Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education

The Senate budget subcommittee number one on education will come to order. Before we begin, let's establish a quorum. Consultant, can you please call the roll?

[Roll call]

The consultant notes of quorum has been established. Before we begin, we will be pulling issues three and five from the agenda today. Today, we will be hearing the governor's proposals on universal school meals, expanded learning, and community schools. We will begin with issue one on universal school meals, including another round of the kitchen infrastructure and training grants program. We will start with the Department of Finance, and whoever is here and ready to present, please go ahead. Okay. If you wanna get started, that's totally fine.

Kimberly Rosenberger on behalf of the state superintendent of public instruction and CDE. We're supportive of the proposal. I know, when LAO comes, they have some concerns with continued investment because dollars aren't spent down. But there are some things that we wanted as CDE to highlight why we think that is, why we think continued investments are meaningful. Schools are the hubs of our community and we have in California, over 62% of our students qualify for free and reduced price meals.

This is necessary investment for ensuring our kids have warm meals. The dollars we see spent have largely been focused on purchases so that they can provide those meals rather than for infrastructure. We don't think that's a problem of the funding, but the reality of where we are in the state and nationally with delays on permitting, on needs for architect, just general investments in infrastructure take a while and are timely. So what we're seeing our schools do is chip away at repairs with their big purchases.

So they do plumbing.

They do electrical when they buy, new items. And so we're not seeing the full overhaul we would need to have proper scratch kitchens, but we are seeing them make real, multiple studies that show our kitchens aren't quite ready, but we think this funding goes towards that. We also have a study that will be coming out later this year because there was an extension on their 2022 funds, till June. But we are seeing some early reports on how dollars are being spent.

So out of the 1,000 schools that participated in the 2022 kit funding of 600,000,000, a 174 have started reporting, and they have indicated that they are buying new purchases, and doing small infrastructure, electrical, plumbing, structural, and service area, but we're also seeing an increased meal service efficiency of 76% and those that reported increased lunch participation of almost 60%, increased meal service capacity, increased breakfast participation, and increased menu variety.

I emphasize those benefits because what we're also seeing at the federal level is cuts to this programming and so we know it's crucial for the state to pick up where those needs are and especially during turbulent times where people aren't maybe using the resources they need to know that their kids can get a warm meal one to three times a day is really, really important to our community. And for those reasons, we support the proposal.

Thank you. I had a a couple of questions just in regards to some of the federal policies as well as federal investments that we've received for school meals. I know, last year, I was really pleased that we were able to participate in the sandbox program, and we received that money. That's been able to be applied towards summertime meals is my understanding and providing that cash benefit to families so that they can purchase food when school's out of session. I've run a bill in that space.

I was really happy to see the governor include that in his budget and us receive that federal funding. And so we'd love to hear about the financial impacts of that as well as, any indicators that some of the federal immigration policies may impact school meals programs. I think that's also been a big concern for us.

Obviously, you know, we serve all students, right, regardless, of immigration status, and I think it's, really a thoughtful policy that we have here in the state of California, but understand that that's unfortunately something that the Federal Government has been weaponizing to, target states, that do have programs that are focused more on meeting needs rather than, assessing, citizenship status.

So I can speak to that we do have limitations on how much we can do at the state level where we combine the federal dollars, such as grab and go meals. There's restrictions around those if federal dollars are used. The free and reduced priced meal, or the free and reduced, data that we need for that still is a requirement for us to qualify for federal dollars and draw down.

And we are seeing an under reporting so that will affect how much we get from the federal, dollars. But there are ways for us especially if in statue for '98 it says this is to be used specifically for, you know, a food pantry or grab and go.

We would want there to be clear, delineation so that those dollars aren't, potentially being used in contrast with what federal requirements are. We think there is a delicate balance there that we can only do so much if we're combining the funds, but there are ways to get creative that we're happy to provide technical assistance to. I don't know if Kim Frinzell has anything additional on, the data that you asked for.

If she does, invite her up.

Yeah. Thanks. Kim Frinzell, Department of Education Nutrition Services. So we're incredibly thankful for your support for our summer EBT, both Department of Social Services and Department of Education, serving those families right when school is out of session and they need those $120 of benefits. So, we're continuing to apply for that.

We anticipate that USDA will be approving our 2026 plan very soon and that does require a 50% state match for those federal dollars that we bring in for the admin costs. So, we're working through that with Department of Finance now. And, certainly, standing up a statewide application is is something that we're really leaning into as well and thinking about what that will look like to help families have easier access to, the summer the summer bucks.

Regarding, just immigration and changes federally to, the h with, SNAP benefits. We certainly know that with community eligibility, that that we will have fewer children, this next year, fewer students in this next cycle that are that are directly certified.

And so, that will impact our our meal counts in categories in the paid and reduced price. So, thinking that could be a pressure point for our state dollars for universal meals. And so we're we're watching that. So we're really working with our schools. Thankfully, 75% of our school sites are on a community eligibility provision.

And so, that really does help to maximize our federal dollars and, and really lean into the, minimize our impacts on the state funding. And so, it's really important for schools to be thinking about and we're working with them. This is the last cycle, the four year cycle for community eligibility that the SNAP benefits before they change. And so schools are really looking at their numbers now. We're we're working with them for this next cycle.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And I do think it's important to, you know, note for folks, what you just articulated, which is that careful balance of making sure that, we're following federal guidelines and, you know, using both federal and state dollars effectively while still following the rules that are applying. I know we have the LEO and the Department of Finance here now, so if you would like to make your presentations.

Okay. Good morning, chair members. Shade Nari with the Department of Finance. I'll first begin with an overview of the universal meal program projections and then move on to the kitchen infrastructure grant programs. Excuse me.

The governor's budget includes 1,800,000,000 proposition IDA general fund in twenty twenty six, twenty seven to support the universal school meals program. The program established in twenty twenty two, twenty three aims to improve children's health and learning, reduce stigma around free meals, and combat childhood hunger by providing access to two high quality free school meal per day for all t k through twelfth grade students.

These resources support a projected total of 910,000,000 meals in twenty twenty six, twenty seven and is inclusive of a 2.41 cola, which added 22,000,000 ongoing proposition ID general fund. Governor's budget estimate reflects a decrease of approximately 70,000,000 when compared to what was projected at the 2025 budget act due to actual meal counts coming in approximately 50,000,000 meals lower than what we estimated at the budget act.

The reduction is due to rightsizing costs to align to rise projections that incorporate six more months of actual meal counts and not due to reduction of service to students.

These governor budget estimates assume there will be some continued growth in meal counts before leveling off with anticipated growth drivers including the continued ramp up of breakfast programs since prior to the universal meals implementation. Not all schools offered breakfast programs and an increase in meals served due to increasing awareness of the program and a higher quality and larger variety of meal offerings as a result of recent investments in both kitchen infrastructure and freshly prepared meals. Now I'll turn to the kitchen infrastructure grant program.

To date, the state has invested approximately 910,000,000 one time proposition 98 general fund to support kitchen infrastructure upgrades, equipment, food service, staff training, and related school nutrition activities. The governor's budget builds on these prior investments by proposing an additional 100,000,000 one time proposition 98 general fund for a fourth round of grants to expand the kitchen infrastructure and training grant program to more schools and help schools provide more freshly prepared meals with locally grown ingredients to students.

While the kit grant has historically supported the implementation of universal school meals, these funds are intended to provide additional flexibility for schools to meet student needs. Like previous kit grants, funds can be used to support kitchen equipment, infrastructure, staffing, and training for food service workers. However, given federal policy impacts, the proposal also allows funds to support resources and implement innovative strategies to increase access and participation of meal programs for students who are or may be experiencing food insecurity.

The grant will be structured similar to the recent 2025 round and will be awarded on a competitive basis to schools under the following prioritization. High poverty schools as defined by schools operating under the community eligibility provision or provision two, Schools that were not awarded previously kit funds and schools that have spent a majority of their previously awarded kit grants but would like additional funds to do for their kitchen infrastructure upgrades.

This funding reflects the administration's commitment to improving access and quality meals served to students in California. That concludes our remarks. I'm joined by colleague Paula Tang and we're with Department of Finance happy to answer any questions.

Good morning. Sarah Cortez with the legislative analyst office. We recommend rejecting the fourth round of the kitchen infrastructure training funds, because the second and third rounds of funds, which is 755,000,000, are still being spent or still being awarded. Given the wide range of allowable uses, so these can be used for cooking equipment, service equipment, refrigeration, training, staffing, and cost associated with recurring foods. And, it's really difficult to say what the unmet need is here.

If the legislature provides funding in the future, we recommend funds be restricted for specific goals set by the legislature, and then that data is collected to measure progress towards achieving these goals. That concludes my remarks, and I'm happy to take questions.

Thank you. I did already ask some questions earlier related to impacts of federal policies on dollars as well as the Sunbucks program. So I'm gonna go ahead and see my colleagues have any questions or comments. Senator Archuleta?

Yeah. Thank you. It's it's a great program. No no doubt. My concern is because of the issues the Federal Government they're facing, are we gonna be able to backfill and keep the program going? Bottom line.

I I think there's, like, an in between answer. If we want to draw down federal funds, we absolutely have to do the 50% match. But we are already seeing shortfalls with grocery prices significantly increasing. Just in 2022, we were the cost of reimbursement was about half. And so we expect to see that, like, some schools may have difficulty continuing participate if they don't have their own operating expenses to to cover the, amount that's not met by Federal and State Dollars.

I don't think this year is a sky is falling scenario. As my colleague Kim mentioned, we are expecting to get approval. So we do think the resources will be there, but there is going to be an ongoing issue of trying to offset, both the cost of inflation and the cost specifically around groceries and the declining cost of the federal dollars. Additionally, we are seeing that despite enrollment, the need is still outpacing that, what we're supplying.

