Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Human Services

I prefer to be David Alvarez. Good afternoon. This is, again, a joint hearing of the Assembly Budget Committee number two on human services and the Assembly Budget Subcommittee number three on education finance. As always, I want to thank, Assemblymember David Alvarez, for, continuing year after year committing to these joint committees hearings, so that we can make sure that we are breaking down silos.

At the end of the day, we're talking about the same children, the same families, and we need to make sure that we have a truly integrated and coordinated, ECE, system to ensure that our young people are on a on our pathway to be able to thrive.

And so we are going to just jump into our first panel. So come on up for the first panel. As always, at this time, it may change. Not sure yet. But at this time, we're gonna wait until all panels are done in order to have a public comment.

Public comment is going to be two minutes. I want you all to utilize this time to practice your two minute public comment. Practice. Get your stopwatches out and make sure it is timed appropriately. As you know, the governor's budget provides 3,000,000,000 for state preschool.

Of this amount, 2,000,000,000 in proposition 98 journal fund for programs offered by LEAs, and 1,000,000,000 is for programs offered by non LEAs as well. This budget does not, at this time, propose increasing slots, but we want to make sure that the slots that we do have continue, to move to be high quality, and making sure that they address the diverse needs, of course, of our families. Our families don't all look the same.

How they all are, conducting their households don't look the same nor do they all have nine to five type jobs either. And so we need to make sure that once again, systems are designed for the needs of our families and not make and making sure that our systems are not trying to make sure, that our families are trying to meet the system's needs.

Right? We have to make sure that we get it right. So with that, this first panel is really on the state of preschool, which is something near and dear to my heart. I used to be employ an employee of Los Angeles Universal Preschool back in the day, and, always looking for ways that we can and and, actually, for the last two years, I don't think we paid enough attention to this particular subject in terms of our state preschool.

And so I wanted to make sure that we take a deeper dive into this, continue to reestablish or reengage what the vision is, so that we can make sure that, we are doing, our oversight responsibility, for this as well.

So with that, we are going we'll start off with our first, panel, and we'll start off with, a Learning Policy Institute to kick us off.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm Hanna Melnick from the, Learning Policy Institute. I'm the director of early learning policy. In my remarks, I'm gonna be talking about, first, how we are doing in terms of preschool access for four year olds and three year olds.

I'll then identify some recommendations for how we could further expand access. California's master plan lays out a goal to provide high quality preschool to all four year olds, which research suggests

has lasting effects for children and families. And my colleagues and I recently analyzed data from the California pre k and childcare programs to see how we're doing towards this goal. We saw that the number of children served has set climbed steadily over the past five years, mainly due to TK, but also in part due to the growth of four year old enrollment and subsidized child care. Over the same period, the total number of four year olds in the state declined.

So as a result of both of these trends, California went from serving just 42% of our four year olds in 2019 to 62%, last year across our public programs.

On the whole, this is pretty good news. Sixty two percent of all four year olds enrolled is about on par with other states that offer universal pre k, and it's a lot of progress from where we were just six years ago. The master plan also lays out a goal to serve all three year olds from low income households since research shows that two years of preschool, is especially beneficial for this group as well as for multilingual learners.

And our analysis shows that California is making progress and expanding access for three year olds, but at a much less rapid pace than for fours. Between 2019 and 2024, we saw the greatest growth in three year old enrollment in subsidized childcare. CSPP enrollment has also increased steadily since the start of the pandemic, although we're still a little bit behind where we were in 2019. Overall, three year old enrollment has increased by about four year old 4,000 children in the past six years.

And again, the three year old population has declined.

So we've gone from serving twenty one percent of our three year olds in 2019 to twenty five percent of all three year olds last year. Now that's all incomes. When we look just at children from low income households, specifically those who are earning 85% or less, of state median income, we're serving about 44% of our, three year olds from low income households. This is better access than in many states, but it's still far from achieving the goals of the master plan.

So that leads us to another question on the agenda. What would it take to increase access to high quality pre k? My colleagues and I conducted case studies in four cities and districts across California to help understand what mixed delivery preschool looks like when done well. And we've identified several recommendations, and I'll share some of them right now. One is to invest in universal application and enrollment systems. We have a lot of public pre k programs in California, and they can be very difficult for families to navigate.

So I'll point to the examples from Long Beach and San Francisco who have built platforms that allow families to find care near them, figure out what financial aid they're eligible for, apply in one place, and enroll, either doing this on their own or with a family navigator or a family resource center. We have invested in some of these in the past, but they and they'll be discussed in the third panel, but none yet has the full functionality that we need.

Another thing the state could do is to support universal access in low income neighborhoods, especially for our three year olds. The state already allows this through the CSPP neighborhood eligibility provision, which states that all two, three, and four year olds can attend CSPP if they live in a zone, a school zone, where 80% of students are on free and reduced price meals. However, the data show that not many providers are using this provision, so the legislature could look into ways to you increase this use.

For example, by building awareness or making it easier to enroll new children. Another thing the legislature could do is to fund facility renovation grants to help convert four year old classrooms into ones that are appropriate for younger children. San Francisco provided these kinds of grants when they were expanding their infant toddler care, and it allowed providers to add the sinks, changing tables, square footage that you need to serve younger kids.

The state could also support school districts that are have declining enrollment to convert their schools for early learning and care as was done in alum rock union, and I'm hearing a crop is happening more and more across the state. And finally, the single most important part of expanding a high quality care is supporting a high quality workforce.

And right now, many providers are struggling to retain their teachers because pay is so low. Teachers in pre k and childcare centers earn 30 to 40% less than TK teachers. Family childcare providers earn even less still. So to close this compensation gap, we the state could provide additional funding to providers. We're on a path to do this through rate reform, but I just wanted to stress that that's also gonna be key to expanding access.

And finally, just in terms of quality and, the workforce, we also need to make sure we're paying attention to professional development so that our teachers have the support they need day to day. We invest relatively little in professional development for our preschool teachers, and we have, some big funding streams that are about to expire, like the quality counts funding and early educator teacher development grants. So California could really support its, high quality preschool by support building a network of coaching and professional development.

We have examples across the state, like San Francisco, El Dorado, and San Diego that we can build from. So thank you.

You can find more information in the agenda from our reports, and I'm happy to answer questions.

DSS? So

good afternoon. I'm doctor Lupe Jaime Milam, deputy director of the childcare and development division, and good to be here. So I'm gonna start with just some opening statements, and then I'll jump into the questions. Before I start specifically with the questions, then I wanna just remind ourselves about where we are and the excitement in regards to our investments.

Our program does provide both voucher base as well as state contracted direct service programs in recognition of the central and positive end caps of the early in learning on families that California has made historic investments and the programs in these recent years to help families thrive.

This the investments and program changes that have helped led to these goals also are reflected in the master plan of early learning and care, which is a road map in regards to these investments. In the last few years, we have nearly doubled, the funding in regards to the childcare and development program going from 3,300,000,000.0 when the first when these programs first transferred over to CDSS to 6,600,000,000.0, pretty remarkable, in just a couple years.

We've increased the maximum number of children served annually from 294,000 approximately at the very beginning to now 366,700 per month, And then made real progress in each of these four goals and that includes the master plan with, of course, the collaboration and partnership with state agencies such as this California Department of Education and, of course, our ECE partners in regards to this work.

And so this includes doubling the number of enrollments in two to five year olds across the childcare and development program, which strengthens through our mixed delivery system, which is a solid foundation of this. So now I'll turn to the questions.

With the administration's priority of the master plan, what's yet not achieved as well as children focus on children from ages zero to five. So master plan, of course, is a road map like I've mentioned that improves early learning and it's a plan for ten years. And we're anticipating as we're moving into our sixth year of this publication that we continue to, check off more and more some of these goals. Working with our many partners, including the legislator, of course, who've made these advancements.

As noted, we continue to work with urgency, but know that there is still areas where we can continue to do more.

An example of that is our goal one of the master plan itself. One of the recommendations is to look at the California work opportunity and responsibility for kids, which is the CalWORKs stages. Just a little bit of background on that, they currently serve families that, are in, that are enrolled, in CalWORKs or entering the CalWORKs stores. We currently serve a 148,000 a 113 children. Gives you an idea of the number of children that we serve through this through these programs.

And what the master plan would like to do is really look at how to simplify that system, both for access for families as well as, the administration of it. So simplicity. As a result, in 2025, we launched the work first starting with hearing from our families. Wanna know what their experiences are and how we can learn from those experiences, and then also learning from those focus groups also the workforce.

What are their experiences as a center, childcare provider, family, friend, and neighbor who is receiving this voucher, and what is those what is those experiences.

Next, we took those those focus groups voices in a sense and then pulled together a a work group that included both administrators from the CalWORKs side, so our county partners, as well as our alternate payment side and work through these meetings to really think about, what we heard from this initial report and what recommendations and etcetera.

This is gonna be a to be continued because we are wrapping up that report, and so we hope to be able to publish it so we can continue to have further conversations on what we're learning there. And so that is something of an example that is in the works in regards to that too. I'm gonna jump because of time on question number two, but happy to add more examples as you as more questions come up too.

Question number two has to do with what more can we do for preschool needs to open appropriate spaces for three year olds in the content of UTK, and what policies and what could be as one time funding.

Childcare and development funding administrated by CDSS serves eligible families from ages infants to 13, and two through five year olds is an intricate part of that. Under the multi year slot expansion, two and three year olds were the fastest growing age groups. So I'm gonna take a moment to just call out some stats because I think it's a moment that we definitely need to celebrate together. Across all programs, enrolled two year olds grew by a 105%.

So we started off with nine in the transfer with 19,000. Now we're at 39,000. I'm sorry. 1,900 and then three I'm wishful thinking, 3,900. And then in row three and four years grew a 126%. Right?

So 6,660 to thirty seven six hundred and seventy between '21 and 2025, exceeding the overall enrollment of 87%. If I look at our title five, which is our CCTR program, we saw the biggest growth in our three year olds increased by 426%, which was, again, 685 at the beginning and now 3,600 of that. And so CCTR also experienced a double doubling of enrollment for two year olds between 2021 and 2025, 5830 to November.

And so similar significant growth in two and three year olds also happened on the alternative side of the voucher side too. And specifically, cap for the two year olds increased by a 180%, and and then three year olds at 200%.

So huge expansion. No. We can do more, but definitely wanna make sure we're we're celebrating this again. CDSS continues to support the wide range of options through the mixed delivery system, both for families that we know need nontraditional hours and flexible schedule for their certified need.

And so one of the pieces that the legislator partnered with us was on the slot expansion is that when we had when we had rolled out the CCTR, we had an uptake of contractors that focused on family childcare home educational networks that were then able to serve, those certified hours that traditionally, other, other efforts or other settings may not be able to.

And then lastly, in terms of the workforce, right, for this particular question, through our quality investments, we do, invest into a California preschool instructional network, CPIN. They provide professional training as well as coaching focused on the preschool foundations and frameworks. But most importantly, we brought in their scope of work to include licensed family childcare home providers, in that too. Now in terms of question number four, and I will defer to our department of finance in regards to question number three. So we'll circle back that in a minute.

But question number four about what is needed for supports accessing high quality preschool opportunities that meet both childcare development and parent employment. We, of course, continue to prioritize this. We have resource and referral investments across the state that are very critical for families to be able to reach out and make sure that they are aware of what are their childcare options when they're either returning to work or meeting work needs.

And these resource center referrals are not only a place where they can reach out to that, but most importantly, also the workforce can also reach out to them to get additional support from them that includes professional developments. Most research and referrals are using a statewide My Child Care plan, which is a search website for families to log on real time, keeping up with technology, to be able to see then a searchable list.

And we'll link them back to their local resource and referral if they are accessing this, to make sure that they are really truly aware of all their choices on there too. And then, I'm gonna go back to my example of what I said about the family child care home educational network.

So I wanna make sure that we call out that during that expansion of those dollars, we did end up increasing the number of child care providers, licensed family child care home participating from, four 1,480 from four 1,480 to 1,800 during this expansion period, meaning 320 more providers are now involved in the title five system of that too. In question number five, question number five talks about how preschool deserts have been identified and addressed.

And so that is, something that we have in our WIC code in regards to our local childcare planning councils, LPCs, are mandated at a county level council, to look at these priorities, develop policies, and improve accessibility, portability, and quality of care.

You know, they form, local forums where perhaps the state has certain data, but the local voices to be able to speak to this data is very important and that's how they serve in that capacity. These efforts includes identifying preschool deserts through a comprehensive needs assessment completed every five years. And then additionally, LPCs are required to submit an annual, zip code priority record to CDSS, to look at their immediate needs.

When funding is available, that is what we look at to make sure that priority one are the first ...to prioritize our targeted areas, when an RFA is released and expansion dollars are provided on that too. And then let me see if there's question seven.

So question seven also speaks in regards to how can the state provide better information to families about their full range of preschool options, and that includes also a state preschool as well as, ELOP. So federal regulations require that every state provides families with a consumer friendly information about childcare options. It's it has to be included also multilingual across accommodations for individuals also with disabilities.

And so California fulfills that as reference with the my child care plan, but also leveraging, of course, the child care resource and referral, that human touch and that local navigator that is able to provide that work. This portal ensures that families receive a non biased comprehensive information of the range of options based on how the family, submits their their information.

So a family can go in there and say, I'm looking for evenings and weekends. I have a child with disabilities. The children are this age looking for this information. Then it will be able to populate a list in regards to what is best to meet those needs for that family. And then the family is able to then make some calls and decide what is best for them based on parental choice on that too.

And so it's definitely important piece. And then I think I might have one more question, but let me double check. Make sure.

And so it's definitely important piece. And then I think I might have one more question, but let me double check. Make sure.

No. I believe that's all my questions. With that, I'm happy to take questions at the proper time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. CDE.

Good afternoon, Chair and member. Kimberly Rosenberger, speaking on behalf of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond. Between transitional kindergarten and state preschool programs, CDE is proudly serving roughly 300,000 preschool-aged children through school-based settings, community-based centers, and family child care homes.

In October 2025--that's the data point we often use because it aligns with the census data--we were serving 100,000 children in CSPP, but we wanna note that enrollment starts out low in the fall, so our annual enrollment is substantially higher at 154,000. And so with the rollout of TK, we have seen the pivot in CSPP where we are serving more three-year-olds, nearly doubling from what we've started at in 2021 from 26,000 to 46,000, as well as a temporary growth in two-year-olds.

