Lawmakers on the Appropriations & Finance committee on an unspecified date pressed staff on a proposal to place $150 million into a three‑year “reform” or innovation fund for public schools, asking whether the fund would be subject to legislative approval or only consultation and how pilot projects would be measured and scaled.

The discussion centered on whether that $150 million — recommended by both the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) and the Legislative Education Study Committee (LESC) and reflected in executive proposals — would give the executive branch sole discretion or require a formal legislative approval step after an evaluation period. Representative Chatfield said she wanted the bill to require approval, not merely “consultation,” so the Legislature would retain oversight. “I would like to see the words approval,” she said.

Sunny (staff) and other LFC staff described the fund as a research‑oriented, nonrecurring appropriation intended to seed three‑year pilots of targeted initiatives — for example structured literacy, expanded career and technical education (CTE) models, STEM networks and supports for unhoused students — with an evaluation plan at the outset and a recommendation to repurpose funding if pilots failed to meet agreed measures of success. Sunny said the bill requires an “accountability and evaluation plan” and that the initial phase would include consultation with LFC and LESC; the bill does not, as written, give the Legislature final approval of the results.

The debate also revisited how some prior appropriations have been used. Representative Chatfield said $40 million that had been appropriated for CTE last year was treated as a dedicated pool but was later repurposed after low participation in a separate program, and she urged that oversight not be reduced for a large new infusion of funds. Sunny and other staff noted that some existing line items and programs in the department’s request already had research or evidence behind them and that the proposed reform fund was intended to allow rigorous testing (for instance randomized or quasi‑experimental designs) before scaling interventions into the recurring base.

Committee members pressed for clarity on multiple line items shown in the handout. Staff clarified or provided context for several items when asked: a $90 million executive request for the Indian Education Fund (noted as a difference between proposals), a historical $40 million CTE appropriation that has been used across many CTE purposes, and smaller line items such as panic‑button mobile subscriptions (described by staff as a $1 million appropriation for K‑12 mobile panic apps) and bus replacements for vehicles at statutory replacement age (staff said the replacement money targets diesel buses reaching a 12‑year threshold).

Representative Herndon pressed staff on several pilot items that LESC and LFC did not recommend, including wellness rooms. Herndon said the committee’s materials undercounted previous spending on wellness rooms and that the committee had not consulted directly with some school sites where she said the rooms were “incredibly successful.” Sunny replied that wellness room pilots had used opioid settlement funds and that the evidence was still emerging; staff expressed concern that very small pilots might not be scalable or able to meet the evidence thresholds required by the Martinez‑Yazzie court remand.

Members also discussed the Black Education Act and the Hispanic Education Act. Staff said some activities tied to those acts were being funded from the department’s operating budget rather than the nonrecurring pot, and that the committee could ask for a study or statutory language revisions to strengthen measurable outcomes for those acts. Representative Herndon urged a broader review of both acts and called for clearer, measurable activities before denying recurring funding.

Other topics raised during the briefing included community school coordinators (staff said line 42 in the packet funds coordinators and that several schools used operational funds to retain coordinators when appropriations declined), school meal quality and contracting (staff said the department is paying higher per‑meal rates for higher‑quality meals but some districts continued with prepackaged options), and an annual school safety summit (staff said the summit is in its third year and is intended as a low‑cost convening for districts and law enforcement; members asked for any written recommendations or results associated with the summits).

Committee members repeatedly urged that the design include stronger front‑end accountability: specify evaluation plans early, ensure piloting is at sufficient scale to detect outcomes, and clarify which funds are recurring program funding versus nonrecurring tests. Staff told members they expect lawmakers will have opportunities to amend the bills as they move through Senate and House education committees and that the LFC/LESC recommendations aim to balance directed pilots, competitive appropriations, and recurring investments.

The briefing did not record a formal committee vote on the $150 million or the specific line items during the session excerpted in the transcript. Members asked staff for follow‑up materials, including: a list of bills associated with line items or appropriations; one‑page breakdowns of how multi‑purpose CTE buckets were being spent (innovation zones, NextGen CTE formula, CTSOs, PED personnel, assessments); documentation from wellness room pilots and the school safety summit; and clearer definitions for “innovation zones,” STEM network operations, and GROW funding categories.

The committee’s discussion emphasized three recurring themes: preserve legislative oversight where possible, require rigorous evaluation for pilot funding before building it into the recurring base, and provide clearer documentation and line‑item detail so rural and small districts can see how proposals would affect local priorities and access to funds.

Ending: Committee staff said they would circulate follow‑up materials and that members would have opportunities to file amendments; no final appropriation or vote was recorded in the provided transcript excerpt.