Senate Education Committee

Good morning. Welcome to the Senate Education Committee hearing. There are 11 bills on today's agenda. There are two bills on consent. Those bills are item number 9, SB 1126, and item number 11, SB 1443. Witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to two minutes to ensure the committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. Seeing that we do not have a quorum, we're going to begin as a subcommittee with our first bill, and I see that we have Senator Akilah Weber here.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'm Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice. And on behalf of 38 organizations, including the California State PTA, we support SB 1067. And we thank Senator Weber Pearson's leadership for making math a priority for California. For too long, there has been a myth that some people are math people and some people are not. And that mindset has lowered expectations and allowed our system to accept outcomes where over 2 million students, mostly from low-income communities, mostly Black and Latino, are far below grade level in math in California today. Math ability is not a personality trait. It is a skill that can be developed with the right supports at the right time. And we are entering a data-driven, AI-powered economy where math skills are more important than ever. If we do not address these gaps early, we limit opportunity for millions of kids before they even get to middle school. SB 1067 helps students get the support they need when it matters most. This bill will ensure that schools identify students with math difficulties early through universal screening in kindergarten, first, and second grade. And as the Senator mentioned, most importantly, it requires schools to provide evidence-based supports to students that are behind, tutoring, more small group instruction, additional time focused on math. The bill is based on research and best practices. The U.S. Department of Education, their research arm, recommends early screening and intervention as an essential early step to support students struggling in math. And that recommendation came out during the Obama administration. The National Center on Intensive Intervention has identified valid and reliable tools that schools can use to identify students that are far behind. And 20 other states have already adopted universal screening of math. It is essential that every child gets a chance to build confidence in numbers so they don't start to think that they're not a math person too early in their journey. We've got to give them that chance. This bill will not address all of California's math challenges. We don't express that it does, but it will help a lot more students have success in math earlier, and that's why we urge you to support it. Thank you.