You know, the 522% increase is much more impressive than the 476 children to about 3,000. But it is a market change, and we think it's an important one to note because it brings us closer to coming in line with a master plan, serving all low-income children and children with disabilities. We also, based on the last hearing, want to flag that where we're seeing the largest percentage increase are in areas such as Kings, Marin, Monterey, San Joaquin.

And what's notable about that is that regional-- we don't have regional eligibility. So we really are helping bridge significant income gaps. Because of the high cost of these counties, we are now able to serve some of the lowest-wage families. I also wanna highlight that the state preschool program, as we enroll two-year-old children, we have seen a lot of interest, but the funds only extend to that of June 30, 2027, and the cost to expand to three-year-olds is expensive.

The cost to expand to two-year-olds is significantly more expensive, and right now, it's seen as a temporary allowance. And so, while we have interest, we do believe that continuing the investment in two-year-olds and extending assurances for two-year-olds, we will see a much greater growth in take-up for two-year-olds based on the interest and also the data point that we have where a lot of the two-year-olds that qualify have a sibling already in preschool programs.

So we think not only would providing those assurances help serve families that need it most, but also would help improve our FCCHENs network, which we wanna piggyback off of is really important. And we've seen the growth because that's where we have the most full-time, full day programs, which are the most important for those families. The increase we saw, the majority of our two-year-old children, are being served in those full day, full year programs.

Additionally, many of our CSPP contractors are already fully enrolled, but some contractors are still working hard to increase enrollment as they navigate the declining birth rates, the challenge of attracting and retaining workforce due to low reimbursement rates, and we anticipate the enrollment patterns may shift, which makes it hard to provide comparisons, but we do think some of the steps that the Legislature has taken to increase slots to the three and two-year-olds have been incredibly helpful.

We also wanna flag that we are receiving more funds to ensure that the settings are developmentally appropriate for these children with the younger needs. They are expected to differentiate activities between the two-year-olds, and the ratio is higher for staff to these children.

So the cost is greater, but the impact is significant. And then, you know, as we support the contractors in this transition, the department has provided extensive technical assistance, including webinars, office hours, online resources, to focus on strategies and to maximize enrollment.

Some of our contractors are still working to increase their enrollment, but we regularly hear--I'm probably gonna say this five more times--but that there would be a greater interest if they could do the investment with assurances that they were going to see resources and continuation for the two-year-olds.

So going into the questions, question two: what more do preschool providers need to open, operate appropriate spaces for three-year-olds? Having the adjustment factor of 1.8 for the three-year-old, CSPP rate has been very helpful. Three-year-olds cost more money, and we wanna meet the children where they're at, so those resources are needed.

We also would encourage funding AB 51 that allowed for development and implementing a three-year outreach, capacity building, training, and technical assistance, along with extensive early learning resources. That's something CDE had been supportive of and identified 2,000,011 positions to be helpful, and, you know, that number may fluctuate since that was a few years back, but it's one that we think would be really helpful in the outreach.

Additional funds for more three-year-old children; the total number of funded enrollment in the state for CSPP does not decline. We did flag this previously, but the budget provided 98 million to support increases in the number of three-year-olds, and that was not sufficient for us.

We do believe that there are resources there in Prop 98 to fully support the increase to current levels of three-year-olds. However, we would need an additional 123 million in non-Prop 98 for community-based organizations, which is important for those full day programs and for expanding FCCENs.

Allow programs to serve two-year-olds beyond June, 30th, 2027--that's my third time; I think maybe five is where I'm at--and then, additionally, allowing contractors to use start-up funds to support serving younger children we think would be something that would be really helpful for contractors to expand.

We defer to the administration if they're interested in increasing preschool slots, but it's something that we are interested in, and we regularly hear from entities in applying for a CSPP contract if they were able to expand.

So those are largely from non-LEA community-based organizations, which would require non $98. Beyond these dollars, we did estimate the cost to expand CSPP to all eligible three-year-old children unserved by CSPP appropriation, Head Start, or a CDSS childcare program. At about a 75% take-up rate would cost 1.92 billion annually. And then, what's needed to support high-quality preschool opportunities?

Overall, one of the biggest needs that we have identified is when it comes to access to high-quality preschool opportunities that meet full child development and parent employment needs is a need for more full day, full year. CBO programs are much more likely to be full day, full year. Sixty-two percent of CBO enrollment in October 2024 was full day, full year compared with 30% at LEAs. Expansion in such a way that CBOs could apply for it would be helpful.

Currently, they cannot receive non-- they cannot receive Prop 98 funds. Continuing to fund the UPK coordinators would help support these conversations in the building of programs locally. The UPK coordinators have been instrumental in outreach, expansion, and coordination. That is a one-time funded grant that we have been using to communicate both with families and with contractors to greater expand participation, and that is set to sunset.

How are preschool deserts being identified and addressed? At CDE, we explore enrollment growth by age at the county level over time and can identify which counties experience the slowest growth in two and three-year-old enrollment.

We're also putting together and will shortly be able to provide local planning councils with a ZIP code level estimated count of children who are income eligible for CSPP, broken down by child age as well as enrollment. We are working with DSS for future releases of estimated numbers of eligible children, and our hope is that we can align methodologies. In terms of expansion of eligibility for CSPP to two-year-olds impacting the system, making it permanent or extending the assurances would be really helpful.

It's been a popular idea among contractors. However, they're hesitant to make changes needed to start enrolling two-year-olds with the limited time on the provision currently in statute.

It's a significant lift to make the furniture, the training, the materials developmentally appropriate, and that's of the utmost importance for serving these children. And the data point we have is that when we looked at our October 2024 data, CDE found that 52% of these two-year-old children have siblings in CSPP. So there's a strong correlation for these families receiving more overall support by this investment.

And then, the question of how can the state provide better information to families about their full range of preschool options, including CSPP and ELOP, a lot of the funds we have right now have been instrumental in starting a good foundation.

However, they are one-time or grants that we don't have ongoing funds for. So we are concerned that we've made some really good inroads, and that would not continue moving forward if they're set to sunset. So we have-- we're creating parent-facing communications and resources. Our Mixed Delivery Grant grantees are utilizing their one-time fund to create websites and advertising campaigns focused on increasing family awareness of choice in their specific counties.

For ELOP, it requires that local education agencies publish program availability information in the LEA public enrollment-- people enrollment forms on their websites and also publicly at each program site in a location accessible to the public.

That's consistent with statute as well as for third-party off-site providers. We're required to submit a list. I do wanna note that for ELOP, with the removal of the multilingual language screener for our TK students, they are less likely to be prioritized in ELOP, because that's one of the defining priorities, than they would be in other grades where there is an EL screener. And so that's a barrier that we haven't figured out an alternative for at this time.

So they are lower on the priority list by statute. That kind of concludes for now. Any questions? I'm seeing some faces, so I'm happy to answer more as we go. Thank you.

Please don't pay attention to my face. 4Cs Sonoma, please.

Good afternoon. Am I close enough? Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to speak about preschool and subsidized childcare from the perspective of a longtime contracting community organization who does this work. My name is Melanie Dodson. I'm the CEO and president for Community Child Care Council of Sonoma County or 4Cs.

So, founded in 1972, 4Cs is our county's largest CDSS-funded Child Care Resource and Referral and Alternative Payment agency. For more than 50 years, 4Cs has helped families navigate and access quality childcare through our Child Care Resource and Referral services, through Alternative Payment Programs. We also run 12 California state-funded preschool sites, as well as the California and Adult Care Food Program. We provide holistic navigation of Early Learning and all family-related resources for children birth to 13 and their families.

4Cs Sonoma navigates families to transitional kindergarten as well and is piloting this work locally with funding from our UPK partners at the County Office of Education, the Child Care Planning Council.

This has been a really positive impact in our community and would love to see that work connected, the UPK outreach work connected to our Child Care Resource and Referrals, which are already on the ground, and navigating and supporting families.

4Cs's mission is to provide access to quality childcare and early education through advocacy, direct service, and empowerment. So I'm here today to really also share 4Cs Sonoma County's experience, lessons learned, and opportunities from this journey of an investment in growth.

So 4Cs, as you may know, is one of a network of organizations across California of varying sizes and structures, intentionally designed to meet their local community and families' needs in regards to childcare. Many are nonprofits, like 4Cs Sonoma County, governed by a volunteer board of directors, while some are County Office of Educations or hosted by larger organizations, like a YMCA.

We are respected within our communities by childcare providers, by parents and partners as an essential resource and expert on the ground. 4Cs would be considered in our state a small to medium-sized organization as compared to our colleagues.

Since 2020 and the implementation of the California Master Plan for Early Learning and the critical childcare expansion and investments made by the Legislature and our governor, 4Cs Sonoma has been able to serve many more children of all ages for childcare and preschool, as have my colleagues across the state.

It took us time, intention, and consistency to be able to operationalize all those resources provided to us. Sonoma County is very representative, in my opinion, of the general experience across the state when it comes to facilitating those state investments and growth over the past five years.

Regardless of our size or budget, each community faced unique opportunities and challenges as we rolled out the new funding to serve more families and children. 4Cs Sonoma grew a 150% since 2020, primarily driven by the Alternative Payment Program expansion. We now serve more than 3,500 children annually, 3,100 through the Alternative Payment Program, and about 400 through our California State Preschool Program contracts.

This is up from 1,400 in 2020. We provide early care access for children across all age groups and all care types. Yet still today, we also maintain an eligibility list of more than 1,900 children. Approximately two-thirds of the children on our wait list are birth to five, demonstrating the need and challenge in accessing high-cost care for young children. Parents struggle to access and find care, particularly infant care.

While our small businesses, the childcare programs are in jeopardy due to slots, sitting empty, classrooms without teachers, and aging facilities. Sonoma County has historically had three California Alternative Payment Program providers within our service district, and they each have a distinct purpose.

4Cs serves the largest area of our geography, River to Coast Children's Services serves our rural counties, and child-- the County of Sonoma serves our Child Protective Services children. Neither of our local partners require a wait list, and they serve all families in their service area. As all of our AP organizations across the state, we each received expansion dollars to serve our communities.

This distribution of funds was equitable, and now it is important that CDSS review the need in all of our communities and ship these monies to where it is needed based on our local experience, our local plans, and data. Our collective vision, both at the state and local level, is that all dollars allocated serve a child and family in need. So as you know, Sonoma County faced simultaneous crises over these last five years while we were implementing these new dollars.

First, the wildfires in 2017 and 2019, which destroyed 14 childcare facilities in our community, and then Covid. During Covid specifically, we shifted operations overnight.

Remote work was now the norm, new technology, data security upgrades, and emergency support for essential workers in addition to our already full plates. Providing childcare for essential workers and supporting our childcare providers with PPE and the shifts they needed to be able to continue operating became our key focus. We also experienced a wave of retirements in our community.

Many childcare businesses closed during Covid, and as transitional kindergarten grew, the loss of many highly trained teachers to the TK classrooms across our 40 school districts in Sonoma County alone. It was an intense time, as you'd know.

The Hold Harmless provision was essential as programs rebuilt enrollment, as they navigated frequent Covid-related closures, supported children and younger children than ever before with increased mental health needs, and had the resources needed to run high-quality programming.

The need for Hold Harmless in our experience has not expired for any of our childcare businesses. Many CSPP programs are still unstable, with continuing movement of children to our TK classrooms, adapting facilities, and finding qualified staff remains a challenge.

Important to note that a child that is now three years eleven months when school starts is eligible for TK, as their birthday would happen before September 1st. Our CSP classrooms are also now serving younger children with our provision to serve two-year-old children in our classrooms, and this is very important that it does continue.

And younger children have higher costs, increased staffing, and program needs. All subsidized childcare programs should be able to earn based on their enrollment, not based on attendance. A business must plan for the child that may attend. Fixed costs do not change because a child did not attend. Staffing, program materials, space, et cetera. And we should be paid for these business costs.

As a tuition-paying parent myself, for many years for childcare, I always paid, regardless of my child's attendance. It was expected. When we treat subsidized families differently, they have reduced access to early learning sites, and providers cannot always accommodate the subsidized rules and regulations. So between '21 and '25-- rapid AP expansion requires substantial organizational scaling, as I mentioned. So just for some frame, 4Cs Sonoma County budget grew from 25 million to 57 million.

We increased staff from 150 across the preschools and in our main office to 235 individuals. Our case management and enrollment team expanded from 25 to 45 people. We expanded office space, technology. We needed desks and computers and just real things to run the business. We had to invest in training and HR and finance capacity to support our new size.

We expanded our training and quality assurance teams in house to meet the need of more staff and ensure compliance and appropriate oversight. Community outreach and awareness of our expanded availability of childcare vouchers was also key.

Again, we moved from 1,400 children in 2020 to 3,500 children today, and while our AP programs grew, it was our Child Care Resource and Referral navigators that supported newly eligible parents to find the programs that they needed and train the new providers we needed in our community through our Child Care Initiative Project, CCIP.

Can you wrap it up a little bit?

Sure. Let's see. Key takeaway. How about there? Thank you. So we have several key takeaways we'd like to share. Sustained and strategic investment in childcare is essential--vouchers, quality supports, and childcare navigation. We need the assessment of ensuring funds are in all the areas where the need is demonstrated. The cost of living in California necessitates increased and sustained investment in subsidies.

Cost in Sonoma County is around $20,000 a year for infant care. Realistic timelines for implementation given the challenges we face on the ground: modernized and streamlined systems and reporting. Rate reform remains critical. Current rates do not cover the true cost of care or support competitive wages or sustain our needed workforce.

Moving towards universal childcare is key. Investing in our statewide Child Care Resource and Referral structure to expand navigation for parents to both TK and the ELOP after-school programs is necessary. Continue Hold Harmless for California State Preschool Programs as we continue to navigate the changes in services, continue the ability for CSP programs to serve two-year-olds, and for Alternative Payment Programs, ensure childcare providers earn based on enrollment, not on childcare attendance to support access, quality, and appropriate staffing levels.

So just summing it all up, California's investments have worked. They have expanded access. They've begun to stabilize providers and allowed organizations like 4Cs to serve more children than ever before. We can't stop now, but the system must now also evolve to match the scale of those new investments. Families cannot wait and providers cannot continue to operate on razor-thin margins. Thank you.

Thank you. Children's Academy.

Just slide this over here. Just in case. Good afternoon, Chairs, Dr. Jackson. I'm Andrea Fernandez Mendoza, Vice President of Education for California Children's Academy and a board member for EveryChild California. I didn't just enter the field. I grew up in it.

I started as a summer youth worker, then an assistant, a teacher, and moved my way up, and now I sit here before you as a PhD candidate. But I-- my heart belongs in the classroom, and it always has. I've dedicated my--

I thought you were gonna say you were a baby. You know? I was like, dang, that's a long time.

