Senate Standing Committee on Education

In today's Committee, witnesses may be asked to limit their testimony to two minutes to ensure the Committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. Seeing no quorum, let's begin as a Subcommittee.

We do have a Republican member here, and we are going to make a quick agenda change. I see Senator Eggman is here. Let us move to that bill. Appreciate you being here and glad to accommodate. So we're going to hear what is the fifth item on the agenda? SB 1491. Senator Eggman, you may proceed when ready.

Good morning. Thank you very much. I'm here today to present SB 1491, which is a bill designed to protect LGBTQ+ women in establishments of higher education. Any student going to college, I've got kids getting ready to go. She'd be expecting a good, safe, fun time. We know all too often that is met with students not being safe, students being assaulted, overwhelmingly women and LGBTQ+.

And a lot of folks don't know that if you go to a private, not public University, you are not protected under the same kinds of rights as you are if you go to a public University. The Student Aid Commission, we're going to ask that they provide that information that the college they are attending is exempt from the Equity and Higher Education act, which is basically the state's version of the title ix.

And so folks are only then covered under title ix and would have to take federal action versus state action to be able to get some kind of protection. So what we're asking, what this bill does then, is have the Student Aid Commission provide that information to students just so they know before they attend.

It also asks schools, and schools were asked 13 years ago to provide, like, a safe person, a designated person on campus for folks to be able to go to.

All of the UC's have done it. Very few amounts of the CSUs have done it, and very few of the community colleges have done it. So we're going to say, you have to have that person. You have to designate it. We've given you a long chance time. Now we're going to say do it.

And now we're going to say that person should also be a confidential person so people don't have to worry about that. So simple bill, three parts, protecting LGBTQ+ women.

And we're also asking that the LOA do an assessment just to make sure that we can see what's going on. With me here today to testify is Craig. I think Craig's here. Pulsipher from Equality California and Emilie Mitchell, the dean of social services at Cosumnes River College and chair of the LGBTQ advisory council for Community College System.

Very good. Welcome, Mr. Pulsipher. You can come forward to the table. Glad to have you here and at your leisure. Please proceed.

Good morning, Chair Members Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, we're a proud co-sponsor of SB 1491 and we appreciate Senator Eggman for bringing this bill forward to provide much needed support to LGBTQ+ students at state colleges and universities across the state.

According to the US Transgender survey, nearly one quarter of trans college students reported being verbally, physically, or sexually harassed. With 16% of those who experienced harassment having left college because the harassment was so bad.

Trans students of color were more likely to report leaving school for that reason. In 2016, EQCA was proud to sponsor legislation which required colleges and universities to disclose if they permit discrimination against LGBTQ+ students.

Specifically, the bill required schools that claim an exemption under either Title ix or California's Equity and Higher Education act to disclose this information to the California Student Aid Commission, as well as to both current and prospective students and staff.

Unfortunately, some students continue to be unaware of these exemptions and what the potential consequences might be if their identity does not align with the college or University's discriminatory policies.

Today, at least nine institutions in California are exempt from title ix and at least 20 are exempt from the Equity and Higher Education act, and students deserve to know which schools have a license to discriminate and ignore state and federal civil rights protections.

We appreciate the staff from this Committee and the Assembly Higher Education Committee for their report, which included a number of recommendations for how the state can better prevent and address discrimination on college and University campuses, and this bill is one of several from the recommendations in this report.

It will build on existing law by requiring the Student Aid Commission to provide a written notice to students who receive state financial aid regarding whether their institution claims a religious exemption to state and federal nondiscrimination protections, as well as the right to report discrimination to the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights.

SB 1491 is an important measure to ensure that all students, especially trans students, who are facing a barrage of hate and violence in California and across the country, are aware of their rights and any recourse they may have to address discrimination and harassment. And I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Dean Mitchell, welcome.

Thank you very much. So, first of all, it is my honor and my privilege to represent the LGBTQ+ students and employees of the California community college system. We are a system that welcomes 100% of all scholars and we educate 1.9 million Californians.

Myself and those whom I speak on behalf of today have spent years and tireless hours trying to improve the campus climate for LGBTQ+ students and employees. The provisions in SB 1491 serve to improve the campus climate in several important ways.

First, the increased inclusion of diverse communities such as agender, intersex and two-spirit into the definitions of sexual orientation and gender identity allows students to have their identities affirmed in the language of the bills that seek to represent them.

Second, as Senator Eggman talked about, the identified person on the campus, one of the substantial moves forward in this bill is that that information would need to be on printed materials and on campus websites. This provides three very important benefits to those on campus.

First, it is an outward and affirmative sign to our LGBTQ+ students and employees that our campuses welcome their presence there, that they are valued members of the community. Second, it provides a level of protection to said employees and students that allows them to seek support directly from identified person instead of haphazardly having to ask around at campuses for support.

This requires oftentimes students and employees to continuously out themselves across a number of different campus entities, potentially opening them up for discrimination and harassment.

Finally, the identification of an individual in printed materials and on the website also holds the campuses accountable and those people who are placed in that position to ensure that, in fact, those campuses are ready to serve, serve LGBTQ+ students and employees.

An additional provision within this bill, SB 1491, that is of utmost importance to us is in fact the requirement that the Legislative Analyst's office. I have to say it all in order. I apologize. Conduct. Assess the campus climate every three years.

This is of utmost importance. Research, national research shows us that whether we're talking about K-12 or four-year college experiences, queer and trans students feel less welcome and less safe on their campuses. Very similar research is present for employees.

So this would require, or this would allow us to assess the campus and make needed changes. With deep gratitude and appreciation, I ask that you support SB 1491.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses in support of the measure here in the hearing room? If so, please come forward and state your name, organization and your position. Seems unlikely, sign of a good bill. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition to the measure?

Are there any witnesses in the hearing speak in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. Let's come back to the Committee Members. Any questions or comments for Senator Egmont or her witnesses?

No. I just want to thank the Senator for bringing this forward and continuing our civil rights movement in California, and I am happy to move the bill when it's time.

Appreciate it. We do not yet have a quorum, but we'll make note. For my part, I'm glad to support the bill and appreciate the thoughtfulness with which you've approached this it. And appreciate both of the witnesses being here today. We will take a vote. Senator, let's call the roll. I see the other.

You're not on Education. How sad. You're like an emeritus member. I apologize. We don't have a quorum, so we will take this out. We'll take the motion.

We'll take the vote. Thank you very much, Senator Eggman. Just an esteemed visitor. We're glad to have you back. You're an alumna. Let us now move to Agenda Item Number One. Senator Menjivar, I appreciate your indulgence here. Whenever you are ready, you are presenting SB 1091.

All right. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Community Members. Last year, you heard SB 515 from Senator Stern, which addressed policy barriers to certain shade structures, and then it was signed into law. This bill, SB 1091, is seeking to expand this to school ground greening projects by capping the required improvements to the path of travel to 20 percent of the adjusted construction cost of the project, in line with federal ADA law. These allergies are really making me struggle speaking, so I apologize.

Children, especially those that attend schools in urban areas that are ill-equipped to shelter students from extreme heat, are at heightened risk of suffering heat-related illnesses, poor health, and learning outcomes. I also had a bill in this Committee last year looking to have schools create master plans, to be ready, to have a plan ready to help mitigate heat, especially in my district, where the asphalt gets to upwards of 145 degrees on a summer day in the San Fernando Valley.

This is a different approach that is more feasible for our schools to take and will also help us get closer to the goal of greening our schools. We know that the lack of trees in natural areas disproportionately impact communities of color and communities with the lowest incomes. Current California law requires school ground greening projects that remove asphalt, plant trees, and create nature-based outdoor learning spaces to bring the path of travel to the project up to code without a limit on the cost.

This, at times, represents a tremendous barrier to greening school projects because even a small project can trigger expensive upgrades. For example, given the grants that we have right now with CAL FIRE, you're given a certain amount, and of when you have to upgrade at a higher percentage than 20 percent, that over exceeds the amount of dollars you were given in the grant, negating your ability to actually fulfill your project.

This means that schools are not only deprived of the opportunity to implement greening projects, which provide important health, education, and environmental benefits, they also miss out on making some improvements in the path of travel. The 2022--I already said that. It would support the access needs of all students while keeping California's policy in line with federal accessibility laws.

We are trying to thread the line here and provide both benefits to upgrading path of travel and also ensuring that we have some greening projects. With that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to now turn to two experts who are here to testify, Mikaela Randolph and Juan Altamirano.

Miss Randolph, welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you, and good morning.

You have a generous two minutes.

Wonderful. My name is Mikaela Randolph. I'm the Associate Director of Regional Programs for Green Schoolyards America. Green Schoolyards America is a national nonprofit organization based in California that works to transform asphalt-covered school grounds into living schoolyards. Our founder, Sharon Danks, has spent over 20 years advocating for this work through collaboration, evidence-based research, policy recommendations, and direct support to school districts.

In addition, I'm a founding member of LA's Living Schoolyard Coalition, which is a group of over a dozen nonprofit organizations, educators, and community members who create and advocate for equitable and healthy school environments in the Los Angeles area. And finally, I serve on Los Angeles Unified School District's Greening Schools and Climate Committee.

SB 1091 will reduce a significant barrier to school ground greening and make it possible for many public schools, especially the ones with fewer resources, to implement greening projects, and at the same time, carry out incremental upgrades to the path of travel. Research shows that millions of California students do not have any access to tree shade at school. Unshaded asphalt and rubber surfaces on school grounds reach high temperatures that are hazardous for students' health and negatively impact their experience at school.

Trees and green spaces in school grounds significantly reduce temperatures and bring multiple benefits to students and their communities, including improved learning outcomes. Children are more vulnerable than adults to high surface temperatures, and this can impact children because they engage in vigorous physical activity and their smaller body mask to surface area ratio makes them more vulnerable to heat. We're not trying to pit greening versus path of travel improvements against one another. To the contrary, we think this bill will benefit both.

Often, school ground greening projects are implemented by nonprofit organizations that secure both private and public funds dedicated to climate resilience, health, and environmental justice. What we're simply trying to do is ensure that more of these types of projects are able to move forward and that these funds are able to be utilized in an equitable way, both improving greening opportunities and the path of travel which otherwise wouldn't get done.

Adding shade trees and creating nature-rich outdoor learning spaces will not only address issues related to extreme heat and other environmental problems, but it will also be an opportunity to address some of the California stark inequities related to access to green space, hands-on educational resources, and health and well-being. Therefore, we urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Sure. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Juan Altamirano, Director of Government Affairs for the Trust of Public Land. The Trust for Public Land is a national nonprofit organization that connects everyone to the benefits enjoys of the outdoors. We deliberately focus our work in communities where parks and public lands are most needed.

