Assembly Standing Committee on Education

Okay, I'd like to call this meeting to order. Good afternoon, everyone. This is a hearing of the Assembly Education Committee and I'd like to welcome our Vice Chair, Assembly Member Flora, and would like to encourage all of the rest of the Committee to please come to room 1100 so that we can establish a quorum. I'd like to start off by saying that we have 17 bills on file. 17 bills.

And there are seven bills on consent, which means they'll be taken up as a group and you will not hear any presentations or any discussions on any of the filings. Bills. The seven bills on the consent calendar are AB 2165 with amendments, AB 2317, AB 2381, AB 2690, AB 2725 with amendments, AB 2961 with amendments, and AB 2968 with amendments. Those bills if you're here for any of those bills, you will not hear any presentation or discussion on those bills.

When we establish a quorum, we'll be voting to approve those bills as a group. One Bill has been pulled and will not be heard today. That Bill is file item number five, AB 2097. So if you're here for AB 2097, that was on computer science. That will not be discussed today and so you can go home if that was your only Bill, although you're welcome to stay for the rest of the bills. Bills will be heard and signed in order.

We have Assemblymember Weber first on the list of the signup. Before we invite Assemblymember Weber to come forward, I'd like to remind everyone that for each Bill, our standard procedure is that we have up to two witnesses in support, two witnesses in opposition, each of whom may speak for up to two minutes each.

Members of the public in the hearing room will then have an opportunity to state your position on the Bill, but please limit your comments to your name, your affiliation, and the position your position on the Bill only. Members of the public are also welcome to provide further detailed comment through the position letter portal on the Assembly education Committee website. I'd like to also indicate that we have had recently experienced a number of disruptions in our hearing proceedings.

Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is strictly prohibited. Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening or abusive language, speaking longer than the time allotted, extended discussion of matters not related to the subject matter of the Bill or hearing, or any other disruptive conduct. To address any disruptive conduct, I will have to take the following steps.

If an individual disrupts our hearing, I will direct them first to stop and to warn them that continued disruptions may result in removal from the capitol building. We will also document on the record the individual involved and the nature of the disruptive conduct. And if the conduct does not stop, we will have to request the assistance of the sergeants in the room in escorting individuals from the Capitol building.

So with all that said, I'd like to welcome assemblymember Weber to present Assembly Bill 1984 which is file item number three. Welcome, Assemblymember. Is that working? It was. There we go.

Ok. All right. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of this Committee. Thank you, Committee Chair and Staff, for your thoughtful conversations, and I will be accepting the Committee amendments. I am here to present AB 1984, which seeks to expand transparency between schools and the families that they serve by requiring the California Department of Education to collect and publish data on transfers to alternative schools. Alternative schools can range from continuation and community schools to juvenile court or independent charters.

A recent report found that these types of transfers represent a large hidden share of California's exclusionary discipline for behavior problems. While suspension and expulsion data are required to be publicly reported, there is no such requirement for transfers. Families and advocates insist that leas increasingly rely on voluntary and involuntary transfer as a means of forcing students out of school campuses, calling involuntary transfers expulsions by another name.

While expulsions are required to have a hearing with due process appeal rights or proof that other means of correction were used. Transfers have no meaningful accountability or clear disclosure. These types of transfers disproportionately impact students of color, foster youth, and students with disabilities. A recent public report, request of district data on enrollment versus transfers found that black students were overrepresented in the transfer data for discipline reasons.

Findings in Oakland Unified, for example, that Black students represent 23% of the enrollment but 48% of disciplinary transfers. Moreover, transfers to alternative schools heavily disrupt a child's education and, more often than not, less supported at schools with less curricular activities and have severe negative impact on a student's college readiness and outcome.

These staggering figures and stories from families and advocates are exactly why the California Reparations Task Force made this one of their policy reparations to address separate and unequal education. With me here today to speak and support is Doctor J. Luke Wood, President at Sacramento State, and Mona Tawatao from Equal Justice Society. Thank you.

Thank you.

So I'm here. My name is Luke and serve as President of Sacramento State and not here on behalf of Sacramento State, but on behalf of the work that we've done for many years as researchers in support of AB 1984. So our work is focused through our center at San Diego State before my transition here with Frank Harris on exclusionary discipline for students across the State of California. So that includes suspensions, school suspensions, which can be in school or out of school. It includes expulsions.

