Assembly Standing Committee on Education

All right, thank you very much for your patience. This is a hearing of the Assembly Education Committee calling it to order. I saw a Republican here, Vice Chair Flora. He just checked in. Let's see. And we have Mister Alvarez here. Thank you very much. And so we will proceed as a Subcommitee and hopefully we'll be joined with the rest of the Committee real soon. Good afternoon.

I would like to hold off on calling the roll, the established decorum and announce that we have 29 bills on file today. Three bills have been pulled from the agenda for today's hearing. And so if you hear one of the following bills, if you hear for any of the following three bills, they will not be heard today. So you can go home. Those are file item number four, Assembly Bill 29. File item number five, Assembly Bill 2097. And file item number eight, Assembly Bill 2165.

Okay, thank you. There are, is it 11 or 10 bills on consent? 10 bills on consent. They are. So these bills will be heard or voted on as a group. They will not, you will not see an individual hearings on any of these following bills. They are AB 1971, AB 2137 with amendments, AB 2181 with amendments AB 2534 AB 20714 AB 2771 AB 2932 with amendments AB 3223 AB 3262 with amendments and AB 3271.

So you will not hear any presentation on those 10 bills. And we will. Be voting on them as a group. Two bills have been pulled from the consent agenda. They are file item 19, AB 2876 and file item 26, AB 32. So these two bills will be heard as they have been pulled from the consent calendar. Bills will be heard in sign in order. I have a sign in list with Mister Meinschein's name at the top there. Hold on.

As a reminder, for each Bill we will have up to two witnesses in support, two witnesses in opposition, each of whom may speak for up to two minutes. Members of the public in the hearing room will have an opportunity to state your position on the Bill. Please state your name, affiliation and position on the Bill only. Members of the public are also welcome to provide further comment through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. And I believe that covers all the preliminary.

And so we will start with the first and sign in order. File item 20. Assembly Bill 2887. Mister Maienschein, welcome.

Thank you very much, Mister chair and Members. First, I'd like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments. Each year, over 356,000 Americans experiences cardiac arrest outside of a hospital. Without immediate intervention, 90% of these cases result in fatalities. Among the most vulnerable are children under the age of 18, with approximately 23,000 experiencing out of hospital cardiac arrest each year, AB 2887 seeks to address this issue by ensuring schools have protocols in place to respond effectively in a medical emergency, particularly sudden cardiac arrest.

Crucial to the effectiveness of a proposed school safety plan is the increased access to automatic external defibrillators, or, as they're more commonly known, AEDs. These have been statistically proven to increase the chances of survival following sudden cardiac arrest as well as improvements in neurological outcomes. Proponents of community based AED programs, including the Center for Disease Control, advocate for placing AEDs in high traffic areas such as schools, airports, federal buildings, workplaces, and fitness centers.

Equipping schools with the necessary procedures and equipment to promptly and effectively address sudden cardiac arrest enhances the probability of favorable outcomes during such emergency. AB 2887 prioritizes the health and safety of our students, staff, and visitors and ensures schools have the necessary resource and protocols to respond effectively to medical emergencies. By implementing comprehensive protocols and ensuring access to life saving equipment like AEDs in schools, we're taking proactive steps to protect our communities. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

With me here to testify and support is Doctor Rao from Rady Children's Hospital of San Diego, along with Heather Freligh, a survivor of sudden cardiac arrest, joined by her father, Derek from Tracy, California.

Good afternoon, chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Heather Freligh, and I go to Art Freiler Elementary School in Tracy, California. My dad is here with me, he told me to speak clearly and smile and make eye contact. I am a daughter, a sister, a basketball teammate, and a survivor of sudden cardiac arrest, but I almost didn't survive. It is hard to tell my story because it seems so unreal.

But I know telling my story could bring hope to others, and a single story can change the hearts and minds of those it touches. On September 22, 2023 I suffered sudden cardiac arrest in my classroom sitting next to my classmate and friends. I fell to the ground as my lips turned blue and my heart stopped beating. As the principal began CPR and first responders continued CPR, I died and flatlined on the monitor. I was lucky because the paramedics had an AED and I was being monitored as my life signs flatlined.

The AED device recommended to shock me. One shocks, two shocks, and three shocks were delivered, but my heart did not start again. On the fourth shock, my heart finally started to beat again, and I showed signs of life.

Once I was stabilized and placed in a medically induced coma, I was airlifted to UCSF and placed in the ICU. For 24 hours, my mom and dad held my hand, not knowing if I was going to wake up and what permanent damage I may have. After 24 hours, I finally woke up. I squeezed my dad's hand and moved my eyes. Looking into is eyes, I saw my dad break down into tears, saying my name over and over again.

My dad knew right then and there that he had witnessed a miracle. After 18 days in the ICU at UCSF, I walked out of the hospital with no complications and a new outlook and chance at life. I am here today because of the grace of God in Jesus Christ through the actions of the principal of first responders that day, the actions of CPR done by the principal, and the actions of the AED device operated by first responders.

The principal had just received CPR training two weeks prior to my sudden cardiac arrest. The first responders arrived in time with an AED device who were properly trained on how to use it. They will forever live in my family's memories as heroes who were a part of a miracle that day. Now I'm an ambassador for the American Heart Association, doing my part to help save lives.

Could I ask you to wrap up? You're doing great. Thank you.

As you have heard from my story and my survival, CPR in the proper chaining of an AED device saves lives, especially this girl. And I can't forget my classmates who called 911. We are closer than ever now because of the American Heart Association, I know I'm not alone in helping make a difference.

Schools need to have emergency plans and aeds in place to make sure that when another child or adult has let in cardiac arrest on a school campus, there will be someone who is trained in CPR and knows how to use an AED device. I personally want to make sure that they have a chance at survival like I did. Stand with me, my dad and the American Heart Association so we can save lives together.

Because you never know when the person next to you may save your life or a loved one. Please support Assembly Bill 2887.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

My name is Doctor Rohit Rao. I am a pediatric cardiologist and I'm a Professor at UCSD. I take care of kids like Heather all the time in an intensive care unit. I'm also the medical Director of Project Adam, which has been going since 1999. Adam Lemmel was a high school kid in Whitefish Bay that went down during basketball and was not as fortunate, was resuscitated really well by EMT, but he did not make it.

So his parents have taken it upon themselves to continue his legacy. And we go out to schools and provide schools with help with making cardiac emergency response plans in place and make sure there is device is ready to go. Sudden cardiac arrest is electrical problem in the heart, it's not like a heart attack. The heart muscle is a pump and the electricity drives that pump. And ventricular fibrillation is the event that happens that causes this sudden cardiac arrest, which is a sudden loss of electrical power.

So two things you need to start pumping, which is the CPR, and somebody needs to deploy the AED to turn the electricity back on. And it is imperative that schools have this in place so that this can be done within three minutes. Otherwise the survival is usually 10%, which is the statistics right now.

And there is a study for two years in 2000 schools, they found that the survival can go up to 70% to 80% if the school has a plan in place and an AED is deployed within three minutes, because after three minutes, every minute is 10% loss of chance of survival. Average response time of EMT in this country is around eight minutes. So you can see where that 80% mortality comes from.

So I'm very happy and glad to be here and I fully support the bill and hope that we can make a case for it.

Thank you. Any public comments in support of the bill please come forward to the microphone. And while we actually let me pause for a quick minute and take roll to establish quorum.

Muratsuchi.

Here.

Muratsuchi, here. Laura? Addis? Alvarez?

Here.

Alvarez, here. Bonta?

Here.

Bonta, here. Hoover?

Hoover.

Here.

Hoover, here. Mccarty?

All right, we have quorum, please.

Thank you, Chairman, Members. Tim Madden, representing the California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology, in support.

David Quintana, on behalf of the Habematolel Pomo tribe of Upper Lake, in support.

Good afternoon. Jamie Morgan, on behalf of the American Heart Association, proud sponsor of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Let me bring it to the Committee. Any questions or comments from the Committee Members? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Maienschein, for always fighting for your constituents, especially making sure that our school safety plans ensure that people are properly trained and that they have the equipment to be able to respond to situations like Ms. Freely shared.

Thank you, Ms. Freely, for sharing your personal experience so that, you know we can make sure that all students have a good outcome, like you. We would like to advance this bill forward. Happy to support this bill. Mr. Maienschein, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you very much. And respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Motion's been made, seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 19, AB 2876. The motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations--. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. File item 20, AB 2887. The motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]

4-0. The bill is out. Congratulations.

All right, next in sign-in File Item Order, File Number 21: AB 2901 by a Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry.

Take any seat you want in here. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Under current state law, educators cannot earn any paid pregnancy leave. Only after they have used all of their sick leave are educators eligible to receive differential pay when they cannot work due to pregnancy-related disabilities. And in case you are not familiar with differential pay, it is paying educators at a regular salary, minus--let's put it there--minus the cost of their substitute.

School employees are left with the decision to either 'schedule' pregnancies based on the school calendar year or to try to get by with less pay. You know, any mother or father or those who have tried to have children can get an ironic chuckle out of that suggestion. This current standard of pregnancy leave for educators straight up discriminates against women, and studies released since this policy was attempted before now prove the repercussions in equity in retirement.

We now have data from CalSTRS that shows women will receive almost 100,000 less in retirement benefits than their male counterparts. 100,000 dollars less. In a profession where over 70 percent women, that is shocking and unacceptable, and it's about time we fix it. Speaking in support with me today is Erika Jones, Secretary Treasurer of the California Teachers Association, and Erika Torres, Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction for the California Department of Education. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Erika Jones. I am a kindergarten teacher and currently serving as the Secretary Treasurer for California Teachers Association, representing 310,000 members statewide, and we are honored to be sponsoring this bill also. This is incredibly important to me and very personal. In August, I gave birth to my daughter Josephine, who just started crawling. So that's been a bit much right now.

But I have visited lunchrooms, school lunchrooms across the state, and you hear educators trying to figure out planning pregnancies around school calendars or even trying to look at their retirement, noticing that they have to serve more years than their male counterparts. I have friends where both the male and female are educators, where they have to work four more to five more years than their husband because they were the birthing parent. Look, we have zero-paid pregnancy leave. We have to use our sick leave.

And then once that's exhausted, as Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry said, then you go into differential pay. Having children is not an illness. This is a wage gap issue. This is an equity issue. And the time is now for us to do the right thing.

During this time of educator shortage, we are seeing birthing parents leave the profession because of the lack of support. We should be able to build our families without the added stress of exhausting our sick days, sacrificing our sick days, and then, of course, lower pay. And God forbid you actually get sick after you've exhausted your sick days or your child is sick. In this day of Covid, you know that's just not realistic right now. So we urge you to support Assembly Bill 2901.

Joining me I have CTA Legislative Advocate Seth Bramble, who can answer any technical questions, and we are incredibly thankful for the Majority Leaders, the Honorable Aguiar-Curry, for your leadership in authoring this bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Erika Torres, and I serve as Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction for the California Department of Education. I am representing Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and he regrets not being able to be here today. Superintendent Thurmond is pleased to join State Treasurer Fiona Ma and the California Teachers Association in co-sponsoring Assembly Bill 2901 to establish paid pregnancy leave for teachers and public school employees.

This bill grants up to 14 weeks of leave with full pay when an employee is experiencing pregnancy, miscarriage, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or recovery from those conditions. I would like to thank Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry for authoring this important measure, which will have a lasting impact on California educators and their families. Currently, educators cannot earn paid pregnancy leave, disproportionately impacting women by forcing them to exhaust their sick leave and get by with less pay.

This impacts educators even through retirement, with female educators earning approximately 100,000 dollars less in retirement than their male counterparts. AB 2901 will help promote equity for California's educators. By providing paid pregnancy leave for California's teachers, we will take an important step toward achieving gender equity in teacher pay, and we all know that in California, we're facing a teacher shortage. Therefore, it is imperative to ensure our teachers, who are predominantly women, are not penalized financially for starting a family.

Establishing paid pregnancy leave as a universal right is a fundamental step toward this goal. AB 2901, the Pregnancy Leave for Educators Act, is an excellent step in providing greater support for our teachers and educators and ultimately the students of our great State of California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any public comments in support of the bill, please come forward. Again, a reminder: please limit your comments to name, affiliation, and your position on the bill.

May I begin?

Yes.

Good afternoon. I'm Nikki Milevsky. I'm a school psychologist and I'm President of the Sacramento City Teachers Association. On behalf of my 2,800 members, I urge you to support AB 2901. Thank you.

Thank you. Mitch Steiger with CFT, also in support.

Coby Pizzotti. I'm a Washington Unified School District Trustee, in support.

Mara Harvey, President, Natomas Teachers' Association, in support.

Shaye Stephens, President, Anderson Union School District, in support.

Riki Nunn, middle school teacher, San Juan School District, yes vote. Thank you.

Martha Zaragoza-Diaz, representing the Delta Kappa Gamma California, which is a statewide women educators organization, in support.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Baker with the California Retired Teachers Association, proud to support this bill.

George Parampathu, on behalf of the California Labor Federation, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Karen Stout, here on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California. We want to thank the author for commitment to the rights of pregnant people, and here in support.

Good afternoon. Joycelyn Martinez Wade with the California State Teachers Retirement System, in support. Thank you.

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

Connie Chan, on behalf of California State Treasurer Fiona Ma, proud co-sponsor of AB 2901.

Nora Lynn, on behalf of Children Now, in support.

Brittany Ward, third grade teacher at Twin Rivers, and I'm in support.

Rebecca LeDoux, President of Twin Rivers United Educators, in support.

Jeanette Sansenbach, fourth grade teacher, and also FCEA--Folsom Cordova Association, in support.

Jenya Cassidy, California Work and Family Coalition, in strong support. Also testifying on behalf of the following organizations in strong support: Asian Law Alliance, Breastfeed LA, California Breastfeeding Coalition, Caring Across Generations, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Center for Workers' Rights, Citizens for Choice, Electric Universe, Equal Rights Advocates, LA Alliance for a New Economy, and LA Best Babies Network.

Sarah Diaz with the California WIC Association, in support. Also testifying in support of the following organizations: the National Council of Jewish Women, Los Angeles, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Women's Political Caucus of California, Orange County Equality Coalition, Parent Voices California, Public Council, Worksafe, California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, Child Care Law Center, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, and Our Family. Thank you.

