Assembly Standing Committee on Education

All right, I'd like to call this meeting of the Assembly Education Committee to order. We will hold off on calling the role to establish a quorum and we will proceed as a Subcommitee to accommodate the authors ready to present their bills. We are presenting in sign in order, so please make sure to sign in. And we do have a quorum. So, Madam Secretary, please call.

[Roll Call].

We have a quorum established. I'd like to welcome everyone to today's hearing. We will be hearing 20 bills on file. Three bills have been pulled. They are AB 381, AB 1078 and AB 1120. So if you're here for any of those three bills, they will not be heard today. There are nine bills on consent. They are AB 278, AB 373 with amendments, AB 393, AB 535 with amendments.

AB 872, AB eight, I'm sorry, AB 1106 with amendments, AB 1357, AB 1503, and AB 1653 with amendments. I think we'll be waiting for a Republican Member to show before we vote on the consent calendar, and so we will hold off on that vote. As a reminder, general procedure for each Bill, we will have up to two witnesses in support, two witnesses in opposition, each of whom may speak for up to two minutes.

For each Bill presented, Members of the public in the hearing room will have an opportunity to state your position. Please limit your comments to your name, affiliation, and position on the Bill only. Members of the public are also welcome to provide comment through the position letter portal on the Assembly education Committee website. We will now go again and file order with our sign in order with file item number 15, AB 1178 Assemblymember Luz Rivas. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking your Committee staff for working with my office on this Bill. I will also be accepting the amendments proposed by the Committee. Before I present on what AB 1178 does, I want to start by sharing my personal experience with summer meal programs.

As some of you may know, I'm the founder of a nonprofit that offers STEM workshops, and when I was running the organization, we partnered with our local public libraries to offer summer STEM workshops for kids in the community.

And one of the reasons that we did that, besides the space, was that they offered summer meals to the kids so they would go in the morning, go through a hands on STEM workshop, and then at noon, when the workshop was over, a meal was provided. In the community that I served were all kids that qualify for free lunch that qualify for these summer meals, and their parents really need this help. And I was reflecting as I was thinking about this Bill on my own experience.

I remember finishing the workshop, cleaning up this space, and watching parents take kids to get the summer meal and just sit there and watch them eat, right. Because these summer meals are only available to the child, which I think is amazing. And that's the purpose of AB 1178, is to have this parent, parents or caregivers that come and watch the kid eat, sit with them, be also able to eat lunch with their child. And that's why I'm presenting AB 1178 today.

AB 1178 seeks to combat household hunger by providing parents or caregivers access to the summer meal program. During the summer months, students become more vulnerable to hunger. When school is not in session, free breakfast and lunch are not provided to students, and many families that are barely making it or living paycheck to paycheck rely on those meals. But since they're not offered during the summer, that's why this program is so great. The USDA supplements meals for children through this summer food service program.

This is a voluntary program for schools, libraries, community based organizations, faith based institutions and government agencies to host and provide free meals to children ages 18 and under. These summer meal programs are helpful to families, particularly those that are food insecure or have a tight budget in their household because they spend more groceries for their family during the summer. According to studies from the Institute for Policy and Research, one in four households with children in California are food insecure.

The California Department of Education estimates that over 269,000 K through 12 students experienced homelessness in 2019. If these students are experiencing homelessness or are living on the brink of homelessness, it's likely that everyone in their household are food insecure and also experiencing hunger. Currently, the federal Summer Food Service Program mandates that only children 18 and younger are eligible to receive the free reimbursable meals. This program does not allow for parents or caregivers to receive a meal.

AB 1178 seeks to create a state funded summer meal program for parents or caregivers whose children utilize the federal summer program to receive a summer meal, just like their child does. Today, I have with me to provide testimony, Itzúl Gutierrez, Senior Policy Advocate with the California Association of Food Banks.

Good afternoon.

Sorry, I screwed up there. Go ahead. Oh, I guess it's not my end. Should I turn that off? Does that work?

Good afternoon. There we go. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. My name is Itzúl Gutierrez, Senior Policy Advocate at the California Association of Food Banks. As Association, we have a network of 41 food banks across California leading the collective effort to end hunger. Current data shows that nearly 25.8% of children in California are food insecure. With deep disparities for Latinx and black households, California became the first state to implement statewide universal meals program for children.

Now we look to addressing hunger during the summer months, which not only affect children, but the whole family. The summer meal program fills that gap so children have meals while school's out. Prior to joining CFB, I worked at the Redwood Empire Food Bank overseeing the summer meal program at 40 sites across Sonoma County. One of the hardest parts of the program was serving meals to children, knowing the parents were hungry themselves too.

One summer, we were fortunate to receive grant funding to pilot providing caregiver meals and as you can imagine, we had great success. I want to share a story from one of the teens at a community garden park site. On the first day of service. The lead volunteer had asked all the children to come eat since it was lunchtime. Daniel, a young teen, worked at the community garden and said, I will come and eat when my dad can eat as well.

Daniel did not think it was fair that he could eat, but his father could not. Another story, but thankfully they were able to eat that Friday when the pilot kicked off and they got to sit together. Another story is about Marina Gonzalez Abuelita Del Hardin, who is the grandmother of the community garden. All the kids call her abuelita or grandmother, and the kids who walk alone from the house because their parents are at work during lunchtime, like to talk to Abuelita if they need anything.

That summer, for the first time, she was able to sit and have a meal with all her grandchildren, thanks to the pilot. Unfortunately, the successful pilot came to an end and demonstrated there is a need to serve meals to caregivers. AB 1178 ensures that caregivers can sit down and have a meal with their children at summer meal sites during the most hungriest time of the year. The benefits of caregivers and children eating meals together is well documented.

It encourages healthy food consumption, supporting bonding among families over a meal. And studies show that children who eat with their parents or caregivers consume more fruits and vegetables. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and I'd be happy to answer questions.

Okay, one witness?

Okay, thank you. Any public comments in support of the Bill? Please come forward to the microphone. Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill. Seeing none. Questions from the Committee. Mr. McCarty.

Yes, just one.

Thank you. I support this Bill. Like to move the Bill.

Motion has been made by Mr. McCarty, seconded by Ms. Quirk-Silva.

Yeah. And just to note that, as our author said, hunger is year know we do have universal school meals in California. And frankly, it was because of a couple of people, including Assemblymember Rivas, who championed this a couple of years ago, sharing her story. But you make a great point that hunger is year round and having it not just in our K-12 school system year round, but having it through our summer programs as well. So thank you for bringing this forward.

All right, any further questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Ms. Rivas, thank you very much for presenting this important Bill and also want to be supportive of your efforts to address that compelling personal experience that you shared when you're running your nonprofit. I also just want to state for the record. I do appreciate you accepting the amendment, you know one of my concerns as policymakers here, and I don't want to infringe on Mr. McCarty's jurisdiction as the budget Subcommitee chair.

But while we want to make sure that we continue the effort and the direction toward community schools to support not just all of the children's needs, but their guardians in this case, I also want to make sure that we're not setting a precedent for Proposition 98 funds to go above and beyond programs that are specifically targeting the educational needs of the child. I certainly appreciate that a child cannot learn when they're hungry.

And at the same time, we want to make sure that we don't have that heart tugging situation of the child refusing a meal until their daddy or mommy or their guardian can eat also. And so I think this is a great Bill and proud to support it. Motion has been made and seconded. And so, Madam Secretary. Oh, Ms. Rivas, do you have.

No, I just want to thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary please call the roll.

File item 15, AB 1178. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, four votes. The Bill is out.

And this is do pass is amended to Appropriations Committee. Thank you. Next, we have a sign in Mr. Ting, but I don't see Mr. Ting in the audience. And so the next sign in author we have is Mr. Holden. And this is file item number one. AB 249.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Committee, for the opportunity to present today Assembly Bill 249. I'd like to first mention that I am accepting the Committee's recommended amendments, and I'd like to thank the chair and staff for working with our staff on these changes that we come to agreement on. So thank you for that. Lead is a dangerous toxin and there is no safe amount of lead in a child's drinking water.

