Assembly Standing Committee on Education

We're going to wait for other Members to show up before we start. All right, I'd like to call this meeting to order. Good afternoon, everyone. This is the hearing of the Assembly Education Committee. Like to welcome Mr. Carrillo, Mr. Lee. We are waiting for other Members, but with the consent of the Republican caucus consultant, we will proceed. We do not have a quorum, so I will hold off on the roll call to establish quorum and like to welcome everyone to today's hearing.

Before I go any further, I want to recognize that today is Administrative Professionals day and we want to thank our Committee Secretary, Jocelyn Twilla. All right, we will be hearing bills in sign in order. We have 30 bills on file. Two bills have been pulled, so if you are here for the following two bills, they will not be heard today. Those bills are file item number 11. Assembly Bill 906 and file item number 30. Assembly constitutional amendment number nine.

So those two have been pulled by the author and so they will not be heard today. We will have a special order for our file item number one, AB938. To try to accommodate and do some crowd management. Today there are 14 measures on consent. They are the following bills. AB 95, with amendments, AB368 with amendments. AB679. AB 908 with amendments. AB 934 with amendments. AB984 with amendments. AB 1023. AB 1038.

AB 1165. AB 1327, with amendments. AB 1473, with amendments. AB 1479. AB1509 with amendments. And AB 1517 with amendments. So those 14 bills are on the consent calendar. They will not be heard separately. So if you're here for any of those bills, now that we have quorum, we can establish quorum and then vote on the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, please call the role to establish quorum here. zero, this one. Okay.

Muratsuchi Here. Dahle. Juan Carrillo here. Hoover here. Lee here. McCarty. Quirk-Silva.

We have a quorum, Madam Secretary. Can I entertain a motion? Second. Thank you, Madam Secretary. This is a roll call for the consent calendar.

Consent calendar file item five, AB 95. The motion is due. Passes. Amended to the Assembly floor. File item six, AB 368. The motion is due. Pass as amended to appropriations file item 10. AB 679. The motion is due. Pass as amended to appropriations file item 12. AB 908. The motion is due. Pass as amended to appropriations file item 13. AB934. The motion is due. Pass as amended to appropriations file item 14. AB984. The motion is due.

Pass as amended to appropriations file, item 15, AB 10. 23. The motion is due. Pass to appropriations file, item 16, AB 1038. The motion is due. Pass to appropriations file, item 20, AB 1165. The motion is due. Pass to the Assembly floor file, item 23, AB 1327. The motion is due. Passes. Amended to the Assembly floor file, item 25, AB 1473. The motion is due. Passes. Amended to appropriations file, item 26, AB 1479. The motion is due.

Pass to appropriations file, item 27, AB 159. The motion is due. Passes. Amended to appropriations file, item 28, AB 1517. The motion is due. Passes. Amended to appropriations. Muratsuchi aye. Dahle. Juan Carrillo aye. Hoover aye. Lee aye. McCarty. Quirk-Silva.

Okay, we have four votes. That is the majority. So the consent calendar is passed. Just some procedural rules for our hearing today for each Bill, each Bill that's being presented will have up to two witnesses, each side in support and in opposition, each witness who 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 stating your name, affiliation, and position on the Bill.

Members of the public are also welcome to provide comment through the Committee's website portal. And we have some bills that we may have some healthy debate on today. And so I want to read a general rules about disruptive conduct at our hearings. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited.

Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening or abusive language, speaking longer than the time allotted, extending discussion of matters not related to the subject of the hearing or the Bill, and other acts that disrupt the orderly proceeding of the hearing. To address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps. If an individual disrupts our hearing process, I will direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruptions may result in removal from the Capitol building.

I will also document on the record the individual involved in the nature of the disruptive conduct. If the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance of these sergeants present in the room in escorting the individual from the Capitol building. Hopefully, we won't have to do all that or any of that. Okay, like to proceed then, with special order, file item number one, AB 938. Actually, I think they gonna take care. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you.

All right, Mr. Maratsuchi, please go ahead and present when you're ready.

Thank you very much. Members of the Committee, I am proud to present Assembly Bill 938, which would give teachers and school staff a 50% pay raise by 2030. Schools across the state are facing a workforce crisis with many teachers and school employees unable to afford to live in the communities that they work in. In particular, there is a growing gap between teachers and comparably educated college graduates. In other fields, data shows that teachers earn 23.5% less than their similarly educated peers.

In countries like Finland and Singapore, teacher salaries are competitive with jobs in fields like engineering, law, and business. On top of that, nearly two thirds of young adults recently surveyed cited pay as one of the top three reasons why they were not interested in the teaching profession. We need to close this wage gap to get more young people to aspire to become educators. That is why I introduced Assembly Bill 938 to set the goal of raising teacher and school employee salaries by 50% by 2030.

This Bill specifically would establish Local Control Funding Formula base grant funding targets for fiscal year 2030-2031 to increase the state base grant education funding by 50% with this specific intent that the base grant increase be used to close the wage gap by 2030. This Bill will also require school districts to report their progress in closing the wage gap every year for the next seven years. In closing, if we want world class schools, we need to pay teachers and essential school staff what they deserve.

I am joined today by the President of the California Federation of Teachers, Jeff Freitas, as well as Elena Royale, a special education teacher with the United Educators of San Francisco. Thank you. When you're ready.

Hello, my name is Elena Royale and I'm a special education teacher in San Francisco at John O'Connell High School, and I'm here today to urge you to support AB 938. I'm a proud special educator in San Francisco, where for the last six years, I have taught many of our most vulnerable students.

For the 13 years before that, I worked as a paraeducator at Glen Park Elementary School, and thanks to the classified to certificate pipeline program, I have been able to work my way to become a teacher. But it hasn't been easy. Before I became a teacher, I had to work four jobs to survive. Even now, I have no savings. Rent takes up nearly my entire paycheck, and up until three years ago, I lived with my parents simply because I could not afford to live alone.

But I consider myself to be one of the lucky ones. For too many early career educators and nearly all classified workers, it's simply impossible to get by on the salaries we have given. The demands we now make our given the demands we now make on our school workers, our school has found it almost impossible to recruit teachers and paraprofessionals.

In fact, it has gotten so bad that we have two paraprofessionals teaching class this year, even though they don't have credentials to meet the letter of the law. One teaches in the library with a credentialed librarian present in the room who is not directly involved with instruction. And in my school alone, because of the intense pressure and the high cost of living, at least 15 of our staff are leaving. That is half of our staff at our high school.

This is going to leave our students devastated and it's also heartbreaking to watch incredibly hardworking staff leaving our community. Unfortunately, our schools are not unique in our district or in California. We simply cannot recruit and retain the educators and support staff our students need to have thriving public school system that our students deserve. AB 938 is essential to addressing this crisis.

It would mean that I would have an opportunity to finish my career in the community that I love and that we would be able to recruit and retain educators so that they too may build a career that they can be proud of. Thank you, and sorry, I forgot to. Two minutes, please. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon Committee Members. My name is Jeff Freitas. I'm the President of CFT, also a high school math teacher by trade. CFT is a union of educators and classified professionals. Many of the people in red here and outside are Members of CFT. CFT is a proud sponsor of AB 938 and we are deeply appreciative of Assemblymember Muratsuchi for taking the lead to author this important Bill. Let's be clear.

The story you have just heard from an educator who cares for and educate our children, who's been both a classified and a certificated member, is just one of thousands of similar stories throughout the state. There is a staffing crisis in our schools, in this state, and this nation, but our state can respond to that without bold action from elected leaders in Sacramento. It's only going to get worse at the local level. In every corner of the state, I hear the same desperate stories from our members.

Teachers who live in their cars or commute over 2 hours each way to their schools because they can't afford to live in that community. Schools that have turnover from anywhere from 25% to 50% every year because they can't retain qualified teachers or staff, not enough special ed teachers or paraprofessionals, dedicated teachers who want to start a family, who are making the agonizing decision to leave the profession that we all care about to educate our students and our communities.

Veteran educators and school workers who are burnt out and leaving because they are sacrificing their own well-being to make up for a system that is bending and breaking. The list goes on for the reasons RTK-12 schools are suffering from an inability to recruit and retain educators and classified professionals.

The CDE reported just this school year where they were short 22,000 teachers, and the National Center for Education Statistics said that within the western region of the US school last fall reported vacancy rates of 59% understaff of our schools. Make no mistake, this is a direct impact on the students and the families we serve. We could talk about the average beginning pay in the state, 58,000. That's not enough to afford to live in San Francisco.

The hourly rate of many classified employees, often limited by hours and benefits, is just above minimum wage off times. And we recognize and appreciate, like the pipeline that was just talked about, the work that the Legislature and the Governor have done to address this crisis so far. But these efforts alone have not successfully led the changes we need. AB 938 is a big and bold idea. We make no mistake about that. But it's exactly what is necessary at this time to tackle the problem. We ask for your aye vote on AB 938. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Next. If there's anyone from the public that would like to comment in support, please come to the microphone. Yeah. And just a reminder, please share your name, your affiliation, and your position on the Bill. I want to make sure we hear from everyone. Thank you.

Hi there, I'm Julianne Neal. I'm a fourth grade teacher in Twin Rivers, located in Sacramento county, and we are definitely in support.

Yuri Camacho, California Teachers Association kindergarten teacher in Holtville. I'm speaking in favor.

Michael Bloom, Fairfield-Suisun Unified CTA, 22 year Spanish teacher proudly in favor of this.

Pamela Greenhall, speech-language pathologist, Chino Unified School District, 33 years very gratefully in support.

Anna Cordero, 7th grade teacher, 15 years virtual educator in support.

Hi, Paula Kendrako, I'm an elementary educator in Hesperia, California, and I'm in support of this.

Julie Sepulveda Gibson, Tierra Del Sol Continuation High School in Bakersfield, California and I support this. Thank you.

Hi, Lisa Hickman, third grade teacher, Tustin Unified School District in support.

Steve McDougall, Social Studies teacher, Salinas Union High School District also of CFT I support.

Melinda Burrello, high school math teacher, Santa Fell city schools. Also CFT Member. I support.

Barry Covington, Salinas Union High School District. I'm an English teacher and I've been a teacher for 25 years. I'm in support of this.

Janet Peele, 7th-grade social studies teacher in Santa Cruz City schools, CFT member support.

Jennifer Clayton, North Monterey County Unified School District, Member of the CFT and I support it as well.

Annette Freeman, second-grade educator for 22 years with North Monterey County Unified in high support.

Jody Craw Pauler, Greater Santa Cruz Federation of Teachers, 2030 in support educator for 15 years.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Villa I'm a special education teacher for high school at Rancho San Juan in Salinas Union High School District, and I'm also the teacher of the year at Monterey County for 2023 and I completely support this Bill.

Congratulations.

Roxanne Pina Donay, educator for 17 years, special educator as well for Salinas Union High School District, also a Member of CFT and in support.

Hi, my name is Terry Johnson. I'm presently a special ed education teacher at Salinas Union High School District, but worked as a classified employee for 13 years prior to becoming a teacher, and I'm strongly in support of this Bill.

Hi, my name is Amy Haddon. I'm a third grade teacher for the last nine years at Rescue Union School District in El Dorado county, and I'm in support of this Bill.

Hi, I'm Rebecca Goodchild. I am from Sacramento City College. I'm a librarian, I'm with CFT and I'm in support of this Bill.

Hello, Jason Newman, President, Los Rios College Federation of Teachers Support.

Hi Oranit Limmaneeprasert faculty at American River College, also the faculty union President there at TCSL in strong support for this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Pedro Coy Carrizales. I represent El Rancho Unified School District. I do teach in the morning and in the evening from nine and from eight in the morning all the way to 09:00 pm... I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Aaron Horton from Los Angeles City College and I strongly support this as a Member of CFT. Paul, American transitional kindergarten teacher in Castro Valley Unified School District and I support this Bill.

Paul American transitional kindergarten teacher in Castro Valley Unified School District and I support this Bill.

Julie Lewis, math teacher, local 2219 in Gault. I started working, I made $24,000. I'm glad to hear that starting wage is now increased. However, I strongly support this Bill.

Hello, Carl Williams, President of the Lawndale. Federation of Classified Employees, also President of the CFT Council of Classified Employees. I am a senior custodian and I strongly support this Bill.

Hi, Alex Dejan, current faculty with the Los Angeles California Community College District. Previously I was a classified staff member at the Rowland Unified School District and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Hi, Kelly Hanston, 6th grade teacher, Lodi Education Association. Thank you so much.

Daniel Dodge Senior, Cabrillo College Federation of Teachers, AFT 4400 President, Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, former mayor of the City of Watsonville. I rise in support of this board. Thank you.

Ava Chow, Eastside Union High School District. I'm a science teacher. I'm also Cupertino Union school board Member. Thank you. I'm in support.

Good afternoon. Wade Kyle, Los Angeles Unified School District I strongly support special education teacher.

Cindy Magar, 7th grade science teacher, Dodson Middle School Los Angeles and in support.

Marion Willis, ECE teacher at Berkeley Unified School District, CFT in support.

Hi, Evan Lewevano, 16 years of school psychologist and member of the United Educators of San Francisco in support of this Bill and my colleague.

Hi, Melissa Bowles, I teach science at Redwood High School in Larksborough, California, and I speak in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jessica Hay with the California School Employees Association in strong support.

Good afternoon. James Michael Apollo with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, AFSME in full support. Thank you.

Hi, Matt Meyer, President of the Berkeley Federation of Teachers, also high school teacher, full support.

Regina Chagoya, Vice President of Berkeley Federation of Teachers and a first grade elementary teacher in full support.

Mr. Chair Members, Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, a proud co-sponsor of the measure. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Sarah Carver. I teach kindergarten at Malcolm X Elementary in Berkeley. Full support for this measure. Thank you.

Molly Bluestein, teacher at Cragmont elementary in Berkeley and I give my full support to this measure.

Morgan Agnew, President of the San Rafael Federation of Teachers and parent of a kindergartner in San Francisco public schools, full support of this measure. Thank you.

Yo me llamo Jenny Labacas, fourth-grade teacher, parent of fifth-grade, 15-year-old twins. I fully support 938.

Erinn VanderMeer Vice President, junior high, Petaluma Federation of Teachers, in support.

Sandra Larson, President of Petaluma Federation of Teachers, 30 year educator and I support this measure.

