Senate Education Committee

Good morning, Madam Chair. You made it into the building. That was feet in and of itself today. Good morning, Chairs and Senators. I want to thank the committee staff for their work on this bill, and I'll be accepting the committee amendments, which I'm grateful for, and I think make the bill stronger. I'm proud to present AB 302, which protects minors from addictive feeds in two ways. It prohibits a school from excluding a student from participating in any extracurricular activities, including sports and clubs, due to the student not having or using addictive feeds. It also prohibits the schools from using addictive feeds as the only means or contact with students or the parents or guardians of students. This bill came to me honestly as the mother of an incoming high schooler. So I have decided that social media isn't something I need my children on because of the much research I've read. And as my daughter started to approach high school, I learned that in order for her to be an athlete at our local high school, she would have to join Instagram. I was shocked that in order to participate in sports at our local school district, you had to be on social media. I then started asking questions of parents with older children and learned that a friend of mine's daughter was excluded from the leadership program at her high school because she had made the choice that being on social media was not a healthy choice for her. And so this struck me as shocking, given the research that shows that our teens on social media, that it's addictive for them, that it may cause them to experience self-harm content and other content that we may not want them to have access to at such a young age. And so the idea that our schools would force them onto these addictive feeds seems shocking. When we started to discuss this with a broader audience just last week, I was on a call with Mothers Against Media Addiction, and a mother from Southern California was telling me about her district where they have to be on Snapchat to participate in the water, polo, and swimming program. And so I thought, okay, we talk a lot about whether we should ban kids under 16 from social media, but at the very least, our public institutions should not be taking that choice away from California's families and children. And so the bill is very simple. It merely says that they can't make it a prerequisite to participation and that there has to be at least a secondary means of communication. So if they want to communicate on these channels, that's fine, but the kids have to have another option to receive the information about where the sports activities are or the club activities are. With that I will turn it over to my witness one of our local high schoolers Good morning members and chair of the committee My name is Aiden I a student in Oakland going into junior year And every day students like me are handed an ultimatum join social media or miss out on clubs, teams, and activities that define their high school life. But that's not a choice many are up to making. AB 302 helps to fight for the independence of teens to fight addiction. The evidence is overwhelming. We know that addictive social media feeds are fueling a mental health crisis among young people, anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and social isolation. We've even seen the courts weigh in. A California jury recently held Meta liable for the psychological harm its platforms inflicted on children, awarding millions in damages, and fining the company, acted in malice. And yet the institutions and yet the very institutions we trust to protect kids, schools, are still requiring students to maintain accounts on these same platforms just to join clubs, sports teams, or student organizations. Some use social media as the only way to communicate with students and parents, forcing families and children onto platforms that are designed to exploit them. AB302, like Rebecca said, draws a simple line. Schools cannot make participation in addictive feeds a prerequisite for joining extracurricular activities, and they cannot use them as the sole channel of communication between students and families. It doesn't prohibit the use of these platforms. It just makes it so students and families have the choice to not participate in behavior that they're aware could harm their and their peers' well-being. The legislature has already shown the will to act. Phone bans in schools are working, and this is the logical next step. We shouldn't let California schools become a funnel into platforms that we've already decided are harming our children. For this reason, I urge your support for AB302. Our students deserve to participate fully in school life without surrendering their mental health to do it. Thank you.

So just grateful that you are bringing this bill forward. I'm actually surprised on, you know, I can understand. I think we're discussing with my, with my team as to the ones that we were, you know, required to add, which was banned or something, you know, that, that type of an app. But even that I was, I was thinking like, okay, I have to download this app. And, you know, it was just such a, I didn't care for it, but I'm grateful. And I am very, very grateful that this young man understands the impact of, of these addictive feeds and the impact that it has on the mind so for our youth so thank you for bringing forward I'd be happy to move the the bill when it's appropriate thank

there will be a lot of issues with the requirement of a particular social media platform sometimes the sports club captain or coach may have Intent to communicate with the members very quickly efficiently or exclusively If we prohibit this kind of exclusive use of certain special media, what kind of methods do you suggest for him to communicate with

Yeah, it's a little bit confusing to me. If you prefer to have different options from other social media sources, then I'm trying to think more positively, but at the same time from the point of the coach. then I have to deal with so many different ones when I'm so busy in informing from this channel, this channel, channel B, channel 3, et cetera, et cetera. And what would be the most sound way of efficiently communicating with the members or parents?

If the coach chooses email in particular, let's communicate with the email instead of a social platform, will it be okay?

Okay. So simply you are trying to prohibit a certain channel that may expose young people to most dangerous leading to undesirable sites.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Do you – are there – Senator Cortese, are you okay? Do you have any comments, questions?

Okay. So when the time is – we're going to place the bill on call for our absent members and wait to have a quorum. Thank you so much for presenting the bill.

You have a second one, AB 2504?

Oh, would you like to close?

Sorry, that's okay. We have a second bill, file item number 2, AB 2504, by Assemblywoman Bauer-Cahan.

We're going to pause for a minute. We have a quorum. Yeah, we're going to create our quorum right now. So, Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Senators Perez. Ochoa Bog. Here. Ochoa Bog here. Cabaldon. Cabaldon here. Choi. Here. Choi here. Cortese. Here. Cortese here. Gonzalez. Reyes. Okay. We'll now continue with any witnesses in support of AB 2504 here in room 2200. 2200, right? 2200. 2100. 2100. Sorry. 2100. Sorry. I do have another committee going on 1200 I'm supposed to be Please come up to the microphone State your name, your organization and your support for the bill Good morning, Mayra Jimenez on behalf of California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office in support Thank you very much Seeing no other witnesses in support we're not continuing with any lead witnesses in opposition Seeing no lead witnesses in opposition Do we have any other members of the public who would like to express their opposition? See none. We'll bring it back to the dais. A comments question? Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you, Senator. So we have a motion by Senator Kowal and Senator Choi. Okay, thank you. I think this measure is a very forward-thinking plan for rapidly changing technology era we are living in. And many people ask adults for the future job prospect for young people. What kind of a measure do I have to recommend? and what do I have to major in, et cetera, et cetera. And not to speak of our grandchildren who will be, you know, going, heading to colleges in 10 years, you know, 15 years. That's too far away because things are changing so rapidly. We cannot predict what the job prospect will be with the advent of artificial intelligence ability and taking over our jobs and impacting our jobs. So this is preparation, workforces, future workforces, that the predicting what the area, what kind of a major skills we need to train them. I think in that this program is in preparation for that. Your proposal is to implement only 10 selected community colleges as a pilot program. So can you explain how and who's going to select 10 colleges and then pilot program, how long that will be? That will be the first set of questions. The second would be how would you determine after the pilot program whether this program is working, effective, that we should implement for the rest of the colleges?

I see. To me, if a census and an evaluation will be done to either whether that was a successful program or not, to expand toward the college or not, it's kind of too far away, six years. Maybe you should consider shortening it to two or three years. that that should be enough time to evaluate how the program is going. That's my suggestion. Okay.

Thank you very much. Senator Cortese.

Thank you very much. Senator, sorry. That's up to the chair and the author. Madam Vice Chair, do you mind? Okay, please. The witness wants to say something.

Thank you. Okay. We'll have a follow-up question by Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you. So I think we had a motion by Senator Cabaldon prior to. I'll take two motions. But you had a second motion by Senator Choi. So Member Bauer-Cowling, would you like to close?

Madam Secretary, please call the roll. File item 2, AB 2504, Bauer-Cahan. Motion is due passed to the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee. Senators Perez, Ochoa Bogue. Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez. Reyes. Thank you, Senators. And we'll place that bill on call. for absent members well now I see we have Assemblymember Erwin would you like to present a file item number four AB 745 it's item number five previous item was pulled I'm sorry one more time 745 was pulled oh sorry sorry so we're gonna do 1534 file item number five yes I am proud today to present AB 1534 which supports California's implementation of the newly created federal workforce Pell grants by providing enhanced guardrails for the approval of short-term programs last Last year, H.R. 1 expanded the types of educational programs that are eligible for Pell Grants to include short-term workforce training programs lasting between 8 and 15 weeks. As California prepares to implement an approval process that ensures programs meet minimum federal standards, this bill adds additional standards to protect students from financially risky or low-quality programs. To prevent students from taking on unnecessary student debt, AB 1534 requires that programs limit tuition and fees to the maximum Pell Grant award and prohibits programs from offering risky income share agreements or other loan products that charge an interest rate above 0%. Additionally, AB 1534 requires programs partnering with unaccredited entities to be publicly transparent about the partnership, ensuring that students understand exactly what the program offers. Lastly, AB 1534 makes clear that unaccredited entities may not exercise control over course design or curriculum development that provides unaccredited entities, and it provides that unaccredited entities may not be compensated by a tuition-sharing model, which has been shown to encourage inappropriate incentives. With me to testify today is Manny Rodriguez, Senior California Policy Director for the Institute for College Access and Success.

And we're covered by the Assemblymember.

You're right about just over two minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Rodriguez. We'll now continue with any witnesses in support of AB 1534. Please come up to the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your position on the bill.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses, oh, we do have one more.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll continue with any lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing no witnesses in opposition, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments by our members. Okay, we have a motion. Senator Choi?

Yes, the states are able to set additional regulations, especially for consumer protection and student protection. I see.

The bill, as we mentioned, is supplementing the pending trailer bill language. So our bill doesn't explicitly carve them out or bring them in. That is kind of being defined in trailer bill language. Ours is adding kind of additional guardrails to what is being discussed and negotiated over there. And I believe that should be. From the beginning, if you can specify that will be more inclusive in the fair for the private post-secondary education and the tech education programs. If I remember correctly, the original version of our bill did include those, but as those discussions have continued, that broader approval process was kind of removed from this bill, and we were shrunk in size to do these four additional pieces. So we're doing the consumer protection, and the rest of the bill is being done in budget trailer language, we presume. If it doesn't end up in budget trailer language, then we will pull it back into our bill. Okay thank you Senator Gabaldon Oh sorry Oh it all good If you want to continue chairing Senator jump out

thank you seeing no other comments by committee members Oh sorry Senator Chobo Sorry

It is meant to be put in trailer bill language. And then this is putting the guardrails on what would be in trailer bill language. But since we haven't seen it yet, it's supposed to be put in trailer bill language. But since we haven't seen it yet, and we're not positive it is going to end up there, we might pull it all back into the bill if that's what the three-party agreement decides on. Okay. So when the bill was originally written, was it in there? Originally, we were dealing with all of it, yes. Yes. So you were there with the original. And then when was it taken out? Was it through discussions or through committee? I'm assuming through a committee. Just, you know, there was just a mention that part of the bill would be done through, implemented through trailer bill language. Okay. So I'm going to abstain. I'm very supportive, incredibly supportive of the measure. I'm going to wait to see what that language looks like and what it will potentially look like when it comes back to the Senate floor. Do you think it's going to happen before it comes to the Senate floor? No? These are all decisions that are not under my control. All right. So I'm going to abstain. I'm going to wait to see what it looks like. We'll have some time before it gets to us on the Senate floor. So I'm going to wait to support the bill, hopefully with the right language, once we see the, hopefully, on the budget trailer bill. So I think it, I'm just nervous to exclude these particular entities, but I look forward to actually supporting the bill. and so I'm grateful for the work that you've done. Yes, Senator Cobaltin. I just wanted to add, because I happen to agree with both of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, but I do also think that supporting this bill and this author and the set of sponsors they're doing, They are trying to cover the full landscape, including the legit private and tech schools that should be in the mix. And I think it would be a good message for the administration for us to back up this issue. So I'm hopeful that moving this bill forward will continue to elevate the importance of this and also to make sure that the legislature's voices on these issues are heard. so I know I I'll change my vote I'll give you an I and then look at the final language when it comes to the Senate floor okay Senator Koboldi you've got my I thank you Senator Kbalden thank you I'm just enthralled by the robust discussion here Assemblymember Erwin I'm very supportive of this bill I appreciate you bringing this forward my recommendation is an I vote I think both myself and Senator Cabaldon and Senator Ochoa Bogue all have very strong feelings about, uh, doing policy work through the budget. And if it was our preference, we wouldn't, we would not do that again in the foreseeable future. I hope that the governor's office is listening and the future governor is listening, but, um, appreciate you putting, um, all of this and into a bill because it's such an important measure and I appreciate your sponsors being here as well. So I will turn it over to you to close and we'll be voting aye. All right. Well, just respectfully ask for your aye vote. I don't know if you have a quorum already, but if you do, I would appreciate an aye vote. Excellent. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Irwin. And the motion, we have a motion from Senator Cortese, and the motion for that is due pass to the Senate Labor Public Employment and Retirement Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bog. Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez. Reyes. Thank you very much. Thank you. All righty. I see that we have a couple of authors in the audience. We will start with Assemblymember Marzucci, who's presenting AB 1381 and AB 2202. Assemblymember, you can get started whenever you're ready. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Senators. I am here to present Assembly Bill 1381, a gut and amend bill with the goal of protecting students from teachers committing sexual and other egregious misconduct, while also protecting the due process and privacy rights of teachers. First, I want to thank the chair and the committee staff for your leadership on this issue and for giving me an opportunity to work with you on this bill. I will commit to continue to work with this committee to get the policy right should this bill move forward today. In 2024, the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, or FICMAT, issued a report on the devastating fiscal impact of child sexual assault claims on school districts under AB 218. The report calls for stronger employee screening, stronger work history verification, and creation of an electronic database of school employee egregious misconduct that is accessible to school employers. In response, last year, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 848 under the leadership of Chair Perez, which strengthened employee screening requirements and established a statewide misconduct database for classified employees. This bill seeks to strengthen employee screening for school teachers to help identify teachers with a history of complaints, substantiated investigations, or discipline for egregious misconduct. A recent May 2026 KQED and ProPublica article about teacher misconduct in California highlights ongoing serious gaps in our current system of screening and identifying those applying for teaching jobs with a history of sexual and other egregious misconduct. The article focuses on a California teacher who was fired by Northern California School District after at least 11 individual students submitted written complaints of inappropriate touching and at least two warnings from school administrators to stop. After being fired this teacher unfortunately went on to teach at a second and then a third school within three years Meanwhile, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing issued a one-week suspension of his teaching license for his behavior at his first school with no public notice of the circumstances of his discipline. The State of California, through the CTC, has allowed him to continue to teach. This bill before the committee today seeks to strengthen employee screening for schoolteachers with a history of egregious misconduct. It is a work in progress. I have been meeting with stakeholders and I want to acknowledge concerns raised about employee due process and the potential consequences of unproven allegations. Again, I will commit to working with this committee and all stakeholders to develop a workable solution that strikes the proper balance between protecting students and upholding the due process and privacy rights of teachers. I have draft amendments ready for consideration in Senate Privacy Committee. Should this bill move out of this committee, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. At this point, this bill is author-sponsored, and so I do not have any witnesses at this point. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any Me Too's in support? Bella Kern on behalf of the School Employers Association of California in support. Great. Anybody else? alrighty seeing no one rising we'll now turn to witnesses in opposition good morning madam chair and members Tristan Brown of CFT union of educators and classified professionals here in respectful opposition about the language in print today and hearing the author's intent to move forward in a different direction gives us some light at the end of the tunnel. We know that this committee did take historic action last year in this realm of ensuring that student safety is priority number one and the CFD could not agree more. That is our first and primary focus of folks that are in local print has to make sure students are safe at all times. We hope that we can concentrate on where some of the gaps exist right now and how districts can make the best decisions possible. We are currently working on similar systems in other parts of the education workforce right now to establish databases that allow hiring committees to know exactly what has happened. We know that you already have to ask for prior employers. Individuals will provide these lists, and it's up to districts to talk to one another. This can be a bottleneck at times, unfortunately. In the state where we house the Silicon Valley, we think we should be able to find out technologically how we can make sure that data can be shared so that we can track individuals who have been proven to have committed egregious misconduct. We also are heartened to hear that the author is taking serious our due process requests seriously. This is a system where we want to make sure that we do track those who have been found culpable to have committed this egregious misconduct. It is a reality in our world that sometimes there are mistakes, sometimes there are allegations that are unfounded and sometimes there are admissions by folks who said well I was angry and I made something up and I or I embellished and folks are exonerated and we want to make sure that process is pristine so that individuals can exonerate themselves and continue the the precious work that they love to do here in education so we look forward to working further with the author office in crafting a system where districts do have the latest and greatest information so they know what they getting into and that those lists are founded upon the principles of due process and we make sure that we just are tracking those who deserve to be tracked. So with that, we are in respectful opposition and hope that this bill continues in the direction that the author is intending. So we thank you for the time. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any other additional me-toos in opposition? Anyone else? Seeing no one else, we will turn it back to the committee. Do we have any questions? Yes, Senator Cortese. I actually got my questions answered ahead of time, but I wanted to acknowledge the opposition and also acknowledge that I spoke to the author, and he assured me that he was going to continue to work on what he acknowledged are some unfinished issues with opposition. So I'm going to be supporting the bill, and I'm happy to move it at the appropriate time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Cortese. Do we have any other questions or comments? Yes, Senator Chobo. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And welcome. So it's my understanding that this bill is very similar right now currently as Assemblymember Sanchez AB 2365, which was held in appropriations. Is that correct? That is correct. In its current language. In its current language, and it's coming in there. So that's what I wanted to just kind of figure out. How did this happen that the bill was held in appropriation, but you were able to bring it to us here with the current language? Yes. I thank you for giving a due acknowledgement to Assemblymember Sanchez and her bill. And so the language that I currently amended and put into my bill, AB 1381, was a portion of Assemblymember Sanchez's bill that proposed, I believe it was the Assembly Education Committee's amendments to her bill that proposed this statewide database. database similar to what chair Perez accomplished through SB 848 last year for classified employees but with with a narrow focus than assembly member Sanchez's bill to focus specifically on this database at the same time I want to acknowledge that I had great conversations with with the chair with Mr. Johnson, with the committee staff, as well as with the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, on the California Federation of Teachers and other stakeholders, and fully recognize the concerns about unproven allegations ending up in this school database about the many laws and regulations that create a lot of complications in terms of proposing a new database for teachers. And so those are part of the ongoing discussions that we having to again achieve the goal of strengthening our current system of vetting school teacher applicants to protect students while at the same time making sure that we don undermine the due process and the privacy rights of teachers Okay, so that's what I was trying to figure out is, you know, how does the bill move forward with that language if it mimics the one that Assemblymember Sanchez carried and it was killed in appropriations? How do you move that forward? And that was my biggest question is, what's the plan on that end? Because if it's already being killed, then what are we looking to modify? Which I'm assuming it's the collaboration and the protections moving forward. Is that correct? This would not be the first time that language that was held in one bill can be amended and placed in similar fashion in a subsequent bill. I'm incredibly intrigued on how this happened and how it's going to move forward on there, so I'm going to be watching. I am it's interesting because we're voting on language and bills we're supposed to look at what's before us we support bills you know in hopes that it's going to be changed but it looks like it's going to be amended quite drastically in some ways hopefully not taking out the essence of trying to contain that protection for our students I actually was very very supportive of assembly member senator I'm sorry not assembly member Senator Perez's bill last year in protecting our students. So I was very excited to see that. But I feel for Assemblymember Sanchez, whose bill was killed in appropriations and wasn't able to move forward without language. So maybe folks could work collaboratively and co-author each other's bill if it gets to be moved forward. I'm going to abstain today on the bill, but I look forward to seeing the language on what you're going to come out. And hopefully the strength and the teeth will be there in order to protect our students moving forward. But I know that there's great teamwork. And I know that Senator Perez is an advocate, a fervent advocate for the protection of our students. and so I wish you the very best and I will be watching this bill very closely and hopefully we'll be able to support it when it comes before me I'm assuming at the Senate floor will probably be the next time I see it. Yes, I just want to acknowledge Vice Chair your comments. If Assemblymember Sanchez is watching this hearing I intended to reach out to her to inform her of what we're working on This really came together. I did have a chance to talk with Assemblymember Flora yesterday that had another approach that we're considering dealing with the same subject matter of strengthening school employee vetting. But yes, I do want to give due acknowledgement to Assemblymember Sanchez in terms of the language that she had proposed in her bill. Sorry, just one final. It's not just the acknowledgement part of it. It's just that I want to just publicly note that, you know, the work that she worked really hard on it and that it was killed in appropriations. And you are absolutely blessed to be able to carry the bill now with very similar language, if not the same as of right now and be before us. So that's That's the point that I wanted to just acknowledge publicly is that I feel for our authors when they get killed and then the language is just taken over and they get to move forward in committees. And so that's the one thing that I just wanted to acknowledge. And I know you, so I just wanted to make sure that we had a fair disclosure and transparency in what was happening. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Chobok. Senator Cabaldon? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the author's work on this. I do. This is an extraordinary procedure to undertake. And so the standard is high. I think there, as the authors noted there, at the end of this session, there are emergencies that arise and we have to make changes to bills as they happen. But it is an exceptional standard as well. And I just want to level set because this bill will – Senator Ochoa Bogan and I will see this bill next week if it passes out of committee today in the Privacy Committee. The Privacy Committee will be focused on the privacy and the data sharing related issues. So if the bill is amended to address other topics in education or in this field that don't relate to that, we won't be taking additional amendments in that space without the full consent of this committee's chair as well. So I want to level set that. There won't be time for another education committee hearing. The privacy committee is not a substitute for the education committee. And so today I'm planning to vote for the bill if the chair recommends it. And there is work to be done and encouraged by the opposition's optimism that the decision can be worked through. But just to just to just to make sure that we're that we're clear that we're going to focus in the privacy committee on, you know, issues of data sharing and that sort of thing, as opposed to any additional new issues that are about the education system that aren't related to the jurisdiction of that of that committee, at least not without the concurrence of the chair of this committee as well. So thanks, Madam Chair. Senator, if I may, through the chair. As I indicated, I have draft amendment language in print ready to be reviewed by the Senate Education Committee as well as with the Privacy Committee. And so, again, I'm very appreciative to the chair for giving me this opportunity to continue to work with this committee. If the draft amendment is not acceptable to the Senate Ed Committee, then I will not move the bill forward. Any other comments? Assembly Member Maharsuji, first of all, I want to thank and acknowledge you bringing this bill forward and your interest in doing work in this space. I think as you and many of the other members of this committee, as well as the other House know, this is an issue that is especially important to me given SB 848 last year and what a priority it was. That was an author-sponsored bill as well. and we were very happy to see it pass. And as I've shared with folks, I myself was a victim of child grooming when I was a high school student. And so understand just how frequently these issues can happen on campus and how important it is that we address issues in this space I am aware of the ProPublica article and have even had conversations with ProPublica as well as they've continued to explore this issue. And this is part of the reason why when we passed SB 848 last year, it made very clear to all of the members that I would likely be doing more in that space, right? There's so much work to do in this space. And this particular policy area brings up various concerns, not just around student safety and how do we do our best to protect our students, but also respecting due process rights and privacy rights. And, you know, frankly, it's a space that we've been needing to do more work in for a very long time as a legislature. So I understand what you're trying to do here. I know we've had conversations, and because this is a gut and amend, you are quite limited on your time in order to be able to get a policy like this together. And so I know you're looking at how you can create something very strong with the last several weeks that we have left, which I think is very smart on your part. And I think what you've heard from the other senators who have spoken today is really a desire to make sure that we get something done that is impactful and can be implemented correctly on the ground and is going to have its intended effect, which is protecting our students and making sure that we get this policy right, given we only have about six more weeks before we get to the end of session. So I'm certainly committed to working with you to make sure that that happens. And, you know, like I said, appreciate you just taking an interest in this space because it is really going to be one that requires investment from a lot of different folks. The AB 218 report that was produced by FICMAT, I think it didn't just assign a dollar amount to the amount of harm that has been committed against our students. but also help to uncover how frequently that this has been happening all across the state. And this is not just a California issue. This is a national issue. You know, the United States Department of Ed has looked into this issue. So it is one that is going to require work on all ends. So we will continue to have conversations, appreciate the thoughtfulness that you've put into this. and we'll continue moving that forward. So I know it's heading to privacy next and look forward to continuing those discussions. My recommendation is an aye vote so that we can continue to move these discussions forward and that we can help to get this right and continue to build on that good work. So I'll turn it over to you to close. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I appreciate your leadership. We know that this is a politically fraught policy area to wade into, and you're taking it straight on with your bill last year, SB 848, and your bill this year, the follow-up to your achievement last year. I truly appreciate your leadership in this difficult policy area. I you know again want to acknowledge that you know I have limited time I recognize that But in some ways because of my limited time I felt that it was important for me to bring this bill forward But again I appreciate this opportunity to work on the amendments to get your approval to get the Center Privacy Committee approval hopefully to continue to move the ball forward to protect our kids. So I am very appreciative and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much. And do we have a motion on this bill? We'll have a motion by Senator Cortese. And the motion for AB 1381 is due pass to the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee. Secretary, can you please call the roll? Senators Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Boog. Cabaldon Cabaldon aye Choi Aye Choi aye Cortese Aye Cortese aye Gonzalez Reyes Thank you. We will put that bill on call. Did you want to move on to your next bill? Yes, please. Thank you. I would like to now present Assembly Bill 2202, a bill that would establish a commission to close the achievement gap as an advisory body of the State Board of Education. Currently, state programs aimed at closing the achievement gap are often fragmented and siloed across agencies without a unified strategy or consistent evaluation. This CTAG Commission, the Close the Achievement Gap Commission, would directly address this fragmentation by, one, developing and informing a coherent statewide approach to closing the achievement gap, Two, evaluating how existing programs work together and where they do not. And three, recommend ways to align policy, funding, and support with the ultimate objective of closing the achievement gap in the state of California. This is part of a priority package for the California School Boards Association. And with me to testify in support of this is the sponsor of the measure of the California School Boards Association, represented by Carlos Machado. And the California Federation of Teachers represented by Tristan Brown. Good morning. My name is Carlos Michaud. I'm with California School Board Association, the proud sponsor of AB 2202. CSB represents nearly 1,000 school district and county boards of education tasked with the local stewardship of our state's nearly 6 million students. While our locally elected trustees are held to a high standard of public accountability through elections, and the California School Dashboard, they often find themselves operating within an uncoordinated state-level structure. For too long, local leaders have had to navigate a series of disconnected mandates and ad hoc reforms that, while well-intentioned, often conflict with one another at the local level. AB 2202 provides the State Board of Education with a vital mechanism to bridge the systemic gap by establishing the Closing Achievement Gap Commission. The bill creates a structured feedback loop between local leaders, educators, and state policymakers. The commission will provide an important local perspective for the state board, including a ground-level experience necessary to refine and update state programs so they act as a strategic partner in local success rather than a source of regulatory friction AB 2202 will help us move toward a system that is organized for results On behalf of California schools and county trustees CSB urges an aye vote on AB 2202 Good morning again, Madam Chair and members. Tristan Brown of CFT. We're happy to be in support of this bill. Oftentimes, and I think it's a cliche, but it's worth repeating that you can't see the forest through the trees. And as CSBA eloquently said, you do have certain viewpoints and lenses at which a school board may only look through. We're happy that this is a focused work group on closing achievement gaps, but I think we also know that oftentimes those are not just achievement gaps, those are also opportunity gaps. And what is to be done by a school district or a single school board in challenges that face outside of curriculum adoption and everything else that's before a board on the day-to-day management of a school district? we're talking about things like housing insecurity food insecurity things that really impact the ability for students to have the same opportunities as others and really hit that achievement these are things that are beyond i think traditional school board reach but if we have a statewide plan and a 30 000 foot overview of what we're doing and seeing how we can have better coherence among the different parts of the education system but also working as we are now with community schools and other programs working with social services etc there is more ability to take a more holistic view of how we can ensure that students do achieve. So we're happy that there is movement forward now to have that 30,000 foot view of what we're doing for students and to help them achieve. And that's why we're here in support today. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any me too's and support in the audience? If so, please use the mic at the Good morning, my name is Denise Morgan. I am an Education Commissioner for the California State PTA, and we're in support of this bill. Good morning, Debra Shade, Trustee, Solana Beach School District, in support. Good morning, Lourdes Perez, Trustee for Series Unified School District, in support. Good morning, Devin Conley, Trustee for the Mountain View Wiseman School District, in support. Good morning, Ronan Conley, student in the Mountain View Wiseman School District, in strong support. Good morning, Marina Ramos, John Sweat Unified School District, in strong support. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators Adam Kegel on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, in support. Bella Kern on behalf of San Francisco Unified School District in support. Harold Tallerup on behalf of the Santa Clara County Office of Education in support. Dr. Stephanie Lewis, Rialto Unified School District, strong support. Annette Lewis, trustee for the Contra Costa County Board of Education, strong support. Shelby Muller, Trustee for the Rinkin Valley Union School District in Sonoma County, strong support. Jessica Spizer, Vice President, Santa Clara County Board of Education, strong support. Sylvia Leong, Trustee, Cupertino Union School District, strong support. Jessica Rogers, Trustee at the El Dorado Union High School District, in strong support. Dr. Daniel Sandoval, Board President, Santa Paula Unified School District, in strong support. Sarah Butler, Contra Costa County Board of Education, in strong support. Zachary Ramos-Gustina Unified School District, in strong support. Misty DeVittorio, Placifal Union School District, fervent support. Alita Fisher, San Francisco Unified School District and County Office of Ed, in support, along with my board, including Vice President Jamie Hewling and Andy Lee from Jefferson Union High School District. Good morning, Nancy Smith from Palmdale School District and I'm in complete support of this bill. Hi, Yesenia Cuarenta on the Paramount Unified School District in support of this bill. Thank you. Tara Jean, Board President of the Sacramento City Unified School District. Strong support. Seeing no one else, we will turn it over to witnesses in opposition. Do you have any witnesses in opposition? Hi, good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Melissa Bardo on behalf of EdTrust West. While we don't have a formal opposition position, we do have some significant concerns regarding the logistics. We share the author's goal of trying to close achievement gaps and look forward to working with the author and sponsors to resolve those concerns. But we did submit a letter of concern to the committee and members. Thank you. Thank you. Sadabach is with children now, also in concern. Ben Murphy, public advocates, also in concern. Thank you. Thank you, Singh. No one else. Thank you all for your presentations. We will turn it back to the committee. Senator Choi. Thank you, Chair. And also thank you, Assemblymember Mayor. So your bill is one of the few rare bills dealing with relating to student achievement aspect. Many of the bills we deal with in education committee has been more of a non-curriculum, non-learning, more of a social issues. I would be supporting the measure. However, I have some technical questions. Closing EO bill is to create a newly established commission's name will be the Closing the Achievement Gap Commission. So, sounds like that the commission is in charge of how to find the methodology to close the gap. So does that mean that we know the reasons of why students have different achievement gaps, that the causes have been identified, and now this commission will be finding the ways how to close the gap? what will this Commission also try to determine why such a achievement gap among students or whatever ability or social background etc etc can you clarify that Well thank you Dr Choi I know as an educator you understand that you know the achievement gap one as Mr Brown indicated earlier, you know, is largely a reflection of opportunity gaps largely along the lines of income and wealth. And so we know that communities in Irvine and Torrance have educational opportunities available to families that are not available to many communities in lower income disadvantaged neighborhoods. neighborhoods. And so, you know, bottom line, there's no silver bullet in terms of closing the achievement gap, but we know that there's, you know, so many of the programs that come before this committee, whether it's the local control funding formula to get more funding to school districts with the largest numbers of disadvantaged students, you know, or whether it's community schools or whether it's expanded learning opportunities. I mean, all of our efforts are all trying to close those opportunity and achievement gaps. And so I just want to emphasize that while there is no silver bullet that this commission or anybody, for that matter, can propose to close the achievement gap, it will at least help coordinate and bring all those efforts together in a cohesive strategy to align our efforts, align our funding, the billions of dollars that we spend on education to help close the opportunity and achievement gaps.

