Assembly Education Committee

Hello.

Good afternoon.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am here to present Assembly Bill 2148, a simple measure that seeks to prohibit artificial intelligence from replacing education workers. We know that we're in the midst of an AI revolution and that so much of the technology is rolling out in real time where we really don't fully understand the full implications of what its impact is going to be on the future of education. This is a simple but important first step in addressing this AI revolution that we are experiencing in real time. And before I go any further, I'd like to accept the committee amendments. With me to testify in support of the bill is Jeff Freitas, the president of the California Federation of Teachers, and Catherine Brackman, representative of the California School Employees Association.

Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we'll take any public comments in support. Please line up to the microphone. State your name, affiliation, and position on the bill only. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Committee members. Brian Maramontes with California Teachers Association in support.

My name is Arian Adam Chicova, a 24-human high school Spanish teacher. I've been teaching for 24 years. I still use paper and pencil and face-to-face communication.

Arian Adam Chicova, high school Spanish teacher, and a member of CTA. And I strongly, strongly support humanizing education.

Good afternoon, Christine.

Dorothy Johns on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators. We are grateful for the work with the author and the committee to address our deepest concerns, and this removes our opposition that was expressed previously. So I'm kind of at tweeter position. Thank you for the grace.

Christina Marcellus on behalf of the Small School Districts Association. look forward to reviewing the amendments, and we appreciate the work, and we'll certainly be back in touch once we've had a chance to see them in print. Thank you.

Lucy Salcedo-Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. We're in a similar position waiting to see the amendments in print, but have been opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I think, you know, with the amendments, we're definitely striking a good balance. I guess my question is, you know, it's interesting we had a Spanish teacher test or not testify, but speak in support as well. But one of the challenges we're having in education right now is a shortage, right, of a lot of qualified teachers. and just want to make sure that as technology sort of improves that we're not creating roadblocks to using it to supplement, certainly not replace certificated qualified teachers. I just wanted to kind of hear your thoughts on that and how you view this bill and maybe future legislation as interacting with that challenge. Thank you. Maybe I'll start and see if our supportive witnesses want to jump in. But by Chair Hoover, as you and I know, we have seen the pendulum swing on education technology. And as parents, I think we've been seeing growing evidence about the impacts of technology on our children. We know that, as the chair stated, we're still seeing all of the technology being developed. And while there's promises of, you know, great potential in terms of supporting our teachers, supporting our educators, there's also the very real fear, as we're seeing in industries across our society, where job losses are already being seen at this early stage of the AI revolution. But I think one clear theme that we're seeing even at this early stage is the importance of the human connection that our children need to be taught by human beings, that they need to interact with human beings at the school front office, paraeducators. I mean, in identifying so many different categories of school employees, I think we all can intuitively recognize the importance of ensuring that AI doesn't replace that human contact, that human relationship. As long as we're human beings, we're going to need that human relationship. And so you know while much of the bill has been stripped out the principle that an educator needs to be a natural person I think is at the heart Again, this is a modest but important first step in recognizing that our educators need to be natural persons. But in terms of how specific technologies are going to continue to be developed and implemented, that is where we need to spend more time to address. and how do we make sure that we are taking advantage of AI as a tool while at the same time making sure that it's not harming our students as well as our staff? Appreciate that. Oh, yeah, sorry. If I can bring up legislation that you've actually supported before, I think the scarcity issue is something that we aren't just hearing from your question. I communicate with several international organizations. We brought the education, National Education Union from England here as part of the effort to discover what we needed to carry in legislation. They're carrying that same lectures. That's a creation that we create, that scarcity. And I know we talk about what we're it's hard to hire people, but we need to create solutions that aren't AI driven, because once we open that door, it's just going to propagate and then start erasing that opportunity. Look at go to a fast food restaurant. We now no longer order if you do if you do or not. But we no longer order from humans. We order from a screen and that's it will propagate even further. So we need to avoid that type of argument. And I appreciate that argument. And I appreciate your vote to increase salaries 50 percent to not have that scarcity. And there is that connection that we need to make sure we provide the professionalism for all educators. and we won't have that scarcity issue. But I think we need to avoid that question, but I appreciate it. No, and I agree with that. I think largely there are solutions there, right? And I do want to address that issue, but it is sort of a separate issue, right? So I think the goals of the bill are really good. I appreciate your work with the committee. And I do largely support this idea of the critical need of humans in the classroom and also maybe even a relook down the road at technology in the classroom as a whole and how we can maybe readjust some things there to help create more social interaction and engagement as well. We'll be supporting the bill today and be happy to be a co-author if you are looking for those. Absolutely. Thank you.

Aye, you're here. Patel here. Hoover? Here. Hoover here. Alvarez? Alvarez present. Bonta? Present. Present. Castillo? Here. Castillo here. Garcia? Lowenthal? Pelerin?

respectfully ask for aye vote.

Patel, aye. Hoover? Aye.

Alvarez, aye. Bonta? Aye. Bonta aye Castillo Aye Castillo aye Garcia Lowenthal Pellerin Zuber The bill has five votes and it is out Thank you

Thank you. I am here to now present AB 2202, a bill to establish the Closing the Achievement Gap Commission, an advisory body to the State Board of Education. We know that Closing the Achievement Gap has been the holy grail of public education for many, many years. And while we have many programs and billions of dollars being devoted to closing the achievement gap, we need to do a better job in making sure that our statewide systems are designed to improve the support that the state is providing to local educational agencies to promote their local efforts to close the achievement gap. And so that is the core proposal of this bill. And as you know, Madam Chair, this is part of a larger package of bills of which you and other members of this committee are carrying to focus on this critical issue of closing achievement gaps. With me to testify in support of the bill today is the sponsor of the bill, the California School Board Association, represented by Carlos Machado, as well as Tristan Brown, representing the California Federation of Teachers. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. Carlos Machado here on behalf of the California School Board Association, the proud sponsor of AB 2202. CSBA represents nearly 1,000 school districts and county boards of education tasked with local stewardship of the state's nearly 6 million students. While our locally elected trustees are held to a high standard of public accountability through elections, audits, and the school dashboard, they often find themselves operating within an uncoordinated state-level architecture. For too long, local leaders have had to navigate a series of disconnected mandates and ad hoc reforms that, while well-intentioned, often conflict with one another at the local level. AB 22.2 provides the State Board of Education with a vital mechanism to bridge this systematic gap. By establishing the Closing the Achievement Gap Commission, the bill creates a structured feedback loop between the local leaders and educators and state policymakers. The Commission will provide an important local perspective for the State Board of Education, including ground-level experience necessary to refine and update state programs, so they act as a strategic partner in local success rather than a source of regulatory friction. For CSBA members, AB 22.2 is about governance coherence. The bill addresses the dueling state and local priorities created by a fragmented state mandates that often dilute a board's ability to focus on student outcomes. By requiring the state board to consider the commission recommendations the bill ensures a level of transparency and shared responsibility that matches what is expected of local boards AB 2202 will help us move toward a state system that is organized for results On behalf of California schools and county trustees CSB asks for your aye vote on AB 2202. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members, Tristan Brown with the CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. Emphatically in support of this idea, because while we do have many, over 1,000 school districts that are implementing this vital program, we've always known that education is an issue of state concern. Even in the founding of our country, those folks who were putting together our constitutions understood that public education was something that had to be administered for the good of all, by the good of all. And this helps align that sort of 30,000-foot view as to the overall program of how we're doing, rather than relying on individual districts to helpfully submit program. This is not a rebuke of local control. In fact, it's something that could help assist where local control may have blind spots or be unable to see beyond their borders. And as we move into more worlds of inter-district transfers, dual enrollment, and other ways in which our students and families are more interconnected than ever before, it makes all the more sense for the state of California to be able to take a look and see how this system is doing on that level. So for those reasons, we really appreciate what's going to happen with this policy, and we look forward to how it can really bolster all of our goals to improve education in every district. So we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Adam Caguan on behalf of the California Charger Schools Association in support. Madam Chair, Brian Easter, Superintendent of the Maple School District and School Board Member for the Panama Buena Vista School District in support of this bill. Thank you. Madam Chair, Rob F. Superintendent Principal of North Town Creek Elementary School District in Northern California in support of this bill. Madam Chair, Susan Markarian, Pacific Union Elementary School District Board Member, I'm in support of this bill. Madam Chair, Sabrina Rodriguez, Ventura Unified School District, I'm in support of this. Madam Chair, Melanie Mata, Superintendent Principal at Hope Elementary School District, in full support. Madam Chair, Deborah Shade, Solana Beach School District, in full support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate you bringing this bill forward. Thank you to the author. I did have a question around the composition of the commission. The analysis aptly points to the need to make sure that we're focused on early learning opportunities and early learning gaps that exist. We know that kindergartners and now even four-year-olds, TKers are coming into our school system, our TK-12 school system with a differential opportunity opportunity gap. So I don't believe that there's anyone on the commission that is focused more on the disparities that exist within the early learning fields. And your quick response might be to say that you're offering opportunities for LEAs that have TK-12 systems to be able to participate, I would ask you to not offer me that response because the response of TK-12 LEAs participating in the commission because I think that there's a world of work around early childhood learning that happens before a child hits four years that isn't encompassed in this composition of the commission. Yes, Ms. Bonta, thank you for calling that out, especially given your long background in early childhood education. I think you're absolutely right. The committee analysis correctly points out that the data shows that so much of the achievement gap begins in the first zero to four years, if not zero to five years. And that is also an important fact that supports your point. While certainly the current composition may allow for the representation of someone with expertise in early childhood education, I would like to have the conversation with the sponsor of the bill as to whether we need to get more specific in terms of requiring representation from early childhood education. So I appreciate your comment.

