The 2025-26 Budget: Educator Workforce

2025-26 BUDGET The 2025-26 Budget: Educator Workforce GABRIEL PETEK | LEGISLATIVE ANALYST | MARCH 2025 SUMMARY This brief analyzes the Governor’s spending proposals related to teacher recruitment and retention, math and literacy coaches, and implementation of literacy screenings for kindergarten through second grade. Recommend Rejecting Teacher Recruitment and Retention Proposals. California has provided more than $1.6 billion over the last decade to address teacher shortages. The Governor’s budget includes a total of $300 million in one-time funding for teacher recruitment and retention—$250 million in Proposition 98 General Fund and $50 million in non-Proposition 98 General Fund. Two of the proposals would fund programs that have been funded in recent years, and one proposal would create a new loan repayment program for teachers. We recommend rejecting these proposals, as we find limited evidence that they would efficiently address longstanding shortages. If the Legislature is interested in funding one or more of the Governor’s proposals, given the state’s fiscal condition, we recommend any funding for teacher recruitment and retention programs be provided with Proposition 98 General Fund. Additionally, if the Legislature provides funds to one or more of these programs, we recommend targeting these funds in ways that more closely align with where the state has the most significant teacher shortages, such as by targeting only the highest poverty schools and/or teachers with credentials in the longstanding shortage subject areas (such as special education, math, science, and bilingual education). Recommend Adopting Math and Literacy Coach Proposals With Some Modifications. The Governor’s Budget includes a total of $500 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund to fund math and literacy coaches. We recommend the Legislature adopt funding for the proposals. In our view, enhanced efforts to address the state’s math and reading outcomes are warranted. Furthermore, various studies suggest that math and literacy coaches can be an effective way to improve student test scores. By limiting eligibility to the highest poverty schools, the proposal would target many of the schools that could most benefit from the funding. However, we find several aspects of the math coaches proposal limit the effectiveness of the program, and we make several recommendations that would help ensure the funds are being used most effectively. For example, we recommend the Legislature set a minimum grant amount for schools to ensure the amount of funding provided through the grant will be sufficient to cover the costs of the required activities. We also recommend requiring local education agencies to only spend funds for the benefit of eligible school sites. This would help ensure the funds are being used at schools that need the most support. Recommend Reducing Literacy Screening Funding. The Governor’s proposal provides $40 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund to train teachers and supply schools with the materials needed to meet a new state requirement to conduct literacy screenings of kindergarten through second grade students. This amount of funding is based on the administration’s estimate of the initial costs to implement these requirements. We find this to be a reasonable estimate. However, the state also allocated $25 million for training teachers to conduct literacy screenings in the 2024-25 budget. This funding is also available to cover costs in the budget year. As a result, we recommend reducing the proposed funding to $15 million in 2025-26. When combined with the $25 million provided in 2024-25, this would provide sufficient funding to implement the new requirements. www.lao.ca.gov 1 2025-26 BUDGET TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION Background Many Teacher Recruitment Grants Are Targeted to “Priority” Schools. Both the Golden California Has Long-Standing Teacher State Teacher Grant and National Board programs Shortages in Certain Subjects and Schools. are targeted to teachers that work in schools Historically, schools have had challenges in where the proportion of students who are EL/LI is filling their teaching positions with appropriately 55 percent or greater. These schools are known as credentialed teachers, particularly in special priority schools. education, math, science, and bilingual education. More recently, the Commission on Teacher Governor’s Proposals Credentialing (CTC) has reported declines in new The Governor’s budget includes one-time awards of science, special education, and bilingual funding for three proposals to address teacher education credentials ranging from 13 percent recruitment and retention. Two of these proposals to 25 percent between 2020-21 and 2022-23. provide additional funding for previously funded In particular, over the last five years, the state programs, and one creates a new program. has authorized more waivers and emergency We describe these proposals in more detail below. permits (24,548) for underqualified individuals to fill Provides $50 Million Non-Proposition 98 special education teacher roles than new special General Fund for the Golden State Teacher education teacher credentials (17,726). The state Grant Program. The Governor’s budget proposes also has historically had higher proportions of additional