It can include simple things like a loss of recess or not being able to participate in extracurricular activities. The holistic array in which children are excluded from learning environments. And one of the things that, one of the reasons that we come to this work is because what exclusionary discipline means for what is oftentimes referred to as the school to prison pipeline. So in the scholar realm, when we talk about the school to prison pipeline, we're looking primarily at two factors.

The first is over representation in special education for students who are not in need of that service. And then the second pillar is overexposure to exclusionary discipline, suspensions, expulsions, transfers. And those two serve as the two pillars to the criminal justice system, first through over representation in the juvenile justice and juvenile court system, and then eventually in the criminal justice system. The work on volunteering involuntary transfers is one that is not near what we're seeing in terms of suspensions and expulsions.

Because the state level data is available, groups like ours oftentimes produce reports that are then used for public accountability and have led to some significant changes across the state. The work on suspensions with the Legislature, for example, has led to reductions in suspensions across the state because people are more aware and the data is more readily available. What happens with voluntary and involuntary transfers is because the data is not available. It is a black box that oftentimes we don't know what happens except anecdotally.

Through conversations with families, we've collected data from over 1000 parents of black children. And one of the big themes that came out in one of the research studies that we did was that students were being where families were being encouraged to take their children to another environment. And oftentimes when we think about this, you maybe think about kids in high school or middle school.

Actually, what we found is really in kindergarten through third grade is a big pattern of this, where you have a student, the educators in that environment don't want them in that environment. And so a voluntary transfer could be them saying, hey, why don't you go to this other school? Because we don't want to put an expulsion on your record because that could really hurt you. And then that creates a situation where now they've circumvented all the policies and practices, there is no due process.

And this happens. And in fact, as we were working on one of our research studies on this, one of the researchers on the team, they had a family Member, one of their children, who was subject to an involuntary transfer based upon factors that did not occur. But there was no recourse and no follow up. It was just an involuntary transfer.

Sir, your two minutes are up. Going to ask you to wrap up.

So very much in support of the Bill.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Mona. Good afternoon. Mona Tawatao of the Equal Justice Society in support too often in our work as a civil rights and racial justice organization, we see California school districts wrongfully force students from general education into alternative or continuation schools, where they do far worse in graduation rates and academically overall. By making data on transfers publicly available, AB 1984 would increase parents and students ability to hold school districts accountable. The Legislature recognizes expulsions as severe discipline.

We see districts can and do use transfers as described as De facto expulsions because of due process loopholes in our school transfer laws. For instance, districts are allowed to give parents very short notice of involuntary transfer hearing, so working parents are forced to choose between bad job consequences and showing up to support their child to stay in General education. It's important for parents, students and community groups like those we work with to have public data on this.

In a discriminatory discipline case against the Antelope Valley Union High School District, it took our team of co counsel attorneys many formal demands over months to obtain data that showed that that district had many more transfers than its already high number of expulsions, that students with disabilities were more than twice as likely to be transferred for discipline than non disabled students, and that Black students were five times more likely to be so transferred than their peers.

Public data on transfers may have helped parent and student plaintiffs in that case obtain the partial court relief they got sooner. In a similar case against Kern High School District and other defendants, there were significant drops in overall suspension and suspension of Latino students after the litigation was brought. But like whack a mole, there was indication of discipline cropping up in the form of transfers instead, especially for Black students, public data in that case might have helped achieve a better outcome.

Both these school districts have also conflated voluntary and involuntary transfers, enabling districts to appear that their harsh discipline is less prevalent than it actually is. SB 19804's requirement to disaggregate parent guardian student initiated transfers, distinct from district initiated transfers, is an important way to address this. Wrapping up transfers in California, schools are operating as discipline like suspensions and expulsions. They should be publicly reported. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any public comments in support of the Bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to this Bill? Please come forward. Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bringing back to the Committee, motion's been made. Oh, we have not established a quorum yet, and so we will wait to do that. But in the meantime, any questions or any comments? Okay, I have a question. Well, first of all, thank you very much for this important measure. I think, absolutely.