And this commission will be charged to find the answers to close the gaps.

is both trying to find the causes of the achievement gaps and finding the methodology to close the gap and identify the causation of the achievement gap.

Yeah, so I think there's a general consensus that the achievement gap is largely a reflection of the gaps in socioeconomic status of students and families. So with that general understanding of the cause of the overall achievement gap, the goal of this commission is to focus on coordinating the many efforts of the state of California, ongoing efforts to coordinate those efforts to help close the achievement gap that is largely understood to be a reflection of the differences in the socioeconomic circumstances of our students and families. I don't know if the School Board Association also wants to add to that. And thank you for the question. It's a good one.

Thank you. This is a very important issue that we face all the educators, teachers, school board members face. this body new commission that will be created is at least another effort but this kind of a task or mission has been had to be already the mission of the superintendent of public instruction who is in charge of entire learning school school systems I wonder why that kind of effort has not been studied and then also even many support school board representatives a while ago came out to express the support of this bill that is also locally each school district will have the same question how do we close the learning gap and with this age-old education history now at this particular moment another layer top layer state level new Commission has to be created as an advisory Commission and I wonder That is my overall question, but more specifically, there was an interesting bill proposed to this committee a week ago, Assemblyman Corey Jackson. His bill was to create a special resources program based upon race or he called black culture identified the race base about the he kept on emphasizing black culture the people with the black community culture we have a different ways of learning so therefore special resources will have to be devoted for that culture, for that race. So that means Asians will learn differently.

No, no, I'm trying to ask whether that was an achievement gap widening. And under this umbrella, trying to achieve the same goal. regardless of who they are his bill was focusing upon racial reason to close the gap. This commission will deal with that racial basis learning gap is there because of the, so that means that this is a very complicated issue, how to solve finding the methodology. So have Have you ever talked to him?

Yeah. Okay. Senator, I think I have like as an example in our local community, there was a significant achievement gap for a Hmong population in South Sacramento. And not seeing opportunities, they went the charter route and were able to facilitate a school that was much more adept to meeting the needs of those students. And virtually overnight, you saw huge achievement successes in that population. So they were having to be out of the box thinking and using the charter model to address those concerns. And I think that that is something that not is necessarily race-based, but how are we making sure the programs that we're doing in literacy, in training for our staff from district to district can learn from best practices from one another and use these examples as ways to meet students where they are in a various, many different ways, in whatever the cause of their gaps may be, to learn from best practices from throughout the state and have that state viewpoint enabled to connect those dots and be able to meet those students. So I think that was a very micro example of how one single district and one population was able to overcome their challenges, if we can learn from that and mirror that and a statewide commission that can also look through that that would be a great benefit to many others and i think also to uh echo comments from say our state board chair you know dr london dolling hammond who's always said that if you have well-trained veteran educators that are able to be in the classroom you're able to see and with lower class sizes you're able to see these achievement gaps lower as well are there districts that are doing this in a way that is more impactful than others how can we again connect those dots and look at this holistically from the state level so we know how to support and move one lever over another is it more support with the Golden State Teacher grant program is it moving faster in our apprenticeship model that we're trying to get off the ground are there other things we can do to make sure that we're meeting those students I think that's the the approach that's a little bit different and what this bill is trying to bring to the overall dialogue it's that's that's I think where we can make some great achievement strides okay thank you let's

she'd like to ask. I'm struggling with this bill, in part because I've seen this movie many, many many times and and I've been in it I've been I've been on several of these these kind of these state board governor's office legislative created sort of Noah's Ark's committees and commissions with big with big promise about what would be emerging from there and it's I'm struggling to see the outcome here particularly because we have another bill later that adds another working group on closing the gap operations as well and it's just it's not adding up for me in terms of the process so you know we've heard in the in the testimony in the presentation today that you know we can we can all pretty much agree that the the cause of the achievement gap is unequal opportunity that folks have based on principally on where they live in their family income and what-have-you but we we actually can't all agree on that I I don't agree that that's kind of the end of the story. It's part of the story. It's an important part of the story, to be sure, and it's why we have to tackle redlining and housing affordability and everything else. But it cannot be the main part. We can't simply say that's the case and, therefore, let's cope. And you can see that in the composition of the proposed commission in that out of 18 people, there's one from an educational equity organization. You know, those annoying organizations that kind of call us all to account and say, hey, system people, folks, employees, board members, senators, and what have you, hey, there's a real problem here that's real and that we can do and we must do something about it. We have an urgent imperative to deal with the achievement gap regardless of its origins. And so the Noah's Ark inside the schoolhouse doors approach to this seems to me unlikely given that predilection that everybody has to say that to produce breakthrough results that would change what we're hearing. and so it feels to me like I can already predict what the report's gonna say in the end it's gonna it's gonna say we have some ideas that you know the state should give us more flexibility stop mandating so many things but then there be a minority report from six of the members of the Commission saying but don touch these labor standards or these curriculum standards or whatever That eminently predictable Recommendation two will be we need more money and that money should be in the local control funding formula and there should be fewer categoricals And then recommendation three will be let's keep in mind that the real cause of the achievement gap is some rich communities provide better opportunities. And that will be the end. That will be the end. We've received many of these reports over and over again. And the challenge is not just that that is a waste of time because it's eminently foreseeable, but also that between now and then, between now and the time that the reports do, every time someone else has a breakthrough idea, whether it's a group of faculty, teachers, or one of the educational equity groups, or a member of the legislature, we will say, that's a fantastic idea. You know what we should do? Let's send that to this commission to study and think about for the next year or two, and we will do nothing. And so as we're considering the governor's proposal, which I think it's no secret I have significant concerns about, but it is intended to tighten up the way we're making decisions so that we can actually take action on things that will close the achievement gap and the opportunity gap, that as the analysis points out, the value add of this is at least a question. And then we have another bill later today that creates another working group. And we're not serving students, especially those that are on the losing end of the achievement gap, simply by creating more meetings and more commissions. We need breakthrough action. And I know everybody in the room believes that, too. But so I'm not sure I can vote for this one. I'm trying to understand this whole package. But I really I've been a performer, a supporting character on the stage of this of this movie or this play over and over and over and over again. And I just think at some point we have to say enough. And let's really let's hold to account the State Board of Education if there are policies that they can do. Let's hold ourselves to account through the budget process, through the confirmation process for state board members. But simply inviting 17 people from within the system plus one person from an educational equity organization doesn't seem to me designed to produce the kind of uncomfortable conversations and policy solutions that we're going to need in order to tackle this. So I look forward to the chair's comments, but this gives me some enduring heartburn about both this and the other bill that proposed to create these new structures without the promise that they're going to be any different from the commissions and the committees and the working groups that we have already been deploying for the last two generations.

Melissa Bardo on behalf of Ed Trust West and a coalition of education equity advocates, including Children Now, Public Advocates, Californians Together, and the Alliance for Children's Rights. We greatly appreciate the intent of improving student outcomes and closing opportunity gaps. Many of our missions have been dedicated towards that very goal for decades. But we are concerned that this legislative package places too much emphasis on reducing compliance burdens rather than advancing a cohesive system strategy Our main concern with AB 2202 is you know raised in the analysis as the likely duplication of work that can and should be owned at the highest levels of state governance including the State Board of Education or existing advisory groups that, you know, advise on a lot of these matters. I mean, ultimately, the closing student achievement gaps is a goal that should be owned at every level of our state and local government. At the highest levels of state government, state board of education, superintendent of public instruction, but also acknowledging the shared role and accountability of local school boards as well. So, you know, all in all, we did submit a letter of concern kind of speaking to some of the logistical concerns of the whole package, but greatly appreciate the author's commitment to this issue.

Yes, we accept all amendments. Thank you for the committee's work on this bill. I'd just like to close. We all agree that we don't want to create a commission just for the sake of creating a commission and to create more meetings. And as Senator Kabaldin correctly points out, I mean, this is not anything new in terms of, you know, for decades, educators across the country have been talking about closing the achievement gap. I would just emphasize that my many conversations with the school boards association and with members, leaders of the school board association from throughout the state, that the focus of this commission is not just to create another layer of bureaucracy, another body for the sake of creating the body, But it's to coordinate and to evaluate the state efforts that are all in one way or another designed to help close the achievement gap and to help close the opportunity gaps that exist in the state of California. And so to that end, it is the emphasis I know that the at the press conferences and the and the public meetings and discussions on this bill, as well as the package, the emphasis has been on state accountability. You know, that it's not just, you know, again, it's not just creating a body to highlight the urgency of the issue, although that, you know, always has some value to highlight it, spotlight it, and to focus on it. But more importantly, to create this coherent statewide strategy, as well as evaluating the effectiveness of state efforts, that is at the heart of the mission, the purpose of this commission, and So with that, I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Kern County has faced a persistent and longstanding physician shortage since the 1970s, 1970s. While this issue has been discussed and its adverse impacts highlighted, there are currently no state or federal strategies being implemented that are expected to solve the crisis. In fact, the number of medical students from rural backgrounds who are the doctors most likely to serve rural patients is in a historic decline. Students of color with rural backgrounds represent just one half of 1% of medical students nationwide. While the reasons for this are numerous, one of the primary drivers is cost in geography. The average medical school in California is less than 30 miles from the beach in high-cost areas where most of these students cannot afford to live. To address this crisis, AB 1547 requires the University of California by January 1, 2028 to complete a feasibility study for establishing a branch campus of an existing UC medical school in the epicenter of the physician shortage. This comprehensive analysis will include identifying the potential sites and assessing construction infrastructure needs, recommending strategies to recruit qualified faculty and staff, conducting a financial analysis of projected costs and funding sources, and reviewing local GME opportunities to ensure graduates have access to medical residencies in local communities. The state has already established an endowment fund to support a UC Kern Medical School. Now we must identify the practical steps needed to turn this idea into a reality. The investment is essential to build a healthier future for California's most medically underserved communities. Thank you for your time and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Yeah, I want to just make it very quick, Dr. Bain. This is a very important issue for the future doctor supply of the state. And obviously UC system is leading that effort. But the UC system region of regions, they should have their long-term plans. and then also Dr Shou should be one of them Why do we have to through the legislature we have to tell them to do the feasibility study Have you had the conversation whether they had such a plan

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Choi. Senator Cobaldin. Just briefly, without regard to the actual policy objectives of the bill, this is outside of our constitutional authority. The Constitution establishes the regents as a public trust, as essentially another branch of government, and specifically restricts the legislature and the governor from interfering in its internal business.

Mr. Chairperson, can I have a follow-up discussion? Yes, Senator.

Yeah, so would you consider that making the amendment for the bill's survivability, not going against the Constitution? That's an important issue. We can look into that. However, this bill has passed the assembly as well. And there's judicial review at that point, too. Maybe somebody did not, you know, think about it. It's passed the judicial review in the Senate as well, so I'm not really sure. This is the first time this has been brought up, and this bill has gone through the assembly and the Senate judicial review. So this, I understand the concerns, I do, but, you know, there are a lot of experts that have looked at this and have not.

Yes, and a couple of things, and I think we can certainly go back and forth here, but I do want to highlight that we have 16 bills left. So the state constitution certainly limits our ability to regulate the UC system. It's very different than the CSU or the community colleges. My understanding is if there is funds available through an endowment in order for a study like this one to be done, that it is absolutely possible to do so. Now, I don't believe that there are funds currently set aside to do this study. That does not necessarily mean that there won't be studies like this to be done in the future. And so it is certainly something worth exploring. We know and very well aware even before I came to this building because there been a lot of research done into this area about the need to build out the health care workforce in the Central Valley and in the Inland Empire And so those are certainly worthy conversations but I think that where the nuance is here And you know should there be funding and dollars set aside to explore particularly this issue about the feasibility of creating a UC system out in that region, that that is something that could be done. So we can make recommendations as a state legislature to the UC system, they ultimately have the authority as to what they would like to do. So I hope that helps to answer your question a little bit, Senator Choi, and understand Senator Cobaldon's point, the point that he's raised. My recommendation is an I vote. Would you like to close, Assemblywoman?

