S.B. 62 School Finance Amendments: transcript

I had hoped to have a substitute today. I don't, I don't wanna hold the bill up though. Okay. Um, I'll explain what I'm trying to do and, um, even if I had a substitute today, it would change again. 'cause I know there are more negotiations to be had. This is a, this is a bill that makes a change to the budget. Um, and so honestly, we won't be able to, uh, finalize what the bill looks like until, at least the passage of the base budget. Um, but I, I would like to explain what, what I'm looking to do here, and I wanted to come and present from out here today because I know I'll have some friends sitting next to me that are gonna speak against this version of the bill, which, which honestly is fine. Uh, Mr. Chair, because this is a, this is a question of priorities, right? Um, uh, we have public education funding and that money could be distributed in many ways and, um, uh, we could prioritize different things and there are consequences to those choices. But it, it's not obvious that, you know, if we, if we spend money in bucket A, it means it's not available to spend in bucket B, but bucket A might be better than bucket B. And those are decisions that we make up here as a legislature, right? And that's, that's part of, of putting together a budget. Some funding we restrict, some we don't. Um, some we try to target towards addressing specific needs. School security, uh, would be an example. Um, and then others, we, we try to put towards use or, or, uh, delegate that, um, to local school districts. Uh, so let me talk briefly about how school districts and charter schools are funded in Utah. Uh, they're funded on, uh, on, on the weighted pupil unit primarily, uh, at least at the state level. Um, but the way that those weighted pupil units are calculated looks like this. You look at last year's enrollment on an average, right? So if you started the year with a thousand students and over time, you know, some of those students dropped off and you ended the year with 980 students, then your average daily membership, depending on when those students left, and, you know, people leave and they come in, but it's gonna be somewhere around 990 students. And that is the baseline of your funding, whatever the, the amount of weighted pupil units that those generate. So currently we would take that number and then add to it whatever growth you experienced. So if you were at a thousand students, uh, I say at the beginning of the year, but on October 1st of the prior year, and then you were at 1,010 students next year, you'd be funded for those extra 10 students, right? So it's the previous year's average daily membership or a DM plus growth. That's the formula for the weighted pupil unit. And so the, your floor currently is always last year's enrollment in a shrinking, uh, enrollment environment. What that means is that we continue to fund students who have graduated, uh, this year. Uh, uh, enrollment is down about 4%. And so school districts are being funded. And I school districts and charter schools are being funded for an extra, you know, 4% of students that are no longer there. The graduating classes were bigger than the incoming kindergarten classes, and so we're funding weighted pupil units that don't exist. Um, now there's a virtue to this, and that virtue is stability and predictability. Um, it, people know that school districts largely know going into the next school year how many weighted pupil units they're going to be funded for. And that makes up the vast majority of their state budget. Um, if they grow, they're not gonna know exactly what that growth factor is, but that's a small amount. Um, so it gives them stability, but it also has a vice. And that vice is, we are spending money educating to pay for the education of students that are no longer there. And what that does is by saying, we're gonna take this year at $77 million in change, we're gonna take $77 million and distribute it to school districts based on who they used to educate instead of who they are educating today. And so, uh, that vice is, we're just not spending that on more productive uses. And, you know, uh, many of us here on the Public Education Appropriations committee and there we're always struggling to find out, okay, so here are pressing needs. What are we gonna do? Um, uh, but that's precluded by this, uh, by this $77 million, uh, that's being distributed based on students where they used to be instead of where they are today. So, um, this bill, you look at the, at the fiscal note, and it looks like a funding cut. And I think the way, uh, it's drafted, it's fair to read it that way because all of this does is change the distribution formula, but it doesn't yet say where that savings is going to go. So my hope was to be able to come with a substitute that would make a proposal for where that funding should go. But as I said, also, it's gonna change anyway. 