So there is a little bit of, cost savings of a slight decline, because of declining enrollment, but overall, the costs are outpacing what we're currently providing.

Madam chair, I just wanna point out how serious this is and how how much it's touched so many students across California that it's so vital. And we've gotta do whatever we can to keep it going. And I thank you for all your efforts.

Any other comments, questions?

Alrighty. We'll go ahead and we will move on to issue two for the expanded learning opportunities program. We'll start with the Department of Finance, and please go ahead and get started when you're ready.

Idalys Perez With the Department of Finance. The governor's budget provides a total of 4,700,000,000 ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund to support the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program in 2627. ELOP provides year round access to enrichment activities and before and after school supplemental education programs for all TK to sixth grade children in low income communities. This program reached full implementation in 2526 to provide children with access to subsidized before, after, and summer school.

The Governor's budget proposes $62,400,000 ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund to provide a minimum of $1,800 per pupil in 2627 and ongoing for LEAs with TK to sixth grade and less than 55% of unduplicated pupils, which are known as tier two LEAs. And with that, we're available to take any questions.

Dylan Hawksworth- Lutzow with the Legislative Analyst's Office. We recommend modifying the proposal in the governor's budget to make the tier two rates fully fixed. The expanded learning opportunities program is the state's primary before and after school program, and it pays out rates based on two different rates based on the district share of English learners and low income students as Department of Finance just said.

The change last year in the 25-26 budget increased funding for the program by $600,000,000 to change the threshold between the fixed tier one rate that's $2,750 per qualifying student and a lower tier two rate that fluctuates, based on remaining program funds. This year's proposal would, set the minimum tier two rate to $1,800 this proposal would still allow the rate to fluctuate above this minimum.

This proposal, we think, could be helpful, as Tier two rate uncertainty makes LEA planning difficult. However, we recommend going further and fully fixing the Tier two rate at $15.79 dollars the rate's been at for the last two years. Additionally, we recommend that, any future rate changes be tied to changes in the programming requirements because, right now, we do think that the rate would be sufficient for the current requirements of the program. Thank you. That concludes my comments.

Happy to answer any questions.

Do we have a presentation from Department of Education?

We are supportive of the proposal, including the tier two investments. We, especially with declining enrollment for some of our customers have, it's a little volatile whether they're tier one, tier two, and providing that additional funding and stability really helps ensure that we get the participants participation we we desire. We're also appreciative of the language that we saw last year were allowed opt out because we are now seeing that those that want to participate are, and we think that will improve the audit findings.

We only had 51 schools opt out largely charters, and those that continue to participate are engaging and and better understanding the proposal and, what they need to do. And so we have our, our report coming out, our biannual report shortly, and it really emphasizes the benefit of the ELP program.

And that is that 32.9% of the students that participated, were represented the largest student body. And what we saw was that they exhibit higher scores on their mathematics assessment. They improved their English language art scores, and we saw overall attendance improve. We think these investments are solid. They're netting the results that we desire, and we think that coupled with the additional programs of twenty first Century and ACES, we are offering the whole child's goal that has been the desire for a lip syncedure for some time.

So thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. A couple of things. One, was excited to have this on the agenda. I actually used to work as a part of an ACES program in Alhambra Unified School District, so I'm very familiar with these programs and would work with students from kindergarten to sixth grade, and really sell the benefit for families and for young kids all across the school district.

I know I've talked with a number partners who have discussed with me, the idea of, EVAP being targeted towards grades outside of t k through six so that we could offer the that type of programming for older students. After I left working at ACES and ultimately graduated from college, I ran an after school program that was specifically for high school students. Now that after school program looked very different than ACES because it was for an older student population.

It was more professionalized, and it was focused on teaching students about civic engagement and how local government works, particularly city, government and local school boards. And I found it to be really beneficial for those students.

I worked with a lot of at risk youth in Boyle Heights at Roosevelt High School, and really saw it have an impact on their trajectory. And so would be interested to hear from you all, how many LEAs serve older youth and if ELOP can play a role in providing a space, particularly for at risk youth, for young men and women beyond sixth grade to better connect with each other, to build and develop skills.

As I mentioned before, I anticipate as somebody who did that work for many years that that is going to be very different programming than we offered from folks from TK through sixth. But do you see the benefit to it?

On behalf of CDE, I can say that we the ELA program is a portion. So we don't it's through the LEAs, and we don't have the site specific information. However, we have just started collecting data for the 2025, 2026 school year.

So we will have in the, you know, mid twenty twenty seven, and we expect to have data that will help indicate better how the money is being used and the age groups that are being served, as well as we do expect to see a little bit of a shift. But the distinction in, ELOP is that it's, locally apportioned.

So there's a little bit of a disconnect that we have to rely on, the reporting, which will cause a delay in in our numbers.

Idalys Perez with Department of Finance. So, to your question on, just, like, the potential of expanding this to further grades, specifically, like, beyond grades, six and above. We, don't have a proposal in this in the governor's budget. However, you know, we're happy to have further conversations with the legislature on this as we're working to build, an agreement for this spring. But yes. Thank you.

Edward Cabral with the department with I'm also department of finance with the legislative analyst office. So I think I think we we've made a number of recommendations around this issue, issue in the past. So we do have the expanded learning opportunities program which, you know, particularly for tier one, districts is intended to serve all students. Many of those districts are also receiving ACES funding that are that are, they receive funding for specific sites.

We do think that, the ELOP funding in and of itself is enough to offer the program that the legislature expects.

And so there is an opportunity to rethink about how to distribute those funds overall. Some of the ACES funds go to middle schools, as my understanding, but most of it is still in the elementary school space. But there could be an opportunity to re, just to kinda realign those programs so that some of, additional portion of those funds go to middle school or or high school students.

The one, I think, the one challenge in in some cases is that the the ACEs funding itself is from a ballot measure. And so that money is it requires a two thirds vote to make changes to that program if you wanted to say realign that program, in order to, you know, big picture with our two programs combined, serve both, TK through six and, middle and high school students.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh, did you have questions or comments?

Yes. I think both. I just wanted to you know, we've been really promoting ELAP funding for for schools before and after school programs because especially because of the the pandemic and trying to allow our students to to continue to improve their academic scores. But it's interesting because it it caught me off guard. I met with several teachers and administrators from school districts within my district and it was interesting to note that they weren't as supportive about ELAP funding as I thought they would be.

And here's the concerns that were expressed and I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna share those with you because those were shared with me. And I feel it's my responsibility to ensure that I'm also sharing what my constituents, you know, my my teachers and my administrators are are sharing with me, which gave me a different mindset or perspective on on on the issue. Some of the concerns were that with ELAP funding, there really isn't any required outcomes or measured outcomes that we're we're requiring.

It's it's given to the schools. They can use it as they seem fit.

Right? Given that that flexibility. But we haven't had anything that says, okay, we are required that this ELA funding create x, y, and z outcome as far as reading, writing, even though we've just expressed that there's been some uptake in in in grades out there, but it's not required of every school district to ensure that they're coming back with outcomes based on that.

And it was expressed that they also felt that if they had the option, they would rather have a base increase funding where they could choose how to implement and and what to do within the school period because, and I quote, you know, Senator, I I have a classroom of 36 kids. This is a this is a teacher teaching, I believe it was eighth grade social studies.

And his concern was, you know, I'm trying to teach 36 students and I it's per class. And at this point, with no assistance with such a large class, I'm not teaching. I'm babysitting. And so it's made me very reflective as to what we're offering and whether or not, you know if we gave an increase in the local control LCFF base funding, school districts could also implement programs before and after school.

It would give also the teachers locally, and the school districts locally more control over whether or not assistance and extra aid or smaller classes could be negotiated within that school period.

But I'm also conflicted because I also understand that even within the school period right now, the school day as as it's currently structured, many I should say many. Let me rephrase that. Concerns have been expressed by certain teachers in the school district that the day is not long enough to cover all of the subject matter, especially when we're talking about first grade through sixth grade. So they need that extra time before and after school.

So it's very, very interesting the concerns that were that I have that, you know, that that have come across, which is make me making me reevaluate my perspective on where should the funding go and, whether or not we should be requiring measurable outcomes for that funding, especially before and after school to ensure that it's actually being spent, I guess, productively in a way.

Because there's no there are parameters right now within that funding. And so when we're looking at the teachers and they're they're literally admitting imagine how I felt as the vice chair for education hearing from a middle school teacher who says, I don't have the capacity to to teach 36 children per class. And so I think we need to start shifting a little bit our mindset and our conversations as to what are we expecting from our students from the funding that is going.

Because, also, here's the other the other feedback that I received from my district, especially from youth in that area, is that, and these were students from Apple Valley in my district who expressed serious concerns about the schools not receiving enough funding. And so we went ahead and talked about, you know, the local, funding formula.

We talked about almost 60% of the the state's budget going towards education. She was she was not aware. And, I thought it goes, where's the money going? And so I think for transparency purposes, for outcome, outlook, I think we need to start focusing or having those conversations as to what that looks like.

Because if we have students who feel that programs are not being available in their district to help, which I don't understand how students could not feel that way when we have, you know, before and after school, We have a a funding formula that allows for unduplicated students to receive extra funding for services, which they're not always, you know, seeing.

I've heard. And then we have teachers concerned about, you know, the funding that is available and how that is being dispersed, including concerns about, you know, the legislature providing funding for professional training and enhancement. And they say he goes, we've gone to school. We've we know how to teach. Allow us to teach.

Give us the money so we can have more aids or smaller classrooms. Wow. I it's making me reevaluate what we're doing. And I'm just bringing it to the forefront right now as we talk about ELAP funding, what that's gonna look like as far as per pupil, parameters of accountability with those with that funding, and as well as our community schools funding. So all of that, I just think that if we haven't addressed because I I we haven't.

