're thinking about?

I'm not exactly sure how the proposal fits into that. As far as the Literacy Network goes, though, the point would be to kind of compile all these resources in a way that's accessible for schools.

Okay. And I know you're... Maybe we should give you a chance to introduce yourself and respond to this because I know you're with a collaborative that sounds a little bit coordinating. So.

Yes. Good morning. Dr. Stephanie Gregson of the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence. And what you're speaking to is about, since 2019, the state has invested over $690 million in literacy initiatives, all with varying timelines, all with varying mandates within legislative language, and all with different leads.

And so what we're seeing in our work is that each of those leads has expertise in what they're doing, but they are not doing it across... They're not doing it in collaboration with all of the other leads. And so if you look at, you know, Bonnie talked about all of the different initiatives in the Moving the Needle, that's only four. There's about nine other different literacy initiatives that are not a part of that conversation.

So the Literacy Network provides the opportunity for us to have, one, a north star around high quality literacy instruction that all initiatives are working towards, that are grounded in our ELA, ELD framework, in our EL Roadmap, in the Literacy Roadmap, and all of the anchoring documents that we have in the state that are guiding literacy instruction at the classroom level.

So this is an opportunity, the Literacy Network is an opportunity to find coherence among all of these different initiatives and provide recommendations for further investments in the state that are finding coordination instead of having all of this patchwork of literacy initiatives.

Oh, that's exactly what I'm driving at because I sort of think there's this urgency out there with how we have not moved the needle as much as we want to and how do we focus what you just described as substantial efforts in doing that and how do we measure it in a way that, if we're not moving the needle, we redirect to move the needle. That seems to be the significant thing here. And when I look at all the individual programs, I don't know, it's discouraging in some ways against that goal. Now I think the Legislative Analyst is ready to comment and has heard the rest of the discussion.

Thank you, Chair. We don't have specific comments on which of these programs should be consolidated or anything to that regard. I think we might like to draw the distinction though between like one time funding and then longer term categoricals locking away funding. One of the benefits of one time funding is that it doesn't lock away funding for long time future years in specific categoricals. So we just draw that distinction in case it's helpful.

I appreciate that, but as somebody that a few decades ago ran a nonprofit that got state money, anytime they talk about a block grant, it was a way to cut us. You know, it was like, oh, efficiency, you get less while we be more efficient. And I would really like there to be a focus on the outcome and some coordination of all these different programs in a way that you just don't feel like they're moving in their own universe toward it.

And I would hope that that's a direction that we're heading in because when you have the presentations we had, we all talked about the little bitty pieces of it and what is good or bad or needs to be tweaked. It's, how do we know overall we're really moving it? I went longer than I thought, and I want to give my colleagues a chance. Senator Perez.

Yeah, thank you. One, I appreciate the Chair, Senator Laird's comments. Just everything around, you know, consolidation of programs, looking more, you know, at outcomes and measuring our results. And I think, however, we can make this process of applying for grants and for funding easier, more simplified, and also do an assessment to see what is actually leading to the kind of results and changes that we want to see in both progress on math and reading would be the right approach.

You know, I do want to bring up. There's so many different investments here, and just even within the report, I mean, and the things that you all highlighted, there's so many different grant programs and assistance programs available for schools. But I do know that we've seen success in parts of the state, you know, particularly areas like the Central Valley, where we've seen improvements in literacy. The CalMatters actually just did an article on this. I'm sure some of you read it on some of those improvements.

And I wonder, are we looking at examples where we've seen, especially in an area like the Central Valley where you have such smaller school districts where they're creating programs that are delivering real results? I think we should be looking at that because these are schools that are already underfunded, these are schools that are already facing financial challenges, and yet they're still delivering great results.

In addition to that, as I've been looking at this issue, some of the states that have seen the biggest gains in improvements in literacy, improvements in math rates have been some of our rural states. And I do think that there's something to be learned there just in terms of what they're doing from a policy lens and how they've gone about delivering results. So just wanted to see.

I know we talk a lot about funding, right, and putting investments and dollars towards trying to solve some of our biggest issues, but there's, there are quite a few investments being made here and we haven't seen the kind of measurable results that we want to see.

So are there things that we could be doing differently and how are we looking at areas of success, school districts that have had success, and modeling and amplifying those programs for other parts of the state and possibly, you know, taking them statewide?

I think that we've had, we've had opportunities to interview, to survey, to better understand what's happening across the state. So schools that are doing exceptionally well both in literacy and in math in very challenging conditions. What we're finding the through line is coaching. We're finding consistently across both literacy and math is providing that coaching support.

We also know that good quality professional learning moves teachers to move the needle for kids. And so ensuring that we've got solid professional learning and we've got great examples of that through our literacy coach and Reading Specialist Grant Program and educator training that makes a difference. But again, in our conversations with places that are really, we're seeing changes happening for students in our LEAs, coaching is kind of a through line. There's a lot that goes into it, but coaching is a through line.

And I can add the Statewide Literacy Network, one of the goals is that it will study, highlight, and disseminate information about high performing local level education agencies and best practices. And the, you know, I mentioned that there's a lot of initiatives that are supported through the Statewide System of Support, and the Statewide Literacy Network would provide more of a dedicated space. And that dedicated space would allow us to, again, be able to collaborate more specifically around literacy with all of these different literacy leads.

But it would also allow us to measure the impact that these initiatives have on student outcomes by being able to study, as the statute says, study, highlight, and disseminate information about these high performing local education agencies. So this is one of the avenues that we will be able to take to be able to meet that particular goal.

I wanted to follow up on this because I, I know you mentioned the literacy coaches and Reading Specialist Grants Program, you know, which is excellent and I think you're saying that, you're saying that is the major driver of results in some of these local school districts. But I... It looks like interests in some of those programs, despite multiple application rounds, hasn't really manifested. Are we seeing folks still submitting applications like in high numbers for some of those programs and taking advantage of some of those grants?

And if that's not the case, but you're saying that this is a program that yields results, then is there another way for us to approach it to make sure that those literacy coaches, you know, the programs that we have set up, or maybe rather than being opt in, we're changing them so that they're set up in a different way?

So there's two different, I think programs that are, that are happening right now across the state. The literacy coach reading specialist that is targeted towards Initially the first cohort were schools that were 97% unduplicated count. Now it's 95% unduplicated count. We're asking for this next round to broaden that a little bit more.

That is a focused initiative that provides both training support as well as incentives to encourage folks to get their reading specialist credentials or get trained as a literacy coach. We also have another initiative that provided funding for any teacher to move forward and apply to get that specialist credentialing. The challenge... Or the authorization.

The challenge with that and what we've heard earlier is that those funds are not necessarily sufficient to allow someone to fully to go back to school and pay for the tuition to complete that training. There is an initiative right now to increase that and that may make it more palatable and more accessible for educators to go back and pursue an authorization. There is a cost to that. Through literacy coaches, reading specialists, we're able to provide and cover some of those costs for our LEAs.

And so again, we've had lots of conversations about credentialing. It goes back to that piece around, yes, people are interested, but if it requires a cost, let's eliminate that barrier and make sure that we can move folks forward and make it accessible across the state.

Ochao Bogh, do you have any questions or comments?

Good morning. A couple of questions when it comes to literacy, and I haven't been able to get a direct answer on, perhaps with all of you experts here may be able to guide me a little bit.

First of all, when we do the literacy assessments for students in California, are we assessing all of our students in English to assess their reading language? How are we assessing our English language learners? And with that question, if you could define or differentiate for me an English language learner versus a multilingual learner.

I know we're seeing that multilingual learner piece right now in a lot of our documents. And so I like to have clarification as to the difference between an English language learner and a multilingual learner.

Nate Williams, Department of Finance. So the specific so the English language designation is really comes about through federal requirements. And so last year, well, we used the ELPAC, so the English Language Proficiency Assessment for Californians, I think, is what it stands for. And so that designates a student who is in kindergarten or above as an English learner.

The multilingual learner that we're kind of proposing with the screening instrument for TK is a separate designation that's different from the English learner designation, which is more of like a federal designation. It's essentially designed to do the same thing, but it is a separate process.

But what does that look like with a student? What am I looking at a student that is multilingual versus an English language learner? And why are we differentiating between a federal definition and deciding on a, I'm assuming California definition.

To be able to designate as so to be able to specifically designate as an English learner in California, they have to take the approved assessment, which is the ELPAC. But we're no longer assessing TK students using that ELPAC, so we cannot designate them as an English learner.

Now, practically with this new assessment tool, the multilingual learner is is designed to identify the same students or the students who would have been identified with the ELPAC.

But moving forward, the idea is to have more of kind of a, while they may be designated separately in TK vs K, the idea is to still treat the student and give supports to those students in a similar fashion.

But right now we're really just focusing on getting that designation because we don't currently have a way to designate them as needing, you know, additional supports at the TK level.

So it's the assessment that is that is determining what designation you folks are using. But it's Basically the same. Correct. Okay. That's. We've been trying to battle and understand why the differences and what that looks like. Okay, so that's a. That's a.

