Senate Standing Committee on Education

All right, the Senate Committee Education will come to order. Good morning. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today's participant number is 877-226-8216 again, that's 877-226-8216 and the access code is 6217161 again, 6217161 we are holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building. I ask all of the remaining Members of the Committee to be present in room 2100 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearings.

Seeing no quorum, we will begin as a Subcommitee. 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. We're going to make one exception for one of the witnesses, with two minutes for each person. All others may add on as a me, too. And simply state your name, your organization, and your position on the bill. We have 15 bills on today's agenda. Two bills are on consent.

The bills on consent are item number three, SB 350 by Senator Ashby, and item number five, SB 369 by Senator Wynn. Before we hear your presentation on the bills, let's first call the role. Madam consultant, please call the role. We are not calling the role. It makes no sense to call the role. Okay. The assistant notes that it makes no sense to call the role. So, Members, let's see. We're not going to do the consent calendar. Let us hear from our first author, Senator Skinner.

Thank you for your punctuality and good morning, and welcome. And, Senator Skinner, you'll be presenting SB 88. Please proceed when ready. You're welcome to use my glasses if necessary.

My x ray vision doesn't work today. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present SB 88. Last year, we successfully increased our budget in a way that increased the funding for schools to provide home-to-school transportation. California was dead last in terms of the number of school bus rides it offered its children before. And now we're trying to get better because obviously, if we don't provide transportation to our children, many kids can't get to school.

And we know that some of the missing school, in other words, the lower attendance, especially in our primary grades, was due to the kids not having transportation. So the budget funding that we secured and that's ongoing, is really a great thing. So now to implement that, this is the purpose of SB 88. As we expand our home-to-school transportation. We want to ensure the safety of our children.

So what this Bill does is requires that drivers who are paid to drive our students meet the same requirements that we require for school bus drivers. And so, in other words, there can be other entities that are contracted to provide this home-to-school transportation that exists today where districts do contract with something other than a employed school bus driver. However, this Bill would just make sure that they meet the same safety and background check requirements that we require of school bus drivers.

And with that, I would like to have my witnesses in support. And they are Juan Mireles, who is the Director of the School Facilities and Transportation Division at the California Department of Education, and Emily Kieran, who is the Lead School Bus Instructor at the West County Transportation Agency in Santa Rosa.

Thank you, Ms. Mirellis. Good morning. Please proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Juan Mireles. I'm the Director of the School Facilities and Transportation Services Division at the California Department of Education. On behalf of our State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Mr. Tony Thurman, who is a proud co-sponsor of Senate Bill 88, I'm here in support of this important measure. School bus drivers provide an important service to our pupils and their families.

They ensure the safe transportation of pupils between home and school, which is the first step in educating our students. Because of the safety responsibility, school bus drivers and school buses have strict oversight by the Department of Education, Department of Motor Vehicles, and the California Highway Patrol as it ensures that proper training and safety checks are in place to transport students safely. However, we know that it's not always possible to transport students in buses.

That is why some local educational agencies have recently entered into multi-year contracts with app-based companies, also known as transportation network companies, to transport students to and from school. These companies are not regulated in the same way that school bus drivers and buses are regulated, meaning that they don't fall under the rules and regulations from these state agencies when performing the job and the duties that historically have only been performed by school bus drivers.

This Bill would place various important requirements, such as requiring these bus drivers to complete initial and ongoing training, to be mandated reporters, and to submit clear and tuberculosis risk assessments. These are just a few of the safety requirements in this Bill. Student safety is and should continue to be our top priority in education. These are important requirements will not only strengthen public confidence, but most importantly, they will help ensure that our students will continue to be transported safely to and from school.

With that, we respectfully request for an Aye vote on this Bill. I also have Ms. Anna Borges here from our school transportation office to help answer any questions.

Thank you. And next witness Mrs. Kieran. Ms. Kieran, please.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Emily Kieran and I am the Lead School Bus Instructor at West County Transportation Agency in Santa Rosa. I started my career as a school bus driver in 2006. I became a school bus instructor in January 2019 and now lead our training department. Since becoming an instructor, I have trained a total of 40 school bus drivers.

Like many school districts, my agency is also in a bind with the workforce crisis, which has necessitated the use of TNC drivers to transport our students. They are doing the same work alongside my school bus drivers who I have trained through a rigorous program, yet they don't have to meet any of the requirements or qualifications that my school bus drivers do. How does that make sense when we are essentially doing the same job?

In the interest of time, I will only touch upon a few of the things that my school bus drivers must go through. We must pass a preemployment drug screening, take a minimum of 20 hours classroom instruction consisting of nearly 600 pages of rules, regulations, defensive driving, and pupil management. We have to complete a minimum of 20 hours behind the wheel with an instructor, be fingerprinted, and take a written test with the CHP and a final drive test with the CHP.

School bus drivers are placed into a pull notice program where any and all infractions are reported. Various infractions or offenses are a cause for the DMV to cancel, suspend, or revoke our school bus certificate. All school bus drivers are also placed into a DOT random drug and alcohol testing program. School bus drivers are restricted to a zero tolerance level for alcohol where any detectable amount of alcohol in our system will place us out of service for 24 hours and legally intoxicated at .04%.

TNC drivers are not regulated at a zero tolerance level and could potentially be driving your students and your children with a significant amount of alcohol in their system. Placing them into a random drug testing program would help prevent such things from happening. I have been in this field for 17 years. The pay is little, the hours are horrible, but I really care about my students and ensuring that they are transported safely.

I firmly believe that the best and safest option is to always have a student in a yellow school bus. But if we are to allow our students be transported in passenger vehicles, I want to ensure that they are done as safely as possible. So I'd like to encourage you to support SB 88. Thank you.

And thank you for your testimony. First opposition witness, Jeff Vaca from the Riverside County Office of Education. Welcome, Mr. Vaca.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Senator Skinner, Members of the Committee and staff. Jeff Vaca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools and the 23 school district superintendents in Riverside County. We are part of a coalition and opposed to the Bill as introduced. I want to recognize Senator Skinner for her efforts last year and this Committee's efforts in securing additional funding for school transportation. We are absolutely not opposed to ensuring that drivers are well-trained and safe and not putting students in peril.

Some of the issues we raised in our letter have, in fact, been addressed with the Committee recommended amendments. Thank you to Mr. Johnson for his work on those. We were really trying to ensure alignment between education code language, vehicle code language. We've made a lot of progress, I think, with these amendments in print. The piece that we still would like to continue to look at are the training requirements.

And we want to strike a balance between ensuring that drivers are safe, but also maintaining options for local educational agencies to ensure that we can get kids to and from school. And that's particularly important for foster youth, students with exceptional needs, et cetera, that sometimes use these other types of modes of transportation as opposed to the traditional yellow school bus. So not quite ready to remove opposition, but recognize that we're making progress and confident that we will get there at some point this year.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

And, Chair, I did fail to open with the fact that I am taking the Committee's amendments.

Appreciate that. Duly noted. We would have asked you. Duly noted. Thank you, Senator.

And I will mention what they are.

I appreciate that. We're going to make a slight exception to our normal Committee process. There are two additional opposition witness. The first is Ms. Joanna McFarland from HopSkipDrive. Second will be Georgina Rodriguez, who is a care driver. Welcome, Ms. McFarland. If you could endeavor to keep your comments too close to a minute.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairperson and Members of the Committee. My name is Joanna McFarland. I am the co-founder and CEO of HopSkipDrive. I created HopSkipDrive with two other women. We are all moms. We have eight kids between us, and we created every facet of HopSkipDrive under the one question of what would it take for me to put my kids, Jackson and Sam, in a HopSkipDrive. Safety is the foundation of everything that we do.

And so it is with no surprise that I am completely aligned with the Legislature's intent to ensure student safety is the number one priority. So we understand the intention behind the Bill, but we think that there are a lot of negative consequences that haven't been considered in this Bill that would dramatically impact student outcomes and equitable access to education. The Bill is designed to sound like it promotes safety.

But in reality, the proposed requirements are inconsistent with the rigorous safety measures that are already in place by the Public Utilities Commission. HopSkipDrive is a licensed and regulated transportation network company regulated by the PUC. Under PUC regulations, transportation network companies do fingerprint-based background checks, do require training, and do require zero tolerance policies, as well as HopSkipDrive does real-time telematics to understand driving behavior in real time to detect risky behavior or impaired driving behavior.

So we believe that we meet all of the intent of the safety regulations in this Bill. Just designed for somebody driving a personal vehicle and not designed for somebody driving a 12-ton bus.

And Ms. Mcfarland, I'm sorry to rush you, and I'm sure we'll have questions, but if you could please wrap up your testimony.

Yeah, sure. I just want to note that last week the Department of Ed released that the number of homeless students in California has increased by 9% to nearly 187,000 students. These students need ways to get to school, and school districts need options and tools in the toolkit to help ensure that they have ways to get to school. We don't want to take that away from them.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms. Rodriguez, welcome.

Good morning, Chairman Newman and Members of Senate Education Committee. I am Georgina Rodriguez, a current resident of Tarzana, California. Growing up, my family experienced homelessness. My parents, two sisters and I constantly moved from one shelter to another, struggling to find stability. At times we had to walk 2 hours just to attend school. On days it would rain, we couldn't go. It was just too far in wet clothes. Taking public transportation was a luxury we couldn't afford.

When I was 16 and my sisters were 15 and 14, my parents made the heart-wrenching decision to leave us with our aunt and uncle, hoping that we would find a more stable environment. But instead of safety, we found abuse. It took me weeks to speak up because I didn't know what was worse, abuse or instability. But I had to protect my sisters. One night, child protective services showed up and moved my sisters into one foster home.

And I was moved two and a half hours away to another home. I begged to be able to attend my school of origin so I could see my sisters, but my social worker told me it would not be possible. There was no school bus or public transportation that could get me there. I was separated from the most important thing in my life, my sisters. At night, I would pray. I would just die because the pain and sadness were too much.

Over the next 10 months, my sisters and I moved homes five times. Finally, when I settled in at home, I was offered the choice to change schools or take a two-hour bus ride each way to go to school with my sisters. I did it because being with them was the best part of my day. But I could not keep up. I was falling apart mentally and falling behind in school. In a year, I had been to three schools.

Every time I moved schools, not all of my coursework would be transferred over to the next school. I had to make new friends and meet new teachers. I didn't think I was going to graduate. I thought about quitting. My senior year, my social worker told me there was a service that DCFS was paying for to transport students to their school of origin. It would cut down the ride to 30 minutes to the right school for me and my sisters. This changed everything for us.

We got to ride together. We got to go to school together. We had the same driver who showed up every day and cared about us and our well-being. I tell people, if there is one word that describes foster care, it's disposable. You feel disposable. No one cared about me or showed interest. Manette, our care driver, did. She was our driver almost every day. She would ask us about our day, and we could play games in her car, like guess the song.

I could be a kid. I could cry if I had a bad day at school. I got more from those rides than I ever got from school. I felt safer in that car.

I have to ask you to finish up, please.

Okay.

Sorry. We're short on time.

I felt safer in that car than I ever did in a foster home. Because of HopSkipDrive, I was able to go to school early and stay late to catch up on the credits I had missed. I worked really hard. I took AP classes. I graduated with President's Award, Citizenship Award, and honor roll. Now I am in school to become a nutritionist and kinesiologist. I would not be thriving today if I didn't have the support of HopSkipDrive.

I urge to keep this service as it is and oppose SB 88. Not doing so will only hurt other kids like me.

Thank you, and I'm sorry to rush you. Thank you for your testimony. And I'm a little bit out of order, so let's take any witnesses in the Committee room who would like to testify with your name, organization, position in favor of SB 88. First in favor of the Bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Committee Members. Louie Costa, with the California State Legislative Board of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers, SMART Transportation Division. Proud to co-sponsor SB 88, in support. Thanks.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, Chairman and commissioners. My name is Megan Adams. I'm a school bus operator out of San Francisco and an officer with SMART Transportation Department Division, Local 1741, representing both school bus drivers and non-commercial drivers in San Francisco.

Thank you.

And I'm in support.

Thank you. Any other individuals here in the Committee room to testify in support? Any individuals here? I'd like to testify in opposition to SB 88. Pleased with your name, your organization, your position on the Bill.

Mr. Chairman. Jeff Frost, representing the California Association of Suburban School Districts. Just like to align myself with the comments that Mr. Vaca made earlier.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Frost. Anyone else?

Mr. Chair and Members, Chris Reefe, on behalf of California School Board Association. Also, to echo the comments made by Mr. Vaca from Riverside County. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Anybody else?

Diana Vu, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, in opposition of the Bill.

Thank you, Ms. Vu. Let's now go to the teleconference line. Ms. Moderator, if you could, please cue any participants on the teleconference line to testify either in support of or in opposition to SB 88.

If you're in support of or in opposition to at this time, please press one, followed by the zero on your touch-tone phone. And first we'll go to line number 17. Please go ahead. And line 17, you're open.

Not hearing anything. We'll go to line number 18. Please go ahead.

Daniel Savino, Association of Regional Center Agencies. Neither support nor opposition, but comment. We are continuing our dialogue with the author's office, which we very much appreciate. To ensure that this bill does not unintentionally include parents or guardians who are contracted with by a school agency to provide transportation to their own child. Oftentimes a child with a disability to a school site. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next line number 36, please. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Wilfred Adubeng. I'm from Highland, California. My brother has used Obscured drive to get to and from school since our mother passed away over a year ago, and our dad has passed away since 2017. So I'm having to take care of my little brother and my little sister. Obscured drive has helped us so much. It let me be able to work while the kids are able to go to school.

Thank you, sir. I'll register that as opposition. Next, please. I'm sorry. Thank you. Next, please.

And next, we'll go to line number 40. Please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Kelly Douglas, and I live in Senator Newman's district. I was a foster parent for a teenage girl who got to remain in her school of origin throughout her stay in foster care thanks to specialized transportation. Please oppose SB 88.

Thank you. Next, please.

And next, we'll go to line 43.

Good morning, Chairman Newman. My name is Cynthia Bigelow. I live in your district. I drive lots of kids to foster care, from foster care every single day, and I oppose SB 88.

Thank you, Ms. Bigelow. Next, please.

Next we go to line number 11. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. David Nevin, on behalf of the California Association of School Transportation Officials in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Nevin. Next, please.

