Assembly Standing Committee on Education

Oh, there we go. Okay. Looks like a faulty button here. Happy new year, everyone. I'm calling the hearing of the Assembly Education Committee to order. Would like to ask Committee Members to please show up. We have several authors in the audience ready to go, and, and so we'd like to move forward a hold off on calling the role to establish a quorum and a hold off on welcoming new Committee Members until they show up.

And I'd like to note that we very much have Vice Chair Dahle in our thoughts and prayers, and we look forward to her speedy recovery and for her to rejoin us as soon as she is able. Today, Assemblymember Flora will be serving in Vice Chair Dolly's place for the purposes of today's hearing. We also have Assemblymember Addis, who is not able to be here today. And so Assemblymember Ortega will be serving in her place for this hearing.

We also received word that Assembly Member Bonta will be late today, but she expects to be arriving before the end of this hearing. So with that, we have five bills on file today. Bills will be heard in sign in order. As a reminder, for each Bill, we will have up to two witnesses in support, two witnesses in opposition, each of whom may speak for up to two minutes. Members of the public in the hearing room will have an opportunity to state their position.

Please state your name, affiliation and position on the Bill only. And Members of the public are also welcome to provide comment through the position letter portal on the Assembly education Committee website. With that, I would like to welcome our first author, Assemblymember Jackson, starting as a Subcommitee, we want to welcome Assemblymember Flora, who will be taking the place of Vice Chair Dahle. And so moving forward as a Subcommitee, welcome Assemblymember Jackson, who will be presenting file item number four. Assembly Bill 1299.

Thank you so much Mr. Chair. Thank you so much to Committee staff. I will be accepting the Committee's amendments and I want to thank them and thank everyone for working with me on this important Bill. AB 1299 affirms that we can achieve both safety and justice by addressing the physical, mental and emotional health of our diverse student population. AB 1299 maintains the balance of safety and protects a positive school culture for our students.

Assembly Bill 1299 will add specific parameters to when the use of handcuffs and pepper spray is permitted. Will require that an officer must articulate that there is an immediate danger to the pupil in question or others, the presence of self inflicted harm and or destruction of property. It will also require the use of pepper spray to conform to current penal code guidelines on the proper deployment of a chemical agent.

Additionally, this Bill prohibits the use of police officers, school Reese officers, or any other law enforcement officer that's on a school campus to be used solely for student behavior. What does that mean? A crime hasn't occurred. They are being used because of common childhood behaviors that happen on a school campus unless authorized or instructed by the local education agency official or staff who is present.

And lastly, this Bill ensures that all school resource officers and police officers or law enforcement who work on school campuses will make sure that they receive the proper child development training to ensure they are fully equipped with all of the tools to be successful on a school campus. So, colleagues, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member Jackson. Before we proceed any further, I believe we have Committee Members to establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, would you please call the role.

Muratsuchi.

Muratsuchi here. Flora.

Here.

Here.

Flora here. Alvarez.

Present.

Alvarez here. Bonta. Hoover. McCarty. Ortega.

Here.

Ortega here.

Quorum has been established. Assemblymember Jackson, do you have witnesses in support of your Bill?

Not at this time.

Okay. I would like to invite any public comment in support of the Bill. If you like to testify, please come forward to the microphone.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members Tristan Brown with CFT. Union of Educators and Classified professionals here in support of the Bill. We urge you aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further public comments in support of the Bill? Seeing none, I'd like to invite any witnesses in opposition to the Bill. Please come forward to the table.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, speaking in respectful opposition to the Bill today, also representing police officer associations from around the state. In opposition, including the police Officer associations of Claremont, Corona, Pomona, Nevada, Pals Verdes, Newport Beach, plus County Deputy Sheriff Association, Los Angeles School Police Management Association, Upland PoA, Santa Ana Poa, Burbank, Marietta, Arcadia, Riverside, LA Schools Police Association, Fullerton Poa, Culver City PoA, Deputy Sheriff Association, Monterey County and the School California Coalition of School Safety Professionals.

We're in strong opposition to 1299 that would dangerously restrict the ability of school resource officers to safely ensure the safety of the students and staff at California schools. As amended, AB 1299 prohibits the use of handcuffs and pepper spray on school grounds, with few exceptions, however, handcuffs are not even permitted to be used on campus by sros when attempting to effectuate an arrest.

Sros are fully sworn peace officers who have completed additional extensive training specific to student and staff safety issues and have dedicated their careers to protecting, mentoring, and advocating for student wellness and safety at our public schools. 1299 also prohibits the use of an SRO for purposes of correcting pupil behavior. This extremely vague and broad prohibition would even preclude officers from advising pupils to comply with school rules and laws.

Officers would be barred from telling a student not to litter, for example, or park in a red zone or even bully classmates. Sros, excuse me, be allowed to even break up a fight. If an SRO intervened in such an altercation, wouldn't that be correcting pupil behavior? By stopping the fight, sros would be banned under 1299 from attempting to correct pupil behavior, even if those efforts are intended to keep other students, staff, and schools safe from dangerous or criminal behavior.

1299 appears to impair the ability of sros to make arrests on campus if an arrest is intended, in part to correct student behavior. Similar to this prohibition on handcuffs and pepper spray, this ban on correcting pupil behavior is as dangerous as we believe it is foolish.

Officers not employed by the district also must notify the principal or designee before accessing school grounds or engaging with students unless life or great bodily injury is threatened, or to bring an objectively dangerous and lawful situation safely and effectively under control. Many or most sros are employed by municipal police departments or sheriff's departments and assigned to work as an SRo full time via the contract with the school district.