I had not heard these concerns, and it was very interesting for me to hear that. So now I'm just putting it out there. I'm eager to hear your thoughts on those on those concerns, because I thought I was able to manage and and say, hey, well, we got this, this, and this, but this is how they're feeling. So I guess it's more of a comment.

And the question would be, you know, thoughts process as we're moving forward with allocating all of these program funding for these programs.

I'll try addressing some of the comments, Senator Chua. In terms of the, kind of the decision about expanded learning, whether it'd be a separate program or within LCFF, I think the main trade off and the the main, I think, reason why it was created as a separate program is because it has a separate program. It has these specific requirements.

In particular, that you that school district serve all low income students and English learners or if you're a tier one district that all students receive, an expanded learning program, meaning that you're you have the potential to have be part of a nine hour, day program. I think we have heard some of the concerns that you mentioned from some districts that they would rather have the funding in a more flexible way.

Right now, as as, being ELP, the main overgeneralizing but essentially, that funding can be used for outside of the normal instructional day, right, for the the the wrap around program. So, you know, if they wanna use it for tutors or something like that, they often they they were restricted and we've heard some some districts say we would rather use it during the school day than outside.

I think the trade off is that then by doing that and putting it in LCFF and giving flexibility, it does mean that they could choose not to offer that, that program. And I think that was part of the I think the original intent is that that that families know that, you know, everywhere in the state, if you're a lone income student, essentially, you are supposed to be eligible for participating in an expanded learning program.

So I think those are the that is like the main the main trade off of whether you have it in LCFF or you have it in in a separate as a separate program. I think on the on the issue of

And that's where I agree with you. I absolutely agree with you that that's what I thought the benefit was. Yeah. And so, I was surprised to hear the feedback that I received and which is where I I went back and said, well, you have unduplicated funding already available to provide those services. And so that's that's why I think we need clarity for, you know, many of our teachers and and parents that may not know that this is available to them.

And I think it's empowering the the public on what is available for our students, especially if they're low income.

Yeah. And I and I think maybe on in terms of some of the the the students or teachers that you talked with, if they were middle and high school students, they're probably not seeing the benefits of the expanded learning program because it's really more of an elementary school program. So that that would be my other.

Okay. That's probably okay. I can see that.

And I do just wanna piggyback on some of Edgar's comments, especially, the goal of doing before and after really helped families, and ensure, one of the main things that we saw with these programs is an uptake in attendance. And that's largely because parents are able to have their students on campus for up to nine hours a day and that meets the families where they're at. And so it is difficult. I think growing the base is really important.

Lowering like, addressing our ratios is crucial, to the success of our students.

But the value add of this program, it it's a little apples to oranges because it's looking more at the whole child, and that flexibility is really important because they do offer high dosage tutorage tutoring. They can offer additional meals and so it's really, allowing the schools to focus on what the needs of not just their students are but the community itself. And we think that's the benefit of the ELOP program. But I I don't envy the position you're in to make those decisions.

But I do just want to emphasize where the benefit is and why we think it's important to keep it as its own standalone program versus the flexibility of putting it within LCFF because we do see that there's the the reality that there probably would be encroachment and it would, you know, a slippery slip of the hours being focused during the school time and not on the programs after and before, which gives a full nine hour day.

Yeah. And I absolutely see the benefit of a longer day to be able to provide those benefits, which then goes back to, should we provide parameters of reporting outcome on the If we're gonna if if the longer day should be I mean, if it's gonna be helpful, I think it would be helpful to gather some data, or be required to offer some outcome data on on those learning opportunities, whatever it may be, whether it's how many students were were were supportive how if if the increment that you said that we don't have the data for every school district, but if we could require that for I know it's kinda it's hard.

I hate doing that to local school districts, especially where there are some. But that way, we can have data that shows the public and shows our teachers, shows the parents that, hey, this funding is working. You know, not just having some, but, you know and I don't know what that would look like.

And, of course, further conversation would be especially where there's small rural schools or but I think outcomes are are very important, especially we're investing in our in our students. But I that's what I saw the benefits and which is why I'm just expressing the concerns. But that's what I I I felt longer days allow us to have more opportunities for our students. And I actually appreciate the comment that you said about being the whole child and the community based benefit. I also appreciate that as well.

And just, in terms of data, we do expect for you guys to have more shortly. It was in 2023 where the legislature passed reporting, on the CALPADS for the twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six school year. So that is a new reporting requirement. So you will have more data shortly. And then additionally, our biannual reporting will be coming out in the next month, and that gives you a picture of of the benefits of the program.

So that that doesn't speak to mandates or or other metrics, but you will have more information shortly as a result of legislative actions in the last few years.

And that would be from all schools who are receiving this funding or just certain ones?

The biennial is is full scale and then CALPADS also.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you, ma'am.

Eliz Perez with the Department of Finance. So to add on further, yes, in addition to the CALPADS data, there's also the ELOP plans that further detail like just the scope of the intention of the program submitted by the LEAs that are receiving this funding.

And to the point that, just about the intent of ELOP, while there are, like, certain, like, parameters of how the funding can be used, there, you know, it still provides some sense of flexibility for these LEAs to be able to tailor, like, the funding to their specific needs.

So, in one instance, you know, we've heard from one school district who has used ELOP funding to provide a Saturday academic and tutoring program for migrant students because, that particular school identified that sense of need to ensure that, you know, the students were able to get further support on the weekends. That's right.

But that's just one example about, like, how the school could really, like, utilize this funding to consider the whole child approach as well as being able to, tailor it to the specific student population needs at that's at that school. And as far as for the point about the LCFF funding, we can take that feedback, back to our counterparts, and have further discussions on that as well.

Thank you. Appreciate that.

Anyone else? Alrighty. We will go ahead and move on to our next item. We're moving on to issue four on community schools. We will start with the Department of Finance and you can go ahead and get started whenever you're ready.

Okay. Good morning Chair members. Shade Nari, the Department of Finance. The state has invested 4,100,000,000 one time proposition 98 general fund to implement community schools, a whole child school improvement strategy focusing on community engagement, providing wellness services, and professional development to support positive school climates and joyful learning opportunities during an expanded school day.

The investment has enabled nearly 2,500, nearly one in every four schools in the state to adopt the model, with data indicating that the first cohort of schools that benefited from this investment showing significant reductions in chronic absenteeism, reduced suspensions and improved test scores and academic achievement with the largest gains for historically underserved students.

The governor's budget bills on this prior investment and proposes 1,000,000,001 billion ongoing proposition ID eight general fund to to expand the community schools model to up to 3,700 more schools and provide ongoing funding to support all existing schools. The goal is for all schools in the state that have an unduplicated P O percentage of 65% or more to implement and sustain the community schools model. The administration does not propose a cohort model for the ongoing apportionments program.

Eligible schools will be able to opt into the funding as soon as this fall. Existing community schools will continue to be funded by the one time implementation grants and will be able to opt into the apportionment funding once their implementation grant ends.

To support this significant expansion of community schools from over 2,500 to over 6,000, the administration proposes alignment of this initiative to the statewide system of support, strengthen technical assistance, and accreditation to support the alignment to the California Community Schools framework. The community schools model provides a framework for authentic engagement to address student needs and enable joyful and rigorous learning environments.

Community schools engage key interest holders to engage in asset mapping and needs assessment, matching barriers to learning with student specific supports, and continuous improvement which are key strategies utilized by the state LEA focused system of support. Page 12 of the committee agenda shows the four key components of the community schools model. These pillars align to several of the priority areas that LEAs must address in the development of their Local Control Accountability Plan or LCAP.

Planning done through the community schools development process provides cohesion between LCAP strategic planning, blending and braiding funding for several key state funding streams, for example, expanded learning opportunities, universal school meals, universal pre kindergarten, and meaningful community engagement, positive school climates, and shared governance. In recognition of this alignment between community schools and the LCAP, the administration's proposal explicitly aligns county level community schools' implementation to the universal and targeted assistance that county offices of education are required to provide to their local educational agencies.

This makes particular sense given the numerous studies that indicate community schools result in positive impacts on student attendance, school climate, and academic achievement, all of which are tracked on the California School Dashboard and are addressed by a statewide system of support. The proposal also includes ongoing funding to support the existing statewide and regional transformational assistance center structure, S TAC and RTAC. The TACs will continue in their supportive role to assist schools with implementing community schools with Fidelity to the framework.

To ensure that community schools are implemented with Fidelity and aligned with the California Community Schools Framework as adopted by the State Board of Education, the proposal emphasizes increased accountability through annual self certification and the development of a future accreditation process as has been done in several other states.

As mentioned previously, the proposal aims to better integrate within the larger statewide system support by clarifying that universal and targeted assistance that county offices of education are required to provide to their school districts and charter schools includes coordinated partnership and services to port support community schools implementation of the county.

Because of how impactful and transformative the community schools model can be, particular for students with the greatest need, the administration's vision is for community schools whole child approach to education to be the way California serves students and families. That concludes my remarks. I'm joined by Justin Combs from the Department of Finance. I'm happy to take any questions.

Good morning madam chair members of the committee Michael Alfares with the legislative analyst office. So we are recommending the legislature continue with its with its one time funding approach to community schools rather than providing ongoing funding as proposed by the administration. We recognize that the community school model has been shown to have a variety of benefits for students. However we do have broader concerns with establishing a new ongoing categorical program restricted for specific purposes.

We would note that in 2013 when the state created LCFF it eliminated dozens of categorical programs with the goal of streamlining the sync funding providing a more equitably across districts, and giving districts more discretion over spending decisions, recognizing that local decision makers are better positioned to understand the specific needs of their students.

One One of our primary concerns with establishing a new ongoing categorical program is that this approach presumes that best practices can be scaled statewide. Many categorical programs, were created to encourage statewide adoption of practices found to be effective. However, implementing best practices does not necessarily result in the same level of improvement statewide.