'cause that's not up to me to decide. And honestly, it's not up for this committee to decide. That's up to the public education appropriation subcommittee, the executive appropriations committee, and ultimately the entire legislature through the budgeting process. My proposal, if I did have the ability to just write the bill that I want and get everybody to automatically vote for it, I would use this savings in two ways. Uh, because it, it's been shown over time that these are areas of critical need that we have not been able to yet fund on an ongoing basis. And one of those would be to fund general education weighted pupil units for self-contained special education students. That's about a $58 million, uh, expense to the state. And I, I wanna briefly explain what that is. If you get a student who enrolls in a school, that student is worth a weighted pupil unit. If that student has a disability, that student gets another weighted pupil unit, but a restricted one, right? It's the special ed add-on. So what we've done is just add on another weighted pupil unit. So now this kid, my kid is a good example. He gets, I think, 20 minutes of special, uh, of speech therapy a week to, uh, address his lisp. That's great. I'm so glad it's there. He's funded two weighted pupil units because he gets 20 minutes of special education services in a week. Um, a self-contained student gets three hours at least, of special education services every day. And so when a self-contained student happens, they get another special education weighted pupil unit, but they lose the general education one. Does that make sense? So a kid who is in, is in, is in resource or is with a nurse all day or has, has some disability, that school treats gets the exact same amount of funding. As my son who gets 20 minutes a week. My proposal is to let those, that self-contained student keep the general education. WPU most special education, most self-contained students still get general education services. They're, they're with their peers for a large portion today. Not all but most. So that would be one thing. We have not been able to fund it. Special education, uh, is woefully underfunded in the state. There should be a way to address that. And second, since that would still leave, uh, 20 to $30 million, um, I would propose that we would take, um, the, the rest of those savings and put that towards school security initiatives that we've been funding on a one-time basis, which has been fine as long as what we're talking about is facility upgrades. But we do need an ongoing source of school security funding as long as we're going to continue requiring school districts and charter schools to spend money hiring, uh, and maintaining security personnel. So those are my two things, but I want this committee to know that regardless, um, uh, uh, of what the response is, uh, I want to work with the education community through the budgeting process and identify where those, uh, that if we decide that that is the better use, where those should, where that money should go. And so that's my commitment. I hope you'll be willing to pass this out so that we could continue that conversation. I do think that this is a, um, a good conversation that is worth having as we, we will always have finite resources in every aspect of government. And education is certainly no exception. Uh, it's, it's worth asking and exploring the question over the course of this session. Uh, what is the best use of our dollar? Is it to continue funding students who have graduated? Or is it to put those, uh, those dollars to a, uh, a more current use for students who are currently enrolled in the public education system? So that'll be my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when I'm looking at this section of code 53 F dash two dash 3 0 2, that was just amended in March 13th, 2024, and we kind of struggled with the October cutoff because we saw a little shell game with kids moving around a lot to make sure we got that October cutoff. Is this going to bring us back to what we were doing before then? Um, probably from that standpoint, it would make it even worse. Um, yeah, the, uh, if this were in place, the October 1st date would take increased rather than less importance. And I, and again, I think that gets to the point that, uh, the advantage of the current system is predictability. Okay. Um, my second question is the, the bill that you described is not the bill that we see in front of us?

