Senate Standing Committee on Education

All right. The Senate Education Committee will come to order. Good morning, everybody. 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. That's 877-226-8216. The access code is 5700096. Again, that's 5700096. We are holding our committee hearing, committee hearings here in the O Street Building.

I ask all of our members of the committee to be present in room 2100 so we can establish a quorum and begin our meeting. I ask the testimony of main witnesses today in support of opposition be limited to two people per side, with two minutes for each witness. All others may add on and simply state your name, your organization, and your position on a given measure. We will also be limiting time for those calling in on the teleconference line to a total of 20 minutes per bill. We have 25 bills on today's agenda.

We have relatively few on consent. Only three bills are in consent. Those bills are item number twelve, AB 393, item number 20, AB 908, item number 23, AB 1340. All other bills will be heard in file order. Before we hear presentation of the bills, we will not be establishing a quorum.

We will start the hearing today as a Subcommittee, and we do have our first author here, and Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry. Welcome. You'll be presenting AB 659 and you may proceed whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and senators. We all love someone who has struggled with or even have died from cancer. I would have done just about anything to keep that from happening to my loved ones.

You'd think this would get easier as I do this? It's not that much easier. HPV causes a range of cancers in both men and women, and testing and examinations revealed just a few. Others remain undetected until they become a threat to a person's life. Even as amended in the Senate Health Committee, AB 659 will increase uptake of the cancer preventing HPV vaccine by guaranteeing that the vaccine is completely covered by all public and private health plans.

This Bill will now recommend that 8th graders be fully vaccinated against HPV, as well as recommend that students entering UC's, CSU's and California community colleges also be vaccinated against HPV as well. Parents of soon to be high school students will be notified at the beginning of 6th grade of the HPV vaccination recommendation, giving them ample time to learn about the vaccine and its benefits. The notification will be done in the method already chosen by local school districts to communicate to students and parents and in statistically prevalent languages of the school population.

AB 659 has been amended in the Assembly to remove any enforcement by school districts and higher education institutions, so no student will be barred from school, colleges or universities. We have also taken amendments required by the Senate Committee on Health that change this Bill from a vaccination expectation to a vaccination recommendation. And I will continue to work with stakeholders and the committees to increase clarity regarding notifications to parents and students entering college to ensure accurate information is distributed.

Mr. Chair, my goal is to have every eligible child vaccinated against this life threatening virus, recommending that students receive this safe, cancer preventing vaccine and reaching families through the notification in this Bill. This is a compromise weave with great hesitation. Accepted instead of mandating vaccination.

With me today to speak in support is Dr. Klausner a professor of public health from the USC Geck School of Medicine, and Taylor Jackson, deputy Director of governmental affairs at the California Health Plus Advocates. Thank you.

Thank you. First witness. Dr. Klausner. Welcome.

Thank you very much. I'm a professor of Medicine, Infectious Diseases, population and Public Health Sciences, at the University of Southern California. I'm a former medical officer for the CDC and former twelve year Deputy Health Officer for the City and county of San Francisco.

I'm testifying today as an individual. I do not represent any prior or current affiliations. Today in California, only 50% of adolescents have completed HPV cancer vaccination, leaving about half of Californians without protection against preventable cancers.

My own published research has shown that the current inadequate vaccination coverage in California results in about 1300 new preventable cancers every year, annual costs of $52 million to the state. Every day, two Californians die from vaccine preventable HPV related cancers. Additionally, my research has shown that vaccination coverage is not equitable in California.

In some counties, completion is as low as 10 to 15%, while in other counties it is 60% or more. HPV cancer vaccine is very safe. In the 17 years since the FDA approval of the vaccine, safety concerns have never been validated in well done scientific studies,

Opponents to AB 659 will state that 2.3% of vaccine recipients, or 2300 per 100,000, will have a serious adverse event. That is misinformation and misleading. The package insert shows that 354 of 15,000 had a reported serious event, but only four, only four were determined to be vaccine related. Prior studies have also shown that the frequency of adverse events is the same in those who got the vaccine versus those who got placebo.

The HPV cancer vaccine is highly effective. A recent study in Sweden showed that the vaccination reduced cancers by 88%. In countries like Australia, where HPV vaccination is routine, they expect to eliminate HPV vaccine related cancers in 2035.

We've also shown that school based requirements increase vaccination from 50% to 80%. I urge you all to vote yes on AB 659 to help provide California families with information they need that may help prevent cancer, reduce health disparities, and save lives.

Thank you very much. Next witness. Ms. Jackson, welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Good morning. Taylor Jackson with California Health Plus Advocates.

We represent California's 1300 community clinics, Free Clinics, school based health centers, FQHCs, and rural health centers who strongly support AB 659. As the professor said, vaccination rates in California's young people are currently well below the national goal of 80%. Much of this can be attributed to HPV's classification as a sexually transmitted infection, which has unnecessarily stigmatized the vaccine.

Even though the FDA approved the vaccine back in 2006, and the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics have long recommended the vaccine for all genders by the age of twelve. California should be leading in this fight to protect the next generation from preventable illness and death. Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women. According to the World Health Organization, an estimated 570,000 people were diagnosed with cervical cancer worldwide, and about 300,000 people died from the disease in 2018 alone.

And as the author said, HPV is known to cause 90% of cervical cancer cases. With this Bill, community health centers, school based health centers, and clinics around the state are hopeful we can close a major care gap in cancer prevention and ultimately save thousands of lives. We respectfully urge your support of AB 659. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's move to opposition. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? I'm sorry. Other support. Let's do that first.

Other support for the measure. Senator Wilkes has to go to lunch, and I'm all motivated because of that. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Members Rand Martin, on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its STD Prevention, Control and Treatment Division, in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair and Members, Kathy Mossberg with Essential Access Health in support.

Thank you.

Isabella Arguetta with the Health Officers Association of California in support.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Joe Saenz with the County Health Executives Association in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Now we'll move to opposition. So, welcome. Please state your name and your organization. You'll have two minutes as a primary witness.

Can I just clarify something? Christina Hildebrand from a Voice for Choice Advocacy. When we called your committee, they said we could have six minutes and up to three people speaking.

I don't think, I'm told that's not true. So our rule is, it's consistent. It's two witness, two minutes each.

Okay, thank you.

Good morning, Honorable Chair. Senator Newman and the Members of the education committee. On behalf of Perk Advocacy, I'm here to share my concerns about AB 659.

The Cancer Prevention Act. From the introduction of the Bill, we have stated our support of the sections pertaining to insurance expansion and the overall intent to fight HPV cancer. But because HPV is sexually transmitted infection and it's generally not spread in a classroom setting, we have asked for removal of the sections pertaining to school notification for HPV vaccination, especially using school policy to achieve such a goal.

Since again, HPV does not spread in a school setting. We greatly appreciate the Bill author listening to the concerns of those in opposition, and we hope she will continue to work with us on the Bill language and looking at the Bill in its current form. We do advise against giving the notification to vaccinate directly to the pupil, because, one, most schools do not give enrollment notifications directly to the pupil, but to the parents, and the Bill states that notifications will be given through enrollment processes already in place at school.

Two, the Bill states to submit notification to pupils entering 6th grade, but not all children at that age know what an STI is. State Standards and Education Code 51934 state that required comprehensive sexual health education and HIV and STD prevention education shall be taught in 7th grade. Children entering 6th grade have only learned about sex in terms of anatomy and puberty, but have not yet had the sexual health education lessons to know what HPV is, does, or why they should be recommended to receive the HPV vaccine.

So at the very least, please strike out in section 120336 B to submit the notification to the pupil. And because HPV vaccination recommendations should be to specific children who are participating in sexual behavior, recommendation for vaccination is better off in a discussion with the doctor. Thank you, Honorable Speaker Pro TEM, Assembly member Aguiar-Curry, for listening to our concerns and working with us thus far. And thank you, Honorable Chair and Members for your consideration.

And thank you for your testimony. Next, please.

Thank you. My name is Christina Hildebrand, President and founder of A Voice for Choice Advocacy. I want to thank Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry for her openness and her open door for communicating on this Bill.

We fully agree with the previous Speaker's request for amendment on the notification and not having it given to 6th graders for exactly those reasons. The only other amendment that we have requested is that in the notification, section 120336 B, it does say it is now incongruent with the recommendation language that is now in the State policy, which Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry took in the Health Committee. It does say that the notification would summarize that recommendation, but then it also says that it would advise that the pupil be fully immunized against HPV before admission or advancement to 8th grade, and that's incongruent with the recommendation wording that is now the state policy.

And so we would ask that either the word advising get also changed to recommended, or that it state that advising that there is a recommendation that the pupil be fully immunized because we feel that there will be inconsistencies and schools will not know, and parents will not understand that it is a recommendation. The other piece is that we would ask that in the notification that PAP Smears and HPV screening, which are two of the most effective proven means of preventing cancer, are also included in that notification, so that they understand the full array of options of ensuring that they don't get HPV. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition to the measure? If so, please come to the podium. State your name, your organization, and your position.

Olivia Mikos, co-founder of V is for Vaccine, opposed unless further amended.

Thank you.

Joshua Coleman, co-founder of V is for Vaccine, opposed the Bill on all levels.

Thank you.

Erin Friday. Opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Stephanie Daigre, licensed registered pediatric nurse, representative for Take a Stand Stanislaus and California Nurses United in opposition unless further amended.

Thank you.

Karen Amagon with Stand Up California in opposition unless amended.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and committee Members Leah Jones on behalf of a Voice for Choice Advocacy, opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Amber Arias, on behalf of Fearless in Jesus Name and opposition on all levels to this Bill.

Thank you. Let's now go to the teleconference line, to the AT&T moderator. Good morning. If you could please query the line and ask for anybody who would like to testify telephonically either in support of or in opposition to AB 659.

Good morning. Thank you. Yes, please press 10 at this time. Again, it's 10. Go first to line number 53.

Hi. My name is Vanessa Santos. I'm from Stanislaus County and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you, next.

Line 18.

This is Erin Evans on behalf of NARAL Pro Choice California in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 21.

Hi. My name is Dara Bruce. I'm a student in Los Angeles, California, and I strongly support AB 659.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 31.

Hello, my name is Keryn Whitlow, representative of Take a Stand Stanislaus. I'm in strong opposition unless amended.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 57.

Hi. My name is Stephanie Dorico. I am a mother of two and a public school teacher in LA County. I strongly oppose 659.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 34.

Hi, this is Christy Sapol with a Birthship of Educate Advocate. We serve families with exceptional needs statewide and opposed unless there are two minor clarifying amendments that were given. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

23.

Hey, good morning. Kenneth Prado, governing Board trustee for Hemet Unified, so my opinion is strictly my own. Also, school board advisor for LEXIT and Member of California Parents Union. I strongly oppose this Bill unless it is amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 36.

Good morning. My name is Heather Jimenez from Hayward. I'm a parent and an early childhood educator. I agree with the access to medical, but I do not agree with the course of vaccine language and the notification. Please oppose that unless it's amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 11.

Kevin Modest, medical social worker, former school social worker. Strongly opposed. This should be the choice of parents and vaccines are legally immune from. And there's no study.

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

Pardon me, sorry. Line 30.

My name is Dr. Elaine Shaapir. I'm a community physician representing Ultimate Health Services in strong support of the Bill.

Thank you, next please.

Line 56.

