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 so called me too, and simply state your name, organization and position. On the teleconference line, we will also be limiting time for those participating via the teleconference line to a total of 15 minutes per Bill that's inclusive of opposition and support. And that's 15 minutes of teleconference me toos.

For each Bill. We have 11 bills on today's agenda. We will begin with a special order for SB 739 from Senator Alvarado-Gil. Two bills are on consent today. Those bills are item number nine, SB 354 by Senator Ochoa Bogh, and item number 10, SB 886, by the Committee on Education. One Bill will be reconsidered at the end of the agenda. That Bill is vote only. That Bill is item number 12 from Senator Seyarto.

Let's see we cannot establish a quorum, so we will take up the first Bill. Senator Alvarado-Gil, welcome, and please proceed when you are ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, staff, Members of the Committee. I first just want to say how joyful it is to be here today. This is my first Bill in front of the Education Committee and as an educator and a parent of six joyful children and now a grandchild, I can't think of a better space that I'd like to start my morning.

I truly believe that everyone in this room is here for the love of kids, for the belief that education is that equalizer that allows us to break cycles of poverty and break cycles of lack of education and lift our community up. So I just want to thank every single person that's here today because we are all here for the protection and the life of our children. So with that, I'd like to open up Senate Bill 739. This is a charter school renewal Bill.

I'm asking the Committee to see the recommendations and know that I have also reviewed them. But I would like an opportunity to hear from our witnesses and have them share their perspectives on the Bill as it is currently drafted. Chair, if you agree, I will proceed.

Please proceed. But to be clear, are you accepting the proposed amendments?

I'd like to have a little bit of discussion before we make that conclusion.

Okay.

I know that this Committee has worked very hard from the original draft of the Bill to now, and I do believe that in the spirit of compromise and resilience, I think it's only appropriate to ensure that all voices are heard today as we move forward on this very important piece of legislation.

I would agree in that respect. So let's do that.

All right. Thank you so much. The Senate Bill 739 would extend the current terms of charter schools by two years to accommodate the gap in student data caused by the Pandemic. Under this Bill, charter schools would remain accountable through ongoing authorizer oversight and participation in the state's broader accountability system. Results from the 2021 California Assessment of Student Performance in Progress, or the CAASPP, confirms that the Pandemic has a profound impact on student learning.

Students not only lost ground in math and reading, but their mental, physical and emotional well being also suffered immensely. And this is not just the students. This is also our educators.

And being that I was in the center of the Pandemic as an educator, I saw and experienced firsthand the impact not only on our classrooms, but our educators ability to keep the spirit of the classroom intact, to ensure that we were meeting the goals that not only we set out for ourselves, but those that we hold ourselves accountable for our kids. We saw many of our families and communities destabilize, and some of those homes even fall apart.

We saw a whole other level of teaching and having to connect learning with the love of learning and follow through, and what homework was and how to present homework and even how to teach via Zoom in a one dimensional environment. So, under current law, charter schools are required to be renewed periodically based on specific metrics of school performance on the state dashboard over time. The state dashboard being a new technology pre-Pandemic.

As the education sector continues to address the challenges and the setbacks caused by the Pandemic, policymakers and school leaders must focus the spotlight on student improvement. That is what the school California Dashboard was intended to do, and it was also intended to look at a consecutive years of data. No one could have predicted that we would have been shutting down schools for 18 months or more in the public school sector. Who would have predicted that?

So, having a tool as new as the California State Dashboard, but a pandemic, a worldwide pandemic, that really changed the way that we delivered education, public education here in California. Transparency and accountability, part of the intent of the California school dashboard for all public school students, requires a fair, complete and comparable data over time, an index to individual student progress with a focus on continuous improvement.

I don't think anyone here would dispute the fact that the impact of school closures and the pandemic had an indisparate impact on our Black and brown students, children with disabilities, and those that were already struggling to keep up with their peers in reading and in math. We know that the data gaps and testing suspensions has caused by the pandemic uphended our system, especially for high-stakes accountability such as charter schools renewals.

Did you know that charter schools are the only public schools that can be voted for closure? Yeah, that's a fact. The data necessary to implement the statutory framework for charter school renewal decisions simply don't exist. And that's why we've been working so hard as policymakers, as educators, as families, parents in the community to create a public education system that not only works for all, but that lifts up our most vulnerable students and populations.

To support nearly 700,000 students that attend charter public schools, many of whom are low-income, it is vital that the state should only resume charter renewals based only on the assessment of post-pandemic data, an improvement of that comparable data and valid dashboard indicators over the time which the dashboard was intended to assess and evaluate.

Absent reliable data, benchmarks, and comparability, the renewal process will be fraught with uncertainty for students, for families, and for teachers who work every single day in our classrooms to help our kids succeed, this Bill would retain existing charter oversight and intervention within the state's overall accountability system. Let me be very clear.

This Bill does not change the passion and dedication and energy and time and commitment and investment that we made in AB 1505 to ensure that we could reach this level of understanding between our opposition and our supporters. It does not take away that work. Charter schools would remain accountable during this time through ongoing required annual reporting to their authorizer, including annual site visits, participation in the state's broader accountability system of differentiate assistance, and the most aggregarious situations through the revocation process.

Authorizers. Authorizers are the ones at the local level who are elected to evaluate, to open, to support our charter schools, whether it's a local school district or a County Office of Education. We made changes here at the state level so that that honor, that privilege, that responsibility was now given to our local electives at the local level for local control.

Here to testify in support of my Bill is Christina De Jesus, Board Chair of the California Charter Schools Association, and Colin Felch, assistant Superintendent of Vista Charter Public Schools. I ask for them to come to the microphone and give their testimony.

Thank you. Welcome to both of you. Proceed when ready. Each of you has two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Newman and Senate Ed Committee Members. My name is Dr. Christina De Jesus and I'm the chair of the California Charter Schools Association Board, the proud sponsors of SB 739. I am also the President and CEO of Green Dot Public Schools California, and I stand before you this morning with a tremendous sense of responsibility to speak on behalf of the hopes and dreams of over 10,000 students in 18 schools across Los Angeles with the Green Dot moniker.

While the Pandemic may feel like a distant memory for some, the communities we serve are still navigating pandemic-related trauma. Our students and teachers in schools deserve time to recover. Some estimate it could take more than a decade to recover the academic learning lost since 2020. Resuming charter renewals within the next two years would be immoral and a significant distraction from our collective focus on getting all students back on track.

Across the state, SB 739 would impact almost 300,000 charter school students whose schools are scheduled for renewal in the next two years. Due to the reset of the entire dashboard system since the Pandemic and the delays involved with posting annual data for dashboards for the dashboard, two years of complete dashboard data will not be available until late 2024 or early 2025. Hence, a two-year renewal extension is necessary in order to comply with the statutory requirements of AB 155.

Let me be clear, we are not shying away from accountability. Quite the opposite. All authorizers conduct annual oversight visits, which include a full audit of each charter school. The revocation clause that allows authorizers to close schools at any time is also in place. We remain the most accountable entity in the public education system even with a two-year renewal extension. Given the level of accountability involved with renewals, SB 739 would also extend the optional use of verified data to supplement dashboard data for charter renewals.

Proceeding with high stakes renewal decisions in the next two years with a school system that is still recovering and with incomplete data could lead to devastating impacts. On behalf of over 1300 California charter schools and the nearly 800,000 students they serve, I respectfully request your Aye vote on SB 739. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. De Jesus. Mr. Felch, nice to see you. Nice to see you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. My name is Dr. Colin Felch. I'm the Assistant Superintendent of Vista Charter Public Schools. Vista operates five schools in Anaheim, Santa Ana and Los Angeles, of which 98% of students are students of color and 93% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch. I'm here in support of SB 739 on behalf of over 300 charter schools that are represented in the coalition support letter to the Committee. The Pandemic has impacted districts and charter schools similarly.

Despite our quick transition to a digital learning environment, our students lost ground in both math and reading. Our absentee rate went up and the Pandemic has had a profound impact on our students mental and physical well being. We've lost teachers and staff and are struggling to hire qualified staff in this teacher shortage. We are dealing with the long term impact of the Pandemic on our schools, our staff and most importantly, our students.

At the same time, our schools are being asked to turn their attention towards charter renewals in a period of great uncertainty without valid or complete data necessary for such a high stakes live or die decision. Testing during the pandemic was either suspended or done in a scale down format. We don't have complete or comparable dashboard data upon which charter renewals are based. Comparing pre-pandemic data to more recent results has been widely determined to be invalid.

In addition, charter renewals take significant amount of time and resources for both charters and our authorizers. The process begins nearly a year ahead of the charter's expiration, well before the most recent dashboard data is available, further compounding the data challenges at this time. Right now, our focus as public schools needs to be on recovery, on learning loss and our students social emotional well being, not on charter renewals.

SB 739 would grant a two-year extension on charter renewal terms, which would help our schools and hundreds of other schools like ours focus our attention on where it's truly needed as we turn the corner of the pandemic. It is for these reasons why we support SB 739. Thank you.

Thank you. Like to hear from other witnesses here in the hearing room in support. And if so, please come to the podium, the new podium, I would add, and state your name, your organization and your position, please.

Casey Taylor, Executive Director of Achieve Charter Schools of Paradise, in support.

Thank you.

Josefina Ramirez Notsinneh on behalf of Children Now in support.

Thank you.

Alice Kessler on behalf of Aspire Public Schools, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Senators, Adam Keigwin on behalf of Alliance College-Ready Public Schools in support.

Thank you.

Jeff Rice on behalf of the Association of Personalized Learning Schools and Services, we're in support.

Thank you, Mr. Rice.

Sherri Nelson, Executive Director of Connecting Waters Charter Schools in support.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in support? Seeing none, let us now go to primary witnesses. In opposition, I see two, Mr. Seth Bramble from CTA and Lucy Salcida Carter from the Alameda County Office of Education. Mr. Bramble, welcome.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Seth Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association, respectfully in opposition to Senate Bill 739. Certainly we agree that the Pandemic caused havoc not just on our school accountability system, but also on every area of our professional and personal lives. I just want to correct a couple inaccuracies that I heard in the testimony. Charter schools are the only schools that can be voted on for closure. That's not true.

Any public school in the State of California could be voted on for closure. A dashboard data is not available until late 2024. I mean, there were two years where in 2020 and in 2021 when we didn't have usable dashboard data for school accountability purposes. And the Legislature and the Governor signed into law an extension on charter school petition expirations for two years. So that's already occurred.

The Legislature essentially took a step to ensure that the pandemic wouldn't be an obstacle to implementing the provisions of AB 1505, which we sponsored in 2019, to get everybody, all public schools, whether it's charter schools or neighborhood public schools, to be on the dashboard.

A multiple metric school performance indicator that looks not just at English language arts and math test scores, but looks also at things like parent engagement, looks at school climate, looks at suspensions, and it's a useful tool for parents when you're comparing schools. So it's really important that we're all on the dashboard. The sponsors come to us knowing that there's two years where we didn't have dashboard data that we could use and ask instead for four years of automatic renewals.