one-time funding to support additional teachers on waivers and emergency permits in Golden State Teacher grantees in 2025-26. schools with higher proportions of English learners Awards would be provided based on the existing and low-income (EL/LI) students. For example, program rules, which allow candidates to receive according to the Learning Policy Institute, schools up to $10,000 while completing their credentialing with the highest share of EL/LI students had twice coursework if they commit to working in a priority as many math teachers on waivers or emergency school for two years within four years of completing permits (23 percent) than schools with the lowest their program. The 2024-25 budget package EL/LI shares (11 percent) in 2022-23. reduced by half the total award amount and service California Has Funded Several Teacher requirement (from a $20,000 maximum award and Recruitment and Retention Programs. As four-year service requirement within eight years). Figure 1 shows, the state has provided more Provides $150 Million for New Loan than $1.6 billion over the last decade to address Repayment Program. The Governor proposes teacher shortages. Two of the largest programs $150 million in one-time Proposition 98 funding for are the Golden State Teacher Grant program and the creation of a new loan repayment program for the National Board Certified Teacher Certification teachers and pupil personnel services credential Incentive Program (National Board Program). holders (such as school counselors, psychologists, The Golden State Teacher Grant program provides and social workers). The proposed program would grants to individuals enrolled in a professional repay up to $20,000 in educational debt for staff preparation program. The National Board Program working in priority schools. Grantees would receive provides grants to teachers who work in certain up to $5,000 for each year they worked in a priority schools and have earned a certification from school, for up to four years. The program would the National Board for Professional Teaching prioritize applicants on a first-come, first-served Standards, a nonprofit organization focused on basis until funding is exhausted. high-quality teaching. 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET Figure 1 Recent State Teacher Recruitment and Retention Spending Total Amount Program Year Description Funding Allocation (In Millions) Teacher Residency 2018-19 and Supports establishing and CTC competitively awards $651.0 Grant Program 2021-22 expanding teacher and grants to LEAs, COEs, and school counselor residency school-university partnerships. programs in special education, There are two grant types: STEM, bilingual education, (1) planning grants of up to and kindergarten/transitional $50,000 and (2) residency grants kindergarten. of up to $40,000 per resident in the new or expanded program. Golden State Teacher 2020-21, Provides financial assistance to CSAC awards funds to participating 516.5 Grant Program 2021-22, and students enrolled in teacher grantees. Of the total amount 2024-25 preparation or pupil personnel provided, $15 million was services credential programs from federal IDEA funding and who commit to working in restricted to special education schools where at least teacher candidates. 55 percent of students are EL/LI. National Board 2021-22 Provides financial awards to CDE awards grants of $5,000 per 250.0 Certified Teacher teachers holding National participant for up to five years. Certification Board certifications who teach Incentive Program at schools at least 55 percent of students are EL/LI. Classified School 2016-17, Provides financial assistance to CTC competitively awards grants 170.0 Employee Teacher 2017-18, and classified school employees, of $4,000 per participant per Credentialing 2021-22 such as instructional aides, to year for up to five years to LEAs, Program pursue teaching credentials. COEs, and charter schools. California Examination 2022-23 and Subsidized teacher preparation CTC automatically awarded 48.0 and Assessment Fee 2023-24 examination fees for teacher fee waivers to teacher and Waiver Program and administrator candidates administrator candidates. Bilingual Teacher 2017-18 and Supported teachers pursuing CDE competitively awarded grants 25.0 Professional 2023-24 authorization to teach bilingual LEAs and COEs. Development and multilingual classes. Program Integrated 2016-17 Supported expanding CTC competitively awarded 10.0 Undergraduate integrated programs that planning grants of up to $250,000 Teacher Preparation allow participants to earn an to universities. Grants undergraduate degree and a teaching credential within four years. Programs focused on special education, STEM, and bilingual education received funding priority. California Center on 2016-17 and Established a statewide CTC competitively awarded grant 7.0 Teaching Careers 2021-22 teacher recruitment center to to Tulare COE to operate center. recruit qualified and capable individuals into the teaching field, particularly to low-income schools in special education, STEM, and bilingual education. Total $1,677.5 STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math; CTC = Commission on Teacher Credentialing; LEAs = local education agencies; COE = county office of education; EL/LI = English learner/low income; CSAC = California Student Aid Commission; and CDE = California