Even low levels of exposure can cause learning and behavioral problems for children and damage their organs and nervous system. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, as much as 20% of the lead a child takes in comes from their drinking water. In 2018, I authored a Bill that tasked the Department of Social Services, in consultation with the State Water Board, with developing regulations for the regular testing of lead in the drinking water of child daycare centers.

Through those regulations, the lead testing standard for care centers is set at five parts per billion. AB 249 builds on that important work by requiring schools and community water systems to collaborate on comprehensive sampling plan to test for lead in drinking water and food preparation outlets using a five part per billion threshold, a standard used in many other states, including Maryland, Montana and Washington.

Faucets and outlets that test higher than the lead threshold are required to be shut down and either replaced or properly filtered. Because transparency is an important part of this process, schools must notify parents if outlets at their child's schools test above the lead threshold, and the State Water Board is required to make all lead testing results publicly available by posting them on its website.

From the lead and water data currently available through the limited testing conducted to comply with AB 746, we know that nearly one in five California schools have water outlets that are emitting lead amounts higher than the five parts per billion. Unfortunately, that testing around only required testing of one to five water outlets at each school.

What's worse, some school districts were able to keep their lead leaching faucets operational by flushing, a technique whereby a faucet is left to run for 30 seconds and then restarted or retested. A 2020 study by the Center for Disease Control on the implementation of AB 746 estimated that an action level of five parts per billion would have resulted in a ninefold increase in the amount of schools required to remediate their drinking water.

From the data we have, we know there are many faucets leaching lead at schools our children are attending, and many of these schools are concentrated in low income areas predominantly attended by students of color. As I'm sure you all agree our students access to safe water shouldn't depend on income level or skin color. Testifying in support of AB 249 is Dr.Tehrani from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Director of Children Now, Kelly Hardy, who will also be giving testimony. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. I'm Nora Lynn with Children Now, a statewide policy, research and advocacy organization. We are proud to co sponsor AB 249. Along with Environmental Working Group and in partnership with Assemblymember Holden, the Bill implements a comprehensive water testing and lead remediation approach, building on Mr. Holden's AB 2370 and AB 746 by Ms. Gonzalez in 2017. In addition to being a children's health issue, this is an environmental justice issue.

A US EPA analysis found that communities of color and low income neighborhoods are at disproportionate risk of lead exposure in drinking water. Lead poisoning screening rates for children in Medi-Cal are low. 61% of kids with Medi-Cal were screened for lead by their second birthday, with only 45% of black kids being screened. This means too many kids may be falling through prevention safety nets. Many of California's students of color are also in disproportionately older, more financially insecure schools. Educators and school employees are also at risk.

Lead exposure in adults is linked with an increase in mortality of 37% for all cases, 70% for cardiovascular, and 108% for heart disease. We know that one size fits all doesn't work for our schools. The flexible remediation approach allows for both faucet replacement and or filter installation based on the school's needs and capacity. Data from the Department of Social Services from AB 2370 indicates that in 95% of cases, replacing the faucet itself, remediates lead exceedances to below five parts per billion.

This means the Bill is not requiring schools to rip up their walls to fix lead issues. The problems can either be fixed at the faucet or with a filter. We have been and are continuing to meet with state and federal EPA, education, environmental justice, and children's health stakeholders. This Bill leverages federal funding from the bipartisan infrastructure law to ensure the financial burden does not fall on schools. This testing and remediation needs to start as soon as possible. Our kids and school staff can't wait. On behalf of California's kids and families, I ask you to support AB 249. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Timur Durrani. I'm an Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine at UCSF. I'm a medical toxicologist, so that means I specialize in the prevention and treatment of people with poisoning. I also work for the Western States Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit. We provide clinical and public health evaluations for children in pregnancy and communities with suspected environmental health problems or concerns. We're a source of medical information and advice on environmental conditions that influence the health of children.

So in our work, we see the effects of lead on the pediatric population. As you've heard, lead exposure has been shown to negatively affect children's health at any level of exposure. It's a poison to the brain, and it can make it hard for children to learn, pay attention, and behave. All sources of lead accumulate and contribute to these negative effects, such as in drinking water.

Evaluating and removing sources of lead for children, even if it's just one, such as in drinking water, removes the additive effect of lead. While it's true that we can treat children with medication, prevention and avoidance of lead exposure is much more effective. I want to lend my support to preventing and eliminating lead exposure for all kids. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Any public comments in support of this Bill, please come forward again. Name, affiliation and position on the Bill.

Good afternoon. Linda Way with Western center on Law and Poverty in support.

Good afternoon. Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Good afternoon. ... would like to record support on behalf of two clients, the California Dental Association and the Children's Specialty Care Coalition. Thank you.

Quentin Lebec on behalf of California Health Coalition Advocacy in support.

Marona Goneifer with California Black Network in support.

Michaela Elder, on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support. Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support.

Thank you very much, Ms. Little.

Sure. Susan Little with the Environmental Working Group, one of the co sponsors of the Bill. And I'd also like to express the support of the Association of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Families Advocating for Chemicals and Toxic Safety, and the Friends Committee on Legislation.

Thank you. Any further public comments in support of the Bill? Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill, please come forward.

Thank you. Chair and Members, Cindy Tuck with the Association of California Water Agencies. We represent public water agencies. They are all local governments across California. Our concern, just getting right to it, our concern is that as we speak, the Biden Administration is working on rewriting the current lead and copper rule. They're making it more stringent, and they have said very recently, at a very high level, they will finish that by Fall of next year.

So the way this Bill is written, the compliance period with this new state law would overlap with the compliance period of the new federal rule. And our concern is that we would end up with schools and public agencies, water agencies, implementing two different programs for testing at the same time. We don't think that makes sense. A new testing, new improved testing program, that's where we're headed. But we don't think two programs at the same time makes sense. So on the current version of the Bill, we recommend a no vote and appreciate the time today.

Mr. Chair and Members, Ian Padilla, excuse me. With the Coalition for Adequate School Housing and also the County School Facilities Consortia, neither of our organizations have taken formal positions so far. We're concerned. We have talked to the author's office as well as met with the sponsors before the first committees and expressed our concerns. And also, I said essentially the same thing in ESTM last week. And just quickly, we know the research is powerful since AB 746. We don't have any problem with that.

Thank you,

You kind of know where some of our concerns are going to be. We want to make sure that there's not a significant funding impact for schools and also that it doesn't affect planning and so on too adversely. So we will continue to work with the author, the sponsors going forward. But we do have concerns, and I do appreciate the sponsor recognizing something that we told them.

One of our primary concerns is that if replacing the fountains or the faucets happens not to fix the five parts per billion test, that would require major plumbing system upgrades. And so I won't play the violin too much, but of course, that's where we would be very concerned. So I've seen the research, too. I'm going to continue to look at that. But I know some of our Members, the school facilities folks, are concerned about that.

And finally, we recognize the testimony and the concern with the federal piece. We're just kind of focusing on these other pieces and seeing how that plays out. But of course, we would be concerned about that as well. So thank you very much.

All right. Thank you very much. Any public comments in opposition to this bill, please come forward. Again, name, affiliation, position.

Good afternoon. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. In opposition.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members. Aaron Avrey with the California Special Districts Association. Respectfully opposed, but thank the author for continuing productive dialogue. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none before I open it up to the Committee, I want to give Mr. Holden the opportunity to respond. Perhaps if you can respond to some of the concerns raised by the opposition.

Without a doubt, I'm going to have Susan little, take a stab at it, and then we'll add to it.

Sure. Yes, I would like to respond to the question, the concern that this is going to create an overlapping program. Remember, this Bill requires one time testing by 2027. The lead and copper rule improvements. As we understand, the Biden Administration is in the process of developing a new rule and will possibly be doing something on lead and childcare. We don't know what that will be, but that rule will be first presented in draft form sometime this year.

