Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee Advances Special‑Education Tech and Translation Proposals; IEP Digitization, Translations Proposed
Summary
The administration proposed digitizing the state standard IEP template and translating it into the 10 most common non‑English languages; the budget also includes routine COLA and growth adjustments for special education funding and technical changes to out‑of‑home care eligibility. The Legislative Analyst had no objections; CDE emphasized parent
The Senate budget subcommittee reviewed special education items in the governor's budget, including routine cost adjustments and targeted one‑time proposals to operationalize a statewide standardized Individualized Education Program (IEP) template.
Elena Powell of the Department of Finance summarized baseline special education funding changes in the governor's proposal: a growth adjustment (2.563% growth) that the department quantified as $37,600,000 ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund and a 2.43% cost‑of‑living adjustment equal to $148,100,000 ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund. The administration said the funded statewide base rate for special education is $909 per average daily attendance.
The budget includes two one‑time, narrowly focused proposals tied to the standardized IEP template the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence developed and published in 2024. The administration proposed $1,000,001 one-time Proposition 98 General Fund to digitize the state standardized IEP template and an additional $1,000,001 one-time Proposition 98 General Fund to translate the IEP template into the 10 most common languages other than English, in accordance with SB 445 (2024) translation requirements.
Elena Powell and Dr. Rachel Heenan, director of special education at the California Department of Education, said digitization would ease transfers between districts, speed implementation and allow parents to access and digitally sign documents more readily. Heenan said the translation work would improve parent participation: "ensuring families have access to special ed documents in their primary language is not just a legal obligation. It's a fundamental right that upholds equity, empowers, informs decision making and safeguards every child's educational future," she told the committee.
The LAO did not raise substantive objections. Edgar Cabral of the Legislative Analyst's Office said the cleanup to the out‑of‑home care formula and the potential to allow community treatment facilities to resume funding was consistent with prior work group recommendations and represented a technical correction.
Committee members and witnesses also discussed long‑standing funding issues for special education. Witnesses noted that federal funding under IDEA has never matched early promises, and that local districts often supplement special education costs from locally controlled funding streams. The Committee asked for ongoing attention to how special education costs and identification practices intersect with multilingual learner outcomes; witnesses acknowledged that English learner students are overrepresented in special education in some areas and that local assessment practices and evaluation tools need closer review.
Next steps: the subcommittee accepted the proposals for consideration in budget deliberations and requested ongoing reporting and technical adjustments as the May revise moves forward.