In some cases, LEAs do not have the expertise to effectively implement, these best practices or the state might not have the capacity or expertise to effect to support schools to ensure effective implementation at the state level. In addition, stable card activities may be seen with skepticism, and may not have sufficient local buy in for their practices to be, implemented effectively at the local level.

Some additional concerns we raise about categorical programs is that they typically provide less flexibility for districts to decide how to use their funding compared to LCFF, while also creating greater administrative burden for districts as school staff must comply with additional reporting requirements and become familiar with the program rules.

Continuing with the state one time funding approach would allow additional schools to receive startup funding from the state to plan and implement the community schools model while leaving the decision to local decision makers whether to financially support the model moving forward. If the state provided the proposed $1,000,000,000 as one time grants we think the state could support about 700 additional schools under the current grant program under one or more additional rounds. We also recommend the legislature consider funding technical assistance over a longer period of time.

Under current law, technical assistance would sunset or would only be available until 2031-32.

Funding technical assistance over a longer period of time may ensure that districts have access to support in future years to expand or sustain the model locally. This will provide a baseline level of support for districts to support community school implementation in the longer term even if the state isn't providing funding for community schools annually.

Although we do recommend continuing with the state's one time approach if the legislature is interested in providing ongoing funding for community schools we have several modifications to the proposal that we would recommend. These can be found beginning on page 15 of the staff agenda. I won't cover all of them for this presentation.

I'll just kind of stick to three major concerns that we have with the proposal and associated recommendations. So the first is that the new recipients of community schools funding would have no substantive requirements for the first three years of receiving funding with the progress report on their community schools implementation plan not being due until twenty twenty nine thirty.

Based on our conversations involved with implementing the community schools model the application requirements under the current one time program help districts begin to identify their community needs identify key challenges and access technical support technical support earlier in the process even before they were awarded funding. We would recommend setting annual planning and reporting requirements for schools and districts consistent with the current requirements under the one time program to encourage schools receiving funding to begin their planning and accessing technical support early on in the process.

Secondly we raised concerns about the state's capacity to support such a large influx of new grantees.

For context the state has funded the 2,500 current grantees over four cohorts and under the proposal this could result in additional 3,700 new schools receiving funding many of many of which may have little to no experience in the many community schools. To address this, we recommend initially targeting a narrower a narrower scope of schools and then expanding eligibility over multiple years.

For example, instead of sending the unduplicated people percentage threshold at 85%, you could or sorry, you can at 65%, you could set it at 85% and then kinda scale that down over time. The last concern I'll highlight, is around the, accreditation process. There is not really a lot of language, or specificity in the language about how the process will be determined.

The bar discretion is given to technical assistance centers and CDE to develop the accreditation process. So we recommend establishing a statute some specific timelines for key milestones associated with the process. At a minimum, we think that requiring a status update including draft guidelines and estimated costs and to require adoption of the accreditation process several months before schools would go through the accreditation process.

We also recommend staggering the accreditation process based on when schools initially receive funding to make it more kind of manageable for the state to provide the oversight as proposed current potentially 6,000 schools would be up for accreditation in 2033, '34 and every seven years thereafter which couldn't limit the ability for the state to provide effective oversight. I'll just kind of stop there and end my presentation happy to answer any questions.

Kimberly Rosenberger with, CDE on behalf of the state superintendent public instruction. We are incredibly appreciative and supportive of the 1,000,000,000 commitment. We think that by providing ongoing dollars, we are ensuring, greater access, stability, and, improving the safe, supportive, and high quality learning environments. California is setting a national standard for what it means to truly support the whole child, and, we are at one in four schools having community schools. The impact has been incredible.

We do align with the LAO's concerns around additional support for, the transformational assistant centers and our county office of eds. We would, recommend an additional 20,000,000 for county office of eds because the infrastructure matters through the state transform transformational assistance center, our eight regional technical assistance centers, our county office of ed, indirect support from the California Department of Education. Schools are receiving hands on guidance, professional learning, and continuous improvement support.

One of the things that I think really demonstrated that is, the amount of time from when we first did our cohort one on the planning and implementation to when we've moved through, the more recent cohort. Schools are up and ready really quickly.

And because of that additional support they're receiving, they're able to serve students sooner. We think to scale to the level that's proposed in this, we would wanna make sure we have robust investments in the technical assistance because it is, imperative that they have that both County Office of Ed and regional support to ensure they're meeting the metrics and also understanding what's needed as we add an accreditation aspect to this proposal. That concludes our testimony and happy to provide any additional questions and answers.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Aye, I have a couple of questions, very quickly and then I'm gonna turn it to, my colleagues who might have questions and comments. What are the consequences of a community school failing to meet accreditation standards or or self certification standards?

How does that process works? Because the proposal requires an annual self certification process to begin in 29-30 and an accreditation process to begin in 33-34.

So, to answer your question, I think, overall, just stating our intent with the accountability measures and the accreditation self certification process, That is in recognition of how impactful the administration recognizes, the community schools model to have been thus far, as I've stated in my opening remarks regarding the, positive improvement to student outcomes.

And, in terms of the accreditation process, so schools that have met the 65% or the eligibility requirements of the 65% UPP, The administration is envisioning in 2033-34 when the accreditation process to begin that schools will be we accredited and then if, for example, a school halfway through that period, three years out of the seven years doesn't meet the eligibility requirements anymore, they still have the remaining four years of that seven year accreditation period essentially functioning as a hold harmless, for them to plan if they're not able to meet that eligibility requirement, this afternoon.

I don't know if my colleague, Jessica Holmes, wants to add anything.

Jessica Holmes, Department of Finance. So I think you're talking about what's the penalty. And what, what we are proposing is that, certainly, they'd have to self certify. If they don't self certify, they're not eligible for the funds. But to the extent that they're not meeting accreditation standards, that they would be eligible for support through the technical assistance system.

But then if if not meeting the standards after receiving that support, that they would no longer be eligible. I think the the one other thing I would mention on that is I I think it is our intent, to allow them to reenter the program, to the extent that they can begin to meet those criteria again.

So, really, just sort of on from a 10,000 foot level, the idea would be very similar, you know, to our system of support that we we wanna encourage people to adopt these models and to be successful in adopting the model with fidelity. So, technical assistance first, but then, penalizing by, not being eligible for the funds second.

Okay. So, you know, accreditation is a compliance oriented process, but community schools are intended to be the result of this kind of organic shared decision making process, right, to provide integrated services and expanded learning to students in the community.

So how does the administration envision and expect local education agencies to balance a community driven process against the rigors of accreditation, especially because community schools are gonna be look they're going to look different depending on where they're located and the needs of the specific student population and the surrounding community. A community school in Oakland versus the Central Valley versus Los Angeles. I used to work at one, Aruzba High School.

All of those schools are are going to have different programs that are set up. So I'm trying to envision how the administration's going to create some sort of accreditation process for something that I think we almost designed to to not be cookie cutter.

Yeah. Absolutely. And I think from our perspective, that's why an accreditation model, is to be preferred, when evaluating the the the efficacy and quality of a community school. You're right. The whole point of community schools is that no one no no two schools look the same.

And if we look at something like, you know, WASC accreditation and and we don't have we'll have more details on accreditation in the May revision. We don't necessarily spell this out currently. But I think, you know, WASC accreditation, they they go in and they actually do a deep dive on not just are you meeting this, but how are you meeting this? What is what is your, what have you done? What have you created with your community, to to, align with the pillars?

It's not necessarily a box check. It's more of a, holistic conversation. And, additionally, you know, it's it's not always an accreditation, a yes or a no answer. It's a, you know, accreditation can happen, you know, we'll accredit you for one year, and then we'll come back and take a look and see what you've done. You know, come back after three years and and see how you've done.

So I think we actually feel like because it is so open to being more evaluative and qualitative instead of just, you know, do you check this box? Do you check this box? Accreditation actually is a great model for something like community schools where it's it's not necessarily gonna look exactly the same, and we don't want to look exactly the same.

Okay. I'll see if my colleagues have any questions or comments. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, madam chair. You know, I I would like to begin by acknowledging the teachers in the community, schools because it's them who are working above and beyond, working in the normal setting. But the young people that are in the community schools, they're the ones that need a little more help, little more time, a little more effort. So that means the teachers have gotta give a little bit more. And the accreditation, that's a business side.

But I'm talking about the teachers themselves where they bond with the students because the students have come in to especially the high school level, they couldn't make it. But they're they're they're not giving up. And neither is the parents, neither is the community, and that's why it's so vital to have our community schools.

And I've seen it succeed where the graduation rate has increased and I've seen the students where they'll finish a year or two there and go back into their schools and be competitive again because of the the time and effort that was given to them. So it's important.

So I think, the state needs to know how important they are, but we have to tighten our belt. No doubt. We have to understand it's a special need here. And and I think that, our funding has gotta reflect the success and the accreditation, the the success to graduation rate. So with that question, and we're finding some of our our schools that are up in the eighty and eighty five and even 90% graduation rate.

Where where are we with the the community schools in in line with the normal schools competitive wise?

I I hate to overuse this phrase, but it is an apple and oranges kind of scenario, but we have found where we looked at the schools that are similarly placed to those of their peers that we are seeing market improvements in math, in English, and in, most importantly, the chronic absenteeism rates have improved. So they may not be above, on the national level, but when we've compared them directly to schools that were similarly performing, their overall improvement has, I think, appreciated about 30% for a time.

And I think that improvement is reflective in their confidence. They go back into the school with if they if they left and we know sometimes they have a problem and they're shipped over to the community schools and then there's the teachers trying to rehab to a degree and get them prepared to go back or to prepare to graduate. So it it's a different role, and I think we have to understand that.

So I think the investment that the state of California must make into that group and the teachers and everyone else is is vital. And, yes, it sounds like you want us to be a little more tolerant, apples to oranges, but at the same time, it's it's accreditation.

