Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Literacy Screening topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee reviews $40M proposal for K'2 screening and continued training funds
Summary
The governor proposes $40 million one-time (Proposition 98) for LEAs to implement approved literacy screening instruments for K'2 pupils, allocated at a per-pupil rate; the Legislative Analyst Office recommended reducing the incremental funding because $25 million was provided last year for training; CDE urged continued implementation support.
The committee considered the governor's proposal to provide $40 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund to support local educational agencies in administering required literacy screenings to pupils in kindergarten through second grade.
Proposal and context: Jody Lieberman of the Department of Finance said the $40 million is intended to cover implementation costs, including procurement of approved screening instruments, administration and staff training. The proposal is structured similarly to 2024 budget-year allocations and would be distributed at a per-pupil rate using prior-year CALPADS enrollment data.
Analyst view and CDE comments: The Legislative Analyst's Office recommended reducing the incremental request, noting $25 million was provided in the prior budget for training and suggesting a combined total nearer to $40 million rather than adding the full $40 million on top of the earlier allocation. A Department of Education representative told the committee that while the $25 million allocated earlier was essential for initial preparation, local education agencies have said those funds alone are insufficient for sustainable professional development, procurement and implementation. The CDE noted four screening instruments had been approved and that two of those instruments are free, which can affect local cost decisions.
Next steps/direction: Committee members asked about annual and ongoing costs, and the administration said ongoing costs would be considered through the mandate process and future budget discussions; the subcommittee held the issue open.