Hello, good morning. My name is Gilbert Orta Portillo. I live in Ontario, California, and I strongly support AB 659.

Thank you, next please.

Line 47.

Good morning. My name is Natalie, I'm from Burbank, California, and I strongly support AV 659.

Thank you, next please.

Line 41.

Good morning. My name is Jeanette Phelps from Sacramento County and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you, next please.

Line 52. Line 52. You're open. And we go to line 58.

Line 58. Carolyn Regina, board member for Educate Advocate and I strongly oppose this Bill. Being that it.

Thank you, next please.

Line 43.

Good morning, Michael Brachovich, California public school teacher of many vaccine injured kids, I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you, next please.

Line 64.

Good morning, chairman Members, Jessica Moran with the California Dental Association in strong support.

Thank you, next please.

And line 65.

Good morning, chair Members, my name is Joni Greep, I am a registered nurse, I'm the mother of three school age children and I am a locally elected school board trustee in Stanislaus Country and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you, next please.

Line 68.

Good morning, board Members, this is Aubrey Borba, I'm representing Take a Stand Stanislaus and Take a Stand Escalon in opposition of the Bill unless further amended.

Thank you, next please.

And line 69.

Hi, this is Rachel Katan, founder of Natomas USD for Freedom, and we oppose this Bill.

Thank you, next please.

At this time, none further in queue.

Very good. Let's come back to the committee hearing room. Any of my colleagues have a question or a comment for the author? No seeing none.

Let me first thank the author for being kind of gracious and willing to work with committee. I know you had real reservations about the change in language, which in the end we thought was the best course of action. But if you wouldn't mind, this is the Education Committee.

This Bill has already been heard in the Health Committee. Our purview here is education. And so the context here is about the use of schools as kind of the venue for promoting vaccines.

And so obviously, there's concern about that. Part of that has to do philosophical, but the other part has to do with kind of a sensitivity about ages and maturity of children getting this information. If you wouldn't mind speaking to that briefly.

Well, first of all, it's a good place for us to be able to keep track vaccination rates in California, such as low, and we're reaching out. Recommending vaccination to students will be important efforts towards spreading awareness, improving the uptake of safer cancer preventing vaccine. It's a reasonable compromise in this Bill.

We've come to instead mandating vaccination after hearing concerns from the schools and the opponents around enforcement and enrollment of schools. And we amended the Bill to ensure that parental notification of the vaccination, the vaccine's recommendation will be done in part of existing notifications from school districts to remove any burden on schools. The notifications will be subject to requirements that are sent in the statistically prevalent languages of the school population.

And to prevent any confusion due to language barriers, the Bill does not mandate the HPV vaccine. While the Bill sets requirements for students at high school and higher education level education institutions, we will not be asked to confirm the vaccination. And we do that because we listened to the families.

They didn't want us to mandate anything. And this is the easiest way to do it. It's already that students can get many vaccinations without parental approval, and we just try to comply with what's already in existence.

Appreciate that. And so, very briefly, for Dr. Klausner, there was some discussion on the other side as well about vaccine injuries. Can you very briefly, especially with specific sort of emphasis on this vaccine, on cancer prevention, for cervical cancer, speak to the issue of vaccine injuries?

Right. So in the original studies, which was Gardasil four versus placebo, and those placebo included saline or saltwater placebos, there were no difference in the frequency of any reported injuries. So the people who got the active vaccination product versus the people who got the placebo product had the same reported frequency of adverse events.

So the scientific criteria for association are different than what some people see in the courts or the legal criteria. But scientifically, there is absolutely no association with increased risk of vaccine injury from HPV vaccination.

Thank you. Appreciate that. We still do not have a quorum.

In fact, we have fewer than fewer than we did. And I want to say to the concerned parties here, it's unfortunate, right? My preference would certainly be to have the full committee, or it's certainly a quorum to have a full discussion and a definitive vote at the end of the testimony to include consideration of your testimony. But we have a lot going on in the Capitol today.

So apologies on behalf of everyone to the author. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

I would. AB 659 will result in an uptake in HPV vaccination by reaching students at the ideal age range for the vaccine. This Bill ensures proper communication with students and parents in locally prevalent languages.

This Bill also removes all cost barriers to getting the HPV vaccine, regardless of health insurance status. I've been working on this proposal for five years. During that time, over 203,000 Americans have developed HPV related cancer, and more than 35,000 have died from as a result. We will prevent less cancers and less deaths with the Bill before you, but this is a critical first step in protecting our young people.

The future from this preventable deadly virus. I want California to do its part in protecting our youth from cancer. And spreading awareness of this life saving vaccine is a step forward. I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. So when we have a quorum, we will take a motion and we will put this to a vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And thank you, committee staff.

Of course. Okay, next. Do we have Member Berman here? Do we have an author here? Any authors here for anybody? And we do not.

I would ask for two things. Everybody's, patience, and when we do get an author, if you'd all please applaud sarcastically.

Mr. Chair Newman, could I ask a question while we're waiting?

By all means, Senator.

I know you work really hard to create an agenda that's orderly and prompt. I see assemblyman Member Berman is listed number two. Was that a special request?

That was in fact a special request. He said he was pressed for time, that he'd be here.

Well, perhaps we could ask the Assemblymen staff to keep track of him, to know that we are sitting here waiting. Time is precious.

I leave that in their capable hands.

And I guess I could present for the Assembly Member this Bill is not very complicated.

I'm actually open to that idea, but I don't know, let's give him another minute or two.

Okay. We're gracious here in the Senate, aren't we?

Assemblymember Ortega is here. Where? And then she was gone. Assembly Member, Carillo, it's nice to see you. Let's do a Bill. Um, so you you have come at precisely the right time, if you're ready. If not, I'm glad to give you all the time you need. But we're happy to have you here. You are going to present AB 439, and you are more than welcome to proceed when ready. Just you should be aware we do not yet have a quorum. We're convening as a Subcommittee right now. But please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators. I was born ready, so let's rock and roll. Today I'm proud to present AB 439. The Bill is sponsored by the Los Angeles Unified School District. Existing law establishes a pilot program allowing LAUSD to award task order procurement contracts for the repair and renovation of school buildings and grounds.

AB 439 extends the sunset of this program until 2034 and allows LAUSD Fund task order procurement contracts with local school construction bonds and federal or state funds in its possession. In addition to the District's General Fund, task order contracting allows the district to bundle multiple small contracts into a single master contract in advance and ensures that LAUSD is prepared for repair and maintenance requests before they are needed.

To use this procurement method, the district must have a project labor agreement in place prior to LUSD Task Order Contracting pilot program. The district would initiate the procurement process and awards contracts across multiple locations only after determining that a service was needed. As was the case in 2015 when LA USD received nearly 2600 service calls for HVAC repair and only 39 HVAC repair personnel were available. The district soon began the weeks long procurement process.

In the meantime, the weather disrupted classroom instruction and students suffered from heat. Task order contracting has three unique benefits the District can prepare contracts before services are needed, secure pricing during non peak periods, and prepare more comprehensive contracts across multiple projects. Other uses of task order contracting include fire safety testing, roofing services, painting, floor repairs, and heating.

And independent third party analysis found that the majority of projects, 83.5% of which were completed under budget. Recent amendments clarify that these contracts may only be used for repair and maintenance projects and not for unrelated services. The Bill has no opposition and to testify is Sasha Horwitz, legislative advocate for LAUSD.

Very good. Welcome. You have two minutes, sir.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair Newman, Vice Chair Ochoa Bogh, and Members. Sasha Horwitz. On behalf of the Los Angeles Unified School District. AB 439 is a simple update to an extension of LA USD's Task Order contracting program. The program was originally enacted in 2018 as a five year pilot, allowing the district to bundle multiple small repair and maintenance contracts into a single master contract in advance before services are needed.

Task order contracting enables the district to negotiate these service contracts beforehand so that contractors are available and ready as soon as needed. Throughout the school year, it is inevitable that the District will receive service requests exceeding its capacity to respond in a reasonable amount of time. Take the winter storms, for example. Calls for roof repairs tend to happen across the city all at once. With Task Order contracts in place, the District can respond to service requests immediately with minimal interruptions to classroom instruction.

AB 439 preserves a more efficient and cost effective process for addressing maintenance and operation needs by allowing for negotiating service costs in advance of peak demands or priority requests. As part of the original law, the program was subject to a third party independent evaluation paid for by the District. It found that LA USD implemented and followed robust and compliant processes and practices over the Task Order contracting and had appropriate controls in place.

This Bill extends the program for another ten years to allow the District to also use funds from local construction bonds for Task Order contracts. The language also clarifies that federal or state funds may be in used to ensure federal matching funds can be spent on bond eligible projects, since they frequently use a fund mixture. These contracts are paid locally and do not have any state costs.

All other aspects of the original program remain the same, including the requirement to have a Project Labor Agreement in place, the $3 million limit on a single contract, and the supplement not supplant language regarding District personnel. For that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses here in support of the measure? Seeing none. Understand there's no opposition, but is there anybody who'd like to testify in opposition to the measure? Seeing none, let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. AT&T moderator, if you could please queue the line for anybody who'd like to testify in support of or in opposition to AB 439.

Certainly. Thank you. And if so, please press 1-0 at this time. Again, it's 1-0, and we go to line number 80. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Jennifer Kennedy in Los Angeles, California. We should defund LAUSD and not approve any funding until their vax mandate comes down.

All right, thank you for your testimony. Anybody else currently?

Nobody in queue.

All right. Well, thank you very much. Let's come back to the deus. Any comments or questions for my colleagues? Senator Glazer.

Thank you. Chair Newman. Assemblywoman, I'm happy to support your Bill today. It has a lot of, I think, prudent efficiencies in it. But the one part I did want to ask you about is I didn't really understand why a project labor agreement being in place or not really affected the efficiencies you're trying to do in your Bill. I wanted to give you the chance to speak to that.

Thank you for the question, Senator. Los Angeles has a model in which the majority of our work is done through project labor agreements. Unions are important to our city. We want to make sure that while there are vacancies within LAUSD, the Administration within LAUSD is doing everything it possibly can to also hire in house and so that they're not having to do as many contracts as needed.

We do believe that union labor is important and should have the maximum capacity to be able to hire within that scope. However, we also understand that sometimes there is a shortage of potential workforce. And so at the very minimum, when using public dollars, we have a standard of using a public labor agreement.

Thank you for that explanation. And I don't have a problem with project labor agreements. It's just really a local choice, and some jurisdictions find that it works for them, others don't. In this case, LAUSD seems to find it a good thing, and I don't have a problem with that either. It's just that the efficiencies that are required in this Bill are contingent upon that. So it does create a little bit more of a state requirement to allow these efficiencies to happen. But with all that being said, I'm happy to move the Bill at the appropriate time.

Appreciate that. Any other comments? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a cost efficient, cost saving measure. The policy already exists, and this is simply an extension to ensure that public dollars and the General Fund for California's largest school district is able to create the contracts necessary to ensure that costs remain low. Whenever there is an issue related to a school needing to be fixed, a facility needing to have repairs, and when the time is appropriate, respectively request and aye vote.

I appreciate that. When we do have a quorum, we'll accept Senator Glacier's motion. We'll put it to a vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Ortega. Glad to see you. I don't see another author, so you are the big winner. You are next. Welcome. You'll be presenting AB 800 and I should probably wear we do not yet have a quorum.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present AB 800. Today, AB 800 would enact a Workplace Readiness week in California public high schools to inform students about their rights as workers and their rights as employed minors. In 2021, 109 teenagers died from work related injuries in the United States. The same year, over 33,000 teens suffered workplace injuries so severe that they needed to go to the emergency room. Workers rights are essential knowledge for anyone participating in today's workplace.