Department of Education. www.lao.ca.gov 3 2025-26 BUDGET Provides $100 Million for National Board length of time candidates have to complete the Program. The Governor proposes $100 million in program’s work requirements, the report will not one-time Proposition 98 funding for the National have complete data showing whether participants Board Program. Of the total amount, $90 million have met the requirements to receive full funding. is to continue awarding annual grants of $5,000 State law encourages CSAC to use qualitative and to teachers who achieve the National Board quantitative measures to quantify the number of certification and teach in a priority school. Teachers candidates the program helped to recruit, but it can earn these awards for up to five years and a is unclear whether the state could use the data maximum of $25,000. The remaining $10 million currently collected to distinguish which candidates is to cover the fees charged to teachers who are were influenced by the program and which would starting the National Board certification process for have become teachers in a low-income school the first time. This proposal contains no changes to without the program. The National Board Program the program rules. has no specific reporting requirements, but the California Department of Education (CDE) collects Assessment data on the number of applicants and whether Limited Evidence Regarding Effect of those applicants reapply for funding. Given the Similar Programs on Teacher Recruitment program only began a few years ago, available data and Retention. Although the state has dedicated is limited. According to the administration, early substantial amounts of funding to address teacher data show roughly 90 percent of National Board shortages, there is limited evidence these efforts Program awardees reapply each year. These rates have been successful. A 2010 study on two of suggest program beneficiaries have retention rates California’s previous recruitment programs—a grant similar to the national average for all public school similar to the Golden State Teacher Grant program teachers. Based on a 2021-22 survey from the and a loan repayment program similar to the new National Center for Education Statistics, 84 percent proposal—concluded that two of every seven of the of public school teachers returned to work in the grant recipients were encouraged to work in the same school the next year, while 92 percent of target low-performing schools because of the grant public school teachers nationwide remained in the program. (The remaining grant recipients would profession. The state will have more information have worked in those schools regardless of whether available during the 2027-28 budget process they received the grant.) The study also found that after the first two cohorts have had five years to participant four-year retention rates (75 percent) complete their service requirements. were slightly lower than the state average retention Funding Not Well-Targeted to Low-Income rate at the time (78 percent). These results are in Schools With Most Significant Shortages. All line with a 2023 study on a federal loan forgiveness of the Governor’s proposed new funding would program, which found that the program did not target funding to priority schools. Targeting funding have any effect on teacher employment decisions. to low-income schools is prudent given that those Many of the state’s other programs lacked schools have historically had higher proportions evaluation requirements to determine whether the of teachers on emergency permits or waivers. programs helped to address teacher shortages. However, the current priority schools definition State Has Limited Information About used to determine eligibility for the programs Effectiveness of Golden State Teacher Grant includes many schools that do not have a relatively and National Board Programs. The California high proportion of EL/LI students. The 55 percent Student Aid Commission (CSAC) is required to EL/LI threshold for a priority school is somewhat conduct an evaluation of the Golder State Teacher lower than the statewide share of EL/LI students Grant Program, in partnership with CTC, and report (65 percent). Based on 2024-25 data, schools that to the administration and the Legislature every two currently meet the priority schools definition enroll years, beginning December 31, 2025. Due to the over two-thirds of the total student population. 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET Funding Not Well-Targeted to Subject growth of this magnitude is unlikely to continue. Areas With Significant Shortages. The Under more modest program growth of 20 percent Governor’s proposals do not explicitly target annually, existing funding would fully cover grants or prioritize teachers in subject areas that have for interested teachers through 2025-26. In had long-standing shortages, such as special addition, some of the funding that has already been education, math, science, and bilingual education. set aside could become available in 2025-26 if a As a result, the funds are not necessarily being significant number of awardees do not complete the used in a way that helps improve recruitment and National Board certification process and/or do not retention in the subject areas of greatest need. work in a priority school for the maximum five years. High Bar for Approving New Funding set