Next we go to line number 13.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Shirley Womack with the California Association of School Transportation Officials and the Kern County Superintendent of Schools, calling in support of SB 88. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

And next we go to line number 32. Please go ahead.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Myra Ortiz. I am a foster mom in Valencia, California. My foster daughter uses these services to get to her school origin. I am opposed to SB 88.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next, we'll go to line number 24. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Andrea Ball, on behalf of the Central Valley Education Coalition, aligning with the comments from Mr. Vaka, in opposition but continuing to work on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

And next, we'll go to line number 35.

Good morning. Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. We remain respectfully in opposition unless the bill is further amended.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next, we'll go to line number 19.

Good morning. My name is Jennifer Adami. My son attends a specialized school over 30 miles from home. HopskipDrive is a blessing that gets him to and from school. I see my son in real time, in contact with my driver at any given moment, and get the ultimate level of parental confidence and connectivity with hot skip drive. I oppose Senate Bill 88.

Thank you, Ms. Adami. Next, please.

Next, we'll go to line 25. Please, go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Lakaya Brittian-Quander. I am a mom of six and a grandma in Los Angeles. I help kids to school every day. I oppose SB 88.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next, we'll go to line 46. Please go ahead.

My name is Cindy Asher, and I'm a constituent living in Senator Ochoa Bogh's district. As a mom and grandmother who works in volunteers with kids, I know how important safe rides are to school for those who need extra care. I oppose SB 88.

Thank you. Next, please.

And next, we go to line number 20. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning. My name is [unintelligible]. I'm a HopSkipDrive care driver. I drive kids who need special transportation to and from school every day. This is a very service. California, please oppose SB 88.

Thank you. Next, please.

And next, we'll go to line number 33.

Hello, my name is Ellen Navinier, calling from Senator Glazer district. My son takes a special ride service to and from every day. Please oppose SB 88 to help kids like my son get to school. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next, we'll go to line number 37. Please. Go ahead.

Yes. Good morning, everyone. I am May Atchison in Los Angeles, California. I am a grandmother and a care driver, and I oppose SB 88.

Thank you. Next, please.

And next, we'll go to line number 29. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Juanita Galford. I'm calling from Lancaster, California. My kids need access to small vehicle services. Please oppose this legislation.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next, we'll go to line number 31. Please go ahead.

I'm Amber Henderson. I live in Palmdale, Senator Wilkes district. I drive kids in foster care all over the Antelope Valley and I oppose SB 88.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next, we're going to line 47. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Members. D'Artagnan Byrd, on behalf of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in support of SB 88. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

And next, we'll go to line number 45, please. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Nancy Milam, and my family has been displaced due to housing issues plaguing hardworking families in California. I'm a mother and a grandmother. Children who take special rides to and from the origin as we work to get back into the home together. I oppose SB 88.

Thank you. Next, please.

And next, we'll go to line number 38. Please go ahead. And they removed themselves from queue, and there are no further lines in queue at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Let's come back to the Committee hearing room, looking to my colleagues. Any questions from either of my colleagues? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Good morning. Senator Skinner, thank you so much for being here today and to those who came to testify, both in support and opposition. Just before I begin, though, I have to just share a comment to the young lady who was raised in the foster. There you are. Just a quick comment. It's one of those things where I try to figure out life. I'm 50 years old, and I try to figure out life. I think we all go through challenges, some a little harsher than others.

But as someone who does have a personal belief in a faith, it's really interesting because I look at challenges and adversity in people's lives as an opportunity for growth. Right. And I always liken it to sort of like a rock tumbler. And I always say a rock tumbler, as you put a rough stone in there and you go and it tumbles and it gets really roughed up in there. But just you pull it out, it comes out this beautiful, shiny rock on there.

And I see adversity and challenges in life in that perspective when I'm going through them or when I've gone through them, and I look retrospectively, I look at that, and I hope, and I encourage you that, first of all, congratulations on your successes in life and overcoming what you've been able to overcome. Thank you for looking out for your siblings.

As an older sister, I'm the oldest of actually six children, so I am very motherly oriented, and I am overseeing what my siblings do is important, but just really quick on that end. It creates depth and character. So I think you're a much better person and a great attribute and an asset to your community. So going on the bill now, Senator Skinner, we have some questions that would like to be addressed on here.

So, first of all, to begin with, is there any trying to find the reason, we do a lot of policy here in the Legislature based on the data that is researched and gathered and so forth. Has there been any data that shows that there's been issues with these transportation systems as they have been utilized by the school districts and by families in the state that compels a need to further regulate this industry?

This is one of the problems, is there isn't data on it. And if we take the argument that the PUC regulates TNCs, which it does, the PUC does not regulate TNCs to drive students, to do school transportation. And in fact, the PUC's own regulations exempt TNCs that have a contract with the school district. So I think the PUC looks at it that if you are driving students, then it's the school district's responsibility to put the requirements.

But we unfortunately have a situation where not all school districts have put equal requirements on these drivers.

So equal but not necessarily not having them required. So they may have requirements that fit their district.

We don't know. We don't have all the contracts to be able to even review. In other words, the statement that the PUC's regulations are either adequate or suffice for this.

If the TNC is in a direct contract, and not all of them are, but if they're in a direct contract with the school district, the PUC's regulations are exempt. So what we're doing is trying to put in some regulations for school districts.

But that's not to say that the school districts may not already have them. And I'm assuming.

Well, and if they do have them, they don't have to worry about the bill because-

But they might necessarily be meeting what you're proposing. So they may have regulations that fit their district, but not necessarily one that is a one size fits all throughout the state. That's what I'm trying to.

And yet we have a one size fits all for all school bus drivers.

That was before my time. This is a separate entity that we're trying to oversee.

Well, what I'm trying to oversee is the paid drivers who take children to school, period. I don't care what their particular employment is, whether they're a contractor or they're an employee.

I want to make sure that we have safety standards for people that are paid to drive our students to school.

But once again, the school districts have requirements in place. They might not meet the requirements that you're proposing, but they already have some in place.

I suppose we hope so but that's an assumption.

But we don't have any data or we don't have any reports that states that any school district doesn't have them already in place. Nobody has proposed that in place.

I'm assuming anybody would know that.

I don't think anyone can answer that because we don't have that data. So any answer now would be speculation.

Okay. So hopefully we'll have some. Yes.

Jiong Liu with the California School Employees Association. We have CDE and their Transportation Department here. If we can have Anna as a technical expert.

Yeah, please go ahead. And Senator Ochoa Bogh, I think we're getting sort of stuck in a circle here, so let's see if we can move on so to the data. Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning. Anna Borges, Office of School Transportation with the Department of Education. LEAs do not currently have any regulation. They have policy. It's up to each individual LEA, whether or not they provide transportation, one, but they cannot regulate. What they can do is say if we go into contract with a private carrier, we require this as a policy.

Okay, so policy, but same difference. You're trying to have certain standards in place for people that you contract as a school district. And I'm sure that they're looking, when they look at these contracts, they're looking at the liability that comes along with contracting in any space that they may be contracting. So they're not irresponsibly going to say we're just going to hire X, Y and Z and not put something as a requirement behind it.

And I'm saying this as a former school board member, that we're not going to hire somebody unless we have certain standards or requirements in order to protect our children because ultimately our responsibility is the safety of our children.

And I guess the real point to Senator Skinner's bill is what are these standards and are they uniform across the state, right? So that's what we're endeavoring to do. Yes, Senator Wilk.

I want to hear from you next, but you first. Okay. And you're going to address the CUP and how they do that. We heard about bus drivers who do the bus drivers report to and what's the data on that in terms of safety, DUIs, any of that?

Absolutely. Right now, currently there are over 65,000 certified school bus drivers in the State of California. California Highway Patrol regulates all matters pertaining to school transportation, and California has the best safety record. We operate 24,000 school buses on a daily basis with all mandatory training, mandatory background, fingerprinting.

And the data is collected in regards to school bus accidents, or DUIs, through the Department of Motor Vehicles in California Highway Patrol which then Highway Patrol presents that report once a year to the State of California is what they do. I do not have the numbers through how many are DUIs, but there is a process in place through statute requirements in vehicle code that bus drivers meet a criteria. I know that Emily spoke about a .04 for CDL.

Any school bus driver is a .01 threshold when operating a school bus that they would be taken out of service. So not only are we complying with federal standards, we're also complying with state standards as well to ensure that we have the safest drivers out in the vehicles.

Well, that's good. So you got a regulatory process in place, but that doesn't tell me how safe the drivers are. So I would like to see that data. Since you're up there. I got just one other question. So my understanding, my staff has done some research on this and we are behind on the number of school bus drivers we currently need. If we were to change this model first, what's the plan to get us up to speed now?

And if we get rid of it, I'm concerned one out of every three foster youth in LA County, which is 10.3 million people reside in my district. Many of those young people come from Los Angeles. They're now living in the high desert. I don't see a bunch of more school buses on the 14th freeway that already has 85,000 drivers a day going down there. So what's the plan on school bus drivers to get to the number you need because you're not even currently filling the need.

Right. Individually out of LA is where that would happen. Not at the state level. Right. So it's each individual transportation provider, whether it's a private carrier or whether it is a school district. And they're constantly training, constantly bringing drivers in and folks that are retiring and leaving. That's always what they're working towards. A foster youth, homeless, each of the counties have advocate at the county office of Ed. And if that is a mandated service, those things are provided to that child.

So they have a process in place to be able to identify a service of transportation would be mandated as well.

Great. Thank you. Sorry about that, Senator Ochoa Bogh. She was already up there.

Go ahead, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So I'm extremely concerned about, just in general to anyone, I'm just really concerned that we are subjecting an industry to a one size fits all when individual school districts already- And I trust, we talk about unless there's a problem, we have to trust those in leadership to make sure that they're making the best decisions for their school district to be able to meet the needs of the student population in those areas.

And having come from a medium, I guess not as big as LA, but a medium sized school district, and having met many superintendents throughout the district and throughout the state, now that I'm getting to meet, I know that they do the best jobs that they have. Their training and their safety of their children are the number one priority.

I really want to make sure that we have the ability to have flexibility in school districts, being able to have transportation needs for their students, and unless we have compelling reason to require them to have additional trainings or additional whatever we're asking them to do here, in addition to what they already have, in which, by the way, many of these services are already contracted by parents themselves, who, I'm sure vet many of these companies before using them. So I'm looking at it.

I'm not sure that this is needed at this time, but what I would be supportive is actually perhaps doing or requesting a study to gather the data to analyze and compare whether or not there is a need for such a bill. We've done that in other spaces where we look and we do a study.

And based on those studies, if there is a compelling reason there's a lack of safety or there's been incidents where it questions whether or not this meets the needs or meets the safety standards of the children.

I'm not sure why we're proposing such a transportation, but I'd be willing to support a study to collect the data before we start mandating a new industry with standards that may compromise the ability for students to get to school or for parents to contract and be able to meet the needs of the children, be able to be transported to the different activities that they need throughout.

So I'm not sure if you would like to share your thoughts on that, but those are some of my heartfelt thoughts.

Appreciate it. I think, Senator Skinner, you'll probably reserve that for your close. Very good. Let me bring it back and reframe it first. Oh, I thought you used your turn.

I'm kind of stressed. I'm supposed to be chairing another Committee right now, but this is a really- This is a really important issue. So if we could bring up the opponents, because they said that they are regulated by the PUC. The author says that they're not.

I said they are not if they are contracted directly by the school.

Okay, then I stand corrected. So can you shed more light on that?

I want to elaborate on that. So, actually, the PUC distinguishes between vehicles solely for student transportation and vehicles or companies or services that do things beyond, that are not exclusive to school transportation that might provide year round service or might, as we do, provide services exactly to families who contract with us as well, regardless of whether we are contracting with a school district or not, we are regulated by the PUC. As part of that, we provide reporting to the PUC on an annual basis.

So we do have data on our safety record. We also self publish a safety report every single year because we think that it is important to do that. And we're the only ones in the school transportation space that I'm aware of that publishes a safety report. We've had zero critical safety incidences in the eight years of our operation and in the three years since we've been publishing the report. So we are regulated. There is data out there. So I did just want to address that.

Great. Thank you for that. I don't think I have any more questions. I do have a couple of comments. So I took a school bus for two years in junior high, 7th and 8th grade. Our bus driver was Clarence. Still remember him today. He's like six foot four, crew cut, but hard, but really soft. He was a great guy. Still remember him fondly. So important role that school bus drivers do, and I salute them for doing it.

I think I'm with the Senator Ochoa Bogh that I'm not sure if there's a problem there. Again, these foster youth, which I've done a lot in this space because my heart just goes out for them. Instability is like, that's what they walk through every day. And this is a service that I think allows them to have some semblance of stability. For my district, most of these kids end up going, they call it down below.

When you're in the high desert and you go to Los Angeles, it's called down below. And those are long commutes. I can't see all these buses on there, and I'm not sure. Maybe there's some things we need to do to tighten it up. But certainly I think this is services that children with disabilities and homeless youth and foster youth rely on in order to get the education they need to lift themselves up. So with that, I'm going to be a no today.

You're a good author, so I'm hoping you work with everybody, and maybe there is a sweet spot there where we ensure all students are safe. But driving a car is not the same as driving a bus. So anyway, with that.

All right. Good. So, Senator Wilk, I think Clarence clearly had a big impact on you. He'd be very proud of the person you've become. But let's talk specifically. But first, Senator Skinner, to the amendments. You took those amendments to align the language, both the vehicle and ed codes.

We don't have to go into that now. You can reserve it for your close, but you've accepted.

I can just quickly say they're changing the eight passenger limit to 10, including the driver. They are removing the two year experience requirement and they are amending the duty and drive time requirements to align with current California regs.

Fair enough. So, quickly, let me get to Senator Wilk's point, which I think is important, and Ms. McFarland has spoken a little bit about it. To the extent that companies like HopSkipDrive serve a very specific clientele, a clientele that generally is distributed far and wide, and for whom services like buses or LEAs, it's hard for them to allocate the resources to kind of onesie twosy pick folks up. So that's foster kids, special ed kids. How do we think about that, right?

Because we could make these changes and still wind up with a situation where leas are still hard pressed in the absence of being able to contract with TNCs to provide transportation for those specific students and their needs.

Well, as I opened before our budget action, California was dead last in terms of its provision of home to school transportation. What that meant is we did not fund our school districts to do so. So, of course, if our school districts were not funded by us, then many of them looked to these creative type of solutions. Actually, many of the districts in my area still use small school buses to transport. There are special needs kids or kids with disabilities. They don't contract with another entity.

So it depends on the district. But I think now that we have expanded the funding and expanded the expectation of provision of home to school, that's when we want to make sure that we are doing it in a way that makes safety paramount. So how much school districts have utilized these other services because of their lack of funding? I don't know, but if they want to continue, we just want to make sure that their drivers have meet the same type of requirements and safety expectations.