Then they have to still finalize it after comments are received, and then they will have yet another opportunity for folks to comply to implement it. Right. So we could be two to three years out from an actual implementation date, at which point the state can't enforce the rule until they actually promulgate regs. And it's our understanding now it's taking the Water Board about four years or potentially longer to actually promulgate regs from start to finish.

So by the time California implements the new lead and copper rule improvement program for lead in schools, we could be looking at 2028, 2029 as a start date, assuming that everything follows as planned. So that's why this being a one time testing requirement just gives us a jump start, take care of immediate problems, and then look forward to our longer term testing program.

Thank you. But what about the concern about if the filters don't work, then it might mean major plumbing expenses?

It's our understanding that in the vast majority of cases, like 95% of the cases, replacing the faucet is sufficient, and there are whole school filtration systems that can be purchased that will not result in the kinds of extreme construction concerns that people have raised. We're hopeful that in the vast majority of cases, those would be sufficient.

Thank you. Yes.

I'd just like to make one comment on the timing. If the feds give a compliance deadline, we have to meet that. Period.

So with the feds giving a compliance deadline, you're saying that that would potentially address the delays in the state regulations.

We expect the compliance periods to overlap.

Therefore, you're calling for one standard, not overlapping and potentially contradictory standards.

So I appreciate that you raised that. What we suggested in our amendments is that we give the feds the time to enact their rule final rule by Fall of next year, and then require the State Water Resources Control Board to review that rule, report immediately to the Legislature on our further changes needed for the California testing for lead. So we could end up with one program instead of two.

Thank you. I know that this Bill was heard previously in the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee, we have the chair of the Committee, Mr. Lee.

Yeah. I just want to, of course, thank the author again for advancing this Bill. We saw this Bill in ESTM, and that sailed out of our Committee pretty smoothly. Just to comment on the part that we're talking about, the lead contamination is that, of course, there is no level of contamination of lead that is safe for children, no level whatsoever.

So speedy action on this is really going to save the lives of children, adults, everyone that's in the system. And I think the author has taken a really reasonable amendments as it relates to schools, is that it's about school buildings themselves. And most of the onus, of course, is on the water agencies who are the purveyors of water. So I think it's very reasonable in that sense. And, of course, we talked about the uncertainty with the Biden Administration regs right now.

And the thing we kind of commented in ESTM is that this is happening live, and California being the largest state in the union right now, does have some influence over how that's going to happen if we do certain things that can influence how they shape the process.

And kind of, from my perspective, is sure the timelines could be a little complicated, but really, from a standards point of view, it really only complicates if somehow the feds go more aggressive, as in the lower than five parts per million. We're kind of pushing the bounds already with five parts per million per billion. Sorry. That they might actually go higher than us.

So it would really only be, in our view, kind of a case of a problem if they went even lower and said that it should be absolutely zero or even less than that. So really, I think what we're doing in the state here can get ahead of the feds, and maybe we can satisfy, hopefully we can satisfy the requirements in the future.

But all that is kind of a live conversation while we have school sites and students who could be possibly suffering from lead contamination right now. And I think, really, it's a very reasonable scope of the Bill. And within the larger context of regulation and toxins right now, I think it's very reasonable the way it's constructed right now. So just wanted to echo that and just say that I still support the Bill. Thank you.

Any further comments from the Committee? All right. Well, Mr. Holden, I wanted to share my thoughts before I give you an opportunity to close. But first of all, thank you very much for your ongoing leadership to protect children from lead poisoning, as Mr. Lee reminded us. And I want to reinforce there is no safe level of lead consumption, especially for our children. And while I do acknowledge the concerns related to the Federal Government in the process of developing standards, I go back to what Mr. Lee said.

We do not want to delay in terms of protecting our children in terms of the cost issue that cash, properly named, has raised. Thank you for accepting the amendment that provides options for school districts to be able to shut down any sources of lead for our children and to provide alternative sources of potable drinking water. So happy to support the Bill. I want to give you the last word.

I can't add anything else to what the two chairs have already articulated. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Motion has been made by Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. McCarty. Roll call. Please.

File item one, AB 249. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call].

Four votes, the bill is out. Thank you. Next, we have Mr. Ting file item eight. AB 579.

Thank you. First, let me just thank the Chair and the committee staff for working on the, working with me on this bill. Really very much appreciate it. AB 579 requires that all new school bus purchases be zero emissions after 2035 and extends transportation services and leasing contracts for zero-emission school buses. This is a bill that I brought forward last year. So proud to be able to bring it back again. The 2035 target is achievable to require schools to begin purchasing ZEB buses.

More than 200 school districts across the state are already operating zero-emission school buses in their fleets. There are upwards of 560 emission school buses already on the road and 327 of these serving students in the state's most pollution-burdened community. One of the main reasons for this legislation is because quite often the largest amount of pollution exposure for students is their time on a school bus.

Other states already outpacing California's leadership on zero-emission buses, New York is requiring the new school bus purchases be zero-emission by 2027 and all school buses in operation to be electric by 2035. I understand there's a number of concerns for rural districts that 2035 may cause some concern. That's why last year I accepted amendments to establish a one-time, five-year extension for all school districts that are unable to obtain a zero-mission school bus capable of meeting terrain and route constraints.

I'm also committed to working with the committee and the school districts to address their concerns with the 2035 date and the current extension provided them. I'm proud to have two witnesses, one, Orville Thomas of Calstart and Derby Pattingill, on behalf of the California PTA.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ting. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, committee members. Orville Thomas, State Policy Director of Calstart. Calstart is proud to be a co sponsor of AB 579, which would set the zero-emission purchasing goal in statute. The California Legislature and the state's regulatory agencies have long prioritized the need to transition school buses to zero emissions.

The current multiyear ZEV budget plan allows for the California Air Resources Board and the California Energy Commission to direct over $2 billion in investments towards zero-emission school bus procurement and the infrastructure needed to charge them. Recent legislation passed by Congress, the bipartisan infrastructure law, finally provides a federal partner to California in funding a transition to zero-emission school buses.

The Clean School bus program, administered by the US EPA, will provide up to $5 billion over the next five years for zero-emission school bus purchases nationwide. And federal state funding are spurring the advancements in electric school bus design, technology, and delivery. School bus companies are manufacturing type A, type D and the traditional type C school bus to be zero emission and run on battery electric platforms.

These buses have been ordered in almost every state and have handled inclement weather conditions ranging from the deserts of California and the summer temperatures to the snowy winters of Alaska.

And while electric school buses have been ordered to go as far as 250 miles before needing a recharge that is well beyond the traditional duty cycle of a traditional school bus, over 90% of school bus routes in the country are around 100 miles a day or less, a mileage that is easily covered by current electric school buses. And Ms. Dahle, I know there are a lot of school buses that are starting to operate in rural California, especially in your district.

I know because we've recently celebrated some of them being delivered. AB 579 would accelerate the transition to zero-emission while also leaving schools with more than a decade of leeway to plan the financing of vehicles and the infrastructure necessary. And while the bill sets a 2035 goal, it also allows a one-time, five-year hardship extension if there are extenuating circumstances. For those reasons listed, we hope we get your support. Available for any questions or comments.

All right, good afternoon. My name is Derby Pattingill, and I'm a volunteer and a Vice President for Health and Community Concerns with the California State Parent Teachers Association representing over 550,000 members statewide. For over 125 years, the Parent Teacher Association has been defending the health of children since our earliest years, when we were advocating for child labor laws and hot school lunches.

50 years ago, our membership recognized the danger that air pollution posed to our children and directed the PTA to work to limit our children's exposure to and mitigate the effects of the adverse effects of breathing polluted air. More recently, we have taken positions on climate change as a major threat to the health and well-being of our children. Diesel school buses expose our children to toxic air pollutants.