However, these officers would be treated the same as any officer walking off the street seeking to enter school grounds. This would require the officer to check in with the principal or designee every time the officer enters school grounds for any purpose, at any time, even multiple times a day. Our law enforcement associations actively oppose legislation that seeks to endanger the safety of the public, especially our children. For these reasons, we are strongly opposed to 1299. Respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further witnesses in opposition? Mr. Sherman, there may be some questions for you, and so you may want to thank you. Stay at the table. Are there any further witnesses in opposition to this measure? Seeing no one coming forward. Any public comments in opposition to this measure? Seeing none. I'd like to turn it over to the Committee. Mr. Alvarez, welcome Mr. Alvarez to the Committee.

Good to see you.

Thank you.

I'm happy to be here. Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and want to thank the author for coming for us and also for the time that we've spent talking. Really appreciate your time. I really understand your commitment to trying to do the right thing here, and I think you've got a lot of good ideas as part of this Bill to do that, and I think this is generally in the right direction.

I've had a chance to read the Bill, and I, so I have some questions that in some way reflect some of the opposition, but I think maybe a misunderstanding, perhaps either from me or one of us, is going to be wrong about what we think this Bill actually says. And so I like to get this on the record when it comes to the use of handcuffs. There's a section here in the Bill that states.

So it's in the proposed amendments that we have before us on page seven that a prohibition on the use of handcuffs on a school campus, except in situations where a school resource officer determines that a pupil may present an immediate danger to themselves or others, may exhibit behavior that results in the destruction of property, or may cause self inflicted physical harm, that to me pretty clearly states that a resource officer actually is allowed to use handcuffs.

And so I'd like to, I'm not really sure who to ask this question to, maybe to our Committee chair or staff, if they can just help confirm that that's what this section says.

But then I will also point out that two paragraphs below that there's something that, to me, might be a little bit of a conflict that I'd like to really figure out, which says a prohibition of the use of a police officer, school resource officer, or any other law enforcement official acting on a school resource officers for purposes of engaging a pupil in disciplinary actions, except as requested by staff or officials of the school district.

So that makes it seem like an officer cannot participate in that activity. So I just want to get clarity on the difference of those two sections.

Thank you, Mr. Alvarez. So let me say that, first of all, we spent a lot of time among education Committee staff and myself discussing this Bill. I also wanted to make sure that we address the issues that you seek to address while at the same time ensuring that we give school resource officers and others the tools to make sure that we can maintain a safe school environment, knowing that it is critical to any effective teaching and learning.

In response to Mr. Alvarez's questions, the amendments were, first of all, I did ask Committee staff to discuss the Bill and specific concerns, and we received a list of specific concerns from law enforcement as represented by Mr. Sherman. And these were the amendments that we came up with to try to strike that balance. The situations where school resource officers can use handcuffs are as articulated in the written amendments.

So, for example, it was my intent that a school resource officer can use handcuffs where a pupil may present an immediate danger to themselves or others, such as in a school fight in terms of the consistency of that provision with the provision on the use of police officers or school officers engaging in pupil disciplinary actions, we have the specific language of the National Association of School Resource officers who their position is that the school resource officers best practices are for school resource officers to defer the handling of disciplinary student disciplinary issues to be handled by teachers or administrators rather than the sros.

So that is the basis of that provision, that sros or any other police officers not engage in the pupil disciplinary actions, but rather that that be handled by school administrators or teachers unless as requested by staff or officials of the school district. So the basic idea is that when you're on the school campus, that is the jurisdiction of school administrators, school staff unless authorized by the school staff.

So sros, I would expect them to have an ongoing consent and permission of school site administrators for them to break up fights, for them to take whatever other actions necessary to maintain a safe school environment, but only as requested by staff or officials at the school site. Does that answer your question?

I believe only as it relates to pupil disciplinary actions, not other activities on site. If there is still a resource officer. Still. The way I'm reading this, contrary to, I believe the opposition's testimony still has the authority to handcuff individuals if they believe that that is needed because there's an immediate danger or it's an emergency situation.

However, if it's not one of those situations, but it's more of a pupil disciplinary action which might need to be defined or I need to find the definition so I fully understand under what circumstances that would be. Then only if you get called in as a resource officer, then do you have the authority to utilize handcuffs.

That is what the amendment state. If you have a specific example that is addressing your concern that maybe we.

Can talk about, I think what would be important is to understand fully what pupil disciplinary behavior is because that's kind of important.

No, absolutely. And if I may, Mr. Chair, the intent of this, and of course, the more discourse, the better, because this is important, right. Is to ensure that, for instance, if you are going to handcuff a student just to teach them a lesson, now we're getting into the area of trauma. Now we're getting into the area of emotional well being and school climate.

And so we want to make sure that if it's not necessary, but you want to do scared straight tactics and things like that, that is proven to prevent young people from even wanting to go to school in the first place. Right. Then we need to have a check and balance when it comes to that. Right. But the intent is that if people are in physical danger, if property is in danger of being vandalized and things like that, a student is throwing stuff. Right.

People in property can be, then law enforcement can do what it needs to do to ensure a safe and calm environment in those situations.

I honestly believe to the opposition, I'd give you a chance to respond, but I think there's maybe a miscommunication. You maybe. I'll start with Mr. Jackson, have you had a chance to sit with each other to talk about this?

No, I haven't had any communication. No one's reached out to me from law enforcement.

Appreciate you saying, do you understand what I'm raising here? What I believe is a point that is addressed. You state that a CSO could never effectuate an arrest or use handcuffs. I don't believe that's what this language states.

Thank you, Ms. Samba Member. I believe that I stated AB 1299 prohibits the use of handcuffs and pepper spray on school grounds with few exceptions. And I believe you've mentioned some of those exceptions. So, yes, it is a prohibition with few exceptions. Now, if a student had carjacked somebody earlier that day, drove the stolen car onto the school grounds, the SRO finds out about it, the SRO under 1299 would be precluded from using handcuffs to arrest that student because there's no threat of violence.

Nobody's being threatened to be harmed at that moment. There is no property at risk at that moment. So the SRO would be prohibited from using handcuffs. How are we supposed to effectuate an arrest?