Melissa Nance, high school teacher at Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District, and I support this. Thank you.

Ana Petero, Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District Governing Board, Trustee Area Six, in full support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Anna Matthews with the Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges, in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Jennifer Robles with Health Access California, in support.

Good afternoon, and thank you. I'm Karen Humphrey, National Women's Political Caucus Policy Co-Chair. We really support this bill enthusiastically. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State, County Municipal Employees, here in support. Thank you.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU, in support.

All right, any further witnesses in support--public comments in support of the bill? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators. Our opposition is probably better suited for the Appropriations Committee, so I'll keep my comments brief. We've appreciated the comment or the conversation with the sponsors and the author's office in light of our the concerns about the fiscal pressures, and we recognize the intent of AB 2109 and we do not oppose the idea of leave for pregnancy, disability, family care, and other needs. It's the reality of being a human being.

However, there is no dedicated funding resource available, and unfortunately, without that, it means that existing resources from a finite pot of money will be drained, and that means that students will see this impact and employees may see this impact as well. We're dealing with a finite pool of money, and again, our deep concern about the fiscal impact remains, regardless of the good intentions behind this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mishaal Gill, on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials. We oppose due to the same reasons stated by my colleague at ACSA. Thank you.

Thank you. So we heard from two witnesses in opposition. Any public comments in opposition, please come forward. Seeing none, bring it back to the Committee. Ms. Bonta then Mr. Hoover.

I want to thank the author for bringing forward this bill, and very proud to have you as the Vice Chair of the California Legislative Women's Caucus bringing forward this bill as well. It strikes me that we're dealing with--largely--with our educators, a largely woman-focused employee base.

And the fact that you've outlined a way in which we have that workforce severely impacted over the course of time because of the impacts on retirement and cost of living is certainly not lost on me in my individual support for this bill, which I wholeheartedly do--I'm a co-author of this bill--and I also just kind of wanted to frame this issue around opportunity costs and what it actually costs when we take on these opportunities.

My understanding is that whenever an employee leaves, a teacher leaves their position, it costs anywhere between 70,000 to 110,000 to get another person to be able to take their place in terms of the training that's required, the opportunity costs associated with having empty, an empty classroom, the cost of refilling that position. So whatever we can do to ensure that when somebody leaves for the beautiful opportunity of parenting, that they have the ability to come back into that position.

So I think we often think about costs in a very myopic way, and I appreciate that you've laid out with this legislation, Majority Leader, a way for us to think more holistically about the cost of work and the cost of living, and the cost of educating every child.

And the cost of having a loving family around them for a longer period of time.

Thank you. Mr. Hoover.

Thank you. First, I just want to say I strongly support the goal of your bill, and I just had a few questions for you in terms of how you chose the number 14 weeks. So I noticed in the Committee analysis that most of the school districts--and I don't know if anyone else wants to speak on this either--but the ones that have negotiated leave, it's been about, around six weeks. I know there was a previous bill in this body that was six weeks, so just curious on how that number came to be and--yeah. So I'll just put that out there.

Go ahead.

I did see in a very well-drafted--Seth Bramble, sorry; California Teachers Association--I did see in the well-drafted and Committee analysis, a mention of the International Labor Organization, 14 weeks was the standard worldwide for where countries were moving towards in terms of the leave that they were providing moms that are having children. That's where we kind of set it based on what the international standard is.

But the truth is United States is really way behind a lot of the world when it comes to how we support new moms. So this is, I think, a really important step for, as we define the California way for, you know, what we should be doing for moms, not just in public education, but in our workforce.

And maybe, Seth, if I could follow up with you too on, do you have any concerns or does CTA have any concerns on how this like fiscal pressure--especially as we enter kind of a tough budget cycle--will have on collective bargaining at the local level in other areas? Like is it going to put cost pressures and maybe limit the ability of districts to potentially fund raises and things like that? I was just curious what your general thoughts are.

So I think it's important in this climate that we make the case not just for the fact that we need to be taking big steps to address the shortage of workers who are choosing public education as a career, and we know that certainly salary benefits, working conditions drive that. We think this bill is a big step and worth the investment in terms of improving working conditions in the State of California, especially in an industry that's primarily women.

But I think it's also important when we make the case for why we should make this investment to think about the fact that at the moment, as was mentioned by the author, women who are retiring because they have to burn through their sick leave result in a retirement benefit that's 100,000 dollars less than men over the course of their lifetime. That kind of inequity is something that the state should take action to address. So I recognize that in some areas, as you mentioned, there's been bargaining.

But if the outcome has been this kind of structural inequity, specifically in our retirement system, then I think it's an incumbent upon the state to take action and right that wrong.

Well, I appreciate that. I appreciate the thoughtful responses. I will be supporting the bill today. The only thing I would, I guess, just ask is that as this gets into Appropriations Committee, I think there would be some things that would, I think, potentially make it easier to support for more of my colleagues on the floor that may be reducing the number of weeks to maybe--understandably, I think 14 is a great goal, but maybe a more reasonable level.

And then also, just, I didn't see a limit in the bill on how many times per year this can be used, and so I don't know if there's discussions or language that could happen to address ACSA's concerns, because I do also understand kind of the perspective of ACSA, and I think their concerns are valid as well. So, thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you. Thank you to the author and the sponsors of the bill for your work on this. I think what I'd like to do is perhaps lay out the facts of where we're at and why this is such a significant, in my opinion, piece of legislation.

Currently educators, depending on where you are, but according to the research that was done and presented in our analysis, with limited exceptions, do not receive paid leave when they are experiencing either a pregnancy or any of the experiences that are laid out in this bill. Is that correct? Okay.

So with limited exceptions, there are some who participate in the state disability program, which that program actually only covers--as a person married to an educator who had two children--roughly at this point it's like 500 dollars every two weeks, I believe. Is that the program that those that do participate in paid leave participate in? Do any of you know?

Sorry, your question is how much someone who participates in--? Yeah, I mean, because I'm from a world public education for the most part that does not participate in State Disability Insurance, that's a challenge. What we have in our law is differential pay, which I know the author described you have to subtract the cost of what a substitute gets. I think there's a value for employers because there's not really a cost there. They're going to be paying for that position anyway and there's a value for employees. The problem with a differential pay system is that you have to burn through your sick leave first, and that's why we're seeing this inequity that we're trying to write with.

And I was going to get to that because I think that's like really important to lay out so people understand the significance of this. So the SDI Program, from my knowledge and experience, definitely doesn't pay you your full salary. It is a portion of it usually. I think it's in the 500 range, but I could be wrong on that. It's per pay period.

And so this would now allow educators who are experiencing this in their life to be able to take up to 14 weeks, but not required 14 weeks. It depends on their personal situation and obviously decisions that they make with their health care provider as to how much time they need, and that has to be--can you just clarify, does that have to be approved by the health care provider? Is like a doctor's note required? What is that verification process?

The bill suggests that it's really between the patient and the doctor, so how much time you're going to need, but it is for the physical act of recovering from the act of pregnancy, miscarriage, all those pieces that are in the bill, but it is between the doctor and the patient.

So again, because if this is successful, I know that, you know, clearly all the educators here, but the hundreds of thousands in our state, I would look forward to this. Under the current version, what we're voting on today, you would not be required by your school district or your employer to provide some sort of doctor notification of the 14 weeks?

You know, I do think that that could look different in different places. Ultimately, you know, in this--when I was a teacher, it was like if you were out for more than three days, you had to come with a doctor's note. So there may be some variance, but ultimately it's going to be a decision between the patient and the doctor, and the employer may determine that they want some evidence that, you know, this is what the doctor is determining.

Okay. Regardless of this bill, we do have the California Medical or Family Leave Law, which allows you to take up to 12 weeks, I believe, of leave. That is all unpaid. That will continue to exist as a benefit to anyone in the education or anybody who's employed. What does this bill do or say about someone who's married to someone who needs time off as a result of either pregnancy or the other conditions that are outlined in the bill? Is there any--is it just for the person who's experiencing it themselves or what about other individuals?

I mean, I think eventually we would love to include both parents. You know, I think we are kind of cognizant to the fiscal reality that we're facing right now as a state. So we're starting with actually the physical act of pregnancy. So it's only for, you know, recovering from that condition. It's not for the other parent in this particular vehicle, but we would love to expand because I think it's important that we support things like baby bonding. And, you know, there's countries right now where, you know, they support you to be bonding with your child for a year, which is--let's get there.

So then tell me about if you are the partner of someone who would, under this law, benefit from these new rights, if you wanted to take time off to also be supportive, you'd have to take unpaid leave and you'd only have up to 12 weeks, so you'd use the current California Family Leave Act?

I think we did pass a law that said you can use sick leave for baby bonding, so you could potentially use that time for baby bonding as well as the differential pay, and then eventually you would get to, as you described.

Okay. I guess what I wanted to get to the bottom of is, at what point does someone who may want to support someone who needs time off, at what point are they required for this--they pay out of their leave for the substitute? I mean, this is just, to me, when I first heard about this was just kind of mind-boggling that we have someone who's taking leave, their earned leave, and they're using it to pay for someone else to cover for them.

Just doesn't make much sense. So I guess I'm trying to figure out if somebody, that is--my understanding of that is correct, right? If you take leave like this, you're utilizing your paid--earned, paid leave to pay for somebody else to cover for you.

What happens is you have to initially burn through your sick leave. So you get ten--well, for certificated employees, you get ten days every year, and then once you burn through your sick leave, you have access to differential pay. Differential pay--so if I was still employed, my employer's gonna pay my salary.

So when I'm out on differential pay, they're paying the same amount, the employer's paying the same amount, so they're paying the substitute and they're paying me the difference between what I would have got and what the substitute would got. Does that make sense?

Yeah. Okay. Thank you for answering those questions. I think it just--the author did introduce the bill that way, but I just think it's worthwhile. It might not sort of feel like that's the reality, but that is the reality and it's something that needs to be addressed. I will just end by saying, obviously, as Chair of the Subcommittee on Education Finance, we do need to have a conversation.

I acknowledge the opposition's comments on the fiscal realities of our state, and I think we should definitely have a conversation about making sure that if we are going to offer this benefit, that we do not jeopardize school funding, which I know none of you actually want to ever be in that position, but I think we just have to be cognizant of that, and I definitely like to explore more about what that would mean. So thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Ms. Addis.

I just wanted to come in and say I'm internally grateful to you for bringing this bill forward. I lived through 20 years of public teaching, two children, used all my sick leave, paid the differential for substitutes. My retirement still suffers from that today, even though I've moved over to the Legislature. Still suffering, still suffering from-- right? Exactly. Nothing to add on. That's another story for a different day, but just want to very much appreciate that you're doing this.

Thank you.

All right, any other comments from the Committee? Seeing none, Majority Leader, thank you very much for this very consequential bill. As Mr. Bramble indicated, the U.S. is behind the rest of the world in providing this type of paid pregnancy leave. And obviously for important--not just for teachers, but for all women. I'm proud to support your measure also, and would love to be added as a co-author of your bill.

I'd be honored.

Would you like to close?

I would. AB 2901 will finally end the discriminatory practice of giving employees who are pregnant no choice but to deplete their sick leave, a benefit that directly affects teachers' compensation now and their retirement forever. At a time when teachers are so stressed that they are leaving the profession and young people are choosing different careers, we must do everything we can to help recruit and retain educators. And it's time that we stopped charging women 100,000 dollars to care for their child until they return to care for ours. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Oh, a motion and a second? Madam Secretary.

File Item 21: AB 2901: the motion is 'do pass to Higher Education.' [Roll Call].

Five/zero. The bill is out. Congratulations.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman.

All right, next. And sign in order, before we take up the next. Well, while Mister Berman is getting set up, file item number 19, AB 2876 we will entertain a motion for the consent calendar. Second, I think, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Okay. Motions for the consent calendar. AB 1971, the motion is do pass to the floor. AB 2137, the motion is do pass, as amended, to human services. AB 2181, the motion is do pass, as amended, to appropriations. AB 2534, the motion is do pass to appropriations. AB 20714, the motion is do pass to appropriations. AB 2771, the motion is do pass to appropriations. AB 2932, the motion is do pass, as amended, to appropriations.

AB 20 or 3223, the motion is do pass to human services. AB 3262, the motion is do pass, as amended, to the floor. And AB 3271, the motion is do pass to health. Muratsuchi.

Aye.

Muratsuchi, aye. Flora.

Flora, aye. Addis.

Aye.

Aye.

Addis, aye. Alvarez? Bonta?

Aye.

Bonta, aye. Hoover?

Hoover, aye. McCarty.

Aye.

5-0. The consent calendar is passed. Welcome Mister Berman.

Thank you Mister Chair and Members. First, I want to sincerely thank the Chair and the Committee staff for patiently working with a, at times, very frustrated author on this bill. And to be clear, my frustration does not lie with the Committee. Many of you might recognize some components of this bill relating to media literacy because they are very similar to a bill I ran last year.

Last year, the Legislature passed my AB 873 with bipartisan support, which aligned California with a growing number of states adding media literacy to k-12 curriculum. The Bill directed the Instructional Quality Commission and the State Board of Education to integrate media literacy into four core subject areas when they next update their curriculum frameworks. According to the state board, this is supposed to happen every eight years and that three of the four subjects would be updated in the next few years.

However, after the bill was signed into law, we were informed by the State Board that they had no plans to update the curriculum frameworks. As you all can imagine, that was pretty frustrating. However, even if the State Board is not updating their curriculum frameworks, I have been told that they will be updating their instructional materials.

Therefore, I'm back with a new bill, AB 2876, that directs the Instructional Quality Commission to incorporate media literacy content into the math, science, history, and English instructional materials at their next revision. In addition, and very importantly, AB 2876 will ensure that all K12 students in California are prepared with the AI literacy skills necessary to comprehend basic AI principles and applications, to recognize when AI is employed, and to understand AI's implications, limitations, and ethical considerations.

AI has the potential to positively impact the way we live, but only if we know how to use it and use it responsibly. As AI grows in popularity and gets integrated into more and more elements of society, children growing up in today's digital world need to be better equipped than any generation before to understand these principles. Developing AI literacy in schools is an imperative for first step. I am accepting the committee's amendments, but this is an old version of my talking points.