It is essential for minors entering the workplace to be prepared with information on laws that this body has enacted, such as wage and hour protections, worker safety, paid sick leave, and prohibitions against employer harassment. AB 800 will ensure that all our young workers are informed about these workplace rights. As recently as two months ago in Oakland, 217 year old hourly employees filed labor and safety complaints with Cal OSHA for unsafe working conditions. Today, I have one of those two workers to testify in support of AB 800, Ms. Yamara Romero.

Ms. Romero. Welcome. You have two minutes. Please proceed.

Hello, everyone. My name is Jomara Romero and I am 17 years old. I've worked at Popeyes for four months. One of the best things that the fast food industry has done is brand itself as America's best first job. In the five months I've been at Popeyes, I've learned firsthand that that's been a false promise.

In May, I went on strike for the very first time to sound the alarm on how the company has been exploiting minors at the store, including a 13 year old worker, and the sexual harassment that was going on at work. During my time at Popeyes, management never asked me for a work permit. I was expected to work late until ten or 11:00 p.m.. There were times I missed my morning classes because I was tired after a late shift.

And that had felt so exhausting because I didn't know if I was going to graduate because of the amount of late shifts that I had to work. I never said anything to management because I was afraid they'd cut all my hours. And I need this job to help my family with bills from time to time. Popeyes didn't take action until Washington Post reporter reached the corporate's office for comments about the child labor violations that we had exposed.

They immediately shut down our store and launched an investigation into the issues we exposed. By leading this strike, I experienced the power workers have when we organize and go up against some of the biggest fast food brands in the world. But I also realized how so many young workers aren't aware of their rights and how easy it is to take advantage of us after going on strike and speaking out. My hours have been cut out week after week. Something I know it is called retaliation.

In more and more households across the states, young workers like me are stepping up to help our parents and families with bills, rent, groceries and more. Without knowing our rights and how to demand better, we are more vulnerable to being exploited, especially if our bosses know how badly we need these jobs. That's why I'm asking you Senators to support AB 800. This Bill makes workers rights a key part of our education, just like algebra, history and science.

If more and more young people are entering workplaces, we need to have the tools and knowledge to know what rights we have and how to protect ourselves. On behalf of all young workers in Oakland, across California, I ask for your yes vote on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other primary witnesses in support?

Yes, I have Mr. Mitch Steiger here from the California Labor Federation.

Mr. Steiger. Good morning. Welcome.

Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chair Members and staff, Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation proud to co sponsor this Bill along with the California Federation of Teachers. And I'd like to just briefly emphasize the structure of the Bill, but before I do that, would also really like to emphasize the previous witnesses testimony that we think is some of the most important testimony that we'll hear today, that we've seen similar stories here in California all across the country.

And for whatever reason many areas in the rest of the country are responding to these really awful, really compelling stories by relaxing these laws, moving in what we believe is very much the wrong direction. But we've got an opportunity with this Bill to, we think, move in the right direction, take steps towards preventing this sort of thing from happening to further young workers. And this Bill presents, we think, a very good opportunity to do that. So basically it does three things.

It creates a workplace readiness week to coincide with Workers Memorial Day, during which schools would observe this week however they'd like to. It gives a lot of flexibility. It could be an Assembly, it could be a display in the hallway, whatever a school would like to do. The second thing that it does is it integrates these topics into the regular school curriculum for 11th and 12th grades.

We very carefully, along with the author's office, drafted that section to make sure that teachers could cover these topics whenever during the year it makes sense for them. We understand that have all sorts of schedules and things they have to meet and that we don't want to interfere with that in any way. So whenever it makes sense for them, they can cover that.

And then the third thing it does is create this document that is given to kids when they receive a workplace, a worker's permit that lays out all of these rights. Another way for us to be sure that they have this information.

And for a lot of these kids who are translators for their parents, we think this is a document that they could then take to their parents and help walk them through their rights on the job and through this Bill, also help spread that knowledge of workers rights beyond just the student to their entire families.

We think all of these reforms taken together will do a whole lot to help give kids more knowledge about the rights that they deserve and particularly focus on the right to organize a union so that they can, in the most effective way possible protect themselves on the job. We urge your support.

Thank you, sir. Any other witnesses here in support of the measure? Mr. Brown. Welcome. Your name, your organization, your position.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, Tristan Brown with CFT, union of educators and Classified professionals. Proud to co sponsor this Bill and ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

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

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges, in support.

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

Hello. My name is Sara Linda and I support AB 800.

Thank you. Next please. Welcome.

Hi, my name is Carla, and I work at a fast food place and I support AB 800.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Jomara, I work at Popeyes and I support the AB 800 Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is David Garcia, I work at Chipole and I'm in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Elizabeth Reyes and I'm supporting AB 800.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Daniel Shoorl, on behalf of SEIU Local 1000. State workers in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

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

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Members. D'Artagnan Byrd AskMe California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jason Newman, President, Los Rios College Federation of Teachers AFT 2279 in support.

Thank you, next, please.

Good morning. Oranit Limmaneeprasert, faculty union President for American River College and a Member of Los Rios College Federation of Teachers and CFT. In strong support.

Thank you. Next please.

Kimberly Rosenberger, with SEIU California in support.

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning, Senators. David Bolog, Member in good standing of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18, in support.

Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none at this moment? Let's pause for a moment to establish a quorum. I see we have four. Madam Consultant, if you please call the role for quorum.

Senators Newman here. Ochoa Bogh here, Cortese, Glazer here, McGuire, Smallwood-Cuevas and Senator Wilk here.

Quorum is now present. Let us now come back to the measure and go to opposition. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to AB 800? Seeing none. Is there anybody here in the gallery like to testify in opposition to the measure? Also seeing none. Let's go to the teleconference line. Moderator, is there anybody on the line who'd like testify either in support of or in opposition to AB 800?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, it's 1-0. Please press 1-0 at this time. Give us just a moment here.

Thank you.

All right, we'll go to line number 94. Please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Maria Nava-Froelich. I'm city mayor of the city of Calipatria. Want to support AB 918. I am also Imperial County LAFCO chairwoman and also calling to let you know that the committee has unanimously approved AB 918.

Okay, we're taking testimony at AB 800, so you may want to call back next, if any, moderator.

None further in queue at this moment.

All right, thank you. Let's come back to the committee hearing room. Colleagues, any questions or comments on the Bill? Senator Glazer.

Thank you. I certainly support all the goals and values that are in your Bill, so there's no real issue with me in terms of the importance. My first job was at a fast food restaurant at 15 and a half. Luckily, it was a good experience here in Sacramento. But I do appreciate, again, the messages and lessons that you'd like to share during that week. But let me explain why I can't support your Bill today.

It's not because of the goals and content and values that you want to advance, because I just don't know where we stop in terms of designating weeks or months for important topics. And I asked my staff, because we had quite a robust debate about this Bill earlier this week, about other things that we'd like our children to know, really important things we'd like them to know in school that aren't necessarily directed around math and English and history.

And some of those things that were brought up were financial literacy, mental health, environmental conservation, career exploration technology, and digital citizenship, civic engagement. And we passed a Bill last year about trying to get our kids more involved in civic engagement, diversity and inclusion week, creative Arts Week. So we kind of went through a lot of these and said, well, these would be really valuable as you are advancing in this Bill, a good value for our kids. There's so many others.

And so the dilemma for me, and I'm sure this Bill is getting out of the committee today, but I just want to be clear, the dilemma for me is not that this is not a good thing to do, but there's so many others. And where do we as a Legislature start and stop this process? We know that we have locally elected school boards that hopefully are sensitive to their community and can make good judgments about highlighting different types of values as this Bill advances.

And so for me, it's the reason why I can't be supportive of a Bill which I know has at the heart really good values and goals.

Thank you, Senator Glazer. Anybody else seeing? None. I am, from my part, glad to support the Bill. Assembly Member Ortega, would you like to close.

On behalf of Jomara and thousands of other youth who are facing these kinds of dilemmas when they have to go to work, not because they choose, but because they have to, and making sure that they're all protected by the laws that we all pass here in this Legislature, I respectfully ask for your aye votes.

Very good. Do we have a motion?

I'll move the Bill.

Thank you, Senator Wilk. Senate motion. Senator Wilk. Madam Consultant, if you please call the role.

Yes. This file item 19 AB 800 Ortega. The motion is due pass, but first be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Newman aye. Ochoa Bogh. Cortese. Glazer. McGuire. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wilk.

All right, we will leave that measure open for the absent Members to vote later. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yes. All right, let's go back to the agenda. At number two, we had Assembly Member Berman. I will say I'm a little disappointed in the audience they were supposed to applaud when you arrived. And my understanding is you also made some impassioned remarks yesterday about attendance and courtesy. Do you want to revisit those today in light of your arrival?

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I would humbly and sincerely apologize for keeping you up for a couple of minutes to talk amongst yourselves. I know senators struggle to talk.

Oh, let's not minimize. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senators, from Silicon Valley to Biotech Beach, California is the undisputed cradle of innovation. However, far too many students grow up in the shadows of tech companies, yet they go to schools that don't offer them the skills they need to one day work at those companies in their own communities. California has fallen behind 27 other states when it comes to prioritizing access to computer science education. Exacerbating educational inequities in the diversity gaps in tech.

States like Arkansas, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina and Tennessee are far ahead of us. AB 1054 would require school districts and charter schools to adopt a plan to ensure all high schools offer at least one computer science education course by the 2027 2028 school year. This Bill provides a thoughtful, phased in approach with additional flexibility measures to ensure schools have both the time and flexibility to implement this successfully.

It's time to restore California as a leader and take the next step of ensuring computer science education for all. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And I'm joined by Kirk Kimmelshue on behalf of Code and Adonai Mack, senior Director of Education for Children Now.

Mr. Mack. Welcome. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair. Adonai Mack. On behalf of Children Now and the California Stem Network, proud co sponsors of AB 1054. We know computer science is a critical course for all kids in California to experience throughout to experience throughout the years. The state Legislature has taken important steps to develop and expand computer science education in California. It is now time to take this next step to improve the equity and access in computer science. Computer science is a vital component of high quality wellrounded education.

Yet access to high school computer science is extremely limited and more often than not is not available to students of color, multilingual students, and students from Low income families who often attend schools that do not offer a computer science course. According to data compiled by the Computer Science of California, of which children now is a Member, California ranks 35th in the nation for the percentage of high schools offering computer science courses.

In a Stem dependent economy like California, limiting the availability of computer science courses is also limiting our state's economic potential. We certainly recognize the impact of the teacher shortage on districts ability to fulfill qualified candidates. However, we believe that the implementation date of 2028 provides school districts more than ample time to utilize current programs that support the teacher pipeline, such as the teacher Residency program, as well as the funding that's provided to pay for a supplemental authorization.

For these reasons, we ask for your aye vote on 1054. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kimmelshue. Good morning. Welcome.

Thank you, Chairman Newman and Members Kirk Kimmelshue, on behalf of Code.org. At Code, we believe that computer science is foundational in transforming the way that students think about technology and teaches them essential problem solving skills. For those reasons, we think introducing computer science courses across all California high schools to all California students is really, really critical to close the equity gap in computer science fields and provide the workforce needed for California to remain competitive in the global economy. For those reasons, we urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Do we have other witnesses here in support of the measure? Welcome.