It's a bit more helpful now with regards to the assessment in literacy in the State of California, when we're assessing our students and their literacy aptitude, are we assessing our English language learners in English or before they're designated into or becoming transitioning over to English, are we assessing them in English or are we assessing them in their primary language?

When it comes to literacy, what are we doing in California?

In California, when we assess our students with CAASPP, we assess them using an English. The CAASPP assessment is in English, and it measures for specific domains, so reading, writing, speaking, and listening. So that's the measure. That's the assessment that we use as the summative assessment that we use at the end of the year of third grade.

And again, it's in English. I don't know if you have something. To add in English.

Yes. So this would actually mean that we're assessing students that haven't formally transitioned into English and they're still not proficient in English to be able to transition. We're still assessing them in English when it comes to literacy.

So there's the CAASPP and there's the ELPAC. So there's the English Language Proficiency Assessment, but then there's also the California assessment. California assessment is offered in English, the ELPAC. Depending on the needs of the student, that assessment is provided to them in the language that they would best understand.

And the ELPAC includes what types of assessments?

It's the same four domains. Reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

Okay. This is actually what would skew our scores in the State of California, because when we see. When we're comparing ourselves to the rest of the nation, I'm assuming we're using the CAASPP, the CAASPP assessments, which. We're actually assessing our English language learners who haven't formally transitioned into English, whose primary language is still Spanish.

And I'm kind of speaking perhaps students who have arrived to the United States from other countries that do not speak English, coming into our country that same year or the year prior to. And we're assessing them with the CAASPP, which is an English. It's a reading assessment in English.

It's an assessment in English. LEAs can choose, and there are some LEAs that optimize to provide in other languages. It's not across the board. It's not a required piece. That is an optional piece for districts. To be able to use assessments in other languages as well.

So the CAASPP is available in other languages.

The CAASPP is available in other languages. That is a local decision that's made.

It's not to offer it to their students or not. But there wouldn't be a benefit for our school districts to actually assess a child in a language that is not proficient. Right. When you're trying to assess the reading.

It definitely creates a challenge. And I think that our assessment system that is set up both with our interim assessments, our summative assessments, as well as our assessments for English learners, and the redesignation process allows us to have a full picture of where our students are.

If we're looking at one test over the other, they're testing different things. But we. I feel like there are ways to really have a full picture of where our students stand.

I can also add for the screening for risk of reading difficulties.

Although the scores are not reported back to the state, the statute does require that students who do not have sufficient English be screened in their primary language, and that if an instrument is not available in the student's primary language, that the district adopt a process that includes looking at the student's developmental history, for example, their language background and their primary language, as well as a couple of other criteria that's included within the.

Within the. Within the. Within the statute. It also. The statute also doesn't. Is. It doesn't require it, but it doesn't prevent a district from also screening a student in.

So say they are going to screen them in Spanish, but they also kind of want to see where they're at with English to have a better, more comprehensive picture of how that student is doing and not jump to conclusions. That's also something that districts are able to do should they choose.

Okay, so I just want to see the accuracy of our assessment scores and ensuring that we have a process that actually truly does identify where our students are, both for better or good. We should probably have the best assessments.

And I'm just thinking, being that we do have an option to have the cast both in their primary language and in English, there wouldn't be any incentive for school districts to choose to assess these students in any other language but their primary language. Otherwise it would be a faulty.

It would be assessing language ability, not necessarily their reading ability. So I just want to make sure that our reading scores really, truly are reflective of our efforts in California. And if they are accurate, then we need to focus on, you know, what tools and what programs have actually been effective in the State of California.

And the reason being is that as we're rolling out these funding efforts like round three for literacy coaches, you know, starting at 97 and then going to 95 and so forth. And interestingly enough, when we look at, with unduplicated kids, right, that's what we're looking at when we're looking at the assessments and the growth that has happened.

We've seen the growth happen and mostly in RN duplicated kids in our English language learners. So obviously those efforts are working and it's actually hopeful. It's actually hopeful. My follow up question wants now that I have a clear vision because I haven't been able to get clarity.

One thing that we can also, I can have our assessment team send you over, given the questions that you're asking today, just some clear, kind of a clearer picture of what our assessments look like and how we're moving them forward.

That'd be wonderful. Thank you. The other question I have for you is, you know, we just had a panel, I believe it was last week, speaking to the, to the point that our.

There was no uniformity when it came to the grant process application and some of it being very, very difficult for some areas to be able to apply for grants.

And at the top of my mind was our rural school districts and our smaller school districts who do not have the personnel to be able to, you know, one person is doing everything. They're the principal, their human services, they're, they're doing the grant applications and so forth. And, and I was curious, let me have my question here.

Are there plans to provide funding in the future on an ongoing basis? For one, the literacy screenings. Also, has the Administration considered providing clarification on who can administer the literacy screenings that we were talking about? And let me. Oh, this one's up top. Hold on, sorry, Wait on that one because that's another question that I have.

But before that one, can you explain why the math coaches proposal requires the LEAs to apply for funding and does not include a minimum funding amount an LEA would receive versus the literacy coach's proposal, which automatically provides funding to eligible LEAs unless they opt out and also includes a minimum funding level per school site?

My concern is that requiring the LEAs to apply for grant funding could be overly burdensome for smaller LEAs leading them to opt out of applying altogether, as I think my colleague had mentioned earlier. And the lack of funding minimum could also dissentivize the LEAs from applying.

USA, Scott Lana with the Department of Finance. To answer your first question about why they're allocated differently, math coaches going to LEAs, whereas literacy coaches went to schools. And that's a product of the different structures that the coaching programs have. So, for example, the literacy coaches program is focused on K3 students.

Meanwhile, the math coaches program is focused on all grades. And as such, there's just going to be a much larger scope for it. So given that larger scope, available funding, and the number of existing math initiatives supporting LEAs to implement the existing framework, the Administration believed that this was the best approach for it.

And in terms of allowing schools to change the way that they access the funding by making it a opt out option instead of an opting in option, that is that that is definitely one of the things that we're looking at for the may revise.

I can't share more than that as of right now, but it's one of the various factors we're looking at.

Okay.

All right, I think that's it for me. Oh yes. Can we go back to the one that I started with but should be. Should be now a follow-up. Sorry. Are there plans to provide the funding in the future on an ongoing basis for literacy screenings?

Also, has the Administration considered providing clarification on who can administer the literacy screenings? I'm hearing from stakeholders that cleanup is needed to clarify that any appropriately trained employee may administer the screening.

I would just say that my colleague Liz will be able to better answer that question.

Good morning. Liz Mai with the Department of Finance. For, to your second question yes, we are going to look and cleaning up that language for May revise.

For the first question on ongoing funding, I think that we're, we are anticipating that districts will still go through the mandates claim process for the screening and the training and all the things that are necessary for the implementation of the screening requirement. And then once it goes through the mandate claims process, that it'll eventually be rolled into the K12 Mandate Block Grant, which is ongoing.

So that would ultimately be the mechanism in which ongoing funds would be provided. I think what you're seeing with this proposal and then the funds added last year was just an acknowledgement that that process takes time and while that's playing out, screenings still need to take place. So we're kind of providing that funding on the front end.

Got it. Okay. Very helpful. Thank you.

No, I was just going to reiterate what was just shared and that is that the statute is just kind of clear or states that any staff at a school site that is trained currently should be trained. But I defer to the DOF for that cleanup.

Perfect. Well, thank you. And then one last clarification note question. There was a Bill that was proposed, I believe it was last year by one of my colleagues in the Assembly in which they wanted to ensure that we implemented statewide best practices for English language learners.

Where are we in that component within this framework that you folks are looking for? As far as the Governor's proposed program on, my notes, the statewide literacy network.

Would you restate your question one more time?

Yeah, sorry about that. So last year it came to our attention, and I was not aware that up until the proposed Bill last year there was an effort to. The Bill was an effort to create statewide best practices for English language learners.

And I'm kind of curious as to if there's any effort in including that component in the governor's proposed statewide literacy network.

Do you have the Bill number?

I don't have it, but we can get that to you. But up until then, I did not know that the State of California did not have state best practices for our English language learners.

We do. Thank you. We do have best practices. I know through our multilingual support division. That is a huge focus of the work that they do in working with the field on what is working best for and getting feedback from for our students, for our English learners.

It would help me if I knew the Bill number and then I can, I could, I could speak to it or we can come back to this topic.

We'll get that Bill number to you.

Thank you.

Thank you. I think that completes sort of our questions and there are many takeaways from the discussion, which is, you know, we were sympathetic to some of the reforms in the different programs that were suggested by the Legislative Analyst. It sounds like there's a look being taken.

I think we probably would like a tighter overall consolidation or coordination, although it seems to be heading in some direction. And I hope that really happens. And I would like to feel that the things that are being learned at the local level truly are being fed in to adjust how we target things.

Because it's one of those things where sometimes it just doesn't feel like we're denting this to the level that we really need to. And yet we're putting a lot of resources in and we have to know that it's being focused and tied to outcomes in a way that we truly feel like we're moving the needle.

And I think that sort of ties together the questions in the discussion that that came from everybody today. And it sounds like there are discussions going on between now and the finalization of the May revise.

