Senate Standing Committee on Education

Item number nine, SB 1322, and item number 14, SB 1429. Welcome, Senator Skinner. Appreciate your patience. Again, we'll be starting as a Subcommitee, and you may proceed whenever you are ready. And we do have a quorum. And since you have yet to proceed, let us. Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a strong present from Senator Wilk. So let's get started on that energetic note. Welcome. Senator Skinner. You will be presenting SB 906, and please proceed.

Thank you very much, chair and Members. I'm really pleased to be here. So, 906, I titled it helping achieve equity in college sports. The name, image and likeness deals, as you know. Well, first, I am accepting the Committee's suggested amendment clarifying that the purpose is to get the data on compensation student athletes receive related specifically to their participation in college sports. As you all know, and many of you were part of this historic thing moment where California passed SB 206. I'm always forgetting so many numbers.

Anyway, when we passed 206, which made California the first state in the nation to give athletes their name, image and likeness rights, and literally sparked a national movement where now every college athlete has the ability to get some kind of compensation, whether it's deals they make themselves, whether they monetize their social media, or you name it, through their name, image and likeness. A right.

I would like to remind people that every student had, and only college athletes were denied because they had to signed a contract with the NCAA. Now, in the beginning, right when the nil got through, it looked like women were doing great. Women were getting all kinds of deals. But as we would expect, this is a multibillion dollar business, college sports. And, of course, anything that's a multi $1.0 billion business like this, somebody's going to figure out how to game the system.

And the boosters of various colleges concerned about their male football and basketball teams, began to figure out ways to try to use the nil rights to attract star basketball and football players. So what we've seen is the rise of things like these collectives, other things that boosters are doing to attract these stars to their schools.

Now, maybe it's not, maybe it's perfectly fine, but we do not have the data as to whether this is resulting in a serious inequity where women athletes are getting shortchanged and male athletes are getting all the deals. So we want to try to figure that out. And the purpose of this Bill is to give us some data so that we can start to look at are there tweaks that we have to do to try to help make this more fair?

So what SB 906 would do is require collectives and other entities that provide nil deals to provide basic information to the college that the athlete attends regarding those deals. And this information would be anonymous, so the students names would not be revealed. And I know there's been some concern about, for example, if you're the only at a particular college, maybe it's obvious there's only R1 woman star in certain, like in volleyball, that we don't want anything to contribute to harassment or stalking of women.

So we're thinking we're going to go to, I think it's Judiciary Committee next. So we're trying to think about ways to help ensure that beyond just the anonymous data that we've put into this, in the Bill as it's constructed now, what other ways can we ensure that the information does not lead to athletes being identified individually? So we're working on that. Just wanted to let you know that.

And I want to let Betsy Stevenson, my witness, who is the former Associate Athletic Director at UCLA and the former athletic Director at Emory University in Atlanta to present. Betsy Stevenson.

Ms. Stevenson, welcome. And if you would please come into the. I'd like to think that's more comfortable and more conducive to a good interactive conversation. Please proceed.

Thank you. As Senator Skinner said, I have a history of working in college athletics. During my career, I supervised number of coaches of both men's and women's sports marketing teams and also raised private donations for both men's and women's programs. I'm here today to talk about the inequity in college sports as it relates to the new and much long overdue SB 206 NIL legislation. When 206 was passed, there was a General assumption that student athletes were all starting from the same starting line.

They were starting their journey with nil at the same point. Basically two factors have contributed to that not being accurate. For years, marketing and college athletics has been focused on football and men's basketball. So the profile of the sports that opening nil up to women's sports, the profile started differently. Men's football and men's basketball have been supported by hundreds of thousands of dollars and millions over time. So female athletes have not been afforded the opportunity for the same type of exposure as their male counterparts.

The other aspect that is now being seen in the collectives is related to donor and private donor contributions being funneled to football and men's basketball student athletes. Historically, colleges and universities do not put resources towards finding donors for women's sports programs. So whether that's because of the profile, the marketing, the media exposure, for whatever reason, the resources to cultivate donors who are interested in supporting women's sports and women's student athletes just has not been there. So it is very an assumption.

But I think the data that this Bill will bring to light will show that that's being perpetuated with these current collectives. The donors are supporting football and men's basketball players. There may be a one off where a elite women's sport athlete is receiving some type of support, but generally speaking, I think we're going to see the same picture that we've seen in the past. It's just now, under the collective's moniker, SB 206 changed the landscape of college athletics for the student athletes.

This next step would offer the opportunity for transparency, to hold people accountable, and to make colleges and universities invest in trying to help their student athletes, both male and female. SB will at least give us the information we need to know for sure whether the world of Nil is contributing to inequity or to equity.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses here in the Committee hearing room who'd like to testify in support of SB 906? Welcome. And if you could, please state your name, your organization, your position on the measure.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Brittney Barsotti, on behalf of the California News Publishers Association, California Broadcasters Association and Media alliance and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Are there any witnesses or lead witnesses in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. No witnesses in opposition. Let's bring it back to the Committee. Any comments or concerns from Members of the Committee? I've got a motion from Senator Kritasi. I will say I'm happy to support the Bill. I think this is a good next step, especially as it relates to transparency as a movement toward equity across nil deals for men and women. Senator Skinner, would you like to close?

Thank you, chair. So I think none of us were naive, certainly not I. When we passed our nil legislation, that this was going to cause immediately any kind of revolution in gender equity in college athletics, because at the time that we were passing that Bill, I think we were in the middle of a march madness at that point where the women were showing, they were posting on social media what their workout room was compared to the men.

They were showing, what time they got in the practice court and such. I mean, it was so unequal as to be absurd. But anyway. So, look, nil, from my point of view, is still the right thing to do. Athletes still deserve to be able to monetize their talent and skill. But I also want to make sure if the colleges and donors are really engaged in what I'll jokingly call now, gaming the system, I want to make sure it's equitable, and that's the purpose of the Bill. And I greatly appreciate my witness for coming up here this morning. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

And thank you. And with that, we have a motion from Senator Cortese. Madam consultant, please call the roll.

File Item one, SB 906. Skinner motion is do pass as amended, to send a Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

The measure currently has three votes. We'll leave it open. And thank you very much. And thank you, Ms. Stevenson. Let's see, next we have SB 954. Looking for the author, Senator Menjivar. Not seeing her. I'm glad to see him. The early bird getting the worm. All right, Senator Portantino, I see you have two bills on today's agenda. Your first is SB 971. And you may proceed when you are ready.

Where's my witness?

We can vary the order if your witness isn't here.

No, she's here.

Okay, she is here.

I just have one quick question. I want to make sure I say her name right. Want to make sure I say her name right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm proud to present SB. You can come sit up here. SB 971. First, I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments outlined in the Committee analysis, and thank your Committee staff for working with my staff. I'd also like to thank Glendale Community College for bringing this idea to my attention.

Earlier this year, I was struck by an effort by Glendale Community College students to raise money to pay for the tuition of students who have been displaced from Artsakh, which is a region of ethnic Armenians. That 100,000 people have been driven out of their homes by the Azerbaijanis and several of them have family ties to Glendale and are now residing in Glendale. And the students took it upon themselves to raise money to offset the tuition, and it was quite a powerful presentation.

So today I'm presenting SB 971, which would exempt from nonresident tuition fee, a nonresident, low income student who is a resident of a region impacted by war or conflict, who is attending a community college and has sought residency in California. There's a growing number of regional conflicts throughout the world, causing large scale displacements. As I said, more than 91,000 Armenians have been displaced from Artsakh even prior to the escalation in the conflict in 2023.

Similar displacements have been seen in Ukraine and other parts of the world, with over 6 million individuals seeking refugee status. Many of these people seek safe haven through immigration to California, where they turn to education to improve their lives and become full participants in our community. However, the immigration process can be time consuming, burdensome, and prevent them from establishing residency for educational purposes.

These individuals face more roadblocks due to their ineligibility for financial aid, such as Pell grants and other student loan opportunities that we afford California residents. They also pay higher out of state tuition rates than in state tuition, which can differ by tens of thousands of dollars. SB 971 will help these students by removing a significant financial barrier and allow these individuals to more easily access higher education.

And with me today, I have Elin Gharibian, student trustee from the Glendale Community College, to testify in support. So, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to be here as well.

Ms. Gharibian, welcome. Thank you for coming, and please proceed. So, you have approximately two minutes, and we'd like to afford both sides. I don't think there's an opposition, but just let everybody know. Equal time, but please proceed.

Thank you, Senator Portantino, and thank you to the Committee for hearing this bill. Good afternoon, Members of the Committee, Senator Portantino, honorable Chairman and Members. My name is Elin Gharibian, and it's with a sense of responsibility and commitment. I stand before you today as Glendale Community College's student trustee and as a young Armenian advocating for SB 971. As Senator Portantino indicated, there are a growing number of regional conflicts throughout the world, causing displacement of human lives.

Many individuals seek safe haven through immigration to the United States with an intent on establishing residency in California. Glendale has often called itself home to many of these recent immigrants who seek to become a part of our communities. Glendale has become a melting pot of cultures and histories and has become a beacon of hope for many of these immigrants, including those from Armenia and Artsakh. They often see education as a way to improve their lives and the lives of their families.

We have seen this play out time and time again in our community, and it has resulted in an economically strong, vibrant, and diverse community. Yet despite their aspirations and the undeniable benefits of their success that brings to our state, many face daunting barriers. The immigration process can be time consuming and confusing. Most of these immigrants come not understanding the language, the culture, or society here at all.

As a student who's seen her parents struggle with this process, seeing the people I love trying their best to learn the world around them while trying to make ends meet. Even though I was younger, I felt the same pressure they did. And though I didn't fully understand the struggle at the time, it felt like a concrete wall with no seeming way to pass over. The stress bleeds from one generation to the next.

We have heard about the individuals from Ukraine having to flee their homeland to nations with operational embassies to work with, often taking months to work through the processes. Many, for various reasons, are unable to gain refugee status and fall into what the United Nations refers to as refugee like or displaced individuals. They arrive with little and face tremendous barriers. These barriers start from leaving your home all the way to learning how to get a job when you've only read job descriptions in Russian, Ukrainian or Armenian.

At Glendale Community College, we have seen increases in our non credit programs as these individuals seek to begin their educational journey, but they are limited in transitioning to credit programs due to fees. We work with many immigrants from Ukraine, Artsakh, and Armenia, but other colleges have noted similar trends with African nations or Middle East depending on their local community. This bill will provide needed opportunities to our college, our state to more effectively serve the immigrant populations.

California in general and our community colleges specifically seek to create a welcoming and inclusive environment. SB 907 One will allow us to further this goal and allow community colleges to meet the needs of the local communities, strengthening their economic and community interests. As a young Armenian, witnessing the struggles of my community and others like it, I cannot overstate the importance of this bill. It represents a chance to extend a hand to affirm that California community colleges are a place of inclusion and opportunity.

It allows these immigrants the chance to focus on their education without the financial burden. It gives these people a way to prioritize their finances, to go towards basic necessities, and for many, it gives them an opportunity to send more money to their families back home who need it much more arguably. It allows us to better serve the needs of our local communities, boost our state's economy, and to enrich our city's culture. Thank you so much for this opportunity.

And thank you. Do we have any other witnesses here in the Committee hearing room in support of the measure? If so, please come forward. And if you would, state your name, your organization, your position.

Anna Matthews with the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in strong support of SB 971.

Thank you. Anybody else? Do we have any witnesses here in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. Let's come back to the Committee Members. Any questions or concerns? Senator Wilk.

Yeah, well, got a comment then a question. I think this is the type program that I think really represents the best of America, providing hope and opportunities for those who've been disenfranchised. I just want you to know--here's my question. I just received a text from my mother-in-law who's very upset with you that I am not a co-author of this bill.

That's because you.

And you are no longer her favorite Senator because of it. But I think you can redeem yourself by adding me as a co-author when appropriate.

For the record, Mr. Chair, I received a text from his mother-in-law.

Saying you were still her favorite Senator?

Not only am I still her favorite Senator, but asking me nicely if I would add the Senator as a.

Oh, there you go. I'm glad we clarified.

Based on the text from the mother in law, would be happy to add Senator Wilk as a co-author.

Very important. All right. And if you could please send us a copy of that text so we can insert that in the record.

Absolutely.

With that, all of your texts over the last 30 days or so. That'd be helpful, but thank you. So no other comments?

No, just one thing. I mean, I've been to Arsakh twice on Persona, nod and Gata in Turkey and Azerbaijan because of my travels there. And of course, American media doesn't cover this at all, but seeing churches that I've worshiped in, streets I've walked down, completely blown up, it's just heart wrenching. And these things happen not only there, but Ukraine, Africa, all over. So I think this is really a great bill to give people a helping hand up. So, happy to be at it as a co-author.

Yes, sir.

You know what? Actually, I just got another text. My mother-in-law wants me to be principal co-author.

I will verify with your mother-in-law based on what I find out.

The good news is this will proceed to the floor and then other Committee hearings. You guys can hash this out. But thank you. Appreciate the bill, and I appreciate your willingness to take the amendment. What we were endeavoring to do is make sure that we had an unambiguous basis for defining what actually sort of reached the threshold for a regional conflict. I'm glad to support it. Do I have a motion from Wilk? Wilk just made the motion. And, Madam Consultant, please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. Please close.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to again compliment Ms. Gharibian for being here and the students of Glendale Community College who highlighted this issue so importantly and dramatically. Just goes to show you, when you see things in the community that affect you and you're able to then make it state law, it's a good situation. And so, respectfully, ask for an aye vote. And thank the good Senator for his comments about Artsakh as well.

Thank you. And, Ms. Gharibian, thank you for being here. Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

File item seven, SB 971, Portantino, motion is do passes amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

The measure now has four votes in the affirmative, none against. We'll leave it open. Senator Portantino, you now have another bill? I'm sorry. That bill is on consent. It is?

Yes, because he took the amendment.

Oh. Well, thank you. I am adding the asterisk. It was not so noted. All right, to be continued. We'll put you all on an email thread, and you guys can follow this. And so, next up, Senator Menjivar. Welcome. Appreciate your patience, and you will be presenting SB 954. And you may proceed, and your witness can proceed up to the table. And good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, I am back with a bill that you saw in this Committee last year. Very similar bill. I am still attempting to address sexually transmitted infection epidemic among California youth and improve equitable public health outcomes statewide by expanding teen access to condoms in school and communities. I don't think Senator Wilk will be getting a text from his mother-in-law on this one, but I will proceed either way.

SB 954 is looking to do a couple of things in how we can ensure that we're decreasing the STI rates that right now are astronomical. In the last ten years, the most recent CDC report tells you that they've increased amongst the youth between the ages of 15 to early 20s. In fact, here in California, they amount to close to 50 percent of our STI cases are in that age group. So SB 954 is looking to address that now in several ways.

We want to make sure that high school students, both in public and charter schools, have access to free condoms. We want to make sure that the schools place a notice where they need to go to access the free internal and external condoms. We want to bar high schools from allowing community health centers, organizations, to go on their campuses and provide these condoms as part of their public health webinar fair or anything related to educational training.

And finally, I want to make sure that when an individual goes to obtain or purchase these items at a store, a pharmacy, that they're not asked for an ID. There is no current state law right now that states you have to be over the age of 18 to purchase said items, but we are still seeing pharmacists or retailers ask for that ID, preventing them. I'm not here to tell any parent what they should or shouldn't do with a child. I am not a parent.

