State Board offers two plans to meet reduction target, lists priorities including WPU increase and K‑3 paraprofessionals

Chair Matt Jaimas and Board Vice Chair Bollinger presented two alternative approaches the State Board of Education developed in response to the committee’s request to identify options for ongoing reductions.

Plan 1: one‑time heavier. Vice Chair Bollinger described Plan 1 as relying more on one‑time reductions and specific reallocations the board could accept or recommend. The board noted it had identified several line items and one‑time sources for reallocation, including funds within the Excellence in Education program, and recommended the board pursue a deeper review before committing to ongoing eliminations. "We did recommend the Upstart administration funds to be reallocated," Bollinger said while cautioning the board lacks direct control over some governor‑office allocations.

Plan 2: distributed percentage trimming. Chair Jaimas said Plan 2 applies a roughly 5–6% percentage reduction across a set of programs where the board had not already reached consensus, producing a larger ongoing reduction total. The board acknowledged the distributed approach could reduce program scope and create second‑order effects at the LEA level.

Board spending priorities. Both presenters emphasized areas they want the Legislature to prioritize for reinvestment: (1) a WPU increase (the board asked for 2% above the inflationary adjustment), (2) a paraprofessional K‑3 grant program to reduce adult‑student ratios in early grades, (3) Beverly Taylor Sorensen program support, (4) K‑8 literacy and numeracy programs, (5) USBE critical FTE funding to manage increased legislative workload, (6) the master pilot program to retain teachers, and (7) improved pupil transportation funding.

Committee concerns and next steps. Members pressed on potential effects of cuts to early literacy, dual immersion, concurrent enrollment and CTE student organization funding; Board staff repeatedly cautioned reductions would cascade to LEA decisions and could affect staffing or services. Chair Jaimas said the board will continue to refine the proposals and return with more complete, numbered line‑item recommendations.

Provenance: Board presentation began in the transcript at SEG 1971 and continued through the priorities discussion concluding around SEG 2689. Key statements and plan descriptions appear in the Board’s presentation and subsequent Q&A (see transcript segments beginning SEG 1971).