It's the student that give them a good quality education. And the tutoring is so vital to find out where they fall in between the cracks and help them get back and to be competitive. So I I salute those that are are in that category, but we have to keep going on and and look at it financially as well. So let's work on the accreditation and let's make it as competitive as possible. Thank you, mad madam chair.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta. Senator Ochoa Bogh, do you have any questions or comments?

No. I'm just you intrigued me by the the California Department of Education. You intrigued me by your comment on it's hard to compare apples and oranges. Curious, why would they why why would you consider it apples and oranges on that on that front?

Well, so there are targets for who benefits first from community schools. So they're going to have lower than the state average test scores, attendance, etcetera. So when we're saying what their performance looks like, we're making sure we're comparing it to schools that were in similar rankings to them of schools that were already maybe above the state average. And so that's why I say in terms of competitiveness, they may not be the highest scores of the state, but it's when you look at schools that have community schools and where they were compared to their peers that had similar

scores, we're seeing, like, attendance rates go up rates go up 30%. We're seeing on the LCAP markers, they're going up above all of those. So when I say it's apples to oranges, I'm saying we're not comparing them to the statewide average. We're comparing them to where they were, situated peers. And we think that provides a better understanding of how community schools are improving the overall effects of both learning, literacy efforts, and attendance than if we were to just compare it on a statewide average.

Okay. And and and that's I'm glad you clarified that because I was looking more of I'm looking as when you talk about the growth, I'm looking at at the base of where they started before the community schools were implemented to after, you know, and what that growth that to me is is is the growth that we should be looking at their base to comparison to to after they were implemented as community schools.

Also, I just want for the record, you know, many of our community schools are probably also already receiving ELAP funding. So we it's a combination of of both of both programs coming in and really wholeheartedly.

But I think moving forward, I think at this rate, the growth for these schools should be, hopefully, very progressively growing to a point where I think it would be, at some point, ideally, we'll be leveraging out with other schools that are non community higher edensing average, you know, schools in in California.

It's it's that is my hope that that's where we're aiming for at some point.

Thank you. I'm seeing no further questions or comments. We will go ahead and move on now, to public comment. If there's anyone in Room 2100 who wants to provide public comment eyed items that were on today's agenda, then please sign up. We ask that you limit your testimony to one minute.

I will be timing you all, and, if we go past 11:30, I will likely be giving the gavel over to Senator Ochoa Bogh. And now let us begin.

Good morning, madam chair. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. First, we would like to express our support for the governor's proposal to provide $1,000,000,000 in annual ongoing funding for community schools. Los Angeles County has the largest concentration of community school adopters in the nation. As such, it would be significantly impacted by the proposed trailer bill language that reduces current funding while potentially adding close to 1,000 new community schools that would need to be supported throughout the county.

So first of all, we'd like, the county, the committee to consider, staying within the framework of the existing community schools program. Also, we urge support for the proposed 65% funding threshold in the draft trailer bill language as an absolute threshold. And next, maintain and strengthen fidelity with integrity to the community schools framework. Next, we urge that you increase funding for the RTACs who will play a pivotal role in ensuring the successful implementation of the expansion.

And lastly, we urge your support for the $20,000,000 California multi tiered system of support funding.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We look forward to working with you.

Good afternoon, all. My name is Maile Del Sid. I'm a junior at Hawthorne High School in LA and I am a member of the Statewide Student Advisory Board with CFJ. Before community schools, my passion for storytelling and art didn't have a place to grow. Through a theater program brought to my school by community schools, I discovered my voice and that opportunity led me to sign with a professional talent agency. This is what strategic investment looks like. Community schools don't just fund programs, they unlock potential, expand access, and create real pathways for students.

This investment of 1,000,000,000 is an investment in students like me and untapped talent and in stronger, more equitable communities. I'd also urge you guys to understand the importance of how community schools affects electives and just opportunity to, grow in your passion. And also the eight block period schedule is also something really important, which I think community schools funding could, you know, help out in that area. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. I am the parent of Maile Del Sid which has spoke to you guys just recently right now. My name is Alvi Ventura. As a community school parent of a student, these schools do more than educate. They create opportunity.

They connect families to resources and strengthen their communities. Community schools give students a chance to explore different trades, careers, and pathways early, helping them to discover the, interests that they have for their future. I've seen the impact of services like community closets that provide clothes and basic necessities for families in need. When we invest in our community schools, we invest in our student success for a stronger future for everyone. Please continue to support them. Thank you.

Good morning, members of the subcommittee. My name is Christopher Martinez, and I'm a freshman at San Bernardino High School. Student organizer with Inland Congregations United for Change and here with PFL, California. I'm here because my school is not a community school yet, not because we don't need it and not because our district doesn't support the model. But because there's still a lot of misunderstanding about what a community school actually is.

While we've been waiting for clarity and research, I've been watching neighboring schools transform. They've gained mental health supports, touring, family engagement programs, all the things that help students feel connected and stay in school. Meanwhile, my classmates and I have missed out. We see what's possible just a few miles away, but not on our own campus. That's why the ongoing 1,000,000,000 investment of matters matters so much.

It gives schools, like, minded stability and time to plan apply and finally make a community school a reality reality. I'm asking you to continue this funding so students at San Bernardino High School and Carl Carl San Bernardino cut teeth don't get left behind. Thank you.

Good morning, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Rocio Ruiz. I'm a parent within the San Bernardino City Unified School District and also organizer with ICUC and here with the California Partnership for the Future of Learning. I support the ongoing 1,000,000,000 investment in community schools.

In San Bernardino, many parents are working long hours, and our kids face challenges that do not disappear when the school bell rings. Community schools help fill gaps by providing academic support, mental health services, and trusted adults who know our children by name. The results are an abstract. According to statewide data shared by the California Department of Ed, community schools have helped reduce chronic absenteeism by creating stronger relationships with families and offering on-site supports that remove barriers to attendance. That's why stable ongoing funding matters.

Our children can't rely on programs that appear one day one year and vanish the next. Consistency is what allows us to trust, and grow outcomes to improve. I know this committee cares deeply about strengthening families and ensuring every child has a real chance to succeed. Community schools do exactly that. Thank you.

Everyone. Good morning. My name is Justinia Reyes, co executive director at Californians for Justice. I come to you here also as a mom of a five year old going to the public school and also an L. A.

U. S. C. Graduate. Californians for Justice is a statewide grassroots organization working with black and brown youth at the intersection of racial and education justice.

Is it is an honor to be here on behalf of CFJ and the California Partnership for the Future of Learning. We believe racially just relationship centered community schools are one of the most powerful interventions we have in dismantling the school to prison pipeline. When students have shared power and families are genuine partners and shared decision making, deep trust develops between communities and educators and real transformation follows. The community schools model has become the vehicle for that transformation, improving outcomes for students across California.

This approach has already been making a difference.

The question before this committee is whether we can scale what is working or leave thousands of students without the conditions they need to succeed. Our young people and families are ready and waiting, and we ask for you to meet them there. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Leticia Garcia with the Riverside County Superintendent Of Schools. We're here in support of two items, item two on the ELOP, so the stability in tier two funding to ensure more thoughtful and effective planning from year to year programming. And then on item number four, community schools support the proposed funding. We also ask that there be continued and dedicated funding for a county office of education coordinator position, specifically for community schools, to provide technical assistance and, support for effective implementation of the grant.

And this is going across school districts within, for our county, it's across 23 school districts. So, as you can see, it's a very organic process. It's very site based, but the county does have a role in identifying county wide partners that can help multiple districts in very different areas of the county. So, that's what we believe that, position is very important. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Deborah Baltiza Sabal on behalf of the California Suburban School Districts Association. Thank you for your opportunity to provide comment. On universal school meals, districts remain committed to this critical program and grateful for its reach. However, ongoing challenges with kitchen infrastructure and workforce capacity persist.

We respectfully urge the legislature to continue investing in kitchen infrastructure training grants and particularly for districts that have not been able to pass local bonds. On the Eli ELOP program, ELOP remains essential for students and working families alike. We appreciate the proposal for to establish the consistent tier two rate and encourage continued expansion of access with flexibility to reflect the real needs of families and staffing realities on the ground.

On community schools, we encourage system investment to support existing sites and expand access to new communities, ensuring long term success and stability. Thank you for continued commitment.

Thank you, madam chair, members. Andrea Ball here on behalf of the Orange County Department of Education and a coalition of local educational agencies and nonprofits in support of the community schools ongoing funding and also of a request for an additional $20,000,000 to support and sustain the California multi tiered system of support. More than 30 local educational agencies and non profits signed on to the letter we submitted to the subcommittee outlining this request.

We know community schools are how we organize services around students, and the MTSS is the instructional engine that makes those services translate into better academic and behavioral outcomes. By strengthening best first instruction and using data to guide decisions, multi tiered system of support helps schools use the community schools pillars, strategically monitor the impact, and make the adjustments over time.

The request is not to start something new. It's to sustain the MTSS infrastructure the state's been investing in for over ten years with Orange County Department of Ed and the partner Butte County Office of Ed as the state leads. We think this is, important to, connect community schools to make the whole child investments work together as one coherent prevention oriented system so your investments truly work for every student. Thank you.

Darby Kernan, on behalf of In Child Poverty California, we support the community schools. We partner with them. We work for with the Promise Neighborhoods and the Cradle to Career programs. We believe the unallocated 485,000,000, 201,000,000 of that should go in an incentive grant program for community schools to work with their promised neighborhoods or cradle to career programs. They are the ones with the community outreach and doing that work today.

