Education — 2026-06-10 (stale)

Good morning and thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm here to present AB 1159, the California Learner Personal Information Protection Act or CALPIPA that makes critical improvements to California student data privacy laws to reflect the modern reality of our education system and to protect our students and I'd like to thank you madam chair as well as your committee staff we've been in a lot of conversations and appreciate your work on this bill I'll also say we're having very productive conversations with stakeholders for example we've had a lot of good conversations with LA USD and are working to address concerns moving forward as we are with every stakeholder that we've been working with. So just to lay out the problem, the Student Online Personal Information Protection Act, otherwise known as SOPIPA, which is now known as COPIPA, the K-12 Pupil Online Personal Information Protection Act, was signed into law in 2014 to combat risks associated with the rising use of technology in the classroom. And I would say we all know that EdTech has evolved dramatically. I was a teacher for 21 years and have two kids who are now college age and have really seen this transformation firsthand. So when EdTech has now entered our classrooms for students, preschool through university, and we have almost a constant online presence across educational platforms. So we know now that EdTech platforms, and it's been in the news quite a bit, are collecting a lot of student data, much more student data than students or families realize, which can include audio-visual information like photos, videos, audio recordings, financial information, home addresses, family contact information, attendance patterns, as well as health-related searches and patterns. And so we've also seen recently the way the federal government is subpoenaing information. We've seen the way that data can be stolen, and we know the detriments of how this data is sold at times. So with all of that in mind, it is clear that we have weaknesses in our student data protection. We have uncertainty about who must comply with Co-PIPA. We need to have more certainty there. We also have new protections that were expanded to the early learning population. However, those same protections don't yet apply to California higher ed students. And then we know that with the advent of AI, as well as what is happening with our federal government, that we do need to modernize student data protections. So we have a solution, which is AB 1159, our bill that would strengthen California student data privacy protections by doing three things. First, building on existing student data privacy laws, as well as clarifying and expanding their protections and modernizing them. Also, extending those same protections to higher ed students through what would be the Higher Education Student Information Protect, or HESPA. and then also creating meaningful enforcement that would include a very limited private right of action that's modeled after the Student Borrower Bill of Rights. With me today, we have two witnesses, Mitch Steiger, Ledge Advocate for CFT, and then Becca Kramer, representing Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and I'll turn it over to them to share more detail about why this is important and what it entails.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, proud to support this bill for all the reasons stated by the author and previous witness. We would just add that from our members perspective of all the issues out there that they come to us about this broader one of how to best protect students from the potential harms of EdTech is, at least for me, by far the one that I hear about the most from our members. And that includes both the ones who are very into using EdTech and the ones who are more skeptical of it. And everyone in between, what they all share is a very deep desire to make sure that the kids are safe and that they're protected in every way possible. and they know the law and they know that it's not good as it currently stands, that it's too weak. And so it puts them in an impossible place where whether they want to use this or they're being forced to use this technology, they know that there could be a fully identified profile of this student being sold off to the highest bidder. Maybe so, maybe not. But it is something that really worries them and it puts them in a really hard place where they have to decide, do I want to use this technology that I think is helpful or do I have to just go without it with all the risks that may come from that I have met teachers who have left the profession because of all of this technology all of the AI I know it's tracking the kids I'm worried about it I don't want anything to do with this I'm out so it is to one degree or another not helping with our recruitment and retention problem in education and also from the individual student perspective as mentioned, there are a lot of very vulnerable students out there. They may be LGBT, they may be undocumented, and we can't look them in the face and tell them that we know for sure that their data is being protected by current law. So this is one more reason for them to not only not use this technology, but maybe not even go to school entirely. So there are a lot of downstream problems that are worsened or even caused by the weakness of current law. This bill, as it stands, does a lot to really help with all those, and we think it's a strong step forward and we urge your

Senators Perez. Here. Perez here. Ochoa Bog. Cabaldon. Here. Cabaldon here. Choi. Here. Choi here.