Point well taken. I think to my point earlier, when there's conversations, I believe that there could be the right approach taken to address some of your concerns. I would ask that on this particular point, certainly before I see this Bill, that we have this conversation, or that you have this conversation together to address those very fine and detailed points, because I honestly don't think that the author is intending to prevent law enforcement from doing their duties as required in situations like this.

I think I read it a different way, but you do bring up another point which I notice, and I'll move on to that one, which is the issue of principals designee. In order to allow an officer to come in on site, I actually, as a parent of a middle schooler and an elementary school student in our public schools, if you go visit a school site, I kind of feel like it's important to check in with the front office before you're in the site.

And I think it's important. However, I want it to be really clear who a principal's designee is, because if someone wants to come in, importantly, an officer wants to come in to a site for a particular reason and they can't find who the designee is to allow them in. I would be concerned about that. So I think that's my second more technical question is how do we determine who is the person that grants them? Opens the door for an officer to come in.

And it's my intent that, number one, if they are in condor contract, they wouldn't be required under this Bill to have to check in, in and out.

Okay.

Everyone knows a standard SRO is on campus and they are there. For whatever.

Purposes under their contract. Now, if there's anything else, I totally agree in terms of making sure that we clarify, if there's more clarification that needs to be necessary. I just want to make sure that everyone understands and knows that I'm totally open for clarification, totally open to continue to do this discussion. And the idea is that through allowing this to continue to go through the legislative process, we'll continue to refine it and make it better. Right.

But there is no doubt the goal is to have a very balanced approach to making sure that no parent feels like their school campus is unsafe. That is definitely, we got to make sure that we make that clear. Right. But then to also make sure that given the various student populations that exist, students of color, students with disabilities, I have a school district who just finished a big settlement of a law enforcement being involved with dealing with a student with a disability.

And it turns out that it wasn't appropriate. Right. Because there was no one in danger, there was no disruption in the classroom, and the video clearly showed that. But it began to be a power struggle. And we all know that if you are engaging in a power struggle on a school campus, there's a whole lot of other dimensions to that. So the idea is we're just trying to make sure that it is specific for safety.

Now, working with the principal, they can still go into classrooms and talk about their careers, talk about building that good relationships. None of that is prohibited in this. But if there are specific situations, like the opposition talked about in terms of affecting an arrest for something that might have happened in the community, that just raised my ear. Okay, let's work on that. Not a problem.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson. I won't take up more time. I'll just say this will not be a courtesy vote. I do think that there is a well intentioned. I appreciate you spending the time to get this to the right place. This is not even about a lot of things that need to be tweaked to get fixed. I do think there are maybe some definitions, and then there are some instances that Mr. Sherman raises that I think need to be addressed.

I would expect that you two sit together and talk about what that is before I have another opportunity to vote on this. I would suggest you do that before the next Committee, but I do think that the intent is appropriate. If I really felt like the intent was to limit the ability for adequate law enforcement to occur at a school when I have two children attending our local schools, I would be completely uncomfortable with this idea. In fact, I'll just be very honest.

I was uncomfortable when I first heard of it. But reading the language and seeing the work that the Committee did in the amendments, I think it's in a more appropriate place. And I do expect that it gets fixed with those minor things that we just discussed. So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Before I call Ms. Ortega, I just wanted to follow on Mr. Alvarez's line of questioning. So, Mr. Jackson, I heard a commitment to follow up on this issue of. What I hear is a situation where a student may be a potential flight risk if they committed a crime prior or at any point while on school campus. Mr. Chairman, you gave the example of if a student had committed a carjacking before they arrived on campus, and while on campus, they're not presenting.

They may not be presenting a threat of immediate danger. But you're saying that a SRO or another authorized law enforcement officer on the school campus may feel appropriate to use handcuffs. I would just want to echo Mr. Alvarez's comments that I encourage you to address that issue, because I think there is a potential issue that even though I've made the commitment that with your accepting the amendments, that I was going to support your Bill as it is today, I would hope that you.

No, you have my commitment. I'm more than happy to make sure that if we have to delineate certain situations or things like that, more than happy to do so.

Okay. Mr. Sherman, would you like to provide any further explanation?

Yeah, I think to address this issue, it might be appropriate to consider maybe making it where if an officer is attempting to effectuate an arrest, that that be one of the exceptions to allow for the use of handcuffs. We've got other exceptions in the Bill right now to allow, if there's violence, potential violence, self harm, damage to property, those are all exceptions in the Bill.

Now, I think it would be appropriate to allow officers to be able to also use handcuffs if they are attempting to arrest somebody.

I can appreciate that. But I see this Bill, the main intent of this Bill is to try to strike a balance where school administrators and school staff are in charge of what happens on the school campus, except where they authorize school resource officers or others to provide assistance as to the decision as to whether to use handcuffs during any kind of an arrest.

I think that's the kind of what Mr. Jackson called the potentially traumatic impact of using handcuffs on a school campus in front of their classmates, that.

We're trying to strike a balance between a law enforcement officer's complete discretion as to use handcuffs to effectuate an arrest. And so we hope that that conversation will continue.

Absolutely. More than happy to. And of course, as we continue to go through the process, I'm sure we'll continue to have back and forth because we want to make sure along the entire process that the Committee's intent continues to be preserved.

Thank you, Ms. Ortega.

I'll be brief. I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I think everything's already been covered by my colleagues. I appreciate the balanced approach that you are taking to school safety, which is a priority for all of us. I also have a daughter in high school, and unfortunately, there are too many lockdowns that are happening in our schools. And so I want to make sure that safety is prioritized.

But along with that has to be our mental health and the mental health of our students and what's appropriate. And so really appreciate your willingness to take today's amendments and continue to work with the opposition and trying to get us to a good place. So I will be supporting today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further comments or questions? Seeing none.

