Senate Education Committee

And Assemblymember, you may begin whenever you're ready. Good morning, everyone, Madam Chair and members. Today I'm pleased to present AB 402. This bill will increase the Cal Grant award amount for private nonprofit colleges to facilitate student agency and opportunities with upward mobility. The Cal Grant program is a financial aid program administered by the California Student Aid Commission. These grants can be used at the California State University, University of California, and private colleges and universities such as Occidental College, Stanford University, National University, and many others. This bill restores the Cal Grant A and B reward amounts to their 2001 levels. It will also allow students who attend a community college to receive the Cal Grants Transfer Entitlement Award at private nonprofit institutions. It aims to make college more affordable for middle and low-income students and give them more agency in their pursuit of a higher education. Just to remind everyone the Cal Grant is awarded to the student whose eligibility is determined by need. The Cal Grant program increases access for low and middle-income students to education that can transform futures and careers. Since a higher education degree remains one of the most effective ways to achieve upward mobility, creating more opportunities and removing barriers that limit how students reach their future goals is an essential part of helping them thrive. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you and I see that we have presenters here. You may

MR. Good morning, Chair Perez and members of the committee. My name is Mark Milliron. I am President of National University. I'd like to thank Assemblymember Patel for introducing this important measure. AB 402, along with the accompanying budget requests needed for implementation, would significantly increase access to higher education in California, but particularly for the state's nontraditional working and military students. For nearly 55 years, National University has specialized in serving nontraditional learners across California. The average age of our undergraduate student is 33 years old. Half of our students are parents. Almost all of our students work full time. and about 80% of them are transfers from community colleges. We call our students ANDERS because their primary identity is not just as a student. Our students are students and parents. They are students and employed students and deployed, sometimes all of the above. As a veteran-founded institution and the second-largest nonprofit university in the state, offering more than 150 undergraduate and graduate academic programs, and you enroll tens of thousands of Anders each year and designs our learning models and our support systems for those balancing higher education with the demands of work, family, and service. For them, choosing the right institution is not just a matter of preference. It is often the key to whether they can enroll and persist at all. These are Californians who will continue to drive our state's workforce and our economy, allowing them to retain their Cal Grant eligibility after they transfer to a nonprofit university, will expand access to institutions like ours that are designed to serve nontraditional students. AB 402 will ensure that financial aid follows hardworking, eligible students as they pursue the educational pathways that work best for them. This is a targeted, cost-effective investment that promotes transfer success, degree completion, and educational opportunity for working adults, service members, parents, and other nontraditional learners across California. I appreciate the opportunity to bring this important measure to your attention and respectfully urge your support. Thanks.

Good morning, Chair and members. Alex Graves with the ICCU. We're the sponsors of the bill, and I'm available to answer technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Jack Worson from Nausman on behalf of the North Orange County Community College District, Citrus College, and Mount San Antonio College in support.

Nathaniel Berry, California Indian Nations College. I'm in support of this as well. Thank you.

Senator Kevoldan? Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the author and the witnesses. A couple questions. So the first is with respect to just to wind back from what the analysis describes in terms of what the deal was in terms of the last most recent change to the law. And I was a staffer here when we were working on Cal Grants for independent institutions. I was here in 2021 when this was all set up. So a long history here. But the point of the most recent augmentation was to advance the state's very critical policy interest in expanding the deployment of the associate degree for transfer, which has been an incredibly high priority at both UC and CSU. And part of the arrangement here was that independent institutions statewide would do the same. The very substantial efforts that their public sector partners have been doing, and essentially in exchange for accomplishing that, that there would be the increase to the grant. And my understanding is we've not seen those statutory targets from the Budget Act haven't been accomplished and that we're still relatively small. My understanding from the analysis, we're at a couple thousand ADTs statewide for the entire sector. What's the state of the independent colleges' commitment, progress, hard choices, you know, difficult conversations in academic senate meetings and what have you in order to actually advance the associate degree for transfer that's been so successful at CSU and UC at really dramatically increasing educational pathways and success for students that begin their careers in community colleges?

And again, Alex Graves at the ICCU, I think there's a couple things embedded in your question. In terms of the commitment that was made under the prior administration when the ADT and Cal Grant kind of tie was made for our sector, the agreement was basically to set statutory targets and the achievement of those targets was not followed by an increase to the Cal Grant award. It was just achieving them was attached to no potential trigger cut to the Cal Grant award. We would certainly prefer to see an approach that promotes a growth mechanism than a cut. For the ADT, since that agreement was made, we now have approximately 34 to 35 of our institutions that have active participation in MOU. When you look at our data from the community colleges on kind of transfer volume to our institutions, what we find is that our institutions that already had strong transfer culture are largely the ones that are participating in ADT. I think in the last year we welcomed something like 11,000 new community college students into our institutions. And in terms of the ADT numbers year over year that have been measured, we've been pretty stable year over year. We've generally been around 23, 2400 new ADT admits year to year with minor variation. And there was something else embedded in your question, but I hope that's helpful.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. Are there any other questions? Yes, Senator Trump.

Thank you, Senator Choi. Are there any other questions or comments? All righty. A few things. and I think Senator Cobaldin started touching on them already. One, I appreciate that I think your legislation, Assemblymember Patel, is highlighting the Associate Degree for Transfer program. I worked at the Campaign for College Opportunity, which helped to pass the legislation by Senator Alex Padilla way back when that created the Associate Degree for Transfer, and we have continued, especially during my time working there, to try to promote it as the preferred pathway and to encourage both not just our CSU system, but also the UC system, as well as our private institutions to utilize it. I recognize that, as Senator Cabaldon noted, there's a number of institutions that do not promote it as the preferred pathway. The analysis notes that there's 32 institutions as of last year that accepted ADTs. There's 80 AICCU institutions in the state. And so we still have work to do. And this is something that we talked a lot about. I know the TV's just shut off. I don't know if they're still recording. I know that this is something that we talked a lot about during my time at the campaign as we were doing research and looking at how we could improve transfer pathways for students across the state. And so that's certainly work that we need to continue to build on. And so I just want to note that that I think that that something that institutionally there needs to be work on In addition to that the need to raise the Cal Grant award is something that I entirely recognize As Senator Cobaldin noted I worked on the Cal Grant equity framework that was signed into law in 2022 with Senator Connie Leyva, who used to chair this committee, and Assemblymember Jose Medina, who used to chair Assembly Education, and was very excited when we got that done. We were told that the funding would be discussed in the previous year in 2023, and now I'm sitting here in 2026 and I'm a senator myself, and it has still not been funded. And so we've also passed other legislation that has come from other members of my house that are excellent bills that are looking to tie the Cal Grant to inflation to try to move the needle on that. That is still, you know, something that needs to be funded. And so, and we've had many conversations with the governor's office about this. So I think the point that Senator Cabaldon raises in terms of trying to make sure that we're not just continuing to pass policy that we're laying on top of one another. And that we're actually sitting down and having a meaningful conversation about funding these things, right? Because ultimately what the goal is, is to get you more dollars as a student. That's what needs to happen. I want for our students that are receiving the ADT to have the dollars that they need to go to school to pay for their housing, to pay for their transportation. And while we've passed bills that have made statements that have said we want to do that, we need to put our money where our mouth is. And I think that that's going to require a real push with whoever our next governor might be. I know we're all watching the votes come in, and, you know, we'll see what happens there. So I'm very supportive of the bill, and I'm very supportive of us increasing the Cal Grant amount. I think that we should continue to encourage our institutions to produce more ADTs. We'd love to see goals that go beyond just trying to exceed our year-over-year goal. I think if I looked at the numbers, it was 2,345 ADTs that were produced overall for all of the AICCU institutions. It would be great to see that number raised even higher come next year. And we should all just try to do what's in the best interest of students. And I think that ultimately, for me as a chair and for the rest of this committee, that's what we're always looking at trying to deliver on. So with that, I will turn it over to you, Assemblymember, to close.

and that motion for AB402 is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogue? Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Reyes? Aye. Ray is aye. Great. Thank you. And we'll put that bill on call. I know, Assemblymember, you have another bill, AB 2067. If you wanted to get started on presenting that, you may go ahead.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Nancy Chaitis Espinoza, legislative advocate for the Coalition for Adequate School Housing, our state's school facilities advocacy and professional association, and a co-sponsor of this bill. Our members serve our state's 6 million students in over 10,000 TK-12 school facilities. And in order to deliver new and modernized facilities that our students and educators deserve, we need the ability to use the construction delivery process that AB 2067 would continue to authorize. lease leaseback is often the best method to deliver new education facilities, sports fields, pools, performing arts centers. It is essential to the success of complex modernization projects needed for our schools to meet the needs of current and future students. The competitive selection provisions of lease-leaseback, which this bill would extend, comprise a framework that ensures transparency and accountability to the public, to taxpayers, and protects all parties. Specifically, they allow school districts to incorporate pre-construction service into the contract, giving them, and especially small school districts, the benefit of expert guidance early in the process. Allows us to control costs by reducing the need for change orders throughout the construction period. Requires full disclosure of pricing in an open meeting of the school district governing board. Preserves skilled and trained labor requirements and upholds protection for subcontractors, subcontractors, which my colleague, I'm sure, can elaborate on. The bill, most importantly, would maintain a tool that school districts need to ensure that they can deliver projects on time and under budget. For these reasons, we thank the Assemblymember for her leadership on the issue

We'll now hear witnesses in support. If you could use the mic at the railing.

Excellent Anybody else Alrighty We will now hear any witnesses in opposition if there are any Any witnesses in opposition Seeing nobody rising, I'll turn it back to the committee. Do any committee members have comments or questions? Yes, Senator Gomez-Reyes.

I know in the school district where I was a school board trustee for eight years, we did use it after things got clarified in state law because it was very tricky for us prior to that. But maybe my witnesses have a response for you.

I know recently we passed legislation here in this committee to allow for best value procurement for community colleges. It was already allowed for K-12, UCs, and CSUs. How often is that used, the best value procurement?

I don't know in your experience.

And my final question is, does this provide for cost savings as opposed to, of course, the more traditional method? But when it was lowest bid, that always is a problem because of all the change orders. But with the best value procurement process versus the lease-leaseback, is there a cost savings? Is that why it's preferred?

I did say that was my last question, but I did have one follow-up. Is this method available also for community colleges, UCs, and CSUs? This bill in particular is for the TK system but I not as familiar with community colleges I don know that we do lease on community college campuses I don believe we do This is a tool that been more very focused in this arena and again happy to follow up with your office

Thank you. Thank you. I'm Adam Chair. Thank you, Senator Gomez-Reyes. Do you have any other questions or comments? Senator Choi.

So I appreciate the question. And just to clarify and provide some background, this doesn't change anything currently in existence, only extends the current provisions through the sunset period. So the current processes that are used for hiring workers will stay in place through the extension of the sunset. But perhaps my witnesses would like to offer any further comments to that.

I think school districts are looking for some stability in their construction projects. LEAs face so many challenges right now with all kinds of changing regulatory landscapes that they're just looking for a way to build and have appropriate school housing for their students. And this is one more tool in their toolbox to help them provide high-quality learning environments for their students in a way that's responsible to taxpayer investments in public education. And while we're not touching that component, the labor component of the bill, we're just extending the sunset, I think it's very critical at this time with so many construction projects coming forward with schools aging that we get this stability in place now and perhaps at a future date you can address that with a different piece of policy Thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to also engage in this issue in terms of the skilled and trained and the other elements. I very much appreciate that the author and the two sponsors have kept this bill just about the sunset. I'm sure there are lots of folks that came and said, hey, could you change this thing over here? What about this? Or could you tip the scales unskilled and trained one way or the other? And the discipline necessary in order to just bring us a clean sunset extension, for me, is appreciated because we've had lots of debates about these issues. All this bill does is extend one of the many, many existing tools that are available for project delivery. And school districts, both the author and the chair and I all serve on the state allocation board. I think we understand very clearly the challenges both of cash but also making sure that given limited dollars that we're delivering the most efficiently and the most effectively. And that's going to vary by situation, by funding source, by project type, by region, like all kinds of stuff. And so school districts need to have as many proven tools in order for that to be viable. And so this bill doesn't require any school district to do this. The bill doesn't require any school district to use skilled and trained or to not use skilled and traded. it to simply make sure that one of the tools in the box that is proven and has broad support among the school construction community is viable and can continue, and that folks can make use of the education bond proceeds that the voters approved, and we can actually deliver the projects effectively because school districts and their partners are able to do so. So I'm supportive of the bill and appreciate the author's work to make sure that this doesn't open up a can of worms, but simply says, let's keep this tool in the box so school districts can deliver what the voters voted for in the last election. Thanks so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you. So welcome. It's a pleasure to have you here in committee. So I understand that this is just an extension of a sunset bill, but I think it's important to note that, you know, when you're extending a system, you're saying it's okay as per everything that's already in place moving forward, right? We're saying, okay, this all works and we're going to move it forward. But I won't be able to support the bill today, and I'm not going to support the bill today or won't be able to support the bill today because of the skilled and trained component in there. One of the concerns that I've expressed previously in this committee and on the Senate floor with in other areas is I'm trying to be as consistent as I can with bills that limit the opportunities for for all contractors that have followed the law and are licensed in our state to be able to work in our state. We you know this body has continuously advocated for opportunity for all and they've always advocated for you know protecting jobs. And I'm extremely concerned that with anything that has a skilled and trained component, because of some areas such as maybe steel construction, per se, don't have the ability to have apprenticeship programs that are for merit jobs, for instance. And so what happens is that with anything that has a skilled and trained component, what most people in school districts and people that are not in construction don't know is that when you have a skilled entering component in bills, it means that you're excluding about 80% of contractors in the state of California. And when we're talking about the economy, when we're talking about our state and workforce in the state, we're trying to give everybody an opportunity, a shot at working. We fall into a place where, unbeknownst to most legislators, unbeknownst to most school board members who are making these decisions to support such bills, is that they don't know that they're excluding so many contractors and workers from our state, the majority of contractors in our state. And so that's why I feel so passionately about speaking and really informing the public about where we stand and what we're doing when we're including this. And although this is just extending the sunset, I get it, but it has that component that is excluding 80 percent according to the Black Chamber of Commerce data and statistics. So I think it's important to note that. So that's why I won't be able to support the bill. But I completely understand that you're just extending what current statute is or code. And I understand that. But I feel passionately about just explaining why that is the case. And I think that the more we educate and inform the public about the nuances that happen when we're doing this, I think I'm hoping that we will, you know, redirect what we're doing in our state. So with that, I won't I respectfully won't be able to support the bill today.