Any math teacher will tell you that doesn't add up. Two years of data that we can't use and a four year extension that doesn't make sense. Charter school renewals have been on pause since the beginning of the Pandemic. In 2024, they'll be back, and it's time and authorizers have the data that they need to make that assessment.

I'm not going to speak much on the verified data, hopeful that the author is going to accept those kinds of amendments but I would say charter schools were established with a promise. We'll give you the freedom to innovate. You'll show us results. It's time to bring those results back, and let's keep our promise. We urge your No vote.

Thank you, Mr. Bramble. Next, Ms. Salcido Carter. Good morning.

Lucy Salcido Carter, speaking on behalf of the Alameda County Office of Education, respectfully in opposition to SB 739. I first want to thank the Committee staff for their analysis, which points out several of the concerns we have with the Bill. We also appreciate the author's intent with this Bill, but oppose the Bill because of the unintended negative consequences that will result should this Bill in its current form become law.

County Offices of Education conduct the academic, operational and fiscal assessments that inform the county board's decisions about whether to authorize or renew a charter school. One of the unintended negative consequences of allowing ongoing use of verified data is that it will create an inequitable accountability system whereby charter schools and school districts are held to different standards. Another negative consequence is the significant increase in administrative burden the use of verified data creates for education agencies like ours.

We don't mind more work for better results, but making comparisons across inconsistent accountability measures makes no sense when we now have our dashboard available again. We also oppose the bill's automatic two year extension of renewals. The renewal process is an opportunity for the authorizer to review the charter school's performance. A two-year renewal extension will allow charter schools to go too long without the authorizer being able to decide whether to renew or not.

We believe that current data exists for charter school authorizers to assess the ability of charter schools to serve their students, starting with petitions that are eligible for renewal in 2024. We will review the proposed amendments, but we do not believe that we should delay the renewal process. For these reasons, we urge a No vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses here in the hearing room who would like to testify in opposition to SB 739, please make your way. Thank you.

Good morning. Leilani Aginaldo, on behalf of Oakland Unified School District and San Diego Unified School District, in opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in opposition.

Thank you. Next.

Good morning. Kyna Collins, educator at El Camino Real Charter High School in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Michael Bloom, Spanish teacher at Fairfax Lasuna Unified School District, also in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Claudia Bautista Nicholas I'm also in opposition. I'm from Santa Monica Malibu Unified School.

Thank you. Next, please.

I'm Julieanne Neal, fourth grade teacher in Twin Rivers District, just down the way from here, and a CTA Member in opposition please.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Pamela Greenhall, a speech language pathologist from the Chino Valley Unified School District and I stand in opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Eva Chau, East Side Union High School District. High school teacher, in opposition.

Thank you.

Gretel Rodriguez from San Diego, 8th grade middle school virtual teacher, standing in opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Kelly Anston, Stockton Unified, I mean, Lodi Unified, Stockton, 6th grade teacher, speaking in opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Paula Kendrako, I'm an elementary educator in Hesperia, California, and I'm in opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Julie Sepulveda Gibson, Tierra Del Sol Continuation High School, Bakersfield, California, oppose.

Thank you.

Wade Kyle, Los Angeles Unified School District special education teacher, in opposition.

Thank you.

Cindy Magiar, science and dance teacher at Dodson Middle School in Los Angeles, in opposition.

Thank you.

Paula Merrigan, TK teacher in Castro Valley Unified, standing in opposition.

Thank you.

Yuri Camacho, kindergarten teacher, Hopeville Unified School District, speaking in opposition.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT, in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Serette Kaminski with the Association of California School Administrators. Respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Anyone else here would like to testify in opposition? SB 739 seeing none. Let's go to the teleconference line again. As with this item and all items today, we're going to allow 15 minutes for call in comments. So, Mr. Moderator, if you could please query the teleconference line for anybody wishing to testify in support of or in opposition to SB 739, and we will go for 15 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As he stated, if you are in support or opposition to Senate Bill 739, go ahead and hit one followed by zero at this time. One followed by zero. And we're going to begin with line 65. You are open. 65, can you hear us? Please go ahead. One more shot. Line 65. We'll move on to line 115. You are open.

Good morning, Chair and chair Members. Can you hear me?

Yes. Please proceed.

Oh, wonderful. Sorry, they didn't tell me what line number I am so. I'm just calling in opposition of SB 739. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

My name is Shrina Latch, by the way.

Appreciate that. Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Next, we're going to go to line number 43. You are open, 43.

Hello, this is Bryant Olandes, Director of Advancement for Magnolia Public Schools, calling in support of SB 739, as introduced. Thank you.

Thank you.

94, you are open.

Hi, my name is Gerald Nicdao. I'm a teacher at Renaissance Arts Academy and I support the Bill.

Thank you.

Line 63, please go ahead.

My name is Kapil Mathur. I am the Executive Director of the Orange County Academy of Sciences and Arts Charter School, calling in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

And line 47, your line is open. Please go ahead. 47.

Hi, my name is Dr. Jamila Gillenwaters, principal at Wilder's Preparatory Academy Charter School, calling in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next, we'll go to line 71. You are open. Please, go ahead.

Good morning. This is Mayra Salazar with Alliance College-Ready Public schools calling in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

Real good. And next we will go to line 64. You are open. 64.

Hi, my name is Kalin Balcomb. I'm the Executive Director at Arts and Action Community Charter Schools in East LA. I'm calling in support of SB 39 as introduced. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Next, we will go to line 117. You are open.

Hi, I'm calling as the mother of four charter school students, the wife of a charter school teacher with neither a support nor opposed position. More a general comment on the format. 15 minutes is arbitrary. If you need to stay till midnight to hear the people, then you need to stay till midnight because government is a.

Thank you. I appreciate your input, Mr. Moderator. Next, please. Thank you.

Whenever we want.

Thank you.

Line 19. You are open. Line 19.

Hi, my name is Todd Fox, CEO of Lashan Academy Public Schools, in support of SB 739 as introduced. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we'll move on to line 112. Please. Go ahead. 112.

My name is Brian Strata, Director of Development of New West Charter School, calling in huge support of SB 739. Thank you all.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Next is line 120. Please go ahead, 120.

Good morning, my name is Tiffany Gilmore, CEO and Superintendent of Garvey Allen STEAM Academy, calling in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, one moment here. We got a number queuing up. Let the operator get one quickly and we will go to line 87. Please. Go ahead. Line 87, you're open.

Hi, this is Liza Bercovici. I'm the Executive Director and founder of Gabriella Charter schools, and I am calling in support of. SB 739 as introduced. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 17. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. My name is Yolanda Fuentes, the Assistant Executive Administrator of Bert Corona Charter School calling in support of SB 3739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. One moment.

Mr. Moderator?

We are. One moment, please. Thanks a lot.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 56, please go ahead.

Lauren O'Neil. I'm the Executive Director of Odyssey Charter Schools in the Pasadena area calling in support of the Bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 37. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Joe Herzel. I'm the Executive Director of Ivy Academia Charter School and an educator of over 30 years. I am in strong support of SC 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 34, please. Go ahead.

Yes, my name is Yvette King Berg and I'm the Executive Director of YPI Charter Schools, and I'm calling in support of 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Line 40, you are open.

Hi, my name is Candace Coffee. I am the HR Director for Sage Oak Charter Schools calling in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. And next is one moment. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Chair. Operator with. And we're going to go to line 89. Line 89, you are open.

Hi, my name is Adriana Abish. I'm the CEO of Camino Nuevo Charter Academy, and I'm calling in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

One moment. Line 90. Please go ahead.

Hello. I'm Shelly Blakely, Executive Director for Golden Eagle Charter School, in support of SB 739.

Thank you. Next please

Line 44, you are open 44. 44, can you hear us? Your line is open. Go ahead. Line 44. One more shot at line 44. Go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes. Please proceed.

Okay, my number is showing differently. I'm Bruce Lara Quenti, science teacher at Wildest Preparatory Academy, and I'm in total support of SB 739. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Okay. One moment. Should be with us any moment. Thank you for your patience.

And we're going to go to line number 45. Please go ahead 45.

Good morning. My name is Lily Amitre. I am the Director of Family Alumni and Community Engagement at Echo Class Academy. I'm calling in support of SB 739 as introduced. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

One moment, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your patience. They're trying to get them as fast as possible today. Line 12, you are open. Line 12. Line 12, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Dr. Stephen Bluestein. The Executive Director of Ivy Bound Academy Charter school in Los Angeles, and I'm calling in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next.

And next, we're going to go to line 83. You are open, 83, please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Sharon Weir. I'm the Executive Director of New West Charter in Los Angeles, and we are in full support of SB 739. Thank you.

Next, please.

Line 49, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Emily Horta. I'm an executive assistant to the Superintendent of Sage Oak Charter Schools, and I'm in support of SB 739.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 58, you are open.

Good morning. Matthew Watson, Executive Director of Development for iLEAD Charter Schools, as well as a member of the Board of Trustees for the Saugus Union School District here in Santa Clarita. I'd like to voice my support for SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 41, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Tina Butler. I'm the Chief Operations Officer at Los Angeles Leadership Academy, and I'm in full support of SB 739 as introduced. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Line 50, you are open.

Hi, my name is Brittany Thomas. I'm the Student Service Coordinator at Wilder's Preparatory Academy Charter School, and I support SB 739.

Thank you. Next.

Line 121, please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Jenny Aguas, and I'm the parent of two charter school students and the Director of Family Engagement for Ednovate schools in Los Angeles. And I'm calling in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next.

Line 28, you are open.

Good morning. My name is Janet Bailey. I am Program Coordinator and Parent Liaison for Center for Advanced Learning Charter school in Los Angeles, and I'm calling today in support of SB 739 as introduced. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Go to line 27. Please, go ahead.

Hello, my name is Kevin Humphrey, and I am the Superintendent of Guajome Schools in Vista, California, and I am calling in to support SB 739 as introduced. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 59, you are open. 59, please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Erin Bunch with Sage Oak Charter Schools. I'm calling in support of 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Line 29, please. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Laurilie Keay. I am the Executive Director of Alma Fuerte Public School in Pasadena, and I am calling in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

You are open, Line 66.

Hi, my name is Amy Held. I'm the Executive Director of Larchmont Charter School in Los Angeles, calling in strong support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

We'll go to line 57.

Hi, my name is Rhonda Deomampo, the CEO of Synergy Academies in Los Angeles, and I'm calling in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 96, you are open.

Hi, Stefanie Bryant, CFO of Method Schools, and I'm calling in support of SB 739 as introduced. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 114, please go ahead. 114, you are open. All right, we'll try line 100, please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair,

100, we can't hear you.

Can you guys hear me?

We can now. Thanks. Go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning Chair, committee members. My name is Travon Martin. I'm the Manager of Advocacy and Community Engagement for Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, as well as a school board member for Excelsior Charter Schools, calling in support of SB 739 as introduced. Thank you.

Thank you.

Let me try 114 again. Go ahead, 114.

My name is Tracy Robertson, Director of HR at Method Schools, calling in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 125, you are open.