These foundations include ideas such as number sense, one-to-one correspondence, comparing quantities and spatial reasoning. While they may seem simple, because math learning is both cumulative and interconnected, students who don't master foundational math skills in K2 are impacted later when learning algebra and beyond. An example of this pattern is reflected in California's own data. As recently as 2025, 46% of all 3rd graders were proficient in math, yet compared with just 33% of 11th graders. This is where screening plays an important role. A math screener is a brief, developmentally appropriate check that helps teachers understand how students are developing these foundational skills. It is neither punitive nor diagnostic. It simply provides timely information so educators can respond early before small gaps become larger barriers. shows that students who are identified early, typically in grades K-2, and given targeted timely evidence-based interventions can make significant and sustained gains in mathematics achievement. Identifying using screeners require screeners that recognize students' cultural, linguistic, and lived experiences as strengths. This is especially important given longstanding disparities in mathematics outcomes for marginalized students, which are not reflections of ability but of opportunity. Students enter school capable and curious, the question is whether our citizens recognize that potential early enough and provide support to nurture it. SB 1067 is not a complete solution, but it is a meaningful step toward earlier and more responsive support. When we invest early, we invest in students' confidence, curiosity, and opportunity. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I will now take me twos. If you're here to support SB 1067, please use the mic at the railing and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Good morning, chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of UNIDOS US. Unfortunately, we don't have an official position to share at this time, but we're really supportive of the intent and we look forward to working with the author and the sponsors. Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Esqueda. I'm a community member. I'm here to support the bill. Hi, Jessica Marquez. On behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Toni Thurman, in proud support. Hello, Amy Parada, former educator and community advocate. I'm in support. Good morning. Daisy Hernandez, on behalf of the Partnership for LA Schools, representing schools in East LA and Bojai, South LA and Watts. In support. In support. Hi, everyone. Good morning. I'm Nadia Razzi. I'm the Director of Research and Policy at the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools. In support. Good morning. I'm Prentice Starkey. I'm a retired professor of human development in the Graduate School of Education at UC Berkeley and Project Director in the Early Childhood Program at West Ed. for the bill. Good morning, I'm Gilbert Barayo, an educator from San Jose, You're in support of the bill today. Good morning. My name is Carl Pinkston with the community-based organization, Black Parallel School Board, Operation Director, and I'm here in support. Good morning. Angelica Salazar from the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools is also in support. Hi, my name is Catherine Aviles-Mondragon, and I'm a student at Math Science Technology Magnet Academy at Roosevelt High School and I am in support. Anybody else? All right, seeing we have no more witnesses in support, we'll now move on to witnesses in opposition. If we have anyone here for opposition testimony, please come forward. You'll have two minutes each to make your presentation. Thank you. My name is Dr. Scott McDowell. I have a Bachelor's of Science in Applied Mathematics, a Master's in Curriculum and Instruction, and a Doctorate in Educational Leadership, all from UCLA. I was a long-time high school math teacher, UCLA Math Project instructor, and high school principal. and I'm currently the Director of Curriculum in Torrance Unified, overseeing math instruction and the implementation of the new California Math Framework. I've been a member of the Association of California School Administrators Curriculum, Instruction, and Accountability Council for the past six years, and it is in this capacity that I'm testifying today in respectful opposition to SB 1067. California test scores in mathematics have improved year over year since 21-22 and in many districts have exceeded pre-COVID levels. Across the state, students score highest in math in third grade when the test is most focused on numeracy and procedural skills. As higher-level thinking, application, and problem solving are introduced in fourth through eighth grade, grade-level performance declines annually and does not rebound until eighth or eleventh grade. Our instruction needs to better align with the California math framework to keep pace with the higher cognitive demands in upper elementary and middle school math. We need to let the California Framework and textbook adoption process roll out with expectations and support that math instruction fundamentally change from procedural fluency to high-quality tasks that integrate conceptual understanding, problem-solving, and real-world application. At a time when we need to be focusing on developing well-written critical thinking mathematical skills, a screener focus on a narrow definition of math procedures would do the opposite. This calculia affects 3-7% of students. Therapies include interactive games, distributed practice, mastery of smaller number fact groups, emphasis on reverses and turnarounds, student self-monitoring of progress, and mathematical thinking strategies. All strategies that should be used with any student having struggles in early mathematics, regardless of identification of a disability. I am concerned that implementation of a math screener would further lead us away from equitable student-centered instruction. Deficit-based thinking has for decades prevented struggling math students from even being exposed to rich mathematics instruction and the introduction of a mass screener focused on deficit skills would significantly work against what we were all fighting for in mathematics instruction. Thank you for your presentation. We'll now take additional witnesses in opposition. Please use the mic at the railing. Do you have a presentation Yes Okay If you like to come here at the front you able to use this mic Thank you Good morning. I'm Kathleen Latimer, speaking on behalf of the California Mathematics Council in opposition to SB 1067. The Council strongly supports improving early mathematics outcomes and ensuring that all students receive timely support when they struggle. While early identification of student needs is important, the bill creates a new mandate without addressing the root causes of mathematics learning challenges. We believe that state resources should prioritize strengthening instruction. California has made significant progress by adopting the 2023 California Mathematics Framework, which provides guidance on strengthening instruction and supporting diverse learners. Rather than creating additional mandates, we believe the state should invest in implementation supports that help educators bring this vision to life in classrooms, such as professional learning for teachers, classroom embedded support, such as those provided by instructional coaches and math specialists, and high quality mathematics instruction. These investments bring educator capacity and improve mathematics instruction for all students. SB 1067 does not ensure funding for these priorities. Screening tools typically measure discrete foundational skills, such as counting and basic operations. While foundational skills are important, early numeracy is not limited to discrete skills, but includes a broad set of competencies such as mathematical reasoning, problem solving, spatial thinking, and mathematical communication. Over-reliance on screening measures may unintentionally encourage narrower, skill-focused instruction rather than the deeper learning experiences students need. And data can be over-interpreted and broadened to make judgments about students and their readiness, which may lead to premature labeling, lower group placement, or skill remediation pathways for students who are only beginning their formal mathematics journey. The Council shares your commitment to improving early mathematics outcomes. We urge the prioritization of investments that build educator expertise, support effective teaching and expand access to high quality mathematics learning experiences for all students. For these reasons, the California Mathematics Council, which believes in the brilliance of every learner, respectfully opposes SB 1067. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. We'll now take additional comments in opposition. If you could use the mic at the railing. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Ashley Lugo on behalf of the California County Superintendents in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Christina Salazar on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools in opposition. Good morning, Chair and Committee members. Carlos Rojas representing the current County Superintendent of Schools office in respectful opposition. Good morning, Dr. Ma Bernadette Salgarino. On behalf of the California Teachers Association, we oppose this bill. Anybody else? Okay, we will turn it now back to committee comments and questions. Do any members of the committee have any comments or questions? Senator Cho Bogue? Thank you, Madam Chair. I a co of the bill Thank you for bringing this measure forward I actually do want to address both the concerns and the support for the opposition and I want to make sure that we have clarity on what the bill is intending to do And I know you've done your opening remarks. I know that we've heard from the opposition. But I think the public deserves to hear as to—we have seen some improvements in the past couple of years, but very slight. We're still incredibly far behind. And it's sad that in 2026, our test scores are, as mentioned by Dr. Weber, who is, quite frankly, appalling. Absolutely. It really is appalling. Absolutely. And so, you know, I've been blessed to be in the Education Committee now for, this is my sixth year, also in Budget 1 for six years. we have as a state been prioritizing as much as possible funding that has to do with teacher training, that has to do with additional resources in classes, opportunities for after-school, before-school programs. We've been doing that. So obviously, hopefully, unlike we haven't received much feedback back on those or metrics on those programs, and we're hoping to do that at some point in the future. but we've been doing a lot as a state trying to increase funding for certain programs on helping our teachers get professional training, resources in the classroom, and so forth. I completely agree. But I want to share with you an experience that I had with one of my students and why I'm supportive of the bill on firsthand experience when I did teach. I taught first, second, and third graders, English language learners. and looking back now, I wish I had more training on various, like what I've seen now, I wish I had had more experience back then when I taught my kids, but fortunately for me, I had an amazing mentor who was really helping and coaching me in my experience as a teacher, but I want to share an experience of a student that I had. She was a female student, English language learner, and I had her first, second, and third. I followed her through. And it was the best experience that I've had following this child because I came from a low socioeconomic family. There wasn't a lot of support at home. The mom was very supportive of me, a Latina. And mind you, our Latino parents are incredibly pro-education. They are behind their kids, supporting, and they believe in teachers. They believe in the teacher's ability to teach. And so I had all the support with mom, worked with mom, and she tried very hard, and she just could not register the information starting in first grade. Starting in first grade, we saw that she was always just struggling, struggling to learn how to read, to do math, to do everything possible, right? But there were certain things that she actually was able to master, including patterns. We introduced patterns in first grade and then we continued on. She was able to do patterns and very complex patterns. She could do that. But it wasn't until third grade. And we kept, you know, I documented the concerns that I had as a teacher. We had conferences with mom, with the principals, aides, and so forth. But it wasn't until third grade that she was actually, they finally gathered all the information and decided she needs an IAP. she's a special needs child learning disabilities and they were not caught until third grade in any other classroom in any other course I not sure that she would have received the attention that needed Now I was a very I want to say a very passion teacher that I believed that any child could learn And in that finding, in that assessment, not until third grade did she actually get the attention that she needed outside of my classroom. And it's disheartening to think that we have so many kids right now that are going without the services that they need, pulling them out or whatever that may be, what that might look like for that child until third grade. Because especially when it comes to reading, you know, and math is also part of reading. If they haven't mastered reading by the third grade, we know that they will struggle for the rest of their academic years. And so this is why I'm supportive of this screening in first and second grade or K. just to help us understand whether or not there is actually a need, a learning disability, something that this child will be required to have those services that they need early on, early intervention. And I do want to highlight, or actually I would love, through the chair with her permission, highlight when we talk about evidence-based assessment and the resources that they need to be actually provided to these students, can you walk us through a little bit what that assessment will allow us to learn, and what specific evidence do we know that the resources we will be able to provide at that point that will actually make the difference moving forward? Because I think that's important for the public and so forth. And I, as a member of the Budget One, I will, in collaboration with, I'm sure, our chair here, who also sits on Budget One, to continue to make sure that, ensure that the funding is there to provide those services. Education is our priority. It's our passion, and we'll make sure that we're advocating for that. We'll continue to advocate for that. So the screening tools themselves, what they're able to do is identify which kids are struggling with math and really with numeracy early. It doesn't distinguish if it's because a child just had less exposure to math at their home because they didn't have pre-K or whether it's actually some sort of disability. So for clarity, and I think that's really important because it's a more useful tool in many ways for teachers in that what the screeners are able to do is say, hey, children are struggling with numeracy. They need support. And then the teacher and the principal will then go in and go deeper and say, okay, maybe the child just didn't get a lot of exposure, which is most kids that are far behind in the early grades, they didn't have a lot of exposure at home or they didn't have pre-K, which is why you see far more kids from low-income communities, Latino and black students that are further behind early. So for some children, the teachers may say it's about more time or kind of more deeper, more effective tier one instruction or more tutoring. For other students, they might decide to do additional deeper diagnostics to say, as you mentioned, hey, is there actually something even deeper than just less exposure to math that's a disability? And then there's additional subsequent diagnostics that you would do to assess that. So the screeners don't, out of the gates, identify that right away. What they are very effective at and what they've been validated for is identifying which children are struggling with basic operations, with numbers, with early numeracy. And then with that information, it helps schools, principals, teachers say, do we need more actual diagnostics to see if there's a deeper learning disability? So this is not a dyscalculia. They don't do that. What they do is they help educators know which kids are really far behind. And then I think, as was mentioned earlier, it says you need to do something and then provides a lot of those opportunities to do that. The second thing, as a reminder, is the bill doesn't identify the screeners. It creates a committee of experts. Let's get the best folks in this state and this country to spend a serious amount of time to identify which screeners make the most sense for California's kids. So there are plenty of reliable and validated screeners out there today, but a committee would take time working to roll that out. This is why this doesn't get rolled out until 28, 29, because there's a period of almost a year to identify the screeners themselves. Madam Chair, if I may follow up with the question. So, okay, so not necessarily disabilities, but just understanding whether or not they have admitted. They're struggling with numeracy. Yeah, they're good at or they're struggling with numeracy. That's what they're really effective at. Okay. So if you kind of think about it in the medical world, you have various types of screening tests to see. As females, we get pap smears, screening tests. And if that comes back abnormal, then we do a deeper dive to diagnose what the issue is, right? So that's similar in this situation where they would be screening kindergarten, first, second graders to see if there is a potential issue there. and if that flags, okay, well, what is this, then they do a deeper diagnostic evaluation. Is there a learning difficulty? Is there a problem with the fact that they just haven't been exposed or coming directly from, you know, spending time at, you know, being raised by a grandma and they haven't been in an educational environment anymore? So it would be able to potentially pick up, like your student earlier, because they would screen her and realize that there were more diagnostic evaluation needed. earlier on. Early on, okay. And then last question, Madam Chair. Is there, do we have any real-life examples of where this is already being practiced? Absolutely. There's a lot of districts in California today that are doing early screening or some might call early diagnostics to identify which kids are really struggling and then are providing more support. So it's happening. What's nice about California, we have a thousand school districts and there's a lot of great practices in the field. What this law is saying is. But with this particular bill, do we have with this particular screening, do we have this in practice already in any of our school districts in California or out of the state where we actually have data that says this has actually been effective? Well, if you look at other states, Alabama, which has had the greatest improvement on the NAEP test since COVID in the country, This is one part of a broader strategy, and we're clear, this doesn't solve all the issues, but it's a key part of a broader strategy, and they've had the most success in terms of improving student success as a state in the country. And then there are districts in California, a lot of them, that are doing early screening and assessment in order to identify kids that are struggling and having success there. The exact screeners themselves, Senator, because the committee will develop the screeners, sorry, the panel of experts will develop the screeners, that's where I can say this district is using this exact screener because the screen the screeners that are identified have not been identified by the panel yet. Do you have any names of the school districts that actually have the screening test as kind of? Yes, so so I live in Los Angeles, Los Angeles Unified School District. They use a assessment called I ready the National Center on Intensive Intervention has identified I ready, which is more of an assessment. But they've identified that as a validated screener. They use that. They had their highest results in math last year Again that not the only reason And as was mentioned clearly and we all agree we need investment in professional development we need investment in coaching but we think this is an essential part of the overall strategy So that a district that making real progress in math right now that's been doing a lot of early identification. Okay, thank you. And just to that point, as far as early math screening, over 20 states have adopted in the country, early math screening. So we're not the first. We would be following other states which have already shown significant improvement in their students' math scores. Thank you. And I appreciate your presentation and Senator Pearson for bringing this bill forward, SB 1067. I think at the end of the day, what your bill is focused on trying to resolve is really commendable. Bringing up math scores for kids is somebody that's worked in the education space for a very long time. I can tell you that the numbers in terms of performance for our black and brown students have been incredibly low for decades. It's really unacceptable. And California has not made much improvement over the last 10 years. Now, we haven't declined dramatically either, but we've kind of just coasted. That goes for reading as well, and that's part of the reason why the state's made such a large investment in trying to improve literacy for students. But I think that this bill is part of a larger puzzle of pieces that we need to work on here in the state in resolving this issue. You know, it was mentioned before, whether it's professional development and investing in our teachers, making sure that we are attracting teachers that have a math background to come back to the teaching profession is so critical. So we're getting students excited about STEM and future STEM opportunities. So I think it's a great piece of legislation. I look forward to seeing it continue to move forward. And my recommendation is an aye vote. So I will turn it over to you to close. Thank you. I want to thank the committee staff and the chair and the committee members for reviewing and all of your help with this bill. I want to definitely thank my sponsors, Ed Voice. They have been true, true champions for equity amongst our children in education up and down the state of California. I really appreciate them. I want to thank Dr. Wilkes, who came. He was at the press conference, and I was just so impressed by everything that he said, and it just kind of clicked. You know, no one is born just automatically good or bad at math, and it is a skill. It is a skill that we have to ensure that we are giving to our children. And, you know, I completely agree with providing support for our teachers and continue to provide support. And in this, we have requested a budget ask to help with the implementation of this. But at the end of the day, if we can give all the support to our teachers, but if we're not seeing if it's trickling down to our students by screening them early, then I don't know what we have done. The numbers don't lie. It was interesting because, you know, my mother was in the assembly before I was, and she and I were talking. And one of the things that she is most disappointed about is the fact that we have not moved the needle for the achievement of our students here in California in areas in reading and math and especially when we dealing with our black and our Latino students and our low students We can talk and talk and put money here and there, but we really aren't moving the needle, and that's really what frustrates me. As someone who is a product of public school system, as someone who has two black students in California public school system right now, that we are not moving the needle. And status quo, we cannot continue to do that. We must be bold. We must think of our children first. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this bill because every student needs an opportunity to achieve in this great state. And if they are having difficulties, then we need to screen for that early and get them the intervention that they need. Thank you. Thank you so much, Senator. So I will entertain a motion now on SB 1060. We haven't established quorum yet. I apologize. Thank you for your presentation. I'll be happy to move the motion when the time is ready. Okay. Thank you so much, Senator Ochoa-Vogue. Great. I see we have Senator Becker present. Senator Becker, we haven't established quorum, but we're continuing to have folks present. So if you would like to get started on 1110 whenever you're ready. Okay, thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Please present SB 1110. I would like to thank the committee and staff for working on this bill. Nearly 1.8 million children in California are eligible for affordable child care but not enrolled. The families behind that number, working parents navigating complex systems, children who would benefit from quality early learning are the reasons that this bill exists. As California transitions to enrollment-based funding on July 1st of this year, we need to ensure the anticipated transition strengthens the child care system. This bill brings more stable and robust child care system based on a solid infrastructure and resource for consistent services to child care providers. Currently, alternative payment programs do the hands-on work of enrolling families, managing cases, and connecting parents to providers. But current law lumps that work together with back office overhead under a single cap that just has not kept pace with reality. This bill creates a transparent funding structure that recognizes the difference between administrative overhead and direct family services and ensures that even the smallest community-based agencies have the resources to keep serving families. There we go. It's loud in transition time here. Okay. The approach this bill takes we think focuses on necessary administrative fixes in a timely and reasonable manner. Author amendments ensure that the bill is aligned with the 2025 budget agreements. With me to testify, I have Donna Steeringer from the California Child Care Resource Center and Alicia Hatfield with Every Child California. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Donna Snaringer. I'm the president of the Child Care Resource Center and a co-sponsor of SB 1110. For more than 50 years, CCRC has partnered with the state of California to deliver subsidized child care to families in northern Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. Today we serve more than 60 children support families through enrollment case management and ongoing engagement throughout their time in care These contracts have long provided the state with a cost efficient system to deliver child care services at scale However, reimbursement reductions made over a decade ago, based on a limited view of our services, have never been restored. Despite significant changes in responsibilities and operating conditions, since that time, labor costs, compliance requirements, audit activity, technology, and data security mandates Additional payments and reporting responsibilities have all increased substantially. These pressures have destabilized contracts and in some cases affected timeliness and consistency of service to families and providers, which we do not like. SB 1110 offers a practical, carefully developed solution by consolidating existing funding into core contracts. This bill stabilizes the delivery system and allows agencies to appropriately staff programs, improve payment timelines, strengthen fiscal oversight, and deliver higher quality, more reliable services statewide. On behalf of contractors across California and the families we serve, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Good morning, Chair and members. Alicia Hatfield, Senior Legislative and Government Relations Advisor for Every Child California. We're a nonprofit representing 2,500 publicly funding early care and education programs across California, and we are proud co-sponsors of SB 1110. This bill reflects the critical fact that programs must maintain staffing, licensing, compliance, and quality standards, regardless of short-term fluctuations in attendance or enrollment. Pre-pandemic, the state reimbursement structure for our field was attendance-driven and deeply unstable. Small disruptions caused by family wellness issues, work schedule modifications, or eligibility changes resulted in revenue loss, while costs remain the same. Programs were forced to absorb that instability through wage suppression, deferred maintenance, and reduced program flexibility. During the COVID pandemic, Hold Harmless created stability, keeping programs open for families and staff employed. Now, as the state exits Hold Harmless, new conditions facing providers have introduced more volatility. Today, programs are managing changes brought on by the universal transitional kindergarten expansion, operating in material costs rising wildly in ways that programs can't keep up with, and family mobility issues, including disruptions tied to broader enforcement and community conditions. These are new and ongoing structural conditions now part of the operating environment, which is why stabilization has become a priority. This bill is a protection mechanism that safeguards continuity for children, preserves access for families, and helps prevent further erosion of California's center-based child care infrastructure. Thank you. Thank you both for your presentation. Do we have any other witnesses here in support? Please use the mic at the railing and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. McLean Rozanski with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Blake Johnson on behalf of Child Action, proud co-sponsor and support. Seventy Jimenez on behalf of Children's Paradise. We have a support and less amended position. Thank you. Sadabaches with Children Now in support. Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing no one else, we will turn it over now to any witnesses in opposition. If anyone is here to speak in opposition, please rise. Seeing no one rising, we'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any committee comments or questions? Okay. I do not have any questions. For you, Senator Becker, and my recommendations, an aye vote if you'd like to close. Yeah, I want to thank you. I want to thank the witnesses for their work. We're trying to get a better child care subsidy system that makes it better for the providers and makes sense for parents and families. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Great. Thank you. And do we have a motion? Oh, we don't. I keep forgetting we do not have a quorum. We will take a vote on that bill once we do have a quorum, Senator Becker, but thank you so much for your presentation. Thank you. Is anybody else here? Well, I can't have her present because I'm going to be stepping out, so should I recess? Thank you. in case we have any authors that do arrive. Thank you. Author in the room, we have Senator Nila who will be presenting two bills this morning. File item number 6, SB 1321. I know we're doing one together. I will do 1374. Or would you like to do 1374 first? Okay. That's number 7? Yes, file item number 7, SB 1374. And Senator Nila, you may proceed when you're ready. Thank you. So for the sake of any kids that are in the room, my agenda items are 6-7. That means something to some people. I don't quite get it, but if there were kids here, they'd be yelling and screaming and jumping up and down, right? Is that the way that works? So, yes, first I'll present SB 1374, which authorizes a public higher education institution to seek a temporary restraining order on its own behalf when it faces unlawful violence or credible threat of violence. Currently, universities may seek a restraining order on behalf of a student or an employee who has suffered a credible threat of violence. However, when threats are made toward an institution without targeting an individual, an institution is unable to seek a restraining order. Last year, SB19 made it a crime for threats made toward higher education universities, among other institutions. But when threats are made toward an institution without targeting an individual, the institution is unable to seek a restraining order. This limits the legal ability for long restraining orders against those who threaten to cause harm on a campus SB 1374 closes that gap by permitting higher education institutions to seek a temporary restraining order when a credible threat is made toward the campus. I have with me today Annabelle Urbina with the CSU Office of the Chancellor and Gregory Murphy, Chief of Police at San Diego State University. Good morning and welcome to the University when you're ready. Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair Perez and members of the committee. My name is Gregory Murphy and I serve as the Chief of Police at San Diego State University. I want to briefly explain what this gap looks like from an operational standpoint. At SDSU, we recently managed a case involving an individual targeting our campus community with violent and concerning behavior. Importantly, the threats were not always directed at a specific student or employee. They were directed at the campus more broadly. We investigated and coordinated with law enforcement and federal partners. Ultimately, the individual was removed from the university through the student conduct process and expelled. But here is the issue. Under current law, because there was no specific individual victim, the university had no standing to seek a temporary restraining order, even in the face of credible threats. While a student is enrolled, campuses can issue administrative directives, but those are not legally enforceable. And once someone is no longer a student, those tools end. And in some cases, the individual is not a student at all, meaning the university has no authority from the outset. So we had no legal mechanism to prevent that individual from returning to campus. This is not an isolated issue. We have faced the same challenge in other cases where threats were directed at the campus broadly The gap leaves universities relying on heightened security and operational disruption rather than a clear legal remedy Senate Bill 1374 allows institutions to go to court and obtain a restraining order that creates an enforceable boundary and gives law enforcement a clear legal basis to act if it is violated. From a public safety perspective, this is about prevention, acting before violence occurs, and protecting the campus community. I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you very much.