This issue comes up a lot about skilled and trained, and it is important to educate people. I have talked about this in the past. Section 2601 of the Public Contracts Code. define skilled and trained workforce as one that meets the following. And it's in code. It isn't something that we have created here. All the workers performing work on an apprenticeable occupation, in building construction trades for which the Division of Apprenticeship Standards has an apprenticeship program, they have to actually go through the program. They have to be certified. It has to be clear that they are qualified to be on this job. I have had conversations with others about they say, well, but for this particular trade, there isn't an apprenticeship program. Well, then we need to work on getting an apprenticeship program. But if the building trades jobs already have an apprenticeship program through the state of California, you have to go through the hours. You have to be under a journey person who's going to make sure that you understand the job that you are doing. And I think it is important that the public be educated about what skilled and trained is. It doesn't necessarily mean just a union job, but it just so happens that if you're part of a union, they take great pride in making sure that you will have the proper training. But it isn't only union jobs. And I thank my friends from the building trades because the issue has come up in some of our other bills, and they have provided the information. And I know that they are here present. Madam President, if you'd like to have a comment from the building trades, which I think would be appropriate in light of two comments from two of our colleagues.

but I would like to make one comment. In addition to having copies of what I'm about to read to you and public contract code, which I'm happy to pass out to the committee, a skilled journey person must have graduated from a Department of Apprenticeship Standards state-approved apprenticeship program or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience as required to graduate. So on your question, anybody that has an equivalent number of hours in their trade do qualify under skilled and trained and can be on the job under the skilled and trained statute. Thank you.

show a vote. So we're going to open this door. So it wasn't my plan to ask so many questions on this particular bill, but now that we have sources on there. So questions, if I may, through the chair through the witness that just spoke. Yes. So now that we have you here, we might as well just open it up and It wasn't my plan, but, you know, it's here. So question, or I can hold it off until next, but, you know, my colleague brought you up, so I might as well just ask the questions now. So curious, when it comes to the apprenticeship programs in the state of California, you know, I understand that you said, you know, the equivalent number of hours for someone who has worked in the field. When it comes to the contractors themselves, a couple of questions. One, do the apprentices automatically become or are compelled or encouraged to become members of the union that they are representing or are sponsoring the apprenticeship program in those particular fields? There's no requirement for them to join the union when they've graduated from, say, an open shop. An apprenticeship program.

A licensed apprenticeship program.

But labor-sponsored or union-sponsored apprenticeship programs, are they required to join the union after they graduate from the – not required, but compelled to join the union?

That's right. Okay. So they're already members of that. So for the contractors that hire, that are merit shops or non-labor union companies, right, when they are in the field for the skilled and trained component, are they able to bid on these jobs? And what are the requirements if they are allowed to bid on these jobs?

bid on some of these jobs with the apprenticeship programs that are, that are required with the skilled and trained, are you or these merit shops, non-union labored contracting companies, are they required to pay into the retirement plans of the project or the unions?

labor union group. That's right. Okay. But if they're not, the point I'm trying to make is that if these merit shops, if these contractors are not members of the apprenticeship, but they are required in order to bid for these jobs, they're required to pay twice for retirement plans, right?

The point that I'm trying to make is that in order to have their members partake of that retirement system that they're paying the second one into the union, they don't get that back because they have to be vested about five years before they're able to pull from that retirement system. So what happens is when these not these merit shops non-union contractors Are bidding for some of these jobs? They have to it cost them More to be able to bid on this job kind of Decentivizing them from actually being able to bid on this jobs number two I'm not sure if you're familiar but sometimes when you are not a member of the of the union group of that particular construction site what happens is that you're required if you want to take a bid be able to bid be able to work on these shops you hire or you request these apprentice apprentices that are union they come into the shop and then what has happened and there's history of this and I can I can give you data and examples of this but what happens is that now we have these contractors that are subjected to lawsuits, which in the examples that I can give you, they end up winning at the very end, but they're subjected to that. And so it's almost like a Trojan horse coming into these merit shops. And so that's why it also desensitizes companies from going into that.

I would appreciate the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. As I stated in my introduction, this is simply a sunset extension and does not attempt to address all the challenges in school construction. But it does attempt to continue to provide our LEAs with tools in their toolbox to build beautiful learning environments for their students. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senators, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1204. and want to thank your committee for the analysis and the work done to date on the bill. AB 1204 introduces essential reforms to California's local control funding formula. It's a formula that we use to fund our schools. And our goal here is to address the diverse needs of vulnerable student populations while acknowledging that costs in different regions are, there's disparities, and that there are inflationary pressures that happen on a regular basis in our school districts that are not being captured by today's formula. So while California has made progress toward education equity through the LCFF a little over 10 years ago, there are still significant gaps that remain. One major gap is the 55% threshold for concentration grants. Districts that fall just under the line of the 55% often still serve deeply disadvantaged communities and students who have a lot of needs, but unfortunately they do not qualify for that extra support that others do. And even though districts do qualify, a 20% supplemental grant is not enough to meet the needs that our students are demanding these days. At the same time, regional cost differences are ignored, and the current formula and annual inflation adjustments have not kept up with pace, causing districts to lose purchasing power year after year. I think you see some of that being reflected in the May revise, where the COLA has now increased beyond the statutory COLA. So this bill increases supplemental grants, introduces regional cost adjustments by the year 2030, and guarantees a 4% minimum annual inflation adjustment to help the Districts keep pace with the real cost that are rising all the time. This comes with a phase implementation over the course of five years, and it ensures a smooth transition as funding aligns with the actual cost of educating students. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to now turn it over to our witnesses.

Okay.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from any other support witnesses that are in the room. Please use the mic at the railing.

Excellent. Anybody else? Seeing no one else rising, we'll now move on to witnesses in opposition. If we have any witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Oh, no, you can just move over one seat. Yeah. And you can begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from additional witnesses in opposition. If you could please use the mic at the railing. Your name, organization, position on the bill.

Ed Rep at Large, and I'm opposed to this bill. Anybody else in opposition? Seeing nobody getting up, I'll now turn it back to committee members. Do you have questions or comments from the committee? Senator Choi?

So I would say the answer would be yes, but it depends on your district and what the population they're serving. Just to remind us all, basic aid districts means they have plenty of tax dollars being created in their own community that they don't need funding from the state. And so your basic aid districts will always have more funding per student than your non-basic aid districts in your communities. And that is a disparity that's quite obvious. When we went from prior to LCFF to now LCFF, we have seen that there have been gains across the board, whether you look at the 2021 PPIC report, the 2025 LPI report, of which we had an extensive hearing, joint hearing, about a year and a half ago. So, you know, the testimony in opposition said there's no evidence, and yet we have seen two very reputable pieces of evidence showing that this much more equitable process through LCFF has been better for students that are more marginalized. And so I don't know the demographics of your Irvine community district, the district in Irvine, But if they, for example, were to have more students who are English learners or who are lower income, or if they're on the verge of the threshold that we are changing from 55 percent to 45 percent, they may see more resources going to them. And so it really depends on your student population, which I would not be able to tell you on the spot, but we could probably figure that out. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I want to also emphasize on this bill that some folks have said in their private meetings with my office that, you know, it's just all good stuff and deal with the fiscal part and appropriations. I just want to emphasize, particularly when it comes to Proposition 98 spending, there are no other, there's no competition with any other part of the budget. So in some sense, this committee is the suspense file for Proposition 98, and so it deserves our full attention. I have, I think, just one technical question, and that is with respect to now that the bill doesn't specifically tackle the unduplicated student issue, which I hope, even though I just did it, I hope we don't take a definition that we need for the statute just to make a funding formula work and actually keep calling people unduplicated students as though that exists as a category in life. It's, you know, as a way to refer to folks who are learning English or don't have enough money to eat or are homeless or are experiencing foster youth. It's an extremely antiseptic way to refer to them. But that aside for a moment, do we have any sense of how many – so this bill adds homelessness, but without the provision, the changes that were in the original version around double counting and triple counting, what percentage of homeless students do we imagine are not qualifying today for free and reduced-price lunch?

Okay. May I ask because, I mean, intuitively, and I don't want to pretend to have data that I don't have, it seems unlikely that a significant number of homeless students are not going to be able to demonstrate their eligibility for free and reduced price lunch And so you know evaluating that because part of the you know any of these funding formula changes is a balloon And some, you know, there's winners and losers and trying to figure it out. And what's the overall equity implications? And one of the areas where it seemed like a clear equity win was potentially benefiting homeless students. But it's not clear to me that the bill accomplishes that. It would have been its original version, but it would not now, given that it's highly likely that most homeless students either qualify for free and reduced price lunch or foster youth. So that, you know, I was here for LCFF. I was here for almost everything at some point. And I'm struggling here because it seems like a very substantial rewrite of LCFF, but without the research-based or the broad-based coalition that produced that. Now, that process took like a decade plus, depending on how you count, maybe two decades. So we certainly don't have the time to be doing that. But I am a bit concerned about just the stakeholders that are involved here because each of these is going to have impacts, very real impacts in terms of school funding and our priorities that we don't have the academic research or the stakeholder engagement that produced that, in addition to the political leadership that the governor had on LCFF, in which Mr. Alvarez is doing today, that those are kind of important, given the scale of the rewrite that's proposed here. I also understand we're here in part because, and I just want to call this out, because the Proposition 98, we expect to have essentially more money per student over many, many, many years because enrollment is declining, that continued declines overall in enrollment are going to continue. State revenues are continued to rise, not enough to pay for the rest of our budget to continue to rise. And so the formula will be the Constitution will continue to produce funding increases for K-12 while enrollment's declining. That is poses all kinds of challenges at the local level, but for the state it's actually an incredibly important opportunity For us to say what it what should we be investing in what should our? Education finance system look like to meet them meet the needs in the moment Particularly given the some of the challenges from artificial intelligence But how do we meet that moment given that we have resources? And so that's but that's a policy opportunity for the entire state government to engage in with all of our with you know with communities and with others. And so I guess part of my hesitation here is I want to be careful about sort of eating up all of those dollars now without having the broader conversation about what are we trying to accomplish here now that we may have some dollars finally to invest. And I find the increase the base argument is very compelling, but so is many of the provisions of this bill. But those are central, like existential questions about what our strategy around K-12 finance is going to be. So that feels to me somewhat premature because this bill, you know, by – might I get for San Diego? This is a plus, right? It's the coastal – it's the regional cost differences which will advantage parts of the state, including San Diego. And the change in the concentration grant threshold will also. But that and but then OK, but how does that relate to its impacts everywhere else and where if we have an incremental amount of money, where should that go? And it not so clear to me that that that that that should be you know these specific pieces as opposed to others In my own district we have several several school districts even a couple that are basic aid but they basic aid by like per student maybe $1,000 per student, but they're not like brimming with money in Calistoga, which has an 80% concentration threshold, 80% in Calistoga,