I can imagine those conversations are personal. I can imagine those conversations are tough. What I am saying is we will never be with some individual 24/7, so when that individual makes a decision to become sexually active, I want to make sure they have the resources to be safe and healthy and not fall into the statistic of what we're seeing here in California.

I want to also thank my opposition, because in passing an opposition letter, they showed a fact sheet from CDC that shared how much STI cases have increased. The reason that they've increased is because we don't have equitable access to these kinds of programs across California. In fact, I represent a community that their district does offer this. The Bay has it, Long Beach district has it, but not all our areas--our rural areas, Central California don't have access to these kind of programs.

So we want to bring equity to this to ensure all types of individuals have access to condoms internally and externally. So to that, I'm going to turn to some experts, Mr. Chair, with your permission, who are here to testify in support of my bill, SB 954.

Very good. And to both witnesses, you each have approximately two minutes. I'd ask you to try to limit your comments to that time and introduce yourself and please proceed.

Great. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Amy Moy. I'm Co-CEO of Essential Access Health, and we are proud co-sponsors of SB 954, and thank the Senator for her leadership on this important bill. You may have--as the Senator mentioned--and it's been widely reported--we have a huge public health concern in this state and across this country when it comes to rising STI rates.

And as the Senator mentioned, that nearly half of all STI cases in this state and across the country are being experienced by young people, and more than five out of ten chlamydia cases in California experience between people 15 to 24. Since most STIs are asymptomatic, they often remain undetected and can pose long-term and serious health problems later in life, including permanent tissue damage, blindness, and infertility.

Now, the good news is that STIs are largely preventable, and according to the CDC, condoms are highly effective in preventing STIs and HIV, and condoms are an evidence-based and low-cost intervention to prevent the spread of STIs, but cost can be a hindrance to young people having access to them. That's why it's critical to ensure that free condoms are available at all public high schools in California. As the Senator mentioned, this isn't a new concept.

Some schools and districts have been distributing free condoms for decades, but it's not equally accessible statewide. So this bill seeks to level the playing field and make access more equitable across the state. And this concept for this bill also derived from hearing directly from California youth. In a recent survey we conducted through our TeenSource program, nearly 70 percent of teens said that they don't have access to condoms in schools, but more than 90 percent, 92 percent said that condoms should be made available.

And now I'd like to use the rest of my time to share testimonies from two students from our Youth Health Equity and Safety or YHES for condoms campaign. 'As a high school senior, I can't stress enough how crucial access to condoms is for our well-being. I've witnessed friends face unnecessary hurdles, like being asked for ID when purchasing condoms. This bill is about ensuring that every teen, regardless of income or background, can have the means to protect their health and well-being.'

'By eliminating cost barriers and tackling discriminatory policies, SB 954 empowers us to take control of our health and make informed choices.' This is from Martine, who is from Troy High School in Fullerton, and also from Hailey at Brío College Prep in LA, said that 'teens should be comfortable in seeking sexual and reproductive health resources such as condoms.'

'Not only would this bill expand access to these resources, but it would also meet the needs of individuals who need it most, like young Black people who are--young people who are often neglected in the conversation, and for Black, indigenous, people of color, LGBTQIA communities, having access to these resources can be particularly difficult, and the passing of SB 954 would be a step forward in protecting the health and well-being among teens and young adults.'

And for these reasons and more, on behalf of these student leaders and also co-sponsors, including Generation Up, United for Reproductive Gender Equity, California, and California School-Based Health Alliance, I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Two things. One: go Troy High School. The second, I have to excuse myself to go present a bill in another Committee, so Senator Ochoa Bogh will take the gavel, and I will be back as soon as I can.

Good morning, and thank you to the Committee Members. My name is Lonnell Schuler--yeah--my name is Lonnell Schuler, and I'm the Director of Youth Programs, Black Women for Wellness Action Project. Organization is dedicated to advancing reproductive justice and improving the overall health and well-being of Black women and girls statewide.

As one of the proud co-sponsors of SB 954, the Youth Health Equity and Safety Act, I'm here to express our enthusiastic support for this important initiative, which works to address the sexual health disparities among youth in our community. As community-based educators with a deep understanding of the importance of comprehensive sex education, we recognize that informed and empowered youth are effective advocates for their own health and well-being.

When we educate youth on building healthy habits and equip them with the tools and resources to support their own well-being, we create opportunities for meaningful change. Recently, one of our peer educators, Gina Craig, who attends Venice High School, shared her gratitude for her work after attending an event focused on health advocacy. She stated that, 'as a student in Los Angeles, I find that the sexual health crisis isn't well known or talked about enough.'

'I feel it is very important for more youth to be educated on ways safer sex can happen. Passing SB 954 will serve as a healthy--as a really good tool for students around the state to be able to take control of their sexual health.' Her feedback underscores the urgent need for initiatives like SB 954, which prioritizes access to vital sexual health resources for youth. Mobilizing resources is critical in addressing the SEI epidemic and promoting health equity among youth.

We are fighting around the clock to ensure we are making progress in addressing the SEI epidemic, and this bill will connect resources to the populations most vulnerable to the SEI epidemic. Education is essential to SEI prevention, but so too are resources. SB 954 addresses the disproportionate impact of SEIs by removing barriers to access, promoting safer sex behaviors.

By supporting this bill with an aye vote, you will play a crucial role in ensuring that youth have resources they need to make informed decisions about their sexual health. I respectfully urge you to vote yes on SB 954. Thank you for your attention and consideration on this important issue.

Thank you very much. So we've got two witnesses in support. Do we have any witnesses in opposition to this bill? Oh, do we have any more support witnesses? Sorry, I haven't done this in quite a while. Getting back into the habit. Any witnesses in support of this bill?

Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California, in strong support.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Karen Stout, on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All, California, in strong support.

Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the American College of OB/GYNs, District Nine, in support.

Good morning. Ryan Souza, on behalf of APLA Health and the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, in support. Also wanted to do a support for our colleagues that couldn't be here today, ACLU Cal Action. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Rand Martin, on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its STD Prevention and Control Division, in very strong support of this critically important bill. Thank you.

Hello. I'm Gabrielle Brown with Black Women for Wellness, in support.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in support of this bill? All right, we'll move on to witnesses in opposition to SB 954.

Are we on? Great. Chair and Members, my name is Greg Burt with the California Family Council. For over a decade, this legislative body has championed the distribution of condoms and comprehensive sex education as a panacea for our use, escalating sexually transmitted infection rates. Yet as these rates have soared, so has your reliance on these measures, culminating in the passage of the California Healthy Youth Act in 2015. This law was supposed to protect kids from STIs and slow infection rates. But ask yourself, did it work? Did SDI rates go down?

No. The exact opposite happened. SDI rates have reached epidemic proportions, with syphilis and gonorrhea rates skyrocketing by 320% and 190%, respectively, over the last decade or so. So where does the author get her confidence that free condoms is the answer? Does this bill require warning labels on condom dispensers telling teens that Latex will not protect them from syphilis? Condoms also won't protect teens from herpes and genital warts and monkey pox because these STIs all spread by skin to skin contact.

Ultimately, you will have to convince youth to stop having sex with multiple partners if you want to stop the spread of STIs. Handing out free condoms does not send that message. Instead, it gives kids a sense of security and tells youth self control isn't required when it comes to sex.

I believe real change will only happen if you promote the truth that those with the most fulfilling and healthy sex lives are those who treat sex as a special and intimate act shared in a monogamous, committed marriage. But instead, this bill promotes a hookup culture where youth have meaningless sex for fun with multiple partners. How many young people are you willing to sacrifice? What STI rates are you willing to tolerate before you will consider different options? Please vote no on SB 954. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition to SB 954?

Pastor Braden Campbell with California Baptist Biblical Values in opposition.

Brock Campbell from Lighthouse Baptist Church in Santa Maria in opposition.

Emily Campbell from Lighthouse Baptist Church. And I'm a mom and I'm in opposition.

Scott Dean, Omira Baptist Church. I'm in opposition.

All right. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition to SB 954? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Questions and comments from my colleagues? Okay, well, I do have some comments and some observations and then questions as well.

So it was interesting because we've received a lot of comments from constituents and some highlighting the fact that we're promoting our schools, our academic schools, to be health centers in many, many ways, including adding this bill, this requirement for our schools in the State of California and focusing a lot on measures that would basically fix consequences of a culture that's being permeated.

Yes, that, sorry, I can't say it at this time. But through the culture that we are, the practices and the systems that we're implementing in place. So it was very interesting because as we look at our school's systems and how California is faring as a whole when it comes to reading, writing, math, all of these other subjects, we're faring at the very, very bottom. And when we look know, I was just on Budget One Committee, which is the educational budget.

As we allocate funds, as we face the budget cuts that we're facing right now in the State of California, we look at where we're going to know. We're going to have to prioritize where we're sending and spending our money as far as our schools go. And I think about where we are academically with our students and how that limits their opportunities in the workforce. In California, we don't have enough workforce.

But needless to say, when it comes to this bill, I'm looking at the cost of end personal responsibility, the culture that we're fostering, continuing. But what was interesting, and I would love to hear your thoughts on the Healthy Youth Act that was passed in 2015 and the increase in STD numbers that are occurring. And your thought about, well, it was supposed to help within all of those ranges.

What do you see, aside from the fact that I know that the bill, the author was mentioning the equitable access to resources, but in allowing and having as adults, as a system, saying anything goes, you can do whatever you want, we got you covered. Where is a sense of personal responsibility and how do you respond to taxpayers as a whole that are being asked to cover the consequences of people's personal choices?

And instead of saying, okay, you can do whatever you want as long as you're personally responsible for the consequences of your choices, rather than saying, hey, all of you, the rest of you are going to be responsible for covering, putting a band aid on the choices that as a culture seems to be fostered. So if you could address those several questions would be great. Either one, whoever's comfortable.

I will take it. Thank you, madam Vice Chair. There was a couple of things in there, so let me see if I tracked everything. I'll start with one of the first comments. You said that our school institutions are perhaps leaning towards like, health centers. I would say that's a great thing.

In fact, in my district, how proud we are that a lot of our schools are getting health centers attached to it, are becoming community hubs, because in fact, it is our responsibility between K and 12 to do and meet the whole entire person of that student. So I think it's a win when I see schools have health centers, have community clinics attached to them, because that is when we can capture the whole person.

Because once they graduate twelveth grade, it's kind of hard to touch that person. And if a parent is coming to a school because they're dropping off, picking up, there is opportunity to address mental illness, to address food insecurity. This is why they were the ones during COVID that were passing out foods, because that is a natural drawing for a lot of families who have kids in there. So that's my point on that. The second thing I would say, you're absolutely right.

We're dealing with a huge budget deficit. It's horrendous. And we're having to address, are we prioritizing foster kids? Are we prioritizing seniors? Are we prioritizing financial literacy? I understand you on that. To that, I would say this bill, what it didn't have last year, has a budget request from a special fund, a special fund that was created to address STI, to address HIV, AIDS.

And so this won't be coming out of the General Fund, should it get approved, because it's part of a bigger package that advocates are looking to get funded through my Subcommitee. And again, it's from a special fund, $5 million over three years to amounts to $1.66 million every single year for three years. Additionally, I would say regarding the 2015 passage that you brought up, we can put on a trillion webinars, a trillion training. I can sit here and get training on how to cut a tree.

But if I just look at a training, I won't be able to go out and cut a tree without the tools necessary. I need to also, on top of the education, be provided the tools to be successful on what I'm learning. So while we do some education on safe sex, which is not inclusive, it's not inclusive to my community as LGBTQ plus because my youth within this community are not being taught how to be safe.

But even outside of that, when the youth are being taught, they're not giving the resources to be safe. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have unintended consequences. If we're talking about our youth being able to meet the reading level, what's going to happen to a young individual who at 14, 15 gets pregnant and no longer can go to school. We're not even going to meet her reading proficiency because she will have to drop out of school or alter her path to graduation.

Not all pregnancies are a positive news for the individual. I want to prevent unintended pregnancies to ensure that that youth meets their full potential to graduate. It is, I would say, our responsibility to address this statewide epidemic. It really is because in fact the State of California is spending billions of dollars on reactive care versus being preventative.

So if we're looking to be creative in how we save money in the outward years, this is one of the things that we should invest in the preventative manner so that we do save money down the line. And I think I captured your points.

Yes, I believe you do. But going on the health service or responding to that, great, I understand where you're coming from. But the other concerns that would be brought up as opposition to what you just stated is the fact that when we look at these health centers and having schools become health centers is the fact that this Legislature has also, and involving parents right. In having those private conversations and engaging the parents and having what a great opportunity to have them engage.

However, the policies that have been passed, the measures that have been passed in this Legislature have actually disenfranchised parents on many aspects when it comes to the behavioral health and other health areas. I'm not going to go into details with that, but they have disenfranchised parents from having those conversations. Bills that prohibit health plans from informing parents on the services that are being rendered to their children as young as 12, prohibiting. What's the other one that we have? We've had several that have done that.

So instead of what you're trying to state here, that we're trying to engage the families and trying to educate and bring that health component into the schools, we're not. We're actually removing those parents in policies that just within the last three years as I've been here have been chipping away. Chipping away. We've basically emancipated the health care system or the health care component aspect of our students in the state of California as young as 12.

So I understand where you're coming from, but we're not actually doing that as a whole in this state with the measures that we've passed. So I completely understand and respect that. But to the other point, it's also about personal responsibility. Are we doing campaigns about safety? Maybe we are, maybe we're not, but the practices are not coming. And to ask the taxpayers to say, hey, we've got you covered. Do whatever you want as you please, and we're going to pay for it.

I think it's a bit unfair for many California farmers. I know for low socioeconomic demographics, they'll say, no, we want the help. We want that voucher or whatever it is, a service or everything. That's perfectly fine. But to a certain level, we have to have a certain level of accountability and say, hey, you can have access to it.

I would be more comfortable if, as a state said, there is no age requirement or ID required in order to purchase them, but to just say, hey, here it is. We're just going to readily have it available. I struggle with that, but I know Senator Smallwood-Cuevas is dying to say something.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to say thank you for bringing this bill. This is a 40 year argument, and I can't believe we're here. I remember in the 80s this was a conversation, and here we are, 2024, talking about these old sort of storylines about life saving measures. We would ensure defibrillators in schools. Condoms are life saving measures. And with that, I move for a vote on this. Thank you for bringing this, Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Senator.

So any other comments, questions? There's nobody left, really. Senator Wilk, you're good. Okay. So I'll be respectfully voting no on this, just on the personal, but I understand where you're coming from. I respect where you're coming from. I'm just nervous about creating, just permeating that culture of just permissiveness and saying, hey, do as you wish, whatever you wish. We've got you covered. I have a problem, especially when it comes to taxpayer money. Any other questions? Comments? All right, so we're going to hold this on roll call for. Can we call roll? And, yes, please go ahead and close.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator, for engaging me on this. I just want to close by saying as part of the recent CDC report, we saw one thing. We saw that, in fact, youth of this age are having sex less, but the percentage of not utilizing condoms has increased. So education is working a little bit because they're participating in sex less. But what's happening is that they don't have access to the second part. So I agree with the. Well, let me step back.

Not doing anything will only make the situation worse. We are sitting right now with our arms crossed saying, let's continue to have this STI epidemic increase. Let's continue to fund things that are reactive versus being preventative. Whether we pass this bill or not, the youth in this age group are going to continue to participate in unsafe sex. They're going to continue to increase our STI rates. So I believe in data and I believe in science. This is what works. And this is, right now, our option.