Thank you, Chair and members. Elmer Lozardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Good morning, Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support.

Governor Lenny Kunalakis in support. Thank you. Good morning. Brooke Benetti with Kaiser Advocacy in support on behalf of a handful of organizations including the Children's Partnership, California School Employee Association, Students Deserve, Children's Advocacy Institute, California National Organization for Women, the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network, Genders and Sexualities Alliance Network, Equal Rights Advocates, Indivisible California State Strong, Asian Solidarity Collective, California Work and Family Coalition, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California Courage California Oakland Privacy Tech Equity Action Alliance for Californians for Community Empowerment Action Californians Together Consumer Action Consumer Federation of California Kapora Center Advocacy Secure Justice and Tech Oversight California Thank you.

Los Angeles Unified School District. We're not in opposition. We're a tweener. I just want to say we've been working with the author and staff. We appreciate their effort to try to clarify some unintended consequences with the definition of de-identified student identification. I think we're close to an agreement, and we hope to have no position soon enough. Thank you. Lucy Salcido-Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. We generally support the bill, but have similar concerns to those raised by LAUSD.

Sarah Nascido, on behalf of the California Association of College Stores and the National Association of College Stores, We are opposed to the bill currently in print, but have been having really productive conversations with the author and the sponsors.

Thank you for bringing this forward. I do have a question of the opposition. Did she leave? What is the central issue for the objection? So basically what we're just trying to make sure here is that regular student communications are still allowed to continue. So being able to send book lists to college students, those type of conversations, reminders about rental returns. There's some affordability and access programs that we do need to be able to send directly to students, you know, based on the data that we have. but they are all for general education purposes and for attending the university. It wouldn't be for, you know, selling data to outside of the university or anything like that. Wonderful. An issue that clearly can be resolved. For sure, yeah. Having served with the assembly member, I know that's an issue. I thought it was a more serious issue. Yeah, no, mostly definitional just to make sure that there are some guardrails on the definition, and her staff and the sponsors have been great. Wonderful. Thank you.

thank you senator Cobaltin sure thank you madam chair I also appreciate where the other with the author's trying to accomplish here I'm not going to support the bill today I'm not planning on voting against either and it will go if assuming that it passes through this committee I'll go next to the privacy digital technologies and consumer protection committee it wasn't that long ago that folks including actually this committee I wasn't on it it was a decade ago or maybe 15 years ago were extremely anxious and we were considering lots and lots of legislation to bar things like online education plans and higher ed because this bill is mainly about the higher ed piece people like well you know we know students should change their courses in their curriculum without first meeting with a counselor and that was a well widely held opinion in this well not this building and the other one across the street and going around to campuses and visiting them and talking with students who said I can't I can't get an appointment and online ed planning has been a very very important way in which students can have control of their systems and it uses it did not use AI then or now but it was a at the time in more advanced technology but our instant reaction and policy was to say it's new it's different it disrupts what we do let's not let's not do it and we are seeing this year in the other committee a lot of legislation in the AI space that is like we it's it's icky we don't we don't want to do it we don't want it to happen and we also have to examine the implications for equity, for student achievement, for student autonomy, especially at the higher ed level, because at this point, we're talking about almost, with the exception of dual enrollment, we're talking about all adults who have some agency in the world, too. So I just want to be absolutely sure as we're going through this that we are getting that balance right and flexible that can continue to be adaptive going forward so we don't do what we have always we did the same thing with online instruction and we're now getting our lunch eaten by ASU and other national providers who are our institutions are better but we imposed a lot of rules at the beginning that made it impossible for us to compete for a lot of these same reasons that are all justified, by the way. But we kind of suffocated our own ability in California to adapt and to evolve and to innovate in ways that other states have done, and it's been to the detriment to some extent to our students. So like I said, I'm not opposed to the bill, but do want to reserve judgment on the details. And when it gets to the other committee, we're more focused on the technological and the data side, just to be absolutely sure that what we're doing here is the right level of protections without the sort of the icky, the ickiness reaction that we're seeing across, sort of across the board in almost every topic area in the Capitol on the topic. And we owe it to students to make sure that we're giving them the path forward to find services and programs that work for them. The other piece of this, I mean, you know, last night, last night, Anthropic released its near world ending model that you know the the and so things that we do in the ed tech space that are specifically about the ed tech space ignore often ignore the fact that that students in particular have many other AI options that are not in the ed tech space and therefore not subject to a lot of the protections and other things that we do and so we say okay you can't use your FERPA protected data but I mean as everyone in this room I know the author is quite aware you know the social media platforms and increasingly because people keep asking chat GPT to tell tell me make a picture about everything you know about me consolidate your memories that yes we were protecting to make sure that you they don't have your algebra grade from from from from your junior year but they know your precise location what shampoo you use your sexual orientation everything else so you know if it's to the extent to which we don't have curated purpose-built ed tech solutions and students find their way to sort of general purpose massive platforms by these like the giant ai labs and what have you we haven't solved that part we haven't made them safer we've just put them into a we've taken that of this pond that we're worried about and we've dumped them into the ocean and so we just we need to get that right and i know the author's committed to that as well so i look forward to the continuing work on it and appreciate that we do need to be tackling this issue so hopefully we're able to get to exactly the place that Senator Reyes mentioned where we've resolved the little issues but also coming to these big questions around around equity student achievement and adult student autonomy and choice in some of these issues thanks Madam Chair