So this is SB 1321, and this bill is to task the California State Auditor with reviewing three high-demand campuses of the University of California, the California State University, relating to the use of remedial classes and a review of admission practices. In the fall of 2025 UC San Diego Senate Administration Work Group on Admissions issued a report a rather surprising report I would emphasize examining academic preparation of its first students The report showed that UC San Diego has experienced a significant decline in the academic preparation of entering first-year students over the past five years, with the most severe deterioration occurring in mathematics preparation and notable challenges also in writing and language skills. Between 20 and 25, the number of entering students at UCSD whose mathematics skills fell below high school standards increased nearly 30-fold, 30 times, times, with more than 70% of those students performing below middle school standards, representing approximately one in 12 members of the entering cohort. That's remarkable. It's possible the decline in academic preparation coincidences coincides with multiple systemic factors, including, for sure, the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused significant challenges in teaching kids with a lot of remote instruction that they were not used to. But there's also elevated risks of chronic absenteeism, changes in math curriculum, the elimination of remedial courses and moving to co-requisite grade inflation in secondary education, and the elimination of standardized testing from the UC admissions process. We need a deeper dive into this. I'd point out that these are students that are graduating high school with very high, in the case of these high-demand campuses, four-point grade-point averages or above, and yet many of them in math, not even at the eighth-grade level. Let that sink in. Now I'd like to turn it over to my joint author, Chair Ochoa Bogue, who will speak from behind the dais.

Thank you for that. And continuing on with my testimony, and to that point, I'm sure that all of the members of this committee have staff that are watching this presentation, and I urge them to make sure to inform their member of the very important points that you and I both are making. So in 2019, the California State Auditor issued an audit after reviewing the general admissions practices of three universities, UC Berkeley, Cal, go Bears, the University of California, Los Angeles, go Bruins. I went to both those institutions. The admission standards back then were actually easier. That's how I got in. But it has changed quite a bit since. And the University of California, San Diego. Now that it's 2026, we believe that the auditor is in a unique position to investigate this on a deeper level due to their previous work on the matter. Given these findings that have been brought to light at one UC, and we gave you, by the way, we need to give UCSD great credit for coming out with this study. Because if we don't recognize a problem, we will never cure the problem, and they're helping us to recognize it. But more needs to be understood on how wide this remedial issue is and how it's impacting admissions decisions. And with me today is Anna Matthews here to testify in support and on behalf of the California Community College Independence Union.