My name is Jen Derek. I teach at Woodland High School and President of the Woodland Education Association, California Teachers Association, speaking in favor of the Bill. Thank you for the work.

Good afternoon. Michelle Underwood, on behalf of the California School Funding coalition in a support of amended position. Looking forward to continuing to work. Thank you.

Hi, Katie Hardeman with the California Teachers Association in strong support.

Adonai Mack with Teachers now also in support.

Hi Mara Harvey, President, Natomas Teachers Association 20 year teacher here in Sacramento, and I'm absolutely in support of this Bill.

Good afternoon. Lisa Lennon Wilkins, proud middle school science teacher for 19 years and President of the Lodi Education Association, and I am in support of this Bill.

Good afternoon. I'm Rob Reynolds. I'm a fourth through 6th grade teacher for the San Joaquin County Office of Education, and I also support this film. Thank you. All right. Is that everyone?

Do we have any witnesses in opposition today?

Hello, I'm Sandy. I'm a placer county resident, and I believe in our U. S. Constitution, our California State constitution, and anywhere where the government is overreaching, anything that has to do with the people I oppose. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Association of School of Business Officials. We actually have a support, if amended, position. Our concerns stem from the current version of the Bill. It's unclear whether this includes the statutory benefits that will be factored into the total cost of employee compensation. So we wanted some clarity around that. And it was also unclear whether this Bill would become a mandate for basic aid school districts.

And so we really appreciate the opportunity to have a conversation and the work of the Committee staff to be able to provide some clarity around that language. And also. Thank you, Muratsuchi, should it be your will to accept the Committee amendments that are found on page 11 and 12 of the Committee analysis, we would be more than happy to move to a support position. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Andrea Ball, on behalf of three organizations, also support, if amended, California Association of Suburban School Districts, the Central Valley Education Coalition and the Orange County Department of Education. As my colleague noted, the Committee amendments would move us to a support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right. Do we have any other public comment in opposition? Seeing none, we will move it back to the Committee. Mr. Lee.

I applaud our chair for bringing this Bill forward. Of course, we need to fairly compensate all our educators across California, as well as tackling, of course, all the rising costs associated with that's eating away at their salaries. I think one thing to point out is while we are advancing measures like this can make sure that while we get more money to local school districts, those school districts also translating those gains back to their employees, we want that to be the case. And if you'll have me, I would love to be a co-author on this measure as well. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll move the Bill. All right.

We have a motion. Mr. Carrillo

I will second that motion. But first, I want to say that this has been long overdue. It's time that we recognize the hard work that our teachers do. Hearing that 25% less salary from other states, I think it's critical that we continue to invest in education. Part of that investment is compensating teachers for what they do. Not only do they get 25% less than others, but they also put out of their pocket money to bring supplies to the classrooms.

So I want to thank all the teachers for what they've done. I want to thank you for bringing that in front of us. And I will also ask if I could be considered to be a co-author of the Bill. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. So I will make a couple of comments. First of all, thank you for bringing the Bill forward. Thank you to all the teachers in the room today that came out and to show their support, in particular to the Spanish teachers and the special education teachers. As a former school board member, I still hear from my districts all the time that our teacher shortage is real. It's a very real problem, and it's particularly prescient in these areas.

And I do feel strongly, and I know we're going to have a lot of budget discussions this year on what our priorities should be as a state, particularly given the budget position that we're currently in. But I think education has to be our top priority because our students really are the most important. And so I also want to say, well, I wanted to ask you if you're accepting the Committee amendments. Yes.

I assume that. And I just want to say thank you for those amendments. I did have some concerns on the initial version of this Bill, but I think those mostly solve those concerns, and I'm happy to support the Bill today. And with that, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. I'd like to join you, Mr. Hoover. And thanking all the educators, the teachers, the classified workers, all of the essential school staff that keep our schools running for taking time to come to our state capitol from throughout the know. There was one teacher that came from Tustin Unified, and she shared with me that she had to run to the gift store to get stickers and pencils for all of her kids.

I had to ask her, are you paying for that out of your pocket? And she says, well, of course, she's been doing that for 20 years as a teacher. And so I think that was just a reminder to me of the sacrifices that our teachers and our essential school staff make to educate and to take care of our kids day in, day out. And so thank you for the bipartisan support for this measure. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

So, we have a motion for Mr. Lee. A second for Mr. Carrillo. Secretary, please call the roll file.

Item one, AB 938. The motion is do pass as amended, t appropriations. Muratsuchi aye. Dahle. Juan Carrillo aye. Lee aye. Hoover aye. Quirk-Silva.

All right. Sergeant Reid, are we okay to proceed? Okay. Thank you. Okay, we are moving to accommodate Chair Dr. Arambula, who has a budget Subcommittee to preside. This is Item Number 24: Assembly Bill 1445. Welcome, Dr. Arambula.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Members, and thank you to the Committee staff for the recommended amendments, which I accept. AB 1445 advances drowning prevention by connecting all California elementary school children and their parents and caregivers with water safety knowledge through schools and local organizations. This measure is known as the Neng Thao Drowning Prevention Act in honor of a young constituent.

Neng was an 18-year-old senior preparing to graduate as valedictorian at Edison High School in Fresno when he tragically drowned in a local river in May 2017, in a year just like this, when our rivers are so full. His death impacted not only his own family, but also the community that he became a leader in. By increasing awareness about swim safety and drowning prevention at an early age, AB 1445 can help to save lives of Californians. Testifying in support of AB 1445 is Sher Moua, representing the Youth Leadership Institute in Fresno, and Touyee Thao, Neng's brother.

Good afternoon, Chair Muratsuchi and Assembly Members of the Committee on Education. My name is Sher Moua. I am here on behalf of the Youth Leadership Institute, and we are honored to sponsor this bill. I first met Neng at a swearing-in at the City of Fresno Youth Commission. It was from there that Neng joined the Fresno Boys and Men of Color Program, and we began working closely together. Neng jumped right into the work.

Whether it was advocating for youth jobs, protecting the most vulnerable, or for more and better parks, he readily volunteered to take lead. Neng, along with his peers, advocated for a youth job summer program and for a safe schools resolution that would protect undocumented students.

He inspired many other young people to advocate for more green spaces, safe and well-equipped parks, and for more investments in local transportation, campaigns which continued after his death, and which resulted in an estimated 1.2 billion dollar investment in City of Fresno parks over the next 30 years, and which continues to fuel a grassroots movement to reimagine transportation across Fresno County. Neng made his presence felt at the school board, at City Hall, and here in the Capitol, and his legacy endorsed through this work.

What made Neng truly special was his power to bring others along. His peers gravitated to him. What Neng did, they did. When Neng spoke, they listened. In May 2017, when Neng drowned in the river, river that I myself have swam in and my family go to, his life ended too soon, and we lost a powerhouse, and we hope that this never happens again. Neng is speaking through AB 1445 and on behalf of the Youth Leadership Institute and all of those impacted by Neng, I am asking you to listen and to support this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Touyee Thao. Five years ago, my brother drowned in the San Joaquin River. Neng was the youngest of our ten siblings, and he was from a Hmong refugee family. As Dr. Arambula stated, he was a valedictorian, and he was bounded to go to UC Berkeley. Even as a young man, Neng had many visions to make Fresno a more equitable city.

He often reminded us that he'll come back to our city to make it a better place. His passing not only brought sorrow to our family, but it left unfulfilled dreams in our Fresno community. Unfortunately, our story is not unique. According to the Fresno County Water Safety Council, at least ten incidents of drowning occurs annually. Assembly Bill 1445 honors my brother Neng, and many others who have lost their lives due to drowning.

It emphasized how crucial it is that everyone has the skills and knowledge to stay safe in the water. And while this bill cannot bring back my brother, it can prevent other families from losing their child, their sibling, friend, or loved one. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in the hearing room who would like to testify in support of this measure? Are there any--seeing none, are there any witnesses in opposition to this measure? Seeing none. Are there any public comments in opposition to this measure? Seeing none. Bringing it back to the Committee. Moved by Mr. Hoover. Seconded by Mr. Lee.

Any comments by the Committee? Thank you very much, first of all, to your constituents, Dr. Arambula, to the brother of Neng and, you know, to the community support that he clearly had. Thank you, Dr. Arambula. I know that you are very passionate about this.

To make sure that we were honoring Neng Thao through Assembly Bill 1445 and to establish drowning prevention programs so that Neng's legacy will be to help prevent this from happening to other young--particularly young lives who are cut much too short. And so we want to thank you very much for sharing his memory and want to give the closing comments to Dr. Arambula.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will appreciate Neng's family for coming to Sacramento to testify and to support. I will call out if I can, Chong Vang and Cheryia Vang Thao, Neng's mother and father who are here at the back of the room, and Neng's brother and sister, Touyee and Chia Thao, who came up here to Sacramento. He was really an inspiration for those of us in the valley, and I'm glad that we're able to find a way for him to continue to give back. This is what he would have wanted, and I ask for your aye vote.

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

File Item 24: AB 1445. The motion is 'do pass as amended to Appropriations.' [Roll call].

We'll get it out.

Thank you.

The bill is on call. Thank you very much for coming to the State Capitol, and thank you to the Thao family. Okay. See Mr. Lowenthal on the room, and so we'd like to proceed with File Item Number Three. This is AB 10.

As legislators, we take on a myriad of issues through the legislation we carry, some of which have little tangible connection to our own lives. But for some of us, bills hit us right at home, and AB 10 is one of those bills. It hits me right at home. I am here before you today not only as a Legislator and a former teacher, but I'm here as a parent and a stakeholder whose family has been impacted by body shaming. Body shaming is complex.

I want to make sure we're viewing it through the appropriate lens. When we think of body shaming, many of us think about the social stigmatization and discrimination our culture has towards obesity and the deliberate and intentionally hurtful actions and tactics of a bully. While body shaming can be targeted as obesity and used as a bullying tactic, it actually comes in many forms. They often don't fall in either of these categories.

Body shaming can be directed at anyone's immutable characteristics, such as their height, their weight, their hair, or disability, among many other characteristics that are beyond the power of an individual to change or that are fundamental to personal identity that intentionally or unintentionally make someone feel uncomfortable, out of place, like an outsider, and more broadly, like the other, as though they do not belong amongst their peers. Body shaming is also not always a bullying tactic.

It can come in the form of innocent comments that an individual may not recognize as being hurtful, critical, or unwanted by someone else. Body shaming often has an insidious ripple effect on the lives of those who are being subjected to it, especially amongst children and adolescents, can lead to diminished self-esteem, and can lead impacted individuals to question their own self-worth.

For children and adolescents who are still developing and forming their identities, the impact of body shaming can have devastating and long-lasting effects that can carry over into adulthood. Today, the negative impacts of body shaming that children and adolescents are facing are being compounded by the pervasive narrative and portrayal of body images that are unrealistic and sometimes completely unhealthy. Folks, we are living in unprecedented times.

Our children are being bombarded with images of idealized bodies that can warp their perception of what is healthy, make them feel bad or ashamed about their own bodies. Social media and traditional media platforms are filled with advertisements, influencers, information that are driving many children and adolescents to think that if they look a certain way, they're going to be happy, they're going to be popular, they're going to be successful, they're going to be fulfilled in their lives.

But the impact of these narratives become particularly concerning and sometimes dangerous when a child or adolescent is already being body shamed and they are questioning how their peers perceive them and their own self-worth.

The largely unregulated algorithms used by social media platforms can quickly lead a child's adolescent innocent search on tips to losing weight or eating healthy down a rabbit hole into a dark recess of our digital world where nefarious content teaches our kids how to lead anorexic or bulimic lifestyle, and even engage in self-harm.

In the school setting, body shaming frequently leads to the negative impacts on student mental health, which can cause students to withdraw from their friends, activities, classroom participation, and result in increased absenteeism, sadness, depression, and suicidal thoughts and actions. All of these impacts can cause students to fall even further behind academically.

Teachers and faculty, of course, are on the front lines, witnessing the impacts that body shaming, correlating, and compounding effects of unregulated social media consumption and a host of other issues are having on mental health and well-being of our children. Teachers are faced with the unenviable challenge of navigating their role as educators while also counseling, mentoring, supporting our children as they confront and struggle through issues as body shaming.

If we are counting on them to do all of this, we need to make sure that they have the resources they need to be successful in carrying out this mission. Our schools need to be environments where children feel safe, they feel supported, they want to go and learn and be amongst their friends and peers. By developing policies and resources on body shaming, teachers, faculty, students, and parents will be better equipped to deal with the issue of body shaming when it inevitably arises.

The resources developed under AB 10 should not only be used as a disciplinary tool when body shaming has come to place and it's too late, but as a learning tool that can help everyone gain a deeper understanding of body shaming and the impact it can have on an individual. These resources will help offer teaching moments to students, teachers, faculty, and parents who may not understand that their words are actually hurtful.

These resources can empower students to serve as allies to their peers who may be experiencing body shaming. And finally, these resources can help empower students who have been body shamed promote concepts such as positive body image and ways to effectively communicate how body shaming and what others are saying about them can be hurtful.

Our kids, teachers, faculty, and parents need and deserve these tools, and AB 10 is the critical first step to delivering them. I'm very pleased to be joined by Cindy Magyar, a science and dance teacher at Dodson Middle School in Los Angeles who is here to testify in support of AB 10.

Hello, my name is Cindy Magyar and I am a science and dance teacher at Dodson Middle School in Los Angeles, and I'm urging your aye vote on this bill. In my job, I have observed how important it is to build self-esteem of my students. It is an important factor in determining whether a student will be successful in school, and a healthy self-esteem is what enables students to handle and learn from mistakes.

There are too many pressures on kids in our schools, and too often, the result is increased drug and alcohol use or abuse, violence, dropouts, and even suicide. Body shaming has a tremendous impact on self-esteem of our students, and more could be done in this area. There are resources that can help to create an environment that is more inclusive and respectful of all body types and can provide students with the tools to develop a healthy relationship with their bodies. I speak from personal experience.

Being my size and my build made me a target for rumors and rude comments from my classmates, and this kind of treatment negatively affected my school experience. Schools should develop policies about body shaming to ensure that all students feel safe and accepted in their learning environment. I applaud Assembly Member Lowenthal for this bill, which I urge you to support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Witnesses in support of--public comments in support of the bill?