Thank you. Thank you very much to all of you. I'm going to try to address multiple of the points that were made and all were well taken. First and foremost, I'd say this is a conversation that is really important, especially to senators, a chair and Senator Capaldi, know the work that it took over 13 years ago now with LCFF and how monumental that was. And I think when we had our hearing on this about a year and a half ago on just the issue of where LCFF was, 10 years in the rears, what has worked, what has not, we identified a lot of the things that are in this bill. And so this is a two-year bill, and it was with intention that we'd have all of last year, all of this year to engage. And I think we've done so. You've seen, as you've noted, changes in the text as a result of that. And so I agree. The landscape is changing, and certainly the Chair and myself serving in the budget role are seeing what is happening with declining enrollment. And I think that does present, as was stated by Senator Cobaldon, a very important opportunity because this is only going to continue. There's going to be more money in education with less students to serve. And I think we have to have a real conversation about what that means for locals and decisions that they're making to make sure that they are aligning their expenditures to that reality of their shrinking student population and how we as a state want to support those remaining students to the best extent possible, not just financially, but to obviously ultimately see student outcomes grow. And so I do think that's an important conversation. I'll tell you, at least from our house, and we should have further conversations, a declining enrollment conversation must happen in the state. And it should happen soon because it's happening faster than we've been able to adjust to it and respond to it. What this bill is trying to do is trying to anticipate some of those changes and trying to make sure that the resources are going to the students that really need the support. And that's why you see the different thresholds. So, for example, I know the chair raised the issue of the 55 to 45 fiscal cliff, as was mentioned. Absolutely true that where you move that, you may see the differences that you see today in the data in terms of student outcomes and performance, which do increase for those concentration schools above 55 percent. That may just move down to 45 percent, and you'll see the disparity there as well. That is absolutely something that's possible. So is there any hard facts? No, the only hard facts that we do have is that if you increase funding, just generally, for students who are in need, they're going to perform better. And so we could go down to 5%. As long as those dollars are being focused for those students that are in need, we will see, I believe, we'll see better student outcomes. So where you draw that line 45 to 55, it was based on the best information that we had at the time of how do we include those that are on the cusp that we think, where we start to see that real change, market change from performing average to performing better than average. And so that's where that came from, but certainly acknowledge that that is a decision point that we can make. on the issue of the high cost winners and losers to Senator Kabaldon, that was something I was really sensitive about because when we had a hearing on this issue, informational hearing on this issue, there was a lot of concerns from people who just thought that that would be – we should not be pitting folks against each other. And so we attempted to do that with a couple of things. One, the COLA issue, which I can get to as well, the percentage, whether it's the right one or not. But consistently the testimony from districts across up and down the state, whether you're lower enrollment, declining enrollments, which most are or not, rural versus urban, was the COLA, current COLA, statutory COLA, is not truly acknowledging the increased costs in school districts. And there are things, as the chair raised, like 218 that have significantly increased the cost, but others as well that are not, for some reason, factored into the COLA that should be because there are inflationary and rising costs, whether it's insurance or fuel or other things that, for some reason, are not being captured by the statutory COLA, which is the formula that's used. But we thought about revisiting the formula. What should the formula be? So I would just tell you we came up with some number of 4% because it was in the range of what most districts, again, up and down the state that we heard from said we're closer to 4 on an annual basis. And so that reflective of that but certainly can appreciate that maybe another number or another formula may be the right one that we capturing the real costs I also agree that and so we have a hold harmless provision because we didn want to create again losers or the appearance that we trying to pick winners here And so no one is going to get less as a result of hold harmless agreement that is in here. Lastly, the thing I'll say, because I've gone on here for too long, is the leadership does matter. And as both the chair and senator acknowledge, Governor Brown was very engaged and brought folks to the table to have this conversation. Obviously, an assembly member does not have the same bully pulpit or the same reach as the governor does. But we have attempted, in all honesty and genuinely and will continue to, to try to address the variety of perspectives that are brought forward here by folks. Because we're not trying to dismantle LCFF or even rebuild it. Someone put it best at the informational hearing. I can't recall who to credit for this. But we have a strong foundation. LCFF is working. now we just got to revisit the house and remodel it and maybe add a room or do some things here and there to make it even better than it is today. And that's the approach. That is the attempt with today. Certainly happy to continue to take that input and engage even more than we have. Happy to hear from more folks because it has been, just to be very honest, a little bit slow in reaction to our proposal. Again, we put it out last year hoping that we'd get more feedback, and now we're going to continue to proactively seek folks to give us input. And hopefully they'll realize that, as Senator Cabaldon noted, we are seeing 98 grow. We are seeing this 98 dividend, which is money that's not being allocated through the LCFF, being allocated in other ways for other uses, creating what some might think of as new categorical grants, massive but new categorical grants, as opposed to the base funding that LCFF provides to our district. So that's the attempt, that's the goal, and looking forward to those who want to continue to engage on this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Can I just make a quick explanation? I'm going to vote for the bill today based on the recommendation of the chair and the assembly members' continuing efforts on the work. But I do want to emphasize, if this were an appropriation, I would vote no on the bill in this form. So I hope that some of the continuing work will proceed. but I do intend to vote yes on the roll call, but didn't want to be misinterpreted. Thank you.

Aye.

Not voting.

Aye.

Not voting.

Aye.

Reyes?

Reyes, aye.

I think given the love for Dr. Patel's bill earlier, this bill will be quick and smooth We here today to present AB 1235 This bill would harmonize the public contracts code by requiring a skilled and trained process for the CSU system Amendments in assembly appropriations created an exemption for housing projects, but this would bring harmony between the process for the CSUs, the UCs, and the community colleges to make sure that construction projects meet the full benefits and full potential that they have for our local communities. So with me today to testify on the bill is Mike West. You already met with the Building and Constructions Trade Council, and I'll turn it over to him.

Mike West, on behalf of the State Building Trades, in a previous hearing, my colleague Keith Dunn mentioned that he worked with Senator Lois Wolk on the first design bill that was signed into law in 2014. Also in a previous hearing, Assemblymember Carl DeMaio made a comment and asked an important question. He said that both union and nonunion have good training programs, which I agree. I will also add that they also both have Department of Apprenticeship Standards state-approved apprenticeship programs in some cases. Then he asked if the design-build model would apply to the nonunion, and the answer was yes. So with all the previous dialogue, that wraps up my testimony. Thank you for your time.

Good morning, Chair members. Elmer Lozardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Good morning, Matt Kremens on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers in strong support. Good morning, Mike Greenlee, Payneers and All-Trades District Council 16 in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Richard Markson for the Western Electrical Contractors Association. Weakest supports apprenticeship training. Previous witness talked about that. We support quality construction. We support design build. What we do not support is using workforce mandate that has never been shown to improve project outcomes while simultaneously reducing competition. The proponents claim that a skilled and trained workforce requirement ensures better quality construction. However, we are unaware of any peer-reviewed study demonstrating that skilled and trained workforce mandates results in higher quality construction, fewer defects, improved safety performance, better schedules, or lower costs on design-build projects. Now, there is substantial evidence that support apprenticeship training quality, but that's not what this bill does. This bill requires that a specific percentage of workers be graduates of a state-approved apprenticeship program. These are two very different things, and proponents have not demonstrated that this mandate produces better project outcomes. Skill and trained workforce has been around for almost 20 years, and there's never been a study to demonstrate that it improves project outcomes. The Assembly Appropriations Committee recognized another concern, identifying likely significant administrative costs to CSU to monitor and enforce compliance, as well as potential project costs if the bill reduces competition or increases bid prices we think that before the legislature imposes a new mandate that excludes otherwise qualified contractors it should require evidence that the mandate delivers measurable benefits that outweighs the costs. That evidence has not been presented. AB 1235 will increase compliance burdens, reduce bidder participation, and likely increase construction costs for California's already taxed public universities without any demonstrated improvements in project qualities. For those reasons, WICA is opposed. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair. Members of the committee, Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California, representing both union and non-union general contractors. AGC supports workforce development apprenticeship programs and the use of skilled and trained workers on public projects. In fact, through our Construction Education Foundation and our member companies, we actively invest in training the next generation of California's construction workforce. Our concern with AB 1235, however, is not the goal. Our concern is the additional mandate and liability this bill places on CSU design-build projects, like my colleague mentioned. First, the bill requires contractors seeking CSU design-build work to provide an enforceable commitment covering every subcontractor at every tier. That creates significant liability for prime contractors and exposes them to compliance risks that may be outside of their direct control. Second, the committee analysis rightfully raises an important implementation question. How is a CSU, how will they operationalize and verify compliance? Existing law already contains reporting requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and penalties related to skilled and trained workforce requirements. This bill would add another layer of administration without a clear demonstration that the current tools are inadequate. Third, the committee analysis in the Assembly, as it was mentioned a second ago, cites that this is likely to cost very significant cost increases to projects if competition is reduced or bid prices rise. When additional compliance obligations are added to design-build procurement, fewer contractors may choose to compete, ultimately increasing the costs borne by the university and taxpayers. We all share the same goal, delivering high-quality CSU facilities, but we should be careful about adding requirements that increase costs and administrative burdens without clear evidence, as my colleague mentioned, that will improve project outcomes. For those reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote.

Senator Cho Boak? I have to give my little spiel. As you probably heard me, Assembly Member Rogers, earlier today, I am fervently opposed to anything that limits who can and cannot work in California, especially when they follow the law as to what they're required to fulfill to meet the requirements to become contractors in our state. There are many good people, good companies that are actually working in the state providing for local hire. black and brown community members, formerly incarcerated folks, and doing everything. And as stated by the opposition today, there hasn't been a study to justify why we're going to limit literally 80% of contractors and their employees from being able to work in our state. I want you to ponder on that thought. And I know you're carrying this bill, and you may not have known all of this, so I just feel compelled coming into our area as someone who is impacted by such bills. I feel compelled to share our life experiences from this dais and speak because not everybody has had that experience. So on behalf of those, you know, a member of those 80 percent of contractors who have followed the law and have done everything required to say to continue to work, including our company who has been building schools and, you know, has been around for over 40 years working in the Inland Empire, you know, hiring local folks from the area who have attended local schools and graduated or, you know, are now, you know, I think we have one family that is grandpa, son, and grandson working for the company that will be excluded from being able to work in participating in local schools. I don't think it's fair, and I don't think that our state should be codifying who can and cannot have a shot at the American dream. And for that, I will be respectfully opposing the bill. I'm not going to go into all the details because I think I, you know, I know some of my members continue to repeat the same thing over and over again, but I just want to just respectfully, you know, express my concerns the way that our local companies will be impacted and 80 percent of contractors interstate, which means less folks be able to bid on jobs, which means that we that the cost could potentially increase in for our local schools. So with that, I will respectfully be opposing the bill today. And you're in California, and obviously with the makeup of our legislature, your bill will most likely move forward. But I do want to express those concerns because I want everybody to understand that a vote for this is literally, you know, taking away from opportunity from many, many folks in our state.

Senator Cabaldon? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I guess the first thing I was I have a question for the California State University. Is there a representative in the room? I know there are 14 bills on today's calendar that directly affect the California State University or indirectly. So I imagine they'd be here. No, well, that's unfortunate. OK, so because I'm trying to disentangle like what's the what's the actual situation in the world? This is obviously a quasi religious issue. as you heard on the prior bill. And this is neither the Labor Committee nor the Construction Committee, but a lot of our debates turn on this issue. But do we have any information about the analysis notes that there are a couple campuses that are engaged in that aren't following what the bill would already do, but is that a big phenomenon? Is it two or three campuses doing a project or two? What's the scale of what's... It sounded like most CSU campuses most of the time are already doing this.

Yeah, that is very helpful. I'm not unsympathetic to the concerns that the vice chair has raised on this overall issue. I mean, recognizing the percentage of the construction workforce that is not represented, and that's real. And regardless of our attempts to build more apprenticeship programs and what have you, we have to recognize that that is where California's construction workforce is now. And so we also need to make sure that we can deliver projects, not only housing, but, you know, the library, the disabled student center, all those things matter too. And we have to be able to procure the workforce for that. And it is why over time, you know, the legislatures typically and governor typically said, look, you know, prevailing wage is triggered. It's not required of every single project in the whole world. It's triggered when there is a when the public is provided has is providing essentially a benefit to the project and therefore to the to the construction. Skilled and trained has largely been that as well. So I mean, I'm not I'm not like sort of reflexively every single project in the world should have a law that says that all these rules apply. We're trying to move the market that way, send the right signals and do the things that Senator Gomez Reyes has mentioned. So for me, it's not reflexive. But if given the case on this particular one where the institution already is and where the other family of public colleges and universities are, this seems like a reasonable step forward. So I am going to support the bill today. It doesn't mean I support every single bill that mandates skilled and trained in every possible situation. They all deserve to be evaluated on their merits, but this one, I think the case has been made that it's appropriate. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Yes, Senator Cortese. Just a comment. You know, I think in reality, you know, what happens here, and let me start by saying I'm going to be supporting the bill. I think, you know, skilled and trained, which I've been a pretty regular supporter of here, I think, as most people know, in its basic, most basic framework, like we see in the bill, oftentimes doesn't actually roll out that way in real life. And sometimes it's because if there's not a PLA that this leads to, which is not atypical of public sector work or untypical, but if that isn't the path that it goes down, then there's always this worry and this concern. And I respect opposition's concerns about what happens, and I'm going to frame them differently, what happens when the general contractor in a design build is trying to move, get the project underway, get plenty of prevailing wage jobs going, union jobs going, and there's one or two subs that basically aren't available under these terms. You can call your local building trades council and just say, we can't even recommend a contractor for you to do the landscaping or to do this one particular trade. And that usually leads to something like a two-gate or a dual-gate job. And the policy does it, and I'm not sure how you would write it, it doesn really take into account that situation because it more of a strict framework And I think that you know been a little bit problematic but more so on the private sector I think I think with public code projects that can still happen. But you have a very typical and available avenue of putting the PLA in place that essentially subsumes this requirement within it and has the mechanisms within it to allow for all that. What happens when there's jurisdictional issues? What happens when there's a non-union issue that needs to be brought in? How do we treat that? And I think in the best of all scenarios, especially with public code work, and I do consider this to be public code work, this is money of the state of California flowing out there, you know, that's being put into play. So I, again, I'm supportive. I think where it all leads, you can criticize sometimes how these frameworks look when we just keep them clean and simple in legislation. But where they lead usually works. And there are outcomes. I'm not going to get into that because it's not part of our discussion today and these bills aren't being heard today. but especially where we've utilized skilled and trained requirements and the training requirements around hazardous facilities and those kinds of things. We've seen lots of positives, lots of measurable positives, including growth, not only in apprenticeship programs, but folks who are actually hired and then trained to deal with hazardous situations, hazmat situations, toxic situations. Those are just examples of where I think we've seen the best growth. And I think there's been a longstanding case around here, as everybody knows, that maybe not so much on private residential. You don't see it's not as easy to point to the outcomes. But I think here this should work, and I'm going to support the bill. And thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to make some comments.