Our option to ensure that we're protecting our youth as much as possible. Because last thing I'll say, HPV has been on the rise as well, which we all know leads to cancer. If we want to make sure that we're addressing this public health issue, that we need to be turned to the thing that we know keeps them safe. So, with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Menjivar. So, Madam Secretary. So we have a motion. Madam Secretary, would you mind taking the roll?

File item four, SB 954. Menjivar. Motion is do pass to Senate Health Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you. And we'll leave that on call for the rest of the membership. So we noticed we have Senator Padilla here in the room. Senator Padilla, would you like to present your bill? Okay, so that would be SB 967.

I'm here to present SB 967, to establish a pilot dust pathogen forecast program and make that request to the University of California. First, I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments and thank you and your staff for working with us on this Bill. SB 967 would request the University of California to conduct a pilot project in Imperial County and the Coachella Valley to develop dust forecast and dust storm early warning. A regional dust forecast capability, basically for the monsoon, three day winter forecast capability.

Death storms affect public health, as you well know, due to exposure and decreased visibility, disproportionately impacting many vulnerable populations. To mitigate the dangers of these storms, early warning systems and death forecasts are necessary to provide time for communities to prepare. In Imperial and Coachella Valley, as you well know, dust storms from the Salton Seas, slow evaporation exposes playa, exposes lakebed, which is largely combined with agricultural runoff and a lot of toxins and pollutants.

And that gets into the air column, and it's breathed in by the community. And thus we have some of the health outcomes that we say in some of our most underserved and underinvested communities. Developing this forecast and early warning system is therefore necessary to demonstrate we have a capacity to improve upon models which don't exist in California.

As more communities are exposed to the results of not being able to prepare adequately, California has to take steps to protect our most vulnerable communities, their health and their well being. So again, this Bill would request the University of California to conduct a pilot program to develop that standard. There is already a working group established within the University that undergoes such analysis, and this Bill simply makes that request with me today. I have Dr. Amato Evan from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at UC San Diego.

And please proceed. Oh, there you are, right in front of me at the sitting down. I'm used to everybody at the mic standing up.

I was wondering, I thought, I think this is him. But you were looking that way and I thought, is there someone else?

Yeah. When I introduce you, you can feel free to proceed. You don't have to look for me. To find you in the room. Doctor, please welcome.

All right, thanks. Thank you Vice Chair Ochoa Bogh and Committee Members. And thank you, Senator Steve Padilla, for introducing this Bill that aims to create dust storm forecast and a dust storm early warning system for the communities of imperial and Coachella valleys. And my name is Amato Evan. I'm a Professor at UCSD Scripps Institution of Oceanography where I specialize in dust storms and specifically dust storms in this state.

Dust storms are pervasive across much of California, from Mono Lake, southward through Owens Valley, across the inland deserts and into Imperial County and throughout the San Joaquin Valley. In some cases, dust storms are short lived nuisances for the people living and working in the parts of the state where they occur. But at the extreme end, these storms are rapidly moving 3000 foot walls of dust behind which visibility drops precipitously and unhealthy air quality lasts hours.

The health impacts of such storms are wide ranging from automobile accidents to respiratory illness and cardiovascular disease caused by exposure to dust particulate matter. Arguably nowhere in the state are the negative impacts of dust storms as great as in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, where the drying Salton Sea represents an ever growing source of dust into the local environment. This Bill aims to protect the health of the people living and working in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys in two ways.

First, this Bill requests the development of a three day dust storm forecast for the region akin to a typical weather forecast. The goal of this forecast is to provide the community with actionable information that can be used to minimize their exposure to dust and the associated impacts.

Since dust storms occurring in the region during the summer monsoon season are difficult to forecast, this Bill also requests an early warning system that alerts the community to the presence of a dust storm in the region, thus providing another tool to minimize exposure to these storms. Forecasting is a relatively cost effective mechanism to mitigate exposure to dust and minimize the associated adverse health impacts.

While the forecasting pilot project this Bill creates is targeted at the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, project success can in turn be leveraged to create similar forecasting capacity for all regions of the state where dust storms occur. This project would be undertaken by UC Dust, a multidisciplinary center dedicated to developing and implementing adaptation and mitigation strategies that address dust storms in California. UC Dust is composed of faculty, staff, and students from UCSD, UCLA, UC Riverside, UC Irvine, UC Merced, UC Davis, and UC Berkeley. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses? Lead witnesses? Senator Padilla, do we have any. Okay, do we have any other witnesses in support of SB 967 here in this room, 2100?

Mario Guerrero. On behalf of the UC Office of the President, while we do not have a position, we just wanted to thank the Senator for working with our faculty, and just note that UC would need resources to implement the Bill. Thank you.

Good point. Any other witnesses in support? All right, we'll move on to any witnesses in opposition to SB 967 here in room 2100. Seeing none, I guess we'll bring it back to the Committee. Senator Wilk.

First of all, great Bill. I move it. As you know, I have a residence down in the Coachella Valley in your district. I mean, I think everybody assumes with particles in the air, that there's obviously problems there with air quality, but there's roads that are shut down, there's people who can't open their garage doors because the sand is piled up, and it's a real issue down there. So I think this is a great plan and hopefully improve people's health and maybe potentially save people's lives by having these warnings in place. So happy to support it today.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, seeing none, Madam Secretary. Oh, Senator Padilla, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. Madam Secretary, would you call the roll.

File item five, SB 967 Padilla. Motion is do pass, as amended, to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

And we'll leave that on call for the remainder absent members. Okay, we have a second bill by Senator Padilla. SB 995. When you're ready, Senator.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here to present SB 995. And first start by accepting committee amendments. And thank you and the staff for working with us. As you already well know, across this nation, schools are facing a dire teacher shortage. Put it most simply, we have high rates of retirement, we have an aging teaching workforce, and we have a thinning teacher pipeline.

We already have some great programs that we've established in partnership between community colleges, and particularly the CSU system that allow for identifying potential candidates, getting them in the right curriculum and the right path for their undergraduate achievement, and on the path toward credentialing. They've taken some great strides towards addressing this issue, but as I say, I think there's much more work that can be done.

We need to specifically and intentionally recruit more qualified candidates into this profession, which is evolving rapidly and presents an opportunity to serve and benefit our future generations, but in a very rapidly changing learning environment and a changing demands and job dimensions for those that want to teach SB 995, the High Quality Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act would require basically the creation of a pilot program at three specific campuses we designate.

At least one must be in a rural campus setting to try to distribute and balance that throughout the state, where, in partnership with community colleges, we can build on existing programs and make it possible to achieve undergraduate, baccalaureate and credentialing within a four year period. It builds off existing partnerships that direct towards a host of undergraduate degrees and create a more streamlined teacher pathway.

By requiring community colleges and CSUs to jointly create a program, SB 995 would make becoming a teacher more accessible for students from low income and underserved communities. By requiring recruitment efforts and marketing that are specifically directed at high school student populations with potential to serve here, we help also achieve a more diverse pool in the teaching core, and we all know, as you well know, that that makes a real impact in the learning environment and in the classroom, particularly in underserved communities.

With me today to testify in support of the bill is the president of the Southwestern Community College District, Dr. Mark Sanchez, and Dr. Paul Gothold from the San Diego County Office of Education.

Welcome. You may proceed when you're ready.

Good morning. Vice Chair. Madam Vice Chair. Sorry. And members of the Senate Education Committee. My name is Paul Gothold. I am the proud superintendent of the San Diego County Office of Education. I am here to speak in support of SB 995, which builds off existing partnerships between two esteemed higher education segments with one goal in mind. Get more people into the teaching profession as affordably and quickly as possible by expanding this tested and proven partnership.

The pilot program established by SB 995 would promote diversity in the teacher workforce, reduce economic barriers to becoming a teacher, promote retention through a grown your own model, put particular focus on rural areas of the state where the persistent shortage of fully qualified teachers is especially pronounced. San Diego County Office of ED provides credentialing support to 42 districts, 130 charter schools, universities and individuals across the county.

And in this work, I have seen the lengths districts have gone to have a fully staffed teacher workforce for their students, and I've seen the struggle aspiring credential holders endure on their path to becoming a teacher. In recent years, the state has appropriated considerable funding for various grants to recruit and retain teachers. It's unlikely that we will have the ability to re up these programs given the deficit we now face as a state.

And what we appreciate about SB 995 is that it works within our existing system of funding, taking a creative, piloted approach that we believe in time can be replicated statewide. By marrying the reach and scale of our community colleges with the CSU's expertise in teacher preparation, this Bill can establish a new, exciting model for bolstering our teacher workforce. I want to thank the senator for authoring this measure, and I humbly ask for your support at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please.

Good morning to the committee and thank you, Senator Padilla, for having us this morning. My name is Mark Sanchez and I'm the superintendent president at Southwestern Community College in Chula Vista, California, and we are the only post secondary institution in the South County of San Diego in which we serve close to a half million residents in our county. And I'm very pleased to be here to be here to speak on behalf of SB 995 in our service area.

Our largest elementary school district is chillivist elementary and it's also the largest elementary school district district in the State of California. In addition, our post secondary or secondary district is Sweetwater Union High School District. It is the largest secondary school district in the State of California as well. Over the last 10 months we've been engaged in a University now initiative with business and industry, the City of Chila Vista K through 12 partners and our local universities.

And essentially what we've been doing is looking at the priority occupations for the region over the next 10 years and then with the educational piece looking at the academic programs we need to build to be able to meet those priority occupations. As a result, preliminary findings from that study we've identified several preliminary occupations, priority occupations in the teaching field, specifically secondary school teachers. English is a second language teachers, special education teachers in kindergarten and elementary school teachers as well.

So this aligns with the fact that many of in the teaching profession are beginning to retire or separate from this occupation. And so our faculty have identified the necessary academic programs to be able to meet these degrees and to put people in these positions. In addition to that, early feedback from our faculty have outlined a need for online distance learning teachers as well as artificial intelligence and technology evolving technology teachers as well.

Our local CSU San Diego State University is impacted currently so does not have the capacity to serve additional students. And our Cal State San Marcos is 50 miles from our service area, thereby creating a distance barrier for our students in our part of the county. So thank you for your support of this Bill, and that concludes my report.

And thank you for your testimony. Are there any other Members of the public here who would like to testify in support of the measure? If so, please come to the podium. State your name, your organization, your position.

Good morning. Martha Zaragoza Diaz, representing the California Music Educators Association and we strongly support your bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Ed, in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Tristan Brown with CFT, Union of Educators and classified professionals. Our State Council met over the weekend, so we were not able to meet the deadline to be on record. I'll only say that for this and every other, I won't say it for every other bill today, but we support this bill. We'll get on record next time. Thank you.

Duly noted. Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Dominique Donette, on behalf of Ed Voice, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Imran Majid, on behalf of the California Community College's Chancellor's Office, we don't have an official support position today, but we want to thank the author and the committee for working and engaging in good faith with us and the collaboration that has taken place so far. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Let's come back to the committee. Any questions or concerns for Members of the committee, please. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So I have a question. Just because of the data that we have seen with regards to reading scores, math scores, science scores in our state, as far as the performance of our students go, if we are to streamline the training of our teachers, what sort of classes do you see removing in order to shorten the period for them to be able to graduate in four years rather than say in five years?

I will take anyone that has the answer, I will direct it to anyone that can answer.

So I'll just go ahead and start and then I'll allow my colleague Dr. Gothold to jump in. But I think one of the things that we're trying to do through CCAP dual enrollment programs, working with our K through 12 partners, is to begin those career pathway really starting in the 9th grade and working through the 12th grade and articulating the coursework for teachers to remove STEM courses or statistic courses, unnecessary courses for them to get the degree in that field.

And so really working with those articulation agreements to just have the student take the courses they need just to become teachers and get their credentials. So what our faculty have done is removed non STEM pathway courses from that trajectory to allow students to get to that teaching pathway as seamless as possible. Working with our K through 12 system so that it's a systems wide system alignment and curriculum.

So if you remove the STEM courses, STEM courses related for these children or these kids or students to be able to graduate in a streamlined position, in order to be a STEM teacher in middle school and high school, you have to have some training, some understanding in that area. Right.

If I may add just and again, K-12, I don't want to respond on behalf of the colleges, but as a district soup and as a county soup, the articulation agreements that Dr. Sanchez was talking about enable students who are in juniors and seniors in high school to take college courses concurrently and start to remove some of those required courses that they would have had to take as college freshmen.

I've seen those articulation agreements with Cal State Dominguez Hills where you're actually completing some of the requirements while you were in high school and don't have to retake those courses if you're successful at college level.

So it's not that you're not taking them at all, it's just that you are taking it at a different period of time rather than further on. So I just want to make sure that our teachers have the best preparation and tools because I know that even after they become teachers, many school districts find themselves and teachers. As a former teacher, I'm speaking on that.

We were given mentors and now we're seeing that we're being asked to fund more training for our teachers to be able to teach literacy even further.

So in speaking with professors and deans at UC Berkeley, I was just kind of brainstorming as to what is it that we need to add during our teachers either credentialing program or their training postgraduate, I guess you could say in order for them to be the most perfect and the most prepared, not perfect, but the most prepared teachers in our K through 12, just to see, in addition to the resources that we give them, how can they best be the best teachers for our students so that our students can start elevating their performance in our state.

So I just want to make sure that this program will not jeopardize their ability to be trained and have the skill sets necessary to be the best teachers.

Yeah. And in my input, so there's a STEM requirement as a part of the A through G requirements for a graduating high school senior. One of the things you don't want to do when you're partnering with the college is the college come in and add additional coursework. That's really not necessarily so. That's really the context of my comments.

Okay.

However, if a student graduates from high school and is on track to become a biology teacher, then there would be additional coursework that that student would have to take, but it's not on the front end of their curriculum.

Got it. And on the university part of it, on the colleges, are there any additional expenses on their behalf on anybody, or extra work that they have to do? The reason I'm asking is because of the budget cuts that we have. I just want to make sure that if we're asking universities, colleges, schools to collaborate and add additional programs, that they're not overburdened with more requirements without the adequate funding.

Yeah, that's a great question. And usually the additional cost comes in when students have to take courses that they don't really need. So what our science faculty have done is articulated our courseworks with all of our local universities in our region so that there's no wasted coursework in that curriculum trajectory.

Excellent. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, if I might respond and bring it back to the bill.

Please do. Thank you.

Just to clarify, this bill does not in any way amend, modify, and can't, as you well know, the credentialing requirements for either SSA or for primary or any other kind of credential. Secondly, the theory behind the bill's approach is to employ dual enrollment and other strategies that would create better efficiencies to allow a student to complete their undergraduate and credentialing in a more timely fashion, because the imperative here is that we are having an ever increasing teacher shortage.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from the committee? Let me say so. One, there's a compelling justification for this bill. I appreciate it. But to the conversation, I actually have bills that this committee will hear. One addresses the teacher proficiency assessment, which is arguably a real deterrent to teaching prospective teachers, but also especially teachers of color. And secondly, I have a bill that will address dual enrollment, try to make it easier for local districts to partner with community college districts to enter into dual enrollment agreements.

So all of this part of a larger effort, I think, to improve education and the educated workforce. Glad to support the bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And we had a motion from Senator Ochoa Bogh, madam, so please call the roll file.

Item six, SB 995. Padilla. [Roll Call]

And the measure currently has six votes, and we'll leave that open for now. Senator Allen, thank you for your patience and welcome. And you will be presenting SB 1341. And thank you to the witnesses. And please proceed when you're ready.

Appreciate it. Nice to be back here, Wonderful Education Committee.

Our Chair Emeritus, thank you for being here.

All right, so, Members, this has to do with the topic of media arts, which is a versatile, inclusive discipline that can help California's learners enhance their education enrichment and development by harnessing today's technology. It helps students become better contributors to cultural conversations, be critical audiences, and discerning citizens in a media-centered society. What is media arts? I mean, it includes photography, film, sound, production, video game design, web design, virtual, augmented, and mixed-reality design.

And it's all an important centerpiece, actually, of our over half $1.0 trillion creative economy. Now, media arts has existed in California schools for decades, but it wasn't until the unanimous bipartisan passage of AB 37 in 2017 that the Department of Education and the Instructional Quality Commission and the State Board of Education were tasked with developing a formal framework and standards inclusive of media arts as a specific arts discipline.

And then we had these California Arts Education Standards and Framework, which were adopted in 2019 and 2020. So then the people of the state passed Prop. 28, which was, of course, this massive, massively important landmark arts education measure, which included funding additional funding for those for media arts. And these important milestones have helped to elevate media arts and fortify arts education more broadly as an enduring part of a holistic educational experience. We know how much it really impacts a kid's education.

We just discussed it the other day on the floor with our Arts Education Month Resolution. But here's the one issue we're trying to fix: if you look at the education code, you quickly find that media arts is not listed alongside the other arts disciplines, in spite of its formal presence in the Arts Education Standards and Framework, and also the provisions of Prop. 28. So this has led to concerns and some confusion from arts education stakeholders as they develop guidance, assistance, programming for students and educators alike.

We want to make sure the ED code reflects the reality of the framework and also Prop 28. So this Bill simply closes that gap by adding media arts alongside the other arts disciplines of dance, music, theater, and visual arts. And this will align our statute with the framework and 28. And so with me today, I have Dain Olsen, who's the President of the National Association for Media Arts Education.

Mr. Olsen, welcome.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Dain Olsen, I'm President CEO of the National Association for Media Arts Education. I recently retired from LAUSD, where I taught and administrated visual arts education and media arts, and I've been a leader in the development and implementation and establishment of media arts at that district level in LAUSD, and state level, as well as national levels.

I'm here in support of SB 1341, which will make media arts an official arts subject available to all California students. Currently, less than 4% of our students have access to media arts courses. We have Media Arts Standards and Framework, SB 1341 finalizes its status. Media arts is the basis for our society's communications, design and interactivity, is how we know we are on a planet with other people and ecologies.

It is imperative that all students gain these basic multimodal literacies for engaging, connecting with, and forming our world, as well as critically analyzing all media arts products and experiences for meaning, intention, bias, and veracity. Students need to move from being passive consumers of media to active, informed, and responsible producers. They need to be able to distinguish between fact and fiction, the truthful and the misleading. Education is a primary means by which we temper and redirect the increasing powers of media technologies, including AI.

Media arts enables students limitless creativity in producing videos, animations, graphics, infographics, motion graphics, animations, sound and music, interactive design, such as web game, web game and app design, and virtual, augmented and mixed reality. Students can produce and simulate anything imaginable through media arts. This forms a versatile, virtual-to-physical makerspace for transdisciplinary projects across subject areas that can incorporate all of the arts and academic subjects. Media arts can function as the central hub subject for 21st century education.

In STEAM projects, for example, it supports highly engaging, project based forms of learning which are student-centered and student-directed. These diverse production activities provide a broad range of skill sets and abilities, as well as core knowledge and skills that are contextually enriched, culturally relevant, purposeful, and rewarding for all students. For example, my own inner city students in LAUSD, including English language learners and special education students, produced the school's yearbook, including journalistic documentation of all school activities.

They produced news programs which gave school updates as well as summaries of local, national, and global events. They produced training videos for the faculty and for LAUSD counselors. They produced documentaries about history and issues of social justice important to them, and Bill Nye the Science Guy types of videos. They directed dramatic movies with theater-trained students and captured contemporary dances. They produced music and music videos for school dances.

They programmed video games and incorporated mathematical algebraic concepts both in their construction and in the content of the video games. One project supported students to reimagine and redesign their Los Angeles neighborhoods using 3d architectural software from Epic Games. Students studied the principles of city design from the Los Angeles Department of Urban Planning and UNESCO's principles of sustainability. They learned about building codes and seismic safety. They learned basic engineering and construction concepts from our partnering engineering academy.

The students studied their local streets for particularly dilapidated areas that they could redesign and captured them in Google Maps.

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to reach your conclusion. Thank you, but please don't let me just cut you off. Let's do this gracefully. Go ahead.

Let's see. The students caught these neighborhoods in their Google Maps. Applying these principles, they worked in groups to transform neglected neighborhoods into beautiful, attractive, and effective city designs that were pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, and an efficient and convenient public transportation. They even created effective designs for homeless housing. So for the above reasons, I urge you to vote yes to support SB 1341, so that all California students have access to media arts.

Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Oh, jeez, I'm sorry. I got lost in the reverie here. Yes. Is there anybody else in the hearing room would like testify in support of SB 1341? If so, please come to the podium and state your name, your organization, and your position.

Martha Zaragoza-Diaz, representing the California Music Educators Association. And we're in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, Debra Duardo, in support of the Bill.

Nice to see you, Ms. Gibbs. Next, please.

Good morning again. Tristan Brown with the CFT, also in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody here who would like testify in opposition to 1341? That's a good sign. All right. Questions, comments from the Committee. Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Great Bill. If it does get amended, I'd love to be added as a co-author.

There's a phone next to me. Since this is my last year and I don't know how many more opportunities I'm going to get to say this, I want to just thank you for your leadership in this space. I've been on the Joint Committee of the Arts my entire time that I've been up here.

You've been a leader of that effort, and we've made so much strides from when I was here 12 years ago to incorporate all these great things that have academic relevance as well as just improving young people's lives. So I want to thank you for your leadership. I really, really appreciate it. And with that, I move the Bill.

We have a motion for Senator Wilk. Senator Allen, would you like to close?

I really appreciate those kind words and the testimony and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. So, we have a motion for Senator Wilk. Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

File Item 10: SB 1341, Allen. Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

We will leave that open for the time being. Mr. Olsen, thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Senator Allen. I am going to exercise the prerogative of the Chair. We're going to move to SB 907. I have a witness who has to catch a plane. Senator Ochoa Bogh, if you could take the gavel, and I'll be presenting SB 907.

Just remind me if I do this. Welcome, Senator Newman. Please proceed with SB 907.

Thank you, Chair and Members. I'm pleased to have the opportunity present SB 907, which will improve representation and electoral participation in Orange County by increasing the number of seats--actually making two changes to the Orange County Board of Education, one: increasing the number of trustees from the current five to seven trustees and two: shifting the Board's elections from the primary ballot as currently conducted, and into the general election in November.

The Orange County Department of Education was formed in 1977 and it's jointly governed by the Orange County Board of Education and the County Superintendent. It is responsible for providing alternative and special education programs to more than 91,000 students, many of whom are among the county's most vulnerable and disadvantaged.

The OCBOE is also responsible for funding and developing a variety of programs that support the nearly half a million students enrolled in Orange County's 28 independent school districts, as well as serving as the appellate authority of last resort for charter school applications that have been rejected by local school districts within its jurisdiction.

Since the Department was established in its current form, Orange County's population has nearly doubled from 1.8 million in 1977 to its current population of 3.14 million, making it the third largest county by population in California. Out of the state's ten largest counties, Orange County is currently one of four counties whose county boards of education have only five trustees, and out of those counties which still have only five trustees, the only one comparable in size to Orange County is the County of San Diego.

Expanding the size of the Orange County Board of Education's Board from five to seven members will reduce the average population per district from the current 634,000 residents per trustee--which I would remind you is larger than an Assembly District--to a somewhat more manageable 452,000 constituents per member. In so doing, each member of the Board will be bound just a little more closely to the constituents that they represent.

In the almost five decades since the constitution of the OCBOE, the population of Orange County has also become infinitely more diverse. In the year 2000, less than 50 percent of Orange County's population--actually, I'm sorry--more than 50 percent of Orange County's population was White, according to U.S. census data from that time. By the time of the most recent census in this year, that share had dropped to under 37 percent.

A seven member board rather than the current five is likely to more fully reflect that diversity within its elected membership. The other provision of this measure, shifting the election of the Board of Trustees from the primary to the general will similarly enhance both the diversity of the Board and the connection of members to their constituents by way of context.

The Orange County Board of Education is currently one of only five county education boards across the State of California that hold their elections as part of the primary instead of the general, as well as one of the only remaining won and done elections in Orange County where a candidate can be elected in a primary on the primary ballot with a plurality and not a majority, with no provision for a November runoff of the top two candidates, no matter how low the top vote getter might be.

Consequently, candidates for Orange County Board of Education trustee can have one office with very low levels of support, sometimes as little as 11 percent of registered voters in the county. Moreover, to the extent that election data shows that voter turnout is substantially higher during the general election, this is true both in absolute terms but also--and importantly as it relates to participation by communities of color.

Data from the Orange County Registrar of Voters indicates that turnout during the 2022 primary election was fully 20 points lower than in the general election, with roughly 360,000 fewer voters participating in the primary contest in June than in the general in November. Moving the election of the Orange County Board of Education trustees into the November general will ensure higher participation by a materially more diverse electorate. This would be a positive development in not one but two directions.

First, as mentioned, it would result over time in a board that more closely reflects OC's changing population, and secondly and just as importantly, it will give voters a better opportunity to engage and connect with trustees and the Board as part of the critical task of reconnecting residents to civic institutions like the Board of Education, about which they are increasingly uninformed and from which they are, unfortunately, increasingly disconnected.

When it comes to important conversations around education and especially equity in education, I would argue this matters a great deal. As I've emphasized in my conversations with the opposition and with others, the impetus for this bill does not arise out of politics. Enhancing the responsiveness of a governing body and improving participation in the election of its members are objectively good goals, and that's what the provisions of SB 907 seek to produce.

Here to testify in support of the measure is Dr. Liz Dorn Parker, who served as an Orange County Board of Education trustee for 32 years and served as the President of the statewide California County Boards of Education and President of the OC School Board Association. Also with us to testify today is City of Tustin Council Member Dr. Rebecca Gomez, a twice-elected former trustee of the Orange County Board of Education who also represented OCBOE at the state level. As Orange County's representative to the county boards of education, I am respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

Thank you very much. We'll proceed with the lead witnesses.

Okay. Thank you. As stated, I'm Dr. Liz Dorn Parker. I started serving on the County Board in 1982 at the grand old age of 22 as an elected member of the Orange County Board of Education. And also during my time, during that time, I was elected President of the Orange County--the California County Boards of Education. So I have a very unique perspective on SB 907. First, let me address the growing changes in population and demographics since I was first elected.

By the decade since then, Orange County population has actually increased by almost 62 percent versus the U.S. population by only 46 percent. So it's dramatic, explosive, and the Board needs to reflect those changes. When I was first elected, as the Senator had said, it was 1.9 million. White was 93 percent, minority was less than six percent in the last census, since I was off the Board in 2014.

But if you go to the most recent census, it was 3.167 million, which is the third largest now in California. The population has shifted dramatically since I was first elected: White 37 percent, API is now 22 percent, Hispanic/Latino/Latinx is 34.1. So it is now a White minority. It is a minority-majority at 56.28 percent.

With this dramatic growth, which is nearly double in the population, and with the dramatic change in population demographics where the old White majority existed when I was elected and was first elected to the dramatic shift in 2020, census clearly shows the need for the board expansion to better reflect this growth as well as a change in demographics. The county is now clearly a minority-majority, and the current Orange County Board of Education does not reflect that fact.

The largest counties now all have seven, other than one, which is San Diego County. So now I'll move on to why should we shift to the general election? Nearly all county boards have now shifted to the general election, especially those from the largest counties, the most diverse.

The most recent primary election, which was just 2024, had even lower voter turnout than at any time previously, and which confirms a critical need to shift the elections. The lack of participation in this educational board races is particularly glaring and getting worse. This last total I just got off the Registrar of Voters showed that there was 677,000 voters that voted, which is 36 percent of the population.

And if you take three of the five that were elected or 60 percent, about 400,000 should have voted. Instead, less than 272,000. So the down ballot race is not being voted on, it's not clear, and it's also not clear that it's a won and done. When I was running, it was clear there was a lot of confusion. They all didn't think they needed to vote for me. They could wait till November, and that was a very difficult clarifying that we're the only county race that if you didn't get 50 percent plus one, you could win.

But the most glaring is currently the districts that had the largest population of minority. Two of the districts had a way lower turnout than the one district that's majority White. They both had, respectively, 57,000 show up in one and 86,000 versus the one that had a White majority and much higher wealth, as well as much aging population had almost 128,000.

Those changes are significant and they're getting worse. Moving it to November would include way more of the population that normally would vote in a school race and would be completely representative, I believe, over what happens now.

So my work also, which in the past was President of the statewide association, the County Board of Education, as well as a Director on the California School Boards Association, I noticed those county boards that moved to the general election during my 32 years, it was clear how much more representative these trustees were, and they also had much more voters that were weighing in, so they had a much better voter turnout that actually it did change the Board.

Politically, I don't know if that matters, but it really did change the dynamics of the boards and the boards began to better reflect the communities they served. If I was still serving as a trustee, I would still be supporting SB 907. My years of service on the County Board of Education and as state leader for all the county boards provides a unique perspective and knowledge of the benefits of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll continue with the next witness.

Thank you to the Chair and Members of the Committee. As a former county trustee, a retired tenured faculty member, and Dean of Health Science, I bring a wealth of experience and understanding to education policy. I fully support SB 907 in increasing the Board of Trustees to seven members and moving the election to the November general election. The turnout for the primary election is much lower than for the general election.

As Orange County has become more diverse, the community must select its representatives and increasing the number of trustees will allow the trustees to represent their local area more effectively. Under the current system, a candidate who is a current school board or council member may get elected in the March primary with the plurality of votes, not the majority. The winning candidate will be sworn in the county seat in July.

This early transition effectively destabilizes the current board or council, and he or she will vacate the position months before the November election. The former board's council or district will lack representation. The remaining board or council faces the difficult decision of appointing a new member, leaving the seat vacant until November or calling a special election. If there is an appointment, it provides an advantage to the appointed incumbent in the next election, but more importantly, this appointed member, by definition, does not represent the voting public.

A special election may cost the city or school district hundreds of thousands of dollars. This situation discourages qualified candidates from running for the county school board as they do not want to leave their seat in midterm. In addition, the board or council's policy work could be paralyzed due to potential tie votes. A November election allows a reasonable transition for the previous board or council and the county office.

Expanding the board to seven members would provide better representation to the state's county school boards on behalf of the students and their constituents. Lastly, there was a mention of raising funds for a down-ballot race. Reasonable campaign limits allow for a competent candidate who can provide strong governance rather than one who can curry favor with special interest to obtain large campaign donations or loans.

SB 907 is an issue of proper governance for our students and our families who deserve appropriate representation and full access to our public education system. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll continue with witnesses in support here in Room 2100. Do we have any additional witnesses in support of SB 907?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Tristan Brown with CFT, here in support.

Thank you. Any other Members in support? Seeing none, we'll continue with any witnesses. We have two primary witnesses in opposition, and that will be Orange County Board of Education, Mr. Tim Shaw, and Carlos Machado from the California School Boards Association. Welcome.

Okay. Good morning. My name is Tim Shaw. I'm the. Currently the President of the Orange County Board of Education. I'm joined by Mr. Tom Sheehy, an advocate for our board. The Orange County Board of Education unanimously voted to oppose Senate Bill 907 for several reasons. We believe it is a solution in search of a problem. Fundamentally, SB 907 only applies to Orange County.

Respectfully, we believe the number of trustees on the Orange County Board of Education and when the elections happen should be a decision made in Orange County and not Senators and Assembly Members from around the State of California. This Bill is costly at a time when the state is facing a significant budget deficit. The Senate Appropriations Committee determined that moving the OC Board of Education elections from March to November would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Additionally, two more trustees would add another $700,000 in costs over the next decade. There will also be significant costs in redistricting from five to seven trustees. We are calculating what our last redistricting process cost, but it was over $500,000. Now is not the time for Orange County to add two additional trustees as our population is actually decreasing. We've lost about 35,000 residents in the last two years.

31 of the 58 counties have boards of education, with five trustees, including our neighboring county to the south, San Diego County, that has a larger population than Orange County. Our neighbor to the north, Los Angeles County, has a county board of education whose Members aren't elected at all. They are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. If the goal behind SB 907 is to bring greater democracy to a county board of education, certainly Los Angeles County is the place to start and not Orange County.

If the purpose of SB 907 is to increase voter participation in representative democracy, what about the other 31 county boards? What about Los Angeles? Why Orange County? Senator Newman correctly points out that voter turnout tends to be higher in November than in primary elections. But the November ballot also has far more questions for the voters to decide. We have here the ballots from our primary election as well as a General election ballot.

This is the primary ballot. What's circled in yellow is where the Orange County board of trustees are. This is the General election ballot. You can see there's a lot more races on here, so there's a voter fatigue issue. It's a well studied phenomenon.

Sergeants, can we get copies of that? We can't see that.

I'm sorry. I'd be happy to present it to the Dias, of course, Senator.

As you can see, the general election ballot tend to be a far larger ballot, and as Tom was saying,

The issue of ballot fatigue is real. If our elections are held in November, they will be buried beneath many national, state and local races. So we believe that having the election in the primary makes the board of education elections more central and kind of top of mind for the voters. So we respectfully ask for a no vote. I don't know if you have any additional comments.

Good morning, Chairman. Member. Chairman Newman and Members. CSBA is opposed to SB 907. CSBA believes the Bill sets a troubling precedent by singling out just one county board of education for the changes proposed in the Bill. By doing so, SB 907 tramples on the will of local voters by legislating the addition of two additional seats on the board, in effect modifying the current makeup of the locally elected board. There is already a local process to make these changes. They're outlined in the analysis.

By usurping that process, it would take the power away from voters in order to hold their locally elected county board members accountable for not taking those actions. And then the Orange County Board of Education is not the only board in Orange County with five Members representing the entirety of the county. The County Board of Supervisors consists of five board Members as well, so this is not unusual in this county.

And as mentioned earlier, there are other county boards of education that also consist of five Members, yet this Bill does not focus on them. This proposal enables the state to reach into communities to influence changes to just one locally elected governing board, circumventing the long standing normal process that requires a vote of the electorate to make similar changes. It's for these reasons that we unfortunately must oppose SB 907. Ask you to vote no on the Bill.

Thank you very much. We'll continue with any other witnesses in opposition to SB 907 here in room 2100.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Greg Rolen, council to the Orange. County Board of Education, in opposition.

Madam Chair and Senators Adam Keigwin, on behalf of Ednovate, a network of high performing charter public schools serving primarily first generation students. 98% are students of color, and we're opposed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition to SB 907, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments? All right, then I will. Yes.

And I don't know why this Bill is going forward. I'm not going to support it for two reasons. One, right now I don't think we can really afford it with everything that's going on with the state budget. That's one. And then two. I just firmly believe in local control. But have you had any conversations prior to introducing the Bill with Members of the board about potential reforms that could occur that you would think would democratize the process more?

So I think Dr. Parker can speak to this. I think this is an ongoing conversation. This conversation has been going on for quite some time with no productive progress. So please.

So when I was on the board, starting in the census of 2010, we began to have the conversations to move the board to seven positions because it was clear that we were no longer representing the vast size of the population as it had grown. And we also were not representative of what the demographic shifts and part of the process is to move to the county Committee and district organizing. Unfortunately, this county board has been suing them to stop their job.

So unfortunately, we have to kind of leapfrog over what the discussions are. Also, our current county supervisors are exploring moving to a seven Member board in recognition of the demographic shifts. So there has been a lot of discussions about how to have better representation, especially when we have the children that are in our juvenile court schools and been kicked out, dropped out, are the ones that are being cared for by this county board, and they're not being representative because of the demographic shifts.

And also this board size, there are a lot of boards that are 5 and 7 throughout the county, but those are up to the local districts, and they ultimately would go to the county Committee on district organizing to make those decisions for that request. Unfortunately, this board hasn't been very forthright in working within our local democratic system as the state education code and Government code has set out.

So I can tell you, we began to do the work to move our board to seven when I left the board in 2014.

Senator Wilk

So again, I'm not going to be supporting it today. But Portantino had a Bill a few years ago, and I know LA County was one of the pilot projects, was putting the local elections on top before everything. I've not seen any data on that, whether that made a difference or not. But moving forward, that may be something you also want to look. Again, I'm not going to support the Bill, but in terms of voter participation, you may want to do that as well.

I don't know if Orange County was in that pilot project or not. I don't think it was.

Your point is well taken. And so to that broader point about the attention or the attrition that you see with down ballot raises, I'm all for it. I think you can make an argument that would be a good thing on a number of levels, especially because these are the offices that probably have the most direct impact on families. Right. So I'm open to that, and I'd be happy to pursue that conversation.

I want to clarify the fact.

Can we respond? The support witness made a pretty long statement in responding to Senator Wilk.

We have to stay in order, but just give me one chance and have them finish our discussions. We made a level of decorum in the Committee.

I would like to clarify. The county board races actually sit above the local city races and school board races. They come after, and they currently do, whether it's in the march or the primary or the whatever it follows the President, when they're there, the US Senators and everything. So the county board actually gets clarified in the General election because there's usually no judge races.

The challenge we had is two years ago, we had, I think, 14 or 16 judge races where the county board sat below there before. So if it goes to November, the ones who are in the county board, they actually appear after the county races. And that's only if there's a runoff. And then you go to the county board, you go to the county Superintendent, county board. So it doesn't follow below all that. And then it follows above all the propositions.

Yeah. So actually, on the pilot program, the local elections are first and the president's actually last.

Actually last, as we say, bottoms up.

But we need to ask Portantino, because I'm not seeing any data on that because we've gone through two election cycles now. I'd be curious to see if that actually made an impact or not. But, yeah.

So. Mr. You guys should go ahead and respond. And I should have probably asked you to respond. That was on me.

Yeah. So we apologize. So let's move forward. Would you like to have an opportunity to respond?

Please, Thank you. I joined the board in 2020, so I've been on for just over about four years. The first conversation I've had with a Member of the state Legislature regarding any reforms like this was two days ago when I met with Senator Newman. But nobody in the four years I've been on the board, I'm the President of the board has ever tried to reach out to me to discuss this with me.

We just heard about this Bill being introduced, so we didn't feel we were part of this process at all. I don't know what was happening decades ago, but as my experience, I would dispute the characterization that we aren't working well with our local constituents. We just had our election. The three incumbents all got reelected very comfortably. We do have a diverse board. We have trustee Valdez, who's a Cuban American representing a very Latino district in central county. We have a Jewish trustee.

We have a variety of backgrounds on our board. So I would also disagree that we are not reflective of our communities.

Let me just point out that one half of this measure, one of the components, was actually a piece of legislation in a previous session. So that's not new. And it wound up not that provision, was moving the board of education elections into the November cycle. So board has to be aware of that because their advocates were part of those conversations.

Senator Gortazi?

Yeah, I don't know.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I don't know how productive it is to have a debate going back and forth in the well here, but I'd like to have an opportunity to call a question here, if that's possible. But before I do that, I voted in favor in 2021 of a Bill to consolidate your elections to November. So I don't know how that could slip by your radar if you were on the board from 2020. I have to challenge that statement. I know you're busy. We're all busy.

But this is something that moved entirely through the Legislature at that time. I say I support the Bill going forward. I do think it'll have a vigorous debate going forward beyond this Committee. There's 40 Members of the State Senate and 80 Members of the State Assembly, and I think that the Bill should have an opportunity to keep moving. I happen to be from Northern California. This was the County Office of Education in my county.

I don't know what my posture would be exactly, but they have their elections in November. It works very well. It keeps a lot of those folks kind of, if you will, in vernacular, with their head down in this early March primary where things are happening kind of in a frenzy and gives folks an opportunity to essentially put together whatever support or actions they want to take during the course of an entire calendar year getting ready for the election.

There may be different circumstances in Orange, but you have representatives here in the Legislature beyond this Committee, I think, who I'm sure you'll talk to and we'll all hear from as we move along. But I don't think this is a place to be killing the Bill. I think we should be supporting the Bill so we can continue the debate. And at the appropriate time, I'd like to make a motion to get it out of Committee if we can.

Okay. Do we have any other comments and concerns, questions?

Let me just, could I just clarify one thing?

And I have an idea of what you want to clarify? I think what he meant, Senator Cortese, was the fact that with regards to this Bill, this is the first time he had heard about it. I don't think he was referencing the Bill from 2021.

Sure. If I may, what the gentleman said was he's been on his board since 2020 and he's not been aware of any attempts at legislative reform, quote, unquote. I mean, we can go back and look at the video later like they do on TV commercials, but that's what I heard. If what was meant was I hadn't heard about this Bill since 2020. Clearly, this Bill was introduced very recently.

But the attempts at reform around here is something that we've debated here in the past vigorously, and we're doing it again. That's great. It's democracy. But I don't think history should be revised such that there's been no attempts at reform. That's my statement.

And, Madam Chair, if I may, to be clear, this is not a question that will be resolved definitively today. Right. This will move on through the legislative process to Senator Cortese's point, and we'll continue this conversation.

We're going to allow you to respond because I know you're just dying to respond. I can see you.

Thank you. I am aware of Senator Min's Bill. What I intended to say was when Senator Min also introduced a reform Bill without speaking with our county board of Education Members first, he just introduced it, much as this Bill was just introduced without any communication that I'm aware of with myself or any of my colleagues on the board.

Thank you very much. So I'm going to finalize, I'm going to wrap everything up so that we can move forward on this Bill. But, yes, we did have a Bill that was presented by Senator Min back in 2021 when I was first elected with Senator Cortese, we saw this. I actually did not support the Bill back then.

And the reason being because I asked a couple of questions, and one was whether or not the local board had the capacity to introduce this and do it themselves, be self directed and ask whether or not they wanted to change the election from the Primary to the General. And the response? He did not have it originally, but he came back and said, no, they had the capacity to do that themselves, but they had not chosen to do that.

And my follow up question was, will the community members come and actually lobby those School Board Members to have the election changed from the Primary to the General? And the answer eventually was there wasn't much movement on that front. So being that you folks are a local elected.

I thought, well, if the people are not lobbying the current Board Members to change it from the Primary to the General, then why is the state coming in and overriding the people's, the local people's will to leave it as is? That was my rationale originally in which I did not support it and why I will not continue to support this, because this is something that they can locally do. They have the capacity to do that. They have the authority to do that.

And the local constituents are now lobbying them, which elected them to do that. That is their prerogative for the state to come in and say, this is what you're going to do, because we believe that this is right, rather than having the local constituents who elected them to lobby them to change that.

I believe it's an overreach on government, and it is because of that reason that I am going to respectfully oppose the Bill again, because if you didn't have the capacity, then fine, we would consider that. But it is your prerogative, it is your right, and it is the local constituents, your local residents who elected you to decide when and how many board Members to have and when to have it. So with that, I respectfully will be voting no. Would you like to close, Senator?

I would. Let me start to note both of the witnesses have indicated there is, in fact, substantial, there in fact, has been substantial support and meaningful advocacy to make this change across a very long period of time, as Dr. Parker pointed out. Let me touch on a couple other points raised by the opposition to the point that this is costly.

It does, in fact, have a cost as a share of overall costs, fairly de minimis, and I would argue, well worth the expense to the assertion around voter fatigue. It is true that people moving down a long ballot tend to attrit, but I would argue that's less important than the contextual relevance that voters bring with them to a particular ballot. You know, people come to a primary or don't because they have a sense of kind of their role in that process.

A very different electorate, a very different set of demographics come to the General election. And to Dr. Parker's point, many of them think they're going to encounter a runoff for this board on that ballot. They don't, and then two years later is the next election for the other share of the board. That is up to this question of the will of voters.

Whether or not the incumbents get elected is, is, to me less important than whether or not voters are engaged and whether or not voters participate and feel like they have a meaningful impact on the outcomes. One of the witnesses raised, as an example, the Board of Supervisors, that also has five members, there is a vast difference. Those are professional. That's a full time job. It pays substantially. The Members of the Orange County Board of Education receive a fairly minimal stipend.

Moreover, each of those supervisors has a very large staff and significant resources at their disposal. And to sort of the opening comment that this is a solution to surgical problem, I would argue that is actually not, in fact, the case. There is a very real problem in how people connect to civic institutions, particularly in this case, as it relates to education. And I would argue very strongly that the smaller the district, the more responsive. I think it's hard to argue with that.

And then the larger the electorate, the more representative, and to that larger point, that it's an overreach by the state to interfere or to get involved. We do this all the time, and I think we're doing this in a way today that is fully justified and that will yield positive benefits for the residents of Orange County. And as I've told Mr. Sheehy, I'm glad to look at other districts that have the same problem and prospectively include them in the legislation moving forward.

So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Senator Newman. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Oh, we do have a motion from Senator Cortese.

Yes.

File item 16, SB 907, Newman. The motion is do pass to the Senate elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee. Newman?

Newman, aye. Ochoa Bogh?

Aye.

No.

Ochoa bogh, no. Cortese? Cortese, aye. Glazer? Gonzalez? Smallwood-Cuevas?

Aye.

Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wilk?

No.

Wilk, no.

Thank you. And we have three to two. And we'll leave that on call for the rest of our absent Members.

To be continued. Hey, Tim.

Great to see.

Assembly Member Cervantes, welcome, and you are going to be presenting an important bill, and it is AB 1887. Welcome. You may proceed.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1887, which will extend the application deadline for state financial aid programs from April 2nd to May 2nd. These programs include the Cal Grant and Middle-Class Scholarship programs. As you know, this bill is a response to the ongoing issue with the federal government's implementation of the new federal Free Application for Federal Student Aid, commonly known as FAFSA.

In late 2020, Congress passed the FAFSA Simplification Act, which was intended to streamline FAFSA and make it more accessible for working families. The project of revamping the FAFSA was begun under the previous presidential administration, has continued under the current president. Unfortunately, due to reduced staffing levels and delays in implementing necessary technological updates, the rollout of the new FAFSA has not been easy. It has been widely reported in the press that there have been several setbacks and false starts in making the FAFSA available to students.

As Chair of the Latino Legislative Caucus, I want to highlight an issue affecting students with parents who are undocumented. They have run into a persistent error message preventing them from completing the FAFSA without providing a parent Social Security number. This has left students with undocumented parents unable to apply for state and federal financial aid for college, even though they themselves are United States citizens or permanent residents.

These FAFSA implementation issues have also delayed the timeline for colleges and universities to make admission decisions, providing financial aid award offers, and completing their enrollment. Nationwide, student FAFSA submissions are down at least 33 percent compared to the previous academic year. Clearly, our students need our help. They need more time to complete the FAFSA. Making California's student dreams of achieving a higher education more affordable and accessible is among the Legislature's highest duties. We're here today to fulfill that duty.

To that end, this bill will further extend the application deadline for state financial aid programs to May 2nd. Because this is an urgency clause, the extension would take effect immediately. I do want to thank Speaker Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire for working with me to move this bill quickly through the legislative process so that we can be responsive to the urgent need of our students.

With me to testify in support of the bill, we have Jake Brymner with the California Student Aid Commission and Marcos Montes with the Southern California College Attainment Network.

I think, Mr. Brymner, you're first. You're first. Thank you. Please proceed.

Great. Well, thank you, Chair Newman and Senators. Jake Brymner. I'm Deputy Director of Policy and Public Affairs with the Student Aid Commission. As you heard from Assembly Member Cervantes, federal legislation set in a motion this process for updating and simplifying the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, the FAFSA, for the first time in decades.

So this represented a major technology project, didn't come with new resources to support that, and it has resulted in not only the technical issues, but also a delay in when the application itself was launched. That was launched on December 31st, which is about three months later than when the FAFSA typically opens on October 1st. And there are still these issues impacting our students and families that the Assembly Member spoke to.

Of topmost concern for us at the Student Aid Commission has been this issue preventing students who are themselves U.S. citizens, but may have a parent who does not have a Social Security number from being able to complete the application due to technical barriers.

Based on data from last year, 22-23, we at the Student Aid Commission identified as many as 108,000 students who had applied for financial aid in California who had at least one parental contributor on their application that did not have a Social Security number. Pew Research has estimated that 12 percent of our students in K through 12 schools in California have one parent who may not have a Social Security number. The Department of Education announced a fix for the FAFSA for these students.

However, in that announcement, they also identified another technical issue that is continuing to impede the ability for these students to submit their applications. We at the Student Aid Commission have been preparing technical adjustments to our California Dream Act application, our application that undocumented students can utilize to apply for state financial aid, so that if need be, we can make this available to these students to still be considered for state financial aid.

And of course, there are still other glitches that are present in the FAFSA that are also impeding the ability for our students who have parents with Social Security numbers from being able to complete an application. The National College Attainment Network received state-level data that they used to estimate high school senior completion rates. Unfortunately, we're still not receiving student-level data yet due to some of those delays that the Assembly Member spoke to.

But based on this other set of data, through March 8th, approximately 173,000 California high school seniors, about 31 percent of our seniors, had completed a FAFSA. That's a large number, but it still represents a really large drop, 43 percent decrease compared to where we were at this same time last year. And unfortunately, the decreases appear to be the most severe at our high schools that serve large numbers of low-income and minority students.

Given the decreased rate of applications and challenges still faced by our mixed status families, AB 1887 provides more time for us to work with students to apply for financial aid and get that information before they need to make their enrollment decisions. We very much appreciate the leadership from Assembly Member Cervantes, the Legislature, the Administration, for all coming together to collaborate around how we maximize opportunity for our students in California to receive this financial aid that they need. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Mr. Montes.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Members of the Committee. My name is Marcos Montes, and I am the Policy Director for the Southern California College Attainment Network. We're a network serving over 350,000 families in the Southern California region, and we're composed over 120 college access organizations. The rollout of the Better FAFSA, which has not been better for everybody, has really caused one of the most complicated years for the college access field.

Students and families are really feeling the pain of not being able to submit a complete FAFSA application. Many students are feeling excluded and are feeling like their options of going to college are disappearing in front of them. I myself have had the opportunity to work some Cash for College workshops. Our organization has had to host a few more than in a normal year just because of the glitches and the problems that are happening. Students are feeling very discouraged, very stressed. They're contemplating their options.

And some of the things that I've heard is such as they're contemplating paying out of pocket, which we know those costs are going to be tremendous, and it might be very difficult for that to happen. Families are also considering taking out loans, but without being able to submit the FAFSA, they're not able to access federal loans. They'll be accessing private loans, which we know those can be a little bit more predatory to our students and families.

Also, some students are contemplating whether even to enroll for the next upcoming year or not. So students are being faced to make very difficult decisions because of this problem. Parents are also feeling very pain. I got a chance to work with the mixed status family, and it was heartbreaking to hear that the parent was apologizing to the student, saying, 'this is my fault. I'm sorry this is happening to you.' And we know that this is not their fault.

We know this is a problem with the system, with the technical glitches that are happening, so that's why it's very important for us, for the state, to push back the April 2nd deadline to May 2nd. Our organization has also been leading an effort, a sign-on letter where 58 organizations have called for deadline extensions. Pushing back the April 2nd deadline to May 2nd is very important, along with also working with our system partners, the CSU and the UC, to push back registration deadlines.

Many students have a deadline when they have to declare that they're going to intend to register on a campus. Traditionally in a normal year, that was May 1st. The systems and some campuses have pushed back to May 15th. Some have even pushed back to June 1st.

Our group of organizations are calling for deadline extension on that, too, making sure that the systems come out and say 'we could willing to push it by at least an additional four weeks so that students have the time to be able to make key decisions that are going to impact the rest of their lives.' Financial aid award letters are very complicated to decipher, so we need to make sure we buy enough time for students and families to do that. So thank you for bringing AB 1887 forward, and yeah, we hope we count your support.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any other individuals--oh, there sure are--in the room who'd like to testify in support of the measure? If you could, please, your name, your organization, your position.

Hi. Good morning, Chair and Members. Carol Gonzalez, here on behalf of Long Beach City College, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi. Good afternoon. Maria Morales, on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality, in strong support.

Thank you.

Hi. Kimberly Sanchez with NextGen California, in support.

Thank you.

Tristan Brown with CFT, in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Valerie Johnson with the Campaign for College Opportunity, in support.

Thank you.

Anna Mathews with the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning. Alex Graves with the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, in support.

Thank you.

Priscilla Quiroz, here on behalf of the California Faculty Association, in support.

Thank you.

Jessica Dong with the University of California, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Maggie White, California State University, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Caitlin Jung, on behalf of the Los Angeles Community College District, El Camino College, Cerritos College, Santa Monica College, Pasadena City College, and the Institute for College Access and Success, in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good morning. Nune Garipian, on behalf of the Community College League of California, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Michelle Warshaw, on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Melissa Bardo, on behalf of Ed Trust-West, in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Anybody else? Is there anybody here in the Committee room who would like to testify in opposition to the measure? Seeing none, let's come back to the Committee. Any Members like to ask either a question or voice something--

Well, as the mother of a graduating senior, I'm so happy that this bill is moving forward. My question is, how does this relate to the fed deadline? How does this bill collaborate to ensure that students get what they need to be able to finish this very important process?

Certainly. Yes. So I'll touch on that and then maybe I pass it to Jake. So one of the things is this bill is just allowing students additional time to complete the FAFSA, which is also giving the federal government more time to solve the ongoing implementation challenges that we're seeing. So we believe that just by the extension alone, given the various discussions we've had, that should be helpful to many California students, but I'll give it to our witness testimony.

Sure, and Senator, to your question, the federal application will remain open. Despite these glitches, students can still apply. What this legislation does is shift a deadline that we have in place in statute for state-based financial aid, our Cal Grant Program, Middle-Class Scholarship, et cetera, and the logic of that deadline is that it gives students information about their financial aid status before they make enrollment decisions.

Anybody else? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Just one question. Did we have a piece of legislation that would require high schools to provide opportunities to fill out the FAFSA in high school?

Yes. That's correct, Senator. That's Assembly Bill 469 that was adopted back in 2021. We had our first year of implementation in 22-23. We saw tremendous gains, more than 24,000 more high school seniors that had applied for financial aid, which makes this decrease that we're seeing this year all the more painful because we actually led the nation in growth in the number of high school seniors that applied for financial aid last year, and our schools, our local partners, are really facing significant headwinds as we try to continue to build on that momentum. A technical fix.

Okay. So this will fix the issues that is causing the decrease in numbers?

This will give us more time to work with our students to get through the challenges that still persist and are at that federal level, where, unfortunately, we at the Student Aid Commission, we don't have the ability to respond to those challenges, and what we're trying to do is work with our local partners, work with our segment colleagues to find strategies where students can still apply and get that information ahead of their enrollment decisions.

So, did we not have these issues prior--we didn't have these issues last year? Or we did?

That's right. This is the first year where we have this new format of the application for federal aid. Totally different process where we're asking parents to contribute to the application as Senator may be able to speak to in a way that previously, it just looked different. This is the first time it's been designed for online first. It's been much simpler for some families, and as the Assembly Member spoke to, there are, unfortunately, families that just can--due to technical barriers--not complete the application at all.

I'm sorry?

I'll be happy to move the bill when appropriate.

Terrific. Okay. Thank you. Colleagues, any other comments, questions? I will say, so appreciate--this is an important bill, as sort of validated by the number and breadth of the witnesses here today. Huge impact on lots and lots of people, most importantly on students for whom challenges would already be there if not for these additional challenges, especially the inclusion or the mistakes around the Social Security, so appreciate the need to do this. Also appreciate the urgency with which we are doing this.

Assembly Member Cervantes, thank you for bringing this bill. To both the witness, thank you for your testimony. And with that, we have a motion from Senator Ochoa Bogh. Madam Consultant, please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. Please close.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, on behalf of all those who testified in support today and on behalf of all the students of California who are eagerly awaiting our help, I respectfully ask for your aye vote for 1887. Thank you.

I appreciate that. My apologies. And with that, Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

File Item 17: AB 1887, Cervantes. The motion is 'do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call].

Well, that Bill has how many votes? Six. And it will definitely be out. I think we're still missing Senator Gonzalez, so thank you. And that will move out of here once we close the roll on that. All right, next up, we have, I think, Senator Cortese, you have been waiting patiently to do your Bill. And please proceed at your leisure. SB 956.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues, I appreciate the opportunity you're giving me to present SB 956, which reauthorizes K-12 districts to use the design, build, delivery method when constructing and design school facilities. This Bill will also remove the sunset altogether. Design Build is a unique project delivery method that I think most of you familiar with it allows the school to select the design professional and contractor currently through a single contract.

Districts use this valuable tool to expedite project construction, generate creative solutions to unique issues, and encourage collaboration between architects, engineers and contractors. Design Build provides an alternative to the traditional design bid build delivery method. Rather than selecting the DBE based solely on the lowest bidder, design build allows the school to use best value to select the DBE. That criteria may include lifecycle costs and other features or functions.

By establishing a guaranteed maximum price for the project, this method reduces the risk of costs increased once construction begins. Less change orders. In other words, this is particularly important given the recent double digit annual cost escalation in the school construction market. Previously, the statute was amended and I want to clarify this just because there have been some questions just prior to the hearing.

Previously, the statute was amended to require K 12 design build projects to utilize the skilled and trained workforce for all work on a project that falls within an apprenticeshipable occupation. I didn't even know that was a word in the building and construction trades. SB 956 eliminates the K 12 design build authorization Sunset and grants school districts the permanent authority utilize construction delivery method. Schools have proven over two decades that they can use the method responsibly to the benefit of their communities.

I appreciated, I think in the analysis, a reference to the LAO taking a look at this, and I think it's a fair interpretation of what the LAO is saying is this has not caused any harm and sometimes provides benefit and therefore we don't see any internal opposition to moving this forward without a sunset.

And with us to testify, we have Rebecca Colleen representing her client, Coalition for Adequate School Housing, and Mr. Frank Kamarta, Coalition for Adequate School Housing Board Member, if I may, I'll turn back over to the chair.

Thank you. Thank you. Please proceed.

Great. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, Rebecca Colleen, on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate School Housing, which represents school districts on school facility issues, we're pleased to sponsor SB 956 and thank the Senator for his leadership on this important issue. He hit a home run with that description. I don't have much to add to that, but you know that school construction is complex. There's no one right way to procure and deliver projects. Design build is an important tool in the toolbox. It's an option.

It helps to provide the option to use best value method to select that architect and contractor up front. They work together on the same team. They work collaboratively to design and construct that project. We can consider other criteria in addition to costs, such as experience past performance and other features. A variety of benefits exist with design build, such as expediting project construction and providing price certainty.

And in particular, right now, these features are very useful and helpful as we build all of those classrooms for our new transitional kindergarten grade level. We have to do that quickly. We need to do that efficiently. Design build is a great tool to get that done. We did first receive the ability to use this authority in 2001, so we have proven over two decades that we can do this successfully.

We will take the next step with SB 956 to make K 12 design build authority permanent, and I thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you, Ms. Colleen.

Thank you, Chair Newman, Committee Members Frank Kamarta, Chief Operations Officer for the San Juan Unified School District. I'd like to thank you and the Members for the opportunity to provide some comments on this important piece of legislation. School districts we're definitely grateful that our legislators are providing additional procurement tools to deliver these high quality education projects. The reason I'm here today, I think I'm uniquely positioned to provide this Committee some insights on the merits of design build.

Due to my experience using this procurement method in San Juan Unified, we've delivered over $100 million worth of projects using the design build procurement method. I've also created some design build workshops, sat on panels with industry professionals both nationally and also across the State of California. Committee Members all projects are unique. They require a unique response in choosing a procurement method. Design Build offers districts the opportunity to select a delivery method that best fits the outcomes of their particular project.

To provide some context on the growing use of design build across the state, I recently scored 22 architects proposals and one of those qualifying values was the architect's experience in delivering projects using alternative procurement and delivery methods. I was not surprised to see that a large volume of projects are being completed by school districts across the state using design build, it has become a valued method of procurement for school districts. Why is this method value to districts?

A couple of bullet points for this Committee to consider. Districts are selecting design build entity based on a rigorous standards of qualifications or the guaranteed maximum price. This provides districts with greater cost controls and highly qualified teams. It provides a rigorous preconstruction process that ensures greater constructability of a project. It lends itself to a high level of collaboration during the design, development and construction process. And finally, I believe that design build reduces risk to school districts.

It is a procurement method that has a lower rate of legal challenges. For these reasons, I believe design build is effective. It's reliable procurement method for school districts to utilize and I thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any other witnesses here in the hearing room would like to testify in support of the measure? Your name, your position, your organization?

Yeah.

Mr. Chairman and Members Bo Biller, on. Behalf of the Design Build Institute of America, Western Pacific region, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Sasha Horowitz with Los Angeles Unified School District, a user of the design build method, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, pleased to support.

Thank you. Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County office of Ed in support. Thank you. Good morning. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is anybody here? I'd like to testify in opposition to the measure, SB 956. Seeing none Bray let's bring this back to the Committee. Committee Members, any questions or comments on the Bill?

Well, I just wanted to say thank you for bringing this Bill. I had the opportunity to work before coming to the Legislature with we build in LA USD, where we did 100 projects, and using design and build, along with high value contracting, we're able to put upwards of about 1200 former students, adult ed students into the construction pathway where they got to build their schools and then moved on into a career. So I'm glad.