The EPA, World Resources Institute, and the American Academy of Pediatrics know that diesel exhaust from school buses is a carcinogen that is linked to reduced lung development in children, respiratory diseases, and negative impacts on cognition affecting students'abilities to succeed in the classroom. Studies have shown that asthma is the most common childhood health condition. Nearly 1.5 million children in California have asthma, and this condition makes it difficult for kids to exercise, play, and attend school.

We believe that this is an equity issue as students from underserved communities, I'm sorry, often rely more heavily on bus transportation and are two times more likely to develop asthma. Currently, only 2% of the entire school bus fleet in California are zero-emission vehicles. We must do better than this. According to the California Air Resources Board, school bus commutes are less than 10% of a child's day, but account for 33% of a child's daily exposure to air pollutants.

The California State PTA believes that air pollution and climate change is a children's issue and that we need legislation such as AB 579 to improve the health and protect our state's most valuable and vulnerable precious resource, our children. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members, Shane Levine on behalf of First Student and National Express, we provide busing transportation for school districts all over the state in proud support again this year. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Any public comments in support of the bill please come forward.

Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of Advanced Energy United, proud sponsors of the bill. Thank you.

Hello. Mikayla Elder on behalf of Ceres, in support of this bill, thank you.

Nate Baguio, Senior Vice President for the Lion Electric Company, a leading manufacturer of electric school buses, and we are in support of this bill but would like the conversation continued to see a deadline that is more in line with what we're seeing in other states and what is truly possible with EV buses today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubaira bear with California Environmental Voters in support.

Colin Minewrath with 350 and Sacramento in support.

Thank you. Any further comments in support? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill please come forward.

Can you hear me now? Okay. Megan Baier, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, unfortunately in opposition, although we do appreciate all the staff time and conversation that we've had on this bill, and we hope that that can continue. As was referenced, hundreds of school districts are actually utilizing zero emission vehicles. They are trying to transition without a mandate currently, but there's many barriers that are outside of our control. Our biggest concern with the bill is this mandate goes into effect. And we appreciate the timeline work, but beyond the timeline, the real concern is whether the technology will be there, and we hope it will. But the range that these vehicles have currently is not adequate for many school districts. Further, our electrical grid. I've talked to many districts who've tried to get the chargers installed. They've been in process trying to get these vehicles, and PG&E has actually said, sorry, we can't install the chargers. So they've had know reverse orders.

So the electrical grid, the vehicle, technology, these are things that are outside of our control. Ultimately, our duty is to transport students. We have a legal obligation to transport students with disabilities, foster youth, and I would call it a community responsibility to transport a lot of children that live in more difficult communities for their parents to get them to school. So that's really where we're coming from.

We would like to see language along those lines that in a particular district, if it doesn't work because of the grid, because of technology, that there would be a narrow exemption in that area. And thank you.

Thank you. Any further witnesses in opposition? Any public comment in opposition, please come forward.

Hi, my name is Scott Lay. I'm the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools, and I neither oppose the bill nor support. I appear as a cautionary tale, much like my colleague from AXA just spoke about. We've tried electric buses in our county and it didn't work. The range. I would love to find one of those buses that has the 250 miles range when you're going through canyons and various terrain. But the one we tried, we must have picked the wrong one.

It could not complete about half the routes in our county. So I very much look forward to the day that we can use electric buses. It's definitely needed in the future. But I have concerns about the ability to pick our students up to meet the needs of our most rural students in our county, as well as the infrastructure. Like, we've heard about the charging stations. Thank you.

Thank you. And just for the record, since you only had one opposition witness, that's why I made an exception for the additional comments. So thank you, sir, for sharing your experience. Any further public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bring it back to the Committee. Ms. Vice Chair Dahle, thank you.

And thank you, Mr. Ting. I know that we've had multiple conversations about this and some great work, I think has been done with the extension. And as you can heard, Nevada county is one of my 11 counties, and I think I represent probably some of the most rural school districts in the state. So I won't be able to get there today because I've heard it's almost a weekly conversation that I had with my superintendents. We want to get there. It would be great.

But when on social media, I have a school bus plugged into a portable generator in a parking lot and that's posted. These are all these conversations that I'm having. And I have letters from superintendents that are concerned because they've wrote a grant and they'll be out of compliance if they use their backup bus for more than 1000 miles a year. I would love to be able to say we could drive 100 miles, some of our school districts in one day to transport our children.

And so I think we can have further conversation. Again, we want to get there. It is not a matter of whether this is important or is needed. It's just, can we do it or not? And I'm actually going to go back to the companies of these specific bus companies and tell the testimony, get the testimony to them because we want to get that technology where it should be. So thank you so much for your work on this.

Mr. Hoover.

Thank you. Just really quick question. I'm trying to find it in the language here. How is zero emission vehicle defined in the bill? I'm just trying to clarify that. Or if there's, want to make sure it's open to other technologies as well.

Are you referring to if it's only electric?

Sure. Yeah, go ahead.

I don't have the scientific definition of zero emission in front of me, but it's not technology specific.

Okay, perfect. Yeah. So first of all, I think the goal is the right one. I think for some of these more rural districts. And as one of the folks who testified kind of made clear, I think in some districts it might not be electric, it might be some other technology. Just want to make sure that's allowed under the bill.

Absolutely loud.

Appreciate that. Just so you know, I think that the goal of the bill is good. I have no problem with zero emission vehicles. I drive one myself. But I think there are a lot of impracticalities about the mandate. And just speaking from experience on my school board, I will say, as the witness in opposition testified, school districts across the state are trying to do this, actively trying to do this, and as their older buses hit their lifespan, their diesel buses, they are phasing in electric buses.

I think this work is already happening. I think the challenge that I have is I think these local school boards and superintendents know what is best for that phase in, and my difficulty with this bill, with just having a hard date of 2035. Just to give you an example, we actually had a contract in my former school district with an electric vehicle company to get new buses, and they couldn't deliver on the contract for over two years because of supply chain issues.

Now, hopefully, those supply chain issues will be resolved by 2035. But the reality is that I don't think we're there yet where this mandate is going to be justified, and I'm going to have to vote against the bill today just solely from the local control standpoint. I think it's really important that we maybe encourage or incentivize this somehow for school boards or school districts to do, but unfortunately, in its current form, I won't be able to support. But thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Carrillo.

Thank you. Chair. While there are still some school districts that are moving forward with complying without a mandate, I believe that we have to make sure that all school districts comply. I am a little bit concerned with the cost. Some school districts may not be familiar with the process to obtain the billions of dollars that are available.

So my first question is, if we're doing something about that, letting all school districts across the state that there is this money available for them, and as far as co emissions, the build those acro emissions that are alternative fuel sources that I believe will become available, hydrogen could be one of them. There is a lot of talk of whether the state will be able to meet those goals with only electrifying vehicles.

I do believe that there is an opportunity for other fuel sources, hydrogen being one of them. And I think that that's the intent of the bill, to have other sources to provide that fuel. But I just, again, want to make sure that all school districts know that there is this money available for them so that they can do that transition without fear of having to pay out of their own whatever budget they have, because it's going to be very expensive for them.

And again, if you can just tell us how that will be available to the school district so that they can access that information.

So we have put hundreds of millions of dollars in the state budget for zero emission buses. So you're right. I think I'll go back and double check to make sure that the word is properly getting out and making sure that every district in the state knows. I think we can absolutely do a better job of that. And I think all the members are right again. When you're dealing with fleets, you have an opportunity to look at a variety of technologies, whether it's biodiesel, hydrogen, electric.

There are probably other technologies I'm not even mentioning. But I think with fleets, you have a lot more, in my opinion, flexibility to look at a variety of different technologies because you start and you stop all in the same place. So it's a great place that you can have full control of your own refueling.

Thank you. And with that, Mr. Chair, if this is the appropriate moment, I'd like to make a motion to move the bill.

Thank you. Motion has been made by Mr. Carillo and seconded by Mr. McCarty. Any further questions from the committee? Okay. Before we give you the final word, Mr. Ting, I just want to thank you again for your leadership on making sure that our ambitions to fight climate change include our school districts.

I appreciate that your bill is not going to ban all non zero emission school buses, but that it's similar to the governor's executive order that by 2035, all newly purchased or contracted school buses be zero emission.

I want to acknowledge and appreciate the AXA's concerns, as well as the vice chairs, in terms of emphasizing that while we all want to do the right thing, that whether out of funding issues, or whether out of technology issues, or whether it's out of the charging infrastructure issues, we want to make sure that all of our schools are able to do the right thing and make this transition to zero emission vehicles. Mr. Ting and I talked about his bills.

I shared my concerns, especially about the districts that Vice Chair Dahle has taken the leadership in focusing on the frontier school districts. Frontier school districts, 250 students or less in enrollment. We know that there are districts that are struggling in so many ways to even meet basic staffing issues, much less starting to install or having access to charging infrastructure.

And so I appreciate your commitment to continue the conversation to make sure that we can achieve our goals while within the restrictions of so many of our school districts, especially in rural areas of our state. So, Mr. Ting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I couldn't have said it better myself. I really appreciate the members, especially those members that are representing rural areas. I think we're very sensitive to wanting to make sure that we're trying to do everything possible. We see, and I think, as both assembly members talked about, I think a lot of commitment on behalf of the district. So it's not a matter of commitment. It's really about how do we help them together sort of achieve these goals.

We do have a deadline. Just to simply use an education analogy, if you don't have a date where your paper is due or you have a test, then the paper never gets turned in or the test never gets taken. So at some point, you do need to have some deadline so that everybody can work toward it. Because, again, while you always have some folks who don't need to operate that way, human nature sort of just dictates that we need to have some deadline at some point.

Again, but very sensitive to the real struggles. And frankly, I think the biggest benefits for many of these rural districts because they're the ones that are in the buses the longest. So again, we'll continue to work with AXA and their membership to try to refine this legislation and keep the discussion going. But we really do appreciate the feedback and the comments today.

All right, thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

Item eight, AB 579. The motion is do passed to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Four to two, the bill is out to appropriations. We're going to break from our rules to accommodate Mr. McCarty, who has to run to budget sub two to conduct his own hearing. This is file item number nine, AB 7114. Mr. McCarty.

I think this will be a quick and straightforward bill. Thank the committee for working with us. This is regarding newcomer students in California, whether they're immigrants or refugees. California has long welcomed these students and through their resilience, many have had tremendous success. But we could still certainly help these students. This would direct CDE to collect data and better share instructional guidance to schools as far as our newcomer students, which is defined as a student who has attended U. S. schools for three years or less. Many newcomers don't graduate and are rushed through school, having sufficient gaps in their education prowess before they arrived, and their success is our success. Increased data and instructional guidance will help these students perform better in California and certainly in our workforce after graduation. California, again, has always welcomed students from all backgrounds.

Just a few years ago, we put $5 million into the state budget to help school districts and high refugee communities. And this builds upon that work. With me today are an individual from the Oakland Unified School District, as well as the statewide organization PACE. Thank you.

Motion has been made by Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Hoover.

Good afternoon. My name is Yassir and I was a newcomer student when I first arrived in this country as a 15 year old. I spoke a little English and was expected to graduate high school and go to college. For many newcomers in this state, this goal and career readiness is out of reach because our state and local system simply do not fit them.

Today, I want to tell you about how attending a high quality newcomer school made it possible for me to succeed. The mission of Oakland International High School, the school I went to, is to provide quality alternative education for recently arrived immigrant in english language acquisition and in preparation for college. I remember my second day at Oakland International, my friend Amjad, who's been helping me navigate through classes, pointed at a girl and said, look, she's very smart.

She's going to graduate and attend one of the best universities in the world. This place is called UC Berkeley. I thought to myself, gosh, I would love to attend UC Berkeley one day. In 2019, I got my bachelor's in political science from UC Berkeley. The truth is that during my high school, my teachers spent unbelievable amount of effort to support me. For example, I got the basics of writing a phrase in 9th and 10th grade.

In 11th grade, I learned to write a paragraph, in twelveth grade, finally, I was able to write essays. In the last five years, on average, 45% of newcomers in Oakland Unified were graduated, compared to 80% of non newcomers. But Oakland International, we have 65% of newcomers graduating. It's not magic. Specialized programs and instructions can bring up their graduation rate. All newcomers deserve high quality education, and this bill is an excellent first step to do so.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members and Committee staff. My name is Jeannie Myung, I'm director of policy research at PACE, Policy Analysis for California Education, a research consortium based at Stanford University that also includes UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UCLA and USC. In 2021, PACE launched an initiative on newcomer students in which a group of leading experts from across research, policy and practice worked together to develop new knowledge and approaches to address the holistic needs of immigrant and refugee students.

It has been said that the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable students, its most vulnerable members, and our partnership found that there are significant opportunities for improving education and support for newcomers in our state, and we are pleased to see several of these policy opportunities reflected in AB 714, including a more nuanced data system. Currently, our data system conflates newcomers with english learners in one category when we know through disaggregated analysis that this conflation masks that the dropout rate for newcomers, for instance, is over four times the dropout rate for non newcomer english learners in some districts, and also masks their lower proficiency level and higher outside of school needs. So this lack of data on newcomer students renders them invisible to leaders who could develop approaches to address their unique needs. And we also know that newcomers benefit from specialized curricula and instructional approaches.

Currently, we have educators individually assembling their own approaches, but evidence-based instructional guidance is necessary to move toward a vision in which every newcomer student receives high quality instruction and support in our state. And leaders from the state's largest districts have told PACE that they are eager for the types of newcomer specific guidance materials and data reflected in AB 714.

And looking outside of California, we find that many other states have far more sophisticated data systems for understanding their newcomer students needs, as well as more robust state level support for curriculum and training than California. AB 714 will bring us a step closer to alignment with what is considered best practice at the state level, and our newcomers will be the ultimate beneficiaries. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any public comments in support of the Bill? Name, affiliation, position, please.

Christina Salazara with Californians Together, proud sponsor. In support, obviously.

Good afternoon, Sarah Lillis with Teach Plus, in support.

Sam Finn, Oakland Unified School District. In support.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support.

Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified School District, in support.

Derby Pattengill, California State PTA. We're in support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no further public comment in support. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any public comment in opposition? Seeing none, questions from the committee? Seeing none. Do we have a motion already? Okay, motion has been made by Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Hoover. Mr. Lee

I just want to say this bill is very much needed, especially for districts like mine where there are a lot of people who come into this country from lots of different parts of the world. So we'd love to be added as a co author if possible.

Mr. Carrillo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Myself, having experienced what you went through, I am going to support this bill, Not only myself, but my siblings. I think that in order for us to welcome those foreign students, whether being refugees or immigrants, we need to provide them with the tools to be successful. We need to invest on the social infrastructure of the state to make sure that everybody's successful, no matter where they come from. So I'm proud to support this bill thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. McCarty, would you like to close?

Thank you. I'm not sure if I did, but I'm accepting the author, the committee amendments. And as Mr. Carrillo just noted, and through his story, success, their success, like his success, is our success as State of California. And with that, ask for your aye vote, thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. McCarty. I'm proud to support the spill. I would also be honored to be added as a co author. Madam Secretary, please call the role.

File item nine, AB 714. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Six votes. The bill is out. Thank you to Ms. Addis for your patience. And then following Ms. Addis, it's Mr. Patterson in as well as, I'm not sure Ms. Sanchez is going to be copresenting, but next item is item three, AB 370.