Assemblymember Addis and my recommendation is an aye vote. I can

Well thank you Madam Chair and I just want to say thank you to the committee The Senate always has robust and deeply thoughtful discussions I think particularly in education You have a lot of experts on the committee that spent decades in education and you know I bring my background as a K teacher also a lecturer at the university level and I have just I've seen how this has really transformed and metamorphosed our use of tech in the classroom and I think there are very important aspects of it and then There's also the idea that any data we collect on students can be sold, stolen, or subpoenaed. We want to be really thoughtful and get to the right place where we don't put handcuffs on innovation, but we also are keeping our students safe and protected. The targeting of specific student populations resonates. I represent one of the five CIF athletes who has been outed as a trans athlete and who she's one of my constituents. And, you know, it's really been life altering and horrible the way that people have come after her and the way that sometime, you know, we haven't been used to really the way the federal government could start to weaponize data or the way that private companies or the, you know, I think about the canvas leak. I was with a number of college-age students in their 20s who, you know, their entire education was disrupted around the canvas leak, which I don't want to be clear. This bill isn't about the canvas leak. However, the amount of data that was shared out there about students was very disturbing. So I just want to appreciate the committee and the expertise in this room and the thoughtful questions and conversations. And we certainly look forward to continuing to work to get this balance right between innovation and data protections. I think it's in there somewhere, and we're going to continue to work until we get it right. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez aye. Ochoa Bog? Not voting. Cabaldon? Choi? Not voting. Cortese? Aye. Cortese aye. Menjivar? Reyes? Aye. Reyes aye. Great and we will put that bill on call.