And do we have a motion for AB 1547? Alrighty, we will wait until we get more members, Assemblymember Baines, and for now, well, I can't quite say put it on call, but we will come back to that item. Okay. Thank you so much. alrighty we will now have now moved on to I believe I saw assemblymember Pacheco here just a second ago for a B 1669 okay alrighty okay let's go ahead and if we can do our vote on consent as secretary if you can call the if we have motion on consent we have a motion by Senator Choi secretary can you call the roll senators Perez I press I Ochoa Boog Cabalden Cabalden I Choi Choi I Cortese Gonzales Reyes right and we will put consent on call quorum at the time. If we have a motion on this, we can vote on that. Alrighty, and then we also have Assemblymember Bauer-Kahans bill AB 302. Can we get a motion on that? No Okay Okay we have a motion from Senator Choi Secretary can you call the roll And the motion is due pass to the Senate Privacy Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Committee Senators Perez Aye Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogues, Cabaldon, Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes. Great. And we will put that bill on call. Let's also lift the call for AB 2504, just so I can vote. Okay, file item 2, AB 2504, Bauer-Cahan, motions do pass to the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee. Current vote is 4 ayes and no no's. Senator Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Gonzalez, Reyes. Great, and we will put that bill back on call. Okay. We are going to recess for a brief moment while we wait for assembly members to come to room 2100. If we have any authors for Senate education, please head to room 2100. All righty, and we are coming back as a committee. Assembly member Alanis is here to present AB 1728 and AB 1831. Assembly member, you may begin when you're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentation. Seeing as you have no witnesses here in support, do we have any me-to's in support? Seeing no in rising, we'll see if we have any witnesses in opposition, any witnesses in opposition. Seeing no in rising, I'll turn it back to the committee. Any questions or comments from committee members? saying none. Oh, and also Assembly member, well, my recommendation on this bill is an aye, and I will be voting

Do we have a motion on 8B-1728? We have a motion by Senator Choi. Secretary can you call the roll? The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senators Perez, Aye. Perez, Aye. Ochoa Bogue, Cabaldon, Choi. Aye. Choi, Aye. Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes. And we will put that bill on call. Do you want to move on to your next bill? Do I have another bill in here? No, do you? If I do, I will.

Apologies. I vote on that one, too.

Sorry, I misread Aaron's as Alanis. That's okay. Apologies. Thank you. You left for a couple minutes, and I got in. Assembly Member Pacheco, would you like to get started on AB 1669?