Good afternoon, chair Committee Members. My name is Dr. Renee Bryant. I serve as a Director of Plural Lingual Services for Anaheim Union High School District. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony today as one of the first districts to offer the state seal of bi-literacy as a pilot in 2010, recognizing seniors at graduation, senior award nights, I can say we've learned a lot 13 years since we began awarding the seal, we celebrate the milestone of surpassing 10,000 seal of biliteracies earned by our seniors this year work diligently to provide equitable access. For this award, we offer world eight world languages, three dual language immersion programs, four in Spanish, two in Vietnamese at six sites. And it's a point of equity and access for us to also provide testing in less common languages we do not offer, but students come to school with. Students have earned the state seal of biliteracy in 20 different languages like Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese, Mandarin, American Sign Language, and Arabic, as well as French, as well as more rare languages like Romanian, Bengali, Tagalog, Sanskrit, Hindi, Cantonese, Russian, Arabic, Pashtu, and more. On average, at least 20% of our seniors earned the state seal of biliteracy in 2021. You might remember something that happened then, the pandemic. The criteria was changed so that we could actually allow our scholars to earn the state seal of bi-literacy without having the CASP exam results. As a result, we had 300 more seniors earn the state seal of bi-literacy that year, resulting in 30% of our seniors earning the state seal of biliteracy. These 13-year practices have also shown some lessons learned. Taking the CASP in 11th grade is only one opportunity for our seniors and does not leave room for our scholars to grow in their last year of high school. Standardized exams like the CASP limit our scholars ability to demonstrate proficiency. Opening the English proficiency requirement up to other forms of assessment will mirror what it looks like for the scholars in earning the world language portion of it. Assembly Bill 370 would allow for English criteria to be met by Advanced Placement exams, IB, International Baccalaureate exams, SAT exams, and dual enrollment coursework. Currently, our English learners must actually take two exams, two standardized exams, to prove their proficiency. This is why I woke up at 04:00 in the morning, took a flight here on my spring break to testify before you because-

Ma'am, I appreciate your at 2 minutes, 40 seconds. And so if you can. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, I'll just thank you for your consideration and urge your support.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the CABE, which is California Association for Bilingual Education. My name is Estefania Garcia. I'm currently in my second year at UC Davis with striving for a degree in community and regional development. I was a recipient of the prestigious yellow by literacy in my graduating year of 2021, and I was fortunate to receive this due to passing my AP English exam with a three, and then I received a five on my AP Spanish exam. I did take Spanish for three years alongside this, and I'm also a native speaker at home. I think it's only fair to give students more flexible opportunities to suit their education, because biliteracy is a multifaceted tool that serves to engage our communities. And so bringing a new form to attaining the seal of biliteracy would show that educators and our community truly cares about our students, especially our biliterate students. I would also like to demonstrate an experience from a student. We're going to use a pseudonym as Max. He says, I'm a student who wants to get my seal of bi-literacy. But in 11th grade, I was very tired of school and state testing at the time. I ended up with a score of two in my English California standard assessment, and I wanted to know if there was anything I could do to retake this, as I have been speaking Spanish since kindergarten. I went to the Language Academy of Sacramento and Kindergarten, and it was 100% Spanish. Each year, they added 10% English to the curriculum until fifth grade. And when it stops, it's at about 50/50 Spanish in English. I know that I'm capable of speaking Spanish, and I was wondering if there's anything I could do to rectify my mistake and potentially earn the seal of bi-literacy. Right now, he cannot take the exam or receive the seal of bi-literacy. And changing AB 370 would give him and others a better opportunity to show that they're true bi-literacy. So thank you for allowing me to show these experiences, and please vote yes on the AB 370. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any public comments in support of the Bill, please come forward.

Christina Sarasota with Californians together, proud co sponsor.

Jennifer Baker with the California Association of Bilingual Education, another co sponsor in support.

Annie Chow with the California Teachers Association in support.

Good afternoon. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. And we strongly support the Bill.

Thank you very much. And before we go forward, Ms. Addis, to you for the record, do you accept all the amendments?

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Comments from the Committee, Mr. Carrillo?

Thank you. Wouldn't it be great if all school districts had this opportunity that Ms. Garcia had? I'm amazed by the hard work that you guys have done by the work of CABE, who continues to promote bilingual education. And maybe someday we'll get into being multilingual in the United States, as many other countries do. It is a great asset to have, and it just opens a multitude of doors for those that are multilingual, and I hope that we can get there someday. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to make those comments.

Thank you. Any further comments or questions from the Committee? Seeing none. Thank you very much, Ms. Addis, for this very important Bill. Happy to support this Bill, to move forward. Would you like to close?

Thank you, chair. Today I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB. Lost my number, AB 370.

Thank you. We need a motion and a second motion to move. Motion by Mr. Carrillo, seconded by Ms. Quirk-Silva, Madam Secretary please call the roll.

File item three, AB 370. The motion is do pass as amended, to appropriations. Mersuchi, aye. Mersuchi, aye. Dali. Dali, aye. Juan Carrio, aye. Juan Carrio, aye. Hoover. Hoover aye. Lee. Lee aye. McCarty. Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva, aye.

Six votes. The Bill is out. Moves on to appropriations. Thank you.

All right, Mr. Patterson. Thank you for your patience. And it looks like you will be presenting it solo. Yes. This is file item number 10, AB 802.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here to present AB 802. This bill is sponsored by Joe Patterson, father of four children. I will be accepting Committee amendments. AB 802 would require local education agencies to notify parents of their existing rights to review their students curriculum.

In fact, a lot of school districts already notify parents of this right. It's important to note that this is an existing right, yet many parents and guardians are unaware. School curriculum is adopted by a public process, which includes the district, school board, teachers, and other Members of the community. But ever changing requirements and new curriculum adopted by schools when it is adopted, this bill would allow them to get the proper notification that they should, or they can take a look.

AB 802 will empower parents and guardians with understanding their current right and feeling comfortable when asking to view their students'curriculum. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in support of the bill? Mr. Patterson, father of four.

Yes, exactly. I don't want to talk again, though.

Any public comments? Additional comments in support of the bill? Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Thank you very much. Bring it back to the committee, Mrs. Quirk-Silva.

Good afternoon, and thank you for bringing this. I will be supporting it, but I do want to make comments as a classroom teacher, and you are right, and I appreciate you mentioning that. Many school districts already do that. Not only do they already do this, but there are many opportunities for parents right now to engage within the classroom. So, for example, the school year always starts with a back to school night where teachers display the materials that are going to be taught.

I taught in K-8 and mostly 3rd, 4th, so I'd always have the textbooks out. Also mentioned was there's public processes when there is a new adoption. And that's a very lengthy process where it's not just educators, but parents are brought into review. But I want to clarify and kind of make a note of this because I get asked in public forums, why are you teaching certain concepts of sex-ed in kindergarten?

Or these kind of same type of questions, or why are you trying to make students transgender? And I've literally had these questions on a regular basis. And when I asked to see what is being proposed that we're teaching, and I look at it, it's not even California school curriculum, if curriculum at all. It's kind of a worksheet. So it's really important that parents do see what's being taught so that they can know that we're not teaching.

I mean, I've even been told that we have transgender closets in our public schools. And so parents do have the right to know. They should have the right to know. But once they see what's being taught, they need to know. Let other people know, because there's this narrative that we're teaching all of these curriculum that are absolutely not true. And any parent can go to a school, ask to meet with the principal, the teacher, at any time, review curriculum.

They can even ask to sit in in a classroom, particularly when it comes to the sex-ed. Parents can not only sit in when the instruction is being given, they can also ask to be opt-out and they can review any curriculum. So I appreciate this coming forward, maybe for a little different reason, but I think the transparency is really important in public education because there's these narratives that are absolutely not true. So we agree for different reasons, but I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Vice Chair. Dahle.