So to the extent that they do or that they meet those standards, nothing would preclude, nothing would preclude them from contracting with a TNC like HopskipDrive. So, Ms. Mcfarland, I know you're still here, so if you could very briefly speak to know specifically what would prevent HopSkipDrive and other companies like you from meeting that standard while still providing a service to the clientele we've discussed.

Yeah. So I think there are things in the bill that I think we agree with. I think there's the way that they're being mandated that we don't agree with them. And we are regulated by the- Some of those regulations are just conflicting with regulations that we are already subject to under the PUC. And so it would be putting us under dual and often conflicting regulations, which would make it very difficult and impossible.

Are they contradictory or simply one higher than the other?

Some of them are simply contradictory, like two different rules for fingerprinting, which are totally contradictory and would mean we would need to fingerprint drivers twice to do the same thing. We believe that we actually meet every single safety requirement in that bill. We just might do it in a slightly different way. So we don't drug test drivers and we don't put them through a random drug test, that they might get tested once a quarter or once a year.

But we are using telematics to determine real time driving behavior. We can see if a driver is speeding, if they're driving erratically, we can see if they're using a phone while they're driving. And distracted driving is one of the biggest reasons for accidents. So we believe that we are meeting the intent. We are just doing it in a model that meets the needs of somebody who might be driving 3 hours a week because you heard many of the calls.

These are grandmothers living in their community, helping out our districts who are short staffed, who don't have the teams that they need to do these things. And we are bringing people from the community to help provide these services. And so we are providing all of that safety, just doing it in a way that meets somebody driving a personal vehicle and not driving a 12 ton bus.

I appreciate that. And I guess where I'm concerned, I think I'm picking up on where Senator Wood left off is additional funds, wonderful. Right. We can increase our transportation resources, school districts, but we do worry that there will be unmet needs, right? Special ed kids, foster kids. That's a clientele that I understand you serve.

And so, Senator Skinner, again, it is possible, as we move forward, that school districts will increase their transportation resources, but they still won't be in a position to serve, well, these very specific use cases. So what's your approach to that, moving forward?

Well, I guess I would raise that TNCs are a relatively new transportation service in the space, and yet we've had kids with special needs and foster kids within districts for decades. So I guess I think it's great that you have a new innovation in transportation services, but why they would not be able to meet the requirements that we expect for safety is what I would question, and I certainly am willing to look at whether there are redundant requirements.

But I think that to what we hear from the operator, it's great. She may use telematics. What if the other TNC does not? And the other thing about telematics is if that driver is impaired, is drunk, for example. You might see that they've begun to function erratically, but then how is it that you intervened? If they're drunk and they have the accident, then it's going to after the fact.

So the benefit of we do this kind of testing for certain types of jobs, and of course, this is one of those jobs where one would say, yes, it's probably a good idea to do such random testing, but I'm certainly willing to look at those requirements and see what might be modified to make sure that safety comes first and that there's maybe not redundancies, but I wouldn't lessen certain of the safety requirements.

That's fair. And I think, I appreciate that. I'm sure that you do as well, Ms. McFarland, and I think it hasn't been spoken, but I think it's clear that some dimension of this is about liability. It's not simply about safety, it's about protecting LEAs from perspectively massive liabilities in the event of accidents, right. So I think that has to be considered and that's what these kinds of regimes are about, at least in part. I want to clarify something.

As Senator Ochoa Bogh mentioned, there's nothing about this legislation that would preclude parents from using the services at their own expense. Correct? Or is there? Like if I wanted to have my kid driven who normally would get public transportation, would they be precluded from doing that?

Jiong Liu with the California School Employees Association. No, there is nothing in the bill. This is all for drivers who are compensated. So you are being paid to do the job. And these are, I'm going to say HopSkip and Drive, we had a meeting with them and we heard their stories of how they created the company, but they themselves told us that 95% of their business is now based on contracts.

So we see this as, this is not a business for parents who are contracting and using this service. It's actually a service with school districts who school districts are using and as the Senator says, this is nothing, prohibiting them from doing this work. And parents, if a parent, and I'm a parent of a seven year old, if I choose to do that, that's on you.

But I will not have my school put my seven year old in a stranger's car because their care drivers are strangers, not employees. They are strangers of the company. And there's no guarantee that it's going to be the same driver like our school bus drivers who are driving on a route.

I appreciate it. I think you've clarified so the day in this case is, it's a situation where the LEA is paying the TNC to provide a service as distinct from where I as an individual have to get my child to school and I use Lyft or HopSkip drivers.

Okay. I appreciate that. Any other comments? We have been fairly thorough here today, seeing none. Senator Skinner, would you like to close?

I appreciate the productive and lively discussion and I've articulated what the amendments are, and I think that now that we are expanding our funding for home to school transportation, which has been overdue, we needed to California back pre-Prop 13 was in the top five in terms of home to school transportation provision, and we dropped to bottom. So I think this is a very important advance in two ways. Number one, that we'll expand home to school transportation, and number two, that we would ensure the safety.

And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We do not currently have a quorum, so thank you, Senator Skinner. And once we establish a quorum, we will bring this to a roll call vote. So thank you very much and thank you, everybody, for your patience. Thank you to all of the witnesses. Senator Ashby, welcome. I believe you are the next lucky presenter. And so, good morning. You'll be presenting Senate Bill 321. Proceed when ready.

Good morning. Okay, well, we'll just work with this mic. I will not take too much of your time here.

We've heard that before. Please proceed.

Committee. Understood. Comparatively speaking, though I feel confident I.

Can meet, I am equally confident.

Challenge. Thank you so much for having me here today to talk about son of Bill. 321. This is my catchphrase for you to keep in the back of your mind. Three21. Reading is fun. This is the youth Literacy act. And I just want to start off by thanking our state librarian who's here with us today, Greg Lucas and his Committee staff, Lynn Lorber. Their assistance on this Bill has been incredible, and I am excited to present it to you.

Our numbers are staggering. Half of the country's third graders and two thirds of black students and more than half of Latino students do not currently read at grade level. Students that are unable to meet third grade reading levels are four times. So if they can't read on grade level at third grade, they are four times less likely to graduate from high school. And high school dropouts are four times more likely to be arrested in their lifetime.

And approximately 85% of the youth in our juvenile court system are deemed Low literacy. So the ability to read is a very strong indicator from an early age about the trajectory of a young person's life. Members California this is staggering. You ready for this? California ranks lowest, worst, bottom in the entire nation for third grade reading levels.

This is according to a 2022 National Center for Education Statistics report, which is the one everyone uses to figure out where third graders are across the country, wealthiest state in the nation. We should be at the top of that list. Studies show that immersing children in book oriented environments builds their vocabulary, increases cognitive skills, and improves educational outcomes. But we know that. We know that reading to kids makes every difference in the world.

And we know that kids who have access to books and book rich environments do better to address these inequities in my community. When I was on the Sacramento City Council, I established a pilot project, a partnership between the Sacramento Public Library and the lowest performing school in my district. We went into the third grade and we gave them all library cards. And then we sat back and saw what happened. And that summer, our summer reading numbers skyrocketed.

At the library closest to that school, the librarians presented those students with resources available to them. They gave them the library cards, but they also gave them something else, a passport to learning and education in their own time. On the summer, when they wanted to come in and check out whatever books they would like and use their imagination to travel wherever they might like to go. That pilot program was so successful that Sacramento county replicated it in five additional schools.

Programs like that exist in several counties across our state. La and Palo Alto both have strong programs. It is vital that we expand literacy initiatives that we know, work, and make them statewide. SB 321 requires our amazing state librarian and his team to facilitate partnerships between local public libraries and elementary schools to issue student success cards to third grade students. That means they'll all have access to their public library and to our state library.

It also requires the state library to report outcome data to the Legislature so we can track how we're doing with those third graders. This Bill would help ensure that all children, regardless of socioeconomic status, can succeed in school and life through education. By creating public library partnerships with schools, SB 321 ensures that California gives our students the resources they need to succeed. And I will just close with this statement.

I'm really honored to have just one co author, and that is pro Tim, Tony Atkins, because she, too, believes in the power of the library. And I chose third grade for a reason, because all of the studies show that third grade is the point at which students go from learning to read to reading to learn, which is an important and critical time in a child's life. Colleagues, I ask for your aye vote. I have with me two witnesses.

The first to testify is Greg Lucas, our California State librarian, much beloved. And our second is Crystal Miles, who's the public service manager for my own home, Sacramento Public Library. She's also co chair of the California Library Association's legislative Committee.

Thank you. Senator Ashley much beloved state librarian. Welcome. Who knew? Yeah.

I'm Greg Lucas, California State Librarian. I've had this job for nine years. Thank you, Senator. And in the nine years I've been at the state library, we've yet to find a single negative consequence of providing more Californians, particularly school kids, with access or a passport to the online and in person resources that are offered at California's 1127 community libraries. Awesome testimony. Thank you very much. Well put.

I told you we'd be brief.

Mr. Lucas has been so. Thank you.

Please encourage him.

Ms. Miles.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. I am a little less beloved.

Not at all. Especially after your testimony, you'll be more.

Beloved and not quite as brief. I'm representing the California Library Association today as the co chair of their legislation and advocacy Committee. I first want to thank Senator Ashby, as well as Leslie in her office and your chief consultant, Lynn Lorber, for all of the work that they've done in crafting SB 321. CLA is pleased to support the Bill as it is amended.

As a library professional for over 10 years, I've been able to witness firsthand the joy, excitement, and impact that reading provides to the children of our community. The library provides so much for our students, including literacy education, access to basic technology, live homework help, and free lunch during the summer months. With access to the library, it feels hopeful that every child might have the opportunity to be connected with what is available to lift them up, regardless of what they may be facing at home.

Literacy and the ability to engage with books is one of the most crucial elements of making your way out of poverty. As it's already been said, research shows that by third grade, if you do not have basic grade level literacy skills, you are less likely to escape poverty or succeed on the same trajectory as your peers who are reading at grade level. You are also more likely to be incarcerated. Currently, California has the lowest literacy rate in our nation.

This means that most children in this state are not going to make it into the fourth grade with literacy skills needed to break out of the cycle of poverty. As a former literacy intervention specialist, I have seen this up close, and unless you have an incredible amount of support at home and at school, once you're behind, the chances of catching up look really grim. So supporting this Bill will ensure that every child in California will have access to the library by the end of third grade.

While many public libraries have forged agreements with their local school districts to ensure that this information about library resources and access to library cards are shared with students, countless public libraries have been faced with the challenges with attempting to create these relationships. SB 321 seeks to bridge that divide by using the state librarian's help in bringing about resources to assist with these important local collaborations. So thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody here on the Committee hearing room would like testify in support of this measure. Your name, your organization, your position, please,

Mr. Chairman. Jeff Frost, representing the California School Library Association. Happy to support the Bill. Thank you, Mr. Frost. Next, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senators Robert Gonzalez with cruise strategies on behalf of Sacramento county, in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Diana Vu, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, in support.

Thank you. Anybody else seeing none, does anybody here, like, testify in opposition to this Bill or in opposition to apple pie, your mom, and the American flag? Seeing none. Seeing none. Let's go to the teleconference. Mr. Moderator, if you could please query the line for anybody like to testify in support of or in opposition to the Bill?

Thank you. To provide comments in support or opposition of SD 321, please press one, then zero at this time, and we'll go to line 26. Let's go ahead, 26.

Line 26. You're open now.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Kesha Williams. I am a librarian and also a Member of California parents union, and I'm calling in support of the field. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. One moment. Pleased, please stand by.

Two minutes before.

Hi. I am the sister of a public school librarian, daughter of a public school teacher, wife of a public school teacher and I agree with whatever Kasha said. Your first witness, or maybe she wasn't first. Your technology sucks, by the way. People are having problems dialing through. You might want to fix that. So your name, your organization, your position on the Bill, please. With that, we'll move on. Ms. Monroe? Thank you. We have no further comments in queue at this time. Thank you. Let's bring it back to the hearing room. Any comments, just. Senator Wilkes? Yes. First of all, I love the Bill.

I'm going to support it today. I think literacy should be bipartisan. So I'd love to be a co author if the Bill ever gets amended. Senator Ochoa-Bogh did have to leave, and she did have a question, so I'm going to ask a question for her. So this is coming from her, not me. She wants to know, are there any costs to the leas to implement this program, and if so, who's paying it? If you didn't already love our state library, and you will love him now.

Greg? Greg Lucas from the state library, the beloved. We left that out. It's implicit, right? Yeah, we don't think so. In the arrangements that exist between local school districts and libraries now, there isn't really a cost and except sort of the printing of cards. And that becomes an issue only if you use physical cards. So, for example, La unified has an MOU with LA City library, and they've converted it to, it's a digital arrangement.

So it's almost like just, it's not a Q code, but like a barcode kind of thing. And so that's the library card. So that's almost no expense whatsoever. There's some time involved, but it's minimum. It's like good time. Right. Great. Thank you for that. And I'll pass that on to the Senator.

It started off with a little bit of a cost, but the reality is that the state librarian really stepped up and has offered a lot of support and help and really believes in the opportunity here. The thing is, this isn't really about just giving kids access to libraries. It's about making sure. They know where their library is and what that library means for them. And modern day libraries are about a lot more than books. These are the great equalizer of today.

It's the place where everyone can get the Internet, where you can get homework, help these libraries feed kids. There's everything happening in these libraries, so getting them access is critical. No, I understand that. So I'm a past trustee of a city library, and I'm talking about in the late 80's, and we were like the first latchkey program that I'm even aware of because there was all these kids there. So we started after school programs and stuff.

We didn't go to the extent of feeding them, but understand how important libraries are to community, and I think this is great, and I plan to support the Bill today.

Thank you, Senator Wilk. So we don't have a quorum as of yet. Senator Ashley, if you'd like to close and we can move on to your next item.

Yeah. I appreciate your time and your attention to this. Thank you very much. At the appropriate time, I asked for an aye vote Chairman. I think my other item might be on your consent.

It's not on consent. I'm sorry. That's good. So thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Senator Dodd, welcome. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. Yes, sir. And, Senator Dodd, you'll be presenting SB 320. I won't be making any predictions on how long this will be, Mr. Chair. That'll be up to the Committee. We remain hopeful up here on the basis.

First, I'd like to thank the Chairman and the Committee for their Work on Committee staff for their work on this Bill. SB 328 addresses a hole in our current campaign finance system that allows unlimited donations for local offices like school boards, community college boards, county boards of education, and special districts. This bipartisan Bill sets contribution limits for those local government agencies at the same limit as a legislative candidate. Simply put, you shouldn't need more money than a state Senator to run for these offices.