And we will take a look at what does come in the May revise against what we were just talking about here and hope that there are directions that are moving there. So thank you. This is been a remarkably detailed discussion and appreciate everybody's help for it.

And we will move to item number two, which is the expanded learning opportunities program. And the Legislative Analyst gets to not switch out. But we'll have George Harris from the Department of Finance and Michael Funk from the Department of Education.

And I think we'll go in that order, which is the Department of Finance, the Department of Education, and then the Legislative Analyst Office. So let's begin with the Department of Finance. Welcome to the Committee. You have to press it and we'll see if it magically.

Good morning, Committee Chair and Committee Members. George Harris, on behalf of the Department of Finance, going over the Governor's Budget proposal for the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program.

The Expanded Learning Opportunities Program is a multi-year investment plan to implement before, after, and summer school instruction and enrichment for students in grades TK-6, with a focus on local education agencies with the highest concentrations of low-income students, English learners, and youth in foster care, otherwise known as unduplicated pupils.

At the release of the 2021 Budget Act, the state projected that full fiscal implementation of the program would take place in 2025-26. The Governor's Budget includes an ongoing increase of $435 million in 25-26 to fully implement the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program.

It does so by increasing the number of local educational agencies that offer universal access to students from those with an unduplicated pupil percentage of 75% to those with an unduplicated pupil percentage of 55%. This brings the total program funding for the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program to $4.4 billion ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

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

Still good morning. Thank you. Michael Funk with the Expanded Learning Division at the California Department of Education representing Superintendent Tony Thurman. We support the changes proposed by the Administration in the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program. In terms of what I've had feedback from the field, there are a couple concerns that we'd want the Committee to be aware of.

The first is, while lowering the Tier 2 threshold from 75%, excuse me, to 55% would be understood as good news to any LEA that was going to get a funding increase. We have heard directly from some LEAs, especially in remote parts of California, where their big challenge is staffing and finding qualified staff that meet the qualifications.

And so more money doesn't create more humans. So they're concerned that by going to the higher tier, Tier One, moving the threshold so they are eligible for tier one funding. Just to be clear, that changes the number of students you need to offer and provide access to the program.

So if you're in tier two, as a reminder, you're required to offer and provide access to unduplicated students. And if you go to tier one, you're required to offer and provide access to all students in the LEA.

And there are some that are expressing that might cause them to consider declaring not to operate the program as opposed to being out of compliance and having proportional penalties for not being able to serve the students. That is not a widespread concern, but it is one that we have heard.

And I wanted to make sure it was on the record. Number two, there continues to be, I've said this every year since the inception of the program that the minimum apportionment of 50k is too low for many LEAs.

And as someone who before coming to the Department operated programs for decades in the Bay Area, you cannot run a quality, safe expanded learning program for 50k. It's very difficult just in terms of you have to at least have two staff.

In case a staff gets called away to assist a child, you have to have funding for additional staff and the requirements of 180 days and 30 non school days for 50k is not realistic. And so some LEAs are considering declaring not to operate the program if the minimum stays at 50k.

We have been working with them and the recommendation we have is for the minimum to move to 100k. I am sorry, I don't know what impact that would have on the overall budget. I anticipate that question. We're happy to get back to you with that after working with our School Fiscal Services Division.

The second is just to note that we're on track with the implementation of moving the enrollment and days of participation of ELOP students into the CALPADS database starting in July 2025. We're on target, on track and beginning to communicate that to the LEAs.

And that is going to open up within a couple years a wide and deep ability to look into the impact of this program in a way that we haven't been able to in the past. Finally, the challenge and opportunity before us with many LEAs is the integration of attendance recovery commencing in July 20th of this year.

And we anticipate that the connection with attendance recovery and expanded learning can even further make the connection between the instructional day and expanded learning time and have more collaboration between our certificated teachers and those staff in a program which we refer to as community educators. I'm happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.

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

Good morning Chair Members. Dylan Hawksworth-Lutzow with the LAO. We think the estimated cost of the proposal is reasonable, but we recommend delaying the changes at least a year.

As Department of Education just described, expanding the number of students that districts would be required to serve creates some burdens in terms of finding staff and finding facilities to serve those, those students. And so we recommend giving districts time to adjust to these changes. We also have recommendations about revisiting the overall structure of the ELOP.

Now that we're hitting full implementation of this program. We think that there are a few problems the Legislature might want to address before any further expansions. First, we recommend aligning the funding for ELOP and the After School Education and Safety, or ASES program. Currently, some districts are two different funding streams for the same pupils.

One way to address this issue would be to actually reduce the amount of ELOP funding districts get based on the amount of ASES funding they receive. This would mean that districts have less ELOP funding, but it would free up several $100 million that could be redirected to other educational priorities.

Alternatively, the state could allow districts to keep that ELOP funding if they were to, if districts were to expand the grade range of students that they were serving in expanded hours. We also recommend looking at how ELOP is funded. So we recommend over the long run that ELOP be funded on actual program participation.

Currently, districts are getting funding for ELOP based on unduplicated pupil enrollment in the district. This does result in districts with this can result in districts that have high demand for the program receiving less funding than districts that have lower demand per pupil funding.

So in 25-26, the state is going to be starting to collect data on enrollment or enrollment in expanded learning programs. That's from AB 1113 from last year. So we recommend the state start funding ELOP based on the number of students actually participating in ELOP beginning in 2026-27.

Lastly, we recommend the Legislature consider setting a fixed rate for the lower funding tier for ELOP. Currently the tier 2 funding rate changes year to year and it started at $2,000, but then it declined to $1,809 per pupil.

And then although it's we've been told it's going to get bumped up from money that was recouped from districts that did not end up using ELOP funding in previous years, the initial proposed ELOP funding for this year was $1,579 per student in those tier two districts.

So there's a lot of uncertainty, instability for tier 2 districts that might cause them to want participating in the ELOP program. So the state could set a fixed ELOP rate for Tier 2 districts to eliminate a lot of that uncertainty.

This would however, shift a lot of the uncertainty to the state in terms of how much funding would be required year to year for the ELOP. Happy to answer questions.

Thank you very much. And I'm going to go to my colleagues, but ask a global thing that came up and start with the Department of Finance.

Our staff report is so clear on what happens on the expenditure side of the 75% to 55% between the tiers and the questions about, you know, but it is light on the revenue side. I read this over and over again, trying to understand the obvious question. Is there a fixed amount?

And then we switch tiers or by switching tiers, are we drawing more money in the program? On the revenue side, how does this work? And I'll start with the Department of Finance.

Let me try to ask it a different way. Is there a fixed amount that goes to this program every year that doesn't change? And then we change the expenditure side and we have to do it within that fixed amount?

That's correct. Over the past three years there's been 4 billion ongoing to the program. And then the rate one local education agencies receive the base rate multiplied by their average daily attendance and unduplicated pupil percentage and then whatever the the remaining amount is then,

Within the fixed amount.

Correct. Within that fixed.

So whenever. So when there's a proposal, I'm trying to understand then the impact of the proposal to switch from 75% to 55% within a fixed amount, then does that then lessen the per pupil for some districts to be able to lower it to 55%?

Okay, I better understand the question now. So when we determined to lower the threshold from 75% to 55%, we then determined how many local education agencies that were formally under the rate 2 funding were then brought to rate 1, which was 475 local education agencies.

And then by increasing them to that base rate of rate one getting that $2,750, that formula created the 435 million ongoing. The additional 435 ongoing to the program.

But that gives 435 districts a little more money, right?

Yes, to implement the program,

Then where, in this fixed amount, does the less money land. That's what I'm trying to understand here is on the funding side, it is not unlike the completely misunderstood thing. Sorry to introduce a subject that is not the expanded learning opportunity, but it's moving from ADA, average daily attendance, to enrollment.

Everybody in the educational community thinks this is a great move. But if it's within a fixed amount of Prop 98, which it is, it creates billions of dollars of winners and billions of dollars of losers. And that is not widely understood.

I am trying to understand if there are losers created by creating new winners by moving them into the higher tier.

Brittany Thompson, Department of Finance. So we balance all the resources within the guarantee. And so we wouldn't be able to provide a dollar for dollar impact of where the $435 million is coming from, but it is balanced within the overall guarantee.

Well, I get that it's balanced. That still doesn't answer if there's losers. If there's 435 districts that get more money, is somebody losing for that to happen? The Legislative Analyst started with perhaps so let's see where that goes.

Perhaps I can clarify. Sorry. Our understanding is that under this proposal, there are not losers. The 435 million additional dollars would cover the cost of increasing that range of the Tier One rates. So.

But, but then it's not a fixed pie. That's 435 million to be able.

It would change the pie going forward.

Okay. The pie expands to be able to accommodate people getting bigger pieces. Thank you. That's. That just was not clear.

Yes. Yes, that's right. And then there's no changes to the current local education agencies that are still within rate two or the local education agencies that were also already in rate one.

And does whoever in the Department of Finance figures the out year costs fully aware of this with regard to what this means for commitments in the out year as well? I know the answer is yes, but I just sort of feel like I've done.

Yeah, Brittany Thompson, Department of Finance. Yes, we're aware that this would be 4.4 billion ongoing Proposition 98.