Mr. Chair and Members, Seth Bramble here on behalf of more than 300,000 educators, the members of the California Teachers Association in strong support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Andrea Ball here on behalf of Long Beach Unified School District Superintendent Jill Baker. With the Committee amendments, support the bill and thank the Assembly Member for addressing this issue.

Mr. Chair and Committee Members, Michael Bloom, a proud 22-year teacher and a person who supports this strongly as I've received comments in my history, and you have to keep moving and be strong enough to advise students to survive through things like that because they're better than that. So I support.

Ava Chiao, science teacher, East Side Union High School District, and I am Cupertino Union School District School Board Trustee in strong support. Thank you so much.

Kelly Hanston, sixth grade teacher. Thank you for supporting the health of our children.

Yurii Camacho, kindergarten teacher, Holtville Unified School District, speaking in support.

Anna Cordero, seventh grade educator, 15 years, strongly support.

Paula Kondratko, elementary educator in Hesperia Unified, and I'm in support.

Lisa Hickman, Tustin Unified, third grade, support.

Julie Gibson, Tierra Del High School in Bakersfield, California, support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further public comments in support of the bill? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments? Oh--please come forward. Name, affiliation.

Okay. My name is Sandy, and I'm a Placer County resident, and these conversations should be held at the home front with family and not legislated by our representatives. Increasing awareness is always important. This is true, and I have been a victim of discrimination and prejudice in my past, as you can see, but I don't believe that we need to legislate this, so I oppose. Thank you.

Any further witnesses or public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, let me bring it back to the Committee. Moved by Mr. Carrillo; seconded by Mr. Hoover. Any comments? Seeing none. Thank you very much, Assembly Member Lowenthal, for bringing this very important measure. And thank you to your witness, Ms. Magyar, who is not only a middle school teacher at Dodson Middle School in San Pedro in my district, but also is a constituent of Redondo Beach. And so thank you also for--and welcome to the...

You've had multiple jobs done during your visit to the Capitol. Mr. Lowenthal, we had a chance to talk, and without going into too much details, I know that you shared how this is very important to you and to your family, and in fact, this is your first bill that you introduced as a California State Legislator--

The day I was sworn in.

Yes. And so I want to thank you not only as a colleague, but also as a parent of a teenage daughter. This is a critical issue, especially with all the issues of unhealthy body images being magnified by the social media that is proving over and over again to be so unhealthy for too many of our kids. And so, again, I want to thank you for bringing this very important bill and for making a difference on this issue. Want to give you the final opportunity to close.

I simply thank you all for your consideration. I know that to some degree, almost every family in California deals with this issue, and the goal here is not to put the onus or more work on anyone in our school system. It's to make sure that kids feel great about coming to school and feel comfortable in a learning environment. And I hope that we get there with this. Again, this is the first step. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Motion has been made and seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File Item three: AB 10. The motion is 'do pass as amended to Appropriations.' [Roll call].

Okay. Three votes. The bill is on call.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

All right. Next in sign in order is item number seven, AB 381 by Assembly Member Blanca Rubio.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for allowing me to present AB 381, which would streamline eligibility for specific therapists in our education setting. I would like to start by accepting the Committee amendments and thanking the Committee staff for their hard, hard work on this. Thank you. I appreciate it so much. Currently, occupational and physical therapists working in school systems are ineligible to obtain a base credential, therefore rendering them ineligible to receive an administrative services credential or participate in many higher-level conversations within the school system.

Due to the high level of training and qualifications for both occupational and physical therapists, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing has stated that they believe both should qualify for a health services credential without any additional education or training. Unfortunately, a decade old statute does not allow the CTC to implement this determination. This exclusionary language was established in the California Education Code in 1976 at a time when occupational and physical therapists services were typically provided through off-campus private appointments.

Nearly 50 years later, both services are now required in schools under federal and state law, creating an optional pathway for occupational and physical therapists through the health services credential. To obtain an administrative service credential will allow qualified personnel an opportunity to move into administrative roles and share their unique expertise at a leadership level. We have held extensive conversations with Committee staff, the CTC, and stakeholders regarding the bill's language to reach this point.

By allowing for an optional credential, we believe we've addressed the majority of the concerns of the opposition. That being said, we are committed to continuing those conversations with the opposition should this Bill pass through Committee today. With me here is Erin Dolin, a Doctor of education and Director of the Occupational Therapist Assistance programs, and Dr. Dorothy Ho, a physical therapist and clinical specialist in pediatrics who has worked in L.A. County school based services since 2004. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. And thank you, Assembly Member Rubio, for being willing to bring this forward. Thank you, Chair and Members. My name is Dr. Erin Dolin. I'm an occupational therapist. I've been in practice for a little over 23 years. I hold my master's degree in occupational therapy and my doctorate in education leadership. I've completed all of the administrative coursework that is also required for the administrative credential. And currently I did practice in school-based practice for about 18 years and then I left.

And I'm now the Program Director for the Occupational Therapy Assistant Program at Clovis Community College. So I'm here today asking you to please pass this so that we can have an equitable opportunity for leadership and school-based practice. Over 20% of our practitioners practice in education. We're highly qualified and educated. We work with some of the most fragile and needy students in the school system. That being said, we have expertise in the neurological foundations for learning.

We are valued members of the educational team, and we do not have the opportunity to hold any leadership roles in the education system currently. So it is because of old legislation prior to special ed law where we were, now we're integrating services that we're excluded.

By having opportunities for leadership roles, we are going to be able to be important members to sit at the table for decisions that impact all students, so all students can be successful. To help not only with that, but to support occupational therapists and physical therapists that need that unique lens of somebody that has their area of expertise to sit by their side and guide them and support them. Currently, we don't have that, and retention is a big issue for our practice.

And what happens is we don't have upward mobility. So much like myself, experts leave the field so that we can take on opportunities to have a bigger footprint and make an impact for the betterment of our profession and our students. So with that being said, I really would hope that you will pass this today. It is hugely meaningful for our students, our districts, our communities, and most of all, our profession. When I completed my doctoral degree, I thought that I could hold a leadership role.

But I learned that because I don't hold a base credential, I was personally excluded from using the education and the degree I obtained. So I did leave the school based practice field and went into higher ed. That being said, more recently I had the opportunity where there was an opening to teach a course with the educational program at one of our state universities. And one of the minimum requirements to teach that course is that you have an administrative credential. Once again, I was excluded.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Assembly Member Rubio and the Committee for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today in support of AB 381, I'm Dr. Dorothy Ho, a board certified pediatric physical therapist working in a clinic on a school site in L.A. Unified School District. This Bill removes the barrier of preventing physical and occupational therapists working in public schools from obtaining a health service credential. OTs and PTs are the only licensed non credentialed health service providers currently working in California public schools.

This barrier has created inequities in pay, and benefits, and career advancement opportunities. By removing the credentialing barrier, this Bill will provide equity for school based therapists and assist districts in the recruitment and retention of OTS and PTs, thereby bringing our unique perspectives to the education team and improving the outcomes ultimately for our children with special needs.

Data has shown that one of the primary reasons that school-based therapists leave the position is the desire for career advancement, and in fact, a 2016 CPTA survey revealed that 87.5% of school-based PT respondents voice an interest in leadership positions. Removing the credentialing barrier will facilitate creation of a career ladder for OTs and PTs within public schools and assist in the retention of therapists.

A second reason therapists leave their position is a systemic lack of understanding of the unique roles of OTs and PTs in the education system. Related service and special education administrators are often non-clinicians who often do not understand the complexities of our documentation requirements, our continuing education needs, and our practice acts.

Without the ability for our voice to be heard at an administrative level. School-based OTs and PTs really lack the professional support that's needed to navigate this complicated world of special education and fully support the students that we serve. I respectfully request your yes vote on AB 381. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Public comments in support of this measure please come forward.

Good afternoon, Chair and Assembly Members and Committee staff. Serrette Kaminski with the Association of California School Administrators in support. Thank you.

Hi there. My name is Carlin Deley Reaume. I'm the Advocacy Co-Chair for the Occupational Therapy Association of California, and on behalf of our association, I want to express my support for this Bill. Thank you.

Hi everyone. My name is Dora Vang. I'm an occupational therapy doctoral student at University of the Pacific, located in Sacramento, California, and I am in support of AB 381.

Allie Baker, occupational therapist and Vice President of Pediatrics at HealthPRO Pediatrics Heritage, and I'm in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Marilee Gadler Bell, occupational therapist for 23 years with Santa Barbara County Education Office. I'm driving 12 hours total today because I strongly support this. Thank you.

Lease foot, occupational therapist and AT/AAC specialist for Santa Barbara County, SELPA, strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Renee Gorth, occupational therapist. I work for three school districts in Santa Clara County, and I support AB 381.

Hello, I'm Rowena Crow, occupational therapist. For 20 years, I have worked in three different school districts, including L.A. Unified, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Hello. Ryan Lynch, occupational therapist, Santa Barbara County Education Office and I support this Bill.

Hi, I'm Sheila Wolfe. I'm an occupational therapist since 1971. We've been waiting for this for a long time, and I really want to urge your support for the kids and families that will benefit. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. Carl London, on behalf of the California Physical Therapy Association, in support. I just want to mention briefly thank you, your staff, for several years of work on this. We really appreciate the support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kasha Williams, as a private citizen in support of this Bill, thank you.

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

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to comment on this Bill. My name is Jessica Hay, and I'm here on behalf of the California School Employees Association. CSEA represents nearly 250,000 classified school employees, including many occupational therapists and physical therapists. First, I'd like to thank the author's office for working really hard on these amendments with us. We really, really appreciate it. And thank you to the Committee staff as well. I know it's been many years.

However, as the Bill is written right now, we still have some concerns and are respectfully opposing it. We're concerned about the unintended consequences this Bill could have for our members by forcing them out of their union and bargaining units. They could lose their benefits and rights they've fought for through their collective bargaining.

But if this Bill moves forward, we're going to continue to work with the author's office on amendments to protect our classified employees and their ability to stay in their union and with their bargaining units. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Kimberly Rosenberger with SCIU. We have concerned opposition, and we're deeply indebted to Debbie for working so closely with us in the author's office. We know this is a difficult issue. I say concern because we share the same goal. We agree they should have a pathway forward. We're very supportive of that concept. But I want to align my comments with my colleague here and outline that the biggest concern we have is the outdated problem.

It's that a classified employee can never be in the administrative field unless they change their credentialing, which means changes their representation, changes their classification. By all the conversation we've had here and prior, everyone agrees they're doing above satisfactory. They don't have to change anything they're doing in terms of obligation, skill set, certification, knowledge. Just get this credential. That's problematic to us that the only issue is how they're classified.

It's frankly a little classist and it's concerning that the only way for them to move forward is for us to change how they are represented. And for those reasons we're going to continue working because we would like to see a pathway forward. But we're hoping that we can find a solution that isn't such a blunt hammer that impacts the entire workforce, including those that don't want to change the representation or the current standards. Thank you.

Thank you. Any public comments in opposition to the measure please come forward.

Hi, Sandy again from Placer county, and I would just like to echo the concerns that these young ladies had today. Yeah. I don't believe that they should be losing anything that they have already fought for such a long time to gain. So please keep that into consideration and continue your communications with them and working with the right verbiage and amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further public comments in opposition to the measure?

So that was in opposition. Just.

Thank you. Seeing none, let me bring it back to the Committee. Questions? Comments? Okay. Motion by Mr. Hoover, second by Mr. Carrillo. Question for CSEA. My understanding is that this is giving a choice to occupational therapists and physical therapists and that nothing is going to be forced on them, as you indicated. Could you clarify that?

Yes. So it is optional, which is the amendment we so appreciate that the author took and that Debbie worked so hard on, but if they are choosing, they are going to still lose their representation. They will have to move to a different union. So we were trying to work on some language, but it came down to the last minute on ways to protect them, to allow them to stay in their union. So hopefully that's something we can work on if this moves forward.

And just to piggyback. So those that don't opt in will then be in a different classification, potentially creating two different tiers of workers. Our concern is that either there's two tiers of workers being represented by different unions, or the Administration will just say, this is too complicated. Everybody has to get this credential, taking away the option.

Okay.

I appreciate that, but again, if you can help me clarify. So by getting a credential, they can go from one labor union to another labor union, CTA or CFT, they would.

Become certificated by De facto of being credentialed.

Okay. So I just want to make sure that this cannot be described as being anti labor and that we're giving them choices.

Right. They would still be represented by a union, but they could like the potential unintended consequences, them losing the benefits that they had fought for and their salary scale that they had fought for, the hours, those types of things.

But it's their choice.

It's their choice. But it may not be to the point of if there's two tiers, the Administration may just say, we don't want to bargain two different ways for the same workforce that has the same duties and obligations. So therefore, we're going to make it mandatory. Additionally, we have had an example of workers that were doing healthcare work but weren't credentialed. The school decided that they should be credentialed, and by doing so, they can't lower their wages.

But it changed their hours, it changed the vacation time and grandfathering. So they essentially were getting compensated less for the amount of work they were doing.

Okay, may I address some of those issues? Thank you for actually sitting down with me. I know we were reaching out, and it took us a long time to actually get a hold of somebody to talk about these issues. But as you know, I was a former teacher. I started as the credential specialist in Baldwin Park Unified School District, and I started in CSEA. When I became a teacher, it was my choice.

I did move over to the Teachers Union, however, in terms of benefit, in this case, I'm talking about PERS and stirs. I had the choice to continue in person, even though I was a teacher. And so I stayed in person until I left Baldwin park, and then I started in Fontana. At that point, I went into stirs, which is one of the benefits that we received. At that point, it was my choice. I was in an office Monday through Friday. Cool.

I didn't have to do anything other than just do the credentials. But when the opportunity became available for me to become a teacher, I left my credential specialist position to become a teacher. I did have to go back and get a credential, but I had the opportunity to work under. At the beginning, it was a pre intern credential, and then an intern, and then receive my credential as a teacher, which I still hold.

Just so you know, I'm on the leave of absence from teaching in case this gig doesn't work. Know, I'll go ahead and go back to teaching.

I think it's working out well.

Yes, it worked out well. Now, I left Fontana unified. Like I said, I'm in leave of absence while I'm in the Legislature. But at that point, it was my choice, because I'm losing 12 years of stirs. I have to pay for my benefits here in Fontana, my benefits were completely covered, but that was a choice that I made because I thought that I could do something different. And I think what we're looking for, it's just a choice.