Prom community schools where Promise Neighborhoods are have a 30% reduction in absenteeism and a 89% increase in graduation rates. They are the ones who are in the communities helping our community schools outreach to and get connected. Together, they can be stronger. We believe that they should have, a one time role with, like, the county administrators to do this work. We're working with Assemblymember Bonta on this request and appreciate your support. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members. My name is Conrad Crump with Disability Rights California, and we're in strong support of community schools. Community schools bring mental health care, family support, and real coordination onto campuses, and that's not theoretical. That's actually the real thing that students really need to learn and to thrive. But there is a truth that we keep avoiding.

Disabled students, particularly those who live at the intersection of race and disability, are often and, you know, quite frankly, disproportionately removed from classrooms, suspended, and pushed out at higher rates than their peers. And this is not on occasion. This is not in isolated cases. This is actually consistently across district statewide. And that's not discipline.

It's exclusion. So when you remove a student from the classroom, you're not correcting behavior. You're cutting off access to education. So we have a contradiction. We say we believe in the whole child, but we continue to exclude the same children from the very system that's supposed to support them.

Community schools give us that different path, restorative practices, trauma informed care, coordinated supports that deal with what's actually going on in a child's life. If we fund this model, we're choosing to keep students in classrooms. If we don't, we're choosing to keep pushing them out. And if we already know who's being pushed out, and we do, then this is no longer a question of data. It's a question of decision.

So we respectfully ask you to continue, with the funding of community schools. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Daye Sun with Catalyst California and the California Partnership, and I'm a constituent of Senate district twenty five in Alhambra. The community schools approach is a proven strategy that's transforming outcomes for students, and California risks undoing this progress without long term funding. Research shows that community schools produce significant learning gains, the highest for black students, followed by English learners and students in low income households. For example, black students gained an equivalent of one hundred thirty extra days of math instruction.

In places like LA County that have been hit hard by attacks from the Federal Government and immigration enforcement, community schools have also been a lifeline for families and students to come together for mutual support, resources, safety, and connection. It's no surprise then that studies reveal up to a $15 return for every dollar invested in community schools. Investing 1,000,000,000 annually into community schools is the responsible choice and a choice we urge you to make.

Good morning. Rachel Murphy with Public Advocates and the California Partnership for the Future of Learning. We urge the committee to support the proposed 1,000,000,000 ongoing to continue and expand the community schools approach. We believe the trailer bill language can be strengthened by ensuring that the various notification, certification, and accreditation processes and requirements are developed in partnership with education interest holders who have been involved in community schools implementation.

Additionally, annual reporting at the school level has been a critical piece of school transformation as it builds capacity and contributes to continuous improvement.

It's critical that this start immediately to ensure that those processes to assess needs and develop plans for the next year are happening. We provided detailed recommendations in the materials shared with you this morning and earlier this month, and we'd be happy to discuss further. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Perez had to leave a little earlier to catch a flight, so we'll be I'll be chairing the rest of the meeting. And just as a reminder, we have one minute comment time for folks out here, and I think they said the Max. The chair set a forty minute Max time. So I will be having a timer.

Good morning. Dan Merwin on behalf of California School Boards Association. We appreciate the student supports and professional development discretionary block grant and do advocate for that to be fully discretionary. We know that the cola is not sufficient. We have seen a large amount of one time funding being or sorry, not one time funding.

Ongoing funding being dedicated to ELOP and community schools, and we do still discretionary block grant is so important. On differentiated assistance, we just flag that while we are supportive of the three year time period to reduce churns that LEAs get more assistance when they are identified. We do need a mechanism to identify LEAs in the middle of those three years, so no one's left out and left to language for two or three years before they get assistance.

But then for the criteria, we would really reject the governor's proposal and recommend sticking with the current subgroup identification. Thank you.

Hi. Michelle Warshaw on behalf of the California Teachers Association and also speaking for my colleague from the California Federation of Teachers. We support the proposed 1,000,000,000 ongoing funding for community schools and also recommend that there are meaningful embedding of collaborative leadership and shared governance structures in every layer of the community schools infrastructure. Additionally, we recommend adding minimum eligibility criteria for receiving funds.

We also support the governor's proposal to provide $2,800,000,000 to augment the student support and professional development discretionary block grant and urge that it maintain it stays as flexible as possible for LEAs to address their unique needs. Thank you.

Good morning. Anthony Chavez here on behalf of the California After School Advocacy Alliance, CA 3. On the LOP, we support the recommendation to stabilize tier two rates moving forward. We also urge increasing the dedicated funding for older youth, adolescents. And lastly, on community schools, we support the ongoing funding with expanded learning being a key, pillar of that program. Thank you.

Good morning. Maclean Rozansky at the Alameda County Office of Education. We welcome the additional $1,000,000,000 in ongoing funding for community schools, which would build on prior investments and ensure the sustainability of this initiative. While we acknowledge the need for accountability measures for this program, we also caution against extensive reporting and accreditation requirements that may impede programmatic work. We also appreciate the ongoing support for ELOP programs which are essential for supporting families and ensuring more equitable educational opportunities for young people.

We support the $62,400,000 investment in ELOP to stabilize rate two funding. This funding will provide districts with the fiscal predictability they need to maintain mandated services. Thank you.

Sarah Bachez with children now in support of ELA, community schools and assuring every child has access to meals. We're all we're speaking on item five in terms of raising concerns that the DA proposal would eliminate the current accountability systems equity guardrails. So we would want to ensure that the legislature maintains in any updated differentiated assistance system equity guardrails and focuses on closing achievement gaps and opportunity gaps. We're also, requesting alignment that any distribution of the discretionary funds aligns with LCFF, distribution formula. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair. My name is Natalie Shinn here on behalf of Californians Together. Are in strong support of the proposed 1,000,000,000 investment for community schools. With this funding, we hope that community schools will be able to continue providing targeted language development, after school supportment, and linguistically responsive programs that meet the unique needs of English learners. The most effective community school models serve as lighthouses for multilingualism where students and their families see their languages reflected in the classroom communication and leadership.

This fosters belonging, improves engagement and supports academic growth strengthening not just English learner students but entire school communities. Thank you.

Good morning chair and members. Leticia Reyes on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association respectfully in opposition of the provision within the community school program expansion which would exclude additional non classroom based charter public schools from eligibility for the program.

While labeled non classroom based, this is a misnomer, these are public schools where students regularly engage in in person instruction often three to four times, per week days per week while also benefiting from flexible models designed to meet the needs of some of California's most vulnerable students. These schools are already using community school funding in exactly the way it was intended to provide expanded learning opportunities, workforce development and critical family resources.

Excluding a group of public students, from eligibility is counter to the goal of the expansion to serve more students, particularly those that are most in need. All eligible students should have access to the program regardless of the educational model offered by their school. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Nora Stewart speaking on behalf of Friends of the Earth and a coalition of over a 100 school districts and non profits. Friends of the Earth offers free technical assistance to more than a 100 different school districts in California to expand plant based organic and local meal offerings. We're strongly in support of continuing to fund universal school meals and kit funding.

We also just wanna make you aware that we are in support of assembly member Robert Garcia's budget request for a $1,000,000 one time general fund, which would provide grants for roughly 10 education agencies to cover the higher cost of plant based milk alternatives. 80 of California's public school students are from populations with a high incidence of lactose intolerance and require an alternative to dairy milk. This means that millions of students are being forced to choose between feeling sick or mixing out on key nutrients or calories.

Fortunately, the federal law just changed in January to allow school districts to proactively provide non dairy milk in schools. However, we are needing support for, offsetting the the cost.

So we strongly encourage the subcommittee to include assembly member's 1,000,001 time general fund request to begin to offer and study plant based milk. Thank you.

Caitlin Jung on behalf of the San Diego County Office of Education and the Small School District Association. We are in support of providing the additional ongoing money for community schools, but also wanna lift up the previous comments around the need for ongoing permanent funding for COE supports as part of that program as well as looking at reevaluating the eligibility criteria for the proposal because right now it doesn't really help and include and support small and rural districts.

And additionally, on behalf of the California School Nutrition Association, we support additional fourth round of kitchen infrastructure funding. The previous rounds have been incredibly helpful in building out kitchen infrastructure. I want to lift up the comments also by CDE earlier that the extensions we've gotten in the previous rounds have not been due to lack of identified need, but because there's been supply chain delays still and also delays with the state architect that have also made it difficult to get that money out the door.

So we need that additional kit funding to help build out that infrastructure and the fact that we're pushing for more locally grown freshly prepared meals, we need kitchens for that. And so this kitchen infrastructure money has been really helpful. So additional rounds is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Ruben Caeros, and I'm the principal of Anaheim High School. I'm here with the California Partnership for the Future of Learning. As a principal of a community school, I have personally seen the power that this approach has had on our students, families, and community. Our community school approach has created a systemic instructional shift on our campus, providing integrated student supports, rooting and educating the whole child, where the voices of our students, parents, and community help guide our decisions.

The mindset shift has transformed our school into a true center of learning and service, increasing our graduation rates by ten percent and our A through G rates by over 30% across all student groups. With the community school approach, education isn't being done to our students, but in partnership with them. The community school approach will not only change our education system here in California, it will transform it. We urge you to support the $1,000,000,000 annual investment in community schools. Thank you.

Afternoon. EJ Aguayo, representing A Plus, the Association of Personalized Learning Schools and Services. Of course, in support of community schools, but in regard to item four, respectfully opposed to the component that pertains to a change in eligibility requirements for community school site funding to exclude non classroom based charters. A plus represents a 119, flex based charter schools, serves over a 128,000 students across California.

Many of these students, arrive at a member school of a plus with significant needs, whether that be socioeconomic issues, mental health concerns, other, you know, issues, nontraditional life circumstances.

This unfortunately continues a host of unjustified exclusions for non classroom based charters. You know, ultimately harms students. We would hope that we'd see an adjustment. So, again, respectfully opposed.