I want to recognize Senator Cortese for bringing this Bill, and I'm happy to move it when the time is right.

Appreciate that. Anybody else? For my part, I've done a bunch of bills. I'm sorry, Senator Ochoa Bogh

I couldn't see your.

All right.

Couple of just comments that I'm going to share, because I think this is where we make concerns and information known to the public, and we have it on record huge support of the design build. I think it's a great component, a great tool for our school districts to have in order to streamline the process and cut cost. Perfect.

But there is one component that I think the General public is not aware, and that's the fact that with the addition of the requirement of the skilled, trained workforce on there, companies are excluded from being able to participate in the ability to build these schools or projects, and that actually personally impacts our family. Our family.

Has had a construction company for 40 years, family owned, has employed formerly incarcerated people, students, just various demographics. And what we're doing here, by supporting, if I were to support this today, I'm actually excluding a family owned business of 40 years from being able to participate in making a living for many of the employees on that end in the country and in an institution where we're supposed to be protecting economic opportunity for all.

Inherently, there's a component here that excludes people from being able to do that. They have built schools for many, many years, decades. And this policy, though well meaning, intended, and it's great design build, it excludes steel workers, iron workers from being able to do that. And so I will not be able to support the Bill today, but do support the tool that it gives our school districts to be able to build much needed construction infrastructure that we need in the state.

But I just want to just put that on record so that as we move forward, when we do legislation that impacts the ability for people, and we talk about inclusion and we talk about economic opportunity, we think very thoroughly about how it impacts people that are not on the table. As one of my colleagues mentioned in another Committee, pay to be at the table, and it's not because they don't want to.

It's because the system has not allowed them to be included in an apprenticeship program, in a training program by the state. So on that merit, I want to say I support the principle of the design Bill, but I cannot support the Bill today as it stands, just because it does impact many, many companies, like my father. In laws.

Appreciate that. Let me say, for my part, I have done previous legislation to allow for what is always a limited number of either design Bill or progressive design programs. We have this interesting quirk in contracting in California, where we legislate and seek permission for a finite number. With respect to design Bill, I think that the evidence is pretty clear. It's a good contracting model, and it works well.

Senator Wilk and I are both Members of the State Allocations Board, and I would argue that anything that saves the state money in doing capital expenditures for schools is a good thing. So glad to support this Bill. I'm sure in your close you'll speak to Senator Ochoa-Bogh's comment, Senator Cortese, but.

Can I say one other thing? Yes, please. And I want to say it's about the state allocation on board in the comment about cost savings, but it's also the multiplier. When you say apprenticeshipable, and I know, is that a word? But when you say that it really means that you have community Members, and oftentimes there's language around disadvantaged community Members who have the opportunity, which was the case with the We Build program in LAUSD students who are in our adult education program.

And we know where those students end up when we talk about the economy. Right.

Too often they're ending up in Low wage work, employment that perpetuates poverty, no portable skills. The idea that you could have generational wealth is out of reach. So with this approach, we aren't just building, we're also building generational wealth, where these apprentices come in on a project, and by the time the project is done, they're journey level, and they can leave that project as journey people and go to the next project and have a career.

So it's about how we use our investments to create multipliers beyond just the brick and mortar and beyond that one project, but where we're creating pathways for folks into careers. And that's what I appreciate about it, certainly the dollars and cents of projects being built on time and the cost savings, but also that we are using this value based contracting as a way to also have a ripple effect that is felt in our hardest hit communities.

So I just wanted to add that point and again, appreciating this Bill and happy to move it.

Thank you, Senator, Senator Cortese, for your close.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chair and Vice Chair and colleagues. I'll just add a few words before I conclude with regard to the comments that were made. First of all, I appreciate the Vice Chair discussing the Bill with me beforehand before the hearing. That's always refreshing. So we have opportunity to go back and forth and even clarify where some of the language came from.

As I said in the presentations, some of the language, especially the language I think the Vice Chair is referring to, is an existing statute. And those who know me know I'd be probably one of the least likely Senators to come forward with a Bill that would take out labor standards that are already in the statute at a certain standard. There's a broader discussion that's been going on for a long time, will continue to go on in terms of what those labor standards should be.

We've had them in housing bills the last couple of years. I respect the debate.

I happen to be very much, not to get off topic of the Bill here because, again, it isn't on the table, but I happen to be very comfortable with full, skilled and trained requirements in these kinds of construction areas because in my own area, and having been a builder myself, but in my own area, what typically happens is nonunion builders who want to bid on these public code, public sector projects will go signatory for that project.

And basically, they aren't locked out, but they have to make a business decision if they want to be in that. They're going to commit to these labor standards and become signatory to a contract that would give them access to those apprenticeship programs, at least for that job. It doesn't require anyone to permanently do that. I just, again, want to explain, because of the emotional nature of the issue for some that, um, you know, without compassion for those who find that they.

They don't want to make a business decision like that and then, you know, are outside, should also point out that not what this is, in effect, is enabling legislation. It doesn't require that every single one of these projects goes this route. This is another tool in the toolbox. If a traditional General contract bid approach is what is desired in terms of school facilities, they can still do that.

And, of course, whatever the labor standards are in that jurisdiction at that time, whether it's a pla or whether there's a prevailing wage or whether it's a skilled and trained, is going to take effect separate and apart from this Bill. So, that said, I apologize for going on, Mr. Chair, but I wanted to take the time to at least explain my own justification. Again, we all understand that this is an ongoing debate in the Legislature and will likely be for some time.

In the meantime, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I appreciate that, and I do appreciate the context. Thank you. And with that, we have a motion from Senator Smallwood quavas. Madam consultant, please call the role file.

Item 11, SB 956. Cortese. Motion is do passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Role Call]

That measure currently has five votes, and we'll leave it open for Senator Gonzalez. And next up, I think we have Senator Wilk, by order of file here, SB 1023.

Well, I'm walking up once you do the consent calendar.

Okay, backseat driver. Okay. While we're at it, madam Consultant, if you could please call the role on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

All right, now that you made me look bad in front of my friends here, please proceed with your Bill.

That sounds ominous.

I think you're going to be fine.

All right, well, thank you very much. So I am presenting SB 1023, which is a simple study Bill that would authorize the office of the California State University to conduct a study of the feasibility of creating a new CSU campus in the Victor valleys, or annal valleys. This particular area has got about 1.2 million people. We have two community colleges. We only have one college that's private. And if you want to be a pastor, you can go there.

But that's all they do, is being a pastor. And your zip code should not be an impediment to being able to access higher education. So this area, about 1.2 million, you look at South Dakota, it's under a million people. They have 74 year public colleges or universities. And again, very hard to get down from the high desert, they call it, down the hill to San Bernardino, or from the annal valley down to Northridge.

And we're making all these investments in these kids, and then they leave, and then they never come back. So this would be privately funded. There is support in the region to raise the funds to have the CSU do. No, there's no mandate. And obviously, clearly, right now, we can't look at building a new CSU campus. But this is an area also that in many ways, is just a blank canvas.

Even though there's a 1,000,002 people, there's still a lot of open space, and there's really a lot of economic opportunities there. But if you don't have the educational component in place, it's just not going to prosper. This is something I've been working on. COVID kind of ruined it, and this is one of the goals I had when I got elected that I'm not going to be able to fulfill. And I feel bad about that.

But at least I want to get the ball rolling and create some momentum going down the line for whoever replaces me. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I understand you don't have any witnesses in support.

Well, this is such a powerful Bill, I didn't really feel compelled to bring somebody up.

I think everybody here is grateful for that. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Is anybody here who'd like to testify in support from the public, as I guessed, is anybody here like to testify in opposition to Senator Welk on this Bill or any other Bill he's done in the last 812 years? No? Okay, so let's bring it back to the panel. Questions, comments? Motions. I got a motion for Senator Glazer, particularly to the extent that this would be privately funded. I commend you for the Bill. Happy to support it. And with that, have motion, Senator Glazer. And would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. All right, that measure has six votes, and we will leave it open with ... Senator Smallwood Cuevas. I believe it is now your honor, and welcome. Whenever you are ready.

Good morning, colleagues. I am happy to present SB 1338, which would provide an exemption or waiver from a fiscal penalty that would be imposed on the Culver City Unified School District based on a three day school closure due to COVID-19 crisis of January 2022.

And I know it's hard, and we don't ever want to look back, but if you can just imagine the early moments of the pandemic, a campus with 6800 students trying to figure out how to make sure that families are safe and navigating all of the school regulations that were coming and going and shifting and changing during that period.

This was for January of 19, 21, 2022 Culver City Unified School District closed all of its schools due to an unanticipated and obviously severe and sudden staffing shortages due to COVID-19 outbreaks, which at the time were repeating in La County, escalating. We had some of the highest hospitalization and death rates happening during this period. It resulted in just really extremely unsafe conditions for students, for teachers, for learning, for staff, for the community, and the week before, any decision had been made to close schools.

Culver City Unified School District, with so many of its teachers absent, I think they had over 700 unsupervised students at the time who were being housed in multipurpose rooms and in the cafeteria and trying to figure out how to make sure they were safe while having teachers who were obviously many of them sick, many of them not on campus.

The school district leadership, in consultation with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the California Department of Public Health, the Los Angeles County of Education, the Culver City Board of Education, the Unified School District Employees Association, parent leaders, I was one of whom, calling in, conferred and agreed that the best course of action was to close the schools and the district did submit the customary J 13, a waiver request to the California Department of Education based on these outcomes and particularly the positive cases of COVID and the crisis that was happening in the city and in the county.

But that request was denied. The Culver City Unified School District has experienced declining enrollments in recent years. As we know, by exempting our school district, Culver City Unified School District, from the COVID-19 penalty, the district can avoid a devastating financial impact and save thousands of students from potentially having to look for a new school and missing their education.

Here with me to testify today is Brian Lucas, the Superintendent of Culver City Unified School District, and Maria Martinez-Poulin, who is our former interim Superintendent of Schools, who can talk more about how important it is for this school district to receive this exemption.

Welcome, Mr. Lucas. Please proceed. Thank you, Ms. Martinez-Poulin, please proceed.

Excellent.

And by the way, thank you for your stamina. You made it.

Good morning chair Newman and Members of the Committee. My name is Dr. Maria Martinez Poolin on behalf of Culver City Unified School District. In 2022, I was the deputy Superintendent of Los Angeles County Office of Education and served as the designee to Los Angeles County school districts who needed staffing shortage consultation for a J 13 request. It was in that role that I worked closely with several districts facing staffing shortages, including Culver City Unified School District.

School districts needed to demonstrate they had exhausted all possible options before making the final decision to stop in person instruction and shift to online instruction. They also had to inform the California Department of Education. The district was facing two issues. One, staff was getting ill. Two, the remaining number of staff was getting smaller and making it more difficult to provide safe coverage for in person teaching and learning.

I was able to confirm that Culver City Unified School District was utilizing all certificated staff available to cover classes. Additionally, they had deployed their district office staff and Executive leadership team to the school sites for student coverage, and yet, staffing numbers were insufficient. They made the difficult but responsible decision to close their campus. Following the state Executive order, the district provided meals in a grab and go format and online instruction. During this very chaotic time.

This was the one thing that they did miss, and I want to clarify, it is the only option, the only item that they missed, and that was consultation with the California Department of Education. It would be unfair to penalize any school district for safeguarding the health of students and teachers during a widely recognized health crisis due to a transitional administrative reporting structure. No other district is being penalized that I know of.

I also want to stress that this Bill addresses an unfortunate situation that occurred during the height of the pandemic that can be eased by your support for this legislation. On behalf of Culver City Unified School District students and staff, I urge your yes vote on SB 1338, and I want to thank Senator Smallwood-Cuevas for authoring this Bill.

Thank you very much. Superintendent Lucas, welcome.

Good morning Chair Newman, and good morning, Committee Members. And also thank you, Senator Smallwood Queivas, for authoring this Bill. My name is Brian Lucas and I am the current Superintendent of Culver City Unified School District. As you know, this Bill is to provide an exemption to a penalty for school closures that took place during one of the worst spikes in COVID that we experienced after schools reopened during the 21-22 school year.

The district simply didn't have enough personnel to provide a safe environment for students and staff. While I was not Superintendent at the time, the district complied with all aspects of the governor's order to close schools appropriately, of course, except the one final call that Dr. Poolin mentioned to the California Department of Education, the PTA, labor partners, county and state health Department, and as you have heard, the County of office of Education were all consulted and were in agreement.

I'd like to highlight that the closure did exactly what was being asked of schools at the time to limit exposure to COVID. The attendance data that we have after the reopening of schools indicates that Culver City students missed almost 28% fewer days than the other districts in Los Angeles County who remained open. In short, the closure kept our students in the long run, healthier.

Now that I am the Superintendent for Culver City Unified, I would like to comment on the effect of the penalty would have on our district. As we are experiencing across the state, our budgets are shrinking due to the end of one time dollars and environment of declining enrollments and smaller COLA increases.

And despite increases in costs due to these changes in our budget scenario, we have already committed to cutting approximately 25 certificated staff and a reduction of $3 million in services in our district for the next school year. We are able to make those cuts this year away from the regular classroom, maintaining core classroom, teacher and counselor positions. However, the loss of an additional $1.0 million would force us to cut back even further at levels closer to the students.

And as we all know, while we are indeed further away from the pandemic, we still have substantial learning gaps and mental health challenges facing our students. Every single dollar in these tight fiscal times is essential. The $1 million proposed penalty feels disproportionate and would have a large impact on our students today. Lastly, I want to ensure the Committee that the district intends to pursue parallel administrative remedies, namely the education audit appeals panel. We hope to be granted the appeal.

However, these dollars are extremely important to us, and given the timing of the legislative process, we felt compelled to explore all options, both legislative and administrative. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Superintendent. Is anybody here in the Committee hearing, like, testify in support of the measure? Please come forward, Ms. Gibbs.

Thank you very much. And good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Deborah the Waterdo. And we appreciate the Bill being introduced and urge your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else seeing? None. Is there anybody here would like testify in opposition to this? Jeremiah, almost thought you were testifying. That would be weird. Okay, let's bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from the panel? Senator Chobug?

I'm happy to support the Bill because it's wrong. It's just wrong. But I'm kind of curious. Do we know if any other school districts are going to be facing this as well? Not as of yet.

At this time, we do not. This is the first case, and school districts doing what is approved by all parties involved should not face these kinds of penalties.

I agree, especially in light of the economy right now. I'm kind of curious. Do you know how Culver City was highlighted with this respect? How did this come about?

Namely through the audit process. Right. The fact that the J 13 waiver that we referenced, which is when school districts ask for a waiver of fewer attendance, days of attendance of students, and that waiver having been denied. So we were basically put on notice that we will probably receive a penalty in regards to that waiver being denied.

Okay. So the reason I'm asking is just for any other school districts that might be listening, I foresee that this might be happening more often in the near future. But I'll be happy to move forward. I'll be happy to move this Bill today, and I'll be glad to support it, because the last thing we want is for our school districts to be penalized and take away the money that should be used for our students. So thank you.

Thank you. You actually proactively answered my question. So the idea here with the legislation is you have an audit appeal that is moving forward, but in the event that it's not granted, this will proceed as a legislative fix. Happy to support it. We have a motion. Senator Smallwood crevice, would you like to close?