You struck the frustrated part.

I struck up a part. It wasn't - yes, but I want to be clear and state on the record that I'm accepting the more permissive language because I've been assured by the State Board, or I've been assured that the State Board and the IQC will still take this as direction from the legislature. Therefore, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 2876, and with me today is Ronak Deylami, Policy Advocate for the California Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you, Chair and members: Ronak Deylami with Cal Chamber representing over 14,000 businesses across the great State of California. We're here as the proud sponsor of AP 2876. We cannot thank Assemblymember Berman enough for bringing forward this critical legislation, and I don't mean that lightly. I know it's kind of pro forma to say that, but we truly mean it.

Our members strongly believe that AI literacy and media literacy encompass basic skills that future generations need if they are to succeed as workers, as consumers, and voters in the modern world. We all know that AI is an undeniably transformative technology that will have a widespread impact on virtually every aspect of our lives, our society, and our economy, perhaps more so than any technological advancement since the Internet.

It presents a lot of opportunity and promise, from making life saving advancements in medicine to addressing climate change and more. But we also know that it can be applied in ways that are less desirable, such as spreading disinformation. Equally true, we don't have enough understanding of the technology in our communities, workplaces, or government.

When we pulled likely voters of California - when we polled likely California voters and parents specifically, we learned that 39% of parents think AI will have a positive impact on their child's life over the next several decades, whereas 40% said they believe it will have a negative impact.

Implicit in AB 2876 is the concept that knowledge is power. That if we truly want to harness the promise of AI and support both the responsible development and deployment of this technology, we have to start from the ground up. We need to ensure that future generations have the understanding and skills necessary to navigate this technology, which includes understanding its limitations, its implications, and ethical considerations. From our view, AI literacy and media literacy are going to be as fundamental to learn as reading, writing, and arithmetic.

In close, I'll just say it's imperative that our education systems start to arm kids with the knowledge and skills necessary now because it is, again, it's going to impact every facet of their lives and every industry they might work in, not just computer science or something related to that. So again, we're incredibly grateful to the author and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any public comments in support of the bill please come forward.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. Naomi Padron, on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, proud to support.

Good afternoon, Andrea Devoe, on behalf of Technet and Outschool, in support.

Seeing no further public comments in support. There's some people getting standing up in the back. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward. Any public comments in opposition to the bill, please come forward. Did we have public comments in the back there and in support? Did you miss your opportunity? If you like, please come forward.

We gotta get you in a bigger room.

That's right. It's pretty packed today. All of your supporters. Mister Berman?

Yeah.

Motion's been made.

Second.

My name is Kaylee Fulcher, I'm a student at Solano Community College, and I am in support of this. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Arthie Sherma and I'm a high school student at Folsom high school, and I'm in support of this. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, I'm glad we got those two. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none, bring it back to the Committee.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. And it's no more powerful a thing than to hear a high school student from Folsom and, and a college student talk about the importance of making sure that they have the kind of media literacy and AI literacy that we need.

If we really want to truly be a part of this competitive workforce landscape that we know is global and evolving, we need to make sure that our students are armed with the tools to be able to do that in a way that is ethical and innovative in all the best forms that it should.

So I'm very thankful to the author for bringing this forward, enduring the frustration associated with this, and recognizing that we need to ensure that our State Board of Education, our California Department of Education, all of the agencies associated with education, are providing us with the tightest and best curriculum in a timely manner to actually make an impact. So thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair, Flora. No, tell me later.

Thank you.

Tell me later.

Andy, for the comments from the Committee.

You Vice Chair too many committees for the record.

All right, Mister Berman, thank you very much. You know, I was looking at all of your history of bills championing media literacy, you know, artificial intelligence literacy, computer science. As the representative from Palo Alto in the Silicon Valley, you certainly have been a leader, and we thank you very much for all of your work. I just wanted to, well, first, I would be happy, I am happy to support your bill.

I wanted to assure you that, you know, this Committee, we receive a lot of bills attempting to mandate curriculum content and, you know, without identifying various causes, the cumulative effect. You know, every author sees the importance of a particular subject matter, but we always have to keep the cumulative impact on a student's curriculum.

And so that's one of our challenges, which is why we defer it to the Instructional Quality Commission and the State Board of Education to look at the big picture with educators rather than the Legislature not having a full understanding of all of the, not only the big picture, but all the educational implications of each proposal taken in isolation, how does it all come together to ensure that we're serving the overall educational well being of our students?

I know you understand this, Mister Berman, but I was just handed this summary that I believe your staff either has already received it, you may have already received it, but examples where we asked the Instructional Quality Commission to consider subject matter to be incorporated into the curriculum that in fact was incorporated into the curriculum.

It includes things like 21st century skills, financial literacy, Filipino American contributions to the Farm Labor Movement, the Bracero program, the Armenian genocide, Filipino American contributions to World War two, the presidency of Barack Obama, voter education. So that's just a short list of the many bills that we have received, this Committee has received, where in fact, that subject matter has been incorporated into the curriculum framework. And so I want to assure you that you are not alone.

And that again, thank you for your making sure that all students learn, have media literacy, have the artificial intelligence literacy, but I wanted to provide that background, and with that, you have the last word.

I appreciate that. Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you to your Committee staff for preparing that. And it's heartening to see the history of the IQC and the board of education taking very seriously the guidance that we give them in the past. And I look forward to following closely to make sure they do that in the future. And I don't envy your position as gatekeeper of all of our different ideas that we all have. So appreciate your support and, and again, the work of the Committee staff.

Absolutely. Thanks. And respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the vote. I believe we had a motion.

Make a motion.

I had a thought too.

Fonta sent.

All right.

File item 19, AB 2876. The motion is do pass as amended, to appropriations. Muratsuchi?

Aye.

Muratsuchi, aye. Flora?

Aye.

Flora, aye. Addis?

Addis, aye. Alvarez? Bonta?

Aye.

Aye.

Bonta, aye. Hoover?

Aye.

Hoover, aye. Mccarty?

5-0. The Bill is out.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, next in signing order is file item 24 AB 3074, Assemblymember Schiavo.

Good afternoon. Thank you so much, Mister Chair and members. I am grateful for the opportunity to present AB 3074 to you today and I'll be accepting all of the committee amendments. Thank you for those. You know, as a student-athlete, I know how much pride and team spirit come from mascots. And yet, for too long, some mascots have instead been a source of shame and cultural appropriation.

AB 3074 would prohibit all public schools, K-12 schools in the State of California from using Native American terms for school or athletic team names, mascots, and nicknames. Mascots are a huge part of school events, and they are what draw people to dress up for their team or by memorabilia. However, they can have a huge negative effect on Native American communities whose likeness is used for mascots.

Several studies have shown that these Native American mascots have detrimental effects on indigenous peoples, both as an individual and at a community level. Some school teams and even professional teams have already started the process to change their names of negative to prevent the negative effects to Native American communities and the controversy that it brings teams.

Hart High School in my school district just went through a name change process, and they have changed their name from the Indians to the Hawks, the new mascot being voted on by the student body. However, there are still over 2000 schools nationwide that have Native American-themed mascots, and many of them are in California.

AB 3074 will create a safe place in schools so that it makes certain that everyone feels welcome and protected and like they're part of the community, and certain individuals will no longer have to deal with bullying, mockery, and isolation due to the name of a mascot. School is already a scary place, and there's no need to make it worse for folks. And joining me today is chairperson Sherry Trepa from the Sherry Treppa from the Habematolel Pomo. Did I say that right?

Habematolel.

Habematolel Pomo, Upper Lake tribe, and also joining me is Assembly fellow Julia Estrada, who is originally from my district and worked on changing the name of the Hart High School Mascot to talk about her experience as well.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the assembly. My name is Sherry Treppa. I'm the Chairwoman of Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake tribe. We are one of seven federally recognized tribes in Lake County, California. Thank you for allowing me to testify today and to testify on behalf of the Assembly Members who are sponsoring Schiavo and Ramos on AB 3074, the California Racial Mascots Act. The legislation prohibits public schools from using Native American terms for school or athletic teams names, mascots, or nicknames.

Some examples of Native American terms that would be inclusive here, but not limited to, are terms like Apaches, big reds, braves, chiefs, chieftains, Chippewa, Comanches, Indians, savages, squaw, and tribe. Under existing law, currently only the term Redskins is prohibited. As I mentioned, our tribe is in Lake County, California. We're in Upper Lake, where many Pomo people have resided since time immemorial.

The tribes in that area, including ours, have suffered centuries of federal policies that subjected them to unspeakable crime, cruelties, and tragedies throughout our history, including an attempted genocide in the 1850s, also known as the Bloody Island Massacre, led by Captain Andrew Kelsey.

Unfortunately, the town of Kelseyville is just 20 minutes away from Upper Lake, and the event where the massacre occurred is just 1 mile away from Upper Lake, where our offices are serving as a constant reminder of the brutality towards the ancestors of the tribes that lived there in the area. This has been an ongoing local dispute between tribes and Kelseyville community, which unsuccessfully has not changed the name.

Many nontribal people might not understand the impacts that a name or a mascot might have on a group of people that have historically and consistently been threatened, forgotten, and mistreated, leading to generational trauma that really does have impacts not only on our elders but now our youth.

While this legislation affects only schools, it is a step in the right direction toward taking action to rectify the historic mistreatment towards tribes and recognition by this California Legislature that tribal culture is something to be celebrated and appreciated rather than mocked and appropriated. Other local examples in the area that I live in currently, Napa High School, where my son went to school, changed their names from Indians a few years back.

Treppa, I'm going to ask you to try to wrap up.

Sure. Habmatolel supports AB 3074, and we appreciate the spot sponsors' efforts here, and we wish that you would support it as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hello. Thank you Chair and members, for the opportunity to speak today to briefly introduce myself. My name is Julia Estrada, and I am a native of Arapaho, Comanche alumni of Hart High School from Assemblymember Schiavo's district and back all the way in 2020 when I had a lot of time; I led and successfully led the initiative to retire Hart High School's Indian mascot. As of March 19 of this year, it was officially changed to the Hawks.

So it took a long time, and when I share this story alongside the tribal Chairwoman, I'll give the student perspective of my experience going to a public high school that had Indians as a mascot. I was very involved. I played tennis, and a core memory of mine is finally my family was able to make time to come to a tennis match, and we finished up. We won.

And to celebrate the winning of that game, all of my team members engaged in what I refer to as a Peter-Pan-like, whooping call like and I just remember looking at my parents, and they were just incredibly uncomfortable. And I was just silent, and my coach didn't say anything. And because it was accepted and it was part of the school culture.

And I think that alongside at football games of party city headdress being thrown around in the bleachers indicates the desensitization of sacred cultural significant items. And so what this bill would do is it would set a precedent by the State of California that we no longer tolerate antiquated mascots like the Indians, Chiefs, etcetera and that we're taking a step in the right direction by listening to native voices that have been advocating for this since 1968.

The National Congress of American Indians, one of the largest bodies of tribal advocates, has been advocating since 1968 for the retirement of this imagery and these mascots, and so we're pretty behind. A lot of states have done this already. There's peer-reviewed research from Harvard that has recently come out, I think, in 2022 or 23, by a tribal individual that discovered and proved that this imagery promotes the stereotyping of native people and mythological perceptions that we don't exist anymore.

Just like, you know, you'll have a Viking or something like that, a miner, you know, occupations. We're not an occupation. We're a group of people. And so by doing this, you'll be listening to native voices, protecting native students, making them feel more included in public schools, and creating a space where we teach about native peoples and engage them in the conversation. Thank you.

Thank you. Public comments in support of the bill. Please come forward.

Good afternoon. David Quintana, in addition to the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, also the Kiowia band in support.

Pamela Lopez with K Street Consulting on behalf of the Tule River tribe and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokuts tribe. Thank you.

Mitch Steiger with CFT, also in support.

Rachel Bhagwat with ACLU California Action and support.

Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association. We're processing a support this weekend. Thank you.

Kayleigh Fulcher, student at Solano Community College; in support of this. Thank you.

Arthur Sherma, student at Folsom High School, in support of this.

Quinn Oftab, student at Early College High School, in support of this. Thank you.

Any further public comments? Seeing none. Anymore witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the committee. Miss Bonta?

Just want to thank the author for bringing this forward, and I wanted to share some comments from one of my staff members who's deeply connected to this and want to thank Julia, actually, for sharing your earlier story. Indigenous students who attend schools with an Indian mascot become targets for bullying and other unwanted attention. Native communities already struggle with many issues, including self-identity, and any school with such a mascot not only harms students but whole communities.

No other race or ethnicity is so often subjected to being mocked as the mascot. These mascots encouraged fans to taunt native people by playing Indian, doing the tomahawk chop, and wearing sacred headdresses. Not long ago, a high school drill team performing at Disney World had a video go viral with the team yelling, Scalp 'em Indians. Scalp 'em. These mascots do not represent Native Americans, and they do not honor them. Instead, they dehumanize and stereotype California's first people.

It's not just, it's not about a mascot, but what the mascot represents. I want to thank the author for bringing forward this bill, and I just also had a question related to how we actually support the reparations around this. Julia, you shared that it took you four years to be able to have this final naming change happen, and I know that the Commission on State Mandates is actually only willing to fund the cost for school districts associated with just the uniforms.

We know that mascots get put on banners, they get put on websites, they get put on school insignia that are put into the, you know, the basketball courts and turned over. And I just wanted to ask you all, from their personal experience, what the impact of having to have this process happen over so many years, essentially, kind of as cost allows, will have.

Yeah. So, I can speak to personal experience with how our school board did that and through my involvement with the school. A lot of those changes that you were mentioning tend to be depending on the school district, of course, in the school cost-free on an annual basis. So I'm thinking, for example, our yearbook was called the Tomahawk. Our newspaper was called The Smoke Signal. Those items are printed on an annual basis and are subject to graphic design.

And so a lot of those things were able to be made. A lot of those changes were able to be made cost-free, although things like a gym floor, like a - I'm forgetting the name, but - scoreboard. Yes. Thank you. Those through my district are being changed on an as-needed basis. So the next time the gym floor is refurbished, that will be changed, which is frustrating but expensive to appropriate money to do so because gym floors could be up to.