Okay. Just checking.

Mr. Chair, may I comment briefly?

Well, of course.

Thank you. I would want to amplify something that the LAO mentioned. Yes. The additional 400 plus million covers the change of the threshold from 75 to 55%. It does not solve the tier two rate problem that was addressed over the course,

The one that you said should go from 50 to 100,000. But you have no cost.

No, that's, that's, that's the minimum portion, but which is a different issue. Right now, tier two, those districts currently below 75% unduplicated, to put it bluntly, get the leftovers. So those above 75% are guaranteed 2,750 per unduplicated pupil average attendance. That's the rate. The numbers of pupils in those districts have gone up for a variety of reasons.

And so that takes more money off the top and less money reserved to fund those districts below 75%, next year below 55%. There are meetings scheduled, some as early as next week to discuss tier two rate stabilization.

It's already been mentioned, but I want to reiterate, the first year of the program, tier two rate, was over $2,000 per pupil. This year it's just over 1,500. And districts in the tier two don't know what that rate is going to be until the tier one schools are funded.

So it's very difficult to plan not knowing what that is going to be. So the quick fix was to take the money that was unspent by LEAs from the first two years of the program. And this year that's going to supplement the tier two rate. But there's not a plan set for what happens after this year.

And so I just want to say that that is an ongoing issue. I want you to be aware of it and there's work to be done on it and meeting's scheduled to do the work. But I think it's a big concern came up in the Assembly hearing, and I want to reiterate it here from the Department.

Thank you. That sort of is two. But let me and I really want to get to my colleagues, but you keep leading different places.

When we were sort of considering a change in this program, sometime since I've been doing this, I heard from a former colleague in Los Angeles and who was very upset, believing that this program really targeted the 75% or above and that that's where the need is and lowering it dilutes the impact on where the need most is, which is above the 75%.

Everybody seems to be comfortable with this change. Would you speak on why that concern isn't a concern right now?

George Harris, the Department of Finance, from the administration's perspective, we wanted to lower that threshold to make sure that the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program is fully providing universal access to as many unduplicated pupils as possible throughout the state.

And so by lowering that threshold for local education agencies, we now have been able to increase the number of, basically increase the number of students receiving that universal access.

I appreciate that, the point that was being made was that the people that were most in need were the ones that are already being covered and were like lessening the focus on them to spread it broader. And in that and I got hammered by her on that.

But given who that person was, that's what I should expect. But I just want to make that point because I think that point is out there among some of the LEAs and that there's real concern about it.

I can offer a perspective on that. In the couple decades I worked in the Bay Area, many of the schools that I ran expanded learning programs in were about 50% free, reduced meals.

Many of my colleagues in other, and I worked in the Sunset District, so it was on the west side of town, perceived to be middle class. These kids don't need as much. Schools in other neighborhoods were 80 to 90% FRPM. We got the same amount of money.

So my argument over the decades was my middle school's got 1500 kids at 50% FRPM. This school is 90% FRPM, but their student population is 400. How many low-income kids?

Can you just state what that acronym means the first time?

Free Reduced Meals.

Okay, just translating it to English. Thank you.

I remember that from a previous hearing.

Yeah, but somebody else got jammed in the previous hearing. This time it was you.

So anyway, the perspective is that schools with higher duplicated counts also have access to more other resources that are targeting low-income schools. And so the low-income kids in the lower percentage schools still need the support. Now, when you get down to 20% unduplicated, 25, 30%, that's a different story.

But 55% is still a high percentage of kids in these schools. And so I just wanted to offer that perspective.

Thank you. Let me ask Senator Ochoa-Bogh, Senator Perez.

I appreciate the presentation because I once was a child who participated in the ACES program.

And then I went and I worked for ACES at one point too, and really enjoyed my time there and have seen just how powerful and impactful of a program it is and just providing after school programming and care, you know, for parents that are working oftentimes past what school hours traditionally are. So it's a great program.

You know, I noticed in one of the LAO's recommendations that was to align ELOP funding and the ACES program, because it looks like there's a, there's a duplication, right? All kids are eligible for ACES, whereas only some are eligible for ELOP. So there could be this case of double-dipping.

And you said it would free up several hundreds of millions of dollars that could be redirected to other education. So I guess what's currently happening, what is currently happening with that funding right now that those schools are being allocated?

And so what kind of financial impact would it have if, if we did move ahead with aligning those programs so that we were saving on those resources? I mean, I'm assuming those schools are probably currently utilizing those dollars, right, in some form or fashion. So.

Yes, our recommendation would result in some districts receiving less funding for expanded learning programs in that way. I think our recommendation comes from the perspective of, ELOP is supposed to be comprehensive. It's supposed to be the amount of funding that is required to provide after school programming to either all students or in tier two, all unduplicated students.

It is definitely the case that in some districts, especially in tier 2 districts where they're currently not required to provide after school programming to all students, that removing some ACES funding might mean they might be able to serve fewer students, especially with the issues that we've been seeing with tier two rates declining, but in tier one districts especially, we think there's sufficient funding to provide expanded learning programming to K through 6 students.

I have a perspective I'd like to offer and I, excuse me, respectfully but deeply disagree with that recommendation. The original design of the program was that the expanded learning opportunities program would complement the after-school education safety funding.

In fact, the ED Code for Expanded Learning Opportunities references all the ACEs ED Code because it was the intent that these programs complement each other. And districts that have after school education safety funding for school sites and have expanded learning opportunities funding have by and large exponentially, deeply increased the number of students they've served.

For example, Cuttleback School in Humboldt County increased their enrollment by 72%. They went from 55 students in a very small school to 113. They couldn't have done it without having both sources of funding. It's not double-dipping. They're amplifying the number of students that they're serving.

Pajaro Valley increased their program by 67% of enrollment and attendance from ACEs only to the expanded learning opportunities program.

It was just a coincidence that you chose Pajaro Valley, right?

There are no coincidences.

I was going to say, do you have anything from San Bernardino or Altadena?

I've actually got something from every geographic area in the state. We don't have comprehensive data from CalPads yet. So we have been working to collect, getting specific concrete examples from LEAs in every geographic area of the state to show the impact of both sources of funding exponentially supporting kids.

And this notion of I've got an ACEs grant for 100k so you're going to reduce my ELO expanded learning opportunities funding by 100k. What's the incentive for me to keep the ACES grant?

People who have expanded learning state funding per school site for the after school education safety program know how to operate the programs that you worked in, Senator. They know what to do. And most of those programs have waiting lists of kids who want to get in, but there's not enough funding.

The expanded learning opportunities funding eliminated wait lists across the state and it would be devastating to programs to have that move. Yeah, we can, we can use money somewhere else if we don't use it here. But this money is serving kids right now and kids that don't have other options. The Pajaro Valley example, for example.

I've, I've spoken at length with their director many times. They are doing things for low-income farmworker families that They've never been able to do before with just the ACES funding. And I can give you more examples.

No, but I used to have the statistics of that district committed to memory of something like 82% free and reduced meals, the high number of English language learners, the high number of just so many indicators that demonstrated exactly who that district is serving. Well, thank you. We appreciate your comments.

Anything else from any of the Members? Then I appreciate this discussion. I think in general we like the direction of the tier. We like the fact that there's additional funding. But there appears to be one additional comment here.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I may.

I was trying. I was really trying.

I appreciate it. Rebecca Lee with the Department of Finance. If I could just revisit the last topic just to emphasize that the funding related to the dilution or the belief of the dilution of like, kind of the programs. We just want to note that the funding is still going to be available for the folks over the 75%.

The intent of the Governor's Budget proposal for the 435 million.

No, no, no, no. I think you're missing the point. Sorry, no disagreement about that. Okay. No disagreement. But there is a school of thought that if there's extra money, it should focus on the people that are 75% or above and not expanding it to the below.

That is what the point was and it is coming from the school districts that receive that are in the current 75% or above category. That's all I will say. No argument that the same amount of money is still going.

Yeah. That we just wanted to make sure. That was like clear that. Because that was the intent to make sure to bring it down to 55.

But I understand what the intent is. But if you were to talk to some school board members in Los Angeles, they would have an issue. So. And they don't appear to be here, so you're safe.

So anyway, getting back to that good general direction, I hope that a few of the points such as the minimum in, in tier two and some of the other refinements get addressed between now and the May revise. But it seems like it's headed in the right direction and seeing no other. Yeah.

George Harris, Department of Finance.

You didn't want to take her on, did you?

No. Okay. This is what we didn't really get an opportunity to address some of those related to the minimum entitlement and that.

Would you like to address those comments?

Yeah, I will be brief, just to say that we have been hearing those conversations from the field as well and that we've been having conversations.

We look forward to continuing those conversations with stakeholders.

Great. Thank you very much. Okay. I'm not going to redo it again. That's what we think before somebody else speaks. So thank you for being here and we appreciate that discussion. We're going to move to issue number three, Special Education.

We have Elena Powell from the Department of Finance, Edgar Cabral from the Legislative Analyst Office, and Dr. Rachel Heenan from the Department of Education. And when everybody gets seated, we will go in that order, which is to begin with the Department of Finance, then go to the Legislative Analyst Office and then to the Department of Education.