Yeah. First of all, I just want to thank everybody for the discussion. I understand the perspective even from the vice chair on it. And I think that the chair just nailed it with my perspective, which is when we are spending taxpayer dollars, if what we are looking for is the delivery of a project alone, that might be a different discussion. But with taxpayer dollars we get to look at the broader impacts of that spending in our community And with skilled and trained workforce requirements not only do we end up with more local hire and that is found in data but you end up creating this pipeline and this training process where in which we can bring other people up through that to get them those skills, to make sure that they're getting a good wage, to make sure that they're having benefits, and then they can spend that money in our local communities as well. There's a climate benefit to it when people don't have to travel as far, and I think that there's something very symbolic about making sure that when we tell people you don't just have to go get a four-year degree to be successful in this state, that we're creating other pathways, especially in conjunction with the CSUs, the UCs, and the community colleges, for them to be able to do so. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogue? Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members. I would first like to thank the chair and the committee staff for working with me on this critical issue. The College of the Siskiyous sits right on the California-Oregon border and serves community college students across the region. Many of these students live in one state and work in the other. Communities in northern Siskiyous County interact daily with neighboring Oregon towns for work, health care, and education. For many residents, the state line does not define their community. They themselves see not as Californians or Oregonians, but as one interconnected cross-border community. Students are bound in place by community, and research shows that 90% of community college students go to college within 50 miles of their home. Denying their access to COS simply because the state boundary cuts through the region punishes our community for geography they do not control. AB 1555 addresses this by allowing up to 200 students to qualify for in-state tuition at the College of the Siskiyous. The college provides career technical education and workforce programs in wildland, firefighting, emergency medical services, and paramedicine, law enforcement, and nursing that nearby colleges, including Southern Oregon University, do not offer. My district is facing critical workforce shortages in health care, public safety, and natural resources, as much of the state is. This bill helps address these shortages by allowing nearby students to access the training programs that already exist at the College of the Siskiyous. I respectfully ask for your aye vote and I'm joined today by Superintendent President Char Perlis from College of the Siskiyous. Hello. Hi, Chair Perez and committee members. AB 1555. addresses a localized geographic and financial barrier. For many residents of Southern Oregon, the unique career technical education programs, Fire Tech Academy, and Nursing Pathways at College of the Siskiyous offer the most viable, affordable, and practical route to their career goals. Currently, College of the Siskiyous has already reached its maximum capacity for the Western University Exchange and Oregon Exchange programs. We have really long wait lists. Those wait lists consist of potential students from the counties of Oregon, the Josephine Jackson, and Klamath counties. Data consistently shows that students are highly likely to settle, work, and pay taxes near their communities where they attend college. By drawing neighboring talent to the College of the Siskiyous, we are feeding the workforce pipeline for our northmost communities, boosting local economies that struggle with rural workforce shortages. And as you just heard, we have those shortages. Furthermore, College of Siskiyou is uniquely positioned to provide these students with not only their desired educational programs, but we currently offer on-campus housing, and we're in the process of building a new housing complex. For those reasons, I respectfully request a yay vote.

Good morning, Tatiana Torres with the Community College League of California in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to support the bill today. I want to urge the author to consider just adding some language in about the WUI. I'm the state's representative to WCCHE for 12 years as Governor Brown and Governor Newsom appointee. WUI is a preferable option for this sort of thing because it's systemic, it's reciprocal between the two states and it recognizes that these are not Californians. Regardless of whether they think of themselves as transcending the very notion of states or not, they are not Californians. They're not California taxpayers. And the bill doesn't just waive non-resent tuition. It says that the taxpayers of California under Prop 98 will pay for those students at College of the Siskiyous as though they were Californians. So that's a big ask of the people of California to say, yeah, we will just treat them like Californians. So you're currently maxed out at WUI. Just think the bill should only cover beyond WUI, because what we don't want to do is have the college or students say, I'm currently in WUI in the Western Union Undergraduate Exchange paying one and a half times resident fees. It would be better for me to do this program instead. So I get that that one's maxed out, but this should only be applicable when WUI is no longer available for students at all. And I think that would help strengthen the bill, maintain the cost profile that you're describing here. But otherwise, we've seen this before. Maybe by the time it gets to reporters, I would love to know what we know about students as they exit the college. Feather River College was in a similar situation. We did a legislative investigation. It's probably a little strong, but a few years back. And it turned out that many of the students that were qualifying for a similar kind of exemption were actually not even from in that case from Nevada They were from South Carolina They were being recruited by the college for its sports teams And they did not stay in Quincy or in this year afterwards. And so understanding for, like, but for real, though, like, what happens, you know, do students stay in California? Are they going to ultimately contribute to our communities in the state and to our tax base and whatever would be useful to know. But the concept is proven at Tahoe and a couple of others. So I'm going to support the bill, but we would encourage you to think about further clarifying amendments. Absolutely. Thank you.

I just want to thank you for taking the time to hear our story. I have 11 very unique counties bordering Oregon and Nevada, and we're different. I represent the most community colleges in the state, but also have the most college deserts and no UC or CSU. So very unique, and we are always trying to grow our own in rural, and this bill will help us do that. So thank you again.

Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bog? Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Reyes, aye.

I will start off, Madam Chair, with AB 1641, our tribal colleges and universities.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Committee members, AB 1641, which amends the education code to formally include Tribal college and universities as a recognized segment of public post-secondary education in California. This recognition ensures that tribal institutions are no longer sidelined, but instead are meaningfully included in higher education planning, legislation, and coordinating bodies where critical decisions are being made. It affirms the academic excellence and cultural leadership of tribal colleges making clear that these institutions and the communities they serve are no longer invisible within our state education system With me today to speak on the impact of this bill is Sean Reagan, Executive Vice President of the California Indian Colleges, Indian Nations College, and Nathaniel Barrett, Vice President of External Affairs for the Associated Students at the California Indian Nations College. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of AB 1641 and the need for tribal colleges and universities or TCUs in California. We're proud to sponsor AB 1641 and thank Dr. Jackson for his leadership on this bill along with Mr. Ramos, Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Wallace for their support as well. Here on behalf of California Nations College an accredited public two-year associate degree granting tribal college chartered by the 29 Palms Band of Mission Indians. We're located in Southern California but have students from throughout the state, both Native and non-Native students. American Indian students face numerous challenges in higher education, historical, cultural, but they are resilient and with the proper support accomplish their goals and help make their communities better. TCUs are a vital part of that process. Students who started at TCU are four times more likely to earn their bachelor's degree. California is home to one-fifth of all federally recognized tribes and over 1.4 million people who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native. There is a need for TCUs in California, but the current education code definitions do not recognize TCUs. We're not a UC, CSU, or CCC, and as a public institution, we're not part of the independent institutions of higher education. As it stands now, TCUs are the invisible institutions of higher education in California. AB 1641 remedies that. From our point of view, AB 1641 does not create a new segment of higher education, but recognizes and codifies one that already exists in the state. We are here. Our students are here. TCUs and TCU students are not seen. We're not part of the discussions around higher education currently. TCUs and TCU students often do not have a voice, and their voice is important. So we thank you for allowing us to speak today and for giving us a voice here. I turn it over to one of our students, Nate Barrett, and I ask for you, your I vote on AB 1641. Thank you. Hello, my name is Nate Barrett. I'm an enrolled member of the V.S. Band of Kumeyaay Indians and a student of California Indian Nations College, where I serve as a current student body of VP of External Affairs. Like many indigenous students, I walk two worlds, one world filled with traditions and cultural values, another with Western systems and practices. I have first-hand experience of what it's like to see my community go overlooked and unseen. TCUs connect those two worlds. As a TCU, CINC, California Nation College, is important because it gives the opportunity for underserved students to be recognized and acknowledged. This college is rebuilding the relationship natives have with education. For a lot of us, with the history of boarding schools and Western education that sought to strip our identity, our relationship with education came before we were even born. Because of colleges like California Nations College, I can overcome systemic barriers where I can feel supported and recognized to pursue my degree. Also, my dream of being a tribal lobbyist. CINC is constantly evolving and opening doors to Native students like myself to speak at tables where we lack representation to address what we need With AB 1641, it gives TCUs the opportunities and acknowledgment that is needed. I want to thank you, Chair and members, for your time. Ye-Hun, please help us be seen and vote eye on AB 1641.

Morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Alex Alanis on behalf of the Habomato Pomo of Upper Lake in support of the bill.

Chris Morales with the CSU Office of the Chancellor in support. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Nick Brokaw here on behalf of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in support. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Cabrera Payton on behalf of EdTrust West in support. Good morning. Jessica Dung with the University of California is in support. Puja Lal with NextGen California in support. Great.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is one of those righteous bills. I'm glad the Assemblymember has brought this forward. I do want to thank the students in particular for your testimony. It makes a difference when we hear from someone who is personally affected by the legislation that's introduced. I appreciated the fact that it was mentioned that it's both Native and non-Native students. I think that non-Native students having access, I think, is also important because they're exposed to something that they normally would not be exposed to. And I also want to congratulate you on your goal to be a tribal lobbyist. lobbyist. I think that that is a great profession to be in. So I congratulate you on that. Thank you. And at the appropriate time, I would move the bill.

Thank you. I will be supporting this bill. I simply want to understand a little bit more about this TCU systems. This bill is expanding the definition of what the public education, higher education is all about. These use are already colleges and universities for the tribal native residents in their region. And what I understand is that these universities and colleges in the reservation are very sovereign and independent tribal sovereignty and autonomous organization and like run as an independent country. So sovereignty issue, when this definition is expanded, what kind of benefits would Will it expand into not only just the definition, which is already colleges, universities, that's a higher education to me, but will it open up the doors, like receiving federal or state funding? If you can elaborate, that will help me, my understanding of that TCU system from other state university systems here in California.

Yeah, TCUs nationally are public institutions and so you know on that end we are a public institution. Part of that is the charter from the tribe and so there is a question about sovereignty that plays into that. You know going into this bill TCUs are supporting and sponsoring this bills. Like I said we're public institutions as such understand the need to be accountable to the public for student outcomes and the work that we do and we're ready to work with the legislature to ensure that we operate in the public space in a way that both maintains tribal sovereignty and provides accountability to the people of California. As far as the benefits for it, we're in California, we serve California students. About right now on the federal side we would receive funding, federal funding for about 54% of our students, that's the number that's we federally enrolled and eligible for federal funding. We're about, typically run about 85% or so are native students, but not all of them are eligible for federal benefits. And so we have students from throughout the state of California. And being in California, there's a lot of legislation, there's things that are happening, coordinating commissions, for example, the coordinating commission that was passed last year in the Senate, Senator Pity, I know, had worked on that for the CTE programs and stuff. Tribal colleges weren't part of that conversation, yet that's a really important commission for us, or coordinating commission that would be really important for us to be part of. So there are things that are happening throughout the state where I think that voice needs to be heard. The benefit is, I think from our end, one of those great benefits is to be able to be part of the conversation for higher education in California. What's happening in the state and what role do tribal colleges play within that? On the funding side of it, you mentioned the funding. We do have funding requests that are in process right now. We received $10 million in one-time funding last year in the budget. We have a budget ask right now that's over in the Assembly. And I know there's conversations going on between the Assembly and the Senate on that and looking at another budget request for this. So there is funding aspects for that that we are hopeful. I don't think that those funding elements are dependent upon this bill necessarily. They weren't last year. But we are, you know, I think that there are a number of benefits both to the state and to tribal colleges. Does that answer your question? Your explanation expands my question already. You have been receiving and by being recognized as a higher education, now suddenly, you know, oh, we are colleges and the university, not public universities, but the higher education in definition. That is strange. So that means a side of benefit is that great it has been recognized as a college even though the definition may have not been defined clearly But so that will also expand your obligations of any legislation we pass here that the certain requirements of public universities shall apply this and that kind of rules. So will that subject you to comply with the new regulations of this body next? I think those would be ongoing conversations that we'd love to have with this body. But how to do that in a way that both, like I said, both holds us accountable as an institution in California while maintaining tribal sovereignty. So, I mean, I think those two things, that answers your question. I don't have a complete answer to it. So this sounds like good things I will take, but bad things I will reject. So I think if you're not the beneficiary of this definition, which will entitle you to open up the old opportunities to receive benefits, that we should be also meeting the obligations that this body enacts. I agree.