The outdoors, in our philosophy, we believe, contributes to our mental health and physical health and makes communities more resilient to flooding, severe heat, and effects of the climate crisis that we continuously and will continue to experience over the next decade and more. And we also believe that our work contributes to the social cohesion of communities. Across California, we are transforming schoolyards into safe outdoor green spaces that are essential to protecting kids from dangerous extreme heat and promoting physical activity, mental health, and overall well-being.

Thanks to the Legislature and the Governor's commitment to green schoolyards, more campuses will be greened over the next couple of years. This in large due part to the General Fund dollars that you all allocated for this program. And while we need more funding to green more campuses in every district, we know, however, that from our experience and reimagining these hot parking-like asphalt playgrounds is that there are challenges which this bill aims to address.

By capping the required improvements to the path of travel to 20 percent of the adjusted construction costs of the project in line with federal ADA law, we will be able to better budget projects and get more greening on campuses.

We face challenges both in funding green playgrounds themselves and also funding ADA access inside the buildings. Often grants that we are able to cobble together to build these type of projects don't allow for inside building materials to be covered. From private dollars that we fundraise to pay for these type of projects, oftentimes, private dollars don't want to pay for these type of upgrades.

So we know that many of these campuses were built a long time ago, and we know from our experience in building these projects is that oftentimes when we start building material from inside, we don't know what we're going to find, oftentimes leading to the cost of the project ballooning more than the actual greening project itself. And so it's for those reasons that we believe that we should be looking at concentrating the path of travel really outside in the green space that we're trying to do.

Often, I'll say for myself and my organization, we're more well-resourced organizations than most nonprofits. Oftentimes these schoolyard projects are the nonprofits that are helping create this space. Their operating budget is probably no more than two million dollars, right? And so these grants really help them build these projects on the ground, get hands-on experience for a lot of kids, and the last thing I'll say, we appreciate the analysis the Committee had.

And as my co-sponsor said, we're not trying to pit green schoolyards against ADA. We really do believe in inclusive access for all and our playground design and how we build our projects, our engagement through students, parents, teachers and staff all overall, and it's a reflection of the school and what they need, and we are committed to continuing to have that all-inclusive design and implementation of all these projects. So with that, I thank you for your consideration, and ask for an aye vote on this bill.

All right. Thank you, and thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else here in the witness room who would like testify on behalf of the measure? Welcome. Your name, your organization, and your position, please.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. Sam Nasher, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, in support.

Christina Hildebrand, on behalf of A Voice for Choice Advocacy and Non Toxic Schools, and we thank Senator Menjivar for continuing this this year. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Is there anybody here that would like to testify in opposition to the measure? Welcome. Please come take a seat at the table.

And you have equal time.

Thank you very much Mr. Chair and Members Gregory Kramer on behalf of Disability Rights California we're actually a tweener on this one. We don't have formal opposition on it. We thank the author, the Committee, and the co-sponsors for continued dialogue around this. We view shading and green spaces as a key part of schools and also path of travel as a key part of schools as well. So look forward to the continued dialogue to reach a resolution.

I just want to articulate a few of our concerns. Under current state law, when alterations or additions are made to existing buildings or facilities, an accessible path of travel to the specific area of alteration or addition must be provided. This bill limits the cost of complying with the requirement to provide an accessible path of travel to a school ground greening project on a school campus to 20% of the adjusted construction costs of the project.

Our core concern is that the bill would subvert the way that the law provides for the built environment to become accessible over time. The ADA and existing state law specify that school facilities built before the implementation of those laws do not need to make these accessibility improvements right away. However, new construction projects are required to be built accessible from the onset of the project and to the extent pre-existing facilities are renovated, accessibility, including an accessible path of travel, must be provided.

The intent behind existing law was to ensure that accessibility was to be provided over time, and this bill unfortunately delays or jeopardizes the provisions regarding accessibility improvements that have already existed for years. This bill would walk back state requirements about how much accessibility work needs to be done.

The way that the bill is structured currently reduces the amount in which accessibility upgrades need to be funded, and there is no time limit regarding those reductions, meaning that greening renovations could be made for decades into the future without triggering the requirement of full accessibility. At some point, in order to fulfill the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related state laws to children with physical disabilities, schools do need to become fully physically accessible.

This bill would risk delaying that process since it allows for school ground renovation without full accessibility. If the path of travel were to a play area were not made accessible as a result of the type of renovation, at what point has it become fully accessible? Now, we understand that the authors concern that without this bill, important school greening measures would not take place at all, but current law already provides exceptions to guard against the costs of barrier removal, unreasonably overshadowing the cost of a renovation.

The cost of complying with the requirement to provide an accessible path of travel is already limited to 20% of the adjusted construction cost for the project. For projects that do not exceed the current valuation threshold, and even in cases where the cost of the project does exceed the valuation threshold, the current law allows for DSA to grant an exemption to the requirement of a fully compliant path of travel if the cost of doing so would be an unreasonable hardship.

The current version of the bill, by contrast, would allow a limit of 20% regardless of the size of the renovation project, regardless of the extent of which providing an accessible path of travel would actually be a financial hardship, and regardless of whether the greening project was funded by a nonprofit or by the school itself. It also applies the 20% limitation to community colleges, which typically have far greater resources than districts serving primary or secondary schools.

Mr. Kramer, I'm going to ask you to finish up.

Absolutely. We appreciate the recent amendments to the bill to provide greater definition to the greeting projects, but still have these concerns, and we look forward to continuing work with the author's office, Committee, and co-sponsors. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Thank you for your testimony, sir. Is there anybody else here in the hearing room that wants to in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Let's come back to the Committee. Committee Members, any questions or concerns for Senator Menjivar?

I'd just like to give the author an opportunity to respond to the concerns that the opposition expressed. If you would like to have.

Yeah, and I'm happy that they're a tweener right now. We've been working very closely on this bill. We've engaged all stakeholders from the get-go. We will continue to work together on this and so many other issues. You know, I'm looking at this bill, as I mentioned before, a good compromise. We're not lowering the threshold of the federal requirements. And in fact, when I talked about the Cal Fire grants, they themselves, our own state grants, only provide funding for 20% of ADA improvements.

So we're matching a lot of our already state grants that are appropriated for greening our schools. Ideally, in a perfect world, if we were three years ago when we were in the surplus, we would allocate enough funding to do the necessary or to increase the improvements for ADA on the path to travel above 20%. But we're not right now, if we pass 1091, we're going to be able to achieve two different things.

If we don't, we won't have any money for improvements of path to travel, and we won't have any money for agreeing our projects. So this is seen as a way to be able to address two injustices that we need to address. Again, Senator, I wish we can come up with billions of dollars to solve all the things that we need to solve.

But if we can find a solution that gets interests us towards in the positive manner on two different issues, I do consider that a win.

And I appreciate that. For my part, I appreciate your answer. I want to add a few notes. So I want to thank you not just for this bill, but for your commitment over the last couple of years to graining schoolyards. And I know that's from your own personal experience, but also a deep appreciation of the needs of not just your constituents, but any kid going to a school that lacks a green school environment. And there are far too many of them.

Clearly, the goal here is to find a creative way to incentivize K through 14 local agencies to undertake school greening projects. And I appreciate that you're not intending to create a tension between disability advocates and this goal, but I do think Mr. Kramer raises some valid concerns. Accessible path of trial requirements serve to guarantee equal access to the educational environment for students with disabilities. And that is a demographic that has historically been underserved. And unfortunately, it's quite expensive to make those combinations.

When we cap the amount of ADA compliance work a district would otherwise be required to do, to his point, we run the risk of further delaying the date by which all facilities are eventually fully accessible for all students. And it's my understanding that projects exceeding the valuation threshold can already submit an unreasonable hardship waiver to the State Architect, where a case-by-case analysis looking at multiple factors would be done. So, you know, to your point, this is about trade-offs and striking a balance.

I would ask you, Senator Menjivar, I know this is not a hard question to answer, for you to commit to continue working with the disability community to the extent possible to make sure that we find common ground, especially as this bill moves forward.

1000% Mr. Chair. And I've committed myself since in my short tenure here in advancing everything related to the population of IDD. That is a really close and personal passion of mine. So I want to make sure while we're addressing other injustices, we're not creating others. And I do commit to that.

All right. I do appreciate that commitment. With that, let's call the roll. We do have a quorum present.

[Roll Call]

Senator Menjivar, if you'd like to close.

Thank you so much. And I really appreciate and thank you, Senator, for allowing me to be able to respond to some of the concerns, valid concerns, 100%. In an ideal world, we'd be able to address every single one of them, and every single school would have 100% improvements to be ADA for all kids to be able to play freely in however way or form that is to them.

We want to make sure also that our kids have shade structures that have greening projects in their schools, that it's not just asphalt metal structures. I know we're moving forward in the right direction, but we still need to make sure that we're creating policies that are equitable across our entire states that meet our desert areas, our valleys, and so forth. So thank you so much for engaging with me on that, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And with that, madam consultant, please call the roll. But we don't have a motion, do we? Senator Wilk moves the bill. And please call the roll

File item one, SB 1091 Menjivar. The motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure currently has four votes. We'll keep it open, but thank you very much. And so, next, I show item number three. My understanding is Senator Hurtado has said has had some challenges with travel, but we do have a Senator here. Senator Wahab. It is good to see you.

Mr. Chair, while she's coming up, can we vote on the consent calendar?

You certainly can. If you don't mind, Senator Wahab, let us now take up the consent calendar. Do we have a motion for the consent calendar?

So moved.

Moved by Senator Wilk. Madam consultant, please call the roll on the two items on consent.

Hold it. Hold it. Senator, anything you want to pull off?

Any of your bills, I want to pull off, right.

Okay. On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

The consent calendar currently has four votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members. Senator Wahab, you're presenting SB 1318 at your leisure. Please proceed.

Thank you, chair colleagues and Members of the public. First, I would like to thank Cordell for his work on this Bill, and I accept the amendments. Specifically, I want to talk about SB 1318, which ensures that students experiencing a mental health crisis on school campus receive care from a qualified behavioral health professional. In just seven years, the suicide rate among children aged 10 to 14 more than doubled. In the first year of the pandemic. Intentional self harm among children 13 to 18 increased by 91%.

