Senate subcommittee approves two‑party education budget package, rejects UC/CSU cuts and advances K‑14 priorities

Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Education voted in a closeout hearing to approve a two‑party legislative budget package that rejects the governor's proposed cuts to the University of California and California State University systems and maintains funding priorities for K‑14 education.

The action came after public comment from education leaders, higher‑education unions, school districts and community‑college advocates and three roll‑call motions covering 165 agenda items. Senator Laird, chair of Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Education, said the legislative budget “reflects what we were striving to do.”

Why it matters: The package protects K‑12 and early education funding through Proposition 98 while deferring some higher‑education reductions, restores money for student aid and community colleges, and funds school‑meal expansions and other student supports debated in the May revision and earlier hearings. Committee members and dozens of stakeholders said the package will provide near‑term stability for campuses and districts while leaving further negotiations with the administration and the Assembly ahead of the June 30 budget deadline.

What the committee approved and the debate

Senator Ochoa Bogue noted concerns about placeholder language in briefing materials and said she wanted to see final bill language for transparency before final votes. “I found references to a significant amount of placeholder language,” she said, adding she would withhold a vote on one item related to transitional‑TK penalties. Senator Ochoa Bogue also said she supported many K‑12 items but was “hesitant to support the community college deferrals.”

Senator Maria Elena (Perez) (listed in the transcript as Senator Perez) emphasized the committee’s rejection of proposed cuts to K‑12 and said the panel restored funding for the UC and CSU relative to the governor’s January and May proposals: “We rejected all proposed cuts to K through 12 education,” Perez said. He also summarized actions on higher education, including a decision to delay some reductions and provide campuses time and cash‑flow support.

Stakeholder comments reflected broad gratitude for the committee’s direction and underscored priorities the committee addressed. Speakers included representatives of the Community College League of California, campus employee associations, county offices of education, student groups, food‑security advocates, SEIU and firefighter and faculty unions. Testimony thanked the subcommittee for rejecting proposed UC/CSU cuts, restoring or protecting middle‑class scholarship funding and protecting community college resources and emergency student aid.

Key budget and program details raised in the hearing (as stated in testimony and committee remarks)

- The committee chair said the legislative budget includes roughly $12,000,000,000 in “solutions” using reductions, borrowing and other measures (figure stated in the hearing). - The panel rejected ongoing cuts to the University of California and the California State University and deferred some reductions into later years to give campuses planning time. - Middle Class Scholarship: the committee reinvested funds cited in the hearing as $513,000,000 in ongoing general‑fund support and $405,000,000 in one‑time funding for 2025–26 (figures provided in committee remarks). - Community colleges: the May revision proposed shifting $492,000,000 from community colleges to expand transitional kindergarten; the committee returned $260,000,000 to community colleges and approved $217,000,000 in ongoing Proposition‑98 funds to provide a 2.3% cost‑of‑living adjustment (figures cited in testimony). - Transitional kindergarten (TK): senators and district representatives discussed penalties and implementation; Senator Ochoa Bogue said the penalty number “would be increased to about 24” (value and units were given in the hearing as stated; units not specified in the transcript). - School nutrition and universal meals: multiple witnesses thanked the committee for funding universal school meals, kitchen infrastructure, summer meal programs and investments aimed at classified nutrition staff. - Student supports: testimony and committee remarks cited funding for emergency financial aid at community colleges, Dream Resource Liaison positions, student‑aid outreach and the Golden State Teacher Grant and student‑teacher stipend proposals. - Special Olympics: witnesses asked for and thanked the committee for base‑level funding requests (testimony requested $30,000,000 over three fiscal years).

Votes at a glance

The subcommittee voted on the full package in three roll‑call motions that grouped many agenda items. Each motion listed the Part A (K–14/Proposition 98) and Part B (higher education) item numbers included; the subcommittee approved all three groupings.

1) Consent grouping (Part A: items 4–7, 9–20, 22–45, 47–51, 54–76, 78–79, 81–90, 92–95, 97–127; Part B: items 1–3, 5, 8, 10, 13–14, 16–18, 20, 22–29, 31–32, 34–36, 41, 43–53, 56–64, 67–68, 70, 72). - Motion: move to approve the listed items (mover: Senator Perez). - Vote: Senators Laird — Aye; Ottobock — Aye; Perez — Aye. Outcome: approved, 3–0.

2) Second grouping (Part A: items 52–53; Part B: items 6, 21, 33, 42, 66, 71). - Motion: move to approve the listed items (mover: Senator Perez). - Vote: Senators Laird — Aye; Ochoa Bogue — No; Perez — Aye. Outcome: approved, 2–1.

3) Third grouping (Part A: items 1–3, 8, 21, 46, 77, 80, 91, 96; Part B: items 4, 7, 9, 11–12, 15, 19, 30, 37–40, 54–55, 65, 69). - Motion: move to approve the listed items (mover: Senator Perez). - Vote: Senators Laird — Aye; Perez — Aye; one member did not register a recorded vote during the roll call. Outcome: approved, 2–0 (as recorded by the committee chair).

Next steps and context

Senator Laird said the subcommittee’s two‑party agreement with the Assembly will be reconciled with the administration in the run‑up to the June 30 constitutional deadline and may change as negotiators work toward a three‑party agreement. “We will be monitoring the budget process. If necessary, we will come back for any further action related to the negotiations and final action,” he said.

The hearing featured more than two dozen public commenters representing community colleges, CSU employee groups, county offices of education, student organizations, food banks, unions and disability advocates; many speakers urged the Legislature to preserve funding for student aid, community colleges, school nutrition and early‑childhood programs. Several speakers also asked for trailer‑bill or statutory language to ensure predictability and implementation details for grant programs and new program expansions.

Ending

The subcommittee adjourned after completing the three grouped votes and said the approved items would proceed to the full Senate along with other budget subcommittee items for final floor consideration. The committee invited additional written comments via its website.