Good morning. Laura Beebe with the Partnership for Children and Youth. We align our recommendations with those of the California After School Advocacy Alliance. Investment into ELOP and the Tier two rate at 1,800. We do want to continue to note that while ELOP has been transformative for elementary school students, middle and high school students are left out, and we appreciate the committee's conversation around this.

We also appreciate the committee's conversation around data and reporting. And we'll just note that now that expanded learning data is being collected in CALPADS, it is essential that the department report out on that data in a way that is timely and user friendly for all the reasons you shared. And then last but not least, we support the investment into community schools and continue to lift up the importance of coherence and collaboration between expanded learning and community schools. And we have more detailed recommendations in our letter, which we'll make sure you have. Thank you.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Martha Reyes. I'm a junior at Anaheim High School. I'm here with Oakland, also California PFL. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. As soon as connected to community schools, I've seen how this approach is creating real change for students like me for many others, especially English learners. Community schools provide the kinds of academic guidance that helps students see a path to college and career for English learners. This support is critical. They're learning content while also learning a new language.

With the right support system in place, I've seen students go from feeling unsure and disconnected to becoming confident and successful. But it's more than academics. Community schools offer extracurricular and extended learning opportunities to keep students engaged and connected. They also provide social, emotional, and mental health support, helping students feel safe, seen, and ready to learn. What stands out the most is that voices that were often missing or now being unheard or are now being being heard.

Students like us feel empowered to speak up, share our experiences, and help shape our school. Because of this, more students feel supported, and more students feel like they belong, and more students are thriving. I urge you to continue supporting community schools so this impact can change and continue to grow. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Santiago Canales, and I'm a freshman at Anaheim High School. And I'm with, California PLF. As a freshman, it is hard to sorry. As a freshman, it can be hard to feel connected or believe that your voice matters.

But through our school redesign program, I have I have the opportunity to step into the leadership role and support staff, students, and my friends. Because of this, I don't just feel like I belong, but I feel like I truly belong at school. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Maritza Bermudez. I'm a parent leader at Anaheim Elementary, Anaheim Union, a community organizer with OCO and a part of the California Partnership for the Future Learning. Across California, families and young people are helping redesign attendance systems, improve school climate, and reimagine college and career pathways, showing the need for authentic partnership between schools, students, families, and communities. In Anaheim, this is what collaborate leadership through community schools and redesign looks like.

Students and families sit at the table with educators to shift decisions, and that is changing the learning experience. This work is possible through strong partnerships that build collective capacity. This approach also helps teachers and staff better understand the communities that they serve. It reminds us that teaching is not just about delivering content. It's about building relationships with students and families to better support how students learn and thrive.

When students help shape how schools work, they show up more. When families are trusted as partners, schools become stronger and more stable. To continue this transformation, we ask you to support the 1,000,000,000 in ongoing funding for community schools. Thank you.

Good morning. Paige Clark with the National Center for Youth Law. We support the community schools investments discussed in today's hearing and urge the legislature to invest additional targeted supports and funding for k 12 students experiencing homelessness, a population under identified in most school districts. Research shows that existing funding sources are inadequate to address the unique barriers homeless students face. While CDE's homeless student enrollment count totaled almost 300,000 for the twenty four twenty five five school year.

A PPIC report found that less than 1% of planned LCFF funding is used for homeless students and only 10% of districts receive any funding for this student group. We look forward to further conversation. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Ambrosia Kramer. I'm a family and youth community liaison with Placer County Office of Education. I primarily serve our rural communities and my position is partially funded with the Community Schools Grant. Having experienced homelessness and foster care as a youth myself, I now work directly with students and families who are currently experiencing homelessness by providing individualized supports, resource connections, secondary education prep, and housing navigation, which wouldn't be possible without community schools.

I am here today in strong support of the budget request to establish ongoing funding for K-twelve students experiencing homelessness. This dedicated funding will ensure sustained supports for California's often overlooked youth. Thank you for your time.

Hi. I am Soren Sims. I live in Placer County. I'm a senior at Forest Hill High School, and and I was homeless for about a year and a half. I've spent this funding for a number of reasons.

First, touching on Senator Chua's approach of how babysitting is almost like teaching because the member of students per class is too big. This is not counting the thirty six point three percent of homeless youth who are chronically absent according to primary education. Furthermore, we're making it hard for students to do well in school with lack of extra support in the classroom. Unhoused youth are struggling due to lack of these supports as well.

As resources in and out of the school system, this is also including some books which are not fully taking account of the grocery prices which we're now experiencing.

This funding will provide resources that are needed in California schools as well as in and out amongst community schools as well. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Maricela Desma. I'm I'm an education case manager at a Voice of Solano. I'm a little bit about myself as I was involved in the juvenile justice system, in and out of foster homes and also experienced homelessness. So having changed my life around now, it's amazing to be able to get back and do the work that I do.

I believe getting specific funding for homeless, youth would be very beneficial. I have a lot of youth on my caseload that experience homelessness, and there are little to no resources out there. So they struggle every day with trying to focus on schoolwork when worrying about where they will sleep. Thank you.

Dear members of the Assembly, my name is Maria and I'm a mother of students in Title one public schools, as well as a volunteer community leader with Sacramento Act and the California Partnership for the Future of Learning. I respectfully ask you to support the $1,000,000,000 investment for community schools. This investment is necessary to support our most vulnerable students. It will provide more tutoring, reading support, counseling, and bilingual programs.

It is also important and essential to ensure the participation of families, mothers like me, in their children's education. Investing in community schools is investing in equity and in the future of California. I urge you to approve this proposal.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sylvia Vasquez, and I'm a mother of public school student and and also community organizer with Sacramento Act and also part of California Partnership for the Future of Learning. I work with low income families who deeply love their children, but face significant challenges, like anxiety, academic difficulties, and limit access to emotional and social support. There are children that have real dreams. They are children that have real dreams and often do not have the same opportunity to succeed.

Please be, so I'm in support of $1,000,000,000 ongoing for community schools. These funds mean touring, counseling, bilingual support, and services that can change their lives, students, and families. Because when families are involved, children thrive. And some other 33 year old, they went through public schools. My youngest is 17.

I think this community school is the best hope ever happened to California when it comes to education. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair. Erin Taylor with Political Solutions on behalf of the Girl Scouts of California. We are strongly in support of the administration's ELOP investments. The Girl Scouts after school clubs are proud to partner with the school districts across California, in order to provide pro to offer programs that complement in school learning, and ELOP funding is a critical component of those partnerships. Thank you.

Good morning. Sylvia Solis Shah here on behalf of the American Heart Association. The American Heart Association is an evidence based health organization. The data shows that children who participate in school meal programs are more likely to consume fruits, vegetables, and milk at breakfast and lunch, reducing the risk of nutrient deficiencies, which can be harmful to health. The Kitchen Infrastructure and Training Program funding makes this possible by enabling schools to

incorporate more fresh locally sourced ingredients into meals. This supports fewer visits to the school nurse and builds lifelong habits that reduce future risk cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. And for these reasons, we are in strong support of the funding for School Meals for All and the other associated programs. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Senator. Abby Halperin with the Center for Eco Literacy and on behalf of over 225 members of the School Meals for All Coalition in support of the governor's proposed funding for School Meals for All and kitchen infrastructure and training. Before school meals for all, 44% of our food insecure families did not qualify for federal free meals. Today, our fifth graders have never had to worry about whether or not they had enough to pay for a school meal.

We conducted a survey of two forty five school districts and charter schools and found that 90% report improvements in meal access and quality thanks to the kitchen infrastructure and training program.

However, 77% still report that they need more to continue improving quality and access for all students. Thank you for considering these important investments to support our children's health and learning.

Good morning, members. My name is Jason Crono, director of child interest and services for Oxnard School District here in Southern California. I'm here in speaking in support of the budget proposal to invest in school meals for all and the kitchen infrastructure program. I've seen firsthand what happens when, meals are not free for all students. When I early in my career, I was a cafeteria manager, and I witnessed where, if a student didn't couldn't pay for the meals, it became student debt.

And if they couldn't pay for that meal right there, then we would give them a cheese sandwich. And that's something that, you know, it was a system that we operated in, but we really weren't fond of and we don't wanna go back to. Today, I work in a school district of 85% students that would qualify for free and reduced meals. And those students have families that are working multiple jobs struggling to keep up with the rising cost of housing, food, and gas.

School Meals for All has removed stigma, eliminated student debt, and ensured every student has access to a nutritious meal when they go to school, and they can focus on learning and not on the emptiness of their stomach. So we encourage you to to continue funding that. Thank you all.

Good morning. My name is Logan Schrider, and I use he in pronouns. And I'm a school social worker with, the homeless education services at Sacramento City Unified School District. I work directly with students experiencing homelessness, and I'm here in support of dedicating some of the funds to, that population. While we value programs like expanded learning and community schools, students experiencing homelessness have unique needs that require targeted support.

Every day I see barriers like housing instability, lack of transportation, and unmet basic needs, which directly impact succeed in school. Dedicated funding would allow us to provide critical supports that improve attendance stability and outcomes. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Shatara Benjamin. I'm a high school intern at homeless education services department at education services department at Sexton Unified School District. Secure funding for k through 12 students experiencing homelessness is not a request but a necessity, not to be ignored, forgotten, or a topic to be pushed away. There are topics like students arriving at school exhausted from unreliable transportation.

Take a moment to think about how hard it is to complete assignments due to lack of basic supplies, essential technology for education, emergency supplies, accessible hygiene, the tools to pursue your passions. Most of all, visualize the anxiety and insecurities they carry every day because of their environment. Our students are children at the end of the day, the same children who represent our future. McKinney Vento program is a critical first step. Provide immediate enrollment into school for students experiencing homelessness.