Senator Cobaldin. Yeah, thank you. And I'm actually envious of Assemblymember Jackson. This is sort of we should have been doing this decades ago in terms of broadening our definition of what of what public institution with the what the family of higher education in California looks like. So very much salute you and agree with sort of the values and the heart that Senator Gomez Reyes mentioned. I also, though, do agree very much with what Senator Choi raised from the head perspective. So this section of the Education Code is one of the oldest ones. I mean, it's the master plan era section of the E code, which means that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of references to this definition all throughout the E code. and that will bring along with it all of the issues that Senator Troy was describing. But for me, the issue is less do you want them or not, but really what are we saying about sovereignty here? Because these aren't institutions. They are not public institutions in terms of the state of California. They are public institutions of fully sovereign governments. And so I'm definitely supporting the bill. would encourage the author to think about whether this specific statutory approach is the right one, as opposed to maybe a new section that said this is higher education in California, and we are recognizing that Californian sovereign tribes operate colleges and universities that are part of what Californians enjoy and that we support and that we work together here. defining them sort of as California public institutions though kind of breaks that line a bit. Now, you know, one of California's longstanding tribal universities at DQ University in my district closed. Now it's been a while. There is another California Tribal College, which is an emerging institution, also in my district that's headquartered at Woodland, but it's being led by a broad coalition of tribes. And you know part of the question here is so we require for public institutions institutions in California are required to be required by law to be accredited And this section of the law also says that every independent institution to be defined as an independent institution as part of the family also must be accredited California Tribal College is not accredited, right? They are, they are an emerging institution that's part of the process. They're not, they didn't lose accreditation. There's no, I don't want to signal any problems there. They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do. But it's an example of, you know, this is a standard that we apply to our institutions, that we should be careful about backing into requirements that we pass on those institutions. I'm supportive of the bill. It's an important step forward to assure that we're recognizing that our relationship and our students and our community's relationship with tribal colleges and supporting them as well in their growth and development. while at the same time respecting, fully respecting the sovereignty of the tribes themselves and that these colleges are theirs. They are part of our – we need to have a respectful relationship but also understand that they are not asking to and we shouldn't inadvertently make them subject to a million different wonderful policies that we have passed in order to advance our institutions as well. So we just encourage the author to continue to think about that with the tribal community about how to assure that we're accomplishing both things, broadening our definition of the family, lending support to one another, and also fully respecting the sovereignty of California's tribes. Thanks, Madam Chair. Chair, can I raise one more question?

Thank you, Chair. Speaking of sovereignty, I wonder when tribal students attend California public schools, is that treated as like out of state and you are required to pay out of state tuition? Since we just dealt with the AB 1555 by Hardwick exempting tuition, non-resident tuition fees for neighboring states a while ago. So sovereignty doesn't apply in this case. So in other words, my children can go to your place if you're not going to charge non-residential fees. Yeah. Tribal students who live in California are California citizens as well. So, I mean, I want to be careful in how I say these things because I'm not a sovereignty expert. But they don't pay out-of-state tuition. You know, if you're coming from a reservation, you're not paying out-of-state tuition. So when I hear that definition of sovereignty, that's very vague. Yeah. And we are, I mean, we're accredited. So we're accredited by ACCJC the same as all the community colleges. So we're subject to compliance standards with accreditation, so we have to maintain in compliance with our creditors. That doesn't violate tribal sovereignty. Tribal colleges are federally recognized. We're going through that process right now towards federal recognition. It's a long process to apply for that, and that opens up the federal funding and, you know, those things. And there's a lot of compliance issues with the federal. So there is compliance that happens on these various levels that does not interfere with tribal sovereignty. So native tribes have dual citizenship? So to speak. Not being an expert I want to caution not answering that but I can say that they do not pay out tuition at UCs or Cal States or in community colleges I know the state has done other things within those systems I know UC has fully California Yeah exactly That what I understand Correct

committee members for your fantastic questions and remarks. Let me first just I would say that I am deeply, deeply honored to be able to carry this bill for our tribal brothers and sisters and thank them for trusting me with it. As always, this is just one bill out of a bill package from our Native American caucus that also deals with issues of accreditation and articulation and of courses and all those type of things as well. And I think given the history of California and how it's treated our brothers and sisters, that we owe it to them to walk on this journey with them and help them to be successful and to ensure that whatever they feel like they need, that we do whatever we can to ensure that we are able to deliver. And so I believe that this bill is helping to do so. And as we continue to dive deeply into both costs and benefits to this, we just want to make sure that they know that we want to be with them every step of the way and be supportive every step of the way. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

No, we're not suggesting that.

I've been very clear. It's not effective for certain... What I'm trying to, and I really need you to listen to every detail of my words. What I'm saying is, is that when everyone is receiving, everyone is a diverse classroom.

Yes. And then after that, you are starting to see that there are some in the classroom who are not receiving the information so that they can actually know what's going on in terms of learning the material. What we're saying is, is that there then needs to be interventions, usually done after school.

Extra help. So what we're saying is, though, when you receive that extra help, there's different ways on giving that extra help. And what we're asking for.

But that's why you're not listening to me. The Black Caucus is saying that it is necessary because what we see on the ground. And so it may not be necessary for you and your community, but it is necessary for ours. And so what we're saying is, and unfortunately, there are, you use the word race, I use the word culture. It just so happens that the way we have been treated in this country, that race is tied to our culture. And so for us, it's the same thing. But for you, it could be different. And so what we're saying is, is that we know that there are clear ways that we can improve academic outcomes for different groups. But the way to do that will require us for doing something differently than what we're doing today. And when we advocate at the local level about what we need, the constant refrain is we can't because of Prop 209. So this ACA clarifies what you can and cannot do and still upholds the Supreme Court rulings that have come down when it comes to issues of unfair discrimination.

No, it isn't. But I mean, I would love to have further conversation with you. I think that this actually has been a healthy discussion, by the way, so I really appreciate it and has allowed for us to offer more context. But I just think that we're coming to two different conclusions. And I respect what your argument is. We're just making the case that all of our research shows as an African American community says that Prop 209 continues to have detrimental harm to our community.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And I have a couple of specific questions for the witnesses. But just as a preface, you know, having being one of the three API members of the Senate and having served on the Asian American admissions committee at UC Berkeley and having worked pre and post Prop 209 in this space and trying to grapple with it. I appreciate why we're here and we're dealing with the constitutional amendment because Prop 209 inappropriately amended the Constitution. The Assemblymember is not proposing a constitutional amendment for no good reason. There's no other way to achieve the objectives that he's trying to get to. But I have a couple of questions for the witness, and it's partly in the context, even though I've worked on this and supported Proposition 16, I think the specifics of this issue aside, the choice of the legislature to place on the November 2028 ballot, which may be the most important, even though we say this every time, the most important election ever for the entire world, that we have to pay close attention to what we're doing in that election. And I want to understand in particular how and why we think the result might be differently, but also I'm reflecting on what does it mean for that election if we center it on this question. But both the opposition and the support made some pretty broad claims here, but without really any specifics. And so I want to really get into this because we should abolish the notion that pre-Prop 209, it was an equity nirvana. That, you know, before Prop 209, that black and brown and Asian students were plentiful on campus and succeeding. And it was not the case. It was not the case. When all the tools that we say now are essential were there, we were only slightly further behind than we are today. And so let me start with the support witness if that all right Madam Chair because you indicated this would allow us to close the equity gaps And we haven actually heard any specific which is why I laid this question about what specifically are we talking about If it's not admissions policies, which a lot of the Prop 209 research afterwards showed, it was admission policies that caused the decline in black student admissions. If the bill doesn't touch that, what magic counseling or tutoring program is going to reverse centuries of structural and institutional discrimination that has created this? So, you know, UC's own advice has been that programs targeted by race or gender that don't provide preferences and benefits that aren't generally available to all or that are not targeted by race or gender but are targeted by factors that support the mission. There's a whole set of criteria out there. Can you give one or two examples of a project, a program, or a policy that we have reason to believe would make a breakthrough in terms of equity, particularly for African-American young people in California?

Fair point.

There are clear modalities.

But are school districts or colleges or others currently interpreting the law to prohibit that model?

Correct.

Correct. And the answer is yes. Would you agree?

And so two comments. First of all, it's a two-minute remark. I'd love to unpack more because these policies and strategies in the last 25 years, there's been more research around the work.

It wasn't Nirvana 25-plus years ago.

There fear of that We talk about I really appreciate Senator Choi comment I want to stay narrow to the question I also have a similar question for the opposition just very narrowly on specific programmatic. I'm familiar with the research and I agree. It's a very large claim to say that these edge cases, essentially things that are currently not allowed or not perceived to be allowed by Prop 2 and I, but would be, despite the Supreme Court's, not just its direct ruling in the Harvard case, but also more generally the legal principles and standards that have been set forth, that there is a set of programs and policies that would result in that. But let me turn to the opposition, which is the opposite question because you've described this as about the fears about discrimination, what have you. Given the federal jurisprudence on this and the exclusion of admissions and what have you, can you describe a specific, you know, program or policy that your concern would become legal under this, under ACA 7 that is not currently legal under both state law and the Constitution and federal jurisprudence?

Yes, but that's not my question, so I would ask you to.

The question is at my discretion. So, but my understanding of your testimony and your response just now is that you believe that even if financial aid started to be, you know, applied differently in California based on this legislation, that it would still be violative of federal case law.

But the essence of my question is, what is it about a modification or a repeal of certain provisions of Proposition 209 that would open the door that is not already, that's discriminatory in your view, that would not already be protected from your point of view by the federal case law?

Thank you. Thanks very much for your response. I think the do you have a specific okay a specific Very specific Again a specific program that would not be barred under under your understanding in Menor of federal case law and in Supreme Court decisions but would be allowed under Prop 209 that currently is not

Okay.

Madam Chair, I know that the time is tight, but I do think this is an important issue. It's why Proposition 209, I didn't support it in the first place, but it's certainly not contributing today to these protections because the federal case law and the decisions of the Supreme Court and the changes to the standards for every topic, every program, every policy that Proposition 209 way back when in the last century was intended to prevent from a discrimination perspective. federal law now does that already. And so we haven't heard under a lot of questions of any, not a single example of a program that would be up, would not be defeated at the federal level, but that would be allowed if this bill were to proceed that would advance discriminatory outcomes for any California, including API Californians. So I'm not totally convinced on the other side either, but it does seem to me that the concerns about this measure opening up lots of discrimination are not well-founded, given the changes in the case law that already exist. So thanks, Madam Chair, for the indulgence on the time. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm trying to go as quickly, but I think I resonated with the same concerns as Senator Choi and Senator Cabaldon in that I'm still trying to look for the modalities that you are trying to be able to basically have access to that are not currently available now, that could not be possible right now with our current system with Prop 209. And I'm still trying, and I know you said the Freedom School or the Freedom was an example, but I'm still trying to look to see what modalities are you referring to that need a race exemption in which you are trying. So that's what I'm trying to get at right now on that end. And I still don't quite understand where that race, because I understand that race and culture are the same, which is why I would probably argue on the sense that, well, if it's culture, then there's nothing that you could have access to that would prohibit you from contracting with such a service. but I'm trying to understand what modalities you're looking for, what resources you're looking for that do not allow you to use the culture-based under a current system.

And I understand that concept, which is why I'm trying to, for the record, try to bring light into what modalities or what services are you looking at that involve race or that clarify with your particular Constitution amendment that is not available right now. What does that look like? What is that so that we can understand what that is?

Examples?

But how is that delivered differently, which is a race or a culture component or a race component?

So culture.

Examples, where was the race-based part of it?

Okay, culture-based.

So what does that look like that cannot be done right now?

I understand that.

That still not answering the question as to what is it that would prohibit the evil doubt Again it not about prohibition though That my whole point You focusing on prohibition

Permissive language, because right now the hesitation would say no because of why.

Such as an example.

The public needs to understand, Dr. Jackson, is that I don't think people really understand why this is needed as to what practices are not available right now or accessible if it's based on culture. And that's what we're trying to figure. That's what I'm trying to get that out of you so that people can understand what exactly is not able to be provided right now that you need to have clarification as to what this means. Because otherwise, all they're going to focus on is you're providing preferential treatment for someone based on race rather than trying to clarify what practices are not currently available.

And I think that's where I'm trying to come.

Okay. Because culturally speaking, one of the things that I was looking at, and, of course, as you said, you know, I'm a Latina. I can't speak for your experiences, but overall, I think we're human. And as human beings, I'd rather focus on what we have in common and try to focus on that end. And as a student, as an English language learner student that I was as a child, I can tell you that, you know, I had experiences that you probably did not experience, and I completely understand, but it was more of, you know, language accessibility when I was a kid. I was eight when I started learning English. opportunities that I missed because I didn't speak English properly, math experiences. So there's a lot of things that I can look at academically, language barriers that were not available at the time when I was a child in Hawaii, especially in Hawaii when I was a kid, that I can understand based on needs, right? So that's why I'm trying to help you make a point. But I don't think we're getting there. I don't think any of us are getting to the point that we're trying to get that across. But regardless, there are things. So that was my question. I do have a question for Dr. Harriet. Give me one second. Madam Chair, through the chair, of course. I'm trying to be. Let's try to be.

Why would that be and how does federal law apply here?

You basically taking you know the red cape and waving it Thank you I appreciate your answer I think I will not be supporting the bill today but I do want to emphasize the fact that aside from economics, aside from, you know, economics probably being the underlying need, which, you know, many a times we don't have or students come in without a lot of financial security. There's a lot of needs, you know, experiences that are not are not provided for. And so I I look more of an economic perspective as far as trying to address the, you know, a lot of the needs for, you know, you're talking about the whole child. With the local funding formulas that we have right now, you know, really focusing on our English language learners, focusing on economic disparities that we have that impacts many black and brown community members, and opportunities when it comes to education as far as, you know, reading material. We have ethnic studies right now where, you know, depending on the school demographic, the schools can cater literature based on the ethnic makeup of those particular schools that would, you know, incentivize different cultures to be able to have more keen interest in what is being taught, you know, to try to get them in and get them engaged into reading perhaps or history, whatever it may be. I think we have a lot available within our scope of resources and funding that we give our low social economic demographic, the additional funding that schools receive based on that. Also, you know, when we have our schools that have 55 or more of their student population not meeting the economic threshold of financial security, they get additional funding for schools. And then how those schools, that administration goes and contracts for services or provides those services to meet the needs of children's reading or math or physical, psychological. We have so much available right now, and I haven't seen where and how, what specific practices are race-based. And I know it's, you know, going back and forth with the culture race. But I don't see anything that would need or suffice to or not suffice, but need race to be excluded or needed or exempted that could not be under the cultural practice, such as, you know, when I met, you know, if we had a predominantly black school, why they couldn't have more books on the black American experience or history. So I really, I'm not seeing where we're missing at that point. So with that, I'm going to respectfully, I have other cats, but we can talk separately on that end. But I don't see the justification.