aside for these teachers would then be Non-Proposition 98 General Fund for Golden freed up for more awards. State Teacher Grant Program. As we discussed Recommendations in our recent report, The 2025-26 Budget: Overview of the Governor’s Budget, the General Recommend Rejecting Proposals. We recommend rejecting the Governor’s teacher Fund budget is roughly balanced for 2025-26, but recruitment and retention proposals. There is the state faces multiyear budget deficits in the limited evidence that these programs would have out-years. Any new non-Proposition 98 General a meaningful impact on teacher recruitment Fund spending proposal will have to be weighed and retention. Furthermore, the Golden State against other priorities, such as activities to Teacher Grant proposal would provide additional which the state has already committed funding or non-Proposition 98 General fund at a time when maintaining somewhat larger reserve deposits to the state faces multiyear budget deficits and the help address future budget challenges. As a result, Legislature is in the position of having to weigh the we think the Legislature should apply a relatively value of new proposals against other priorities, high bar to its review of these proposals, including such as spending to which it has already committed the proposal for more Golden State Teacher Grant or somewhat larger General Fund reserves that funding. By contrast, the state is currently projected would better prepare the state for difficult budget to have sufficient funds within Proposition 98 to conditions in future years. The state also likely has cover its existing commitments, as well as some sufficient funding remaining from prior National new commitments. The Governor’s budget includes Board Program allocations to fund applicants in $7.8 billion in school Proposition 98 spending 2025-26 without the need for new funding. The proposals, including the funding for the loan state could revisit funding for all of these programs repayment program and National Board Program. in future years when it receives updated information Prior Funding for National Board Program about program implementation. In the case of the Likely to Be Available in 2025-26. Of the Golden State Teacher Grant program, CSAC will $225 million previously allocated to the National submit its progress report at the end of 2025. In the Board Program, $146 million has been spent case of the National Board Program, the state could or set aside for qualified teachers over the first consider additional funding as part of the 2027-28 three years of the program. This represents the budget, when the state has complete data for the full grant amount for roughly 5,800 teachers at first two cohorts. $25,000 per teacher. The remaining $79 million could fund 3,000 additional awardees to complete If State Allocates Funding, Consider Using the full five-year program. The administration Proposition 98 General Fund and Modifying estimates setting aside another $44 million for the Programs to Target Funds More Effectively. If the Legislature is interested in funding one or 2024-25 application period and exhausting current more of the Governor’s proposals, given the state’s funding in 2025-26. These estimates are based on fiscal condition, we recommend any funding projections that the number of interested applicants for teacher recruitment and retention programs would increase by 48 percent annually—the growth be provided with Proposition 98 General Fund. for the program from 2022-23 to 2023-24. We think www.lao.ca.gov 5 2025-26 BUDGET The Proposition 98 portion of the budget has to teachers with credentials in the longstanding more capacity for new commitments than the shortage subject areas of special education, math, rest of the budget. Additionally, if the Legislature science, and bilingual education. (These options provides funds to one or more of these programs, are not mutually exclusive, and the Legislature we recommend targeting these funds in ways that could target funding based on school and subject more closely align with where the state has the area.) Such targeting would reduce the number of most significant teacher shortages. For example, teachers eligible to receive these benefits, but the the Legislature could modify the priority schools funds would go to provide more support to teachers definition so that it reflects only the highest-poverty in schools and/or subject areas with the most schools. The Legislature also could target funding significant challenges. MATH AND LITERACY COACHES Background (required to be an elementary school teacher) or a single subject teaching credential in math or State Scores Relatively Low on Math and English (required to teach middle or high school). Reading Exams. In 2024, only 44 percent of Individuals may also obtain additional credentials— California’s fourth graders met or exceeded state such as the Mathematics Instructional Leadership standards in English language arts, and 41 percent Specialist Credential or Mathematics Instructional met or exceeded state standards in math. California Added Authorization—that provide specific training also has historically scored lower than the national related to improving instruction in math or literacy. average on the National Assessment of Educational (For the rest of this brief, we refer to use the term Progress (NAEP), a set of national exams “coaches” to refer to both coaches and specialists.) administered by the federal government every two years. As Figure 2 shows, the gap between State Has Provided One-Time Funding for California and the national average steadily closed Literacy Coaches. In 2022-23, the state created from 2005 to 2019, but has remained relatively the Literacy Coach and Reading Specialist (LCRS) flat since 2019. The gap between the state and program and provided one-time Proposition 98 the national average is driven by the outcomes for General Fund for the program. These funds can economically disadvantaged students, which NAEP be used for elementary schools with the highest defines as students with family incomes below shares of EL/LI students to develop school 130 percent of the federal poverty level. In 2024, literacy programs, employ and train literacy California’s disadvantaged students scored lower coaches, and create and implement targeted than similar peers in other states in both math and reading interventions for students in transitional reading, while non-disadvantaged students scored kindergarten through third grade. The state better on average than similar peers in other states. provided a total of $477 million for the program (across 2022-23 and 2023-24) for all schools with Some Schools Hire Coaches and Specialists K-3 enrollment and an EL/LI share of 95 percent in Math or Literacy to Improve Instruction. or higher. Schools received a minimum grant of Coaches and specialists support teachers and $450,000, with additional funding distributed other school staff to deliver effective instruction proportionally based on K-3 enrollment. Eligible and improve student outcomes. The specific role schools were not required to apply to receive of a coach or specialist varies, but may include funding. Those that did not want to participate designing curriculum, supporting teachers in the program were required to notify CDE by in developing lesson plans, implementing September 30 of the grant year. interventions for students, and administering assessments. Coaches can be experienced teachers with a multiple subject teaching credential 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET Figure 2 California Students Score Below National Average in Math and Reading Difference Between California's Scores and National Average 5 3 1 -1 -3 -5 -7 4th Math -9 8th Math 8th Reading -11 4th Reading -13 -15 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Note: 8th grade reading scores in 2022 could not be compared due to data issues. National averages in 2024 were 237 for 4th grade math, 274 for 8th grade math, 215 for 4th grade reading, and 258 for 8th grade reading. Governor’s Proposals their EL/LI share. (Schools that previously received an LCRS grant would be ineligible for additional The Governor’s budget includes three proposals funds.) Consistent with the existing LCRS program, for one-time Proposition 98 General Fund related to funding would automatically be provided to eligible coaches. We describe the proposals below. schools, unless the LEA chooses to opt out. Funds $235 Million for Literacy Coaches. The would be available to spend through 2028-29. By Governor proposes $235 million to support June 30, 2029, LEAs are to submit a report on how additional elementary schools through the LCRS funds were used, the impact the funding had, and program. Funding would be available to local the plans to continue funding literacy coaches after education agencies (LEAs)—school districts, the grant period. charter schools, and county offices of education $15 Million for Literacy Coach Training. (COEs)—for any school that has K-3 enrollment and The Governor also proposes $15 million for the an EL/LI share of at least 94 percent. Compared Superintendent of Public Instruction, subject with eligibility of previous grants, the proposal to approval of the State Board of Education, to effectively expands eligibility to schools with an select one or more COEs to provide training to EL/LI share between 94 percent and 95 percent. develop literacy coaches. These COEs would In addition, funding would be available for eligible provide training to literacy coaches at school schools that opted out of the first two rounds of locations that received new literacy coach grants LCRS funding, as well as schools that are newly and would provide opportunities for individuals eligible because they have recently had increases in www.lao.ca.gov 7 2025-26 BUDGET across the state to become credentialed reading and literacy coaches—found a stronger effect for and literacy specialists or bilingual specialists. smaller scale demonstration projects compared Of the total amount, $1 million would be available to larger scale programs, likely due to challenges for the grantee or grantees to contract for an effectively scaling up interventions, getting teacher independent evaluation of the training and support for coaching interventions, and accessing opportunities provided. experienced coaches. A 2011 study on highly trained $250 Million for Math Coaches. The Governor’s math coaches in elementary schools found positive budget also includes $250 million for math coaches long-term effects on student math performance who would support teachers in implementing math (though performance did not improve in the instruction and interventions. LEAs are eligible to short term). apply for funding if