We need to have, at the very start, more data to document what exactly is happening so that we can have a better understanding of the nature of the problem. But, I mean, from data that's available now, are there any overarching themes or patterns that you've identified in your research in terms of what is driving the disproportionate rates of student discipline in various subgroups?

Well, there's a number of factors that involve this. So some of it is really, if you're thinking about the underlying factor that a lot of our teachers aren't necessarily prepared to work with or children of color. And if you think about, you know, your average teacher force is not necessarily reflective of the students and the families and communities that they serve.

And so it is not uncommon for people to make judgments and decisions that accumulate over time that are based upon assumptions and stereotypes, what many people refer to as implicit bias. And so we do see that as being one of the factors that is associated with this. We do tend to see in our work when it comes to exclusionary discipline, that when you're in rural areas, that it is more. That it is more prevalent oftentimes because there's less oversight, you're farther away from decision making bodies.

And so sometimes these things manifest, you know, pretty quickly. In addition to that, I would just say, you know, these are structural issues with many of our, with many of our institutions and districts. So they're really good at collecting data on what they're asked to collect data on, and they're really not good at collecting data on things that they're not asked to. Right.

Because of the level of pressure that they're under for, you know, the various things that they're managing. So that's normal at any social institution, but it certainly creates an adverse impact on our. On our students of color. I'm very proud that this Bill is being carried by Assemblymember Weber.

I think that it is one that really could actually have a meaningful impact, because if you look at what happened with suspensions and how that has went down over time, simply having data available creates a different conversation. A different conversation creates different outcomes.

All right. I think either the author or someone mentioned Oakland Unified as one example, but is there a significant gap between the racial and ethnic composition of the students in Oakley Unified compared to their teachers and staff? Do you have that? I know that's very specific. I was just curious.

I do not have that on me, but we will get that with you. But I think what you can infer up and down the state is we do not have a diverse teacher pool, regardless of what city, even in, like, Los Angeles. So I do not think that you have an overwhelmingly number of Black and Brown students in the Oakland Unified compared to the student population percentage that they have. But we'll get those numbers for you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Important Bill. My recommendation is to support the Bill. Would you like to close?

Well, again, I want to thank the Committee for working with me and my staff on the amendments. I'd like to thank my two witnesses that are here to speak and support. Specifically want to thank Doctor Luke Wood. This was actually one of his ideas that he brought when he was in my district, when he was in San Diego a couple of years ago.

And so, bringing this issue to light is extremely important because any disruption to a student's education can have and does have life altering impacts. And because we don't have any data associated with this particular aspect of disciplinary action, we need to make sure that we increase the transparency and allow for it to be publicly and readily available so that we can do better for all of our students. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. When we establish a quorum, we'll take it up for a vote. Thank you for your presentation today. All right, next in sign-in order, we have Assemblyman Ward AB 1858, which is file item number two. Okay, you're ahead on the sign-in, but if you want to defer to miss Papan. All right. Okay, so this is file item number 11, AB 2571 by Assemblymember Papan.

Thank you so much, Mister chair and Members. I'm here to present AB 2571. And it will make helpful declarations of existing law to ensure that the intent and purpose of Prop 39 continues to be met. In 2000, California voters had the foresight to pass Prop 39, which aided school districts in their ability to provide students with safe and educationally supportive school facilities.

This measure will offer clarity to school districts and advance the mission of Prop 39 in ensuring that our schools remain at the forefront of innovation and learning. School facilities are essential to a positive and productive academic environment and have long been envisioned to provide advanced and supportive services to meet the vast array of students needs. This measure will help school districts to continue developing and providing students with the safe and 21st century learning environments they deserve.

I truly appreciate the Committee's work on this Bill, and I understand that there are details of this Bill that need to be worked out, and I'm committed to collaborating with the chair and Committee staff as this Bill moves forward. So without further ado, here to testify with me today is Chris Reefe on behalf of CSBA.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and Members. Chris Reefe, on behalf of the California School Boards Association, just could not have put it better than Miss Papan. Just want to echo Miss Papan's comments regarding the work of the Committee and the Committee staff. CSBA stands ready to continue working on this language together. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have public comments in support of the measure? Please come forward.

