Senate Standing Committee on Education

Due to the length of today's agenda, I ask the testimony of main witnesses in support or opposition be limited to two people per side with two minutes for each witness. All others may add on as a me too and simply state your name, your organization and your position. We have 16 bills on today's agenda. Two bills are on consent. The bills on consent are item number 10, SB 413, and by Senator Bradford, and item number 11, SB 648, by Senator Dahle.

I see we do not yet have a quorum, so we will start this committee as a subcommitee and welcome our first author, Senator Menjivar. Good morning. You are here to present SB 11. Please proceed when ready.

Thank you, chair. Good morning, everyone. First I want to - you're going to have me hear me for maybe 30 minutes, so get comfortable.

We look forward to spending this time together.

A big thank you first to the committee staff for their support with the analysis on my first bill here today, SB 11, so I will be accepting the committee's amendments. We all have heard about the workforce shortages across various sectors. One of those sectors are our universities working to address our student mental health crisis. SB 11 will work to meet the dire need for more mental health professionals in our CSUs to address our student's needs.

Specifically, this bill will create a mandatory ratio of one counselor per 1500 students, improve data collection on student mental health, and develop pathways into the mental health care workforce from the CSU. The short staffing of mental health service providers at the CSU has led to, at times, wait times on some campuses to range from four to eight weeks.

The demand for accessible student mental health resources has only increased in recent years as students struggle with the economic, social, and psychological impacts of the pandemic and entrance into adulthood at levels we've never seen before. So, who better to be part of the solution for the workforce shortage than the very CSU students at these campuses?

To capture the importance of providing culturally competent care for students seeking services, SB 11 intends to incentivize CSU students to become mental health professionals and serve the very same population they are a part of. The CSU educates close to half a million students each year and trains the majority of California's essential workforce. Now, let's ensure we have that direct pipeline into increasing our much-needed mental health workforce.

With me today to speak in support of this bill, I have Michael Lee-Chang, a student at Sacramento State, followed by Susan Chen, the chair of the California Faculty Association Counselors Committee and a counselor at San Francisco State.

Welcome, Mr. Chang. Please proceed. Two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Newman and Members of the Senate Education Committee. My name is Michael Lee-Chang, and I'm a first-year undergraduate student at Sac State, living on campus and receiving the Pell Grant. I'm proud to testify in support of SB 11, a bill that will increase the quality of mental health services I receive on my campus, my home, for the next three years. The counselor-to-student ratio at the campus I attend is one counselor per 2400 to 3500 students. Sorry, but that's insane.

As a survivor of yearslong child abuse and sexual assault in my high school years, I waited almost two months for in-person counseling on campus that I paid for out of my student fees, which I can already barely afford. Two months. Now imagine if the circumstances were more dire, if I had no friends, no support system, if I were suicidal. And the long wait should not be blamed on my counselor either because she was working, fully booked, and over and beyond. Community care is quality care.

I think it's often overlooked how crucial it is for students to get counseling from someone who looks like them, understands them, and, most importantly, understands the community they're in. If I'm going to Sac State in Sacramento, it makes a big difference that my counselor knows the campus and community. Someone from Nebraska won't understand what light the beam means, and someone from Hawaii won't understand walking across campus drenched due to bipolar weather.

But also, someone from Montana won't understand the fear and anxiety Sac State students face right now due to the uptick of sexual assaults. Five just this semester, sorry, this year. And hate crimes on campus. The CSU is trying to pit students against faculty, but I stand firmly with the counselors on my campus that are doing their best to provide quality counseling services to their community.

My negative experiences would be resolved if the CSU were required to meet the IACS recommended counselor ratio of one counselor per 1500 students. Please, I beg of you and the legislature to support, but also save even one life from the nearly 500,000 students on the 23 CSU campuses by voting aye on this important legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good morning, everybody. Good morning. Chair Newman and members of the Senate Education Committee. Thank you, Senator Menjivar. My name is Susan Chen, and I'm the chair of the California Faculty Association's Counselors Committee. I represent over 270 CSU counselors on 23 campuses, and I've been a tenured counselor faculty member for 13 years at San Francisco State.

The California Faculty Association is proud to sponsor SB 11, a bill that will increase the quality of mental health services for our over 500,000 students, significantly reduce wait times for appointments, and create a pathway for students to become mental health counselors. Counselors contribute to student success in graduation. SB 11 will allow more students to benefit from the support and guidance that a caring counselor can provide.

A major provision of SB 11 is to require all CSU campuses to meet the IACS - International Accreditation of Counseling Services - recommended ratio of one full-time equivalent counselor for every 1500 students, which would provide high-quality counseling for students who need it. When university counseling centers are understaffed, clinical work is often focused on triaging mental health emergencies and urgent situations. Students have to wait longer for initial and follow-up appointments.

As counselors, we try to fit students into our packed schedules, which can lead to counselor burnout. Adequate staffing allows us to increase responsiveness to student needs, reduce wait times, and provide students with culturally competent care by diverse counselors who know our students in the context of their experiences. Meeting the ratio allows counselors to also form effective partnerships with the campus community, which is crucial to connect with greater numbers of traditionally underrepresented students who may not have experienced counseling before.

Another important provision of SB 11 is investing in pathways that help CSU students to become mental health counselors by funding internship programs that lead to licensure. This will ease California's mental health workforce shortage and increase enrollment in these programs. I respectfully request that you support CSU's statewide counselors to better serve our students and vote aye on this important legislation. And thank you so much. I drove up from San Francisco today just to speak with you for a few minutes.

I'm going to go back to work right now and thank you. So appreciate your support.

Thank you for being here. Is anybody else here in the committee room would like to testify on behalf of the bill? If so, please proceed to the microphone, your name, your organization, and your position.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SCIU: proud to co-sponsor.

Thank you. Next.

Chair and Members, Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you. Next.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ron Rapp, Leg. Director for the California Faculty Association. We're proud sponsors of SB 11 and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Good morning, committee. I'm Robert Gonzalez, CSU student on behalf of the College Democrats at Sacramento State, in strong support.

Thank you. Anybody else seeing none? We'll now move on to witnesses in opposition. Key witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. Is anybody here who would like to testify? Oh, please go ahead. And you have two minutes.

Wonderful. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Maggie White with the California State University. I'll be very brief. We currently do have an opposed position on the bill, but we'd like to sincerely thank the author and committee staff, and the sponsors for the proposed amendments and the analysis. These amendments remove many of our concerns from the bill that caused us to first oppose. We'll need to re-examine our position once that language is in print. We're very thankful for the collaboration to get to this point.

We look forward to continuing to engage with the author and sponsors to get us to a good place. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Anybody else in opposition here? Let's move to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you would, please prompt anybody on the line to testify either in support for or in opposition to the bill. And anybody on the line, please state your name, your organization, and your position.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Participants from the public, if you would like to testify in support or opposition, please press one followed by zero. One followed by zero at this time. And we will begin with line 49. Please go ahead. 49. Go ahead and hit 1-0 again. I think you took yourself out of queue. And we'll go to line 42. Line 42.

My name is Catherine Jolly. I'm a counselor at San Francisco State, and I strongly support SB 11. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

And next we will go to line 37. Please go ahead. Please go ahead, 37. 37, you are open.

Hi. My name is Angel Marie. I am a student at CSU Channel Islands, and I strongly support SB 11. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 52, please go ahead, 52, you are open. Line 52. Moving on. We'll go to line 45. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Hao Ruth. I'm a counselor at Cal State Pomona, and I strongly support SB 11.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 49, you are open.

Line 49, please go ahead. One more shot. 49.

My name is Ronaldon, and I strongly support SB 11.

Thank you. Next.

14. You are only on line 14.

Hi. My name is Nadeem Hasan. I'm a counselor at CSU San Jose State University, and I strongly support SB 11.

Next, please.

Line 44, please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Justine Cansler. I am a student at CSU San Francisco, and I am here to speak in support of SB 11. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

53, please go ahead.

Sylvia Hernandez with the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, and we are in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 26, please go ahead.

My name is Rhona Harrison. I am a faculty counselor at Cal Poly Pomona, and I strongly support SB 11.

Thank you. Next, please.

You are open. Line 24.

Hello. My name is Lideth Ortega-Villalobos. I am a counselor at Cal Poly Pomona University, and I strongly support SB 11.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 31, please go ahead. Line 31, you are open. Moving along. We'll go to line 72. Please go ahead. Line 72, would you like to testify? We will go to line 75. Please go ahead.

Line 75. Are you muted?

Hello. My name is Alyssa. I'm a student at CSU Fresno, and I strongly support SB 11.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 78, please go ahead.

My name is Yolanda Gamboa, and I'm a counselor at San Francisco State University, and I strongly support SB 11.

Next, please. Thank you.

Line 59, you are open.

Line 59, please go ahead.

Hello.

Hello. Please proceed.

My name is Jenny Ruiz Sanchez, and I'm a student at CSU Sacramento, and I strongly support SB 11.

Thank you. And I think we have one more. Next, please.

Line 79, you are open.

Good morning, Chair Newman and committee members: Mary Washington with the Cal State Student Association. With the committee amendments, we'll be able to remove our opposition to SB 11 and move to a neutral position. Really, thank you's to the committee staff and the author's office for working with us on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator, any other callers on the teleconference line?

We have exhausted the queue. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Let's come back to the committee hearing room. Before we get to Members, let's establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

A quorum has been established. Senator Menjivar, thank you for accepting the Committee's recommended amendments. Members, any questions on the bill? Senator Glazer?

Well, first, I want to applaud Senator Menjivar for your focus and attention to what is a really important and critical issue on our campuses. So thank you. For your leadership on that. I've had the opportunity, both as a CSU trustee and as the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Student Success, to really focus on this counseling problem. We've had a number of hearings on the campuses to address it to university leadership and certainly with engagement with the counseling staff. And it is a problem.

And I recall during my time on the board of trustees where I asked the question, what's the average wait time for a student who is trying to see a counselor? And the answer was three weeks. And it was unacceptable then; it's unacceptable now. And I really appreciate what you're doing here. I want to just do two additional things. Clarify the amendments that you're taking -

- and it's my understanding and talking with Committee staff that based on the amendments, that in the analysis that you're still doing number one, but then the specifics on number two through number eight are all eliminated. And I just want to make sure that that's correct.

Yes. Related to contracting. All that has been eliminated.

Okay, terrific. So I'm happy to support your bill today. I know that one of the challenges, of course, is that when we mandate a ratio, there's no free money, and somebody has to pay for it. I appreciate that our Appropriations Committee and Budget Committee will take a look at that and make the judgment about how and whether the state's going to put more money in because if the state doesn't, the alternatives are student fees.

And I'm not sure we all would think that's the right way to fund it, either try to make the goals that you have identified in the fill.

And I would agree with you.

I support with that. I'm happy to move the bill at appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator.

Appreciate that. Any other comments or questions from members seeing? None. This bill is referred to health, and I'm sure you'll continue those conversations, particularly around the details around counseling. So, madam, I have a motion for Senator Glazer. Oh, and I'm sorry. Would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Chair, committee members. When I was a grad student, I was going through a tough time, and I sought out mental health. I went to an intake where I was left flooded, a term that is utilized when I don't have the time to process everything that I shared to the therapist. And I was left out of the office feeling even worse -

- when I walked in, they told me, well, the next time we can talk to you and see you would be in two months. So, on my way back to my grad class, I was very emotional. And it almost deterred me from going back and seeking mental health, but I did. But at a different place. A place that I would have had to drive out of school to look. But I needed mental health.

So I respectfully ask, and aye vote here, for something that is crucial and needed for our students. Thank you.

Thank you. I have a motion for Senator Glazer. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 11 [Roll Call]

That bill is out 6--I'm sorry, I thought Ochoa Bogh was still here. Okay, we'll hold that open. Current vote is 6-0. Thank you, Senator Menjivar. Your next bill is SB 541. Please proceed when ready.

Hi, again.

Hi.