Mr. Chairman. Jeff Frost, representing the Orange County Department of Education, in support.

Thank you, Mr. Frost. Next.

Morning, Mr. Chairman. Nick Brokaw from Sacramento Advocates on behalf of Microsoft, in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Chris McKaley on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. In support of the Bill.

Thank you, sir. Next, please.

Good morning, Chair. Sasha Horowitz, Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, Chair Members, Leah Ni-Tucket with TechNet Co, proud sponsor of the Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Volek Taing with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, in support.

Thank you.

Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association, in support.

Very good. Is there anybody here would like to sign opposition to the measure? Welcome.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the committee. Serette Kaminski, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully in opposition to the Bill. While we understand the importance of computer science education in preparing students for the future, we are deeply concerned about the lack of qualified educators to fulfill this requirement. California is currently facing a severe shortage of teachers, particularly in specialized fields such as computer science.

It takes years to educate and train teachers, and although this state has provided funding to incentivize the field, we don't know if it'll produce the necessary workforce needed. Enforcing a computer science requirement without sufficient educators to deliver high quality instruction would be counterproductive and undermined the intended purpose of the Bill. This would result in a superficial understanding of the subject matter, which we believe would be detrimental to students future success in pursuing careers or higher education in the field.

Furthermore, the shortage of computer science educators would place an immense burden on already overburdened teachers. Expecting current educators, such as math teachers, to take on additional responsibilities, such as teaching computer science without proper training or support, would lead to increased workload and potential burnout. This, in turn, may affect the overall quality of instruction across all subjects. Teachers may be unable to devote adequate time and attention to each subject that they're responsible for.

In light of these concerns, AXA requests an exemption for schools if they're unable to secure qualified educators or the necessary resources to teach computer science. This exemption would ensure that schools are not penalized for circumstances beyond their control and would prevent the implementation of a requirement that cannot be effectively fulfilled without this exception process. Unfortunately, we remain respectfully opposed. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Anybody else in opposition?

Welcome.

Thank you. Mr. Chair Nick Romley here on behalf of the Small School Districts Association. Technically, we're opposed unless amended. Just want to express we share the same concerns as my colleague from ACSA. Look forward to working with the author, see if we can get somewhere we're comfortable with the provisions of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else would like to add on to that opposition testimony? Seeing none, let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if there's anybody on the line who'd like to testify and support over an opposition to AB 1054.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, it is 10 for AB 1054. Again, one and then zero. We can go right ahead to line number 49.

Anastasia Kovalchick with California Advisors on behalf of Amazon in support of AB 1054. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Line 102.

Jamie Miner on behalf of Salesforce, also in support. Thanks.

Thank you. Next please.

Line 50.

Sam Nasher with the Los Angeles County Office of Education support.

Thank you. Next please.

And line 104.

This is Patrick Armstrong with the K Four Center in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Line 80.

Hi. Jennifer Kennedy, attorney, Los Angeles County, oppose unless amended. Please stop these mandates with no exemptions.

Thank you, next please.

And currently none further in queue.

Let's come back to the committee hearing room. Colleagues, any questions or comments to the author regarding AB 1054? I saw Senator Wilk first. Senator Wilk.

Go ahead.

Such a gentlemen. All right, go ahead.

Supporting the Bill today. And one of the things I always say, that a person's zip code should not have any impact on their ability to have access to education, but that is a practical matter that the opponents have shared. I have suburban schools, I have very rural schools. Like, the whole school district is like, not even 500 kids. So are you still continuing to talk to the opposition, see if you can't land somewhere that hopefully accommodates them?

Yeah, it's very committed to continuing to talk with the opposition. I similar to you, have a very diverse district where I have urban schools, and then I also have very rural schools in southwestern San Mateo County kind of Pescadero area. We have some, and because of that, we put some details in the Bill that include the ability to offer a virtual or distance course option if a traditional classroom setting isn't feasible. And so those schools can these classes can be taught remotely.

And I'm sympathetic to the issue of needing to train more teachers. I've worked on these issues in the past. I've been very frustrated at the lack of success that I've had working on these issues in the past. And it's come to the point where I think California really needs to set a marker like we do with other policies, set a date that we're going to get something accomplished, and then we have to do the hard work to get that accomplished.

This isn't going to be easy, but it's important. And if we were the first state in the country to do this, I would be a little more hesitant. We'd be the 28th state in the country to do this. 27 other states already require that every high school student have access, this isn't a requirement that you take it, but have access to computer science.

There are five states. Those five states that I listed earlier, Arkansas, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, and Tennessee have computer science as a graduation requirement. I'm sure they have a challenging time getting computer science teachers in those communities, in those states as well. We can't let that be an excuse not to make sure that our students have access to the courses and skills that they need, but I will absolutely keep on talking with the opposition.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So basically the same concerns that I have with our small courses, small counties, and our school district. I'm very sensitive to them as well because I understand the shortage that we have for trained teachers throughout the state. It's very well known I sit on both in this committee and also in Budget One, which is the Educational Funding Committee, and the reports, the oversight hearings that we have with regards to the educational workforce is incredibly dire in need here in California. Well, so many areas.

Health care is another one. Public safety is another one. But I am going to support the Bill today. However, I do want to see some accommodations or at least address the unfunded mandate. I'm very sensitive to that, having had sat at a local school board trying to figure out how do you meet all these requirements without the funding allocated to it? So I noticed that this is an unfunded mandate.

Yes, I suppose it's a mandate that you offer the course. It's not a mandate that you take the course. We do have programs, which I can talk about in a minute, that grant funding to train teachers to teach computer science. I can go into that now, or I can wait until...

You can do that when you close. But I want to make sure that we don't require this without giving the school districts the funding to be able to provide these courses both as not just the training if we need to train the teachers, but also the ability to hire them, especially in rural areas. And as we know, like healthcare, it's very difficult to hire people in the rural areas to bring them in there without their corporate funding.

So I'm going to watch very closely what you have allocated. I'm going to listen very carefully to the opposition as we move forward, and I will reserve my right to change my vote on the floor once the final language is here. But in the process, I hope that you continue to work in both the funding and number two, accommodating the ability to meet this requirement for many of our rural areas.

Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. And I assure you that I will always support and push for and advocate for additional funding, especially for STEM education and especially in our underprivileged and rural communities. Before I got elected to the Assembly, while I was serving on a local city council, I worked for an education nonprofit that was focused on increasing access to STEM education in underserved communities. That's kind of where I saw this disparity the most in the Bay Area. So I hear you. You have my commitment that I'll definitely keep on doing everything I can to increase funding for these needs.

Any other comments? So, Mr. Berman, for my part, I'm very glad to support the Bill. I mean, to your point, California will not be the first. We're actually well behind, and there's an irony there against our historic leadership and technology. And I think when it comes to computer science, when it comes to coding, really important that young people get exposed to it early.

In a state this big, there's an untold number of young people that will embrace the opportunities, who have immense talent, but if they don't encounter the technology or the resources necessary to learn about it, we lose. That right. So, appreciate the Bill. Glad to support it. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion?

Wilk moves the Bill.

Look at you.

Senator Wilk moves the Bill. We have motion. Senator Wilk. Madam Consultant, please call the role.

You hit the red button on your.

This is file item number two, AB 1054 Berman. The motion is do pass but first be re referred to the committee on appropriations. Senators Newman aye, Ochoa bogh aye, Cortese, Glazer aye, McGuire, Smallwood-Cuevas, Senator Wilk aye.

All right, we will leave that that measure has four votes at the moment. We'll leave it open for the time being. Assembly Member Zbur welcome. Appreciate your patience. You'll be presenting AB Five and you may proceed when ready.

Thank you. Mr. Chair Members of the committee. Today I'm proud to present AB Five. And I'm proud that this critical Bill is sponsored by CFT, the California Teachers Association, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurman and Equality California.

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

Prior efforts in this space were delayed to give the sponsors time to engage in budget advocacy, to find the creation of an online training program, which we succeeded which they succeeded in doing. In 2021, as a result of negotiations with Governor Newsom, the budget allocated $3 million to the Department of Education for the creation of an online training program for teachers and staff which required robust content that is mirrored in this Bill.

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

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

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

They can give an LGBT kid from Diamond Bar or Yucaipa or San Jose or Contra Costa or North Coast or Los Angeles or Santa Clarita a shot at a brighter future. If we're going to expect our public school teachers and other certificated staff to fulfill this critical mission, we have to give them the tools they need. And again, I'm so grateful to our sponsors for joining us in advancing this critical Bill. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

And with me today to testify and support and to assist with technical questions are Adrian, an Elk Grove student in the 10th grade, and Jeff Freitas, President of CFT, one of the co sponsors of the Bill.

Very good, Adrian. I believe you be given the green light to go first. Welcome, sir.

Hello. My name is Adrian, and now I'm an incoming 11th grader at a high school in Elk Grove, and I'm here today to express my strong support for AB Five, as I believe it is an important Bill for LGBTQ youth in California. As a transgender student myself, I can say from firsthand experience that this training is badly needed in our schools. Many teachers want to support their students, but they just don't know how.

They don't understand the crucial role that using the correct pronouns and names mean to students that they teach. They don't understand that it greatly impacts our safety and well being, and I believe them having an increased understanding would greatly improve the learning environment at school for kids like me. When I first started high school, I was not open about being transgender to my peers or my teachers.

However, after a few months and making more friends and becoming more comfortable at my new school, I then decided to come out to a small group of people. But at that time, I still decided not to disclose that information with any of my teachers.

Despite my wishes, my English teachers still found out that I went by Adrian and he him pronouns and then, in an attempt to affirm my gender identity, then decided to call me Adrian and he him in front of the entire class, subsequently outing me as transgender to all of my classmates. I was mortified. All control I had over a very private aspect of my life had been taken away from me.

And while I do believe this teacher was trying her best to be supportive, I don't think she truly knew how to support a transgender child. That being said, I am fortunate to have a family that does support me at home. But I know that this is not the case for many LGBTQ students. So it is imperative that teachers do everything they can to help create a supportive environment at school to ensure that all children feel accepted, respected, and supported for who they are. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Freitas, welcome.

Good morning. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Members. As you said, my name is Jeff Freitas. I'm the President of CFT, but I'm a math teacher by trade. I'm a gay man happily married to another man. But when I grew up in Los Banos, California, I felt different from the people around me, but I didn't know what that difference was. I knew the word gay, but didn't know what it meant. As you can tell, this was a while ago with the gray on my temples.

There were references in the media, there were not references in the media except for the AIDS pandemic. At the time, there were few role models that I was aware of, or there were only rumors of entertainers that were gay. Even though my uncle was involved in San Francisco politics in the 1970s, I didn't even know about Harvey Milk at the time. As you know, today it's very different.

We actually have a role model and Assembly Member carrying this Bill and a leader of the community. I'll speed up the timeline a little bit because it's a few decades. I then went to West Point, where I figured out that I was gay, that I was a gay man. I left because the military code prevented me from serving. This was during Bush senior. But when I left, I knew I wanted to help people. I wanted to help students.

That was what I wanted to do in life. So I became a math teacher because math was easy. I know that's not what everybody says, but it was for me. But the first time that a student came out to me, I didn't know what to do. I, as a gay man, didn't know what to say, what resources to give, or what conversation to even have with that student. In short, even I, as a gay man, didn't know as a teacher what to do.