So welcome to the Department of Finance.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Elena Powell, Department of Finance. I'll be providing a high level overview of the special education investments for the 2025 Governor's Budget. So to begin, every year we adjust the specific funding stream for special education to address growth and cost of living adjustments.

At the Governor's Budget, growth is at 2.563% and the budget provides 37.6 million ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund. Additionally, COLA, cost of living adjustment, is 2.43% and the budget provides 148.1 million ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund.

And finally, the base rate is 909 per average daily attendance, or ADA, and I'll move into the specific proposals in this area. The Governor's Budget proposes two investments related to the Individualized Education Program, or IEP State Standardized Template. Some background, the template was first drafted by a state funded workgroup authorized in the 2020 Budget Act.

The template was then refined by a panel of experts convened by the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, authorized in the 2022 Budget Act and was published in 2024. Digitization and translation are the next steps in operationalizing the template for local educational agencies and supports the Administration's priority of supporting students with disability.

To that end, the Governor's Budget proposes 1 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund for the digitization of the State Standardized IEP Template and an additional 1 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund for the State Standardized IEP Template to be translated into the 10 most common languages other than English in California in accordance with SB 445, which was signed into law in 2024.

Additionally, the Governor's Budget also proposes two technical statutory changes. First, the Governor's Budget proposes amending the Education Code section governing the Inclusive College Technical Assistance center to conform language to program implementation.

This would allow one or more county offices of education to be awarded the grant to administer The Technical Assistance Center for the California Center for Inclusive College Program and would allow an increase in representatives for their advisory work group. The second technical amendment would add community treatment facilities to the special education out of home care funding formula.

This is a new facility type that is not currently included under the formula. Some previously funded facilities fall under this new facility type and currently serve students. Therefore, the language is being updated so those facilities can resume being funded once again. And that concludes my remarks and I'm happy to take questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. We'll move to the Legislative Analyst Office.

Edgar Cabral with the Legislative Analyst Office. We don't have any specific concerns with any of these proposals. I think just note on the community treatment facilities changes. Our office was involved a few years ago on an update to that out of home care formula. We convened the work group as required by statute.

And so just pointing out that from our perspective, this cleanup is consistent with the recommendations of that work group.

Okay, thank you. Then we'll move to the Department of Education.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Dr. Rachel Heenan. I am the Director of Special Education for the California Department of Education. I want to thank you for the opportunity today to testify on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Mr. Tony Thurman.

Special Education Division at CDE works in trusted collaboration with our educational system with students with disabilities, families, and educators to create inclusive learning environments, provide quality programs, resources and drive continuous improvement.

Through data-driven support and equitable access, we empower our students with disabilities to achieve exceptional outcomes, unlock limitless potential, and thrive in a purposeful and successful adulthood. Our purpose is to improve outcomes for infants, toddlers, students, and young adults with disabilities throughout California.

We know that one way to achieve these goals is to increase parent engagement, parent involvement, and equitable access to the Individualized Education Program or IEP process. As you know, our partners at the CCEE have designated and designed a student focused and family friendly IEP document that can be used by all districts statewide.

By digitizing this template, all school districts in the State of California will have full access and utilize one document that meets all state and federal reporting requirements. But more importantly is the user-friendliness of this document and the focus on the strengths of the child and not so much what the child cannot do.

In addition, as a result of this digitization, which is really hard to say, when a child moves from one district or LEA to another or one part of the state to another, which we often see, there'd be a smooth or seamless transition and less or no disruption in service implementation, as transferring the IEP document to another district template will no longer be necessary.

Last, this digitized template will assist with immediate completion and implementation of our IEP's, Individualized Education Programs. The template enables all parents to digitally sign and access their child's IEP, Individualized Education program more quickly.

And bless you. Thank you. We're understanding what you're talking about.

Just making sure. Parents can access these documents through a tablet, smartphone, and a computer. Although few of our districts right now already invest in this option, this universal digitization will provide equal access to all districts and families who have a student with an IEP.

Related to the translation, the Division believes that ensuring families have access to special ed documents in their primary language is not just a legal obligation, it's a fundamental right that upholds equity, empowers informed decision-making, and safeguards every child's educational future.

For the Special Education Division, one goal this year is to improve outreach, parent participation, and involvement in the child's IEP process. To reach this goal, we know we must provide IEP information in the parent's preferred or primary language.

Therefore, CDE looks forward to the final phase of this work to have one County Office of Education translate the IEP document and template into the 10 most common languages spoken in California other than English.

This action alone will improve parent engagement, access to the oftentimes complicated language of special education, and ensure parent participation in their child's educational program.

Regarding the Early Inclusive College Program. I mentioned earlier an excerpt of our working mission with the Special Education Division is to empower students with disabilities to achieve exceptional educational outcomes, unlock limitless potential, and thrive in a purposeful, successful adulthood.

The Budget Act of 24 appropriates $2 million to the state Superintendent of Public Education to award funds to one or more county offices of education to implement California Ed code Section 66032 to establish the inclusive College Technical Assistance Center.

The Center's mission is to increase awareness and access to inclusive post secondary education and employment opportunities for students with intellectual disabilities, including programs with independent living components to coordinate the statewide dissemination of information about programs and services for these students and to enhance access to credentials and work experiences that prepare our students for gainful employment and community living.

Moreover, these centers will support the expansion of inclusive programs on college campuses for students with intellectual disabilities. As a reminder, California has over 850,000 students with disabilities. Let me say that again, we have over 850,000 students with disabilities.

In recognition of the magnitude of this need and with the strong partnership with our County Offices of Education, CDE identified the need to create inclusive college hubs in both the north and the southern parts of the state with the goal of increasing access to all colleges throughout the state and even in the nation.

With this, the CDE has awarded the Inclusive College Technical Assistance Grant to both the Los Angeles County Office of Education and the Sacramento County Office of Education to implement the expansion of the secondary programs and services.

In closing, our young adults with disabilities have the undeniable right to learn alongside their peers, not in isolation, but in the full richness of the shared college experience. Inclusion is not just an educational practice. It is a commitment to the dignity, equality, and belonging of our students.

As they transition beyond high school, our students with disabilities deserve the same opportunities as their peers to pursue higher education, meaningful careers and independent lives. Anything less is a failure of our responsibility to honor the rightful presence in society.

I want to thank you for your continued support for our students with disabilities in the State of California and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate the opening comments. And I'm going to go to Senator Ochoa Bogh for the first question.

Thank you, Senator or Mr. Chair, I have a question. I was wondering, so special education is one of the topics that come up quite readily in my town halls. From concerned parents to concerned folks that actually work within with our students with disabilities. So special education, does that encompass students with disabilities?

Is this within the same scope?

Yes, ma'am, it's the 13. There are 13 disabling conditions that are recognized and that does is include in special education.

Okay. For clarification purposes. And also for clarification, could you walk me through the funding that our schools receive per pupil? How is the funding allocated to our different school districts? Whether it's the school district or per pupil, is there base funding? And then because I know depending on the civility, there's quite an array.

But how is the funding for special education? Yes.

I'm happy to take a high level overview of that. So just giving a bit of context. Dedicated special education funding flows from the state to Special Education Local Planning Areas or SELPAs, based on allocation methodologies codified in statute.

How those funds flow from SELPAs to local education agencies or LEAs, is decided at the local level and is different for each selpa. But we often see a portion of the funds flow to LEAs and a portion of the funds being retained at the SELPA for regionalized services.

There is the base apportionment, which is calculated for each SELPA by multiplying that SELPA's base rate by the SELPA's funded average daily attendance or ADA. The majority of SELPAs are funded at the statewide base rate, which is adjusted for cost of living, COLA, in every year.

The funded SELPA ADA, on the other hand, is the greater of either the current year ADA, the prior year ADA, or the prior prior year ADA of the member LEAs within that SELPA, which is functionally a two-year hold harmless.

And when you refer to the ADA, are you talking in general ADA or just specifically for children with disabilities ADA?

It is in general ADA.

Okay, and within that funding. So there. So no numbers per se because they vary quite differently, right?

The funding for each SELPA is going to vary based on their average daily attendance as well as their base rate. Correct.

So let me ask you, it's been my understanding, and I don't know, do we do an audit to see how appropriately funded they are, if they're fully funded or if the amount being allocated per pupil per schools if it needs to be increased to accommodate the cost of special education?

Because it's my understanding that it's increased quite a bit. And we've always been underfunded to be able to fully provide the services for many of these families. And so we have parents who feel that not all of the services have been provided.

So how do we walk through those families that feel that their students have not received all of the services that they are in need of?

So I will note that yearly we do adjust special education funding for growth and cost of living adjustments. So depending on what that is for the state, we do increase special education funding each year by those amounts.

And I do also want to note that a district like so they do students with disabilities also are general education students. So they also generate LCFF dollars that we expect local educational agencies to use to provide services to their students with disabilities.

The dedicated special education funding is not meant to cover the entire cost of educating students with disabilities. It's kind of an acknowledgement that it is more expensive. So it's an addition to the LCFF.