Then we can have a follow-up conversation. Thank you for bringing this forward and thank you to our witnesses. And I will respectfully not be supporting the bill today.

Thank you very much, and thank you for your patience, and thank you for the thoughtfulness of all of our colleagues. You know I love you dearly. Two things. Number one, in terms of a specific example that the Black Caucus has run into, I'll refer you to AB 2774 by Wilbur Pearson about two years ago where we tried to make sure that there were LCFF dollars targeted specifically to student groups, the lowest achieving student groups. And because the lowest achieving groups, the lowest achieving group were African Americans, we were told we cannot direct funding towards them. Because even if you go by economics, it is still not getting to the students who need it the most, which is why in local control plans, you start to see this category of it helps every student. And every time you say every student, Every time you say anything less than what it is, a particular group, then the funding actually never gets to them. And ever since the local control funding formula existed, we have seen that. But we were particularly told that we cannot do it because of Prop 209. And that's in regards to the LCFF. The messaging is equally as important. And the reason why we tried to get this done last year, but because of our traditions, we always wait to the last minute that only gives us max five months to make the case on some of the most complicated issues. So why do we move it to 2028? So we can actually get the time to educate people and to put together the case in a respectful way that it deserves. But if we continue to do it the way we've been doing it, we never make the time to make sure we fully educate communities on the complexities of issues like this that incorporates history that incorporates trauma that incorporates various dynamics depending on the various diversity of California And so the Black Caucus sees this as one of its top priorities and really an existential threat to our ability to be able to thrive here in California. And we see it time and time again. We're not making these things up. These are real things. And if the shoe doesn't fit, then it doesn't apply to you. But that doesn't mean that it should not apply to our specific circumstances. And again, we do not touch higher education. We do not touch any type of preferential type initiatives. But what we are saying is if there's groups that we see that are falling through the crack, we need the ability to rescue them. And that's all the Black Caucus is asking for us to do. So with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 1659. This is an important bill to ensure that court school students receive adequate support when they transition into school from detention back into their home districts. This bill builds upon California's longstanding commitment to protecting vulnerable youth by bridging the gap in transition and supporting the process. Current law requires the county offices of education to have designed transition or designated transition personnel that assist students as they enter and leave court school. Yet there is no requirement for corresponding personnel at the receiving school district. The process of youth transitioning from court school back into their home school district is a crucial step in their reintegration in our communities. Without strong transitional support, our youth are subject to delays and even failure to successfully re-enroll. This bill supports the transition between court school and home district schools by requiring a receiving district to designate an existing staff member to support the student when re-enrolling. Additionally this bill will clarify existing law that requires the assignment of course credit to be completed in two days for all highly mobile youth including migratory children and newcomer students Further clarifying this timeline would support these students in continuing their education without the additional academic disruption and potential long delays. AB 1659 centers the most vulnerable students in our education system and provides them the necessary support for the students during the high risk transition periods. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Oh, and with me, I'm so sorry. Today, I have in support Jessica Good, who's the principal of Butler Academy, and Joy Hernandez, who's a staff attorney at San Mateo Legal Aid. And I'll now turn it over to my witnesses. Can you hear me? Oh, awesome.

And Madam Chair, our last witness is here for technical support, Lucy Salcido. She's the Director of Policy and Governance with the Alameda County Office of Education. Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon. Christina Salazar with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools and on behalf of the California County Superintendents in strong support. Bella Kern on behalf of Santa Clara County Office of Education in support. Aiden McBride. Sarah Kaminsky on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators in support. Vanessa Flores on behalf of Alameda County in support. Thank you. Sadabaj is with Children Now in support. Sam Nasher on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support. Addison Peterson with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in strong support. Thank you. Bella Kern on behalf of San Francisco Unified School District in support.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and also thanks to the author for our conversations about the bill as well and her clarifications of what's going on with it. I do want to just point out for the bill that the bill allows districts and county officers to designate an existing staff person and not a new one. That said, I do want to and I'm going to support the bill today. I think I appreciate with the author's leadership and work on this. On the fiscal side, just to point out, because I know I think it's the case for the author as well. But several of the districts and county officers in my Senate district already do this. They're doing the best practice. And just the fiscal challenge that we have to grapple with is that when we require the addition of a staffer or even the designation of a staffer here in Sacramento, that means now that those districts, and I'm glad to get them the money, but it means the districts, school districts and county officers that are already doing it will now have to be reimbursed by the state for the same activities they were already undertaking. That means, given that Proposition 98 is a fixed amount of money, it does mean less money for other K-12 purposes. And so we, that's why it's important, you know, that's one of the, it's why, speaking to the Assembly of Remetta, we have to be very, very cautious and humble about how much we tell school districts and county offices exactly what to do. Not in the policy domain but how to organize their daily activities and their operations and their spending because then that imposes direct costs not just on us but really on the rest of the school system So I going to support the bill today We have that question in appropriations as well But it's not a problem in the bill in any way. It's the normal way in which we do business. But it's just a highlight that even when we're asking existing folks to do something, it does mean that under the Constitution for us, we would now be legally obligated to reimburse even those who were already undertaking that activity. So thanks to the author. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I first want to start by thanking the witnesses and all of those who came at the very last minute, because we didn't know this was going to be heard today, to add their voice to the importance of this bill. As was previously stated, when students are going into court school, they are supported. it's equally as important, I would say priceless, to get them that support when they are reintegrated into the community to ensure that they are successful. AB 1659 is about entering students and building systems that fully support them during a very vulnerable transition period. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Yes, ma'am. And I have witnesses that I would like to ask to join us. But if it's okay with you, I'll start with the bill. Thank you. All right, so again, thank you Madam Chair and members. As we all know, transitioning into higher education, whether it's K-12 or adult, returning to the education system is a stressful time for students. But accessing higher education is far too difficult for students who have disabilities. There are thousands of students in California who receive academic accommodations because of diagnosed, documented disabilities. disabilities, but when those students start their higher education career, far too many are forced to prove that they are still living with a disability. Students who have an existing IEP or 504 plan and who have relied on those accommodations are being told, in essence, their schools no longer believe that they have those disabilities. They're being sent off for new diagnosis, especially students with chronic conditions. That is a stressful, time-consuming, and often costly experience. This is for someone who is sitting with their diagnosis in hand in their IEP. It's another roadblock in our education system setting them up on their way. I'm proud to say that Assembly Bill 1713, which was brought to me by a constituent who went through these struggles and now has children encountering the same challenge, is a solution to the problem we are facing. This bill is a straightforward opportunity to make sure that students with a documented disability can get supports they need they need without limiting the institution's ability to be flexible with their assessment process. AB 1713 requires the institution of higher education to accept an existing IEP or 504 plan which documents the disability of the student as proof of their diagnosis. This bill prevents academic institutions from requiring costly re-diagnosis that can discourage students from seeking accommodations they need. This bill is supported by the California Community Colleges who has said that the existing system can create duplicative requirements unnecessary financial and administrative burdens that delay access to critical education supports. While this bill has no opposition, I do understand that the University of California has submitted language to your committee regarding some concerns they may have. And while those amendments were not given to my office in time to discuss them, I'm committed to working with those who need me to, to make sure that we balance the needs of our students with the capabilities of our universities. We've had ongoing discussions, and I look forward to continuing those discussions as this bill moves forward. And with me today, I have to testify, is Khaloud Rashid with the Disability Resource Agency for Independent Living. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. If there's any other support witnesses, please use the mic at the railing.

All partially cited in support Anybody else All right we will now move on to witnesses in opposition Do we have any witnesses here to speak in opposition Seeing nobody rising, I will turn it over now to members of the committee. Do we have any questions or comments? Senator Cortese?

Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate you bringing this bill forward, Assemblymember Ransom, and my recommendation is an aye vote. You may close. Thank you. I appreciate this. I want to start by saying that it is so important that we realize that disabilities that students are facing, whether seen or unseen, are impediments to their education.

Thank you. Thank you. And the motion for AB 1713 is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee, and it's been moved by Senator Cortese. Secretary, if you can call the roll. Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bog? Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Thank you, and we will put that bill on call. Next, we have Assemblymember Fong, who's here in the room. Assemblymember Fong is going to be presenting 1829. That will be the last bill that we'll be hearing in this room. We are going to be moving to room 112 after we hear from Assemblymember Fong. I want to repeat that again for the other members that are listening. We are going to move to room 112 after we hear from Assemblymember Fong. We will have Senate Health Committee meeting in here. Assemblymember Fong.

Good afternoon to the chair and the esteemed members of the Senate. My name My name is Reynold Garcia. I am the president of the CalWORKs Association and the director of the CalWORKs program at Los Angeles City College. I'm here to advocate for our student parents, their families, and the communities they live in because strengthening our families makes California strong. Every day I witness as an educator the resilience of our student parents' balancing education, work, and family responsibilities. They are not just pursuing degrees, they are striving to uplift their families and communities. To support them, we need transformative legislation like California AB 1829. This bill introduced by Assemblymember Fung expands the CalWORKs recipient education program at our community college in crucial ways. First, it introduces direct basic needs aid. This provision allows colleges to provide essential resources like grants and other basic necessities, enabling students to focus on their studies without worrying about their basic needs. And next, the bill offers, as Assembly Fonks just said, work-study flexibility. By waiving the requirement for employers to contribute 25 percent of the student wages, we can increase job placement, including more off-campus opportunities. This will give student parents valuable experience in their major fields, allowing them to apply their classroom knowledge in real-world settings and better prepare for their careers. In summary, AB 1829 is a lifeline for our students and their families. It empowers them to thrive and build a stronger future for California. I just want to thank you all for your time and consideration. Good afternoon. Justin Selnick on behalf of the California Community College Chancellor's Office. I just want to thank the committee staff and the chair and the author for their collaboration on this bill and I'm here for any questions. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kathy Van Austin on behalf of the American Association of University Women California California in support.

Puja Lal with NextGen California in support. Khoise Tern with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization and on behalf of the Western Center Law and Poverty in support. Pati Moreno on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges Good afternoon Sara Abu on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success and Support Thank you.

I just want to thank you for, thank the Assemblymember for bringing this forward. I think that our students absolutely need this flexibility. I think if we want this self-sufficiency on a long-term basis, these are the sorts of things that we need to do. I like the comment. It's a lifeline. We're empowering our students. And I'm very happy to support this. Thank you.

You may close. Thank you so much, everyone, for your comments and I was so happy to ask for an aye vote.

We're going to call the Senate Education Committee back to order here in our relocated room of 112. and I was asked to call the meeting to order. The chair will be back in a few minutes, but in the meanwhile we can call Assemblymember Gibson up on AB 1943. If you're ready, you may present. It's file item 18, correct? 19. 19, I'm sorry, I'm looking at an old list. Apologies. Also, I'm going to be presenting for Ms. McKenna. So 1860 first, file item number 16. I'm doing Ms. McKenna's first. I mean, I'm doing McKenna's and also my own. Let me just clarify. There was just some confusion with the audio here. So it is file item 18, but it's AB 1943, correct? And the Assemblymember is Gibson. And so that part was understood. And I apologize if I cut you off. Please proceed. You going to present Assemblymember McKenna bill first Is that the idea I could do file item 18 first and then McKenna Let's go ahead and do it that way then. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members, thank you very much for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1943, which will update and expand the way that information regarding secured firearm storage is relayed to parents and guardians. I'd like to start with some horrifying statistics. Gun violence are the number one killer of children in the United States. This is not just a statistic. It is a dangerous oversight that we have both the authority and the responsibility to eliminate here in the United States. As recent study shows, if half, and I want to underscore, if half of the households with unlocked firearms storage store themselves safely, about one and third of youth firearms, suicide, and accidental shooting deaths could be prevented. That's roughly about 250 lives each year. Assembly Bill 1943 ensures that secure firearm storage materials, we're talking about materials, are easily understood, easily defined and given to their families who need them. It requires that materials regarding secure storage be written in plain language, easy for parents and guardians to understand. It encouraged school districts and charter schools to post notifications on their websites and encourage them to share on digital platforms that they have access to. This bill also encouraged schools to share this information with parents, caregivers, when a student is disciplined or given support because of a threat towards others or themselves for harm and before school shooting drills takes place. Lastly, Assembly Bill 1943 requires that the Department of Education includes secure fire storage notifications on their website serving as an example for all schools. It is imperative that we use every tool in our toolbox at our disposal to prevent children, underscore children and teenagers, from accessing guns. Schools can be a key factor in spreading life-saving information about secure fire storage. Here with me to speak in support of this measure are representatives from Everytown for Gun Safety who were self-introduced and also a student from UC Davis who will also self-introduce. Okay. Here you go.