I. Yes, I want to thank Mr. Jackson for also, for working with us in furtherance of trying to strike that right balance that we all are committed to. I also want to encourage Mr. Sherman, as well as any other law enforcement representatives, we were trying to get it right with the Committee amendments. If you still feel that the Committee amendments fall short in terms of maintaining a safe school learning environment, I would like to hear that.

And so I would encourage you, Mr. Sherman, to continue to communicate any further concerns you have as to how we can further improve this Bill.

Thank you.

But with the accepted amendments, I am happy to support the Bill as amended. Seeing no further. Yes, seeing no further questions from the Committee. Mr. Jackson, would you like to close?

I really want to thank Members Committee for your thoughtfulness. This is really important, and I think given our time in history right now, to prevent pendulums from going from one extreme to the other, we have to step in to create balanced approaches to making sure that it is possible to strike a balance. And I think we're very close to doing that. I think as we continue through the process, we'll even get even closer. Right.

But I think we can really set the right example of what that balance can really look like. I have mothers and grandmothers in my district, too, and they are mothers of color who also say, I'm concerned about my child safety on campus. And I would hate to go back to my district and find out that I got it wrong when it comes to talking to those mothers and grandmothers. And so I want to make sure that we get this right, too.

Love the dialogue, love the back and forth. I think Members know I love getting. Going back and forth and trying to find a good balance, and so looking forward to continue to do so. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

File item four, AB 1299. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Muratsuchi.

Aye.

Muratsuchi aye. Flora. Flora, no. Alvarez. Alvarez aye. Bonta. Hoover. McCarty. McCarty aye. Ortega. Ortega aye.

Thank you. The bill is out to appropriations.

Next, we have Mr. Mathis sign in order. File item number three, AB 960. Motions made. Is there a second by Mr. Alvarez? Mr. Mathis, welcome.

Happy to see the excitement. So, good afternoon. Everyone in this room is regrettably aware of the atrocities that have happened and could happen at our schools. The intent of this legislation is to help our schools and law enforcement agencies improve their ability to respond to crises.

During an incident, every second counts the lives of our most vulnerable and most valuable, our children, are at stake.

While it would have been my preference to require schools to implement the contents of this bill, I am appreciative of the Chairman and staff and all their work, and I do accept the committee amendments and believe we are moving in the right direction. Assembly Bill 960 will encourage public schools with an enrollment of 100 pupils or more to implement a web based or app-based school safety program.

These school safety programs address key challenges for law enforcement and all first responders when facing an active shooter situation. I would like to discuss three distinct features of the reference program that aid our first responders in these situations.

First, they include a multilayered digital map of the school site that contains key information, including detailed building floor plans, alphanumeric building identification, gate locations, shutoff valve locations, first aid equipment locations, links to 360 degree interior and aerial mapping of the location with fields of view, including school site surveillance cameras.

Second, the program immediately alerts first responders from multiagencies through the existing 911 system.

Third, they contain detailed school site information, including the general location, size, pupil population, grade levels, number of staff on campus, Wi-Fi connection information, a hierarchy representation of those with responsibilities, duties including their name, title, photograph and content information, and the emergency procedures for that specific school site.

And yes, everything is encrypted and protected within the system. Members, there already exists a school-based safety app which includes the features that AB 960 encourages. It's called ActVNet, which was developed by the Tulare County Office of Education in my district.

This low-cost program has a proven track record of success, as during live on-site trial events with first responders, schools and hospitals. The time it took to apprehend or eliminate the suspect when using ActVNet is only 53 seconds on average from the time law enforcement arrived at the school site. During such critical incidents like mass shootings, every second counts, and it does mean the difference of life and death.

We have an obligation to protect our students and must be proactive in providing every measure possible to ensure the safety and well-being of every child and staff member in our state. Our expert witness, Tim Hire, unfortunately was not able to make it here today.

But I do believe that we all understand that when these situations happen, our schools, our children and the staff need to have every tool possible to ensure that we make sure everybody's protected and things are just taken care of.

Thank you, Mr. Mathis. So you don't have any?

No. Mr. Tire is, unfortunately, as the Superintendent of Tulare County schools, can't make it up today because he has meetings.

Okay. Any public comments in support of this bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Mathis, for your commitment to address this issue of school violence.

Obviously, we all, as you stated, share a commitment to want to ensure that our schools are prepared to deal with any kind of school threat of school violence, taking advantage of available technology as tools to make sure that they're well prepared. We often hear the case that with 10,000 schools in the State of California, diverse communities, diverse state, that we want to make sure that we don't start talking about one size fits all.

And so your agreement to encourage schools to consider the merits of this app, produced by the Tulara County Office of Education would be the best way to go for the State of California. And so with that, happy to support your Bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, we may not be able to prevent evil from happening. However, with programs like ActVNet, we can better protect our loved ones when every second counts. I ask you, for your aye votes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Flord moved. And Mr. Alvarez, I believe, seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item three, AB 960. The motion is do passed as amended, to appropriations.

[Roll Call]

five zero. The bill is out to appropriations.

Thank you.

All right, file or sign in order. Next is file item number two, Assembly Bill 801 by Assembly Member Patterson. Welcome. You may proceed.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. As I've spoken about before, I have a lot of kids, and three of them are in elementary school right now. And what kind of boggled my mind are the amount of platforms and apps and things like that that they use that are necessary, actually, for them to be in school.

And so, as you know, California, and I'm the Vice Chair of the privacy Committee here, we have some of the most strict privacy laws in the nation, maybe the world, actually.

But one thing that isn't clear is that, when a child leaves a school or is over 18, whether the parents or the child over 18 can have their data deleted from all those platforms, if they no longer wish it to be in the domain of that platform.

Because of that, and because of the amount of apps that we had, we were just kind of thinking about, hey, look, we got to protect this private information from, or at least allow it to stay within the domain of the student or the parent. And it's kind of consistent with what we're doing in current law. I also appreciate the work of this Committee.