I think our schools was $100,000, and they replaced it right before I started bugging them about this. And so they were not officially fan of that. But a lot of the immediate changes, like covering, we had a big Indian Head on our campus that they plan to paint over. Paint is pretty inexpensive, so a lot of the changes are pretty cost effective, but the larger ones definitely will probably take negotiating between school boards.

But changes like this prompt negotiations between local tribes and school districts, and a lot of those agreements are agreed upon between local tribes and school districts. So, our tribe was advocating for immediate changes in certain areas and was more okay with letting other things change over time. So, I think that's probably how that would play out over time.

So thank you for the questions. Great. As my esteemed colleague has well explained, I don't think it should be left to the local tribe to cover the costs, although I can tell you my tribe has. We paid for the lights for the football field, and we've currently funded in high school, and we've currently funded the spore board for the middle school's gymnasium. All to really promote education and well-rounded children, and I think, you know, over time, with the changes that are being made and that this legislature recognizes, I think it will change for the better. I do have concerns over towns that revere the person that led the massacre of our people. And I do hope that in some time, you know, in the near future, that will change. But this is a good start.

Mister Alvarez.

Thank you. Thank you to the author for the bill, and I want to particularly thank Miss Estrada, who is found fellow in our office this year and really proud of the work that Miss Schiavo has allowed our office to participate in this effort. I want to just publicly acknowledge that your collaboration and your passion for this issue and for allowing us to participate in that way.

I will also think it's important to acknowledge San Diego County is home to the largest number of tribal nations in the entire United States, and so we have a lot of experience with our tribal governments in San Diego. And we don't have a lot, thankfully, don't have a lot of mascots or school names that are. That are impactful to our native communities, which is good, and I want to share that what we've done in San Diego County is we've invited to our metropolitan planning organization, our MPO. There's a seat at the table, actually, for a tribal representation in different government agencies, local government agencies, and it's something we've worked on for many years, and that previous legislators really led on. And so we're proud of the work that has been done, but clearly more needs to be done. That's what this bill really recognizes, is that there's still more work to be done.

There was a success roughly ten years ago with the previous legislation of the California Racial Mascots Act, which made some progress, and this B=bill, I think, makes even more progress. So again, I want to thank you for your dedication and I'm proud co-author of this bill, and I look forward to continuing to support in every way and continuing to share the message of why this is important for all of us to continue to learn and acknowledge the history and learn about the history of California.

So thank you very much and proud to support the bill.

Thank you. Any other comments from the committee? Seeing none. Thank you, Miss Schiavo, for this important bill. This bill is clearly long overdue, and so we thank you and Mister Ramos for bringing this forward. I do have a few questions to clarify the expected impact of this bill. There's a provision in the bill that allows for schools to keep their mas- their name if a tribe agrees to them. Could you expand on your rationale behind that?

So there's currently a tribe in California who does have such agreement, and I think what's behind that is really the intention.

If it's done in coordination with the tribe, if it's done, done in a way that's respectful and not appropriating an image or a name, then it's something that's done in this situation, how it's used, how it's talked about, images, all of those things are agreed to in a contract with the tribe, and so they're able to impact making sure it's done in a respectful way instead of a derogatory way.

And so when those instances happen, then we think it's important to allow for that space, for that, when it's done in the right way and done in a way to show respect and to honor people. But I think for that to happen, then the tribe has to be involved in that, and they have to help lead that process.

Sure. Chairwoman, Miss Estrada, do you have any comments from your perspective?

Sure. I can only speak to my tribe. We regularly work with the county and local officials on a government-to-government basis and enter into memorandums of understanding to address cultural protection, law enforcement, mitigation, things of law enforcement, and then mitigation of impacts, for an example, of our casino. So, I would respect another sovereign government to make the decision that's in their best interest.

So, I would imagine if a tribe enters into a relationship with a county or a school or that is totally up to them, and I would respect that.

So, yeah and to just add onto that really quick, an example of this is, in Florida, their university, the Florida Seminoles. They actually entered an agreement with the Seminole tribe that allowed them to keep their imagery and mask on. And although I don't agree with that, I respect that native people aren't a monolith and that tribal opinions on things like this might differ throughout our state.

So, a key part of getting this done is having discussions between tribal governments and school districts, and so should something of an agreement like that come up, I respect that. And at least there's conversations that will potentially drive an agreement.

Okay. Yeah. I wasn't aware of the Seminoles of Florida state entering into that agreement. I know, and I appreciate the Chairwoman's testimony as well as Miss Estrada, a reminder to me that, you know, it's the impact on the listener or especially of native people and not those that would feel nostalgic about, you know, their longtime mascots. I know, for example, in my district, you know, Guardian of High School is now the Guardian of High School Panthers.

But the old timers, or those that like to signal that they're the old timers, are always proud to call themselves a Mohican. You know, I'm not a Panther. I'm a Mohican. And, you know, it kind of, for them, it's a term of affection. It's a term of fond memories. But, you know, as you're indicating, and appropriation, and it's done without the permission of the Mohicans. Another - I also have another high school in my district, the West Torrance High School Warriors.

And am I correct in understanding that, for example, I believe I should know this, but I believe they use native imagery for the West High Warriors? But if they were to change their mascot, like, you know, to a Nordic warrior, for example, is it your understanding this bill will not prohibit them from continuing to use West High Warriors?

Good question. I mean, it's not, so warriors are not named in the bill specifically. It's not restricted to the terms that are named in the bill, though, and so we cast a wide net on Native American terms generally. But I think in that example if they're not using imagery or anything that's associated with it, probably it would not fall within the bill.

Do your witnesses have any thoughts or comments, either personal?

I would agree with the sponsor here. I don't think - I think it's intent. And should there not be native regalia or any native imagery, it would be acceptable, I would think.

Yeah.

Sorry.

And this bill, it doesn't name warriors just because schools have actually switched from the Indian to the warrior. And it's a very vague, you know, what is the warrior at that school? I've seen it like a Nordic warrior, and I've seen it, like, still a native person. But this bill also allows for schools to kind of petition for that imagery should they deem it inappropriate to be recognized under this law. So if there are cases or, I believe something maybe like that.

But, yeah, I think that's a pretty general term for a mascot that we knew could get complicated. And so we were making sure to include all of the very obviously inappropriate mascots listed.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for sharing. Again, I recognize, you know, the impact, the importance of this bill, and I'm proud to support this bill. I would love to be added as a co-author to this bill.

Thank you. That would be wonderful. Thank you.

Would you like to close?

Yeah, I just thank you so much to the committee, to the discussion here today, and really a special thank you to Assemblymember Alvarez for loaning your fellow to us. Obviously, she's incredibly capable and well-spoken and really an expert on this issue, and I appreciate you being a part of this. And the Chairwoman for being here today and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, we need a motion and a second. Motion. Second. All right. Madam Secretary, please call the roll file.

Item 24, AB 3074. The motion is do pass as amended to Higher Education. [Roll Call]

3-0. The bill is on call. Thank you very much. Thank you to both of you. All right, next in sign-in order, we have file item number two, AB 1947, by Assemblymember Luz Rivas.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking Debbie for her work and thoughtful analysis on this bill. AB 1947 would expand the number of staff training days for California State Preschool Programs and allocate one of those days for DLL training. In 2020, the Governor released the master plan intended to transform the state's approach to early childhood education.

The master plan provides a roadmap to address racial and economic inequities and calls for legislation to require developmental assessments both in English and in children's home languages, among other things. In 2021, California signed into law AB 1363, which was one of my bills, which took the first step of implementing the master plan by requiring the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop a standardized process for California State Preschool Program providers to identify dual language learners.

AB 1947 builds on the progress made in AB 1363 in achieving the goals of the master plan to support our children who are dual language learners by helping our educators cater to the learning needs of our children. Today, I have with me to provide testimony Patti Herrera, Executive Vice President of School Services of California, and Vanessa Gutierrez, preschool teacher with the Los Rios Community College District.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Committee. I am Patti Herrera, here on behalf of Early Edge California, one of the proud co-sponsors of AB 1947. First, we really need to thank Assemblymember Rivas for her continued commitment to California's dual language learners. Her leadership in this space, as she mentioned, led to the establishment of a first in the nation policy to identify and understand the state's dual language learner child population. And AB 1947, as she mentioned, is simply an extension of that policy and her leadership.

Second, we'd also like to thank Debbie for her comprehensive analysis of our bill that clearly articulates the why behind our bill, which is that California is home to the largest percentage of children with the rich and promising asset of becoming bilingual and biliterate in their lives.

That research consistently shows that bi or multilingualism reaps lifetime benefits for children as well as larger socioeconomic benefits for the state of California and finally, that staff who teach and support our young dual language learners need access to training about how best to support their cultural and language development needs, as well as how to effectively engage their parents to further support their children at home.

As noted in the analysis, early learning educators who undergo DLL specific professional development completed their programs better equipped, more knowledgeable, and more confident about their ability to support their children and their families. We simply cannot ignore the need in our state to ensure that our dual language learner children are given the proper support they need to thrive and for these reasons, we ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Vanessa Gutierrez and I am a former preschool teacher and current assistant supervisor at the Cosumnes River College Child Development Center. I am here today to share why it is important that early learning educators receive high quality coaching and training to support multilingual learners and families.

As you are aware, California is the most diverse state in the nation and as such, it is critical for educators to receive professional development courses in order to adequately support our diverse California communities. I grew up in a very small town in Mexico until I was 18 years old, which was when I moved to California to live with my brother and attend school.

I didn't know any English at the time, but I was committed to my education and studies, which has led me to where I am today.

My passion for learning and serving the community drove much of my work, but it wasn't until I received extensive professional development on serving multilingual learners that I truly understood how much more I had to learn and how much more I could be doing for children and families, simply having a diverse background is not enough if we want to truly serve our communities.

As a preschool teacher, I was fortunate to be offered a professional development opportunity to take a course on supporting dual language learners through the California State University Channel Islands. This course was offered as a cohort system that made fellow classmates and educators feel more connected and open.

In addition to direct instruction about how to improve my practices as a preschool teacher, the program provided materials that help make the coursework more accessible, easy to understand, and that I immediately applied to my work with children and families, such as books in multiple languages, cards, handouts, and real life examples on how to implement personalized oral language learning or POLL strategies that integrated family environment and instructional support to best serve multilingual learners.

This program was easily accessible and created a warm atmosphere while also challenging me as an educator and guiding me to better provide services that were more closely aligned with the needs of the children and families that I served, especially those who were dual language learners.

I'm going to ask you to try to wrap up.

Well trained, prepared educators are key to high quality programs for California dual language learners. For this reason, I ask you to vote yes on AB 1947.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Public comments in support of the bill, please come forward.

Cristina Salazar with Californians Together, proud co-sponsor.

Mary Creasy on behalf of The Children's Partnership, in support.

Good Afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, in support of the bill.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members. Tristan Brown of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, including early childhood educators here in strong support. Thank you.

Any further public comments in support? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? See none. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you. Thank you for the bill. Just a quick question for clarification as hopefully this gets implemented.

I'm reading in the bill language that I just want to make sure is not a way out for people because I think this should be done. We should provide this training given the overwhelming number of children who would would benefit from this. It reads that training provided pursuant to the subdivision is encouraged to include but not be limited to. And then it talks about the dual language biliteracy development, but the intent still is for there to be a requirement of some type of biliteracy training.

Is that correct? I just want to make sure?

I'll let our witness--

Thank you, Assemblymember Alvarez. Yes, that's absolutely correct. There's an other subdivision or a paragraph in that same subdivision that specifies that if contractors take the opportunity to provide at least three days of professional development and have a certain percentage, 25% of their children are dual language learners, that one of those days has to be dedicated to a dual language learner PD.

The provision that you are referring to outlines the elements of what research has shown to be effective professional development to support dual language learners. The reason why we took amendments to encourage a program to include all of those elements is because we understood that oftentimes professional development can also promote pedagogical practices in support of the whole child, including but not limited to their dual language learner support needs. So we didn't want it--

We didn't want those elements to eclipse the ability to actually provide professional development that is sort of wrapped around the whole child need, if that makes sense.

It makes total sense and I completely agree with the approach and appreciate wanting to give that flexibility for the different types. I just wanted to on the record here, this language sort of continues and this is what becomes law, to make it really clear that this is what the intent is, that it is about providing some type of training and professional development that is inclusive of not just-- this is not just a suggestion that this is, it's more expansive than this, basically. So appreciate that.Thank you again for the work on this. Look forward to supporting the bill and move it when appropriate.

Thank you. Any further comments or questions from the Committee? Seeing none. Thank you very much, Ms. Rivas, for your continued leadership for dual language learners. Happy to support the bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We need a second for the motion made by Mr. Alvarez. Seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item two, AB 1947. The motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

4-0. The bill is out.

Thank you.

Thank you. Before we go to the next sign in and sign an order. File item number one. AB 1851. Mister Holden, I do want to take a moment to acknowledge. On today's consent calendar was file item number 17, Assembly Bill 2714 by Mister Wallis. A Bill that is cited as Zacky's Food Allergy Safety Treatment Act. I was just informed that Zacky is in the audience.

Welcome Zackie, to the state capitol.

And you just got a bill that is named after you moving out of this Committee. So congratulations. All right, Mister Holden.

I yield to Zacky every time. I'd like to thank you, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee for the Opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1851, which would create a pilot program for school site led testing. I appreciate the Committee working with our staff and the amendments that have been proposed.

I'm happy to accept those and look forward to moving forward under what I believe are some good directions from the Committee. Led is a dangerous toxin. There is no safe amount of lead in a child's drinking water. Even low levels of exposure can cause learning and behavioral problems for children and damage their organs and nervous systems.

In 2018, I authored a bill that tasked the Department of Social Services, in consultation with the State Water Board, with developing regulations for the regular testing of lead in the drinking water of child daycare centers. Through those regulations, the bill testing standard for children or child care centers is set at five parts per billion.

AB 1851 builds on that important work by implementing a school led testing pilot program designed to produce a report around feasibility of requiring schools selected by the Superintendent and Community Water systems to collaborate on comprehensive sampling plan to test for lead and drinking water outlets using a five part per billion threshold, a standard used in many other states, including Maryland, Montana and Washington. Faucets and outlets that test higher than that lead threshold are required to be shut down and either replaced or properly filtered.