they have schools where at least Several Aspects of Math Coach Proposal 90 percent of students are EL/LI, or rural schools Could Limit Effectiveness of Funding. Given the where at least 75 percent of students are EL/LI. relatively low scores of student performance on math Unlike the LCRS program, LEAs must apply for these proficiency and the available evidence suggesting grants. To receive funding, LEAs must attest that coaches might be able to help improve performance, they will support eligible schools with math coaches, providing funds to support coaches is a reasonable provide access to training that is aligned with state’s strategy. However, we find that several features of math curriculum frameworks, and provide funding the proposed math coach structure could limit its for individuals to earn a Mathematics Instructional effectiveness. The key limitations of the proposed Leadership Specialist Credential or a Mathematics structure are: Instructional Added Authorization. CDE would • Funding would be available for schools at any determine a grant amount for LEAs based on the grade level, rather than targeted to earlier number of students enrolled at eligible schools. In grades. The research suggesting math addition, CDE would provide LEAs additional funding coaches are an effective strategy is specific if they plan to support a larger number of grantees. to the elementary grades. Elementary school Funds would be available to spend through June teachers likely benefit most from the subject 30, 2029. By June 30, 2029, LEAs are to submit matter expertise of a math coach, as they a report on how funds were used, the impact the typically do not have the same level of subject funding had, and the plans to continue funding math matter expertise as middle and high school coaches after the grant period. math teachers. Assessment • The proposal does not establish a minimum amount of funding an LEA would receive from Research Suggests Literacy and Math the grant, only that grant amounts would Coaches Can Improve Student Outcomes. be based on enrollment at eligible schools. Various studies suggest that math and literacy As such, it is unclear whether the amount of coaches can improve student test scores funding provided through the grant will be if experienced coaches are placed in the sufficient to cover the costs of hiring math lowest-performing schools. For example, a coaches, providing access to training, and 2010 study from the RAND Corporation found that providing funding for individuals to earn literacy coaches placed in Florida middle schools credentials. The lack of specificity on the grant improved student reading test scores for some amount may also discourage some LEAs from students, with the greatest impacts being among applying for funds. the lowest-performing schools where coaching • The math coaching proposal does not require was implemented for a number of years. The that all grant funds be used to support the researchers also noted, however, that the rapid specific schools with high EL/LI shares that expansion of Florida’s reading program potentially meet the criteria for funding. LEAs would be led to challenges recruiting effective coaches, allowed to direct the funding to other schools resulting in coaching having less impact for some with lower EL/LI shares. students. Likewise, a 2018 meta-analysis of teacher coaching studies—including both math 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET • LEAs would be required to proactively Modify Math Coach Grant Structure. We apply for math coach funding, rather than recommend making several modifications to the automatically being eligible unless they math coach proposal that would help ensure the opt out. While an application process can funds are being used in a way that is most effective. help ensure LEAs are prepared to use the Specifically, we recommend the Legislature adopt funding to achieve program goals, requiring the following changes to the proposal: an application process places additional • Limit grant eligibility to elementary administrative burden on LEAs—particularly schools, which would align funding with small LEAs—and will likely result in some LEAs the research on coaches suggesting that not applying even though they could benefit this is where the state is likely to see the from the funds. greatest improvements. No Specific Rationale for Mix of Math and • Set a minimum grant amount for schools. This Literacy Coaches. The Governor’s budget would ensure the amount of funding provided proposes similar levels of funding for literacy and through the grant will be sufficient to cover the math coaches in 2025-26. To date, the state has costs of the required activities. already provided two similar rounds of funding • Require LEAs spend funds only for benefit of for literacy coaches, while it has not provided any eligible school sites. This would help ensure previous funding for math coaches. As a result, the funds are being used at schools that need total funding over the multiyear period would be the most support. higher for literacy coaches than math coaches. • Consider making LEAs automatically eligible Determining the exact mix of math and literacy for the grants, rather than requiring them coach funding involves weighing key trade-offs to apply for funding. This would reduce and depends on how the Legislature prioritizes administrative burden for