Good morning, Chair. My name is Anna Matthews, and I'm the representative of the California Community College Independence Union. I'm here to support SB 1321, Nilo, and Etobug. On the surface, this bill pertains to CSUs and UCs, but the California Community Colleges are strong partners with these institutions, transferring many students to them annually. And more importantly, we share significant overlap regarding student basic skills preparedness across all segments. To reiterate what the Senator mentioned, the report out of UC San Diego showed that over the last five years, the number of entering students at UC San Diego whose math proficiencies fell below high school standards increased almost 30-fold with 70% of these students performing below middle school standards. I think this also stems from the gaps that Senator Weber Pearson was mentioning earlier. Many students also struggle with their basic writing skills, but this problem isn't limited to UC San Diego students. The reality is, between the California Community Colleges, CSUs, and UCs, we have a student basic skills crisis. SB 1321 would investigate this crisis and give our systems the research basis they need to take decisive action and support students in strengthening their basic skills There are many perspectives on why students are struggling with learning loss and what to do about it But between students facing skill gaps after COVID the disruptions that AI has posed to math and English education, and transfer students lacking access to standalone preparatory coursework, we must do something. At a time when basic skills preparation is more necessary than ever, our systems are removing access to standalone foundational courses. The rollback of these classes has and will continue to leave first-generation and non-traditional learners without the academic support that they need to succeed in higher-level coursework. Student preparedness and basic math and English is at an all-time low. In order to address this crisis, we must first acknowledge that it exists. SB 1321 takes this first step. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Yes. There was one other witness who wasn't able to be here today, and I thought I'd read what he had to say. This is a CSU Long Beach professor. and he says, from my own experience in the classroom, I see a wider range of student preparedness than in the past. While many students succeed, others struggle to meet the demands of college-level coursework, even with support. They start classes without basic middle school level of skills in math and writing. Many of them demoralized, drop classes, some drop out altogether. A standardized admissions test would signal in advance that they need extra preparation to succeed in college classes. SB 1321 takes a prudent evidence-based approach. It does not prescribe a solution but instead asks critical questions about student readiness, the effective support systems, and the effectiveness of admissions practices in signaling the the university and the student readiness for college work. So this is an issue on so many different levels. The lack of preparedness obviously is a reflection of our K through 12 system that I'm not addressing in my statements, but we are failing our young people. Our achievement here in California, especially in disadvantaged areas, to say that it leaves a lot to be desired is probably the understatement of this legislative session. Arguably, this committee is the most important committee in the entire Senate and the facing one in the Assembly also, because that's our future. to say that children are our future is an overused statement, but to say that we are failing our youth relative to education is a question that cannot be denied And as this professor emphasizes when we admit kids that are not prepared and it not their fault that are not prepared for higher education and get so demoralized that not only that inadequate education in K-12, But then topped on top of it, the demoralization of the initial failure almost predicts failure for them in their whatever professional life that they might have. One other point with regard to the JLAC process that we are circumventing that. I want to emphasize we did request an audit, and it was not given a hearing. and typically follow-up hearings are not held. I'm told that they do have a hearing scheduled, but I still don't know if this request is going to be considered. And it is not at all unusual for a policy bill to be put forth to request or actually mandate that the auditor look into a particular issue. And I have several examples here. SB 47, Umberg regarding the State Bar in 2025, AB 2407 by Hart in 2024 regarding sexual harassment Title IX, AB 129 in 2021, which was a budget bill, and then SB 164 in 2024, again a budget trailer bill. This has been done before, and I emphasize, I really emphasize the importance of this issue. And to be concerned about circumventing JLAC, given the height of importance, I think is misguided. So, again, stress that those staff of members that aren't here, please convey to your member the significant importance of this issue, as I said, on so many different levels. I respectfully request an aye vote.

Good morning, Vice Chair and members. A day I brief urgent XB 1060, 10? I'm sorry, 86, which will allow, which will direct office of land use to develop origin, model originals, which will provide cities and counties clear standardized rate work for micro schools Micro schools emerge from parents and teachers working together to support their children who needed more individualized attention. They offer a safe, tailored environment for the students with special needs or learning disabilities. Local land use regulations create unnecessary barriers. extra costs and confusion from the Meister School operators. Many of them quietly raise your hand to share this issue. SB 1086 gives teachers a clear pathway to offer aid with transparency without exposing them to regulatory overreach. With me today are Lance Christensen, California Policy Center, Zuzette Valis, and the California Meister Schools Collective. Welcome.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Lizette Valles. I'm a mother and an educator of over 20 years. I'm also the founder of El Mercito Learning Community, a micro school in Southern California, and I support more than 35 micro school founders across the state through the California Micro School Collective. I'm here today because I've sat across from families in tears. Not because they don't care about education, but because their child is not thriving in the options available to them. These are children who are bright, curious, and capable, but they need something different. They need smaller environments, more connection, more flexibility, and a place where they feel safe enough to actually learn. That's what micro schools provide. They are small, relationship-based learning communities designed to meet children where they are. And they are growing because families are actively seeking them out. But right now in California, there's no clear or consistent path to open or operate a micro school. Founders are left navigating a patchwork of zoning rules that were never designed for small community-based learning environments. They are often treated like large institutions and face costly, confusing requirements just to serve a small group of children who need them. Through my work supporting more than 35 founders across California, I see this again and again. This is not isolated. It is happening across communities throughout our state. SB 1086 offers a practical solution. It creates a clear, predictable pathway while still maintaining local health and safety oversight. This bill does not create something new. It responds to something that is already happening. Because the truth is, families and educators are not waiting for policy to catch up to their courage. They are already building. SB 1086 helps policy catch up. I respectfully urge your support. Thank you.

Good morning, committee. I am Melody Fowler. I'm from Redding, California and founder of Roots Farm Education. We have been in operation for five years. I was a public school teacher prior. We were going to become a public charter, but the governor put a moratorium. So we've been operating in this gray area where we are supporting home-educated families. but what makes us unique is we are a farm school and we are passionate about teaching children how to grow their own food and where food comes from and to value everything that they eat from eggs to dairy to meat we have a very active 4-h club at our school and it's just it's been it's been a struggle and a dream at the same time and I call it joyful industry because it's you have to choose your heart but when we when I came across the micro school bill the senate bill 1086 I was astonished to to read that it described exactly what we're doing and we support 94 families at the moment. Like I said, this is our fifth year of operation, and we would love to be more transparent about everything that we're doing and just offer the diversity of opportunity for all children to fit their learning styles and to meet them where they are and to, again, tailor it for the parents to decide what they want for their children. And in my experience, we've had all children from all kinds of all walks of life and many small family, small business families and children that probably, you know, a lot of kids have come to us who were bullied in at their other schools. And they're allowed in this small setting to be who they are. And we really value that. So I again, thank you for your time. And I encourage you to vote this through. Thank you.

My name is Crystal Williams. My two kids currently go to Roots Farm. Oh, excuse me. We doing Me Too right now and so the Me Too mean that you state your name your organization and your position on the bill So this is in a public comment period So if you could state your name and organization and position on the bill that would be excellent So my name is Crystal Williams, and the organization is with Roots Farm, and I support this bill. Thank you so much.

This bill basically puts a name to a practice that's been going on for a long time. So micro-schooling is kind of ambiguous. A lot of cities don't understand what this is or counties. So when you go to the planning department and you have a micro-school that might have a dozen kids and maybe in a small commercial space or at a home to try to say what that looks like is different in every place. So we're just trying to standardize that, definition one. And then two, we pulled out the mandatory or the mandate that would require cities to do this. We would like to just see a definition put together and then some model regulations that will allow for, again, a process that is knowable and understandable amongst all parties as they go throughout the state. Micro schools is growing pretty fast as an alternative opportunity, but this is a land use bill, and so we're just trying to focus on the land use issues.

We feel like the number is probably understated. There's probably hundreds, if not thousands, of these kinds of schools within the state.

Okay. Some have raised oversight concerns about micro schools. Can you walk the committee through the right accountability obligations already applied to any schools operating under a private school affidavit including background checks curriculum coverage and annual filing under penalty or perjury so that the committee understands what floor already exists before this bill even comes into play.

Thank you. Thank you. So we understand that the committee analysis suggests that the legislature should wait until better understands micro schools before defining them in statute. But isn't the problem precisely that local zoning officials are already making ad hoc decisions about entities right now without any statutory framework or statewide consistency? Doesn't the absence of a definition produce worse outcomes than a careful definition?

Sounds sensible. And my last question, critics sometimes suggest that less regulated educational settings produce inferior outcomes. What does the research literature actually show about academic performance in private school affidavit settings and home education models compared to traditional public schools? And what does it show specifically about the relationship between the degree of state regulation and those outcomes?

I think I'm going to allow my colleagues, if they have any comments and questions, to move forward. I had one last, but I think I'm going to wait, too. Senator Cobaldon, did you have any questions or comments?

Thank you. Senator Cho Bogue. So following up on that concern, I'm going to ask the following question, which states that this bill draws on Utah's SB 13 from 2024. Can you describe how that law has functioned in practice, whether it produced the regulatory overreach that critics feared or whether it simply gave families and founders the clarity they needed to operate lawfully?

Okay, and then one last question in addressing my colleagues' concerns. The committee analysis suggests that the literature should wait until it better understands micro schools before defining them in statute. But isn't that the problem precisely that local zoning officials are already making ad hoc decisions about these entities right now without any statutory framework or statewide consistency? Doesn't the absence of a definition produce worse outcomes than a careful definition?

Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Senator Chobog. I think Senator Cabaldon has more questions.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. Senator Gomez-Rez? Okay. Okay, and we have a quorum now, so I'm going to go ahead and have the secretary call the roll. Senators Perez?

Ochoa Bogues?

Cabaldon?

Choi? Cortese? Gonzalez? Reyes? Here.