We've all seen these local races become overtly politicized. Despite being nonpartisan offices, this Bill also allows contribution limits to be modified by the governing board or by the voters. Establishing these limits puts all local elections on an even playing field and will help restore public trust. And I'd like to introduce Laurel, the Legislative Director for the California Common Cause, to speak in support of this Bill. Thank you. Good morning. Welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you, chair. I'm Laura Brodzinski, Legislative Director of California Common Cause. We work on building a California democracy that includes everyone, including on money and politics to end structural inequities in our democracy. Allowing unlimited campaign contributions has a corrupting influence on local democracy and contributes to voter cynicism about government. Whenever a candidate is financially dependent on just a handful of contributions, there is a risk that they will value their contributors interests above those of the people they serve.

Moreover, requiring candidates to seek support in smaller amounts from a broader number of contributors has a democratizing effect and can help the competitiveness of community supported candidates who do not have access to wealthy patrons. For these reasons, California Common Cause sponsored prior legislation that established the default campaign contribution limits for city and county races.

After finding numerous egregious examples of massive special interest contributions, our data shows now that about 98% of California cities under that Bill now have campaign contribution limits, with only a few having chosen to pass local ordinances instituting no limits, SB 328 closes the glaring loophole, extending that approach to local jurisdictions currently without limits, school districts, community college districts, and other special district elections, thus putting reasonable anticorruption limitations in place, while respecting local government's authority to set contribution limits more precisely tailored to the needs of the local community, whether lower or higher than the default cap.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the Committee here who would like testify in support of the measure? Seeing none. Is there anybody here who would like to testify in opposition to SB 328? Also seeing none. Mr. Moderator, if you could queue the participants on the teleconference line for support over opposition to SB 328? And if you are comments, please state your name, your organization, your position. That's all we're looking for.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Hi, I'm in favor of SD 328.

And to provide comments and support or opposition, please press one, then zero. SB 328. Okay. And line 23.

Thank you. Your name? Okay, next, please. No further comments in the queue at this time. All right, thank you. Back to the Committee. Senator Wilk, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have great respect for the author, and I know what you're trying to achieve. I personally think we need to go in the other direction.

One of my biggest frustrations with political campaigns is independent expenditures, and what I think is the unintended consequence of limiting it to 5500, it's going to empower these special interests even more so as a candidate. If I take money, that's public record. Everybody knows it, and then I have to own it. So I'm not going to vote for the Bill today. I want to explain why. I understand why you're doing it.

I just think going the exact opposite direction would actually provide greater transparency, but it's just a difference of opinion, and it is what it is. But again, I appreciate you and all you do. I just think other reforms would be better. I'll agree with Senator Wilks general concern about independent expenditures, but I do think this is a good and reasonable measure. To your point, there's nothing about a board of education that makes it different.

And we've seen too much by way of spending on these races, and it has a corrosive effect. So I'll happily support the Bill today. Would you like to close, Senator Dunn, just respectfully ask your vote. I actually agree with both of you, but the ship has already sailed on this policy for local city councils and boards of supervisors, and we should just have it streamlined across. But much work needs to be done in this area. I would agree with that. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I vote thank you. We do not yet have a quorum, so thank you, Senator Dodd. We'll take up the motion and do the vote at such time as we do. Senator Wilk, you're in luck. You are next up with SB 643, a Bill on school safety chapter. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Member, which I guess is me. This should be higher. This is too low. I guess I'm going to go ahead and do the presentation since we don't have another author here to present.

But this was actually, if you recall, was supposed to come up last week. We ran out of time. And this is one of my two bills having to do to address some of the issues that came in the aftermath of a school shooting that happened in my district on November 14 of 2019.

And after that event occurred, and it was a kid who went on the Internet, bought parts, built a ghost gun, and then went to try to murder a girl that said no to him, we had one child that was actually saved because there was a trauma kit in the choir room. And that's my Bill I did earlier.

But after following that event, I got invited to go to one of the junior highs, that's a feeder school, into that high school, because the students had concerns and the teacher called me, hey, will you come speak to my students? I go, no, I won't come and speak to them, but I'll come and listen. And it really opened my eyes to everything that these kids go through today. It's way worse than anything I ever went through with social media and all that.

So what this Bill would do, and by the way, I am accepting the amendments that the Committee staff and you proposed. Thank you for all your work on that. So all this would do would improve student safety by requiring anonymous reporting systems to be available for students, parents, or concerned community Members to report dangerous, violent, or unlawful activity on campus. California students are experiencing increasing rates of mental health issues, higher rates of suicide, and increased instances of campus violence and bullying.

And the impact of the pandemic related shutdowns, distance learning and social isolation have exasperated these trends, has taken a toll on Students' mental health. Typically, individuals engaged in bullying, attempt suicide, or commit acts of violence exhibit known indicators. A report by the FBI confirms that 80% of potential school shooters either directly or indirectly tell someone else beforehand. By providing an option for anonymous reporting, we are empowering students to break the code of silence and make our schools safer.

27 other states have statewide reporting programs that regularly receive and intervene in thousands of reported notices involving suicide, bullying, threats of self harm, planned attacks of schools, and other concerning behavior. Only one out of three California school districts are currently providing anonymous reporting programs, and I'm calling this the saga strong act after Saga's eye will keep students and teachers and communities safer. This is going to be the responsibility of the LEA to come up with whatever system works best for them.

This is not a statewide system. I didn't want a one size fits all, but I wanted to be tailored to the community needs. With that, I guess you do. Not to my knowledge. You have a lead witness? I did last week. They did a wonderful job last week, by the way. So same people? Yes. Okay. And so let's go to the Committee hearing. Anybody who like testify in support of the measure? Seeing none. Is anybody here who would like testify in opposition to SB 643?

Also seeing none. Let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could please queue any participants like to testify in support of or in opposition to SB 643 from Senator Wilson.

Thank you. To provide comments in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. And that's SB 643. Now we go to line 23. Please go ahead. Hi, Pam. I'm in favor of this Bill. I'm glad that it'll be localized. Thank you. And thank you for your testimony. Next, please. We have no further comments in.

Thank you. All right, back to the dais. Glad to support it. I appreciate you taking the amendments. This goes next to public safety if you'd like to close.

Thank you for your pleasure. Support and respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate. Very good. When appropriate, we'll take that up. So thank you, Senator. Welcome. Senator Portantino, you have two measures on the calendar today. First up, actually, your choice.

And I apologize for being late, but Senator Wilkes's mother-in-law called and asked me if I would let him go ahead of me, so I always accommodate.

I'm sure she and he are very grateful. The conversation continues. Please proceed.

So, SB 596. Today I'm presenting SB 596, which would make it a crime to threaten or harass a school employee for reasons related to the course of their duties while they are away from school site or after school hours.

In the last several years, we have seen a growing misinformation about school curriculum. According to a recent study from the UCLA Institute for Democracy, Education and Access and the UC Riverside Civic Engagement Research Group, 65% of California high school principals surveyed reported substantial conflict over education issues. Topics at the center of the conflict include instruction about race and racism, LGBTQ student rights, books and libraries, and social-emotional learning.

Principals participating in the study also reported that individuals connected to outside organizations have restored to threatening school employees. For example, last year, an elementary school teacher in my district received threats of violence after teaching students about LGBTQ Pride Month. This just shouldn't happen on our campuses and shouldn't happen off campus for those folks who are trying to help and teach our kids. Educators should not be threatened or harassed for providing academic instruction in accordance with California State standards.

Existing law has measures in place to hold individuals accountable for causing substantial disruption at a school site. However, the protections currently in place do not clearly apply to incidents that occur off campus. This bill seeks to expand current law in an effort to protect school employees, and in doing so, the Bill would ensure that our school employees can continue fostering supportive and inclusive learning environments.

SB 596 is supported by the California School of Employees Association, California Teachers Association, Glendale Teachers Association, and the Torrance Unified School District. Since today is a school day, the teachers from my district who brought this idea to me could not be here in person because they're teaching. But I believe some of them are calling in on the line, and with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

And thank you. Here in the committee room, is anybody like testify in support of the measure SB 596? Seeing none. Is anybody here like to testify in opposition to the measure? Please.

Just Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in support of the bill.

Thank you, Ms. Myers. I'm sorry. Anybody here like testify in opposition to the bill? Let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could, please cue any participants who like, testify in support of or in opposition to SB 596.

Thank you. To provide comments in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. SB 596. Let's go to line 17.

Mr. Chair, Toni Triguero on behalf of the California Teachers Association in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

We go to line 41.

Good morning. My name is Patrick Derohanian. I'm a social science teacher at Clark Magnet High School, Ethnic Studies Committee Chairman for Glendale Unified and Board Member of the Glendale Teachers Association, calling in support of SB 596. I am one of the educators who brought this Bill to the Senate.

Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Next, please.

Line 23.

Hi, Pam. Again, I'm in opposition. Add the adverse curriculum. You won't have the problem.

Next, please.

Line 71.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members. Ryan Sherman, with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, in support. Also in support, the police officer associations of Corona, Culver City, Burbank, Arcadia, Upland, Pomona, deputy Sheriff's Association of Monterey County and Foster County, Los Angeles Police Association of Los Angeles.

That's for the next bill.

I'm sorry, I think you're calling it for the next bill. Also from Senator Portantino 671, but that's fine.

All right, thank you.

That's okay. Next, please.

Line 66.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Faith Borgess calling on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities in support for the same reasons we were proud to work with you last year on SB 1131. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Borges. Next, please.

Line 67.

Yes. Please proceed.

Hi, is that me?

Oh, great. Your technology is worse than ever today, and I'm calling to represent the millions of Californians who have not only fled this state, but are continuing to pull their children out of these horrible schools.

Your name, your organization, your position on the Bill, please.

I oppose the centralized government that you insist.

Next Please. Thank you.

Line 69.

Hello. This is Emily Rogers. I'm a teacher at Hoover High School and the Vice President of the Glendale Teachers Association, and I'm in support of the bill.

Thank you. Next please.

No further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you. Back to the committee here. Any members comments or questions? Senator Wilk? He's good. Would you like to close? Senator Portantino.

Just appreciate the teachers from my district who raised this issue and for your staff, my staff and all of the advocates who have worked diligently over the last month to craft this bill into the shape it's in and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I am equally appreciative of the teachers who brought the idea to you. So thanks to them, this has a due pass recommendation that goes to Public Safety next, and we will take it up when we have a quorum. So thank you very much. Your next bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments outlined in the analysis and would also like to thank the Committee staff and my staff for working with the sponsor of this Bill to get it in the shape it's in and appreciate all that hard work. SB 671 would require that a comprehensive school safety plan include procedures to assess and respond to reports or threats of dangerous, violent, or unlawful activity occurring on campuses.

We've seen far too many tragic violent actions on our school sites, and under existing law, school districts and County Office of Education are required to develop a plan for their case. 12 schools in their jurisdiction, through a transparent process and collaboration with law enforcement and fire departments and other first responders. While these school safety plans aim to keep our children safe at school, tragic acts of violence remain all too common.

In 2021, there were 93 school shootings with casualties at a public private elementary and secondary schools nationwide. The statistic is highest since 2000 - 2001. So we are seeing a rise. Adding more cause for concern, data from the California Department of Education indicates that there were nearly 47,000 suspensions and expulsions statewide during 2122 school year stemming from violent incidents that resulted in an injury. This increase in violence on our schools cannot be ignored, and frankly, we should have more cooperation as schools draft this plan.

And that's what we're asking for, just for people to cooperate with one another as they make our campuses safer and with me. I have Lieutenant Tigran Topazikian, I'm sorry, Tigran from the Glendale Police Department to testify in support of the Bill. Let me try and get this right. Mr. Topazikia, welcome. Better than I said it. Good morning. Please proceed. Good morning. Tigrin Topajikin with the Glendale Police Department, Karen Newman and honorable Members of the Committee. My name is Tigran Topajikin.

I am a lieutenant with the Glendale, California Police Department and have been a public servant since 1996. I'm standing here in front of you today in this capacity because my school resource officer encouraged me to participate in the police explorer program when I was in middle school. I attended the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey and authored a thesis on the topic of school shootings and networking with school districts.

The academic research brought to the forefront the following the Safe Schools act in Texas required law enforcement to share information with the Superintendent related to crimes committed by students within 24 hours. Case studies of previous school shootings and acts of violence had warning signs. Prior multidisciplinary approach to assessing, monitoring, and preventing violence is a multiplier because more than one pair of eyes is looking at the problem and communicating and collaborating could prevent incidents in the future.

This Bill would enhance the working relationships between the first row responder community and the K through 12 educational system, as is providing the framework for a collaborative and community centric method to address those situations where the children at school may face danger. I am also a parent of a student currently in kindergarten. Our children are impressionable and unable to protect themselves at school at times. There have been many reports of recent violent incidents on school campuses where the unthinkable has occurred.

This Bill reinforced the collaboration that is needed between school districts and the first responder community to do the very best to prevent violent incidents on school campuses. There has been a paradigm shift in staffing models in law enforcement agencies to have social workers and mental health professionals embedded within the organization. This allows for the problem to be viewed through multiple lenses and resources provided from those resource providers.

In Glendale, we have an excellent working relationship with the Glendale Unified School District, where the Police Department and the Office of the Superintendent Communicate and collaborate routinely. Our working relationship is such that I can call the Superintendent and the Executive management team at any time on their cellular phone. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of you today, and I respectfully ask you to support this Bill with aye vote.

Thank you for your testimony and for your contributions to this legislation.

Is there anybody else here in the Committee hearing room like to speak in support of SB 671? Seeing none. Is anybody here like to speak in opposition to the measure? Also seeing none. So let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could please query the participants. Anybody like testify in support of or in opposition to SB 671? And again, we're looking for name, organization, and simply the position. Okay.

And to provide comments and support for opposition, please press 1 and 0 for SB 671, line 71 this morning. Mr. Chair Members, again, Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association. In support. Also in support with the Claremont Police Officer Association and Police Officer Associations of Corona, Pomona, Alternate, Newport Beach, Upland, Santa Ana, Burbank, Marietta, Arcadia, Riverside, Fullerton, Culver City, La School Police, La School Police Management Association, deputy Sheriff's Association of Monterey County and Placer County, and the California Coalition of School Safety professionals. All in support.