Again, not trying to force anyone out of the profession, as you stated, and the benefits. I was also a school board Member, and not once did we say, hey, we're going to not bargain with anybody. When I was a school board Member, the Teachers Union basically took the lead into the negotiation, and CSCA was a me too clause when we were negotiating. At no point did the board or the Superintendent say, hey, it's too much for us.

When BPA, which is my union in Baldwin park, negotiated, then CSCA said it was basically a me too clause, so everybody got the same benefits and they negotiated with each other. And again, as a school board Member, not once did we say, hey, we don't want this class or that class. I understand that there's different districts, but that was never in our minds. I know that the Teachers Union and CSEA are essentially the most powerful unions, not only in the state, but in the school district.

And I believe if anybody even dared to say, hey, we're not doing this, CSCA and BPA and my union would go against it. But the point to this is that now we have choices. And again, I thank the Committee staff for that because I think we got to this point. It's a choice. No one is going to force anybody to do it. And that's why I wanted to make sure that we had these conversations. But I'm not doing it.

Just some Assembly Member out of the blue. I worked in the school system. I was a CSCA employee, including a job steward in my school, and chose to move into teaching so that I can serve children in a different capacity and moved from teaching to the Legislature, essentially losing all of my benefit fits. But all of those were all my choices. And all I'm asking for is for the occupational therapists to have that same choice that I had to be able to serve children.

At the end of the day, I think we all do it for the right reasons and to thank you for the conversation. But again, nobody's trying to force anybody out of anywhere, as the Committee helped us through this. It is a choice made by the profession. Unfortunately for our children, she chose to leave the school setting because there were no other opportunities. So if anything, I think it's opening opportunities for us to have really qualified folks that are going to be leading these schools.

How amazing is it going to be that somebody other than teachers get an administrative credential? Not all kids learn the same, and to have a different lens is really an opportunity for them. But I think for me primarily for the kids to have somebody that has a different experience than just what we have. I was a human resources person and then a teacher, and my experience, I think, was very valuable in that profession.

And I think the skills that our pts and Ots have are valuable in serving children with special needs, which we all know is direly needed. So I appreciate the comments. Definitely willing to work. But again, the stressing that this is a choice, and opening opportunities to others to become administrators, I think, is what our goal is. So thank you very much. And with that, I really respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, I'll just say really quickly, I'm sorry I missed a lot of the debate, but I'll be supporting your Bill today with the hope that you'll be working with CSCA and ScI. You continue to work on the concerns. I know you all have shared goals in that, and I'm happy to support it today, but I do want to see that progress.

Thank you. And I think the part that you missed was that this is an optional, but it's an opt in. It's a choice, basically. If they don't want to leave, they don't have to leave. This is only an opportunity for a choice. She left the actual school setting because there was no choices for her to stay in the school system. So what we have done, the amendments that we took are, it's an optional credential.

So I believe that we have been reaching out and talking to both CSEA and SEIU on this matter, and we're to the point where I think, and hopefully the votes will reflect that, is that we're moving in the right direction.

Thank you. I want to echo Mr. Lee's request that you continue to work with CSEA and SEIU to resolve any remaining differences. I want to acknowledge our consultant, Debbie Luck, who's been working hard on this for years. And I appreciate. I mean, it sounds like you are the perfect Assembly Member, perfect Legislator, as a former CSEA Member and former teachers union Member to bring this forward. And so I'm happy to recommend an I vote for this. And, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Thank you. File item seven, AB 381. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Muratsuchi aye. Dahle. Juan Carrillo aye. Hoover aye. Lee aye. Mccarty. Quirk-Silva.

Four votes. Bill is out.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next is file item 17, Assembly Bill 1054. Mr. Berman. And while Mr. Berman is getting set up, we had a special acknowledgment earlier. I wanted to acknowledge Assembly sergeant Halsey Reed, who was retiring Friday. Thank you very much for your many years of service. We're going to miss you. All right. Thank you.

It's hard to follow up, Halsey, but I'm going to try. I'd like to begin by thanking Committee staff for their work on this Bill. I will be accepting the Committee's amendments described in the analysis from Silicon Valley to Biotech Beach, California is the undisputed cradle of innovation. However, far too many students grow up in the shadows of tech companies, yet do not have the opportunity to learn the skills they need to one day work there.

California has fallen behind 27 other states when it comes to prioritizing access to computer science education, exacerbating educational inequities and the diversity gaps in tech. States like Arkansas, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, and Tennessee are way ahead of us. It's embarrassing. As amended, AB 1054 would require school districts and charter schools to adopt a plan to ensure that all high schools offer at least one computer science education course by the 20272028 school year.

It's time to restore California as a leader and take the next step of ensuring computer science education for all. I respectfully ask for your I vote, and I'm honored to have with me today Codeye Woody, Director of state government affairs for Code, and Adonai Mack, senior Director of education for Children Now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 1054, which will expand computer science access in California high schools. My name is Cody Woody and I serve as the Director of state government affairs for Code, an innovative nonprofit dedicated to the vision that every student in every school has the opportunity to learn computer science@co.org. We believe that computer science is foundational in transforming the way students think about technology and teaches them the essential problem solving skills.

Introducing computer science courses to all California students has the potential to close the equity gap in computer science fields and provide the workforce needed for California to remain competitive in the global economy. Computer science also exercises students analytical, problem solving and critical thinking skills. These skills are valuable in all school subjects and throughout life. Currently, in 27 other states, including Nevada, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kansas, and Missouri, require high schools to offer a course in computer science.

With five of those states requiring a cs course for graduation. We urge a yes vote for AB 1054. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Ada Nay Mac. On behalf of Children Now and the California STEM Network, we are proud co sponsors of AB 1054. Children Now supports this Bill because, as was described by Cody, we know that computer science is a critical course for all kids in California to experience. Throughout the years, the state Legislature has taken important steps to develop and expand computer science education in California. It is now time to take the next step to improve equity and access in computer science.

Computer science is a vital component of a high quality, well rounded education. Yet access to high school computer science is extremely limited and more often than not is not available to students of color, multilingual students or students from Low income families often attending schools that do not offer a computer science course. According to data compiled by the Computer Science of California, of which Children Now is a Member, California ranks 35th in the nation for the percentage of high schools offering computer science courses.

In a stem dependent economy like California's, the limiting availability of computer science courses is limiting our state's economic potential. Also, data indicates that kids in California do not have equal access or opportunity to experience computer science education, and AB 1054 will ensure that every high school student in California has access to at least one course in computer science education, an opportunity that doesn't exist for too many kids in California today.

School districts with at least one high school or charter high school will need to help increase enrollment of students identified as female, students with disabilities, and students from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, including black, indigenous, Latino, and Pacific Islander students. California is a leader in innovation, but lags in ensuring equity and access to computer science education. Requiring all high schools to offer at least one computer science course is a critical step in preparing the next generation of Californians for rewarding career pathways and informed community engagement. We ask your aye vote for AB 1054. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members Robert Moutrie for the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Good afternoon. Matt Klopfenstein, on behalf of Amazon, in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support.

Good afternoon, chair and Members Martha Alavarez, on behalf of the LA Unified School District in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lia Nitake with Technet, proud co sponsor of the Bill.

Good afternoon. Black Tang with Silicon Valley Leadership Group in support.

Hi. Robyn Hines with Microsoft in strong support.

Good afternoon, Members Andrea Ball, Orange County Department of Education, in support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no further public comments in support of the Bill. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill please come forward. Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill, please come forward. Seeing none. Bringing it back to the Committee, moved by Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Hoover. Any questions or comments? Thank you very much, Mr. Berman, for as the champion for Silicon Valley, well, as one of many champions for it. One of co champions.

Co champion. Yeah.

Thank you for bringing this important measure. I know that we had met and you have been fighting this fight for years, and I thank you for that.

Your witnesses shared how California, even though we like to, as you said in our meeting, although we like to brag about being the innovation state, that it sounds like we are behind other states and with other states even having graduation requirements, I was wondering if you or any of your witnesses might be able to comment in terms of how they're able to address the computer science teacher shortage issue, whether that's an issue in these other states, and if so, how are they able to address it?

Yeah, it's a great point, and I'll let my experts talk to it in more depth. But this is kind of like we do with our environmental goals, our environmental policies, where you set the goal and then you do the hard work to meet the goal. And that's what we need to do here in California, is set that goal. I've worked on efforts in the past to train computer science teachers. Those efforts have failed.

And I believe that once we set that marker that we're going to accomplish this goal by date x by 272028 then it really puts the extra onus on us to back that up and support the programs necessary to make sure that we have the computer science teacher workforce necessary to accomplish it. But I'll turn it over to my experts for more.

Yes, so there has been some states that have kind of used the model of providing as a bonus to sign on, bonus to recruit some of those teachers. But there's other ways that we are investigating. But I can get you that information from state to state. So I'll be available after this.

Thank you.

So I would say this. So Children Now also has another Bill that you actually co authored that you're co authoring, AB 694. I think we just have to be innovative in our approaches. Things like the apprenticeship teacher residency programs is something that I think is valuable that we can create in our state, as well as increasing our resources for things like our internship programs.

Again, I just think we have to just find innovative ways to support more teachers coming into the profession and removing some of the barriers that exist, whether they're financial or even some of the other additional barriers, like the financial aspect is probably the biggest one that I can think of, quite frankly.

That's right. Going back to our earlier discussion about how we need to be able to pay teachers enough to choose a computer teaching rather than working in high tech in your district.

I hear you had a conversation about that earlier today.

We did. But again, thank you for championing this issue. Mr. Berman, would you like to close?

Appreciate the comments, Mr. Chair. Appreciate your partnership on this. Appreciate the bipartisan support for it, because I think it's something that impacts all of our districts and our future workforce and our economy. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. Motion has been made and seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 17, AB 1054. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Muratsuchi.

Aye.

Muratsuchi aye. Dahle. Juan Carrillo.

Aye.

Juan Carrillo aye. Hoover.

Aye.

Hoover aye. Lee.

Aye.

Lee aye. McCarty. Quirk-Silva.

Four votes. The Bill is out.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I believe the next item is File Item, Mr. Zbur. Yes. Okay, File Item number 2. Assembly Bill 5. Mr. Zbur.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, I am deeply grateful for the strong engagement of the Chair and your staff and the diligence and dedication that you've brought to helping us with this Bill. We're happy to accept the Committee's proposed amendments. And I'm really proud today to present AB 5, and I'm proud that this critical Bill is sponsored by CFT, the California Teachers Association, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and Equality California.

The Bill is the result of nearly a decade of advocacy to equip teachers and school staff with the training and the tools that they need to create safe and supportive learning environments for all California students, including those that are LGBTQ+ and who may be facing harassment and lack of acceptance at school, rejection at home, or discrimination in the broader community.

Indeed, I recall that in 2018, in my prior role as Executive Director of Equality California, I testified before this very Committee as the sponsor of this effort, which passed and was authored by now-State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond. The next year, a similar Bill passed this Committee, once again authored by then-Assemblymember and now-San Diego Mayor, Todd Gloria.

These prior efforts were delayed to give the sponsors time to engage in advocacy to fund the creation of an online training program, which they'd succeeded in doing. In 2021, as a result of negotiations with Governor Newsom, the budget allocated $3 million to the Department of Public Instruction or Education for the creation of an online training, which required robust content that is mirrored in this Bill.

Our teachers and school staff, including classified staff, are on the front line of ensuring that all children, regardless of background, zip code, sexual orientation, or gender identity, have a shot at the American dream.

That often means providing a safety net against the effects of discrimination and lack of acceptance that members of the LGBTQ+ community, especially our youth, face, and which too often results in higher dropout rates, lower economic success, higher rates of homelessness, high rates of substance abuse and suicide, among other disparities in health and well being. Fundamentally, every child in California deserves a safe and supportive school where they have the opportunity to learn and succeed.

When LGBTQ students have that support in school, their likelihood of overcoming these disparities and succeeding in life increases significantly. That's why, while I was at Equality California, I was so dedicated to improving school environments and making them safer and more inclusive. And that's why our teachers, who are so committed to our kids, are asking for this training and strongly support this Bill. Ultimately, we know and they know, that supportive teachers and school staff can change our children's lives.

They can give an LGBTQ kid from Torrance or reading or Palmdale or Folsom or Milpitas or Sacramento or Fullerton or Elk Grove a shot at a brighter future. If we are going to expect our public school teachers and other certificated staff to fulfill this critical mission, we have to give them the tools they need. Again, I'm so grateful to our sponsors for joining us in advancing this critical Bill, and I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

With me today to testify in support and to assist with technical questions are Adrian, an Elk Grove student in the 10th grade, and Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, one of the co-sponsors of the Bill.

Hello. My name is Adrian. I'm a 10th grader currently attending a high school in Elk Grove, and I'm here today to express my support for AB five and share with you why I believe it's such an important Bill for LGBTQ youth in California. As a transgender student, I can say from firsthand experience that training on this matter is badly needed in our schools.

Many teachers don't understand my experience or the experience of other LGBTQ youth, especially the crucial role pronouns play in our safety and well being at school. I think teachers having a better understanding of what it means to support transgender youth would greatly improve the learning environment at school for kids like me. Something as simple as using the correct name and pronouns can make all the difference.

When I first started high school, me being transgender was not something I was willing to share with my peers or my teachers. After a few months, though, as I started making more friends and becoming more comfortable in my new school, I then chose to come out to a small group of people, and although I still decided to not share that information with any of my teachers because it was my choice and I did not feel comfortable.

Despite this, my English teachers still found out that I went by Adrian and the pronouns he/him, and she decided to attempt to affirm my gender identity. And she called me Adrian and he/him in front of the whole class without my permission, subsequently outing me as transgender to my entire class. I was mortified. All of a sudden, all control I had over my own decision to come out at school had been taken away from me.

While I do believe she was trying her best to be supportive, I don't think she understood what it meant to support a transgender student. I am fortunate, though, to have a family that does support me at home, but I know that this is not the case for many transgender students, so it is vital that teachers do everything they can to help create a supportive environment at school to ensure that all children feel accepted, respected and supported for who they are. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, a proud co-sponsor of AB 5. First, I want to thank the Assemblymember for his steadfast leadership on this issue, first as Executive Director of Equality California and now as a Member of the Assembly. This Bill is the result of nearly a decade of advocacy to ensure that every child in California has a safe and supportive school where they have the greatest possible opportunity to succeed.

In 2021, with the support of the Legislature and Governor Newsom, Equality California was successful in securing $3 million in the state budget for the Department of Education to develop a comprehensive, high-quality and community-driven online LGBTQ cultural competency training for teachers and school staff. That training is now being developed by the Department in partnership with the Los Angeles County Office of Education and LGBTQ Community Partners.

The training will include various topics, including identifying LGBTQ youth who may be at risk of bullying, identifying community-based organizations that provide support to LGBTQ youth, and providing information regarding anti bullying and harassment policies. But the training is about much more than that. It's about equipping teachers and staff to help break the cycle of stigma, discrimination and violence that LGBTQ young people, even here in California, continue to struggle with every day.

We are thrilled that this training is finally nearing completion, but it will only have a shot at being effective if teachers and school staff are required to take it. AB 5 is an important and essential step to follow through on California's commitment to creating a safe and supportive school environment environment for LGBTQ and all students. The Bill mandates that teachers and other staff serving grades seven through 12 complete at least 1 hour of training annually, with the requirement sunsetting in five years.

And we work closely with CTA, CFT, the Department and the dedicated staff of this Committee to ensure that the Bill can be implemented efficiently and effectively. While legislators in other states are relentlessly attacking LGBTQ youth, especially trans and non binary young people, we ask you to join us in showing LGBTQ youth that they are seen, valued and supported. AB 4 is critical to demonstrating California's commitment to ensuring that all students can succeed and thrive.

Equality California is proud to co-sponsor AB 5 and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you, Public comments in support of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, Member Seth Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association, also proud to co-sponsor this Bill. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Jeff Freitas, President of CFT and a gay teacher who would have appreciated this training. So co-sponsors of this Bill ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you Chair and Members, my name is Noah Whitley, and on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, we are in support.

Afternoon. James Michael Agpalo with AFSCME California in strong support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Alice Kessler with Equality California. I've been asked to register support for the following organizations, San Diego Pride, Rainbow Pride Youth Alliance, California LGBT Health and Human Services Network, Brothers of the Desert, LGBTQ+ Rural Resource Center, Gender Spectrum, Stonewall Alliance of Chico, and El/La Para TransLatinas. Thank you.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU in strong support.

Steve Cooney with Manatt, on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in strong support.

Kathy Mossberg with San Francisco AIDS Foundation in strong support.

Pamela Greenhall, Speech Language Pathologist, Chino Valley Unified School District. I support in memory of Joey.

Michelle Warshaw, on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond, proud co-sponsor of AB 5.

Once again, Michael Bloom, Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District as a Safety Chair for the union and our district, strong support.

Yuri Camacho, kindergarten teacher, Holtville Unified, in support.

Julieanne Neal, fourth grade teacher at Twin Rivers Unified School District in Sacramento and definitely support.

Kelly Hanston, 6th grade teacher having lost a student who is very strong support.

Adam Keigwin, on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, in support.

Anna Cordero, 15 year teacher, 7th grade educator in strong support.

Alison Diaz with Environmental Charter Schools in strong support. Thank you.

Paula Kandreko, Hisbury Unified School District in strong support.

Julie Sepulveda-Gibson, Tierra Del Sol High School, California Continuation Educator Teacher of the Year, I strongly support this Bill.

Lisa Hickman, third grade teacher, Tustin Unified School District, strong support.

Ava Chow, science teacher, East Side Union High School District, strongly support. Thank you.

Paula Merrigan, transitional kindergarten teacher, Castro Valley Unified School District, strongly support.

Cindy Magyar, 7th grade science teacher, Dodson Middle School, Los Angeles, strongly support.

Rebecca Gonzalez, National Association of Social Workers California Chapter, in strong support.

Cassondra Curiel, President of United Educators of San Francisco with CFT and CTA in strong support.

Hi. Anthony Arinwine, CTA, CFT Local 61, Vice President, strong support.

Susanna Atwood, San Francisco, AFT 2121 and CFT, support.

Hello, my name is Elena Royale. I'm a teacher in San Francisco Unified School District in special education, and I support.

Elaine Merriweather, CFT, EC/TK-12 Council, and I support.

Diana Mueller, CFT/CTA member, Special Education Paraprofessional, in strong support.

Teanna Tillery, Vice President, United Educators of San Francisco, CTA and CFT in full support.

Kelly Ports, AFT Guild 1931, student intern, fully support

Antonia Ugarte, I'm from San Diego, California, and I strongly support

Hello. Tina Solórzano Fletcher, San Diego Community College District, AFT Guild Local 1931 and Southern Vice President of the Council of Classified Employees, and I stand in support.

Becca Cramer-Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action in support.

Sarah Henny with CFT, and I stand in strong support.

Adam Hawkins, CFT 3267, I stand in support.

Arcelia O'Connor, CFT Local 1921, and I stand in support.

Jim Levis, President, Morgan Hill Federation of Teachers, CFT 2022, and I stand in support.

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

Thank you very much. Any further witnesses or public comments in support of the measure? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to the measure please come forward. Ma'am, you have two minutes.

Give me 1 second, okay?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Great. Thank you. I'm looking forward to this. This is a first time experience for a veteran public school teacher out of West Contra Costa Unified School District, and I'm a former CTA Member. I left because of discrimination against my religious views, against my deeply held beliefs and values, and the witness that I saw that this was happening with other parents and staff. I come to you in opposition because I do not believe this is a safe. It is a safe and supportive school act.

What I think it is is a biased school act. It is elevating the interests and concerns of one portion of our public school. It is not recognizing the concerns of all parents, all staff, all students. I work with the Islamic community in Contra Costa. I work with various parent groups across the state for the last 10 years. As was noted, I affirm the history that was shared. Parents have been saying, no, thank you to indoctrination.

We have been saying, no, thank you to parenting our students. They have been saying, stay in your lane. Focus on academics, which we hopefully can acknowledge in this Committee, are atrocious in California. That's why you see the explosion in homeschooling amongst families of all different persuasions. We have progressives, we have Muslims homeschooling. We have an explosion of people saying, I do not trust the public schools to teach values that truly are radical. I have an example here. A is for activists.

I encourage you to look at this book. As a 25 year veteran kindergarten teacher, I do not like the pictures, the photos or the drawings of these students. They are angry. A is for activists, advocate, abolitionist ally actively answering a call to action. Are you an activist? I'm a mom. I'm a grandma.

I got to ask you to wrap up.

I will. Thank you. We are putting the burdens of adulthood onto children, and we wonder why they're confused and upset and depressed. It should stop.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in one more opposition witness please come forward.

Good afternoon. Kasha Williams. On behalf of California parents Union and many of our Members all across California, we are respectfully asking for your no or abstain vote on this Bill. We strongly believe that the focus should be on academics, and as parent union, we fear this would take the time away from teachers, from their focus on how to improve the children, to strive to achieve their academic goals. We believe that's the main purpose of sending our children to school. Therefore, that's why we opposed this Bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill. Please come forward.

Greg Burt with the California Family Council in opposition. Thank you.

Any further public comments in opposition?

Hi. I'm so sorry I wasn't able to get here in time. My name is Evan Minton. Voices for progress. We're in strong support of this important measure. Thank you so much.

Any further public comments in opposition to the measure? Seeing none bring it back to the Committee.

I want to thank the author and EQCA for working on this for nearly a decade and bringing this measure forward. It's such an important measure, and I want to thank Adrian for coming. You're basically telling the whole world your story today, so it takes a lot of courage and bravery, so I want to commend you for that. And I think this Bill is really important in many ways.

It's not just so that maybe there are teachers out there that need this train, but also those who want to do good, but they just don't have the vocabulary or the tactics. Knowing how to support our LGBTQ youth is really important because there's a lot. A lot of folks right now who are going through this, especially in the school system, that get dead name, that get misgendered.

A lot of things that happen, and sometimes it's not out of misintent, but I think this is a great way to make sure that people are aligning their intent with their impact. I would love to be a co author, of course, on this, as most of the LGB caucuses as well right now, and join you on this. I think it's a really important measure, and I think this is a very common sense measure to support our students, support our faculty Members.

And it is no hyperbole to say that half of the state governments in this country right now are basically gearing up to do violence against their own lawmakers who are LGBT, their own children, their own people. And I reject any notion to say that our schools must turn a blind eye to parts of their identity, especially those that would inhibit their educational, academic experience. So I really applaud you for this effort and really thank you for it, and I will move the Bill.

Thank you and appreciate the fulsome shout out in your testimony. Appreciate that. I did have a quick question. Just because of the opposition, I wanted to clarify this deals with teacher training, correct? Not curriculum or any other aspects of the academic components. I just want to clarify that.

this is all about teacher training and training for certificated staff from grade seven through 12. And so there's no curriculum aspects for the students related to this Bill.

I appreciate that clarification. I want to say thank you for the amendments. Well, I don't know. Are you agreeing to the Committee amendment? Okay, perfect. So I just want to say thank you for working with the Committee on that. I think my initial read of this Bill, I was a little concerned about the local control aspect, because I do believe that our school boards are elected for a reason, and I think they're probably the best place to have these discussions.

And I think the four hour requirement was pretty substantial. I think with these amendments, you've definitely narrowed it a little bit. I know you put the sunset in there, and so I will be able to support the Bill today. So I just wanted to say thank you for working with the Committee on that.

I just want to say that I see value and support the LGBTQ students. If it's academics, if it's whatever it is, it's to train teachers to be able to value every student, regardless of where they come from or what they feel. It's about providing the equal education quality that we want to provide for all our students. With that, if there has been no motion, I'll make a motion to pass the Bill.

Actually, Mr. Lee motioned. So you'll have a second. Thank you. All right. Seeing no further questions or comments from the Committee, I want to thank you, Mr. Zbur, for bringing this important, very important measure forward. I want to give special thanks to Adrian. Your testimony was very powerful, very poised, very articulate, and your statement, your being here to share your personal experiences, is very powerful, and it's making a difference. I wanted to respond to some of the concerns from the opposition.

I think that especially coming out of the pandemic and the political climate that we find ourselves in now. I believe that addressing not just the academics, but also the social and emotional well being of students is critical. The State of California has made it clear that we want to take a whole child approach to not just focus on academics, but also to recognize the mental health crisis that we have among our students, especially our teenagers. And Mr. Zbur pointed out that the mental health challenges are especially heightened in the LGBTQ plus youth community.

The binary students.

Ma'am, you've had your opportunity to speak. Thank you.

Nobody recognizes the binary.

If you interrupt me again, I'm going to ask a sergeant to escort you out.

I understand.

So I think now, in this time, especially with the heightened rhetoric of Transphobia against attacks against the LGBTQ plus community, I believe it is the position and the values of the State of California that we take this important step forward to lead the country in terms of the right thing to do, to teach our teachers and our school staff of these important issues, of making sure that they have the cultural competency to work with LGBTQ plus students in our schools. So I'm proud to support this measure. I would be honored to be added as a co author of this measure. And, Mr. Zbur, I want to give you the final word.

Thank you. I would welcome that, and Mr. Lee as well. So thank you, chair and Committee Members. And I'll just reiterate that our teachers who dedicate their lives to supporting our kids and improving their lives with such dedication, are fully supportive, as you saw today, and are asking for this training.

And I think it will make a meaningful impact, really addressing this whole cycle of lack of acceptance and discrimination against LGBTQ kids in our schools. So with that, I just want to thank you all and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. A motion has been made and seconded. Madam secretary please call the roll.

File item two, AB five. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Muratsuchi aye. Dahle. Juan Carrillo aye. Hoover aye. Lee aye. Mccarty. Quirk-Silva.

Four votes. The Bill is out. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Thank you very much, Ms. Bonta, for your patience. File item number four. Assembly Bill 51.

That is a tough act to follow in all the good ways. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I am presenting today AB 51, the Child Care Stabilization Act. I would like to start by accepting the committee amendments outlined on pages 12 and 13 of the analysis. California's mixed delivery system offers a variety of much-needed early learning and childcare settings with the intention of allowing parents and guardians to choose the setting which will best meet the needs for their families.

Some of these settings include transitional kindergarten programs, contracted state school programs offered by school districts and community-based providers, contracted general care programs, Head Start, private center-based preschool providers, and licensed family childcare providers. California has begun to phase in the implementation of universal transitional kindergarten, a free option for early learning that will be available for the four-year-olds by the 2025-26 school year. This expansion is to be celebrated as it represents an increase in access to early learning and care.

That being said, we must also acknowledge that the other providers within the mixed delivery system have expressed valid concerns that the loss of four-year-olds may undermine the already fragile and fragmented and highly decentralized childcare system, and this impacts families greatly. As well, we must recognize that the flexibility provided to our families in being able to provide our earliest learners with quality childcare is compromised.

For this reason, I introduced AB 51 to support the effective and equitable functioning of our mixed delivery childcare system in order to help stabilize early childcare opportunities for families and the providers that support them. AB 51 does four key things toward that end. First, the bill increases access to childcare families. It does this by expanding existing resource and referral services to include navigation, referral, and enrollment services to ensure families have early access to information about available childcare slots.

Second, it increases eligibility for subsidized childcare for families in higher-cost areas. Third, the bill directs local education agencies to provide developmentally appropriate expanded learning opportunities for TK students. And finally, the bill seeks to provide just transition for providers by requiring the Department of Social Services and the Department of Education to consider the impacts of universal transitional kindergarten expansion as rates are being considered by allowing CSPP providers to be able to commingle classrooms with subsidized and unsubsidized paid students.

This bill also provides meaningful resources for providers who have historically been left out of the state's preschool program system. Early childcare is fundamental to healthy child development and foundational for early learning and positive educational outcomes. We all know that. Our childcare system is primarily comprised of women of color doing the important and undervalued labor of caring for our children and fostering early learning and development.

We must support this system, which collectively bolsters every industry and serves as the backbone of our state's economy, and ensures quality care for every child and their family. With me today to testify in support of this bill is Dr. LaWanda Wesley, director of government relations at the Child Care Resource Center.

Greetings, Chair Muratsuchi and committee members. I am in testimony for AB 51 and thank you, Assemblymember Bonta, for authoring this bill. I am Dr. LaWanda Wesley, the director of government relations for Child Care Resource Center. We're organization that serves about 50,000 children north of Los Angeles and all of San Bernardino. county. It is our pleasure to support this bill along with other advocates. This bill will address a number of core and important areas, but the salient ones that I want to lift up today, both as a former preschool teacher and as a parent who is in the subsidy system at the same time providing services, is that we understand the impact of TK. I just thought back to the time when I was a preschool teacher making about 8, 9 dollars an hour. That was around 2010 or so.

But even during that time I thought if there was opportunities to earn more money, you could see why some educators would want to be attracted to working in TK. And it's not to say that that's a wrong, but not to have equitable wages in the field of zero to five if you're in the childcare system and working in a system is creating inequities. We also want to make sure there are consumer education for families by way of the resource and referral agency. I worked everything.

I also worked in the resource and referral agencies. So when parents would call in to ask for support and where to send their child, what is the best environment, I would provide consumer education and provide them a range of choices. So we want to make sure that families have an option to have that education, and we believe that the resource and referral agencies are best suited to do that. I would sit on the phone one-on-one and provide that family navigation.

So we would do that same kind of service to all of the universal TK system. We also want to see that the state departments can provide technical assistance to all of the universal preschool system, including community-based Head Start and so on. But we also want to make sure that in the expanded learning part of the system, that the children are receiving developmentally appropriate support in an environment.

And that can be done through a number of ways, starting with the curriculum itself and then just to start to close up a little bit. We want to make sure also that we want to see an increase in the eligibility from the current state medium income to a higher one that would allow even families in high income areas or high cost areas be able to access it. As you know, many of us who are living middle class are fragile and always on the brink of going just below the poverty line. So as I close out today, I just want to lift up one more point that many of our educators in the mixed delivery system, and this is stated nationally, but also relevant here to California, maybe a few dollars more, are earning about $13.22 an hour. So this doesn't cover the cost for rent or other basic needs.

So you can see how fragile the system is. And when you think about the number of us who work in early education, we are women and we are women of color who are very educated, with AA degrees, BA degrees, professional develop, even folks like myself who have a doctorate working in the classroom. So we ask for you for the wages to be improved and increased, and I will close out and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any public comments in support of this measure, please come forward.

Hi, Jen Dietrich on behalf of the partnership for Children and Youth, in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any further public comments and support? Any witnesses in opposition to this measure? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to this measure? Seeing none. Thank you. Bring it back to the committee. Any comments, questions? Moved by Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Carrillo. Thank you.

Ms. Bonta, I know that this is a top priority issue for you, especially with the impact of, we're hearing from childcare providers throughout the State of California, the impact especially of transitional kindergarten, how that may undermine the infrastructure of childcare that is so critical in all of our communities. So I want to thank Ms. Bonta for championing this. We know that this is just part of the solution. There is another bill that we're going to be hearing in the Committee related to much-needed rate reform, reimbursement rate reform, but wanted to thank Ms. Bonta for again bringing this measure forward, and I want to give you the last word.

Thank you, Chair and members. This bill is a priority of the Legislative Women's Caucus, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item four, AB 51. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Muratsuchi. Aye. Muratsuchi, aye. Dahle. Juan Carrillo. Juan Carrillo, aye. Hoover. Lee. Lee, aye. McCarty. Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva, aye.

Four votes. The bill is out.

Thank you.

Next we have file item number 29, AB 1604.

Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair and Members. Today I present Assembly Bill 1604 a Bill that implements the State Auditor's recent recommendations regarding the Charter School Facilities Grant Program. First, I would like to accept the Committee's amendments on page number three of the analysis. I would like to also thank the Committee staff for their exhaustive work on this issue. My comments today will reflect the Bill as proposed to be amended and as reflected in the Committee analysis.

Last year, former education chair O'Donnell and I requested an audit of the Charter School Facility Grant Program and the California School Finance Authority's Conduit Revenue Bond Program. We requested this audit after we learned that grant program funds intended for the payment of rent and lease expenses by charter schools were instead, in some cases, paid to related party subsidiaries of charter schools to pay off bonds on educational facilities.

In such cases, the public paid for the school facility, but upon closure, has no claim to ownership of the facility nor input on its next use. This leaves school districts in the precarious position of having to accommodate the students that previously attended a closed school without having access to educational facility space to house them. In February, the auditors released findings confirmed what we believed. The California School Finance Authority is administering these programs with incredible fidelity to existing law.

But existing law is inadequate to protect public funds and preserve public infrastructure related to school closure. AB 1604 would implement the recommendations issued by the State Auditor. First, the Bill would ensure that local students are prioritized for admission to charter schools receiving these grants, reinforcing the program's goal of serving low-income communities. Second, it would mirror the spirit of the Auditor's recommendation to strengthen state law to prevent negative impacts from charter school closures.

AB 1604 does this by establishing a first right of refusal to allow local school districts, county offices of education, existing charter schools, and other public agencies to acquire a closed charters facility at cost. This process established parity with the process for school districts to dispose of surplus.

This process establishes parity with the process for school districts to dispose of surplus properties. And more importantly, it allows districts the chance to purchase what is, in many cases, a newly constructed educational facility to accommodate the influx of students that must be housed after charter school closes. Finally, this Bill would enhance conflict of interest review in line with the Auditor's recommendation for requiring California School Finance Authority to update its regulations and conduct annual spot checks on a random sample of grant program recipients.

These proposed reforms, recommended by the State Auditor, promote transparency, accountability, and responsible use of Prop. 98 dollars. With me today to testify in support of this Bill are Cassie Mancini, representing the Bill sponsor, the California School Employees Association, and Kim Nicholson, a 6th-grade teacher at Summit Denali Middle School in Sunnyvale.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Kim Nicholson and I am a 6th grade teacher at Summit Denali Middle School in Sunnyvale. I'm here to speak about my experience when it comes to charter school closures and the facility grant program. Summit Public Schools charter petition for Denali Middle and High School was approved in 2012 with the express goal of serving high-need students.

The high school facility was strategically located in the local elementary school enrollment area, a school with a free and reduced-price meal-eligible student population of over 55%, which allowed Summit to qualify for SB 740 funds. In August of 2017, Summit applied for and secured a 26 million tax-exempt conduit bond through CFA to build a new Denali High School, among other projects.

In their budget projections to secure this bond, Summit listed SB 740 revenues that were not ultimately realized because the local elementary school FRPM-eligible student population dipped below 55%. This January after the new high school facility had only been open for about two years, Summit surprised families and educators like me with the news that they would voluntarily close Denali at the end of the school year. Our community cares deeply about Summit Denali and this closure galvanized educators, students, families, and local government officials.

Summit dangerously relied on an annual grant program to meet their long-term debt obligations. But ultimately, even with the closure, Summit made a smart financial bet. In fact, the school is already listed for sale on the open market with offering documents highlighting its proximity to major tech employers, including Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. This closure leaves Summit Public Schools and nonprofit business entities with a valuable asset on a very valuable piece of land in Silicon Valley.

However, the students and teachers who love our school are left with nothing. So I urge you to vote Aye on AB 1604 to bring much-needed accountability into the space of charter school real estate.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Cassie Mancini and I'm here representing the sponsor of the California School Employees Association. First, I'd like to express my gratitude to the Committee staff and Chair who went above and beyond on this Bill. This Bill, as proposed to be amended, would Institute a number of reforms recommended in the state audit. First, it would establish an admissions preference order for grant recipients to better reinforce the program's goal of serving students from high-needs communities.

Second, it would require CSFA to update their regulations prior to opening the 24-25 funding round to vet for conflicts of interest and spot-check recipients for program compliance. And finally, it would create a first right refusal process for the sale or lease of closed charter school facilities designed to mimic the process that traditional public school districts undergo when selling their surplus properties. Let's dive into that piece of the Bill a bit more.

The threshold this Bill proposes for a charter school property to be subject to a first right refusal is extremely high. For one, the charter school must be releasing their facility, leasing their facility from a related party. Secondly, the charter school must have significantly benefited from Prop. 98 grant program funds. That means the school received 51% or more of its assessed value in CSFGP grants. And finally, this only applies to facilities acquired, financed, constructed, or modernized after January 1, 2024, making this Bill prospective.

I'll emphasize that just because this Bill will apply in a very small number of cases doesn't make it any less significant. When the public has invested in school infrastructure to the tune of millions of dollars over decades of time, it's only right that the taxpayers be offered the first right of opportunity to retain that community space. This gets at the Auditor's intent to preserve public educational facility capacity and mitigate the negative impacts that charter school closures have on a community.

As you vote on this Bill, please ask yourself the following. Should properties paid off with public funds be privately owned and operated? Should school districts have the first opportunity to purchase or lease facilities that had previously been charter schools? These are very nuanced questions, and CSEA believes that AB 1604 offers an answer. Thank you. And for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, Members Seth Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association, we are in strong support.

Ava Chiao, science teacher, East Side Union High School District in San Jose, California, in strong support. Thank you.

Yurii Camacho, kindergarten teacher, Holtville Unified, speaking in support.

Michael Bloom, Spanish teacher for Azusa Unified. Strong support. Strong support. Echo, echo.

Julieanne Neal. I'm a fourth grade teacher at Twin Rivers Unified School District in Sacramento, and I strongly support.

Pamela Greenhalgh, speech language pathologist, Chino Unified School District in Fullerton, resident in strong support.

Anna Cordero, 15-year seventh grade educator out of Oceano, California, in strong support.

Paula Kondratko, elementary educator in Hesperia Unified School District and I'm in support.

Kelly Hanston, sixth grade teacher, Lodi Unified, in strong support. Thank you.

Julie Sepulveda-Gibson from Bakersfield, California, Tierra Del Sol Continuation High School. I support this.

Lisa Hickman, third grade teacher, Tustin Unified School District, in support.

Cindy Magyar, science teacher, Los Angeles Unified, in support.

Paula Merrigan, transitional kindergarten teacher, Castro Valley Unified School District. I strongly support.

All right, thank you. Seeing no further public comments in support of the measure, witnesses in opposition to the measure, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Colin Miller. I'm the Vice President of Government Affairs with the California Charter Schools Association. I want to start out today just by thanking the Chair and the staff for the work they've been doing on this bill. It's a very complicated issue, and we appreciate the effort. Unfortunately, we're still in opposition to the bill. We have some fairly significant concerns remaining.

Just for context, I wanted to reference the State Auditor's report on this program and just provide some context that the overall finding was that in general, these programs are increasing charter school access to facility financing. And they also debunked the allegations of improper dealings, noting that a charter school can appropriately benefit from both conduit revenue bonds and facility grant funds, and that no part of any net earnings from the sale or lease of assets may benefit a private individual.

And that's the case also in the Denali Case, where the nonprofit would have to continue to use any net assets for the benefit of the public good. Further, the Auditor noted that changes to the eligibility criteria could disrupt state support to a significant number of schools, and that's our biggest concern. We remain concerned that this proposal could create negative impact for charter schools who access bond financing by imposing terms that would be unacceptable to the bond market.

This could drive more charter schools into private leases with for-profit owners, and that would provide no long-term benefit for those schools or for the public good. In the circumstance of charter school facility, the sales are much different than for district facilities because these charter schools are financed by private bonds and subject to the terms of those agreements. Any new restrictions on the sale of the property actually will impact the decision of investors to invest in a loan in the first place.

So we're concerned that, particularly in the rare case of a default, the provisions of this bill are very unclear and could really drive bondholders from not wanting to invest in charter school facilities, certainly contrary to our intent, I think. This would further upend access for charter schools to adequate long-term public facilities.

And while we generally agree with the concept of offering first right of refusal to public entities with the purchase of unused property, this bill does not provide parity for charter schools in that same way when districts dispose of their property. So that would be very important for us as well. Other elements, we happy to discuss or answer questions, but thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Alison Diaz. I'm the founder of Environmental Charter Schools, a nonprofit operating four schools in the cities of Gardena, Inglewood, and Lawndale. I'm here today in opposition to AB 1604. Our first school opened 23 years ago with just 100 students. Today, we serve more than 1,500 students across four campuses. 90 percent of our students are eligible for the free and reduced lunch meal program. Our students consistently exceed the outcomes of those in neighborhood districts.

Each year, 97 percent of our students are admitted to four-year colleges. Finding adequate facilities for our schools has been our biggest challenge. Most of our schools opened in churches and won in a private facility. Each school made costly improvements while paying very high rents. These costs incurred were lost when we moved. In all instances, sharing a site with owners whose mission and values were at odds with our own was difficult at best. In 2010, this changed.

ECS began to partner with our special purpose entity, a nonprofit whose sole purpose is to develop and lease facilities to us at cost. Using this strategy, we were able to not only access the state SB 740 funding, but additional bond financing. Today, three of our campuses take advantage of this structure. All of our campuses are green with chickens, streams, and fruit trees. The unfounded allegations questioning the validity of these special purpose partnerships were proven false, as Colin Miller noted.

Our schools and related organizations are already under the oversight of the Attorney General. If any of our schools close, our facility would have to be sold or leased as soon as possible to pay off the outstanding debt, and per current law, any remaining proceeds would be distributed to similar organizations, other nonprofits, even go back to the school district. The proposed law, therefore, doesn't solve a problem.

It creates one. It will dry up opportunities, and consequently, SB 740 funds will be used to pay private leases owned by for-profit landowners, landowners who do not have our best interests at heart. On behalf of my students and families and over 50 charter school colleagues who signed on to oppose this bill, I urge you to reject this proposal because it would upend a stable and transparent process that offers a path to great facilities for our kids. Thank you.

Thank you. Public comments in opposition to the bill, please come forward.

Connie Chan, on behalf of the State Treasurer's Office. We have no formal position on this bill, but we do appreciate the continued collaboration between the author's office and Committee. Thank you.

Laura Kerr with the Charter Schools Development Center in opposition.

Lance Christensen, California Policy Center. We're in opposition.

Mr. Chair and Members, Adam Keigwin, on behalf of Alliance College-Ready Public Schools. Opposed. Thanks.

Any further public comments in opposition? Seeing none, bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from Committee Members? Mr. Hoover.

Thank you, and I apologize. I missed this section for AB 51, so I look forward to supporting that bill. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about this one. I do certainly have concerns, and I think the opposition mostly raised a lot of my concerns and discussed that. 11 percent of our students in California are--approximately--are served by charter schools.

And the way I view this bill, as it's currently written, it's going to create more barriers for charter schools and future charter schools coming to California and opening in California, and I'm very afraid that that is going to limit opportunities for our students as well as limit opportunities for our teachers, many of whom also teach in charter schools.

And to be honest with you, I think that particularly impacts our low income students and our students that are most in need the most because, again, I came from a school board with two very different communities, a higher income community, and then a community with many socioeconomic challenges. And I was very thankful that we actually had two charter schools that wanted to open up in our community and serve the students that were most in need in that community. And I was proud to support those.

But the reality is that facilities do continue to be one of the biggest barriers for bringing school choice to our students, and for our students--and I say this a lot, and you'll probably hear me say this again in the future--but for our students who have the means, they do have school choice. They are able to move to a neighborhood with a high performing, traditional public school.

They are able to send their student to private school if that is something that they have the funds for. My biggest concern is our students who don't have the means to do those things. I think that charter schools provide them a public school option that does not cost their family any additional resources and may better fit their educational needs. And so for that reason, I'm going to have to vote against the bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments, questions? Ms. Quirk-Silva.

Yeah, I'm really interested in the part.

Oh, here.

Yes, I'm really interested in the part of the bill that is talking about the students who actually attend the charter schools within their attendance area in the priority they're given as far as their eligibility. At least in this report, it's talking about that the students that are eligible, that live in that attendance area aren't always given priority in the charter school. So could somebody speak to that?

Sure. I mean, if you actually just look back to the original intent of the prior bill that led to this audit, there were two things on the table. One was the reality that when charter schools close, it happens with traditional public schools. It also happens with charter schools. We have not really provided a framework around what happens in that instance as it relates both to the students and what happens to the property that they own.

So as it relates to the students, we've had instances, and I have had this happen in my district where school districts are less scrambling mid-year because charter schools can close either because of just absolute failure of the school, which is what could happen in any instance, or because of a lack of reauthorization. It could close for many reasons.

And in those instances, we need to be able to ensure that children have the ability to go to a neighboring school and to have the school district be able to absorb those students in a reasonable manner. That sometimes doesn't happen when we have charter schools closed. So the eligibility requirements are to ensure that we continue to have students be able to be prioritized in their attendance in going to the charter school.

So we were just able to focus in more on the eligibility component. And the secondary component, just to address some of the other issues, are really around the nature of what happens when charter schools close related to the property. It's a property that has been deeply invested in by well-founded and earned facilities grant funds and conduit bonds from the state, and it ends up being a very valuable property. In this audit, ten of the closeout audits that were reviewed by the auditor related to the disposition of the property, one of them didn't have any comment. That information wasn't provided at all. The closeout audit wasn't available. And in the nine other audits, the information about what happened to the property wasn't even articulated.

So when we're investing millions of dollars through our facilities grant program and investing in our charter schools and providing that, I think the state has a right to be able to very transparently understand what happens to that property and ensure that those resources, quite frankly, get reinvested into the charter school facilities grant program to be able to allow other our charter schools to be able to be used, or specifically that property to the point of the first writer refusal, actually gets used for the educational purposes in high needs areas. It's important for us to be able to have quality schools and facilities that are available, and when those facilities become vacant, they are prime places still to be educational facilities. And that is the intention of this bill.

Thank you.

Mr. Carrillo.

I had a couple of questions, but with the witnesses in support, they answered a couple of my questions. I do still agree with some of the comments made by Assemblymember Hoover where chartered schools are an option for other population of students for various reasons.

In fact, in one of the cities that I represent, one of the charter schools actually was shut down because they were very low performing, but the school district was actually able to pick up the facility and in that sense, the student population remained within the existing school district that chartered the school.

But it is my understanding that for charter schools to be able to go through the establishing process that if there is surplus land from the school district, a school that has been closed down or it's not been used, the school districts would have to provide that facility to charter school. Is that correct or is that not the case?

No. Charters currently don't have the first right of refusal to district property.

But do school districts have the first right to purchase property, charter schools that have been shut down?

This bill is proposing that yes, but currently not.

They're currently not. Okay. Well, I think that those are all the questions I have. Thank you.

So, quite frankly, for me, the issues related to Prop 39 and the ways in which school districts have to provide facility space for charters are beyond the scope of this legislation. This is really targeted at what we do around charter school closures.

Thank you. So, Ms. Bonta, I think this bill has come a long ways from what you originally proposed. And let me start by saying that environmental charter schools just outside of my district is a great example of why I support good charter schools, good charter schools that provide educational opportunities for low-income, disadvantaged communities, that provided, frankly, better alternatives than the traditional public schools, neighborhoods, schools that existed in their neighborhoods.

At the same time, let me add that I acknowledge the charter school advocates' concerns that they have unique challenges in terms of meeting their facilities needs that traditional public schools don't have, traditional public school districts do not have, and that that is the reason why you need these conduit bonds to resort to private bond investors.

I want to acknowledge our consultant, Chelsea Kelley, for doing a deep, deep dive into the complexities of conduit bonds. We thought we only had to deal with education issues and we didn't have to realize we had to deal with these complicated financing issues. And so I wanted to make sure that where we landed in terms of my recommending support for this measure is that this bill be generally fair, that we in particular, I think it boils down to in terms of what Ms. Bonta, her last comment that this really deals with charter school closures. The core principle of this bill as it relates to conduit financing is to make sure that public dollars do not enrich private property owners.

We had a discussion, actually in our Budget Subcommittee yesterday where the California School Financing Authority testified that the title in these conduit bond financing arrangements is held often by a private LLC, with the payments for the conduit bonds, the taxpayer dollars going to pay off the title that's held by a privately held LLC. And so that exactly was the issue that the state auditor identified as needing reform.

That existing law doesn't allow for that protection for private dollars, for public taxpayer dollars to not enrich private property holders. I know Ms. Kelley talked with the Bond Council. I'm sure the author will continue to make sure that charter schools, the intent is not to cut off opportunities for charter schools to be able to access facilities. We're trying to engage in that balancing act, making sure that you have access to meet your facility needs, while at the same time making sure that public taxpayer dollars are not used to enrich private property owners.

Can I clarify one thing? So our LLCs are nonprofits.

Nonprofits are private.

They exist for the sole purpose of supporting the charter school, which also is a nonprofit and a government entity.

Yes, a point well taken. But we had a lot of discussions about how if you have a national nonprofit charter management organization that creates an LLC to hold the title, even though it's a nonprofit, it's still a private nonprofit corporation. I know the distinction. Just because it's nonprofit doesn't mean it's public. It is still a private entity, and that's what we're trying to get at here.

But just to be clear, and the auditor was clear on this point, too, that these transactions are all under the purview of nonprofit law. So any dissolution of assets would be under the oversight of the attorney general. All of the transactions that we're talking about today with these LLCs, and just for a little context, they identified 69 of over 1300 charter schools that have these kind of arrangements. So this isn't a huge issue that we're dealing with.

But they did say that in all cases, no individual, no private individual can profit from these arrangements. I think it's important that we remember that all of these transactions are occurring within the oversight and within the mission driven and all the laws that apply to nonprofit corporations, which is what makes them transparent, right? Because both the property owner and the charter school are nonprofits. The only time a for-profit entity is actually gaining from this program is when charters have to lease from a private leaser. And in those cases, which is what the program was arguably intended to do, the lease reimbursements are going to that private owner they're putting in their pocket, and that's the end of it, right? There's no public asset being gained other than the term of the tenancy, which is what this program was originally designed to do. So there is profit gain here because in most cases, in this program, charters are leasing from private entities.

I just want to clarify that for me, it's absolutely critical that the public dollars for a categorical grant, essentially for the construction of facilities, are used to in kind offer a facility to the market of educational providers that might be able to do that. So for me, it has a lot more to do with the fact that we are in deep need of educational facilities, of land, of space, in order to be able to ensure that they can be used for educational purposes.

The challenge with the enormous to a private nonprofit, in the context I think we are going to fundamentally disagree on this, is those private dollars can go for a lot of other uses when they're put back into the exclusive purview of the charter school management organization. It can go towards operations, they can go towards funding operations in another state. They can do a lot of other things besides what they were intended to do, which was to support the development and infrastructure around school facilities.

So that is why this is very specifically scoped around facilities and it is also why I believe the Chair and the committee decided to offer an amendment that moved away from the recommendation of the auditor to have this be the closure, be under the purview of the Attorney General's Office, and more to mirror the 711 process for school surplus property under school district purview, so that school facilities are being considered by schools and used for educational purposes for facilities.

May I respond? Yeah. I think it's an important goal that when it's possible, these facilities go back into use as for public schools. Currently, school districts do have the opportunity to purchase these facilities, and in the most recent case where a school closed that had been in one of these arrangements, both the district and the county office were interested in purchasing that facility, and it went through. The facility is now in use by the county office for their educational programs. It worked out well.

The school was able to use those proceeds to pay off the bond, and that was just pretty much a fair, pretty much square deal. They had a lot of debt on their facility, as you can imagine, what it costs to build one of these. So it does work. And in that case, I think the goal was met, that it returned to the public education system. So I think it is a good goal. The details matter, though.

It's mirroring exactly what, or even in a large way, how districts dispose of surplus property can be problematic because of the bondholders in these cases. If a school closes, they're dealing with a vacant building that is no longer generating revenue to pay off the bond, and so they're very vulnerable to default. It's unclear what happens on a default in this situation if the bill weren't enacted because it's unclear whether the bondholders would have to go through the same first right of refusal process.

Certainly the quick thing if a school closes, they want to get somebody in there to lease the building so that they can continue the revenue stream until they make some longer-term decisions, things like that. Districts can let their facilities stay vacant. They're not paying anything on them other than the maintenance that they continue to do. It's a very different situation. So we just want to make sure that any kind of first ride refusal parallel acknowledges how different these two situations are, the district situation and the charter situation.

All right. Well, thank you. As you indicated, Mr. Miller, I think details matter, and so I'm sure the author will continue to make sure that we have a generally fair process to ensure that charters continue to have access to facilities using whatever creative financing mechanisms you may have, while at the same time we make sure that we are protecting taxpayer dollars and not to just focus on this issue, but to enact the other transparency and accountability measures that the state auditor recommended, which Ms. Bonta's bill is proposing. When Ms. Chelsea consulted with leading Bond Council, she was assured that this should not affect the impact of bond investors. But I know lawyers, there are different opinions, but I feel comfortable in recommending aye to move this bill forward. Ms. Bonta, you have any last word?

Thank you. I just want to clarify that again, the intent of this bill is to ensure that the public is given an opportunity to preserve the educational infrastructure that is so desperately needed. Right now and when taxpayers have substantially funded through any kind of program, that those funds are used in the same categorical manner that they were intended to be used in this instance. To not do so would be an inappropriate use of state dollars. So thank you and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Motion has been made. Is there a second? Okay. Mr. Carrillo second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 29, AB 1604. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Muratsuchi. Aye. Muratsuchi, aye. Dahle. No. Dahle, no. Juan Carrillo. Juan Carrillo, aye. Hoover. No. Hoover, no. Lee. Aye. Lee, aye. McCarty. Quirk-Silva. Aye. Quirk-Silva, aye.

Four votes. The bill is out.

Thank you.

Okay, Ms. Reyes, it's been another patiently waiting. Thank you. Item number nine, AB 596.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I present to you AB 596, which establishes a new way to pay childcare providers based on the real cost of care. The Bill also offers relief to families in the fees they have to pay for subsidized childcare programs. And I'm pleased to accept the Committee's proposed amendments as well. For too long, California has been subsidizing the true cost of childcare by paying early educators low wages and expecting working families to pay high family fees.

These fees make what is supposed to be affordable childcare unaffordable. AB 596 will help early learning and childcare providers and families. It will transition providers to a single cost-based subsidy payment structure, suspend family fees until an equitable sliding scale for family fees is established, and fund providers using an enrollment-based contract earning mechanism. This Bill is sponsored by the Children Now by Children Now, Parent Voices, Every Child California, the Childcare Resource Center, and the California Childcare Resource and Referral Network.

Here to testify in support of the Bill is Nina Buthee, Executive Director of Every Child California, and Rachel Church with Parent Voices who knows first-hand why affordable childcare is so important.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair, Assembly Member, and Bill sponsor Reyes and Members of this Committee for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today. My name is Nina Buthee. I'm the Executive Director of Every Child California. It is my privilege to represent our Bill co-sponsors and an honor to be the voice of thousands of children, providers, and parents who deeply care about this issue.

Many have participated for years on working groups such as the Assembly Blue Ribbon Commission, the Master Plan for Early Education, and now the Rates and Quality Work Group to discuss the needs for comprehensive rate reform, the reworking of family fees, and contract earnings. Childcare agencies urgently need this Bill, the situation is dire. Since the Pandemic, childcare agencies are closing at an alarming rate and qualified individuals are leaving the field in alarming numbers due to low wages and insufficient rates.

Strengthening the childcare workforce by finally addressing the antiquated rate system means strengthening opportunities to support the wonderful nurturing bonds children have with their caregivers, providers rather than increasing stress and distress for child parents, caregivers, and providers. ECE educators are underpaid in part because the early education workforce is disproportionately made up of women and women of color who have largely been undervalued and underpaid broadly in our economy.

AB 596 would help address childcare providers and families by transitioning providers to a single cost-based reimbursement system, supporting family fees until an equitable sliding scale for family fees is established and fund providers using an enrollment-based contract earning mechanism. This Bill is a key opportunity to prioritize and support California's youngest children and their families and to stabilize the early care and education field and workforce.

As a statewide nonprofit that represents low-income childcare programs, we serve children and families who serve children and families every day without a day off during the Pandemic. We saw how programs were considered essential during the COVID crisis. But now the many years of deep inequalities are returning in how California treats childcare workers and families with young children and the providers that educate, care, and nurture them.

I'm going to ask you to wrap up.

Absolutely. I just want to thank you for your leadership on these issues and we ask for your support vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Rachel Church and I'm a leader with Parent Voices San Francisco. My life story of severe childhood traumas was published in San Francisco by Mission Local online newspaper. I'm absolutely lucky to be alive to testify before you my hardworking California State Assembly. This is my daughter Alessandra. She's six years old and I'm currently working as a customer service representative. I want to thank Chair Al Muratsuchi and the rest of the Committee for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 596.