Hello, my name is Jennifer Stickel, Principal of Public Safety Academy, calling in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

You are open, Line 137.

Hi, my name is Jamee Block. I'm the Director of Education Services for Sage Oak Charter School, and I'm calling in support of SB 739 as introduced. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

144, please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Dr. Brent Daniels. I'm the Superintendent of Leadership Public Schools. I'm calling in support of SB 739 as introduced. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

146, you are open.

Hi, my name is Rich Harrison. I'm a board member with Families in Action for Quality Schools here in Oakland, California. I'm also the parent of two charter school students, one at the Oakland School of the Arts and East Bay Innovation, and I approve this awesome bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Mr. Moderator, out of consideration of the callers, we show seven more callers. Let's not allow more, but let's let all seven comment, please.

Okay, thank you. If everybody else would refrain from queuing up, we'd appreciate it. And we'll go to line 118. 118.

Hi, my name is TyAnthony Davis, founder of Vox Collegiate in Los Angeles, calling in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

We'll go to line 127.

Hello, my name is Maritza Ramirez. I am the Manager of Compliance for Ednovate Charter Schools, and I am in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

Please go ahead. Line 130.

Good morning. My name is Esther Cuevas calling as an employee of Alta Public Schools and a parent of two children that attend charter schools in Los Angeles. I'm calling in full support of SB 739 as introduced, because our children deserve more time to heal. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 147, you are open.

My name is Shirell Warren-Stout. I'm a third grade intervention teacher at Wilder's Preparatory Academy Charter School, calling in support for SB 739.

Thank you. Next, please.

Please go ahead, line 149.

Good morning. My name is Christine Feher. I'm the Superintendent for California Pacific Charter Schools, calling in strong support of 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

And we will wrap up SB 739 with line 84. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Sara Garcia, Principal at Lashon Academy Charter School, calling in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Terrific. Thank you, Mr. Moderater. Thank you to all the callers. And I'm glad that we could hear everyone who was in the queue, because I do think that's important. Let us come back to the dais. Any members of the committee, questions or comments for the author? That's fine. I guess we can use this moment to establish a quorum. And, Senator Alvarado-Gil, I know you're not feeling well, so appreciate your stamina here.

Madam Consultant, if you could please call the roll and establish a quorum.

[Roll call]

All right, a quorum is present. While Senator Glazer wraps up, we could do the consent calendar now, if that's helpful. Yes? No? I don't know if you have anything for the author or comments. It was an opportunity to comment or direct a question to the author. I'm sorry. And I can proceed if you want. If you don't, I didn't mean to put you on the spot. That's fair.

I'm not sure I know exactly the status of everything, so I don't know whether I should defer for a moment, but given the Chair's graciousness, I'll step in. I am trying to understand a couple of the issues here that weren't clear to me. One of the issues is the issue of the one-year or the two-year. Is that based on a calendar year or an academic year? And what's the effect of that? Start there.

And so that is, my understanding is that's based on that it's the calendar year, and the author and I discussed one option of making it part of the school year. But my understanding is that doesn't actually change much by way of the data compilation and renewal review process. So aligning what it does is it effectively gives a two-year exemption to some schools and so, that would be inconsistent with, I think, the author-

The committee's position. Could I hear from the author on that to understand better the calendar year versus academic year and what that means?

Yes. So being that I've been on the other side of this, both as a charter school advocate, opening schools as a parent, as well as operating and going through dozens of renewals, my intent was to be as thoughtful as possible of asking for this extension.

And one thing that is real in terms of the implementation of policy is that when we, as lawmakers, put forward policy today, here in April, and it goes through the process, it does not actually go into effect until the first date of the following year, which is after one whole semester of school has already started and undergone. So for me, the intent on the two-year is to establish a one full academic year of extension.

But because of the way that the years overlap or underlap, if you want to look at it that way, I believe that it sets up our educators from day one start of school, our families to be partners in education, and our students to perform at their highest potential to ensure that one full academic year is protected as an extension, which would mean that I would ask this committee to approve the two-year or a year-and-a-half if we want to be technical.

And so let me ask Mr. Bramble, if you wouldn't mind. We've discussed this at length. So your perspective on this as an opponent at that proposal.

What I heard at some point was that we didn't have dashboard data until 2024. We do have dashboard data in 2022, and it's for the 2021-2022 school year. So we have the 2022 dashboard, and we have the 2023 dashboard. The problem with the 2022 dashboard is there was conversation about growth, that it doesn't have colors on it because you have to have data set from before that.

So 2022 is our starting point, and 2023 will have colors and what we have in 2024 is that we'll be bringing back the renewal process and we'll have two years, which is what's required in the law. It makes total sense that we should come back to the renewal process in 2024. It's very logical.

Appreciate that.

Well, I'm not sure that provides insight to my question about the academic year. The dashboard is based on an academic year, isn't that right?

That's correct. And the way that schools assess and evaluate and how school boards make decisions on funding, they're making those decisions now, just like we're making funding decisions at policymakers for the following year. What our staffing looks like, what resources are going to be, what tutoring services, extra support services. Those decisions are being made right now for the following school year. And so it's a process, it's a window, as we all know, with public service. It's a process of budgeting, implementation, evaluation, and then course correcting.

So that's where that two-year cycle is so important.

Right. I appreciate that's why your preference is two-year cycle. But I'm trying to understand if it was the academic year.

Yes.

In some cases, that's only going to be a year and a half.

That's correct. And respectfully, to add to the testimony is we are missing that college and career data that is so essential to our kids transitioning from high school into college and career paths. So we do not have complete data in the dashboard. And without that two-year extension, we would not have complete data.

Right. But just going back to the Chair, I appreciate his insight on this. An academic year still is about an extension for one year, one academic year. It may have the effect of being a year and a half in some cases. Is that something that would be an option that we should be considering.

So, again, Senator Glazer, that's something we've discussed, and I think the broader context here is that this comes on top of a two-year extension already granted. And so the compromise here, the initial kind of proffer in the bill was two years and the compromise was a year. Nothing is perfect. And I think it's important to note, we all agree the pandemic has had substantial impact in all spheres of life, but especially in education. And so the rationale here was about the pandemic.

And so the thinking was we have to get back on a schedule. The original offer was two years. The compromise is one year. That's slitting the baby, as it were. And so the return on that change to the academic year actually was not- I think the agreement was not offset by the additional administrative burden and the sort of de facto extension which gets us closer to two years than to zero, which was kind of the original opposition. So that's why we came back to a year.

I appreciate your concern. I actually appreciate you looking for a compromise. And I'm also very aware that this is an unwieldy process sort of inherently. But again, this is necessary. I think we agreed. But it also comes on top of a previous extension. They've already been extended once by two years out of recognition that sufficient dashboard in charter school student performance data is necessary to the renewal process. But that data applies to all schools, right?

Can I ask a follow up if I may, too?

Sure.

Part of this, when we talk about the pandemic is over. We know that the pandemic is not over because the effect of the pandemic is ongoing on a whole variety of issues for our students at every level, public charter, public school. And a part of, I think, the fair evaluation is to try to get to some place of normalcy in terms of the functioning of a school. So I appreciate the two-year extension issue, and I think that was a smart thing to do.

But I'm also trying to understand whether it's appropriate enough to say we've gotten to a stable place so that evaluations can be properly done. And that's what I was trying to understand on one hand. And the other issue is the issue of the authorizers, the authorizing side of this, that that is a workload issue. I hear complaints quite often that the authorizing community doesn't have the support they need to do their work in reviewing public charters.

And this certainly is going to create an obligation and a responsibility on them based on what we do in this bill. So I'm trying to also understand the authorizer's circumstance and whether or not we should be giving them a little more flexibility to do their good work in their review.

Let me actually, Ms. Salcido Carter, if you wouldn't mind, you are an authorizer. If you could speak to this, because I think that's important.

Our concern with extending the renewals is that it then stacks the number of renewals that we have to assess into a single year. So that's why we actually oppose the extension. In addition, we serve an appeal function. So when you add the appeals to that number, it just increases the workload exponentially.

If I could ask a follow-up, but if you were given the flexibility to do it in a year as proposed by the committee or to give yourself more time. You have your own circumstance you're trying to evaluate. Every authorizer has their own circumstances. Wouldn't that flexibility be something that would be beneficial to you?

We would prefer to have things get back on track for the other reasons that I've mentioned.

Right. But wouldn't this also give you the ability to get back on track as you see fit? I mean, you can do it all in a year and be done, or if there was some staffing issues or other issues that came up, you could take more time. Why wouldn't you not want that flexibility to do it the way you would prefer to do it versus the way circumstance may dictate?

Well, we've been preparing with the current timeline in mind, so I'll just say that. And we do have limitations, staff time and resource. So, yeah.

Very good.

Let me also speak to that, Senator Glazer. Your point is well taken, but this is supposed to be a system or system-wide process. Right. And so to, to her point, we're trying to get the system back on track so that it operates as originally intended while taking into account the impacts of the pandemic, while also having provided the first extension, but now an additional year. That's the logic.

Yeah, no, I appreciate it. All I'm trying to understand is the fact that the dashboard has changed, the pandemic. While some of the more significant harms in the short term have happened, there's longer-term consequences and there's a lack of stability and whether or not we should be providing a little bit more flexibility for the authorizers.

And there's many, more than just Alameda County, in this legislation to give them some, I think that you could still have the requirement of a year, but say if workload or other issues come into play, they could have up to two years. Why not give them some more flexibility?

Well, let me put that, a little context. In effect, with the implementation date and the next steps, we are effectively, I think, accommodating the academic year. So two years of data will be available in March of 2024. And what that means is that a one year extension means that charters that are expiring in 2025 would be the first to enter their new process. Right. By all accounts, I think that seems like a meaningful extension.

May not be ideal to some, but again, big state, lots of different authorizing agencies, thousands of schools. And so this is what we're taking into account.

Chairman, with all due respect, just want to add a few pieces of fact in this, in a traditional public school district environment, I would agree with your point. We have seen charter schools open during the time of when we were pre-pandemic into post-pandemic. We have seen new operations serve the needs of kids in so many different ways with technology, with rule-based, non-classroom-based. And so we saw real solutions come forward to help bridge that gap during the pandemic.

So many of those are on that college-to-career path, and we would not have the necessary data. So they would be going into these live-or-die situations without the necessary data to be evaluated under the current guidelines, the current restrictions.

I do appreciate that so, Ms. Salcito Carter, so I don't make you walk back and forth, but that can be taken into account by an authorizer. Right? You do have some latitude in looking at cases like the one just described.

Yes, absolutely. And we do work with the charter schools as we're doing the assessments.

Appreciate that. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So I'm kind of curious, and I want clarification as far as the dashboard and the data that we're going to have available considering the two-year extensions. Just clarification. The two-year extension that has already been given, was that to give grace for which years?

Working backward, and I want to make sure I get this right. That was for the pandemic years, correct. 20 and 21.

So 20 to 21, right.

Let me finish. So two years of data will be available in March 2024. This applies to charters that would be expiring in 2025. So you would have two years of data available.