I could teach the quadratic equation ten different ways to that student, but I didn't know how to help that student with what they were struggling with at the time. Now, we have student clubs. There are different organizations, but we don't have that training for all educators. And when I say that even educators that are in the community need those resources, this Bill provides that training, the resources that we need to know to be able to help those students.

That is why CFT is a co sponsor of this Bill and why I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do any other witnesses here in the hearing like testify in support of the measure? Welcome again.

Thank you. Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU in strong support.

Thank you.

And Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California, proud co sponsor in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

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

Thank you.

Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support. Urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Nick Romley, on behalf of the California School Nurses Organization, in support.

Thank you.

D'Artagnan Byrd, on behalf of AskMe, California, in support.

Thank you.

Cathy Mossberg, on behalf of San Francisco AIDS Foundation, in support.

Leilani Aguinaldo, Fresno Unified School District in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Noah Bartelt on behalf of ACLU California action in strong support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good morning, Serette Kaminski with the Association of California School Administrators. I have a tweener support if amended. May I briefly elaborate?

Please.

Briefly, we just believe that this initiative must be properly funded. And while we're extremely supportive of this type of training, to better support LGBTQ plus youth, we also seek to amend the requirement that the number of certificated teachers trained be posted to all district websites. We believe the reporting function of this mandated training should just be consistent with other existing mandating trainings. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Jason Newman, President, Los Rios College Federation of Teachers. In strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members. Seth Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association, we are proud co sponsors.

Thank you. Anybody else? Is anybody here like to testify in opposition to the measure? AB 5. Very good. Welcome, Ms. Williams. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Before I start, I would like to give some of my time to Erin Friday. So I'll just speak for 1 minute and I'll give her one.

That's fine. Okay.

Thank you so much.

Let me interrupt. There's room for two primary witnesses. You each have two. Oh, do you have multiple. You have four minutes total.

Thank you so much.

Go ahead.

My name is Kasia Williams. I'm the legislative Director for California Parents Union. We are special interest group of parents, grandparents, and teachers. Some of our Members are also teachers, and we do have some Members concerned about this Bill. One of the concerns is currently the law encourages local educational agencies to provide such training. AB Five makes it a mandate, a requirement, which does reduce the control of the local educational agency because it creates a mandate, a requirement.

Some of our Members also believe that mandated training will take the time away from the teachers to collaborate on instruction for academic excellence. And as California parentinian, this is our goal, to make sure our students receive appropriate training in regards of all subjects that relate to academic excellence. And our mission is to just have the focus back on the basics in our schools, math, reading and such. And on top of it, some of our Members believe LGBTQ is about sexuality and not the whole person.

And the pushing content on this topic on teachers is inappropriate because it should be addressed at home and not at school. And those are our concerns. And for these reasons, we ask for a no or abstain. And we have with us a student as well that would like to testify. And Ms. Erin Friday from our duty. Thank you so much.

That's fine. So you have about two and a half minutes of your four minutes left.

That's fine. My name is Erin Friday. I'm a licensed attorney. I am a co lead of our duty. I'm a mother of a daughter who used to think that she was a boy. The school hid it from me, and this is what this Bill is going to tell all teachers to do, to hide it from the parents. When I found out my daughter thought that she was transgender, we held her.

We loved her a little bit stronger, and we took her to a therapist, and we reminded her how wonderful it is to be a woman. She came back to reality, lo and behold, she has all of her body parts, and she didn't take hormones. She's a grown 17 year old young woman, and she's very grateful for the fact that I did not affirm her gender identity, this Bill.

Assembly Member Zbur, when you were with Equity California in 2016, you said that 41% of students who are LGBTQ have contemplated suicide in 2023 in this Bill. Now you say it's 78%. We're going in the wrong direction. And we're going in the wrong direction because schools are indoctrinating these kids. They're telling them that they can be born in the wrong body. Leila, why don't you come on?

Thank you. Welcome.

My name is Leila. I am one of many detransitioners who was harmed by gender affirming care. My childhood was filled with depression, mood swings, violent outbursts, suicidality and self harm. At eleven, I discovered transgender influencers online. I was hooked. And I was convinced that the reason for my pain was that I was trans. I had a long history of mental health issues in my medical chart. None of that mattered when I made my announcement to the doctors. I was affirmed by adults like your laws say.

So my mother was desperate to give me some relief and fell for the lies that I would improve by transitioned Kaiser. Doctors put me on puberty blockers. My body reacted with hot flashes. I was even moodier. My doctor, after a 75 minutes appointment with no mental health assessment, prescribed testosterone. Dr. Watson also cleared me for a radical double mastectomy. I was twelve. Let that sink in. Twelve. I had never been kissed by anybody, never been touched.

And I had no sense of what my breasts were for. I was a child answering a question about future mothering. I did not know if I wanted kids. That was good enough for the doctor to clear me to remove my breasts. My tattoo artist spent more time warning me about the long term effects of this possum than any doctor did about the harms of the experimental drugs they were giving me. After I turned 13, doctors amputated my healthy breasts. My mental health did not improve.

I was aggressive, erratic and suicidal. All affirmative care did was add physical problems to my mental ones. At 17, I realized I wasn't a boy, nor could I ever be one. I was just a mentally unwell kid who was sold a book of lies. Why do you keep passing laws that will ensure my story is repeated? Chloe Cole, another young woman who was a minor when she was put on puberty blockers and testosterone, had her breasts moved. And she has already testified before you.

How many people must be irreversibly harmed before you get gender ideology out of the schools? It's not inclusive. It's not kind. It's barbaric. If you vote yes on AB Five, can you live with the fact that you are just as guilty as the surgeon that cut me up?

Thank you for your testimony. Anybody else in the room would like to testify in opposition to the measure?

David Bolog on behalf of San Fernando Valley Alliance and California Nurses United in opposition.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Let's now go to the phone line. Mr. Moderator, if you could please query the line for anybody who like to testify in support of or in opposition to AB Five.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if you wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. Looks like we have seven in queue at the moment. We'll start with 79. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Member. Sylvia Solis Shaw, here on behalf of the city of Santa Monica and the city of West Hollywood in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Line. 50, please go ahead.

Sam Nasher with the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support.

Thank you. Next.

Line 48, please go ahead.

Nicole Wardleman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership and Support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 44, please go ahead.

Thank you Chair and Members. My name is Noah Whitley, speak on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 18, please go ahead.

Erin Evans on behalf of NARAL Pro Choice, California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 103, please go ahead.

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

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 97, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Brenda Villanueva with the Los Angeles LGBT Center in support.

Thank you. Anybody else?

Yeah, we have five more.

Very good.

Line 20, please go ahead.

Yes, my name is Lynn Surdini, and I'm a Member of the Santa Monica Democratic Club, and we strongly support this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 80, please go ahead.

Jennifer Kennedy, attorney, Los Angeles County, in opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 101, please go ahead.

This is Eve Banas on behalf of the Sacramento LGBT Community Center in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

And we'll go to line 110, please go ahead.

Good morning. Dannie Ceseña, Director of the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network in strong support.

Thank you.

Just a moment, Mr. Chair. We have one more queue up at the last moment. Here we go. And line 123, please go ahead.

Greg Bird, California Family Council, in strong opposition.

Thank you. Anybody else on the phone line who'd like to testify?

And Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak at this time.

All right, let's come back to the Dais colleagues. Any questions or comments for the author regarding the Bill? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

What a sensitive topic. I first want to recognize the courage of both of the young adults that came and testified this morning, both in support and in opposition to the Bill. I can't imagine the challenges that you both have faced and many of the youth that go through the same or similar life experiences in your lives, very different paths.

And I'm grateful that in both cases, you've had family support, because every child, every child deserves to be loved and supported during very difficult time, which is adolescence, period. Adolescence is very difficult for many of us. We all go through that awkward stage of trying to figure out what our bodies are doing as they change, the hormonal fluctuations that happen with adolescence and how that impacts our self perception. Whether you're LGBTQ or not, everybody goes through those awkward, awkward stages in life.

And this is a very sensitive subject because there's such a polarizing environment in which we're placing people, whether it's with labels or whether it's with animosity. But I think today I will not be able to support the Bill and not because I don't support the principle of creating awareness and how do we best support our students? Because I think that's important as human beings.

As a mom, and I'm speaking as a mom at this time, who has family Members who identify as LGBTQ and has seen the struggles, the impact on that end. So it is a personal subject matter for me on this end. But we have to do in General start talking about just the civility and just the basic.

Because more than anything, I think what our youth needs is to feel that they are safe, that they're listened to, that they have a place to call home and a family. I think that's the most important part and this is where family becomes very important.

And the fear that I have, the concern that I have is that many parents feel that as their students, their children are going through a period of time where they're figuring their bodies out, going through that hormonal, many parents are feeling excluded from the conversations. And I'm afraid that many of the policy that we're seeing through the Legislature is furthering that isolation.

Instead of trying to promote and bring families together where what might appear to be pitting parents against their own children because the children may feel that they're not being supported, because they're not being affirmed. And just on the trans care portion of it. I've been having many constituents on both sides send me articles, send me data and surveys, and I'm reading it as much as I can.

To be a better informed family Member, to be a better informed legislator, and to be a better informed community Member so that I can understand the sensitivities that our community Members are going through and especially our youth on both sides.

So I just want for the record to note that I will continue to support our families, ensuring that there's collaboration, that there's communication, that we don't vilify, that we don't ostracize, but that we continue to have thoughtful, courteous, kind and civil conversations on topics that are incredibly sensitive as this. So because of those reasons, I won't be able to support this because I'm worried as to where we're going to be heading and what that's going to entail because we don't have specifics on that.

And just the current environment that we have in which parents are feeling excluded is extremely concerning for me because, as I've mentioned with my colleague from San Francisco, just because a parent feels one way at a certain time and period of time doesn't mean that that perspective won't change or vice versa. That the student may feel and think one thing now, but might change their mind, as evidenced by the testimony.

And that's why it makes it so difficult to navigate because there are such different paths as evidenced today by our witnesses. And once again, to our youth that came today, my highest commendation on your courage. And I'm grateful that you're here and that you have a voice and that you own it. So thank you for being here and for both sharing your stories today.

Thank you, Senator Glazer.

Thank you, Chair Newman. I know we have a long hearing today, and I have a lot to say on the subject, but I'm going to be brief. I think it's a great Bill. I think it's modest in scope. I think anything that we can do to enhance sensitivity to our LGBTQ Plus is a good thing. It doesn't do anything to interfere with the role of the family. So with that, I'm happy to move the Bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you. And I agree with Senator Glazer's. Comment. I was particularly moved by Mr. Freitas' comments, you know, even as a gay man teaching, you were very aware of not having the tools at that time. My understanding of this Bill Assembly Member this is not about a particular position. This is deliberately neutral to provide teachers and staff with the tools to be aware and appropriately sensitive to many of the issues that Senator Ochoa Bogh described. If you wouldn't mind, or you can reserve it for your clothes. Speaking to that, there's been a lot of discussion here about parental input, indoctrination. My understanding of this Bill is this is not about any of those things.