Because transparency is an important part of this process, schools must notify parents if outlets that their child's school tests above the lead threshold. I'm sure you'll agree our students access to safe water shouldn't depend on income level or skin color. Testifying in support of AB 1851 as Associate Director of Children Now, Nora Lynn and Senior Advocate for Environmental Working Group Susan Little. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon Mister Chairman, Members. My name is Nora Lynn and I am with Children Now. It's a statewide policy, research and advocacy organization focusing on children's well being. This bill implements a comprehensive water testing and lead remediation pilot program for state schools built before 2010, building on work undertaken previously by Mister Holden and Miss Gonzalez in 2017. Too many children are falling through prevention safety nets lead poisoning screening rates for children in Medi-Cal are low.

Less than 27% of eligible Medi-Cal children received both of their required tests, with only 45% of black kids being screened. A US EPA analysis found that communities of color and low income neighborhoods are at disproportionate risk of lead exposure in drinking water. Educators and school employees are also at risk. Lead exposure in adults is linked with an increase in mortality of 37% for all causes, 70% for cardiovascular, and 108% for heart disease. We know that one size fits all doesn't work for our schools.

The flexible remediation approach in 1851 allows for both faucet replacement and filter installation based on the school's needs and capacity. We have been and are continuing to meet with state and federal EPA, education, environmental justice, and children's health stakeholders. On behalf of California's kids and families, I ask you to support AB 1851. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Susan Little and I work for the Environmental Working Group.

One of the AB 1851 co sponsors. Comprehensive and well controlled lead testing in the drinking water of Californians licensed childcare centers found that one in four centers, 1,700 out of 6,500 centers evaluated, had water led levels above the five part per billion limit, and many centers had levels far above this threshold, 259 centers up and down the state found lead levels between 50 and 1,000 parts per billion, that is 10 to 200 times the allowable amount.

And nine centers found lead above 1000 parts per billion, with one center discovering levels over 11,000 parts per billion. In addition, very limited lead testing in school drinking water found elevated lead above five parts per billion in the water of 18% of school campuses. Keep in mind that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that there's no safe level of lead exposure for children, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that water children drink contain no more than one part per billion lead.

Also concerning is information received from the public contractor that lead tested the water at almost a third of the childcare centers. According to the contractor, replacement of faucets and fixtures did not bring lead levels below five parts per billion and 28% of the outlets remediated.

So as we work to remove the lead and water that children drink, we're faced with not only solid data indicating that lead in children's water in California is an urgent problem, but also questions about how to remediate the lead as quickly and effectively as possible while being protective of children's health. Unfortunately, pending federal regulations about lead and water will not provide states much guidance on how to reduce lead levels in schools.

AB 1851 sets up a pilot project to address the urgent questions around lead in California school drinking water. The bill also sets a health protective goal of zero lead and water children drink at school and childcare facilities, and we would ask that you please support this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Public comments in support of the bill.

Good afternoon. Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. Jessica Moran with the California Dental Association in support.

Mitch Steiger with CFT also in support.

Savannah Jorgensen with the Lutheran Office of Public Policy in Support.

Good afternoon Chair and Committee Members. Lea Jones on behalf of A Voice For Choice Advocacy in full support and also Non Toxic Schools impulse support. Thank you.

Any further public comments and support? Any witnesses in opposition to the bill or any tweeners?

The latter, Chair. Jerry Desmond with Plumbing Manufacturers International. Support the legislation's objectives and have worked with Assemblymember Holden so that the faucets on the market today in no way can contribute to the five parts billion. We are just working with the author and proponents on amendments to structure the testing and the remediation in a way that's effective. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other?

Assembly Member? I just wanted to weigh in on behalf of the California Nurses Environmental Health and Justice Clean Earth for Kids and Friends Committee on legislation of California, as they're also in support.

Thank you. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any? Bringing it back to the Committee? Any questions? Comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Mister Holden, thank you very much for your ongoing leadership to get lead out of the drinking water for our school children. Happy to support the bill. Would you like to close?

Well, I would just ask for your aye vote, but I'd also like to say appreciation to Nora Lynn and to Susan Little for their advocacy.

Whether it's on bills that I've written, but on others who have really been fighting the good fight. And they've been very successful. I'm so happy that they're continuing to be advocates for us on the work that we're doing here. So I thank them. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We need a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item one, AB 1851. The motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

5-0. The bill is out. Thank you. Waiting patiently is Mr. Lowenthal. File item number 14, AB 2551. Oh, wait. I said... 2351. I'm sorry. AB 2351.

Mr. Chair, do I have permission to use props?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I am pleased to present AB 2351, which clarifies existing law regarding the authority of a superintendent or principal to suspend or expel people for acts such as bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, intimidation, threats of violence that occur outside of school hours, provided that the conduct when engaged in off campus is sufficiently severe or pervasive to have the actual and reasonably expected personnel or pupils by creating an intimidating or hostile educational environment.

I would like to start by accepting the Committee amendments, and I'd like to thank the Chair and Committee for their very thoughtful work on this bill. The topic of this bill is tricky. This is not one that I'm excited about putting forward. Can be used as a hot potato. It does indeed question the limits of speech and expression. And it is not, I repeat, it is not intended to increase punitive action towards our youth. It's not an issue I take lightly.

It's aimed at addressing a gap that we have in the system. A gap that's elevated and amplified by our digital world, an area where the victims are not protected and often can only find remedy by having to leave their environment. It is an important issue that is impacting students across the state, including my own daughters. Bullying, harassment, and intimidation amongst public pupils in school is not a new phenomenon.

It's an age old problem that administrators, faculty, parents, and children have confronted and which continues to persist year in and year out in our schools. However, the ways these acts are being perpetrated have shifted significantly from the age old archetype of a bully on the playground intimidating few students for their lunch money.

The digital age has substantially expanded the time, the place, the manner by which students coalesce with each other, and has therefore substantially expanded the time, the place, the manner for bullying, harassment, intimidation to take place. Only a decade ago, school bullying ended once you got home and were safe. Today, many of these activities are now taking place online, off campus, in the digital ether, and outside regular school hours, and there is nowhere and no time that our kids are truly safe.

The shift to time, place, and manner has resulted in perpetrators enjoying a certain level of immunity from punitive action for activities that would be unacceptable and punishable should they have occurred on campus during regular school hours. To restate, acts of bullying, harassment, intimidation between pupils are now taking place 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and a pupil who's being bullied at school can no longer simply go home to escape their oppressor.

Today's schoolyard bully is now empowered to continue their harassment and intimidation via social media platforms, text messages, and email circulating harmful, humiliating, harassing, and intimidating content, not only to the pupil they are bullying, but to a much wider audience of the pupil's peers. These circumstances create an undeniably hostile educational environment for the pupils who are experiencing this type of harassment and intimidation.

I'm going to refer you to my own daughter's experience with bullying and harassment that have been perpetrated both online and through activities that have occurred off campus regular hours. I want to draw your attention to this here, which is a screenshot of a story on Snapchat. My girls are in 8th grade, 6th grade, and 4th grade, and middle school, as we all know, is a very challenging time where boundaries are being learned. This story is obviously of a swastika drawn.

What you cannot see, what is xed out was my daughter's handle, which was tagged in this story. So the bullying isn't just directly to her, it's to a wider net as well. We went to law enforcement. Law enforcement was outraged and was limited in what they could do because this did not rise to the level of a hate crime. We went to the school, to the Principal, teachers, administrators, board members, Superintendent, all of whom were outraged.

And in their district, through their legal interpretation of how the law is written right now, they were only able to use restorative justice. Now, in our family, we are firm believers in restorative justice and believe that it should be the way that we resolve all conflict in a schoolyard capacity at every opportunity. The problem is what happens when that does not solve the problem, when it is exhaustive and it hasn't cured it.

And what we see and what we had to consider as a family is leaving the school. And so the victims are the ones who are actually punished in this situation. Stated in my opening, there's a lack of clarity under existing law regarding a superintendent or principal's authority to suspend or expel people for acts such as bullying or harassment that may occur off campus and after regular school hours, which creates a hostile educational environment.

This lack of clarity is leading to an unequal application of the law amongst our districts. Some schools and districts are feeling as though their hands are tied when it comes to addressing bullying and harassment that occurs outside of school hours and off campus, despite witnessing the effects these harmful activities bleeding into the classroom and impacting campus climate.

Students who are engaged in harassment intimidation of their fellow pupils must be held accountable for their actions, regardless whether the act takes place on campus or during regular school hours, and it is essential that superintendents and principals are empowered with the appropriate tools to address these issues when they do arise and have a full understanding of their jurisdiction over activities that have an impact on pupils in their schools.

Going back to this, please note that it is time stamped, and you see that it's taking place at 6:00 PM, roughly 6:00 PM. If this had happened a few hours early, they would have that jurisdictional authority according to the law. Simply because it happens an hour or two later, they do not. School is our children's workplace. It should be a safe place where they can go and learn the skills they need to be productive adults.

In our own workplaces, we can expect an environment free of bullying, intimidation, harassment, and other activities that create a hostile work environment. And if someone engages in these behaviors in off hours and outside of work, we can expect there will be consequences for those actions. Additionally, we can expect that if we go out with our coworkers after hours or are tagged in social media posts that we will not be subjected to bullying, intimidation, harassment, or threats by our coworkers in those exchanges.

If we are the, individuals responsible for those behaviors and activities will be held accountable through their actions. Our children should enjoy the same protections and assurances at their own workplaces for behavior that takes place during and after regular hours if it is going to create a hostile learning environment for them, regardless if the behavior activity took place on or off campus. I want to be clear.

I believe that suspension, expulsion should always be used as measures of the very, very last resort after all other interventions have been exhausted. I wholeheartedly support and I'm an advocate for interventions that are less punitive and disruptive to student academic and personal life. Moreover, I'm confident that student behavior will change, and this is important, with the understanding that bullying behavior and creating a toxic learning environment is intolerable. In my family's case, once those children understood that nothing could happen to them, they continued. They continued.

I welcome opportunities to work with stakeholders, including those in opposition to this bill, and I mean that, on additional solutions that expand other interventions and implement existing remedies more effectively. Existing law recognizes that a suspension and expulsion should be used as a last resort and that interventions such as restorative justice should be the first steps to addressing bullying, harassment, and intimidation. Again, I support that fully.

Additionally, I support efforts to reduce suspensions and expulsions and have voted for legislation such as Assembly Member McCarty's AB 1165 from last year, which upholds and promotes these interventions, and AB 2351 does not shift this approach. This bill is not designed to increase suspensions or expulsions.

Rather, it's intended just to clarify the existing law and ensure that superintendents and principals have clear cut authority in statute to take the action they deem appropriate for behavior and actions that create a hostile educational environment on campus so that our children have a safe and productive environment to learn. Mr. Chair, I'm very pleased to be joined by Arnedra Jordan, Vice President of Legislation for Long Beach PTA, and Coby Pizzotti, Vice President of Washington Unified School District Board of Education. Mr. Pizzotti is testifying on his own behalf and his remarks do not reflect the position of the board.

All right, hello and thank you for having me. Since we are increasingly seeing that activities and behaviors are off campus, especially online, have a direct and profound impact on our students, their academic performance, and emotional wellbeing, we are here today to ask you to support this bill. I'm gonna share a story with you. My son, he is 11 years old. His name is Mason. Mason was being bullied online after school. Mason loves school. Mason decided that he didn't want to go to school anymore.

And so when I asked him why didn't he want to go to school, because he gets up and goes because he's the only child in the home. He told me, he said, well, I just don't feel good. And I said, let's go back. Why don't you want to go to school? And it was because he was being bullied online after school. So this is important to me. Even though, I will say that, at the school, they did intervene. We did get the kids stopped bullying Mason.

We talked with the parents. What if a child doesn't have a parent to advocate for them? Or what if we, the parents, just don't intervene? I was lucky enough that the parents were like, oh, thank you for letting us know. We would like to intervene. So there has to be something that the principal or the school administration can do because the principal told me, he said, there's nothing I can do about after school. Why don't you just have them block him, block them.

And so we did that, of course, but then they made another account and came in and still bullied him. So it was, for us, if it hadn't have been resolved at the school, the problem would have been then that we would have had to go to the district. So I would like to say that AB 2351 does not impose new mandates on school districts. I wanted to make that clear.

Instead, it authorizes them to take appropriate action when students off campus activities, including online conduct, negatively impacts the school environment, which is kind of important for, especially for Mason, because had we not intervened with the parents, had parent teacher conference, the principal wouldn't have been able to do anything. So this bill provides the necessary flexibility and authority for districts to address issues that are increasing part of our students daily lives. And so thank you for listening to me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Coby Pizzotti, and I'm a Washington Unified School District trustee and a father of a daughter who has suffered from bullying due to her IEP. I'm here today in support of AB 2335. As a school board trustee, I'm deeply committed to fostering safe and supportive learning environments for all of our students, and I felt moved today to testify in support of this important bill.

You know, gone are the days when bullying was confined to a schoolyard and is limited to physical altercations or taunts during recess. In today's interconnected world, the reach of bullying really knows no bounds anymore. The advent of social media, texting, and emails allows perpetrators to inflict harm on their peers around the clock and transcends the confines of the campus and regular school hours.

This shift has not only intensified the trauma experienced by the victims, it's also created such an incredible challenge for educators and administrators tasked with maintaining a safe and conducive learning environment. This summer in our school district, there were two girls beating up a third with an IEP. All three girls attended the same school and were in the same grade. Unfortunately, WSD could not do anything regarding the situation because the incident happened during non-school hours.

This caused the family, the victim's family, to feel so uncomfortable with returning back to the school that they not only left the school, they left the district. Crucially, this legislation does not mandate punitive measures such as suspension or expulsion, but rather provides educators with the discretion to respond appropriately to each unique situation. By clarifying the jurisdiction of the school authorities over off campus conduct that impacts the school community, AB 2351 equips our schools with the necessary tools to combat bullying and create a culture of accountability and respect.

Thank you. Public comments in support of the bill? Any witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward.