I've been here for a very long time. I've dedicated my life to this work because I believe in the potential of our families. Every educator in the field shares that same devotion, but love alone cannot sustain a system. Our commitment deserves more than praise. It deserves a system that is stable, fully funded, and honorable enough to keep its promises to those who do the work. California Children's Academy doesn't just operate 15 sites in LA County.

We are a lifeline for those families and the children every single day. When the state called for an expansion of infant and toddler care, we didn't hesitate. We answered. We invested in classrooms, blueprints, partnerships, and literal foundations of classrooms. We did exactly what California asked us to do, but now those funds are at risk.

They're at risk of being swept before the doors can even open. To pull this funding now wouldn't just be a budget cut. It would be an abandonment of 4,200 infants and toddlers statewide and a waste of years of preparation. We are asking the subcommittee to honor the state's word and protect those awards and let us finish the vital work you asked us to do. For the families we serve, we are more than just a childcare program.

We're a trusted home. While TK is expanding, it's not the silver bullet. TK doesn't serve infants, and it doesn't always fit the varied schedules of working parents. It isn't accessible in every neighborhood. To truly reach families where they are, California must stop fostering competition and start funding partnerships.

We urge the subcommittee to support synergy, not silos. Incentivize school districts and community providers to work together, ensuring no family falls through the cracks between the systems. Streamline CSPP and CCTR administration because no parent should need a PhD to navigate a system that is supposed to help them. The state's goal should be a seamless continuum of care. Let us build that system that values the family's trust as much as we do.

The Master Plan is clear: preschool for every low-income three-year-old and universal access for every four-year-old. But let's be honest. We are nowhere near that goal. We are asking for programs that have served our communities for 50 plus years, programs that never closed their doors a single day during the pandemic, to operate in a vacuum. With the expiration of the Hold Harmless and no clear rate reform structure in place, the ground is shifting beneath our feet.

Furthermore, the provision of allowing CSPP to serve two-year-olds is set to expire in 2027. We are literally planning the eviction of our youngest learners from a very system we are supposed to be expanding. This is primarily dire for rural counties who are the only providers of care in their area, and without the two-year-olds, they would not be able to stay open. They will close. We've played by the rules, but the rules keep shifting.

California's families do not need more funding cliffs and program eliminations. They need a comprehensive, stable plan that treats early childhood education as the essential infrastructure that it is. We are ready to build the future of preschool. We just need the state to stop moving the finish line. The Master Plan promises a thriving workforce with career pathways and professional development, but you cannot build a career on a foundation of sand.

Direct contracting centers serve over 200,000 children across California. We are the backbone of this system, yet we cannot sustain that weight without stable contract earnings. While we fully support moving to enrollment-based reimbursement, that change must be paired with a modest FlexFactor. Here's the reality, and I know 4Cs mentioned it. Our costs are fixed.

Teachers' salaries, the rent, the utilities, they don't pause when children don't come to school or because the family is navigating a crisis or too afraid to leave their home due to the climate of fear. That's the reality at our centers. When families are afraid to engage in any public system, even our trusted preschools, our costs don't go away. True rate reform must ensure that every provider is paid a living wage.

If we want early childhood education to be a respected profession, one that attracts and keeps talent, we must finally deliver the compensation the Master Plan promised.

It is time to stop treating our educators' dedication as a subsidy for a broken budget. The Master Plan set a bold vision for California's future, and community-based providers have shown up to build that vision every single day. We've done our part, and now we need the state to do theirs: protect CCTR investments, commit to enrollment-based reimbursement with the FlexFactor, make the CSPP two-year-old flexibility permanent.

It's time to give the workforce that California depends on the stability that we've earned and the investment that they deserve. Thank you for the opportunity to represent the state contractors who hold the system together. I have prepared answers to the questions, but we'll wait till the appropriate time to answer them.

Thank you very much. CCPU.

Good afternoon. My name is Alexa Frankenberg. I am the Executive Director of Child Care Providers United, and on behalf of the 70,000 childcare providers that we represent, I'm honored to be here to speak to you all today. Improving early childhood education for children ages zero to five means focusing on two priorities: ensuring true parental choice through a robust mixed-delivery system and investing in the family child care provider workforce.

True parental choice exists only when all care options are funded equitably. Families should be able to choose what works best for their child, not simply what they can afford. That means supporting a system that includes family child care providers and ensures their sustainability.

Family child care providers offer flexible, home-based care that meets the diverse needs of children. It offers an individualized attention, including for children with developmental needs, as well as culturally competent in language care that is representative of the community.

Additionally, staffing ratios in schools or centers often do not compare to family child care. Family child care supports families working nontraditional hours, such as farm workers, nurses, and janitors, by providing extended hours for care, including transportation and after-hours support that other settings often do not offer.

Too often, families are steered towards center-based care or TK options because that is where funding is available. And that may meet some needs, as Andrea just said, but it does not always provide real choice for families. It also removes revenue from family child care providers who often operate on much thinner margins.

If we are committed to equity, we must fund all options, including-- I've got competition here; it's very cute--including expanding access to subsidies and vouchers for family child care. The data tell an alarming story. Current subsidy rates cover as little as 30% of the cost of care.

Survey data from CDSS show that almost three quarters of all family child care providers do not pay themselves a salary. That means $0 that they are taking home. The quarter that do earn about $2,400 a month on average, which averages out to less than $9 per hour. I cannot imagine surviving on that in California, and yet 70,000 family child care providers do. Too many providers are being forced to close, exacerbating childcare deserts, and too few are entering.

As everyone up here has said so far, we must align the subsidy rates with the true cost of care. We also need to adopt a prospective pay model so that providers are paid in advance rather than waiting weeks for reimbursement that they cannot afford to have delayed. And this is critical because, often, providers need start-up investments to support the new children but have to wait almost two months to receive that pay.

Without action, we risk destabilizing a critical part of our childcare system. Only one in seven eligible children currently receive subsidized care, and expanding family child care is one of the fastest ways to increase supply since it does not often require new construction.

When policies shift children into other programs without supporting family child care, we reduce options for families. No parent should have to choose between what is affordable and what meets their child's needs. The good news--and there is some good news--is that targeted investments are making a difference. Through our CCPU benefit funds funded by the state, tens of thousands of providers have gained access to healthcare, retirement, and training supports in just a few years.

Providers who were uninsured or underinsured have obtained cost-free health coverage and used it for critical needs, from glasses and medications to surgeries and cancer treatment.

It truly has been life-changing. The CCPU Training Fund has distributed laptops, printers, and more to thousands of providers and trained them on how this technology can improve the quality of the care and streamline program operations. We've reached thousands of providers with our immigration data rights trainings and child development related courses through our provider-led peer-to-peer training model.

Our Retirement Fund also has helped to keep thousands of providers in the field who are experienced, meaning that these providers don't have to choose between the work they love and preparing for retirement that we all need. These benefits sustain providers and the families they serve.

They show that the childcare system Californians need is possible. Yet as providers lose subsidized children, whether it's four-year-olds to TK or now two-year-olds to preschool, this exacerbates the childcare deserts, and many providers fear that they will lose access to these benefits and need to close down without more subsidies and more subsidy children to provide care for.

I believe we all want the same thing: a strong economy and a childcare system that meets the needs of families and providers alike. Families deserve real choices, and providers deserve the support necessary to sustain this essential work. We look forward to continued partnership with the Legislature to achieve this goal. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Carmen Perez. I live in Marin with my family, my husband, my four children, fourteen years, seven, five, and one and a half. I'm here today to talk about my experiences to be in the waiting list. When my first baby was born, I was a single mom and I applied for childcare.

I thought that will be my solution because, at that time also, my parents got sick by cancer and I had to take care of them, trying to find the work and all that. But all the time when I were asking how is my application or when you're gonna give me something, they always said, oh, you're still on the waiting list. Is your address, your phone number, it's the same? And I said, yes. It is the same.

And I walk in, I call them, and the answer was always the same: you are on the waiting list. You still wanna be there? And I stayed there for 10 years. When my son turns 12, they said he can qualify because the program is until 12.

When the owner made his promise of $145,000, my two girls would benefit of that. So they got the childcare, my two girls, seven and five-year-old now, and I can see the difference. They got it. They went to preschool. My seven-year-old is the best reader in her classroom.

She said she reads very well. She, in Spanish and English, is very smart. And my other girl, it's going in the same way. But now I have already 10 months again on the waiting list, and it's, like, traumatized because I see how am I gonna stay another years? I don't know when because I keep going and asking again.

And the answer is the same: not right now. We don't have the funds. And it's so hard work because we-- if I'm not working, like, should I do? And my husband makes, like, 800 a week. And the-- we live in Marin. Everything is expensive. We barely make-- afford the rent. So how we're supposed to live without childcare? We would like to work because my credit card is so, so, so, so high.

And I would like to make it to work. I would like to-- I really want to have a full-time job and not be worried about the childcare for him. I tried taking him. I am a caregiver, but the-- they've-- my senior told me the other day, you know what? Call me when you will be free when you don't have the baby because it's the same thing here. He doesn't let me do anything. And--

What's his name?

Dyson.

Dyson. Dyson, you got something-- you have something to say? You do? What do you wanna say? Oh, no. Don't blame it on someone else. This is you. What do you wanna say? Oh, okay. Okay. Well, if you have anything else to say, just let me know, okay?

Say thanks, say gracias.

Uh-huh.

So, yeah, now I'm scared again. Like I said, I've been eighteen months waiting and this is like a timer again. And it's I have so many dreams. I would like to have a home for us and not be paying the rent, but it is this is so far if I keep living like this. Sorry.

That's so sensible too because it's how would I help help my husband, my kids? Believe me, I have tried working with him. I asked somebody to if she will help me with him, and she charged me the same that I make. So I'll be working, and when I get paid, just give it the whole thing to her. Doesn't work.

And I just went there again to fill up to renewal the paper work the paper for him and the application and for my No.

Mother-in-law. And they also said, if you make more money than whatever you did combining with my husband's, she said, if we make more than that, we're not gonna qualify. So how's it we supposed to live with air and water? Because if we make a little bit more, oh, I'm never gonna pay my credit card. Never sounds like I'm never gonna make my own house. Yeah.

I would like to get a computer for my oldest and for him to go to the university. And he's going to to high school the coming year. I like I said, I would like to work more to take some pressure on my for my husband. He works so hard, but he better than makes

it.

I'd like to be able to take my kids to sign place like Disneyland one day. I've never been there. We have those dreams. Those dreams will maybe be able to become a reality. We have childcare.

But when you don't deliver on your promises, you're, like, we will have the promise. We will have the the childcare, but then we said, okay, you know, never mind. So also we're playing with our dreams, playing with the health mental. It's not easy, like, thinking maybe I will get it. Or or when somebody say, yes, you will get it, and then somebody say, no.

Never mind. Not right now. We don't have that. And so it's playing with our dream mental care, playing with our family future. We can advance and move forward like this.

It's not okay for someone to play with your family's needs. I know the people on this, community weren't the ones who made the promise to expand childcare, but you have the power to make sure that California delivers. We expect you to use your power to make sure that the childcare spaces that were promised, all 77,000 of them are funded in the by budget this year so that families like mine can start our dreams

and not stay living in this nightmare. This is not like a story tell. This is we are living on this. I have live in this. My kids are on this now.

We are on this. Just so scary. He can go to preschool. Alright. Preschool is very expensive for me.

I can't pay because I couldn't pay my first son. I tried. I put him two days and then I have to took him away. And he many times he asked me, why don't put me at school again? Please take me to school.

I couldn't put it for school. And like I said, I saw myself the difference when they go to preschool and when they don't. It's big. It's a huge difference. And I was scared about him if he can make it, if we can make it with him.

Thank you for this opportunity. Thank you for put your eyes on our families. We really need those space. And I hope our dreams can go forward.

Let's give it up for Carmen Perez, y'all. Doing all that juggling

Yeah.

At the same time. Ah, you're welcome. Questions from members? No? CDE, you were talking about the 300,000 children who are being served.

Can we break that down? I'm not expecting you to have this right now, but out of those 300,000, how many are of those families families of those children, how many how many of them are actually getting their employment needs met? Right?

Are getting their like, where they're able to be employed up.

Correct. Meaning, whatever their employment goals are. I mean, are are are they just saying, I'll take whatever slot I can get no matter what, and we'll just try to figure out how to make that work. Right? But, I mean, are these slots really meeting the needs of all the 300,000 that we're actually serving?

I'm happy to get a breakdown of that data. I I will say a point made earlier is there isn't regional eligibility. So the to qualify for a CSPP in especially high cost counties, it you're probably gonna have to be underemployed. Simply by the nature of of the requirements.

In terms of the employment Thank you. Vericate income requirements. Yeah. Got it. Got it. What percentage of our slots need to be full day and full year? Going for

don't know if Virginia can speak to that.

Hi. Virginia Early with the California Department of Education. So I have with me some data from October 2024. So this is a year, earlier than what Kimberly was sharing. But of that, about 60% of our state preschool slots were part day, part year, and about 41% were full day, full year.

And then TK also varies. You know, there's a requirement that it's a part day program, but then when combined with, the expanded learning opportunities program, in many cases, that's getting you to a nine hour program or combined with a part day state preschool program. Many, many TK enrolled children are also receiving part day state preschool, to make it into a full day.

So I I guess my question is is that I know what our current reality is, but my my question is more of given the needs of our families, right, remember, I'm trying to switch it over. I'm not I don't care what the system has decided the families need to do. I want the system to reflect what the parents need, not what we give them. Right? And so my question is, what percentage of our slots need to be full day, full year, full year?

We can we can follow-up with that information.

The question I need answered because it's time for us to get to a place where where we need to be, not what we want for them. We've gotta honor these families as the experts in their own lives. Right? And they need to tell us what they need so that we can deliver for them instead of telling them this is what you got. Now you figure out how to get it.

Right? And so that that's the so I'm gonna ask CDE to provide me with that information, please. Again, how many what percentage of our slots need to be? It doesn't need to be a 100%. It's not all families need a 100%.

Right? I wanna figure out what our families need and then let the legislature decide and whoever the next administration is going to be decide whether we are dedicated to meeting their needs. Does that make sense?

Yeah. Like, the demand versus what we offer.

There we go. There we go. You said it so much nicer than me. And then, also, what I think would be good, and I'll I'll give this to, one of the things I'm gonna be asking for and a staff will follow-up, is I'm also interested in the mini one time funding that we did provide that produced good outcomes that is worth preserving. Right?