Thank You Madam Chair for the opportunity to present AB 1171 today. The The part-time community college faculty health insurance program was established to expand access to health coverage for part-time and multi-district part-time community college faculty. Since 2022, it has received an annual appropriation of $200 million because it is recognized that our part-time faculty are the foundation of our community college system. Yet, we're doing crucial work without health care insurance from their employer. Districts that offer qualifying coverage to their part-time faculty receive 50% reimbursement of the premium costs, and the district can receive 100% of their premium reimbursement if they provide part-time faculty with the coverage that equals in quality the cost of their full-time faculty. The larger appropriation ensures that there are sufficient funds for all districts to participate. The tiered nature of this program, with 50 and 100 percent reimbursement rates, seeks to reduce barriers to provide health care and incentivize high-quality coverage. I am very pleased to see that participation has grown since 2022. But even the most successful year on record, only $69.6 million of the available $200 million was utilized. Two main barriers are often cited by those who are not participating in the program. First, there is a concern about the program's long-term solvency, making it difficult to commit to an ongoing benefit when the continuity of state funding is uncertain. Second, some don't have enough capital under a reimbursement model to cover the initial costs of healthcare and wait for funding later. The consequences of this low participation directly impact part-time faculty. These faculty members teach the majority of courses and are critical to meeting the enrollment and curriculum demands in the community college system. When CCDs don't participate and part-time faculty don't have employer-sponsored health insurance, they must buy private health insurance that has increased in cost by 58% following the expiration of federal premium tax credits, or they are forced onto Medi-Cal. In Assembly Higher Ed, a part-time faculty member with cancer shared the struggles of working yet still not getting the coverage she needed. Her story epitomizes what happens when districts don't participate. So in all, part-time faculty teach the majority of courses, yet more than a third of districts still offer them no health insurance at all, let alone quality coverage, and the key barriers to participation are solvable with funding and the funding exists and every year we sweep it away with me today is Jason Henderson on behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges good morning chair and members Jason Henderson on behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges FAC is a proud to sponsor AB 1171 Dr. Patel has laid out the core problem well in that while California has made a commitment to part-time faculty healthcare, much of that funding is not reaching the faculty it is intended to serve. From FACC's perspective, AB 1171 is about making that commitment more stable and usable at the local level. We hear from part-time faculty who are effectively working full-time loads across multiple districts, but because their assignments are split between campuses, they struggle to access reliable employer-sponsored health coverage. A faculty member can teach students in the morning at one college, drive to another district to teach in the afternoon, grade and prepare for classes at night, and still be left to navigate health insurance on their own. That is the inequity AB 1171 is trying to address. For districts and bargaining representatives, health care is not something that can be built once per year. Districts need confidence that state dollars will remain available and faculty representatives need confidence that local negotiations can produce sustainable benefits. AB 1171 helps create the confidence by keeping part-time faculty health care dollars in that program, strengthening the reimbursement structure for districts, and recognizing the importance of multi-district faculty and eligible dependents. AB 1171 also respects local bargaining and does not impose a one-size-fits-all mandate. Instead, it sets a statewide expectation that every community college district should begin negotiations by 2030 so that part-time faculty healthcare are no longer optional depending on where someone happens to teach. Part-time faculty are essential to our colleges and to our students, and AB 1171 is a practical and necessary step towards ensuring these state investments actually reaches them. Thank you for your consideration, and FAC respectfully request your aye vote.

railing tiffany mock on behalf of cft a union of educators and classified professionals we want to thank the author for her extensive discussions and amendments in this bill we are a support if amended position only because we are asking for a budget ask to expand the program to dental and vision and we wanted to make the two ask consistent so thank you so much and appreciate the committee's review of this good morning madam chair and members kathy van austen on behalf of of the American Association of University Women of California in support. Thank you.

Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California. I am here in very respectful opposition. I really do appreciate the work that the authors have done to reach out and work with us with a number of series of amendments during the process. I think fundamentally from the league, our position of opposition is just, is this bill premature? As you look at the data that's in the analysis, you'll see that the number of districts that are participating have increased significantly year to year to year. It is obviously a big significant investment from $490,000 for the initial proposal to where we're at right now, and you're seeing those increases go up by $20 to $30 million per year. Data for this year, because it is a reimbursement, is showing that it could be $70 to $80 million that's going out this year. It could go up to as high as $90 to $100 million because the reimbursement window closes in November. So we don't really know the full extent of the data. So because of that, we think it is trending that way. Districts are learning from each other, from their peers, about how it's working, whether 100% reimbursement does show up and will work. So we are concerned about that premature nature of it. We're also concerned about the fact that the money does stay within the community college space. the legislature and administration decides how to use those dollars as they think best. And we think this bill would put an additional step on that process for you to manage those dollars. And then finally, we do acknowledge it is intently, which we do think is a significant pressure on our districts to negotiate by 2030 as well. And we just don't know what kind of money will be available by 2030 if the program is succeeding to continue to grow as well going forward. And we are seeing a number of districts that are negotiating in the process. It does take a while to do that as well. And for that, we have to be opposed.

