Lawmakers on the Legislative Education Study Committee pressed staff about how the state supports family engagement, how recent changes such as House Bill 63 will affect funding distribution, and what would happen if federal education funds were consolidated into block grants or redirected away from the Public Education Department (PED).

The committee asked for specifics on multiple funding streams and program structures: attendance evaluation work funded through a Perf Grama appropriation, $6,000,000 annually for community schools and family engagement, a new English-learner (EL) factor tied to House Bill 63, and federal and state shares for school meals. LAFC staff member Daniel explained the family income index created by HB63 and described federal block-grant proposals as hypothetical scenarios the committee should monitor.

Why it matters: committee members said possible federal consolidation of funds or changes in oversight could remove reporting and accountability requirements, forcing state decisions about which programs merit backfilling. Lawmakers pressed staff for a framework to evaluate whether lost federal funding should be restored with state dollars.

Key details from the committee exchange: LAFC staff reported that the family income index replaces the prior at-risk index and pulls household income data from state income tax returns for about 70% of students; the remainder are matched using health care authority, SNAP or Medicaid records. "Every student whose household income is below a 130% of the federal poverty line will now receive additional units," Daniel said, describing how the new index affects funding distribution.

On school meals, a committee member noted news of misuse in one district and asked whether state funding covered summer meals. Daniel clarified the accounting: "It's $202,500,000 in federal reimbursements... you all also put up $48,800,000 from the general fund," and confirmed that the universe cited includes breakfast, lunch and summer meals.

Several legislators raised concerns about maintenance of effort and IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). Senator Stewart asked what would happen if federal protections or enforcement eroded; LAFC staff said IDEA remains federal law but acknowledged nationwide conversation about consolidating special education funding into broader pots. "IDEA is still federal law. We still have to follow federal law," LAFC staff said, while also noting uncertainty about how any federal restructuring would be administered or enforced.

On block grants, staff described the concept as a federal proposal to send larger, less-prescriptive pots of money to states. Daniel said a block-grant model could give state lawmakers discretion over how to distribute funds, but it would also require the legislature to design accountability frameworks and make choices about backfilling programs.

Next steps and staff work: staff told the committee they are developing an evaluation framework — using the state's Perf Grow model in collaboration with PED — to help assess whether lost federal programs warrant state funding. Staff and the Legislative Finance Committee will continue monitoring federal developments and promised monthly updates to the committee; special education costs and maintenance-of-effort questions are planned items on the work plan.

Ending: Lawmakers asked staff for detailed data and ongoing briefings so the legislature can make informed decisions about possible state responses to federal funding changes and to ensure programs for high-need students remain accountable.