So we have now established quorum, so we may begin taking votes finally. I wanted to go ahead and make a couple of comments before I had you close, Senator Daly. I want to appreciate you bringing this bill forward and elevating this conversation around alternative education models. And I think it's an important and evolving space, and I want to underscore that. And I know families are clearly seeking a range of options outside of traditional systems. The thing I struggling with here is that the bill is asking us to define these entities in statute and direct the state to develop model ordinances to help facilitate their expansion and I not sure that we have enough clarity about what these entities are in practice to take that step I also think about when it appropriate for the state to step in and develop model ordinances In my view, that typically happens when either local governments are asking for that kind of guidance or when the state has a clear policy goal that it's trying to advance. And I'm not sure that we've fully established either one of those items yet. in those conditions here. At the same time, the sponsors have described these models pretty broadly from small home-based settings to larger operations serving up to 100 students, and it's not entirely clear what those lines are drawn or what is ultimately being contemplated. As a committee, we've tried to be very deliberate when defining education models and statute. We've spent years working through what does and does not constitute independent study, what counts as CTE coursework, how to define non-classroom-based charter schools or flex-based charter schools, which is always a hot topic, and we only recently established clearer definitions around charter management organizations. In some cases, like homeschooling, we still don't even have a formal statutory definition. Those experiences have shown us that definitions carry real policy implications. It's something that we're very mindful here, and we have a lot of discussions about that. And they're usually most effective when they follow a clearer understanding of how a model is operating in practice. So I think we need some more information. So for me, I'm not quite there yet in terms of supporting the bill, not because I'm opposed to these models necessarily, but because I'm not sure we have enough clarity to define them in statute and direct state action to facilitate them at this time. Now, Senator Cabaldon mentioned something I think is important and might help with driving this conversation. Senator Daly, if you would like to continue working on this issue, maybe convening some sort of conversation or discussion around this so that we can gain more information in order to drive a piece of legislation like this, I think would be really helpful and powerful to this effort. And so I do not have a recommendation on this bill and instead will be allowing my colleagues to vote their conscience I won't be voting on this bill at this time And wanted to inform you of that so I will turn it over now to you senator dolly for you to close I'm very special after I vote Thank you senator dolly and do we have a motion on that bill and that bill is SB 1086 So we have a motion by Senator Choa Boge and that motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez. Aye. I'm sorry. No I'm playing off. I'm not voting Oh, Choa Boge. Aye. Ochoa Boge, aye. Cabalden Choi Cortese Gonzalez Reyes Great, and we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much. Senator Hurtado, right? So next up on the agenda we have Senator Hurtado presenting SB 1181. Senator Hurtado, you may present when you're ready. I understand you'd like to have a visual aid, so we have something here to assist you as well. Thank you.

And I do just want to note we only have two presenters present in support of the bill. So whichever two you'd like to present. And then you'll each have two minutes to make your presentation. So I just want to note that. Thank you.

I'll allow it, but if you all could then present to you one minute each, is that okay? We could do like 30 seconds each. Okay, let's do that then, okay? Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now take additional witnesses and support. If there's anybody else here in support, please use the mic at the railing. Seeing nobody standing up, we'll now turn to witnesses in opposition. If there are any opposition witnesses, you can rise now. Seeing no one standing up we turn it back to committee comments or questions Senator Gomez Reyes Thank you First to Prince Michael mother

Thank you, Senator Gomez-Reyes. Do we have any other committee members with comments or questions? Senator Chobo. Thank you.

So this was a fellow student, but I am not aware of the system or any resources or services that he received because they cannot provide information for other students that are not your own. So I don't I wouldn't know that information. OK. Has your case been or has the student gone through the legal system as far as the court system?

So he is currently being tried as a juvenile because of the law, because he was 15 when he when he committed the crime. But because he was 16 when he committed other crimes while being not even on bail because he wasn't out on release or anything like that. He was just free and he was committing other crimes, like I said, in addition to him threatening me as well. So right now he is in custody for my son's death for on first degree murder charges.

Yes, but we're still going to court, so he hasn't been sentenced yet.

Thank you. Do you have any other committee comments or questions? Senator Cabaldon?

and we've had you and several other witnesses this week have brought forward. We were in committee earlier this week, and the breaking of the bond between a child and their mother It's incredibly personal, but I can't imagine having come to the Senate at that point to make meaning and to assure that it doesn't happen to others. And so just thank you so much for being for being here and to continue to fight while you're still fighting the case as well. And thanks to the author for for for their work and also to the students for speaking up for yourself about about what you're seeing in terms of safety and how to assure that. in your community. I also intend to support the bill today and thank the author for her continued steadfast leadership on these issues. And this is a pilot program just for the valley. But as the senator said, this is, you know, this challenge, this problem, but also the potential for solutions. That's what the valley is best at. Sometimes the San Joaquin Valley sometimes has some of the worst challenges but also the most hope the most possibility to get something done so very much appreciate that um i did want to um also encourage the author as the bill moves for moves forward there is a there's other legislation in the space around the fusion centers in particular um and i think we'll it will in addition to the committee amendments that uh it's been that the other legislation is carried by the chair of the committee um uh that will also provide additional safeguards to assure that if both bills were to pass, I think this bill is a good start on the safeguards with the committee amendments, but the combination of the two I think will be helpful in ensuring that we're maximizing safety and the coordination between agencies while also protecting privacy and these days abuse as well. So I wanted to note that. And then just one technical issue, because we heard a bill in the same area yesterday, not this same topic, but this will be a little nerdy, but it has real-world consequences. So this bill amends the California Emergency Services Act to add these provisions, which is appropriate because that's where the fusion centers are. But the history of the act creates a little unique problem here. So the Emergency Services Act, go with me for a second just to, Madam Chair, if you would, was passed in 1983. And And it was intended, it's the fundamental law that brings all the different agencies together and other players. And so it directs, in its original form, it said, look, in the event of an emergency, you know, your water district must do this. And you have to do that. And private parties have to do this. And so at the very end of the Emergency Services Act, it has a provision that says any violation of this act is a misdemeanor, punishable by fine or imprisonment. What's happened since 1983 is the legislature has added more and more things that are related to emergency services, but that we would never contemplate as being crimes. And so your bill doesn't, I'm sure, does not intend to make missing a deadline for a report or something else in the bill to be a crime. But it accidentally does that, as do every other bill that amends the Emergency Services Act. So maybe a note more for the committee staff. This came up in another bill in Natural Resources yesterday that it's a pure accident of drafting because that act is now so long. Nobody ever reads all the way till the end to Article whatever, 87. But there is language that any violation of this entire chapter of the law, which would include this bill, is a crime. And of course, that's not what's intended here. We're trying to promote collaboration and information sharing, not under the penalty of imprisonment or fines. So just encourage as the bill moves forward to at some point we should correct that because we are adding more and more crimes that we don't intend to in the effort to try to, and we need to be focused on the actual crimes that people are committing and not on criminalizing the reports themselves. But thank you for your careful attention to getting this right, but also being bold and having the Southern San Joaquin Valley lead the way on this issue. And I very much appreciate it. Look forward to supporting the bill. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Capaldon. A couple of things. First and foremost, I want to thank the witnesses just for speaking and sharing your story. You know, Prince Michael's mother, you being here and just speaking and sharing your story. And after experiencing something so devastating and losing your son, I can't even begin to imagine. and just what you've described and just the ongoing harassment that you've experienced. I'm so incredibly sorry. You know, I think as, you know, we're here in the legislature and we hear issues like this and, you know, we have individuals come forward that, you know, share this kind of powerful testimony. You know, we want to respond and figure out what we can do to prevent these things from happening. And it's so heartbreaking to hear that this was another student. I mean, more than anything, like that's it's it's it's terrifying and it's awful to hear. You know, I'm grateful to the author for accepting the committee amendments to further tighten the spill. as someone that used to run an after-school program in Boyle Heights at a high school that has had somewhat of a history of some challenges, have seen, unfortunately, a lot of really difficult things go on even in my own classroom and have also worked directly with students that have shared with me some of the real challenges that they facing at home that have really led to them acting out in a way that's inappropriate and it is oftentimes really devastating to hear their stories as well and to hear how that's leading to their actions, whether it be violence towards other students, harassing other people on campus, and recognizing that that behavior is a result oftentimes of experiencing violence at home themselves and not having better examples in their lives as to how we treat others and treat one another. And it's devastating. I mean, I have many memories of working directly with students like this, you know, that have shared with me and told me that they just didn't think that there was any other possibilities for themselves. And I think in the education system, right, and you have many folks here that have worked in education, we want for our young people to, you know, come into our public school systems to really realize who not just they want to be, but who they can be. And that's the whole purpose of public education, right? And so it's the education we're providing in the classrooms, but it's also that kind of like personal development and guidance that you all experience in interacting with one another and making sure that we're providing you all the tools, especially when you're not receiving them at home. You'll notice like the amendments mention restorative justice. This is one of the things that I learned about when I first started working in the education system because it was a part of the framework that we were introducing at the high school that I was working at. And so I had to understand it to be able to implement it. And it was a really interesting model that caused me to really rethink even my relationships and interactions in my life that really focused on centering the victim and the person that had been harmed and figuring out how you restore that situation, right, that goes beyond just apologizing, but really taking ownership of your actions. And I think it's a really powerful way, especially for young people that are struggling at home, that are struggling with past trauma, to really begin that learning process and that healing. And so, you know, that's part of the reason why it's included here. I think it's a really important framework in addition to the other pieces, right? We know law enforcement sometimes needs to get involved in these situations, especially when you have something as serious as criminal activity, as serious as someone being murdered. And so I just want to thank the author for the work here and for working with us on this issue and the students for being here as well. These are very important topics, and they require a lot of investment, but it's so, so critical that we make sure that we're giving you all the tools to succeed, and that doesn't just mean good grades. That means that you're personally growing as well. So my recommendation is an aye vote, and I'll let the author close.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Senator Hurtado. Do we have a we do have a motion by Senator Gomez Reyes and the motion for SB 1181 is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi? Cortese? Gonzalez? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Excellent. So we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Senator Hurtado. So I see that we have Senator Stern here to present SB 1128. Senator Stern, you may begin when you're ready.

Okay. Yeah. Alrighty. Well, do we have any witnesses here in support? If you'd like to offer testimony or use the mic at the railing, please do. On IHU committees with Los Angeles Unified in support. Great. Anybody else? Alrighty. We'll do witnesses now in opposition. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none rising, I'll turn it back to committee. Do we have committee comments or questions? Senator Cabolden?