And Senator, just to tag on is, you know, that's one of the things we fight for in the field of special education is the guarantee that was not promised on IDEA federal funding. And so the promise was 40%. I think we're about 14%. So we still fight for the federal promise to fully fund IDEA.

So can you walk me through a little bit with more clarity on what you just explained. Just so I can visualize, if you have numbers or just sensitive numbers, that would be very helpful to visualize.

I do have some numbers for federal funding I'm assuming is,

Federal and or state.

So state educational funding total general funds for this year is $5,600,000,000. Just rounding up there. And then federal funds, the total is $1,400,000,000, rounding.

But there's no way to actually figure how much per, is there a base amount for each student? I think the,

So we do have. A base rate that's the 909 per ADA.

If I could just. Sorry, Edgar Cabral with the LAO. Maybe just to answer some of the questions that you've addressed. I think by and large, so, so I think special education requirements are virtually all built off of federal requirements and we do receive some federal funding. But as was mentioned, it's.

When we look at what this, what we can do to answer some of your questions historically, just look at special education spending. We can see what school district spending related to special education is, not just this funding, but overall, how much they spend.

By and large, they're spending significantly more than they receive in combined state and federal targeted special ed funding. And so they're using essentially their LCFF to cover those costs.

I think the 40% number that was mentioned, I believe that was sort of the original intent when IDEA was enacted that the Federal Government would cover roughly 40% of these costs. And historically it's not been anywhere near there. So the, the.

We haven't, I think our office has tried to estimate these costs trying to take into account the comments that my from finance mentioned of, you know, what are the costs, the special ed related costs. Right. Not just the base cost that we assume every student is going to, is going to cost.

Even then, I think the state and federal funding combined is, is covering something like two thirds of those costs or half of those costs. And then locals are kicking in their own general operating funding to cover those numbers. So I think that's just in general, I think almost everywhere we talk to districts that's the case.

So they're really needing to use some of their basal CFF funding to cover the required special education costs. And I think that's part of why you hear so much concern about cost pressures associated with special education that we don't have a specific per pupil number.

To your point, because of the way that we fund, we fund based on total attendance in the SELPA or so. So it's not, it doesn't translate automatically to a, here's the per pupil amount. And so that's going to vary a little bit depending on the, on the area and the district.

And is that a best practice in.

Terms of funding based on the. There's a variety of states are kind of all over the place in terms of how they fund. So we fund based on overall attendance. There are some who fund based on overall enrollment.

There are some states that also fund based on specific disability, the number of students with disabilities, or in some cases, I think even depending on the disability. I know that there had been some conversations in previous years about considering Those approaches, every approach has its pros and cons. I think that each come with their own associated issues.

But this is the way the state has historically done it for a long time.

Okay, I was just asking.

And just as a follow up. And you're referring in general to average daily attendance the way the state has always done? Yes. And do you happen to be doing a study on this that might be available in the not distant future?

We happen to be working on a study on overall funding. More about funding. LCFF on enrollment versus attendance. I think there have been some conversations as well in previous years about funding. You know, how do we, how does the special ed model look itself?

And as I recall, that's due at the first of next year, right?

That is due January 1, 2026. Are you suggesting that you add that we also look at special education?

No

We will not be looking at that as part of the story.

Because you're the ones that sometimes interpret what a mandate is and ask for money. Thank you for letting me interrupt.

No, no, no worries. But it would be helpful because there are a lot of concerns also from the local school level on whether or not they actually have the funding to provide all of the services for our students.

And so from every single level, from the parents with the concerns with the kids, from the folks that are providing the services which, especially when it comes to special education, you know, we have a workforce problem in education, period, but especially more so when it comes to our kids with special needs.

So I just want to make sure that we are providing the funding which as of right now, it doesn't feel for many of the stakeholders that we are.

So I'm trying to figure out how do we work towards that goal to ensure that especially our most vulnerable kids have the funding that they need for the services that they need to get the question that they're entitled to and the service and the support that the parents and families need for these, for these special kids.

Thank you. Let me ask a couple of follow up questions. And first is while the federal act might have suggested we get 40%, we're getting 14. What's your read on current events against the 14? Just given what happens to be going.

On, I hope you weren't going to ask the question. I don't see at this time any movement, however, with things that change on a daily basis.

Oh, no, I, I didn't expect that there would be movement up right now. I was just sort of asking, are you contemplating moves down just given what's going on at the federal level?

No moves down.

Everybody in finance is looking at each other. Maybe you have a comment?

Sure, Liz Mai Department of Finance. I will say I think broadly as we monitor the situation. There hasn't been much talk about affecting IDEA specifically though. Right. Any. Anything can happen. I think as we are reading the tea leaves, which. Right. Could be a futile practice.

We aren't anticipating, but we are still monitoring write all federal spending and trying to take in as much information and write to the extent that we know more to incorporate in May revision, we will. But at this moment we haven't seen any indication.

Okay. I don't want to jinx it, so I'll just take that for what it is and then let me ask a more global question because when you look at our staff report, there's a place in here where it says that English learners are overrepresented in special education.

And in that while special education students are 14% of all students, English learners represent 22.4%. And I wondered if each of you might just speak to that and whether that raises issues we should be addressing that we're not addressing clearly. There's some nods. Maybe the Department of Education. To begin. Do you have any comments?

This is a significant issue. We recently spoke at CABE and I know you love your acronyms. It's the California Bilingual Educators Association. And we did a joint presentation to talk about one of the this issue. This issue specifically and really when students come in.

And I think it was mentioned earlier about assessments, how our students are being assessed. And this is one area we're looking at. When students are being assessed for disabilities, what assessment tools are being looked at?

We're looking at our LEAs specifically to have them examine what assessment tools are being used and are we truly assessing what they know and are able to do or are we assessing their English competence? This is one thing that we continue to work with and to continue to educate our LEAs with.

And one of the things we're noticing too is, you know, an overrepresentation of students with disabilities. We call them dually identified students, so they are English learners for whatever language as well as a student with disabilities.

So we're trying to really take apart that data and have districts look at, through our, through our evaluation process to look at overrepresentation of students with disabilities, students of color, multilingual students, and work with them specifically on truly getting to the root cause of why there are so many students who are over identified.

Anybody want to add anything?

I will just add Alaina Powell, Department of Finance I'll just add that there's a lot going on in the English learner space at both the state and local level currently. So I know there's a lot of evaluation of these issues going on.

So I'm sure in the future we will have a lot more data to work with in regards to those issues.

Okay. And to the Legislative Analyst, I think you said you had no concerns with the template, is that right?

Yeah, we don't have any concerns with, I mean the proposal specifically is to take the template and then digitize funding is for digitizing it and translating it into other languages. We don't have any specific concerns there.

Okay. And it this has been a remarkably calm discussion given the fact that I hear about this everywhere when I go to schools and talk to school administrators. And there must have been a concerted campaign the last few years to stop using the word encroachment because I don't hear it the way I used to hear it.

But there are still big concerns that it eats a disproportionate amount of the budget because it isn't at the 40% and that as people struggle, if we're going to have just above 2% increase in the Local Control Funding Formula this year, it accentuates when there is a lot spent on this that isn't compensated.

So I just appreciate the discussion and just know that we want to continue to move in some of those directions. And thank you for being here today. We're going to move to our last of our four items, nutrition. And the panel is Nate Williams from the Department of Finance.

Edgar Cabral will still be here from the Legislative Analyst Office and Kim Frinzell from the Department of Education. And when everybody gets seated, we will go in that order. We'll begin with the Department of Finance. We'll go to the Legislative Analyst Office and then we'll go to the Department of Education. So welcome back to the committee.

Thank you. Chair. Good afternoon. Chair and Committee Members. Nate Williams, Department of Finance and I'm going to be taking you through a high level just overview of investments in child nutrition. The governor's budget reflects the administration's ongoing commitment to increasing access to and improving the quality of meals served to students within the California school system.

Specifically, I'd like to highlight a few investments in the Universal Meals Program as well as investments in the kitchen infrastructure and training program.

First, for the Universal Meals Program, the governor's budget includes a one time backfill of $31.5 million Prop 98 General Fund in 24/25 to cover an anticipated shortfall based on actual meal counts through August of 2024.

This shortfall is due to revised projections for the current year 24/25 coming in approximately 40 million meals higher than what was projected at the 2024 Budget Act. This represents about a 4.2% increased lunch and breakfast meal count meal counts than originally projected.

Additionally, the Governor's Budget also includes an increase of 84.1 million Prop 98 General Fund to fully fund the anticipated growth in the Universal meals program in 2526 based on serving a projected 933 million meals.

This estimate for the budget year is based on a projected increase in meal counts of about 5.7% compared to the actual meal counts from 23/24.

For the Universal Meals Program, we assume that there will be continued growth in the short term before eventually leveling off with the anticipated growth drivers, including the continued ramp up of the breakfast programs as well as increasing awareness of the Universal Meals Program in general and increasing the quality and variety of meal offerings due to the recent investments in both kitchen infrastructure and freshly prepared meals.

Lastly, the Governor's Budget also includes an increase of 22.2 million Prop 98 General Fund to reflect the 2.43% cost of living adjustment, bringing the state reimbursement rate from a little over and almost to almost from $0.98 approximately $0.98 to a little over a dollar.

This would bring the total increase for the nutrition programs to 106.33 million for both the growth and the cost of living adjustment. Next, the governor's budget includes 150,000,000 one time Prop 98 General Fund investment for local education agencies to expend on kitchen infrastructure upgrades and training that will increase the school's capacity for freshly prepared meals.

Specifically, this investment includes 100 million in competitive grants for infrastructure upgrades designed to increase the school's capacity for freshly prepared meals as well as a $50 million investment that will be allocated based on a formula to schools to provide additional training to staff to increase the number of freshly prepared meals.

These investments are designed to complement the investments made from the Farm to School Program, specifically advancing the fourth principle of the Farm to School roadmap which aims to build capacity by investing in school kitchen infrastructure and training for culinary staff to prepare meals from scratch.

It also builds upon the $100,000,000 one time investment from the 2022 Budget Act for food procurement grants which were called the School Food Best Practices Grants which was a collaborative effort between the Department of Education and the Department of Food and Agriculture to support schools in procuring more locally sourced whole or minimally processed foods for freshly prepared meals.

Lastly, it builds upon the previous kitchen infrastructure and training investments of the past two budget acts of 750 million by targeting specific funding for schools to increase the number of freshly prepared meals. This concludes my official comments, but I'm here to answer.

Oh, you have unofficial comments. Great. We're going to get at that. Thank you. Appreciate it. We'll go to the Legislative Analyst.

Edgar Cabral with the Legislative Analyst Office. So when it comes to the administration's estimates or proposed funding levels for the Universal School Meals program, overall we think the current year estimates are reasonable. But for 25/26, we do think they likely underestimate the number of meals that will be served.

The the governor's budget is effectively assuming a flat year over year change from 24 to 25 to be essentially flat in terms of the number of meals served.

Based on our analysis of recent meal growth trends, we would estimate that the number of meals will be about 5% higher than the administration is assuming, and that would cost about $32 million above what's included in the governor's budget.

When it comes to the kitchen infrastructure funding, we do recommend rejecting the proposed funding for that purpose at this time. So the state has had two previous rounds of kitchen infrastructure and training grants. The state does not have information regarding the effectiveness or use of those previous funds.

Reports for the first two rounds are due June 30th of this year, so the state may have more information at a later date regarding targeting funding specifically for freshly prepared meals. The state has little information on the capacity or interest level for additional funding.

The second round of kitchen infrastructure funds did include it was an opt in grant that local education agencies could choose to take to to serve more freshly prepared meals. Roughly half of the local education agencies took those funds and the other half chose not to.

So we don't know yet whether that funding has addressed the capacity needs or whether there's more demand for additional funding. If the legislature is interested in providing additional funding for kitchen infrastructure, we just have a couple of suggestions.

One is that it could consider removing the criteria for the fund to be targeted specifically for freshly prepared meals, which would allow local education agencies to have more flexibility to use that funding to address whatever their most important school nutrition needs are.

And then if there is interest in providing a more targeted funding like freshly prepared meals or something else, we do recommend that there be goals set associated with those funds and that we collect data so that the state can better track progress on those goals so that if we do say we're going to use funding for a targeted purpose, that we can later say, did that actually address the goal?

Have we made progress? Do we need to keep providing funding? Or maybe should we be able to then direct our funds to other priorities that might exist? That completes my comments and I'm happy to answer any questions.

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

Good afternoon. It is afternoon and I like being the lunch lady at lunchtime, but I will try to keep my comments brief. So thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, Kim Frinzell with the Department of Education Nutrition Services Division.

And I want to thank you for the opportunity to present today on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond.

And I also want to take this moment to truly thank you for your continued support and investments in California's school nutrition meal programs, as well as so much of the state funding that's needed to really enhance the school meal quality. School meals are a vital source of nutrition and complete meals for our students.

School meals provide a variety of foods, including whole grain, rich lean meats, plant based options, a variety of fruits and vegetables and low fat milk. And in the upcoming school year, there'll even be new limits on added sugar to certain foods.

And as a state, we're taking great strides and steps in eliminating ultra processed foods in our food systems across the state, but also in our school system.

Today, our youth are not only facing nutrition and food insecurity, but there's just also increased prevalence of chronic diseases that many children years ago were not faced with, whether it's childhood obesity, diabetes, asthma, heart disease, and this is negatively impacting their quality of life and leads to long term health problems.

A fully funded California universal meals program is foundational so that all students have the ability to partake in a breakfast and a lunch each and every school day with dignity.

No shaming, no meal debt, regardless of their income eligibility, and all need to have equitable access to nutritious meals to promote the necessary growth and development so that they're able to thrive. Our universal meal programs remains a need in our state and you heard from my colleagues here around the growth.

We continue to see the growth in our program. When Universal Meals was first implemented in 2023, our schools serve more than 845 million school meals. The following year, 887.99 million meals. And this year we're on track to serving over 927.5 million school meals so the growth is there. And I always like to put it in perspective.

The federal poverty level that USDA, the Federal Government sets for a family of three, for that family to not have to pay for their meal, they would have to earn the reduced price eligibility is $49,303 annually. A family of three can't live on that in the state of California or many other states for that matter.

So it is just critical that we continue to support our investments for California Universal Meals. We also can't talk about universal meals without talking about the increased efforts and investments through the 2021 and the 2022 kitchen Infrastructure and training funding that the state has invested in.

These funds have enabled schools to increase their offering of minimally processed, more freshly prepared foods that are grown right here in our own state.

In my conversations with many school food service directors from across the state, they are very consistent that the kitchen infrastructure and training funding and other state grant funding opportunities have greatly enhanced their ability to improve the quality of meals they are providing.

And this is actually validated in the research and the work of the very esteemed Nutrition Policy Institute. They were funded in the 2021 state budget to conduct a multi year formative process and impact evaluation of California Universal Meals and that included some of the quality farm to school and perceptions of universal meals.

And their findings included the value of the kitchen infrastructure training funds. And this research is they talk to a very diverse group of administrators, food service directors, parents and students. So school nutrition programs are serving more locally grown and produced foods.

In their survey, 60% of the school nutrition directors that participated in the study reported that the grant funds through the kitchen infrastructure training as one of the most contributing factors to their ability to procure and offer more locally sourced and freshly prepared meals that helped with not only with their student participation, but also supported many local economies.

Finally, the Nutrition Policy Institute findings showed that more investments are still needed to improve and update particularly our older school kitchens. And this really aligns with the Department of Education.

We did a mid year assessment of those schools that were funded for the 2021 Kitchen Infrastructure Funds and schools have been consistent in their messaging that more more funds are needed and more time to encumber the funds that they've received. They've experienced ongoing delays in approvals, obtaining necessary permits for large scale projects.

There's been other equipment delays and installation delays and I think this will only be exasperated with tariffs and things like that that are happening. So that's why the 2025 Kitchen Infrastructure Training funds are so essential to continue. Especially since, you know, the federal discretionary fundings, you know, are, they're being terminated.

For example, the United States Department of agricultural terminated our 2025 local foods for school and child care funding that would have infused over 71 million dollars into California schools alone to be able to purchase California grown foods. This would support farmers, producers, ranchers, fisheries, dairies, small producers.

So in conclusion, California Universal Meals and the grant funding, it's working and it's a proven program that addresses food and nutrition insecurity and it just. Food insecurity just remains a common problem in California families, especially with those with school age children. Healthy school meals are an investment in our child's future.

It's providing science based nutrition standards to support our child's growth, development, educational successes and lifelong well being.

With the national threats on our children and our nutrition programs, now more than ever, California must continue to invest in Universal Meals and state grant funding to build and sustain meal programs that offer quality meal opportunities for all students, adequate time to eat.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. We're going to come back here for questions. I'm going to go to Senator Perez first.

Yeah, well, first of all I just want to say one, how happy that I've been to see, see the governor's proposal for school meals for all and to see that program expand.

I think it's been such a huge success and it's something that we can be really excited and proud of and also just want to applaud CDE for the work on the Send Bucks Program to see more than $500 million in federal food aid going to eligible families in just the first year.

So this is the kind of success I think we, we want to see from these programs and also the quick work to develop the universal benefits application, the UBA. You know, I have a bill and I'm hoping to kind of build on that work to further simplify that application process.

We know that there are so many children who can have access to this aid, but they don't realize because they've not completed the application or they're afraid to complete the application. Right. Many children are from mixed status families and are uncertain as to whether or not they'll be eligible even if they are eligible.

So streamlining that application as much as possible and increasing access I think is super necessary. So I'm just really excited to, to see all the incredible work that's happened that we've continued to do.

I know that this is something regardless, I think of party of political positions, folks can agree that making sure that our kids have access to healthy meals year round is something that's a very, very righteous and important effort. A couple of questions that I had.

So first and foremost for summer 2025, what does this status of the translated versions of the Universal Benefits Application or the UBA and when will those be available and for summer, how will they access and submit those applications to their school right now? What's that current process look like?

And you know, would love to hear feedback around that. And just want to mention before I close out too, the Kitchen Infrastructure and Training grants program, the KIT program is one that's been, you know, really important and highlighted as discussions have happened around this topic.

The need for us to make sure that schools have the infrastructure to meet these needs as we have more children that are going to be utilizing these services. And I have legislation to hopefully make it year round so even during summertime that children will have access to these meals.

So we're going to want to make sure that those infrastructure, that infrastructure is there in school districts. I know that this is something that Senator Chobo has brought up previously as well during our Senate Education Committee, the need for us to make sure that schools can meet the demand.

So we're really happy that the governor included that and, and think that we need to keep that there as well. It's a necessary component of these programs, programs.

So happy to address. We do not have as of yet a USDA approved summer electronic benefit transfer plan. So Summer EBT or it's also called Sun Bucks that will be. We've gone through several versions.

However, I'm very optimistic because I did hear on a national call yesterday that prior to this week there had only been two approved state plans in the nation and they just approved 10. So I'm feeling quite optimistic that California will have an approved plan.

So as we move forward anticipating of that, in anticipation of that approved plan, our goal is to translate the application into the 19 threshold languages following the Department of Social Services and the CalFresh language threshold. So we're working on that currently. That will take a moment. I don't have a timeline on when those will be completed.

We will certainly be prioritizing Spanish as a first. First in the queue. And then there's been.

And you said you don't, you don't have a timeline for when the Spanish application will be completed.

I don't off the top of my head, I'll have to get back to you.

Okay. Yeah, I would love to hear that because that's also, you know, really important. So many, I think so many of our Spanish speaking families. Right. Would benefit from that, so. Absolutely.

Does that complete your...

I wasn't sure if you were going to continue on.

Yeah, I'll just say that, you know, pending an approved plan from USDA, we can't really move full bore ahead, but we are taking the actions that we need. And we have been communicating with our schools through several venues, working really closely with Department of Social Services and doing some stakeholder town halls. We've also, we do monthly town halls with our school nutrition professionals. But also this is really a local educational effort. Right. To help get the word out locally. And so we have issued through some of our administrator, we've done some flashes and communications out and so really building that out.

A quick question for the translated universal benefits application, is that something that, that we do here in the state or is it, are we waiting on the federal government?

No, we're doing that at the Department of Education.

Okay, excellent. Yeah, would love to hear that timeline back from you all then. I wasn't sure if it was USDA that was holding up that process.

We just need an official approved plan to really move forward with summer EBT for 2025.

Great. Well, this is really exciting work. And you know, again, just want to thank you for all of it. The initiative to have school meals for all is a really exciting one, and I'm excited to see us on the pathway to get there. So thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your questions and comments. And I would just note since I've been doing this for four and a half years, that it's really worth crediting Nancy Skinner, Senator Skinner, for her work in this and really moving toward it. And I think it's interesting because the conversation in many ways is around the edges.

And the reason today's conversation is around the edges is because the big steps that have been made in the last few years. And so I just feel, before I ask what seems like small questions, I acknowledge that bigger piece. For the Department of Finance. You talked about the amount that needs to be backfilled this year and then sort of... And is that, the amount you were talking about for next year, sort of a correction into next year's proposed budget based on what you had to do this year to true things up.

Yes. So we would have... I mean, obviously we weren't projecting meals for 25-26 in last year's budget, but yes, we did use the, the updated numbers to inform kind of what our, what our budget would be for the budget year. So some of that money... So obviously those are different dollars.

The variance in the dollars has to do with the change in the federal rate as far as then that actually impacts how much the state's cost is. So that number is also factored in there. So that's why those numbers vary a little bit. But yes, short answer to your question.

And then you just said federal. So they wanted to take back $70 million last month. And then there's the letter to the Governor from the Secretary of Agriculture sort of saying because of certain actions on that that seem unrelated to food, they want to threaten some of of the programs to California. Is there any update or any position that you wish to share with us that's in response to those actions?

Well, I would say that, so the 70 million that, that my colleague mentioned, so that isn't actually included in the, in the official numbers of the Universal Meals program. That was unfortunate.

And when you say included, meaning that the budget stands on its own without 70 million there. They're rescinding it or whatever you call it, taking it back.

Correct. As far as commenting on future actions of what they may or may not disallow, I don't think Finance is prepared to make a comment on that. We're still kind of waiting.

That's probably true across the entire budget. So I appreciate that. And then the Legislative Analyst talked about the effectiveness of the kitchen grants and that the money, the report data isn't in yet on the first two years. Do I presume the fact that it's in for a third year that you think the results are going to be very good that aren't in yet about the first two years?

So the reports are not officially due until the end of this year, the end of this fiscal year. However, my colleague had mentioned that they do have some kind of preliminary reports that are kind of informing how we're looking at this moving forward. So I would probably defer. She's got a lot more expertise and knowledge on it.

I'm happy to share what it was a voluntary kind of mid year check for the 2021 Kitchen Infrastructure Training funding. And of the 941 schools that received the 2021 funding, 901 completed this voluntary assessment that we conducted. And we're, the top five pieces of equipment that they're purchasing reach in refrigerators and freezers. Right.

Because they're bringing in more minimally processed foods, fruits and vegetables. Oven ranges, stoves. Some of these kitchens are incredibly outdated. But and the technology in cooking and meal preparation has changed dramatically over the years. Hot cold carts and cabinets. So for more point of service sales.

So as meals increase, they need more points of service to get students through the meal lines. Meal coolers and cookware like tilt skillets and things like that were the top five. And then the top five training topics for the 2021 funding, food safety. The second was food preparation, culinary skills.

So a lot of investment in culinary skills, which we're thrilled, really thrilled to see. More around scratch cooking, menu planning, and then just use of the equipment. So really helping our school nutrition professionals do more scratch cooking and understand the science and the art of preparing a meal.

And then I will just say that in addition, there were some pretty large scale projects as well. 222 schools reported that they were planning on or had already initiated a very large scale infrastructure project. For example, 1400 kitchen remodels. 65 schools were doing some remodeling in their kitchen area and 41 they had to increase storage and warehousing because of the additional fresh foods that they're bringing into the program.

Okay, then maybe to make some, some comments here. Because I like the, that we are moving in the direction we're moving. We, we have some bills this year that really try to focus on it. I have eaten at schools in almost every county in my district because they do, whether it's in San Luis Obispo or Davenport or Watsonville with Pajaro. They're doing amazing things. The culinary program in the Pajaro District, they raised a lot of money and are doing huge gardens with it and coordinating the cooking with the students.

I mean it is truly amazing and I think a good tribute. The one. And so I'm very happy we're headed in this direction. I want to be really supportive, but I'd make one observation because you talked about it was a trigger, sort of pre-diabetic and different things with regard to health.

There was this interesting story and it actually came about in my district when I was Secretary of Resources. And in Big Sur, a highway outage stranded 41 miles of the residents of Big Sur. And we frantically, through State Parks and the Conservation Corps, cut this trail that was up and down and almost two miles. And the school kids would be bused to where the highway was out. They had to hike this trail and then get on a bus and go into Carmel or Carmel Valley. And the local clinic said there were some students that were overweight and pre-diabetic.

And after hiking every day to get to school, it disappeared in almost all of them. So it is not just the diet. It is hand in hand with a little exercise and some other things. And I think we always you talked about holistic. We always have to remind that there is that broader piece of it, even though the diet is such a key part. And I think we've made great progress in California and I hope we don't have to step back in any way. So thank you very much.

We appreciate the, your presence, we appreciate your work and we hope to keep moving forward on the issues that we talked about today. That completes the four issues, and this would be the opportunity for people to make public comments. And I'm going to take my usual little show of hands to see how many people would like to make public comments. Okay. That was sort of a mix of hands and standing, so I'm guessing there's about 15. And so I'm going to ask that you try to limit yourself to a minute each. So welcome to the Committee.

Good afternoon, Senator. Patti Herrera on behalf of Early Edge California, alongside my colleagues who can't join me today from CABE and Californians Together. We were the proud co-sponsors of AB 2268, which ceased the administration of the ELPAC for transitional kindergarten students.

So we wanted to approach you today to express our support for the Governor's proposed $10 million investment to find an appropriate English language screener for transitional kindergarten students. We did offer respectfully today some amendments to the trailer bill, language to the Administration, as well as to your staff. Thank her for her hard work and appreciate the staff's proposed adoption of the Governor's proposal. We look forward to continuing to work with you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Welcome.

Hello. Raquel Morales on behalf of EdTrust-West. We would like to align our comments on the TK screener with Early Edge and also want to speak in support of the Statewide Literacy Network. We believe that this is a crucial step in ensuring that we have a statewide coordination for the multiple literacy investments that the state has made and suggest that the LEAs experiencing consistent underperformance in English language arts are required to engage in the additional support.

Also support the investments for the ELA, ELD instructional materials supplemental guidance and believe that these materials should also be aligned to the California Preschool Transitional Kindergarten Foundations to support the state's alignment on P-3. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair Laird and Members. Liz Fenton on behalf of the Office of Kat Taylor and the Center for Ecoliteracy. I'm here in support of issue four in the Governor's Budget proposal for the School Meals for All Program, including the proposed 150 million in one time kitchen infrastructure and training program. I wanted just to...