Thank you for bringing this forward. Before I was elected to the school board, the first time I started going to school and asking all those questions, and I was shocked to find that when the new curriculum standards was coming, it was math textbooks and they were laid out in the district office between the hours that were school hours. And, well, we posted this at the post office for 10 days. We're going to, here's the curriculum for.

And teachers were going through it, which is great, but as a parent, I did not know that that was the standard. And that's how we open up the curriculum for our parents to see it. And it was during their workday you'd have to leave work to go view that curriculum. And that is different than I was a parent that was in the classroom all the time. So I did see what was being taught to my children.

So I think this is very important because a lot of parents work two jobs and they do want to be involved. But just noticing them that they do have those opportunities and maybe just even through language barriers, we don't know how to go ask those questions. Some parents don't know how to ask, how can I be involved? So, thank you for bringing this forward, and I'd like to be a co author, if you take me. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Before I give the last word to you, Mr. Patterson, I want to thank you. Happy to support the bill. Would you like to close?

Great. Well, thank you very know. I appreciate those comments. And I'm always looking to bring Republicans and Democrats together on issues. But even as a parent, I was shocked at how many rights that this body, this state has given parents to view what is happening in schools.

And I think maybe it will, in some cases, help people understand what is being taught and also address some of the issues that you've raised, because we've seen that, and I've seen a lot of districts also move to where they're posting online. A lot of the publishers will post these things online. And so, I mean, these are all good things. So people know what's happening in schools and people actually get more engaged if they are concerned with something going on.

That's why we have school boards to help work through these with any issues that might come up. But I really appreciate all the comments and thank you for bringing the teacher perspective to it. And obviously, they're pretty instrumental in our education system. So thank you.

Thank you. With that motion has been made, we haven't had a motion by Vice Chair Dahle seconded by Mr. Hoover. Madam Secretary, please call the roll

File item 10, AB 82. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Six votes, the bill is out. All right. We are now at a point where members of the committee can present their bills. Let's see. We have Ms. Quirk-Silva and Ms. Talley. I guess I could have asked to see if the two of you want to duke it out, but. Yeah. Okay. All right. This is item 18, AB 1555.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I want to thank the committee consultant for working with my office on this bill, and I do accept the committee amendments. A teacher shortage has hit critical levels during the drawing and after the pandemic, with teachers leaving the profession in substantial numbers. Transitional kindergarten is part of the K-12 school system. TK is the first year of a two year kindergarten program that uses a modified kindergarten curriculum which is age appropriate as well as developmentally appropriate.

Transitional kindergarten expansion will require up to 15,000 additional teachers in a K-12 system that is already struggling with critical teacher shortages across the state. In order to teach TK or transitional kindergarten in California, teachers must hold a multiple subject credential, which authorizes the holder to teach preschool through 8th grade, that is currently the practice. But in addition to the multiple subject credential, 24 additional units of childhood development coursework are required by August 1, 2023.

My bill would give extra time for these teachers to actually acquire these units, and I want to just expand again personally on this. Any of you who have worked as a parent in a classroom, who have worked in the classroom as an instructional assistant or been a teacher yourself, know that the day often starts for most teachers, about 7:30, and most teachers finish around 4-4:30. And that doesn't count any of the prep work or grading papers and so forth.

Many teachers get moved from grade level to grade level. As a matter of fact, currently teachers can be moved if you teach 6th grade all the way down to kindergarten, and this happens often. This is not a rare instance. Teachers can be moved even from junior high down to an elementary position because they hold that k-8 credential, and they can be moved up without asking any additional.

So an example for me is I mostly taught third and fourth grade, but as my good friend, the chair, will remember when I wasn't here and was put back in the class, I was moved all the way up to junior high from third grade with not being asked for any additional units. So now with transitional kindergarten, and I understand the early child education concern about making sure teachers really understand that curriculum. And it is different from say fourth or fifth or 6th grade.

But 24 units is quite a lot of units to do in a year. And I want you to think about other professions, whether it's a dental or a physician, lawyers, we don't ask them to take that type of coursework within a year. So this would allow an additional time to get these units and taking, just imagine taking 3 hours or 4 hours of coursework a week plus the homework.

So I'm very interested in making sure that we have the teachers with the background knowledge they need for early childhood, but we don't discourage them from moving down because there are some very capable kindergarten, 1st, 2nd grade teachers who already have been teaching many of these concepts. And let's allow them to have the time to get those additional units in a timely manner. So this bill would extend requirements by two years. It would ease the burden for already overworked teachers and insist in making sure we are able to retain our current valued teacher workforce.

All right. Thank you very much. Would you like to present any witnesses?

We don't have any at this point.

Okay. We heard from your personal experience, your professional experience. Thank you. Any public comments in support of the bill please come forward.

Diana Vu, on behalf of the Association of California Administrators, in strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Seeing no further public comments in support. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Motion made by Ms. Vice Chair Dahle, seconded by Mr. Carrillo. Any questions or comments? Thank you very much, Ms. Quirk-Silva. This bill is addressing very important issue of making sure that we're going to have enough TK teachers up and running for the programs to roll out. And so happy to support the bill. The motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations Committee. Motion has been made and seconded. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item 18, AB 1555. The motion is due pass, as amended, to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Six votes, the bill is out. Thank you. Last but not least. Actually, maybe we could, while you're walking up there, we can vote on the consent calendar. Yes. Is there a motion for the consent calendar? Mr. Carrillo moves. Is there a second for consent? Ms. Quirk-Silva seconds, madam secretary, please call the roll.

Please call the roll file, item two, AB 278. The motion is due. Pass to appropriations file, item four, AB 373. The motion is do pass, as amended, to Human Services Committee file, item six, AB 393. The motion is do pass to appropriations file, item seven, AB 535. The motion is do pass, as amended, to appropriations file, item 11, AB 872. The motion is do pass to appropriations file, item 13, AB, 116. The motion is do pass, as amended, to appropriations file, item 16, AB 1357.

The motion is do pass to appropriations file, item 17, AB 15. Three. The motion is due. Pass to appropriations file, item 19, AB 1653. The motion is due. Passes. Amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Six votes. The consent calendar bills are out. Thank you, Ms. Vice Chair Dahle, this is item 20, AB 1722.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. First, I'd like to start by accepting the committee's amendments, and I'd also like to thank you, Mr. Chair and the committee staff for all of your thoughtful consideration and working with my staff and stakeholders to bring this bill forward. AB 1722 would provide the option for local educational agencies LEA's to hire licensed vocational nurses under the required supervision of a school nurse. There's a shortage of school nurses in California, as we all know.

The recent pandemic has only highlighted this crisis, bringing the problem to the forefront of my conversations nearly daily. A school nurse in California is required to be an RN and earn a credential in addition to their nursing degree. The credentialing process, which is similar to what teachers go through, can take up to two years, and there are only a few schools available, and will cost more than $10,000. These factors, along with others, contribute to the existing and continued shortage of RNS and school nurses throughout California.

And while most school districts throughout California are experiencing school nurse shortages, rural schools are more likely to lack nursing support than those located in more urban areas. Just one example, a school district I represent has gone without a school nurse for four years. Schools are forced to hire a two hour health clerk in place of a more qualified healthcare professional. As a result, the reality for so many of our students means going without a school nurse.

This leaves school staff without medical training as the ones applying bandaids, dispensing medications, managing allergies, asthma, monitoring blood glucose levels, and handling medical emergency. With our students facing unprecedented increases in medical health, excuse me, mental health issues and the rise in type one diabetes, we need more healthcare professionals on our campuses for our children, and this bill helps us get there. With me today to offer supporting testimony is Scott Lay, Superintendent for Nevada County.

Thank you, chair and members. As Assemblywoman Dahle just said, my name is Scott Lay. I'm the Nevada county Superintendent of Schools. I have been in Nevada County education for 31 years, 22 years as a Superintendent. I oversee 10,500 students in nine districts and six independent charter schools. Over the past five years, I've seen an alarming decline in the number of RNs available for schools, and with COVID this greatly accelerated that process.