We have no further comments in queue at this time. All right, thank you and let's go back to the days here. Any comments from the Members? No. Senator Portantino, thank you. Thank you for accepting the amendments. This next moves to public safety. If you'd like to close, please,

Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Next, please.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote thank you. And we will take this up when we have a quorum. So thank you very much. And I see, Senator Rubio, welcome.

Good to see her. Senator Rubio, welcome. You'll be presenting SB 715.

Good morning. I'm going to apologize for my voice and to the audience as well. This is as good as it's going to get this morning. Today I'm proud to present SB 715, which will establish the Los Angeles Community College District Small Business and Entrepreneur Center at East Los Angeles Community College. California is home to 4.1 million small businesses, representing 99.8% of all businesses in the state.

And tragically, during the COVID era, so many lost their businesses, and we saw one by one, they collapsed. By September 2020, nearly 40,000 small businesses had closed in California, and state data shows that close to half of all small businesses were at risk of shutting down. Unfortunately, we continue to see businesses trying to recover, and it's been very difficult. Therefore, we must take action to pass policies that will promote economic mobility and support the next generation of entrepreneurs.

This Bill will do just that by promoting economic growth in entrepreneurship education and micro-business development. SB 715 will aid current students from all nine colleges to enter the business field and establish small businesses to help support their education and skills. The center will serve as a small business community resource by providing education and training, increase course offerings and in a more robust curriculum, encouraging community partnerships, and provide student resource and support.

Today with me, I have two individuals that will speak on my Bill, Dr. Alberto Roman, the President of East Los Angeles Community College and Maria S. Salinas, President and CEO of Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you. Welcome, Dr. Roman.

Thank you so much. Chair Newman, honorable Members of the Committee, again, Alberto Roman, President of East Los Angeles College and of the Los Angeles Community College District. LACCD is a proud sponsor of SB 715.

And again, we want to thank Senator Rubio for her leadership and authorship of the Bill that will establish the LACCD Small Business and Entrepreneurship Center at East Los Angeles College. The center will provide thousands of community college students and community members with the opportunity for high-quality post-secondary education focusing on small businesses and entrepreneurship. Currently, LACCD has nearly 19,000 students that are business majors district-wide enrolled in very popular business programs. LACCD is the largest community college district in the state with over 170,000 students.

Several of our colleges offer courses in the business discipline, with ELAC enrolling over 4,000 of those particular students. The district currently offers 161 business courses and over 400 credit and noncredit degrees in business. SB 715 will enable current and new students and business owners to achieve their educational goals while strengthening the small business ecosystem in East Los Angeles, the region, and those that were disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The unincorporated community of East Los Angeles presents one of the densest communities with diverse small businesses, commercial retail corridors, growing consumer markets, prime areas of investment opportunities. SB 715 will create small businesses and entrepreneurship hubs to build and also expand existing talent that drives economic growth, creates jobs in East Los Angeles, and impacts the entire Los Angeles County region. The Bill calls for two and a half million appropriation for this much-needed program. The amount is also current in the budget request.

The Bill is also requiring LACCD to prepare a summary report by January 1 of 2028 that includes an evaluation of the center. SB 715 will be of great benefit to our students, our economy, and our small business communities. Thank you and I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Ramon. Okay, well done. Nobody else has got an applause today. Well done. Ms. Salinas, welcome.

Thank you. Good morning. Good morning to this Committee Chair Newman and Members of the entire Committee. Thank you for your dedication. I am Maria Salinas, President and CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, representing the business community in the greater Los Angeles area, of which about 94% represent small businesses and entrepreneurs that fuel such an incredible economy. I'm proud to partner with LACCD to support Senator Rubio's Bill.

Senate Bill 715, the establishment of the Los Angeles Community College District Small Business and Entrepreneurship Center at East Los Angeles College, is an important step in spurring economic mobility throughout the community college system. Careers in entrepreneurship foster the spirit of creativity and innovation that students have in the confines of their academic learning throughout campuses and in East Los Angeles. Entrepreneurship is economic mobility. I've seen it, I've experienced it, and I stand for it. For this reason, the L.A. Chamber supports this Bill.

Often we see that many small businesses start and they encounter challenges and the challenges of the unknown. Many talented entrepreneurs speak of the personal toil and cost, the mistakes, the failures, and nonetheless, they take the leap without extensive education or training because they follow their passion. This center would be the right step to empower our future entrepreneurs with the necessary skills and education to start and grow a small business here in Los Angeles and in communities like East Los Angeles.

The L.A. Chamber will make our technical training programs, our membership benefits, and many of our programs available to the students. We are also designated as an L.A. County small business ecosystem builder because of many of these programs. So we are thrilled to be able to offer those to the students. We know that entrepreneurship means economic mobility, which is why we are strong supporters of this Bill. And we urged an Aye vote on SB 715. Thank you.

Thank you for. I think she deserves applause as well. If you're going to applause, of course, let's not make that a trend for the rest of the hearing. And thank you. Good to see you. And thank you for the work that you do. Is there anybody here who'd like to testify in opposition to this measure? Unsurprisingly seeing none. Is there anybody on the teleconference line who'd like to testify in either support over opposition to the measure? Mr. Moderator?

Mr. Moderator, if you could please query the teleconference line for anybody wishing to testify on behalf of SB 715, either in support or opposition. Are we connected? Please go ahead.

Paul Medina. I'm an Aye vote.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Medina. We can come back to the teleconference line. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. I appreciate your advocacy, Senator Rubio. This next goes to Appropriations, and so hopefully it will find a good and favorable hearing. Mayor, would you like to close?

I just wanted to add that there is no opposition, and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Very good. And I wanted to add your voice sounds awesome.

Thank you for that.

All right with that. All right, let's limit it to this one. S15 gets applause. That's it. So thank you. We do not yet have a quorum. When we do, we'll take a motion and we will take a vote. So thank you for your presentation. Next up, we have Senator Laird. Morning, sir.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. It's a dangerous precedent to be applauding wildly for the previous bill. No pressure. Yeah.

Please proceed. Actually, before you do so, just so everybody knows, we have multiple committee hearings going on simultaneously. So it's not for lack of interest on the part of the members here. They're just double booked. And there are some other bills that are up in labor, for instance, that are quite contentious. So just. That's the context of. Senator Laird, welcome.

I just walked out of labor after an hour and a half, and we are still on the first bill. So count your blessings. Exactly. It's not a very pleasant experience. I'm here to present a Senate Bill 857, which will require the Superintendent of public instruction to convene an LGBTQ plus advisory task force to identify statewide needs and make recommendations to create a safe and supportive learning environment for LGBT plus students. Last year, in my district, in the Paso Robles school district, there was a rather horrendous incident.

I can't describe it to you in public, but it was a major defamation in a very serious way, and it led to an amazing series of events. Basically, the school administration and school board wasn't going to do anything about it, and students at the high school organized and had a town hall meeting with 375 people, and it became a front page story, subject of editorials covered in a wider thing. And both the school board and the administration switched their point of view.

And the mayor, who didn't have control of the school districts, created a town hall meeting on people working together. And it led to, many of you saw, when we had awards on the floor, I honored the students from Paso Robles, and we should not have to rely on the courage of 16 or 17 or 18 year old students on their own to do this. And this proposal came from students.

They want a way to be able to have a collaboration among the different sectors in education to help provide efforts on creating a supportive environment. And so the school district administrators alone cannot solve this issue. That was proven in that incident. And this creates an important opportunity to bring students, teachers, and administrators together to ensure that authentic voices address this in a way that it provides help and support and some guidance to people that are struggling with this issue in school districts across the state.

And our school districts have become the front lines for a lot of discussions about social issues. And we need to take the initiative to make sure that we work together and we provide guidance and leadership. And I learned as a mayor years ago that there's really a social standard, and people default sometimes to a social standard that isn't very good unless the people that are leaders stand up and talk about how we can work together, show examples, and provide support for it.

That's what this bill does. And here to speak in support is Garrett Shu, a 10th grade student from Sacramento Country Day School, and Craig Pulsipher, Legislative Director from Equality California. I believe they're. Yes. So at the appropriate time, I would request an aye vote.

Fair enough. So thank you. Welcome, Mr. Shu. Please proceed. Glad to have you here.

Good morning, esteemed members of the education committee. My name is Garrett Xu, and I attend Sacramento Country Day and in the School of Sacramento City Unified School District.

I'm here representing the California Association of Student Councils as the vice president of region 2 to urge your yes vote on SB 857. Now, I'd like to start it by saying that this bill came from the student advisory board on legislation in education, where student delegates from all regions of California came together to create solutions for pressing educational issues.

Clearly, this is a priority for our students, and California is more than ready to take the next step by bringing the voices of students and the LGBTQ community into the heart of our governance. As a high school student, I have personally experienced the positive impacts of a gay straight alliance that serves as an advisory board at school. The GSA shaped our curriculum to include perspectives and experiences from all sorts of LGBTQ communities.

When lgbtq students see themselves represented in school leadership, the classroom and in curriculum, they're more likely to succeed academically and personally. And for those reasons, I urge the committee to support SBA 57 in order to create a more safe and supportive learning environment for LGBTQ students.

Thank you, sir. Well done. Mr. Pulsipher, welcome.

Good morning Chair and members, Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California, very proud to partner with Senator Laird and the California Association of Student Councils on this bill.

You all well know California has already taken significant steps to create a safe and supportive environment for LGBTQ students. The state already has strong non discrimination protections. Students must be allowed to participate in activities and facilities consistent with their gender identity, and school materials must be inclusive of LGBTQ people. Yet still, we know that many districts lack awareness about existing legal requirements or may not have the resources to fully implement them.

And in some cases, school districts face a hostile local climate that prevents them from implementing existing laws or attempts to subvert them entirely. We are very pleased that the Department of Education is currently in the process of hiring a new staff position that will be tasked specifically with helping schools to create a safe and supportive school climate for LGBTQ students.

And we believe it is critical that LGBTQ students and staff be active partners in these efforts and help to identify ways in which school districts can go above and beyond existing legal requirements. The creation of an LGBTQ advisory task force is a logical next step to ensure that authentic community voices have a seat at the table and to provide the Department with invaluable perspectives to better support LGBTQ students. We thank Senator Laird for bringing this bill forward and respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anybody else here in the hearing room like to testify on behalf of the measure? Please come up and state your name, your organization, your position. Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning. Magalizagal. On behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jessica Ulstad, California Federation of Teachers. We're in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Brian Ricks with the Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Alicia Del Toro. I'm a student at St. Francis High School in Sacramento, and I'm in support.

Thank you, welcome. Next.

Hello. My name is Andrew Molino. I'm a student at Jesuit High School in Sacramento, and I'm in support.

Thank you and welcome.

Hello. My name is Anita White. I'm a student at St. Francis Catholic High School in Sacramento, and I'm in support.

Thank you. Okay. Is anybody here, like, testify in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. Let's now go to the teleconference line. Ms. Moderator, if you're back.

I think you're back. Is there anybody on the line who, like, testify either in support of or in opposition to this measure?

Thank you. To provide comments in support or opposition, please press one, then zero for SD 857, please stand by. Please stand by. One moment, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 79. One moment. Line 79, you're open now.

Yes. Hi. My name is Benjamin Kennedy. I'm a proud transgender man, an educator, and an education researcher, and a member of Superintendent Thurman's Safe School Bathrooms Committee, later introducing SB 760. I'm calling in support of this bill and would also be honored to be a part of the. Of course. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

You have no further comments in queue at this time.

Very good. Coming back to the dais, committee members, any questions or comments for Senator Laird? Senator Laird, glad to support the bill. We do not yet have a quorum. If you'd like to close.

I just say I'd really like to thank the people that testified, particularly younger people. It's hard for me to believe that it's 40 years ago this November that I was one of the first three openly gay mayors in the United States. And just the whole notion of this many young people speaking out in public and us having this debate about how to be supportive in schools is something that many of us dreamed of at a certain time. So I appreciate the debate. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

And I am equally appreciative. I have a similar bill coming up. And to the young people who've come to testify. Thank you. Most of us when we were your age did not do this. And so it's impressive and commendable. So thank you, Senator Laird. And next up, Senator McGuire. If you'd like to proceed, it's your choice. Okay. From the dais.

So, first and foremost, Mr. Chair and members, just want to take a moment to say thank you for allowing me to present today.

Mr. Chair, as always, thank you for your sincere work on each of these bills and on this important bill, as well. Here in California, it's supposed to be different. We're supposed to defend victims, advance a no-tolerance approach harassment, and hold perpetrators accountable. But in too many cases over the past decades, on CSU campuses as well as community colleges, it's been the exact opposite. A culture of look the other way. Victim shaming and attempting to cover up violations.

They all become too commonplace, which is why we're advancing SB 791, focusing on postsecondary education employment disclosures. Between 2017 and 2021, 54 employees at California State University campuses were found to have committed violations of sexual misconduct and discrimination. The violations included unwanted advances, including requests for sex and unwanted touching and aggressive verbal harassment. And these stories are prevalent. And just being candid about it, not easy to hear about.

But it's also important to acknowledge them, and especially since they are so present in the public institutions tasked with protecting our students and employees from this type of harm. While Title IX protections exist to protect our public institutions, bad actors have been able to escape the consequences of their actions by moving literally from one campus to another, even though they have been found guilty of these actions.

One notable example from 2018 is a Chico State professor that resigned before that he could be disciplined while facing charges of sexual harassment of a student and having a prohibited relationship with a student. He was then hired to teach at Cal State East Bay. SB 799 would end this. SB 791 would ensure hiring committees have access to this kind of history of egregious actions.

It is shocking that we don't already do this, by requiring applicants for administrative or academic positions disclose any final administrative or judicial decision determining that the applicant committed sexual harassment. This common sense approach will be focused with California community colleges and CSUs and will ensure that these hiring committees are fully informed when making their hiring decisions and help prevent bad actors from escaping the consequences of their egregious actions to foster a safe learning environment for our students and staff.

Mr. Chair, we are grateful that we have the vice president of external affairs for UC Davis Associate Students here today. Her name is Celene Aridin, and we also have Kelly Burns, who is the amazing political director with the California Faculty Association and Madam Vice President, at the appropriate time, Chair would turn it over to her for testimony.

Appreciate that. Welcome, Ms. Aridine. Please proceed when ready.

Thank you guys so much. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Celine Aridine, and I'm a student at UC Davis, but I also serve and represent UC Davis Associated Students as the external affairs vice president, and I'm speaking in support of Senate Bill 791. Senate Bill 791 requires applicants for administrative or academic positions at our public postsecondary institutions to disclose any final administrative or judicial finding determining the applicant committed sexual harassment.