So this is where I was trying to figure out the two years of data which, if they were to be renewed in 25, would be between 23 and 24 and 22 and 23. Is that correct?

I believe that is correct.

Okay. And this data will be used to assess whether or not a renewal for that charter would be in place based on performance.

Correct. But I want to make sure that we're aligned and on the dates and times. Is it okay if I bring that technical question to my witness?

I think it's fine, but I'm also going to have the authorizer correct witness come speak to how they work through the process.

Sure.

Yes, I think to have opposition and to have support, answer the questions I think would be fair.

Thank you. To be clear, the current dashboard data is data from last year. I don't think anybody in this room can deny the fact that last year was not a restart. Last year was almost harder than being in the pandemic. There were school closures, chronic absenteeism skyrocketed due to many variants with the COVID. And so last year, I couldn't even open schools in January after winter break because I didn't have enough adults who were not sick to open schools.

That's the data in the dashboard right now. The data in the dashboard is also incomplete because it doesn't have CCI data. It also doesn't have change. It only has status. There's a reason why the dashboard's purple. It's incomplete. It was meant to be baseline data to assess learning loss in a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. If we do not have a two-year renewal, that data will be used against schools. That's what we're talking about.

And that's why I wanted to have clarification as to the data, because we've been sitting, most of us have been on education for these past, since 2020, and I've been on a school board prior to coming here in 2020. I was elected in 2020, was here in 2021. So I'm very privy to the impact that the pandemic had on the performance of schools, on our students and so forth.

And the reason I'm asking this question, I wanted to clarify what data for what years was currently in place. Reason being is that because this data is being used in the consideration for not reassessment, but for the renewal, for the renewal of charters. I would hate to have incomplete data or data that has been impacted by the pandemic in assessing whether or not a charter has merit to continue its work.

And that's why I wanted to make sure that I understood which years are technically the ones that are currently in the data that would be included as official two years of data within the system. And I think, with all due respect to our Chair, we can all agree that any data between 2020, 2021, 2022, we're in 2023 right now, would be compromised by the pandemic because of the impact and the closures and the state of being in the State of California.

So that's why I wanted to clarify that, because it does impact the evaluation of those renewals. And we all know that those particular years have been impacted. The only real year that I think we're going to be even close to being as normal as pre-pandemic would be currently the 2022-2023.

So let me try and clarify. So to your point, and if there's concern that the 2022 data is not good data by the time the schools apply for renewals in 2025, get to that point, we will, in fact, have 2023 dashboard data with colors and 2024 dashboard data with colors. And so, again, that is why the thinking that is that a one-year extension is sufficient to both meet that concern. But also get the system back on track.

Mr. Bramble, I think you wanted to respond as well.

May I clarify point on that Chair? There's a delay in getting dashboard data, so the way renewals work, if I'm up for renewal, my charter expires in June of 2025. I actually have to go up for renewal in fall of 2024. The dashboard for the previous year is not ready by then. Typically, the dashboard is not released until late December, early January. So my renewal has passed before that dashboard is available and ready to be used.

So I'm still going to be judged on '22 data.

That process starts in March of 24, correct?

What's that?

The renewal process would start in March of 24.

If you give a one-year extension, and my charter expires in 2025, the dashboard for the previous year will not be ready until December of 2024 or January of 2025. I can't wait till January of 2025 to start my renewal. I lose all my appeal rights and time.

My understanding that would be a third year of data. This is getting a little convoluted and technical, but so I appreciate it, and this is a very involved process. Mr. Bramble.

Just wanted to clarify some dates. I think you can think of the 2022 dashboard as the starting point is outlined in the analysis. What it's missing is the colors because it doesn't show growth from the prior year. There wasn't usable data the prior year. So if you talk about 2022 as the starting 0.0 dashboard will have colors. And that's why in 2024, when right now the renewal is scheduled to come back, we haven't had renewals for five years.

Some charters haven't gone for seven years without renewals. And the proposal here is nine years without renewals. But essentially, if you're back in 2024, you got the 2022 data, and you got the 2023 data. There are two years of usable data.

And so, Ms. Salcito Carter, you're good. All right. You certainly may.

Chair, I guess I'm still trying to, I appreciate the dashboard data debate, but part of the work of any school on data is to be able to see trends and be able to make changes in the work that is being done so you can make things better. When you see you have deficiencies, you have time to improve the deficiencies, versus it's a test result, and that's the end of the story.

So if you don't have the five years of data leading up to a renewal, you have been blinded. Tell me if I'm wrong here. You've been blinded on your ability to make changes in your school to improve things, that it's almost like a flash exam, and that's the end of the story.

So the absence of data in those two or three years seems to be a very significant issue for the ability of anyone, any school, any evaluation of a legislative body to make changes, to adjust to it.

Let me add just for some additional context, Senator Glazer, the renewal process does take into account the dashboard data may not always be available.

And so what the statute says, in that case, it says, for purposes of this section, Section 4767.2, if the dashboard indicators are not yet available for the most recently completed academic year before renewal, the chartering authority shall consider verifiable data provided by the charter school related to the dashboard indicators, such as data from the California Assessment of Student Performance and progress, or any successor system for the most recent year. So this sort of scenario was contemplated.

I get that in terms of alternative data to rely upon, but that doesn't change the issue of a two or three-year pandemic effect, right? Yes, you could have other examinations of those that, during that pandemic.

Right. But verified data is available during pandemic years. It is. It's not ideal. Right? It may not be considered as ideal.

It's incomplete. It's not truth.

You can't say it's not truth. So data is data. It may not be ideal. The pandemic may have impacts, but the system was designed to capture certain metrics. And we had a once-in-a-lifetime historic event, and we're trying to get back on track, and we're trying to do so in a way that is not deleterious or inherently deleterious to the people who would use that data. And again, that's the basis for the compromise. Right. The original proffer was two years.

No extension had been contemplated prior to this legislative effort. And so the offer of one year is, in fact the compromise.

Just to respond on some of the comments there, in terms of incomplete data, and you brought up the notion of verified data, and a portion of this bill speaks to verified data and says in the event that a governing board does not have the complete data and is forced to make a decision, that the charter school can then put forward verified data that is required to be assessed. Now, why this portion of the bill is so important, because we know we have gaps.

We all agree that there are gaps. Some of the most vulnerable, all our TKers, our kindergartners, our first graders and our second graders that were born into this pandemic in their educational life. And none of the standardized testing data on the dashboard covers that very vulnerable group.

So with the two-year extension or without the two-year extension that still exists, that gap will still exist in this situation because charter schools are evaluated on performance data, performance metrics, academic and nonacademic, nonacademic data that is impacted by the socioemotional trauma and fear that was instilled in families in our school communities. We are seeing not only incomplete data, but inaccurate data, inaccurate to the potential of our students'ability to perform. So we are almost there.

Our public education system here in California, I feel very hopeful and confident that we're headed in the right direction. The pandemic gave us a real big punch in the gut. This is an opportunity for us to catch our breath. Right?

Catch our breath after knowing that, yes, we did close down schools for 18 months plus, but we did not know when we gave that first two-year renewal extension the impact, the aftermath of the pandemic, we did not know, and nor could we predict the impact that would have. We're recovering in terms of our housing market. We're recovering in terms of our employment, of our food scarcity, our cost of living. We need to make that same recovery to our education system.

And so that's why this bill is so important in two part. And I understand how complex it is, and I understand us wanting to get back into the normalcy. I get it. I had three kids on path to four-year university. I had two juniors and a senior.

And the pandemic hit and their normalcy was moving into a two-year bridge program, into their community college in order for them to get emotionally ready, physically ready to leave home, to put their wings on and fly into their four-year university. So as hardcore as I am around education, I understood I needed to give my kids that respite to get back on track.

But I could not uniformly say to all of them, you have to get back on four-year track of college by this date and not take into consideration the nuances and the individual needs of those children, my children, that I'm responsible for. Now, as a legislator, we are responsible for all California's children.

So I ask of you today to look at this bill through that lens of responsibility to our kids and to our families and in partnership with our educators to get back on track, but to not apply a one-size-fits-all all so that we can get to a place where we are all healing. We are building resilient communities with our schools by approving this measure, and by continuing to get back on track, that's what this bill is about.

So thank you, Senator. So I just want to make something clear. I think we do need to make a distinction between your very compelling sort of description of your kids' experience and the renewal process.

Right.

They're slightly different things. Right. So all of these things are included as data that are used in the renewal process. But it's about relativity, right. The use of data to create, have a relative measure of success. And again, to be clear, there are features of the renewal process that take into account extenuating circumstances. Right. So again, none of this is optimal because of COVID.

That's right.

But I don't think that it's fair to say the data is inaccurate. It's just they are a reflection of the trying time we've faced. And I think an inference or a subtext of all of this is that there's something sort of inherently either biased or disadvantaged in the renewal process to charter schools. That is not the intent here. And in fact, this committee's larger intent is to make sure that is not the case.

And so again, we come back to where we started, which was the offer of one year is, in fact a compromise, and we consider it a very reasonable compromise considering all of the views of all of the affected stakeholders. And so I'm going to give you a chance to close, but I'm going to reiterate the proposed amendments.

One, reduce the proposed charter school extension for charter schools whose term expires, honor, between charter January 1, 2024 and June 30, 2027 inclusive from two years to one year, and strike all proposed changes related to verified data. And so those are the amendments. And so the question for you, I guess, as part of your close, is, are you open to accepting those amendments respectfully, if you don't, that's fair, that is your prerogative as the author here. That is the question before you.

So I believe in compromise, and I know the intent of this committee is to do good by our kids and by our schools. One other piece of note, because I do become very passionate when I talk about my own kids and my own experiences.

But remember when the pandemic hit and we were trying to build that bridge for our college and career students, the UC system and the Cal State system made a decision, a determination not to mandate SAT standardized testing, to evaluate our students about whether or not they were ready to go on to college. That was a decision that we made based on the pandemic. We gave a break, right.

To be able to recover and to allow our students to reach their level of potential and their choice at such a tender age. So this is really parallel to that. So that is my last plea here. I am open to compromise and I am open to having a reasonable amendment so that we can move forward and continue to do right by our kids.

And so the question at hand here is, do you regard this as the reasonable amendment, and will you accept it?

I think the reasonable amendment is for us to strike all verified data as proposed changes and in terms of procedure in committee Chair, and I would ask for your direction on this one. Would the committee be amenable to taking a vote as amended, or, excuse me, as presented? And if that vote shall not get a motion, then we can have the discussion around the amendments. Or is it one or the other?

The problem here is we don't have the full panel here. We're going to have a lot of trouble doing that today in the absence of the full committee. And so I'm not inclined to come back and reopen this conversation as part of the agenda. Unfortunately, the answer there is no, and that is too bad. We have one of two choices for you. You can accept the amendments, we'll vote on the proposed amendments, you can refuse the amendments, and we'll vote on your proposed terms.

Mr. Chair, can I ask one follow up, if I may?

And so you don't find that the one academic year as a substitute to be acceptable to you?

Go ahead.