We are experiencing an unprecedented surge in child self harm, and it is time for California to take action. SB 1318 requires the Department of Education to revise their model youth suicide prevention policy to include crisis intervention procedures that prioritize behavioral health professionals. And two, clarify that law enforcement, including resource officers, should only be involved when there is an imminent threat to the student's life. SB 1318 is a step towards the protection of our children, connecting them to the resources and professionals they need.

I specifically want to also highlight that communities of color, immigrant communities, first generation and foster care, many of which I represent personally, oftentimes families are not necessarily well equipped to talk to their children about issues that their children are struggling with. Either it's because of a lack of time or a little bit of an understanding issue, or whatever the case may be. The child may not feel safe either. And this is schools specifically. Even as a foster kid, jumping from school to school to school.

Schools are one of the most constant things in their life. They go there every day, they build a relationship with their colleagues, their classmates, their teachers and so forth. And it is often supposed to be a safe place if their home is not a safe place. So with me, I'd like to introduce Nathan. I'm sorry, Nathan Ngo. A former student in Santa Clara County, as well as Tony Trigero with the California Teachers Association. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister Ngo. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Kwan. Nathan Ngo, and I attended Fremont High School in Santa Clara County. I want to extend my appreciation to Senator Wahab for bringing forward this courageous Bill that prioritizes protecting students when they need it most. Before I begin, I want to applaud the Legislature for its current efforts to reform our mental health system.

Policies like ones that expand the behavioral health workforce and make mental health part of a child's curriculum demonstrates their commitment to center prevention and promote well being, not merely to treat symptoms as they arise. But the reason I stand before you today is to remind everyone that our strides towards. That our strides towards intervention don't mirror our strides towards prevention. I stand before you today to remind everyone that we need to rethink crisis intervention, which remains one of the greatest unaddressed flaws in our system today.

I was a sophomore in high school when I experienced a suicidal episode on campus. This episode was triggered when my school advocate was forced to notify police officers to look into if I was being abused. Those same police officers months before notified my parents that my sister and I made an anonymous report that we were being abused at home. This isn't a story where the survivor finds the courage to speak up and they win the day.

Instead, I was handcuffed in front of the school and in front of my peers while I was getting loaded into a squad car. That is what happens when a child is suicidal. I was lucky because I had someone like my school advocate. I'm here for the millions of students who have an infinitely higher mountain to climb than I did, who attend schools that don't have any social, clinical, or mental health services and who only have law enforcement on their campus.

SB 1318 would change existing state policy that requires schools to call 911 when a student is experiencing a mental health crisis. It would ensure that students like me are referred to mental health specialists rather than law enforcement. It will ensure that for students, in their darkest moments, there is a light at the end of the tunnel and not the inside of a squad car. For that reason, I urge you all to vote aye.

Thank you for your testimony, Miss Trigueiro, welcome.

I want to say it was very moving. Excuse me, Mister chair. Committee Members, Senator Wahab, Staff, Toni Truguero on behalf of the California Teachers Association, and we are very appreciative of the work done by the Senator staff and the Committee staff to get us here today. We want to acknowledge the detailed analysis with the effort in California to expand Medi Cal coverage to all Medi caligible students that began in 2015 when the Department of Healthcare Services submitted a state plan amendment to the Federal Government.

CTA and many of the co sponsors of SB 1318 have worked tirelessly, tirelessly to maximize the presence of pupil services personnel at school sites. Leas participating in the federal billing Option program receive financial reimbursements for both services and staff delivering authorized physical and behavioral health programs to Medi caligible students. While leas await the work product required in AB 309 that's referenced in your analysis. Making sure that leas are addressing strategic staffing and funding decisions benefiting students in the school community is in everyone's best interest.

Providing students with individualized and ongoing counseling services on their school campus minimizes lost instructional time and maximizes the benefits of a model in which professionals can evaluate and address the natural, external factors that play a central role in childhood behavior disorders. According to the American Psychological Association, students are 10 to 21 times more likely to receive behavioral health services when they are provided on a school campus.

And there's a great deal of research documenting the importance of embedded school based mental health professionals who provide more accurate diagnoses and better identification of causal factors. Embedded school based behavioral health professionals provide more accurate diagnoses and and better identification of aggravating factors. School based behavioral health professionals have the unique advantage of observing children in natural play and in academic settings.

In a poll conducted in the fall of 2022 of current and former CTA Members that there were a variety of changes they believe would address the burnout and improve teacher retention, including reducing the stress current educators are feeling in their jobs by better staffing and more support services for students. We know students and families referred to off campus clinics are much less likely to receive initial or ongoing services than those offered services at a school site.

School based behavioral health services significantly reduce school disciplinary action, referrals into the criminal justice system, and school dropout rates.

Miss Triguiero, I'm going to have to ask you to close.

We respectfully request an aye vote.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses here in the hearing? If you would like to testify on behalf of the Bill. If so, please come forward. State your name, your organization and your position, please.

John Drebinger with the Steinberg Institute in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Amanda Dickey, on behalf of the Santa Clara County Superintendent, we're really proud to be a co sponsor and very proud of Nathan.

Thank you.

Sabrina Means, on behalf of the California Association of School Counselors, a co sponsor of the Bill, and the California School Nurses Association, I'm sorry, the California school nurses organization, both in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Andrea Ball, on behalf of the California Association of School Psychologists, in support.

Thank you, Miss Ball. Are there any other witnesses here to testify in opposition to the measure? Seeing none, let's come back to the Committee. I know two of my colleagues here are co authors on this Bill. Any questions or comments for the author, Senator Ochoa Bogh?

I do. So I'm kind of curious as to the portion, and I would like to give the author an opportunity to expand a little bit on the role of parents within this Bill because I agree on the notion that law enforcement is not necessarily the first point of contact that should be made.

Unless, of course, and there was a situation in our school where we had a child, one of our local high schools where we had a child who was literally at the second floor at the border, and of course, teachers, counselors, everybody that was alerted. But quite frankly, I think all of them would have been really? Really. I'm assuming, I didn't talk to them personally, but I'm assuming they would have been very uncomfortable trying to help that child if something were to happen.

And law enforcement may have been called, I don't know the details, but I'm just thinking of the scenarios in that case where something like that could be very traumatic for everyone and the need or the judgment call of calling law enforcement would be something that would be considered in, in that instant.

But in addition to that, the role of parents, because I thought your comment at the beginning with regards to our first generation immigrant parents coming into this country and having, or not maybe the information or the education, the preparation to be able to handle behavioral health varies, of course, and the school, of course, but also the language barriers.

But that would not just be inherited to people who, migrants or immigrants, but also to people who have been here their whole lives and don't have a culture in their home of talking about behavioral health. I mean, it's one of the reasons why we're trying to make behavioral health lose its stigma by having conversations and dialogue and presentations about behavior, behavioral health. So with that in mind, I would love to hear your.

Thank you. So, you know, I specifically mentioned that just because I've seen a lot of struggles and there's a couple of other bills I'm carrying that address a little bit of that as well. Right. When we talk about prevention and early intervention and even Prop 63 that allowed for community based organizations to kind of step into the communities, hire the people that speak the same language and culture and so forth, and be culturally competent when they're talking about mental health and so forth.

So I fully support that. And we obviously need to expand that and much more. I will stay with this particular thing, this particular Bill. I want to say that school staff and law enforcement agencies are already required to weigh in whether notification to the parent will cause harm to the child. The first and biggest priority in dealing with this is making sure the child is safe. That's number one. I think we can all agree upon that.

The only thing that 1318 changes is that the existing parent notification considerations should be noted in the CDE model policy and that school or law enforcement agencies should consult with the child when they're making that decision. And that's just asking the kid. So, for example, current law, the school psychologist makes the determination whether or not to notify the parent of the mental health crisis based on whether there is any record of parental abuse in the student's record.

You and I both know that sometimes records are actually not there that show abuse and maybe that the kid has been keeping it a secret for so long before it becomes a parent or they have a crisis. If 1318 were adopted, a school psychologist makes the determination whether or not to notify the parents based on both the student's record and the student's answer to the question of whether the student believes notifying his parent will endanger their safety.

At the end of the day, the parent will be notified. But it's prioritizing the child at that moment, in that time, first and foremost.

So not whether or not so the clause would be, will endanger the child if the child states that it will endanger the child. Not necessarily that there is child abuse.

Well, it's the first. The individual who is potentially being abused or having a difficulty or so forth, it's hearing directly from them. Right. So I hate to bring this case up, but there is a case that I'm well aware of where there is an individual whose father was raping her eight years old and she was going to school. Anonymous complaint came in. It's not clear exactly who made that complaint. And social workers and law enforcement obviously get involved. It's a serious crime.

It causes a lot of harm and so forth. And the priority, and my sister is a social worker as well, is to engage and see and assess what is going on. Right. And that is talking to the child also eventually talking to the parent as understanding what is the home life situation. Right. So parents are always still involved, but if the perpetrator or the violator is the parent is creating harm, right. Is abusive in any manner, then it is treated slightly differently. Right.

Because the harm is the person that is really charged with protecting the child.

No problem with that.

So it's following that model as first and foremost protecting the child and understanding what is going on. Right. Because how else would anybody know that this is happening unless the child finally speaks up? And that is the whole point of having this, where the child is asked directly, is this going to create a problem? Why are you doing this? You know, what is your concern? What is your fear? It is very much on the child's level.

And so the question that I would ask or follow up with would be the basis for not informing the parent. Would that justify current abuse, sexual or physical abuse? If there is current or sexual abuse, and deciding whether in deciding not to inform the parent, is that still in place? Does the child have to state that there is physical or sexual abuse or just if they feel there's a threat to sexual and physical abuse happen if they were to inform the parents?

If I could clarify, what we're discussing now is the protocol for the intervention. Right. Not. Not the. Not the ultimate sort of disposition. Right. So at some point or another, parents will get involved, as I understand.

So 100% that is accurate. And then number two, Amanda Dickey here, we have a policy like that in Santa Clara County. And I just want her to kind of elaborate as to what is the current practice in something that's already doing this.

Well, state or local?

This is local, but of course we're going to eventually try to adopt it in this policy.

So I wish actually, that I could say that this was a policy that we have adopted in Santa Clara County. Unfortunately, its not. And it very much relates back to Nathans situation. You heard him discuss very clearly that he was facing abuse at home and that is what triggered the suicidal ideation in his instance. What were trying to do is prevent exactly what happened to him from happening again. There were some pretty severe consequences as a result of his parents being notified.

And that's what we're hoping to avoid.

And just to be clear to your answer or your question, so right now, and I'm just speaking from the social services perspective, right, let's say a crisis were committed in a school bathroom and, you know, teachers came in and so forth, or a child had a breakdown or something like that, the professional would ask, what is going on? Assessing the health risk, so forth. And right now social workers are called county. You know, CPS is often involved right. From the county right now.

And a social worker would go in specifically from emergency response and assess, okay, what is going on? How can we address this? Is there abuse? So this may be the very first time, let's say, when the kid finally does something right that shows that I've had enough, I'm breaking down. It allows the social worker and in this particular Bill, specifically the therapist and so forth as the first point, to talk to the child. That is the goal of this Bill. Right.

And to assess, is something going on? What is bothering you? Is it something at home? Is it something at school? If it's something else, if it's something at school, you know, children can largely, you know, say, yes, you know, I have to talk to my parent or they don't understand or something. It may be something small another time. It could be my parent is doing this, or my aunt or my uncle or my grandfather. Right. So that is what it is.

Now, CPS gets involved, law enforcement potentially gets involved and so forth. This Bill will just allow for, again, priority is not necessarily police officers, which we have school resource officers. It is the therapist, it is the psychiatrist, the psychologist, whoever, but the health professional that the schools designate. That is what this Bill is overall doing. As far as parental rights, they will always know unless they are being potentially the abuser.

If that is the case, an investigation is still done because it's a CPS case at that point. This is just the first point of contact with the child.

So clarification once again. The parent will eventually know. Eventually know, but the timeframe in which they will know will only be informed about the. Will not be informed if there's physical or current sexual abuse sated by the child.

Yes, they will still be informed of, like, hey, we have custody of your child, this is going on. We have to do an investigation. And social workers are not necessarily allowed to remove the child immediately unless they believe there is harm and there's an imminent threat. Right. And they work hand in hand with law enforcement on that. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. I actually, Mister, no, you know, appreciate your testimony. Both kind of brave and articulate, but I'll bet you have something to add to this, if you don't mind.

In essence, at the heart and core of the Bill, it's making sure that when there is a behavioral health crisis, there's a behavioral health specialist or professional to meet it. I feel like that point of logic and the reason why we're proposing that is very, very clear. If a matter is medical or is of a physical nature, you'd call in a school nurse, a paramedic, a Doctor. You would not send law enforcement just because they're the closest thing to a resource you have nearby.

We just ask that mental health and emotional health be treated the exact same way, especially when there's a crisis. But a bit more clarification with the Senator's point when it comes to parental notification within this Bill, all it really does and adds and bolsters to our current system when notifying parents is that the child is consulted. If notification would put them in any danger.

Part of seeing if they're in any danger is to see if they have experienced abuse, either ongoing or in the past, but also if the child believes that the notification will trigger abuse or harm to come to them, that would also be a factor. Current protocol still exists where the school psychologists can look at the record, either the social record or any school record indicating that there is abuse.

But now they're also required to consult the young person in question and participate with them because this is their life at the end of the day, and they do deserve a voice in the matter.

I appreciate that. Senator Cortese is next.

Thank you, Mister chair. And I appreciate the question and answers that have been provided so far, and always appreciate hearing from our colleague who has school board experience, as do I, you know, going back some years. We share a lot of Santa Clara County, the author and I, and I just wanted to speak very quickly before just indicating, you know, my General support for the Bill. Santa Clara County, I would say, admittedly, is set up as a true example of best practices right now.

And I think part of the issue is not so much that that county needs it per se, as much as this really needs to be something that's policy up and down the state. And what I mean by that is I've been a champion of this as a Member of the Board of Supervisors down there for a dozen years, and prior to that, going back all the way to my school board days. What is defined in this Bill as healthcare professionals or mental health care professionals?

The lexicon there is school linked services coordinators. And basically the idea is that the county and the, the county and the, as the author has indicated, the county and the school professional are able to share information, and that's, this Legislature has made that very doable through legislation over the last couple of years.

And so rather than having to take a student offsite, as was described in the testimony, more often with this idea of intervention prevention, and then as a last resort, enforcement, a student is able to be brought into a schooling services coordinator who is a trained professional as defined in the Senator's Bill, and an immediate check in can be done, which will then lead to all of these other things that I appreciated.

The author's response in terms of, is this something that's going to require county agencies intervention at a certain level, is this something that is going to be best served to have the county, for example, come in or some other provider and meet with that family and the student in due course?

Oftentimes, what I've found, where this is done right, and this Bill will ensure that it's done right, is that the students return to the classroom right away instead of being handcuffed and hauled off, unless there's sudden onset of psychosis or something like that that requires a student to be brought to an offsite facility. Students are checked in with students, get right back into the classroom.

All of this is dealt with on site, and they can subsequently typically have the family come in, not necessarily in abuse situations, obviously, but have them come in to deal with this. So I'm a proud co author of the Bill.

I think it's just taking all this work that so many of us, including people sitting on the dais here, have been doing over the years to make sure that intervention and prevention is really the priority before you start bringing in badges and guns and trying to deal with things like this on the enforcement side. So appreciate the author's work on this and I'd be happy to move it. Move the Bill. I think I forget what the motion is supposed to be. As amended. As amended at the appropriate time, Mr. Chair.

Appreciate it. We would just accept it. Move the Bill. So thank you. Any other comments? Senator Wilk?

Thank you, Mister chair. First of all, I want to thank you for your testimony. I know that's not an easy thing to do, to be vulnerable like that. So I appreciate you sharing. So on the Bill, we've used like extreme examples of protecting kids, and I agree with that. First of all, I want to say we needed this intervention and prevention even before COVID What these kids go through today is just really heartbreaking.

So my question is this, and I think it just probably comes down to common sense. I think I'm fine with it because I do believe most kids fear that their parents won't understand and so they might be afraid to say, zero, I don't want my mom to know or my dad to know, when in fact their parents love them unconditionally and need to be involved. So I'm assuming these professionals are going to be using common sense, right? So like there's nothing, no one's going to be hiding the ball or anything like that. So I just want to go on the record with that from you so that way I can support it.

Yes, these mental health professionals are fully trained. They're trained to speak to a minor, trained at all different ages. They work for over 3000 hours just interning to be able to gain the skill sets to be able to do this. Again, parents are notified, but the first question is to the child. It's not just are your parents going to be upset, right?

Because we all know a lot of kids are afraid that, you know, their mom and dad are going to be mad at them because they got a call from school. The question is, is there going to be violence or abuse or like some type of excessive thing that's going to happen to you? And that's what the kid eventually shares and that's the assessment still based on that professional and their experience and so forth.

Great. Thank you.

All right, so we have a motion from Senator Cortese. Senator Wahab, if you'd like to close, I mean, for my part, glad to support the Bill. Let me just also say not only is this a smart approach, this is part of a larger trend in behavioral health, that it's about deescalation, which is all to the good. So, and I will also say, you know, thank you so much to Miss Trigueiro, but especially Mister Ngo you know, it is not an easy thing to come. You were both very articulate, but also to Senator Wilks point, brave to do this if you'd like to close.

Thank you. I generally do appreciate the questions. I often joke with a lot of my colleagues here that I'm not a parent. So I know you guys are looking, those of you that are parents are looking at a very different lens. Besides being a school board Member or having some experience in the school system.

I specifically just want to highlight the story that I was half sharing with you in the sense of those kids, immediately law enforcement was involved, parents were immediately told, so forth, they were returned to their household, were abuse continued. And the children who again, under the age of 10 were asked like, is this true? And they had all their elders come in and so forth. They recanted their story because of the pressure from their family, right. That this can't be true.

My brother can't do this, my son can't do this. Your father couldn't have done this to you. And the abuse continued and they recanted their story because their mother was undocumented and the aunts, the sisters of the husband was basically using that saying, I will not support her. She will be kicked out on the street. Your father's going to jail. You will have no home. X, Y and Z of the worst of the worst to an eight year old.

And the abuse continued for a number of years. And they're full grown adults with kids of their own now. Their father passed away and they say that that was the most pivotal moment in their entire life that could have prevented years of abuse and trauma. And it didn't happen because they got pressure immediately to be returned to their abuser without consideration that this is the end all, be all. This is what's happening. This is my limit at eight years old.

And so, yes, children are children and most kids are afraid that their parents are going to be upset or not. And, you know, there's a lot of families that are going to be upset if they get a call from school. But abuse is very different and that's what we're trying to do. If a kid is to the point where they're wanting to commit suicide, some type of extra intervention needs to take place in the well being and effort and focus of that child, first and foremost.

And, of course, the parents are informed and it's handled appropriately. So I respectfully ask for an eye for all the kids who are still too afraid to share their story.

Thank you, Senator Wahab. Madam, please call the roll.

File item four, SB 1318 on Wahab. Motion is do passes amended to say Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

The measure has three votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members. Thank you. And thank you to the witnesses. And let us see where we are. I understand Senator Hutado is having some few transportation issues. Not sure if that's been resolved. Otherwise, next file out would be Senator Gonzalez, who's not yet present. Let us then take a moment, and I think we'll move.

Just as a point of information, I'm prepared to present on behalf of Senator Hurtado.

I'm shocked. That's good. Then why don't we do that now, Senator Cortese, if that's in order. Okay. Thank you.

Mister chair. While Senator Cortes is coming up, can we vote on the first Bill that we heard this morning?

A trick question? Yes, Senator Wilk, I understand a Subcommitee. You have places to go?

I do have.

We're still going to have to close this out later, we have the same place to go, but training here, you'll get to go there. So, Madam, if you wouldn't mind calling the role on SB 1491.

File item five, SB 1491. Eggman. Motion is do pass to Senate Judiciary Committee. [Roll call].

All right, Senator Cortese, on behalf of Senator Hurtado, please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators, I'm presenting SB 1248, as was said, on behalf of Senator Hurtado. The Senator wants to thank the Chair and Committee staff for their work and guidance on this bill.

She will be accepting the Committee amendments outlined in the analysis. So I stand before you today on behalf of Senator Hurtado, but once again, with a heavy heart, presenting a bill about the loss of life of one of our young people.

This Bill 1248 is also known as Yahshua's law. The bill was named in honor of Yahshua Robinson, a 12 year old who tragically lost his life at Canyon Lake Middle School while participating in physical education during an extreme heat situation.

Yahshua's law requires the California Department of Education to establish statewide guidelines and requirements for all local education agencies so that schools can implement a standing framework to better protect students participating in physical activity during all extreme weather conditions.

Through Yahshua's law, we're committing ourselves to ensuring that no family goes through this tragic experience due to inadequate protection at our schools during extreme weather conditions. Recent research has demonstrated that climate change not only affects the environment around us, but it also has detrimental effects on our health.

Of course, with children being particularly vulnerable, especially those outdoors, despite the growing evidence and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, our public schools lack uniform standards to protect students during outdoor activities.

This gap leaves our children exposed, vulnerable, and at risk. The lack of preparedness across our schools in California exacerbates this issue, creating an urgent need for safeguards to ensure student safety during extreme weather conditions.

Our children's safety, of course, should be a priority that's woven into the fabric of our educational system. I think we all agree to that, and we must provide statewide guidance to ensure that every school is equipped to better protect students during these extreme weather conditions as part of that priority.

SB 1248 does just that by requiring the Department of Education to establish statewide guidelines in consultation with relevant stakeholders and experts so that our schools can prioritize their children's safety again during extreme weather conditions.

With us today, we have two witnesses, Christina Laster, who's been advocating on behalf of the Robinson family, and Janie Robinson, who is the mother of Yahshua Robinson. We appreciate them being here, Mr. chair. I'll turn it over to you.

Thank you and welcome to the Robinsons. Please proceed.

Can you guys hear?

Yep. Very well.

Hi, I am Christina Laster. Greetings, Senators and members of the public of California. As an advocate, I understand that I use my voice frequently to speak up on behalf of those who feel voiceless.

Today, the greatest situation lies before me, but this is a constituent led effort as reflective of the family members behind me that are also community members that care deeply about children. I won't take too much time because I'd rather allow the voice of the parents to come forward.

But I do ask that you consider seriously that community, that band came together to make this happen in a reality for all of our children and that you would pass SB 1248.

Thank you very much, Ms. Robinson. Welcome.

Greetings, Senators, Education Committee colleagues. My family and friends have traveled over 8 hours to be here. I'm Janae Washington Robinson, mother of late, great Yahshua Nieri Robinson, our forever 12-year-old son.

I am also a California State clear credentialed physical education teacher with over 20 years of service. Eight of those years within Lake Elsinore Unified School District, the same district that I believe and I feel strongly, killed our son.

Each day since our son's tragic death, we've experienced a range of emotions, feelings of despair, grief, indignation, and mainly betrayal by my colleagues and the very system I have dedicated my life to serving children in an immense and inescapable I think about how we teach children to follow directions. Most systems of rewards and consequences are based on their ability to follow directions.

But it was not bad for them to follow directions on that extremely hot day in August of 2023 because our son was taken from us too soon. His life was cut short because he followed directions and ran in the heat.

There were four physical education teachers at Canyon Lake Middle School that day. Students reported that two of them were outside engaging in physical activity in that extreme heat.

I too was with my second grade students 10 minutes away, but inside safe from the excess of heat because I followed the heat warning that I received on my cell phone. Five teachers, the same district, no cohesive plan across the district, plenty of news reports about the week long heat wave were issued throughout the state. Some of us took precautions. Others did not, and their proof choices led to our son's untimely death.

It was in the nineties outside that day, and even the best and highly trained athletes wouldn't run in it. Yet Yahshua's class of middle schoolers were made to run in that heat. Physical education should happen only in environments conducive for physical activity.

And unlike other educational environments, our main classrooms are outside and in that hot heat and in that extreme cold. The goal is to teach children how to be well rounded, not unsafe.

No parent like us, wants to be the one who has to outlive our children. And no parent sends their child to school without expecting them not to return home. Yahshua did not come back home from school that day. This is the reality we now must live with.

We recognize nothing we can do can bring him back or make the pain of losing him go away. As I see him die every day, we all miss him dearly.

We urge you to pass this bill so that what's preventable will be addressed and preventing allowing other children to be safe. Yahshua was so full of love and joy. He loved spreading his joy, putting smiles on everyone's face. This should be the way he is remembered.

Please pass, and we urge you to pass this Bill. So he told us a little, saying, I am him. Now I know my son had to die so other children can have a chance to live. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. I'm sorry. So sorry for your loss. Is anybody here in the Committee hearing would like to testify on behalf of the measure? So please come to the microphones. Please state your name, your organization and your position on the bill.

I'm Aniya Laster and I'm in support of SB 1248 and I urge you to pass it.

Thank you, Ms. Laster. Next please.

[Foreign Speaking]

Just your position. I appreciate it. Gracious.

We support Yahshua as well. This is familiar, especially because the hot weather in the central valley is so high.

I understood. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome.

My name is Cameron Wilson, I'm a parent in the Lake Elsinore School Unified School District. I'm asking and I'm praying and I'm urging you to please support this bill as well as to passing. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Wilma Washington, I'm the grandmother of Yahshua Robinson and I support in asking you to please pass this bill.

Thank you. And again, condolences for your loss. Next please.

I am little Eric Robinson, I'm Yahshua's older brother, and I ask if you can support the law, please.

Thank you, and thank you for being here.

I'm Amaya Banks, I'm Yahshua's older sister, and I ask you to support the bill.

Thank you very much.

My name is Taryn, I'm his cousin, and we urge you to support Bill 1248.

Thank you. Next please.

I'm Antron Davis, I'm his cousin, and I urge you to support the bill.

Thank you. Mr. Davis.

Hi, good morning. I'm Myisha Davis, I am Yeshua's auntie. I urge that you guys support the Bill 1242.

Hello, I'm Sarah Coleman. I'm a parent and an educator in the Poway Unified School District. I urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Veronica Griffin and I'm also an educator in the same school district where Yahshua lost his life. And I urge you to pass this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Brian Wilson. I'm a parent in that area. I'm also a business owner and I ask that you guys do what you can to pass this bill.

Thank you sir.

My name is Lyndon Harris. I'm his big bro. I urge you to support the bill.

Thank you.

My name is Daniel Laster. I was his old friend and I ask you to support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Morton Washington. I'm Yahshua's grandfather and I hope that you can do this for us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Washington. Again, condolences to the whole family and everybody for the loss. Has anybody here would like to testify in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, let us come back to my colleagues. Senator Cortese, thank you for stepping in on behalf of Senator Hurtado. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Senator, just. It's unfortunate that we have to have these types of incidents in order to move forward legislation on it. I'm sorry that we were not proactive on that measure, but I would be happy to move the bill forward.

I appreciate that. And for my part, again, proof too late that this is necessary. It's kind of striking to me. I served in the US military in the eighties. We had heat protocols that were uniform across the whole military.

And we would not have been out in weather like that. Which is kind of ironic in sad. Senator Cortese, we have a motion if you'd like to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I too, especially on behalf of Senator Hurtado, wanted to thank the witnesses for, first of all, for traveling to be here all the way from the Central Valley. Secondly, for your courage. We understand the pain you're going through.

Obviously, we cannot feel it in the same manner that you do, but it is understood. And with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

File item three, SB 1248, Hurtado. Motion is do passes amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

Very good. So again, that measure has four votes at the moment. It will pass. We'll leave it open for absent Members to come in, take a vote. But again, thank you to the family. Thank you for doing your part to make California a better place.

Thank you.

All right, so welcome to Senator Gonzalez. So I understand you want to, do you want to go now or you want to go last? Okay, I appreciate that. So next up, we will have SB 991 from Senator Gonzalez, followed by SB 1182, also from the Senator. I actually have to go present another bill in Senate EQ. So, Senator Ochoa Bogh, if you wouldn't mind taking the gavel, and I would be back as soon as I can.

Welcome, Senator Gonzalez. You will be presenting SB 991. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. And before I begin, I'd like to accept the Committee's recommended amendments, which will require the Los Angeles Unified School District's Office of Inspector General to submit an annual report to the Legislature and require that Inspector General be appointed by the LAUSD Board of Education for a three-year term.

So, SB 991 will remove the 2025 sunset date from current statute to allow the LAUSD Office of Inspector General to continue its transparent oversight responsibilities in perpetuity. A district as large and diverse as LAUSD is extremely unique and deserves special attention to ensure there is no waste, fraud or abuse.

In recognition of this fact, and to increase transparency and accountability, the Legislature granted the district the authority to conduct audits investigations in 1999, and for over two decades, the Inspector General has maintained the ability to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths or affirmations, take testimony, and compel the production of information when there is a reasonable suspicion that a law, regulation, or policy has been violated. This authority has been extended multiple times, with the most recent extension being signed into law in 2014.

SB 991 simply removes the 2025 sunset date and allows the Inspector General to continue its transparent oversight responsibility. And testifying in support of this measure today, I have Sue Stengel, the current LAUSD Inspector General, and Martha Alvarez, Chief of Legislative Affairs and Government Relations for LAUSD to assist with technical questions. I respectfully ask for an aye vote of SB 991.

Thank you very much, and we welcome the witnesses in support of SB 991. Please state your name and proceed when you're ready.

Good morning, Members of the Committee and staff. My name is Sue Stengel, and since 2022, I've had the privilege of serving as the Inspector General for the Los Angeles Unified School District. I'm here today to support SB 991, a bill to reauthorize the LAUSD's Office of Inspector General, also referred to as the OIG. Over 25 years ago, the Los Angeles Unified Board of Education and the state Legislature partnered to create the Office of the Inspector General for LAUSD as a pilot.

Since then, the OIG has served honorably as a steward for public trust, holding the district accountable for efficient, cost-effective government operations and to prevent, detect, identify, expose, and eliminate potential fraud, waste, and abuse. The work of our office includes auditing district contracts, programs and operations, and investigating suspected misconduct, both administrative and criminal. Furthermore, our office manages the district's 24/7 whistleblower hotline.

Each year, our office conducts a comprehensive risk assessment of district contracts and programs in accordance with government auditing standards and best practices to determine our audit plan for the upcoming fiscal year. Our work plan is vetted by both the Board of Education and the district's Bond Oversight Committee at public meetings, and the work plan is published in advance of these meetings for the public's review.

According to the statement of principles for Offices of Inspector General, we serve the public best when we follow the basic principles of integrity, objectivity, independence, and confidentiality, among others. We strongly protect our independence. Being free from personal impairments and external influences, both in fact and in appearance, ensures that our opinions, conclusions, judgments, and recommendations are impartial and are viewed by others as impartial. The integrity of an investigation is dependent on confidentiality.

When parties to an investigation are prematurely notified of our interest, this creates the potential for collusion, destruction of evidence, rehearsing of stories, or obstruction. Confidentiality instills confidence in our work, protects those who make reports to us, and reduces the likelihood of retaliation against complainants and witnesses. In the last six years, OIG independent investigations have resulted in 39 criminal convictions for charges ranging from larceny and wire fraud to conspiracy to embezzle public funds.

During 2023 alone, the OIG identified $6.5 million in monetary benefits as a result of audits, investigations and technical evaluations. In short, we hold the district to high standards and ourselves to higher standards. This guarantees trust in our work and, more importantly, trust in the work of the district to educate students. For these reasons, I urge you to vote aye on Senate Bill 991 to authorize the OIG to exist permanently.

By doing so, you will send a clear message that the Legislature is dedicated to promoting transparency and ensuring that LAUSD serves the best interests of the students and families it serves. Thank you.

Good morning. Martha Alvarez, Chief Government Relations for the LA Unified School District. As Senator Gonzales mentioned, I'm here to answer any technical questions that she is not able to answer. We urge your aye support of the bill and look forward to any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much for our key lead witnesses. We'll now continue with any witnesses in support of SB 991 here in room 2100. Seeing none, we're continuing to any witnesses in opposition to SB 991 here, room 2100.

Vice Chair and Members, John Winger on behalf of the California Charter School Association, we currently have an opposed, unless amended position, but would like to thank the author, staff and the sponsors for the continued dialogue. And we look forward to continuing those conversations. We have concerns, particularly around how the OIG in the past has had some behavior related to charter school renewals and revocations.

As an example, in 2014, the LAUSD attempted to close a few high-performing charter schools based on information that had never been made public or had later been found to be incomplete from an OIG report. This caused those schools to sue, result in a preliminary injunction to keep the schools open, and a later, there was a later settlement to continue to reauthorize those schools. But in 2015, the Bureau of State Audits conducted an audit of the situation and found several findings that were concerning to us.

Particularly, it found that not only had the charter school been unable to access the report, but the OIG had denied LAUSD's own charter school division access to the document because of attorney-client privilege. The OIG also had drafted a memo based on the draft report, and they gave that to the charter school division, and that was found to be inaccurate. Finally, the charter school in question was never allowed to see or comment on the draft findings or attempt to cure the problems they identified.

And OIG canceled phase two of that report, which would have allowed the charter school to comment. And so we had a situation where, you know, three charter schools were attempted to be shut down without a report that was made public. And so we want to continue some discussions around just what we can do around transparency and just ensuring that that doesn't happen in the future.

It's not an indictment on the current OIG or what they're doing around their broader work, but if the sunset is removed indefinitely, I think we would like to see some parameters put around the transparency provisions and so we look forward to continuing those conversations as we move forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other key lead witnesses in opposition to 991? We'll proceed with any witnesses in opposition to 991 here in room 2100. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais, any questions, comments? Senator Wilk?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, what's your current budget? I haven't looked in a long time, but the last time I looked, it was $10.3 billion. Do you know what the current budget is?

Yes. Good morning. Are you speaking about LA Unified or the OIG?

Just to clarify, yes. So the LA Unified budget is approximately $10.3 billion of both state and federal funds.

Yes, LA.

Obviously, organization of that magnitude needs to have oversight, and I appreciate the comments made by the opposition, but that was a priority auditor. So I guess my question for you, because I see the need for this, are you going to continue to have dialogue with the charter schools to make sure that those transparency components are in place?

Yes, absolutely, of course. And thank you, I know you've worked on this prior, so.

Yeah. Okay, great. So I'm happy to support the bill today, and we'll move it when appropriate. Thank you, Senator Wilk. We have a motion to move the bill. Do we have any comments or questions? I do have a question, and I'll pass the gavel to our Chairman. I do have a question along with Senator Wilk, I also would love to see the continued conversations.

I will be supporting the bill today, but I do reserve the right to look at the final language to ensure that we have the safety protocol or transparency protocols in place to ensure. I did have a question, though, with regards to the Department. If there are questions such as the one that was expressed today by the opposition with regards to the process perhaps not being done in a right manner, as the auditors pointed out, what is the recourse to those parties? Who do they go to to make a complaint or have the situation reevaluated, what's the next step up, I guess you could say?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And if I can defer to the Inspector General and our government relations team.

So I cannot speak to what happened back several years ago, I do want to ensure the Committee that our office is very dedicated to transparency. The issue of transparency, that operating under the standards and principles for Inspectors General, transparency is one of the main tenants of our roles, and so is Independence. And as I stated before, we need to be independent from any outside or internal influences so that the public has confidence in our work.

I absolutely appreciate those efforts and those principles, but I'm still. It doesn't quite answer my question as to if there is a moving forward, not within your jurisdiction per se, but within the system.

If there is a question with regards to the outcome or the caliber or the type of investigation that was conducted what's next? Where do we go after that, as far as trying to reconsider what was, what the investigation or the outcome was?

So our investigations either criminal or administrative, if they are substantiated, then go to either a prosecuting agency or for internal discipline, and those agencies then have the opportunity to make their own decisions about whether they're going to move forward with the investigation. Excuse me, with the investigation that we conducted, and there are investigations that we do not substantiate, and then those go no further.

Okay. I don't think my question's. Maybe I'm not expressing it correctly.

I think more so from what I understand you asking. Perhaps maybe I can clarify. You're asking whether, like, for instance, the Charter Schools Association is stating that they don't have.

If there is an issue with the outcome of the investigation or the process of the investigation, is there some sort of process internally that can be done to perhaps clarify what happened?

Internally or externally. So, you know, with each body, we have an escalator. Right. If there's something wrong here, we can appeal it in the court system. We can appeal it to the next court above it with the result of your, with your, the outcomes of your investigations.

If there's any questions as to the integrity of those investigations and there would like to be an appeal per se, is there another level or another entity in which parties have a recourse to go to?

So our office reports to the Board of Education, and so people would have the opportunity to address the Board of Education related to our work. I am personally evaluated by the Board of Education, so my work is evaluated by them.

And in addition, every three years, our office undergoes a peer review to ensure that we are following the principles and standards correctly. And we have always been found to be following those standards and principles.

So basically, the recourse would be the Board of Education. If there was a question as to the integrity of the investigation, there is recourse for people like, in this case, the charter schools, per se. Is that correct?

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Yes.

And to add, I think another recourse is outside litigation. Right. They can initiate independently litigation, correct?

Correct.

So that would be a fallback check on that.

We're looking for checks and balances.

Okay, I'm back. So any other. I missed part of it, but I'm glad to support the vill based on my conversation with the Committee and the portion we heard, my understanding having come back a little bit late. Senator Gonzalez, you're accepting the Committee amendments?

Yes.

And I think we did have a motion. So motion from Senator Wilk. With that, would you like to close?

Want to thank our witnesses, the Inspector General, and our government relations team, as well as the Senators who've asked the good questions about working with the opposition. Of course, will continue to do that. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

Item six, SB 991 Gonzalez. Motion is do pass as amended, to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure currently has five votes. We will leave it open for Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. And next up is SB 1182, also from the good Senator from Long Beach. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. I'm here today to present SB 1182, which will require cross-agency collaboration and communication on how California can keep its schools safe in an era of extreme impacts for climate change. California maintains over 125,000 acres of school grounds, 730 million sqft of facility space, and 10,000 school facilities, of which 40% are at least 50 years old. And we know frontline and low-income communities bear a disproportionate amount of the climate impacts.

SB 1182 will establish a statewide plan that will better position California school districts to tackle the generational challenge of transitioning to climate-resilient schools and facilities. And testifying in support today, I have Mitch Steiger with the California Federation of Teachers and Doctor Amanda Millstein, a pediatrician and co-founder of Climate Health Now. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote on SB 1182.

Very good. Mister Steiger, welcome.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, proud to co-sponsor this Bill along with a broad coalition of other like-minded groups for a few different reasons, probably the biggest one of which is that our schools are very old and they are getting older, and most of them were built in an era when we were not thinking about climate change.

My son's school was built in 1939, when we had a lot of things on our mind, but we weren't really thinking about extreme heat and wildfire, affected air, and other concerns that are now top of mind when we build new education infrastructure. And so, as a result, we've got a long way to go towards making sure that our education system is ready for what's here now and what's coming.

The research at this point is pretty clear that as heat rises, the ability of a human being to teach or to learn declines. And it's the same with wildfire-affected air. We have a lot of kids with asthma, we have a lot of teachers with asthma, a lot of classified workers with different types of respiratory illnesses that are very much worsened by harmful particulate matter in the air.

So we need to do a lot to make sure that we're ready just for those two as long as well as a lot of other different impacts of climate change as they're coming. And so what this Bill does is put us on a path towards being in a much better place and being much more ready to deal with those impacts.

It doesn't build things itself, but what it does do is make sure that all of the money that we're about to spend, and it's a lot to make sure that our schools are more climate resilient, is spent wisely, that it's not just whoever's asking that we have a long list of what's most effective, what's most important, what do we need to prioritize so that we know going forward, how do we get the biggest bang for our buck in terms of making sure that our schools are as climate resilient as they can possibly be?

So it's a huge issue for us, it's a huge issue for our students, and we think it's a very important step for California, speaking more broadly, to achieve our climate goals, that there are a lot of these buildings out there, they could do a lot better in terms of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, reducing just our overall energy demands.

And this Bill takes a huge step in the right direction, and we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Doctor Millstein?

Yes. Good morning. Thank you for having me today. My name is Doctor Amanda Millstein. I'm a pediatrician practicing in Oakland, a co-founder of Climate Health now, and perhaps most importantly, the mother of two kids who attend school in West Contra Costa Unified School District. I am also here today to speak strongly in support of SB 1182. I want to share a story of one of my patients and his grandparents with you all who I met this past September in my urgent care clinic in Oakland.

My patient, I'm going to call him Charlie, today was sick with a cold. He came in wheezing. His asthma was badly flaring up. The air around us was yet again thick with wildfire smoke. When can he go back to school? His grandparents asked me, the worry clear on their face. It gets smoky in my classroom. Charlie told me as we talked through, how given the lack of air filters and air conditioning in his classroom, it was not safe for Charlie to go back to school.

Climate change impacts child health and learning in the classroom in many ways, hot days result in poorer learning outcomes, with Black and Hispanic children experiencing a 5% gap in standardized test scores compared to their White counterparts due to heat alone. Wildfire smoke is 10 times as toxic as the regular air pollution we breathe from burning fossil fuels. And our schools are not equipped with updated or efficient HVAC systems to keep kids safe or healthy.

SB 1182 will ensure that the $7 billion we already spend on school facilities makes California schools part of our climate solution. It will ensure that the schools and communities most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change have what they need to make the upgrades to keep their students, kids like my patient Charlie, safe, healthy, and learning. There's only so much I can do in my clinic to help our kids. I need your help.

Please, on behalf of my patients, my kids, all of our kids in California, vote Aye on SB 118.

Thank you very much. Is anybody else here in the hearing room? Like, testify on behalf of SB 1182, please come forward. State your name, your organization, your position.

Mister Chair and Members. Mike West, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, also in support.

Thank you, Mister West.

Sara Bachez with Children Now. Also in support.

Thank you.

Hello again, Chair and Members. Sam Nasher with the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support.

Thank you.

David Bunn, on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition, in support.

Thank you.

Mikaela Randolph with Green School Yards America, in support.

Thank you.

Meg Snyder, Axiom Advisors, on behalf of Rewiring America, in support.

Thank you.

Fatima Iqbal Zubair with California Environmental Voters, in support.

Thank you. Is anybody here with us today? I'd like to testify in opposition to the measure. Seeing none. Let's come back to the dais. Colleagues, any questions or comments for Senator Gonzalez or the witnesses? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So I'm happy to move the measure when the time is appropriate. I will be supporting it, but I do have concerns with regards to... I guess, to the budget. And I think that's the only concern that makes me a little worried about where we go from here with the chances and the goals that you're trying to achieve here with this particular Bill. Also, I just want to say for the record that it's my understanding that it's also adding additional responsibilities to the CEC. Is that correct with this particular Bill?

So, through the Chair, yes, we know we are deferring to the CEC. But we're also, we've changed up the Bill to be able to work with other state agencies as well, so it's not so CEC-heavy. But I think to your former question on the budget, I mean, the big question, of course, in this time of budget deficit, the sponsors and I are looking at different budget scenarios for this particular Bill.

We know that we would be leveraging, as mentioned by Doctor Milstein, billions of dollars. So even in a one-time cost, of course, we had an original price tag of 10 million. Looking at different scenarios where we can lessen that cost, which I look at as like startup capital to be able to unlock federal dollars at billions with the IRA, IIJA. This is a really big opportunity for us.

So, yes, we're in a situation, but I think we could be, you know, have a better opportunity down the road.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. So for my part, this is a redo with some changes to SB 394 from last year.

Correct.

I took a look and I noted that that measure got all of one No vote across all of its hearings. So that there is... I'm always intrigued. There's a constitutional basis for overriding of veto, which we never, we haven't done since 1978. But this might be a good case study. But what is your guidance here, considering that, Senator Ochoa Bogh, there's a budget component to this, but this is some changes, but functionally similar to a Bill that's already been vetoed.

So how should we think about that?

Yeah, absolutely. Valid question. And don't tempt me with a good time on the veto.

Let's do it. Let's do it. I'm in.

I think this is, of course, very righteous Bill. All of the incredible sponsors that have come together in labor and in industry, but also in the environmental aspect, and moms, you know, many of us are moms of children in public schools right now that really see the need we have to do something. The facilities are aging. So we'll continue on that message.

But I think, again, we're revising the budget to look at what we can do to lessen the startup capital, if you will, to be able to unlock those federal dollars through the IRA and IIJA. So for an example, I'll give you them. If you want to purchase and install a 500-kilowatt solar system at a cost of $1 million, it could receive a direct payment of between 300 to 500k back from the IRA. So the return, I think, is pretty significant.

And then to be able to add, of course, good jobs to that would be fantastic. And while decarbonizing on top of that. So I think the return is drastic.

I appreciate that. Can we take that as you're close?

Absolutely. Thank you.

So I'm glad to support the Bill. I know we have a motion from Senator Ochoa Bogh so I'll urge you to speak to the Senate majority leader about this whole veto override thing. But with that, we've got a motion. And let us call the roll.

File item seven, SB 1182, Gonzalez. Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

Excellent. Let's see. We have two measures left. Next, is SB 1411 from our colleague Senator Ochoa Bogh.

While she's coming up, can we once again vote on the consent calendar?

You're just so thorough. Someday you should chair this Committee. If you don't mind, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Senator Wilk clearly has somewhere to go.

Not at all.

All right. We're not doing it.

I'm a team player.

Okay. Awesome. Please proceed. And you are presenting SB 1411?

Yes. Thank you and good morning, Mister chair Members. During the last revision of California's math curriculum framework, 2020 to 2023, many professors and experts in quantitative fields expressed concerns about the detrimental impact the framework's guidance would have on students entering college and the workforce, and how the framework would harm the underrepresented students it was seeking to help.

A recent report released by the UC's Board of Admissions and relations with schools bors area C workgroup found that specific courses emphasized by the new mathematics framework do not even come close to meeting the required standards to be a more advanced course course. They determined these courses would not be acceptable math courses for the purposes of UC admissions beginning in 2025 to 2026.

As a result, high school students who are currently enrolled in courses approved by the new mathematics framework will no longer be allowed to count them towards admissions to college. SB 1411 would task the intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates to appoint six college faculty subject matter experts to serve as Members on the instructional Quality Commission. ICSS goal is to improve student access and success in higher education by providing advice to k 12 educational partners on the appropriate level of preparation for students entering a college or University.

IQC has eight subject matter committees that adopt curriculum based on subject area such as arts, English language arts, English language development, health, history, social science, mathematics, physical education, science and world languages. However, many of these committees only have one subject matter expert overseeing the advice pertaining to that academic discipline. Under SB 1411, ICSS would appoint two subject matter experts from each of Californias public higher education system to participate in discussions around curriculum development and materials adoption.

These higher education professionals will improve Committee diversity and provide insight to to Members regarding k 12 curriculum and course content requirements that are necessary for students preparing to enter higher education. Joining me in support is Professor Brian Conrad from Stanford University as well as Professor Jelani Nelson from UC Berkeley to answer any technical questions.

And so the witnesses you're here to answer technical questions or to present. Please present your testimony. Two minutes each, please.

Good morning Mister chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jelani Nelson and I'm a Professor and upcoming division chair of computer science at UC Berkeley. Today I'm here to convey my own thoughts and I am not speaking on behalf of the campus or the UC. The key word of my testimony today on SB 1411 is alignment. SB 1411 establishes a stronger foundation of communication between k 12 educators and those in faculty governance and public higher education systems.

This is especially important for curricular framework guidance in high school, helping align the education students need to help them succeed in college. By appointing representatives from our three public higher education systems to the IQC, they will help develop future curricular frameworks.

And the IQC will not have to only rely on recommendations from a handful of higher eD consultants, as is the practice today, SB 1411 sets up a process that also includes a high bandwidth connection to the body of higher ed faculty via our formal faculty governance structures that these new IQC Members represent. With this legislation, what you're getting is not only the expertise of a small set of individuals from higher ED, but additionally that high bandwidth connection to those existing structures.

These faculty government structures are relevant for two reasons. First, their committees think very hard about the preparation students need for post secondary success. For example, ICAS has published guidance on competencies students should acquire in high school instruction a wide range of areas, as the Vice Chair mentioned. And second, it is these structures that determine admissions requirements subject to oversight by the UC Board of Regents and thus having their representatives in the room improves alignment. For these reasons, I urge your I vote on SB 1411.

Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good morning Mister chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Brian Conrad and I'm a math Professor at Stanford University. I've also been the Director of undergraduate studies and math at Stanford for the past 10 years. In that role, I've spoken with many faculty at UC's Cal states and colleges and other states about quantitative skills relevant to contemporary college degrees and jobs. Senate Bill 1411 strengthens the alignment of curricular frameworks with the skills needed for the future workforce.

Experienced K 12 teachers and district staff can judge both grade level appropriateness and the bridge from elementary to middle to high schools, but college faculty prepare students in critical ways for jobs of the future. Representation on the IQC from all three pillars of public higher education, community colleges, Cal State and the UC system will provide a comprehensive range of perspectives for ensuring college preparedness. Just as importantly, it will enhance the subject matter expertise required for assessing curricular frameworks.

In a recent joint statement from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the Mathematical Association of America, the importance of the continuum of expertise from K 12 teachers to college faculty was emphasized in the following two ways that apply equally well to all disciplines. Bringing high school teachers and college faculty together to coordinate and implement instructional and curricular practices supports students in their transition from high school to college.

Second, involving high school teachers and college faculty in efforts to create new curricula provides for a variety of opportunities to students. In this way, the proposed expansion of the IQC will enable it to better serve the needs of California students. And so I urge you to support Senate Bill 1411.

Thank you. Thank you, Professor. Is anybody else here in the Committee hearing like testify in support of this measure? Please come forward. Name, organization, your position?

Mark Epstein, California Environmental Technology Education Network. All that familiar with the Bill. But one thing I want to point out is we have had an evolution in our workforce. One thing that is becoming apparent is that our students are beginning to develop a deficiency of understanding and utilizing data and interpretation of data. As our workforce is changing and within our math curriculum and beyond just math content, but across content, we need a more emphasis of where students are working with and interpreting data.

Thank you Mister Epstein. Next please.

Good afternoon. Doctor Christine Isakson in support, and I'm with the academic Senate for the California State University system in support of Senate Bill 1411. Thank you.

Thank you Doctor Isakson, is there anybody here who'd like to testify in opposition to the Bill? I know we have. Trust west. Welcome. Please come forward. We've saved you a seat.

Thank you Mister Chairman and Members, I'm Brian Rivas, representing the Education Trust West. And we're opposed to this measure. And we're opposed because we looked at the Bill, we looked at the package of bills that the Senator has introduced, and we looked at the author's fact sheet and we concluded that this is an effort to really relitigate or undo the 2023 math framework.

It's asking you to go back and alter the composition of an Advisory Committee that approved a framework that proponents of the Bill disagreed with. We think that's bad policy. And I think as evidence of what's going on with this Bill, look at one of the other bills that speaks directly to 8th grade algebra. That was one of the flashpoints and one of the major controversies in the 2023 framework. And one of the other bills that is being brought forward would speak directly to that point.

We think it's bad policy for the Legislature to go back and alter the composition of advisory committees when one side disagreed with the decision that was previously made. We think you should be looking at was it an open process? Was it a transparent process? Was it inclusive? Emphatically, the answer to those questions are yes, yes and yes. The 2023 framework was out for multiple public comment periods over several years. We weighed in with our views. We would say others should be invited to do the same.

And frankly, when we disagree with a decision in education policy, we don't come to the Legislature and say, change the makeup of the group that made it. We weigh in with our arguments, our facts and our advocacy. So for those reasons, respectfully, we're opposed.

Appreciate that. Is anybody else here as opposed to the measure, seeing none? Actually, Mister Rivas, you might want to stay. So questions from my colleagues. Senator Gonzalez, through the chair.

Thank you, Mister chair. Just acknowledging the opposition and you know, I think that's.

I would be happy. Through the chair. I'd be happy to address if that's fine, please. So grateful that he brought that point, that our Mister Reavis has brought that point forward. Yes. Our concerns with the curriculum, as I withstand, is. But I think it's not because of the curriculum, the math curriculum that we're looking, looking at the system, but it is because of the math curriculum that was approved primarily during the stages of COVID by the way.

But more importantly, this has allowed us to come back and look at the system that made this possible, to analyze the system or systemically where we have gaps, why we have deficiencies in input and feedback when it comes to curriculum. This is why this Bill is so important.

Because, because of what happened and the concerns that have been expressed by many stakeholders across the state, this Bill is coming forward because we're realizing that in the process of having the system that we currently have placed that's addressing curriculum for the State of California, we have educational gaps of expertise coming to the table giving that feedback. Hence the professors here today from Stanford and Berkeley expressing their concerns about the system and their support for this Bill.

And just to be fair, Mister Rivas is also part of the groups that were part of the system that made the curriculum possible. So, you know, there's a little bit of a bias in there as well. It would be disingenuous for him to be supportive of the Bill because he is part of the system that made this possible. So just wanted to make that also clear, transparent.

All right, let me, I'm looking for Christine Isakson. I think. Is she still here? She had to leave. I guess that's appropriate. Let me ask Professor Nelson. I mean, I think your point is appreciated here, but I guess my question would be would altering the Advisory Committee, in your view, necessarily lead to a change in that policy. Are there recent policy decisions by the IQC?

The recent. You mean the recent California math framework?

Yeah, I mean, if the assertion here is that this is instigated in response to a policy measure. Right. With a direct interest in reversing that by changing the composition. You know, if we were to add, per the Bill, you know, the six Members 22 and 2, do you think that would have had an impact, and will that lead necessarily to a revisiting this policy?

I'll avoid stating some opinions, and I'll just present some facts that I think make the case that I want to make. The reason that I support this Bill has nothing to do with relitigating the past. I'm looking at it for the future. But if you do look at the past, you know, in Chapter eight of the California math framework, there were certain pathways for high school mathematics, three year sequences for freshman, sophomore, junior year that were advocated.

And, you know, kind of while the latest reversion was being developed, what was happening in parallel in time was resolutions were being put forward in the Cal State system, you know, in the UC system, that were saying, zero, these should not be allowable. Like, these pathways have problems regarding the Area C requirements, the admission requirements, and those people weren't in the room, you know, as the framework was being developed, so they weren't heard. This led to a last minute addendum being introduced into the math framework the morning of the vote on July 12 last year.

Right. And if those people had been in the room from the beginning, I think it would have just, it would just help. It would have just helped alignment. I mean, that's, that's really what I'm here about, is for the future. How do we make sure that the relevant parties are aligned?

Okay. I will say for my part, I mean, we haven't had math folks here today, but I think this is a broader context. We as a Legislature have delegated substantial authority to the instructional Quality Commission. And in fact, we have a policy that deliberately defers to the IQC when it comes to legislation, except in kind of extraordinary circumstances.

So I think I'm generally sort of persuadable that more and better participation is a good thing, especially by Members of the different segments that have not only a direct vested interest, but also significant expertise, you know? So, Mister Rivas, just real quickly, you know, your response to that.

Definitely see the need for alignment. Mister Chairman, I don't think that's what's going on with this Bill. There was ample opportunity for higher ed faculty to be involved and give input. In fact, the authors of the 2023 framework were from higher education, and that kind of illustrates, from the point of view of proponents, those were the wrong higher ed perspectives. This is about perspective shopping.

Okay. That may be the impetus, but I think the broader framework is actually pretty compelling to me. But I appreciate your perspective there. So, did we have a motion? Senator Wilk and Senator Ochoa Bogh, would you like to close?

Certainly. Thank you. In closing, SB 1411 would allow higher education experts to participate in curriculum development. All curriculum developments, by the way, not just math, but all curriculums development discussions and provide insight and improve k 12 course content so students have a clear pathway to college. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We do have a motion from Senator Wilk. Madam consultant, please call the roll file.

Item eight, SB 1411 Ochobogue motion is due past a Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

All right. Now that measure is actually out 4 to zero, and we have one last measure, which is mine. I will hand the gavel to Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Welcome, Senator Newman.

Thank you. So, Madam Chair, colleagues, I'm pleased to present SB 1244, which will expand dual enrollment opportunities for California high school students by enhancing the ability of school districts to enter into college and career access pathway programs with other community college districts. In those situations where the community college district in which a school is located is either unable or unwilling to enter into such an agreement, first, let me give you some background and context.

Dual enrollment programs allow high school students to take college courses and earn college credits while still in high school. These programs, also known as college and career access pathway, or CCAP programs, were designed to expand access to college level learning and to help students accelerate the time it takes to complete college upon graduation from high school.

Giving high school students opportunities to participate in college level courses helps them simultaneously prepare for the academic rigors of college while also giving them a head start on obtaining college credits. Dual enrollment programs have been found to have a positive impact on not only students graduation rates, but their high school academics and college completion rates as well.

SB 1244 would authorize a community college district to enter into a CCAP partnership and provide access to dual enrollment courses to a school district within the service area of another community college district if the community college district in which that school is located has either declined a similar request or has failed to take action within 60 days of a request to enter into partnership for dual enrollment courses.

Under current statute, community college districts are prohibited from entering into CCAP partnerships with any school located in another community college's service area unless there is an existing agreement in place between the two community college districts.

This circumstance where a local community college district fails to take action on a request or denies it for whatever reason, but where that district has no agreement currently in place with another community college, typically a neighboring community college district, has resulted in situations across the state where high schools seeking dual enrollment partnerships have been prevented from doing so to the detriment of their students who would otherwise have reaped the proven benefits of such a program.

SB 1244 will ensure that students are not denied quality dual enrollment opportunities due to provisions in current law which effectively afford local community college districts veto power over an area school district's ability to find opportunities for their students to access this very valuable educational model. Here to testify in support of SB 1244 is Peter Birdsall, legislative advocate for the California High School Coalition, and Sara Bachez, Director of education policy and advocate for the Nonprofit Children Now. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

I want to welcome the lead witnesses. Please state your name one more time and proceed when you're ready.

Peter Birdsall, representing the California High School Coalition. The coalition consists of about 55 school districts across the state that came together to focus on issues that impact high schools and high school students. We are very strongly supportive of expanding dual enrollment opportunities for high school students. The situation that Senator Newman described is exactly the situation faced by school districts across the state.

I have a number of examples where what I'll call a neighboring community college district is prepared to enter into a dual enrollment agreement, but they can't do it because the local community college just doesn't respond. They don't say no, they don't reach agreement. The clock keeps ticking. So with this change, we think there will be an opportunity to significantly increase college to career access pathways for students. In accordance with all the provisions of law, they'd be fully compliant.

They're just with a neighboring community college that's prepared to enter into an agreement with the High School District. So we urge your support.

Good morning. Sara Bachez with Children Now, we're also pleased to be a co sponsor. Over the past few years, California has made significant investments in addressing all of the barriers to access higher education by improving high school to college transitions for more students, particularly students of color and those from low income communities. And so we know that taking college courses earlier through these initiatives, such as dual enrollment help. However, we want to make sure that students are recognized that they should have these opportunities.

We shouldn't just allow inabilities to access because we are not communicating at the bureaucratic level, be the hindrance our children. So, for those reasons, we're here in support and we request your ayes.

Thank you. We want to thank both of our lead witnesses in support of SB 1244. We'll continue with any witnesses here in support of SB 1244.

Good morning. Marc Epstein, California Environmental Technology Education Network and want to commend the Senator on taking on a Bill with this issue with the community colleges in the service area problem, which has been detrimental for CTE education, however, of going beyond the Dual

Thank you sir, at this time we are just name and organization and supporter and support. I'm sorry.

Don't do that.

We'll be happy to, if you would like to write a letter with your support positions, we'll be more than happy to consider that as a Committee.

Good morning. Robert Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce and support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good morning. Dominique Donette, EdVoice and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Diana Vu, on behalf of the Association of School Administrators, also in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Sabrina Means, on behalf of the Small School Districts Association, the Association is meeting next week to take formal positions on bills, but we're recommending a support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in support here in room 2100 CE? None will now go on to. Any witnesses in opposition to SB 1244?

No. Lead with opposition. So, any other witnesses in opposition to SB 1244? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions? Comments? Senator Gonzalez. We have a motion by Senator Gonzalez to move the Bill, Madam Secretary. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, an opportunity to close. I apologize.

So, thank you to my witness, especially for your patience and getting to the end of this hearing. You know, dual enrollment is a wonderful program. It provides not only kind of the obvious benefits, but it also gives students, young people, the ability to experience college and realize that they can aspire to that next step in their education. There's actually no villain in this Bill. This, the original concept, did not anticipate the challenges that school districts have faced.

So this simply, you know, sort of meets that unanticipated circumstance and will provide significant latitude so that more students can benefit from dual enrollment. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, this Bill is out six to zero. Congratulations, Senator Newman.

I believe we have some open votes. So, madam consultant, if you could call the open votes, please.

[Roll Call]

The consent counter is out six votes to zero.

File item one, SB 1091, Menjivar. Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. The current vote is four ayes, no noes, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

All right, that measure is out six votes to zero.

File item three, SB 1248, Hurtado. Motion is do pass, as amended to Senate Appropriations. The current vote is four ayes and no noes, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

That measure is out six votes to zero.

File item four, SB 1318, Wahab. Motion is do pass, as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is three ayes and no noes, with the chair voting aye. [Roll call]

And I measure that five votes to zero.

File item five, SB 1491, Eggman. Motion is do pass to Senate Judiciary Committee. Current vote is two ayes and two noes, one with the Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

And measure is out four votes to two.

File item six, SB 991, Gonzalez. Motion is do pass, as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is five ayes and no noes, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

That measure is out six votes to zero.

File item seven, SB 1182, Gonzalez. Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is five ayes and no noes, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

And that measure is out six votes to zero, and I do believe that finishes the role. Thank you. Thank you to staff. Thank you to the witnesses. Thank you to my colleagues. With that, the Senate Committee on Education is officially adjourned.