AB 1669 creates an accessible, equitable, and protected pathway for students to step away for treatment and return to their studies where they left off without having to face academic consequences or reapply. And with me today to speak in support of the bill is Vita Dipteman, a rising senior at UC Davis and the outgoing chair of the ASUC Davis Disability Commission, speaking on behalf of the UC Student Association. And I'll go ahead and hand it over to my witness. Good morning Chair members. My name is Veda Diptman and as mentioned I am a rising senior at UC Davis as well as Chair of ASUCD's Disability Justice Committee here on behalf of the University of California Student Association as a proud co-sponsor of Assembly Bill 1669. On behalf of over 230,000 students across nine UC campuses. It is UCSA's mission to advance equity, access, and affordability for students at UC and across the state, and this bill aligns greatly with our priorities to ensure that students in a vulnerable time get the institutional support that they need in order to complete their education. Assembly Bill 1669 is designed to shield students from further trauma and complications by allowing them to take a voluntary medical leave of absence without having to submit a letter of withdrawal from the institution especially for mental health reasons We thank Assemblywoman Pacheco for her leadership on this bill. I have personally taken voluntary medical leave of absence, though it was not for medical, uh, it was not for mental health purposes, as this bill is mainly geared towards, but it was due to a severe flare-up of my chronic pain disability, and it made managing both the pain and academics logistically impossible. I was extremely grateful to UC Davis for having the Planned Educational Leave Program, or PELP, that did not require my withdrawal, and I have now been able to resume and succeed in my education. However, my success was only possible because my application was submitted early in the academic quarter and that I had a planned return date to school. In most UCs, including my home campus of Davis, if you do not know the date of your return from leave, even if it's for medical reasons, you must completely withdraw from the institution and then reapply. When you withdraw from a UC or even request a medical-based leave of absence, you are required to provide extensive documentation regarding your struggles, something I personally had to do. For students who need inpatient or other mental health care that requires an often necessary break from academics, this can compound the trauma and depression that comes from leaving the institution, friends, and community that you loved, something that I too experienced during my leave of absence from Davis. I urge you to support Assembly Bill 1669 as as there is no reason why students should have to withdraw from their beloved institution simply because of a condition outside of their control. Assembly Bill 1669 supports students by preventing forced withdrawal due to medical crises, as well as respecting the accommodations of disabled students. If you lose a round in a game of cards, you are still allowed to play the next time the game is started. If these circumstances apply to a game, why can't they apply to something as critical as the education of UC students? Therefore, at the appropriate time, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you, and I apologize for going over time. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any other MeToo's in support? Please use the mic at the railing. Leah Barrows on behalf of California Hospital Association in support. Alicia Nakba on behalf of the Student Center for the California Community Colleges, in support. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, as well as the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, in support. Trevor Nelson with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support. Julie Sherman, Director of Public Policy, the Arc of California, in support. Hello, I'm Yancy and I'm here on behalf of UC University of California Student Association and we strongly support this bill. Thank you. Hello, my name is Francisco. I'm a third year at UC Santa Cruz and also representing the University of California Student Association and we strongly support this bill. Thank you. Do we have anyone here in opposition? Any opposition, please rise. Saying no opposition, I'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any questions or comments? We have a motion from Senator Choi. My recommendation for your bill Assemblymember Pacheco is an aye vote and I support your bill I turn it over to you to close Thank you and thank you for this opportunity to present this bill for our students and I respectfully ask for your aye vote Thank you So we have a motion from Senator Choi and that motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogues, Cabaldon, Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes. Great. And we will put that bill on call. I see we have Assemblymember Aaron who just arrived. Oh, actually, Assemblymember Solache. I thought we were doing alphabetical. Oh, Aaron. What? Assemblymember Solache, you may begin when you're ready with presenting AB 713. But, of course, Madam Chair, if my colleague has to leave, I would understand. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I am proud to present AB 713, the Opportunity for All Act. This bill allows students at the University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges equal access to campus jobs regardless of immigration status. While California has a long-standing commitment to expanding access, affordability, and student success in higher education, our undocumented students continue to face significant financial and structural barriers. Thousands of students in California are unjustly excluded from staying paying on-campus jobs, including experimental jobs and jobs needed to complete their degree solely due to their immigration status. A previous version of this bill, AB 2586, authored by Assemblymember Alvarez, passed the legislature in 2024. year, a state court ruling affirmed that the UC's prohibition of hiring undocumented students is discriminatory. That ruling paves the way for AB 713 to remedy this inequity. I commend the chair and committee staff for working on thoughtful analysis on this bill. We understand the gravity of the moment and we remain committed to continuing engagement with all stakeholders. Without this opportunity, students face the risk of exploitation through unofficial or under the table of employment. Our students are just asking for the opportunity to work and contribute to the campus they call home. I believe this is an issue we should all be able to come together and as they say as California goes so does the nation. So I really hope that California could be that lead. And I have to tell you a personal story. I've had many jobs from being a six year old interpreter for my mother telling Avon and Linwood to obviously being a state assembly member. But one of those jobs that I had in between was the campus outreach student worker on campus at Dominguez Hills CSU. And I love the fact that I could work on campus, be a student, and what a beautiful opportunity it would be to give the opportunity to all students that not only need the experience to work on campus, but really to get this jumpstart for their careers. These are our future teachers, our future engineers, our future workforce of California. So what a great way that California could be the leader in giving these students the opportunity to work. And ladies and gentlemen, senators, and everyone here today, all they want to do is work. They're not asking for a handout, they're not asking for anything, they're saying let me work, work hard, and earn my paycheck. So with that, at the appropriate time, I ask for an aye vote. And it's my pleasure to introduce two witnesses today, Vincent Russell, Director of Government Relations for the UC Student Association, and Ju Hong, Director of the Dreams Resource Center at the UCLA Labor Center. And Tiffany Mok will be here from CFTVO for any technical questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Chair Perez and members. Vincent Rosso with the University of California Student Association We represent over 237 undergraduate UC students across nine campuses throughout the state and we really proud co of AB 713. This legislature has paved the way for opportunity through landmark policies like AB 540 and the California Dream Act, granting in-state tuition and financial aid resources to lower the cost of a degree for our undocumented students. But these supports are not nearly enough to cover basic needs like rent or food, especially with the rising cost of living. Additionally, financial aid data has shown us that undocumented student enrollment has declined by nearly 50% since 2016, a statistic that will only continue to deepen without decisive action from our policymakers. The current ban on hiring undocumented students from campus employment or paid research and internship opportunities direct to conflicts with the advice from legal experts and, as As I mentioned, California Supreme Court ruling and AB 713 ensures that our students have equal access to paid opportunities regardless of their background while strengthening their affordability, retention, and career preparation. An undocumented grad student in a STEM program at UC Davis shared with us that having access to on-campus employment would cover their living expenses and offer them invaluable skills that can be applied to a long-term career. In their words, I deserve the same opportunities as my classmates, and I deserve the opportunity to work with them. Another student at Cal State LA who is undocumented pursuing their bachelor's in social welfare shared that they need to work in order to continue their education and meet their basic needs, but without access to secure on-campus employment, they're forced to accept underpaid, exploitative, and even dangerous jobs. These realities, amplified by tens of thousands who share their struggle, hinder some of our most vulnerable students from focusing on their studies and from receiving the same educational experience as their peers. For their sake, we kindly ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Zhu Hong, and I'm the director of the UCLA Dream User Center. For more than a decade, our UCLA Labor Center and Dream Resource Center has supported immigrant youth and allies through research, leadership development, narrative change, and programs like National Dream Summer Fellowship, which has placed immigrant students' immigrant rights, labor, education, and social justice organizations across California and beyond. And through this work, I have seen firsthand what undocumented students contribute when they are given real opportunities. They are organizers, researchers, advocates, caregivers, and future leaders. They are not lacking talent, discipline, or preparation. What they lack is equal access to same paid opportunities that other students rely on to grow professionally. Students have told us clearly what this exclusion feels like. One student said I shouldn't have to compete with other undocumented students for limited spots. Another UCLA student shared that they were doing the same research lab work as their peers, but while others were paid, they were providing free labor. Another student said that Opportunity for All will allow them to finally gain experience in their field. I also speak from my personal experience. As formerly undocumented immigrants, I have benefited from AB 540, California Dream Act, California driver's license, AB 60, and each of those policies changed my life. They gave me access, stability, and dignity, and ability to contribute more fully to California. So AB 713, Opportunity for All, is a significant step forward at a time where immigrants, immigrant youth, and their families are under threats, and deferred action for child arrivals, also known as DACA, is no longer a real option for most of the students. So AB 713 offer a real and tangible solution. It will transform the lives of countless of young people, strengthen our campuses, and set a model for the rest of the country. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any Me Too's here in support? If so, please use the mic at the railing. the railing. Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Madam Chair and Senator Adam Keglin on behalf of California LULAC and Alliance College Ready Public Schools in support. Melissa Bardo on behalf of EdTrust West in support. Daniela Rodriguez with Immigrants Rising, a proud co-sponsor and in support, and also here to express support on behalf of the Economic Mobility for All Coalition and Child Poverty California, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and the Building Skills Partnership. Thank you. Arthi Sikhar with UAW Region 6 in support. Marshall Lakatani on behalf of UAW Local 4811, representing 60,000 academic and professional workers at all UC campuses, proud co-sponsor. Thanks. Danielle De La Pascua with UAW 4811 at Davis in strong support. Mario Guerrero with the California Faculty Association in support. Natalie Shin here on behalf of Californians Together in strong support. Alicia Nakpal here on behalf of the Student Center for the California Community Colleges in strong support. Hello, Francisco Arnello is representing the University of California Student Association. and we are in strong support of this bill and we ask for undocumented students to get the same access as all students within the University of California system. Hello, my name is Yancey and I'm also here on behalf of the University of California Student Association. And I also have undocumented peers and we strongly support this bill and undocumented students deserve the same opportunities as everyone else. Thank you. Hi, my name is Aveda Diptman and I am also here on behalf of the University of California Student Association. I urge strong support of this bill. Undocumented students deserve the same capabilities and they have the same capabilities as everybody else and they deserve the same recognition as everybody else. Jesse Hernandez-Deyes on behalf of the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition in support. Christa Ramos with the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support. Anai Matias-Santiago with Latina Advocates here on behalf of Cal State Student Association Inclusive Action for the City and our partners are Central American Resource Center, CARESEN, all in support. Thank you. Monica Madreda with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Cheerlight and the California Dream Network in support. Emily Ayala, third year at UC Davis and on behalf of scholars promoting education, knowledge and awareness for immigrant students and undocumented students we are in high support My name is Mason Clark and I an undergraduate student researcher at UC Merced I in strong support of this bill. My name is Felicia Cruz Fernandez. I'm a graduate student researcher at UC Merced and I'm also a proud member of UAW 4811 and in strong support of this bill. My name is Dr. Diane Huebner. I'm a postdoctoral scholar at UC Merced, and I'm in strong support of this bill. My name is Kenya Zuna. I'm an organizer with UAW 4011 at UC Merced, and I'm in strong support of this bill. Hello, everyone. My name is Olajide. I am a graduate student researcher in the Andropology Department at UC Merced, also a proud member of UAW 4011. I am also in strong support of this bill. Thank you. Ben Murphy with Public Advocates in strong support. Thank you. Florencio Briones, Co-Trustee, in strong support. We'll now hear from any witnesses in opposition. Yes, you can come up here and use this mic. You'll have two minutes. I appreciate that. My name is David Bolag with the SFV Alliance. I first heard about this bill last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the authors, witnesses talked about court cases that had discrimination. And then I listened a little more and it sounded like he said he was going to hire illegal aliens through this bill. And I thought that can't be true. You know, you can't do that. So I went up and I gave my opposition just stating that. But I went to do some research on this bill, and I found out exactly by passing this bill, this will confirm with congressional law that allows benefits to be put out to undocumented workers. What you call undocumented workers, I consider illegal aliens. It's just different parochials, colloquials. The federal government declares it to be illegal aliens. So I see by passing this law, this will make this legal for this to happen. But we are opposed to it because we do feel that people are here either came through the immigration process with permission, should have first chance, and also people that are citizens should have first chance. This will take these jobs away from those people. But I do thank the author because I'm really hoping that this passes. I'm not asking you to vote for it. I do hope this passes because it will put the man up on the ninth floor in a predicament because although he's not running for president, he said he's thinking about it. And our last president, when he ran, he ran on the issue of immigration. and he got elected on the issue of immigration because people did not like to see how many people were coming in and getting benefits because they just came into the country and they were given benefits and a lot of people that were injunit or veterans were removed from benefits that they had. So this will put him in a predicament. He signs it and it will be used against him as a president if he runs for president. If he doesn't sign it, it will be a purity test that he loses with supporters. So thank you, sir. We'll now hear from any Me Too's in opposition. Would anybody like to use the mic at the railing? Seeing no Me Too's in opposition, we'll turn it back to the committee members. Do we have any questions or comments from committee members? Senator Choi? Thank you, Assemblymember Solace. similar question that I had with the prior Dr Bain bill Your bill is not recommending but says prohibiting UC systems and Cal State CSU systems to do certain things As I stated in the prior, for the prior bill, UC system is independently run, not by the direction of the legislation that we enact by this party. So this is beyond the authority this body has because the U.S. system is governed by the Board of Regents. Did you have any opposition or problems on this particular issue? Thank you, Senator. I'm going to have Tiffany answer the technical part and then I'm going to give you a response as well. Thank you, Senator, for that question. The UC students have been engaged with the Board of Regents since 2021 on this issue specifically and working with the Regents to find a policy to implement what has happened. And in the past year and a half or so, they went to court because they couldn't find an agreement. And it was found that the policy that does not allow for the hiring of undocumented students is in violation of the state constitution against discriminatory hiring practices. And so while the regents have obviously the autonomy of the state, their practice went beyond that autonomy. And so the policy that they currently have has been found discriminatory and illegal. And so this bill actually remedies that illegal action by creating a pathway for a legal resolution. My understanding was that the policy issues, whatever decisions would be made by the board of regions, not this body. So that's the reason we are invading several issues with the prior bill and this bill as well. So I'm very troubled by that. And respectfully, Senator, I think if we waited for the UC regents and the CSU trustees and whatnot to create policy, then vulnerable communities like our undocumented students wouldn't have a voice. So I'm proud to stand here along with all the coalition and partners and allies who are voicing their support for this. in a time where I think California can lead, I am very proud to carry this legislation today. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator Choi, for your comments. A couple of things. One, Senator Choi, you brought up this concern. I know that we spoke about it earlier just in regards to constitutionality and the legislature's ability to institute laws, you know, that require the UC system to do anything given that they have the UC Board of Regents and kind of operate very differently than the CSU or the community colleges do. And that's part of the reason why the bill, AB 713, doesn't require requests that the UC system follow this policy. And that's typically how we pass bills in this space. It's a requirement for the community college system and for the CSU system, But it is merely only a request of the UC system, and we work directly with the UC system around implementation The other thing that I will mention just in regards to you know the opposition and while I respect the opinions expressed I completely disagree And I think that it is incredibly critical that our undocumented students have access to the same employment opportunities as do that folks that are and do have documentation status. We have students that live in this state, that have lived here since they were children. They don't have any sorts of memories of living anywhere else beyond existing here in the state of California as Californian residents. And I think it's really important to recognize that. I also want to highlight what was shared by the gentleman from the UCLA Labor Center, which is oftentimes what we'll see is instead because these students desire to gain experience in their field that they do so without pay. And so we have students that are working without pay essentially volunteering themselves because they so badly want to earn the opportunity to learn and apply their skills and further themselves in their career. And it's that kind of desire. It's that kind of grit that I think we want to keep here in California. We have been experiencing a brain drain for a very long time and have also, as a result of very aggressive immigration policies, have seen a very talented workforce begin to leave this state and leave this country. It's had an impact on every sector imaginable. And if we continue to try to discriminate against our undocumented community and create a system that feels like it is very punitive towards our immigrant students, we are going to lose out on an incredibly talented workforce that very eagerly wants to give back to the great state of California. And so I would encourage you, as well as anybody else who holds your viewpoints to really consider the long-term impacts of such aggressive immigration policies. It is a lose-lose scenario. None of us win when we are losing out on that kind of talent, and we instead need to see the bigger picture, which is that we all benefit as a society when we provide not just a proper pathway to gaining a citizenship in this country, but really encouraging our talented students to continue to apply their education in the workforce, to build upon their skills, and then to continue working and contributing back here to California. So with that, I will turn it over to Assemblymember Szilagyi to close. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your words. I couldn't agree with you more. I think the bill says that an opportunity for all, an opportunity for all, and specifically on college campuses. I want to make sure that's very clear. We're not asking for an opportunity at this point statewide. This is an opportunity if you're a student at community college, at a CSU, any higher education institution, we're encouraging that students are able to work and to echo your words, Madam Chair. You know, I'm sitting here, standing here, and I acknowledge my privilege. I have many privileges, as many of us do. And one of the things I mentioned in my remarks is that I was able to work on campus. It was a beautiful opportunity to be in community, on campus, and earning a living and being a college student, I want that same opportunity for any college student to have it. And yes, this includes undocumented students. Because when they graduate and they're working on their status to become a naturalized citizen one day, they're going to have that opportunity, that experience. And I can't reiterate more that if California leads in the space, we could create that opportunity in other states. And obviously this is a national conversation. I would hope that our national leaders would come to some sort of leadership and create a path one day. But while that happens, California can lead that space. And for me, this is a personal fight. I come from the district of Marco Antonio Fireball, where he authored AB 540. I said, my partner and I live five houses away from his high school. And this is not only a district that I represent, but I know that every Californian simply wants to work. And I think the rhetoric that we hear from the other side all the time is they have to come to this country and work hard. Well, hell, they are here and they're working hard. And they just want to get paid. They're not out here asking for a handout. They're asking for me like, where do I start? What time do I start? I'm here. I'm ready. You know, let me put my backpack down. Let me put my studies down. Let me work and make an living. You know, I heard from the opposition, the ninth floor. I don't respond to life. I respond to the man up there. I'm a person of faith. My God loves everyone. When you were born in any part of this world, my God loves you. My God. Not sure what God people look at that discriminates against humanity. Humanity is so strong, regardless of who you look like. Everyone in this room is beautiful. Everyone in California is beautiful, regardless. And I'm just a person that my mom taught me that you work hard, you have high results in life. And these students simply want to work. My immigrant story is not different to anybody else. You know, and this purity test that we are of one. No, we are all a mix of everything. And again, I don't look at the ninth floor. I look at the higher up. And he's judging all of us for who we are, how we act to humanity. And if one little piece of paper divides us, I don't know how to explain that. I travel the world. My partner is a flight attendant, and we travel the world. And it's so beautiful to see so much humanity throughout the world. So I hope that California gets together and give these college students opportunity to succeed because they are our future of our generation. Thank you, Madam Chair. And with that, to the committee members, I respect and I vote. And I look forward to our governor signing this legislation. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Solange. And do we have a motion on SIB 713? We have a motion by Senator Cortese, and that motion is due passed in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Boa, Cabaldon, Choi. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez, Reyes. Great, and we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Assemblymember. We have Assemblymember Ahrens who is here to present AB 1831 as well as AB 2768. Assemblymember, you may begin whenever you're ready. Well, thank you so much, Madam Chair and members. I'm going to be presenting AB 1831 first, which sets reasonable parameters on the compensation of administrators in the California State University system. Specifically this bill requires that the CSU Board of Trustees to adopt a new policy on executive compensation that aligns initial salaries with those of presidents at comparable higher education institutions and conditions future pay increases on campuses meeting or exceeding defined goals It also prevents salary increases for chancellors vice chancellors, or executive presidents in a fiscal year in which tuition increases for students. Finally, it prevents salaries for chancellors, vice chancellors, and executive presidents and managerial personnel plan staff in the years that salary increases are denied for faculty or staff. In November of 2025, the CCU Board of Trustees adopted a new policy on executive compensation and significant base salary increases for top administrators, ranging between 55 and 20 percent, in addition to other bonuses. The newly adopted policy on executive compensation states that any incumbent chancellor, campus president, and vice chancellors receive any general salary increases provided to faculty and staff. Further, the compensation study utilized to justify the new policy and pay increases unjustifiably excludes comparable community college administrator salaries. This is a flawed policy that was adopted in the immediate aftermath of a period in which the CSU denied promised salary step increases to CSU workers citing state budget conditions. In addition, the CSU implemented a policy raising tuition annually at all campuses. By the 2028-2029 academic year, tuition will be 34% higher than it was in 2023. The state of California has provided the CSU budget increases nearly every year for the past decade between $100 million and $400 million each year, increasing state support by nearly $2 billion annually ongoing, while CSU enrollment has been virtually flat. Unfortunately, the CSU Board of Trustees has proven that they are not adequately managing their finances and prioritize their core mission to support student access to affordable, quality higher education. AB 1831 is a necessary nudge to the CSU Board of Trustees to refocus its efforts and prioritize student access and affordability for all of our constituents. With me today to provide testimony is Andrea Terry, Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the Department of Sacramento State, and Michael Lee Chang, a recent graduate of Sacramento State. Are we on? Okay. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Andrea Terry. I'm an associate professor in communication studies at Sacramento State and a proud member of the California Faculty Association, a union of 29,000 professors, lecturers, librarians, counselors, and coaches who teach and provide services to the California State University System's 485,000 students on all 22 campuses. CFA is a sponsor of AB 1831, which, as you have heard, would set reasonable limits on the compensation of chancellors, vice chancellors, and other executives of the management personnel plan staff in the California State University system. In 2024, Chancellor Garcia and the CSU Board of Trustees adopted a five-year tuition increase plan, which you just heard of, increasing tuition annually by 6% for all students. In 2025, a year when the state provided flat funding for the CSU, the Chancellor and Board of Trustees then adopted an executive compensation policy where campus presidents received up to 20 percent base compensation increases. They also adopted a new compensation policy that removed the existing 10 percent compensation increase cap. To add insult to injury, we have faculty who are food and housing insecure to whom the CSU is offering a meager one bonus of three percent We talk about the growing gap between the rich and the poor We are literally watching this play out in real time in the CSU The lowest paid full lecturer makes just over a year but most of these individuals are not full-time and make less than half the amount. Compare this to the lowest paid CSU campus president who makes $370,000 a year. The highest paid president makes $611,000 a year, and the CSU chancellor's base salary is $795,000. In addition, most of these individuals receive a housing allowance of $60,000 to $80,000 a year for campus presidents and $96,000 a year for the chancellor. A housing allowance. You'll have to wrap up. Oh, I'll have to wrap up? I'm sorry. It's just two minutes per witness. My apologies. We are outraged about these discrepancies. So discrepancies, you should be outraged, too, and we urge you to vote aye on AB 1831. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next witness. Chairing from over here now temporarily, in case you were wondering, until the chair comes back. Thank you. Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Michael Lee Chang, and I graduated from Sacramento State, or CSU Sacramento, last month with a degree in political science. I'm here in strong support of AB 1831. I didn't take on student loans because my mom still has student loans she was paying off, and she told me to do whatever I do I could to avoid taking them on myself, but by no means does that mean college was easy or affordable. In my first semester, I worked five jobs while taking five classes, about 35 hours a week at odd hours. I would go from class to work, then to another shift, and by the time I got home, I'd pretty much pass out and at some weeks go for about two meals a week. And that's not an exception. That's what college looks like for a lot of CSU students. That's what makes college works for us. And that's what makes what CSU has done and has been doing so despicable. Students are constantly being asked to pay more. Workers are being told to do more and more in the impossible with little to nothing. Yet the people at the very top keep getting rewarded. In my time at Sacramento State, I've seen both the CSU raised tuition and our campus raise several student fees while considering even more mandatory fee increases in the future, all within the last three years, all in the name of not having enough money. Then how and why at the same time did the board approve major raises for top executives, including raises up to 20%? And that's exactly why AB 1831 is needed. If tuition goes up, executive pay should not. If workers are denied raises, executives should not be getting raises. If students are struggling to survive, leadership should not be insulated from that struggle. The CSU may tell you executives need these big salaries to bring in good candidates. Then why isn't the same true about pay for our professors, our staff, and student assistants? It is baffling that as a student assistant who worked on campus, we didn't even have paid sick leave, which is a state law. This bill is common sense and it will help restore trust at a time when so many students, workers, and families are skeptical of CSU leadership. I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Do we have others in the committee room who would like to express support for the bill? Please come forward to the microphone if you do. Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Mr. Chair and members, Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support Mario Guerrero on behalf of the California Faculty Association sponsor the bill thank you thank you no we move to opposition do we have registered opposition on the bill please come on Tiffany Bach on behalf of CFT and support thank you all right under the wire welcome you'll have a couple minutes each and you can go in whichever order you please Still good morning, I believe. Chairs, members, thank you for your time. Eric Bakke on behalf of the California State University. Let me begin by thanking the committee and the staff for their thoughtful analysis on 1831. We believe the analysis fairly reflects many of the concerns the CSU has raised regarding this measure. Before I hand it off to Vice Chancellor Greg Sachs, I'd like to highlight two concerns. First, as noted in the committee analysis, AB 1831 substitutes legislative direction for the authority and responsibility that state law already places on the CSU Board of Trustees. Compensation policy is one of the Board's core governance responsibilities exercised within the fiscal restraints established by the legislature and governor through the annual budget process. This bill would require the repeal of a policy adopted after extensive review and deliberation, replacing it with a statutory framework that largely mirrors the practices already in place. Second, it's important to recognize that this bill only applies to the CSU. Similar restrictions do not apply to the UC, the California Community Colleges, or other public sector employers. As a result, the bill places the CSU at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting and retraining system-wide leaders, leaders, campus presidents and provosts responsible for guiding our campuses, supporting our students and managing complex university operations. With that, I'll turn it over to Vice Chancellor Greg Sachs for additional remarks within my remaining time. Thank you very much and again, good morning. As shared, I'm Greg Sachs. I work as the Vice Chancellor for External Relations for the CSU and I'm here in respectful opposition to AB 1831. At a time of federal uncertainty, budget volatility and heightened public scrutiny, now is the time we need experienced leadership. CSU leaders are responsible for institutions that serve hundreds of thousands of students and employees across California. They manage complex operations, ensure campus safety, steward public resources, and advance student success. Over the last two years, nearly half of our long-serving campus presidents have retired. As the board conducted national searches to fill these positions, it became clear that CSU compensation practices were increasingly out of step with comparable public universities. Following an independent market study and extensive deliberation, the board adopted a comprehensive policy designed to recruit and retain qualified and experienced leaders while remaining competitive with peer institutions. That policy is rooted in data and as noted in the committee analysis, executive performance is already evaluated using many of the same metrics that are actually reflected in this bill. Also, as noted in the committee analysis, the current CSU tuition plan has three more remaining years of scheduled and predictable tuition increases. As drafted, the bill would prohibit compensation adjustments for executive leadership during that entire period, even when performance expectations and institutional goals are exceeded. The bill would also prohibit compensation increases for presidents, executive leadership, and management personnel employees in years when represented employees do not receive salary increases. This fails to recognize that compensation decisions are oftentimes influenced by factors outside of the Board's control, including the timing and duration of collective bargaining, as well as... State budgets. The CSU is committed to fair compensation practices and accountability and student success. However, we believe that compensation decisions are best made by the Board of Trustees based on institutional need, market conditions, performance, and the state's fiscal environment, not through statutory restrictions that will apply to only one segment of higher education. We have to have you wrap up. For these reasons... Sounds like you are. Thank you. Yeah, I'm wrapping up. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you. Thank you. We are going to ask for others in opposition to approach the microphone at this time. If there are any in the committee room, any opposition. All right. We'll come back to the dais. Questions or concerns from members of the committee? Senator Cabaldon. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I my objection to the bill I think is what's essentially the issues and the questions that are raised in the committee analysis without regard to the actual policy of the CSU on executive compensation I you know I've watched and as a former faculty member like the importance of protecting our public universities against state government takeovers in terms of the way that they we've seen the consequences when that line is breached in Florida and elsewhere. And the CSU system is noted in the Constitution. It has a legally independent framework. And we, in this body, have the responsibility to hold the CSU accountable through the confirmation of the trustees. The trustees are not independent actors. and indeed you know just last year I think we had a set of trustees nominated by the governor and which the Senate for many many months declined to process their confirmation so all the way to the end in order to get answers to issues including this one actually that were that were that were laid out and no that's not the that's not a role that the other house has in this process but it is a critical role for the Senate to play, but this is a very slippery slope of the legislature beginning to act as the manager of either CSU or the other higher education institutions directly, and the story as that's played out in other states has never been good for faculty or for students or for the basic notions of academic freedom. That's why the CSU is constituted as a separate entity and why it has its recognition in the Constitution as well. And so I appreciate the author's work and passion on the issue. And many of my constituents, many of my former colleagues on the campus where I was a faculty member, certainly have shared these same concerns about the executive composition decisions of the institution. but a legal takeover of these decisions by the legislature I think is not appropriate. In the past, because these issues have been live since when I was a student, the legislature has weighed in on these questions, but we've done so respecting the lanes, the constitutional and statutory lanes that we occupy, and we have passed things like Assembly concurrent resolutions or Senate concurrent resolutions. we attached language to the Budget Act requiring reports back about specific issues and as I said during confirmation hearings of trustees So we have many mechanisms in order to hold accountable and to make the legislature view about the propriety or impropriety of executive compensation decisions but to take direct legal action, to take over responsibilities, and the authority of the institution to manage itself, to me, is a road too far. So I look forward to the issues getting resolved, but I can't support the bill today. The author, I haven't talked about it as well. I think we just differ about this structural question. We may not differ about the actual policy that's underlying it, but we have other tools in order to get there as well. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you wish to respond now or just in your close? I can respond in my close. Great. Senator Gonzalez? I was wondering if you would want to respond to that now, but that's okay. And I hear what my colleague is saying most certainly. I think it's, for me, just a matter of principle. You know, I do understand we've got our CSU Board of Trustees that, you know, the Senate is very happy to, you know, confirm. We have, as Senator Cobalt has mentioned, you know, held back when we felt that there has been, you know, some issue. But that's part of the process of what the legislature can do is ensure that we are supporting legislation that actually says that we should have some – we should put some market signals out that there should be some guardrails around how much our executive should be compensated. You know, to see the stark differences depicted by the Sacramento State student is pretty hard to take in and to actually understand. Like students that are struggling, professors that are struggling with their salaries in the fourth largest economy. It's no it's it's not easy to say, well, you know, our executive at the chancellor's office and executives in the CSU system are receiving, you know, compensation packages that are just overwhelmingly more than just the average student and professor and really the average Californian. And I agree. We want, you know, being a Cal State Long Beach graduate, I want our CSU chancellor and our CSU executives and presidents to be able to be compensated in a way that, you know, they're managing all of these, you know, major universities that are state of the art. But at the same time, there needs to be some guardrails. And the legislature, I believe, has to put out the market signals that this needs to be, you know, limited in some way. So I think you're going to have a lot of work ahead of you in ensuring that we get this across the finish line. I'm happy to support it and just engage in the process. So thank you. Senator Cortese? Thank you. Certainly the opposition raises some legitimate concerns. concerns I'm going to it's particularly because the author I have to be familiar with the author's experience in higher education from from an oversight standpoint as as a trustee at least at the college level I've spent most of my career touching upon education regardless of what position I've been in but it's admittedly been you know at the K-12 level so I know you know the financial and fiscal nuances of that system or the systems within that system and I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt to as my colleague just said to you know get across the finish line using the wisdom that you accumulated at this point to continue working with the opposition and get us something to the floor that everyone can support. So I am an aye vote today. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Cortese. Are there any other comments or questions from committee members? Assemblymember Aarons, I appreciate you bringing this forward. A couple of things. I understand that the CSU, I think, has an executive compensation policy in place. A lot of it actually mirrors what is in your bill. I know your bill also goes a little bit further than that, particularly in stating that executive pay shall not be raised during periods when there are a tuition increase, which I think is probably the biggest difference between what currently is policy and what this would be changing. And there's been several conversations around this since I was a student advocate at the CSU system myself. And these conversations are important, right? I mean, certainly the optics around raising executive pay while student fees or student tuition is rising don't bode well and don't reflect well upon the institution. And so we recognize that. I remember when we introduced student success fees back in 2011, 2012, when I was at the CSU system and just the uproar that that caused and frustration that that caused. I also want to note that it is a challenge for the CSU system when they're going through the hiring process of trying to make sure that they're attracting the best talent. And I recognize that, that there is competition to attract very talented education administrators and making sure that they are able to compete with other institutions all across the country is a real concern. These are very, they are attractive positions, but there are only a certain number of people that are qualified to do them that have the kind of experience that we would want here in the CSU, especially given the size of our campuses. And so there's a balance there to be had and recognize that that is frequently brought up as a concern from the system as they go through their hiring processes. So my recommendation today is an aye vote. I'd encourage you to continue having conversations with the opposition, but appreciate what you're trying to do here. So I will turn it over to you to close. Well, thank you, Senator, and I want to appreciate all the feedback on this bill. I want to appreciate Senator Cabaldon's conversation that he had with me before this committee hearing as well. I want to operate in good faith. I've significantly amended this bill from what was originally proposed in terms of salary caps. I think we need to try and find a finer line towards accepting a lot of the feedback that was taken. But at the heart of what I'm trying to do is exactly what you mentioned as well, Senator Perez, is the many town hall conversations and community coffees I had when the announcements were made from the CSU that they were going to be raising tuition and then turning around and increasing tens of thousands, in some cases over $100,000 pay increase and built-in pay increases for executive compensation. That is automatic if anyone else gets a pay increase And if you a faculty or staff that not tied to any sort of metrics whatsoever was just too deeply concerning for me. That was the impetus of this bill. This is an author-sponsored bill. I originally authored this just because of the feedback I was getting from my constituents in Silicon Valley. I'm always open to meeting with the opposition. I will note I had been trying to meet with Chancellor Garcia for over a year, having not been able to do so. So I'm hopeful with this public announcement that she would be willing to sit down and finally meet with me so we can have a more meaningful discussion about what proper guardrails should be, where we can continue to retain and attract the best, most qualified administrators for the CSU system, which, as you noted, is a very unique and difficult position to have. I recognize that, but we also want to make sure that when we are trying to pass a budget that increases fees, that cuts health care, the tone-deaf decisions to give executive compensation was just too much for me to pass up. And I'm hopeful that this sparks a conversation and a convening where we can get to a better place on the final version of this bill. Thank you so much. And with that, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Assemblymember Ahrens. and that, do we have a motion for AB 1831? I'll move the bill. We have a motion from Senator Cortese, and the motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee Secretary. Can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogue. Cabaldon? Choi? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Reyes? Reynon, I'm not voting. He's an L. Apologies, Cabaldon, no. Thank you, and we'll put that bill on call. Next up, you are presenting AB 2768. Assemblymember, you may begin when you're ready. I also want to note for the committee that we have about an hour left in this room. There are no other committee rooms left, so should we have to continue beyond 1.30, we will need to recess and return when a committee room is open. With that, Assemblymember, I'll allow you to begin your presentation. Well, thank you so much, Madam Chair and members. AB 2768 requires that institutions of higher education to defer all enrollment-related costs for eligible or current former foster youth until federal student aid is dispersed. This deferment would apply only to the students first term with the institution. This bill is deeply personal to me as I grew up in the foster care system, and I'm committed to ensuring that youth in similar circumstances are giving every opportunity, resource and support that they need to succeed. For many students, these upfront expenses may be covered by a family member, but foster youth often do not have the financial safety net, which can delay enrollment or force them to change their academic plans. AB 2768 is a necessary and meaningful step to provide additional support and level the playing field for these vulnerable students. With me to testify and support. Catalina with the Riverside County Office of Education and Crystal a former foster youth with lived experience Good afternoon Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Crystal Burbaker. I am a Secretary of State at Cal State Los Angeles, majoring in electrical engineering. It may sound simple, but for me being able to say that took years... Would you mind pressing your mic again? Okay. Good afternoon, Chair and Member Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Crystal Brubaker, and I am a second-year student at Cal State Los Angeles, majoring in electrical engineering. That may sound simple, but for me, it took years of perseverance and sacrifice. As a high school student in Riverside County, I wasn't sure whether I would be able to pursue my major or not. at Cal State LA, engineering students must participate in a summer transition program called STEP. It begins in the summer. I was expected to start in the fall, but I ended up starting in the summer, which meant moving costs and rent for summer housing. But I couldn't afford it as a former foster youth. It almost stopped me from enrolling as I could not afford anything. I was fortunate enough to have an incredible team at Riverside County Office of Education who advocated on my behalf, moved mountains, and helped me secure on-campus housing and coverage through my summer expenses. But because of the team that worked with the Cal State staff, it opened doors for me at a time where all I could see was hurdles. And today, and I'm here today, but I know I'm not the only student facing these barriers, but I hope to be one of the last. Not every student has a team fighting for them every step of the way. That's why AB 2768 matters. It creates a system to ensure that access to higher education does not depend on luck, but on a system. Thank you so much for your time and please vote yes on AB 2768. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Catalina Cifuentes, and I'm the Executive Director of College and Career Readiness for Riverside County Office of Education. I'm so excited and thrilled to see AB 2768 before you today, because this bill has grown deeply out of the real day-to-day challenges foster youth faces as they transition into higher education. The proposal emerged from our superintendent's foster youth initiative and reflects what we witness every year in our work directly with foster youth students. As Assemblymember Ahrens mentioned, AB 2768 would defer enrollment-related fees for foster youth who are first-time college students. As an educator supporting college admissions for over 20 years, I see firsthand that the transition from K-12 systems into higher education is one of the most critical and vulnerable points for these students. For many foster youth, simply submitting a statement of intent to register, just confirming they plan to attend, becomes a significant barrier. These fees often range from $100 to $400 per school. And when you're a foster youth student, $100 can feel like a million dollars. Our current system does not require their foster family or the Department of Public Social Services to pay these fees. And I've watched UPSS social workers present requests like these before a juvenile court judge to secure these funds. In order for us to get Crystal these funds we were going to have to go before a juvenile court judge But through the contacts we made at Cal State Los Angeles they worked with us I want to acknowledge all our higher education partners who would work with us when we have these emergencies They phenomenal our segments to help us and support but it should not take multiple phone calls and emails to resolve predictable barriers. And many students never reach out at all. They simply fall through the enrollment gaps. AB 2768 helped close these enrollment gaps and creates a system-wide approach that ensures Access to higher education is not dependent on advocacy or timing. Foster students are dependent on the court, dependents of California systems. It says word of the court. They belong to us. And they are counting on us to secure the future because we are their advocates. We are their family. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. And I want to say thank you to Crystal because she's here and she continues. And I want to definitely say thank you to our higher education partners at all segments because they do do the steps and leaps and bounds. but we have an opportunity to create a system here today. Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from MeToo's in support. If you can use the mic at the railing. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Jason Momosodios on behalf of California Community College's Chancellor's Office in support. Thank you. Trevor Nelson with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support. LeAngela Reed on behalf of the California Association of School Counselors in support. Sam Nash on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support. Jessica Doong with the University of California in support. Nicole Morales with Children Now in strong support. Vincent Rosso with the University of California Student Association in strong support. Sylvia Leong on behalf of the Santa Clara County School Boards Association Success Collaborative on Unhoused Students and Foster Youth in Strong Support. Thank you. Devin Conley on behalf of the Santa Clara County School Boards Association Success Committee on Unhoused and Foster Youth in Strong Support. Jessica Spizer of the Success Collaborative for Unhoused Students and Foster Youth in Strong Support, also a former foster youth myself. Ashley Lugo on behalf of the California County Superintendents in strong support. Thank you. McLean Rozanski with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Sierra Cook with the San Diego Unified School District in support. Sabrina Means on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success in support. Alita Fisher, San Francisco Unified School Board and former foster parent. Strong support. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now hear from any witnesses in opposition. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Nope. Seeing no one rising, we'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any comments or questions from committee members? We have a motion by Senator Cortese. Alrighty. Well, my recommendation for this bill is an aye vote, and I support your bill, Assemblymember Ahrens. I appreciate you bringing this forward. I know that this is a very personal issue for you and appreciate you taking this on. I'll turn it over to you to close. Well, I really appreciate that, Senator, and the committee and want to thank your committee staff. And I'd also like to thank the Riverside County Office of Education for all of their help in supporting this bill as well. I respectfully ask for your eye. Excellent. So we have a motion from Assemblymember Cortese and that motion is due pass through the Senate Appropriations Committee Secretary can you call the roll Senators Perez Aye Perez aye Ochoa Bogues Cabaldon Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Reyes? And we will put that bill on call. Great. And next up, I see Assemblymember Patel here in the room, if he would like to get started, Assemblywoman. Thank you, Madam Chair. With your permission, I would like to present AB 2555 first. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm pleased to be here to present AB 2555 on English Learner Reclassification. California's English learners are entitled to instruction to help them learn English. Once they've achieved English proficiency, they are reclassified as fully English proficient. Nearly 50 years ago, California established its system for reclassifying English learners, and it has not materially changed since then. Over the years, evidence has mounted that the current system is inconsistent, redundant, subjective, complex, and highly influenced by educator mindsets about reclassification. Concern has also grown over the outcomes of the system. Research has shown that roughly half of all English learners who are not reclassified by the end of elementary school are in fact proficient in English. Research has also found troubling gaps in reclassification rates by home language, with Spanish-speaking students significantly less likely to reclassify than other students, even when they are just as proficient as their peers. On average, it takes 226 days for a student who has scored proficient in English to reclassify, and for some students, it takes years. Many students score proficient year after year before they are reclassified. English learners are sometimes held back from reclassifying based on factors unrelated to their English proficiency. Factors like behavior, attendance, homework completion. This has serious consequences for our English learners. Research shows that delayed reclassification can result in restricted opportunities to learn and segregation from peers. It is time for comprehensive reform to our reclassification system. AB 2555 will establish a coherent, consistent, efficient, and transparent reclassification system. The bill will streamline reclassification criteria, Make reclassification automatic when students reach proficiency. Better engage parents as partners early in their children's education. Strengthen the monitoring of reclassified students. Create an alternate pathway for English learners with disabilities. And reframe reclassification as a milestone on the pathway to biliteracy. AB 2555 seeks to create a fair, efficient, and coherent reclassification system, one worthy of our students' potential. With me today to testify in support are Manuel Buenrostro, Policy Director for Californians Together, a co-sponsor of the bill, and Araceli Simeon, Executive Director of the California Family Engagement Network. You may proceed. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Manuel Buenrostro, Director of Policy at Californians Together and a proud co of AB 2555 I want to first thank Assemblymember Patel for her leadership on this critical issue and as a former English learner in public schools myself and a former English learner teacher I know how urgent this is. This bill reforms California's 50 year old reclassification system aligning with the state's English learner roadmap policy. Currently California California is the only state in the nation using four criteria for reclassification. This has resulted in a system characterized by inconsistency complexity which leaves many students without full access to the rigorous coursework and electives that they deserve. This bill solves this issue by creating a clear uniform process that does the following. First it ensures fairness. All students are evaluated using the same objective and reliable measures, eliminating district by district subjectivity. Second, it promotes equity. Timely, accurate reclassification unlocks access to electives, advanced coursework, and tailored instructions that our students deserve. And third, it strengthens our accountability system. A consistent system provides reliable data to monitor student success and ensures resources go where they are needed the most. This bill brings us closer to ensuring that our English learners can reach their full multilingual potential and again I just want to reiterate the importance of this bill and making sure that we see reclassification as just another milestone in a student's journey towards becoming multilingual. We respectfully request your aye vote on this bill. Thank you. Araceli Simeon Good afternoon, Chairs and members of the committee. My name is Araceli Simeon and I'm the Executive Director of the California Family Engagement Network and I am here today to express our strong support for AB 2555. Before CAFEN, I led the Parent Organization Network where we engage over 400 families OVLs from seven school districts in LA County. I am a reclassified English learner in bilingual and my children are multilingual. That's why this bill matters so deeply to me. AB 2555 replaces an outdated system that is inconsistent, redundant, and biased, especially against Spanish speakers, with a system that is simpler without sacrificing rigor. In doing so, it frees up resources to strengthen instruction and relationships with ELs and their families. What I learned from working with parents at PON is that under the current system, most parents do not know their children are classified as such. This is not because they're not paying attention. The current notification system, letters, portals, and report cards provide disjointed data, inflated grades, through one-way communication. It is ineffective and it burdens families to figure out whether their children are learning English and performing at grade level. And that burden falls hardest on families with less education, limited English proficiency, and less access to technology. Currently, parents expect phone calls or meeting requests when their children are struggling. Yet, ironically, the families who receive these calls are those whose children are about to reclassify. But the conversations happen at the end of the process, after years have already passed. AB 2555 is a step in the right direction because it strengthens parents' rights to discuss children's learning progress with educators at the beginning of the process and through the student's journey as an English learner. And for these reasons, we urge your support. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from support me twos, if you can use the mic at the railing. Good afternoon, Michelle Warshaw with the California Teachers Association and proud support. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members, Tristan Brown of CFT. Our educators are excited to support this bill. Thank you. Good afternoon. Michelle Underwood on behalf of the Santa Clara County Office of Education and Support. Sam Nash on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education and Support. Lee Angela Reid on behalf of the San Diego County Office of Education and Support. Jennifer Baker on behalf of the California Association for Bilingual Education, one of the bill co-sponsors and support, and would also like to note the over 400 individual support letters from our members. Good afternoon. Carlos Machado with California School Board Association, CSBA is in support. Thank you. Ben Murphy with Public Advocates in strong support. Thank you. Cristina Salazar with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools in strong support. marina ramos john suet unified school district i would say if i was an english learner this at this time i would never be reclassified it's it's one of the things that we have been waiting for so i want to say thank you for bringing that to us today because i'm going to bring some good news to our parents, especially those that have been waiting. We have kindergartens through high school that have never been reclassified. I appreciate your comments. This is me too. Thank you. Ana Iocamides on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District in support. Sierra Cook with the San Diego Unified School District in strong support. McLean Rozanski with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Chair and members, Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of UNITOS U.S. in strong support. Sadavajas with Children Now in support. Dana Vu with Association of California School Administrators in support. Alita Fisher on behalf of the entire San Francisco Unified School Board and County Office of Education. Bella Kern on behalf of San Francisco Unified School District in support. Debra Shea, Trustee of the Salon of each school district and also on behalf of the San Diego County School Board Association in strong support. Mary Creasy on behalf of All In for Safe Schools in support. Good afternoon. Derek Lennox on behalf of the 58 County Superintendents of Schools, please to support. Melissa Bardo on behalf of EdTrust West in strong support. Lourdes Perez, Trustee for Syri's Unified School District in support. Thank you. Now we'll hear from any witnesses in opposition. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing nobody rising, I'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any comments or questions? Senator Cortese? Okay, so Senator Cortese moves the bill. Assemblymember Patel, this is a great piece of legislation. Thank you for bringing this forward. My recommendation is an aye vote, and I'll be supporting your bill. Would you like to close? Yes, we say often that being multilingual is a superpower this bill will help it make make it so I respectfully ask your I vote thank you and the motion for that bill is due pass to the senate appropriations committee and we have a motion from senator cortese secretary can you call the role senators perez i press i ocho boke cabalden choy cortese cortese gonzalez reyes great um wonderful and we will put that bill um on call next up you have AB 2225. You may begin when you're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm here to present AB 2225, which convenes educators, families, researchers, policymakers to develop a comprehensive statewide plan with clear goals, benchmarks, and annual performance targets to close achievement gaps and evaluate how well our school education programs are supporting students' success. California is home to extraordinary public schools and incredibly dedicated educators. But we also know something that should concern every single one of us. Too many students across all social dimensions, income levels, race, ethnicity, language background, and foster status are being left behind. And while schools and districts are working hard every day to support these students, progress has been uneven and too slow to meet student needs or to maintain high-quality workforce, strong economy, and informed citizenry that can fully participate in our democracy. How do we change this trajectory? It's not a new question, and it's one that I've grappled with as a parent, as a school board trustee, and now as a state legislator. It's a question that stakeholders as well have been trying to answer in their own silos, whether it be in classrooms, school districts, research institutions, or communities across our state. This conversation has persisted for decades, in part because California does not have a clear and aligned operations system and support plan to help local schools close these achievement gaps. We're not talking about changes at the school site level. School districts have autonomy to do that. we're talking about a state view of what we can do to improve outcomes. Often these discussions, again, are done in silos at individual schools or in particular districts without examining the underlying issues, the conditions and systems that complicate efforts to improve student outcomes. These barriers are reflected initially maybe in test scores or graduation rates, college readiness, and eventually in lost potential or diminished career opportunities. and frankly in fractured communities. For a state like California, one that prides itself on innovation, opportunity, and leadership, this is neither acceptable nor sustainable. No single organization or institution can close these achievement gaps alone. And to truly accelerate progress, our state systems must better coordinate policy, funding, and oversight. AB 2225 sorry, 2225 makes an attempt to do exactly that. Because of these reasons, I urge your aye vote today at the appropriate time. With me to testify in support are CSBA President Deborah Shade and Winters Unified School District Superintendent Roddy Bonshoy. I also have two technical witnesses ready to answer any questions. They are Mary Briggs, Senior Director for Research and Education Policy Development Department, and Jeremy Anderson, Principal Research and Education Development Department. All right Madam Chair and members of the committee thank you for this opportunity My name is Dr Debra Shade again President of the California School Boards Association and a trustee in the Solana Beach School District On behalf of CSBA, I am proud to support Assemblymember Patel's AB 2225. In 23 years as a school trustee, I have seen local boards held accountable every day to families, to voters, audits, public dashboards, and student outcomes. We accept that responsibility, but local accountability alone cannot solve a state system's problem. California has launched program after program, but these programs are often too disconnected and operating in a state-level system that lacks coherence and alignment. We believe California can do better. California can do better to support local education agencies and students if the state embraces a level of shared accountability that starts by engaging key stakeholders groups to create a state operations and support plan. AB 2225 convenes a broad stakeholder workgroup to create a state operations and support plan to close the state accountability gap. This plan would include clear goals, benchmarks, performance targets, and evaluations of whether state agency and programs are working in alignment with each other and actually helping local educational agencies close gaps. AB 2225 is focused on state accountability, aligned support, and better governance. It strengthens local control by making state systems more coherent, more responsive, and focused on student success. California has employed substantial talent, commitment, and investment to improve educational outcomes. What it lacks is alignment at the state level. AB 2225 is the first steps toward addressing this issue. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Roddy Boonshoy, superintendent of the Winters Joint Unified School District, about 45 minutes west of here in Yolo County. We're a small rural district of about 20% of our students who are English learners and about 63% who fall within our unduplicated count. Like districts across the state, we give everything we have to improve our student outcomes, particularly when it comes to closing the achievement gap. We did something different and interesting this year as a governance team. We reviewed 25 years of student performance data within our school district, and what we found was striking. Despite changes in superintendents, teachers, programs, initiatives, school boards, funding levels, student outcomes have remained largely the same. Since we've been collecting data, proficiency rates have not meaningfully changed, and significant achievement gaps by race, language, and disability status have persisted. That led us as a community to an important conclusion. The system is perfectly designed to produce the outcomes it produces. The issue is not a lack of effort. Everyone is working hard. The question is whether the broader system is organized to produce the results we want to see. School districts are held accountable through the school dashboard, LCAPs, audits, public reporting, and oversight by elected school boards. We accept that responsibility We embrace that responsibility However local accountability alone cannot close achievement gaps if the state system itself lacks coherence and alignment AB 2225 recognizes that reality It does not create new mandates or reduce local control. Instead, it creates a process to examine how the state supports school districts and how state agencies can better align their efforts around improving student outcomes. This bill is about shared accountability. Districts should be accountable for results and the state should be accountable for ensuring its systems, policies, and supports are organized to help districts succeed. Thank you for your consideration and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2225. Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from Me Too's in support. If you would like to make a Me Too, please use the mic at the railing. Chair and members, Carson Eades on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support. Thank you. Alita Fisher, San Francisco Unified School Board Member, with support from Jamie Hewling, Vice President of San Francisco Unified School District. Andy Lee, Jefferson Union High School District. Patricia Murray, South San Francisco Unified School District. Greg Lynn, San Mateo Union High School District. Cherie Stravez, Bev Gerard, San Mateo County Education Board Member. Rhonda Conley, student in the Mountain View Wiseman School District. Strong support. Devin Conley, trustee with the Mountain View Wiseman School District. Strong support. Jessica Spicer, Vice President, Santa Clara County Board of Education. Strong support. Sylvia Leong, Cupertino Union School District Trustee. Strong support. Lourdes Perez, Trustee for Ceres Unified School District. Strong support. Marina Ramos, John Suet Unified School District. Strong support. Annette Lewis, Contra Costa County Board of Education. Strong support. Nancy Smith, Palmdale School District, very strong support. Shelby Moeller, Board President, Rinkin Valley Union School District, strong support. Bella Kern on behalf of San Francisco Unified School District, in support. Harold Tallerup on behalf of the Santa Clara County Office of Education, in support. Zachary Ramos, Gustin Unified School District, strong support. Ms. Didi Vittorio, Glacerville Union School District, strong support. Lance Shimizaki, on behalf of California Association of Suburban School Districts, in support. Ana Iokamides, on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District, in support. Jessica Rogers, El Dorado Union High School District, in strong support. Yesenia Cuarenta, Paramount Unified School District, in strong support. Thank you. Now we'll hear from any witnesses in opposition. If there are any witnesses in opposition, please rise. Any Me Too's in opposition? Good afternoon, Chair and members. Melissa Bardo, on behalf of EdTrust West. No formal opposition position, just sharing concerns specifically around pieces of the bill that we are worried might open the door to scale back accountability mechanism, but very much share the same goal and not opposed to the creation of a statewide plan. So thank you. Sadabach is with Children Now in Concern. Ben Murphy with Public Advocates in Concern. Thank you. Seeing no. I'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any questions or comments from committee members? We have a motion from Senator Gonzalez. Anyone else? Senator Ochovo. Alrighty. I, one, appreciate you bringing this forward, Assemblymember Patel, and we'll reiterate, I think, the comments I made earlier while Assemblymember Marasucci was presenting his bill, which is number one, I think it is very important that you work with those that have expressed concern around this legislation. I spent a good portion of my career working very closely with Education Trust West and have a lot of respect for them in the educational equity and advocacy space. These discussion that's happening, and I appreciate the California School Board Association for bringing this forward around how do we better improve our systems to improve student outcomes, I think is a really important one. We're having this discussion in several places, right, where the governor's office has made proposals in terms of making changes. I think we're trying to look at how we can reform and improve our systems, which is good. And it's important for us to have these discussions. I do think both in Assemblymember Mar-Suchy's bill as well as in this bill, Well, there are recommendations that are being made that we could do right now with the current systems that we have in place. There are things that the State Board of Education should be doing that are being proposed and suggested in both of these bills. In addition to that, some of these other proposals, I think it was mentioned actually by those who had expressed concern in terms of accountability mechanisms and making sure that those remain strong, I think is important. But there is a need for a holistic approach and kind of seeing not just how these policies work together, but also how we're improving the system overall and getting beyond this like assessment phase. there are such an immense amount of research that we'll do in this space before taking action and getting to the point of execution and implementation so that we're actually seeing real changes I think is really really important myself and Senator Cabaldon met during his time actually doing a lot of that work and working on research together. And it is something that I feel like we continue to kind of struggle with in the education space because making the real changes that we need for our systems is really hard and it's uncomfortable. And I recognize that. So I have an iVote I'm recommending today. I appreciate the work you're doing in the space. I encourage you to continue to talk with opposition, as well as working with some of the other authors that have proposed bills in this space. But appreciate the discussion that this is driving and the kind of big thinking that's being proposed here by both you and the sponsors to try to envision a better system. I'll turn it to you to close. Yeah, thank you for your very thoughtful comments. And we've had engaging conversations and will continue to engage with those who raise concerns. certainly don't want to leave our education advocates out of the conversation. It's very important, and you can see by the constitution of the working group that we're trying to create that we're trying to be very comprehensive in making sure all key stakeholders have an equal weight at the table here Acknowledge also that the governor got his own proposal This is not in conflict with that proposal at all It actually synergizes with what the governor is trying to put forward and you know make sure that we having all stakeholders have input in how we're transforming public education. What we know is that when we keep doing the same thing over and over again and we don't see any changes, we have to do something different. As a scientist, I do believe in experimentation a little bit or at least putting the question out there, what can we do better? What is left on the table? And I can also acknowledge that we may not have all the answers, and we may collectively come up with a better answer than we would alone, sitting by ourselves trying to come up with a solution. And so collectively, by bringing key stakeholders together, we believe we can take a really good, fair, balanced approach and look at what the state has been doing over the last several years and then begin to question what can we do better and what is left on the table. And so really appreciate your staff and all the advocates and our witnesses continuing to work on this with us. And I respectfully ask your aye vote today. Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember Patel. And the motion for that is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. And we have a motion by Senator Gonzalez. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bog? Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, I. Gonzalez? I. Gonzalez, I. Reyes? Thank you, and we will put that bill on call. Next up, we have Assemblymember Berman, who is here to present AB 2236. Assemblymember, you can begin when you're ready. After that, we'll hear from Assemblymember Fong, who is here. Good afternoon, I think, Chair and Senators. I want to thank committee staff for their work on this bill, and we'll be accepting the committee amendments described in the analysis. My previous legislation from 2021, AB 1111, requires the California community colleges to adopt a student-facing common course numbering system, meaning comparable general education and transfer pathway courses have the same course number at all community colleges. A common course numbering system is crucial to reduce unnecessary confusion, ease advising, streamline transfer, and reduce excess credits. As students take courses that are part of the common course numbering system, articulation of these courses at the CSU and UC is vital. Articulation is a necessary function for transfer students who earn credits at a community college and need those courses to count towards their degree. Given faculty's expertise and a central role in articulation, AB 2236 would set a target date for the Intersegmental Committee on Academic Senates to establish an agreement for implementing streamlined system-level articulation of those community college courses. This would ensure that students receive credit for these courses and would not be required to take them again after they transfer. AB 2236 is a necessary step to fulfill the promise of common course numbering, saving students both time and money. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And I'm joined today by Joshua Hagan, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy at the Campaign for College Opportunity, and Alicia Nagpal, Vice President of Legislative Affairs at the Student Senate for the California Community Colleges Good afternoon at this point Madam Chair and Senators Thank you for your stamina today This has been a long one I am Joshua Hagan Vice President of Policy and Advocacy at the Campaign for College Opportunity I here to talk a little briefly about the background and context that led us to the conversation today Every year California Community College students intending to transfer do everything right. They will set up education plans, decide on their major, take the required courses, pass them, and prepare to transfer, only then at that point to find that their credits are evaluated and accepted differently depending on where they enrolled. AB 1111, also authored by Assemblymember Berman, required the community colleges to establish a common course numbering system for general education and transfer courses to address these challenges. This past fall semester, students across the state started taking the first phase of courses in the common course numbering system. Simultaneously, the community colleges have worked to develop courses using the course templates developed by faculty across all three systems. Progress is promising, but concerns remain as students enroll in these commonly numbered courses without system-wide articulation agreements in place. Currently, each community college has to submit the exact same course to each of the CSUs and UCs, where each individual campus decides whether or not to articulate that course. This individual review and articulation process leads to scenarios where it's possible for students transferring from the same university, from different community colleges who took the same course with the same course number, to receive credit differently for the same work. If that That sounds confusing. It's because it is, and I think students would agree. But that's also inequitable and that's costly. Receiving credit for courses you successfully completed should not depend on your zip code. Commonly numbered courses by design ought to commonly transfer. AB 2236 would solve this by charging faculty leadership to develop a process to articulate the common course numbering templates so that student mobility can be maximized and the articulation for these courses is determined before students first enroll in them. and I will pass it over to my colleague here. Good afternoon, Chair Perez and members. My name is Alicia Nakbal, and I serve as the Vice President of Legislative Affairs for the Student Senate for the CCCs, the official voice of more than 2.2 million students across our state. We are proud co-sponsors of AB 2236, and today I stand before you on behalf of every single student who has ever been lost in a system that was supposed to help them succeed. Let me be direct. California's community college transfer system is broken. not because our students aren't working hard enough, but because we have built a maze for them to get lost in. Right now a student at Fresno City College has no reliable guarantee that the general education course will mean the same thing at San Diego Mesa College, East Los Angeles College, or Berkeley City College. Across 116 colleges and more than 40,000 general education courses, there is no common language, no shared map, and the students who pay the heaviest price for that confusion are generally first-generation students, low-income students, and students of color who cannot afford to take the wrong course twice. This is not just a bureaucratic inconvenience. This is a financial aid crisis playing out one student at a time. Every single misaligned course means lost financial aid. Every redundant unit means another semester that they cannot afford. For many of our students, this excess credit penalty is not just a delay, but the reason that they never finish at all. AB 2236 is not a new solution. Rather, the measure builds on the existing progress of common course numbering and requires faculty from the UC, CSU, and the community colleges to finally establish a streamlined system-level articulation agreement. This will mean that comparable courses are not just numbered the same, but honored the same. A general education course will finally mean what it says everywhere in California. Think about what that means for a student who works two jobs raises children and is trying to build a better life through education She doesn have the time to decipher 116 different course catalogs She needs clarity She needs certainty She deserves a bridge, not a barrier. On behalf of that student and the other 2.2 million students across California who are currently enrolled in our system, I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 2236. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from Me Too's in support. If you can use the mic at the railing. Hello Chair and Members, Vincent Rosso with the University of California Student Association, we're in strong support of the bill. Thank you. Good afternoon now, Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunalakis in support, oh as a proud co-sponsor in support, thank you. Good afternoon, Jessi Hernandez on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity in support. Melissa Barter on behalf of EdTrust West in support. Sabrina Means on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success in support. Good afternoon. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of the Cal State Student Association in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Priya on behalf of the California Community College's Chancellor's Office in support. Good afternoon. Francisco Ornelas, a student at UC Santa Cruz and on behalf of the UC Student Association, we support this bill. Good afternoon, Yancy Garcia Montes. I'm a fourth year student at UC Irvine and I'm also here representing University of California Student Association and we support this bill. Thank you. Anyone else? Do we have anyone here in opposition? Alrighty, yes. Yes. Sorry, it's my first time doing this. You got it. Hello, Alexander. Good to see you. Good to see you. All right. Hi, I'm the, I'm the brand new chair of the Academic Senate of the California State University. And on behalf of us and the UC faculty, we have some serious concerns about this bill and would urge your nay vote unless it's amended. We urge that for two reasons. First is the nice thing, as our friends in the campaign, we were talking with them the other day, pointed out, We all want the same things for our students, and we all want transfer to work well, to be smooth. We, the faculty, hate it when our resources are wasted because our students are taking classes they don't need. If they are taking classes they don't need, we can't be teaching them the extra stuff that we want to teach them. So we want everything to work smoothly. We don't want duplication. And all three segments, the UC, the CSU, and the community colleges this year, signed an agreement of how the system-wide template articulation is going to work. So we've done the thing that the bill asked us to do. Our concern about the bill, though, is that it goes beyond that. And it instructs us of how that system should work. So we would have to change the thing we've already agreed to. And the way it would ask us to change it is going to be act would be seriously detrimental to our students. And the reason is it cites a national best practice of aligning two courses if they meet if they're 70 percent similar. That's totally cool when it comes to GE. That's totally cool in a lot of my classes in philosophy. But if you're in a STEM discipline where your courses are super tightly sequenced, that's essentially saying that a student coming to the CSU out of the community colleges could have missed five weeks out of every semester course, every course that they took as major preparation. And I'll tell you, I've had so many students in my office, because I teach a lot of GE classes, classes in STEM majors, in accredited majors, where they do arrive finding themselves behind. And that is utterly crushing. And what this bill, as written, would do is set up our students for that to be, and I don't want to overestimate, but basically any STEM discipline or any discipline that serves local needs or is accredited like teaching and nurse preparation, those will all be seriously affected. students will be arriving underprepared, and that's setting them up for failure, and therefore we respectfully request that you vote nay without some changes to this. Thank you. Sorry, I went over. Thank you for your presentation. Is there anyone else here in opposition? Mario Guerrero with the California Faculty Association, respectfully in opposition, unless the issues of the Economic Senate are addressed. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any comments from committee members? Yes, Senator Chobok. I do. So I think we're aligned with the same goals. We're wanting to have our students, you know, be able to matriculate into the higher ed space and be able to do it in the least prohibited manner possible, most efficiently. but I do share the concerns that the professors have made. And the way that I envision it, the way that I see it is, if you are missing, you're saying 70% alignment, you can move forward. And I think, especially with STEM, because it's very, very specific, very step-oriented. And we know that when students are going through the K-12 system, if they're missing math here and there, by the time they get to middle school and high school, they fall apart if they don't have all of the foundation moving forward. Sylvan is a great example of that. When students are getting help with Sylvan services, they take a test to see where all the gaps are and then they start literally start from the beginning and move up. When we're looking at the alignment of saying stating that it's 70% of the coursework needs to match in order to be able to matriculate into the higher ed. And we don't foresee the other 30%. It's almost as if those students that covered 70% of that material and aced it are coming in with a C grade, per se, just per se, a C grade into the next course at the UC or the CSU level. that means that they're going to be struggling and they're going to be needing quite a bit of support if they don't have that at that time. If that student with those math, say they're acing, right? If they're acing that 70%, you're coming in with a C. But if they're struggling at C, you know, they get a C per se or a D or I don't think a D would make you or allow you to go to move forward. but CSC in that 70% and then you're going into the next course in college, they might not be successful. We might have a problem here with not be able to move forward at the higher level, but once they get there, they might have to take another course if they don't receive the right support, which just adds at a higher cost because that means at the college level at UCSCSU, it's going to be more expensive to take that extra course if they are unable to be successful in that particular course. I don't know if I've made myself clear, but that's the way that I visualize this component and the concerns that the faculty has expressed I had meetings with them and I remember having these conversations early on when I first got elected in 2020 about the goals that we had But I think and I honestly I don know if there could be a carve for science or STEM related courses as far as they might matriculating into the college or not college but into the CSU in the UC realm but I think that has that's something to be said especially when we see the study that came out of UC San Diego in which the incoming class the freshman class were testing at a middle school level math and so when we look at that and then we look at them going into into junior colleges and then we look into how they're going to go into the CSU in the UCs that's something that we should really look into addressing because we don't want them to fail you can you can transfer them over but if they don't have a content mastered by that time and it makes it difficult they have to take another class we're failing them again and so I'm good with certain classes being able to do that easy and by the way and I've expressed this in previous committees and to the faculty at in when I've met with you folks kudos for everybody that's sitting down trying to literally align every single course that has to be one of the most tedious and very hard jobs to do we're taking it for granted here that oh we're just going to have you folks do this uh you know align these courses but when you sit down and you have to align every single course for every single class and every single major which is incredibly varied in the state of California that is not an easy task and I know and I could be wrong you can correct me if I'm wrong but I also understand that the the academic Senate is actually understaffed and underfunded and are expected to do this job as well so that's something also that we need to have a record and ensure that if we're expecting to them to do this that we actually have to be fully staffed and fully funded as well. So I just wanted to share those thoughts on it because I am incredibly concerned. I'm not going to support the bill today for those concerns and I think they're incredibly valid and I support the intent but I don't think we have really fine-tuned it to move forward and say we're going to do this. So with that I am going to align myself today and be your voice on the dais today on behalf of all of our professors that have incredible concerns from the community colleges to the CSU's and to the UC's on that end. But I would love to see more conversations and more work accommodating our STEM majors and maybe a one-size-fits-all is not the case in this particular segment, but I am full support of the intent of of the bill. I just think we need to kind of work a little more specific accommodating some of the some of the STEM courses. Alrighty, I am going to go ahead and close this out just because I know we have about eight bills left. One, I'm very supportive of your bill, Assemblymember Berman. This is building off of AB 1111. I was at the Campaign for College Opportunity when you worked on that. It's very funny to be here in the room with Josh Hagen, who is my colleague, as well as my old boss Linda Vasquez who at the back And so this feels like all of us having a small reunion here A couple of things One you know I honestly I very happy that your bill is going into implementation It's AB 1111 was passed in 2021. We're five years later, and we're just seeing the results of that. Obviously, this takes time, and I want to recognize that with the academic sentence. I understand your concern around the percentage piece and the difference with engineering programs. When you make that percentage too high, then it becomes very hard for those other courses to end up being considered for a common course, right? Then it's not considered a common course. So that percentage is very important. I know that the author's office is having conversations with you. But the whole point of us creating a common course system, creating templates is one. I think ultimately it actually in the long term makes things easier for you all. but it makes things easier for our students. The reality is that, and this was research that's been done time and time again, but we have so many students that are attending multiple community colleges trying to navigate this system, and ultimately they lose out when they don't transfer in a timely manner. And that is our priority here, is making sure that we're expediting that process for them so they can go on to completing their four-year degree instead of taking duplicative courses and wasting their time and money. And so, you know, this for me is an incredibly important issue. It is, I think, one of many examples of our institutions failing our students because we don't want to get our stuff together and do the hard work. And it's about time that we do it and we execute on that. So Assemblymember Berman, I'll turn it over to you to close. I couldn't have done a better close than what you just said. As fun as it was working with you on this issue five years ago, I much appreciate you being in this role for this round. So I'm grateful for your leadership on this. I do just want to note, back in 2021, we got $105 million in the state budget for the community colleges to implement this. And the community colleges have said, this is such an important issue that we're going to allocate $4 million of that funding to the UC and CSU systems in this effort and the intersegmental committee so that this work can be completed. because it doesn't matter what we start. It matters what we finish for those 2.2 million students that are trying to train many of whom, I should say, are trying to transfer to the CSU and UC systems. So appreciate the conversation. Going to keep on working with all stakeholders to try to work through concerns that they have. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. And do we have a motion on this bill? We have a motion from Senator Cortese, and that motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bug? No. Ochoa Bug? No. Cabaldon? Choi? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Reyes? Great. We will put that bill on call. Thank you so much. We have Assemblymember Fong, who is here to present. Okay. We'll do Assemblymember Hoover. Sorry. Assemblymember Hoover, and then Alvarez, and then Fong. Sorry, buddy. Whenever you're ready, Assemblymember. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2316. I will be brief today. All public schools must provide a 50% local match to access state bond funds. School districts can apply for financial hardship to reduce that 50 match to a lower threshold when they cannot afford it AB 2316 simply strengthens our facilities program by allowing charter schools to apply for that same hardship designation With me today is Carson Eads, Managing Director of the California Charter Schools Association. Thank you. Chair and members, Carson Eads on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, we're sponsoring 2316 as a simple fairness measure. It ensures charter public schools have access to similar financial hardship relief in a state school facilities bond that traditional public schools already receive. All public schools must provide a 50% local match. But when districts are unable to meet that match, they can apply for financial hardship to reduce that share. Chartered public schools cannot. This matters. In most cases, school districts can raise local funds for their match through local bonds or developer fees. If they cannot, then they can apply for hardship. Charter schools can't raise local bond funding. They're excluded from local bond funds in most cases. They don't receive developer fees, and they also cannot apply for hardship. Charters often have to rely on private financing and are forced to divert operational dollars away from student services toward facilities to be able to afford this match and secure adequate facilities for their students. Many charters in low-income areas or in smaller charter schools cannot afford such financing. They're locked out of the program altogether. This will fix this inequity. It allows charter schools to apply for similar hardship relief when they face an undue financial burden. And with that, I respectfully ask for your iVote. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Are there any mooties here in support? Madam Chair and Senators, Adam Keglin on behalf of Alliance College Ready Public Schools and California LULAC in support. Thank you. Anybody else? Do we have anyone here in opposition? Seeing no in rising, I'll turn it to the committee. We have a motion from Senator Ochoa Bogue. I support your bill. My recommended vote is an aye. And that motion, or actually, let me turn it over to you to close. Oh, I just, we receive unanimous bipartisan support in the Assembly. Greatly appreciate the support. Request an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Ochoa Bogue, and that motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogue. Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Cabaldon. Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez. Reyes. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Assemblymember Alvarez. Would you like to present? Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll try to go through this quickly and very short introduction. AB 2325 directs the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to administer a competitive grant program awarding up to $600,000 over the course of six years to partnerships of school districts, community colleges, and universities to create a structured pipeline that guides bilingual students from high school recruitment through dual enrollment for an associate's degree into a credential program for a four-year university culminating with a guaranteed employment and as a bilingual teacher one of which we need we are very woefully short on bilingual teachers in the state of California plenty of evidence in that I won't get into that give the opportunity for our witnesses to say a few words good morning Megan bear on behalf of of Early Edge California. I will keep my comments brief, but California is home to the largest population of multilingual children in our nation. Children zero to five, more than 60% are actually from multilingual households. We know multilingual education provides significant academic, social, and economic benefits, yet only 6% of our transitional kindergarten students are in dual language immersion programs. This is a really important data point because these programs begin in the early grades. So while we have the largest universal preschool program in the nation, a very small percentage of our multilingual children are actually having access to these incredible programs. So AB 2325. takes a strategic approach to addressing this challenge, and it's going to support the development of bilingual educator pathways from high school through higher education and all the way to career. So with that, I would respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. Thank you for having me today. My name is Dr. Adam Sawyer, Associate Professor of Teacher Education at CSU Bakersfield and President-elect of the California Association for Bilingual Teacher Education. I am here today in strong support of AB 2325, which creates a competitive grant program to support partnerships between LEAs, community colleges, and four-year institutions of higher education to establish or expand pathways that prepare bilingual students to become bilingual teachers. I began my career as a second-grade Spanish bilingual teacher in East Palo Alto and have served in the field ever since. That began in 1996. Since 2019, I have served as founding bilingual authorization coordinator at CSU Bakersfield and have served concurrently in several leadership capacities statewide. Within Kern County, as is the case in context throughout the state, we have made great progress in diversifying our bilingual authorization offerings and growing our dual language bilingual education programs through a range of partnerships between Cal State Bakersfield and our local LEAs. There has been important progress, but there is so much more left to do. The state continues to face a persistent shortage of qualified bilingual teachers. According to a 2023 report from the California Budget and Policy Center, the student to bilingual teacher ratio in Spanish was 240 to 1, with significant gaps in all other languages. The funding provided by AB 2325 will allow us and others throughout the state to streamline pathways, develop new partnerships, and ultimately develop more bilingual teachers, significantly strengthening our bilingual teacher workforce. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any Me Too's in support? Good afternoon, Chair and members. Sarek Kaminsky on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators in support. Natalie Shin here on behalf of California Together as proud co-sponsors. Thank you. Saravachis with Children Now in support. Melissa Bardo with Etros West in support. Tristan Brown with CFT in support. Austin Webster on behalf of Unidos US in support. Sierra Cook with the San Diego Unified School District in support. Good afternoon, Madam Chair Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support of the bill. McLean Rosansky with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Carson Eads, California Charter Schools Association in support. Thank you. Ben Murphy, Public Advocates in support. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of Yspanas, organized for political equality and support. Thank you. Excellent. Anybody here in opposition? Anyone here in opposition seeing no and rising? I'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any questions or comments? Senator Choi, I just want to flag we only have about nine minutes, six minutes left in this committee, so if you could keep everything brief. I'll make it short. But I will be supporting the bill because I also have my dual language, English and Korean. And Spanish is a very important language Obviously Spanish will qualify as a qualified bilingual teacher qualification through the teaching program So that will be very important because language ability is a national asset as far as I'm concerned. So therefore, I would be supporting that. But how will the teacher credentialing program will educate bilingual? which languages are based upon what criteria? So there's no requirement for it to be any language in particular. Different LEAs will have different populations that they serve with different languages in different parts of the state. And so the goal here is to increase dual language proficiency in the languages that exist in our very diverse state of California. So depending on where they are and where the students are. LEAs. Correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Great. I would make a motion. Excellent. We have a motion, Senator Ocho-Bogue. Okay, excellent. I do have a – just really quick on this. So, on the grants that are being given, I understand here that you said it's going to be for recruitment, dual enrollment, integrated credentialing, and guaranteed employment. It would provide resources, structure, and accountability. Out of curiosity, within this bill, I guess I'm trying to figure out what can we not do right now without this bill. And then moving forward on that end, do we have any components within the bill that says they have to report back to see how many students were actually helped and went through the process and actually graduated? Will there be, I guess, accountability and reporting measurements on that end? Yeah, so the goal is for it all, and just to make sure you know, as chair of the education subcommittee on the assembly side, this is a big focus of us, which is how are we creating accountability to the programming, the dollars that we're putting out. So that is very important for me in everything that we do, and so that's also included in this, identifying the outcomes and the numbers and the success rate of the students who begin. To your other question of what can we do now, you could do this now. It takes some resources, and that's what this program authorizes, the use of resources to have people coordinate these types of programs that sometimes takes people power time to put into this program to be able to get all the folks at the table, because as you know in this committee, they don't always talk to each other from K-12 to community college to CSU and UC. So the goal is to get us all together and figure out what that pathway is so that the students have a very clear pathway and they don't get lost in the shuffle of, you know, did I take the right courses? Am I actually on the right path? This is to get them from when we identify them as students who want to pursue a career in education as bilingual teachers, which happens very early on in the high school. And then get them into these dual enrollment programs, into the community college programs, then on to transferring to a four-year degree to ultimately to a credential. and then with the employer at the local LEA. Okay. I just, you know, so part of those guidance, and to me would fall under the counseling component of when the students are going to the high school, which I think that would be part of the job and the funding that we give already. And of course- We have 500 to 1, though, as you know, with counselors in many schools. So it's hard to get that. Good point. Good point. And I'm just asking, because in light of where we are with the budget and everything that we have, we want to make sure that we're not duplicating programs and we're being as effective as possible within what we currently have. And thank you for raising that point We do have funding in the budget that a party agreement that identifies funding for bilingual teacher pathways as well So we accounted for that Perfect Thank you Thank you Thank you. And we have a motion from Senator Choi. I will turn it over to you to close, Assemblymember. I support your bill, my recommendations and I. Thank you. I want to thank you all for your engagement. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. And the motion for that bill is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senator Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogg? Aye. Ochoa Bogg, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Reyes? And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Assemblymember. So we are going to recess and reconvene in Capital Room 113. I want to repeat that again. We are going to recess and reconvene in Capital Room 113. Assemblymember Fong has been here patiently waiting, so we will hear from him first. Please have all authors go to Room 113. Thank you. Is that immediate reconvening? All right, we have now reconvened in room 113 here in the Capitol. We have Assemblymember Fong here to present AB 2374 and AB 2392. Member, you can begin whenever you're ready. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators. Assembly Bill 2374 establishes a state level designation for Asian American and Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander Serving Institutions. Minority Serving Institutions were established by the Federal Government to address educational inequity. Higher education institutions that meet specified criteria receive a designation in one of 11 categories of minority-serving institutions, which includes the Asian American, Native American, Pacific underserving institutions, also known as ANAPISIs. Up until September 2025, the federal government provided millions of dollars to these institutions, many of which were located here in California, to address underrepresented student retention and graduation rates through culturally sensitive, supportive services and strategies. In order to receive a state level designation under this bill, a college must develop a plan with proposals and strategies to help students feel supported. In 2024, SB 1348 by former Senator Bradford established a state level black serving institution designation. Assembly Bill 2374 is modeled after SB 1348 and will recognize public and private higher education institutions that show effort and commitment to helping Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander students succeed. And Assembly Bill 2374 is a companion to SB 1255 by Senator Eloise Gomez Reyes, which establishes a state level Hispanic serving institution designation. This will also help students in making important enrollment decisions. And here to testify in support are Dr. Rowena Tamanong, representing the Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs Higher Education Advisory Committee, and Dr. Lisa Harai Suchitani, co-chair of the UC ANAPISI Initiative Advisory Board and Faculty at the University of California at Berkeley. Thank you. Is it on Is it on It on Okay Good afternoon Chair Perez and distinguished senators My name is Dr Rowena Tomanang Today I speaking in support of Assembly Bill 2374 by Assemblymember Fong I offer these remarks representing the Higher Education Committee of the Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs and as President of Asian Pacific Americans in Higher Education and as Deputy Chancellor for the California Community Colleges California is home to more than 7 million Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander residents and one of the largest and most diverse Anapi populations in the nation. Yet the educational experiences and outcomes of many Anapi student communities remain hidden by aggregated data and persistent stereotypes that often mask significant equity gaps. AB 2374 addresses this challenge by creating a statewide designation for ANAPI-serving institutions. A recent 2026 report by CAPEA and Campaign for College Opportunity on the state of ANAPI students in California higher education points out the establishment of this designation will, quote, uplift crucial evidence-based practices successful in supporting our ANAPI students, collect the data necessary to address equity gaps within the ANAPI student population, and incentivize our institutions to sustain their commitment to serving our ANAPI students from the enrollment to completion and beyond, unquote. On behalf of APAHI's network of 3,500 educators across colleges and universities, I can attest that this designation will encourage institutional accountability, strategic planning and targeted support structures aligned with California's equity and student success goals it will recognize institutions that are intentionally investing in the success of an opi students while creating conditions that help all students thrive and it will empower colleges and universities a car across California's higher education systems to develop new student serving infrastructure. The California Community College's Chancellor's Office is also proud to support this measure and is honored to serve as the managing entity for the designation process. This work aligns closely with our mission and builds upon the success of the ANAPI Student Achievement Program which currently supports students at 51 community colleges throughout the state. Furthermore, community colleges remain the primary gateway to higher education for many Californians and are critical to ANAPI student success. Our role as a vital transfer pathway combined with our strong existing collaborations across California's higher education systems uniquely positions us to serve as the managing entity. By recognizing institutions that are making measurable commitments to these students, AB 2374 strengthens our collective efforts to advance educational opportunity, economic mobility and workforce development. For these reasons I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2374. Thank you. Thank you and I'd remind you it's two minutes for presentations. You may begin. Good afternoon Madam Chair and Senators. My name is Dr. Lisa Hirai Suchitani. As a faculty member at UC Berkeley I also serve on the CAPEA Higher Education Advisory Board and lead a UC system wide body comprised of our nine federally designated Ana Pizzi undergraduate campuses. My work is inspired by my students like Jessica quote for whom true belonging requires an institutional culture that recognizes immigrant students not as deficient outsiders but is contributing whose languages, histories, and identities enrich the university community. Anapizis helped move us in that direction by providing culturally relevant curricula, culturally responsive counseling, and other services that improve rates of degree attainment, persistence, retention, transfer, and psychosocial wellness for Anapi students. In fact, Anapizis have higher retention and degree attainment rates than their non-participant peers. At UC Berkeley, for example, federal ANAPISI grant funds have been critical to establishing and sustaining undergraduate and graduate mentorship programs and research opportunities in critical Pacific Island studies and Southeast Asian studies. All students, including first-generation, low-income transfer, and formerly incarcerated students, are eligible to participate in these programs. As sites of academic and administrative accountability and innovation, ANAPISES strengthen relationships within and across campuses, foster intersegmental collaboration, and encourage new scholarship in service to all students. Most of all, ANAPISES helps students see themselves in the mission and priorities of their campuses. This is important if you consider the words of one of my students, Justin, quote, an inclusive educational journey requires a commitment to a humanizing pedagogy that respects the personal struggles and professional aspirations of all students. A statewide ANAPISI designation would thus be a critical investment to California at a critical time in higher education. Thank you. Sorry, we'll continue with any witnesses in support of AB 2374. Please come to the microphone and state your name, your organization, and your position on the bill, please. Thank you, members. Mark McDonald, on behalf of a number of local community college districts, the Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Contra Costa, Foothill, De Anza, San Diego, and Southwestern Community College Districts, all in support of the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Chris Morales, on behalf of the CSU Office of the Chancellor, in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Carol Gonzalez with Latina Advocates here on behalf of the Cal State Student Association at Trust West, Long Beach City College, and Hispanas Organized for Political Equality and Support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Tristan Brown with the Federation of Teachers here in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Sarek Kaminsky on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Joey Tran, Asian Pacific American Public Affairs, and on behalf of the Pacific Islanders for Progress Coalition, in full support. Thank you. Julian Sanchez, on behalf of Capia, in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Sabrina Means, on behalf of the Los Angeles Community College District, Pasadena City College, and Santa Monica College, in support. Thank you. Thank you, Teresa Brown, on behalf of the California Community College's Chancellor's office in support good afternoon Melina Monique this on behalf of the lieutenant governor Eleni Kunalakis in support good afternoon Jesse Hernandez is on behalf of the campaign for college opportunity in support good afternoon Tatiana Torres with the chief executive officers officers of the California community colleges and support thank you so much Martha Zaragoza Diaz on behalf of the University of California Chicanx Latinx Alumni Association in support Good afternoon Frederick Libobola Foundation for California Community Colleges in strong support. Good afternoon Zara Alfaluk Porter Foundation for California Community Colleges in strong support. Good afternoon Tyler Emilio Foundation for California Community Colleges and strong support. Okay, seeing no other witnesses in support, I will now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none, do we have any members of the public who would like to express their opposition? Seeing none, we'll come back to the dais. Comments, questions? Senator Detroit makes a motion. I do have some comments, and I just want to be, for those that follow the Education Committee, I think you may be aware. I try to be as consistent as possible with my comments on designations. Some of the concerns that I've had with regards to any ethnic-based or race-based programs in our publicly funded schools, I've struggled with it. I've been most of an advocate on basing programs and resources that are based on need and outcome-based criteria that benefit all Californians rather than race or cultural. I do have a very strong hesitation about moving forward in that direction. The state has been moving forward, so I'm kind of unique in that space. I respect the intent from many of our members, whether it's from the Latino caucus, the Black caucus, the Asian caucus are coming in, But my concern is that with state funded resources, we should be serving all students, not prioritizing one ethnic group over other ethnic groups, even though a lot of the resources, as been mentioned previously, will serve all students, which then begs the question as to why are we not having these programs be addressed by a need-based what is it they have a great way of here's outcome based criteria or need based criteria rather than race or cultural so I won't be supporting the bill and I'm just it's nothing personal you know I just think that we should be focusing on all students regardless of who is at the head of the table and I I think we should be serving all students, even though we state this is Asian, black, or Latino, and we serve all students, but I do really do believe that we should be focusing on race-neutral designations based on need and outcome. So with that, I won't be supporting the bill today. But respect your efforts in this space, sir. Madams, would you like to close? Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Senators. I really appreciate the comments. And this bill, up until 2025, the federal government provided millions of dollars to many of these institutions to help with student retention and graduation rates through culturally sensitive strategies and programs. And these programs would include establishment support centers, career advising, counseling. So those are some additional support services that we provided through this type of designation. And I really appreciate the lead witnesses and their comments as well. With that I respectfully ask This will help our students graduate and succeed and promote our state economy We know that it continuing to expand college access college affordability and opportunities for our students would be critical So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Member Fung, Madam Secretary, please call the roll. File Item 24, AB 2374. Fung, motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senators Perez, Ochoa Bog, Ochoa Bog, No. Cabaldon, Choi, Aye. Troy aye, Cortese? Cortese aye, Gonzalez Reyes? And we'll place that bill on call for our absent members. Thank you. Thank you. Which one's left? Okay, so we'll continue with file item number 25, AB 2392. Please proceed when you're ready, sir. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators. I'd first like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments on page 7 of the analysis. analysis and thank you to your committee staff for their assistance. Last August, the Assembly Committee on Higher Education partnered with the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Affairs to review the California State University's AI Empowered Initiative. As noted in the committee analysis in February of 2025, the CSU system announced a public-private initiative to become the nation's first and largest AI-empowered university system. An element of this initiative included providing all 470,000 CSU students and 63,000 faculty and staff with access to CHAT GPT-EDU. A key finding from our joint oversight hearing was that AI tools including CHAT GPT-EDU were deployed without accompanying training being provided. In fact, current law does not require California's public higher education systems, the California community colleges the CSU or UC to provide training to our students faculty or staff before deploying generative AI tools nor does it establish any procurement standards or transparency requirements governing how those systems are selected and acquired assembly bill 2392 seeks to remedy this gap by convening a working group between our public higher education segments to develop responsible generative AI procurement standards and provide training to our students faculty and staff we have worked hard to engage stakeholders and to ensure that this applies establishes attainable standards that will benefit students faculty staff across our segments while also being mindful to not duplicate workload for the segments and here to testify and support is Austin Webster representing the California Community Colleges Academic Senate chair members Austin Webster with W strategies on behalf of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges here in support in In the interest in time, I will shorten my comments and just say that many students and faculty remain uncertain about acceptable use, the boundaries of academic integrity, and how their private data and prompts are collected, stored, or used by AI providers at this time. AB 2392's goal is to address some of these challenges. Training standards developed by the proposed work group will seek to clarify instructional and academic integrity policies, disclose data practices, and guide users on the limits of genitive AI, including the risk of inaccurate or misleading outputs. Additionally, the bill's procurement standards will help ensure that any AI systems that are adopted meet strict protections with regard to risk assessments, safety monitoring, and fair labor practices. We believe that by fostering a collaborative intersegmental approach to AI governance, AB 2392 ensures that technological innovation does not come at the expense of privacy, academic integrity or proper preparation for our faculty, staff, and students across the system. With that, we'd like to thank the author for his efforts on this and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much Sorry we multitasking different committees today right now so I trying to follow No worries I apologize Focus We continue with any witnesses in support of AV Please come to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position, please. Good afternoon. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of Cal State Student Association, the official voice of CSU students across the state in support. Thank you. Michelle Warshaw, California Teachers Association, really appreciate the labor inclusive amends, happy to support. Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition. Okay, seeing none, we'll continue with any members of the public who would like to express their opposition to AB 2392. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any comments or questions? We have a motion by Senator Cortese. Would you like to close? Member Fong. Thank you so much Madam Chair and Senators. I would simply ask for an aye vote. Thank you sir. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. File Item 25 AB 2392 Fong. Motion is due passed to the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Committee. Senators Perez, Ochobo. Aye. Ochobo aye. Cabalden, Choi. Cortese. Aye. Cortese aye, Gonzalez, Reyes. Okay, we'll place that bill on call for our absent members. Thank you very much, sir. Have a great day. Good to you. Thank you so much. Okay, we'll now continue with final item number 15, AB 2149 by member Garcia. Good afternoon, Member Garcia. Please proceed when you're ready, sir. Well, good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2149. I want to thank the committee and the staff for the work on this bill, and I accept the committee amendments. AB 2149 is a bill that requires the Legislative Analyst's Office to assess and publicly report the state's process in closing pupil achievement gaps and to provide recommendations of actions that the state can take to meet its performance targets. For decades, the state of California has held local governing boards accountable for closing the achievement gap through various mechanisms, but has never held its agencies or policymaking bodies accountable for supporting the improvement of student achievement. California's achievement gaps are stubborn, and the status quo is unacceptable where more than a million California students fail to reach proficiency every year. Along with the racial achievement gap, the socioeconomic achievement gap also ticked upward, the scores of affluent students continue to pull away from those recorded by students in low-income families the issue is not one the issue is not a lack of state efforts but rather the absence of a coherent and cohesive plans support LEA's and closing achievement gaps AB 2149 requires legislative analyst office as a component of the assessment of the state budget to assess and public report to the legislature and the governor the state's process and closing pupil academic achievement gaps and to include recommendations of actions at the state can take to meet its performance targets. With me to testify are Jessica Rogers, a school board member at El Dorado Union High School District, and Tristan Brown, the legislative director for EFT. Thank you very much and welcome. You may proceed when you're ready. Thank you very much for having me today. My name is Jessica Rogers. I'm a board trustee at the El Dorado Union High School District and I'm here in strong support of Assemblymember Garcia's AB 2149. I grew up in El Dorado County and I'm a graduate of my district. For seven years I have helped govern our district which serves more than 6,300 high school students across comprehensive online and alternative programs. I'm proud of our schools, our educators, and students. Every day we're focused on one thing, ensuring that every student leaves our district future-ready. But even in a strong district, we see why this bill matters. Our latest Smarter Balanced results show that more than half of tested students did not meet state standards in math. Behind that number are students who need better aligned support from every level of the system. Local trustees are expected to connect every dollar program and LCAP goal to student outcomes yet the state budget often arrives as one-time initiatives partial funding overlapping requirements and programs whose effectiveness is not always clear AB 2149 adds an important accountability effort to help inform the legislature governor and the public on steps California can take to improve coordination and collaboration among its state public education entities it requires the legislative analyst office to report annually on whether the state budget aligns with the closing the achievement gap plan whether state initiatives are funded aligned and helping whether state-run programs are aligned and helping leas improve student outcomes and what barriers leas still face this is not about blaming schools or expanding state control it asks practical questions at the state level that local boards answer every year. Are our state dollars, mandates, and programs working collaboratively together to help LEAs and in turn helping close achievement gaps? This good government bill has earned broad bipartisan support, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Tristan Brown of CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals here. in support of this bill because we know that all of the good work that is done by committees like this one in the other house, our colleagues in the budget policy space are constantly trying to move needles and constantly trying to close achievement gaps, provide more opportunities for students. We need to know that it's actually doing something. We need more than a hope and a prayer that all of the bills that we pass and debate here are actually moving the needle in the field. The Legislative Analyst's Office is an organization that you rely on constantly for their expertise in linking up our dollars to our policy and seeing what those metrics are. We think this makes perfect sense to check in from time to time and make sure that we have those policy experts and fiscal experts making sure that the linkage is there and that all of the work that we're doing here is actually making a difference. you hear from us every day on whether that is true, but it's wonderful to have these policy experts take their holistic view and the view that they do on so many different issues from budget to policy implementations to do the same thing to make sure the state is trying to meet its goals. So we think this makes perfect sense and are happy to support this bill and ask for your aye vote this morning, this afternoon. It's been a long educational hearing. Thank you very much. WE WILL NOT CONTINUE WITH ANY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF AB 2149. PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR NAME, YOUR ORGANIZATION AND YOUR POSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON CARLOS MACHALO WITH CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION CSBA IS THE SPONSOR OF THIS MEASURE WE ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE THANK YOU A good afternoon Carlos Machado with California School Board Association CSBA is a sponsor of this measure we ask for your aye vote thank you Anna on Iowa comedies with Los Angeles Unified in support Amanda Dickey with the Fresno County Superintendent's Office in support Annette Lewis Contra Costa County Board of Education asking for your support Carson needs a me of the California Charter Schools Association in support Bella Kern on behalf of San Francisco Unified School District in support Shelby Moeller board president Rincon Valley Union School District in support Jessica Spicer Santa Clara County Board of Education vice president in strong support Sylvia Leong Cupertino Union School District Trustee in strong support Alita Fisher San Francisco Unified School Board member on behalf of the entire board as well as Andy Lee Jefferson Union High School District Patricia Murray South San Francisco Unified School District Greg Land San Mateo Union High School District Sherry Chavez San Mateo Union High School District and Bev Gerard San Matani County Office of Ed board member thank you Harold Taller up on behalf of the Santa Clara County Office of Education and support Nancy Smith Palmdale school district support Zachary Ramis Gussine unified school district to support Depreschates Lana Beach school district strong support okay thank you so we see no other members of the public wishing to express our support we're going to continue with any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, do we have any members of the public who would like to state their opposition? See now we'll bring it back to the dais. Any comments, questions? Senator Cortese or and then Senator Choi. Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. First of all, I'm supportive in a supportive generally of this sort of a package of bills that have been coming along including at least one that was heard earlier I didn't have an opportunity to comment having been a school board member back in the day for eight years myself at Eastside Union I notice that there are school districts in support you know crest crossing my area in the South Bay Area and extended areas of the Bay Area and I think it's it's telling because you know this is the school boards and the districts themselves telling us that they want another set of eyes on those substantive issues that have been brought up you know in this particular bill and others and I think that's critical when you're a school board member you have kind of a saying I know you recognize this madam chair from your background as well you know let's focus on the classroom let's focus on the kids and there's no other level of government where your constituents are right in front of you all the time every time you have a meeting and I think likewise in similar fashion we need to focus on them you know let them focus on the kids in the classrooms and we need to ask ourselves the question what are they saying they want and they need and I think this bill is one of the answers to that question and I think it merits everyone's support frankly so I will be supportive thank you thank you very much senator Cortese senator Choi thank you I will be supporting this measure because I believe the method of narrowing the achievement gap will have to be created after certain methodology used, whether that's working or not. that this measure is requiring the annual progress report, whether we are narrowing the gap or not. This is the second topic today regarding the achievement gap issue. Obviously, the superintendent of public instructions, they are implementing as far as I know annual basis I believe that is statewide standardized testing to measure the achievements of certain grade levels and based upon that they should have the data already collected I wonder why instead of a superintendent's office this specific annual report has to be made by LA oh that is my first question second question is that will it be the subjects are being tested by this standardized test all subjects or are you limiting certain subject achievement gap measurement that will be a little bit different from the testing being done. Yeah, I have to apologize Senator, it was a little loud. I can't hear the questions again. If you could repeat the questions. Yeah, first question. So why not the annual report is not made by the superintendents of public instruction is made rather than LAO. That's the first question. Then after that, I will ask the second question. Sure. I think everybody is aware of the LAO, the legislative analyst office, as an independent body. And so, you know, we feel that they would be the most appropriate agency body to provide this report. So in other words, you have a lack of trust in the superintendent's office, that's a sign? I wouldn't say that. I do know there's also changes going on or proposed changes going on as well as the superintendent's office. And so we feel strongly that the LEO is the appropriate body. Annual testing is done on the selective subjects and the selective grade levels, not all subjects and not all grades. So any subjects are being tested that will have to be measured whether achievement gap is the progress is being made or are you going to limit to certain subjects? Yeah, I don't think my bill goes into specifics like that. I'll defer to one of my witnesses. Thank you. Thank you for the question. This bill actually complements the testing and the achievement gaps that are identified through that standardized testing statewide and looking at the systems that the state has in place to support locals in their work to help students with those achievement gaps So it not redundant and it not duplicative It doesn take the place of standardized testing that happening now This is asking the LAO to look at the state programs that are in place now and the budget priorities and aligning those to make sure that they effective in supporting locals in the work they do with their students Thank you. Thank you, Senator Cho Boak. I'll be supporting the bill today. I just wanted to just make a happy comment that the Legislative Analyst Office will be incredibly excited to see how much work they're going to be doing on an annual basis based on this bill. And just kind of curious on that point, have we had any feedback from the Legislative Analyst Office as far as being able to complete this work annually? Well, there were some concerns, and so, yeah, we're going to continue with, you know, hopefully working on some amendments. I think our sponsor has been in discussions with LAO as well. We are, and we're making significant progress with them. We've discussed this very issue about the frequency of the report, and we're very close to working out a schedule that is a meaningful, that takes into account their resources and their capacity, but also looks to achieve the reporting requirements that we're looking for under the bill. Okay, because that's a big task. And we're moving towards a direction that meets both of the goals of both the sponsor and the LB. Okay, so I look forward to seeing those amendments. I'll be supporting the bill today, but I do, I, you know, it is a lot of work to be, and when we look at all of the bills from all of the committees asking the LAO to look and weigh into things, I think we need to have consideration in that. And also for the powers that be that are maybe listening out there, the budgetary responsibilities that that places in the Senate and the Assembly in order to be able to fund their work moving forward. So we want to make sure that they have the resources to be able to support this. We better make sure that we have the funding available for them as well. Thank you. Anyone else? All righty. Assemblymember, I support your bill. I appreciate you bringing this forward. As I've noted to some of the other authors that have had bills in this space, I think it's important for you to just continue to have discussions with, I know some of the education advocacy stakeholders have expressed some concerns with the legislation, how these things will work in operation, and how it will ultimately get to the goal of what you're trying to do, which is closing on and improving on achievement gaps for the states, which I I think is incredibly important and critical. We've had lots of discussion about these things already. I know there's other authors for you to work with, so I would just encourage you to continue to have those conversations and appreciate you bringing this forward. I'll turn it over to you to close. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate all the Senator's comments. I really do. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. As many of you know, as a former school board member as well for eight years and a math and science teacher and school administrator, I feel this is very, very much needed, and so I appreciate the support and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. We have a motion from Senator Choi, and that motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Boga? I Troy I cortesi cortesi I Gonzalez Reyes Thank you, and we will now turn it over to assembly member Valencia who is here to present a B 2490 assembly member begin whenever you're ready Thank you, Madam Chair. We want to start this, Senators. I want to start off by thanking the committee and Ian specifically for their diligent work on this bill. AB 2490 would provide greater continuity to students whose teachers are out of the classroom for an extended period of time by allowing a substitute teacher to serve in the classroom for up to 70 days through the existing career substitute permit. The bill ensures substitute teachers receive support, professional development, and an orientation. Specifically, subs would be required to complete five hours of pre-service professional development and would be required to receive ongoing mentorship throughout that process. We continue to face an unprecedented teacher shortage, even as California continues to invest in teacher retainment programs and grants. The research is clear. students have better educational outcomes when they experience minimum disruptions in the classroom and have a stable learning experience and environment while this legislation does not solve the teacher shortage it is an important interim tool and I want to be very specific on that an interim tool to support our schools until longer-term solutions can be implemented and take Effect. Importantly, this bill far exceeds existing statutory and regulatory requirements governing long-term substitute teachers. With me to provide testimony is Kristen Wright, the Executive Director of Inclusive Practices and Supportive Services for the Sacramento County Office of Education, and Shorette Kaminsky, Legislative Advocate for ACSA. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Serek Minsky, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, representing 18,000 administrators statewide. ACSA is proud to be one of the four co-sponsors of AB 2490 and urges your aye vote today because it would deliver much-needed continuity to classrooms across the state. Currently, substitutes work 30 days in a gen ed classroom and 20 days in a special ed classroom. Under this law, if a teacher is out on pregnancy leave, a student in a special classroom setting might experience four different substitutes. The teacher shortage is an unfortunate, persistent reality. Enrollment in teacher preparation programs is half of what it was during the peak in 2004, and the number of special education teachers completing university programs has declined by 20% over the past two years. But here is the operational reality for schools. During a teacher shortage, teachers who have studied hard-to-staff subjects such as math or special ed can become the teacher on record with their own classroom under a short-term staffing permit. This means that anyone with that subject matter expertise is already leading their own classroom. What remains is a subpool that rarely contains subs with this hard-to-staff content expertise. These remaining subs in the pool don qualify for the permit that was created for longer statutory leave because they don have the content knowledge So operationally this results in a sub particularly under the 20 rule for SPED Meaning special education students now experience the least amount of continuity AB 2490 would expand eligibility for an existing permit. It would codify the use for professional development, orientation, and mentorship. Additionally, this training and mentorship would be specifically geared towards special ed placements, resulting in subs who are trained and supported far more than what is an existing law and in Title V regulations. Furthermore, this measure delivers added transparency, oversight, and data metrics, while allowing schools the ability to deliver greater continuity for students. For these reasons, ACSA is supportive of the measure and urges your aye vote today. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. My name is Kristen Wright, and I'm the Executive Director of Inclusive Practices at the Sacramento County Office of Education. Prior to this, I served as California State Director of Special Education at CDE. Most importantly, I'm the mother of a young woman with significant disabilities, and it's through that lens I speak to you today. Before I tell you why I think you should support this bill, let me first be clear. Like every parent, I want every student in our state to have a great, highly qualified teacher every single day. That is really not what this bill is about. I'm here because we need to be honest about what our schools are facing with the shortages of special education teachers and the reality that teachers are human and sometimes have unexpectedly take time off from their jobs. Here's the real situation. Imagine a 10-year-old child with autism and significant communication needs who attends a special day class in their neighborhood school. Their teacher goes out on leave in October. The district searches, posts the position, makes every effort. No credentialed education specialist is available, so they bring in a substitute. That substitute learns the student's communication system, earns their trust, begins to figure out what works, and then two weeks into it, and at 20 days, the clock runs out. A new substitute starts on day 21. And that child, who took two weeks just to feel safe enough to participate, has to start over with a new teacher. This happens again and again. So by January, he's had three different adults in the front of the classroom, none of them able to stay long enough to truly know him or her or implement the IEP with any consistency. This bill is about doing what we can to mitigate a less than ideal situation. In a perfect world, we would have enough highly qualified educators to staff every classroom. but that's not the reality we live in right now. So when I weigh the documented harm of chronic instability against the risk of imperfect policy, I believe we have an obligation to act while continuing to push hard on the workforce solutions that this crisis demands, and we're doing a lot on that workforce piece. AB 2490 is not the finish line, but we can't ignore the reality of the situation despite how much we don't like it. So giving more time for one substitute to be in a single classroom is an important step toward preserving any semblance of consistency for our most vulnerable students like my daughter I urge your support thank you for your presentation we'll now hear from me twos and support if you can use the mic here good afternoon madam chair Michelle Gill on behalf of California Association of school business officials also one of the proud code sponsors and strong support thank you good afternoon chair and members Derek Lennox on behalf of 58 County superintendents of schools please to cosponsor this measure good afternoon Chris Reif on behalf of the California School Boards Association also a proud co-sponsor and strong support thank you goody seen as a side with a Riverside County superintendent of schools and strong support Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in support on I Oka meetings on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District in San Diego Unified School District in support Amanda Dickey on behalf of the Fresno County Superintendent of Schools and the Monterey County Office of Education in support. Kyle Hyland on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education in support. Michelle Underwood on behalf of the Torrance Unified School District in support. Bella Kern on behalf of San Francisco Unified School District in support. Jessica Rogers, trustee at El Dorado Union High School District, strongly support. Alita Fisher, San Francisco Unified School Board Member and professional special education advocate, strong support. Deborah Shades, Solana Beach School District, strong support. Michael Henning on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family services in support thank you do we have anyone here in opposition any opposition yes I haven't been in this room before would you like me provide primary opposition at the microphone here yeah that that would be totally fine good afternoon chair and members of the committee my name is Michelle Warshaw and I'm here on behalf of the California Teachers Association to speak in respectful opposition to AB 2490. The previous iteration of the bill AB 1224 was vetoed by the governor. In response the Commission on Teacher Credentialing conducted extensive engagement and later approved proposed regulations addressing long-term substitute general education assignments through a framework paired with flexibility preparation support and oversight. The rulemaking process for these regulations are currently underway to create a pathway for long-term subs while providing necessary support and training the amendments taken an assembly education committee are more closely aligned with the regulations albeit some notable differences one area of difference that CTA has significant concerns with is the addition of long term substitutes serving in a special education assignment as it would triple the length of time currently allowed it's concerning that we would allow to codify a system where our most vulnerable children would not receive instruction from a credential teacher for an extended period of time That's not to say that there's not extraordinary circumstances, and for those circumstances, there's already existing processes, such as the teaching permit for statutory leave, extensions and waivers through Ed Code 56061, PIPs and STIPS, and through a lot of conversations, it's clear that the author and sponsors still want to provide another pathway for long-term subs and special ed classrooms. so CTA along with Public Advocates and DRED F have provided suggested amendments included in our letter that would remove our opposition. These amendments would align with federal regulations to allow individuals participating in an alternative route to special ed certification programs to serve as long-term substitutes. We're committed to working with the author and sponsors to find a path forward to provide quality substitute instruction for extended periods of time. Thank you. Anybody else registering opposition? Yes. My name is Sylvia Yee. Good afternoon, members of the committee and chair. I'm the policy director at Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, DREDF, and I speak on behalf of ourselves and public advocates to respectfully oppose AB 2490. DREDF has been in existence since 1979, playing instrumental roles in the enforcement of regulations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the development and passage of both the ADA and regulations enacted under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Today, our board continues to include both disabled persons and parents of kids with disabilities. Under the IDEA substitute teachers particularly those filling vacancies must have obtained full state certification as a special education teacher In California that means a substitute must have obtained an education specialist credential or be in the process of obtaining such through an alternative route to special education certification This requirement would comply with federal law, which prioritizes students with disabilities having fully qualified teachers that are capable of adopting the general curriculum to meet the educational needs of children with individualized education plans. AB 2490 unacceptably waters down existing federal standards for special ed teachers. as noted by Ms. Warshaw California law already has a process that in emergency or extraordinary circumstances will allow a special ed substitute to be placed for four school weeks and that time can double when extraordinary circumstances continue what AB 2490 implies is that the state is always in extraordinary circumstances when it comes to special education and there is no end in sight dread of the greatest concern is that the status quo will come to simply be accepted as inevitable we cannot see in this bill anything that actually addresses the failures to adequately find develop and retain the long-term fully certified special ed teachers that our kids deserve our current Fed administration is abandoning disabled students by moving the office of special ed and rehab to HHS classifying students as a little patients rather than as children with curious and untapped minds and bodies who need to be taught encouraged and nurtured with specific tools and learning techniques that have been developed over decades of research and practice opening this door this widely to substitute don't know what is expected of them under special ed law and who don't have the training to meet those expectations will negatively impact thousands of disabled k-12 students in our schools I reiterate our desire to work with the authors of AB 2490 to make sure the bill works for disabled, low limited English proficient and other low income vulnerable students who deserve qualified subs and movement towards fully qualified teachers. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have anybody else who would like to register opposition? Good afternoon. Julie Sherman, Director of Public Policy for the Arc of California respectfully oppose. Good Good afternoon Madam Chair members Tristan Brown with CFT will mirror the comments of CTA and look forward to continuing dialogue here. Thank you. Ben Murphy with Public Advocates and Respectful Opposition. Want to echo our colleagues at DREDF's comments. Thank you. Anybody else? All right, we will turn it back to the committee. Do we have any questions or comments from committee members? Yes, Senator Chobok. I just want to really quickly make my comments because I now have three committees going on at the same time. So I've been supportive of the bill in the past, and I will continue to support the bill today. But I do have great concerns because this year, unlike your previous bill, you're including special ed. And I do have concerns about that particular space being long term. But by the same token, understand that out of all the teaching assignments, that is the one that is especially impacted by the lack of teachers for that particular segment. So talk about needing incentives and training for that particular group. So I haven't been involved in the conversations, but I do understand that there is a huge need. and it is a concern about having a long-term sub without the appropriate trade. to be in that classroom for that particular. But on the same token, and I mentioned it last year when you brought the bill forward, that as we're having conversations right now, and I completely understand the opposition's concern about not having a credential teacher in the classroom, but by the same token, I think we need to be incredibly concerned about how many different substitute teachers could be possibly potentially in the classroom, which does not allow for consistency, consistency, especially when we're considering paid pregnancy leave, which is right now 14 weeks that are being considered. And when we consider also the fact that they could also take that part-time teacher component for an additional several weeks, I think it's maybe 12 weeks, if I'm not mistaken, if anybody knows. so potentially there could be probably almost let's see three three about six nine months almost a full year that a teacher that those students could be without an actual teacher and if we're looking at the current plan and even with this particular proposal that still leaves quite a bit of substitute teachers within the classroom with no consistency in the classroom so as I mentioned in our in our pregnancy leave bill hearing we need to consider the long-term impact for our students and be prepared for that so with that I will support the bill today I do appreciate the training that's going on with the five and maybe while they're substituting five hours may not be enough it might be something that we need to look at a little bit longer more training for them as you go I do appreciate the mentor component in it. I think that's excellent and that's incredibly helpful. I know that it was helpful for me when I was working under my emergency credential and I look forward to seeing that component. But on that end, as I said, the substitute teacher timelines should align with what we're doing on the other side so that there is consistency for those students even if we don't have a credential teacher considering the fact where we are not that it's okay but I think a little consistency is better than a revolving door in that classroom for our students because then when we have a quick revolving door there's no accountability for the teachers they're like I'm just here for you know a couple of weeks or a day and then it changes right on and there's no investment there but if you can actually take accountability and see that those students are actually learning and and basically succeeding, then you as a substitute teacher really do take ownership of your time in that classroom and you put your vested in that time and commitment to that classroom. So with that I will be supporting the bill and but I do would like to see it longer. But with that I am happy to move the the bill ma'am. Thank You Senator Cho-Bogue. Any other comments? Yes, Senator Cortese. Yeah, just you can. I just want to explain my vote. I've been supportive of legislation that's come along to try to tackle this, what I consider to be a problem. I don't really hear anyone from either side saying that there's not a problem. I understand opposition's comments all too well, you know, after multiple decades as an elected official, a labor champion. You know I understand anything that resembles a slippery slope in terms of you know avoiding labor standards or minimum requirements and so forth is something that has to be opposed On the other hand, the author's willingness to tackle this, I'm sure knowing full well coming into it, that even though he supports those same values, there's something broken here and somebody's got to tackle it. What we would hope for, of course, in the less than perfect world we're in, is that everybody gets together and comes up with some sort of temporary solution. And I really appreciated the author's comments right at the opening, right at the outset, saying we're not trying to permanently, I'm paraphrasing, we're not trying to permanently change anything about what the basic fundamental values are in terms of teacher credentialing and so forth. That's what I heard in those words. but something has to be done short term. I have two substitute teachers in my immediate family. It is a weird system, and it's a system where it's not them going out looking for 60-day assignments or 70-day assignments. It's they get into an assignment, and the credentialed teacher doesn't come back, and you've got a bunch of kids there depending on you to sustain effort, basically. and maintenance of effort as well at a point where, as teachers know better than I do, I'm not a teacher, that relationship has started to take hold, at least temporarily, between the teacher and the student. The teacher standing before those students and perhaps at that point garnering some additional respect as a teacher that shows up every day. That's not a bad thing. We don't want that person there any longer than they need to be if the credential teacher is going to come back. But I just think the problem is broken on sort of both sides. You know, we're doing a lot, as the vice chair pointed out, you know, at everybody's request, you know, it seems like in the education community to extend benefits, to extend leave time, to pay for extended leave time. I have been all for that. You can go check my record on my votes all along. but then we have to do something to sort of complement the other side of it. And if this isn't exactly the right way to do it, you know, far be it from me to say it is, I don't consider myself a fundamental expert in these kind of personnel issues in education. But hopefully, you know, I know if you get this bill out today, you're going, you know, basically directly to appropriations and, you know, to the floor. Hopefully there's still an opportunity to get something that's at least neutral in terms of opposition so that everyone feels like we do have a good short-term, you know, temporary solution. That's what I'd like to see. Sorry to, you know, preach about it, but I've seen it close up. As anecdotal as that may be, I've seen it close up, and it's just not a system that's working well at all. And I have talked to, for what it's worth, the president of the California Teachers Association directly about this issue face-to-face. And he expressed concerns, and I won't get into the conversation, but we're still short of solutions. So I'm going to be an aye vote with the hopes that somehow before the end of session this all gets worked out. Thank you. Thank you Senator Cortese Seeing no other comments from members assembly Valencia I just want to thank you for bringing this bill forward I know that you have been working very hard on this piece of legislation since AB 1224 was vetoed last year. The current version of the bill includes professional development requirements, orientation requirements, mentoring provisions, parent notification requirements, annual reporting requirements, and recruitment expectations that were not included in the prior proposal. So you've done a significant amount of amending legislation. The changes have narrowed some of the concerns previously raised by education stakeholders, and I know your office is continuing to work with them. And so my recommendation is an aye vote. I think you've worked tremendously hard to get this piece of legislation together, and I know you'll continue to do so working with stakeholders. So I will turn it over to you to close. Thank you, Madam Chair, and greatly appreciate the perspective and comments made by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It's been encouraging that it's been a bipartisan effort, and I think that goes to show the work that has gone into this bill. It's not going to be perfect, but I am one to do my best in addressing an issue, especially when it is impacting the educational development of our students in this state, specifically our students with special needs. That is something that is extremely near and dear to my heart. My mother worked in a special education classroom for almost 25 years. So this, believe me when I say, is coming from the best place intended, especially when the current regulatory framework does not cover special needs students and education, and hence why we are including that in this bill. With that, look forward to the continued conversations and respectfully ask for a yes vote. Thank you so much, Assemblymember. We have a motion from Senator Kortchoy, and the motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senator Perez. Aye. Torres, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Cabaldon. Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzales. Reyes. Great. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Assemblymember. Next up, we have Assemblymember Ransom, who's presenting AB 2514. Thank you, Jessica. I mean you can begin when you're ready. Thank you Madam Chair and Senators. I want to first start by thanking you for your work on this bill and to let you know and I want to let you know that we are accepting the committee's amendments to clarify this bill will only become operative if AB 2225 by Assemblymember Patel is enacted. I here to present AB 2514 one of four bills in the comprehensive legislative package working to close our state achievement gap through great greater step state level alignment of the many state entities that oversee public education this package creates a system of accountability to ensure ongoing and consistent attention to this important issue of establishing greater accountability California achievement gaps are simply unacceptable and through district and though districts have adopted well-intentioned programs large gaps persist across social economic geographic and ethnic lines progress has been slow and one of the largest barriers in improving our student outcomes is the fragmented governance approach that lacks a coherent and unifying state-level plan to help districts and county offices of education close the achievement gap a B 25 14 requires the working group established in 2225 to make recommendations for development of a statewide dashboard. This would be an important tool to provide the public with a clear way to measure state's progress and how we are improving collaboration and communication and thus helping improve services and support for local education agencies. To be clear, despite confusion calling it a dashboard. The dashboard referenced under this bill is separate and different from the California existing dashboard. This reference under AB 2514 is modeled after other states where the state has developed and implemented tools to provide the public with a way to measure progress in meeting goals and benchmarks. The goal of the dashboard is to establish a state accountability measurement to assess state coherence and measure state efforts in implementing state-level operations and to support the plan established under Assemblymember Patel's bill. I appreciate your thoughtful considerations provided in the committee analysis and as the policy develops we will continue conversations with stakeholders to look more closely at determining a more reflective name that represents the goal of the dashboard. AB 2514 is about ensuring our work to improve alignment and cohesion among state public entities is backed by clear data and public accountability. At the appropriate time, I will respectfully ask for an aye vote. But for now, with me today, I have in support of the bill, Jessica Spicer with the Santa Clara County Office of Education, Superintendent for Washington Unified School District in West Sacramento, Ms. Cheryl Hildreth, and lastly, we also have here in the room, Chris Reif, the Legislative Director of the California School Boards Association, who's here to answer any technical questions. Thank you. All right. Is this working? All right. Chair Perez, Vice Chair Ochoa-Bogue and members, thank you. My name is Jessica Spicer, Vice President of the Santa Clara County Board of Education, and I am here in strong support of Assemblymember Ransom's 2514s. At the Santa Clara County Office of Education, we directly serve more than 10,000 students and indirectly through our local district, over 227,000 students. Over 30% of the students we directly serve are English language learners, while 20% of the local school district students are English language learners. Our county office is a safety net of public education and directly serves students in early learning, special education, alternative education, court schools, migrant education, foster youth, homeless student supports, and offers district-wide system support for our local districts. That perspective makes one thing clear. Local educators are accountable every day, but families and community cannot easily see whether the state's many initiatives are moving us coherently and effectively towards closing the achievement gap. AB 2514 answers that need by creating a pathway for the State of the Achievement Gap Dashboard, a public, easy-to-understand tool for tracking California's progress in implementing the plan to better align state public education agencies and programs. The dashboard would focus on what matters most, service quality, collaboration and coordination among state support programs, program effectiveness, operational coordination, financial support, transparency, and accountability. Please note that this dashboard is distinguishable from the California school dashboard. It would be a tool similar to efforts outside the education space the state has taken to measure the coordination, alignment, and delivery of non-education-related state programs and services. It is not a new mandate on schools. It is a transparency tool for the state. It would help county offices, districts, policymakers, and the public understand what is working, where barriers remain, and how state support can better align with student needs. California needs public reporting that turns state activity into measurable progress. For students, families, and taxpayers, transparency is a first step toward trust and results. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2014. Thank you so much. Thank you. Chair Perez and members, thank you for your time. My name is Dr. Cheryl Hildreth, Superintendent of Washington Unified School District in West Sacramento, and I'm here in strong support of Assemblymember Ransom's AB 2514. Washington Unified serves more than 7,400 students, including over 1,300 English language learners. All of those students have potential and deserve a better aligned system where the state meets its own potential in supporting local school districts and the students they serve. In Washington Unified, our district is committed to equity, excellence, and empowerment, and to closing opportunity and achievement gaps for every student. That work requires local accountability. Our families, board, educators, and community study data, set goals, and make hard choices. But state systems shape whether local plans succeed through funding, guidance, programs, and requirements that can accelerate improvement or create barriers. It's critical that state programs do the former and not the latter. AB 2514 provides a practical transparency tool to aid in that goal. It asks for recommendations for a State of the Achievement Gap dashboard updated periodically so the public can see whether the state is accountable to stakeholders and making progress in supporting LEAs. The dashboard would examine service quality, access to state supports, program effectiveness, operational coordination, financial support, transparency, accountability, and CDE's programs and policies. In short, this is a way to hold the state accountable for the support it promises. Local leaders cannot close achievement gaps alone inside a fragmented state system AB 2514 helps turn good intentions into visible progress and reciprocal accountability I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2514 Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Anyone that would like to offer me twos, please use the mic. Carson needs California Charter Schools Association in support thank you Amanda Dickey on behalf of the Fresno County Superintendent of Schools in support Annette Lewis Contra Costa County Board of Education in support Zachary Amis Gassine fight school district in support Shelby Muller Rincon Valley Union School District in support Sylvia Leong Cupertino Union School District in support Nancy Smith Palmdale School District very supportive Jessica Rogers El Dorado Union High School District in strong support Bella Kern on behalf of San Francisco Unified School District in support Harold Tolerop on behalf of the Santa Clara County Office of Education in support Alita Fisher from San Francisco Unified with the usual cast of characters in support San Francisco Unified, Andy Lee from Jefferson Union High School District, Patricia Murray from South San Francisco Unified School District, Greg Land from San Mateo Union County School District, Terry Chavez from San Mateo Union High School District, and Bev Gerard from San Mateo County Office of It. All right Debra Shade, trustee Solonavich School District in strong support. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no one rising, we'll turn it over to witnesses in opposition. If there are any witnesses in opposition, please use the mic. Any Me Too's in opposition? Any Me Too's in opposition? Alrighty, we'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any comments or questions from committee members? Yes, Senator Choi. Thank you, author. I stated a while ago, any student achievement topic is concerned. That's very important especially narrowing the achievement gap so far my count today