Very thoughtful. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mary. Thank you, Senator Reyes. So I think we're done. I just want to thank you for bringing this measure forward. I think there's a lot of research now that we can actually look to to ensure that we are doing what's the best practices legislatively for our students in K-12. And, of course, as mentioned earlier, you are a young dad with young children, and so you're seeing this firsthand. And just personal observation, you know, when I see so many babies and toddlers with a smartphone in front of them at, you know, anywhere I go, whether it's a store, the doctor's office, or even at the airports, just, and not in a critical, you know, perspective or anything, but I just, just from an observational, knowing what the science is coming out of and how that's rewiring the brain of our children. I just, I shrug. I just, you know, it gives me anxiety to watch that. But it's not my place to tell, you know, these parents like, ah, do you want to rethink this? And I think this is why it's incredibly important for our educational institutions to kind of start modeling that practice because most parents don't want to be told, you know, this is right, this is wrong. They become very defensive in that mindset. And so I'm very mindful. I have two young daughters who just got married, and I'm sure they'll start their family soon enough. And knowing my place is to when to give feedback and when not to so that it's well received. I think when we have systems in place that model what is appropriate, I think we can lead the way in changing the culture that has been fostered that says, hey, it's okay to have technology babysit our children full-time instead of having that human connection. So with that, I thank you for bringing this measure forward. I'll be happy to support the bill today. And would you like to close, Senator?