LEAs. these two different subject areas. On the one hand, additional funding for literacy coaches would allow Consider Mix of Math and Literacy Coach the state to further expand literacy coaches to Funding. The Legislature could consider changing other high-poverty schools and build upon previous the proportion of new funding set aside for literacy efforts to increase training and support statewide. or math coaches. The ultimate mix will depend on On the other hand, directing more funding for math how the Legislature prioritizes support for these coaches would help the state begin to establish two different subject areas. Providing more funding additional support for math instruction, similar to for literacy coaches would help further advance an what the state has done in literacy over the past initiative the state has already funded. Providing several years. more funding for math coaches would help the state begin to establish coaches in high-poverty schools Recommendations and provide more individuals with access to training Adopt Math and Literacy Coach Proposals. that will prepare them to become math coaches. We recommend the Legislature adopt funding for literacy and math coaches. In our view, enhanced efforts to address the state’s poor math and reading outcomes are warranted. Furthermore, various studies suggest that math and literacy coaches can be an effective way to improve student test scores. By limiting eligibility to the highest-poverty schools, the proposal would target many of the schools that could most benefit from the funding. www.lao.ca.gov 9 2025-26 BUDGET LITERACY SCREENING Background Assessment State Law Requires Literacy Screening in Administration’s Cost Estimate Is Grades K-2 Beginning in 2025-26. Chapter 48 Reasonable. The administration’s proposed of 2023 (SB 114, Committee on Budget and funding level of $40 million is based on its estimate Fiscal Review) requires that schools administer that total costs would be about $825 per classroom screenings for reading difficulties to students in for training, materials, and other costs. We think kindergarten through second grade starting in this is a reasonable estimate of average costs of 2025-26. (Transitional kindergarten students are initially implementing the screening requirements. not required to be screened.) LEAs must use a The actual costs will vary based on key decisions state-approved instrument to screen students. LEAs make. For example, LEAs could reduce their The 2023-24 budget set aside $1 million one-time costs by choosing to purchase one of the two Proposition 98 General Fund to fund a panel of approved screening instruments that are available experts that would select appropriate screening free of charge. LEAs’ costs will also be affected by tools. In December 2024, the panel ultimately the number of staff they choose to train to conduct approved four screening instruments that LEAs the screenings. are authorized to use. If a student is identified as 2024-25 Funding Also Available to being at risk of having reading difficulties, LEAs will Cover Costs of Implementing Screening be required to provide the student with targeted Requirements. The Governor’s $40 million in supports and services, such as one-on-one or proposed funding is intended to cover the cost small-group tutoring, early reading interventions, or of three activities—training staff, purchasing further diagnostic assessments. screeners, and administering screenings. 2024-25 Budget Provided $25 Million However, the $25 million provided in 2024-25 is One-Time Funding for Training Related to New also available for implementation of the screening Requirements. The 2024-25 budget provided requirements—specifically, for training staff. These $25 million in one-time Proposition 98 General funds are therefore available to cover a portion of Fund to support training for educators to administer the $40 million in costs the administration estimates literacy screenings to students. Funding was for 2025-26. allocated to LEAs based on their share of statewide Recommendations enrollment in kindergarten through second grade, which resulted in funding of $21.17 per student. Reduce Literacy Screening Training Funding. We recommend reducing the proposed funding for Governor’s Proposal literacy screening to $15 million in 2025-26. When Provides $40 Million One-Time Funding for combined with the $25 million provided in 2024-25, Reading Difficulties Screening. The Governor this would provide LEAs a total of $40 million, proposes $40 million one-time Proposition 98 which is the total estimated initial cost to begin General Fund to cover the cost of training teachers, implementing the new requirements. similar to the funds provided last year, as well as the cost of obtaining screeners and conducting screenings. As with the amount provided in 2024-25, funding would be allocated to LEAs based on their share of statewide enrollment in kindergarten through second grade. The funding is intended to cover the costs in 2025-26 related to initially implementing the screeners. 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET www.lao.ca.gov 11 2025-26 BUDGET LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Dylan Hawksworth-Lutzow, and reviewed by Edgar Cabral and Ross Brown. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, California 95814. 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE