Senate committee advances SCA 5 to the floor after debate over charter exclusion and fiscal safeguards

Senator Cortese presented SCA 5, the Education Equalization Act, to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, describing it as a constitutional amendment that would create an interest‑bearing equalization reserve funded only in strong budget years with non‑Proposition 98 general fund dollars. Cortese said interest from the reserve would be distributed to non‑basic aid districts to reduce per‑pupil funding gaps and emphasized the measure would not reduce the Prop. 98 minimum guarantee.

Supporters told the committee that long‑standing per‑pupil disparities affect academic programs, student supports and the ability to attract qualified staff. Lisa Andrew of the Silicon Valley Education Foundation said the proposal would create a stable stream of funding to narrow gaps, citing research that additional spending can boost student outcomes. Chris Norwood, board president of Milpitas Unified and chair of the Santa Clara County School Boards Association legislative action committee, said SCA 5 would not redirect local property taxes and described the measure as a fiscally responsible tool for long‑term equalization.

Carson Eads, representing the California Charter Schools Association, testified in opposition unless the measure is amended. Eads said SCA 5 as drafted excludes charter and county schools despite the local control funding formula applying to both districts and charters, and he estimated that exclusion would leave roughly 12 percent of public school students—about 750,000—outside the constitutional remedy. Eads warned that embedding eligibility in the constitution would make correcting such an exclusion difficult without another ballot measure.

Senator Cabaldon raised fiscal objections, saying that a constitutional mechanism guaranteeing non‑Prop. 98 transfers could reduce the legislature’s ability to make future budget choices and might leave some high‑need students ineligible if their districts are classified as basic aid. Senator Grayson said he would support SCA 5 while encouraging continued refinement of the measure. Vice Chair Sarita expressed reservations about constitutional fixes that could inadvertently worsen disparities and asked the author to clarify how certain borderline districts would be affected.

Cortese responded that the bill includes a three‑year look‑back to include districts that occasionally fall into non‑basic aid status and reiterated the reserve could be funded only in surplus years; he said equalizing decades of funding disparities will take time and noted the state is still working to close a multi‑billion‑dollar gap in school funding.

Senator Grayson moved that the measure be adopted and the roll was opened. The committee kept the item on call to permit members to add on; the clerk later recorded a final vote of 4–0 on the measure as presented, and the item was advanced for floor consideration (kept on call to allow members to add on). The committee also recorded and preserved the public testimony and the concerns voiced on charter school eligibility and fiscal constraints.

The committee’s next procedural step is floor scheduling; no final implementation language or effective dates were adopted at the hearing and the Department of Finance was not present to comment.