I want to thank the majority leader, Eloise Gomez Reyes, for introducing this important legislation. Childcare is so important for families like mine, and our care providers are truly essential. Before I had quality childcare, I was unable to meet my child's basic needs and build any kind of self-sufficiency. Additionally, I was unable to earn enough and had to work in poor working conditions. It's amazing to be here so we can look at these problems and work together to fix them.

Not so long ago, my child and I were homeless together in a frigid, cold motor home. I was told that I would have to wait 10 months for my name to be called to place her in quality childcare so that I could work at a cafe in downtown San Francisco. I signed up for childcare when I was five months pregnant and got selected when Alessandra was seven months old.

I had a worker at the Children's Council in 2017 who said that my family fee would be based on my income. I paid about $200 for the family fee. In moving from the frigid motorhome to a single room occupancy which is 12 x 12 square feet, I paid 1,750 a month and had 1ft width to get around the bed both ways. My daughter would play together in the hallway with other kids from other and other families who lived there.

We lived next to a family from Guatemala who lived in a room slightly bigger than ours with both parents and two kids. The moments we shared watching our kids play together, sharing a mile in the hallway, bonded us in a way that we overcame the language barrier. I was grateful once my child was placed because she would be safe learning at Angela's daycare while I was working two jobs to pay our rent.

Angela's was run by Angela Wu, an older Korean woman who herself lived in poverty in order to provide care for families with a subsidy. She could have made more by taking private pay families, but chose not to. When Alessandra went to kindergarten, Angela gave me a binder full of photos of my daughter from the time she was an infant up through five years old, and she explained to me that these in the photos were her building gross motor, fine motor, social, emotional.

She showed me pictures of Alessandra learning about her environment and the world around her. Alessandra was able to learn the Mandarin word for I love you, Wyani. Angela provided high-quality care, yet was paid poverty wages so she could care for families paid low wages. This system forces women to remain in a cycle of poverty. Even though I had subsidized childcare, I still had to subsidize that care with a family fee. I had nothing left over for food, transportation, or clothing.

I didn't have a job that paid me enough for my basic needs and those of my daughter. Therefore, I had to take on different activities to pay the rest of my rent. In conclusion, I am here today to use my voice and my daughter Alessandra, for families that don't have a voice. If I could have saved my family fee, I could have did less other activities to make other money needed for my rent.

The bottom line is families deserve to have access to childcare they can truly afford. And providers like Angela deserve to be paid for the true cost of care they provide. For that reason, I am asking all of you, my amazing California State Assembly, to please stand with us and approve AB 596 so we can transform our childcare system. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Public comments in support of the Bill please come forward.

Good afternoon. Ada Naymack with Children Now on the co-sponsor, in support. Thank you.

Hello. Dr. Lawanda Wesley, Childcare Resource Center, in support.

James Michael Agpalo with AFSCME California, in full support.

Good afternoon. Leangela Reid for the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools.

Good afternoon. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support of the Bill.

Raquel Morales on behalf of the Education Trust West in strong support.

Jonathan Munoz on behalf of First 5 Los Angeles, in strong support.

Good afternoon. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium in support, as well as on behalf of a colleague for Catalyst California, also in support. Thank you.

My name is Maria Luz Torre, one of the founding organizers of Parent Voices in support. Strong support.

Kathy with First Five of California Association, in support.

Kimberly Rosenberger with CCPU a UDW and SCIU collaboration. We support in concept, but we reserve the right as we bargain the table. Our formal position is to move to immediate cost-of-care methodology. Thank you.

All right. Any further public comments and support? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. McCarty?

Yes. Thank you. Is there a motion on the Bill?

There's not.

No. I'll make to move this Bill. Just want to thank the Assembly Member for tackling this issue. You know, many legislators have done so before. Assembly Member Limon, Senator Leyva, and I authored this measure a few years ago.

It's a budget issue, too, but today gives us a chance to have a hearing and talk about the overall policy of it. And thank you to your witnesses. And I did read your profile, so thank you for sharing that again.

Thank you.

Yes, and thank you for Parent Voices, for always being here and talking about people that don't always have a voice. And we say this often, that childcare is so important to the economy and families trying to escape poverty. And I know that my own mom, she was a single mom here in Sacramento, four kids. She worked at a bank literally 300 yards from here on K Street, at a bank on Eigth and K, and subsidized childcare helped us and put us on our way.

But for that, we would have been in a world of hurt. So I know this issue, and then for the last few years with Assembly Member Reyes and I and others have been focusing on how we lift up the whole childcare issue and basically system in California. And this sounds really complicated. The reimbursement rates and structure, it all comes down to dollars and cents.

And as you said, we pay our workers sometimes poverty wages and the majority of people that work in this field literally are so poor, they qualify for the stuff that they're actually doing. And it's hard to keep people stable and working in this field when they can literally go to McDonald's or Costco, In-N-Out, and make way more than we pay them. And so this is about our priorities. And we've been focusing for childcare for a while.

It's been the number one issue for, I know, the Women's Caucus, but the Assembly, our Speaker, our Budget Chair. We've always made this a top, top priority, and we keep falling short. And this last few years, we've increased childcare slots by 200,000, but they're going unfilled. Why? Because it doesn't pencil out. Because we don't have the rate structure to make it work. I know there's a lot of pressures and other things that we're doing in early education.

We're trying to do a lot of things at once. Increase slots, increase access to our publicly funded K12 early ed program, the universal transitional kindergarten, and the childcare is a piece of the puzzle. But none of this works unless you have adequate reimbursement rates.

So I fully in support of this, and I know this is the policy Committee, but just let folks know this will be a top issue, if not the number one issue for the Assembly when we unveil our budget in the coming weeks, because this is unfinished business, and we can't fully have a childcare system that works for Californians if we don't adequately pay our workforce. So with that, thank you again, Assembly Member Reyes, in full support.

Thank you. Motion has been made by Mr. McCarty, seconded by Ms. Dahle. Any other comments or questions? Okay, well, thank you very much, Majority Leader Reyes, for championing this issue. We know that this is critical. I know I've been hearing from my local childcare providers. I'm sure all of us have been statewide. It's a critical issue. We thank you for bringing this forward. You have the last word.

Thank you. Without a doubt, there's an urgent need to fix the childcare system, and this is an important step. I'm partnering with Senator Limon on this issue, and it is, as my colleague said, this is a Women's Caucus priority. So with that, I would respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

File item nine, AB 596. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]. We have seven votes.

Seven votes. The Bill is out.

Thank you.

Thank you. Dr. Jackson. We wanted to ask, indulge on your kindness. Mr. Carrillo has a witness that needs to leave, and so if you can work it out. Thank you very much. You don't ask for much. All right. Which. All right, item eight, AB 555. Mr. Carillo. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Assembly Member Jackson, for allowing me to present ahead of you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 555.

But before I begin, I want to respectfully accept the amendments that the Committee proposed and thank the chair and Committee consultants for working with us on this Bill. As California works to implement universal pre-kindergarten for all four-year-olds and increase access to three-year-olds, this Bill seeks to reduce barriers in serving three-year-olds, promote equitable access to high-quality early childhood education, and strengthen the system for all children in California.

As a parent, I know firsthand the challenges families face regarding early childhood education. I have seen how difficult it can be to navigate a complex and often confusing system, especially for families struggling to make ends meet. Unfortunately, many families in California face significant challenges when accessing high-quality early childhood education, especially those with three-year-olds. In October in 2021, California only served 8.5% of the over 300,000 eligible three-year-olds in the state preschool program. This is why AB 555 is so important.

It will help level the playing field for all families and ensure that every child has access to high-quality education they deserve.

Research indicates that high-quality early childhood, is especially effective in reducing the opportunity gap for Black and Hispanic children and other children that have been historically excluded from early education opportunities, and especially when these children enroll as three-year-old children and receive two years of high-quality pre-k. AB 55 seeks to address these challenges head-on by prioritizing three-year-olds has the same priority as four-year-olds lowest income first.

This is a critical step towards ensuring that all children in California, especially those from families with the lowest incomes, have equal access to high-quality early childhood education they need to succeed. In addition, the Bill will provide equitable support for three and four-year-olds who need additional support, such as children with disabilities, children that are dual language learners, and children that are at risk.

We know that some children require extra assistance to succeed in early childhood education, and AB 555 will ensure that these children receive the support they need to thrive. Furthermore, this Bill also seeks to strengthen system coherence by ensuring that programs have funding within their contract to pay their fixed costs by taking the existing formula from regulations that compares contract amount, cost, and attendance and funds based on enrollment rather than attendance.

This is a critical step towards ensuring that our early childhood education system is responsive to the needs of all children, especially those who may face significant challenges while making it easier for preschool programs to enroll children and stabilize their business model in recovering from the pandemic and with the launch of universal pre-k. Lastly, I would like to thank the Care Law Center and California Family Childcare Network for their thoughtful feedback and collaboration with our staff.

I am pleased to say that we have removed their opposition. Joining me here today is Virginia Early, education administrator for the Early Education Division at the Department with the California Department of Education, who may answer any technical questions. And we also have Dr. Dean Tagawa, Executive Director of the Early Childhood Education Division with Los Angeles Unified School District. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Carrillo. Before we move any further out of respect to your witness that needs to catch their flight, as well as to Dr. Jackson, I just want to remind you that this Bill has a support, support recommendation from your democratic colleagues and the Republican Caucus. With that, please. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, Members. On behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, a proud supporter of AB 555. My name is Virginia Early and I'm the Administrator of the Policy Office within the Early Education Division at CDE. As was previously shared, by 2025, California will expand universal pre-k to all four-year-olds and an increasing number of three-year-olds.

And with this change, we really have a historic opportunity for the California State preschool program to serve more three-year-olds. But as we heard, we have a long way to go and we're only serving about eight and a half percent of the eligible three-year-olds.

We talked to the field and they shared with us that the key statutory barriers are that current law requires priorities, prioritizes four-year-olds from higher-income families, over three-year-olds from lower-income families, and also programs receive more additional funding to serve, say, for example, a four-year-old with a disability, they receive 140% more funds, whereas serving a three-year-old with a disability, they receive 33% more funds.

So AB 555 will reduce and remove these barriers and also addresses things around fixed costs programs have for serving children enrolled, providing important protections to programs as they recover from the Pandemic's impacts and reexamine a business model that has historically relied on four-year-olds. I'll conclude my remarks there and happy to take questions.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Dean Tagawan. I'm the Executive Director for the Los Angeles Unified School District's Early Education Division. I'll go ahead and fold my paper in half to make sure that we get through it in time. I want to say Los Angeles Unified is proud, you know, is proud to sponsor AB 555 to allow California State Preschool Programs to better serve children and families.

Current CSPP attendance protocols require that programs prioritize the enrollment of four-year-olds over three-year-olds. This provision was meant to ensure that as many children as possible receive at least one year of pre-k before entering kindergarten. However, with the expansion of transitional kindergarten, all four-year-olds now have access to a high-quality program regardless of income. This creates an opportunity for CSPP to serve a greater number of three-year-olds.

The reality really is that AB 555 is an opportunity for California to move closer to its goal stated in the master plan for early learning and care of two years of universal preschool for all income-eligible students. We know what the evidence says and we know what the research says. So for these reasons, Los Angeles Unified respectfully asks for your Aye in this vote.

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

Good afternoon. I don't mean to belabor the support, and I don't want Dr. Tagawa to miss his flight. Patty Herrera, on behalf of the Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools, Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, Oakland Unified School District, and Early Edge California, in support.

Any further witnesses in support of the Bill? Seeing none. 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? Mr. McCarty.

I'll move the Bill and then just thank you, Mr. Carrillo, for stepping in as a freshman and pushing early education. So we do have universal transitional kindergarten for four-year-olds, and this part of the equation is serving more three-year-olds.

And so if L.A. Unified, other school districts can serve more threes, then when those kids enter kindergarten, they'd be more likely to be kindergarten-ready and succeed. So thank you for this measure.

Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Mr. Hoover.

Yeah, I'll echo those comments. I just want to say thank you for bringing this Bill forward. As a young parent. Well, I guess I'm still a young parent, but I became a parent at a very young age.

And I think just on behalf of working parents across our state, this is such a critical part of being able to raise your child and also be able to support and provide for your family. And so I really appreciate you bringing this forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further questions or comments. Thank you very much. Very important Bill. Proud to support it. Motion has been made. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Hoover. Madam Secretary, please. Mr. Carrillo. Thank you.

I just want to thank you and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item eight, AB 555. The motion is do pass as amended, to Appropriations. [Roll call].

Seven to zero. The bill is out. All right. Dr. Jackson. Thank you for your patience. This is File Item 18: AB 1078.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I would like to begin by stating that I will be accepting the Committee's amendments and thank the Committee for working with me on this measure. AB 1078 is a bill that intends to combat the national Christian White Supremacist movement, which aims to ban books, school curriculum, and even more in our schools. And this issue makes people uncomfortable. It's a tough discussion and it's a tough issue.

And a lot of it, I think, is due to the misunderstanding of what people mean when they say White Christian Nationalist. And so I want to make sure that people understand really the definition to hopefully put more people at ease that if the shoe doesn't fit, then no one's talking about you.

We're really talking about the radicalization of the Christian faith to quite frankly draw upon people's angers, economic angst, people's search for additional resources, and drawing upon people's biases to really achieve and use that anger to achieve a political objective. And unfortunately, that, number one, is happening internationally.

This is not something unique to the United States, but has also made its way here to California. And the banning of books has been a blatant and in some cases a successful effort to whitewash the history that students are taught in all levels of public education. Even more concerning is the fact that this movement is also taking place here in this golden state and even in my county of Riverside County.

And we cannot allow the education of California's future leaders to have holes and even falsehoods in our history and the lessons that we teach, especially when those gaps include the history of African Americans and other communities of color, the history of racism in America, and the very existence of the LGBTQ plus community. According to the American Library Association, they found that more than 1,200 challenges of more than 2,500 books nationwide nearly double the record set the year before in 2021, since we've been tracking this data for the last 20 years.

Those who cannot remember or even be able to learn the past are condemned to repeat it. And we cannot allow our students to finish their education without having learned all of the country's history and understanding the commonalities that we all share as one people.

AB 1078 would require the California Department of Education to issue guidance to help local education agencies and school personnel manage conversations surrounding race, socioeconomic status, gender identity or expression, and LGBTQ plus orientations and how they can review instructional materials to reflect diverse perspectives that are culturally relevant.