Unfortunately, sexual harassment has become a systemic issue across our college campuses, and students are often the subject of said misconduct. Public colleges and universities are supposed to be a safe learning environment, but as evinced by reports and audits, this has not been the case, especially when bad actors are able to escape the consequences of their egregious actions by moving from one campus to another. This bill will help prevent that from happening by ensuring hiring committees have access to history of misconduct and thereby rebuild confidence and safety within our campus communities. For these reasons, I respectfully request your aye vote on SB 791. Thank you.

Thank you. Well done. Ms. Burns, nice to see you this morning. Welcome.

Hello, Chair and members. I'm here on behalf of the California Faculty Association, representing almost 30,000 faculty, mental health counselors, coaches, and librarians at the CSU campuses. We greatly commend the leadership of Senator McGuire and the Legislature in the midst of countless sexual harassment scandals in our public education system. As you know, the CSU alone educates almost half a million students every year. We owe it to our students, faculty, and staff in the State of California to address these systemic and cultural failures.

We have seen the horrible news stories about rampant sexual harassment at our public university, and it demonstrates what we have known for far too long, that we have a serious problem on the campuses. We are grateful to this Legislature for not passively standing by. We hear constant stories from our members and students that have been stuck in a system without accountability. This is an important step that centers our students and our faculty that go back into the classroom after sexual harassment determinations.

It helps our sexual harassment, misconduct, and our college campuses. SB 79 will ensure campuses have access to history of misconduct to ensure that they will make well-informed hiring decisions. We all know there's a lot of work to do, and we want to continue to partner with you to expand Title IX protections and protect our students, faculty, and staff. Our universities need to foster environment of safety and trust. SB 791 is a great first step of making this happen. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is anybody else in the hearing room would like to testify in support of SB 791? Welcome.

Morning, Mr. Chair and members. Alissa Yum, on behalf of the California State University Employees Union, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Robert Gonzalez, and I'm a third-year student at Sacramento State University in strong support, and I want to thank you, Senator McGuire, and the California Faculty Association, for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is anybody here would like to speak in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. To the moderator, is anybody on the teleconference line you'd like to speak either in support of or in opposition to SB 791?

Thank you. To provide comments in support or opposition, please press one, then zero for SB 791. We have no comments in queue at this time.

Nobody there? All right. Thank you. Let's back to the author, Senator McGuire. Obviously not yet a quorum. I think it is an admirable and necessary bill. Glad to support it, if you'd like to close.

Thank you so much. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote. And want to thank Adriana Gomez in our office for all of her work on this as well, and to your team. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and, of course, yourself.

Thank. Thank you. There you go. So, again, still in the absence of a quorum we are looking for. We have two more authors. I am one of those two. I don't see Senator Glazer, if we could check with his office, I guess I will present from Senator McGuire. Senator Wilk, if you wouldn't mind taking the gavel while I do this?

I've never done it before. For sure, I'll try.

I have all the faith in the world.

Up next is going to be item 14, SB 291, by Senator Newman. Regarding pupil rights. The recommendation is-

-It's do pass to approach.

Do pass to approach. With that, Mr. Chair, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, everybody, for your patience today. So, good morning, Committee Members. I am pleased to present SB 291, which is a measure which ensures that K-8 students all have a right to enjoy recess and participate in unstructured activities with other students during the school day.

Educators and child psychologists have long agreed that play represents a critical input for positive child and youth development, and the only time the school day where students can learn and practice social and emotional skills, as well as be physically active, connect with friends, and take a break from the structure of the classroom--and that's recess.

The combination of the events of the past three years, the pandemic, wildfires, floods, and ongoing calls for racial equity, and the alarming trend toward political polarization have had devastating effects on children and youth in the form of isolation, stress, and material hardships, which have resulted in unprecedented levels of mental health challenges both in our schools and in our homes.

In January 2022 Children Now's 2022 Children's Report Card gave California a grade of D+ on our success in addressing the dramatic uptick in young people's mental health needs. Schools are in many ways not equipped to handle these emergent needs solely through individual interventions like counseling. And one way they can pursue a healing agenda for the whole school is through increased access to play.

Even prior to the events of the last three years, an emphasis on recess had gained traction among experts as a crucial time in the school day, and we'll hear from two of them today. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics declared that recess is a necessary break in the day for optimizing a child's social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development. In essence, recess should be considered a child's personal time. It should not be withheld for academic or punitive reasons.

Further, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with the Society of Health and Physical Educators, noted in a 2017 report that recess also is an essential part of student school experience that contributes to their normal growth and development and helps students practice social skills, positive engagement in classroom activities and enhances cognitive performance.

As California continues to emerge from the dark days of the pandemic and its impacts, we continue to see some of the lingering effects on children's social and emotional development play out in the form of the kinds of behavioral disruptions which have become increasingly prevalent in classrooms across the state.

SB 291 will ensure that all California students in grades 1-8 are provided at least 30 minutes of recess during each school day, while prohibiting the denial of recess unless the students participating in recess would pose an immediate threat to their own physical safety or to the safety of others. Under the provisions of the bill, in the event that a school's outdoor space is insufficient or in the case of inclement weather, daily recess may be held indoors if the space provided by a school is sufficient to facilitate physical activity and play.

In the case of students with individual educational plans or IEPs or 504s, the bill would ensure that participation in recess would comply with that IEP. As schools and students seek to recover from COVID-related educational disruptions, the benefits of unstructured play and peer-to-peer social interactions that are offered by recess are more important now than ever. I am respectfully asking for an aye vote today.

And with me to testify, I have two experts in the field, Rebecca London, an Associate Professor at UC Santa Cruz in the Sociology Department and the author of a book called Rethinking Recess: Creating Safe and Inclusive Playtime for All Children in Schools, and Hannah Thompson, an Associate Research Professor at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health. Welcome.

Thank you Senator Newman, good to see you. Thank you. Members of the Committee, I'm Rebecca London. I'm a sociology professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and I've been studying recess for 15 years, culminating in my book in 2019. Senate Bill 291 supports and protects access to daily recess for students up to grade eight.

Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that all children have access to daily recess, and underlying these recommendations is a very deep research base that documents the many benefits of recess for children, especially the unstructured playtime. So it helps children to concentrate in the classroom: it supports their executive functioning, allowing them to make good decisions, improves their classroom behavior, and together, all of that helps to improve academic performance.

It's also a place where children have time to practice those social and emotional skills that they might be learning in the classroom. These are things like conflict resolution, teamwork, empathy and self regulation. A high quality recess environment leads to improvements in student school attendance and also the overall school climate. And connecting with peers and adults during this unstructured time can provide a buffering effect for students who've had adverse childhood experiences. How much recess should students have?

Well, in countries like Finland and Japan, students have 10 to 15 minutes of recess for every hour of instruction. The CDC recommends providing at least 20 minutes of recess per day to all students in grades K-12. And the American Academy of Pediatrics says that children need multiple breaks throughout the school day because their attention starts to wane after 50 minutes.

So the 30 minutes that's put forth in SB 291 allows for two breaks in the school day, and it can effectively combine the recommendations of these two professional organizations. SB 291 also states that recess should not be withheld from students for punishment. My research indicates that this is a really common practice, particularly in elementary schools, but it's not an evidence-based practice. There's no research showing that withholding recess improves student behavior.

In fact, both the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics endorse banning the practice of withholding recess, because it's not aligned with the goals of positive child and youth development. In short, SB 291 embodies the best of what we know from the research literature about the importance of recess for California students, and I fully endorse it. Thank you very much.

Good morning. My name is Hannah Thompson. I'm a former California public school teacher and now an assistant professor at UC Berkeley. I've done research in hundreds of schools and districts in California and beyond related to policies to increase physical activity for kids. I'm also the mother of two public school elementary students. SB 291 is an evidence-backed approach to increase physical activity and play for California students. These laws matter, which is, I'm sure, why you're sitting here today. You have the power to improve the lives of millions of children. Simply put, states that have strong recess laws are more likely to provide recess to the benefit of students.

You just heard from Dr. London about the importance of recess. It's also necessary to reiterate that these benefits do not come at the expense of academic learning. Substantial research now shows that the time students spend outside on the play yard is an important and necessary complement to the learning that's done in the classroom. However, in California, not all students have equal access to recess, and this is very likely worsening existing health and academic disparities for our students.

Using data from over 150 elementary schools across the state last school year, we saw that only a little more than half provided more than 20 minutes of recess a day. Further, schools with more low-income students, schools with higher Hispanic enrollment, schools with higher overall enrollment, and schools in the Inland Empire, Los Angeles County, Orange County, and southern San Joaquin Valley were least likely to provide more than 20 minutes of recess a day. These data clearly demonstrate disparities that need to be addressed.

Passing this legislation would help ensure students, regardless of their background or where they live in the state, have opportunities to benefit. In sum, SB 291 has the potential to address disparities in academic performance and low physical activity levels that have been particularly apparent since we've returned to in person learning post-Covid. And as a school health researcher, but also on behalf of California parents and teachers of kids who cannot happily sit in a classroom all day without driving absolutely everybody crazy, I urge you to pass this legislation. Thank you.

Inside joke. Senator McGuire has a lot of energy.

Forgot I'm chairing.

Doing a great job.

Well, I told you, I have no experience doing this at all. Okay, great. So, with that, any primary witnesses in the room in opposition? Seeing none. Any me too's in opposition in the room? Seeing none. This pointless transition over to the teleconference line, where we will hear from both pros and cons regarding this bill. Moderator, are you there?

Yes. To provide comments in support or opposition, please press one, then zero for SB 291. Okay, we will go to line 26. Line 26, you're open.

Hi. Good morning. This is Kasha Williams. I am a public school employee at elementary level and also a member of California Parents Union, and I do believe that students need enough recess time, and I've been never in favor of using research time as a method of discipline, so I do support that bill. However, I do notice that many teachers use the recess time as a form of discipline, so-

-All right, we'll take that as a yes. At this point, it's your name. It's your name, organization and position. I'm sorry. I wasn't clear on that. That's on me, not on you. 37 years of marriage prepared me for that.

You did well. Very diplomatic.

And line 81, please go ahead.

Yes, my name is Linda. I'm from Placer County, and I do support this. I think all children should be relieved of class every now and then. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I's like to note that under my leadership, we now have a quorum. So if the Clerk could call the roll so we can establish that, so you can actually be the first bill we vote on today, Mr. Chairman. It's my gift to you.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Newman. Here. Ochoa Bogh. Here. Cortese. Glazer. McGuire. Here. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wilk. Here.

Okay. With that, we'll pull it back to Committee for any questions, comments, concerns. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Hello, Senator Newman.

Hello, Newman.

Thank you so much for bringing this. I was reading some of the questions and concerns, and I taught elementary school. Three of my kids--I have a 23, 21 and a 17 year old. And I know several of my kids are very active. That's their physical activity. Sports is their outlet for their anxiety, for just clearing of mind and stress. That is their outlet. I'm kind of curious, what prompted you to bring this bill forward? Do we have any data? Has there been a study that shows that we're not meeting the recess requirements in the State of California?

Kind of interesting. California is one of the relatively small number of states that doesn't have a standard for recess across the state schools. And you might have come in after the witnesses. I'm not sure if you did or didn't.

No, I missed. I'm sorry. I had another meeting.

I have two very accomplished researchers who testified that we do have data. There's a substantial body of data that shows that unstructured play in the form of recess is a very positive element of the school day that encourages learning, the dissipation of energy that allows for focus. And so there's a fairly clear cut case for ensuring recess. I'm glad to have either Rebecca or Hannah come up again-

-And I'm not debating that point at all. I think that my question has to do more with whether or not--I don't know of any school that doesn't provide an opportunity for recess.

There are many schools that don't across the state, and there are also many schools that deny students access to recess for disciplinary reasons. That actually works counter to, I think, the intent, but go ahead.

Yes. So we collected data from 150 schools last school year, and just over half only provided more than 20 minutes a day of recess. And there were significant disparities by school type. So low-income schools were less likely to provide recess. Schools with higher Hispanic enrollment and schools with larger enrollment overall. And then schools in certain areas of the state were significantly less likely to provide adequate recess.

Were these standard public schools, or are you referring to also charter schools?

No, these were all elementary schools, and this was actually a sample of low-income elementary schools. So these were all SNAP-Ed eligible elementary schools.

So public schools and the elementary schools that were not providing recess. Really?

Correct.

Interesting. Okay. Was not aware of that. Okay.

Nor are many people. I think we all, as parents, it seems self evident that recess is a good and necessary thing. It is sometimes surprising to find out that it's not provided and the impacts are real, and that's the genesis of this bill.

So my follow up question would be probably just for clarifications. So is the requirement in this bill to be 30 minutes--in increments of 30 minutes, or can--thinking of my school district--where they divide their recesses in-

-It's 30 minutes across the day.

15 minutes in increments and then lunch, 30-45 minutes.

Is that what you folks are looking? Okay, good. So, flexibility in the way that it's been implemented, but just as a whole-

Correct.

-With the assurance that sufficient time is allowed across the deck.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions? As Chair, I reserve the rest of the time. I think this is a great bill. Three years ago, this body passed the late start-time bill, and I think this bill can be as significant as that bill in terms of the quality of our students lives. In addition to everything that was laid out by the researchers, which I agree with, one of my biggest concerns going forward is these kids learning soft skills, because they spend way too much time on their phones, in front of a screen, and not enough time interacting. So I think on top of all those other benefits, I think that's something that, as a society, we'll benefit from as well. With that, if you'd like to close?

Senator Wilk, I think you have effectively sort of presented my close, and so I do appreciate that. And I want to thank Hannah and Rebecca for all the work that you've done over the past several months in support of the bill, working with Committee staff to do this. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

And I'm going to go ahead and make the motion. So with that, Clerk, call the roll.

SB 291, Newman. Motion is do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Newman. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Cortese. Glazer. Aye. McGuire. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wilk. Aye.

You've got enough votes to get it out, but we'll leave it on call for other Members to add on.

Appreciate that. I have another bill.

You do?

You have a funny look. That's why I'm not moving.

That's why they don't let me be a Chair.

You're doing a great job. You're doing a wonderful job. You got us a quorum, right? What more could we-

Yeah. Really

that is my contribution. Okay. Yeah, I do. I have a sixth page. So up next is item 15, SB 760 by Senator Newman, regarding school facilities and all-gender restrooms. The floor is yours.

Thank you. And so, good morning again, Members. So, before I begin, I'd like to make clear that I am accepting the Committee's suggested clarifying amendments. So SB 760 is a straightforward and timely measure which aims to create a safe and inclusive environment, not only for nonbinary students, but for all students, by ensuring free and unstigmatized access during the school day to an all-gender restroom. The genesis of this bill dates back to 2021, when the member of a board of a Southern California school district introduced a measure which would have banned nonbinary and transgender students from using the restrooms corresponding to their gender identities.