Thank you. Okay. Hello. My name is River Baker. Thank you for the chance to testify today. I'm a student at the University of California, Davis, and an officer for the Students Demand Action Chapter there. I'm here today to express my support for Assembly Bill 1943 because I am a survivor of gun violence. My experience with guns is more extensive than I'd like to admit. I grew up in a household in a town where accessible guns were incredibly normalized My uncle was murdered with a gun He was shot multiple times and the person responsible was never caught Despite this loss I continued to spend the majority of my life in a household where guns were incredibly accessible something I was disproportionately impacted by as a member of the LGBTQIA plus community. As a trans person surrounded by transphobic rhetoric growing up, I tried desperately hard to be someone I wasn't. I hated so much about myself and many of the people around me had no problems expressing their hatred too, especially peers at school. This pulled me into a very dark place that was a lot easier to envision because I knew I had easy access to an improperly stored weapon. Knowing this made making a plan easier. It made suicide a viable option for me. Every day I am grateful that I didn't succeed. My life is so much more than I ever thought it could be. But as someone who's experienced suicidal thoughts and behaviors, I can tell you that having readily available guns in my home made these significantly worse. That is why I'm in favor of AB 1943, which would ensure that families know how to safely store guns. This bill would improve upon California's previous safe storage notification law by doing more than just having parents check through a policy with a million other papers they get at the beginning of the year. Instead, parents would also receive information on safe storage when a student has experienced or taken part in bullying or shown signs of mental health struggle like I did. This bill will also make the information about secure storage laws easier to understand. Together, these efforts could have a massive effect on ensuring that the people most impacted by safe storage are frequently receiving information on it. So I ask you to support this bill for the people struggling like I did. Ensure that they also have a chance to see that it can get better. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Megan Simmons, Associate Director of Government Affairs at Everytown for Gun Safety. We're proud sponsors of AB 1943 and very grateful to Assemblymember Gibson for bringing this bill forward. As members of the committee may know, in 2022, California became the first state in the country to pass a statewide requirement that schools send out information about secure firearm storage. The current law requires a notice to go out once per year at the start of the school year. In practice, we have often seen this notice be buried in dozens of forms, like River mentioned, and it's received at a time and in a format that's not particularly conducive to gun-owning parents and caregivers taking time to reflect on whether their own firearm storage practices need to change. These annual notices, of course, are better than nothing, but with an issue as important as making sure kids and teens can't access guns in the home, we know that we can do better. We've identified several key ways that this law can be even more effective, and that is what you see before you in AB 1943. This bill will make secure firearm storage information easier to understand, easier to find, and more likely to go to families at times when the information can be the most impactful. It will require the notification content focus more on information about the risks of unsecured firearms and resources. Descriptions of state law will be written in plain language that parents and caregivers can better understand. It'll encourage school districts to share secure firearm storage information on digital platforms, including social media accounts, and will encourage schools to provide storage information in key moments, like when a school counselor is meeting with parents because a student has indicated suicidal intent, or when a student has been involved in an incident of bullying or threats of violence. Thank you for the time. I'm available for any questions, and we ask for your iVote on AB 1943.

Yard. It all volunteer with moms demand action in support. Thank you. Tammy Shaw volunteer with NorCal gun violence prevention in support. Thank you. Shelly Hudson volunteer with NorCal gun violence prevention, moms demand action and a retired forensic specialist and gun violence survivor in support. Amy Seropian volunteer with NorCal gun violence prevention. in support. Good afternoon Sam Nasher on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education support. Good afternoon Sasha Horwitz Los Angeles Unified School District in support. McLean Rozanski with the Alameda County Office of Education

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to appreciate the author for bringing this forward. I particularly focused on, in the analysis on page 2 of 6, on item 1A, focusing on youth and both accidental deaths. And I think, unfortunately, more and more we're seeing self-infliction. I know my county, based on coroner reports, not just at the youth level, but at the overall adult and youth population, that about two-thirds of the coroner sees when they use the moniker of gun violence are self-inflicted cases. And so much of that is somebody having, as we know, as you know, you wouldn't bring the bill otherwise, sudden onset of a mental health episode that wasn't expected. People maybe didn't think there was going to be any risk or threat in the household. Maybe the youth were trained well on guns or firearms because they're outdoors, because of their outdoors activities. And all of a sudden, there's a different world that sets in. and the availability of that firearm is literally a matter of instant life or death. So I am both an outdoors person. I coach the outdoor caucus here, but I also recognize the need for safe storage. Wherever it's practical, and certainly practical in homes, it's absolutely mandatory and necessary. So thank you for bringing the bill forward, and I'm happy to move it. if that's appropriate.

I'll be very brief. I want to say thank you very much to the committee and thank the senator for his comments in this space. I want to thank my witnesses and Rivers. Thank you very much for being here and being bold and sharing your tragedy with all of us. I WANT TO SAY THIS IS, AGAIN, A THOUGHTFUL APPROACH. INFORMATION IS KEY. WE BELIEVE THAT IF WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION BEING DISSEMINATED PARENTS AND GUARDIANS AND CAREGIVERS WILL BE ARMED WITH THIS INFORMATION AND BE MINDFUL AS A FORMER CITY COUNCILMEMBER IF INFORMATION WAS SHAPED information being disseminated parents and guardians and caregivers will be armed with this information and be mindful As a former city council member if information was shared even within my own community when I was a city council member, we believed wholeheartedly that a particular young man would still be alive today in my community. Two cousins lived next door to each other, and one cousin was a year older than the other, got to the uncle's house playing, discovered a gun, and pointed at his cousin. And you can fill in what happened from there. And as council members, when something like that happens in our city, especially when a gun is involved, all council members are notified, went to the sheriff's department, and this child at nine years old was like a zombie when I laid eyes on him. Knowing what happened, the tragedy, it's hard to unring a bell. It's hard once a gun is found and, you know, something tragic like that happened. But if information was provided where parents, school, communities alike was informed and safe storage was more readily available, we believe that these kinds of incidents would not happen. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you very much as my witnesses are approaching. I want to say thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. On behalf of Assemblywoman Ms. McKenna, I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 1860. This bill would authorize design, build, and progressive design, build for the county of office of education, COE, align COE authorized with the K-12 districts and community colleges, and improve projects, coordinations, reduce delay, and increase efficiency. This bill would also preserve all applicable prevailing wage and labor standards. The County Office of Administration, COE, are responsible for building and maintaining some of the most complex and specialized educational facilities in the state. However, COE currently lacks access to modern projects, delivery tools widely used in public education. Without design bill authorization, COE face delays, high costs, and fragmented oversight of projects as COE constructions needs growth. There is a risk that some contractors can exploit gaps in procurement authorizing to undercut wages, safety standards, and apprenticeship standards. AB 1860 has received bipartisan support and received no votes in the assembly. Here with me individuals who will speak in support and they will self as the political communication director of the International Union of Painters and Allies Trade District 16 as well as a legislative advocate with the state and building construction trade council whoever wants to go first please proceed and introduce yourselves thank you for being here yes there you go good afternoon madam chair and members of committee my name is Mike Greenlee I'm with district council 16 painters and allied trades here speaking support of AB 1860 it addresses a real gap in how California builds educational facilities. AB 1860 is a straightforward modernization. It simply allows county offices of education to use the same design build and alternative design build tools the school districts already have already used successfully for years. These tools help deliver projects faster, reduce change orders, improve coordination. Importantly AB 1860 does not create new labor rules or new mandates. It only extends an existing proven framework. Some opponents argue that extending this authority will significantly restrict competition or push agencies toward project labor agreements because of skilled and trained workforce requirements. But those requirements already apply to every school district using design bill today. Districts across California, large and small, urban and rural, have completed hundreds of projects under these exact same rules. If the problems described in the opposition letters were actually happening, districts would have abandoned design bill a long time ago instead they continue using it because it works. Another concern raised is about the experience modifications rate safety standard and the interaction between skilled and trained workforce and project labor agreements. But again AB 1860 does not create these policies they already exist in part of Education Code 17250. What this bill is for is solving real inequity. County offices of education are responsible for some of the most complex and urgent facilities in our system. Yet they are one of the only major education agencies that cannot use the same modern construction tools that districts rely on. This slows down projects students depend on. AB 1860 fixes that. It gives COEs the same flexibility, the same guardrails, the same accountability that already exists for school districts, nothing more. This bill simply ensures that every student, no matter which system serves them, benefits from efficient, high-quality school construction. And for those reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Constructive Trades Council of California. I'll be brief. The design-build contracting method is meant to include skilled and trained workforce, which ensures high-quality construction, enhances safety, protects taxpayer investment, and verifies that workers are qualified through state-approved apprenticeship programs, which I might add exist both in union and open shop circumstances. circumstances. These requirements promote a qualified workforce, preventing construction defects, and ensuring structural longevity. Assembly Bill 1860 will bring those design build contracts up to the same standards as other agencies using them and will promote fairness and equity across all public

Madam Chair, members, Bob Giroux on behalf of Payters District Council 36, Southern California, in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Vilek Ting with the American Council of Engineering Companies in strong support. Thank you.

Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California, an association made up of union and non-union contractors in respectful opposition to Assembly Bill 1860. AGC has long supported the responsible use of alternative project delivery methods, such as design-build and best-value contracting when they help public agencies deliver projects more efficiently and effectively. Our concern with this bill is not the expansion of design-build authority itself. Our concern is that the bill extends a procurement framework that carries existing skilled and trained workforce requirements and other labor mandates that can significantly limit contractor participation on county Office of Education projects. In many parts of California, apprenticeship programs' capacity and graduation rates vary significantly by trade and region. When skilled and trained workforce requirements are layered onto projects, many otherwise qualified contractors become ineligible to participate, reducing competition and increasing project costs. The committee analysis notes that this bill imports the entire existing framework applicable to school district design build projects, including prevailing wage requirements, apprenticeship obligations, contractor registration requirements, and skilled and trained workforce mandates. County offices of education are responsible for stewarding limited public resources. They should have access to procurement tools that maximize competition and value. expanding a framework that narrows the bidder pool, risks driving up costs and reducing opportunities for local contractors, including small and emerging firms. AGC strongly supports workforce development. Through our Construction Education Foundation and our member companies, we are actively working to grow California's construction workforce. But expanding workforce mandates faster than workforce capacity can grow creates challenges for project delivery and public agencies alike. And for those reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1860.

Madam Chair, my apologies. I'm not here in opposition. Sarah Flux, California Federation of Labor Unions. We are here in strong support of AB 1860.

Well, I want to say thank you very much to the witnesses who came and gave up their time to support this particular measure, 1960. On behalf of Assemblywoman McKenna, we thank you and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Cortese?

Thank you Madam Chair, members appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2248. AB 2248 requires local educational agencies to notify parents through annual parent notification of the California College Guidance Initiative and encourage them to create create parent accounts. I will keep things brief. I know this committee has gone on quite a bit today but would greatly appreciate an I vote on this bill that I think helps address an information gap at the local level with parents and students appreciate an I vote thank you

Austin on behalf of the American Association of University of Women of California in support. Anybody else? Rachel Shacluna on behalf of the California Association of School Counselors in support. Great. Seeing

Cortese moves the bill. And Assemblymember Hoover, I support your bill. My recommendation is an aye vote if you would like to close. Just appreciate an aye vote. Thank you so much. Thank you. So we

Well, thank you very much, Chair, members. I rise. I don't rise. I'm here to present SCA 5, the Education Equalization Act, and I appreciate the opportunity very much. This bill should be familiar to most of you. Last year, my bill at the time, SB 743, passed out of this committee with a strong discussion and vote. And with your helpful guidance and feedback, we improved the bill as it made its way through the Assembly. The goal then was to vet the policy or the framework that you see today for a constitutional amendment. And I think we succeeded at that. I know Senator Cabaldon is not here today but besides the chair and staff effort over the period of more than a year and a half now Now besides all that effort and my gratitude there I do want to thank Senator Cabaldon for his efforts to really drill down specifically on a provision we ended up putting in the bill Over the last 40-plus years, California's public school finance structure has allowed per-pupil funding disparities between basic and non-basic aid school districts to persist and grow. So we've heard a little bit about that earlier today in a different context regarding a different piece of legislation. Even as the state has adopted reforms intended to make school funding more equitable, we still end up in this situation with not just disparities but growing disparities, disparities that now, by virtue of several sources, including the LAO's office, we've been able to document exceed $60 billion a year in disparities between basic aid and non-basic aid schools in the state. And again, that number is growing. If you think about it, it's close to 40% of the general fund budget that we have at our discretion already and growing. Kind of a monster. The funding disparities show up in student experience, of course, in access to academic support, in access to mental health services, in access to special education, in access to safe facilities, in the ability to attract and retain qualified teachers and staff. Just about everyone in this committee knows how all that works. SCA 5 creates an equalization reserve account to address that disparity in a measured, stable method over time. The account is based on the same rubric as a public school system stabilization account, which has a long acronym, PSSSA. And I want to say that the new equalization reserve account really would mirror in many ways the stabilization account. So instead of just having a stabilization account, we would then have, as a basis of this constitutional amendment, an untouchable equalization reserve account that could not be rated, that could only be directed to education equalization in our public school system. This framework is only funded, like the PSSA, in flush budget years. It's only funded with non-Prop 98 general fund dollars, so it has no impact or degradation of Prop 98 whatsoever. The deposits function only as principal deposit, as a corpus in an endowment-style interest-bearing account. The interest is what's used and is paid out to non-basic aid districts for the purpose of achieving parity with basic aid districts based on per-pupil calculations. This measure is affixed to a problem that's been growing, as I said, for over 40 years. It's a constitutional framework designed to build a stable, protected, long-term tool for the benefit of our students, teachers, administrators, and school districts. And it's there and being proposed today to reverse and begin to put a dent in 40 years of disparity that's growing. Again, really reverse that trend. And I'd like to turn to our principal witness and sponsor lead, Lisa Ander of the Silicon Valley Education Foundation, and very much appreciate all her work on this. Well, good afternoon, Chair Perez and members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today I here because we have seen firsthand how unequal funding affects our students and to emphasize the urgent need to address this problem now As we speak yeah it's two o'clock, right? Okay, so they're still in school. Across the state, students in one school district are using 3D printers, participating in hands-on STEM experiences, and traveling the halls of an art museum, while in another school district within the same county, students are cutting out cardboard shapes with scissors, watching a YouTube video about frog dissection, and learning about the ocean from a book. As a teacher, principal, and superintendent, and now CEO of an education foundation, I have experienced the near impossible task of preparing students to become productive and engaged citizens with limited resources, all because my school district was located in an area with limited property tax revenue. As a teacher, I made choices such as buying a ream of copier paper or new PE equipment from my classroom budget. As a principal, I had to choose between funding a school counselor or to reduce class size by hiring another math teacher. But my all-time favorite is as a superintendent having to choose between bargaining for a teacher professional development day or giving a 1% off the salary scale payment. Across the state, California's investment in a student's education varies within the same county. In Riverside and San Bernardino counties, the delta in average per-pupil funding between basic aid and non-basic aid districts is approximately $24,000 per year per pupil. In Santa Clara County, the Delta is approximately $13,000. Sacramento County consists of only non-basic aid school districts whose average per pupil funding is $10,400 per year per pupil, but this is an $8,000 below the basic aid average for all school districts in California. And according to the Learning Policy Institute, increasing funding by just $1,000 per student over three years resulted in a full grade level gain in reading and math. That is less than filling in the gap that I fully described earlier. This same three years, $3,000 investment led to an 8.2 percentage point increase in graduation rates and improved college readiness. The students of your assembly districts in the state deserve more than a promise of an education. They deserve an equal opportunity to thrive because of their education. So thank you to Senator Cortese, and happy birthday, for authoring this bill, and thank you committee members for your consideration.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm with the Association of California School Administrators. I apologize for not having a letter submitted on time, but we are in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Kat Brackman with the California School Employees Association in support.