Thank you Thank you Senator Stern And we do have a motion by Senator Cobalt And And I just want to note Senator Stern I have an IRECO recommendation for this So apologies. I'm getting over being sick. I am very supportive of this measure, just so you know. And although my personal policy would be that we would not have any sort of digital type devices in our classrooms beyond the computers, kind of like desktop computers, I recognize that technology is moving forward and we need more data and probably a more nuanced policy than that. But I, as someone that worked in a high school, LUSD school, when they first did the iPad program, saw all of the issues that came along with that, especially because I was 22 at the time and working with a number of folks who did not understand how iPads worked. And it was very challenging for the administrators to catch up with the students. So very supportive of the policy. Happy to work with you on this moving forward as you continue to develop it. With that, Secretary, if you could call the roll. And the motion is due pass to appropriations. Senator Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogues? Aye. Ochoa Bogues, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi? Cortese? Gonzalez? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Thank you. Great. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Senator Stern. We now have Senator Cervantes here to present SB 1320A. Senator Cervantes, you may begin when you're ready. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm here to present Senate Bill 1320A, a targeted but critical fix to ensure equity in higher education for LGBTQ plus students, faculty, and staff. This bill builds directly on the success of SB 14-91 by former Senator Eggman, which ensured every main campus has a confidential LGBTQ plus point of contact. However, that bill left a clear gap. Satellite and branch campuses were not included. Today, there are about 100 satellite campuses across the CSU and community college systems where students lack access to culturally competent confidential support. Students at these sites are often forced to travel for hours, sometimes across many counties or even international borders to find help. The LGBTQ caucus has been doing these rural tours, and we went out to Imperial County to meet with local LGBTQ plus students. Part of that tour was a visit to San Diego State Satellite Campus in Calexico. The campus is just a few blocks from the border with Mexico. We asked campus administrators if they had an LGBTQ liaison on campus from the main campus. If they ever came out, the answer was no. That means if a student is living and going to school in Calexico where we're to experience harassment, discrimination, or even sexual assault, the closest confidential support system is a four-hour round-trip journey. That is, of course, if the student has a vehicle. that does not use public transportation. They have two options, either a nine-hour Greyhound trip or a crossing the border trip for a six-hour multi-transfer journey. So geography should not determine whether a student has access to safety, support, and dignity. This bill provides a clear fix to this problem by requiring CSU and community colleges to provide a LGBTQ plus point of contact at satellite branch campuses either by assigning a dedicated staff member or providing regular in-person or virtual office hours. This bill also provides greater clarity regarding the roles and responsibilities of these liaisons to ensure consistency across within both educational systems. This bill also aligns with state laws with current federal Title IX realities after recent regulatory changes coming from D.C. Today we have the sponsors of the bill here to testify and support, Craig Pulsifer with Equality California. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Craig Pulsifer on behalf of Equality California, a proud co-sponsor of this bill. I just want to thank the senator for her work on this issue. In 2024, Quality California was a proud co-sponsor of SB 1491 by then-Senator Eggman. That bill, as was mentioned, required CSU and community college campuses to designate confidential points of contact for LGBTQ students and staff. These points of contact are critical resources for those experiencing discrimination, harassment, or sexual assault. They provide access to trusted individuals who understand their experiences and allow students to identify additional resources and explore their options without automatically triggering a formal report. Since that bill was signed into law, we've seen widespread adoption across the state. As noted in the analysis, all UC campuses, CSU campuses, and over 90% of community colleges now have a designated point of contact for LGBTQ students and staff. However, a critical gap remains. Students at branch campuses, satellite locations, and other sites may have to travel hours to access this important resource for students balancing work, school, and other responsibilities that effectively puts these supports out of reach. SB 1328 is a narrow but important measure that builds on existing law by ensuring access to these points of contact no matter where someone attends school. The bill ensures access to every campus location while giving institutions flexibility to meet the requirement, either by designating additional staff or by providing regular accessible office hours. It also clarifies confidentiality protections to avoid confusion and ensure alignment with federal law. At its core, this bill is about equity and access and ensuring the LGBTQ students and staff can access the confidential support they need to stay safe and succeed academically, and I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have anyone else? Any other witnesses in support? Tiffany Mock on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, honored and thank the author for authoring this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none rising, we'll turn it back to the committee. Do the committee members have any comments or questions? All right, do we have a motion? Okay, we have a motion by Senator Gomez-Reyes. I'll let you close, Senator Soranthas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, this bill is about closing a gap and ensuring that all students, regardless of where they attend class, can access support when they need it most. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Excellent. Great. And that motion is due pass to Appropriations. Secretary if you can call the roll Senators Perez Aye Perez aye Ochoa Bogh Cobaltin Aye Cobaltin aye Choi Cortese. Gonzalez. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Great. Thank you. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Senator Cervantes. Let's go ahead and do consent. since we have folks here right now. Secretary, if you can call—can we get a motion on consent? It's moved by Senator Gomez-Reyes. Secretary, if you can call the roll. On the consent calendar, Senator Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogh on consent? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Cabalden? Aye. Cabalden, aye. Choi, Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Okay, and we will put consent back on call. All righty. So we've gotten through all the bills. I know Senator Ochoa Bogue is the only one we have left. So we have SB 1147 by Senator Ochoa Bogue. So you may begin when you're ready, Senator. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thanking committee staff for working with my team. SB 1147 will allow a local education agency to offer a one-year personal finance course that could be combined with another subject to meet the personal finance graduation requirement that begins with the 27-28 school year. Right now, thanks to AB 2927, high school students will have the opportunity to complete a one-semester personal finance course. I just realized. Give me one second. Right now, thanks to AB 2927, high school students will have the opportunity to complete a one-semester personal finance course. SB 1147 will embed course content from other subjects in conjunction with the year-long personal finance course. Students will receive additional background in business, mathematics, and economics that will bring better real-world preparedness. Additionally, SB 1147 gives students the opportunity to learn practical life skills and will help with financial stability and career readiness as well as earning them an advanced placement credit. Financial literacy education will be a great asset to our young adults. All students will face many financial decisions, and having access to this education in high school will ensure that they are better prepared to take on future financial commitments. A year-long course will build knowledge over time and give students the necessary foundation going into adulthood. With me is Dr. Martin Casas, Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services at Escondido Union High School District, and Kara Bartell from College Board. Megan Baer from College Board is also here to answer any technical questions about the bill. Whichever one of you would like to go first, you'll have two minutes each to present and we'll have a timer. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning Chair Perez and members. My name is Dr. Martin Casas, and I serve as Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services for the Escondido Union High School District. I'm here in support of SB 1147. From a district implementation standpoint, this bill is a simple amendment that's valuable for students and school districts. It does not remove the personal finance graduation requirement. Instead, it keeps the full curriculum and the rigor, but gives districts flexibility in delivering the course over a full year and integrating it with related subjects such as economics, business, or mathematics. That matters in schools, where every new graduation requirement must fit within a master schedule and within the broader set of opportunities and learning experiences we want students to have. In Escondido, we have a long-standing commitment to college, career, and technical education. Our pathways are built to give students a range of course choices to best prepare them for what comes next in their adult lives. This includes access to business and finance offerings, economics, and advanced coursework along CTE. Schedule flexibility matters if we want students to gain strong financial literacy without losing access to other important options. With this bill, districts can offer a year-long integrated course when that model makes the most sense. Students benefit from deeper learning, stronger reinforcement, and more opportunities to connect classroom instruction to real-life financial decisions. Districts benefit from added flexibility while preserving the required curriculum and rigor. SB 1147 is a practical measure that supports students' choice, improves implementation, and strengthens financial literacy. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Perez and members. My name is Kara Bartel, Senior Director of K-12 State and District Partnerships, and I am here on behalf of College Board in support of SB 1147. At College Board, our mission is to give students the knowledge, skills, and opportunities they need to succeed after high school. For some students, that path is higher education. For others, it is direct entry into the workforce. In either case, financial literacy is a critical life skill. That is why SB 1147 is important. This bill keeps the personal financial requirement in place while giving schools another way to deliver that instruction through a year-long integrated course. It maintains the full personal finance curriculum and the standalone course requirement while giving districts another pathway that may better fit student schedules and local course offerings. For students, that flexibility can make a real difference. Schools are working to ensure access to A courses CTE pathways dual enrollment and other academic opportunities while also working to implement this new graduation requirement A year integrated course gives students more time to build reinforce and apply personal finance skills in ways that connect to their lives and futures Financial literacy is not just about graduation. It is about helping students make informed decisions as they begin earning, borrowing, saving, and planning for adulthood. SB 1147 is a practical measure that gives students more ways to gain essential financial skills they will use throughout their lives. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? If so, please use the mic at the railing. McLean Rosansky with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Matt Patton with the California Agricultural Teachers Association in support. Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified School District in support. Great. Anybody else? All right. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now move on to witnesses in opposition. Would any witnesses in opposition please come forward? And you'll have two minutes each for your testimony. Thank you, Tony. Chair Perez, Vice Chair Joe Abogh, members of the committee, thank you. I'm Tim Ranzetta, co-founder of a nonprofit, NextGen Personal Finance. We deliver personal finance curriculum and teacher professional development to 140,000 teachers and 5 million students nationwide. our advocacy efforts have led to 20 states guaranteeing a high school personal finance course. I'm here to ask you to oppose SB 1147 and protect the gold standard that California has built. Just a few weeks ago, Governor Newsom stood at San Lorenzo High School and said of AB 2927, we've locked this stuff in. It's happening at a scale that no other state in America can claim. The evidence backs them up. When a state requires a standalone course, almost every student gets it. When a state allows embedding personal finance, only 39% do. The research is clear. Standalone works. Embedded doesn't. In fact, California has already tried embedding. Personal finance was written into the 2016 History Social Science Framework. Nearly a decade later, it hadn't worked, and that's why AB 2927 happened. The sponsors say this gives districts flexibility. AB 2927 already does. Districts can substitute the standalone personal finance course for the economics requirement. No additional time in the master schedule. We negotiated in 2024 with every major stakeholder, including CTA. What they wanted was consistency and quality. The Instructional Quality Commission delivered on that. They spent 18 months producing a 217-page framework the governor called a national model. SB 1147 replaces that standard with nearly 1,000 district-level judgments. California voters demanded a standalone course. Districts are already building it. In fact, five schools in Pasadena Unified earned a grant from our organization by moving a year ahead of the state requirement. SB 1147 undermines what the governor said was locked. It breaks a deal negotiated in 2024, replaces a proven model with one the evidence shows does not work. We respectfully urge you to vote no Thank you Good afternoon and thank you for this opportunity today My name is Jeff Allen and I served as the primary author of the Personal Finance Curriculum Guide approved by the State Board of Education last month I'm here today to express concerns regarding Senate Bill 1147. The bill analysis states that SB 1147 was brought about based on concerns raised by entities like the College Board that California's personal finance graduation requirement is too restrictive. You may not know that College Board submitted their AP business with personal finance course for inclusion in the state's personal finance guide, but it was not selected. The content was structured primarily as a business course with some personal finance added in. And the year-long course curriculum did not cover all of the 13 required California topics. I later met with College Board representatives and outlined a potential path forward, add the missing content, and reorganize the course into two distinct semesters, one fulfilling California's graduation requirement. I also provided a curriculum alignment tool, the same used by every comprehensive provider in the guide. The College Board did not complete that process or pursue further conversations. SB 1147 is framed as increasingly flexible for LEAs, but the story behind the story shows a strategic move to introduce alternative, lesser requirements. It also sows confusion by undercutting a curriculum guide that was approved just a month ago. And based on my understanding, if passed, would require new funding and a restart of the curriculum guide process that, again, was just completed. Current law already allows flexibility through a standalone semester of a, sorry, through having a standalone semester or a full year-long personal finance course. The intent of the original legislation was clear. California students deserve to be taught all topics outlined in personal finance. Integrating that content within other subjects may help some vendors advance their existing products without adjustment, but it doesn't serve California students. For those reasons, I respectfully urge you to vote no on SB 1147. Thank you. Thank you for your presentations. Do we have any other folks in opposition that would like to share their testimony? Please use the mic at the railing. Thank you, committee. My name is Tina Florence. I'm the advocacy director for the California Financial Planning Association, and we oppose the bill. It's clear that the research has shown— Name, organization, and position on the bill only. Thank you. Sorry. Tina Florence opposed Senate Bill 1147. Thank you. Jessica Marquez on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurman. We don't have a formal position, but we do have some concerns and look forward to connecting with the author's office. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, seeing no one else, I will turn it now back to committee comments and questions. And since we have a representative here from the SPI's office, if you could just come up, please, and just explain a little bit more about your tweener position, I'd appreciate it. Hello, thank you Chair Perez. Hello committee. I am Dr. Mike Torres. I am the Director of the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division at the Department of Education. So we have concerns about 1147 and currently it written into statute that it should be a standalone one semester course Anyone who knows anything about math or sciences if you add anything else to it you diluting it out And so the intention mentioned multiple times in AB 2927 was to be a standalone course to focus solely on those 13 topics identified within the bill. introducing anything else may not produce the same results that was intended for consistent financial literacy, personal finance learning throughout the state. Okay. Thank you for providing that context. I appreciate it. Do we have any other questions or comments, Senator Gomez-Reyes? Thank you. Additionally, when I saw this, I thought, okay, personal finance, it's great. And I thought, sitting on the Education Committee of the Assembly at that time, I remembered that then Assemblymember Kevin McCarty had a bill, and as we know, it's AB 2927. And I remember all of the work that he put into the bill, meeting with the stakeholders, meeting, as was mentioned, with CTA and the legislature and organizations like NextGen. He went through lots of amendments during that time because although we all agreed personal finance should be taught, it was how it was going to be taught. and when it was put together as a one-semester program, it was found because of 13 areas that needed to be covered. It was the best way to do it. I am very concerned about confusing our school district saying, this is what you're required to do, and the study, the curriculum rather, was finally approved March 11, 2026. It hasn't even been a year since it was approved and it's now going to be for those graduating in 30, 31, I believe. It's all set to be implemented and now to tell the school districts, this is what you have to do, however, you do have an option And the confusion that I feel that that would cause, I am concerned about that. I'm concerned about the comment that was made that I was unaware of, that there had been conversation with the sponsor of this bill about having their program also be part of the semester program and that the curriculum or the program was not approved. I'm just concerned about going around something that we just approved two years ago, just had the curriculum set up. Now we're going to implement it, and now we're going to add a year-long program, which sounds like it's more about business than it is about personal finance. and for those reasons I'll be laying off today but if it moves forward then I hope that you will most especially have the conversation with the stakeholders specifically CTA the teachers that are going to be implementing the the the the this year-long program we ask so much of our teachers and now on top of that to say You have the personal finance that's one semester, but hey, school districts, now you have this other option. I'm concerned about that confusion that could be caused by this. We have something that took a long time to get approved, and I think it deserves an opportunity to have that implemented, especially with the curriculum just having been approved just over a year ago. Thank you. So I want to be absolutely clear. This bill, SB 1147, does not change whatsoever what has already been in place with AB 2927 at all. It doesn't change it. That is still being offered by the schools in our district. What this bill allows us to do or allows the school districts to do is add an additional ability to combine financial literacy while having AB 2927 in place. It allows the school districts to, in addition, provide a year-long class that combines other financial topics in there that will then be allowed to expand, such as an AP course that has financial literacy in there that students can and will want to take if they want to take an AP one-year-long class. So this is what the flexibility allows the school districts to be able to do. I didn't read in it that it was an AP course, and I got the impression that it would include that semester of personal finance in it. And there is the confusion that I think is being caused by this. And we'll be more than happy to work on language that will clarify that for folks. But this does not at all override or remove that one semester requirement by the schools offered in that class. So just absolutely clear. It continues to be stated on there, but that is not at all. And if we need more clarity in language, I'll be more than happy to work with our chair and the consultants to ensure that we have that clarity in language. But that is not. that the one-year semester or the one-semester course through 29-27 still is the standard, does not remove it whatsoever. This just allows the flexibility to allow for a one-year course, which some students may want to take a one-year course that includes financial literacy that can also then, by the school districts, be able to, if they want to, not mandate, It's if they wish to provide a one-year AP course that allows them to also have that financial literacy component in there, ma'am. And I would also suggest that should the bill move forward, that the state superintendent of instruction also be included in those discussions. I want to be sure that this confusion, we have to make sure that that doesn't happen. And if I may, there was a comment made about the fact that the sponsor had been offered or had submitted their curriculum. Could you respond? Could I ask your witnesses to respond to that? I will. I'm from the College Board. I we we have met with and we did submit our our advanced placement business with personal finance course to be included in the state framework And we will continue to work with the Department of Education and the Instructional Quality Commission to move forward All right. I am Senator Cabaldon had a question. So. Yeah, first, I remember a time when we developed courses. I mean, this kind of battle between providers of classes and instructional materials, I know this is not the first one, but it continues to make me uncomfortable that we're sort of arbitrators between nonprofits and companies that produce these curriculums in the first place. So just that said. But first I had a question about the status of the course that's been now approved, the standalone course. What is its A to G status? Does it have one? Do we know yet? Can I just respond to that? Sorry. Yes, you can respond to the question. It is going to be an elective course. So it's a G. So it'll be very similar to economics. A G course, but has the potential of living inside of a department, if that makes sense. I see. Okay. Yeah, I mean, this is an ongoing debate, but this idea is not at all unprecedented. And I have to very, very strongly disagree with the department's characterization that any sort of integration or embedding is a dilution by definition. It can be, but it is not by definition. It was now 15 years ago that this entire Senate went to Long Beach Unified to explore the exciting new frontier of colleges and universities and high schools collaborating to build integrated sequences that were simultaneously career technical education and also met the A to G requirements. And at the time, there were folks saying, well, you know, you teach, the way you teach Spanish is like this. Like week one is hola, and week two is abuela. Week three is parts of the body. Week four is parts of the things in the kitchen. And a couple of the health academies in the state in high school said, well, we're trying to teach Spanish for health professions. So for us, week one is still hola. Week two is starting to navigate health insurance forms. Week three is dealing with questions for a doctor or whatever. And UC and CSU would not accept this class because they said, no, no, no. The way that the curriculum is supposed to work, it's a standalone Spanish class. It can't do anything else. And therefore, you have to use our framework. Same thing, Project Lead the Way, one of the nation's premier engineering programs. Same exact thing for the engineering programs, leading national program. So you have a course on a sequence of courses where you're building robots, you're doing other engineering, and you're covering geometry, algebra 2, trigonometry, and calculus, but not in that order. Because if you've ever tried building a robot with only algebra 2, good luck. That's not possible. And so instead, the application of our curriculum frameworks to actual projects requires a different sequence, a different integration over a different period. Thankfully, we won, and there are now 14,000 career technical courses that are A to G certified that were not before. Because we broke through and said no it is not the specific timing or sequence It the content And in fact if the content if students in that health profession Spanish for health professions they're in that program because they're really excited about health professions. It comes alive. The students in Project Lead the Way never ask, what do I need geometry for? Because they're using it. And so the concept of embedding and integrating curriculum in sequences that are fully integrated and bring these things together is not some sort of untested private company trying to do something. It is where education should be happening. And so I want to encourage the author to not go only in an AP route because to me that's not the main use case here. The use case is that if you build a really effective accounting career pathway program at your high school, and that accounting pathway covers every single thing in the personal finance curriculum, but you do it over a year embedded in other courses, that's a good thing. That doesn't mean you don't also offer a standalone personal finance class for every other student, but the school should have the flexibility to be able to offer either modality. And we've been, so over the last decade, we've been trying to encourage schools to do more and more integrated college and career courses, sequences that accomplish this. And I felt this last year when we took out the other bill, but mandating that every single school of every single type and every single program and every single student can only learn this in a standalone basis is not helpful. And so I think there's definitely more work to be done on this because there should be some more standards about assuring that this is happening properly. And I can see districts in my own school districts in my own district that populate a lot of the support list of every possible shape and size that they're looking for this flexibility. I think it is appropriate, and we should be encouraging more of it. So thanks to the author for bringing this approach forward. We do need to make education relevant to students, and schools need the tools to be able to do that. And sometimes relevancy means embedding, not embedding just in economics class, but embedding in sequences that really bring the curriculum to life. The research in this field is very mixed. I've read the link didn't work to the so-called study, but it sort of takes states that have standalone versus states that don't have standalone and considers all the states that don't have standalone as the same. But reading the actual study, there's no conclusive evidence that standalone courses are more effective certainly than integrated curriculum. And so I think districts should have the opportunity. We have the mechanisms in the bill, thanks to the committee members, to evaluate this, But we should allow them to innovate in this space in ways that are going to make the curriculum relevant to students while delivering the quality that they need. And also for schools, then, to be given that one more G requirement is a problem. Everybody's trying to define A to G, but no student ever has a trouble getting a G. They have trouble getting the rest. And so the extent to which the rest of the curriculum gets crowded out by G electives, it's harmful to the student but also harmful to the school trying to put a meaningful schedule together. So I look forward to working on it, but certainly intend to vote for it today. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thank you.