That's correct. Okay. Um, as an educator

and somebody that has been, you know, doing this a couple of years, I, um, I struggle with setting bills out that aren't ready. And I know that I have been the victim of that many times because people say this isn't ready for prime time. And the bill that you're mentioning is drastically different than the bill we see before us. So, um, why, why would you bring this bill to us today if it's drastically different than the one you just described?

Uh, Mr. Chair, I think the, the answer to that question is the budgeting process takes 45 days. And if I waited until that budgeting process was done, or even near done in order to start moving a bill like this through the process, uh, I, it would have its first committee hearing on day 44. Um, so that really is the answer. Uh, the, this needs to run in tandem with the proprietary process, but this commitment and everybody listening has my commitment. This, this will be circled. I, I don't think this will come up this week, um, on the Senate floor. Um, but, uh, I I, if we're not able to craft that substitute before this comes up for a second reading, it will be circled until we do.

Thank you. Thank you.

Go. Am my buddy. Todd, I glad you. Am I on? Oh, good. Yes. I'm glad to be your friend today. You're my friend every day. My name is Todd Haber. I'm the business administrator for Granite School District, and I also am the legislative liaison for the Utah Association of School Business Business Officials. I appreciate the opportunity to, to talk about some concerns we have of the current bill. I won't speak to the next bill 'cause I would like to have some more conversations on that front this Friday, but Perfect. I'll be there. And, uh, so the, the two concerns on the, the current draft that's in front of us. One is, uh, Senator Fillmore has explained it very well that the, the trade off in this is actually all around budget stability. So I'll put a little color to that. Uh, the stability that we look for is we're building school schedules and hiring teachers and putting them all in place for the upcoming school year. Having that a DM calculation in hand helps us to reasonably plan for school class sizes and the number of teachers that we need in our buildings to, uh, flip over to an October one count as the primary funding calculation we're left, to how well we can forecast and predict what those student enrollments will be. And we would hate to be in a situation of having overestimated and having to either change class sizes or let teachers go because that forecasting was off based on an October one count. So we, so stability is a thing. It, it is something that we want to preserve. Uh, in the current base budget. Bill actually has a solution that helps both what Senator Fillmore ISS describing about making ongoing monies available, as well as managing that forecasting need. And what, uh, executive appropriations did this year is they took the ongoing money that that is represented in the hold harm list of the $77 million. And they pulled that out and made it available for, uh, legislative prioritization. They backfilled it with one time monies, uh, from the economic stabilization account, which would help us in that budget forecasting for one year. 'cause that's all we need is to be able to step down one year as those, uh, student enrollments change. And it feels like it would cover both worlds. So even without legislation, we have monies available on an ongoing basis as well as one-time money to cover the forecasting that we need for a year. And that would happen annually and we would be able to, to manage moving forward. Uh, a second, uh, concern has to do with the, uh, option of going from prior year a DM plus or minus growth. And, uh, October one count, the, we believe that the fiscal note didn't capture that aspect of this bill. And if you go to an October one count, it will actually require more funding to fund the same WPS than it current than the state currently provides through the A DM formula. Uh, and that's by the virtue that an A DM is always less than an October one enrollment count. Just mathematically it will be less. And so the fiscal note hasn't captured that aspect of choosing an October one count. And, uh, we request that that would be reviewed. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, I'd like to move that, uh, uh, we recommend Senate Bill 62 to the Senate for further consideration, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I would like to make a substitute motion that we move the agenda until this bill is ready with better language, more precise language, I should say.

May I, Mr. Chair? Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Uh, I'd speak against, uh, against that motion. I understand why she's making it, and I, uh, uh, I understand. I mean, I, I think there are times where, uh, you know, you look at a bill and it's like, this is not ready for prime time. We don't know where it's going. Neither do you. Here. We do know where it's going. It's going as part of the budget process to, uh, find out how, uh, where we can come to consensus with public ed on, uh, on where, uh, it might make more sense to allocate these dollars rather than to last year's students. I think you'll see that, uh, Mr. Haber, who testified here and I are not in disagreement. The, the bill does, you know, current law prioritizes stability and predictability over funding students that are currently in, in the system. Um, that may be, uh, the right choice, you know, uh, that predictability and stability, it has value. Um, and if that value costs some funding for other priorities, that may be the right call. But that is worth debating on the Senate floor. Um, so I, I would, uh, I Juab would just please ask that we defeat this, uh, motion to move the agenda, uh, and then get back to the original motion just to recommend this forward so that we can continue to have that discussion, uh, with our public ed partners and that debate. It's a worthwhile debate. Uh, any further discussion on the alternative, we'll let you sum.

Thank you. Um, in education, what we really need is stability. We need continuity. And we just passed this law in 3 13 20 24 to bring that stability back. Uh, parents using their right to choose where to go are doing that. But it also makes it very difficult when you are operating large school districts and preparing for the next year. So this bill, as the good sponsor mentioned, takes away some of that stability. Um, as a senator here in the state of Utah, I have voted 90% of the bills across the aisle. And, uh, I, I always support good legislation, but I have many of my bills killed because they were not ready for prime time. The language on the bill did not reflect what was gonna be talked about on the Senate floor. And I would like to see that continuity across all bills. This bill is not ready. The bill that the Senator described is completely different than what we see in front of us. And when he wants, when that bill becomes, comes to us, I will be ready to motion on that bill. But this bill is not the bill we're working on. And this is not the same bill that he's asking us to talk about on the Senate of floor. So I would urge you all to vote to move the agenda.

Thank you. I, I appreciate that. I appreciate the chance to continue the debate here. Uh, I appreciate the recognition that this is primarily a budgetary bill and that it needs to run concurrently with the budgeting process.