So, CDE, if you can give me that as well. I know you said some of that stuff in your comments in terms of one time funding fading away, but they may have produced good results. Right? I'm only interesting interested in the things we have data on, right, that says this actually produced the type of coordination, produced the type of, you know, whatever the one time funding was for, that it actually met the needs That it actually delivered what we were trying to accomplish.

I feel like she's boring holes through my head right now, so I do wanna emphasize. I didn't highlight enough the UPK coordinators, which is, like, one of the biggest grants, and that's where we've seen, like, every question of how can we improve it, how are we connecting, how are we netting these kind of benefits. That's what the UPK coordinators have been most effective.

And was that one time funding? Okay. So put it on your list I'll put it on your list. And give it to me Okay. Before the May revise.

Okay? Prop 98. Obviously, we have done a lot through Prop 98. One of the barriers, obviously, also is that Prop 98 can only be used for slots in terms of our our public schools. Are there any ways that we can figure out how to continue to maximize Prop 98 in a way that can actually get us to full year, full day?

We certainly have ideas. I think one of the biggest contributors has been the coherence in our after school funding, ACEs, ELP to combine what is being offered along with a safety net of other programs so that you can, like, kind of cobble together a whole day. But we can certainly put out some thoughts on 98 usage.

I would love to have that information as well. I want to just re reiterate, for the next foreseeable future, there's gonna be a lot of instability happening with our families. And we have got to figure out how we can reinvent our systems to provide greater stability for our families and to ensure that the next generation is on a steady foundation so that they are on a pathway to thrive. And so, I understand where current systems are. I'm no longer interested in current systems.

I'm interested in systems and what they need to be to meet the moment. So please think about those things. Please reach out if you have ideas, because we've gotta figure this out. Instability for children sets them out for failure in the future. They have ripple effects, and they start affecting generations.

And we have got to do whatever we can to make sure that our children stay stable and that they have what they need in order to make sure that they are on the right path to be able to thrive, in all the biopsychosocial outcomes that you're looking at when it comes to children being able to be on a pathway to thrive regardless of their ZIP code. Right? Thank you all so very much for this time and for this panel, for kicking us off, as well.

What what are you getting your what is your page? Alright. Hang in there. Cry. Don't do that. It's right. It's not So folks, this is gonna be one of those chaotic days. I'm just gonna warn you right now where we're all jumping around trying to get bills done, and we're going to be doing some unfortunate recesses.

Okay? And this is gonna be one of those times where we're gonna have to recess so we can get some bills out of committees. I have some crying to do. And and then as soon as we can, whether it's me or assembly member Alvarez, we'll keep switching out until we can get through all of these panels. Okay?

Unless you wanna do I'm gonna take the opportunity to break too. Okay. Not not not not not a problem. So right now, let's take about just a five minute recess real quick so that we can get some of our other business done, and then we'll come back with this panel. Okay?

Okay. Five minutes are up. Thank you all for giving us an opportunity to regroup here. We are going to continue with today's agenda. We have issue number two now, which is universal transitional kindergarten.

The panel will hear the governor's January budget proposal impacting universal transitional kindergarten and provide an update on implementation in the first school year of universal eligibility. So for this panel, we'll hear from Learning Policy Institute first, then Department of Finance, Legislative Analyst Office, and Department of Education in that order. Welcome. Please begin.

Hi. I'm Hannah Melnick, senior policy adviser and director of Early Learning Policy at the Learning Policy Institute. In this panel, I'll cover three things. First, TK enrollment and uptake rates. Second, what we know about family's TK decision making and its accessibility.

And then third, the TK workforce. So first, on TK enrollment, TK enrollment has increased at a really rapid pace. We added a 100,000 children to TK enrollment in just the first three years of expansion, reaching more than a 177,000 TK students last year. This is really impressive growth, and the largest pre k expansion in our nation's history. Amidst this quick growth, enrollment has been hard to predict.

Before the pandemic, we served about seventy two percent of eligible children, in TK. And since enrollment are the number of eligible children has grown substantially, we've recently served about 55% of eligible children. That was for '24-'25. This lower uptake in TK may not be too surprising given that the program has expanded so quickly, but we think it's something to monitor. And my colleagues and I are studying how families are making their decisions about pre k, and including TK through surveys and focus groups.

There are several factors that go into a family's, decisions about TK, and I just wanna start by saying that we did hear a lot of we have been hearing a lot of positive stories about TK, which makes sense that considering that more than half of our four year olds are enrolling. One parent raves about how great her child's experience was, how play based it was, and she couldn't believe that her tax dollars were making it possible to have a full day of care.

In terms of why families with an eligible child don't enroll, there are a few main themes. One reason is simply that they don't know their child is eligible for TK. One of the parents in our focus groups said that not knowing about TK was a source of huge frustration for her.

Hopefully, now that TK is universal for all four year olds, there will be fewer parents who simply don't know about it, but we still think it's important to continue communication campaigns. A second reason some families don't send their child to TK is they prefer another such as keeping their child at home or staying in a preschool or childcare provider in their community that they trust. This is not inherently bad. We wanna make sure that families have a choice.

We just wanna make sure that families are, see TK as a place that is going to be developmentally appropriate for their child and full of play.

And finally, a third reason, for not choosing TK is logistical barriers, such as TK not being offered at a home school or not having, a long enough school day. So our analysis, of a survey of that was conducted by CDE showed that TK programs are becoming more accessible. 88% of LEAs offer TK at all their elementary school sites. 85% offer, school day of TK, which is as opposed to a part day, so it still may not be the full working day that parents need.

And 88% are offering some expanded learning options for TK.

What we still have yet to learn is how many TK students actually have access to those, early expanded learning pro programs. I wanna turn now to TK teachers who are the most important part of a quality, classroom experience. TK has expanded quickly and during a teacher shortage, so that's put pressures on LEAs in terms of staffing. In our analysis of the CDE survey of 1,500 LEAs, we find reasons to be optimistic, as well as needs for continued investments.

One reason for optimism is low vacancy rates in TK lead teacher positions.

In each year of TK expansion, even though we've added 1,400 to 2,000 teachers each year, we have about 1% of lead teacher positions that are, vacant at the start of the school year, which is, much less than what we were expecting to see. And assistant teacher vacancy rates have declined. The first year of TK, we had 12% of assistant assistant teacher positions not filled at the start of the year, which was quite concerning. That, percentage has dropped to 3% in the following two years.

So that's, higher than we'd like to see, but also, better than might be expected, especially since we've, lowered the adult to to child ratio.

In terms of whether TK teachers are appropriately qualified, this is something we know less about. The '25-'26 school year is the first time that TK teachers need to hold 24 units of ECE, a child development permit, or equivalent experience is determined by their LEA, and we do not collect data on how many teachers meet this requirement. We do know that last year when they were surveyed, LEA's report 94% of LEAs expected that they would have enough qualified TK teachers, and that was self report.

While the data are promising, I just also wanna highlight that in the open responses, LEAs continue to report staffing as the number one challenge that they were facing in addition to facilities. So we're not completely out of the woods.

And finally, a key part of a TK workforce is the administrators who are overseeing TK programs. In our the case studies we recently conducted in California, we found that having a leader who really understands early child early childhood development is key. That's the person that selects the TK curriculum, oversees TK teacher hiring and evaluation, trains preschools, and they also often have CSPP or other early learning programs on their campus.

And so for this reason, we recommend expanding state funded training options for administrators who are overseeing, early learning programs, such as the twenty first Century, Leadership Academy, 21 CSLA, or county led trainings. We also recommend reevaluating the way early childhood is incorporated in the administrative service credential, to make sure that all administrators have some ECE expertise and that the credential is accessible to, those who have a preschool, director permit so that they can oversee early learning teachers.

Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions you have, and happy to follow-up on any data that were not included in the agenda.

Thank you. Go on to the next panelist.

Idalys Perez with the Department of Finance. So for transitional kindergarten in the '25-'26 school year, the governor's budget provides a total of 3,000,000,000 proposition 98 general fund to support full implementation of universal transitional kindergarten, which includes 1,900,000,000.0 for TK expansion and 1,100,000,000.0 for lowering the average student to adult classroom ratio to 10 to one.

In the '26-'27 school year, the governor's budget provides approximately 3,400,000,000.0 proposition 98 general fund for the second year of full implementation of TK in 26-27, which allows all children who turn four years old by September 1 of the school year to enroll in TK. This funding includes roughly 2,200,000,000.0 proposition 98 general fund for TK expansion and approximately 1,200,000,000.0 proposition 98 general fund for lowering the average student to adult classroom ratio to 10 to one.

These costs are also fully within the local control funding formula, and these funding amounts were based on TK ADA projections at governor's budget, which were $201,100 and 200,109 for '25-'26 and two 200 and 15,855 for '26-'27.

Additionally, the governor's budget includes, some statutory changes. Specifically, it proposes statutory amendments that clarify the definition of providing developmentally appropriate curriculum in TK. For one, instructional practices that promote each child's development and learning through a strengths and play based approach that meet the preschool TK Learning Foundations, PTKLF, and two, a cohesive set of principles, experiences, and learning goals to help children learn and thrive. Finally, the governor's budget includes the TK Multilingual Learner Screening Program Implementation, VCP.

This includes $316,000 in non proposition 98 general fund in '26-'27 through '28 to '29 and $158,000 ongoing for state operation resources to support TK, multilingual screener program that was established in the 2025 budget act.

Specifically, the PCP includes one permanent position to provide ongoing oversight, administration, and technical assistance related to implementing the screener statewide, and resources equivalent to one position for three years, that's limited term, beginning in the '26-'27 year to support the initial workload necessary to screen students.

That concludes Department of Finance. Thank you. Our next panelist, please.

Good afternoon. Sarah Cortez with the Legislative Analyst Office. Just two brief comments from us today. So first, we consider the TK funding augmentations proposed in the governor's budget technical adjustments intended to align with updated average daily attendance estimates and information projections based on readily available average daily attendance. And the second is related to the BCP and the trailer bill language.

We don't have any concerns at this time with those proposals. That concludes my remarks.

Thank you. Finally, Department of Education.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Stephen Propheter, director of the early education division of the California Department of Education, speaking here on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurman. I will address as many of the questions as I can in my remarks, but I will conclude by addressing all that I can.

In this first full year of implementation, we estimate at CDE that uptake in transitional kindergarten eligible, children enrolled, children, that are eligible for for TK, which is to say, though, those four year olds that turn four by September 1. This is a significant increase from the previous year when about 177,000 children, were enrolled in TK.

We anticipate these numbers will continue to increase over time as TK programs become more established, families become more aware of of TK as a as a as a universal option. And while we have, with, philanthropic support, stood up a communications campaign, it's important to remember that unless a family has had a child enrolled in California's public schools, the the notion of a universal pre kindergarten program through a school for their four year old child may be unfamiliar.

So it's really important just to to to to continue to build that awareness of TK as an option. Now that some of the initial logistics around access has been addressed by many LEAs, we hear that many districts are going, to dive deeper into development what's developmentally appropriate, and, you know, focusing on not just curriculum, but learning environments. We believe the amendments to the definition of curriculum and the governance governor's, proposed Trailer Bill Language will support and clarify, what those those expectations are.

Critical in all this implementation, are the work of two grants that I'd like to highlight that have supported UPK expansion, and with the recognition that in order for a a new program for four year olds or you an expansion a universal program for four year olds to succeed, multiple systems need to shift, partnerships need to be built, and that's taken time and significant amount of work. So these are both one time investments that are set to sunset in in a couple of years here.

I believe it's 2028. The UPK planning and implementation grant, which has supported costs associated with creating or expanding transitional kindergarten, state preschool, recruitment, training, facility needs, establishing or strengthening partnerships with other, pre k programs within the LEA, including TK, state preschool head start. The Mixed Delivery Planning Grant provides funding to local planning councils, resource and referrals to partner with LEAs and community based preschools in the county to enhance and uplift the Mixed Delivery System.

A key use of that planning and implementation grant, the former that I I mentioned, has been funding UPK coordinators within county offices of education. The critical work these coordinators have done has been to organize, coordinate, and implement, county wide efforts for UPK, including supporting that mixed delivery preschool system focused on whole child development, aligning programs from preschool to third grade, and supporting UTK implementation. The responsibilities encompass a wide range of tasks. One of the things that we'd we'd highlight in that is, what these UPK

coordinators have done is, with or

I'd say, rather without the coordinators, with or I'd sit rather without the coordinators, because as I mentioned, the the funding will sunset here in a couple of years. We're likely to see, a fragmented, or continue like, a fragmented implementation. These coordinators really have been a glue. Right? The glue, if if you will, that hold p three efforts together.

Districts would need to navigate without the coordinators, the districts would need to navigate, to changes in guidance, quality expectations, mixed delivery coordination on their own, which lends itself towards inconsistency across classrooms and sites. So that's a lot that the speaking at the the county level needs, but I'd be remiss if we didn't mention that there are district level needs as well.

Earlier around, communication to families, things around addressing, professional development, you know, community outreach, you know, promoting the benefits of transitional kindergarten, promoting, you know, particularly developmentally appropriate, TK, improved, you know, math, literacy, social skills, you know, which lead to to longer term higher, engagement in kindergarten and beyond, particularly for for those, our multilingual learners and and children from, lower income families. In terms of some of the, the questions in the agenda, question three, are LEA struggling with hiring and placing qualified TK teachers?

As far as teaching staff goes, well, ninety four percent of LEAs have reported having enough fully qualified TK teaching staff overall.

A closer look reveals some ongoing staffing challenges. So, specifically, 6% didn't have enough fully qualified TK teaching staff and had to get creative about how to find necessary staff. We've heard some districts have had to use long term substitutes, emergency TK teacher permit, or pull teachers from other grade levels and move them to TK. Additional adults to meet ratios, so LEAs have reported in '24-'25 that some TK second adult positions remain unfilled.

And looking as we look into '25-'26, LEAs anticipate having a significantly higher number of second adult positions due to changes in the ratio for TK.

So going from one to 12 down to one to 10. Just in all this, I would highlight, one of the other one time, funding grants. You'll hear a little bit more about this on on the next panel when we when we on quality. But the early education teacher development grant was one of those one time investments that supported the, increase in, credentialed TK teachers, permitted state preschool teachers, and increased, professional development for TK teachers, state preschool teachers, and kindergarten teachers.

Those funds will will sunset in 2028, as well, and it's another area that, could, one time, investments could continue to support.

And, in terms of for question four, anything the state can do to further support LEAs in implementing the expansion of high quality TK, I think I would just highlight three things. I'll wrap it up after this. So support developmentally appropriate practice and curriculum and TB and trailer built language. Ensure that TK is included in any curriculum and instructional materials adoption separately from TK and aligned to the preschool and TK learning foundations, and then coordinated funding for UPK implementation and coordination.

So that's the UPK coordinators as well as district support for for UPK.

I'll conclude my remarks here and be available for questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Thank you to all the panelists. Let me start with a question because I think I think it was CDE who talked about the '25-'26 either anticipated or or known numbers. Where are we with enrollment for TK for '25-'26? In in the agenda we have on page eight, the numbers up until '24-'25, it's about a 55% enrollment rate given the TK eligible population.

So I'm just curious if there's updated numbers. I think somebody I thought it was CDE said there's data for '25-'26.

We can speak to kind of what we expect and we expect that Okay. Uptake to be just over 50%. The CDE, we haven't published the the figures yet, but we're looking forward to figure to to publishing them later this month.

So just to clarify, 50% of total eligible population?

Correct. Total fifth just over 50%, of the, I believe it's about fifty two percent of the eligible four year olds, for for this year.

Yeah. Yep. So, that kind of begs the question, something I was noticing here on the trends with the exception of 2020, twenty two one, which is the year of COVID. The uptake has been from a percentage wise decreasing. And that's just of to definitely of note.

So I'd ask maybe to start with LPI first. Is that a trend you identified? And any comments on that in the last CDE as well?

Sure. Hannah Melnick with Learning Policy Institute. So I think one of the things that might be causing this is just that the in in the period that we're looking at, the eligibility age changes every year. And so, first of all, that's just a little bit confusing to keep up with. The number of children who are being added as eligible has been increasing substantially.

Post COVID, we also see nationwide that preschool enrollment has been much lower even in universal states than it was pre pandemic. I don't know why, but that is a national trend. And so I think it's something it would be reasonable to expect that what now that the age eligibility is gonna be stable, it's all four year olds, parents are gonna catch on.

And, also, school districts are making the program continuously more accessible, having it at the place where the kid will attend kindergarten, making sure that the teacher is in place and known and has experience, and also communicating better about it. Maybe they weren't communicating fully when they weren't quite ready sure they were gonna have enough spots.

I think that we'll probably start to see the reversal of that trend, but that's just speculation.

Are there any other thoughts from CDE on that?

I would just I would echo what my colleague, Miss Melnick, shared. And just, you know, we know that from rapid the the rapid survey project out of Stanford that nearly two thirds of of families with children under the age of six, know about TK. So that's down about eighty three percent. So we've seen kind of a decrease in in knowledge in that, and and that that those points in time.

So 83% in July 23 knew about TK, and then, two thirds report, knowing about, TK in a more recent, survey.

And I think that really gets at supporting, districts in kind of the promotion of the promotion of the the availability. Okay.

To Finance, what are the projected what are the projections that you're utilizing to to make the budget recommendations and the proposed budget in terms of eligible population and the enrollment or the uptake?

Idalys Perez with the Department of Finance. So with the numbers that we were mentioning for the allocate or the projections, these were based on, TK ADA projections at the governor's budget, which were two, which were based on projections of 02/1000 ADA for '25-'26, and 02/15855 for '26-'27.

Okay. And and and of an eligible population of how many?

We don't have that information at this time. However, like, since that's based on, like, LCFF and demographic related projections, we can take that back.

Okay. Yeah. If you could share with us on what that is. I'm just I wanna wanna know if the the budget proposal is whether it it's consistent with the trend continuing or a more a more aggressive enrollment uptake role? Do you have someone here from that can answer that question?

Yes. Actually, I'll defer to my colleague who Great. Thank you. LCFF.

Oh, hi. Katie Lago Marceno with Department of Finance. So the the sorry. Budget estimates that we use, we use TK ADA, and, we can get back to you with more information on what demographics uses for their projections, but we base this off of, ADA. We don't base it off of eligibility.

Yeah. But AD, I understand that. I am not I'm not I'm trying to understand what you how your projection of ADA compares to the eligible population given the historical trends. I'm just trying to better understand what methodology you used to calculate that.

Okay. We'll get back to you.

Okay. Thank you. We talked a little bit about some of the programs that need to be and and funding to workforce preparation and all that. One of the questions, we have is on the issue of administrative credentials, and how, preschool, now TK, and and kindergarten Northwell. I assume kindergarten system long longstanding that that was already part of the preparation for current admin credentials.

How does that play a role? Is it being integrated into administrative credentials, any continued education that administrators do? Is there anything in that space?

Since I'll start since I mentioned it. Hanna Melnick senior, policy adviser at the Learning Policy Institute. So the credential itself doesn't specify grade levels, if I'm not mistaken. So it's real but it's really up to the, administrative preparation programs, the higher ed programs, to determine what's the content that is taught. And so while in some a lot of the programs have been renamed, you know, for TK, but maybe haven't caught up to the fact that they actually really need to be changing their content.

And just anecdotally, we think that it's because it's goes all the way through grade 12, the amount of early childhood coverage, if there is any, is just moved over very quickly. Wow. Another structural issue is that, because of there there are more positions to be an assistant principal in a middle or a high school. So a lot of principals and administrators get their training with older children, and then they're moving back into elementary schools again without having that early learning expertise.

So what what has been what is some of the, the role of academia and education, been doing, in in response to that?

I can't speak to the administrative credential programs and what they have been doing. I know a lot there has been a lot of focus on p k three credential programs rolling out, but I don't know to the extent to which they're coordinating with administrator

and when you say credential, it's for the and the teaching.

Yes. The p k three is for the teacher, whereas there's just a single administrative credential for, principals, superintendents, and all the other staff that oversee those teachers.

Yeah. Did you have anything to add on that?

Yeah. Steven Popheter with the Department of Education. I would just add just a couple of notes on this. So a couple of years back, we had a UPK mixed delivery quality and access work group, which the work group members recommended that this the the addressing the administrative services credential, specifically adding in ECE units as a requirement Was a was recommend recommendation would require work with commission on teacher credentialing. I think I'd also point to and I don't have the figures in front of me.

I'm happy to follow-up with it. But we have, administered a survey of planning and implementation for UPK for years. And, in some form or another, we've seen, we've seen, grantees, so LEAs, charter schools, county offices of education prioritize training on early childhood for site leaders. So it is folks with the administrative credential. And then we've also seen a desire, a need for more professional development in early childhood for those site administrators.

And I think that lends itself towards a gap that maybe isn't present in the administrative services credential.

Yeah. I I just point that out because the more I talk to to school leaders and to people in in the TK environment, it's a different population of students. And and there there's there's different needs. And so certainly to prepare clearly, we we identified that since we now have credentials that are specific in preparation for those grades for those early years. But we gotta make sure that the the whole system of support, which includes administrators, is is present when it comes to that.

So that's something for me to follow-up on. On that issue as well, I heard someone mention maybe it was LPI that there's no data as to how many of the the individuals who are teaching are have the the full credential, if you will, whether it's the ECE or or the new credentials. Why is that data not available? Where where is the missing information, the missing link to have that data?

So please correct me, my colleagues, if I get this wrong. But with the data I presented earlier, and I think Steven referred to came from a survey of LEAs. I think the way because it's an apportionment requirement, it's not a legal requirement that the teachers have it. That's, whether they have the appropriate credentials is, monitored through the county level audit process, I believe. And so that is not a systematic state level data collection process.

And it's really complicated to add that to the reporting process?

I would defer to others on that.

We we just it's a theme an unfortunate theme now because it's second hearing on teacher preparation credentialing pipeline issues where we don't have data, and yet we're making multi $100,000,000 decisions on things. And So does the department have anything else to add on that?

I think we could we could follow-up and and see what data there is available. There's a you know, I'm I I don't oversee the the the data systems that collect information on, educator, you know, credentials, you know, but so I think this is something we could take and follow-up to provide the information we have.

Yeah. And if you haven't heard yet from CTC, you will on access to data on other issues that we've discussed at the prior committee. And so it it I think Can I

sorry? Just really quick.

Oh, yes.

On on the agency on that data that you're asking about collecting, we don't currently collect that. We would have to update CALPADS, which would require resources. But in in direction, we could do it, but we don't currently through our existing structure. Okay.

If you could, and maybe working with LAO, provide us with information on what that would require for us to accomplish that, that'd be helpful information to ensure particularly that the pre preschool to to the early educate credential, excuse me, be reported so that we understand who who is teaching our kids that we have high expectations for.

Appreciate that. And then just to clarify on the issue on the I had requested from finance. The enrollment, I know I think the answer was you base it off of ADA, which is not the same as enrollment.

So I'd like to get just to be very clear here, the eligible population, in the universe of potential TK, students, the enrollment expected enrollment uptake, if you will, and then obviously the ADA that you certainly have access to, and then how that differs from, you know, the the first required grade, which is first grade in our education system in terms of just to see the comparison of of what those are. That's the specific information we're looking for.

So, is there anything else anyone as on the panel would like to add of something that was said, need clarification on, from direction from from us. Okay. Seeing a none, I think I think that'll be it on on this issue. Obviously, we'll hold it open and give me a second. Yeah.

Thank you. All this is show open. We're gonna go a little bit out of order just so that doctor Jackson can return to take the gavel for issue number three. So we'll go to issue number four now, to continue and, keep, any of the witnesses and testimony, waiting any longer than need be. So I'll ask the panel for issue four on reading difficulties screener and the professional development.

Panel to please come forward. So the panel will listen to the January budget proposal from the Department of Finance regarding, the impacts that it may have on readiness, reading difficulty, screener mandates, that was implemented a couple years ago, I believe. So we'll have finance present, and then we'll hear from the LAO. Kick it off, Department of Finance. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. The governor governor's budget proposes 40,000,001 time proposition 98 general fund to support implementation costs related to the screening of kindergarten through second grade students for risk of reading difficulties. This funding is provided in recognition that there are costs that local educational agencies are incurring while mandate claims are mandate claims are being filed with the commission on state mandates.

The budget additionally proposes statutory amendments that establish requirements of when local educational agencies can screen pupils in

The proposed language addresses, change sorry. The proposed language addresses, change sorry. The proposed language changes address a long standing concern around increasing over identification in special education by establishing that local educational agencies must wait at least ninety one school days in a school year before administering screening for kindergarten pupils and at least forty six school days for pupils in first and second grade in order to ensure that when a flag is triggered, it reflects genuine instructional need rather than lack of exposure to foundational reading instruction.

kindergarten through second grade for reading difficulties.

Additionally, statutory amendments further recommend that screening instruments be administered on a one on one or small group basis. That concludes my remarks, and I'm happy to take questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Do we have additional comments by Department of Finance? No? Okay. Then we'll take the LAO.

Good afternoon, mister chair, member. Dylan Hawksworth Lutzow with the Legislative Analyst Office. We recommend rejecting funding for this specific purpose. The state has provided $65,000,000 over the last two years to support the implementation of the reading difficulty screener in the first year, including training of staff. This budget proposes an additional $40,000,000 to cover the costs associated with administering the screener and supporting students identified as having reading difficulties.

Costs associated with administering the screener are likely lower in the second year, given there have already been, training done for teachers who'd be administering the, the screener. And costs associated with providing the targeted support, they are currently unknown. So we recommend rejecting the funding for this specific purpose. If the legislature wants to provide funding for screening associated costs, it could instead provide the funding through the discretionary block grant, which would give the LAAs, more flexibility. Thank you.

Happy to take questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Thank you both. I have a a question as it relates to the trailer bill language to the implementation of when the screening will occur. I'd like finance to provide more details on that and, why that change is coming forward.

Absolutely. So the date the dates were specifically selected to allow for people exposure to curriculum before screening it in order to reduce over identification of peoples who are at risk of reading difficulties. There's widespread concern around the potential over identification risk in special education. And recent research and preliminary screening data have shown that administration timing for the screeners has a meaningful effect on the outcomes, as well as the rate at which students are identified for interventional services.

While this work and research are still ongoing, we've seen data that shows a steep decline in leveling off of students who are identified as needing reading intervention after those points in the school year, which implies that there are that with sufficient exposure to curriculum, among other factors, a more accurately identifying point is at these points in the school year for students.

The proposal reflects an attempt to prevent any harm resulting for from over identifying students early while ensuring screening results are interpreted in an appropriate instructional context

for the most accurate results for students. I appreciate the concern. There was certainly something in the in the in the policy discussion on the implementation of the the screen screening instrument that I I expressed. And so appreciate that there's that concern. Can you walk me through the the language in terms of the dates that the the days that were selected and, just so I can make sure I I ask you some follow-up questions related to that.

Of course. So for kindergarteners in particular, the LEAs must wait until after the ninety day mark. So the ninety first day of the school year in order to administer screenings for at risk identification, that means they can do a baseline screening ahead of that point. But the the screener that would be used to determine whether the student is at risk for reading difficulties could not be administered until that ninety first day mark. For grades one and two, that would lower to a forty five day mark.

K. So, what is the school day requirements in California? A 180. Eighty days. Right? So we've in kindergarten, you've identified essentially halfway through the year to do the the screen. What and I heard in your testimony that there's a lot of research being done as to perhaps best timing and methodologies used. Is there any research that was used to make the determination of the ninety days?

Yes. So currently, just caveoning that this is all preliminary data from our screener so far. But several of the screeners including Ameri Learning, MCAS, which includes Dibels and Lectura, which is a Spanish screener, as well as Multitudes, our largest one, all have shown a steep drop off at that point for kindergarteners. Just taking an average here, let's see.

For m class, it reduces from about 52% to about 29, Lectura from fifty seven to twenty percent, and for multitude, sixty percent to twenty percent of students identified at that point in time.

So the same students who were screened the first time and were identified.

When were those students screened the first time?

Within the first three months of school. So, in the September to, between early late August, early September is primarily when most of the screeners, some of them as late as October for depends on the screener.

And a different school years a different school districts have to here start at different times. So Correct. In in our home school district, that would have been, like, within a couple weeks of school starting, which probably doesn't make a ton of sense. I understand that. But in some, they start in July, and by September, they've been there a few months.

And so wouldn't, and are those are the are all of our screeners only screening once a year and not screening again?

No. So it it definitely completely depends on whichever screener we are talking about, but almost all of them screen multiple times for different purposes. So some create a baseline at the start, and then screen for risk of screening disabilities as a secondary kind of midyear screen and then often a final screener to determine kind of where the progress was. But it truly depends on the screener and the, recommended, use of that screener for

purpose. So so this is really a policy decision that you're hoping to implement through the budget as it relates to when screening should happen?