Thank you, Mister chair. Members. Andrea Ball, on behalf of the California Association of Suburban School Districts, appreciate the work on this Bill. This issue is important to so many districts. Housing for employees is becoming more and more of a need. So thank you very much. Thank the author.

Seeing no further public comments, are there any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Please come forward.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis at Taxpayers Association we would be opposed to the Bill as currently written, but the Committee amendments are directly related to our concerns, so we're going to wait to see those in print before we make a formal opposition statement.

All right, thank you. Thank you. The gentleman from the Howard Jarvis Association. I do want to clarify that while the Committee did propose amendments, we have had discussions with the author. Today's recommendation is for the Bill to be passed out of this Committee, as is, with ongoing discussions. You heard commitments from the author and the sponsor of the Bill to continue to discuss potential amendments, but I want to make it clear that the author has not accepted any amendments for purposes of a vote.

Then we would be opposed as currently drafted.

Okay. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none, bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee? All right, Miss Papan, we've had several conversations, and I appreciate, first of all, I completely share your goal, as well as the goal of the CSBA, to make sure that school districts have the opportunity, if they choose to do so, to promote student housing or employee housing on school district property. I believe that is the central goal of your introducing this Bill.

But I do want to flag for public discussion.

Our Committee staff has worked, spent some time on this Bill, and she has consulted with several bond council, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus among bond council that were consulted in terms of whether getting more specific in terms of the definition of school facilities and the allowable uses for local school bond measures, whether that helps or hurts in terms of providing school districts with the flexibility, the options necessary to be able to pursue the bond measures, the local bond measures that they need in order to be able to meet their local needs.

There is some concern about providing a list of allowable uses of local bond funds having the unintended consequence instead of limiting their use for those items not on the list. There's concerns about, you know, defining the term school facilities may limit, you know, the definition and invite litigation for those that are not on the list. Even though, you know, the language that you have right now clearly states that it's not limited to the items on the list.

You know, similar to your desire to clarify that employee housing should be allowed as part of a local bond funds purview or allowable use, what about those that are not receiving that same kind of clarification? That is the nature of the concern of this Committee.

We heard loud and clear that you and CSB are committing to continue to clarify those issues so that we achieve the ultimate objective of making sure that school districts can, if they choose to do so, pursue using local bond funds to build employee housing so that we can address the affordable housing crisis, especially for our teachers and our school staff. So I just want to flag all those concerns, put it on the record, and give you the last word.

Thank you, Mister chair. I just respectfully request, and aye vote, thank you for your remarks and as represented, we will continue to work on it.

Okay, thank you very much. So again, we don't have a quorum yet, but we'll take your Bill under submission and we'll take it up for a vote when we do establish a quorum. Thank you. All right, we don't see Mister Carillo. Oh, that's right. Mister Ward was kind enough to give his slot to Miss Papan. And so this is file item number two, Assembly Bill 1858 by Assemblymember Ward.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, let me start by thanking the Committee for the work on the Bill. And I'm very happy to accept the Committee's proposed amendments. In California, as you all know, schools have clear policies and procedures for earthquake and fire drills. And unfortunately, this is not the case for active shooter drills. School shooter drills can take many forms.

They can be as basic as modified lockdown drills, but also as extreme with simulations, with gunfire, fake blood, actors on campus, students and staff not being made aware that a drill is taking place and ultimately causing significant trauma on all those who are involved, students, parents and school community members, staff. Nowhere else in our school system is there something so abrasive and unregulated. We would never do a fire drill by filling the halls full of smoke and fake flames and telling everybody to go for it.

AB 1858 seeks to standardize school shooter drills by giving clear guidance to the California Department of Education so they can update their current requirements for school districts to use when conducting these drills. This guidance will focus on age appropriate drill procedures, ban simulated shooting and violence, and provide local resources for students to reach out to address trauma, requiring students and staff to be told when a drill is beginning and parental notification of the drill the week of and following the drill that same day.

I'm testifying here in support of AB 1858, Kiyara Youngblood from the students demand action organization and would respectfully request your aye vote.

Good afternoon all. My name is Kiyara Youngblood and I am a junior at Sacramento State University as well as a volunteer leader with Student Demand Action. I'm standing here today to share my story. In my 21 years of life, I have faced a range of experience when it comes to presence of guns on school grounds. Whether it was a real school shooting or being required to practice active shooter drills, every single instant I endured became more and more traumatizing.