Thank you. This is a bill that has had, I mean, it's such a simple bill now, um, you know, started, uh, with a different idea, but working through things, uh, with school districts. Where we've landed on here this third substitute is that what this bill does is changes the name of the flexible allocation program so that it is more consistent with how it's actually being used by districts. Uh, and by changing this name, we're actually, uh, uh, being very clear. I think this helps increase transparency for how this funding is being used. It, uh, it supports teacher and classroom salaries, uh, and, and therefore it would restrict it for that use. Um, and that really is as simple as what the bill does. We're changing the name of a program to, uh, better reflect how it's being used.

I apologize to the committee. Yes, I would love to make a motion. Is my mic. Oh, there it is. Sorry about that. Um, thank you Mr. Chair. I, do we have any subs or amendments? No. Uh, we've, we're I take that back.

Yes. I actually think this is really good policy. Uh, it helps our teachers, it helps in the classroom. It gets money directly where it needs to be. And I appreciate the sponsor's work on this. Thank you to the members of the committee.

Thank you Mr. President Pro tem. The school funding formulas in Utah, uh, fund local education agencies, uh, on a formula that counts last year's average enrollment over the course of a year and then adds in student growth. Um, but as we all know, uh, enrollment has been shrinking. And so that formula, which works, uh, very well in a growing, uh, enrollment environment in a shrinking enrollment environment, what it means is we are distributing funding to schools based on where students attended last year. Right? We are funding students who finished 12th grade and are now in college, or in the workforce or on missions, even though they no longer attend school. We are funding students who moved out of state even though they're no longer in school. And if a student has transferred from one LEA to another, funding that child twice instead of funding the priorities, uh, and the needs of students who are actually there. So, uh, Senate bill 62, uh, would change that distribution formula so that we would fund LEAs based on the current year enrollment, uh, and then use the savings created for that to fund current needs that we've yet been, uh, as yet been unable to address. With that introduction, I'd like to make a motion to substitute Senate bill 62 and replace it with the second substitute of, of Senate Bill 62. And the second substitute identifies where that savings will go, which is to increase funding for, uh, self-contained special education students and to fund an increment of the at-risk add-on that we have been doing every year for several years. Thank you. Discussion of the motion to substitute

Thank you, Mr. President Pro tem does, I'm looking at the fiscal note. So now in the fiscal note has changed to zero. Senator Fillmore, will you yield?

Uh, yes. Uh, Mr. President, the fiscal note on the original bill only accounted for the savings because we were just changing the formula without identifying where the money went. Uh, the point was, uh, was always to keep the money in public ed but just distribute it to meet the needs where they are. And so with this, we just dis distribute the money differently, but spend the same amount of money. Thank you,

I think I've explained the substitute as I explained the bill. Again, we would just be changing the way that funding is distributed to LEAs to ensure that we are funding the needs of the current students where they actually are instead of funding the needs of students where they used to be.

Thank you Mr. President Pro Tem. Uh, I asked this question in, uh, I'm sorry. I just didn't realize the substitute was coming up. We actually passed a bill a couple of years ago that changed the October 10th cutoff. Uh, we were finding that schools were moving kids and then the money wasn't following them. And so that's why we Uintah this formula of having, um, an average. So this is going to still keep in the same October 10th, or is it gonna be a different number?

Senator Fillmore, uh, Mr. President, I, I think the senator means October 1st, which is, which is the funding date that currently exists in statute, because that is the date by which districts measure growth from one year to the next. You just compare what was October 1st enrollment last year versus what is October 1st enrollment this year? And so that date is already in statute, and this has been the formula for as long as I have been a public educator, which is more than 20 years. Um, uh, uh, so I I I don't recall that we have instituted this formula just two years ago. Rather, this has been the formula for, uh, decades in public education, uh, which again, worked fine while enrollment was growing. But again, Mr. President in a declining enrollment environment, what that means is if we have, you know, 30,000 students that graduate and only 15,000 students that enter kindergarten, it means that we are continuing to fund 15,000 students who are no longer there. And, uh, because we are funding in that way, we are not funding the current needs of students in public education. And there are many vital needs that are currently going unmet because we continue to fund students who are no longer attending public school.

Thank you. So I I it's the average daily attendance that we worked on instead of just the attendance on October 1st. So you're saying that this is not different from that

President. This would not fund students based on prior years average daily membership, but rather fund them on their current membership as measured on October 1st.