So my organization, NextGen Personal Finance, our courses are A to G approved, both our semester-long course as well as our full-year personal finance course. Is it dependent upon which school district offers? Is it not uniform? It's uniform. I mean, school districts can go in and select our course on, I'm forgetting the name of it. Okay, if that's the case, I think that's really good. The students would not have wasted their time choosing so many courses because their focus is getting into good college.

Okay. Thank you for the questions and the responses. So a couple of things. One, I want to appreciate, I think, Senator Ochoa Bogie bringing forward this bill. understand your intent, you know, to want to do something, I think, in the personal finance space and making sure that students have access to financial planning education and that they able to take courses like that as they getting prepared within this kind of elective requirement as like to fulfill their G requirement I, as I have already communicated to you in your office, my recommendation for this bill is an I vote. Now, I want to underscore I've also heard from the folks that are here as well as from the SPI office around their concerns with the bill, particularly given that we are currently in the implementation of a previous piece of legislation that set forth some requirements for creating this exact type of curriculum. And so I understand that as well and also hear the concerns about, you know, moving forward legislation around, you know, a particular vendor. So, you know, I'd ask Senator Ochoa Bogue for me to vote aye, if you would be willing to work with and sit down with the opposition, hear their concerns, and figure out if we have some resolution here, and particularly with the state superintendent's office as well.

Senator Perez, just for transparency, we've only heard about the opposition as of last night. Yeah. I heard from Superintendent Thurman literally last night or this I think it was either last night or this morning So we haven't had an opportunity to address the concerns, but we definitely look forward to working with With the opposition and yourself And the consultants committee but literally last night Yes And so as we're moving forward it would have been nice to have known that there were concerns prior to In order to address it, but I I do commit yes Yes. Thank you so much, Senator Ochoa-Bogan. I actually want to build on your comments. So for the opposition, both NextGen, very familiar with your organization, as well as for the state superintendent's office, your concerns needed to be communicated earlier. your opposition arrived after the deadline. In addition to that, committee staff did not receive much of the commentary that you made today, and this is our first time hearing it, and the letter is the first time that it's being reflected. I understand that there are numerous bills moving through the legislative cycle that you all are probably monitoring. Our office has to do the same thing. That goes for the state superintendent's office as well, but you all communicating that to us in a timely fashion is important so that we are then coordinating with authors because we try to approach everything with timelines that lead to fairness in the process. So, you know, I appreciate your commitment, Senator Ochoa-Bogue. I understand there were some timeline issues. Hoping that you all can discuss this and have some resolution before this gets to the floor. and we'll revisit this bill and where it's at once it does come to the floor to see what the resolution is if we've come to one. So with that, I will turn it over to the author to close.

Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, if you can call the roll. Senator Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bog. Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese. Gonzalez. Reyes. Great, and we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much for your presentation. I'm going to go ahead and lift the calls for some of the other bills, and after that I'll be turning over the gavel to another member because I'll have to leave. If we can lift the calls? On the consent items, Senator Choi. Choi, aye. Cortese, Gonzalez. Back on call. We're putting that back on call. We need a motion for SB 1067. Can we get a motion for SB 1067? We have a motion by Senator Gomez Reyes. And the motion is? And the motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogues? SB 1067? Aye. Ochoa Bogues, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Back on call. Coming on call. And we are putting that bill back on call. Okay. Final item 2, SB1086. Senator Dali, motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is 1, aye, and no, no. Perez, Cabaldon, Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes. And we are putting that bill back on call. Okay, we need a motion. And we need a motion for SB1110 by Senator Becker. We have a motion by Senator Gomez Reyes, and the motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogues? Aye. Ochoa Bogues, aye. Cabalden? Aye. Cabalden, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese? Gonzalez? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. File Item 4, SB 1128 Stern. Motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is 4 ayes. No no's with the chair and vice chair voting aye. CHOI? CHOI, AYE. CHOI, AYE. CORTESY, GONZALES. Okay, it's back on call. And we are putting that bill back on call. File item 5, SB 1181. Hurtado motions do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is 4 ayes, no noes with the chair and vice chair voting aye. CHOI? AYE. CHOI, AYE. CORTESY, GONZALES. And we will put that bill back on call. And we need a motion on 1321. Can we get a motion on 1321? We have a motion by Senator Choi. And the motion is due past the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Perez? Ochoa Bogues? Aye. Ochoa Bogues, aye. Cabaldon? No. Cabaldon, no. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese? Gonzalez? Reyes? Okay, it's on call. And we are putting that bill back on call. Okay, we need a motion on 1375. We need a motion on SB 1374. We have a motion by Senator Gomez Reyes. Motion is? Motion is due pass in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogue? Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes? And we're putting that bill back on call. Reyes, aye on? Are we talking about number seven Yes Yes Yes Senator Reyes aye on SB 1374 Okay file item 8 SB 1328 Cervantes motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is three ayes, no noes with the chair voting aye. Ochoa Bog, Choi? No. Choi, no. Cortese, Gonzalez. And that bill's back on call. And, yes. The rest are... Okay, and the rest of the bills are on call. So we're going to go ahead and recess committee and I'm passing the gavel to Senator Chobo. Thank you. Item number one, SB 1067 by Senator Weber Pearson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Senator Cortese? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. It's back on call. And we'll place that back on call for our absent members. We'll continue with file item number two, SB 1086 by Senator Daly. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Perez, Cabaldon, Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes. Back on call. That will go back on call for absent members. We'll continue with file item number three, SB 1110 by Senator Becker. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Cortese, Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Back on call. We'll place that on call for absent members. We'll continue with file item number 4, SB 1128 by Senator Sturm. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Cortese? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. We'll place that back on call for absent members. We'll continue with file item number 5, SB 1181 by Senator Rotado. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Senator on SB 1181, Senator Rottado, motions do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senators Cortese. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. That bill is out 7-0. That bill is out 7-0. We'll continue with file item number 6, SB 1321 by Senator Nilo. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Perez, Senator Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes. Okay, that bill fails. I'm sorry? The bill fails. Okay, that bill has failed 2-1. We will now continue with file item number six, right? Six? Seven? Oh, okay. We'll grant reconsideration to SB 1321. Okay. We'll continue with file item number seven, SB 1374 by Senator Nilo. Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Bill's out seven zero. 7-0. We'll continue with file item number 8, SB 1328, by Senator Cervantes. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Ochoa-Bogue, Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. 5-1. And that is out 5-1. We'll continue with file item number 9, SB 1126, by Senator Choi. I'm sorry. Nope. That was in consent. So file item number 10, SB 1147 by Senator Ochoa Bogue. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Reyes? Okay. Okay. So that bill is out 6-0. We'll continue with file item number 11. I'm sorry. Nope, that's it. Well, we're starting from the top. Okay, we're gonna stop from the top. Thank you. There, Gonzalez. Oh, wait a sec, yeah. Okay, on the consent calendar, Senators Cortese. On Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Gonzalez, aye. Okay, consent's out. Consent's out, seven to zero. Okay consent is out seven to zero Okay now back on We continue we start up again with file item number one SB 1067 by Senator Weber Pearson Madam Secretary please call the roll Senator Cortese Aye. Cortese, aye. And that is out 7-0. We'll continue with file item number 2, SB 1086 by Senator Daly. Madam Secretary, please call the rule. Senators Perez, Cabaldon, Cortese, Gonzalez Reyes. And that bill has failed 2-0. I will continue. Oh, we're going to grant reconsideration on that bill. Okay, file item 3, SB 1110 by Becker, Bushes do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. That bill is out 7-0. We'll continue with file item number 4, SB 1128 by Senator Stern. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. And that bill is out 7-0. We'll continue with file item number 5. Okay, we are now adjourning this committee hearing. Thank you.