I do not. Unfortunately, for all the reasons we've discussed.

Chair, would you be amenable to the one-year extension with the opportunity for local authorities, local authorizing bodies and appeal bodies to then have the leniency or to be able to extend the renewal?

No, I think that's really problematic because for, again, some of the reasons we discussed, the exception will then become the rule.

But wouldn't that be local choice then? I mean, you'd get the one-year minimum requirement.

It's unfortunately governed by statute, so, no. And again, taking into account that there are other bases for local authorizers to consider data and other cases and make alternative assessments, is that correct, Ms. Salcito Carter? And at some point, we're going to vote on this?

Take a look at the statute. But frankly, I would not want to put the authorizers in that position.

Appreciate that we are at a point, where you are going to make a choice.

We are at a point. Yeah, going to make a choice. Chair, I am an admirer of yours. You know that. So I would ask for an aye vote on the proposed amendments and ask that you make explicit that all members of the committee vote in there with their own free will.

Okay. I think that's a given, at least I would hope so. Not being the chair on other committees. All right, so to be clear, so we're going to vote with you having accepted the amendments.

That's correct.

That is right. Do we have a motion?

On the bill, as amended. Okay. You're welcome to close again.

I respectfully ask for your support and consideration. And thank you. Thank you all for your time and commitment.

I appreciate it. This is not an easy issue. Again, this is a compromise with respect to the original proposal. And, madam consultant, if you could please call the roll.

File item number one, SB 739. Alvarado-Gill. The motion is do passed, as amended, to appropriations. Senators Newman.

Aye.

Ochoa-Bogh.

Aye.

Cortese, Glazer, McGuire, Smallwood-Cuevas, and Wilk. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. We will hold that bill open. And thank you, everybody. Next up, the eminently patient Senator Limon. Nice to see you. You'll be presenting SB 380. Welcome. You may proceed.

Thank you, Chair and Senators. Childcare is essential to a functional economy. And without affordable and available childcare, parents cannot work. According to the Center for American Progress, the childcare workforce has lost 88,000 jobs nationally since February of 2020. Childcare workers are some of the lowest paid workers across the country. There are currently empty early childhood classrooms because providers cannot hire enough teachers to staff them.

This bill would help early learning and childcare providers and families by transitioning providers to a single cost-based reimbursement rate, suspending family fees until an equitable family fee schedule can be established, and make reimbursement based on the enrollment rather than attendance. Today we have Luanda Wesley, Director of Government Relations for the Childcare Resource Center, and Heidi Kaiser, Public Policy Officer for Childcare Action, to support this bill.

Thank you and welcome. And again, thank you for your patience.

Anytime. Thank you, Chair Newman and Committee, as well as Senator Limon, for authoring SB 380, the Childcare Workers--sorry, the rate reform for childcare workers. I am Dr. Lawanda Wesley, the Director of government relations. Our agency serves about 50,000 children between northern Los Angeles and San Bernardino County. It is a privilege for me to be before you today, representing our co-sponsors, as well as parents, and children, and families. I would like to tell you three reasons why this bill is urgent.

The first one is, there is a need to increase access and sustain high quality workforce. The other is we need to address the long overdue racial and gender pay inequities and disparities within our field. And three, we need to sustain an industry that supports all other workforce sectors. And for number one, there have been a number of reports and different work groups that have gone before us.

Some of those work groups that have suggested that rate increase is the one single issue that will mitigate the loss of staff that we're facing now. Some of those work groups include lifting children and families out of poverty in 2018, the Blue Ribbon Commission in 2019, the Master Plan for Education in 2020, and most recently, the Rate and Quality Workgroup. All of these work groups combined recommends that there is an overwhelming consensus in sustaining the workforce and the need to reform it.

And most of us are women and women of color that work in the field, including myself as a former preschool teacher, who is receiving this pay while raising five kids, receiving subsidies such as CalFresh and Medi-Cal, to work in an industry that I love so dearly. Right now, we know that many of our workforce folks, according to the US Labor Statistics, are making about 13.22 as an average, median, that does not cover, as, you know, rent here in California or any other basic needs.

So what we're asking is that we help close, make sure that we can serve children in classrooms that we consider going dark. And what we mean dark is that we have the classrooms, but we don't actually have the educators to fill those classrooms, as Senator Limon has said. So I just want to make sure I don't go over. In closing, what we're asking is that this bill be supported so that we can have a single rate structure system and ask for federal approval for that system.

The bill also calls for suspending family fees. So we don't want the cost to be projected onto families by trying to raise our rates. So that sometimes will happen, you give us better wages, but then we ask others to incur that cost. So again, as a former preschool teacher administrator who sits before you today, we're asking, pleading, that 13.22 is not our reality and that we pay for a very skilled, highly-educated, and competent workforce such as myself. Many of us have AA degrees, Masters. Here I am before you with a doctorate, and 13.22 just don't cut it. So I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good morning, honorable Committee Members. I'm testifying on behalf of California Resource and Referral Network and Child Action. My name is Heidi Kaiser. I'm the public policy officer for Child Action. We operate Sacramento County's childcare subsidy and resource and referral programs. We're currently serving over 10,000 children and 5,692 families through our programs. Over 34% of those families will start paying a family fee this July.

Another expense, another fee like this will almost certainly lead to many of our families making the agonizing decision to terminate their absolutely essential high-quality childcare just because they don't have the money. For this reason and others, we must transition to a cost-based reimbursement rate. A small childcare center operating in one of Sacramento County's high-risk communities opened right before the pandemic and closed within a year. They provided care for many children on our subsidy program to meet the needs of the community.

They offered non-traditional hour care. The financials just don't work out. Many of us in this building have flexible hours or at least a fixed nine to five work schedule. Many of our up-and-coming families do not have such luxuries. It breaks our heart to see centers closed due to an antiquated reimbursement system for early educators. Parents and childcare professionals need this change. These closures of childcare classrooms limit options for our families.

We're seeing center directors stepping into classrooms to meet ratios just because they can't find the staff they need or they can't afford to hire staff. Unfortunately, many staff left and got furloughed during the pandemic. This has led to many amazing teachers leaving their dream jobs of educating our littlest learners just to survive. To reduce cost, many of our providers have cut staff, closed classrooms, and stopped offering transportation to and from schools. These things impact a parent's access to care and impact their needs.

The staffing issues also impact the number of children an early care setting can educate. We have local parents telling us that they've lost their chosen childcare center just because of these budget limitations.

I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up, please.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Thank you. Is anybody here in the hearing room like to testify in support of SB 380? If so, please come to the podium and state your name, your organization and your position, please.

Good morning. Josefina Ramirez Notsinneh, co-sponsor of the bill, with Children Now.

Good morning. Nina Buthee, Every Child California, co-sponsor of the bill in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Josh Gaugar on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott, on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium. Also in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Debra Duardo, in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Jonathan Munoz, on behalf of First Five Los Angeles, in strong support of the bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Amanda Dickey, Executive Director of Government Relations for the Santa Clara County Office of Education, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses--Ford, do we have any witnesses here in the Committee Hearing Room like to testify in opposition to SB 380? Seeing none. Anybody? No. Okay. Let's go to the teleconference line. Ms. Moderator, if you could please query any participants on the teleconference line to testify in support of or in opposition to SB 380. As with all items on the agenda today, we will allow for 15 minutes maximum of testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As he stated, if you are in support or opposition to SB 380, please go ahead and press one followed by zero. We're going to begin with line 171. Please go ahead. 171, you are open. Can you hear us, 171? We'll move along to line 177.

Good morning. This is Karina Laigo with Childcare Law Center, in strong support of SB 380 because providers have the right to fair compensation. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

183, you are up.

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

Thank you. Next, please.

Your line is open, line 18.

This is Raquel Yafi on behalf of the California Alternative Payment Program Association, in support.

Thank you. Next.

Please go ahead, line 187.

Good morning. Amarantha Silva, member of Parent Voices California, representing on certain chapters across the state, and in strong support of 380. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Next, we'll go to line number 188. 188, you are open.

Thank you. Kimberly Rosenberger on behalf of CCPU and SEIU and UDW collaboration. We support in concept, but we are currently bargaining, so we want to also acknowledge that we have the right at the table. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll give a quick reminder. One, followed by zero. If you're in support or opposition to Senate Bill 380. 182, please go ahead.

Rudy De Santiago. I'm the representative for Value Schools, calling on behalf of Loreen Riley, CEO, and we are in support of SB 739 as introduced.

Thank you. Next, please.

Anybody else going at 1-0? We do have one with an operator, Mr. Chair. One moment.

Thank you.

Think that'll wrap us up. Line 189, please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. Carlos Rojas, on behalf of the Kern County Superintendent of Schools in the 46 school districts in Kern County, in support of SB 380.

Thank you. And I think that is it. Mr. Moderator, any other callers?

No, we cleared the queue.

Very good. Thank you. Let's come back to the dais. Any questions from Members of the Committee?

No questions, just a comment. Just very grateful that you brought this measure forward. Very much needed and grateful to support it and be happy to move the bill at the appropriate time.

Appreciate that. And for my part, Senator Limon, I have a little kid and our experience of the pandemic, especially seeing the experience by the families, was nothing short of illuminating. So I think it is a good idea to require the development of a sliding scale for family fees and to prohibit the collection of those fees until we've done that. Glad to support this bill. We have a motion from Senator Ochoa Bogh. Let's proceed to it. Would you like to close?

Thank you. And I will say on that point, you agree with this as well as the federal administration, who just issued an executive order. So we may be seeing more about these two elements related to family fees and rate reform in the coming weeks. So with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

This is file item number two, SB 830, Limon.

380.

Excuse me, 380. Limon. Do pass to appropriations. Senator Newman?

Aye.

Newman? Aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Cortese? Glazer? McGuire? Smallwood-Cuevas? Wilk?

That Bill has two votes. We will keep it open. Thank you and thank you. And I show our next author, Senator Gonzalez, who was here and still is here. It's good to see you and welcome. You'll be presenting SB 394 whenever you're ready.

Yes, Mr. Chair and members, I would like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments that I committed to take in Senate energy Committee and that are summarized in the analysis. Senate Bill 394 will require the California Energy Commission to collaborate with various state agencies and education stakeholders to develop a master plan for healthy, sustainable and climate resilient schools.

California students are served by over 1000 school districts that utilize more than 10,000 school facilities, comprising of over 125,000 acres of ground and 730 million facility spaces, which produce substantial GHG emissions and contribute to other environmental impacts. Students, faculty and staff who utilize these facilities each day are increasingly facing the impacts of climate related threats like extreme heat, flooding, wildfire, smoke, and other impacts that can lead to learning loss and poor academic outcomes.

While California has some existing programs that have taken piecemeal steps to begin this generational transition to climate resilient facilities, there is a lack of a unified vision at the state level and a desperate need for a comprehensive roadmap and master plan. A master plan on climate resilient schools will better position California schools districts to leverage the billions of dollars available under the recently passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction act, excuse me. To modernize and make school facilities and buses more energy efficient.