Hi, good morning, Madam Chair and members. Kyle Howell on behalf of the Association of California Community College Administrators and respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

to the opposition you said very respectful opposition it just seems to me if our faculty our part time faculty there's no question that they really do teach the majority of the courses at least many of our community colleges if they are working without medical coverage and this is a reimbursement program and it is not being utilized to its maximum potential To keep the money in one place seems the most appropriate thing to do Now I heard your opposition about not being able to use it for other reasons but if you use it for something else, then it's no longer available for the very reason it's intended for, which is to eventually get medical coverage for these part-time faculty. What do you say? The language as it reads right now, It is obviously a decision that is on your plate to move those dollars from that pot to another purpose. It says the legislature and the administration, the Budget Act, are another purpose as well. So you still have the ability to move those dollars. It just creates another step for you to do that as well. I think that if you think about – Let me stop you for a moment. Sure, of course. Why would we move it to some other – to another – Sure call. No, no, but why – what reason would there be if the purpose is to provide medical coverage part-time faculty who have gone for many, many years without any medical coverage. And as was noted by the witness, many of them are working many part-time jobs and eventually really are working full-time but are traveling. We had one colleague who was traveling from San Bernardino to San Diego every day, and eventually there was a full-time job but still no medical coverage. So if the purpose is to provide medical coverage, what would be the reason to take that money out? And I hear you. It doesn't matter who. It would have to be a three-party deal anyway. As mentioned, the dollars last year were used to buy down the deferral for the community colleges last year. That was a decision made in the budget process to use those dollars for that purpose. So the dollars stay within our community college space. They allow us to backfill, it gives you a tool to backfill any challenges in the community college space that is in that space. And then obviously we did re-bench K-12 to be transitional kindergarten. That means we have less than $200 billion, less money for our colleges in that space as well. So it just makes it more challenging, especially if you're going to out years. Those dollars can have a purpose. Obviously the first demand is for this purpose. And so it just puts a challenge for you as policymakers about how to move those dollars around, unless you do it in the Budget Act, which you obviously have the authority to do. All right. But I assume that if you're saying very respectful opposition, that you recognize the value of part-time faculty. And I appreciate Dr. Patel's work on this issue, and it is very respectful opposition. But fundamentally, this is our position where we're at. To recognize the value of the part-time faculty. To recognize that this is a commitment that is in place and that this is something that is a significant investment. I think that districts are ramping up in that space. It just takes time to get there. Not all districts are ready to jump into this pot, and I think they want to see their colleagues, how they are successful, or whether they're failing or not, and learn from them. Very good.

Thank you.