No student should ever have to wonder if they would see their family again, let alone question if they live to see the next day for going to class. Schools are supposed to be a safe space for all. We should be able to learn and grow our minds without the constant fear of being without the constant fear and risk of being shot at. I completely understand why our schools want to have a system in place.

Shudder strike but requiring us to do an after school shooter drills does more harm than good. These drills shatter our perception of safety and often leave us, our teachers and our parents feeling vulnerable and exposed. As someone who survived a school shooting and has also done active school shooter drills, I know that these drills can be just as scary as the real thing. Even if no one is physically hurt, the trauma of these lockdowns is absolutely real.

Gun violence survivors often spare symptoms of trauma, anxiety and depression. When you've seen horrifying violence, such as a gunman going around your school trying to harm your friends and teachers like I did, how could you not be deeply impacted by something like that?

I seen how active school to drills can have similar effects on school committees as a real shooting, these lockdowns disrupt the normal flow of school life, forcing students and teachers to barricade themselves in classrooms, hide, and remain silent for extended periods of time without the knowledge of knowing whether it's the drill or the real thing. The risk of a school shooting is terrifying enough. Our school shouldn't be traumatizing us even more by keeping us in the dark when. When it comes to active shooter drills.

With all that being said, it is extremely important that this Bill proposed before us today, AB 1858, gets passed. This braille brings the trauma informed approach to active shooter drills that student demand action has been advocating for. It's recognized that we need to know in advance that a drill is happening. When it's happening, the option to opt out and the necessary mental health resources to support students afterwards is needed. There needs to be more transparency.

There's no reason students, teachers and parents should be left in the dark when it comes to school during. After student drills. AB 1858 has the power to bring a trauma informed approach to these drills that we so desperately need. This Bill is extremely crucial because, as I stated before, I already survived school shooting. And being forced to do these drills bring back that trauma. The loud announcement over the speaker telling us to hide.

Anxiously waiting for someone to come around, pretending to be the shooter, and aggressively banging on that door. Remaining silent for God knows how long. All of that. Thank you. I'm so sorry.

No, no. You're doing great. But your two minutes are off. All right. If you want to wrap up.

Yes. He's there. So I vote to pass AB 1858.

Thank you. Thank you for sharing. Any further witnesses in support of the Bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in support of the Bill?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, also in support.

Thank you.

Lance Christensen, Vice President of The California Policy Center. We support vigorous parental notification on all aspects of education. Thank you.

Marylou Rossetto, Moms Demand Action volunteer in support.

Jillian King, Moms Demand Action volunteer in support.

Ariana Marie, Students Demand Action leader with SAC State University in support.

Joel Leung, volunteer for Moms Demand Action, Sacramento, in support.

Yara Judal volunteer Moms Demand Action, in support.

Devin Britton, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, Placer county, in support.

Kathy Dickey, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Penelope Oliver, on behalf of the student Student Demand Action National Advisory Board in support.

Christine Moreland, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, Sacramento.

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

David Bolaga. We support the Bill. I'm with the SFB Alliance and the Neighbors of the 40th Assembly District, district for sale legislation. We do support the Bill, but we do oppose. We support the overall feeling of the Bill, but we oppose it. And unless it's amended to require an armed school resource officer at every school. Thank you.

Thank you. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bring it back, Mr. Vice Chair Flora.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And have the utmost respect for the author. And I want to just raise my concerns and I want to be very, very clear that the thought of a school shooting as a father of two daughters is terrifying. Right. I also come from a public safety background, and there's a saying in public safety, military alike, that you train like you fight.

And though these events are absolutely horrific, and I do not wish it on anybody, it is the sad reality of what we live in currently. And we need our men and women of law enforcement, our firefighters, to understand what they're walking into. We need our students to understand what to do. And if there is, if we sugarcoat how horrific a mass casualty incident is, we may not be prepared for that mentally, okay?

And we're not gonna be prepared for mentally one way or the other don't get me wrong. Like, there's no preparing for this. And so I am concerned. I understand the intent and the issues with this, but I can't tell you how many trainings I've been through personally like this. The every 15 minutes program, right? We've all statewide, national, we've all seen those.