In response to the uproar generated by this proposal, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurman made clear that the school district's proposal to exclude nonbinary students from sex-segregated bathrooms would likely constitute a violation of state law. And although the proposed measure was ultimately defeated at the board level, the Superintendent believed there was both a need and an opportunity to foster a more thoughtful and productive conversation around this important issue.

Superintendent Thurman subsequently convened an ad hoc committee on safe school bathrooms, guided by CDE senior staff, the ad hoc committee, which was comprised primarily of students, held a series of meetings to surface and explore the relevant issues and to propose a policy framework which could be applied to schools across our very expansive and diverse state. SB 760 is the direct result of those conversations.

According to the 2019 National School Climate survey, fully 45% of LGBTQ+ and nonbinary students reported actively avoiding using gender-segregated school bathrooms because doing so makes them feel unsafe or uncomfortable. Moreover, a student who is denied access to restroom facilities appropriate to their gender identity may suffer physical harm in the form of dehydration, urinary tract infections, or other health and mental health problems, in addition to experiencing academic harm in the form of truancy and diminished grades as a result.

SB 760 would require each California public school to establish at least one all-gender restroom that is available to all students regardless of their gender expression, and to remain accessible to students throughout the school day. The bill also aligns with California's Menstrual Equity Act of 2021 and increases accessibility to these products by requiring that all all-gender restrooms also be stocked with menstrual products.

The bill would also require the California Department of Education to conduct periodic compliance reviews. I'm respectfully asking for your aye vote today. With me today to testify in support of SB 760, I have Jasper Nikolai, a student member of the Superintendent's Ad Hoc Committee on Safe School Bathrooms, and also Craig Pulsipher, the Legislative Director of Equality California, which is a proud co-sponsor of this measure in partnership with Superintendent Thurman.

As Senator Newman has said, I am a member of the Safe School Bathrooms Ad Hoc Committee, as well as Superintendent Thurman's Youth Advisory Council. So whether we realize it or not, many of us have felt uncomfortable using the bathroom at some point. Whether the people inside make you feel uncomfortable, whether the bathroom itself is in an unsafe location, or whether it fails to protect your privacy, bathrooms can easily become very unpleasant places. In schools, this discomfort is magnified.

Bullying, teenage angst and self consciousness can easily turn a typical bathroom trip into a nightmare. Students harassed or bullied in bathrooms often limit their water intake and purposely avoid using school restrooms. I have felt uncomfortable using multi-stall, sex-segregated bathrooms before. As a transgender student, I did not feel comfortable using the men's restroom for a large amount of years, and now I do feel comfortable using it, but I prefer using single-stall, gender neutral bathrooms.

They make me feel comfortable that I don't have to worry about being harassed or bullied. So even then, I am very fortunate not to have experienced much harassment or bullying within bathrooms. Some of my classmates aren't as lucky. They are bullied because of their weight, their physical appearance, their gender identity, their sexual orientation. And this harassment can lead to mental health problems, anxiety, low self esteem, depression. It can also lead to physical problems--as Senator Newman mentioned--urinary tract infections due to bacterial buildup and dehydration.

Students will also be less focused and unable to learn due to overfull bladders. So this bill would just require students to make one single-stall, gender neutral bathroom available for all students to use. It was created to address the harassment transgender and gender-nonconforming people experience in bathroom use. But in reality, it would benefit everyone. My peers and I who have been avoiding school restrooms and dehydrating themselves throughout the day would be able to relieve themselves without fear.

Students' mental and physical health would improve, and they would be able to focus more and learn more in class. Single-stall, all-gender restrooms exist everywhere in our daily lives, from restaurants to playgrounds, campgrounds, this building. We use them without thinking twice, and by implementing them in schools, we minimize bathroom harassment and student discomfort and improve students mental and physical well being. Thank you.

Good morning again. Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California, proud co-sponsor of SB 760. As they've said, the sad reality is that for many LGBTQ students, especially trans and nonbinary youth, they do not feel comfortable performing one of the most basic and necessary bodily functions at school. As the Senator stated, roughly 45% of LGBTQ students report avoiding school restrooms because they feel unsafe or uncomfortable using them.

And it goes without saying that students can suffer significant health and academic consequences by not using the restroom during an eight-hour school day. SB 760 will bring desperately needed relief to these students by requiring all K-12 schools in California to have at least one all-gender restroom available for student use beginning in the 2025 school year. And schools can use existing restrooms to limit costs as long as the restroom is open and accessible during school hours.

The bill would also require signage that includes contact information for a staff member to address any problems with implementation. We believe this is landmark legislation, the first of its kind in the nation, and an important and timely demonstration of the state's commitment to LGBTQ students. It also stands in stark contrast to the now over 500 anti-LGBTQ bills that have been introduced across the country this year alone, many of which target trans students and their ability to use the restroom. We are grateful to both Senator Newman and Superintendent Thurmond for bringing this bill forward to truly protect LGBTQ students, and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Right. Thank you for the testimony. Are there any other individuals in the room that would like to do a me too? So that'd be your name, organization, position in support.

Thank you. Chair and Members, Tristan Brown, CFT, union of educators and classified professionals, honored to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thanks.

Anita White, student at St. Francis High School in Sacramento, in support.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Alicia Del Toro, a student at St. Francis High School in Sacramento, and I'm in support.

Thank you.

My name is Andrew Molino. I attend Jesuit High School in Sacramento, and I am in support.

Garrett Xu, student at Sacramento Country Day in Sacramento, in support.

Thank you very much. Now we'll turn to the opposition. Any primary witnesses in opposition in the room? Please come forward.

Chair and Members, my name is Greg Burt from the California Family Council. I think we can all agree that bullying in school is a real problem, and it's not just for kids identifying as nonbinary, transgender. Every kid who has ever been bullied knows the most vulnerable place you can be on a school campus is the bathroom. Why? Because that's where the bullies hang out. Bullies know that that's the best place to pick on kids. There are no security cameras. There's no teachers in the bathrooms to discourage misbehavior.

Teachers generally don't go in the bathrooms for fear of being accused of sexual abuse. I think single-stall bathrooms would be a welcome addition to any school. They would provide a secure place for everyone to go to the bathroom. The problem is they're very expensive. But a gender neutral multi-stall bathroom, which is less expensive, would only make the problem of bullying worse. Are girls going to feel safer and more comfortable going to the bathroom knowing that boys are right outside their stall?

How are you going to keep the bullies out of gender neutral multi-stall bathrooms? This bill lets schools decide for themselves whether they will install a gender neutral single-stall or a multi-stall bathroom. If this bill passes, this is what I predict. School districts looking for the most cost effective way to implement this will simply convert one of the female multi-stall bathrooms into a gender neutral bathroom. The only cost will be changing the sign on the door.

That is what happened at the state capitol, when one of the female multi-stall bathrooms near the dome on the first floor was converted to an all-gender bathroom a few years ago. I remember standing nearby, watching the chaos that would ensue when elementary school students visiting the capitol would all head into the gender neutral bathroom. The girls were not happy with boys in their bathroom. Everyone deserves to go to school knowing they are safe from bullies.

Ask the average parent if they want their daughters using a bathroom with boys, or men, for that matter. Single-stall bathrooms would be a plus. Multi-stall, gender neutral bathrooms would be a disaster. I encourage you to amend the bill. Otherwise, please vote no. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition like to do a me too? Seeing none, let's turn to the phone lines. And Moderator, are you there?

Yes.

Okay. We're taking testimony on SB 760, both pro and con.

And to provide comments in support or opposition, please press 1, then 0. SB 760. We will go to line 85. Please go ahead.

I'm Maxi Bara. I'm a trans student at Chino Valley Unified School District and a member of the Safe School Bathrooms Committee, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

We will go to line 93. Please go ahead.

Sophia Lori, concerned female, in opposition to this bill.

Thank you.

And we'll go to line 26. Please go ahead.

Kesha Williams--can you hear me?

Yes.

Great. Kesha Williams. I agree with comments from Greg Burt, and I have some reservations about the bill that therefore, respectfully in opposition.

All right, thank you.

And we'll go to the next line. Line 86, please go ahead.

George Parampathu, on behalf of ACLU, California Action in support. Thank you.

And line 94.

Good morning again. My name is Benjamin Kennedy. I'm a proud transgender man, an educator and education researcher with queer and trans education issues as my area of expertise. I'm a member of Superintendent Thurmond's Safe School Bathrooms Ad Hoc Committee, who researched and wrote this bill with Senator Newman. I'm calling in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll go to line 96. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is ... Katanski. I'm with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter. I'm in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Line 89, please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Sean Harrington. I'm the parent of a cisgender, female elementary school student, and I am proudly in support and grateful for this bill. I am wanting bathrooms to be safe for all students, and that's beneficial to my daughter as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

And on line 81, please go ahead.

Yes, my name is Linda Musser. I'm in Placer County and I strictly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Okay, we have no further comments in queue.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Fine job. Now we'll pull back to the Committee. Any questions, comments, concerns? Senator Glazer.

Thank you. We all bring to the dais, our experiences in life. And for me, at least--sometimes, you share more than you should--but for me, in my life, the first time I ever ran for public office was in junior high school, ran for student body president. And the issue was the bathrooms. That's a long time ago, but certainly it's something that I've recognized then and now that it's a serious issue. And I appreciate the work of the author on this bill.

I know that the challenges are facilities, and that's not easy to overcome. But this allows the school districts the local autonomy to make their best choices, I think in the spirit of this bill. And so I'm happy to support it today. Would appreciate--if you have amendments going forward--if you consider me as a co-author, I'd appreciate that as well.

Glad to. Thank you.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So, talking about life experiences. So I'm going to share my experience with my children. I had two of my three kids actually bullied in the bathrooms in junior high. And they came home, they shared it with me, and it bothered me. But once again, I'd never made my children feel like victims. I empowered them to understand. I taught them emotional intelligence. But that aside, there's some things that I want to clarify, make sure that we understand as the public.

Let me just begin first with the concern that I have, and that is the funding part of it, of the bill. Coming from a local school board, I'm always a little hesitant about--not little--very hesitant about supporting bills that are unfunded mandates. So that's the concern that I would love to have you address: what the plan of action is in making sure that we provide the funding to be able to accommodate this for our students.

The reason I am going to be in support of this bill is because I think that there are a lot of students--regardless--regardless of gender identity, regardless of sex, regardless of anywhere, I think some students feel safer going to a private stall--I'm going to address the private stall part of it--the private stall, than using a public bathroom. I know that right here in the building, when there is an option between the single-stall or the multi-stall, I prefer the private stall.

If that's occupied, then I go to the multi-stall. But that is my personal preference. And I think our students would very much appreciate the privacy, regardless of where you are, for safety reasons, to have a private stall accessible on campus for their use. And that's one of the reasons why I'm in huge support of this bill, especially with the experiences that my children had. And I know how children can be. I had my son at one point said, "Mom." He goes, "I don't understand. I've come to the realization that high school kids are just mean." That came from a 17 year old.

So to realize that there's actually mean people out there, regardless of where you are, as far as identity goes, it doesn't matter. It's just human nature in that stage of life. Actually, even as adults, we have that. There are people who are just mean and that's just life. So we have to empower people with the ability and the skill sets to be able to navigate that, those circumstances. But that's one of the reasons why I'm actually very supportive of this bill.

The funding is what's the problem. In order to address the issues with the gender neutral multi-stall, if they were to install multi-stall gender neutral bathrooms, the schools and the students still have access to all female bathrooms. This is not excluding-

Correct. There's nothing about this bill that would cause a school district or a school to eliminate the facility for one or the other genders. It's about providing an additional space that is gender neutral, that's easily accessible, that's unstigmatized in its use.

So we still have access to all female bathrooms. We still have access to male bathrooms where students can both participate. And the reason I bring this up is because I understand that there are females who feel uncomfortable having someone that identifies differently come into that stall and use that restroom.

And that's why I wanted to make sure that we have that on record: is that this actually would make a lot of girls very comfortable, based on what we've heard in the news and reports from individuals that feel uncomfortable with having males coming in--who identify as females--coming into the bathroom and perhaps even vice versa. So I think having all three facilities available for students would actually accommodate everybody's fears and everybody's needs on that front.

And it's one of the reasons why I'm actually going to support that. The only concern, and I would love to give you an opportunity, is the funding part of it. Because if we're going to make this a mandate, we have to make sure that we allow the school districts to have the funding to be able to accommodate this.

Yes. And so, Senator, I appreciate both your perspective and your support. In crafting the bill, we tried to deliberately find that space where we were solving the problem, right. And the problem is real. And the problem is especially intense, as Jasper made clear, if you're at that age, like you said, school can be a mean place. It's a really mean place for a young person who's trying to figure some things out. And that as a result has to sort of confront that gauntlet every day just to do something that we all take for granted. And so what we didn't want to do was cause schools to incur the expense of building new facilities.

And so we have deliberately left it to the discretion of districts to look at their facilities to craft exactly what you've described, which is to have facilities for males, females, gender neutral, in some way that ideally provides the privacy and the access that we're endeavoring to provide. And so there hopefully will be very few cases where a school either has to construct a new bathroom or, to Jasper's points, uses a multi-stall bathroom to accomplish the goal. And again, we'll work deliberately with anybody.

I give great credit to CDE not only for working this, but they also provide guidance already about how school districts can do this, but it's creating a standard across the state. So that's what we're endeavoring to do here. And ideally they won't incur the expense or the kind of the bureaucratic challenges of working with the Department of the State Architect, because you ran a school district, you know how tough that is.

So first step is solve a problem, provide that neutral, unstigmatized space to young people so they don't encounter the peer pressure, the anxiety or the stigmatization that comes from effectively outing themselves every single day, multiple times a day--or not--and absorbing all of the harms that that causes. So that's the gist of the bill. And I want to give immense credit to not only Jasper, but all of the participants on the task force who very bravely and very articulately got together and worked with the Superintendent, with my staff, with Committee staff and making sure that this bill actually does achieve those goals.

Any other questions? I'm going to make a quick comment. I thought Jasper was a very effective advocate. In fact, both Senator Glazer and myself were having flashbacks to our youth because I remember the bathroom being a very dangerous place. Particularly, I went to high school with 3,300 kids and when you were a freshman, it was not good. I also had a good friend, female, and she would not go to the bathroom at all. She ended up with a urinary tract infection because of that.