This was double referred, passed out of the privacy committee, and we had some additional work to do here, and I gladly accept those amendments and thank you for all that work. So, with adam, that's all for my presentation. I'm my own sponsor of the Bill, as a parent of many children.

All right, motion made by Mr. Flora, second by Ms. Ortega. Any public comments in support of the Bill, please come forward.

Hi, my name is David Bolog. On behalf of San Fernando Valley Alliance, The Facts Law Truth Justice law firm, Stanislaus and is a member of PERK Group. I support this legislation.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further public comments in support of the bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? See none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee? Seeing no requests for questions. Mr. Patterson, thank you very much. As a parent, I would agree with you.

As a fellow parent, I would agree with you that we need to make sure that consumer protections in terms of our private information, extend to the personal information held by education entities, education agencies. And so, your Bill would protect all of our student rights to privacy as well as the rights of the families. And so happy to support the bill.

Well, thank you very much. Just for the record, I just want to say, this obviously doesn't apply to things like transcripts and the things that are necessary for the education purposes, so, with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Item two, AB 801. The motion is due. Passed as amended, to the floor.

[Roll Call]

Five, zero. The Bill is out. All right. Sergeants are contacting the offices for the remaining presenting authors. I know that Mr. Holden was here earlier. Wouldn't be surprised if he's presenting in another Committee. And so, we would ask Mr. Wallace, as well as his joint author, Mr. Hoover, to please come to the education Committee to present your bills.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the committee staff for suggesting that we amend AB 148 with the language that was in our AB 237 that this committee approved last spring.

I'll accept the amendments and would like to add Assembly Member Hoover on as a joint author because this was our project to begin with. I'll be discussing the bills proposed to be amended. We all share the goal of providing our children the best education possible.

I've now seen how hard this committee, the teachers, the parents, the schools all work to reform our education system. But as we sort through the ideas, I worry that some children are being left behind in situations that are out of the control of the parents and the child. One situation is a child who's struggling academically, stuck in a low performing school.

AB 148 addresses this situation in a very narrow way, allowing those students to transfer to another school within a district or to another school outside of the district. It requires that if a school district of enrollment accepts transfers, the school district must provide transportation for pupils who qualify for the free and reduced price meal program.

It doesn't let pupils or schools in the comprehensive support and improvement programs to transfer. And we're talking about a small number of students.

Using California Department of Education data, the Assembly Appropriations Committee estimated the total number of low performing students at low performing schools who would be eligible under the provisions of this bill is about 90,000 out of a population of about 6 million California students.

That's about one and a half percent of the total student population. Not all of them will seek the transfer, and the receiving district still has to say yes.

I did meet with some of the opposition yesterday and heard clearly their concerns about the bill. I committed to them that I will keep working to address their concerns. But since this is a two-year bill, I do want to keep it moving.

And I'll admit that we didn't have any brilliant ideas in our meeting, but I did value our conversation. My goal here is simply to increase education equity for the most vulnerable students, suffering under the achievement gap, compounded by a struggling school.

It's not my intent to create a mass exodus, but instead to give 1.5% of California students, if it works for them, the opportunity to make a change. Let's face it, families with means have choices. But some of our kids who are low income, lack the choice.

AB 148 gives them the opportunity within the traditional public school system to have the option to attend a school that better fits their needs, even if they don't have the income to move to a different neighborhood or attend a private school.

Thank you for giving me a second opportunity to make the case for this idea. I don't have any witnesses with me today. I was going to refer all the hard questions to my joint author, Mr. Hoover, so hopefully we don't have too many of those, but thank you.

All right, any public comments in support of the bill? Seeing none, I'd like to welcome any witnesses in opposition to the bill to the table.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Cassie Mancini here on behalf of the California School Employees Association. We represent a quarter million classified employees, para educators, school bus drivers, cafeteria workers and attendance clerks in schools across California.

CSEA is respectfully opposed to AB 148. As proposed to be amended, California school districts will face unintended consequences if this bill were implemented. For some, that could mean a loss in ADA that would require reductions in staffing, and for others, that could mean unmanageable growth.

It's already a challenge for districts to budget and plan based on ADA. So, we ought to prioritize giving districts the support they need to ensure that every student can succeed, not allowing families to move students without district oversight. Low performing schools need more support. They don't need the budget reductions that will come when students leave. For those reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Tristan Brown with CFT union of Educators and Classified Professionals. First, would love to thank the author who did in fact invite us over to have a great discussion about the bill. We agree with the merits of trying to help every student succeed.

Obviously, the one thing that I think really sticks to our membership is the fact that when students leave one district for another, they obviously do take their funding with them.

And this maybe is a fatal flaw of our overall system, where you will have folks that might move from one district to another, thus exacerbating the problem for the suffering or the low performing district. And this might be something that is, instead of incentivizing more support for a school that's in need, something that's more akin to the ill-advised, no child left behind era where then struggling districts are getting even less help and less funding.

So rather than allowing for folks to come out, we are cognizant of the fact that there might not be enough oversight of what happens to that student when they do arrive at the next district. For instance, what kind of classroom are they entering in that other district? Is that educator prepared to have that workload increase or not?

There could be some circumstances where that maybe wasn't in the best interest of the student, but we don't have enough detail yet in the bill to account for these sort of what ifs, and that's what still provides for the heartburn for the CFT and opposing the bill still.

We do wish that we had the funding to provide lower student teacher ratios throughout the land so that these students can get the attention they deserve rather than feeling like they have to punch the exact button and go somewhere else. So, we hope that we can continue to work on that problem. Maybe, call me crazy, a wealth tax could be passed to fund things like this. That's a joke.

So, then we can continue to work together and find solutions rather than maybe leaving behind some good districts that need more help. So, fortunately, we still request a no vote on the bill. But again, looking forward to working with the author as an ally in this endeavor.

Thank you. Any public comments in opposition, please come forward.

Annie Chow with the California Teachers Association. We do not have a position on this bill, but we have opposed previous versions and anticipate on opposing this as well.

Thank you. Any further public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bring it back to the committee. Mr. Flora.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to the opposition. I just want to like the numbers. And it's okay, you don't have to come back up. But there's roughly, what, 6 million students in California school districts right now. We're talking about 90,000. Correct.

I'm not particularly great at math, but that's, what, less than 1%? Right? Around 1%. 1.5%. So, when we're talking about this. First time I've said on education, so I don't have all these numbers in the top of my head.

But this was something that the school the CTA used to support was inner school transfers. That was something that previously we liked. So I am just curious. And I'm plotting, I want to move the bill. But I would like to just have a conversation with you, not in this Committee, but where that change happened and why did it happen?

Because I do think if we are focused on our kids and no child left behind having the ability to get them an education, if they are a high performing student in a school that's not meeting those, I have a daughter that's got an IAP. Right. And so, I understand kids need certain things.

And so I think it goes both ways. And I would just love to have that conversation continued with you because it is a very fascinating subject for me. So thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Alvarez.

Yeah, on the theme of continued conversations, I think I like to just say two things. Just as you might hear often, as a theme for myself, I said earlier, a parent of a middle schooler and an elementary school student, both attending what would be classified low performing schools, I choose to keep my kids in my local community schools.

So, I get the concern about removing students from some of these schools, which are the ones that often are struggling.

And we do see some of those struggles, the challenges that both of those schools have with English Language Learners and with low-income students and all the other barriers that we know are important. But the continued conversation for me is making sure that we're funding students and in a way that they can receive all those supports at their school.

I know, know current Local Control Funding Formula fund districts, but I happen to be in a district where there's very different neighborhoods with schools with very different needs. And so, I know that the schools that my children attend and the people of San Diego that I represent have way higher needs than the people of places like La Jolla and Point Loma, where those needs don't exist for those families.

And yet the flexibility that is often fought for in local control sometimes does not allow us to focus as the opposition really, I think, is homed in on and is important on making sure that the funds to help that student stays with that student.

So I think that's a conversation just sort of putting out there that might be important. But the other thing that I wanted to maybe ask about or point out on this is if we've allowed transfers to occur for other reasons.

I'm just curious why in this case, and maybe, Mr. Wallis, you can talk about, because it sounds like you've had important conversations with primary opposition here, what the opposition is for these particular students.

I read their opposition, and I actually agree with a point that they make a couple of points, but one that says that some families will find it more challenging, don't know how to navigate the system, to move their student from one.

And then that does worry me that maybe your intents might not get accomplished, because if they happen to be students who have other challenges in life and family, they might not be able to navigate the system of how to get to the right place, that is in no way intended to be demeaning or to try to say that parents can't figure it out. I know they can.

As a parent, we always figure it out. But I do wonder how many students actually will get served. And maybe if you can share about what you've heard about the hesitation to allow for these particular students to be able to move from one school to another.

Yeah, I appreciate that. I don't want to put words in the opposition's mouth here, but I think we can all agree that we'd like to see a more holistic approach to how we address some of the struggling schools in our k through 12 system here in California.

I know this committee has been committed to working towards that goal. Where we're coming from on this, is that there's students who currently, right now coming out of two years of remote learning.

Where this bill idea came from was actually, my wife's a high school teacher and she was the dance teacher. She had really one requirement to pass her class, and it was to get up and perform in front of your peers in an annual dance show.

When kids came back into the classroom, our guidance counselors said, you need to pull that requirement. Our kids aren't capable of doing that anymore. We're talking about seniors, kids who are going out into the world on their own as adults.

And it got me thinking and having conversations with folks. If we don't have those tools to help our most vulnerable and our most disadvantaged students, because we all know family members, friends, folks who have pulled their kids up and moved them into a private school, you can even sell your house and move to another zip code to get the resources that your child needs. What are we doing for those that are getting left behind?

And so that's why we tried to sort of narrowly craft the language here to talk about just a limited number of students. I think really the main opposition is they'd like to see the perfect solution. And I get that, and I think we're all committed to working towards that. But in the interim, until we get there, what options can we provide for some of the Californians who are most vulnerable?

Thank you for the response. I don't know if the opposition has any comments. Additionally, they'd like to make, either to the questions I just asked or comments that have been made by a couple of us, because I'm really interested in what you have to say. I think we want to accomplish similar goals here.

Thank you, Mr. Alfred. Sorry. If you could maybe briefly restate the specific question.

The last one was more about the hesitancy to not allow these particular students to do the transfer where we do allow others to transfer out of. And I've read your letter, so I understand the points you've made there, but just maybe if there's more to that that you could share as to why that concern exists.

Well, I think, and maybe also taking the opportunity here to also address Mr. Flora's question. Intra-District doesn't bring as many questions, seeing as that the local education agency overall will keep those resources within the district. And hopefully that still helps with addressing the problems.

When you jump district alliance, that's where things get a little murkier for us. And you would have, maybe one worry is that these sort of things can catch on in communities.

You'll have parental Facebook groups or something that will say, hey, here's a new way. Everybody start getting on board with this program. And maybe there's an unintended consequence of exoduses that don't quite align with the intent of this bill, but still would foster the ability for folks to move from one district to another and thus continue to hurt the struggling district.

So those are things that I think overall, we're very protective of the idea that districts need as much help as they can get.

They need as much funding as they can get. We should keep that funding in the district. And unfortunately, the way our funding streams work, and I think this is where we see eye to eye with the author, is that it is not convenient to actually drill down, as you point out, on the micro level, to address the problem.

Again, we very much understand in here this is fixing something right now, but over a period of time, this may lead to more unintended consequences that would further exacerbate the harm to the original district.