And until you realize the gore and the horror of a shooting incident like this, I do not believe our men and women of law enforcement, public safety and our students are going to be prepared and know what to do in that situation when it arises. And so when we train like we fight, right, we try to make it as realistic as possible. So in the horrific moment that that incident actually happens for real. We're going to be slightly more prepared to what to do.

So I just want to say that, and it's not necessarily like an opposition to the Bill. It's just like I really do have concerns that we're creating an environment that's not reality of what these events truly. And I'll just leave it at that. And to the author, let's. I'd love to talk to you offline as well because I really do. I'm not going to be able to support this Bill today.

Sure.

Based on those concerns. Because I don't want to create environment of false expectations of what a school shooting actually is. It's hell. And it sucks that we all have to deal with this, but we do. And that's just the sad reality of where we're living currently. So I appreciate your testimony and please don't take my opposition as not understanding and sympathizing with you and to all the supporters as well. But just I come from just a slightly different perspective. So thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you to the author and to the witness and to the testimony. Agree as a father too, and I know you're a father as well, of children in our school system. It's certainly not the thought you ever want to have of this or the call you want to hear, even when it's like in the vicinity, which has happened to, to me a couple of times, unfortunately.

What I appreciate though about the approach to the Bill is as a parent, you make decisions on even what you allow your children to watch on TV. That's something we do access to what types of devices or social media sites and all that. And we take that very seriously. And you rely on experts who sort of help you determine, like this is appropriate or that's not.

And I think that's what I appreciate about the approach, is that you're asking for professionals who are practitioners to help determine what the appropriateness level of. It's very different from a kindergartner to a high schooler of what level of intensity, if you will, the drill should be. So I understand the point being made that you want to be able to simulate something to the extent that young people can respond the right way and be prepared the right way. But I don't know what that is.

And I think you recognize that there's people who have the skillset to help determine that. So I want to say thank you for taking that approach. Because as opposed to just saying this is what we're mandating, this is how we should get to how we should do this type of drill.

The only question that I did ask for parents who will be asking once this is out on the opt out provision, on how you envision that to be rolled out and in practice once the school year starts with the initial forms, what is the thinking behind the opting out option?

Thank you for the question. I would probably defer to some guidance through Department of Education or school administrators on maybe conforming that to existing practices for opting out of school based activities.

Okay. Just to be clear with everybody as to how that process would work. So appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Ward, for bringing this important measure before the Committee. I know that I've also, as a parent, I've had conversations with other parents about whether especially these high intensity drills are really necessary, especially for our youngest elementary school children. And so I fully personally appreciate one of your main goals of this Bill, to spare the children from unnecessary trauma from some of these high intensity drills.

I've heard ketchup or other red ink being used in place of blood to, to simulate the school shooting as part of these high intensity drills. And so I share your concern about whether that's necessary. At the same time, I appreciate our Vice Chair's comments, as we all respect our Vice Chair, as a former firefighter, as a former first responder, and certainly I think he has more experience with these type of public safety drills than I do. And so I do hear what you're saying.

It was staff brought to my attention that. What are the proposals that has been made in terms of making sure that the adults get the high intensity drills, but perhaps spare the children, is to have the drills in the absence of the children so that the adults can practice these high intensity drills. You know, law enforcement, school administrators, perhaps without the students, that might be one.

But I think ultimately, you know, that your Bill is proposing that we defer to the Department of Education to convene, you know, public safety first responders, school administrators, to identify best practices, to try to strike that balancing act between making sure that our staff and our first responders are adequately trained while at the same time trying to minimize any unnecessary trauma to the kids. So I'm happy to support this, this Bill and like to give you the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think you said it eloquently. I. We're gonna obviously a very impactful topic for most of us that have kids and care very much and worry about the unthinkable happening on a given day. And we of course, want them to be prepared. Nothing in this Bill is ever suggesting that we shouldn't be thoughtful about our school campuses safety and those that are there daily. I would strongly feel remiss if I didn't say that. I do agree with our Vice Chair.

It is hell. It would be horrific. And it's just a sad state of affairs that we are living in right now where these occurrences are happening all too far in our community. I would look forward to that conversation because I'd like to go a little bit deeper and talk about other ways to be able to reduce gun violence in our community that I feel we should be having more middle ground on. That said, it is an occurrence here.