Most of our nurses were burnt out, overworked, and underappreciated during COVID, sadly, and with us after the 21-22 school year, 50% of them retired, resigned, or just changed careers altogether. Currently, we have seven RNs for our county that serves seven districts and five charters. That means two districts and one charter school still do not have a registered nurse. They're doing something like a health clerk, a principal serving as the health aide. The nurse. Sorry, not the nurse. Secretary, teacher, custodian, whoever.

It's all hands on deck. One district just found their nurse yesterday, and they'd been searching since May of last year. With that, as you heard, my colleague in Sierra County, which neighbor to us is in year four without a nurse. He's found many LVNs. He's found nurses from Nevada, but none of those pass the criteria required in California to allow him to pay for a nurse. Simply put, we can't find enough rns to serve our students, and that becomes a safety issue for our kids.

I believe AB 1722 goes a long way to help us solve this issue by putting LVNs in our districts can hire these people. We do have a lot of LVNs in our county, and my colleagues in neighboring counties do as well. Our county offices could then hire the RNs to oversee them, and I think that would work out very nicely. I believe it's critical that this passes, that we can do this, simply put, to take care of our kids. Thank you.

Any further witnesses in support of the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in support of the bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward. You have a choice of either at the table or at the microphone.

This is fine. Leangela Reed, on behalf of the California School Nurses Organization, and we are not in opposition, but wanted to first thank the committee staff and thank the member staff, the author staff for the tremendous work that's been done to address the concerns of credentialed school nurses. There's been a lot of work done.

Many of our concerns have been addressed, and we look forward to continuing to work with the author and with the committee to address those other kind of the remaining issues that exist. But just wanted to clarify because I know there was some confusion about our position and we do not have a formal position. Still reviewing the amendments, but we'll continue working with everyone. Thank you.

Thank you. Any public comments in opposition or any tweeners seeing none, bring it back to the committee. Mr. Lee.

I want to say that I understand the goal you're trying to do, and it is a real crisis to not have a nursing for your school districts for four years. I'm not there on the bill right now. I know there's been a lot of last or I should say quick turnaround. I don't want to say last, but a lot of quick turnaround on language.

I do want to thank you for being very flexible and figuring out the right path on this one. I just had a couple of comments that are questions, comments about it is that, I know right now there isn't a sunset or anything in here, but I do think it would be prudent to have some sort of reporting back. I don't necessarily advocate for a sunset, but to say that maybe when you have this program, maybe to report back and say this is working or isn't working.

My second thing is also about I think we should obviously have the highest standard of health care and care available at our school sites right now. This bill would apply to all school districts, not just the rural school district you're talking about. I don't want us to have this situation where, which a lot of school districts, even in my metropolitan areas, Bayer districts, they're having their budget crises.

And I wouldn't want a situation in which they kind of opt to say, oh, we'll hire someone who's slightly different credential, could be cheaper for us in an area where you have a lot of people, too. So maybe considering maybe the direction maybe for you want to go is maybe it's tailoring more for rural school districts.

I know there's medium sized districts instead of just small districts, but especially mine where they're large school districts, I don't want to also think, let's go chase a bottom a dollar that could be cheaper. And I know you're also then working on language that will clarify that the supervision will be a shall be instead of a maybe. And that I think goes a long way, too, to address some concerns.

So just for now, I know you're going to keep working on the bill, and I want to look at the bill when it gets to the floor, too. So I could change my vote as well. But for today, I just want to let you know that I'm not there yet on the bill, but I do want to see how it progresses and it gets to the floor, too. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any further comments, Mr. Carrillo

I do represent some rural areas, and I know the challenge in trying to provide incentives to fill those positions. It's difficult. The salary is really not an incentive. I think that this will actually alleviate the issue. I will support the bill. Thank you for bringing it up. And it's just an effort to have the bare necessities that some school districts need desperately.

I think that, again, this could be an incentive to attract someone that is looking for not the salary, again, because that's not very attractive, unfortunately. But being able to serve rural areas, I think that's something that we need to do. And thank you for bringing that up. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Vice Chair Dahle, before, like to give you the opportunity to close, I want to say a few comments. Number one, I want to clarify that the existing law allows for LVNs to serve in the place of a school nurse if they are supervised by a registered nurse.

This will, this will have that change existing law to make that an option. Yes. So in our smaller counties, you can have an RN school nurse overseeing, being the nurse of record for your school sites. So if you were able to hire an LVN for one of your school sites, then your county office of Ed would have the RN over that. So that you still have that requirement. You're just not requiring it on every single one of your school locations.

That's accurate. Okay. All right. Thank you. So we are expanding options for LVNs. Currently, LVNs can serve under the supervision of a registered nurse. We're expanding it for other LEAs, whether a County Office of Education or a neighboring school district. And so I want to make sure that that is clarified.

Also, I wanted to share that I had a town hall in my district in El Segundo, and there was a registered nurse who approached me or actually raised the concern about your bill during public comments. And I wanted to share with the School Nurses Association representative, as well as anyone that may be listening or watching, is that we certainly respect the registered nurses. This is not in any way trying to threaten or raise any scope of practice disputes between registered nurses and licensed vocational nurses.

But as you indicated, you're trying to solve a problem here. There are too many school districts that just can't find enough registered nurses. I'm all about expanding access to health care, trying to take a practical approach. I think this is a very reasonable proposal. And just to clarify to Mr. Lee's concern, one of the amendments that you're taking is that they will have this option to hire an LVN only if they're unable to hire a registered nurse.

And so we specifically wanted to make sure that there was an amendment so that this could not be used or abused to allow school districts to hire a cheaper LVN rather than an RN. This is only if they're unable to fill the position of the RN. And so with that Vice Chair, would you like to close?

Yeah, I think just to clarify, too, that the best data we have right now is we have one nurse for every 2500 students right now and a national standard, which is a National Association of Nurses, their standard is one for every 750. So I just want to put into perspective that it isn't just my district or my rural areas.

And I think I'm coming from, obviously, from a place of someone who's been on a school board, then it's a challenge to hire, as we know, teachers every level right now. And I'm a rural education advocate. I want my kids in my rural areas to have everything they need. And so for a Superintendent to say it's taken four years, four years is a long time. What if you have a child with type one diabetes?

My godson has type one diabetes, and every day his mom is checking his levels on her phone, and you don't have a nurse. That's where it comes from. Passion. So I appreciate all of your help and getting us to where we can be. And thank you, Scott, for driving down. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. We need a motion. Mr. Hoover makes a motion seconded by Mr. Carrillo. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item 20, AB 1722. The motion is due. Passed as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Five votes, the bill is out. All right. I believe that concludes, yes, we give an opportunity to people to add on to our insurance first. Okay. So I will adjourn the hearing and give an opportunity for members to add on. This hearing is adjourned, and committee members like to add on. The secretary will call the bills.

Consent. McCarty. File item 1, AB 249.

File item one, AB 249. The motion is due. Passes. Amended to appropriations, the chair voting aye. Hoover. Hoover. Not voting. Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva, aye. File item three, AB 370. The motion is due. Pass as amended to appropriations with the chair voting aye, McCarthy. File item eight, AB 579. The motion is due. Pass to appropriations with the chair voting aye. Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva aye. File item nine, AB 714. The motion is due. Pass as amended to appropriations with the chair voting aye. Quirk-Silva Quirk-Silva aye. File item 10, AB 82. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations with the chair voting aye. McCarty. File item 15, AB 1178, with the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations with the chair voting aye. Hoover.

Sorry, what number is it?

File item 15, AB 1178. Hoover. aye, Lee. Lee. Aye. File item 18, AB 1555. The motion is due. Passes. Amended to appropriations with the chair voting aye. McCarty. File item 20, AB 1722. The motion is due. Passes. Amended to appropriations with the chair voting aye. McCarty.

Thank you. We're done.