Testifying in support today, I have Dr. Marianne Duan, the Superintendent of Schools for Santa Clara County and Dr. Lisa Patel, clinical associate Professor of Pediatrics at Stanford, and for technical assistance if needed, I have Jonathan Klein as well. With undaunted K-12, I respectfully ask for an aye vote Mr. Chair on SB 394.

Thank you and welcome to your witnesses. Please proceed. Do you have two minutes?

Hello, I'm Dr. Mary Ann Dewan, Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools. I'm pleased to support Senate Bill 394 in partnership with the California Federation of Teachers, California Labor for Climate Jobs Generation Up, Undaunted k 12, and many, many others. My appreciation to Senator Gonzalez for bringing forward this important Bill that would develop a master plan for climate resilient schools.

As California experiences a growing number of extreme weather events and disasters that impact children's health and disrupt our learning environments, k-12 schools occupy more than 125,000 acres of California land and require significant energy to operate. California schools, unfortunately, have not had the financial and staffing resources to adopt energy efficient technology or move away from a reliance on carbon emitting energy sources.

By educating, planning for, and implementing climate resilient schools, California could substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and food waste, thus getting us closer to the state's goal of reducing emissions 48% by 2045. This Bill would require the state to create a master plan for climate resilient schools, which would help ensure that schools facility spending, which amounts to about $7 billion annually, is aligned with the state's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

And a master plan would also establish a framework for schools as they implement environmental education and climate oriented curriculums and career pathways, and seek for federal infrastructure grants. As a contributing author on the climate Resilience Schools Report, I am pleased to support Senate Bill 395394 which is aligned with the research and recommendations in our report. Thank you for your leadership in authoring this Bill and commitment to addressing climate change.

I urge you all to join me and my colleagues in support, and we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

My name is Dr. Lisa Patel. I'm a clinical associate Professor of Pediatrics at Stanford, an environmental scientist, and a mom to a child at San Francisco Unified School District. I'm here in support of SB 394 to safeguard our children's health in a changing climate.

As a hospital based pediatrician who cares for premature infants, sick children and well, newborns, I've been on the front lines of how climate change is affecting our children's health, and doctors understand that climate change will be the greatest determinant of health for a child born today. Our schools were built for a different century, and if we don't act now to prepare our school systems, it will threaten our children's lifetime of health and learning.

For example, worsening heat waves make classrooms without air conditioning too dangerous for children. Last September, schools in the Bay Area had to close early because they didn't have HVAC systems to handle the heat. In the hospital, I'm seeing more athletes with heat stroke that can result in kidney damage and severe dehydration. And on hot days in the hospital, we see more kids turning up with asthma flares and more expectant mothers in preterm labor.

We also know that hot days result in poorer learning outcomes, with black and Hispanic children experiencing a 5% gap in standardized test scores compared to their white counterparts due to the heat. The EPA estimates that heat driven by climate change will result in a 7% decrease in annual academic achievement per child. This loss translates to billions of dollars lost annually from poorer rates of graduation, poorer paying jobs, and the inability to procure health insurance.

Wildfire smoke also threatens kids health and learning wildfire smoke is 10 times as toxic as regular air pollution that we breathe from burning fossil fuels. And many of our schools are not equipped with updated or efficient hvac systems to keep kids safe. The EPA estimates an increase of up to 11% of asthma cases from air pollution driven by climate change. Children in California already missed 1.2 million days of school from asthma, and we predict an increase in both hospitalizations and wildfire smoke by 50% by 2050.

It should be mission critical that every school offers safe air for a child to breathe, but they can't get there without help. This Bill can help align federal and state dollars to ensure we use our resources wisely to create safe, healthy spaces for children to thrive.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in the hearing room would like to testify in support of the measure with your name, your organization, your position?

Tiffany Mock on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals proud to co-sponsor and thank you to the chair, member and the great analysis.

Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you. Next, please.

Msafina Ramirez Notznah, on behalf of Children Now in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members Norland Asbrick, representing rewiring America and the Natural Resources Defense Council in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

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

Thank you. Good morning. Chair Members Joe Shakarnig, state building and Construction Trades Council and support thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Jonathan Klein, California parent and co-sponsor of the Bill from Undaunted K-12 also representing support from the New Buildings Institute, Climate Action Pathways for Schools, Next Gen California, and the Climate Ready Schools Coalition of Education, Climate Labor, Health Leaders across the state. Thank you very much for your support.

Thank you. Seeing no more witnesses in support. Do we have any witnesses here in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could please query any participants in the teleconference line to testify on behalf or in response to SB 394, either in support of or in opposition to the Bill.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen on the phones, if you wish to testify in support or opposition, Senate Bill SB 394, please press one followed by zero. One followed by zero. And we're going to go to line 16.

Good morning. Kathy Schaefer, on behalf of the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles chapters of the Climate Reality project, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And I think that was the one caller. Any others?

Moderator yeah, we do have a number queuing up right now.

All right, fair enough.

Please. One all by zero. If you are in support or opposition.

One moment. We'll go to line 192.

Good morning. This is Jillian Rodriguez and Barkey calling on behalf of Penstrom in strong support of SB 394.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Go to line 165. You are open.

Hi, I'm Andrea Goyan. I'm the project direct for the California Environmental Literacy Initiative, and I'm calling in with strong support for SB 394. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Next we'll go to. One moment. We're going to go to line 195. You are open.

Chair Members Nancy Chidasinals on behalf of the school energy coalition in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next is going to be line 196, please. Go ahead.

Nicole Mortleman, on behalf of the children's partnership and support.

Next, please.

Line 179. You are open.

Hi, Amanda Milstein calling in on behalf of climate health, now in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Cleared our queue. I cleared our queue, Mr. Chair.

That's it. Okay, well, thank you. Let's come back to the hearing room. Let's come back to the deus. Any questions or comments from my colleagues here? Senator Ochoa Bogh?

Thank you. Great idea. So just a couple of questions here. One is the date seems really close to be able to do that. Has there been any concerns or questions or comments or discussions with regard to the implementation and the date required to be completed by.

Thank you. And through the chair. Thank you. Senator. We actually pushed the date back. We agreed, and I think originally we had November of next year to commence, but we're starting March of the following year. So march of. I think it's 2020.

That is correct. So it would be start the stakeholder meetings in March. 2024 process.

Exactly.

March subsequent year. I'm thinking this year is 2024. Next year. 2024.

Okay. And that was a good. I wasn't at the discussion tables, but I'm assuming that was the agreed upon dates that would work for everybody. Exactly.

It was agreed upon and we took those in energy. It was a little late. So this is why we're keeping to those here in education.

Okay. And then I also have here a comment with regards to a concern by the Western Electrical Contractors Association that they do not oppose the master plan but opposes requirements that the Bill that mandate, the plan includes recommendations to ensure that local education agencies have access to sufficient technical assistance, professional learning and training programs, and pipelines of sustainability and climate resilience personnel to implement the decarbonization. This is a long paragraph.

And adaptations plans that include higher road labor standards, project labor agreements with unionized workforces and then goes on to say, WECA believes project labor agreements are discriminatory and increases the cost of construction. Has there been any discussions on that end?

We want labor at the table. I think if we're going to decarbonize, and this is why we have a really robust coalition of environmentalists and labor at the table, because we should be thinking about that. These are state dollars. We're trying to leverage about $6 billion from the Federal Government as well. Not only would do we have them in the stakeholder group, but we should think about project labor agreements as well. This doesn't require that.

This just recommends that we do look at that, which I think is absolutely what we should do. And the next green economy that we envision should have this skilled work.

I'm just going to put a plug, and I know this is not where we discuss it, but I believe that all labor groups, all contractors should be at the table, not just exclusively one set of labor or construction workers or whatever it may be. I think this should be opening pipelines of workforce in all classifications. Both, I believe it's signatory and non signatory is what I'm learning. It's a new space for me.

But I strongly encourage this because I do believe that everyone should be at the table, just planting the seed on that end, because I read that that was one of the concerns that we had from the western Electrical Contractors Association. I just wanted to make sure that their voice was heard at this Dias. I will be supporting the Bill, and I'm grateful for you bringing it forth. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Seeing none. Senator Gonzalez, we have. So is that a motion, Senator Ochoa Bogh?

I'll be happy to move. Oh, great. Thank you.

Terrific. Thank you. Would you like to close?

I just want to say, as not just a state senator, but as the mother of a second grader at Long Beach Unified School District schools, I know firsthand what the need is to upgrade our school facilities, but also just to do so in the right way. Again, labor, environmentalists at the table, we've got a strong coalition, and I thank our folks here that have testified and that are pushing with us to make sure that this happens. So, with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. So we have a motion from Senator Joe Bogue. Madam, if you please call the role.

Yes.

File item number three, SB 394. Gonzalez. Senators. Newman. Aye. Newman. Aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ocho Bogh. Aye. Cortese? Glazer? Mcguire? Smallwood-Cuevas? Wilk? Aye.

Thank you. So that measure has three votes. We will hold it open and we will proceed in final order to our next author. Senator Niello, welcome.

Thank you. And considering. I think Senator Wilk looks awake and chirpy this morning, he looked that way.

To me as well. It is encouraging.

Yes, it is. We spent some quality time together last night. Okay.

Tell us more in your clothes, among a lot of other people.

Okay, that's fine. You were working all right. Well, yes. Welcome. Please proceed. You're presenting SB 426?

I am. And thank you, Mr. Chair Members. I am presenting SB 426. This Bill makes really a very simple change, or rebrand, if you will, to one segment of the education system. SB 426 would change the term non classroom based instruction to flex based instruction. The change does not affect any existing funding determination laws. I've brought this Bill forward for increased clarity and education.

Before this year, I actually assumed that the designation non classroom based truly meant students who were wholly online, and that simply is not the case. The reality is that many students can be in a classroom facility three or four days a week, but still be considered non classroom based. This doesn't seem accurate to me and nor, I think, understandable for policymakers. The reality is that California. In California, only 9% of public charter schools are exclusively online.

The vast majority take place in a variety of flexible and innovative instructional models. If there's one thing that we all learned during the pandemic, it's that flexibility is key. Whether it be in the workplace, with healthcare, or with education, students benefit from flexible, personalized and hybrid learning delivery methods. These flexible learning environments have proven to be extremely beneficial for low income, minority special needs and other disadvantaged students, especially those at risk of dropping out or who are credit deficient.

Flexbased describes what these schools are, and using a positive term to accurately reflect these public charter schools is paramount in ensuring all students are treated equally, regardless of the type of public school or model they choose. With me today is Jeff Rice, founder and Director of a plus Association of Personalized Learning Schools and Services, and Sherry Nelson of Connecting Waters charter schools.

Thank you, Senator, and welcome to the first witness. You have two minutes. Please. Thank you.

Senator Niello. Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members, Jeff Rice, founder and Director of the Association of Personalized Learning Schools and Services, which is a statewide Association of 93 personalized learning public charter schools serving more than 90,000 K-12 public school students in California, a large percentage of whom were previously disadvantaged. The problem with the term non classroom based instruction is that it falsely implies that the 200,000 public school students in the segment do not receive any site based instruction.