And so given our experience of trying to, what I think is earnestly respond to it is to be prepared and how to address when that comes up. And I think our chair's point, there's a different way or situation in which we could engage emergency response personnel to be able to come on after hours, to have actors there sort of playing how to navigate a school campus, but not have that being the actual students in the middle of the day. That's a smart suggestion.

All this can be worked out with Department of Education, but what this Bill is trying to do is just to put some prerogatives, parameters on something. We don't have any parameters on today, right when we have an earthquake drill, we're not shaking the building. But you are doing your best to simulate the exercise and thinking through it. In fact, an advocate in our community who cares very much about gun violence prevention said, you know, for me, this is, you know, high intensity.

This exercise is actually not just about responding to an active shooter situation, but it could be a gas leak on the campus or it could be a swarm of bees. It could be a lot of things that are requiring students and teachers and to organize quickly and respond calmly and get out or get safe. And I think that that is, I think, something that we want to be able to work through thoughtfully.

But there is a way that we can do that without invoking trauma, which is almost uniformly what we are doing today. The amount of input that I've received actually across the state from individuals who have said, I still live, I go to community college and I still live from PTSD from this experience that I had in high school. And so I think we're onto something here about trying to make sure that we're doing no harm without undercutting our ability to keep our school campuses safe. And I think we can get there with that. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much Mr. Ward. We will take your Bill into submission and put up for a vote when we have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. All right, we have Mr. Kalra ready to go. And so this is file item 12. AB 2640.

Thank you Mister Chair. I'd like to thank the Committee for the work on this Bill. I will be accepting the Committee amendments and frankly the work on this issue for a number of years. I know we've had a lot of engagement over the years. AB 2640 is the Compassionate Learning Advancement for Science Students or CLASS Act. This Bill will require teachers and schools to provide students with a notice informing them about their right to opt out of animal dissection assignments.

In addition, they will receive information about where the animal was sourced from and the chemicals it's preserved in. Under current law, students already have the right to opt out. However, many students may not be aware of this right and feel obligated to participate in the animal dissection assignment, fearing it will impact their grades.

The CLASS Act as a step in the right direction to strengthen students' ability to opt out while encouraging alternative methods to help increase student engagement and support their interest in learning about anatomy. Anatomy and dissection are essential scientific pedagogy. However, with the advancements in educational technology, alternative methods have become more widely accessible and cost effective.

These alternative methods, such as a synthetic frog model or Froggipedia, an application for mobile phones or top tablets. There are literally dozens and dozens of different tools available now that do offer a practical alternative method, allows students to still participate in the material. Many of the methods were put to the test during and since the pandemic, when obviously we had to learn to learn in different ways and teach in different ways. And a lot of those methods proved to be incredibly effective.

By providing students with a written notice, AB 2640 empowers them to be informed, given the choice to opt out of animal dissection, and instead receive an alternative, comparable assignment. Here to testify and support is Samantha Crowe, Teach Kind Science program manager and former professor of biology, and Katherine Hampton, student at Chapman University.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chairman and Members. The CLASS Act is a common sense bill that strengthens students' rights to choose ethics over grades. And we want to thank author Assemblymember Kalra for introducing it. So I'm Samantha Crowe. I am the program manager for PETA's Teach Kind Science division and I'm also a former professor of biology who exclusively used non animal methods to teach pre nursing students for over a decade.

I will keep my comments quite short, and I just want to say that I strongly encourage us to consider helping students become better scientists and help educators honor students' rights by voting yes on AB 2640 for a more compassionate, trauma informed, and inclusive classroom. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Katherine Hampton and I'm a current student at Chapman University in Orange. I was born and raised in Cupertino and my family moved to El Dorado Hills when I was just entering middle school. Throughout my time in middle and high school, I had growing concerns regarding lessons that regularly took place in my science classes, and because of this, I strongly support AB 2640.

Almost every year in grade school, I was subjected to participating in class dissections of animals ranging from worms to cats. During these lessons, I was presented with a previously living individual to cut open and observe their anatomy while being given information about bodily function. While I was exposed to the pungent smells of formaldehyde that overwhelmed my nose and made my eyes water, I was warned of the health risks of being around such a strong preservative.