Hello, Chair and Members. Hold on. My name is Rachel Bhagwat. I'm a Legislative Advocate at the ACLU California Action. Along with tens of other advocates across the state, ACLU does oppose AB 2351. I want to start by thanking the Assembly Member for sharing his family's personal experience and also those of the primary support witnesses on this bill. Our opposition to this bill does not signify anything about our position on cyberbullying or hate crimes or any of, you know, the situations listed.

It's simply a situation of whether this is the right approach to address this issue. The advocates in opposition to this bill disagree with the assertion that this would not expand exclusionary discipline in the state. Unfortunately, because of the way the education code is written and suspension and expulsion code, there are portions of this code, including the one that is potentially being expanded here, that are very vulnerable to being interpreted and racially biased and disparate ways.

We know that the Leg Counsel's Digest, for example, talks about materially disrupting schoolwork and classwork. When we think about terms like disruptive and disruption, defiance, these are the same kinds of suspension and expulsion categories that we've actually sought as a Legislature and this Committee to reduce and bring in, because we know that data, you know, data shows that perceptions of which behavior is disruptive and threatening are full of implicit and explicit bias.

So we offer simply that, if there are districts in the state that are not interpreting our existing laws appropriately to be addressing heinous behavior, you know, in schools, then there are other approaches that can be taken to address that. We did meet with the Assembly Member's office, a number of advocates did, and would be glad, if your office is open to it, to be working towards other ways to address this situation without expanding the exclusionary discipline codes of the state.

But we do believe that existing federal and state law already allows schools to regulate state student speech that violates rights to the extent permissible under the Constitution. I do want to highlight just, I believe the Committee brought forth some amendments to address some of the First Amendment concerns in this bill. We have not had a chance to review those amendments, but I did just want to share that, in general, it's hard to imagine a way this bill wouldn't have First Amendment concerns.

Only in the sense that we, we know this Legislature has taken significant action in the last several years to protect student right to expression. But we regularly, ACLU's intakes are full of families and students reaching out with schools and districts already violating First Amendment on due process rights. We believe simply because schools and districts don't understand what schools are allowed to regulate and are sort of not, we have not seen the state be able to provide appropriate guidance. And so we worry that expanding what kind of speech can be regulated explicitly in law invites additional violations thereof. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further witnesses in opposition to the Bill, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Gregory Cramer on behalf of Disability Rights California in opposition to the bill. With your indulgence, I have authorized opposition from the following groups: the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, the Alliance for Children's Rights, Black Parallel School Board, Cancel the Contract Antelope Valley, Center for Leadership, Equity, and Research, Children's Rights Clinic at Southwestern Law School, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth.

The Dolores Huerta Foundation, East Bay Community Law Center, Empowering Marginalized Asian Communities, Equal Justice Society, Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, Public Advocates, Public Counsel, the Collective for Liberatory Lawyering, and the Youth Justice Education Clinic at Loyola Law School. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further, any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Ms. Bonta.

I want to first start out by thanking and recognizing and acknowledging the intent of the author by bringing forward this legislation, and by way of just sharing that I completely understand the intent. Share with you that I also had my 7th grade daughter completely transformed because she was cyberbullied over the course of time and found myself, our family, in a situation where the school system essentially said because it was online and happened outside of the purview of school, they were not able to do anything.

And so the exact kind of fact pattern that you are offering with your very poignant stories of what happened to your children happened to mine as well. So I fully understand the intention of this legislation. The challenge that I have is the reality of practice in our school districts when it comes to getting involved in situations beyond their kind of known scope.

So I also have worked with my own children and with other children where they have been on the opposite side of this situation and have engaged in activity off campus that kind of essentially got pulled into the purview of the school system where restorative justice was not an option. Because it is not a required measure of student engagement around any kind of negative action on a school community. It's not widely available.

There are not programs required by every single school district to engage in restorative justice where the only options that school districts have are suspension and expulsion. And those kids who find themselves, as this legislation is currently written, who are outside of the school purview. And I just wanna say that each of you shared a specific example around bullying. Right?

The scope of this legislation, however, reaches into student activity that includes causing or attempting to cause damage to private property, stealing or attempting to steal private property, possessing or using tobacco, products containing tobacco, or nicotine products, committing or engaging in habitual profanity or vulgarity, unlawfully possessing drug paraphernalia, disrupting through willful by willful defiance the authority of supervisors, knowingly receiving stolen school property.

These are all things that are happening outside of the purview of the school campus, the behaviors that children are engaging in that are certainly challenging, but because of the way that this legislation is written, don't mandate, but certainly authorize, the school authorities to suspend or expel. And that, for me, is the quintessential definition of contributing to the school to prison pipeline.

Because what happens is that kids who are engaged in these practices, who then get caught up in a school system that doesn't have the actual wherewithal to engage in restorative practices and does choose to suspend or expel because they have, now, the authority, even though they aren't mandated to do so, will find themselves not receiving education, expelled from their school community because we've given them, the school system, as a point of policy, the ability to reach into the lives of children outside of the school campus.

And that is deeply problematic for me. So while I fervently, kind of fundamentally, like at a visceral level, understand the intention of this legislation in terms of trying to ensure that our children are not harmed by the actions that happen now with the Internets and all the things, the counterbalancing impact of what will happen to children by offering such a broad brush set of activities that will impact children is even more troubling to me.

So the author, if you can kind of work through that. It's deeply concerning to me that every social justice and criminal justice reform group, including the ACLU Action sitting here, is also opposed to this bill. So I just, I just, I needed to just hopefully get your reaction about that. But I'm deeply troubled by this legislation. Although I fundamentally believe the intent.

I can't imagine a scenario where I'm on a different side of the bill from Mia Bonta and the ACLU. It's a surreal moment for me because I'm so aligned and so respectful of the work that your organization has done. It's a voice that I don't know where we would be without you. And I think that the comments, Assembly Member, that you put forward are thoughtful. The way that we approached this bill was simply to expand the hours of the things that were reasons granted.

But I think that you make some very important points. And so I think an approach to bifurcate bullying and specifically digital bullying and bullying activities outside that are putting the victims in a situation where they're not protected at all. And all of us, I think, what I hope all of us can acknowledge is that there is a gap right now where there is no body that can oversee any type of significant justice associated with this.

That it doesn't rise to the level of law enforcement is extremely problematic. And, you know, some of the data that we have that we're seeing in our youth, the levels of issues around mental health and what they're facing right now are off the charts. So who is our village to address this? Who is it? Ideally it's parents, but we can't rely on that in every situation.

Ideally it's the schools and the administrators in the schools, within reason and within scope of what should be allowed so that we don't continue a pipeline to prison, to your very, very important point. And anybody who's in the education community understands in this situation that every situation is unique. Everyone. What the bullying actually is, what is happening with the perpetrators, what is going on with the victims, what is going on with the families, is it sensitive to the community? This is extremely sensitive to my community.

As a matter of fact, this bill is a Jewish Caucus Priority Bill. And what's happening. So what my commitment to you is, is to continue to work forward on this bill with all of the issues that you raised right now, which are very important ones, and to be able to bifurcate those things.

Thank you. Thank you. Vice Chair Flora.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just thank my colleague for bringing this forward. And I want to acknowledge there may potentially be some concerns with certain communities. And I respect that. On a personal note, we've dealt with this, and it's pretty devastating when you see a kid being bullied and then your kid has to go to school with the individual that's bullying her, and there's no consequences. Right. And so I agree with you, preferably this is done at home with parents or mentors, right.

But sometimes that's not an option. But at some point we have to look out for our kids too. And two wrongs don't make a right. And I, and I know, I just, I'll just say this. I just trust you enough to sort out the issues with some of the opposition because your heart's in the right place. And I certainly support this bill.

Mr. Hoover.

Yeah. I just want to thank you for bringing this forward. And my heart breaks for your daughter, I think I appreciate you sharing that story. In my community, we have lost students who have committed suicide, right, as a result of bullying, particularly cyberbullying.

And the way that I view this legislation is, you know, not so much that you're expanding on anything, but you are simply modifying the law that exists now to today's new world that we face with, you know, the ubiquity of smartphones and social media. And so, you know, I actually, I do understand where you're going with this, and I think it is honestly relatively pretty targeted at a specific issue. And so I'll be supporting the bill today. Thank you.

Mr. Alvarez. I'm sorry, did you want to respond to Mr. Hoover?

As a response, it is not targeted at all. If you look at the legislation, there are many things beyond cyberbullying that are captured as behaviors that are within scope, essentially, for school administrators to be able to respond to. So with all due respect, this is not a targeted bill, which is largely why it is deeply problematic for me.

Mr. Hoover, would you like to...

I just, I guess I should clarify. I guess, I mean, you know, it's expanding or it's refocusing what already exists, you know, on, you know, an extended number of hours. I guess that's what I meant. So apologies. Thank you for the response.

Thank you. Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you. Thank you for, first of all, sharing the personal stories. Parent of an 8th grader myself and so plenty of stories that happen on a daily basis. I think I should start off by saying I actually am not entirely sure how I feel about the legislation before us. I think there are excellent points made as to why it should happen, but I also am concerned about true implementation.

You know, every school is just very different and every school has very number various amounts of resources that they can dedicate. You know, the restorative justice movement, if people are being really honest, hasn't really worked because it has not been implemented in a way that it should be. And so to believe that we can just rely on that to address some of these concerns is really not being honest about our current situation of behavioral issues, mental health issues that are being dealt with at our schools.

Schools are losing, we're hearing about all this in our Budget Committee, resources to hire mental health professionals. Those resources are not going to exist probably next year. So I'm genuinely very conflicted about this bill. I also am not sure that schools are the right entity to, I want to be careful not to try to stigmatize or label this, but to essentially police the behavior outside of school hours.

I don't know that schools want that responsibility. Which ones will take on the responsibility and which ones won't. And, you know, with the schools that my kids go to, which are you know, low income, Title I schools, you know, if I would want them to address this behavior, but to believe that they actually have the capacity to do so, I don't think they do. And so it's really, I may be speaking very much right now from the heart.

I'm not entirely sure that we get to a place where I know you want to get to with your legislation, which is a good place for kids. I know that's the intent for sure. And I don't know what to offer you to feel that I can help build on this important conversation that you've started to help us get there. I'm kind of feeling like a parent who doesn't really like what I do is what we can do. We all do as parents what we can do.

And in my case, we don't have devices for our kids, but not everybody can have that situation because people need to be communicating with their kids often. And so I'm conflicted. I just don't know that this is the right approach to accomplish what you're looking to accomplish. And I'm certainly appreciative of the conversation and the dialogue that's been had to try and get me to understand why perhaps this is the right approach, but I'm definitely not there at the moment.

Yes.

May I respond? First of all, thank you for your candor, Assembly Member. I want to restate that this bill does not obligate any district to do anything different than they're doing right now. It is simply an opportunity. If a district has a unique situation that is truly impacting what's going on with a student, and written as such right now, that it's just a continuation of something. If it were happening during school hours, if it was, was something that they would be able to do, that they also have the ability to do it if it were happening afterwards. There is absolutely zero obligation associated with this.

And finally, I would ask, if you are able to support the bill today, we will continue to work on it. Because I don't think there's anybody who's pointed out here, I don't think there's anybody here who hasn't pointed out that their own family doesn't have a major problem with this. People in their own lives have a major problem that's had significant impacts. So if there's a way that we can continue to move forward and work on the bill, we should.

Before I turn to miss Addis, I just want to, for the sake of our discussion, make sure that Committee Members are aware that under the current Education Code, as indicated on page four of the analysis, the current code requires that before a suspension can be imposed, a suspension can be imposed only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct, and the other means may include, but are not limited to, and then there's a list of about 10, including restorative justice.

It does not require restorative justice, but it is one of the options that may be used. But the current code is clear that other means of correction, that a suspension may only be imposed when other means of correction fail to bring about the proper conduct. Ms. Addis and Ms. Bonta.

Well, this is super tough. I can feel my heart beating very fast because it's an incredibly important subject and a tough subject. I want to start from the core that our schools exist to provide education. But in order to do that, we have to have safe and affirming environments for every student. Not just students who maybe have harassed others, but students who have survived that harassment. And I want to take this beyond cyberbullying, and this is the part that gets my heart beating quickly.

We have a student in our district right now who was filmed consensually in a sex act, and then unconsensually, that film was spread around and then was used to bully that student on the school bus, in the school campus, to the point where that student stopped going to school. Happened outside of school hours. Hands were tied, quote unquote. And I would say we failed to provide a safe and affirming learning environment for that student.

I will also say my own child was physically assaulted by somebody who had previously physically assaulted another child, not during school hours, off campus. Nothing was done. When my child went back, they were victim blamed. They lost their friend group. They faced immense hardship and did finish the school year. But again, I would say we failed to offer a safe and affirming environment for that child. And I would offer that for the perpetrator of that violence, it wasn't a good environment either.

Their behavior was condoned and they went on to have other difficulties in their education. So in not answering this, in not rising to the call to answer this behavior, I think we're causing issues for all kiddos. I'm very sensitive, and I want to absolutely respect what Assembly Member Bonta brought up. There are some things in here that I would agree, probably go past the intention of what we're talking about. And I do want to appreciate you for looking at that very specifically.

And then I want to comment also, being a member of the Jewish Caucus, you mentioned this as a Jewish Caucus Priority Bill. The reason this rises to the level of a Jewish Caucus Priority Bill is the rise in antisemitism and the rise in Islamophobia that we're seeing on school campuses. So while some people will look at the swastika and say that's just kids being kids, they need to learn more about the holocaust, whatever. That's not the truth right now.

The truth is there's an absolute rise in hate crimes on school campuses, and it's our responsibility, I believe, to put a stop to that. I think this bill puts us well on the path to taking action that is new, that is different. I know it's only doing a minor change of changing the hours, but I do think it can go a long way to creating those safe, affirming environments. With that, I'd like to move the bill.

Thank you, Ms. Bonta.

I just...

Motion's been made, and a second.

in response. So to Assembly Member Alvarez in particular, one of the things that I always focus in on is what is going to be the actuality of the implementation of a bill, of any legislation that we pass. And I don't think that providing an opportunity for additional suspension or expulsion is doing anything new. It's actually just doing what has been done before.

The colloquial language that we've been using here around extension of the school of the hours is a student goes to school from 8:30 to 3:30. This legislation, as it's currently written, allows for the behavior of that child from 3:30 until the following morning, 8:30, to be a part of what the school district and school administrators have the ability to reach into, to be able to shape what is happening for that child or children within the school environment. That is very broad.