No, I mean, when you look at the statistics, we know that LGBTQ kids face higher rates of dropout, higher rates of leaving their homes, and among the highest in terms of homelessness, I think four out of ten homeless youth are Members of the LGBTQ plus community, and we know sort of what's happening. They're basically either facing hostility in the schools, or sometimes they're facing lack of acceptance in their homes. And then the result is they leave their homes.

And so what this does is it doesn't have anything to do with transgender medical care. It's really trying to help teachers understand how to grapple with students when they're facing these challenges. I'll give you an example that was in my own family. My daughter, when she was in fifth grade, came home crying one day. There was a little girl in her class whose family didn't like the fact that she had LGBTQ parents.

And so they were doing a birthday party at their home that weekend, and they invited every kid in the class except for my daughter. And we went back to the teacher, and we said, why did you let that happen? You shouldn't be using the schools to basically ostracize one kid. And the teacher, who was a great teacher, really wonderful, wonderful teacher, said, we're not taught about what to do in these. I felt really awkward.

The kids parents came in and started just passing them around through the kids, and the little girls passed them around, and I didn't want to take them back. I didn't know what to do. Those are the kinds of things, the skills that at that level that would help both administrators and teachers. There are best practices on how to handle these things and how to grapple with the fact that families have different perspectives, but how you always protect the kid.

So that's just one example of the kinds of things there. The training itself is being prepared by the California Department of Public Education. It's a six hour course. It is really about helping kids stay in school and helping teachers understand how to help identify these at risk kids and help them stay in school and grapple with this very sensitive time in their community.

So I think that this is something that is actually pro family because it's about getting them to existing resources and also implementing the existing laws that we've already passed.

Thank you. Can we take that as your close?

You can. If there's any other questions. And thank you for the I know you've been a strong advocate for our community, and I really appreciate that. Senator Glazer. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Appreciate that. We have a motion for Senator Glazer. Madam Consultant, if you please call the role. I don't know that it takes us too far. Please do. If you wouldn't mind.

I think the Assembly Member's answered his question that he answered by way of his intent for the Bill. Ms. Friday. Go ahead, in brief.

This is what happens at the schools, because I'm a parent of a child who thought that she was transgender, so they kept it a secret. The school does go behind parents backs, and that's what these you this Bill will teach teachers to do, to keep it a secret from their parents. Schools have transition closets where children can go into school in one pair of clothing and then while they're at school, change into something else to keep it a secret from parents. They also are providing binders. No, this is what the training is about.

This is not what the legislation is about.

Teachers to hide from parents information. That's what it trains them. There is nothing in the Bill that talks about detransition or about the medical harms. So it is an incomplete Bill. If you want to educate the teachers about transgenderism, you have to educate it in total, which is not that the parents are monsters. There are no parents that are kicking their kids out of this. I work with thousands of parents.

Thank you. Your point is well taken. Mr. Zbur, if you could, please, a quick response.

The training that is being developed has not even been released yet. So what she's saying is it's basically training that's been provided by education experts that's age appropriate and is really aimed at the things that the standards that are set forth in the Bill.

And to be clear, this is a work in progress. And I would assume that for Ms. Friday's comments, that you're more than willing to take input to make sure that this is neutral, that this is sensitive, and takes all parties into account. Is that correct?

I think we've worked very carefully with the Department of Instruction and with the superintendent of public instruction about sort of the standards that need to be in the Bill. Those were actually adopted by the Legislature. So that part is already done. But obviously always open to discussion about any aspects of our Bill.

I appreciate it. All right, so we do have a motion by Senator Glazer. Please call the roll.

This is for file item number three. It's AB five, Zbur. The motion is do pass, but first be re referred to the committee on appropriations. Senators Newman aye, Ochoa Bogh, Cortese, Senator Glazer aye, McGuire, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wilk.

We will leave that open. Just so folks are aware that there's a concurrent meeting with the Senate committee on labor. That's where our other Members are. Thank you, Mr. Zbur. Okay, and next we have Mr. Fong is here. Welcome. You have a number of bills. I think the first is agenda number 14, AB 506. You may proceed when you are ready. Actually, and I'm happy to take them in any order, Senator Wilk. Assembly Member, the order is up to you.

Thank you so much, Senator Newman, and good morning, Members. We can take up item 17. First Assembly, Bill 1540. If that's okay with you, Mr. Chair.

That's fine.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Assembly Bill 1540 streamlines the process for undocumented students to apply for financial aid. Currently, undocumented students apply for state financial aid through the California Dream Act application, submit it to the California Student Aid Commission.

In order for students to receive in-state tuition, an undocumented student must complete the AB 540 affidavit and submit it to the institution of higher education where the student plans to enroll. This process creates confusion and limits students ability to access the full amount of aid available to them. Students may submit one of the forms, assuming that one form covers all aid.

According to a report by the California Student Aid Commission, only 14% of eligible undocumented students receive financial aid. Assembly Bill 1540 creates a seamless process by allowing the California Student Aid Commission to collect both the CATA and the AB 540 affidavit. The California Student Aid Commission will share the AB 540 affidavit with the higher education institution, which will be allowed to verify information as they deem necessary.

The goal of this Bill is to assist eligible students in accessing both in-state tuition and financial aid, such as Cal Grants. And here to testify in support are Jake Bremner from the California Student Commission and Luis Antonio Carreon Hernandez, a student at Sierra College.

Welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you. And good morning, chair Newman and senators. I'm Jake Bremner, Deputy Director for Policy and Public Affairs with the California Student Aid Commission.

As Assemblymember Fong summarized, AB 1540 streamlines the process through which our California Dream Act students, many of whom are undocumented, can apply for financial aid and complete that additional AB 540 paperwork to confirm their eligibility for aid and for that nonresident tuition exemption. Right now, the two step approach that Assembly Member Fong described requires undocumented students or California Dream Act applicants to complete more paperwork compared to their peers that submit a federal application, often to still receive less aid. In the 21/22 academic year, out of approximately 21,000 California Dream Act filers who were offered state aid, only 13,000 were ultimately paid.

That means that nearly four out of every ten of our Dream Act applicants offered aid are not receiving it. And we know that these kind of administrative challenges contribute to that. The work group that we convened identified various barriers that undocumented students face as they navigate higher education.

Students vocalized that they and their peers are often unaware of the multiple forms they need to submit, causing their aid to be delayed in its disbursement. AB 1540 directly reflects a recommendation that we heard from our students and our practitioners who are working on this every day. Later this year, a new federal aid formula and application will be launched to simplify the process for those that are able to apply federally.

Unfortunately, many of those applications enhancements are contingent on expanding the use of IRS data. That's not something we're going to be able to replicate for our California Dream Act application. However, AB 1540 presents us with a chance to simplify the financial aid process for undocumented students and California Dream Act applicants.

Now is the ideal time for us to make this change because we can implement it along with others that are underway to utilize that new federal aid formula in our state aid determinations. So now you'll be hearing from our student who will provide his experience navigating from the AB 540 and financial aid process. I'd like to thank Assembly Member Fong on behalf of the commission and request your support today.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next and welcome.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Luis Antonio Carreon. Growing up in Mexico, teachers told me, "you have the potential, you could go to university."

I was accepted into public university in Mexico, but my parents could not afford it. Knowing little English, I immigrated to the US to financially support my parents.

I worked in the fields, gardening and later in construction. Despite making a good income through my construction job, I wanted to follow my dreams of going to college. Things changed for me when I moved to California.

I connect with the American River College UndocuCenter. I found out I could qualify for AB 540 if I fulfill a considerable amount of study hours, credit courses or non credit. I rediscovered a lost dream, and I now was determined not abandon it. With hope, but without any education in English, I started attending adult school.

I left my construction job to have time to study. Then I faced my biggest challenge: the lack of financial resources and the partial lack of information about AB 540 and California Dream Act. Many students and counselors need to familiarize themselves with the fact that students need to fill out the AB 540 Affidavit and the California Dream Act application.

They need to find out how CADA will benefit them and why it's essential to fill it out. I enrolled in adult school, but the adult school closed when the pandemic happened. Then I began to take classes at the community college.

As nontraditional undocumented or first generation student, I have very few scholarship opportunities. Many students have financial challenges, but there are options for them. At the beginning of 2022, I got my GED.

I finished the ESL courses, and at the end of the year, I qualified for AB 540. This took a lot of meetings with admission and records, financial aid specialists, and AB 540 workshops to understand the specific times and the information needed to fill out the forms. Unfortunately, very few students have access to or knowledge of where these experts are, where these experts are, or how to navigate this process.

At the end of this semester I will have complete 20 units of transferable credits out of the 60 needed to go to Sac State. Since my education began in 2020, I have made a space to advocate for students, for undocumented students like me. That's why I'm here today and I strongly urge you to support the AB 1540.

Streamlining the application and the process will save the future students time and energy as they navigate their higher education.

Thank you, Mr. Carreon, appreciate your testimony. Is there anybody else in the hearing room would like to testify and support the measure? Please come forward.

Good morning, Taylor Thompson, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, as a proud co-sponsor and support, thank you.

Thank you, next, please.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in support.

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning. Katrina Linden, on behalf of the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition, in strong support of AB 1540.

Thank you, thank you, next please.

Good morning. Already at liberty, Berserd, ESL professor at American River College, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, next please.

Hello. Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, Kimberly Sanchez with NextGen California in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. David Nevin on behalf of the Hispanas Organized for Political Equality in support.

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning. Melissa Bardo on behalf of the Education Trust-West, in strong support.

Thank you, next please.

Good morning. Imran Majid, on behalf of the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office in support. Thank you.

Thank you, next please.

Good morning. David Ramirez on behalf of the UC Student Association, in strong support.

Thank you, next please.

Sbeydeh Viveros-Walton, Public Advocates in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Akele Caperes Martinez on behalf of Los Rios Community College Undocumented Student Centers in support thank you.

Next, please.

Guadalupe Mendez on behalf of Los Rios Undocumented Falcon Center for Folsom Lake College in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Jason Newman, President, Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Rita Medina, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA, in strong support.

Thank you.

Eva Jimenez on behalf of the California Dream Network, in strong support.

Thank you.

Manny Rodriguez on behalf of the Institute for College Access to Success, TICAS in support.

Thank you. Anybody else, has anybody here would like to testify in opposition to AB 1540? Seeing none, let's go to the phone line. Mr. Moderator, if you could query the line for anybody like to testify in support of or in opposition to AB 1540?

Thank you. Mr. Chair, again, it's 10 at this time. We'll first go to line 79.

Mr. Chair and Members, Sylvia Felice Shaw here on behalf of the California Faculty Association, in strong support thank you.

Thank you, next please.

114.

Mr. Chair and Members, Hannah Bragstad with the Cal State Student Association, which represents nearly half a million CSE students across the state in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

85.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. Partial strategy with you aspire in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 130.

Nancy Jodaitis from Immigrants Rising. We're in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

And line 117.

Hello, this is Marcos Montez with Southern California College Attainment Network calling in support, thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

135.

135. Your line is open.

This is Thomas Dixon on behalf of the Los Angeles Business Council, and we support this motion.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 80. I'm sorry.

Chair and Members. It's Jennifer Kennedy, Los Angeles County. I oppose this discriminatory Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

And currently none further in queue.

Very good. Let's bring it back to the Committee Members. Any comments or questions? Senator Glazer?

Good Bill. Happy to move it at the appropriate time.

Well said, Senator Glazer. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I just want to say thank you very much for moving this Bill. I'm not sure how it's discriminatory, but I'm grateful that the fact that we're working towards streamlining process Administration, because we actually was privy to attend a forum out in my district with regards to students who are food insecure.