We want to encourage that students are getting the proper exposure to curriculum, specifically reading curriculum, because not every student is privileged to have that in their home environment. So sometimes that initial, especially like the kindergarten level, that initial exposure in those first few months, it can put up a false flag identifier that they are in need of reading intervention when in reality, they just need that exposure to curriculum, and then they they level out at a baseline at that point.

And what happens to the students who actually do need interventions and we don't identify it until halfway through the year?

So based on the data sorry. One moment.

I can speak to that.

Thank you.

Kimberly Rosenberger with CDE. We're not delaying identification. We're just, for this specific screener, recommending a start, but we're still instruction observation, universal support start from day one. And so we're trying to make sure that we're having valid accurate, identifications, but we are still working with there's training, There's, professional development that we work with the teachers for early identification throughout the year, and, this language doesn't prevent or limit that kind of early in intervention.

I I remain, skeptical but open on this conversation. I'd like to see the research. I mean, we were just in education policy committee talking about reclassification, another issue, but an issue that now for decades has haunted us because we did not reclassify students at the right time, and we held them back for for just inappropriately not identifying them the right way. I'm concerned that we have like, have we not asked these questions?

We have not talked about this change and and what that would mean for students who need help earlier rather than later.

And so I wanna definitely leave this open for and I'd like to see the evidence that was used and the data that was used to for the rationale for this proposal. Certainly before we we we see this before us making final decisions. So appreciate seeing that ahead of time. I don't think we have any other questions on this item. So we will hold the issue open and, just perfect timing.

Hand it back to doctor Jackson.

Mister chair, my only question is, so what do we talk about? I'm playing. Thank you very much.

Alright. Your turn. No. I gotta go vote on a bunch of stuff, including where you were. I gotta go where you

were. Switch.

Yeah. Switch.

So let's bring up our last panel, panel number three.

So let's bring up our last panel, panel number three.

And, LAO, you may begin when you're ready.

Mr. Chair, members, Dylan Hawksworth-Lutzow with the Legislative Analyst Office. We were asked to provide a brief overview of the state's quality plan. Each year as a condition of receiving federal child care development fund dollars, the state must use at least 9% of CCDF dollars on quality improvement activities and an additional 3% on quality improvement activities related to specifically infants and toddlers. Quality improvement activities are pretty broadly defined, may include training and professional development for childcare providers, implementing quality rating systems, or supporting health and safety standards.

On page 13 of your agenda, you'll see the list of activities that were in the 2025-26 budget.

And in recent years, the state has spent well above the 12% minimum in '25-'26. It was about 18% before the CCDF reduction and about 19% afterwards. The state must submit a plan to the Federal Government for approval describing how, improvement funds will be spent as part of the overall plan for, how the state will spend child care and development fund dollars, in in this part of that three year cycle.

The quality portion of the plan includes what types of activities will be funded, an annual expenditure report to ensure compliance with the 12% requirement, and a progress report. Lastly, in 2024, trailer bill legislation required the Department of Social Services to provide the Senate and assembly budget committees with, a proposed list of quality improvement activities, that will be funded in the next fiscal year by May 14.

That concludes my comments. Thank you.

CDSS. Yes.

So Dr. Lupe Jaime-Mileham, deputy director of the childcare and development division at CDSS. So I'm gonna just give a brief over opening remarks and then dive into the questions from there. So thank you for that overview. To meet the master plan goal number two and federal CCDF, which is the childcare development fund quality requirement.

CDSS is advancing a systemic quality investment strategies that strengthens the entire early learning workforce by creating an aligned statewide professional development framework that reflects current research, best practice related to the skills necessary to support California's children and their families.

The CDSS twenty twenty six, twenty seven quality spending plan also updates grounded in direct feedback from the field offering participants a menu of options such as competencies based education that can lead to degree attainment as well as permit attainment through or professional growth hours. In a sense, it's how they choose what's best for them regarding meeting their community needs.

As noted in the agenda, the proposed plan includes augmentations and reductions in well invested grounded ACF based on ACF regulations as well as based on master plan that's early care principles. Also, some projects that you might see some reductions on or related to one time investments, meaning they had a base, perhaps they had an augmentation to do translations that has ended and therefore this year that is no longer than needed to to continue as an example of that.

And then finally, I also wanna say in my opening that as mentioned in the previous hearing, due to ACS change in funding methodology, see, California's award was 83,000,000 less than previous allocations and which is the required 12% contract that was mentioned on that too.

So I'm not sure we're tracking that conversation from the last training too from the last hearing. Let me jump really quick to the questions in the agenda. So question number one talks about how the state can better embed professional development and support into these programs. As mentioned, we're governed by the federal childcare and development fund regulations. And as and we're mindful to make sure that our professional developments that we have target the entire mixed delivery system.

So not only that includes our licensed community, but also our license exempt, from the neighbor, as well as those that are not licensed centers to provide care for them for children. As this contractors are informed, our our various menu of options in the sense through our what we call our CECL platform to make sure that they can choose what is best for them to be able to meet their community needs. But most importantly, the professional development is based on EC competencies, foundations, and frameworks.

As mentioned, it's very research based. And these publications are updated to stay up to date on the research.

So for example, the infant, toddler, foundation, and frameworks has recently been updated to align, right, for coherent resents and articulations with our preschool transitional kindergartener frameworks that were just released. The professional development includes coaching, training, technical assistance, membership, mentorship, financial stipends such as stipends, etcetera, for unit bearing courses at to again lead for degree attainment and permit attainment.

In terms of question number two, how can the state prioritize the professional development but not included limited to supporting children who are multilingual as well as inclusive classroom approaches? So with that 12% set aside, the proposed plan does include a menu of options that do meet that diverse group of children that are in our care as well as support the workforce itself.

Our every three years when we are working on our state plan, for the next round, we do have a round of what we call learning journeys where we travel up and down the state to not only gather feedback from the field, but also look at our current investments.

The field itself is able to provide opportunities for to inform that plan that then translates into this quality plan, which many times is a multi year approach in the in these types of investments that we make. That is not the only time that the field also provides as we are rolling out these professional developments or different investments, then we also create surveys and information to understand wait list, to understand whether that is still meeting the needs, where is the gaps, etcetera.

And that we keep also in mind in regards to making these investments. Do you wanna show one bright spot of the many that are there? So please know that I'm not singling them out on purpose, as there is many more that I can share.

But for instance, one of the investments is the infant early childhood mental health consultation network, And this just gives you an idea of scale. So in 2425, there was 1,800 providers that includes center based and licensed family childcare homes who leveraged their services. It could have been by accessing that helpline, also as well as consultations, trainings, etcetera, safe sessions. Another 333 programs, which translates to a 311 program staff, who also utilized the services and that they're serving, across them about close to 7,000 children.

So investments for large scale type of, you know, results.

And then a total of 46 consultants graduated from the program to continue to have that workforce that can provide that culturally sensitive infant early childhood mental health component in their neighborhood. So we wanna continue to grow that pop that group that is providing these services so what they're responsive to these calls and these needs that are coming through. Let me jump to the next question which is the state's quality quality plan whether it's a systemic approach is the question.

And yes, the quality plan is a systemic approach. It supports the evolution of the Professional Development Research that aligns with our learning foundations and framework as mentioned.

It adjust adjustments to the professional development activities are really driven by data feedback as well as program evaluations. And then also wanna highlight that an example of how the system lives is through our Quality Counts California, QCC, that consists of a tri agency, which is consists of us, Department of Education, California First five leadership working in partnership to make sure we're advancing these goals together and collaboratively and trying to make sure that we are covering the entire system itself.

So it does not fall just within our sector of CTSS, but it's shared across multiple state entities that we're always happy to partner with. In terms of question number four, are these program improvements, in regards to the childcare initiative project, the SIPs, need effectiveness for scale? So CVS says continues to monitor and connect with the field about further understanding areas of improvement.

In terms of scale, I do wanna highlight that in, that there was an augmentation in fiscal year twenty four, twenty five of 2,000,000, that we're able to to make sure that we are increasing that particular investment in itself to provide more technical assistance.

And just as a recap with SIP itself, as a reminder, it is a professional development that helps individuals that are interested in becoming licensed business for family child care homes as well as center based primary licensed family child care homes, but there is some center based that always goes there. The other component of that is the making sure that we tension occurs.

Not only are you opening your business, you're navigating that role, but you're also keeping up with the retention to make sure that your business continue to stay open, which is a key component of that too. So the technical assistance and stat here is that 320,000 instances of providers of of technical assistance was provided and trained more than 5,000 providers.

So wide scale impact also on that. Question number five talks about how recent the funding of the CCBDG increase for local planning councils as well as in resource and referrals impact families. The online era, that we should look should we look at these standards associated to, research and referral to keep up with this too, new world, new families, and a different modalities to reach those families. So recent funding increase to local planning councils and r and r's have strengthened local capacity to fully meet these needs.

May a few years back before the transfer happened, many of these programs received a significant reduction because of the at that time, I think it was the recession.

Unfortunately, though, the mandate state though as them continuing to meet those needs. And so in the sense, it was unfunded mandates. So with these increases then in a sense, they were made whole to be able to carry up that work. I say whole as of the moment because we know there is more needs that can also be continuing to be addressed on that too.

And that includes not only providing the local planning councils to providing that report that they provide to us to understand the childcare deserts, but the resource and referrals of being able to circle back with families.

In terms of the question on the online era, I can speak to this personally myself as I had visited out sites both at local planning councils and resource and referrals to share that I've seen the technology and the advancement of their technology keeping up with what families need both from those that have that utilize technology and want to have information on the, you know, on on your phones or just push up a button versus those that really appreciate still that good old fashioned phone call.

And both are I can attest that both resource and referrals continue to stand up to that and continue to train their staff to make sure that they are meeting those needs within those technology eras. Let me see. Question number six has to do with local planning councils providing the necessary data to talk about the childcare deserts. That is a requirement that they have.

They all are currently and those are posted on our website to show the reports of what a priority one is, which is a desert. It's party one, two, and three, certain data associates to that. So when we're looking at where are the needs, the priority ones are clinically identified.

The data is important because we all hold data, but that local voice of that local planning council and that forum that they pull together different individuals there to be able to speak to whether that priority one is truly a priority one is important for them to capture in those reports. I'll use a personal example of many years ago before taking this position.

There was a priority to in a certain area in Fresno County. I'm originally from Fresno County. And they and when they looked at that a bit deeper, they noticed that the priority two did not include our tribal communities that were further as from opportunity. So we would want to think about are they really a priority one and make an asterisk in regards to why they would perhaps the data did not show that information on there.

So that local boots on the ground is important to lift up those voices and those reports that are posted on our website so we can make decisions on where to prioritize future chakra slots.

And then on question number seven, it has to do with here it is. Are there master plan recommendations revel into the three quality plan investments on this too? So, yes, the quality plan investments achieved for numbers of they they support I think we did a crosswalk between all our investments and where they live on the master plan. And we had assumed that it was about 80%, but no, a 100%.

They can really live in the master plan when you're looking at all those goals and how to advance those goals.

And so we're proud to say that, yes, that together with the master plan, we are contributing to make sure that those goals are met, of that tear ten year plan. And, of course, we don't do that together. We do it in collaboration with our CD partners as well as the California First five and other state agencies. I wanna, of course, give shout out to the field who is also part of this work as well as the legislator.

And some examples of that is if I call out, like, goal one, for instance, that talks about program services around infants and toddlers, we have a dedicated funding, The 3% of the quality plan that is strictly on infants and toddlers professional development through the program for infant toddler care, which also not only has professional development, but individuals can also achieve the unit bearing associated to that in case they want to achieve then a infant toddler permit.

So working towards that too or a degree attainment with that too. The final question is in regards to details about the alternative methodology. I will turn that over to Department of Finance to find to provide that response.

Good afternoon, chair, members. Krishan Malhotra with Department of Finance. At this time, we have no details to share about the May revision, but California does intend to comply with federal requirements as it relates to our state plan and the alternative methodology.

Good afternoon, mister chair, member. Virginia Early from the California Department of Education here on behalf of state superintendent Tony Thurmond. After the launch of universal pre k, as my colleague from DSS mentioned, CDE worked to update and rerelease the, early learning standards for preschool, so the California Preschool and TK Learning Foundations, to make a couple of changes.

First, to be more inclusive of TK, to address racial bias, be more inclusive of multilingual learners and children with disabilities, as well as to incorporate the latest science in learning and development. As a follow-up to this, our team has also worked, to revise the desired results developmental profile, which is an observational child assessment, to align with these updates to the preschool TK learning foundations.

And this DRDP version twenty twenty five will be mandatory for state preschool programs starting July 1. We note that while we received dollars to update the standards, we did not receive funding for conducting training on it, or training on the recently revised, DRDP so that we have been hearing some things around how that creates implementation challenges for programs. A key part of our ongoing, quality funds at CDE for, state preschool is the state preschool, quality rating and improvement system block grant.

This is 50,000,000 annually, Prop 98 funds that goes to 47 county offices of education in 56 counties. It supports the vast majority of state preschool contractors, and, and and those contractors are supporting around 20,000 teachers.

And this fund this funds a number of things, but primarily professional development and coaching. It it does some site raising, some quality improvement plans, supporting for implementing different tools. But coaching is the number one item that participants report as helpful, as part of this. One thing about this grant, though, is that it is flat funded and has been flat funded since 2014. It does not receive a cost of living adjustment, which means that the purchasing power for this grant has gone down by 28% over time.

So we would need an additional 20,000,000, annually to bring the grant back up to its original purchasing power from 2014. At the same time this has been happening, the number of sites participating has increased by around 22%. So the the the grant has been losing purchasing power while also serving more sites. So that means that, you know, that's had an impact on the amount and types of support that can be provided to sites.

Our other main ongoing investment that we have for quality at the California Department of Education for state preschool is our, about 1,110,000.00 annually for our Achieving Success and Positive Interactions, Relationships, and Environments grant or ASPIRE, which supports implementation of the classroom assessment scoring system, which is a tool that that measures the quality of teacher child interactions, which research says is the most predictive of child outcomes.

We began implementing CLASS in twenty twenty three, twenty four, and we're phasing in the requirements over time. This year, programs are required to have a 30% of their classrooms observed using CLASS that goes up to 60% next year and a 100% by twenty twenty eight, twenty nine.

And this Aspire grant so far has supported almost 2,000, folks that are certified to do the class observations, as well as the necessary number of trainers to train as there's attrition from from those observers to to meet the the thresholds that are set. As was mentioned on the previous panels, we in addition to these ongoing funds, we've had a number of one time funds, so we'll follow-up as you requested, with more information on those.

But one of the ones I wanted to highlight specifically to this panel is the early, early education teacher development grant.