This is not at all accurate and has caused widespread confusion and misunderstanding through the years. As Senator Niello correctly stated, the dividing line and statute between classroom based and non-classroom-based instruction is 80% of instruction time at a school site, which very few people understand. In reality, a large percentage of students who attend non classroom based public charter schools receive significant in person instruction at a physical school site.

Our 93 Member schools, for example, together operate more than 190 school site facilities throughout the state that at least two thirds of their students attend, demonstrating that the term non classroom based was never intended to be taken literally beyond a school site facility. These students complete their learning assignments through a variety of other options, providing them with a much greater level of personalized support and flexibility from which they benefit.

Changing the term in statute to flex based instruction more accurately describes the distinguishing characteristic of instructional flexibility that these 200,000 public school students receive. Recognizing that many traditionally disadvantaged students have much greater success in a more flexible and personalized learning environment and deserve to be treated equally, SB 426 simply fosters more clarity that these 200,000 public school students are receiving greater instructional flexibility for their benefit. No laws or compliance requirements of the schools are being changed.

On behalf of these many students throughout the state, I urge your I vote on SB 426. On 426. I wish to end by closing by thanking Senator Niello for authoring SB 426 and Senators Alvarado Gill, Ochoa Bogh and Wilk for signing on as co authors. Thank you for your time, Mr.

Chair. Thank you, Mr. Rice. And thank you for pointing out it's 426. Welcome.

Thank you. That's a hard act to follow, Mr. Chair. Members Brian White with KP Public Affairs. With your indulgence, I would appreciate the opportunity to read the testimony for Senate second witness Sherry Nelson.

That's fine. If you could limit that testimony to about two minutes, please.

Yes, I will. Good morning. My name is Sherry Wilson. Sherry Nelson, and I'm the Executive Director of Connecting Waters Charter Schools, where I have served in this role since the school's inception over 20 years ago. I'm here to strongly support SB 426. Connecting Waters Charter schools consist of three personalized learning charter schools, two newer schools, one authorized in Stanislaus county and another authorized in Alameda County Office of Education. Each of the two newer schools are replicas of our original charter, connecting Waters.

We are proud that Connecting Waters Charter School, East Bay was recently received the 2023 California Distinguished School Award from our state Superintendent of Instruction, Tony Thurman. We serve around 2000 students throughout Northern California, which includes students from various ethnic backgrounds, low-income students, and we provide a full continuum of special education services. Many of our students come from schools because they are seeking flexibility in their education for their student or their family.

This is a key reason why the term non classroom based doesn't really make sense, because they are looking for flexibility. We actually consider our schools to be hybrid models. We provide classroom, online and independent study. Just last month, I had a meeting with the mayor in one of our communities that we serve. The meeting was held at one of our resource centers, and she saw many of our classrooms.

Despite the fact that we are called non classroom-based charter schools, this term is a misnomer, and it doesn't make sense because our students actually do have access to classroom-based education. Due to the classroom-based label, we have been excluded from funding opportunities, including Allstate facility subsidy programs. This is unfair to public school students who choose a different path, a flexible learning path for that matter. While this Bill won't solve that, it will help aptly define what my schools offer.

In closing, I support SB 426. It's an important first step to bringing greater clarity and understanding the policymakers and decision makers. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. White. Next, other witnesses here in the hearing room would like to testify in support of the Bill. If so, please come forward with your name, your organization, and your position. Please, Mr.

Chair and Members Carson needs, on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support of the Bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Laura Kerr with the California Schools development, the charter school development center in support.

Thank you, Ms. Kerr. Anybody else seeing none in opposition? Do we have two main opposition witness? First is Cassie Mancini from CSEA. Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Sharon. Senators, my name is Cassie Mancini, and I'm here on behalf of the California School Employees Association in opposition to SB 426. This Bill would replace the term non-classroom-based instruction with flex-based instruction, a change that would do absolutely nothing to solve the numerous and well documented issues with non classroom based charter schools in California. To provide some context, the Legislature instituted a moratorium on the establishment of new non classroom based charter schools back in 2019.

That moratorium expires on January 1, 2025, and was instituted in part to give the Legislature more time to consider significant reforms in this space. And significant reforms are necessary to protect students from harm and to protect Prof. 98 funds from unscrupulous actors.

The most famous example of this, of course, is the a three charter school network where from 2016 to 2019, a three education executives fraudulently purchased children's personal information, enrolled them in nonclassroom based charter schools without their consent, and stole roughly $400 million from the state. There's a clear need for legislation in this space, but SB 426, with its long list of undefined modalities, only serves to sow more confusion. The Legislature should not segment our approach to non classroom based charter education reform.

Instead, we should carefully consider the data, including research published by Stanford Center for Research on Education Outcomes in 2015, that online charter schools equate to a student losing 72 days of learning and reading and 180 days of learning and math based on 180 day school year. All students in California deserve a high quality education, and to achieve this, we need to take serious steps to eliminate fraud and enhance oversight and accountability. For those reasons, we respectfully oppose SB 426 and urge your notebook.

Thank you, Mr. Bramble

Mr. Chair and Member Steph Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association, respectfully in opposition to Senate Bill 426. We were one of the co-sponsors of the Bill a couple of years ago that established a moratorium on new non-classroom-based charter schools. As CSEA mentioned, student outcomes was a concern, certainly a three.

There were also cases at that time in San Diego media markets, parents using home school charters to, for example, purchase family passes to the San Diego Zoo, and other inappropriate uses of public funds. That moratorium is still in place. These loopholes have been identified. None of them have been closed. And this Bill opens new loopholes by essentially redefining non classroom based charter schools as flex based charter schools and describing it with very vague vocabulary, such as personalized learning, such as college ready.

I would suggest that every school in the State of California would try and meet the needs of every child and could be called personalized learning. Every school in the State of California tries to prepare kids for college and could be called college ready. When you put these vague terms into the code, you create problems with trying to regulate that kind of market. And we don't need new confusion in this area of law in particular at this time.

What we need to do is stop the fire, a fire that's burning through the resources that our students need. Only by containing that fire can we stop it from growing and causing more destruction. The law is not clear about what constitutes a non classroom based charter school at this time. If you're not doing 80%, I mean, if less than 80% of your instruction is occurring in the classroom, you're non classroom based.

The law is clear about what some examples of that might be in a home school charter, independent study charter, virtual charter, those are all examples outlined in the code. But changing the name of an entire instructional model while there is a moratorium in place is an attempt to avoid notoriety. It's like changing cars to avoid being followed.

We would suggest that there is nothing in this Bill, and I would ask anyone on either side of the issue if they can identify anything in this Bill that helps students, that improves student learning. We urge a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Bramble. Anybody else in the Committee hearing, like, testify in opposition to the measure?

Tiffany mock on behalf of CFT. We respectfully oppose.

Thank you.

Kelly Hansen, 6th grade teacher, opposed thank you.

Michael Bloom, a 22 year Spanish teacher, precisely opposes. Thank you. Next, please.

Kaina Collins, high school English teacher, El Camino Real Charter High School and I oppose. Thank you.

Claudia Bautista, Santa Monica High School immersion.

Teacher for 35 years and I respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Greto Rodriguez from San Diego, 8th grade middle school's teacher, virtual teacher. Julie Sepulva Gibson, Tierra Del Sol Continuation High School in Bakersfield, California I oppose.

Thank you. Next, please.

Paula Kondrako, I'm an elementary teacher in Hesperia, California, and I oppose. Thank you.

Julianne Neal, fourth grade teacher, Twin Rivers Unified School District and I am in opposition. Thank you.

Pamela Greenhouse, speech language pathologist, Chino Valley Unified School District with 35 years in public school, and I stand opposed. Thank you.

Ava Chow, high school science teacher from Eastside Union High School District in San Jose. I oppose.

Thank you. Wade Kyle, Los Angeles Unified School District.

Special education teacher, and I oppose. Thank you.

Hi. Cindy Mcguire, science teacher, Dodson Middle School, Los Angeles.

Sorry, in opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Paul American, TK teacher, Castrovalle Unified and I post.

Thank you.

Lisa Hickman, third grade teacher, Tustin Unified School District and I post.

Thank you.

Yudi Camacho, kindergarten teacher, Holtville Unified School District speaking in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers in opposition, let us go to the teleconference line where I show we have two callers online right now. Mr. Moderator, if you please query the conference line for speakers in support of or in opposition to SB 426. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. As he stated, if you're in support or opposition to SB 426, go ahead and hit 10 at this time when followed by zero, will begin with line 173, you are open.

Hi. Good morning. Kathleen Hermsmeyer, Superintendent of Springs Charter Schools Network in support of SB426.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 199, you are open. Please. Go ahead. 199. One more shot, 99. 199, are you muted. No, we'll go ahead to line 90, please. Go ahead.

Hi, this is Shelley Blakely. I'm the Executive Director for Golden Eagle Charter School in strong support of SB 426.

Thank you. Next, please. You are open line 193.

Hello, my name is Meg Ridman, the Executive Director of the Olive Grove Charter schools, calling in support of SB 426.

Thank you. And next, please. Line 202, you are open. Yes.

Hi, good morning. My name is Candace Coffee. I am the Director of human resources for Stage Oak charter schools, calling in support of SB 426 as introduced. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other callers? Mr. Moderator? Yeah, we'll go to line 115. For anybody else? 10. If you'd like to testify in support or opposition to Senate Bill 426, please go ahead. 115.

Hi, good morning. This is Trinity Latch with Cluster County. I was a home school teacher and I'm in strong support of SB 426. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. Go to line 204. Please. Go ahead, 204. 204. Can you hear us? Hello? No response. We're going to move on to line 205. You are open. Thank you.

My name is Christine Fair. I'm the Superintendent of California Pacific charter schools, and I'm in support of Bill 426. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. Just a couple more queuing up. Mr. Chair. One moment, please. We'll try. Line 200, you are open.

Hello?

Go ahead, 200. We can hear you. Go ahead.

I'm sorry. This is Krista Woodris in support of 426 from Charter School.

Thank you. Next, please. Thank you. Line 206, please go ahead. 206. 206. You are open. Are you muted? 206. They took themselves out of queue.

This was. I think that you hit me twice.

Go ahead. Okay. Next, please. We have one more queued up. Mr. Chair? One moment. Line 207, you are open.

Muy buenas tardes, buenos dias.

Mi nombre es Monica Duarte, lo voy a decir en espanol. Soy Monica Duarte soy departe de Parent Voices en Marin County. Estoy aqui como un sopporte para la AB 596, SB 227, AB 360, perdon es AB 310. Yo estoy aqui, y soy de Marin County y apollando lo que va ser un cambio para nosotros.

Thank you.

Gracias. Any other callers, please, one more with an operator. One moment, please. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we're going to go to line 209, please. Go ahead, 209.

Hi, this is Aaron Bunch with Sajo Charter School, and I'm in support of 426.

Thank you. Any other callers that cleared the queue? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very good. Let's come back to the Committee hearing room. Any questions or comments from the dais?