The items here that are included are incredibly broad. And while I appreciate, Chair, you outlining the alternative methods that a school district has the ability to avail themselves of in response to any of these actions, as a school board member, as a mother of three, and as a person who's worked with over 20 school districts throughout the State of California, I can tell you right now that school districts are not equipped to be able to do what this bill is asking, which is, in very plain terms, police children outside of the school day. Assembly Member Alvarez, you didn't use that phrase, but I think it's very apt.

So to, again, I think, often, as legislators, we kind of have visceral responses because we have personal experiences and we all expressed having some version of the same story that Assembly Member Lowenthal shared, me included. I just am very concerned about the unintended consequences on this for the majority of schoolchildren. And we are not doing anything to reinvent the wheel, to reinvent a different approach to being able to address harms that are committed.

And we are actually just playing into the very system that has led to so many children not having the kind of quality education that they deserve. And with that, I will let this one go. There's a motion and a second.

Ms. Addis.

If I could just clarify. When I talk about what's new here, when I talk about what's new here, it's new for survivors to be free from having a face perpetrators on a school campus if the option for suspension is there. And I think when we think about survivors and what they've faced and creating safe and affirming environments on school campuses, survivors have to know that they can go back to school and not face the perpetrator day after day after day after day. They often need a break.

And that's the new and different piece of this that I see, is that we can now say that we could now say to survivors if we pass, and I absolutely agree with the Assembly Member on narrowing this, I do think there's things in here that are too broad. But it's important for survivors to have a break from that kind of abuse. So that's where I'm coming from on that piece. But thank you for, I want to thank you because I learn a lot from you every time.

All right, Mr. Alvarez.

I want to ask a hypothetical in hopes of trying to understand what would happen. So the bill the way it's written is it is optional for districts to participate. So if my district ops, and I don't know how it, what exactly the district would have to action they'd have to take to opt in or not. But let's say my district decides not to opt in and my child is experiencing, you know, that type of activity. This bill passes. Will then, would a school district then, if they decided to not opt in, not be able to use that behavior as a way to correct the behavior? What would happen in that circumstance?

Thank you for your question, Assembly Member. There is no opt in or opt out component to this bill. It is clarifying the law. There's an interpretation that's taking place by each district throughout the state right now of the law as it's written. And there are many districts that are today opting in, to use your phrase, their interpretation, and they're doing this right now. And then there are others, and their interpretations are very different. And so what this is simply doing is clarifying law so that they don't have to make those types of interpretations.

So, for more clarity, so then districts would now be required?

No, there's no requirement. There's no requirement right now for them to address this, even on campus. It is a case by case basis.

So not requiring them. So then if it does happen...

There's no requirement.

At a district where they are not, I know I use the phrase opting in and that's not the right phrase, but essentially not participating, or not... What would happened in that circumstance to that family? Would the district just continue to say, sorry, we don't follow that state law?

If I may. Thank you. So as a school board member, unless we have an affirmative clarification that says we definitely have the ability to do this, we may be encouraged not to do that for liability's sake. So I think that would be one way of looking at this. And there's probably quite a few districts out there that would be more hesitant to engage in some sort of discipline after hours than not. But I do know that there are some that do to that, having spoken to some of them at the California School Boards Association.

I just think... I'll end with this, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak a second time. I think especially now in the role that you serve on that Committee with me of actions the state has taken and programs and implementation, and implementation is really important. And I just, there's a lot of, some of my hesitancy is on that, on the clarification of what exactly is being implemented.

It's clear that there's some behavior that is definitely, I agree with Ms. Bonta, is not appropriate to be reviewing that kind of behavior. There's other behavior that very clearly is. And so I think that's sort of where I fall on this today. I can read the tea leaves. You have enough votes to get out of this Committee, so you don't need an additional vote. But I do think I'd like to learn more to be able to help you in your mission, which is to provide a safer environment for our students.

Thank you, Assembly Member. And, you know, my commitment to you is to work with you, if you'll have it, on clarifying these aspects of the specific activities, as well as Assembly Member Banta, if you're interested in providing that input should this pass through Committee today.

Thank you. I'd like to try to wrap this up with Mr. Hoover.

I'll be brief. I just, in reading the bill, on page seven, you know, I do want to acknowledge Assembly Member Bonta's comments that did list all of the things that are in the Committee analysis. But on page seven, it does make it clear, and I don't know if, I assume this was intentional, that it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to have the actual and reasonably expected effect of materially disrupting classwork, creating substantial disorder, essentially creating a hostile educational environment.

And so there is a standard still, I think, in this bill where it's not going to be so broad that it can be overused and abused by school staff. And so I think for those reasons, I'm definitely comfortable supporting it today.

I'd like to acknowledge that, in the interest of time, I'd also like to reaffirm what the Assembly Member had pointed out is worthy of working on the bill even further. Committed to do that.

Thank you. All right, so my two bits. First of all, thank you to everyone for this very engaged discussion, probably the most substantial discussion we've had on any bill today thus far. I want to give respect to Ms. Bonta for her appropriate comment, comments that we don't want to go back to policies that further reinforce any school to prison pipeline. I know, Mr. Lowenthal, you are equally committed to that.

Last year, this Committee and I supported a bill to eliminate willful defiance as an inappropriately vague justification to suspend or expel students. And so I think it's in line with Ms. Bonta's comments about perhaps we can continue to work to tighten up the language so that there aren't any inappropriately vague provisions of this bill that could be subject to bias.

All that being said, I think we talked about not wanting to have the school to prison pipeline, but we also talked about the importance, the importance of making sure that every student have a safe learning environment. And it's an option. It's a tool. You know, the bill authorizes a student to be suspended or recommended for expulsion only under, after existing code requires that a suspension can be imposed when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct. And so I think this definitely merits further discussion. But it is offering an option, a tool, not a mandate, not any requirement for districts to opt in.

And I think not only for the sake of making sure that we are not reinforcing any school to prison pipeline, but that we are also trying to strike a balance to protect all students, to provide a safe and learning environment for all students, that this gives a tool that we want to make sure we design appropriately so that we ensure that administrators carry out this incredible responsibility in a responsible manner. So for those reasons, I will be supporting the bill. You have the last word.

Very briefly, I just want to thank Mr. Chair and the Committee Members for the very thoughtful discussion. This is what we need. We need discussion. We need to be able to talk about this. And we need to be caring about all of our children. Those that are perpetrating this, those that are the victims, all of them are worthy and deserved of a safe learning environment. This does come from a place of considering the victims. And just hearing these stories, there's just too many of them.

It's overwhelming. It's in every community of all colors, of all socioeconomic backgrounds. It's everywhere. And the truth of the matter is is that our landscape has changed. It has. The way we coalesce is different. The hours that we operate are different. What we're requiring our kids and the way for them to do projects together is different. It's different. So I hope that we can continue to work on this together.

I would really like to have that opportunity. And I really appreciate the comments of the ACLU and the work that you do and hope that we can work with you as well on this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 14, AB 2351. The motion is do pass as amended to the Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Four to one abstention. The Bill is out. All right. Waiting patiently. Mr Carrillo, file item number 11. AB 2245. Yes. Please go forward.

Good afternoon, Mr Chair and members. First of all, thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2245. The correct clinical education, or CTE, is beneficial to people from all walks of life. People may take CT classes to get their foot in the door of a specific vocation or build upon an existing skillset. People may take CTE classes to do that purpose in their education and up to their choice in some times. At some events.

This is especially important for districts like mine, which are outside of the city centers, where building a local workforce is imperative to job creation and economic growth in the region. Given the life changing opportunities that can be provided via CTE, retaining this workforce is especially important. Unfortunately, there remains gaps in the rights afforded to these CTE teachers. Currently, only older traditional CTE teachers employed by a school district may be granted permanent status when employers.

When employees are able to be granted a classification of permanent, this means they are no longer employed at will and are no longer at their initial probation and able to receive due process. Permanency allows for basic labor rights such as notice of discipline or layoff in their procedures for appeal. It does not mean that teacher cannot be terminated for cost or if their program is canceled or reduced. Though this may seem like very basic protections, something all employees should be afforded.

CTE instructors could teach at regional occupational centers and programs do not have them. This creates a situation where these teachers, having no certainty about their employment, are difficult to retain and reluctant to begin or stay working. To be clear, this Bill does not prevent employers from laying off employees due to changes in funding or student needs. It simply requires them to follow the process when they do so.

Additionally, while existing law requires more unit permanent employees to be laid off first, there are several exceptions to this seniority rule. These exceptions ensure positions can be filled by the teachers with the most appropriate qualifications when a lay senior employee has specific qualifications or competencies necessary to teach a specific class. When we talk about the importance of maintaining CTE programs, it starts with retaining and protecting the CTE workforce, who is the sole foundation of the driving force to how we keep these programs available for students.

We need to remind ourselves that without teachers, our students are unable to thrive and access hand on training programs. Some might say that this Bill would reduce CTE programs, which is not the true and anecdotal. It's only just a true anecdotal statement. This programming will eventually become unappealing if we don't ensure more teachers can join the profession and have the opportunity to invest and stay. In that case, we're resolution these programs altogether.

Joining me to testify in support of AB 2245 are Tristan Brown, Legislative Director of California Federation of Teachers, and Dave Rowcliffe, CTE teacher at Montclair High School, Chaffee Joint Union High School District.

I apologize in advance for the lack of eye contact. I'm gonna try to go as fast as I can. Good afternoon. I'm Dave Rowcliffe. I teach automotive at Montclair High School in Montclair, California. I have three CTE credentials, a bachelor's in automotive, a master's in teaching automotive, and the classroom equivalent of two PHDs in curriculum instruction. I have permanence with a CTE credential solely due to the unique vision of the district I work for. I've been a teacher for 35 years and mechanic for 45.

I'm here to address an issue that is fundamentally an equity and teacher quality issue. I believe that the present ed code is in this regard, effectively singles out CTE credential holders for discrimination, which severely negatively impacts the ability of schools to optimally recruit the highest quality teachers that they otherwise could. But most importantly, this significantly negatively impacts student achievement and outcomes, particularly in our population of traditionally most challenging and underserved student groups, including and especially students of color.

This carve out in the ED code is an artifact of the ancient way that CTE classes and programs used to be funded. The funding was largely transitory and thus there was a perceived need to treat CTE teachers differently. Funding today for the most part for CTE is stabilized and thus the need to treat the CTE teacher effectively as an educational day laborer no longer exists. The day labor analogy is apt.

The typical CTE teacher, after 30 years of successful teaching, has less job security than a janitor who works in in this building for six months. The ED code makes CTE credential holders at will employees every day of their career.

The highly skilled teachers that this state claims to want for its children, for the most part, will not be willing to leave the job security of their present position in an industry to take their chances in the insecurity of never knowing whether they'll still have their teaching position tomorrow at will is at whim.

Could I ask you to wrap up please?

Yeah, I'm sorry. Consider the cost savings of a district getting rid of hundreds of teachers within three years of vesting their retirement. I saw it happen at one of the major districts opposing this bill. All of the negative possibilities, the current status permits are actually happening to CTE teachers in this state today. I look forward to answering any questions you might have. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr Chair and members. Tristan Brown of CFT, Union of Educators and classified professionals. This has been a long time coming. We have actually had this policy passed through this body multiple times as part of other legislation that had other components which the breaks of the Appropriations Committee were applied. So we've broken up our policies into separate bills and this is now the standalone one to provide permanency for CTE educators who teach at regional occupational centers and programs. Permanency is a term that might confuse many.

It does not mean you cannot lay off individuals. It does not mean you can't terminate individuals. It simply means that there are due process rights that then turn on after their two year probationary status.

These are the types of things that make it worth investing in this career, because currently these educators have no idea if they'll have a job from one day to the next and know if they'll be able to count on going through all the steps to have their five year clear credential earned after they have their initial three year industry subject matter credential time lapse.

If they're going to invest all of that into this job, we need to invest in them and make sure that they know that there are these rights that stay with them. This is really about having heads up when the program does change, to be able to have a few months or weeks notice of when your layoff is coming, because you do need to pivot to whatever the new labor market is. We're not trying to keep VCR repairmen in business.

We do want rops to be agile, and we do believe current law allows them to do that. You can obtain enrollment data earlier than we do now, which would solve a lot of problems. And the funding is wrapped into the LCFF, and we know what those funds are year after year. So planning is possible under these constraints, and we hope we can count on your support. And I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I, unfortunately, have been summoned by the speaker for a meeting, and so I would like to recess this committee for 10 minutes. So we'll be back. Yeah. So actually, to be safe, 4:45. We will be reconvening at 4:45.

Okay, thank you.

We're going to reestablish a quorum and we're going to keep education moving. So, Mr. Carrilo, I think we were at witnesses in support. Correct? You just finished up? So name and organization, please. File item 11, AB-2245. Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition?

Witnesses in opposition to file item 11. 2245. Two minutes apiece. Go ahead.

Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Mr. Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Janet Sloan, representing KROP, a statewide membership network of regional occupational centers and programs. As an organization, KROP has concerns with AB-2245 for what we believe are unintended consequences for our students, our programs, and our industry partners.

While we fully support and value our CTE Instructors, we believe that AB-2245 provision in computing service towards classification for permanency status would hinder ROP programs ability to remain flexible and reactive to student interest and local and state workforce needs. I want to reiterate that ROP funding has not been direct funded since 2011, so we do have to rely on competitive grants. CTE teachers hold designated subject credentials in industry sectors and must have occupational training and experience to qualify for the credentials.

The broad nature of these industry sectors necessitates flexibility in hiring practices and this is where this is important. New CTE teachers concurrently teach while being enrolled in a credential program. They have three years to clear that credential, which exceeds the amount of time a decision must be made for permanency.

Unlike single subject or multiple subject credential teachers, CTE teachers are granted their preliminary credential based upon their industry work experience and they do not have any previous teaching coursework nor do they have a student teaching experience in that three year period. A partnership between the credential program and the hiring entity provides support and training to those professionals to ensure their industry knowledge is delivered through coherent, standards based curriculum in a safe and well managed environment.