That's a grant that's supported professional development as well as training the teachers needed for UPK expansion and has supported both state preschool, TK, and TK. We are seeing that in counties in 52 counties that have these grants, there's still the grantees are still reporting a shortfall of nearly 700 adults, for TK classrooms, and that's the most recent, you know, and I'm sure if we asked everyone today, what do you need, that number would have changed a little bit.

There are six counties that don't even have these grants. So there's a there's a there's a a need that's been partially met by these grants, but these grants are going away. And and 30% of those grantees are on track to finish spending their funds this fiscal year.

So even though they have until 2028 to spend their funds, a lot of that support we have, in one time professional development for the EPK system is really winding down right now. I'll I'll I'll try to go through some of your questions, although happy to follow-up in more detail as well. In terms of better embedding professional development, a couple things, and this is actually one of the master plan recommendations is to make sure that there's release time for teachers for professional development.

Two professional development days in state preschool is not enough. And, in fact, the alternative methodology, in the estimation, the estimation was that state preschool teachers would have five and a quarter professional development days, so more than double what we currently have, as well as additional time for release time and for family conferences.

So that would really help. And also making those days, so that they're fully funded, which they're not currently, and updating the list of topics that, folks can use those days for. So, for example, you can like, there, you know, there there are things that we'd wanna add to list. Like, you can use the days for training on preschool TK learning foundations. So sort of like the last time that list was looked at was, a couple years ago.

We also, in terms of question two, prioritizing areas for professional support, We think that the state's investment in the classroom assessment scoring system or CLAS through ASPIRE is extremely helpful. We're we're collecting data for the first time this year on what the CLAS scores are, so how are teachers interacting with students, what do those interactions look like. And it gives programs tons of useful information.

And to fully leverage this promise, additional funding would be needed to support programs to use the information they're getting from the observation to change their practice. And and there's some that we're able to do, but to really fully leverage it, we've we've been using some one time funds for from our Inclusive Early Education Expansion program to support interactions for children with disabilities.

Those funds are going away. So additional funds could help really leverage the data we're getting and the data that teachers are getting to say, okay. This is how I'm doing in terms of interacting with children, and then really sort of leverage that promise. And this could be employed to address, you know, interactions with children who are dual language learners or interactions with children who might be having behaviors that challenge adults.

The other thing that we mentioned here is that a lot of these supports, like QRIS, CLASS, these are not available for TK teachers.

The we there is no ongoing funding that the department has specifically for TK teacher professional development. All of that is one time. So that would that would be part of that as well. And and in terms of question three, I think my colleague at DSS mentioned how we've got a multisystem approach. We have different players.

We have three departments involved. And, you know, one thing that we would add is that, you know, support for training on the California State Preschool Learning Foundations is actually not training that CDE administers. That's in the DSS quality budget. That's the, I think, the California Preschool Instructional Network. So, you know, we would we would just sort of ask that this be responsive to changes in requirements.

We've had a lot changes in the state preschool, over the last couple years with with shifting to younger children, with shifting to children with disabilities, with, with the the the new learning foundations. And so, sort of making sure, you know, that that our programs are getting the support they need. However, that is administrated, but that that that's a need that we're hearing from folks.

I'd also mentioned in terms of the systemic approach that First five California has been funding, a lot of components of the quality infrastructure very graciously for many years. And as their revenue declines, that's something that we're going to have to reckon with as a state.

We estimate at CDE that we would need an additional 5,000,000 to backfill loss capacity that will go away when the first fund five funding declines. On on question number five on R&Rs, just really quickly on this, so we've had the UPK mixed delivery block grant UPK mixed delivery grant funding, which, some R&Rs have used.

So some some grantees have used to partner with R&Rs so that R&Rs have the resources to call their districts and figure out, okay, you know, how many TK slots do you have at this campus? And and get that real time data. We publish TK data at the site level at, the department, but it's it's not real time.

And so so one thing to just note on your question on R&R's, I know it was mostly to DSS, but just that in in many counties, they've been using these one time funds to sort of help support families finding TK, and those one time funds are going away. And then finally, I would just, on the master plan pieces, I think, defer to my colleague at DSS, but, you know, a couple things that I would just pull out a little bit.

First of all, the master plan recommends increasing reimbursement rates, and and addressing that. That is still very much a need that we see. And then also on the workforce side, we made some really good progress as a state, but we we think more needs to be done.

And one thing that we've learned from our early education teacher development grant is that, one of the most useful things that people find in addition to coaching is, having a strong mentoring system to help navigate, you know, and provide counseling for teacher candidates so that they can navigate, okay. You know, how how am I supposed to get through so I can become a state preschool teacher, so I can become a TK teacher?

So that the early education teacher development grant is providing a lot around that, around cohort models and apprenticeships, and just wanting to highlight. And we'll send you more later, to your response, but since you were asking about that, I wanted to share. And I think that concludes.

Obviously, we're happy to answer any more questions you have.

Alright. Questions from committee members at this time? Just a couple of questions. Number one first, not a question, but CDE, let's schedule a meeting before the May revise. I wanna totally understand what all your needs are And so that we can make sure that we don't miss anything.

Thank you. We appreciate that.

It just seems like there's a lot we could be missing. CDSS, local planning councils, it's not just about finding out how many slots we need or what type of slots we need. Are we forgetting are they providing us with that information as well? How many cocombased slots do we may do we need? How many community based slots do we need?

I mean, right? I mean, how detailed are we getting this information?

So the report that the local planning council confirms is in regards to title five. So it's more in regards to slots with center base. They don't track the private sector, which is family, childcare, homes, etcetera, that you're asking for. However, the resource and referral also does a portfolio every couple years, and I'll have to double check that.

But that's where they talk about the need and also talk about the difference of calls as well as the different the different stats around licensed family, child care homes, etcetera that we have on there.

Thank you for that. The SIP federal funding, are

is that program at risk? Is that funding at risk?

So SIP so all programs so the the the 12% is funded through the list that you have is funded through the CCDF, Tougher Development Fund, which is 12% of that with a reduction, then we have to have more conversation in regards to if there's any impacts. Of course, we are looking at making sure that we provide minimum, you know, impacts to the programs.

Department of Finance, do you anticipate a decrease in SIP funds?

Krishan Malhotra, Department of Finance. I would defer to the department mostly. They're working on and to you know, we're we're working on absorbing any reduction to quality funding in the current year to ensure there's no service disruption.

Okay. It will be helpful if you guys answer the question the way I need it, not the way you wanna give it to me. So I understand what you're saying to me. Right? My question is, if you look at the amount of money we spent this fiscal year on SIP, do we anticipate a reduction in that number in the next fiscal year when we see the Bay revised as well?

We're still running that analysis. That's why we're not able to answer that question. So we're looking at and the reason why is because the analysis includes so it's not a particular target of program that we're looking at. We're looking at the unspent funds. We're looking at those one time to see if the savings, but our goal is to observe as much as possible.

Okay. Then we'll we'll double back on this after the May revise so that we have some better context. Overall question for both CDE and CDSS, is our quality improving, and how do we know? We know what programs we've done. We know how much money we spent.

Is is our quality improving?

Yeah. So I believe that our quality is improving, and we're seeing it in different ways. One, we're seeing it at the up take of professional development and degree attainment that is taken up by the workforce. So before, we would have to do extreme outreach to bring to make sure they were aware of their programs. Now there's wait list.

There's interest, etcetera. The reason why we see quality improvement is because in during the monitoring review, which includes also looking at the sites as part of the title five, for example The monitors are able to take up subscale, a couple scales from the environmental rating scale. And they're able to see what is happening in those settings and then provide technical assistance if there's any concerns regarding quality.

So be coupled together with that, and I'm sure I'm forgetting other things that we're doing, I do believe that quality continues to improve as long as we continue to provide access to these programs.

...?

One thing that I would add is that oh, sorry. My Siri. One thing I would add is that part of the reason we

What is Siri saying?

I don't know what Siri is saying.

It's just sort of flashing. Okay. Yeah. It does that sometimes. I just don't wanna ignore it. You know?

So, you know, one thing that we would mention is we have seen improvements on all indicators of the local control accountability plan. I would also say with specific to early education, one of the reasons we are so excited when the legislature put in the budget to shift us from our previous way of measuring classroom quality to, the the class assessment is that the class observational scores are most directly correlated with, child outcomes.

So, you know, with child outcomes, the thing that I mean, this is sort of intuitive if you think about it. The interactions that the child and the teacher has are more predictive of how they're doing than, you know, how many toys they have in the classroom, which was a component of the previous, the previous assessment we've been using to measure quality.

And so this is the first year that we have, this is the first year that we've had some data on on, on what the class scores are now.

We're still only looking at 30% of classrooms. And so we think that this is gonna be a really useful metric moving forward for the state to check-in to see how we to answer your question moving forward. I will say that when you look at the data we have so far, it does track with a national average, in terms of how children in state preschool are doing.

I will also say that that data is you know, we we understand that class the the the classrooms that are getting observed first are the classrooms that, you know, the teachers are already pretty familiar with the tool. And, of course, part of part of this the promise of it is that if you understand better how you're doing in terms of child teacher interactions, then you can think about it and improve too.

And so we'll see how that changes over time as we get from 30% of classrooms looked at to a 100% and as teachers are sort of thinking about what that that measurement is telling them reflecting back into their own practice and improving. Okay.

Assemblymember Johnson.

Thank you. So in that same vein about with quality, are we seeing improvements in childcare workforce? And if we are seeing those improvements, how what's the metric for that? How do we do that? So I heard, you know, the child outcomes, but can you simplify that and help me understand what that metric for success for our workforce looks like?

Yeah. So that's that's a great question. Thank you for asking that, and we may need to think about that some more, at CDE. We have recently made some changes to our data system to allow us to collect more information about teachers CSPP teachers for the first time. And so that's some data that that we're looking at, and are are allowing us to look at some of this stuff.

So I think that we may need to follow-up with you and and see what some of those those outputs are. I will say that one thing that we have heard repeatedly is a is a challenge is the low, the low reimbursement rates, which affects salaries. And just some of the things that we've talked about in other hearings around, you know, folks being concerned about putting the cost of care plus funds into contracts. Sorry. Into staff salaries because they're concerned that they're not ongoing.

And so then that affects teacher recruitment and teacher retention because, you know, they can find higher salary somewhere else. So that's that's a big part of the educator, piece that that we, have been spending some time looking at.

Yeah. I think as we look at numbers and spending, it's it's really great and a good story to highlight the wins, the things that are working, especially when we're asking for more in expansion, and to show the data and the facts about how we're seeing that improvement. That's a different conversation with before the May revise. So just some thoughts there. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The best practice in terms of professional development is recommended as about five days, you're saying?

So what I was saying is that, using the the the state went through a process of costing the true cost of care. And as part of that and the focus groups that DSS led, and I'm sure DSS would be happy to share more about that. But there was there was a a analysis of sort of what folks needed to get to the true cost of care.

And so the numbers I cited for professional development days were sort of the the inputs that were put into the alternative methodology based on the feedback DSS got as they went through the alternative methodology. And that was five and a quarter days of professional development for any state preschool programs or direct contract title five programs administered by DSS.

How much would it cost us to provide five days of professional development?

We can get back to you on that.

Thank you very much. I think all this is to say is is that, you know, we we wanna make sure that we're getting the best bang for our buck and more money doesn't necessarily translate into better quality. And so I want us to continue to start laser focusing on quality improvements, and it looks like we're starting to see the initial data come in when it comes to some of those metrics of quality improvements and those type of things.

But it also is that, you know, I I want us to make sure that our our outcomes is exceeding the national average. We always wanna be in the best in so many things, but for some reason, when it comes to our kids, we never really want to be the best.

We just say, well, we're just as good as everyone else. That doesn't seem like a California thing to say. Right? And so I want us to start, you know, taking a deeper dive on this and making sure that we're codifying we're legislators. We like to codify stuff.

I know y'all don't like it, but we do. We want to codify the goals we're trying to set that are above average. Right? And by what time? What is a reasonable time to be able to fully implement the right professional development to give our educators what they need and then give them the time to continue to perfect their craft?

Right? So that at the end of the day, we know whether we're inching towards that instead of just saying, yeah, we keep getting better, but, okay, when are we gonna say we did it? And I don't know. I've been chair of this committee for about three years. This is my fourth year, and I've I've yet to hear that.

Right? And so I I think we wanna codify as much as possible before the new governor comes so we don't have to negotiate with them. We can just put it in, so that we can start making sure that the consistency is across administrations, the consistency is, across legislatures. Right? Which is why we wanna focus on systemic changes.

The systemic changes go beyond people. Right? It goes throughout time and not based upon one legislature's goals, one governor's goals. But we wanna make sure that we're truly setting up the next generation for success, and we are supporting systems that are adhering to the fidelity of best practices. Lot of deep diving to do, before we get to the May revise, and then after that, we'll do some reactions to that.

But at the end of the day is we we're gonna start zeroing in on these things. We have a whole lot of data flying around now, and I think we can use there's enough data flying around to make some real reasonable and realistic goals to be set, and the right targeted investments to ensure that we're getting there. But we need we are not going to allow our ECE system to continue to be on life support. That is not okay for children.

For your children to be on life support is a recipe for disaster for a civilization, and we've gotta do better.

So CDE will have our not so secret meeting together, and we'll dive a little bit deeper to figure out what we can do to continue to move the needle. But the status quo is not acceptable. Okay? Thank you very much to this panel.

I hope you've been practicing your two minutes, because once you hear two minute and miss, that's it. This is our time for public comment. We're gonna ask people to please keep the volume down as you're transitioning. Please take your let's keep it down, please. Keep it down, please.

Keep if you want conversations, go to the hallways. We gotta finish this public comments. Name and affiliation, please.

Hi. My name is Celine Crimson, and I'm the president of Educational Enrichment Systems and a member of Every Child California. EES has been serving low income families since 1979. I've actually been with the agency starting as a lead teacher since 1993. We serve children zero to five.

Like miss Mendoza spoke earlier, ES has done everything that the state has asked us, including increasing access. Since March 2020, we've opened six schools, in childcare deserts in San Diego County. Our number one issue has been recruiting quality staff. We desperately need to increase a rate to pay our staff the wage that they deserve. Please continue to work on the single rate structure so that reimbursement rates reflect the true cost of care.

We need to acknowledge that programs like ES are still in survival mode and can no longer keep California can no longer keep putting a Band Aid. Right? You talked about, life support. We can't keep putting a Band Aid on something that's continuing to to bleed. Our quality education programs are essential aspect to our economy.