I guess it's up to us. Senator Newman. I guess it is.

To facilitate the conversations. So sorry. I feel like I need to sneeze.

Go ahead.

My eyes are watering. So I'd like for you to have an opportunity to.

Or your witness says to address the concerns that the opposition had with regards to the accountability portion, especially with the fact that the one case of the nefarious actors taking advantage of the system, and unfortunately, that's the hardest part within any space, is trying to deal with those people that will work the system to abuse it and impact those that are actually trying to do good work and have that individualized educational framework for students who are unique.

And as far as the performance, and I'm not an expert, but it is my understanding that many charter schools cater to students that necessarily are not successful in traditional school settings, and therefore they need something more personalized, more unique, and that may impact the academic performance standards for those.

And I'm not sure how charter schools work with individualized educational plans on that front, but I do want to give you an opportunity to address the accountability part and those nefarious actors within that system and how that would be impacted by your Bill.

Thank you for that. Senator Ochoa Bogh, while I appreciate, by the way, the automobile metaphor of the opposition statements and the points that they were attempting to make, but all due respect, it was kind of a non sequitur. Again, all due respect, I think they're missing the point. Flexibility truly is the answer to a lot of educational challenges, particularly with people from disadvantaged areas and people at risk of dropping out of school or missing credits. But this Bill is not a reform per se.

It's sort of a truth and advertising measure. We believe that we're correcting a misnomer in the way these schools are marketed, if you will, described to the public. To say that schools that have a majority of their time in classroom are non-classroom schools just frankly doesn't make sense. And this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the situation with a three education that was fraudulent activity that will be dealt with completely separately, certainly not in this Bill.

And all of us that are supporting this Bill will go on record in saying that that was wrong and any of those loopholes need to be corrected. But this doesn't create loopholes. Again, it's not a major change in the charter, charter, if you will. It is correcting a misnomer in description and is, as I said, I think, really sort of a truth in advertising measure. I'd ask Mr. Rice to address any other technical issues that your question raised.

Thank you, Senator Niello. First, for the record, we absolutely concur that more work needs to be done to provide solutions that led to the proliferation of bad actors in this segment. As an Association that is wholly dedicated to high standards of integrity, accountability and academic excellence. When we witnessed firsthand the bad actor organizations enter the segment, it was heart wrenching to us to have no power whatsoever to do anything about getting rid of those bad actors.

The power to do anything about that was the responsibility of auditors and authorizers, and they did nothing for many, many years, allowing these organizations to proliferate into cancers. So we agree that more work needs to be done. However, even those opposed to this Bill asserted that we were all online schools, and in fact, they cited a study that was from 2015. That credo did that was a national study all on online schools only.

So that study did not accurately reflect the academic performance of the flex based charter schools in California because it was an online only study. And that study now is 10 years old. So it doesn't even accurately reflect the progress made not only in online schools in the past 10 years, but also in the hybrid flex based schools in California.

I spoke directly with the author of that study who said, yes, it was online schools only, and nationally, online schools in other states don't perform as well as online schools in California. So it wasn't even an accurate representation of the 9% of online only charter schools in California that are in this segment.

Another important fact I'd like to point out is that one of the reasons we're asking for your I vote on this Bill is because we did experience a Bill that was introduced two years ago with so called reforms in this segment.

However, the Bill asserted that all 310 non classroom based charter schools were online only, and cited that study and proposed solutions that would have cut funding, forced students back into the classroom, limited enrollment, and done a lot of things under the presumption that non classroom based equated online only. We see this as a two step process. Let's first bring greater clarity to the sphere of decision makers and lawmakers to better understand that non classroom based does not mean online only.

Flex based is a more accurate term to describe the distinguishing characteristic of what brings all of these schools and all of these students together in this segment. They receive greater flexibility for their benefit. We will then, in a climate of confusion and misunderstanding and mischaracterization of that term, non classroom based instruction, it is very difficult to create effective, targeted solutions that will eliminate those loopholes. We see this as a two step process.

Number one, let's change the term to reflect who these schools are and how they operate more accurately. Number two, we'll be happy to come back and engage in discussions as to how to create effective solutions to close those loopholes to prevent those bad actors from entering the sphere in the future.

Appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Rice, Mr. Bramble, I know that you want to weigh in, and you are welcome to do that.

Thank you. The question that I heard was about how accountability is impacted by the Bill. To be clear, there is no accountability in the Bill whatsoever. There's been some conversations about this being a misnomer about it, misnaming this type of instruction. We have a policy preference in the law.

We have a policy preference towards in class instruction, because most kids, most kids, I'm not saying that a non classroom based environment is not good for some children, but most kids require that kind of kid interaction, loving adults around who can create that kind of interaction that's needed. So in most cases, we have a preference for in classroom instruction. We saw that during the pandemic, as we were urgently trying to figure out how we bring back in person instruction.

So it's just letting parents know and the public know that a significant amount of your instruction at this charter school is not going to be in a classroom. 20% at least. It could be more, but there'll be a significant amount of time that's not in the classroom. And then they go to a funding determination to the state, because then the state looks at like, should you be 100% funded? Do you have a school bus? Do you have a cafeteria?

That's not always the case in non classroom based instruction, especially when we're talking maybe not necessarily about the types of charter schools that Mr. Rice was talking about, but you also have home school charters. You also have independent study charters. You have totally, 100% virtual charters. And some of those folks don't need the same level of funding if they don't have the same level of facility. So I don't think it's a misnomer.

I think it's really a policy preference towards classroom based instruction, and it makes it very clear that a large portion of the instruction is not occurring in the classroom.

Thank you. Want to respond to that, Senator Neal, or you want to hold it for your close?

Well, I just say, again, all due respect, I think they're missing the point. This is merely correcting a misnomer. And the opposition keeps going back to the phrase non classroom based.

When we have situations where kids are in the classroom 34 days a week, and that's still called non classroom based, if a parent is looking to educational opportunities for their children and they see a group of schools that are called non classroom based, and they don't particularly want an online situation, they want a classroom situation, it misrepresents it to them.

So I think that's why I say this is sort of a truth and advertising thing, accurately reflects how these institutions conduct their model, and there are great successes in this space. And again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fraud that was discovered a few years ago. With that, I would respectfully ask for your.

So let me quickly just kind of weigh in on this. I agree with part of your argument, but I also appreciate where CTA is coming from about the broader. So the need for clarity as it relates to different classes of. So I'll agree that non classroom based probably doesn't cover it, but I'm honestly not sure about flex. And in your initial comments, you referred to a rebranding.

So flex is a fairly generic word that's used sort of continually in marketing, and so not sure that that is solving for the problem. Right. Which is, to your point about what's a better terminology or descriptor to clearly describe a class of school or a type of instruction that is not traditional classroom based. Right. But there's car companies. People get paid lots of money to come up with weird names.

Another auto.

That's why I'm using it. Thank you. But I do think terminology matters, particularly with respect to this. In this sphere, because it winds up being both very specific but also, in many ways, very technical. I am going to kind of, with reservations, support the measure today, but I would urge you to work with the opposition, leaving all your differences aside on terminology. Right.

And on clarity that we do have a good understanding as to what a word means, what it doesn't mean, and what purpose it serves as it relates to some of, I think, the very valid observations that Mr. Bramble made. And so with that, do we have a motion? Senator Bogue moves the Bill. And madam consultant, if you please call the roll. I assume you closed.

Yes, I did.

You could close again. I appreciate it.

I respectfully asked for an I vote.

You didn't have to say that. So thank you. You were very respectful throughout. Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

This is file item number four, SB 426. Niello. The motion is do pass to appropriations, Senators. Newman. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Cortese, Glazer, Mcguire, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wilk.

We will leave that measure open. I think it has two votes to zero at the moment. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Senator Nemo. And do we have another author I saw? Senator Portantino, welcome here on Denim day. Nice jeans, pre-washed. Nice.

Thank you for the commentary on my attire. Looking good.

All good.

Mr. Chair, you're going to be presenting SB 480. Please proceed when ready.

I love the tie.

I am so, SB 480 seeks to create an authorization for a pilot program, and I have to compliment your staff. We've had many, many conversations about this Bill, and we are accepting the technical Committee amendments outlined in the analysis. So thank you. The genesis of this started when I was in Korea several years ago, visiting high schools. And as we all talk about how we prepare students for a tech world, new middle class jobs.

In Korea, they do a unique thing where they call them new collar jobs, tech careers that don't require a four year degree, but require a certain level of technical expertise in order to perform the duties of those particular companies, and so they partner directly with their high schools, where you go to high school Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and then you work in that field Thursday and Friday for your senior year. And when you graduate, you are trained, and you go right into a middle class job.

And so they're calling them new collar jobs. And so what we want to do is authorize this type of model on a pilot basis throughout the State of California, and that's what this Bill does. We realize that there are some regulations that are going to need to be drafted, which is what the technical amendments called for.

And one of the things that I want to make sure is that we don't penalize a student who decides to do this route, but then later wants to go on to a four year degree. We want to make sure that they have the ability to do that. And so we're looking at a very narrow, small pilot just to let schools and tech world work collectively and collaboratively to create a career pipeline. So that's what the Bill does, and would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

At the appropriate time. And do you have any witnesses in support? I don't believe we do. Okay. I'm riding solo.

Riding solo with a groundbreaking idea. Any person in the Committee hearing room like to testify in support of the measure. Is anybody here would like testify in opposition to the measure? Is there anybody on the phone, Mr. Moderator, who would like to testify in opposition to or in support of Senator Portentino's SB 480? Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you are in support or opposition to SB 480, please press one followed by zero.

One followed by zero at this time, and we're going to go to line 115. You are open?

Yes. Hi. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Good morning, chair and chair Members. My name is Sharina Lodge, and I am in support of portatina's Bill. I think that's a great idea, and I think that you guys should definitely vote, vote in favor for this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Serena.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. You are welcome. You know I support you.

Thank you for the call. Is there anybody else on the teleconference line who like to speak with reference to SB 480 or otherwise? Say hello to Senator Portantino. Nobody has queued up, Mr. Chair. All right.

Nobody wants to say hello to me?

Okay. Well, we do like what's left of us here, so back to the dais. Any Senator Chobag, any comments or questions for Senator Portantino?

I think it's a really interesting idea, but I'm kind of curious, how is this different than our current Rop programs that are in place throughout the state, including my area, who convene meetings with the local industries in the region, and they see what workers they need to be trained so that they can meet that workforce in the local area? So how would you explain the difference between technical schools and ROP schools and even some, I guess, continuation schools with emphasis through that pipeline with this?

It's very similar, but what we're looking at is looking at sort of traditional four year high school, allowing a business in that area, a tech business in that area, to directly partner with them. And so you would go to class Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. You'd go to work Thursday, Friday, but you wouldn't be penalized, and you would get academic benefit from being in that setting.

So you still would have the prerequisites to get your high school diploma, but you wouldn't have to go through a through g if you two years later decided you wanted to go to a four year University. So it's similar, but this is slightly different in that it's not an ROP program. It's not a career technical program. It's a partnership.