Thank you. I would appreciate that. I think something that you might have intended for me to understand at this point, but I don't think it was very intentional. It didn't appear intentional, but something that you said that sort of triggered in my mind, what are we doing to follow up so when that student moves to the district, to the new district, that the resources are there?

Because if that's the intent, and so I think there might be some, maybe some work that needs to be done around that. Because if it's just moving for the sake of moving, we're, horrible analogy, but reorganizing the chairs. Right.

That analogy, instead of actually moving with an intent and a purpose and actually supporting and helping that student continue to grow. So I give you that as feedback. Mr. Wallis, I don't know if you've thought about that, but certainly something that piqued my interest as part of your proposal today.

Yeah, I really appreciate the comments on that. And we're committed to continuing to work with the opposition on this bill, and that's something that we do need to address moving forward. So, I appreciate you bringing that up.

Thank you. Any further questions from the committee? Seeing none. Mr. Wallis, this is your second time around on this bill, and so I appreciate your persistence.

I want to acknowledge the oppositions' concerns that in the ideal world, we should be devoting more resources to low performing schools, schools that need more help, in order to make sure that we're lifting all boats, rather than allowing situations where students and families feel like they do need to seek opportunities outside of their district.

And so I know that that is the ideal world that we want to continue to aspire to. Mr. Alvarez, in response to your question about whether the receiving district would be prepared, have the resources to be able to accept a student.

I want to emphasize that the committee amendments require that a school district have to approve and accept the transfer, and especially for the low-income families, they have to agree to provide transportation for the families.

So, we wanted to make sure that this was an equity measure to sufficiently narrowed. So that it only applies to 1.5% of students statewide, so that we don't undermine the stability of school districts in their financial situation.

And that, too, it's targeting low-income students, low performing students in schools that are in need of help, and for the receiving school district to provide the transportation.

And so we try to sufficiently narrow it to provide the students with the goal that I know we all share, which is to make sure that every child, every student, regardless of where you live, be able to pursue the educational opportunities that they aspire to. And so I just want to acknowledge the oppositions' concerns with that. Mr. Wallis, would you like to close?

Thank you again for giving this idea a second chance. Again, I accept the committee amendments and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam. Second the motion. Mr. Flora moved. Do we have a second? I will second the motion. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item five, AB 148. The motion is do pass as amended, to appropriations.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so it's one, two Ayes, three Ayes, and the Bill is on call. All right, last Bill on file is file item number one. Assembly Bill 359. Assembly Member Holden, welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon to you and the Members for this opportunity to present AB 359, also known as CCAP 2.0 or phase one of dual enrollment reform. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, students from CCAP programs enroll in college at a rate of 82%, well above the state average for high school graduates. AB 359 builds on CCAP accomplishments by incorporating policy recommendations from the fall oversight hearing on dual enrollment.

This Bill makes substantive changes to CCAP to eliminate barriers faced by underrepresented students, local education agencies, and community college districts. AB 359 specifically establishes a framework to integrate pathways into every CCAP partnership agreement, streamlines student enrollment and participation in CCAP by removing the principal's recommendation and requiring students to complete one application. Allow schools to partner with community colleges outside of their service area if certain conditions are met.

Provide schools with the opportunity to teach courses online with appropriate student supports in place, and ensure students receive high school and college credits for the courses they complete on their unique pathway. With me to testify and support are Sandra Morales, legislative advocate for the California High School District Coalition, and Melissa Bardo, associate Director of policy and government relations for Education Trust-West. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'm Sandra Morales, representing the High School Coalition. Our coalition consists of 55 school districts across the state that wanted to focus their attention on issues that are important to high schools and high school students. One of our top priorities this year is dual enrollment and to expand the opportunities for students to participate in that program, particularly in the College and Career Access Program that has been so effective.

As noted in the analysis, this Bill does a lot to remove the barriers that are administrative and governance that sometimes make those partnerships difficult. We are in support and urge your vote.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Public Education. Oh, thank you. Good afternoon Chair and Members. My name is Melissa Bardo, Associate Director of Policy and Government Relations for the Education Trust-West, a research and advocacy organization committed to advancing policies and practices that dismantle the racial and economic barriers embedded in California's education systems. Education leaders and policymakers have an opportunity to reimagine how dual enrollment can transform our systems and students' lives, and be a powerful lover for equity in student attainment of post-secondary education.

College and Career Access Pathways, in particular, aims to provide early exposure to college courses for students who may not be college-bound or who are underrepresented in higher education. This Bill will eliminate outdated barriers that prevent students from accessing college coursework through CCAP, while also making it easier for LEAs and community college districts to develop partnerships and expand course offerings.

We are particularly excited about the student friendly amendments that eliminate the requirement for a principal recommendation, clarify that students should submit only one application for the duration of their participation, and works towards ensuring that students receive credit from both their high school and college for completing college-level courses. These changes will go a long way towards ensuring students do not encounter unnecessary barriers to CCAP and maximize the benefits of their participation.

We greatly appreciate the diligence from the author Assembly Member Holden, as well as your Committee staff, to working with stakeholders, advocates, and Committee staff to address the unique needs and challenges that dual enrollments students face, and with that, respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members and staff. Happy New Year. Great to see all of you. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, and we strongly support this Bill.

Thank you. Any further public comments in support of the Bill?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Dominique Dene, on behalf of EdVoice, we strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments and support any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing no one coming forward. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill. Please come forward.

David Bolog as a private individual, in opposition. Thank you.

Any further public comments in opposition? Seeing none. Bringing it back to the Committee, Mr. Alvarez.

Mr. Holden, I have to admit, I am a fan of yours when it comes to CCAP. I appreciate the work that you've done and I'm excited that you're continuing that work and hopefully we can continue in that legacy in years to come because I think it's been really important. So I want to, first off, by thanking you. I wanted to ask one question because I haven't been part of the history and hopefully you can help me answer.