Thank you. Uh, thank you Mr. President. So my next question would be that, uh, there's some misunderstanding that this is actually going to take money from, um, the property tax and put it back into the state coffers. Is that something that changed in the substitute? Because that's what I'm hearing in my emails. And this is similar to SB 37 that passed and then was vetoed because people were upset about that. So is that similar to the bill or has that have been subbed out? Uh,

President, I believe the Senator from Cottonwood Heights is referencing Senate Bill 65. Just a little bit ahead of time. I plan to encircle that bill next.

Thank you Mr. President. I've always been an overachiever, so thank you.

to you for summation. Thank You. I'd like to call the Senate

All right. Mr. President pro tem. Thank you. I move that second substitute Senate Bill 62. Be read a third time. And the question is, shall second substitute Senate bill

Thank you Mr. President. Uh, I'm a no on too. Uh, I do like what this bill is doing, but it's very different from the bill that we heard in committee and all of our school districts, our and our superintendents association are against this bill. This new fund that was created is very different from the bill we heard. And I, I don't really think the, uh, the will of the, the will of the community is caught up with what this bill is. So I I'm kind of, um, I would love to have my constituents weigh on in, on this bill, but right now I need to say a no. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. President. Motion to Uncer Senate bill 65 And the motion is to Unci Senate bill 65, minimum basic tax rate amendments.

I think I've explained the substitute as I explained the bill. Again, we would just be changing the way that funding is distributed to LEAs to ensure that we are funding the needs of the current students where they actually are instead of funding the needs of students where they used to be.

Thank you Mr. President Pro Tem. Uh, I asked this question in, uh, I'm sorry. I just didn't realize the substitute was coming up. We actually passed a bill a couple of years ago that changed the October 10th cutoff. Uh, we were finding that schools were moving kids and then the money wasn't following them. And so that's why we Uintah this formula of having, um, an average. So this is going to still keep in the same October 10th, or is it gonna be a different number?

Senator Fillmore, uh, Mr. President, I, I think the senator means October 1st, which is, which is the funding date that currently exists in statute, because that is the date by which districts measure growth from one year to the next. You just compare what was October 1st enrollment last year versus what is October 1st enrollment this year? And so that date is already in statute, and this has been the formula for as long as I have been a public educator, which is more than 20 years. Um, uh, uh, so I I I don't recall that we have instituted this formula just two years ago. Rather, this has been the formula for, uh, decades in public education, uh, which again, worked fine while enrollment was growing. But again, Mr. President in a declining enrollment environment, what that means is if we have, you know, 30,000 students that graduate and only 15,000 students that enter kindergarten, it means that we are continuing to fund 15,000 students who are no longer there. And, uh, because we are funding in that way, we are not funding the current needs of students in public education. And there are many vital needs that are currently going unmet because we continue to fund students who are no longer attending public school.

Thank you. So I I it's the average daily attendance that we worked on instead of just the attendance on October 1st. So you're saying that this is not different from that

Senator Fillmore, Uh, Mr. President. This would not fund students based on prior years average daily membership, but rather fund them on their current membership as measured on October 1st.

Thank you. Uh, thank you Mr. President. So my next question would be that, uh, there's some misunderstanding that this is actually going to take money from, um, the property tax and put it back into the state coffers. Is that something that changed in the substitute? Because that's what I'm hearing in my emails. And this is similar to SB 37 that passed and then was vetoed because people were upset about that. So is that similar to the bill or has that have been subbed out? Uh,

Senator Fillmore, Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Cottonwood Heights is referencing Senate Bill 65. Just a little bit ahead of time. I plan to encircle that bill next.

Thank you Mr. President. I've always been an overachiever, so thank you.

to you for summation. Thank You. I'd like to call the Senate if I could Mr. President. Okay.

All right. Mr. President pro tem. Thank you. I move that second substitute Senate Bill 62. Be read a third time.

Thank you Mr. President. Uh, I'm a no on too. Uh, I do like what this bill is doing, but it's very different from the bill that we heard in committee and all of our school districts, our and our superintendents association are against this bill. This new fund that was created is very different from the bill we heard. And I, I don't really think the, uh, the will of the, the will of the community is caught up with what this bill is. So I I'm kind of, um, I would love to have my constituents weigh on in, on this bill, but right now I need to say a no. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. President. Motion to Uncer Senate bill 65 And the motion is to Unci Senate bill 65, minimum basic tax rate amendments.