And one of the biggest challenges that we learned from that conference is the multiple, I guess you could say, opportunities to file for different aid instead of having one streamlined process and trying to make it more efficient and more effective. And I think this is just one way of trying to be more efficient in our way of allocating the aid.

And I have to commend the student that spoke earlier today from Mexico, your bravery, your courage to want to achieve the American Dream through education and self improvement is commendable. And I appreciate your heart for wanting to improve yourself, achieve the American Dream and give back to your family. So that is a beautiful value to have.

Appreciate that. Anybody else? No? We have a motion from Senator Glazer. Assembly Member Fong would you like to close?

Thank you so much to everyone's coming to testify. And thank you, Senator, for your comments on streamline the process. Really appreciate everyone being here today. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very good, madam Consultant, please call the role.

This is file item 17, AB 1540, Assembly Member Fong. The motion is do pass, but first be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Newman aye, Ochoa Bogh aye, Cortese, Glazer aye, Mcguire, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wilk aye.

All right. That measure currently has four votes. We'll leave it open for absent. Members, we will move on to the next of Assembly Member Fong's bills. Which is your next Bill, sir?

Well, it's Assembly Bill 506, item number 14.

Very good. Agenda item number 14, AB 506. Please proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. I would first like to accept a committee amendment and thank your committee consultant for working closely with my office. Current law currently requires that all California State University students, beginning with a graduating class of 2024 2025 to complete a course in Ethnic Studies as a requirement for graduation as a General education course, community college students who wish to transfer to a CSU must first complete the course at a community college in the fall of 2020.

After the adoption of core competencies as required by Assembly Bill 1460, the CSU Chancellor's Office began the process of reviewing and improving community college courses that are transferable to the CSU. I've heard from many community colleges, including community colleges that serve my district, who have experienced high rejection rates of the courses that they have submitted. The chart on page five of the committee analysis shows a 47% acceptance rate of these Ethnic Studies courses.

They have also expressed frustration with the criteria for approval, which seemed to change over time, and with reviewers who may not have had the expertise in ethics studies courses. For example, during the last round of approval has come to my attention that Asian American Studies courses that focus on Pacific Islanders have been rejected with the belief that Pacific Islanders are not part of the Asian American Studies diaspora. Asian American studies are not just about East Asians.

It's also about the experience of all Asian Pacific Americans, which includes the experiences of Pacific Islander Americans. My office has been in discussion with the Chancellor's office for over a year and appreciate the Chancellor's office willingness to meet with my office. I introduced this Bill originally as a placeholder hoping not to have anything done legislatively, but we continue to have some issues, and we have now seen major improvements.

Assembly Bill 506 will establish a new process for approving community college courses, ethnic Studies courses that will be under the guidance of the CSU and the Community College Academic Senate and the Councils for Ethnic Studies. They are subject matter experts in ethnic Studies. This process is necessary to ensure that the courses approved for transfer are appropriate and sufficient in number to avoid any delays in students'ability to transfer from Mckimele College to CSU.

And I'm also very aware of the concerns regarding the sunset of existing courses that have been approved. We simply wanted to do a re review of those courses under the new process by subject matter faculty. However, I'm willing to commit and working on those issues and concerns moving forward.

And testifying in support are Dr. Francisco Rodriguez, chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District, and Dr. Takima Mayasa, chair of the Black Studies Department at San Diego Mesa College and co chair of the California Community Colleges Ethnic Studies Faculty Council. Thank you.

Welcome, Dr. Rodriguez. Please proceed.

Welcome and good morning, Chair Newman and honorable Members of the Senate Education Committee. I'm Francisco Rodriguez, chancellor of Los Angeles community college district. I'm honored to join you and Assembly Member Fong, representing the LACCD and as a proud sponsor of AB 506. Ethnic Studies, provides a critical view and understanding of our society's history of race, ethnicity, and class.

It provides the framework to help our students build a more informed, racially just, and inclusive future, a future that our students will inherit lead, and all of us will benefit from. The legislature's passage in the Governor's signatures of AB 1460 in 2020 established the landmark Ethnic studies graduation requirement for a bachelor's degree at the California Community College System. This essentially requires all community colleges to offer lower division Ethnic Studies courses for all students who plan to transfer to the UC.

Let me give you a couple of data points that will put this into context. As of the 22 23 academic year, more than 53% of community college Ethnic Studies courses submitted for approval under the Area F category have been denied by the CSU. At LACCD, only 37% of such courses have been approved under Area F. We have, at the moment, seven Chicano Studies courses available, five African American Studies courses, three Asian American Studies courses. This is unacceptable and will not meet the need.

Simply put, the current approval process in place is not working and is simply too slow. We must correct this process so that our students can satisfy the lower division requirements and successfully transfer to the CSU of their choice. This Bill ensures that graduates of the California State University and transfer students from the California Community Colleges fulfill the intent of AB 1460.

We firmly believe that by working collaboratively with our CSU partners, with our Chancellor's Office partners, we can establish a process through this Bill that honors the intent of AB 1460. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please. Dr. Mayasa.

Good morning. Greetings, Mr. Chairman and senators. I am Takima Mayasa. Dr. Takima Mayasa, co chair of the Ethnic Studies, California Community College Ethnic Studies Council. And I'm the outgoing chair of the Black Studies Department and San Diego Mesa College. I'd like to take and address four issues with you today. The CSU area f process is flawed. It lacks clarity and consistency in reviewer decision making. For example, some of the districts submitted the same exact curriculum, yet had two different outcomes.

Reviewers were not appropriately vetted as Ethnic Studies experts, nor were they adequately trained. The CSU Chancellor's office developed an untested rubric that was not submitted prior to submissions, yet were used to evaluate Area F proposals, contributing to the denials of all 90 submissions from just this past spring. The result is that students are being hurt by this process. When Ethnic Studies curriculum isn't approved in a timely and consistent manner, it delays degree completion and restricts students ability to take transferable ethnic Studies courses.

Hundreds of Ethnic Studies courses from long standing ethnic studies departments and programs like my own are continuously being denied. For example, we had 14 courses that were submitted over six cycles, and only one of them was approved from our campus and one other from another one of our campuses. However, AB 506 will change this process. It ensures appropriate Ethnic Studies courses will be available for students to obtain degree completion and strengthens our ability to achieve the initial goal of AB 1460.

Ethnic Studies faculty reviewers will be vetted and approved by disciplined experts of the CSU Ethnic studies Faculty Council. I strongly encourage all of you to vote I on AB 506 because the current review process defies the integrity of 1460 of AB 1460 and is a disservice to all California Community College students across the state. AB 506 is a correction to the current inadequate and biased implementation of AB 1460. We urge you to support our students by supporting this Bill. Thank you so very much.

Thank you. Dr. Mayasa, is there anybody else here would like to testify and support the measure? Mr. Brown.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members, on behalf of the CFT, we apologize for not having a letter. It wasn't until late in the game that we heard an outcry from our faculty to support this Bill. So late last night, our Executive council did that. So thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Jennifer Baker with the California Association for Bilingual Education in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Katrina Linden, on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity, in support of AB 506. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Oranit Limmaneeprasert ESL faculty at American River College, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jason Newman, President, Los Rios College Federation of Teachers. In strong support.

Thank you.

Dr. Tamara Cheshire, chair of the Ethnic Studies Department at Folsom Lake College. Member of, actually, co chair of the Los Rios District Ethnic Studies Faculty Council in strong support.

Thank you.

Hi, Juliette Parker. I am an affiliate Member of the California Community College Ethnic Studies Faculty Council and also the San Diego Mesa College Ethnic Studies Faculty Council. We strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dr. Gabriel Buelna, trustee the Los Angeles Community College District and immediate past President. I'm also a 23 year faculty Member in the Chicana/Chicano Studies Department at California State University Northridge. The Board of Trustees at the LA Community Colleges unanimously support our colleague and this Bill completely in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Mr. Chair Members, David Neben, on behalf of the Hispanas Organized for Political Equity in support.

Thank you. Let's move to opposition. Is there anybody here like to speak in opposition to the Bill? Welcome.

Hello. Mary Moyle with the CSU. We have been in touch with the author's office and would like to thank them for meeting with us on the Bill. We do appreciate the intent of AB 506. However, the Bill will undo two and a half years of work by CSU and community college faculty, cause confusion for students, and does not align with the new AB 928 de pathway, which takes effect in 2025. Since AB 1460 of 2020 became law, over 650 community college ethnic studies courses have been approved.

Students have been taking these courses since 2021, and CSU is on track to ensure that our graduates fill this course by the academic year of 2024 25. We have worked over the past two and a half years to improve communication. Listen to feedback and provide more guidance, and we will continue to do so. We are also concerned about the impact on students. AB 506 specifies that currently approved courses will no longer meet the requirements for ethnic studies courses unless it is approved under the new process.

This will create a lot of confusion for students who have already taken a course or for students who still must take it. The Bill also presents challenges to community college students who wish to transfer to UC, since UC is starting a new ethnic studies course this fall, but is not included in the process for this Bill. Finally, AB 506 does not take recent legislation into account. AB 928 of 2021 requires CSU and UC to establish one unified GE pathway to make things easier for students.

AB 928 was supported by our students. This pathway, called Calgetsi, was finalized in May of this year and will take effect in 2025. The Ethnic studies requirement in this new pathway is modeled after the current process used. If AB 506 is passed, it will adversely impact the rollout for Calgetsi. In sum, the issues which this Bill is trying to address are best left to discussions among faculty within the Academic Senate, and we urge your no votes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else who'd like testify in opposition to the measure, please come forward.

Tyler Agulair on behalf of the University of California. We do not have an official position, but we do appreciate the conversations we've had with the author's office, and we'll continue to work through our concerns.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Agulair. Next, please.

Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California. We too do not have a position on the Bill. We do appreciate the conversations we have with the author and his staff and the sponsor to address some of the concerns related to grandfathering existing programs that have already been approved, and we look forward to having those conversations going forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anybody else seeing? None. Let's go to the phone line. Ms. Moderator, anybody on the line who'd like to testify in support of or in opposition to AB 506?

Thank you. Mr. Chair again. It's AB 506. Please press 10. Go first to line 79. 79 your line is open.

...On behalf of the California Faculty Association in support thank you.

Next, please.

Line 141.

Good morning. My name is Mark Balt from Santa Clara County and a board Member Member of the American Jewish Committee. I have one child enrolled in the state university system, with two more in waiting. I implore you to vote against AB 506. The CSU Council on Ethnic Studies is...

Thank you, I'm sorry, we're not taking testimony, just positions. Appreciate it. Next, please.

Thank you. Line 55.

Hi, this is Robin Layton. I live in San Diego and I'm a proud alumni of San Diego State, as well as a board Member of AJC San Diego. And I am against this bill because the council that would have veto power has been known to endorse anti-Semitic --

Thank you. Thank you. Next caller, please.

Thank you. Line 24.

Hello. Naomi Harris, board member of the American Jewish Committee of San Diego. I'm co-chair of its education committee and a proud graduate of UC San Diego and San Diego State University. And I strongly oppose this bill for the same reason that the council --

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 62.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Bob Horning, also on the board of AJC in Los Angeles. We support ethnic studies but oppose AB 506, as explained in our letter. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Horning. Next, please.

Line 121.