Thank you very much. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Aye.

Alvarez.

Alvarez, aye.

Aye.

Castillo.

Castillo, aye.

Lowenthal.

Lowenthal, aye.

Zerber.

On the consent calendar Patel Aye Patel Aye Hoover Alvarez Aye Alvarez Aye Bonta Aye Bonta aye Castillo Aye Castillo aye Garcia Lowenthal Aye Lowenthal aye Pellerin Zipper

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Acting Chair, and members. I will open my statement by saying I accept all the committee amendments. California's goals for education for English learners is articulated in the English Learner Roadmap, and they are that these learners attain high levels of English proficiency, mastery of grade level standards, and have opportunities to develop proficiency in multiple languages. California's system for reclassifying students as fully English proficient is a critical part of realizing this vision. Fifty years ago, California established its system for reclassifying English learners as fully English proficient. It has not materially changed since that time. Over the years, evidence has mountained that the current system is inconsistent, redundant, subjective, complex, and highly influenced by educator mindsets about reclassification. Concern has also grown over the outcomes of this system. Research has shown that roughly half of all English learners who are not reclassified by the end of elementary school are in fact proficient in English. Research has also found significant gaps in reclassification rates by home language with Spanish-speaking students significantly less likely to reclassify than other students, even when they are just as proficient as their peers. On average, it takes 226 days for a student who has scored proficient in English to reclassify, with some students waiting years before reclassification. Many students score proficient year after year before they are reclassified. It's time for a comprehensive reform of this system. AB 2555 will establish a coherent, consistent, efficient, and transparent reclassification system. By streamlining reclassification criteria, making reclassification automatic, better engaging parents, strengthening the monitoring of reclassified students, and reframing reclassification as a milestone on the pathway to biliteracy, this bill will create a fair and efficient system, one worthy of our students' true potential. With me today to testify and support are Mariana Kamis, second year law student at UC Davis School of Law, and Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, co-sponsor of AB 2555. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next witness.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Now we'll take public comment that is in support. If you are in support of this item, please come forward. Please state your name, affiliation, if any. And again, just state that you are in support of this measure.

Thank you.

Arian Adam-Chakova, Spanish-Japanese-Multilingual-Language-Newcomer-English-High School teacher in San Mateo County in support.

Anyone else in support? Seeing no other witnesses in support or testimony in support, we'll take opposition witnesses. If there are any opposition witnesses, please come forward. Seeing no opposition witnesses, are there any public comment in opposition? Okay, we don't see any. Thank you. We have a motion and a second on the bill. Do we have any committee member questions or comments? Yes, Ms. Bonta.

Thank you.

I also had my own reclassification issues, even though I felt that I was fully bilingual as a kid, and I lost my mother language because I was told not to speak it. So there are stories that students have gone through over the years, and I think it's time to end that pain and to move forward in a new chapter. I also want to extend a deep gratitude to committee staff specifically Tanya Lieberman for having worked on this issue for many many years to bring us to a place where we can bring this bill forward in a way that has no opposition So thank you Well done. It speaks to your work and your diligence and to your staff as well. So, with that, we do have a motion and a second. We'll ask the Secretary to call. File Item 15, AB 2555. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Patel.

Patel, aye. Hoover. Alvarez.

Alvarez, aye. Bonta.

I call it to I Castillo. Castillo, aye. Garcia.

Lowenthal.

Patel. Sefer. Pellerin.

You said Patel. Oh, I said Pellerin, yes. Pellerin, Sefer.

6-0, the bill is out. We'll have the next. Oh, Ms. McKenna is here. Welcome, Ms. McKenna. Come on up. We'll give the gavel back to the chair.

Thank you.

We will allow members to add on to all bills as we wrap up this meeting. Assembly Member McKenna, you may proceed when ready.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you. Thank you. At this time, we will have public comment in support. Name, affiliation, and position only, please.

Thank you. Elmer Lizardo, California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

All right, seeing no further public comment, are there any witnesses in opposition? Please step forward. Seeing no witnesses in opposition, any public comment in opposition? Good afternoon, Chair and members.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair and members, Rebecca Colleen

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members.

Thank you. Seeing no other public comment, we'll bring it back to the committee. Are there any questions for the author? No? Assemblymember McKenna, would you like to close?

Thank you. Can we have a motion at this time?

Motion, second.

Secretary, can you please call the roll? File item 2, AB 1860. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Patel?

Patel, aye. Hoover? Alvarez?

Aye. Fanta, aye.

Aye. Castillo, aye. Garcia?

Garcia, aye. Lowenthal? Aye.

Aye. Pellerin, aye. Subur. The vote is 6-0. The bill is out, and we will leave the roll open for add-ons. Thank you. Next up, we have file item 14. That is AB 2514, Assemblymember Ransom.

Thank you.

How are you?

All right. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members.

Thank you.

Two minutes.

You can wrap it up. Thank you. All right. At this time, we'll take any public comment in support. Please step forward to the microphone. State your name, affiliation, and position on the bill only. Thank you.

from Fremont Unified in support. At this time we'll take witnesses in opposition if there are any please step forward. Thank you. Any public comment in opposition? All right we'll bring it to the dais. Any comments or questions from

Thank you.

So thank you, assembly members.

and the working groups. One of the things that we did talk about in that hearing was the need to streamline the multiple reports, visualizations of progress that school districts are required to produce in order to be able to give us a picture. How is this not... and that 1001.

Are there any other questions at this time? All right. Do we have a motion and a second? We need a second.

The second. Would you like to close? Absolutely.

Thank you. Thank you very much for that. We have a motion and a second. Secretary, would you please call the roll? File Item 14, AB 2514. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Patel?

Patel, aye. Hoover?

Hoover, aye.

Fanta.

Fanta, aye. Castillo? Aye.

Garcia?

Garcia, aye. Lowenthal? Aye.

Patel? Or excuse me, Pellerin?