Senator Choi. Thank you. In the morning I mentioned about this basic aid versus LCFF funding formula in comparison to Newport Beach Newport Mesa and Irvine situation It was a very unfair discrepancy So I hope this new proposal through the constitutional amendment will fix that kind of disparity that existed, you said, in the 40 years. So I stated 30 years is more than 30 years, 40 years. So I'll be supporting your bill this morning, this afternoon. Thank you.

And then I'd love to make a motion.

Senator Cabaldon. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think to the author for the continued work on this,

Thank you, Senator Cabolden. Can I ask more questions? Yes, Senator Choi. I would like to raise one question.

I know we've also heard other bills related to Prop 98 funding and the local control funding formula today and have had just more kind of larger discussions about the fact that equity gaps continue to persist, right, for a number of our districts throughout the state. And as we see enrollment decline, as, you know, we see our districts face different challenges trying to figure out how to address some of those gaps. I appreciate what you're trying to do here with this proposal, particularly for some of those non, you know, basic aid school districts and, you know, taking into account some of the specific needs that they have in trying to create this new account to cover some of those gaps. It's not going to entirely eliminate them, but to try to reduce the gap. I do think it's an interesting concept to create a constitutionally protected funding structure that operates largely outside of our traditional kind of budgetary constraints. And it's certainly a different idea and a different approach. I think more largely what needs to happen, and I think you've kind of heard this as we've discussed these items, throughout the day is really kind of revisiting the local control funding formula and revisiting some of these discussions around Prop 98, especially as we know so many of our districts are facing declining enrollment. And I think we're coming up, well, we're past actually the 10-year anniversary of the LCFF at this point. So it's probably a worthy conversation for us to have. So I know we've met about this. I appreciate the work that you've done to not just your bill last year, but on this constitutional amendment this year. I will be supporting your bill today and look forward to continuing to have discussions with you and other members about how we create a more equitable funding system for our local school districts. I'll go ahead and turn it over to you to close.

Thank you, Senator Cortese. So we do have a motion from Senator Choi on SCA 5, and that motion is be adopted and re-referred to the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee. Secretary, can you please call the roll? Senators Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bo. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez. Gomez-Rez. Great. and we will put that bill on call. I am going to run over to Senate Health, so I'm going to pass the gavel to Senator Cabaldon. We'll be back shortly. All right. Pursuant to our file order rule, we'll proceed next to Assemblymember Pellerin, who has before the committee AB 2107. Welcome, and please proceed when you're ready.

All right. Thank you, Assemblymember. Are there anyone that wishes to provide testimony in support of the bill? Any opposition?

Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Anyone in opposition? For two minutes or for me, too? Okay, then we'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. That's all right. It's been moved by Senator Choi. No questions. No questions. Okay, yeah. I think for me, I am going to support the bill. I am, you know, like you come from local government and dealing, and from the school system as well, And I think it is a challenge when the state very precisely and definitively manages these kinds of moments where you have an out-of-school opportunity that the school or a partnering nonprofit is putting together. and maybe a family that did all the work to help launch the program and got all the partners and donated all the instruments and whatever, and they're not quite poor enough for the free and reduced lunch program, but they're struggling and they can't afford any private opportunities. It's heart-wrenching to be able to say, no, you can't. As long as somebody else walks in the door that's in one of these categories, you can't be considered and I and we do this all the time it's this is not it's not really about the bill which is I'm going to vote for it where where I think we we've we focus so much on always making sure that we're that we're paying attention to the most vulnerable that we sometimes forget that the next most vulnerable Californians are also facing massive challenges and struggles and are looking for basic opportunities for their kids also to learn into into social into being social settings that are curated and all of so so I no problem with the bill I think we you know we we I just want to see I want us to see the rest of Californians as well that are not what are not wealthy enough to make their own opportunities and yet don't happen to be foster youth English language learners are free and reduced life free and reduced price lunch recipients and we've got to if we if we want broad support for our democracy and for our government. We have to see them, too. So anyway, with those comments, why don't we invite Senator Pellerin to close?

All right. The chair's recommendation on this is due pass. Is there a motion? I'm sorry. Senator Choi has already made the motion, so if there's no further discussion or debate, please call the roll. Motion is due pass. Senator Perez, Ochoa Boog, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzales? Gonzales Gomez-Reyes. We'll place the measure on call. Thank you so much.

All right. Next up, we have Assemblymember Colosa. Oh, did she just step out? All right. If we have calls to lift that involve any of the three members that are present, why don't we proceed? I'll just start from the top, okay? okay file item 2 a before to Patel motions do pass to Senate appropriations committee actually let's move on to file item 11 ACA 7 Jackson motion is be adopted and re-referred to the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee. Current vote is four ayes and one no, with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Cabaldon? Cabaldon aye. Choi? No. Choi no. So that is five to two. All right, let me spend the lifting of the calls at the moment. In order to proceed to our final author for the day, which is Assemblymember Coloza, who's here to present ACA 18. Welcome, and you're free to begin when you're ready.

Welcome, Elish, I have two minutes. Good afternoon, Chair Cabaldon and members. My name is Adriani Silvano with the UC Student Association representing the over 237 undergraduate students at nine UC campuses across the state I am a proud first immigrant and alumni of UC Riverside here in support as the sponsor of ACA 18 The UC system bound by constitutional autonomy is governed by a Board of Regents and policy is implemented by the UC Office of the President. Regents are appointed solely by the governor to serve 12-year terms primarily composed the people who graduated many years ago and have backgrounds in investments, health or policy, have donor ties, and rarely engage with students outside of their direct obligations at Regents meetings bimonthly. Over the last couple years, we witnessed how decisions made at the table can have monumental repercussions on current and future UC students, including the crackdown on student and faculty free speech, the re-approval of UC's cohort tuition model despite attempted negotiation and immense opposition, a struggle to prioritize basic needs and student services, and the alarming increase in total cost of attendance through housing and non-resident student tuition fees. Despite these realities, the only student voice heard at the decision-making table is a single student regent and their student regent designate. And often, a student voice has much more power and sway than their designate counterpart to warrant both consultation and tangible bargaining power AC 18 through its addition of a second voting student regent will increase student voice and decisions that directly impact them such as tuition and fees non-tuition costs basic needs housing research and more students are not a monolith so more than one student should should be consulted in decisions that have vast impacts across the state a second voting student regent will also allow the UC to have parity with our CSU and CC counterparts with two voting student members AC 18 will allow the UC to keep at pace with its student growth as student enrollment has more than doubled since the first student regent role was created more than 50 years ago the UC is the third and I have to ask you to wrap up the UC is the third largest employer the fourth largest economy in the world which speaks to the global impact of its community and with this I respectfully ask the committee to vote yes on AC 18 and ensure the voices of more than 300,000 UC students are being heard. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Alexis Setzielski-Zaragoza, and I served as the 47th student regent on the University of California Board of Regents. I also served on the California Community College's Board of Governors, making me the only student to have been on two major higher education system boards in California history. I was the first undergraduate transfer student at UC and the second ever Native American regent on the board. In my college career, I have had the honor of representing over 2.6 million students in California. It has been over 50 years since the student regent position was created. And in that time, we have driven some of UC's greatest accomplishments, having basic needs committees, housing investigations, and campus policing reform. Without us, these topics could be ignored. Some people think that one vote won't make a difference. They're wrong. When the regents voted for cohort tuition, I was able to make critical amendments. When students came to us with problems that had been ignored by administration for years, we were able to fix them within days. We're the only individuals on the board that must have a current relationship with the campus community. In the entire history of the board, only 4% of all governor-appointed regents have had a background in education. The student regent's input is essential to good governance. Doubling student representation also helps to create a board that is actually reflective of Californians. For example, in the last 158 years of the board's A total of four regions have been Native American for 36 years that number was two because of two student regents myself and Jacqueline Ross in 1987 ACA 18 also not only increases the number of students voting it seeks to implement a guaranteed undergraduate and a graduate voting seat Even though undergraduates make up roughly 79% of the student population Only four undergraduates have served as a student regents since 2004 that is four undergraduates in 23 years years. I was the only undergraduate student in the last 11. Having a guaranteed seat for both populations is necessary to properly represent the wide spectrum of student needs. At a time when our federal government is actively targeting our democratic institutions, we cannot afford symbolic gestures, so I urge this committee to move ACA 18 forward and to send a clear message that California will not wait for Washington to value our students and our democracy. We will do it ourselves. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Perez and members. My name is Karina Paredes on behalf of Public Advocates and strong support, and also on behalf of the Education Trust West. Thanks for your time.

I served in the urban school district and we had high school board member even though we did not authorize any voting rights but there was a voice for the student body and since you served on the board what was your experience out of 26 board members and your one student representation when you spoke with the receptive or reflective of your opinions and affected on their decision-making yes so you know speaking of coming from the experience of being on both the community college board of governors and this one I can see that both definitely valued my voice and my input in different ways but they both did I think the important note about this and making sure that the student is a voting student in particular and increasing the voting population on the board. It's very important because, for example, you're able to create motions and put forward amendments. And so, for example, with the cohort tuition bill that or legislation policy that had gone through a few years ago while I was a voting member, I was able to propose certain amendments like increasing the amount that would go back to students from that tuition or making sure that we are checking in in five years to make sure that the increase in tuition is actually working for students So those sort of things can not be done if you are not a voting student But I think that the board does value the voices It just helps to have a vote. So this bill not only increased a certain board member from one to two, but that both will have a voting rights in there from the beginning, or was a waiting period the one alternating? Yes. Can you explain? Yes, so there would be two voting students. One would be a graduate, one would be an undergraduate, and each one would have their own designate. And so the same way that it works right now where a student comes in and then the student that was there previously as a designate, a non-voting member, would move forward to the voting member seat, and then it continues to cycle out. The same thing would happen, but one of the positions would be a graduate student and the other one would be an undergraduate student. Does that help? Should I re-explain? Okay, so how are they selected by the student body or being appointed? Yes, there's a long process, and the process is primarily decided by students, actually. So students will write in their applications. Those applications will go to what's called the Council of Presidents for students, which is their, each campus has a student association, and those student associations have a president. So all the presidents meet. They put forward some of those applications to the next stage. Then UCSA and UCGPC, which is the graduate counterpart to UCSA, statewide student government, then move forward two to three applicants to a subcommittee of the Board of Regents. So the Board of Regents have final say, but the students direct what two to three students will be put forward as options for the regents, and then the regents decide. So when the student body selects the representation, the existing board members need to accept where that person is, they don't have to approve, so to speak. Do they? Yeah, the Board of Regents do have the power to send the students back and ask for more if they are not satisfied with the two to three that are sent to them, but I don't think that's happened historically. Most of the time they're satisfied with the students that are put forward. Thank you.

close. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for your comments and always appreciate your institutional knowledge. Senator Cabaldon would love to work with you on how we can further strengthen AC18. We want to make sure that what we're putting forth to the voters hopefully is something that can stand the test of time and also take into account some of the things that we've known have happened. And so you'll be critical in that. And thank you as well to Senator Choi for your questions. We appreciate you. And thanks as well to Adriani and Alexis for your testimony. I think that this is timely. It's needed. And I think that it's time that we continue to put students first, and I know that they're watching right now from their laptops to see what happens with this, and they care so much about ACA 18, and so I appreciate everyone's support in getting this to the next step. So respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.