Well, thank you so much for your comments, and we do need to keep watchful eye on this and make sure that our school districts are not penalized, but certainly made whole during this very difficult budget time that we're in. So with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you. With that, madam consultant, please call the roll.

File. Item 13, SB 1338, Smallwood Cuevas motion is do passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Newman?

I.

Newman I. Ochoa Bogh?

I.

Ochoa Bogh I. Cortese?

I.

Cortese I. Glazer?

I.

Glazer I. Gonzalez. Smallwood-Cuevas?

I.

Smallwood-Cuevas I. Wilk?

I.

Wilk, I.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Music to my ears. Yeah. We have a motion.

Well, welcome, Senator Newman. You are here to present SB 897.

Okay. As my witnesses, I think, are moving forward. Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 897, which would strengthen California's District of choice program for our K through 12 students while removing the current sunset on the program. In statute, under the District of Choice program, any student California may transfer to a participating public school district regardless of their place of residence.

Unlike a standard intradistrict transfer, students transferring into a district of choice school district do not need to secure permission from their home district to make that transfer. Further, any student opting in to a DOC district must be accepted irrespective of their academic performance, athletic ability, or any other demographic characteristic. Originally enacted in 1993, the District of choice program has succeeded in giving students access to new educational options not available in their home districts.

At present, there are 45 school districts across the State of California that are district of choice districts. Since its enactment, the DOC program has been reauthorized on six separate occasions and been subject to two separate evaluations by the Legislative Analyst's office. I have been the author of two of those extensions. Those evaluations by the LAO found that the program has been successful in providing students access to, on average, five to seven new courses that would not otherwise have been available in their home districts.

These include college prep courses and programs in the arts, music, and foreign languages. Moreover, the benefits of District of choice are not limited solely to students transferring out of a home district. The LAO's 2021 analysis of the program found that many home districts responded to the competitive local dynamic that DOC creates by implementing new courses and programs, thereby improving course offerings even for students who did not participate in a DOC program.

SB 897 seeks to make this successful program permanent by eliminating the sunset and implementing several of the LAO's recommendations to promote equity and reduce barriers to participation. This includes adding foster and homeless youth to the list of priority populations and a reversal of a 2017 funding rate reduction for disadvantaged students transferring into a basic aid district. That change decreased the number of students able to access many high resource Basic Aid Districts.

SB 897 aims to reverse this trend for students who have the most to gain from attending a well resourced district with a narrowly tailored funding rate increase for Low income foster and English learner students. SB 897 would also increase the number of students who can participate in the program by eliminating the 10% cumulative transfer cap and instituting a 10% annual rolling cap created by a court ruling.

The 10% cumulative cap restricts the number of students that can take advantage of district of choice to 10% of average enrollment. Since 1993, for a district with an Ada of 10,000, the cumulative cap restricts the number of students that can participate in district of choice to 1000, ever in perpetuity.

This cumulative cap actually penalizes new families for the enrollment decisions of other families, often made in the past, even before a child was even born, that might otherwise avail himself of district of choice. And for districts of residents from which students may transfer out, SB 897 maintains all of the protections which were instituted in 2017 to allow districts to restrict transfer outs where that would harm either the racial balance of a district or exacerbate a district's financial condition.

For over 30 years, the district program has afforded students and families the opportunity to choose the public school setting that best suits their education needs and goals. It's fully justified that we make this permanent program. Now with me to testify today is Matt Torres, the assistant Superintendent for business services at the Walnut Valley Unified School District and the parent of a student able to attend Walnut Valley through District of choice. Betsy Castellanos. I respectfully ask for your I vote today.

And actually, and we have the student herself. I don't have your name, but we'd love to hear from you briefly as well, and thank you. I'm respectfully asking for your. I vote today.

Thank you, Senator Newman. We'll proceed.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Matt Torres, the assistant Superintendent of the Walnut Valley Unified School District, which educates approximately 14,000 students in the eastern part of Los Angeles County. We have been participating in the District of Choice program since 2005, and the district is especially proud that we have enrolled every student that has come through our doc doors up to this year.

This year was the first year we were unable to welcome all DOC students as the demand for transitional kindergarten seats was immense and we were at capacity due to California's expansion of TK. I'm excited to share about how and why the DOC program has immeasurable benefits for our students and families.

Students who transfer into our district want a high quality experience and access to programs such as dual language immersion, extensive career technical education pathways, elementary International Baccalaureate studies, a visual and performing arts curriculum designed and required for every student in grades K through five and being part of one of the few districts in the country with all of its middle schools recognized as a national schools to watch the DOC program attracts a very diverse student population, allowing us to maintain and strengthen our racial balance.

Additionally, 6% of the students we have welcomed throughout the DoC program are students with disabilities. This year alone, we enrolled 68 new students who either qualify for a free or reduced price lunch are English learners or who have IEPs. We believe that this diversity is a force multiplier. It makes our district stronger and richer, and it demonstrates that our educational programs serve and yield excellence for all students.

This mark of excellence is seen in our 97.8% four year graduation rate and 73% of our students graduate prepared for college or career, compared to the state average of 44%. We are proud of the work we do to provide meaningful and engaging programs for our students, and we see evidence of this in our 96 and a half percent attendance rate, which we consider remarkable knowing how many districts are struggling to get their students back in school after the COVID-19 pandemic.

When the DOC law was introduced many years ago, the Walnut Valley Unified School District shared the Legislature's feelings that families should have choices available to them regarding whether students attend public schools. Families were happy to have choices, student performance was wildly successful, and districts of choice continue to prioritize a wide variety of curricular and co curricular options.

The time has come for the district of choice program to exist without a looming sunset date that bases student eligibility to participate on current student demographic trends rather than on an acrostic data. To ensure that families and students in communities like ours can continue to have the high quality educational options they deserve, we ask you to support Senate Bill 897. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I'm Betsy Castellanos. I'm just a mom and I want you to learn why the district of choice program is so vitally important. Growing up, I had few possessions and little resources in a rough neighborhood. My mother left El Salvador with a firm belief that a US education could be the game changer for our life. And then when it came time for Pitsimilagro to be enrolled in school I really made it my mission to find the best possible education for her.

After researching over 35 schools inside and outside our home school district, I discovered that our district didn't possess the academic rigor and educational opportunities I felt allowed my daughter to thrive and reach her individual potential. We found a terrific fit for Pitzilmilagro in the Walnut Valley Unified School District, but came to find out that our home was not in the right location, it wasn't the right zip code.

And since we cannot afford the City of Walnut's $1.0 million homes, DOC is what made her stellar education possible. DOC granted her access to the education that I felt best suited her and her educational needs. DOC allows me to have a voice over the biggest predictor for her future. I tutor high school students that are learning English and I also serve on our Latino Parent Alliances Executive board. I see firsthand how families and parents really just want the education that's best for their children.

Welcome.

And thanks to DOC, Pitzilmilagro has been given equity in her learning and I implore you to please continue and strengthen DOC to give us parents a voice with me is my daughter, Pitzilmilagro, and I would like to yield my time to her.

Good afternoon. My name is Pizil Avila Castellos and I'm currently a junior at Walnut High School and for most of my life I've been part of a single income family. Not being very financially secure has meant that we cannot afford to live in an affluent area such as Walnut. I have lived in Covina all my life and while I greatly appreciate having a roof over my head and food on my table, I understand that it has implications on my education.

While schools in less wealthy areas are making great strides to expand their educational options, they still have only a fraction of the opportunities that schools such as Walnut High School offer. From a young age, my parents took note of my academic ambition. Always eager to learn and pushing myself to master more and more difficult concepts. They knew I would need to find a school that could provide rigorous coursework to push me to achieve my full potential as a student.

We found that in Collegewood elementary, located in the Walnut Valley Unified School District through District of Choice, I was incredibly blessed to attend Collegewood, granting me the opportunity to pursue my academic passion. This opportunity required diligence on my family's part. For the last 12 years, I've woken up every morning before 06:00 a.m. My amazing mom has driven me over 30 minutes in each direction to help me attain the superb education.

In turn, walnut has provided me with countless experiences, such as first Lego League robotics teams, which I competed in for over five years. This program allowed me to fall in love with coding and opened my eyes to the possibility of pursuing a career in computer science. Once I entered high school, I elected to join the PLTW computer Science Pathway, a series of four courses that would provide me with hands on experience that would prepare me for higher education.

A few of the colleges that have reached out to me include Harvard, Brown, and the Claremont colleges, among others. The district of choice program has opened countless doors for me. I push myself to be a better student and person every day because I know that I have been given an incredible opportunity. Access to quality educational options is not something readily available to everyone, but it is something that has helped a lot of students like me flourish.

I made the decision 12 years ago that I was going to work diligently and not take the opportunity for granted. I hope that other students can be given the same choice that changed my life. And for these reasons, I ask you to vote yes on SB 897.

Thank you, Pitzilmilagro. We'll now continue to. Any other witnesses in support of SB 897 here in room 2100.

Good afternoon. Patty Herrera. On behalf of Oak Park Unified School District and charter Oak Unified School District in support.

Wendy McCaskell. On behalf of Glendora Unified and Riverside unified, in support of the Bill.

Tristan Brown, CFT, in support.

Annie Chow, CTA. We have a tweener position. Is it okay if I take a couple seconds? CTA doesn't have an official position on the Bill at this time, but we're concerned with removing some of the important guardrails with the district of choice program that minimize negative impacts on districts of origin. We hope to continue to work with Mr. Newman. Thank you so much.

Thank you. All right, any other witnesses in support of SB 897? We'll now continue with any lead. Witnesses in opposition to SB 897.

Welcome.

I'm welcoming you. You can tell I'm nervous.

That's okay. We all are.

I'm not sure if it's still morning, but good afternoon, Committee and Chair. My name is Patty Tye and I am the Vice President of the Board of Education of Pomona Unified School District. I'm a proud panther who retired after 19 years of service at Diamond Ranch High School in the Pomona Unified School District. My passion is for helping students, which led me to where I am today.

I am a school board member that represents Trustee Area Five who consequently has felt the greatest impact caused by the inequities in District of Choice. My colleague, Mr. Arturo Jimenez, and I felt so strongly about the negative impact District of Choice has caused on our schools that we could not stay at home. But we decided our voices needed to be heard today here. For many years, our neighboring school district, that is District of Choice, falsely misled our families which impacted. Sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself.

Falsely misled families which had a negative impact on our reputation. They created a narrative that our schools were underperforming and not as good as their schools. They poached and cherry-picked our students who were the high-performing students and denied the students with the most needs. We cumulatively lost 1,700 students to one particular District of Choice. The impact has exasperated our declining enrollment and forced us to close six schools. We lost great teachers and staff who were my friends and colleagues.

Like me, they also cared deeply about our students. PUSD pursued a legal measure to exercise the 10% cumulative cap and a previous litigation. When we finally got the enrollment data from the District of Choice and we were able to do an analysis, that district immediately agreed to settle that they would not accept any more of our students. But it was too late. The damage had already been done.

SB 897 will take away our one and only protection of the cumulative cap and replace it with a 10% year-to-year cap. This means our district could lose over 2,000 students in a year to hit the cap and the next year lose another 2,000 students. This equates to a $30 million loss in ADA money. We would be forced to close down several more schools. A 10% year-to-year cap is simply unrealistic. Pomona Unified School District is still recovering from the negative generation we lost.

Recovering from the generation we lost due to District of Choice and the negative reputation that was caused while we were trying to eliminate the loss of declining enrollment. All this was done on the back of one of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged districts in the State of California. We appreciate the author's willingness to hear us out, but we respectfully remain in opposition until we find a solution that protects our students. Pomona Unified School District does not deserve the fallout by District of Choice. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, I do want to clarify that we're allowed two witnesses in support and two leading witnesses in opposition. So I saw three. So I just wanted to make sure we had that clarity in there. And then two minutes each.

He's just moral support.

That's what I said. That's exactly what I thought. We all need our moral support. Yes, sir.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Arturo Jimenez, the proud dad of four kids. Now they're in college. They graduated from Pomona Unified School District, and I'm the Board President of Pomona Unified School District in Los Angeles County. Pomona Unified School District is respectfully opposed to SBE 897. Again, we thank the author for his willingness to hear us out. And we thank the Committee for allowing us to speak.

My colleague, Ms. Ty, stated our position well, and I would just like to add that we are not opposed to parent having choice. We want to find a solution. But when you have a situation like ours, we have had a real financial and academic hardship caused by this program. We have to speak out. We have packets for you and we have included a table that is a snapshot of demographic data from students who were enrolled in District of Choice.

It shows that 68% of the students they took from Pomona Unified School District were API, Asian or Pacific Islander, or Caucasian. Not even half of the percent were of special education or students with a 504 plan. POSD is close to 80% Latino/Latina, yet only 25% of the students they accepted were Latino/Latina. POSD has been heard, and by taking away the accumulated cap will further harm our community of color. Please work with us to find a way not to hurt us.

Just in closing, I've lived in Pomona for about 50 years. Pomona itself, not the whole school district. But Pomona represents all of Pomona and a good portion of Diamond Bar, about 35%. Between 30 to 35,000 kids live within the Pomona Unified School District boundary. Yet only 20,000-22,000 kids come to our school. We used to have 35,000 kids just 10 years ago. So this is hurting us every day.

And we get stuff in the mail from districts of choice, and their marketing is very good, but very good, but very bad against us. It keeps prevailing even though we do everything we can. And we have so much to offer our children. Everything from salsa dancing to art. This year, we announced we're going to have aviation at a high school. We have a lot, thank you very much, to offer.

Thank you so much. And I'm sorry, your last name? Arturo Jimenez. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jimenez. Okay, so let's move on to any witnesses in opposition to SB 897 here in Room 2100. See no witnesses in opposition to SB 897 here in Room 2100. We'll now bring it back to the dais. Questions? Comments?

Wilk moves the Bill.

Okay, I guess we are moving the Bill. Yes.

Appreciate it. Trustee Tye, it's nice to see you. Well done. I want to actually be clear. The intent of the current version of this Bill is to maintain the guardrails that are in place so that no school that would be losing students would suffer a harm to either their racial balance, it would be adverse to a court-ordered plan, or exacerbated the district's financial insolvency. So, yeah, I want to make clear.

I'm glad to work on that, to continue working with districts that might be affected, to make sure that we find some balance. I understand you met with the Superintendent of Walnut Valley, Superintendent Taylor, recently, and I know he shares my commitment to making sure that we do this in a way that is respectful of other neighboring districts.

Having said that, it's my firm belief that competition generally is a good thing and that the District of Choice, as the LAO has found in more than one analysis, is a net positive program that is not only good for the students who transfer into a district, but has had the indirect benefit of encouraging other districts, nearby districts, to improve either the diversity of their programs or the quality of those programs.

But again, I want to make sure that we do this in ways that don't hinder either the composition of a student body or the fiscal condition of a neighboring school. So happy to commit to doing that. This is the first of many hearings, many steps in the enlisted process, and you have my commitment to continue doing that. With that, I ask for your Aye vote today.

Can I say something?

We're done. It's up to the Chair. It's up to the Chair.

Did you have one more comment? Normally, when the Senators.

I'd be glad to defer to.

I give him trouble.

There's a close relationship there. Absolutely.

I would invite any of you to come to our district and see the robust programs that we do have that may not be presented well by other districts.

I just like to say the District of Choice is their choice, not the student's choice. They get to choose who comes to their district.

Thank you, sir. Okay with that.

You have a motion?

Close I thought. Oh.