Our families are working, looking for work, and going to school. Many of them are doing all of the above. Programs like ES provide high quality care. We ask that you protect the CCTR investments, commit to enrollment based reimbursement, and we need to keep keep our flex factor. And, hopefully, we can stop the bleeding.

Thank you very much. Name and affiliation, please.

Hi. My name is Sara Salazar, and I am with Educational Enrichment Systems just like Celine. So it's an honor to be here. Thank you so much. Educational Enrichment Systems, is all throughout San Diego County.

We have 20 sites. We serve low income families and children ages infant through five, through our CSPP and CCTR contract. Our number one challenge is recruitment staff recruiting staff. We desperately need an increase in our rate so that we can pay our staff a livable wage in San Diego. I ask that you please continue your work your work on the single rate structure so that the reimbursement rate reflects the cost of care.

I ask you also for your commitment to, continue the enrollment based reimbursement and support the flex factor. Thank you again for your time.

Thank you. Name and affiliation, please.

Good afternoon. I'm Annie Patzold. I'm also with Educational Enrichment Systems. I've been in the early childhood education field for over twenty years, and I have seen firsthand how preschool teachers shape a child's very first experience with schools and their confidence in learning for years to come. Because of the current workforce crisis, many of our most dedicated and talented teachers will continue to leave the field because they are not earning a livable wage.

With rate reform that reflects the true cost of care, we will be able to increase our salary scales to better support our teachers and keep passionate teachers in the classroom where they are needed most. We are also asking for the adoption of the flex facts factor. This will allow programs that meet 85% of their contract to be fully funded and to be reimbursed based on enrollment rather than attendance.

The stability will ensure we can keep our doors open and continue serving families who rely on us every single day. Thank you for your continued support.

We are off to a great start. Let's see who's gonna screw it up.

Oh, man. No pressure there. Kim Lewis with Children Now and a proud member of the ECE coalition and and will align with their our colleagues' as well and just appreciate the chair's comments for just now about doing better by our kids. California's ambitious preschool expansion deserves recognition and appreciation of your leadership while also recognizing that families with young children are under an extraordinary strain, which impacts the outcomes that our public education system is working to achieve.

The Stanford Center on Early Childhoods ran survey just found this January that ninety percent of families with young children are experiencing emotional distress, the highest recorded level, while other states top out at sixty percent.

And our birth rate is declining rapidly. Expanding early learning and care after opportunities for children beyond four year olds is essential to California's overall future future. Research shows that, investing early, reduces our has a really strong return of investment of $13 for every dollar invested in strong programs for our youngest learners.

As California expands UPK, we have an opportunity to strengthen the birth to five system, especially for two and three year olds, by aligning efforts with programs like Head Start that have decades of evidence showing improvements in children's school readiness while also supporting parents with comprehensive services. By leveraging that proven infrastructure, California can build an early learning system that truly works for children and families and help solve multiple challenges of poverty, workforce strain, and family economic security.

Did you feel the pressure? Yes. I could I could tell. I could tell. Let's see how he does.

Oh gosh.

My name excuse me. My name is Ken Herron. I'm a preschool provider in Selma, California. We have four sites. To answer your question regarding whether we know their teachers are getting better, the quality, improvement, programs you talked about, they, the the county offices, do the work.

They rate you every five years, and then they do, annual monitoring. This last year, we got re rerated, with our five years, and we went from a four to a five star. If you're a three star, you need improvement. You can't be worse than that. If you're four, you're good.

And we've been that for, you know, since 2014. This last year, we we got fives, and you get more money for that. So there's incentive from that fund, but there are more people involved in it now. So it'd be nice to have that fund, you know, increased a little bit. But, yeah, that's one example.

Regarding the professional development days, you could basically, we we'll get paid for two hundred and forty six days of service. If we're not open, we don't get paid when there's not a hold harmless. So you could take five days divided by two hundred and forty six and basically multiply that times whatever the billions of dollars is that the is funded for that whole full day per and that would give you I'm

Sorry, sir. I'm a political science major. We don't do numbers. We don't do math.

Ask them to do that. The on on the cost of care, I'm I'm here for that, obviously. Last year, one of the gentlemen, the assembly members, brought up where is the source of funding for that.

That was never discussed through all this process, the master plan on up about getting a candy tax or soda tax or something like that. So please don't wait for that, and please get it implemented before Newsom leaves because, you know, who knows? And I really appreciate you and mister Alvarez in particular. You I've been here four times. I see the questions that you ask.

I see how your heartfelt your opinions are, your comments, your questions, you're vitally interested in this, and my teachers really appreciate it. So thank you so much for your dedication.

Thank you. You get another minute for that. Let's see if you got the juice.

Don't put me on the spot. So good afternoon, chair and distinguished committee members. I'm Aurora Reyes. I bring nineteen years of experience as a family child care provider from Los Angeles, California, and I represent SEIU Local ninety nine. Okay. Now that I'm done with that, I'm here today to advocate for recognition of family child care as a fundamental component of early learning Deserving of equivalent level of investment that is allocated for preschool, pre k, and t k programs.

My professional background includes me teaching both in a preschool and a head start prior to me starting my family childcare business. And I deliberately chose that path due to my profound commitment to provide a service to the community that I live in. And my desire is to customize early childhood education to meet the unique needs of the children under my care and in my community. Family child care providers are unequivocally early educators.

We lay the essential groundwork for children's success in kindergarten and throughout their academic journeys.

The educational value we offer is not merely equivalent to preschool. It can often be more effective and impactful. Our smaller class sizes enable us to provide more individualized attention. I hold such strong conviction that in this approach that I educated my own son in my program. When discussing enhancements to early learning, it is imperative to acknowledge that family child care providers are already actively engaged in this vital work.

So, consequently, they warrant investments as a core element of our state's diversified delivery system. And I'm asking that you include us in this conversation with transitional kindergarten.

Thank you very much. Name and affiliation, please.

Good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Claudia Alvarado. I am a childcare provider twenty five years plus, four degrees, five college certificates, and I'm a proud member of CCPU SEIU Local five two one, my union. I am here to talk to you about the retirement for providers. Keeping family childcare providers in the workforce is crucial, and retirement benefits play an important role in that equation.

For too long, family childcare providers work with little to no financial security for their futures. That reality made it hard for providers to stay in their profession. CCPU's retirement benefit fund has begun to change that. As it gives a pathway to financial security later in life and the confidence that providers can stay in the field. This matters not just for providers, but for children too.

Providers with years of dedication and decades and experience bring deep knowledge and expertise to that benefit to our families. Maintaining a skilled, stable workforce is achieved by giving providers the assurance that they need that their own families will have stability, retirement benefits. Do just that. Thank you very much for your questions, for your interest, and let's get this going before the new governor comes.

Alright. Name and affiliation, please.

Hello. Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Mira Nal Gore, and I'm a proud member of UDW Local 3930 CCPU. I have been a licensed family childcare provider for the last point going on twenty nine years, second generation family childcare provider.

And I'm here to talk to you about how the CCPU training fund is helping professionalize the profession and supporting early child in home early childhood educators across California by providing an invaluable resource to family childcare providers and running and improving our programs.

As our executive director mentioned during one of the panels, the system that is utilized is a peer to peer training model that allows providers to learn from other providers. So providers, we learn crucial information about early learning and development. We learn about ASQs. We learn about how to observe, developmental, differences in in young, children. And it also helps us improve our business practices and the quality of care that we provide.

So at times, we have also provided the know your rights information for providers to keep themselves and others safe. When I say others safe, it means the children and the families that we're serving. So the training fund helps strengthen the workforce and the system as a whole by creating community and educational opportunities for family childcare. Thank you.

Thank you. Name and affiliation, please.

Hi. Good afternoon, chair and committee. My name is Celeste Valle. I am here, with CCPU and all our members, and I am speaking on behalf of our member, Monica Andrade, who had to leave to catch a flight. Monica would like to share that, she is a proud member of SCIU Local ninety nine Child Care Providers United and has been a child care provider for twenty one years in the city of Ontario.

Expanding she was here to speak to you about how expanding access to affordable health care options is how we can help providers keep their doors open. Nobody does it like child care providers do it. Right? We get up every single day and provide quality, affordable care to the children of the working class parents in our communities. The kids who come to my home, I care for them like I care for my family.

But who cares for us? Right? This is what many providers ask. Monica is 57 years old, and sometimes, she says, my body does not cooperate with me the way it used to. The health care fund my union won has been a relief.

I am proud to have been a part of this fight. The CCPU health care fund is why I can go to the doctor without having to put my business at risk or going under. And it is a similar story for many of my colleagues. The overwhelming majority of childcare providers who can't pay for an emergency expense of just $400 at any given moment. Without affordable health care options, we are forced to ration care for ourselves and our loved ones.

It shouldn't be this way. Affordable health care and funds like the CCPU health care fund help us help our community and stay healthy. Expanding access to affordable health care is not just a benefit. It is a critical investment in California's child care system. Thank you.

Thank you. Name and affiliation, please.

Good afternoon, sirs. My name is Fernando Hernandez. I'm from Santa Clara County, member of CCPU, CU 521. Here's what I have to say. California childcare system is becoming increasingly unstable as the children are pulled into programs like transitional kindergarten centers without a balanced approach.

When a family child care provider lose children to other programs, it can have a huge destabilizing impact, unlike in large centers. Family child care providers operate on very thin margins, and this in the stabilized can force them to close just like we did. Family childcare is particularly flexible and important. Family childcare providers work extended hours, provide valuable service like transportation, and can accommodate the diverse needs of families and more effectively.

While many families end up sending their kids to programs like TK, these programs also often leave them struggling to piece together options to meet their needs.

Choosing a free option due to financial necessity and not because it is the best fit for a family needs is not actually true choice. All of this creates a domino effect when the family childcare providers close their doors. It reduce overall supply and choice for families, often removing the flexibility and specialized care many children need. Fewer family childcare providers means fewer options and more competition for other programs, leaving families in large with less choice and flexibility.

In a mixed delivery systems, our firms with childcare play an important role when we need a balanced system that actually meets needs of family.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Name and affiliation, please.

You're double dipping. I am. I am. Okay. Oh, have mercy. I'll be quick. I promise. Andrea Fernandez Mendoza, California Children's Academy. Protect the CCTR investments. Let us finish what we started.

Codify the re the enrollment based reimbursement with the 15% flex flex factor. It doesn't cost any more money. It's already allocated funds. Make the CSPP two year old flexibility permanent. Keep those programs open.

Programs depend on those age groups to keep their their stability. All of these support the master plan. It's time to give the workforce the stability that it's earned and that they deserve. Thank you for standing up for us. You walk your talk, and we appreciate that. And I have ideas I will be emailing you.

Uh-oh. Name and affiliation, please.

My name is Kareem Weaver. I'm executive director of Fulcrum, which is a literacy nonprofit. I was here earlier, and there was a there were some people offering their thoughts and ideas and about the screener. And I just wanna say that it was intended so that we would not wait for kids to fail. We would catch them on the front end and help them before it got to, you know and that's exactly what's happening.

It's not a bad thing. That's a good thing. If we find them and then if there's reading difficulties and then later on in a year, we find out that those difficulties have been mitigated, that is the whole point. And it's almost like we're so used to things not working that when it does work, we don't really know what to do with it. But that's what we want.

And so I just and I I know some of the people are gone who was here before, but I I appreciate it there. Like, they're just thinking through and and trying to make sure that we keep the main thing the main thing. I just you know? And and there was another comment about, over identifying kids. That's part of like, for special ed.

But that's that was part of the legislation, my understanding, that we don't use these screeners to identify kids and and and track them towards special ed. That's not what it's about. So, anyway, I just wanted to name that. And it's almost like a celebration, except we're trying to take away the thing that's working anyway. So I just wanted to name that because I think it's important to say. Thank you all.

Thank you. Name and affiliation, please.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Olia Corona de LA Cruz, and I'm the senior campaign director with Families in Schools. And I also, lead the Rita LA campaign out in Los Angeles with a network of 16 organizations who are really committed to ensuring, positive and increased literacy outcomes for all of our students.

And today, on behalf of the California Literacy Coalition, I urge you to respectfully urge you to preserve the 40,000,000 investment in educator training for eating difficulty screening and to reject the proposed restrictions on screening timelines.

Through our work with families, we know that early identification is critical. And according to research by the University of Oregon, screening at the beginning, middle, and end of the year is a best practice. Right? And to answer mister Oliver's question earlier, delaying screening until later in the school year means students miss critical opportunities, to receive timely support and also track their progress, which can limit their ability to improve and succeed in their literacy journey.

So we urge you to allow this work to continue and evaluate a full year of data.

Thank you.

Thank you. Name and affiliation, please.

Nicole Kate, The Reading Blade California. I urge you as well to preserve the 40,000,000 investment to support the implementation of the reading difficulties risk screener and recommend rejecting the proposed statutory restrictions on screening timelines. The bill was designed to ensure students with reading difficulties are identified early and receive timely support. Universal screening is the first critical step in a multi tiered system of support, allowing schools to quickly identify students who are asked at risk and begin those important targeted interventions.

California is in the early stages of this rollout, and school districts have selected their tools, built implementation plans, and started modifying their tiered systems of support.

Altering the requirements at this point would force districts to adjust those plans, diverting the focus from effective implementation and the response to screener data to putting into effect this new timeline. Effective implementation requires allowing districts the time to carry out their current policies and gather meaningful data and reflect on the impact in their local context before making any statutory changes. We respectfully encourage ledge legislature to continue the funding and remove these statutory requirements. Thank you.

Name and affiliation, please.

Good afternoon. I'm McClain Rozanski with the Alameda County Office of Education. In addition to operating court and community schools, we also provide support to 18 school districts in the county on a range of implementation issues, including transitional kindergarten. We and our districts collectively serve more than 200,000 students. On the topic of universal preschool, we request additional funding to keep the UPK coordinator work by county offices of education going.

It provides vital early learning technical assistance, information, and professional development to local education agencies. We appreciate the panel's comments in support of UPK coordinators. On the topic of reading screening, we support the budget proposal for 40,000,000 in one time funds for the successful implementation of reading screenings and to expand the pool of screeners. However, since staff will need to be trained on an annual basis, we believe ongoing funds are needed for successful long term implementation.

We support the trailer bill language that recommends waiting until at least the ninety first day of school year of the school year to administer the screening instrument to kindergarten students and appreciate the panel's comments to this effect.

The trailer bill language does not preclude other types of assessments earlier in the year or multiple assessments, but recognizes the need for kindergarten students to lay a foundation and adjust their new learning environment before being formally screened. We fear that otherwise our youngest students may be over identified for special education. Thank you.

Thank you. Name and affiliation, please.