Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the K12 Spending Package topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
May Revision targets LCFF, special education, community schools and paid pregnancy leave
Summary
The May Revision packages $17.8 billion in new education spending — mostly one‑time discretionary grants and substantial ongoing increases for special education and LCFF COLA — and proposes a 14‑week paid pregnancy disability leave for K–12 and community college employees with DOF estimating roughly $218 million annually.
The administration’s May Revision would add substantial new investments to K–12 programs while preserving the Proposition 98 guarantee. Department of Finance staff described a package that includes a large one‑time discretionary block grant (roughly $5 billion), $3.8 billion for larger cost‑of‑living adjustments and base increases, and $2.4 billion boosting special education base rates — a near 42% increase in the special education per‑ADA base, DOF said.
Melody Jimenez of DOF summarized programmatic trailer‑bill and operational requests affecting the Department of Education, including new resources for the California State Preschool Program rate reform, literacy coaches and reading specialist grants, and a proposed statewide mechanism to support curriculum‑embedded science performance tasks.
On special education the May Revision proposes a large ongoing increase. LAO staff said increasing the special education base would substantially reduce the share of special‑education costs borne by local districts; CDE and district representatives in public comment strongly supported the increase as crucial to relieve local general fund pressure.
The May Revision also includes a proposed paid pregnancy disability leave that would provide up to 14 weeks of paid leave for K–12 and community college employees. Audrey Bezas (DOF) presented the administration’s estimate: total annual costs of roughly $218 million — about $195 million for K–12 and $23 million for community colleges — based on an assumed 2% utilization rate and the cost of hiring substitute teachers for the full leave period.
Committee members and stakeholders raised questions about how the paid‑leave proposal interacts with existing local leave policies and how districts that do not receive LCFF‑based funds (such as some county offices or community‑funded districts) would be reimbursed. LAO and several county offices urged clarity on implementation and suggested considering alternative funding mechanisms (a dedicated reimbursement pool or a categorical program) to ensure full coverage without eroding funds for other programs.
On community schools the May Revision proposes a $1 billion ongoing apportionment plus a $485 million reappropriation of one‑time grants for planning and implementation. DOF staff said the reappropriation and the apportionment are separate streams: the ongoing apportionment will flow to sites, while reappropriated one‑time funds will support implementation, certification pilots, and technical assistance.
