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.