I don't know what her story was. I was a teenage boy then and I didn't really care. Now I'd be more concerned about it, but you know how that works. But I do think that there's credence--and I understand why you're doing it, you're trying to not be one-size-fits-all--but I do think it's a legitimate argument brought up by the opposition.

I'd prefer to see it single-stall because I think that achieves the goal and is actually safer, and I'm sure there will be--if it's multi-stall, there's going to be incidents of bullying--I'm sure it'll be much less than it currently is. I don't know. I'm going to lay off it today and I'm going to think more about it. But I understand you're trying to get that sweet spot and you're probably there, but I'm not there yet. But anyway, I appreciate you always looking out for the best interests of all students.

Appreciate that. Thank you.

Move the bill.

Bill has been moved. Did you want to make one further comment?

One final comment on that. And for the record, I think you're absolutely right, Senator Wilk, in the fact that with multi-stall bathrooms, gender or non-neutral bathrooms, bullying could always happen in those restrooms, which is, I think what I want to emphasize: that I would prefer single-stalls as well. But you have to-

-It's a cost issue. I get it.

So that is the aspiration. That's the ideal. But what we didn't want to do was to create a massive expense for those schools that are going to have to figure something out. And more likely than not, what they'll figure out is they'll probably allocate a staff bathroom that's already a single-stall bathroom.

And the only consideration there is to make sure that, again, unstigmatized--that you don't have to ask for the key, that you don't have to effectively present yourself to adults by way of expressing your gender identity every day. But the alternative was too--something that's probably too narrow, that would have actually impacted many schools in a fairly profound way.

Well, we could also pass Senator Glazer's school bond, get that on the ballot.

We will hear that at some point. I don't disagree.

Grant program.

Yeah, exactly.

That's fair. But I will also say, I wasn't going to attach an appropriation to this bill, especially in this budget.

Right.

Fiscal context. So all of these things are, I think, worthy of discussion in pursuit. But the first order business is to solve a very real problem for young people. And let me also say this. We have timelines in our world. They tend to stretch out. When you're in high school, you're in high school. When you're a junior, senior, you get only one high school experience. You get only one school experience. So it is incumbent upon us as policymakers to make sure that we do what we need to do as quickly as possible for those students who need the relief now.

I agree with you. Those were the seven worst years of my life. High school. Okay with that, if you could close.

That was my close.

Okay. Excellent close. Clerk, please call the roll.

SB 760, Newman. Motion is do pass as amended. But first, amend and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Newman. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Cortese. Glazer. Aye. McGuire. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Wilk. Not voting.

Thank you.

Well, Mr. Chair, we have four in favor, which I think is enough to get it out. And again, the recommendation was do pass as amended to Approps, and we'll leave it open for our colleagues to add on. With that, I'm going to turn the gavel back over to our Chair to hear our final bill of the day. Senator Glazer.

Thank you, Senator. Welcome. I'll try to meet your very lofty standard of cheering for the next bill. Senator Glazer, welcome to you to present SB 856. And thank you to all the witnesses who came for SB 760.

Thank you, Chair Newman. I know that Members know I've double booked here this morning, have been in another Committee obligation and other bill presentations. So sorry to have not have heard all the conversations earlier today, but I appreciate the opportunity to present SB 856 today. Thank you for the Committee staff, for working with me on the bill. For those who have been around, you will know that I authored legislation in 2016 to establish the California Promise Program at the state universities.

The program aimed to increase the graduation rates for four-year students and also two-year transfer students. It allows the student to sign a pledge saying they're going to take at least 30 units per academic year. And then out of that, they receive priority registration and additional counseling services. So there's some positives and negatives that have come out of that proposal and the work that the CSU has done to improve graduation rates. Let me mention the positives first. The positives are: from six years ago, we've improved the four-year graduation rates from 19% then, to 35% today.

Okay? Unbelievable progress. And that, of course, is due to the wonderful faculty, university presidents, the leadership from the system and staff. Everybody has done a great job. That's almost a doubling of production of outcomes at almost no cost. Think about that change. We talk about trying to improve efficiencies in our state, but wow. Right?

The second wow is that those who have been in this California Promise Program, if they were a transfer student, they're graduating in two years, 64%, and if they were not in it, only graduating at 42%. So, again, if you can get students on that path where they're focused on getting those units, and the system, the campuses are working with them to do that, we're seeing substantial progress.

And finally--and this is a positive, too--that of those who have been in the Promise Program, two-thirds of them are participants who are Pell grant recipients, first generation students. So the focus of this program on the underrepresented is paying off--really incredible progress. But let me talk about the negatives, and there's a real big negative, which is that the achievement gap, the graduation rates of historically underrepresented, campus-wide, is not changing. It's not changing. It was an 11% gap six years ago.

There's still 11% gap today. For whatever reason, we're still not closing that gap. So we're making progress on graduation rates. Those who have been in this program are making more progress, but overall, as a campus, not so much. So this legislation here today is an attempt to continue this positive work this Committee and the Legislature has supported, to increase the graduation rates among underrepresented. And it has two provisions to it. Number one, it requires that on campuses that they have at least 5% participating.

We have only seven campuses that have met that threshold today. So this bill says, "Okay, no. Campuses, not just the good ones, but all of them: you need to do better." That's the first thing the bill does. And the second thing that it does is that a student would now have to opt out of the program versus decide to get into the program.

So when you sign up and register, you have to say, "I don't want to be in," rather than, "I have to find out where this program exists. And I want to be in." Because that is what I think has been the problem. A student that's registering on a campus, to know about this four-year graduation program, it's six clicks away. It's not right there in front of you. I want to sign up. I want to be in this. I want that pathway.

It's very difficult to find. And so this is an attempt to not pretend like every campus--and you know I'm a local control person--every campus gets to do it their way. This is now going to say, every student has to actually say, "I don't want to be in this program," because we need them in and on this path. So that's a summary of what this bill does, and I appreciate your consideration. Today I have one person testifying, a wonderful student, Caitlin Gomez, who's a Promise student at CSU Fullerton. Is she still here?

Here she comes. Ms. Gomez, welcome.

And thank you for your patience, for being here.

You got to see a lot of legislative process today, probably more than you wanted to. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good morning. Thank you Senator Glazer. Chair and Committee Members, it's an honor to be here in support of SB 856. My name is Caitlin Gomez, and I'm a fourth-year student at Cal State Fullerton. I am a proud California Promise scholar and am fortunate enough to graduate in May 2023. As a first generation college student, I would not have anticipated that I would have stayed and graduated on time without the strong support of the Cal Promise Program. The summer before my first semester at CSUF, I received an email inviting me to join the Cal Promise Program.

The priority registration was a nice incentive that persuaded me to opt into the program, so I signed up. Every semester, I was guaranteed an advisory meeting with my general education major and minor advisors to ensure I signed up for the right classes. In addition, these semester meetings helped me build a relationship with my advisors that ultimately opened doors to opportunities that I would otherwise not have known.

Without the Cal Promise, I would not have taken full advantage of the programs, such as the Cal State DC Sacramento Semester and minority health research offered as a political science major and public health minor. However, the reality is that scholars would have to be invited to join the program. I recall being surprised that my peers were not invited to join or allowed to sign up.

SB 856 would solve that and include more students in the program who may be in the same boat as I was four years ago. Overall, the Cal Promise Program helped me stay on track and saved me from digging myself into financial debt. I respectfully ask the Committee Members to vote aye on SB 856. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. And go Titans. Is there anybody else in the Committee hearing who'd like to testify in support of the measure, SB 856? Seeing none. Is there anybody here would like testify in opposition to Senate Bill 856? Also seeing none. Let's move back to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could please queue any participants in the teleconference line to testify in support of or in opposition to Senate Bill 856.

Thank you. To provide comments in support or opposition, please press one, then zero for SB 856. And we will go to line 98.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi. Sorry, I meant to get in the line to testify in support of SB 760 and 857 but was having technological issues. My name is Charlie Ennis. I am one of the student representatives on the Safe School Bathrooms Committee, and I am in strong support on the behalf of all of LGBTQ students in PAUSD.

I appreciate that. Sorry for any challenges. Thank you. Next, please.

We have no further comments in queue at this time.

All right, thank you. Let's bring it back to the Committee. Any Members of the Committee want to speak to the bill? Questions of Senator Glazer? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Yes. Curious for the record, for the public to understand.

I don't think your mic's on, is it?

It is on.

Okay. Sorry.

Yeah.

Oh, it's on.

The light was on. With questions--it's an opt-in program, and you said at least 5% of the incoming students at each participating CSU, 70% have to be either low income--if you have to opt out of the program, are you inferring that every single student coming into the university is automatically enrolled into the program and then they have the option to exit the program, but the university has to require that whoever's left over or whoever--how would they do that?

Typically, it's just done by a mouse click where they, in their registration, they say, "Do you want to be in this program or do you want to opt out?" And they would click the box that says opt out.

I'm just trying to figure out how do you accommodate the minimum requirements.

You'd be made aware of the requirements. You have to take 30 units in the course of a year.

Not those requirements by the university. I'm sorry, I'm not being very clear in my questioning. Within the requirement, how do you ensure that the university is able to maintain those minimum requirements of 5% of incoming students or that at least 70% of the students be either low-income, first generation, or underrepresented communities when it's an option for the students to either stay in the program or not stay the program.

Well, so there's no penalties in this bill. This is--their goal's that the bill has established, and if it was successful, the universities would work to do exactly that, to at least have 5%. But the reason that I don't think there'll be an issue if you're going to allow the option to opt out versus opt in, I think you're going to meet the 5% threshold in every campus quite easily. I don't think that's going to be a problem in particular. And in terms of the diversity, I think this is what the program focuses on, is diversity.

I'm not questioning the intent at all, Senator. I think it's a great intent of the of the bill. I was just-

-Talking about the capacity issue of the university?

Not the capacity issue, just the fact that to guarantee that the students, the university has enough students to meet at least 5% when the students have to choose whether or not they stay in that program.

You can't guarantee it. So, no. So we've done it--it's been voluntary. We can see seven campuses being superstars, upping their graduation rates substantially. And so we really have, unfortunately, about half of the campuses that haven't focused on this program. It's hidden away on their website. Students don't even know it's available. And on campuses where it's particularly important in terms of underrepresented, they need to be more aware. So I'm pushing the system with this bill.

You know, from my work here, I love this, the four-year institutions, I'm a champion for so many of them. And I was a trustee, so they know this is my friendly nudge because I want them to do better. And that's what we're trying to do here in the legislation.

No, I completely appreciate the intent and I appreciate the work, that you're doing this. I was just kind of curious as to--you have minimum requirements--and trying to figure out how does that become a responsibility of the university while making the option falling upon the student.

I understand your point now, and it's a fair point. I'm not concerned about it in terms of this bill. I think that the bigger issue is that the campuses are going to say, "With so many more students wanting to get on this path and get out, we're going to have to be more responsive in making sure their classes are available." And that's where we're pushing the bureaucracy in a direction that they're not always comfortable with, making sure classes are available. Because I know that my sense--my experience and my conversations with the students, and the data shows the students are taking almost enough units to get through.

And it's the bureaucracy that the classes aren't available, the classes that they need, the prerequisites--that it's that bureaucracy that has been put in the way of students actually getting out and getting their degree, rather than no degree and debt. So this is pushing them to do better and to do more. And it's focused on underrepresented because that's where the gap remains. Even though they have made great progress in the overall graduation goals, they've set it at 40% by 2025. I think that is too low now. At the UC, it's over 70% four-year graduation, and I believe our students at the CSU can get much closer to that as a goal, and I want to see the system keep moving in that direction.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Senator Glazer, I want to commend you on the work you've done over the past several years on this project and others, as you said, to gently nudge the system to do better. And I think we're seeing results. So I am glad to support this. I have two quick questions. One is given that under the current system, California Promise students receive priority registration. If you increase that number by a large amount, how will priority then be determined when you have so many additional students that would receive the same benefit?

Yeah, I leave it to the campuses. They set priorities all the time on registration, some that we like and some that we don't like, but that's a local choice they can make in terms of how they implement it.

And then there's sort of a quarterly concern that this bill might result in the redirection of advising or other support services away from students who aren't enrolled as you get much larger numbers. And I expect your answer is the same, if you create positive incentives, you create a better basis for administrators to figure out these questions.

Well, that, and also, look, I'd like to see more resources go to the system for these activities. We've provided some additional funding in light of their Graduation 2025 Initiative, and I've been big supporters of that. I'd like us to do more so that we don't run into the problem that you're kind of identifying. The system sees it as a zero sum game.

If you're going to have to support this Promise Program or now this Finish in Four Program more, you're going to take it away from other things they'd like to fund. I appreciate that. I'd like us to see us enlarge the pie, but I appreciate that there will be some choices that they'll make, but I think this is a proven, successful program, and I'd like to see them do it more.

I appreciate that. So with that, this moves from here--if it gets support to Appropriations.

Move the bill.

I've got a motion from Senator Wilk. Would you like to close?

Thank you for consideration. Thank you for the student who came to testify. Go Titans as well. Appreciate it. Yes vote. Thank you.

Awesome. Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

SBA 56, Glazer. Motion is do pass. But first, be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Newman. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Cortese. Glazer. Aye. McGuire. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wilk. Aye.

That bill has four votes. We'll leave it open, but it will move. We're going to open the roll. Senator Gonzalez, if you don't mind. Senator Wilk has to get somewhere, so we're going to open the roll real quickly and work very quickly through a whole bunch of votes. I'm sorry to take your time. So, Madam consultant, please proceed.

On the consent calendar, file item three, SB 350, and file item five, SB 369.

And we need a motion.

So moved.

Please call the roles.

[Roll call]

That Bill has three votes. We'll leave it open. SB 88. Senator Skinner. Oh, I need a motion. Senator Skinner's Bill.

I'm voting no, but I'm happy to move it.

You're a good man. Thank you.

SB 88, Skinner. Motion is do pass as amended. But first amend and re-refer to the Committee on Public Safety. [Roll call]

All right, that Bill has two no votes, one aye vote. We'll leave it open. Next Bill is SB 321. Senator Ashby, need a motion moved.

Got a motion. Senator Wilk.

So moved.

SB 321. Ashby. Motion is do passed. But first be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

All right, that Bill has three votes. We will leave it open. Next Bill is Senator Dodd's SB 328. Need a motion.

So moved.

Senator Welk moves.

SB 328 Dodd. Motion is do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

Two aye votes, one no vote. Leave that open. Next Bill is SB 596 from Senator Portantino. Need a motion. That is his public safety Bill.

Yeah, I'll move it.