By March 15 of the teachers complete consecutive second year, notices must be given with the intent to re-elect or not reelect, for the next succeeding school year. With AB-2445 we will be forced to make premature decisions prior to the process of clearing the CTE credential.

Thank you so much. If you can wrap up your thought. Perfect. Next witness, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members, my name is Julie Duncan and I'm the Superintendent of Tri-Valley ROP representing the ROCP and the CTE JPA Coalition Members. Current statute allows rops to adapt so that our CTE pathways always stay current and relevant to local and state economies. Industry changes affect which courses are offered and not offered every year based on local workforce needs. Our teachers come from industry. This is at least their second career. They understand when they are hired how ROPs operate.

Most often than not, they can be industry partners we've worked with for years who decide to give back to their industry. I am one of those people. I have been in education for over 20 years as a teacher and administrator. Coming from industry. Credentialing is different, as Janet stated, but our teachers do move step and column every year with a cleared credential. We count their years of experience in industry with our salary schedules.

I currently have 50% of my staff with over 10 years of service, and some are close to 20 years. I am not here to oppose teachers having access to due process in the layoff process. In fact, we believe our teachers are more part of our annual master scheduling process than most of our traditional districts. Because we are regional, that's important.

We work in partnership with districts which for some of us can be up to 10 districts in 40 different high school sites with various bell schedules that range from 1-hour courses of six periods per day or two-hour blocks for three courses that rotate every day or two block courses two times a day.

The districts provide us enrollment registration information far beyond March 15 and the May 15 timeframe, and we then do our best to create a master schedule that works for both the region and the teachers at either the center or at a high school site that meets our students' interests. Without the regional approach and leveraging resources, many of these pathways wouldn't even exist. That's the point of the region.

I believe this Bill is trying to create a solution to alleviate stress and give rop instructors a sense of security.

Thank you so much. If you could just finish up your thought.

Yes. The March 15 deadline is the issue. We do not have our numbers. In order to. We'll have to pink slip absolutely everybody, every single year. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other witnesses in opposition, name and organization, please.

Leilani Aguinaldo, on behalf of the Riverside County Office of Education as well as the California Association of School Business Officials. In opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lee Angela Reid. On behalf of the Small School Districts Association. In opposition. We're very concerned about the inconsistent funding and the timelines. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I know we had a couple more witnesses in support. Come on up.

Thank you. Katie Hardwin, with the California Teachers Association. A proud co-sponsor of the Bill, and in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? I know that people were just trying to get back in. Okay, seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee? Mister Alvarez?

Sticking to the, first of all, thank you to the author and to all the witnesses. Sticking to the theme of which this Committee will hear quite often, me, on implementation, because I think that's we need to spend more time as a body on understanding what this would actually, what our ideas that we all think are great ideas will actually do to our implementers back in our home districts.

And I think I completely understand the author's perspective from the district, which is different than mine, much more urban district, where perhaps it might be easier for us to identify the prepared workforce in order to maintain the programs as robust as those who implement the programs aim to do so. But we had a hearing. I know Miss Bonta was there, our Chair was there not long ago, maybe four weeks ago, on CTE.

And one of the very consistent themes that I heard and that I learned was that funding is always an unknown for ROP programs, for CTE programs. And one, it was the making of our own. The Legislature and previous administrations have created multiple programs where those who are the providers have to go and seek grants in order to implement these programs. And it's something we need to address, probably not for this discussion, but I want to acknowledge that that's a very real thing.

So we do not have, as we did before, when we had categorical programs, steady funding set aside for CTE ROP.

And so what I just want to be very clear about is that, if we decide to do this, I believe, and I'd like to hear from the proponents, if you don't think this is correct, but the last statement that was made by the opposition, there would have to be notices for the March 15 deadline, because a school's budget, very likely, most school districts that I know, will not be approved by then, which means ROP programs don't know how much funding they have, which means they can't appropriately plan.

And again, we heard that time and time again from folks throughout the entire state at our hearing. And so I just like for the supporters sponsors to provide some feedback or acknowledge that that is what's in fact what's going to happen, just so that we all know what we're getting ourselves into as we move forward.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Yes, I mean, we recognize that the timelines for the current layoff process don't always align with when things like the CTEIG Dollars arrive to areas. However, the ROCP programs they were all rolled into LCFF. And then when you have a JPA or county office of ED and all the other, well, those are the two main styles of the ROP programs with this issue. You have many districts that are contributing their funding into this pool. Right?

Right.

This is something that happens every year. This is something that it passes prologue. There are ways that you can see trends. We understand that the whole point of this program is to adapt to the new labor flavors of the month. Making a joke earlier about VCR repair and now cyber security would be a hot topic in some areas, things like that. And we understand that. I think that you can, with some more flexibility with these districts, obtain data earlier.

There's nothing that requires the data to go this late. But we're also open to hearing other ideas from these managerial groups as to how we could meet them in the middle on this topic.

But it's not really data. It's an appropriation that the local school district makes in their budget allocation, which doesn't happen until typically it's May, sometimes, maybe April. But when I've all our local school districts is typically in May. Yeah, you could have data, maybe how many students are still enrolled and growth and all mainly declining at this point. But I mean, I did hear that very consistently from providers that they're at the whims and well, yes, you're absolutely right.

The intent was for LCFF to capture this and we should. Right? We don't do it enough. I think you're definitely great advocates that we need to do more of that, and I agree with that. But this Bill doesn't do that. It doesn't guarantee that funding to these programs, which again, I'm one who thinks we should make it more consistent because it's done on a district-by-district basis. So I just want to, again, be very forthcoming about implementation.

And maybe your last comment was maybe there's a different way forward to how to implement this in a way that's, because some of the worst stories I've heard from people who enter the profession, educators, and you know them better than I, is the idea that you get pink-slipped and you don't know whether or not you have a job the next year. And that's like, we always want to avoid that. Right?

And so if we're going to get ourselves in a situation where the only thing legally just to be able to do this forward is to issue pink slips, I'm not sure that that's also like, sends a good message that this is the profession you want to be in because you never know whether you have a job or not. So give you a chance to respond.

Yeah, I would say to that currently every day, they don't know if they'll have a job or not. We did ask our members if this led to you getting pink-slipped every season. You know, should we modify this? They said no. The due process rights on balance are worth going through a struggle at first to clear, then gain clarity later on and move forward. And again, if we can, we're happy to entertain ideas, to relax that, and figure out new methods.

But, you know, we have just done this with adult education implementation without any issues, and we heard a lot of the same feedback from that. I don't want to say these are completely both apples to apples, but in terms of implementation, it was a lot of the same.

Can I ask the, maybe to both? You are been doing this for 35 years, I think you said in your testimony. Thank you for sharing that. What happens on an annual basis to you now.

Nothing

You don't receive a notification of a pink slip because you're not a. You're a temporary employee. Is that what you're classified as?

No. In my district, they had the unique vision of realizing that if they wanted to keep a highly qualified teacher like me, they would have to give me permanent.

Is that the case for every one of your CET teachers or just some.

No, that's only the case in my district. I was gonna say there's a similar situation with final enrollment numbers at a high school. If we don't know what the final enrollment numbers are, we don't know how many math teachers will take. So if the enrollment is down, some math teacher is going to get cut or they're going to get reassigned. And his example about VCR, you know, I've got a construction credential. I'm an electrician.

But if they don't want to teach electrician anymore or say there's no more electrical, they can make me teach concrete, they can make me teach framing. And if I refuse or say I just don't know how to do it.

With all due respect, with you will always know more than I do on, you know, another trade. Isn't though, the intent of CTE of people like you that you bring in the most qualified to do that. So if you're not doing electrical, for whatever reason, moving you just to do construction, the spirit of people who do CET, who I have talked to, they all believe it should be people who are either have been practitioners and are moving into the classroom.

And so again, you probably would be qualified, but that's not the case in every instance, I think.

Well, sure, but the problem is you got a whole bunch of mechanics. I know a bunch of mechanics that work at municipalities. They've been there 20 years. They have job seniority. Why would they. They're terrified to leave that job where they have job security to come into the teaching profession where they would be brilliant superstars. But now they're day laborers. They aren't going to do that. And as a result, the quality of instructor you get is probably going to way worse.

And to my point earlier, I'm just wondering if giving them a pink slip, because this is really what this leads to, I think from what I've heard, no matter what. Does that make them feel like it's a job security?

It wouldn't really work that way. For instance, how many automotive teachers do you have? Four or five. The new rules would give seniority to the older ones. So the only ones that would get pink slips would be the earliest, the latest hired.

To the folks who run the programs. I don't know if you want to provide any response to any of the comments or questions that I've made.

Yes. Well, first, thank you for bringing up the dedicated funding. That was part of what I was going to say. We do not have dedicated funding. When LCFF came about, a lot of the CT and RCP programs around the state had to close because districts locally, as they were entitled to, made other decisions. And so with the ROPs that are around, we're a big group in the State of California. We still don't have that direct funding. The districts make the decision.

We are basically flat-funded from what they received. And then we rely on CTEIG and strong workforce grants that are competitive to keep our programs going. So I really appreciate you bringing that point up. And as to the point about districts being able to get our numbers earlier, there's just, again, you're working with multiple districts up to 10-40 different high schools. Their registration process timelines are from January to March.

And then once you get all those numbers, then you have to figure out, can my one teacher go from Dublin High School to Livermore High school? Because that's what's going to get that teacher their full time job. They may have the numbers for it, but they physically can't get there. It is a really big puzzle that is never going to be done before March 15 and May 15. But we're working with that teacher all along, letting them know where they're at.

And with this competitive funding, we still don't know to that. Also that point, we applied for some of the dual enrollment grants that have just been put out, and they were due last Friday. We won't even know until April if we get those. And so a teacher that I have, I have an example right now where he's a 1.0, but he might be a 0.80 because he physically can't get to the other high school with the numbers that I have.

I've already, we've been talking, and he would love to work on that dual enrollment project, but I won't know that until I get that grant so I can give that teacher that release period. In my 13 years as a Superintendent, I have never laid off a teacher after March 15 and their full assignment due to the lack of the numbers, I have partially done a section and tried to fill it with a teacher on special assignment.

And I have talked to my colleagues before I made that statement today and asked them, out of all the superintendents I spoke with, very few who have actually done that. And in talking to my teachers on March 15, pink slip, a lot of them said, why? That just gives me more stress. Why wouldn't I just go back to industry? They feel permanent right now because they, they've been there 20-15 years. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, I have full confidence after the hearing that the Chair organized and our Subcommittee participated in that. Our ROP folks, the leadership, are just tremendous. I mean, they make magic happen with not a lot of resource, as a lot of educators do, but definitely these programs with no real consistency, complicated processes. I feel strongly that they will figure this out. I do encourage and ask that, as was stated by the sponsors, that this might require further thinking through the implementation process.

Again, we have good intentions in our policy, but when it gets implemented, it gets a little bit more complicated. And I like to explain. I don't know what that would be, you know, whether it's looking at a different date, maybe for these programs, March 15 maybe is not adequate. Maybe we shouldn't do March 15 at all. Some people have an opinion on that. Maybe it's focusing on getting more consistent funding to the CET program so that they can actually do this.

That's probably the best thing we could do, and we should probably talk about accomplishing that with this policy goal. Those would be my suggested, my suggested approach as this moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you. I see some hands going up, but I'm going to exercise my prerogative to jump the line here. And first of all, thank you very much to the Committee Members for your patience. The reason why I wanted to be here for this discussion, because I've been spending a lot of time with staff discussing this. Very complicated. This is more complicated than it appears.

And I appreciate the Chair of our Budget Subcommittee, after our hearing on career technical education, that you fully appreciate the complexity of, of the situation. This is much more than just, you know. Well, let me start off by saying that I'm 100% labor. I just got one of those bobbleheads a few weeks ago for being 100% labor.

But this Bill is really tearing me apart because, you know, I'm really concer ned about, it's not just a matter of giving due process rights to all teachers, which of course I want to support as a matter of principle. Every teacher deserves to have due process rights. But if it risks the existence of these regional career technical education programs, then I had a chance to talk with Mr. Carillo. The Author.

His intent is to support more CTE programs, such as in Palmdale, to support more sheet metal workers, to support his aerospace industry. But this, I am concerned as a former Board Member of a regional occupational center, that this may undermine the viability of these programs. Precisely because, you know, I was on the Board of the ROCP. So I know that it doesn't receive direct funding, it relies on the Member Districts giving their funding to the regional program.

You know, where the normal inclination is that the Member Districts would want to keep the money for themselves, and then on top of that they rely on these grants. And so the funding is already more complicated than adult Ed programs. And the essence of our CTE programs is that flexibility to be able to adjust the programs to the local workforce needs of the community.

So, you know, if a ROCP in Palmdale, you know, was not able to reclassify a class from auto mechanics to sheet metal, you know, that is not meeting the goal of the CTE program. So, I just wanted the Committee to appreciate that. I'm hoping I set this Bill for a hearing because I didn't want to kill the Bill. I wanted the conversations to go forward. But I'm hoping that. Mr. Brown, you said you don't want to kill the goose.

No one has an interest in killing these ROCP programs. Maybe the goose is the wrong example or wrong metaphor, but we want, the goal should be to provide due process protections for all teachers, while at the same time not threatening or undermining the viability of these regional CTE programs. And that is why I have a none recommendation for this Bill. And I plan on abstaining so I wanted to share that with the Committee, for whatever it's worth.

I saw Miss Addis, I saw Mr. Flora and Mister Hoover. Okay, Miss Addis.

Did he move the Bill?

Mr. Flora moved the Bill. And I think you seconded.

I already seconded. No, I'll just say the reason I support the Bill, when I look at this, just to super simplify it, school districts value these teachers, children value these programs, and yet these teachers don't have a pathway to permanency. And so at its core, people need to feel like they have a pathway to permanency.

That's what I've heard over and over across my career, is that folks like yourself who have these special skills want to know that they're going to have some security as they've had out in the private sector, simply because of their skills. But the system hasn't allowed them to have that. So that's why I'm supporting it.

Mr. Hoover.

Thank you. Really appreciate bringing the Bill forward. I'm not going to be able to support it today. I think, you know, I really remain concerned about the impact that it's going to have on teachers themselves, and particularly new teachers. I know my time on a school board, March 15 was the hardest time of the year, because you have to make so many difficult decisions as an administrator.