Alright. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, we had some good debate, uh, about this last week. Uh, so I'm welcome to more of it. The bill hasn't changed here. Um, so what? Yep. This is the latest version. I'm happy to say that in Utah we fund based on last year's enrollment. And so what that's what that does is send $77 million in this fiscal year, our current, uh, current year to schools to educate kids who have already graduated or who have moved out of state. And if they move from one school district to another or went from one charter school to another, we ended up paying for that student twice. Um, and I I would just argue that that is not the best use of Utah's finite educational resources. While we have needs that are currently being underfunded in schools, it doesn't make sense to fund the education of students who have already completed their public education. There's no need to fund students, uh, who have graduated and we're now paying for, to attend, uh, a college while they've already graduated from high school, and at the same time pay for them for another year of high school. So by simply accelerating that, you know, recognizing those students are no longer there, we can use that $77 million to, for another purpose to meet the needs of students where they actually are. So Senate Bill 62 changes the formula that distributes funding to education on the weighted pupil unit from, uh, last year's enrollment to this year's enrollment. And then with the savings, dedicates that savings to increase funding for at risk students by increasing the state's at risk add-on and funds the the needs of the most, uh, special needs students, those that receive more than three hours a day of special education services. That's called a self-contained student in public schools. So by funding an additional WPU for those students and funding additional, uh, revenue for the at-risk add-on, we would be dedicating today's educational resources to meet the most critical needs we have in public schools today. And when I say most critical needs, Mr. President, I mean these are the top two priorities of the school district. Uh, the, the Joint Leadership Council of the State School Boards and State Superintendents Association, these were identified as high needs, uh, from the State Board of Education. Uh, so we're meeting statutory obligations by funding at-risk students and recognizing the great need we have to fund the most intensive needs special education students.

Uh, thank you Mr. President. I would just like to say that, you know, a lot of these, uh, smaller schools say have to budget kind of a year in advance the way we've got the system set up, that we are actually working on 2027 budgets. And so we're actually a year, uh, there's a year behind. And so a lot of these smaller schools may have hired a teacher more than they should have. And so if we pull that money from 'em, that means they're gonna be in the whole, uh, less that one person, that teacher. And so I would be opposed to this because they have to fiscally be responsible. Uh, and so if they hire extra people and I, all of a sudden the money's, uh, disappears. It's not fair to the schools. And so I'm not in support of this at all.

Thank you Mr. Fillmore here. I would like to call the Senate. We have five or more standing. It's like we're gonna call so let's get him here. Uh, let's see. Senator Ipson, is he on the hill today? I haven't seen him. Uh, so we have two Senator Vickers online. Senator Weiler and Senator Riebe. So we got Senator Ipson Epson's online. Yeah, let's, let's mute you see who we're missing here. Re and Plum Plums. Over here's Re's Online. Oh, Re's Online. Okay. Uh, we got Grover. Where's Grover at? Okay. Senator Fillmore. Senator Grover's, I think logging on. So I'm gonna go ahead and lift the call. So let's go ahead.

Right. Thank you. I move that second substitute Senate Bill 62 pass.

Senator Vickers. Baldy. Lewin Brammer Aye. Bus Colmore Aye. Illa? No. Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper. Aye. Kinins Ipson. No. Johnson. Aye. K Juab McKay A. Mikel Milner Musman. Rob Aye. Owens pitcher Lum Rebe.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to say that no school districts support this bill. No one in, uh, the education community supports this bill. This is, um, be careful. Go ahead. I'm looking at the tracking sheets. The JLC doesn't support This URSA doesn't support this. And, um, UEA doesn't support this, so I'm a no.

Senator Sandall Stevenson Stratton Aye. Vickers Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton President Adams Aye.

Uh, thank you. Um, Madam Speaker Pro. This is a very, very simple bill, um, currently in the, um, code. It names this, uh, a particular section of, uh, in our public education funding flexible allocation account. Um, that money actually came from the professional staff services. Um, we, it was moved, um, last year or perhaps the year before into the flexible allocation account, but it is all still currently used for, for professional staff hours. So this bill, all it does is renames that flexible allocation account to teacher and classroom salary support. And that is all the bill does, just to ensure that that account name reflects the purpose of the funding.

what the program is actually used for in schools, which is teacher and classroom compensation. So, um, in that way the, the funds become slightly more restricted. Uh, but this is a move that's supported by the schools and their associations and provides additional transparency for how tax dollars are being used. I move to Concur.