Committee reviews differences among executive, LESC and LFC education budgets; special education, Family Income Index and transportation highlighted

Legislative staff and the Public Education Department outlined differences among the executive, LESC and LFC education budget recommendations during a committee hearing, emphasizing a $4,000,000 special-education shortfall, distinct uses of the Family Income Index and continuing concerns about transportation funding.

The secretary of the Public Education Department said the special-education shortfall is “critical because it really supports the work that the Office of Special Education is currently doing,” noting the office’s statewide professional-development work for teachers, principals, superintendents and families and programs such as the Stay in School initiative.

Why it matters: Committee members and staff said the choice of recurring versus nonrecurring appropriations, and whether funds are school‑specific or part of the State Equalization Guarantee (SEG), will affect whether districts can target money to high‑need schools, sustain educator pipelines and cover ongoing transportation and safety needs.

Key differences and numbers

- Special education: Staff identified a $4,000,000 shortfall in the LFC recommendation for special education. The department said that funding supports professional development and programs tied to improved graduation rates.

- Family Income Index (FII) and SEG changes: Presenters drew a technical distinction between the Family Income Index mechanism (used to identify poverty at the school level) and a separate Family Income Index program that had been funded previously as a nonrecurring, school‑specific appropriation. John (staff member, presenter) explained that while the executive, LESC and LFC recommendations differ on a $9,000,000 line item for the program, the SEG revision includes “about $3,738,000,000” of additional at‑risk funding using the Family Income Index mechanism; he stressed that SEG money would not necessarily be a school‑specific appropriation the way the program funding had been.

- Educator fellows: The LFC identified a $5,000,000 shortfall to continue the educator fellows program, which the secretary described as “a locally grown educator program” that has relied on federal funding that expires this year. She said the program places pre‑service educators alongside licensed teachers and helps fill vacancies; the department still reports over 700 educator vacancies statewide.

- Indian education: The executive recommendation includes $90,000,000 over three years for the Indian Education Fund. Staff noted LESC has recommended $5,000,000 (described as a $5,000,000 per‑year element over three years), and LFC has a separate $15,500,000 recommendation for indigenous education initiatives. The secretary said the executive request would direct more funding to tribes, nations and pueblos so they can administer educational supports.

- School safety, data systems and other items: Staff said both LFC and LESC recommend $12,000,000 for a statewide student information system that would include a statewide special‑education IEP system. The public education reform fund was identified as the vehicle for some nonrecurring pilots; staff pointed to a $50,000,000 safety subtotal noted on the handout (line 143). LESC staff also recommended $3,000,000 for behavioral health.

- Agency staffing and dashboards: The department said it faces a $2,000,000 shortfall to maintain sufficient agency staff to oversee programs and that proposed cuts would jeopardize dashboards and other data services (Open Books and attendance dashboards) used by schools.

Transportation: adequacy and formula volatility

Committee members pressed presenters on transportation funding and the formula used to allocate money to districts. Presenters summarized recent evaluations: an earlier LESC transportation study found districts were dipping into operational funds and, in one characterization, were covering only about 90% of transportation costs; staff noted persistent volatility when the density factor was removed from the formula and said some districts continue to report shortfalls while others revert unspent transportation funds.

One analyst summarized the difficulty: the formula relies on prior‑year spending patterns so changes in how districts operate produce widely different allocations year to year. The discussion noted that emergency transportation authority exists for the department to assist districts with significant shortfalls and that legislative and staff work on transportation adequacy is ongoing.

Quotations from the hearing

- “This money is critical because it really supports the work that the Office of Special Education is currently doing,” the secretary of the Public Education Department said of the special‑education funding.

- “The secretary is right that both LFC and LESC have not included an appropriation or a recommendation for the program,” John (staff member, presenter) said when distinguishing the Family Income Index mechanism from the program funding.

- Sunny (staff member) told the committee: “At some point, there may not be enough capacity for nonrecurring to be at such a large rate as recurring needs begin to take more priority.”

Next steps and process notes

Presenters will return to the committee later in the week for more detailed questions. Several representatives said they will review the materials again in their committees (LESC, appropriations and education) before votes; no formal votes or motions were taken during the portion of the hearing in this transcript.

Ending: The hearing continued with committee questions about adequacy funding, transportation shortfalls and how nonrecurring appropriations interact with recurring needs; staff said they will provide additional detail when the presenters return for the follow‑up session.