And that's the way I'm, I'm reading the Bill. This is on page eight of our printed, which is, I should've written down the section, but it's regarding the advanced placement. There's a paragraph three. It's the intent of the Legislature to weigh the GPA provided for AP courses. Apply that to community college. That's been deleted. I don't think I see that added somewhere else. Can anybody tell me about what that's about?

Excuse me. I believe it's referencing the fact that with the way that it was structured before, AP students had to go through a process of taking, paying for a test, scoring a certain level on a test, to be able to get a certain number of college credits applied. Under CCAP, there's no charge.

You basically are taking college level courses that, that's covered under the current budget funding formula, and the high school student has an opportunity to take those same level of courses and actually get more credit for them, if I'm not mistaken. I believe that might be.

The way I read this is, so if you take an AP course in, say, English and you have an A, you get weighted from a 4.0 to a 5.0. And the way I read this section is that there was the intent of the Legislature for the CCAP courses to be weighted the same way. So if you're taking a CCAP English course, that that would also, if you got an A, you'd get not four points, but five points, which I think is important.

And I see that as, I think, being eliminated. And I'm just interested in maybe I'm wrong. Can someone help me understand that? That's the only thing I notice about the Bill. I'm perfectly comfortable and very supportive of it. It's just I don't want to unintentionally do something that maybe we don't intend to do, or maybe we do intend to do this.

I don't have that section of the Bill in front of me. I can only say that my understanding is that it's really to create unparity for the program to allow for college students to be able to receive the college credit. Let me just check.

Yeah. Actually, while staff is looking into it, it is the Committee staff's belief, although she's trying to confirm it, that Mr. Alvarez is referring to an earlier version of the Bill that has since been amended. But we'll try to confirm that.

Thank you. With that, if we can just get that information, clarification. Happy to move the item. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Motion made by Mr. Alvarez, seconded by Mr. Flora. So, just to clarify, Mr. Alvarez, you're referring to the language on the January 3 version? Oh, no, the January 3, 2024, amended version, page 10, subdivision three.

I am not referring to that version of the Bill. So you could be completely correct that I'm looking at. But in the original version, that was removed, and so maybe it was added back on. I think maybe this is something we could just identify at another point. Certainly don't want this to be the issue, to hold this up, and we'll just follow up.

I think it was part of the amendment process that maybe there was something that was inadvertently.

Okay, that makes sense.

Addressed in a certain way, but we'll look to the Committee staff to guide us on that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions on this Bill from the Committee? I will follow up then. Mr. Alvarez, I think you and I are on a similar wavelength with teenage kids getting ready to plan their high school coursework in order to apply to college. This issue of weighted GPAs is very important given the hyper-competitive university admissions that our high school kids are facing nowadays.

I'm looking at the January 3, 2024, amended version that indicates that it's the intent of the Legislature that the same weighted GPA provided for AP courses applied to community college courses. All right. We're not clear yet as to whether that language is still in the version, but I think the overall intent is to promote more opportunities for all students, including with the emphasis on those that don't come from historically college-bound backgrounds, first-gen students, low-income students, immigrant students.

But all students have the opportunity to seek opportunities to take the dual enrollment courses, to take the most rigorous coursework that we know the college admissions offices are looking for. And so your work, Mr. Holden, is continuing that effort to make sure, again, that regardless of what high school you go to, that you have the opportunities, if you want to take the initiative, if you want to take on the challenge that they can take these community college courses.

And this has been such an important measure in promoting equity for students, again, regardless of where you live. And so I am strongly in support of this. In fact, I would love to be added as a co author. Seeing the double thumbs up, Mr. Holden, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I think you gave my close. I would also say that this Bill was held intentionally from when it was introduced to be a two-year Bill for the stated purpose of having the committees have an opportunity to have a hearing, to take additional testimony and reports be given to show how we can remove some of the barriers that were unintentional or that existed.

And this is what this Bill does, is designed to make it easier, remove some of the barriers and principal letters, only one application, so that it would not become more tedious and create an unnecessary barrier for a student to participate. So everything you've said is really what continues to be the intent of this Bill.

And I will say to the earlier statement by Member Alvarez, this Bill is going to continue to evolve as time goes on, because we are going to continue to see where additional needs and opportunities will exist, and that we will have an opportunity to respond to create this pathway to be even broader and more precisely prescribed so that students can be excited about what it represents, and even those who don't see themselves continuing to a college education, just taking college-level courses prepares them to be job ready in a way that would be unique, certainly from when I grew up where we had auto mechanics in school.

So I think this is really an opportunity to also channel some of our young people into the math and sciences and stem programs that will prepare them for jobs that clearly we know there's going to be a deficiency in college degrees to prepare to serve the marketplace. So I'm excited about what it represents.

I am excited about coming back at a later time and hopefully testifying to someone else's Bill and urging a committee like this to support it, because we're excited about what it's doing now and what it proposes to do into the future. So with that, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

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

File item one, AB 359. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll call].

Flora? Flora, aye. Alvarez? Alvarez, aye. Bonta? Hoover? McCarty? McCarty, aye. Ortega? Ortega, aye.

5-0. The Bill is out. All right, we have one Bill on call. That is File Item 5, AB 1408. Assemblymembers Bonta and Hoover are currently in another Committee. We will hold the roll open until they're able to join us to vote. That may change with Mr. McCarty, and so why don't we go through the roll. So we'll open the roll for Mr. McCarty to add on.

Okay, File Item 5, AB 1408 the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. The Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye. McCarty? McCarty, aye.

So with File Item number 5, AB 1408, the Bill is out. So we have no bills on call, and so we will adjourn the meeting and allow Committee Members to add on, time limit. Why don't we say by 03:10? So if you want to add on, please come to the Committee by 03:10 p.m. The meeting is adjourned.

We are going to welcome Mr. Hoover. We're going to reopen the roll for You to add on.

[Roll Call]