Hi. This is Diane Zimmerman and absolutely opposed AB 506.

Thank you. Next, please.

And currently none further in queue.

Very good. Let's come back to the committee. Any questions or comments from Members of the committee? Senator Glazer.

Thank you, Chair Newman. Well, first, Assembly Member, I applaud your engagement in this space. It's a complicated space, but I know it comes out of the best of intentions of trying to make sure that our ethnic studies requirements are being met. And I think you're right to acknowledge that there's dysfunction, and it's not working as well as it should, on one hand. On the other hand, it's brand new and it hasn't been in place for a long time.

And so the growing pains, I think, at some level, are understandable. But nevertheless, nobody wants to see a year go by and not accomplish what we hope to accomplish in educating our kids in this important area. I know that if I could roll back the clock, this is the kind of thing that -- we used to refer to it as CPEC, the California Post Secondary Education Commission -- kind of issue that they would take up and make sure there's coordination. Because what makes all of us so frustrated, it's not just in this area, it's also on the transfer portal situation. If I had hair, I would be pulling my hair out, which is that this communication between these systems, this dysfunction, has been going on for a long time, and it drives us all crazy because the losers are the students.

They're the true losers in this situation where conflicting information, confusing approved courses, and the idea that a student commits their time to a course over a semester, and it turns out not to be a transferable course or a functional course in their direction or their major, that's crazy. It's crazy. And for those of us who've been in this committee for a while have heard me talk about this issue because it drives me crazy that we're screwing students.

Us adults, with the best of intentions, have, for years and years, continued to really hurt student achievement and student success because the adults in the room can't seem to figure it out and work it out. And these are some of the smartest people in our state. Our faculty, our brilliant faculty at all levels in the system, can't work it out and figure it out and coordinate. So that's my foundational view of this issue.

My frustration with this bill is: it's all student-centered. Students who thought they were doing everything right. How is this bill really going to affect them and hurt them? And there's testimony that it would do so, that the courses they thought were approved may not be eligible now. That's a tragedy. I just can't think that we would ever want that to happen. I think this is the type of issue that we would benefit from an interim hearing of the committee to focus on how this coordination is happening. And it's beyond ethnic studies and may not be the direction that we're going to take today.

I think that there's justification for making this a two-year bill and making sure that we're making smart decisions and not just making it worse. I think the intentions are all correct, and this dysfunction is something we've seen over time. But I'm not confident that this is the right step to take at this moment. That may not make it better. I know you want to make it better, and that's certainly what you're trying to do here. I think this takes away a process from our faculty at all the institutions that have been working on this issue. So it's going to shortchange their review. We haven't given it a chance, I don't think, yet. And I'm very troubled that students who have thought they've been doing everything right might be hurt by this.

Senator, if I may?

Sure, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Glazer, for those comments and really appreciate the sentiment and advocating for our students. We did take the committee amendment that satisfies the requirement that those students who have already taken a course, that was one of the 675 that have been approved, that they're grandfathered in.

In terms of the courses and classes that have been approved by the CSU system, I'm open to conversations going forward to make sure that we can look at that process and not sunset the existing courses that have been already approved. So I appreciate those comments as well. And then in terms of the California Post Secondary Education Commission, I agree with you wholeheartedly. We're looking at that very closely. Actually have something there where it's a two-year bill, but it's to bring back the California Post Secondary Education. Would love to collaborate and have conversations with you on that. Thank you.

Any other Members of committee? Senator Wilk? You don't have to, you gave me kind of a --

No, because I'm frustrated with this as well. So 40 years ago, this year, I graduated from college. But I didn't graduate -- well, I did go through the ceremony in June -- but I didn't graduate to the fall, because I transferred from a community college to CSU. And then CSU decided one of my classes didn't count, and I had to go another semester. That's 40 years ago. I had to eat Top Ramen for another ten weeks. Smell that stuff, and I just gag.

I'm going to vote for the bill today because you're a good author and you're working hard. I'm also going to check with my colleges to see what's been rejected. Some of those numbers that you laid out is like -- there's some kind of disconnect that so few of those courses are being approved, and again, it's the students that suffer. Do you have any inclination why?

Well, let me just start out by saying that myself and Tamara, we were also members of the CSU Ethnic Studies Task Force that was responsible for trying to deal with many of these different issues. So, as Assembly Member Fong said, the courses that students have already taken would be grandfathered in. Right. They would not be punished, by any way, for a new process to move forward.

And the idea is to make sure that we correct the process that is contributory to some of these issues, where authentic ethnic studies classes are not being approved at the rate that non-ethnic studies courses are being approved. And that's where the dysfunction is in that part of the process. So we were not going to penalize students for our mistakes in terms of the process.

We want to move forward with a new process and understanding that students who are currently in the pipeline will not be affected, as well, by this. It gives us the time to take and revamp the process and making sure that the courses moving forward are authentic ethnic studies courses in other disciplines. You wouldn't want a student to take math from a PE teacher, right? Or something like that. Each discipline has just specific characteristics that are required for them to meet those areas. So we just want to make sure, moving forward, that the students are getting the authentic ethnic studies courses that AB 1460 intended. Right. And currently that's not happening, but we are confident that we can take and make that happen.

Okay, great. Thank you. And then I got one other question for you, Assemblyman Fong, because I had read the analysis, and I saw American Jewish Committee in opposition. I thought that was kind of random, but we did have one of the people on the phone was concerned about this bill. Do you know what their beef is, and is there a way to address it?

Thank you so much, Senator, for that question. And in terms of the opposition from Jewish community organizations, somebody referenced that somebody might have been anti-Semitic on that council. We don't stand for anti-Semitism at all. And this is something that, if it was to be on that council, we would call out. And so, if on the CSU Ethnic Studies Council that is found to be true, we definitely don't condone that. And at the same time, this bill does not change Assembly Bill 1460. We want to make sure we're meeting the core competencies, as referenced by Dr. Takima, that was just referenced earlier. So, thank you.

Thank you.

I too -- I'm sure I'm not alone -- but my office has received a number of calls and letters from the Jewish community with the same concerns. I think one of the phone witnesses actually articulated that there's a perception, at least, that the council, which has veto powers -- again, there's the assertion known to take positions that are hostile to Israel. I guess that's sort of extraneous to the bill. But it's a serious concern. I've heard it from many, many folks. Can you speak to that?

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. That's a very serious concern and appreciate the testimony was provided earlier. In terms of the CSU Ethnic Studies Council, we can work with the CSU system to address those issues, if that is found to be true. And that's very concerning to me, that if there's any anti-Semitic views on there, that we definitely will call it out. We don't condone it, and we don't definitely condone any anti-Semitism in any of our organizations.

And I'll say know, as chair, to Senator Glazer's point, I think that's a good idea in interim hearing to look at this issue kind of in depth, especially as it relates to the three systems and the complexity which I think validate the CSU's comments, which is -- this is an inordinately complex system, and it's hard to address these in a kind of an elegant or streamlined way.

I know that's the aspiration here, we have a recommendation: do pass to appropriations, but I think in any event, irrespective of the final disposition of this legislation, that's a necessary process. We and you're -- my cohort, as the chair, on the other side, I think we should do that with sort of due diligence on this and many other issues that relate to the broader questions, like how do we align the three systems in ways, to Senator Glazer's point, that actually serve students better? With that, would you like to close? Please.

Thank you. And I'm sorry I missed some of the testimony, I'm in between committees this morning. I know that there's been efforts to ensure that students are not in a situation where the work that they've done, the hard work that they've done, doesn't count. And if you could just clarify, I think you made it very clear that that is not going to be the case, and there's a grandfathering-in process that you're in the midst of exploring with this bill.

Thank you so much, Senator, for that very important question. We took the committee's amendments on to make sure that students that have already been taking any of the approved coursework, that that course still transfers, and they get the credit for it. And the last thing we want is any student who've spent six months of sweat, equity and hard work, we want to make sure that we honor their hard work.

And so the students that have already taken a course, that course will still transfer, account for transfer. In terms of the coursework that have been approved in terms of the classes, I'm open to that conversation going forward to really look at the review of the courses that were proposed to be sunset. But really open to that conversation going forward to make sure that those courses -- and I really appreciate the work between the systems -- but as we heard from comments from testimony here today, I think going forward, communication between the systems and looking forward to additional collaboration there as well.

Thank you. One more comment from Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I just want to say that I'm going to give a courtesy vote, today, to give you an opportunity to continue working with the systems in order to streamline and address the various concerns that we have. Because there's been some work that has been already completed. We don't want to negate that, as well. So I look forward to seeing what the final language looks like and the feedback from the opposition as we move forward and support. You've got a lot of work on your hand, and I look forward to seeing, but I do refuse -- I do reserve the right to reconsider my support vote when it comes to the floor, but good luck.

Thank you so much.

Very good. If you'd like to close.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate all the comments from all my colleagues here on the dais. In terms of the alignment of the systems going forward and the testimony from everyone here today, we know that ethnic studies coursework is so critical to sharing the experiences of California, of our communities, and really to make sure that we're embracing the hopes and aspirations of our students, here, in our CSU system.

And I appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with everyone here in the opposition as well, to really make sure that we continue to address these issues. And when we look at these issues in terms of our community colleges, you may hear from your respective community colleges, but Dr. Takima mentioned one out of 14 courses that were originally approved. I was originally brought to this issue by Pasadena City College in my area, where they said one out of 15 courses were approved.

So the more that we can do to collaborate to make this a win-win for the CSU system, for our community colleges and identity for our students is critical. And that's what I'm focused on. And we know there's good work ahead on this issue. And I really appreciate, I would respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Madam Consultant, do we have a motion? I'm not sure -- motion from Wilk. If you could please call the roll.

This is file item 14, AB 506, Assembly Member Fong. The motion is do pass as amended, but first, amend and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators: Newman. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Cortese. Glazer. McGuire. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Wilk. Aye.

Very good. That measure now has four votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members. We will move on to the third of your four bills, Assembly Member. That's your choice. What's next?

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. If we can do AB 811, course repetition; repeatability.

Very good. General item number 15.

Item number 15. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members. Assembly Bill 811 expands the number of times a community college student may repeat a course. Current regulations limit the number of times a student may retake a course, three if the student failed to complete the course or receive the substandard grade, and one if a student passed a course.

While the state Legislature has worked to ensure that students are able to pass a course the first time, there are times students are unable to complete a course, perhaps due to illness or having to work after. Three times, a student is prohibited from retaking the course, even at another college in the district. This could result in a student not being able to move forward with their education or even to drop out.

Assembly Bill 811 will allow students two more opportunities to retake a course, but requires the community college to first refer students to academic support and provide options for financial assistance. This Bill does not alter the requirements of AB 17 Five or AB 705 regarding transfer level placements and supporting students to help them pass courses the first time. In response to concerns, I have taken a number of amendments, including several that were proposed by the opposition.

I've made the repetition provision, a five year pilot with a requirement for a community college to submit data to the Chancellor's office so that we can evaluate the number of students who retake a course and the types of courses they are repeating. This Bill also expands the number of times a student who passes certain types of courses may retake a course for enrichment or skill building purposes from one to three.

And I accept the committee's amendment to reduce the number of times a student may retake a course to a total of two times. Here to support the Bill are Heather Brent, the student chancellor of the Associated Students of the City College of San Francisco, and Ora NEET Limna Presert, a faculty Member at Los Rios Community College.

Very good. First witness, two minutes.