Yes, certainly. I mean, I think first if the author would like to respond, and then I know we have a representative from CSBA here. So Assemblymember Ransom?

Yes, Chris.

Your explanation says each bill has different areas, such as geographic areas, whatever other distinctions you may make. As far as I remember those prior two bills did not distinguish that kind of thing things this simply mentioned that the academic achievement gap closure issue that was a general topic and so this And especially AB 2225 and this one sounds like to me by reading the summary, verbatim identical. This is the only dashboard bill,

Yeah, I don't want to take too much time, and we don't have time. We've been sitting here since 9 o'clock in the morning and still going. But the phrase that you are using, this particular bill uses another language, another word, the dashboard, creating dashboard. Other programs will create eventually dashboard of what subjects in each categorical, such as geographic and socioeconomic differences, racial differences, what topics are different, and the recommendation will be made, how to narrow that gap. So eventually the topic is the same, how to identify the achievement gap and how to narrow. That's the ultimate goal. This bill does not measure certain socioeconomic differences or racial differences or geographic differences. We are talking about the common topic that is academic achievement gap, how to address. address. I think this is not only this particular topic, sometimes we run into similar situations. So each committee has to take up the similar bills and as much as possible consolidate not to make a duplicative or triple efforts and waste our time. That's my opinion.

I think there's a cheat sheet that was given to me when I met with the sponsors of the bill that actually highlights all four bills and how they're all interrelated. They're interlinked. And I think that is a great visual that might be helpful for Senator Troy. And I was trying to find it to see if somebody had that cheat sheet so he could have access to it. Is that it right there? Would you mind sharing that with Senator Troy? I think that might be very helpful. That might be helpful. I know it was helpful for me. So I'm a visual person. I'm a visual learner. So that might be helpful for him. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. I just I will be supporting the bill on that. And I and I just want to validate Senator choice concerns on the fact that my first comment when I met with the sponsors was the fact that there's more departments, more oversights. and we see that in every space, whether it's education, human services, or housing, especially addressing the homeless, or the housing. So we're always having these umbrella commissions trying to bring everybody together, which goes to the point that I've been trying to make in every single Bill in every single committee that I've had moving forward I will continue to make those conversations is Ensuring that we're not duplicating what we already have And ensuring that everything that we that we don't continue to grow so many new committees new commissions new departments Without analyzing and seeing what we currently have ensure that they're working appropriately if not toss them out because we get so big and get so convoluted that then we now have to create umbrella commissions to bring everybody together because everybody's working in so many different spaces so my lens moving forward with any new bills that we have coming forward my team knows we're gonna look at whether or not that objective is already being somewhat covered or those students are already being covered in another department another program that we're currently having especially because we're looking at the funding we are spending a lot of money on education and you know whether it's housing homelessness and every single space so we need to start really reassessing where we are and ensuring that we're not just adding more bureaucracy because it gets more and more expensive and yet we don't have the results so that's why I I will be supporting the bill and this package moving forward with all four bills in there in hopes That we will finally close that achievement gap because we are Literally so many programs so much money and yet we're not seeing the fruit of our labor So with that I will be happy if there hasn't been a motion that I'm sure I'll be happy to move Thank you

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, for your questions, your concerns, and your intention to this bill and this matter. We appreciate the amendments ensuring that there is greater synergy between the bills that are proposed. I want to start by addressing the chair's concerns about really the title of the dashboard, which is exactly why we're looking at what it means to have a more appropriate name for the dashboard. And just for everyone's, you know, I don't know, edification in regards to what it actually means to have an achievement gap. It refers to the persistent disparity in academics performance or educational attainment between different groups of students. And it's measured by test scores, grades, graduation rates, college completion, and highlights inequalities rooted in different statuses. And we as a state make huge investments across different districts. And the dashboard that we are looking to design is to see where we are getting achievement, where we are actually being effective, what's working and what's not working. so that when Senator Ochoa Bogues speaks about the investments and the duplications, we are acknowledging that that is happening and that our students are not always better for it. And so we want to ensure that we are really able to get a clear picture of what's working, where we should continue to invest, where those dollars should go, what systems and programs are working, and what's not working. And so that's a huge part of this. This is about creating a coherent ecosystem in our education to better serve California students And with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote Thank you Assemblymember Ransom We have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogue and that motion is due pass as amended to the

who is the Monterey County Superintendent of Schools. She really wanted to be here today, but unfortunately, or maybe fortunately... Apologies. She really wanted to be here today, but perhaps fortunately, their last board meeting of the year is actually happening right now. So she asked me to fill in for her to share a little bit about Monterey County's story and how providing schooling to behavioral health services changed outcomes for youth in Monterey County. Back in the early 2010s, when juvenile crime was declining in most places, Monterey County was experiencing a sharp increase in youth crime and gang involvement that was spilling into schools and their community. The Monterey Children's Council, which includes the County Office of Education, First Five, and the Behavioral Health Department saw this as a critical turning point and began engaging with youth and families to better understand what was happening. What Monterey learned was very important that children lacked safe and supportive spaces schools did not have the resources to respond to trauma and overburdened parents needed help keeping kids away from gangs that were offering a false sense of community and belonging In 2014, the Monterey County Office of Behavioral Health and Behavioral Health Department partnered to apply for a federal grant based on the radical idea that school-based behavioral health care, rather than increased juvenile incarceration rates, could change the community's trajectory. Monterey used this grant funding to launch a partnership between education and behavioral health in the schools. We trained teachers on how to integrate mindfulness techniques into classrooms. We embedded social workers and psychologists on school campuses to provide support groups, anti-bullying workshops, and mental health first aid training to parents and staff. They created wellness centers to act as safe spaces for students struggling with trauma, social skills, and behaviors. The results were overwhelming. In 2010, Monterey had the highest youth homicide rate in the state. Today, that rate is less than a third of what it was in 2010, and the juvenile arrest rate is three and a half times lower. Alcohol use among middle and high school students is less than one third of what it was in 2010, and gang involvement dropped from 11% to just 2%. The number of youth who reported feeling safe at schools has increased one and a half times, nearly two times as many students report that they have a caring adult to confide in at school. And suicide ideation has gone from 18% to 8% since our wellness program began. I'm here today in support of 2704 because Monterey knows how critical school-based behavioral health supports are, but because they've been doing the work for a really long time, they also know how hard it is to accomplish. There have been so many barriers to overcome and so many legal and fiscal hurdles they've had to surmount to keep these services in schools. And Monterey is incredibly thankful that the fee schedule creates an ongoing funding source to support our work, but we are also painfully aware that without significant technical assistance and support, most small and rural school districts, including those in our own county, would never be able to access it. So we want to thank Assemblymember Addis for authoring this important bill and urge members of the committee to vote in support of behavioral health for students. Good afternoon, Chair Perez and members. My name is Courtney Armstrong here with the First Five Association of California, the largest network in the state dedicated solely to children prenatal to age five. And we're proud to co-sponsor Assembly Bill 2704 and thank Assemblymember Addis for her leadership on this important issue. As you've heard, California built CYBHI fee schedule to fund behavioral health services for children from birth through 25. but it isn't reaching our youngest children or our smallest communities. Through the fee schedule, there is a real opportunity for schools, early learning centers, and other community partners to provide early childhood mental health services, but implementation to date has primarily focused on school-age children, and it has been uneven, as you've heard at that. These pilots are the missing piece. Without intentional support and incentives, schools and community partners won't be able to expand into early childhood at scale on their own. Hands-on technical assistance, helping under-resourced providers actually bill and get reimbursed, is needed to ensure the fee schedule is implemented well and finally reaches our youngest children. The state's own evaluation of CYBHI found that certified wellness coaches, the model that the fee schedule will reimburse, is a worthwhile investment in expanding early prevention and support, especially in community and early learning settings. For California's 2.7 million children under the age of five, AB 2704 turns an investment the state already made into the care that kids can actually receive. adding critical capacity to our early childhood mental health infrastructure. So for these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote.

I'll just say as a teacher for over 20 years, for over 20 years, I taught students with special needs, immigrant and English learners. I taught a lot of impacted families and know how important behavioral health is within our schools. I know the chair and the committee know that as well. And I would also say one of the things that makes people most frustrated with government is when we can't get money out the door, when we promise things and we don't end up delivering. And I think this bill would help that. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.