I am now going to be talking about SB 541, and note that I will be accepting the amendments as described in the Committee analysis. Thank you again to the Committee consultant and team for working with my staff on that.

SB 541 seeks to address the sexually transmitted infection epidemic among California youth and improve equitable public health outcomes statewide by expanding teen access to internal and external condoms in public high schools and create a no-wrong door for those looking to obtain the HPV vaccine. Specifically, SB 541 will expand access to condoms by requiring public high schools to make condoms readily available to students for free and post a visible notice of where students will be able to obtain them.

Two, it will bar high schools from prohibiting condom distributions in context of sex education and public health programs and initiatives. Third, it's going to prohibit pharmacists and retailers from asking for proof of age or ID when individuals are looking to purchase condoms. And finally, it's going to ensure that there is no wrong door for HPV vaccine access by requiring the Family PACT program to cover vaccine for young people ages 12 to 18, because currently it's available for those 19 and older.

California, as I mentioned, is experiencing a public health crisis of STIs, and youth are disproportionately impacted. Nationwide, one-in-five individuals have contracted an STI, and of that, over 50% are those of ages between 15 and 24. With abstinence, as we all know, is the only 100% effective way to prevent an STI. We know some teens are still engaging in sexual activity whether we want them or not.

We just want to make sure when that teenager makes that personal decision that they have the resources available to stay safe. But right now, teens face multiple barriers to accessing condoms that deter them from seeking and securing the resources they need to protect themselves against STIs and unintended pregnancies. Common barriers include cost, accessibility, shame when they're looking to purchase, requirement of an ID, even though there is no legal requirement right now to ask for an ID when purchasing condoms.

Youth are often denied and turned away, and it's not deterring them from engaging in sexual behavior, it's just promoting unsafe sexual behavior. Providing condoms in school ensures we are meeting youth where they are at. That is why I am proud to say that SB 541 is a youth-driven bill, and we continue to listen to them as we move this bill forward. According to a survey conducted through the TeenSource program late last year, in December on Instagram, 55% of teen respondents agreed that more sexually active teens would use condoms if they were easier to obtain.

Another 60% agreed that it was the school's responsibility to provide this resource. And over half of the teen survey participants said that they believe that it is important for them to have access to condoms. This isn't a new phenomenon. There are current CAP programs across our State of California--CAPS, condom accessibility programs.

They exist in the area that I represent, Los Angeles Unified District, Long Beach, San Francisco and Santa Monica, and they've started since the early 1990s. Lastly, to further provide protections, we must ensure youth ages 12 to 18 have access to the vaccine against the most common and leading STI. In the State of California you have to be 12 years and older to make your own personal decision without parental consent on decisions on STI treatment and reproductive procedures. This isn't changing the law regarding that.

This is just allowing a no-wrong door at Family PACT programs. We are simply looking to help teens be as safe as possible if and when they decide to engage in sexual activity. To that, I'm here joined by two witnesses, Dr. Mara Decker, Associate Professor at Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, followed by Amy Moy, Co-CEO of Essential Access Health, one of the bill's co-sponsors.

Thank you. And first witness, Dr. Decker. Please proceed.

Good morning and thank you for having us today. As mentioned, my name is Mara Decker. I'm an Associate Professor at the University of California, focusing on adolescent sexual and reproductive health and positive youth development. I'm also the proud parent of two high school students. While California has seen a remarkable decline in teen pregnancies over the past decades, the rate of sexually transmitted infections, or STIs, among teens continue to rise.

As mentioned previously, over half of sexually transmitted infections in the state are between those of 15 to 24, and about 60% of chlamydia cases are among teens. This is a highly infectious and preventable treatment infection and one of the most common STIs. It can lead to serious consequences if left untreated. Within California, certain regions have much higher rates of STIs, such as the Central Valley, and rates in rural areas are rapidly increasing.

In addition, female adolescents who are Black have over four times the rate of chlamydia and nine times the rate of gonorrhea compared to their counterparts who are white or Latina. And young men who have unprotected sex with men are at an elevated risk for gonorrhea and other STIs. While abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent STIs, condoms can significantly reduce transmission. As mentioned, among teens who are sexually active, many face significant barriers to accessing condoms and other contraceptions.

This includes stigma, judgmental providers, limited transportation and cost, among others. To address these barriers, schools and school-based health centers around the state have been providing free condoms for decades. In some cases, school districts have made it a requirement. For example, both Los Angeles County and San Francisco Unified have offered free condoms since 1992. Schools in Fresno County, San Mateo County and other regions also provide condoms to students through public health initiatives in partnership with community-based organizations.

Studies have shown that school-based condom availability programs do not increase sexual activity, but can increase condom use among sexually active students. The STI epidemic among youth has reached a crisis point in the state and the nation, and we need to activate multiple strategies to respond--from prevention to testing and treatment. Schools are an important pathway to deliver key public health information and resources to youth who need them. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, Ms. Moy.

Good morning, Chairman Newman and Committee Members. My name is Amy Moy and I'm Co-CEO at Essential Access Health and also a proud parent of a teenager. Essential Access champions and promotes quality sexual and reproductive health care for all, and we're proud co-sponsors to be working with the Senator on this important measure, along with a youth-led advocacy group called GENup, Black Women for Wellness Action Project and URGE: Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity.

As you heard mentioned earlier, STI rates continue to climb and youth are disproportionately impacted, with LGBTQ+ youth and youth of color facing the brunt of the public health crisis and the most significant health inequities. SB 541, as the Senator mentioned, is a youth-informed and -driven policy solution that seeks to support youth health and well being and improve public health outcomes statewide through a number of interventions that the Senator outlined, including providing free condoms in school. Providing high school students with free condoms is a bold strategy, but as mentioned, it isn't new.

There are schools and entire school districts across the state that have free condom availability, and Vermont was the first state in the nation to require condom distribution in schools statewide. And now it's time to level the playing field in California. We have to ensure that all students, regardless of where they live or go to school, have equitable access to resources that they need to remain healthy and safe.

And now I have the honor of voicing the testimony of two youth leaders who are strong advocates in support of SB 541. The first youth leader is Sue Oh, a senior at Sunny Hills High School in Fullerton in Senate District 29, a Policy Co-Director at GENup. And Sue wanted me to share that SB 541 is a crucial step in destigmatizing the conversation about condoms and sexual health at schools.

Providing free condoms at high schools will generate an atmosphere of nonjudgment and security and a feeling amongst students that our schools care for our well being and can be a place where we can go where we need help and information. And Isaiah, a 10th grader living in Antioch, in Senate District 7 and a Member of the Essential Access Health Teen Source Youth Advisory Board, shared that It's important to have condoms in schools because they add a sense of normalcy and reduce stigma around condom use.

When kids are in school, we learn things that stick with us for the rest of our lives, and that should include how important and how vital condom use is for our health and safety. So for these reasons shared by California youth and the information shared recently, or previously, by the Senator and my fellow witness, we urge you to vote yes on SB 541, and we thank Senator Menjivar for her leadership.

Thank you, Ms. Moy. Is there anybody here in the Committee room who'd like to testify in support of the bill? If so, please come forward and state your name, your organization, your position, please.

Mr. Chair and Members, Rand Martin here on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. HF, amongst many services, also provides STD prevention, control and treatment, and we're strongly in support of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Martin. Next please.

Morning, Chair and Members. Tristan Brown, Legislative Director of the CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, here in support of the bill.

Next, please.

Good morning. Seth Bramble here on behalf of more than 300,000 educators, the members of the California Teachers Association, in strong support.

Thank you Mr. Bramble. Next, please. Seeing no more witnesses in the Committee room. Is there anybody here in the Committee room who'd like to testify in opposition to the measure? Welcome.

My name is Greg Burch with the California Family Council. For the last decade or more, this legislative body has been pushing condoms as a solution to sexually transmitted infections spreading among our youth. And each time the infection rate rose, you insisted that kids just need easier access to condoms and information about safe sex at younger and younger ages. That was the whole argument surrounding the California Healthy Youth Act, passed in 2015, which mandated comprehensive sex education in every school district.

And now you have an STI epidemic on your hands. According to the California Department of Health, STIs are at epidemic levels. A 2020 report showed a 320% increase in syphilis over the last 10 years. Gonorrhea is up 190%. How much do you really trust condoms to protect kids? Did you know that condoms don't protect people from all STIs, such as herpes, general warts, syphilis, and monkey pox, which can spread by skin-to-skin contact?

Don't you think it's time to reassess your health policy on this issue? Don't you think it is time to tell young people the truth? That those with the most fulfilling and healthy sex lives are those who treat sex as a special and intimate act to be shared in a monogamous, committed marriage? I'm not encouraging you to shame people, but to uphold abstinence till marriage as a noble ideal. Something beautiful to pursue, not something to laugh at or mock at as unrealistic.

Why not put together a messaging campaign for you to make marriage cool again? Honor it. Praise it. STIs cannot thrive in a culture that idealizes marriage. But you know where it does thrive? In a hookup culture, which you have more or less encouraged and created--where sex is meaningless and done for fun with multiple partners. I know it's hard to change course when you are so convinced you're doing the right thing. But ask yourself, how many young people are you willing to sacrifice? What STI infection rates are you willing to tolerate before you're willing to consider different options? I would suggest STI rates at epidemic levels is a divine signal that you are heading in the wrong direction. And I pray you hear the warning--heed the warning. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Burch. Anyone else here in the Committee room who'd like to testify in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could, please queue any witnesses online who would like to testify either in support or in opposition to this measure.

Participants from the public, if you would like to testify in support or opposition to SB 541, please press 1-0. One followed by zero. Mr. Chair, we'll begin with line 46.

Hello, Denise ... on the behalf of California Coalition for Youth in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Line 58, please go ahead. You are open.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Roxanne Gould, representing the American Nurses Association of California in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Gould. Next, please. Line 11, you are open.

Hello, this is Sarah Kim. On behalf of Traditional Biblical Values for the next generation in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. Line 25, please go ahead. Line 25, are you muted? Line 25, please go ahead. Moving along. Line 61, please go ahead.

Good morning. Good morning. Sorry. Molly Robeson with Planned Parenthood affiliates of California. We're in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Robeson. Next, please. 83, you are open. Plan 83.

Yes, hello, this is Betty Toto calling from Medicare for Everyone Everywhere, and we are in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please. Line 85, please go ahead.

Hi, Lori Osorio here, parent of teens and upcoming teens in strong support of SB 541. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. 86, you are open.

Good morning, Chair. I am Onyemma C. Obiekea with a Black Women for Wellness Action Project. Proud co-sponsors of SB 541 in support. I'd also like to register the support of Jen Up, our fellow co-sponsors, as well as Naral Pro Choice California, who are supporters of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. Line 95, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Sophia Lori with California Family Council, and I'm in opposition to this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please. And Mr. Chair, there are no other participants queued up. Very good. We'll bring it back to the Committee hearing room. Any Members wishing to comment or ask a question on the Bill? Seeing none. Senator Menjivar, would you like to close?

I was ready for a battle here. Thank you.

You obviously did a very good job. I'll just say I respectfully appreciate that. I've got a motion from Senator Glazer. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item two, SB 541, Menjivar. Motion is do pass as amended. But first, amend and re-refer to the Committee on Health. [Roll Call]

Current vote count is four to one. We will leave it open. Let's move to our next in the Menjivar trilogy, as I like to call it, SB 635.

I wear comfortable shoes for today. Chair and Members, the last bill I'm here to present today is SB 635. California has taken the lead in supporting children and families, and I commend the legislators before my time for their work in this space. In 2019, legislation was passed to ensure that MediCal beneficiaries ages three could access early periodic screening and services.

Despite this, a 2022 report by the California Budget and Policy Center found that California lags in providing these screenings with a rate of only 26%. And let's not forget to take into account that the racial and economic disparities that continue to exist for our black and Latino communities and children. So SB 635 is looking to add on to previous work and provide tens of thousands of children ages zero to five with access to early childhood developmental screening and other appropriate developmental screenings.

Children who are currently being served in subsidized childcare programs would be benefiting from this bill. We are expanding the age from 03 to 05 and leveraging the existing framework that exists through subsidized childcare programs.

Specifically, this bill is looking to direct old subsidized childcare programs such as alternative payment, General childcare, CalWORKS and family childcare, home education network, California state preschools, and home visiting programs to screen all children following parental consent with an ages and stages screening for children zero to 52; it's ensuring that children ages zero to five who need additional services after screening are referred for further assessment and other services at no cost to the parent for intervention.

Third, it would direct the California Department of Education and Social Services to set up a centralized billing point to draw down federal funding to pay the subsidized childcare programs for providing the screening. And finally, it's going to direct the California Department of Education and Social Services to work with Department of Healthcare Services, Department of Developmental Services, and the Office of the Surgeon General to establish processes to ensure identified children are receiving needed intervention services in a timely manner.

Many children with developmental delays or behavioral concerns are not identified as early as possible; my niece, an example, delaying their access to help in social and educational settings. We all know that the early ages of a child's lives are pivotal points for future success, and these screenings and early interventional programs offered during these early stages promote the growth and prosperity of youth, families, and communities.

Additionally, an early childhood technical center report found that in the past year, 36 of families above low income reported that their child had received a screening had received a screening, but that's compared to 27.2% of low-income families. I mentioned my niece. I'm the tia or aunt of my niece with developmental delays whose parents weren't aware of all the available resources available until a later point in her life.

This bill intends to support families in getting connected to the various options available to better support their children's development; we have the opportunity to leverage existing current frameworks and provide access to children and families that are served in subsidized childcare programs who are generally not receiving developmental screenings and are not connected to the managed healthcare provider or pediatrician.

So here with me today to testify on behalf of SB 635 is Dr. Lawanda Wesley, a Government Relations Director with the Childcare Resource Center and a proud co-sponsor. And second, Valerie Denero, Executive Director of Policy and Education EveryChild California and an additional co-sponsor.

Welcome, Dr. Weasley. Please proceed. You have two minutes.

Greetings, Chair Newman and members of the committee. I am Dr. Lawanda Wesley, the Director of Government Relations with Childcare Resource Center. Childcare Resource Center is the largest childcare family resource nonprofit in California, serving 50,000 children in both San Bernardino County and northern Los Angeles. As said earlier. Thank you, Senator Menjivar. There is a great need for developmental screenings starting at. Senator Menjivar, you already mentioned a number of the facts, but what I'll tell you what the research says.

Research tells us that children's brains develop faster in the first five years than any other time in their lives. In fact, in the first five years of life, more than 1 million neural connections are formed every second, and early developmental screening is our best friend and our tool to provide timely prevention and intervention support when those connections are fragile or in jeopardy. There are no do overs for the given age of a child at a given point in time.

Remember, in the first years of life, there are 1 million neural connections that impact cognitive and social and physical development, and it happens every second as children go and develop. They will never be one again. They will never be three again. They will never be five again. So every care and attention to their development needs should be treated like a delicate butterfly in the life cycle. Butterflies have four stages of development that are distinctly different from the other, yet it builds upon one stage after another.

This is also important for the human developing child. As mentioned and what I will report from the Center for Disease Control, one in six children ages 3 to 17 have one or more developmental or behavioral disabilities, such as autism, a learning disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Many children with developmental disabilities are not identified until they are in school, by which time significant delays may have occurred, and opportunities for treatment may have been missed altogether. This disproportionately affects black and brown children -

- as mentioned earlier. Childcare is a familiar and natural trusted partner for families. It is a known place to access services located in the backyard of their local community. Childcare centers are partners who are already copartnering with parents to support a whole child, a whole family system, childcare.

Sorry to ask you to expedite your testimony.

Yes, I will. Okay. And what I just want to say in closing, I was a former preschool teacher and former preschool administrator, and I saw up close personal what divisional screenings have done for children. I also was a mother who relied on subsidies such as MediCal, Cal Fresh, and all of those things. And as a single mother of five, I was able to access those services for my children in the childcare center. And now two are engineers.

And so you can see the impact of having early detection and screening that has on the trajectory of children for a lifetime to come. So, I ask respectfully for your aye vote on SB 635 and what it can do for children's lives.

Thank you. And Ms. Denero, welcome. Please proceed again. If you could limit your testimony to approximately two minutes.

Yeah, definitely. Good morning. Greetings, Chair Newman and members of the committee. I'm Valerie Denero, Director of Public Policy and Education with EveryChild California. EveryChild California is an Association of leaders advancing early learning. This year, we celebrate 80 years of inspiring, educating and educating leaders of early learning and care programs for children birth to age 12.

We advocate for programs across the state by supporting the development of the child's social, emotional, and intellectual well-being, all while in a safe and high-quality learning environment. We represent over 15,000 sessionals who operate state-subsidized programs and are committed to the success of children and families across every community in California. As was stated before, we thank you, Senator Menjivar, for authoring SB 35 and the early developmental screening Bill. EveryChild California, along with Childcare Resource Center and First 5 California, are proud co-sponsors.

I echo the comments that were already made by Lawanda Wesley and Senator Menjivar. I will share my own personal story that I have worked in the field of early care and education for over 25 years. In my many years in direct service, I had the pleasure of overseeing 20-plus state-subsidized programs blended with Early Head Start funding, and I experienced firsthand the benefits of using the ASQ screening tool as a first step in evaluating a child's development.

The parent-friendly tool allows programs to bring awareness to potential delays and empowers early educators and parents to integrate early intervention strategies and services to address identified delays prior to entry into elementary education. Both of my boys attended a First 5 when they were age four and were both screened utilizing the ASQ screening tool. My oldest son showed developmental delay, and he was referred to the special education department at our local school district, where he received high-quality intervention services.

And by the time he entered kindergarten, my son was at grade level, and he has thrived in his educational experience. He is now a sophomore in college. And I'm grateful for the early intervention services he received. Thank you again, Senator Menjivar, for authoring SB 635, for recognizing the need for early intervention services and the critical support services in their most critical time of development. Investing in early childhood education is investing our future.

And thank you to the Senate Education Committee for allowing me to come before you in support of 635 on behalf of California children and families, and I ask you for an aye vote.

And I thank you. Is there anybody here in the community hearing would like to testify in support? Please proceed with your name, your organization, and your position. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of The Children's Partnership and support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Melissa Cortez, on behalf of Autism Speaks and the Center for Autism and Related Disorders and support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Justina Erpelding with EveryChild California, a proud co-sponsor and supporter.

Thank you. Let's move on to witnesses and oppositions. Anybody here in the committee room would like testify in opposition to the measure, SB 635. Seeing none, let's go to the teleconference. Ms. Moderator. If you could please queue any participants you'd like to testify in support of or in opposition to SB 635. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. If you are participating in the public, if you are in support or in opposition to SB 635, please press 1-0,1-0. Line 102, you are open.

Hello, this is Kirstyn Chun, counselor and faculty from Cal State Long Beach. I'd like to say I'm in support of SB 11. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 36, please. Go ahead.

Go ahead. Line 53.

On behalf of Loma Linda University Children's Hospital in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Sylvia Hernandez with the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter. And we are in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 61, you are open.

Good morning. Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. We are in support.

Thank you, Ms. Robeson. Next, please.

83, please. Go ahead.

Betty Toto with Medicare for All Everywhere, in full support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 105, please. Go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Jacqueline Mayrand. I'm a counselor at the Cal Poly Humboldt, and I strongly support SB 11.

Thank you. Anybody else on the line?

Not at this time, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you. Let's bring it back to the committee hearing room. Members, any questions or comments on the bill?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As the mother of two children who went through that process of not having detection and having to do it at the, I think someone mentioned in the middle school level, I am really appreciative of this bill and what it will mean for parents to have a vehicle for understanding what's happening with their child when they first detect it and to make that accessible. So, I want to move for a vote on this important piece of legislation.

I appreciate it, Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a question for the author. I am supportive of the bill, so you have my vote. I'm just curious about the screening information being reported. I kind of want to say up to CDE and DSS at the state level as opposed to distributing it or forwarding it along to the 58 counties and their local Department of Social Services offices; it just strikes me that they're working hand in hand with local county offices of education. They obviously run the local services and fund them.

And I don't know if that's come up in the authorship of the bill at this point.

Senator, It has not. And I don't know if my witness... because it hasn't come up at all. No.

I'd appreciate maybe offline.

All right.

Absolutely. We can definitely do.

I certainly talked to my staff about it, and they might check in with your office. It's more, again, having, like so many of us, worked in local government for a number of years and seen firsthand sort of the deployment and pass-through of this kind of work, especially on the county side, that it might be useful to clarify that. But thank you very much, and I appreciate the bill. And again, I'll be supporting it.

Thank you, sir.

Senator Glazer.

Thank you. I certainly am supportive of these screening activities. So, bravo for advancing and having this conversation. The only issue that I'm still trying to figure out and could use your help on is we typically don't identify in a state legislative measure a specific vendor that might be the only exclusive agent for whatever the policy is we're advancing. So is the Ages and Stages Questionnaire: is that a for-profit company? Is that a nonprofit company?

And Senator, I will say we are working with stakeholders to expand that for agencies to utilize a validated screening of their choice. So, we will be adding some language to that, but yes.

That certainly makes me comfortable with the bill. So thank you for sharing that. And just to go back to my question, do you know if Ages and Stages: is that a private company? Is that a nonprofit?

Is it private or nonprofit? Private.

Yeah. So I think that's the big caution flag there is that I only know positive things, so nothing negative to say about their work. And it's certainly cited in many reputable places for the value it brings, but it's just not a good practice, I think, to identify one specific company versus the general screening obligation. So appreciate that.

Thank you, Senator. But we do commit to expanding that list. Thank you.

I'll just say that I do share Senator Glazer's concern, but otherwise. Glad to support the bill. If you'd like to close.

No, I appreciate the Members for the question. And Senator Cortez, we will talk offline. Senator Glazer and Chair, I do commit to adding an expansion because, yes, we don't want to exclude other vendors and be explicit to one. So, all I want to say to that in closing is I think I ask my colleagues to support children and families like my family by improving access to these developmental screenings through SB 635. And respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And I think we had a motion from Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. That's the motion. Madam Secretary, please call the roll file.

Item three, SB 635. Menjivar's motion is do passed but first, be first re-referred to the Committee on Human Services. [Roll Call]

All right, the measure currently has five votes. We'll leave it open. Thank you, Senator Menjivar.

Thank you. Have a great rest of your day.

You, too. We're going to go a little bit, I guess, a little bit out of order here. And so we are going to Senator Portantino. Welcome, sir. And before we do that. Yes, let's do the consent calendar. And we've got a motion for Senator Glazer. Madam Secretary, please call the role on the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar, SB 413 and SB 648. [Roll Call]

We will leave that open as well. Senator Portantino, welcome. And you are starting with which measure?

691, if I may?

Very good. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, today I'm presenting SB 691, which requires all students in California to be screened for the risk of dyslexia. In early elementary years. I should remind my colleagues that this Bill actually passed the Senate on consent last year with 39 aye votes on consent. And I believe there are 33 co-authors of this bipartisan, important measure to help our children. I think we should begin with research and science.

There's an overwhelming body of research that says early detection of learning disabilities allows for early intervention, which allows children to do better. And fundamentally, that's what this Bill does. It follows the science and research and uses neuroscience because we know if we help a young child earlier in their journey, we're going to be more successful. If we wait, it becomes four times more difficult and the problem becomes harder to solve. So all of the science leads us to this point.

The other thing, and I know folks are going to ask a very, very important question, and I support the question, what is the impact on English learners? Well, I think it's also important to know that under the current system, only 12% of English learners are at proficiency and 64% are in the lowest performing quartile. So that's the current system, and that's one of the problems we're trying to solve. Again, there's a huge social injustice with the current system.

If you're a suburban parent, you have your pediatrician on speed dial, and 15 minutes into first grade, you have that child before the pediatrician to get intervention. There's a lot of hardworking families out there that just don't have that ability and don't have that connection. And that's why this writes, a significant social injustice. There's a study out of Texas that has anywhere from 50% to 70% of inmates in a particular prison are dyslexic. Again, we need to do better for our children.

So what are we asking to do? We're asking to do what 40 other states are doing. Well, 40 other states are screening in those early elementary years. And guess what? By knowing what the problems are, they're helping their kids get the reading care that they need and deserve. And another issue you're going to hear is, will we over identify or over classify children as special ed?

Frankly, that's a problem we're trying to correct with this Bill, because by accurately reflecting who has a reading challenge, we're going to get that student the help they need. So later on, they don't get misclassified as special education. So the very question that's going to be raised is the right question. And the very answer that this Bill provides is the right answer. So we're going to get kids identified. Again, we're not diagnosing them as dyslexic.

With this 15 minutes screening tool, we're seeing who might be in a path to have a reading challenge so we can then get them the reading intervention. And then finally, it is the role of the education institution of the school, of the teacher of that school, to teach our kids how to read. That's a fundamental responsibility of the school. We should have the tools to help them provide the reading care that our young people deserve.

And so that's what we're trying to do here, a 15 minutes or less quick assessment that will help identify a problem so we can give that child the care that they need and, frankly, that they deserve. We are also put significant safeguards in the Bill with cultural competency and linguistic specialty, and we're deferential to that problem and that concern. There's a research out of Stanford and the Cal State that creates guidelines for why this is important.

We're using that research, and many of the provisions and suggestions in that research are incorporated in this Bill. So I would submit that this is a science-based, research-based, evidence-based, successful effort to identify a problem and have a prudent path to help that kid thrive and excel. And so with that, we have a ton. And I went off script, so apologize. Let me go to my last page. We have Megan Potente from Decoding Dyslexia, who was the sponsor of the Bill.

We have EdVoice here. We have Maria Diaz Ortiz, who is the grandmother of a student with dyslexia and an English learning language. I believe that our phone line person from at t may not be bilingual. We have a number of Spanish-speaking folks who are going to call in, so hopefully we can have some sensitivity as we navigate the phone lines on that particular issue. But we have a cadre of people who are passionate about dyslexia.

I should also submit for the record that I happen to be a dyslexic, and my single mom didn't find out till I was in the 8th grade. By then, it was too difficult for me. That's why I became a politician. And I tell people there's only 120 slots in the Legislature that's not going to meet the demands of our dyslexic population out there. And so we have to do better.

But there my mother was with me in the 8th grade, finding out that, imagine this, I was ADHD. Can you believe that? Exactly. And I will say that Mr. Wilk is a proud co-author of this Bill. As principal co-author of this Bill. And his mother-in-law supports the Bill as well. Because I can't talk about Mr. Wilk without talking about his mother-in-law, because she gets a good kick out of that, and I'm her favorite politician.

Mr. Wilk just reminded me again, I believe there are 33 co-authors. This is a bipartisan, important Bill to write a social injustice, help kids learn how to read. And we need to pass this Bill and get it signed by the Governor. So with that, we'll go to our. You're close. That's awesome.

That's not. My condolences. My condolences to your mom. So, first witness, Ms. Potente, please welcome. And if you could keep your comments of two minutes, we'd be grateful.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Megan Potente. I'm the State Director for Decoding Dyslexia California. We are a 100% grassroots, volunteer-based movement made up of parents and teachers, and other professionals. I'm also a 20-year educator and parent of a child with dyslexia. According to CDE, one of the greatest contributing factors to low reading achievement is lack of early and accurate identification of risk for dyslexia.

SB 691 would address this problem because it will help teachers recognize kids who need extra support before they fall behind. I have a 14-year-old son as well as a brother with dyslexia, and their ages spanned decades. Yet their experiences in school were identical. They both were not identified early. They both were left to struggle when they could have received evidence-based instruction in their general education classrooms that would have closed the gap so they could have learned to read with much greater ease.

My brother's experience in the 1970s may have been understandable. The science was not clear then, but the science is clear now. We now know the early risk indicators that are highly predictive and can be easily measured using brief, cost effective screening instruments. As a first grade teacher, I would have welcomed these tools. They would have made my job easier. The most impactful window of time for literacy development is before age eight, and with targeted instruction, children with dyslexia can become proficient readers.

As the Senator said, 40 states already require =K-12 universal screening in California. Many don't know that the only required dyslexia screening happens in federal prison. Even though we know identifying risk early is a critical step in solving the school-to-prison pipeline, SB 691 would ensure we screen to intervene at the beginning of the road when children have a lifetime of opportunity and learning ahead of them. Please vote yes. I know SB 691.

Thank you. Next witness, Ms. Diaz Ortiz, welcome.

Interpreter yes. Buenos dias distinguido miembros, m nombre es Maria Diaz Ortiz, madre de Jocelyn good morning. My name is Maria Ortiz and I have here my daughter with me and Jocelyn. Jocelyn. Identification Jocelyn was not identified with dyslexia until the fifth grade, but she struggled with reading and writing from the very start of school. Notification I notified the school of my concerns when she was in first grade and teachers told me not to worry.

They said that the reading problems were due because she had not achieved proficiency in English as she was an English learner. Esto retrasó la identificación de los primeros signos de su dislexia y provocó años de lucha innecesaria y dolor emocional. This delayed the identification of early signs of her dyslexia and caused years of unnecessary struggle and emotional pain. Debido a sus dificultades para leer y escribir, mi hija se puso nerviosa, ansiosa, se mordía las uñas y, a veces, vomitaba. Because of her struggles to read and write, my daughter became nervous, anxious, biting her nails, and sometimes vomiting.

I keep fighting for the support, and it wasn't until fifth grade that I was finally able to get her the appropriate literacy instructions she needed. If her difficult kids with reading had been identified early and she had received adequate help during the appropriate time when all the children are learning to read, maybe she would have not needed special education services.

Si no hubiera sido por todos mis esfuerzos como padre, mi hija habría seguido fracasando académicamente y sufriendo emocionalmente. If it hadn't been for all my efforts as a parent, my daughter would have continued to fail academically and suffer emotionally. No estoy aquí tanto por mi hija, sino por todos los niños que no tienen padres que puedan luchar y defenderlos. Mi hija y todos los demás niños del estado tienen derecho a una educación adecuada y digna. I am here not so much for my daughter, but for all the children who do not have parents who can fight and advocate for them. My daughter and all the other children in the state have the right to an appropriate and dignified education.

Ms. Perencia Comey, Hamienjevada Travah Voluntarian my experiences with my daughter have led me to volunteer in my school district dyslexia work group También organicé Padres, los padres de Highland Park de Highland Park, un grupo vecinal para apoyar a los padres de estudiantes con necesidades especiales., I also organized Padres, the Highland Park Parents of Highland Park, a neighborhood group to support parents of students with special needs. Necesitamos soporte para SB 691, por favor. Porque la identificación temprana del riesgo de dislexia es crucial para todos los estudiantes. Es justicia académica.We need SB 691 supported, please. Because early identification of risk of dyslexia is crucial for all students. It is academic justice.

Thank you. Boten C Allies. Please vote yes to SB 691.

Thank you. Next. Is anybody else here in the Committee room would like to testify on behalf of SB 691?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members. Mr. Chair, the CFT actually has a supportive, amended position. Wonder if I can have your indulgence for 10 seconds to explain on that.

Look at these people about to come after you, Mr. Brown. But, yes, I think they'll give you 10 seconds.

Yes, we are very supportive of the intent of this Bill. We think it's a worthy cause. We want to make sure the implementation is just right.

And so we're asking for more stakeholder input of educators as this is built up so that practitioners in the field, as the ones you just heard, can help make sure that it's done correctly. So we have some concerns that we'll submit in a letter, and the author's office and sponsors have been amazing to work with us. We appreciate their help, and we'll knock this out of the park. Thank you. I appreciate it. I appreciate that Senator Portantino. Next, please.

Natasha Minsker, on behalf of Smart Justice California, the Prosecutors Alliance of California, and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, also on behalf of my brother who was diagnosed with dyslexia at age three because my parents have the pediatrician on speed dial.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, my name is Jocelyn Chores and I'm a student and I have dyslexia, so I support SB 691.

Thank you, and thank you for being here. Next, please.

Good morning, my name is Laura Babbitt. I am the President of the Berkeley Unified School District, and I am here asking for your support for SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

Lori DePole, Co-State Director of Decoding Dyslexia California and a juvenile court-appointed education rights holder for a foster youth with dyslexia. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you. Next, please.

Amy De La Salle, parent in support of 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

Brighton Simmons, in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Finley Simmons in support.

Thank you. Simmons family. Next, please.

McEntire, proud mother, in support.

Thank you. Next, please. Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, I'm Aaron Peth from Sacramento. I'm here in my personal capacity on behalf of both of my children who in the last 18 months have been diagnosed or identified as dyslexic. Vivian, who is 10, and my son Brendan, who is seven. Both of them didn't want to miss school today, which tells you how much the intervention is helping them. So I strongly support the Bill and I would ask for your. aye vote.

Thank you, Ms. Peth. Next, please.

Hello, my name is Brianna Kolmikov. I'm here on behalf of both of my children who are diagnosed through private services as dyslexic, and my brother, who was diagnosed back in 1981 in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, my name is Heather Martin. I'm the parent of a dyslexic daughter. I'm also a regional leader for decoding dyslexia California, and a Member of Mount Diablo's community Advisory Committee. I strongly encourage you to support the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Martin. Next, please.

Hi, good morning. I'm Rachel Del Carlo Levy. I'm a Regional Leader for decoding dyslexia. Resident of Clayton. I'm also dyslexic myself and a parent of a dyslexic student and also with Mount Diablo Unified School District for their community advisory council. And I also help lead a dyslexia subcommittee of parents, and I'm here in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Gregory Kramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California in support.

Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Next, please.

Hi, my name is Ronit Glickman, and I'm a teacher and mother of a student with dyslexia, and I'm here to support SB 691. Thank you for your support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Jennifer Salma. I'm from Hillsborough, and I'm a parent of a 14 year old dyslexic son who was not identified by his public school and ended up in special education in 6th grade, and I am also a leader with decoding dyslexia and support SB 691. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Elise Lovejoy. I'm a parent and a former teacher and a reading advocate, and I am in support of 691 out of Pasadena, California.

Thank you. Next, please. You're out of order. Next, please.

Elena McFadden from Sacramento. I have a third grader that because I had the resources to get private screening and private tutoring, I was able to get him identified as dyslexic. But I'm also a Title I 7th grade school teacher. And so I fight every year to push students through the system and then they get approved. But like African American high-poverty students who are in the 7th grade and have been suffering for seven years because their parents don't have the resources. I support SB 691.

Thank you, Ms. McFadden. Next, please.

Hi, my name is Julie Sandino. I'm from Walnut Grove, California, parent of a dyslexic child, and I am strong supporter of SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, I'm Megan Bacigalupi. I'm the Executive Director of California Parent Power and the proud parent of a 10 year old with dyslexia. We're here in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, I'm Kendra Pimsicle. I drove out from Saratoga, California, this morning. I have three sons who are dyslexic. We're from Saratoga Unified School District. I'm in strong support of SB 691, especially coming from a place with so many resources. The struggle that we had to get the diagnosis pretty high.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, my name is Jessica Jacobson. I'm from Davis. I'm the parent of an English language learner who was denied screening, testing and intervention by educators and was diagnosed externally with severe dyslexia.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. My name is Shakia Ward, and I'm a Conner Park Council Member. And along with the City of Honor Park, we are in full support of SB 691.

Thank you and good to see you. Next, please.

Buenos dias, mi llamo Roberto Luis Mullinger. I'm Rober Mullinger. I'm from Mountain View, California. My 12 year daughter has dyslexia and she's bilingual, and I'm in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Izzy Swindler. On behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Katie Pettybone. On behalf of Governor for California, in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, Michelle Kaziminejad, parent of a dyslexic child, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. Hi, I'm Matt Angelou, parent of a dyslexic child, in support of the Bill. Thank you. Next, please.

Caroline Nielsen, adult literacy tutor in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

I'm Kelly Makashi, elected trustee from Pleasanton Unified, and I gladly drove all the way here to speak on behalf of all the students who have not had the opportunity to be screened. Just like my daughter, who has now been identified with dyslexia, a fifth grader. Let's not make it too late for the other students.

Thank you. Next, please.

Lisa Losqillano, resident of Rockland, California. On behalf of myself, who is dyslexic 1970s. Unidentified a child who is now 12, who I fought diligently, spending thousands of dollars to get the services and identification he needed. And now all the kids I work as a volunteer disability advocate for to get those kids the services they are legally entitled to that the state is not providing. Get that screening done and you will change lives. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

I'm Okish Nofeld and I have dyslexia, and I'm in support of this Bill.

Thank you, sir. Next, please.

I'm Lindsay Nofeld on behalf of Reading for Berkeley and a parent of dyslexic child from Berkeley, California, in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Nicholas Atkinson. I'm support of this Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. Next, please.

Hi, I'm Christine Blanche Atkins. That was my son. I am a dyslexic 1970s, undiagnosed. Also, English was not my first language growing up. It was French. My parents are from Haiti. I'm a strong supporter of this Bill. I have two dyslexic children. I have dyslexic nephews. It runs all over my family. And literacy is a human right.

Thank you. Next, please.

Cynthia Suniga. I live in Berkeley. I switched careers to become a special education attorney. I have. Two of my three boys have dyslexia. The oldest wasn't diagnosed until fourth grade. When I paid privately for that, I noticed the signs on my youngest child. He's in special education. He's now in second grade and he's reading. He had the early intervention. I support the Bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

Hello. Rachel Heard, San Ramon, California. I am the parent of two grown children who had dyslexia, and I am also the President of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District Board of Education. And our district began universal screening for kindergarten grades, too, when we returned from the pandemic and are already seeing huge success in this approach.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hello, I'm Ava Freeman, a sister of a dyslexic student in Santa Rosa in support of SB 691. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hello. Marshall Tuck, representing EdBoys who are co-sponsors of the Bill and strong support.

Thank you, Mr. Tuck. Next, please.

Hello. Brian Brennan, representing the 21st Century alliance, in support.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

Tiffany Fan, on behalf of California Court Appointed Apecial Advocates, or CalCASA, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fan. Next, please. Anybody else in the Committee hearing room would like to testify in support. Does anybody here like, testify in opposition to SB 691? If so, please proceed to the microphone.

Thank you.

Good Morning Chair Newman and members of the Committee.

Welcome.

My name is Efrain Mercado and I represent the 310,000 educators of the California Teachers Association. CTA must unfortunately oppose SB 691 as it is currently constructed. While CTA supports the overarching intent, we believe the implementation is currently unworkable for LEAs and impossible to implement with efficacy. The Bill is attempting to create a new statewide of universal screening for our youngest students, and the policy must be thoughtful and deliberate through each phase of implementation.

It is crucial that the legislation provide clear expectations with a balance of local implementation, providing state resources, and reflect the voice of educators who will be implementing the policy. DTA believes that all students can be successful, and one of the keys to success is the ability to read at grade level. As currently drafted. We do not believe that SB 691 will effectively build a system that's beneficial to all of our students.

SB 691 requires the vetting and identifying screeners at the state level, adoption at the local level, and then immediately turning around in the fall to screen all of the TK, Kinder, first, and second-grade students in our state in less than six months. The level of human capital is required but unfunded in SB 691 is incredibly significant.

It would mandate that teachers and administrators be trained in order to implement the screening appropriately for all students, interpret their results, and share the results with parents and guardians within 45 days of screening. As currently drafted, SB 691 provides no requirements nor funding for LEAs to provide appropriate training and support for educators to deliver the evidence-based literacy instruction, monitor progress, and introduce early intervention strategies into the General ED program for all students who are identified.

For the intent of this Bill to be achieved, there will need to be a comprehensive redrafting and not just one or two simple amendments. Our educators work tirelessly every day to provide California students with the quality education they need and deserve. CTA wants to be a partner in fulfilling the promise of public education because our students benefit most when we work together. Respectfully request your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the committee hearing, please proceed.

Good morning. Hard to see me? Hello.

It's Mr. Hampton. It's his fault, not yours.

Good morning. Jennifer Baker, representing the California Association for Bilingual Education, like Senator Portantino, CABE, believes that identifying and providing support to California's dyslexic students is needed. CABE's opposition stems from the multiple systemic gaps in the proposed process, which would leave California's English learners and their families vulnerable to overidentification. A number of unanswered questions remain about the screeners and screening process.

Who specifically will be providing the screening, and how can we provide the necessary amount of culturally and linguistically competent screeners when we're currently unable to provide enough bilingual teachers to currently serve our existing needs? A particular concern is the misidentification of English learners. Without a structured process that includes mechanisms to prevent misidentification and how to rectify this should this happen, English learners may not all benefit from this process.

It's important to recognize that English learners are not a homogenized population and should not be tested in a language they do not understand. Will the linguistically appropriate process include screening in every language? Are the resources provided to ensure this is the case? A kindergartner that may have just arrived as a migrant or refugee may enter our school system in a matter of weeks or days upon arrival, triggering the 90 day screening process.

By focusing on testing her within 90 days without recognizing she likely doesn't read or write in her home language, with a structure that we do not know will accurately reflect her great diversity in skills, abilities, culture, and experiences, we may mistakenly identify her as dyslexic, causing her and her family both confusion and concern. Ultimately, she should not necessarily be tested in her native language, as she is developmentally barely beginning to understand how written language works, which is illustrated by Emília Ferreira through her research.

Unfortunately, SB 691 does not include a mandate that when a parent is notified their child has been screened and may have dyslexia, that they receive this notification in their home language. Further, what will happen to these children after they have been identified? What will be the next steps for our English learners who have been screened, who may have been misidentified as dyslexic? What resources will be there for families whose misidentification has taken place?

CABE appreciates the opportunity to share our opposition with you today and with Senator Portantino. And again, we do believe that screening is important. We believe that safeguards must be created to ensure this process is created to benefit all students. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else is in the hearing room, like testify in opposition, if you could, your name, your organization, and your position.

Cristina Salazar with Californians Together in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else? Let us now go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderate, if you could, please cue any participants on the line who'd like to testify either in support of or in opposition to SB 691.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. If you are in support or in opposition to SB 691, please press one, followed by zero at this time. And we will begin today with line 109. Please go ahead. Line 109, you are open. Are you muted 109? Please go ahead. 109?

Hello?

You're open.

Hi, my name is Devika Sood. I am a Director of elementary academics with Lighthouse Community Public School in Oakland, and I am in support of SB 691.

Thank you, next please.

112, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Whitney Northen. I'm a parent of a thirteen-year-old dyslexic boy from Sacramento in the San Juan school district, and I am in support of SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 618 or, excuse me. 118, you are open. 118, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Vanessa Thomas. I am a parent of a dyslexic child. I have dyslexia myself, and my mother has dyslexia. We're from Santa Rosa, California, in the Mark West School district, and we are in support of SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

120, you are open. 120.

Hello, my name is Katie Delavan. I am a parent and bilingual teacher. My daughter is almost eight, and she is in the Davis Unified School District. We found out she had dyslexia this year, and we started evaluations when she was three, but it took us almost five years, and then I found out at age 45, I also have dyslexia. That's how old I am right now. I am in support of SB 691, thank you.

Thank you. And please, witnesses, your name, your organization, and your position, please. Next, please.

Line 123, please. Go ahead.

Thank you chair and members, Ashley Walker with Nossaman, on behalf of the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. 122, you are open.

Hi there. My name is Jennifer Gram. I am an educator, a parent, and I am in support of this Bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next, please.

124, please. Go ahead.

Thank you. Kiroko Kazakhi, bilingual parent of two children with dyslexia, from Los Angeles, in support of SB 691.

Thank you. Next.

125, you're open.

Hi, my name is Diane Bedrosian. I am a pediatrician in Vista, California, in strong support of SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

Go ahead. 130.

Hello. My name is Oslam Osdanal. I'm a parent and an educator and a resident from Cotati, California. I'm in strong support of SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

116, please. Go ahead.

Laura Wasco, on behalf of the California Association of School Psychologists in support of SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

133, please. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Vidori Sepa. I'm a parent and a pediatrician from Pengrove, California. I'm calling in support of SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

You are open. Line 134.

Hi, my name is Karen Rosenquist. I'm a parent of dyslexic son and also the Executive Director and founder of a school in Mill Valley for children with dyslexia. And on behalf of our 81 students, 22 faculty, and 160 parents, I strongly support SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 140, please. Go ahead.

My name is Clare Corcoran. I'm a structured literacy dyslexia specialist in San Francisco, and I support SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 141, please. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Stephanie Simpson. I am a parent of two dyslexic daughters in San Diego, California, in strong support of SB 691. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

132. You are open.

Hi, my name is Liza Finkelstein. I'm a former SFUSD high school reading intervention teacher and coach, and co-founder of FULCRUM, Full and Complete Reading at the Universal Mandate with Kareem Weaver. I also am the mother of a bilingual son who was not diagnosed until third grade and who still struggles to read and is really turning off at school. I am calling in very strong support of SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

Go aheadline 142.

Good morning. My name is Elizabeth Bloom, and I am an educator in Hawthorne, California, and also a mother of a dyslexic son who's in 8th grade and was not identified until late even with a lot of educator knowledge on my side of things, and it has been a real struggle, and so I'm in full support of SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 145 you are open

Good morning. I'm Leslie Woodward. I'm a structured literacy tutor and the parent of a dyslexic daughter. I'm very strongly supporting SB 691. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Please, go ahead. Line 146.

Yes. Hi. Maggie O'choir from living inside apostle, supporting SB 691. Thank you.

You are open, 150. Line 150?

My name is Leticia Saldana. I'm parent in support for SB 691.

Please go ahead, line 153.

Hi, my name is Irina Guseva. I'm a mother of a child, trilingual child, who is dyslexic, and he's dyslexic in all three languages. And it's been a struggle since before even kindergarten to get the right support for him, and I strongly support SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 155, you are open.

Hi, my name is Erin Fremont. I'm a parent in Folsom, California. Two kids with dyslexia, Folsom Cordova Unified School District, and I have strong support of SB 691. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

156, you are open. Line 156. Are you muted, line 156? We can move to line 157. Please go ahead.

My name is Matt Fremont, and I am the parent of two dyslexic kids, and I'm in support of SB 691.

Thank you, Mr. Fremont. Next, please.

Line 158, you are open. Please go ahead, 158.

Hello, my name is Erica Ledesma, parent of an early diagnosed five year old kindergartner with a double-deficit of dyslexia, who was also identified as twice gifted dyslexic, who was diagnosed at my own financial expense. My daughter is currently attending at Altamont Creek Elementary School in the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District in the City of Livermore, and I am extremely disappointed in the current education services offered by our state for students, and I am strongly in support of SB 691. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 126, you are open.

This is Ashley Rebiskie, parent and educator, and currently work for Greenfield Learning, and I strongly support SD 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

154, please go ahead. Line 154, are you muted? Line 154.

I was told I was 154 and then 158. Is that me?

You're 154, please go ahead.

Okay, that's me?

Please proceed.

My name is Melissa Lazaro. Yes. Thank you. My name is Melissa Lazaro, and I am in full support of SB 691. I am located in San Diego. I am a bilingual parent. We come from a bilingual bicultural family, and my son was excused, as the reason for his not reading, as being that he was bilingual. But if he had been properly screened for dyslexia, they would have identified that in kindergarten. Instead, he was not able to read until fourth grade. I am in strong support of SB 691.

And I'm tired of the excuses...

Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 161, please go ahead.

Bill Foley from Pleasanton, California. I'm in full support of SB 691 for the diagnosis of dyslexia with children. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

We will go to line 162. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Zimring, I'm from Moraga. I am a parent of a 10 year old dyslexic son, and I'm in strong support of SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 165, you are open.

Good morning. My name is Roz Myers, and I am an older African American worker and mother who has struggled through my academic and work careers. I have nine children with three that have dyslexia and ADHD. I didn't know until I began the process of screening my children that I also was affected and then began to understand and realize what the challenges are. I support early screening during early childhood education.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Line 169, you are open.

Hi, my name is Becky McKright, and I'm from Rocklin. I am a mother of a child with dyslexia, and after watching him struggle throughout elementary school here, I am strongly supporting bill SB 691.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 174, please go ahead.

Good morning. Scott Davison, parent, attorney, and education advocate, on behalf of the Carlsbad Education Alliance in strong support of 691.

Thank you, Mr. Davison. Next, please.

Line 176, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Dr. Doug Major from beautiful Los Osos, California, representing the California Children's Vision Now Coalition in strong support and reminding you that vision care is also an important tool for these young children to combat dyslexia. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other callers, Mr. Moderator?

It looks like we have about five left in queue.

Okay, please proceed. Your name, your organization, your position, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And we'll go to line 183.

Hi, my name is Diane Young. I'm a parent of three dyslexic children in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District that are all extremely suffering right now, and I'm in full support of SB 691. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

184, please. Go ahead.

Hello, my name is Kirsten Kelley. I am a first grade teacher in Lake Elsinore, California and I am in full support of SB 691. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Okay, we'll go to line 185. You are open.

Hi, I'm Frida Brunzell from San Diego. I'm on PTA's Equitable Literacy Resolution Committee. I'm a parent of a bilingual child who got identified too late for dyslexia. I'm passionately in support of SB 691.

Thank you. And next, please.

Line 82, you are open. Line 82. Line 82. Line 82, go ahead.

Si buenos días. Mi nombre es Raquel Díaz. Soy mamá de una niña de 9 años que tiene dislexia y apoyo la SB 691. Gracias.

Gracias. Moderator, any other callers on the line to testify?

We have one more, Mr. Chair.

Please proceed.

She took herself out just now.

Okay, thank you. And thank you to everybody who called in. Let's bring it back to the Committee hearing room. Senators, any comments or questions about the bill? Senator Glazer. And Senator Wilk, I know you have a comment. Go ahead, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator Portantino, for bringing this bill forward. We've had many discussion and sidebars around this bill. And as a mother who has gone through a process of getting services for my children, married to a disabilities coordinator for over two decades, I know how important it is to be identified in terms of special needs. And I also know how difficult it is for families to get access to the tools to help fix the challenges that our children face. I think this is an important bill.

My question is in terms of some of the amendments that were lifted up, some of the concerns about implementation. How do we ensure that the human resources, the implementation strategy, and the full tools that families will need to be able to address this very important challenge that really sets the course for the future for their children? I know we talked about you being open to those concerns and taking those concerns on.

For me, I think it's important to really be definitive about that in the bill because it's worse to be identified and not have the actual tools to address the problems. Right. I think that is a concern for many parents, is how do we actually get the services?

Do you want me to comment now or...

Please.

...hear all the comments?

It's up to you.

No, I do think in order to solve any problem, you have to identify what the problem is at the outset. And just speaking with the school board member from Berkeley, school districts are going to save significant resources by actually identifying what the real problems are. Because if we don't intervene in kindergarten-first grade, that student will struggle for every single year prospectively.

By actually helping them solve the problem in the early grade, we're going to be saving significant resources throughout that year and helping those districts redirect those resources to where the problem is actually identified. The other issue on misidentification for special ed. Again, we're going to be solving that problem, which saves that school district significantly more money because it's, again, cheaper and more efficient to intervene in the first grade.

I agree with you that we should take some of the concerns that were expressed today on implementation, on time frame, and other things, and obviously on educator input, into what list of screeners are available, and we should look at what the other 40 states are doing. So I'm having those ongoing conversations because I understand from a parent's perspective, my kid's been identified with a problem. What's next?

Right.

I agree that we want to focus on the what's next? And the Governor's put significant resources in the budget over the past two years specifically for dyslexia. We're going to be looking at those allocations to help offset any costs. But overall, this bill will save school districts money, and it's four times easier to intervene in first grade than it is in fifth grade. So, again, it's going to take significant more resources if we do nothing. The school district will be overburdened if we do nothing.

The burden goes down if we do something. And again, under the current system, only 12% of English learners are at proficiency, and many of them are getting misidentified as special ed, and we're going to solve that problem with this. So I agree we have to focus on having sound implementation strategy. I'm going to look at that, but conceptually, this is going to make it easier to do that, not harder to do that.

Thank you. Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Portantino, I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue. This is a very important issue, and I want to give a shout out to EdVoice. I first learned that we didn't do this in this state at a briefing a number of years ago where I got educated on the issue. And we should already be doing this, and we're not. I would say a couple things.

I totally agree with you that the sooner we screen these students, there are going to be much less misidentification. It's actually gonna save school districts a ton of money, and it's going to improve young people's lives. One of the data points that demographers use to project future prison population, as you know, is the literacy rates of third graders. A lot of times that is because of dyslexia. And to not do this screening is just inexcusable. I know. For me, I've got two children.

No parent ever has an average... Like Johnny, oh, yeah, my johnny, he's average. No one has an average student. So I've got one who's AP, one who's special needs. And fortunately, we got her screened at a very early age because she was second in line, and she's not dyslexic, but we were able to get her services early. And they went from, at one point saying, don't ever expect her to go to college, to go to college, become a teacher, and then teach special ed students at the elementary school she went to.

So this is all doable, and I appreciate all the parents in the room today because this is a really important issue. And for CTA, I've been sitting up here for years. I'm so sick and tired of you always telling us why we can't do something. Why don't you tell us how we can do it? Your vision should be student access and student success, not whatever your agenda. I don't even know what your agenda is, but it's not students agenda, and I find it offensive.

Obviously, there's going to be challenges with implementation. I have every confidence in you that you're going to be able to do that. And I'm really proud to be principal coauthor of this bill. And again, just thank you so much for all you do for students in general. So thank you sir.

Any other... Senator Glazer, go ahead. I'm sorry, Senator Ochoa Bogh is next. I apologize. Pardon, my fault. Go ahead.

That's okay. Thank you for this bill. I'm also a coauthor on the bill. I think there's some valid concerns with regards to the implementation part of it. Especially, we've had some oversight hearings in which our school districts, unfortunately, they just don't have enough of personnel to be able to come in and meet the needs. But that's not to say that this is not very much needed.

And I think to the point where we do diagnose a child with a need, such as, in this case with dyslexia. Even if we cannot, as a school resource or a school site, be able to provide those services right away because we're in the process of having the school districts do the training or be able to find the personnel to be able to meet the needs. It still informs and empowers a parent to be able to say, okay, this is what my child needs.

Let me see what other resources are there available for my child to be able to get the needs that they met. So I think the fact that our school district would take that lead or be able to do the diagnosis first, it actually empowers a parent. It is so difficult. It is so difficult when a parent doesn't know what exactly is impeding their child from learning.

And just for those parents who do have children with learning differences, those are not necessary flaws that should make you sad. That makes your child especially unique and very special. And as parents or caregivers, our job is to make sure that we know what they need and then figure out what resources are available out there. This is where we're so grateful for the Internet, which allows us to connect. But I hear some sadness.

Do not ever be sad with a child that has been gifted to you. Be grateful for that child and the very special, unique needs that they have. Thank you for this bill. Love to work with you, collaborate, to see how we can help our school districts have the funding that they need to train and hire the staff to be able to implement this effectively.

And I know timeframes are always very sensitive because every school district is unique in where they're located and what they have access to. So I am very receptive to the school districts as well and to the teachers who have to implement this. Very, very conscious about that. But that's not to say that our parents don't have a right to know what their child needs.

Y para usted señora, me encantaria verla para correcto para una oficina oficial es una bueno abogada para sus hijos. Yo fui exactamente como usted.

I think everybody caught the sentiment of that comment. Senator Glazer.

I love Senator Ochoa Bogh's comment about special kids. And to the parents and the kids and the educators and the professionals that are here, thank you for coming up and sharing. Senator Portantino, was happy to support the bill last session, happy to do it again, and at the appropriate time, happy to move the bill.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And apologize to the author for coming in and out. The usual, I presented a bill in another Committee. And so it's always dangerous to ask a question when you haven't been here for the whole time.

Oh, the audience will let you know if you're on the right page.

It sounds like we're having audience participation today, so that's exciting. Senator Portantino, just curious as to what level of work you're continuing to do with the opposition going forward? I'm a coauthor of the bill. I supported the essence of the bill last year. I appreciate what you're doing. I'm just assuming that you're probably still working with them. But I just wanted to ask the question.

Absolutely. Now, through the dialogue, we make better decisions. I will continue to talk with the opposition. I've asked for specific language suggestions. I think there's merit to many of their concerns. Whether we're going to get everything addressed, I can't make that promise, but I can tell you that we're going to continue to talk. And, I mean, I want everybody to be on the same page. I mean, it's too critical not to be.

But I do think, fundamentally, we have to agree that the earlier we intervene, the better it is for a kid. It just is. And so we need to make sure we focus on that core value as we move forward.

All right. I appreciate your response. Thank you.

Senator Wilk, you have another comment?

Yeah. I'm sure you're going to hit this in your close, but I wanted to bring it up just in case you didn't. I think it was Ms. Baker who brought up her concern about ESL students. And I just wanted everybody in the room to know that you had another bill that we passed out last week that is going to compel school districts to provide written IEPs in a much quicker time frame than they oftentimes do. So that is something that you've already taken into consideration, have been an advocate for for a number of years.

Appreciate that. I'm going to support the bill today. I do have a couple of questions. And I appreciate, not only the need for this bill, but also the urgency. Right. And so that has been well validated by all of the wonderful people who've testified very passionately about this. So there is concern, you've talked to it, about the implementation. We're all very familiar with the challenges of legislative implementation.

So I'm glad to hear that you're willing to work with all parties to make sure that we work that out. A couple of questions. There's a concern of false positives and some implications around that. So how would you respond to that?

So first of all, this is not a diagnosis. It's a screening tool. So it's going to identify who at that point in time has a reading challenge so we can start to intervene. And the reason why you do follow up evaluations is so you can see how your progress is going. And it could very well be that somebody in kindergarten who is screened with an issue, in first grade, we've corrected it. And so now by having the follow up evaluation, it's been corrected.

And so that's why you have these follow up evaluations. Another thing that's come up is people say, well, is it too early to screen in kindergarten and first grade? And the answer is absolutely not, because according to neuroscience, that's when kids are the most susceptible for intervention to be helpful. And so, again, identifying that problem earlier makes it more efficient to help. So that's why we're doing the follow up screenings, to correct for that issue.

Okay.

And that's why this is going to save us significant resources, because it's going to cut down on the kids who are falsely identified as special needs.

And by, referring to follow up screenings, so there's some concern that doing this multiple times is, especially for students who've been identified as dyslexic.

Well, they're identified at risk.

At risk of dyslexia.

So the idea is, if they're at risk, to your mind, it makes sense to screen them multiple times from K through 2. Right? Is that correct?

Right.

Correct.

Right. Okay. And then with respect to linguistic sort of capabilities. So how do. How are you thinking about addressing the challenge, especially on students who've coming to school, may not speak good English? Are there tools, or are you confident we can develop those tools to screen in other languages that won't misdiagnose?

Absolutely. The tools exist already. UC San Francisco is working on California's own version of that app, which the timing coincides nicely with this bill. And that's one of the goals, is to have it be linguistically sensitive. The bill has those safeguards written into it to make sure that the implementers are native speaking of that language, that we take in linguistic sensitivity. All of those safeguards are in it, and many of them come right from the research that's come out and the concerns that have been addressed.

And so we feel we're addressing that issue head on, and we feel confident that. And again, 40 other states do it. Many of them are border states. Many of them have a higher percentage of English learners in their districts, and they're doing it well. So we think we can learn from the other states as well.

And again, there is concern about applying those learnings in a rapid fashion. This is a challenge we touch on.

On that, Mr. Chair. One thing that I do want to give a lot of credibility to, the idea that we would do it within the first 90 days. One of the arguments that was presented to me two days ago from one of the organizations was allow some time for the teacher to develop a rapport with that student. So perhaps we make it within 40, after 45 days, allow that kid that comes into that class to develop that comfort level in that classroom.

And so I think that's actually a very good point that we're going to look at making sure that there's sort of a landing space, a comfort pillow, in essence, and not doing the evaluation on day one, for example, if you have a kid who just comes into a new classroom. So I think we're going to be looking at that, and I think that's a very good point that's been raised.

Appreciate that. My last question, different folks at different times in this hearing have made it really clear it's not only important when we communicate with parents as to the challenge, but also how. And so you have a similar linguistic challenge there. So how do we ensure that parents are being sort of consulted and engaged in the right language? Given, again, given sort of the tightness of the timelines that you've prescribed here.

Parental communication is paramount importance. And so, yes, we're building the communication responsibilities within the bill, but also federal law already mandates that if you have 15% of a school population of a particular language, things have to be translated already. That's federal law.

So certainly we're going to be a strong supporter of complying with federal law, but we're going to increase, to the extent that we're capable, more parent involvement. And again, knowing what the problem is is the first part, and then communicating with those parents and allowing that communication to happen. So, yes, we're going to be looking at those implementation issues as the bill goes forward.

And I appreciate that. I do appreciate what you're trying to do, and I do appreciate the urgency here. You only get one shot at first grade. We cannot wait. But I'm also appreciative of the broader kind of challenge of doing these things comprehensively. So it's fair to say that you want to do this, but you're totally open to figuring out how to better align this with all of the other myriad challenges that educators face, certainly from TK through second grade, that need addressing. So appreciate your commitment that you've made to working with stakeholders.

And again, just clear my commitment is to work with stakeholders, but I'm not committing to a specific amendment today. I'm just saying I'm going to...

I know you well enough to know that, Senator Portantino.

I don't want anybody to say I make... The best way to keep promises is not to make promises.

Right. But the best way to solve problems is to be open minded, especially to the unintended consequences of the following issues that things create. So with that, any other questions or comments from the Members? Okay, so we had a motion, I believe, from Senator Glazer. And would you like to close?

I really appreciate both the comments and the parents who came from their busy lives to be here and be on the phone. The advocates, as the Chair said, you never get first grade back. We got one chance to get this right. It's going to save money, help kids in a tremendous, exponential way. Just knowing what their issues are, so we can get them help. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Glazer. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File Item 7, SB 691 by Portantino. Motion is do pass but first be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

And that bill is out 7-0. So thank you, everybody, for being here. And so, with that affirming applause, I actually have to go present two bills as well. So, to the Vice Chair, if you wouldn't mind taking the gavel for a time. And I will return as quickly as possible.

Your staff will meet you outside the Committee room with your binder.

There we go. Welcome, Senator Portantino, again. We are happy to hear SB 323.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair and Members. SB 323 will require local education agencies to create and maintain an inclusive school emergency plan. And require these IEPs for a pupil with exceptional needs. Again, we have students with exceptional needs. We should make sure that when we have emergencies on campus, we actually include a plan for those emergencies for those kids. Safety is a top priority. I mean, we see it every day. Whether it's a shooter, whether it's an earthquake, whether it's other issues.

We should make sure that all of our kids have a safety plan, and that's what this bill does. It came to me from a constituent, and we have her to testify in support. Andrea Crissman, who brought this issue. And then we have Gregory Cramer from Disability Rights California. So, with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate. And if we can hear from my two witnesses, that would be fantastic.

Wonderful. We will now move on to lead witnesses in support.

Thank you, Senator. I could give you over 700,000 reasons to support SB 323, because California has more than 700,000 students in special education. Now, these are some of the kids that I know. This is Sabrina and Trinity and my son, Daniel. They all have cerebral palsy. And some other disabilities. And the girls, they need someone else to push their chair, but my son can push his chair a little bit.

This is Abby. She's higher functioning, and she can understand danger and safety drills, which is great. This is Brandon. Now, he can run around, but he doesn't understand anything about danger at all, which is dangerous. Here we have Beckett. Now, if you ask Beckett to stand up, he needs about 30 seconds just to process what you've said before he can move.

And if you start repeating what you've asked him to do or talk too fast, he freezes and he plants himself, and he weighs 175 pounds, and he's only 10 years old. So that presents some challenges, too. This is Joshua. Like a lot of these kids, he gets overstimulated when there's lights and sounds, and he's been known to suddenly run or hide or just drop to the floor.

Now, kids with IEPs, they need accommodations for their education, but they also, some of them need accommodations for their safety. This bill, it doesn't expand their rights. It protects their existing rights so that they're the same as the rights of non-disabled children. It makes a lot of sense for the IEP team and the parents to talk about safety plans at the annual IEP meeting. In a real disaster, this information is going to be very important to emergency responders.

While researching this topic, I found that there's other people who've identified this as a problem. In fact, in Maryland, they enacted a very similar bill in 2017. I firmly believe that SB 323 will help our hardworking educators protect these 700,000 most vulnerable students in California. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Gregory Cramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California, we're in support of this bill. And in today's world, we believe that emergency planning is essential and should be a routine part of the IEP process. The legislative response to the impacts of Covid-19 and the pandemic on youth receiving special ed. The law was amended, Education Code 56345(a)(9) was amended to require IEP teams to come up with a plan on how the IEP will be provided in emergency conditions.

The fulfillment of an IEP during emergencies is now a normal part of an IEP meeting, and the IEP form now has a dedicated space for educators to specify how to accomplish this objective. DRC's education legal team and parents that have reached out to us have found that to be very workable and believe that the provisions of Senate Bill 323 would also be seamlessly incorporated. As noted in the Committee analysis, students with disabilities may not be physically able to participate in drills like duck and cover.

And Senate Bill 323 ensures that students with disabilities are not exposed to greater risk during an emergency, and educators and responders will not be left scrambling on how to protect these students. We believe that this measure will result in the protection and safety of youth in special education and should be easily implementable. For these reasons, we support Senate Bill 323. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now hear from other support witnesses in room 2100.

Thank you. Melissa Cortez, on behalf of Autism Speaks, in support.

Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association. We actually have a tweener position. Can I elaborate?

Yes.

Awesome. We are very supportive of the spirit of the bill. Just have some concerns about unintended impacts if the bill is read too broadly as a mandate, and not all IEP students may require that. So we've been having some productive conversations and look forward to having more. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in support here in room 2100? Seeing none, we'll now move on to witnesses in opposition here in this room. Seeing none, let's hear from any other opposition witnesses. Actually, let's move on to the witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Moderator if you would, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 323, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Participants from the public, if you'd like to testify, please press one followed by zero at this time. One followed by zero. We will be taking support and opposition, and we will begin today with line 53. Please go ahead.

Sylvia Hernandez with the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter. And we are in support.

We have a final reminder. One followed by zero. If you would like to testify in support or opposition. And nobody else is queuing up, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator, and thank you to all our support and opposition witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to our Members. Do any of our Members have any questions or comments?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just want to say I support this bill and as co-author, I want to go ahead and move the motion.

Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions? Oh, sorry, Senator Wilk.

Thought we were on the same team, Madam Chair.

We are.

Again, I want to thank you for this bill. And when I was reading this bill earlier this week, I had no idea that we were not taking this into consideration. Later this morning, may go into afternoon, I don't know, I've got two bills that came out of the aftermath of shooting at my own local high school that both my kids went to and so you have this great idea. My mother-in-law wants to know why I'm not a co-author of this bill. So if you do end up having to amend this bill, I hope you'd be amenable in pleasing my mother-in-law by adding me as a co-author.

But, yeah, just have her call and ask me, and I'll be happy to put you on. By the way, I'm his mother-in-law's favorite politician. I happen to be. So that's why we have this thing going on.

So, anyway. Yeah, I had no idea we didn't do this. It is something that's definitely needed. And I would say to anybody out there, if you don't think it could happen to your student at their school, you are wrong. So, anyway, again, kudos. Happy to support the bill today.

Just want to make sure I don't miss anybody else. And as Senator Wilk, I would be happy to be added on as a co-author, if I'm not already on that portion, Senator Portantino. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

File item five, SB 323, Portantino. Motion is due pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

We're going to leave the roll call open for our absent Members. And thank you very much, Senator Portantino.

Then I have one more.

Yes. Are you ready for SB 640?

I am.

Perfect. Thank you. Please.

Thank you. Madam Vice Chair and Committee Members, SB 640 will require trustees of the California State University for each food service contract and participation in hotel development to contract with a person or parties that are in a labor peace agreement with any labor organization that represent or seek to represent food service employees performing under the food service and hotel employees at that project. So, SB 640 extends this requirement to food service contracts or hotel development that are on the Cal State.

Basically, we want to make sure that our Cal State system, when they're bringing these hospitality venues or other expansion of hospitality on our Cal State campuses, that they involve their representative labor bargaining units in that process. It makes sense that we shouldn't circumvent labor relations by allowing outside contractors to come in and do these services. And so that's essentially what this Bill does. And we've seen when there are strikes and pickets and other issues, complications when we don't have these protections in place.

And so I respectfully ask for an "I vote."

And I have witnesses here. Ken Jacobs, chair of the University of California, Berkeley center on Law, Labor Research and Education, and Dr. Richard Amir Tavadarian Jeswin Professor at Santa Monica College.

Thank you very much.

Senator Portantino, Members of the Committee, thanks for having me here today. Over the last several years, we've seen an increase in labor conflicts in the United States as a whole and in California over the rising cost of living, health and safety issues, on the job, understaffing and higher education has been an area where we've seen a significant increase in labor conflicts, including in the Cal State system, related to contracting.

Labor peace policies have been used in California for over 20 years by public entities where there's a proprietary interest in minimizing labor conflict. The proprietary interest may be in cases where there's a financial interest, such as in food service and hotel developments, where the money received by the public entity depends on the revenue of those operations, or where there's a proprietary interest in preventing disruption of services.

And so what these policies do is they usually require anyone doing the contracting with the public entity to have an agreement with a labor organization that either represents the workers or seeks to represent those workers that has an alternative dispute resolution in order to avoid disruptive labor actions. And labor peace policies are currently in place in the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, La County, Santa Monica, Santa Monica College, Lax, SFO, San Jose Airport, Oakland Airport, the BART system for their hotel developments.

Similar policies related to food services and hotel developments are in place in the states of New York and Connecticut and about 10 other cities nationwide. So, in summary, we anticipate, given conditions, an increase in labor actions, including in higher education and in relationship to contracting out, where there has been historically lots of conflict. And these labor peace policies have been used successfully where there is a proprietary interest of the public in mitigating those conflicts.

Thank you.

Good morning. I hope you're all well. Senators, it is a pleasure to be here in support of SB 640. I am Dr. Richard Tahvildran-Jesswein Professor and Co-Director of the Public Policy Institute at Santa Monica College, and I'm also the Vice President of the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District's board of education. The Santa Monica community has a substantive hospitality industry, one that has seen lots of strikes, picketing, and civil disobedience causing serious disruptions in our community.

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District owns land that has a hotel on it, and our lease agreement with this hotel produces revenue for our school district in support of our students and our academic mission. Prior to our school board's adoption of a labor peace policy, there was much conflict as the hotel was the site of pickets, student protests, lawsuits, Boycotts and demonstrations at our school Board Meetings. This went on for years and was a problem causing disruptions.

Alongside our flagship high school, Santa Monica High School, which is adjacent to the hotel in our community, our school board took action to protect our revenue and our academic interests and adopted a policy that the businesses on our land provide a no strike pledge with the appropriate union in the industry. This policy ensures there will be no strikes, pickets, Boycotts and disruptions. And this policy has proven effective for us in Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District.

Since adopting the labor peace policy, there have been zero labor conflicts. No strikes, pickets or Boycotts, and no disruptions to our students and impeding on our financial interests. With our lease agreement with the hotel. The policy has been so successful that the Santa Monica College Community College district has also adopted a labor peace policy. Again, it is a pleasure to be with you here this morning, particularly because I'm a political science Professor.

I skipped out on class today, so I'll be able to tell my students that I saw your good work in action this morning. And I thank you for your consideration of this bill.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, both of you, for your testimonies this afternoon or morning. Still morning. Let's hear from any witnesses of the Bill here in room 2100. It.

Hello. My name is Jennifer Chavez, and I'm. A second year at Cal State Long Beach. I support this Bill.

Good morning, Madam Vice Chair and Committee Members. I'm Robert Gonzalez, CSU student at SAC State and former student employee, and current labor organizer representing student assistance at SAC State. In strong support of SB 640 and respectfully request your, I vote. Thank you.

Any other additional witnesses in support of SB 640. Now let's hear from any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100.

Good morning, I think. Eric Bakke with the California State University chancellor's office. We don't actually have an official position on this Bill. We do have a number of concerns and a number of outstanding questions with the Bill, much of which is reflected in the Committee's analysis.

There are some issues around academics that we're looking at in terms of issues related to our hospitality services, related to two of our campuses, and we also look at the fact that we have 23 different universities that could be impacted differently from this Bill. So we're still assessing what this would do to our system and our campuses, as well as access to food and services for our students. So we look forward and appreciate the dialogue we've had with the author staff.

We look forward to continue this dialogue going forward as the Bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition to SB 640? Here. Room 2100. Seeing none. Mr. Moderator, if you would, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support and opposition to SB 640.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Participants from the public, if you would like to testify in support or opposition to SB 640 please take this opportunity and press one, followed by zero, and we will go to line 191, 191. I think 191 took themselves out of queue. Go ahead and hit 10 again. 191. If you'd like to reprompt. And we'll go to line 192. Line 192, you are open.

Hello? Hi. Yes, ma'am, please, we can hear you. My name is Kasey Dunmore, a student at CSU Dominguez Hills. I'm here with Maya Washington, a student at CSU Long beach, and we are both in support of this Bill.

And we will go back to line 191. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Nayeli. I go to CSU Dominguez Hills, and I strongly support the Bill.

Line 74, you are open. Line 74.

Hello?

My name is Emily Rabb, and I'm a student at Cal State Los Angeles, and I want to voice my full support of Bill SB 640. And.

Yes, ma'am, we can hear you.

Madam Chair, there's no other participants queued up at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. We want to thank our witnesses in support in opposition. We'll now bring the discussion back to our Members.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank the author for this important Bill coming out of higher ed and recognizing what an economic engine our campuses are. And it's in the state interests, in our financial interest, to have good jobs across the board. And I appreciate that.

This Bill brings in the question of labor standards and brings in labor partnership, along with management, to ensure that any contracting services does not create a zero sum game for working people. So I'm appreciative of this Bill, and I move a motion for us to adopt.

Thank you, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, any other comments or concerns seeing none. Madam Secretary, please call the. zero, I apologize, Senator Portantino, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an item.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

File item six, SB 640. Portantino. The motion is do pass. But first be re referred to the Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and retirement. Newman, Ochoa Bogh.

No.

Ochoa Bogh. No. Cortese, Glazer, Mcguire. Smallwood-Cuevas.

Aye.

Smallwood, Cuevas, aye. Wilk.

No.

Wilk, no.

We'll remain the Bill open for absent Members. Thank you. Okay, Senator Ashby. Happy to have you. Welcome, Senator Ashby. And please proceed when you're ready.

Okay. Thank you so much for having me, Madam Chair. I rise today to present to this Committee, Senate Bill 307, the Fostering Futures act, which seeks to make debt free higher education a reality for foster youth in California. I am joined by Majority Leader McGuire, who is joint authoring this bill with me. I'm obviously not joined by him now, because he just left the room, but I do have his comments, and I'll ask for permission to share them after this.

I want to thank him and his staff for working really hard on this bill. Was one of those things where we were both working on something similar, found out, and then combined our efforts. So now we have an extra strong team. SB 307 is sponsored by the John Burton Advocates for Youth. They're amazing partners in this space. We have 17 co-authors, including bipartisan support. SB 307 will give foster youth what I like to call agency. Agency to take care of themselves.

To attend community college, to attend trade school, to go to a four-year university with 100% of their unmet need covered by the State of California. Imagine being able to tell a 14 year old who's lost everything, including their parents, that if they can just focus on school, that there's a way out for them in the future. The trade school, the community college that a four year UC or CSU is not out of reach for them. That's agency.

SB 307 includes food, books, and, most importantly, housing. Foster youth, by definition, are housing insecure, and that instability makes it extremely difficult for them to attain higher education. These are really important numbers. The rate of homelessness among former foster youth is 43%. It's more than double that of other students, around 19%. This state, California, you should all be really proud. It does a great job of helping students with their tuition. But unfortunately for foster youth, that is just not enough.

Not if you don't cover housing, too. In the State of California, 93% of foster youth say they want to attend college. 4% actually get the chance. That is compared to about 50% of their peers who are not former foster youth. SB 307 seeks to fill that gap. The need established by Fostering Futures will exist inside the Middle Class Scholarship program. It'll support foster youth and cover 100% of the remaining unmet needs after all other aid is applied.

Completion of a four year degree, while a major milestone does not mark the end of a foster youth scholar's journey, but rather a very exciting new beginning. SB 307 will help ensure foster youth can reach their educational goals and will better prepare them to enter the next stage of their lives debt free from higher education. And then this is a part where I'm supposed to introduce the very charismatic Senator McGuire, but he is not here, and I have not perfected my impersonation of him yet.

But I will do my best at the Chair's approval. Can I please read his comments? All right, I need about seven more glasses of Red Bull to get him down fit. But let me try my best, okay? Every foster youth deserves the opportunity to achieve their college dream. In too many cases, that dream is out of reach due to extreme challenges that come about in the foster system. Here's what we know. Foster youth have a high school dropout rate three times higher than low income students.

The vast majority do not go on to a two or even four year degree. For a two year degree, 2-6% accomplish an AA. For a four year degree, 3-4% accomplish a BA or a BS. In a recent study, less than 50% even accomplished their first two semesters in college. These numbers are staggeringly low. We must and we can do better. This bill takes a needs based approach to a small portion of the Middle Class Scholarship act.

This bill will redirect approximately 21 million to cover the complete cost of attendance to CSU or UC for foster youth. Foster youth already receive financial aid through the Cal Grant and Chafee grant. But one of the biggest stumbling blocks is the holistic cost of college. It isn't always covered housing, books and food. Unlike most kids, there's no support system and no one else to turn to to help with these financial needs.

The question we get a lot: how will this impact the remaining students who get Middle Class Scholarship awards? The total impact would be $61 per recipient. What he means by that is, if the Middle Class Scholarship doesn't grow, then the average hit to everybody else would be less than $61. However, if the Middle Class Scholarship grows, which was proposed in the Governor's Budget, that could remain neutral even for the other recipients.

We both urge an aye vote, and we thank you very much for your attention and for allowing us the opportunity, me to be two people and him to not be here. But we ask for your support of SB 307. Our support witnesses today, Madam Chair, are Jessica Petrass, from John Burton Advocates for Youth, and Cody Van Felden, a student from Sac State.

We'll be happy to hear from our lead witnesses. Please proceed.

Good morning. My name is Jessica Petrass. I'm with John Burn Advocates for Youth, and here in support of SB 307. In today's society of postsecondary education, it's key to financial stability, job security, and not just surviving, but really thriving in a meaningful career. However, despite foster youth dreams and aspirations, most enter adulthood in extreme poverty with college affordability found to be the most common reason foster youth choose not to attend college.

And of those that started and then stopped college, affordability and the need to work were major barriers to reaching their college and career goals. While many of our youth with experience in foster care attempt to balance school and work, there is evidence of a direct relationship between the number of hours worked and the likelihood of dropping out of school for students with foster care experience.

More than any other student population, youth with experience in foster care, they often lack financial and emotional safety net to support them through young adulthood. In addition to the long term impacts of abuse and neglect that brought them to the foster care system in the first place.

And once in care, they experience higher rates of school mobility in k-12 education, with one third of students changing schools during the school year, which is four times the rate of low socioeconomic status or general populations, often leading to academic challenges, as we heard, in postsecondary education as well.

California has a unique responsibility to continue to care and invest for the future of its children in foster care, and SB 307, it's an acknowledgment of the potential that these youth have to succeed in college when the necessary resources are provided. Fostering futures can make college possible for our most vulnerable students across all postsecondary pathways by creating debt free education. And we know that financial aid access is key to degree completion.

So for these reasons, I'm requesting your aye vote today.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. My name is Cody. I am a graduate from Cosumnes River College and a current student at Sacramento State University. I began my college education at the age of 17. Although I have made it far in my education journey, it has been long and difficult. At 16, my adoptive parents abandoned me. At 18, my foster parents kicked me out, leaving me homeless. The only means of survival I had was through the financial aid. But this wasn't enough.

The aid I received did not cover my basic needs. I often experienced the stress of not knowing when or if I was going to eat. I was forced to stay involved in social groups that were not healthy or safe environments, but those were the only groups willing to let me sleep on their sofas. In high school, I was an A-B average student. When I experienced financial and housing instability, my grade average quickly became Ds and Fs.

My experience with financial and housing insecurity is not unique among foster youth. Foster youth have some of the highest rates of homelessness. At the age of 23, my life finally took a turn for the better, but this isn't the case for so many of our foster youth. The hurdles I faced as a foster youth impacted my academic performance, and it took me several extra years to finish my Associate's degree, resulting in reaching my financial aid limit in several grants and loans.

I now wonder if I'm going to have enough money to cover the cost of my last year in school. When I do graduate, I will then have to start paying off the $50,000 in debt I've accumulated since I began college. I'm here today because SB 307 would change the course of our foster youth lives in California.

Not only would SB 307 give foster youth a debt free education, it would also allow eligibility for up to eight years, which is so critical given the unique barriers many of us face on our college journey. For all of these reasons, I urge your support for SB 307 to give our foster youth in California a brighter future. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, having heard from our lead witnesses, we'll now continue with our witnesses in support of SB 307 here in room 2100.

Madam Chair and Senators, Adam Keigwin, on behalf of city year, who serves thousands of foster youth in Los Angeles, San Jose and Sacramento, and whose many of the core members are former foster youth, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Committee. My name is Robert Gonzalez. Thank you, home Senator, for presenting this bill. As a former employee who worked in the financial aid office, foster youth students were my number one case openers, and if they couldn't afford the cost of attendance, they dropped out. So please support the bill. Thank you.

Paige Clark, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. On behalf of Northern California Network, FASD Network. My name is Karen Shea. I have a foster youth that actually came back to live with us so he can go to school, but we're in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Senators, my apologies. Adam Keigwin again. I just got a text on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, also in support.

Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now move on to witnesses, lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we'll hear from other opposition witnesses here in room 2100. Seeing none. Thank you. Now we move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference services. Mr. Moderator, if you would, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 307 and we will begin.

Thank you. If you have not already done so and wish to testify, you may press one, followed by zero again using your telephone keypad. Press one, then zero at this time. We do have several lines in queue. We'll go first to line 123. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Ashley Walker with Nossaman on behalf of North Orange County Community College District, Mount San Antonio College, and Citrus College in support.

Next we have line 201. 201.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Adam Gottlieb of UNITE-LA in support of SB 307.

Line 18, please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Rachel Carr. I am a child protective services social worker for Sonoma County Family, Youth & Children's Services, and I strongly support SB 307.

Line 41, your line is open. 41.