However, enrollment alone is not enough. We need proposition 98 to help us continue these efforts. It is one thing to get students into school, but it's another to ensure they have the resources and support needed to stay in school and graduate. Let's expand our focuses. Once again, this is not optional. It is essential to set our students up for long term success. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Mark Burgess. I am also a homeless student in the Sacramento School Unified School District. I may not be able to, stress it as well as the young lady before me did, but the reason why I wanted to talk to you about proposition 98 is because if I did

not have the support that my school provided towards me, I probably would not be able to stand in front of you today. They provided me with food, clothes, shelter, and everything that I needed in order to get past high school and graduate. If I did not have those things, I have no idea where I would be at today. So continuing to find programs like that would be immensely helpful to students because the home situation does matter.

Because as she said before, when you don't know where you're sleeping or you don't know if you're going to have food, it's very hard to show up to school ready to tackle on the day not knowing what what you're dealing with after school.

Thank you.

And you did just perfectly fine in in, eloquently, expressing your thoughts. Good job.

Good morning. My name is Tara Cherntine. I'm honored to follow two students. I'm the homeless liaison at the Sacramento County Office of Education, and I provide technical assistance to 53 districts and charter schools in our state's capital, yet only eight received dedicated homeless funding. Last year, 16,000 K-twelve students in Sacramento County experienced homelessness, double the number from five years earlier.

These students live in Motels, shelters, overcrowded housing, and move frequently. They are chronically absent, twice the rate of their house peers, forty nine percent compared to twenty four percent. Every three years, we compete for federal funding, McKinney Vento Dollars, but the allocation has remained the same for essentially decades, the same despite increase. After twenty years in this work, I can say clearly if California is serious about providing a world class education for all students, we must invest in stable, predictable state funding for students experiencing homelessness. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Ashley Powers Clark. I use shethey pronouns. I have the great privilege of coordinating the homeless education services program right here in the Sacramento City Unified School District with all these lovely individuals. I just wanna piggyback on what Tara said.

As one of the grant recipients of homeless education funding, we've improved graduation rates by twenty two percent in two years. And so we often wring our hands thinking about how do we solve cycles of homelessness, but we know some of the answers because one of the greatest predictors of adult homelessness is a lack of a high school diploma. And so by providing some targeted assistance, we are able to really change those trajectories. So let's do it.

I mean, in California, we have the opportunity with just this little amount of funding to set a precedent to say that we value homeless education just by setting aside this relatively small amount of funding that's going to allow more districts to do exactly the same thing.

Thank you. Good morning. Kathy Van Osten on behalf of John Burton Advocates for Youth. I want to echo the comments before me regarding the the identification and funding to serve homeless youth. Clearly, we're not doing as well as we could or should.

These students are not well served by the current funding mechanism statewide, and we need to dedicate funding to make sure that they are getting their needs met, they are identified, and they are served. Providing funding doesn't just to help them and and ensure that they can help help ensure that they can graduate, but it's also serves the state the interest long term interest of the state.

Childhood homelessness, not completing high school, these are strong predictors of chronic adult homelessness, and I think if we can certainly target our funding now to make sure that they have better outcomes, we can interrupt this cycle going forward. Thank you.

Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Brian Osorio, and I'm with Building Healthy Community current Building Healthy Communities Kern, and I'm, here alongside Education Partners. I'm in strong support we're in strong support of the $1,000,000,000 allocation for the community schools framework. I come from Kern County where about 78% of our public students are classified as high needs.

I come from Delano, but also we have rural communities of a few thousand people like Lamont, Shafter, Los Hills, Maricopa. And so this funding significantly helps. Going back to my community of Delano, we were in New York Times recently because even though we're a relatively poor district, the metrics for reading and English were rebounding relatively well compared to other districts of similar size. And so while federal grants are, at this moment unsustainable, this funding would only help our, our students and youth. So we really ask for your support. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Angelica Honko. I'm a Deputy Managing Attorney with Public Advocates. I had the honor to testify on behalf of the California Partnership for the Future of Learning before the Assembly Budget sub, three committee on community schools. And what I shared there, I'll share here now.

Across the state, community schools are leveraging the California Community School Partnership Program funding to launch meaningful changes in student learning and experience as you've heard. But they're also worried they'll have to abandon their efforts mid flight. One time funding forces districts to wind down the coordinators, partnerships, and capacity building work that drive this success and truly make it transformational.

That's why, that's why over a 100 actually, a 113 LEAs, community partners, student and family leadership organizations signed our letter from the California Partnership for the Future of Learning and the budget alert in support of this ongoing funding. Already, CCSPP grantees are starting to cut back on promising strategies as they deal with anticipated funding cliffs. On top of that, thousands of students and families across the state are waiting for their community schools' turn. So they we count on you to continue this momentum. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Josh Wright with the California Association of Food Banks speaking in support of full funding for school meals for all in KIT. Last year, Congress passed the largest cuts to SNAP in the program's history. As over 700,000 Californian families lose eligibility for food assistance this year, school meals for all is even more essential because it ensures all kids get fed while at school even as their families lose access to other food.

School Meals for All would not be possible without kit funding, helping schools modernize their kitchen so they can provide efficient food service with fresh and nutritious meals.

We cannot afford to go back to a time when kids go to class hungry. Now more than ever, healthy school meals for all of California students are vital for fighting hunger in our state. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Senator. Tiffany Germain with NextGen California here in support of fully funding school meals for all as as well as the kitchen infrastructure and training program as proposed in the governor's budget. School Meals for All is an incredibly successful program in fighting food insecurity by meeting hungry kids where they are in school. As federal safety nets like SNAP contract, school meals will become a primary source of nutrition for millions of California children, making this program truly essential in fighting childhood hunger.

In addition, a recent survey found that kitchen infrastructure and training investments are critical to the program's success, helping schools meet increased demand as well as transition away from the heat and serve model towards more freshly prepared options.

We respectfully urge your continued support. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Good afternoon, Chair. Liz Fenton on behalf of the office of Kat Taylor, and we're here in strong support of item number one on the agenda, the school meals for all funding and the 100,000,000 for kitchen infrastructure and training. I wanna align my comments with the previous speakers and just say that these programs are a very simple and effective lever for the state to address some of the ongoing affordability challenges of people in California. Thank you for your support.

Good afternoon, chair ... chair. Keshav with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of the Plant Based Foods Association. I will keep it brief. You heard a little bit about a $1,000,000 budget request that Assembly member Robert Garcia has to offer plant based milks in school. That was just made legal earlier this year.

We're hoping that this committee will be supportive of that request. Thank you so much. That's that's what we came for.

Good afternoon, madam chair. Jonathan Munoz on behalf of Children's Institute, a community based organization advancing a whole family approach to support healing, wellness, and long term success. Children's Institute supports the governor's proposal to invest the additional $1,000,000,000 in the Community Schools Partnership Program. Children's Institute is a community school partner with three LEAs serving as a vital bridge between education and social services. And finally, I just wanna reiterate what everyone said.

We address the challenges facing issues in students and families from housing and food insecurity to trauma and unmet health needs, recognizing that mental health is the most critical need facing K through 12 students across our state. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Raquel Morales with Ed Trust West. We would like to plus one our support for community schools as this program has been one of the most effective tools that the state has to close opportunity gaps and improve learning outcomes for students of color, low income students, especially black students and English learners. Also, in alignment with our with our partners at Children Now, we would like to express our concerns with the proposed trailer bill language on D. A. That would eliminate the current accountability systems equity guardrails, which focus the improvement system on student subgroup performance.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Katie Nunez Adler. I'm the Statewide Coordinator with the California Partnership for the Future of Learning. And as you heard from members of our network, from students, families, community organizations and educators are currently partnering from the classroom to the capital, including at the school district county office, RTAC and STAC levels.

Annual planning and reporting by shared decision making teams at the school level has been crucial to school transformation because it builds capacity to partner and contributes to continuous improvement at every level of the system from the classroom to the capital.

This equity focused investment and strategy rooted in deep relational trust and leveraging the assets of all interest warlords is producing results as reflected in the LPI study where we saw a decrease in absenteeism and suspensions and significant learning gains with the greatest improvements for black students followed by English learners and students in low income households. Now is the time to double down on an investment that's transforming lives. We urge the Committee to support the proposed $1,000,000,000 Thank you.

Good afternoon, Senator. My name is Jenny Marroquin. I'm a policy and advocacy director with the intermediary in LA County overseeing 500 youth service providers. Today, only about 2% of the $5,000,000,000 investment in expanded learning goes to high school students. I'm here in strong support of expanded learning and to urge the need to increase investment in older youth.

Over the past several months, we've actually partnered with students, parents, and providers across the county of LA and have been meeting with legislators since the fall, to really bring voice to the importance of high high school investment. We've also partnered with California After School Advocacy Alliance and the California After School, School Age Consortium and brought student students to Sacramento. And across all these conversations, when message is clear, expanded learning is not just important, it is critical for students, families, and our communities. We urge for your support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Jordan Sosa, and I serve as the community engagement manager for Hovsgott Drive. We partner with school districts, government agencies, and nonprofits across the state to get to to get students to school safely, reliably, and on time with a particular focus on supporting highly mobile students who are placed in foster care, facing housing insecurity, or have an individualized education program.

We are in support of expanding the McKinney Vento funding to support students who are facing housing insecurity as well as the ongoing funding for community schools to ensure all students have equitable access to transportation and mobility regardless of their circumstance. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ana Iokamides on behalf of Los Angeles Unified. We appreciate the conversation around community schools. We support the $1,000,000,000 ongoing investment, but we do, request that schools have a hold harmless and that no exist that funding be focused on existing schools before expanding to new schools and that there be a hold harmless so that existing schools don't see a reduction in funding ongoing. Thank you.

Alright. We want to thank all the individuals who participated in public testimony today. If you were not able to testify today, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the budget and fiscal review committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us, and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you, and we appreciate your participation.

Thank you to everyone for your patience and cooperations. We have concluded the agenda for today's hearing. The Senate budget committee number one on education is adjourned.