Pellerin, aye. Zuber? The bill has seven votes. It is out, and we will hold the roll open for add-ons. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have file item 13. That is AB 2490. Do we have the author? All right. So then we'll move on to file item five. Assemblymember Garcia, are you ready to present? So we'll take AB 2149, Assemblymember Garcia. And you may proceed when ready. Yes. That's right. All right. Yes. You may proceed when ready. Thank you.

for supporting the improvement of student achievement. California's achievement gaps are stubborn, and the status quo is unacceptable when more than a million California students fail to reach proficiency every year. Fewer than four in ten students are proficient in math, and only about half meet standards in English language arts. Achievement gaps in education remain stark. The state's black students and Latino students far underperform their white and Asian peers. Along with the racial achievement gap, the socioeconomic achievement gap also ticked upward, as the scores of affluent students continue to pull away from those recorded by students in low-income families. The issue is not a lack of state efforts, but rather the absence of a coherent and cohesive plan to support LEAs in closing achievement gaps. AB 2149 requires the Legislative Analyst's Office, as a component of the assessment of the state budget, to assess and publicly report to the legislature and the governor the state's process in closing people achievement gaps and to include recommendations of actions that the state can take to meet its performance targets. And so with me today to testify in support is Mr. Carlos Machado from CSBA and Tristan Brown from CFT. Good afternoon, Chair Patel and members of the committee. Carlos Machado representing California School Board Association. CSBA urges support for AB 2149. As the locally elected officials responsible for the success of California nearly 6 million students school board members understand accountability Our members live through every election audit and local dashboard report However, local governance cannot succeed in a vacuum. Currently, our LEAs are navigating a fragmented state policy landscape characterized by volatile short-term funding streams and disconnected mandates. While LEAs are held accountable for rigorous standards, the state's overarching strategy often lacks the same objective scrutiny. AB 2149 closes this governance gap, enhancing the legislature's oversight authority. It does this through the report, which will serve as a vital tool during the budget and legislative processes. It will serve to validate program impact. It moves us towards measuring genuine progress, ensuring that state-directed initiatives are yielding a return for our students. It will also ensure fiscal integrity. The LAO will provide a nonpartisan assessment of whether the state's budget is truly optimized to support local success. For our school boards, this isn't about creating more work. It's about operational clarity. It provides the transparency necessary to ensure that the state's policy intentions match the operational realities of our school districts. On behalf of the state's nearly 1,000 school districts and County Office of Education, CSBA urges your aye vote on this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Tristan Brown of CFT. No doubt you can tell that the CFT is a big supporter of this package of legislation to bring some more coherence as how the state handles our public education system. It makes all the sense in the world to have our expert policy analysts also provide their input into what we're doing. Unlike Prop 98, I do view the two-minute rule of this committee as a ceiling, not a floor. So with that, I would ask for an aye vote. Thank you. At this time, we will take public comment in support. Step up to the mic. Name, affiliation, and position. Thank you. Adam Keglin on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support. Thank you. the Union School District, in strong support. On behalf of Los Angeles Unified, in support. Rob Effa from North Cal Creek Elementary School, in support. Melanie Mata, Superintendent Hope Elementary, full support. Thank you. At this time, are there any witnesses in opposition? Please step forward. Any public comment in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Committee members, are there any questions or comments? Assemblymember Hoover. I'll make a brief comment. I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I cannot think of a more important goal, right, than closing the achievement gaps that we have in California to lift up all students. I appreciate the approach you're taking here and the entire package of bills. and also appreciate the wide coalition of support that it gets because I think this is something that we can all agree on. The only point that I would mention is I think the funding piece is really critical and I think your bill points that out Also really want to make sure we focusing and this is more of comments for the committee as a whole on the accountability side as well right And making sure that when we're not hitting the mark, what is our response, right, as state lawmakers and as legislators to holding accountable school districts and employees and whatever may be, you know, need to be held accountable for getting better results? And that would be the only thing that I would add. But I really do appreciate all the work that you've done on this and everyone involved in this working group, because I think it's really critical we close these achievement gaps for our students. So thank you. Thank you, Ms. Schubert. Seeing no other comments from the dais, Assemblymember Garcia, would you like to close? It's a really important issue, and I just respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. I'll move. It's a motion? It's a motion. and a second. Secretary, will you please call the roll. File item five, AB 2149. The motion is do pass as amended. Patel. Aye. Patel, aye. Hoover. Aye. Hoover, aye. Alvarez. Fanta. Aye. Fanta, aye. Castillo. Aye. Castillo, aye. Garcia, aye. Lowenthal, aye. Pellerin. Aye. Pellerin, aye. Zipper. Vote is seven zero. Your bill is out. will hold the roll open for add-ons. Thank you Madam Chair and members. Thank you. Next up we have a file item 13 AB 2490 Assemblymember Valencia. Please step forward and you may proceed when ready. Let's see if I can squeeze my knees under this desk. It's a little tight. Oh, boy. I don't have that problem. Okay. I know. Jeez. High discrimination. Well, when I started this, Madam Chair and members, I appreciate the opportunity to present this bill. I want to start off by sharing that I'll be accepting the committee the amendments and give a special thank you to Chelsea and then also the chair for working diligently on this bill with me. AB 2490 would provide greater continuity to students whose teachers are out of the classroom for an extended period of time. As proposed to be amended, a substitute teacher could serve in a classroom for up to 60 days through the existing 60-day career substitute permit. Committee amendments also ensure substitute teachers receive ongoing support and mentorship, professional development, and an orientation through establishing specialized training and mentorship requirements. The bill would also enhance accountability and oversight by requiring notification to parents of students taught by a substitute. We continue to face an unprecedented teacher shortage, even as California continues to invest in teacher retainment programs and grants. The research is clear. Students have better educational outcomes when they experience minimum disruptions in the classroom and have stable learning experiences. While this legislation does not solve the teacher shortage, it is an important interim tool to support our schools until longer-term solutions can be implemented and take effect. With me to provide testimony on the bill is Dr. Dawn Hubbell, the Director of Human Resources at Merced City School District, and Kristen Wright Executive Director of Inclusive Practices and Supportive Services of the Sacramento County Office of Education You have two minutes Thank you Good afternoon Honorable Chairperson and Members I am Dr. Dawn Hubbell. I have been an educator for more than 20 years in Merced City School District. I am currently the Director of Human Resources, and before that I taught 8th grade Algebra I for more than a decade before I became an educational leader. I have the heart of an educator, which I hope you'll hear today. I came to champion for children. I'm a proud ACSA member, and I'm counting on you for a yes vote on 2490. Imagine I am your student's Algebra I teacher this year, and I am going to have a baby in October. I'm going to be out on an absence for more than seven months this year and will return the last week of school. This is not a vacancy. This is not a permanent position. It will not be posted. It is a leave of absence. This bill is not about looking past any fully credentialed teacher in the substitute pool. Our pools are not full of fully credentialed teachers. The additional accountability requirements met in this bill don't exist now for the day-to-day teachers that children have to experience a different face every day, nor the 20 days, nor the 30 days. This scenario is real, and we call this the sub-churn. If I'm your child's algebra math teacher this year who's out for seven months, I want you to consider an alternative position. My sister Barbara Hubble is with me today. She's a special education teacher in a moderate to severe class for our most exceptionally at-risk students. Imagine a new face every 20 days, every 30 days in a gen ed class or a special education class. a new face, new rules, a new culture. Explaining that to a child can be devastating for them. This can be a pedagogical disaster for families who lose trust with the school for a variable that's outside of our locus of control. Teachers take leave of absences. They're real people with real lives. This is a real scenario that happens often. This bill is about what we do to stabilize a classroom when we have exhausted that list. Not about eloping the list. The revolving door already exists. At each time, please wrap up. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. I'm Kristen Wright. I'm Executive Director of Inclusive Practices at the Sacramento County Office of Education. I'm also the mom of a daughter with very extensive support needs that went through our school system. I'm here because AB 2490 matters, and I wanna be honest with you about why, including the parts that are very complicated. California's in a teacher shortage. That's not an opinion. It's just a documented, urgent reality that's hitting our most vulnerable students the hardest. And nowhere in that shortage do we see more than in special education. Education specialists, the credentialed teachers who serve students with disabilities are among the hardest positions to fill and the hardest to keep. Districts are searching and recruiting and often come up short, just as you heard. But I wanna be clear, this bill does not solve that problem. No single bill can solve that problem. The pipeline challenges, the compensation gaps, the workload demands, those require sustained systemic attention. They go far beyond any one piece of legislation. But here's where I land. We're not choosing between this bill and a perfect solution. We're choosing between this bill and the reality happening in our classrooms right now. Let me share a real situation. Imagine a 10-year-old with autism and significant communication needs. The teacher of his SDC class goes out on leave in October. The district searches, posts the position, makes every effort. No education specialists are available. They're all in classrooms in other schools. We have a shortage. So they bring in a substitute. That substitute learns his communication. education system, earns his trust, begins to figure out what works, and then 20 days, the clock runs out, a new substitute starts that on day 21, and it starts over. By January, he's had three different adults in the front of his classroom, none of them able to stay long enough to truly know him or implement his IEP with any consistency. As a mom, if that was my child, I would not send them to school. This is the kind of status quo we're defending when we say this bill goes too far. That is also harm, the kind that doesn't show up in a policy brief but shows up every day in the classrooms. So this bill seeks to make the best of a less than ideal situation. In a perfect world, we'd have enough highly qualified educators to staff all classrooms, but that's not the reality. So when I weigh the documented harm of chronic instability against the risk of imperfect policy, I believe we have an obligation to act. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, we will take any public comment in support. Please step to the microphone, your name, affiliation, and position on the bill only, please. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Sarek Kaminsky on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, proud co-sponsor urging your aye vote. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Chris Reif on behalf of the California School Boards Association, also a proud co-sponsor, urging your support. Thank you. Deborah Bautista-Zaval on behalf of the California Suburban School District Association in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brianna Brands on behalf of the California County Superintendents, one of the co-sponsors of the bill, in strong support. Good afternoon. Patrick McGrew on behalf of the Self-Administrators of California, in strong support. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Michelle Gill on behalf of California Association School Business Officials, one of the proud co-sponsors, asking for aye vote. Thank you. Sid Polson on behalf of the Small School District Association, in support. Good afternoon, Kyle Hyland on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education in support. Thank you. Hello, Elizabeth Engelkin of Sonoma County and Sonoma County Charter, SELPA, in strong support. Christina Serazar with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools in strong support. Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified School District in support. Kaim Jackson on behalf of Orange County Department of Ed in support. David Patterson on the Association of California County Boards of Education in support. Anna Ioka Meade is on behalf of Los Angeles Unified in support. Sabrina Rodriguez Ventura Unified School District in strong support. Susan Markarian, board member, strongly support. Lucy Salcido-Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Melanie Mata, Superintendent Hope Elementary, also board member of Small School Districts Association and president of AXA's Small School District Leaders Council, full support. Deborah Shea, Trustee Solano Beach School District, strong support. At this time, if there are any witnesses in opposition, please step forward. You will have two minutes each. Good afternoon Madam Chair and members My name is Michelle Warshaw I'm here on behalf of the California Teachers Association to speak in respectful opposition to AB 2490. The previous iteration of the bill, AB 1224, was vetoed by the governor. In the response, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing conducted extensive engagement and later provided proposed regulations addressing the long-term substitute general ed assignment. through a framework that paired flexibility with preparation, support, and oversight. The rulemaking process for these regulations is underway to create a pathway for long-term substitutes while still providing that necessary support and training for the substitute teacher. It includes 15 hours of pre-service prep, 30 hours of training, at least two hours a week from a credentialed educator, allows training to be completed on the job. When substitute teachers are in the classroom for months at a time, students don't just need a supervisor, a babysitter. They need instruction, support, routines, classroom management, and real learning. There's already a rulemaking process in place for a comprehensive and thoughtful approach to substitute teacher options, so it seems redundant and unnecessary to move forward with the legislative solution. We recognize that there is a staffing shortage, and there needs to be long-term solutions to bring people into the profession and support and provide real support and investment to retain teachers. There have already been over 2,200 layoff notifications just this year in over 100 districts. So I'm just having a hard time understanding the justification with needing to have those long-term substitutes when districts are already choosing to not keep qualified educators. That's not to say that there's not extraordinary circumstances, and there are pathways to address that. The TIPSL, which is the teaching permit for statutory leave for things like maternity leave, already exists, state board waivers, and of course the CTC proposed regulations. So for these reasons, CTA respectfully urges your no vote. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. John Affel from Public Advocates in opposition. The ink is not yet dry on our successful victory in the Court of Appeals two weeks ago against the West Contra Costa Unified School District, ruled that it is illegal to over-rely on substitutes unless and until districts have exhausted all of their options. And the proponents of this bill have not exhausted all their options, we think the evidence shows. They haven't put forward numbers of some gross inadequacy of substitute teachers. We're seeing layoffs. As the analysis points out, new credentials are on the uptick, and there are hundreds of thousands of expired or fully credentialed teachers out there that aren't being utilized. We appreciate the amendments that the committee has put forward. They're certainly the right sentiment, but they still have the same fundamental flaws of 1224 that was vetoed last year. Five hours of pre-service training is inadequate, even if it is focused on special ed. That's not enough. And where's the English learner training for teachers? Where's the subject matter training for teachers? You're not going to get that in five hours. than 30 hours verified after a year of service is too little too late A proposed mentor good but there no accountability in the amendments even for any kind of minimum amount of time with that mentor or oversight in the system The CTC regs are in process. We think that should be allowed to proceed first. And then if there's a problem with that, revisit. We understand the main... You are at time. Please wrap it up. If I can just wrap up, the main issue is really around special ed. And as we lay out in our opposition letter, that part of the law of the bill is preempted by federal law. The IDEA requires a higher standard, a highly qualified teacher, including for substitute, someone who has an ed specialist credential or is an ed specialist intern. So you're setting this up for litigation if we just proceed with the special ed piece of this. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any public comment in opposition at this time? Step up to the microphone. Name, affiliation, and position, please. Thank you. Jonathan Howard on behalf of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing here in opposition to the bill. So commission staff are encouraged by the amendments taken today and look forward to working with the author and the other interest holders in finding a solution that best protects our students. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Conrad Crump with Disability Rights California in opposition. Thank you. Anna Cordero, United States history teacher who also holds a multiple subject and mild moderate credential in respectful opposition. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Tristan Brown of CFT. We have an opposed and less amended position. We're very, we want to align our comments with the CTC and have all the faith in the author that we can meet in the middle here. So thank you. Thank you. So, you know, for their public comments, I'll bring it back to the dais. First, I want to allow the author to address some of the concerns raised by the opposition. Thank you. And as I did last year, I am still of the thought that we need to do something about our teacher shortage in the state. Fact of the matter is, nothing is being done, and we have more now than we did then. The substitutes out there that we have, pool-wise, is not enough to address the current need, which is exactly why we're pushing this issue. If I may, through the chair, have one of our witnesses address the special education component in detail. I'd appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to bring clarity from the applicable site level as well as district level. Our substitute teachers in the sub-hole, there is a list, and we do exhaust the list as was spoken for before. Interns on those lists are seeking permanent positions, and a lot of times these absences are created by leaves. They're not vacancies. They're not posted positions. They're leaves of absence. And you did hear about things that are underway, and although with much respect to things that are underway, What happens now? And so now who is in our pool with respect to understanding we have exhausted the list first and foremost, we want a fully credentialed teacher in every classroom. We don't appreciate nor do we seek the sub churn for our students either. With that, with respect to the absences, our substitute teachers are not case managers for students on individual education plans. They have case managers We also have in the list those who are fully credentialed It the spirit of what we call a professional learning community You have department leads and you have grade level leaders that lean in with your administrators in the field to ensure that instructional integrity for a classroom, for any classroom, is met. And that's the spirit of a professional learning community. Our substitute teachers are not case managers. Our interns may be case managers. Our tips and pips who do have more training may be, but those are in a majority of frequency in permanent positions, and those are vacancies. There is this large gap for absences and absence of leaves, leaves of absence, and there's a gravity of different kinds of leaves that people can take, but those aren't open vacancies. And so I say again, I urge you to consider that the personnel who are in the pool are not fully credentialed teachers. and if they were, they would have a permanent position. And our outlying districts also seeking those hard-to-fill positions in special ed and math and speech and language pathology, those harder-to-fill positions, they're so sought after that they're very rarely people who are in our substitute pools. Thank you. With that, do we have any questions from committee members? Assemblymember Lowenthal. I just have a question for the opposition. Do you envision any scenario as it relates to language deficiency for immigrant communities? When I speak specifically about the 6th and 9th Assembly District, we have the largest concentration of Cambodian Americans, the largest diaspora of those speaking Khmer. They also the largest diaspora of Filipino Americans in one concentrated area, so Tagalog. In a scenario where we have substitute teachers that can provide continuity learning for those students, those immigrant communities, do you see a scenario where there's value in having substitutes to serve longer than 30 days? Sure. I apologize, Assemblymember. I have to face this direction. Okay. There is certainly value in having individuals who have, I are either a member of that community or be able to speak that language. I think there is added value if that person also has training and being able to provide support for English learner and multilingual communities and have that base knowledge and understanding to be able to provide real instruction and real learning and support. I hear what you're saying. I don't discount the training, actually, and I want to validate the concerns about the training, but I'm specifically asking about language. Communicating with students that don't speak English. Sure. I think, just to clarify your question, are you talking about individuals who may be their community members and they're serving as long-term substitutes and they speak that language? I think that there are certainly opportunities for partnership with community members and even opportunities to help support individuals who may have their substitute permit and are interested in being a credential teacher or interested in being a career substitute. I believe the committee amends address some of that and including a pathway for career substitute assignments and being able to have that pathway. CTA isn't opposed to providing options and pathways for long-term substitutes, but making sure that they do have the needed support guidance and learning to get there and ideally eventually become certificated teachers. Yeah, I would just add that the, um, uh, certainly bringing in community members possibly as AIDS, uh, who have the language skills would be a tremendous benefit, but the research does show that continuity of underprepared teachers is not the answer that does not help learning. It's continuity of prepared teachers. That's what the research shows. And so I don't think there's good support for the idea that just because you might be bilingual, but you're otherwise completely unprepared, there's not good support in the research that that is going to lead to good student outcomes. Assembly member Bonta. I was supportive of this bill with some hesitation last year. I always look to see what has changed between time one and time two when another bill gets introduced. What seems to have substantively changed is that the CTC has now taken action, approved proposed regulations, and is in the rulemaking process, which begs the question around timing. So do you have any sense of when the rulemaking process might be completed and would there be a gap between that rulemaking process and when this bill would go into effect? I am not aware of that timeline. I could revert to our witnesses. I would ask that you consider that the career substitute timeline now, the TIPSL does, the TIPSL is what we call it. I apologize for the acronym, but the TIPSL does address subject matter competency now. The barrier there is that it also requires 45 hours per year every year for that person. And so those people are not likely to be in our sub pools right now already because of that requirement. They do offer subject matter competency, but without that, the timeline they're in, the career substitutes that are there, I have one in the pool of 260 right now. CTC staff is in the audience. Does someone from CTC want to come step up and provide some insight? Thank you. Sorry to put you on the spot, but you're here. I'm seeing the content experts right now. the exact answer for you on the agenda. They say that. In the meantime. If I could just make a comment, Brianna Brunson, one of the co-sponsors of the bill with California County Superintendent. So I just wanna emphasize the rulemaking process is underway currently as you suggested, Assembly Member. They are currently in a review period of public comments. They're in the 45 day window to receive public comment. We as co-sponsors of the bill have some feedback on how we would like to see the proposed regulations amended a bit to be more effective and to be more obtainable, frankly, for individuals. That said, what the proposed, the approved proposed regulations do not include is the special education component of this bill. So what you see in the most recent version of the amended bill is us trying to conform as closely as possible to what the CTC has proposed, but adding in the special education piece that we can have equity in our classrooms. So I guess if we in public comments period the response that is going to come through on that text message at some point is imminently we will have some resolution around this I just, I'm stuck on our governance, 1,000 reports, a lot of different bodies, the responsibility and the role of the legislature in confounding some of the of operational challenges that exist in schools. And I am concerned about this legislation potentially being in conflict with what ultimately would be the rulemaking process of, for the Commission on Teacher Credentialing around these substitute permits. CTC, or you all have offered, I'm sure, public comments, correct? Yes. Please go to the microphone. Thank you. So the regulations were submitted at the end of last month. There's a 45-day public commenting process, and then we have 30 days to provide a response to all those, and then there's a 30-day process at OAL. and then regulations are adopted on a quarterly basis. So it's between 60 and 180 days. And our bill's going to affect the following January. So there could be a scenario where there's some information through that rulemaking process that is either duplicative, conflates, is contradictory to what is in this legislation, with the exception of the components around special education. Which is a major component of this specific bill. And in my opinion, we have constant conversation in the legislature around how much power we yield to the regulatory process and the administration. And I am of the thought that the legislature should be making the laws that the regulatory agencies or the administration implements. And this is exactly why I think this bill is necessary, particularly because of the special education component. and we all know the status of what education is at the national level. And if we leave something like this to the national level, Assemblymember, I do have concerns that it may not go in the right direction, in part why I am also including that special education component in this bill. Yeah. And we would point out, Madam Chair, that this is a fairly nuanced, and as you point out, Member Bonta, circumstances change over time, Harry. And it seems to us a more appropriate forum is the regulatory process, as was done with the TIPSL 10 years ago, where the stakeholders got together and there's a back and forth. And it is much harder to undo a mistake that's in the statute than it is to go back to an agency and modify or improve if experience proves that over time. So we think the administrative process is superior. As to the special ed process, we pointed out that we think that that is legally problematic, but there's also the SPI under 56061 has the ability but never it's been used to actually give people relief if they need more than 20 days in a sub that a special ed Absolutely agree that narratives and dynamics change And because of that we included a sunset date in the bill as well that would sunset in 2032 in the event that there is that discrepancy or that change in ideology and direction that we do need to take. Understood the sunset was taken out. We won't have any back and forth. Thank you. Assemblymember Hoover. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, you know, it's interesting. I couldn't disagree with the opposition more on this bill. I think we've, you know, there's a lot of interesting conversations being discussed here. First and foremost, I think it's absolutely regulations are not the way to go. I think this is exactly what we need to be doing on policies like this. And I really do appreciate the author for bringing this bill forward. I think the legislature needs to take, to your point, a larger leadership role on this topic. We can't leave this up to the regulators. If there are mistakes or things we need to fix in this bill, let's go ahead and fix them here in this committee and in the legislative process in the future. But I do appreciate this bill being brought forward. I think we need to try again for sure. I think the other pushback I would give to the opposition is we're sort of making this false comparison between, I think, what we would all agree with, which is the continuity of a fully qualified classroom teacher and the continuity of a substitute teacher. When you compare those two, I think we all agree that we want the continuity of a fully qualified teacher in the classroom. I think the reality, though, is very different. What we really are asking is, you know, do we want the continuity of a substitute teacher or basically no continuity and have multiple substitute teachers who may not be fully qualified, right? So I think when you compare what is actually happening in the classroom, the answer is pretty clear that this bill is much needed. So I think for those reasons, I'll definitely be supporting the legislation and want to thank the author for continuing this conversation. Do you have any response? I would like to make some comments, too. Sure, please. I think my experience as a school board trustee over the years has shown time and time again that our students with disabilities are often left on the short end of the stick. And I think continuing to have pressure on the system to move towards those regs being released is important. The amendments that committee staff have put forward put the bill as proposed with amendments accepted in line and consistent with the regs that are being proposed, except for the addition of taking care of our students with disabilities and making sure that they have that continuity of care that they really need, continuity of instruction. With students with autism, some who are nonverbal, students with significant emotional disabilities, it's not okay for them to constantly experience change every few weeks. Parents also get continually worried about is the care of their students going to be addressed. We have students on a regular basis where our parents are most worried about their physical and emotional safety when they set foot on campus. and doing what we can to further those goals is also very important. The regs, the timing of that is very interesting in that you brought this bill forward last year while this problem has been going on and persisting for quite a long time. And it's only after that bill was vetoed that the possibility of these regs got introduced. So today I supporting your bill I hoping that you continue to work with opposition to make sure we can have it be aligned I did get a clarification that the sunset in our amendments was removed so that it can be aligned with the regs So if that is something you're interested in doing at the next stage, should this bill pass out of the committee, that's something you can consider. However, at this time, it is as much in line with the regs that we will be seeing coming forward as possible. And I believe there will also be opportunity for you to consider timing of this. as those, if the regs come out sooner, you will have options as the author of this bill as it moves through the process. So with that, are there any other further comments from the committee? Did we have a motion? Oh, sorry. Assemblymember, you may close. Very much appreciate those remarks, Madam Chair, and respectfully ask for a yes vote. There's a motion. Is there a second? Motion and a second. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll? File Item 13, AB 2490. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Patel. Aye. Patel, aye. Hoover. Aye. Hoover, aye. Alvarez. Fanta. Not voting. Fanta, not voting. Castillo. Aye. Castillo, aye. Garcia. Aye. Garcia, aye. Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal, aye. Pellerin. Aye. Pellerin, aye. Sabur. The vote is 6-0. Your bill is out. We will hold the roll open for add-ons. Thank you. Thank you. Our next bill that we're hearing is file item 6, AB 2158. Assemblymember Hoover, you're up. And you may proceed when ready. Thank you Madam Chair, members appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2158, the outdoor learning and environmental literacy act of 2026. I want to start by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the chair and committee staff for their thoughtful consideration. As we are all aware, our students and young people face increasing pressures and dangers associated with more time indoors, on our devices, and alone. I and other legislators have introduced a collection of legislation targeting digital wellness, online safety, screen time, social media use. But when we ask our students to spend less time looking at their screens, it's also important that we provide them with opportunities for better alternatives. AB 2158 provides those alternatives. The bill recognizes outdoor learning as an effective and developmentally appropriate instructional method. It encourages LEAs to integrate outdoor learning into instruction and requires the Department of Education to develop and maintain on their website statewide guidance on outdoor learning. It also paves the way for the department to provide resources to LEAs for the advancement of outdoor learning and would establish the statewide outdoor learning pilot program. With me today in support of the bill to share their experience is Mackenzie Weiser, CEO of Sacramento Splash, and Craig Strang, Associate Director Emeritus at the Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley. I would like to pass it to them. Thank you. Hello, I'm Craig Strang. For 32 years, I was the Associate Director of the Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley. I now work with 10 Strands, the bill's sponsor, where I lead the California Campaign for Outdoor Learning, which is powered by dozens of pediatricians, epidemiologists, mental and physical health professionals, LEAs, and a wide array of science, environmental, and outdoor learning organizations. Our children are suffering from an epidemic of learning and mental health crises that have accelerated since the pandemic. We all see this, and our observations are confirmed by a growing body of alarming research. There's also an impressive body of educational and clinical trial medical research showing that time learning outdoors accelerates learning, attention, and concentration, significantly decreases symptoms from ADHD, hypertension, depression, anxiety, and even myopia, decreases screen time and exposure to toxic social media, and promotes pro-social behavior. California is rich in green spaces, on school campuses, in nearby parks and open spaces, in our regional state and national parks, and in our amazing network of residential outdoor schools that provide an immersive, memorable week at science camp. We need to make experiences outdoors available to all our students, but most urgently to those in communities furthest from the opportunity. This bill will establish outdoor learning as a recommended instructional strategy, provide guidance to schools, and launch a statewide pilot to gather evidence about the benefits. We may not be able to make the world less stressful for our children, but we still can build their capacity to live healthy lives despite the stresses. AB 2158 will help ensure the health of our two most precious California resources, our spectacular open spaces, and our children, and I hope that you'll vote in favor of it. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. My name is Mackenzie Weezer, and I'm the CEO of Sacramento Splash. We're a local Sacramento-based environmental education nonprofit that connects over 20,500 Sacramento-area students to the outdoors through outdoor field trip experiences. Our mission is simple, and it's to help children understand and value our natural world through hands-on and outdoor education. But before leading Splash, I spent nine years as a governor's office appointee under Governor Brown and Newsom, working on climate policy. And as the mother of three kids, these experiences helped me realize that many young people do not have access to outdoor experiences. Many have little connection to nature at all. And in fact, 85% of students that come on field trips with us tell us they've never stepped off of concrete like they are with us on a hike in fourth grade. That's unacceptable to us. They aren't comfortable being in the outdoors. And in schools post COVID kids spend 75 of their day on their Chromebooks And then they go home to even more screen time because their parents are working two and three jobs However, working at Sacramento Splash, I see something incredibly powerful every single day. When students are given the opportunity to spend even half a day outside exploring their local wetlands, rivers, and ecosystems right in their own community, they actually change. Their minds are drastically improved. They become engaged in learning and curiosity. They ask questions, and they're genuinely happy, and they feel connected. That connection is the foundation to stewardship. and it's that spark of wanting to disconnect to the noise that we hear every day on screens. It makes them want to spend more time exploring, engaging, and learning. Your time is up. Please wrap it up. This bill will help us, so I hope you, I urge you to support this bill. Thank you. At this time, we will take public comment in support, name, affiliation, and position. Thank you. Lucy Salceda-Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Derek Lennis with the California County Superintendents. We look forward to bringing our support position to our members tomorrow and formalize that and getting sent in. Thanks. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Tristan Brown, CFT, in support. Caitlin Levenstrong, Executive Director of Oakland Goes Outdoors, which is embedded in Oakland Unified School District, and we are in strong support of the spill. James Riddell with the Catherine Robert Riddell Fund and Advisory Council to Oakland Goes Outdoors in very strong support. Kayim Jackson on behalf of Orange County Department of Education in support. Good afternoon. Marissa Cooper, Chief Executive Officer of the Professional Ski Instructors of America and American Association of Snowboard Instructors. On behalf of my organization and the outdoor industry that we support, we strongly urge your support on this bill. Hi, everyone. My name is Sierra Mathias. I'm the Director of Movement Building and Advocacy at Justice Outside, and we are in very strong support of this bill. Thank you. Adam Keglin on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support. Before we move on to bringing opposition witnesses forward, Assemblymember Hoover, I did not hear. Can you please clarify whether you'll be accepting committee amendments? I will, yes. Absolutely. Thank you. Sorry for not hearing that. Just clarify. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. At this time, we'll take any witnesses in opposition. Seeing none, any public comment in opposition? All right. Let's bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments for the author? Yeah. Somebody member? I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. This is an incredible bill. It is timely. I'm proud to join you on this bill. I hope that's made its way officially into the system. Young people are spending, on average, five hours a day on social. seven and a half hours a day on screens every day, including weekends. That's on average. So let's consider those that don't have supportive home environments or other activities that they already engaged in that are spending 10 12 longer hours online And when you stop to think about that that significantly more time than spent in school Think about the oversight that we have over schools, the access that we have as stakeholders in our system, the ability to contact teachers, administrators, school board members. We're notified when our students are tardy to class. We know about their grades on a real-time basis, on a weekly basis, what's going on with them. And if we have concerns, we can discuss those concerns with so many relative to overall policy and certainly relative to what's happening with our children. We don't have any of those things in digital life. We don't even have anybody that we can call. It is so critically important while the sector that is engaging and putting those products forward with our children that are refusing to hear us, that we actually invest public resources into riding that ship. And this is the way. I really firmly believe, and I think honestly that this is a drop in the bucket, that we're going to have to be incredibly intentional about this in the decades ahead. And we're going to have to think about measuring effectiveness and how that's working over time. And I'm just proud to be on this journey with you, and I thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you. Seeing no other comments or questions from the dais, Assemblymember Hoover, would you like to close? Thank you. And yes, would love to have you as a joint author, if we could note that with the committee as well. Appreciate your support of the bill. I think we have a real opportunity here. Obviously, I'm working on a number of pieces of legislation to help reduce harms. I think this bill has the opportunity to do the opposite, which is increased benefits, right, for our kids. You know, some of the benefits highlighted in the committee analysis, which I really appreciate, is, you know, getting outside really will help reduce stress, encourage student engagement, improve cognitive function, improve self-esteem, conflict resolution, relationships, problem solving. These are all things that we can do if we can get our kids outside more often. And so I just want to close by saying at a time when our kids are spending more and more times on their screens, AB 2158 is going to give schools a practical way to help students reconnect with the natural world while strengthening their focus in academic success. I really wanted to call this bill the Touch Grass Act, but that kind of got that. But we went with something a little more professional. But I really do want to encourage our kids to get outside, and so would appreciate your support. Thanks. There are many types of grass. Fair point. Fair point. We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll? File item 6, AB 2158. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Patel? Aye. Patel, aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Alvarez? Aye. Alvarez, aye. Bonta? Aye. Bonta, aye. Castillo? Aye. Castillo, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. Pellerin? The vote is 8-0. Your bill is out. We will hold the roll open for add-ons. Thank you. Thank you so much Appreciate it absolutely I would love to come out there and see that for me. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Madam Chair, please present. We're on file item 9, AB 2225. Please present when ready. Thank you. Waiting for my witnesses. Good afternoon. Towards the end of a very long hearing, Mr. Chair and colleagues, I'd like to start by stating that I'm happy to accept the committee amendments as presented to clarify members of the working group in our proposal. I'm here to present AB 2225, which convenes educators, families, researchers, policymakers to develop a comprehensive statewide plan with clear goals, benchmarks, and annual performance targets to close the achievement gap and evaluate how well our state education programs are supporting our students and their success. California is home to extraordinary public schools and incredibly dedicated educators, but we also know something that should concern every one of us. Too many students across all social dimensions, income levels, race, ethnicity, language background, and foster status are just being left behind. And while schools and districts are working hard every day to support students, progress has been uneven and too slow to meet students' needs or maintain a high-quality workforce, to maintain a strong economy, or to maintain an informed citizenry that can fully participate in our democracy. How do we change this trajectory? This is not a new question. It's one I've grappled with for many years as a parent, a school board member, and now as a legislator. It's a question that stakeholders have been trying to answer in their own silos, whether it be in classrooms, in school districts, in research institutions, and communities across our state. The conversation has persisted for decades, decades, in part because California does not have a clear and aligned operations and support plan to help local schools close these achievement gaps. Often these discussions, again, are done in silos, at an individual school or in a particular district, without examining the underlying issues, the conditions and systems that complicate efforts to improve our students and their outcomes. These barriers are reflected initially in test scores, graduation rates, and college readiness, and eventually lost potential, diminished career opportunities, and fractured communities. For a state like California, one that prides itself on innovation, opportunity, and leadership, this is not acceptable, and it's not sustainable. No single organization or institution can close these gaps alone. To truly accelerate progress, our state systems must better coordinate policy, funding, and oversight. Because of these reasons, I urge your aye vote today. With me to testify in support are Deborah Shade, CSBA President and Solana Beach School District School Board Member. And Melanie Mata, Superintendent for Hope Elementary School District in Porterville. Thank you. All right. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. I am Dr. Deborah Shade, President of the California School Board Association and a longtime school board member representing more than 5,000 locally elected trustees across the state. Our member school districts and county offices of education are working hard to boost student performance. Educators are committed. Boards are focused, but achievement gaps persist, and progress remains too slow. We find ourselves in this position not because of a lack of effort, but because of a lack of planning at the state level. In the absence of a coherent state plan to support and amplify local efforts, we are left with a fragmented system of well-intentioned but disconnected state programs that often make our work harder. As a board member, I can tell you, we do not need more programs. We need a plan. We need aligned support, and we need shared accountability. Local leaders are held accountable in every possible way by voters, parents, audits, public meetings, media coverage, and state dashboards. Yet there is no comparable accountability for whether the state's own policies and systems are aligned to help us succeed. That is the accountability gap of AB 2225 seeks to close. This bill is part of CSBA's SOS for Student Achievement Bill package, which holds that the path to universally high-quality education is rooted in partnership, alignment, coherence, and reciprocal accountability, not mandates and red tape disconnected from local needs. Accordingly, AB 2225 shifts the focus from compliance to support. So instead of asking, did the district meet the requirement? The state should ask, did the state provide the conditions for success? It brings educators, board members, researchers, and policymakers together to create a clear statewide operation and support plan, one that aligns existing efforts and evaluates what's actually working. On behalf of CSBA, I respectfully urge your support for AB 2225 and the SOS bill package. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Melanie Mata, and our mission is really clear. Improve outcomes for every student and close the achievement gaps. But the system that we operate in wasn't organized to help us do that. At the local level, we're navigating a fragment and often constrained system. In small districts like mine with 237 students, that fragmentation has real consequences for our students. We manage multiple funding streams that cannot easily be aligned into one single coherent strategy. And one program supports literacy, another tutoring, another extended learning, and on and on. And each comes with its own set of rules, its own timelines, and its own requirements that were developed in a vacuum without consideration for the impact they would have on other initiatives. Instead of building an integrated plan, we're forced to layer programs that don't always work together. A district may be implementing a multi-year strategy only to receive a new program with different metrics and different expectations. And rather than reinforcing what works, the system can disrupt it. At the same time, staff are stretched thin, managing overlapping reporting requirements, pulling the focus away from student learning, and it's especially straining in small school districts like mine. And while school districts are held fully accountable for results the responsibility we wholeheartedly accept Accountability must be shared and not one AB 225 helps establish that balance by creating a coherent state operations and support plan that aligns California's plethora of programs, policies, and funding streams under a unified framework that helps school facilities navigate school success. When the system is aligned, we can focus on students. and this bill will help align state agencies, policies, and resources toward a clear goal, which is implementing overall student outcomes and closing achievement gaps faster. On behalf of student superintendents across the state of California, I respectfully urge your support for AB 2225. Thank you. Thank you so much. We will now move to public comment in support, name, affiliation, and position on the bill only, please. Adam Keglin on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support. Susan Markarian, Board Member, support. Deborah Bautiza Zavala on behalf of the California Suburban School Districts Association in support. Sabrina Rodriguez, Trustee with Ventura Unified School District in support. Rob F., Superintendent Principal of North Cow Creek, in support of this fourth and fitting closure to the four achievement gap bills we're supporting. Tristan Brown, CFT, in support. Ana Iowak Amides with Los Angeles Unified, in support. Jamari Fernandez, in support. Thank you so much. Now, any opposition witnesses to testify? Seeing none, any public comment in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee for discussion. Seeing none. All right, we have a motion and a second. Yes. Yes, it's my pleasure to address that question. So this is separate from the dashboards that you've seen before. This is more of a self-reflection on what the state is doing through its various agencies, and it brings together a collaborative group of key stakeholders within the public education system so that we can work collaboratively to select a research institution or a research organization to actually develop a plan. So we've been, this achievement gap has been persisting for years and we've thrown many, many, many different programs and specific grants at the wall, seeing what would stick and what would move the needle, especially post COVID, but even pre COVID, there were persistent achievement gaps within certain populations. And we haven't seen a substantial movement in closing those gaps. So for example, we have community schools, We have recovery block grants. We have programs that help look at credit recovery or after school programs. None of that, we can't really assess which is working and which isn't working. And so rather than coming up with another program to throw at LEAs that may be through one-time funding, through short-term funding where we can't really see the movement over time, this will bring us back together with key stakeholders to do some self and see what is working and what isn working And because we doing it through the legislative process rather than allowing one of our agencies to direct and guide that the legislature retains some of that autonomy and some of that authority to guide that work. And within the context of what the governor's proposing with the fractured governance system and to realign that governance system, this is a narrow lane of authority. This is looking at closing the achievement gap. So it doesn't conflict with anything that the governor might be proposing. It stands independent from that. So it is not redundant, nor is it in conflict. And then additionally, with the amendments that the committee has put forward, it will be under the authority of the SPI. So should the governor's proposal go through, the SPI will have that authority to now address the most profound and persistent challenge facing our students and our school districts as they try to close the achievement gap. So it's really quite consistent and aligned with what we're doing. It elevates the game a little bit and it brings key stakeholders together to try to solve this problem rather than trying to do it in silos or through one policymaker's personal agenda. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any other comments or questions from the committee? All right. With that, you may close. This is part of a package of four bills where we are working closely with CSBA and other educational entities to really try to move the needle on what is sticky about the achievement gap. And it's time that our state is part of that self-reflection and our agencies are part of that self-reflection. And we can only do that external from those bodies. So this convenes an independent working group to develop a plan to come up with solutions that might come before our committee in the future as potential policies. So with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote today. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we have a motion and a second. Look forward to supporting this bill as well. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. File Item 9, AB 2225. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Patel?