I think, so my personal opinion, I think some of the concerns that we've had in other aspects in the legislature when it comes to the budget process is the fact that sometimes when those funds are not being utilized, we do have a tendency to, as a legislature, we shuffle them around to meet other needs. And I understand why you would say that. However, in this case, I have to say if the legislature has made a commitment to allocate $200 million to provide health care to these part-time faculty members, it is something that the legislature should honor. And if this bill allows us as a legislature to protect those funds in order for them to be utilized at some point for this specific purpose, I think it is a good safety guard to ensure that we as a legislature who have committed these $200 million fulfill our promise to that commitment. So I'm in full support of this bill. I think it should be protected. This is what we have prioritized at some point, and we don't want to jeopardize that funding by moving it somewhere else, per se, especially when we have budget crisis deficits that we need to mitigate. So I'm in full support of this measure. Thank you for bringing it forward. It ensures that we as the legislature fulfill our commitment to those part-times. Now, I do have a question as to why would community colleges, if the money is there available, what are some of the reasons why they would not have negotiated this in place already and ensure that, you know, as adults, I always say, if something's broken, we have the ability to fix it. And that everything is fixable when there's a will. There will always be a way. with part-time faculty members who are traveling, commuting to different areas and districts, and with the modernization of technology that we have, the amazing technology that we have, I don't see why there would be an absolute excuse not to provide these folks with health insurance, especially when the money is available. That, to me, just shows a lack of a will, quite frankly. I think there should be a pathway to be able to do that. And I'm actually really surprised and shocked that if the money is there, why the community college system has not been able to accommodate fulfilling a duty that we should be, especially when the state is providing that funding. So that's just my personal humble thoughts on the issue. And it should be a concern that we have schools. And I would love to hear the reasons why we haven't fulfilled 100% of community college, ensuring that they are able to do that. But I believe Senator Kambalden is over there ready to give some feedback. Would love to hear what he has to say on this issue. But that's where I stand, and I would be happy to support the bill today and make a motion when the time is appropriate, Madam Chair. For all the reasons that have been outlined by both the author and the opposition and also the notion that this really is a bugging necessary. And it hasn't been a trivial issue. It's quite common for us to say we're going to try this thing where disincentives are too strong. Then, of course, no harm done. We will put the money back in the general fund. That's a commitment that we almost all make when we have pilot program ideas and what have you. And if the districts don't do it all, it will go back into the Prop 98 general fund to support other community college budget priorities. So that makes sense, and that's a normal budget decision that should be made in the budget process, not by statute. Everybody would like their own program to be continuously appropriated, but if the entire budget is continuously appropriated, then we don't make a budget anymore. that's entirely on autopilot so that's bad at the same time you know I grew up as a I'm Jan X so I grew up as a latchkey kid except I grew up at Cal State to make a sales because my mom's teaching economics there I also grew up at Cal State Northridge because she was also teaching economics there and I grew up at UCLA because she was also teaching economics there all at the same time and didn't have a tenure track slot in any of them didn't have any benefits and all that so I and I sat in the department meetings and in the grievance meetings and everything else because what else is a what is what else is a ten-year-old supposed to do when the when you once you exhausted the vending machines on campus and so it's no very very real what this looks like and and I was vice for the community college system now 20, 24, 23 years ago, so a long time ago. And I think I might have been in your position on behalf of the Chancellor's office saying, hey, you know, this is a, the districts are working on this and we just need time and we've had a quarter century to make more progress on this. And so it's clear now, which wasn't clear then, that part-time faculty teaching the majority of the coursework at community colleges is almost certainly a permanent feature of our higher education system in California. It's not a trend that happened because of tidal wave two, and it's going to go back to normal, whatever. This is where we're at, and it's not going to change. And so it is incumbent on districts to recognize that reality themselves. This isn't our obligation to pay for. Any right-thinking, well-managed community college district should have arrived at this on their own. It shouldn't be a state program that's paying for this. Districts should just budget for what the appropriate compensation and benefits are for their employees, and particularly the folks teaching most of their courses. This was supposed to simply be an incentive to get them moving, and it's doing its job. I think the opposition is correct. It is getting there, and that's great. Hopefully, this bill will be completely meaningless in two years when all the community college districts are accessing this fund and it's oversubscribed you know that because this is not enough this is nowhere near enough money let's be honest to cover part-time to cover health insurance for every part-time faculty member in California 200 million dollars not anywhere near that so hopefully it will be oversubscribed and that in district should be moving in that direction so I yeah it was I think I pre pre notified the author I think I I probably will lay off on this, but I'm going to vote for it.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for the robust discussion today and the thoughtful comments. This bill started with an idea in a backyard. So many of our students who are trying to access higher education, change careers, or just find an affordable path forward. And when I learned that there was actually the current time, back in 2023, 2024, they were saying they were being pushed to Medi-Cal.