Patel, aye. Hoover?

Hoover, aye. Alvarez?

Alvarez, aye. Bonta?

Bonta, aye. Castillo?

Castillo, aye. Garcia?

Garcia, aye. Lowenthal?

Lohenthal, aye. Pellerin?

Pellerin, aye. Zuber?

It is out. We'll leave it open for add-ons. Thank you. Would you like to now move to your next bill? Yes, Mr. Chair. File Item 12, AB 2468. Please present whenever you're ready. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I want to start with saying that I accept the committee's amendments wholeheartedly, and I appreciate committee staff and their work towards improving this policy. Research over many decades has shown that students with disabilities experience a host of academic, behavioral, and social benefits when included in the general education classroom setting with their peers. Students without disabilities benefit academically and socially as well. In spite of these benefits California has lagged behind most other states in the rate of inclusion of students with disabilities for many many years Fifty years after the passage of IDEA California schools still struggle to ensure all students with disabilities experience meaningful inclusion and belonging in the academic and social light of school communities. To realize this vision, schools need sustained, practice-embedded support and a system-wide proactive approach to achieve meaningful gains in inclusive education. We are so fortunate to have that kind of support in California through the Supporting Inclusive Practices Project, or SIPP. Recent research from Policy Analysis for California Education shows that districts receiving support from SIPP Project have increased inclusion at stunning rates. Over five years, districts working with SIPP achieved growth in inclusion at a rate 13 times the state average. Districts required to participate by the California Department of Education because of low rates of inclusion achieved growth rates at six times the state average. And notably, all of the districts that were required to work with SIPP requested that they stay on to continue providing support. AB 2468 will ensure that SIP is able to continue and expand its successful work, as well as align and integrate with other improvement initiatives. With me today are Casey Klapenbach, Assistant Superintendent of Education Services at Stockton Unified School District, and Nancy Hirota, Deputy Superintendent of the Sacramento County Office of Education. Thank you.

I'm Dr. Nancy Hirota, Deputy Superintendent of the Sacramento County Office of Education, and we are in strong support of AB 2468. We know that the practice of inclusion is an evidence-based strategy that improves outcomes and helps to close the achievement gaps for students with disabilities. AB 2468 makes this work possible at scale. At the Sacramento County Office of Education, our partnership with supporting innovative practices referred to as SIPP has been central in advancing equity both for our students and the districts that we support. Working in partnership with SIPP, we have worked alongside districts to examine our practices, challenge assumptions, and work to build a culture of high expectations for all students, including those with the most extensive support needs. SIPP's impact extends well beyond Sacramento. This past year, SIPP partnered with county office leaders across the state to build shared knowledge and confront inequities for students with disabilities as it relates to policies, practices, and systems. This work has created a common language and a stronger collective approach to ensuring that we address these inequities. Embedding SIP strategically within the statewide system of support moves it closer to the center of how we approach school improvement efforts for all students. Students with disabilities deserve to learn alongside their peers in systems designed for them from the start, not as an afterthought. For this reason, we respectfully urge your aye vote for AB 2468. Thank you. Good afternoon, esteemed members of the committee. My name is

Time is up. You could wrap up. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any public comment in support of the bill? Name, affiliation, and position.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any opposition witnesses to testify? Seeing none. Any public comment in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. All right. Madam Chair, would you like to close? Yes.

Thank you so much. Do we have a motion? Second. And a second. We have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll. File item 12, AB 2468. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Patel.

Patel, aye.

Alvarez, aye.

Bonta, aye.

Castillo, aye.

Lowenthal, Pellerin, aye. Pellerin, aye.

Zabir, aye. Okay, that vote is 8-0 and it's out. Thank you. Big day. We will go back through the bills for add and I turning the gavel back over Madam Secretary, will you go through the rolls for add-ons for consent calendar first and then proceed on to the bills? On the consent calendar, Hoover?

Aye. Garcia, aye. Pellerin?

Aye. Zuber, aye.

File item 2, AB 1860. The motion is due to pass as amended to appropriations. Hoover?

Hoover, aye. Alvarez?

Alvarez, aye. Zuber?

Zuber, aye. 9-0. That one is 9-0. It is out. File item 4, AB 2148. The motion is due to pass as amended to higher education.

Aye. Garcia, aye.

Pellerin?

Pellerin, aye.

Aye. Zuber, aye.

The bill is 8-0. The vote total is 8-0. The bill is out. File item 5, AB 2149. The motion is due passed as amended.

Aye. Alvarez, aye.

Aye. Zuber, aye.

It is out. 9-0. It is out. File item 6, AB 2158. The motion is due passed as amended to appropriations.

Aye. Zuber, aye.

9-0. The bill is out. File item 7, AB 2202. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations.

Aye. Hoover, aye.

Aye. Garcia, aye.

Aye. Pellerin, aye.

Aye. Zuber, aye.

Bill has 9-0. It is out. File item 9, AB 2225. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations.

Aye. Zuber, aye.

Vote is 9-0. The bill is out. File item 13, AB 2490. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.

Aye. Alvarez, aye.

Aye. Zabur, aye. That is 8-0. The vote is 8 The bill is out File item 14 AB 2514 The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations Alvarez Aye Alvarez aye Zuber Aye Zuber aye 9 Vote is 9-0. The bill is out. And lastly, file item 15 AB 25-55. The motion is due pass as amended to

That's 9-0. This vote is 9-0. The bill is out. We did that one. Yeah, he closed that one out because we knew the bill wasn't coming back. I did. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.