As a student who was born with a severe asthmatic condition, I took it upon myself to monitor my health extra carefully on dissection days. Moreover, as a student with a longtime love for animals, I felt panicked, upset, and traumatized when told in high school that I needed to dissect a cat for a grade. When I asked for an alternative, I was told to just do it by my teacher, and even after repeating my concerns to my teacher, I was not offered an alternative assignment.

Several of my classmates who were also disturbed to be dissecting cats had to leave the room because they were so upset and they told me they would have opted out if they knew they could. The law in California is not currently protecting students as it was intended to and it must be changed, and that's why AB 2640 is so important. I encourage the Committee to reflect carefully on the potential benefits that enacting AB 2640 could bring to the students of California.

As a student in this state, I appreciate your willingness to consider my perspective on animal dissection in the classroom. Thank you.

Thank you. Any public comments in support of the measure please come forward.

Hi, my name is Nickolaus Sackett for Social Compassion in Legislation, proud sponsors and also courtesy me too for co sponsors, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members. Sosan Madanat, W Strategies, here on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund in strong support. Thank you.

Please, please support this rational, intelligent Bill which would encourage use of

Your name and affiliation, please.

Mike Sage, I live in Santa Clara, California.

Thank you, sir. We don't allow testimony for the public comment section, but we appreciate your support for the measure. Thank you.

Maggie Zurowska, animal activist in support, please.

Linda Middlesworth, I stand with Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ava Soni, Grass Valley. I stand in support, thank you.

Ryan Hayek, Davis, California I support the Bill.

Thank you. Miten Soni, resident of Grass Valley. I support the Bill.

Kim Shah, resident of Orinda, and I support the Bill wholeheartedly.

Ken Teel of North Sacramento County and I support the Bill. And remind you of R and M, rights and morality. People should have a right to morality.

Thank you. All right, any witnesses in opposition to the Bill, please come forward. Seeing none, any public comments in opposition to the Bill, please come forward. Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Vice Chair Flora.

Thank you, Mister chair. And I want to thank you to the author, and I support this Bill for one and one reason only, and you brought it up: formaldehyde. It is not awesome. And it's also not lost on me that the vegan-vegetarian is authoring this Bill. So appreciate you, bud.

All right. Thank you, Mister Kalra, also for being our resident vegan-vegetarian champion, as well as animal rights champion, and thank you to the witnesses in support of the measure. We appreciate your working with the Committee. I know that as you referenced, there's been a long history of your championing this cause. And so, you know, the challenge of this Committee is always, how do we balance a compassion with making sure that we are not compromising educational opportunities for students.

And so absolutely strengthening a student's right to opt out, as well as to explore alternatives is something that I'm very happy that we're able to land at this spot. And so Assemblymember Kalra, right, would you like to say?

Well, I want to, as you referred, the previous efforts, the first time around we had a Bill to outright ban animal dissection. And I know teachers, including formerly CTA, others had concerns, Committee had concerns.

I really want to thank you and thank the Committee and the teachers who do not or now are not in an opposed position over the years of really working through this to get to a place where I think that, you know, we recognize some of the harms that are caused in the classroom, the chemical and otherwise. We empower the students and we still allow teachers to have their own self determination as to how they want to teach their science as well.

And so I really appreciate you Mister chair. And your staff, and with that, at the appropriate time, would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much for presentation. We'll take it in submission and again ask for the rest of the committee to please come so that we can establish quorum and take care of business. Thank you. Seeing no authors ready to present the bill and seeing no other committee members, Mr. Fong, Mr. Fong has item number four, AB 2019. Assemblymember Vince Fong, the floor is yours when you're ready.

Perfect timing. Thank you Mr. Chair and members. I thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2019. For many high school students, attending college is only made possible through community colleges, which begins with allowing students to enroll both in high school and college courses. Higher education unlocks economic and financial mobility, especially for disadvantaged students. Many schools have realized the benefits of providing higher educational opportunities and have stepped up by partnering together with the local colleges to expand dual enrollment. These programs are tried in two ways to open more doors to California students.

Students and administrators in the Central Valley are often faced with issues of funding, scheduling, and sheer distance between school sites. AB 2019 helps remedy these programs or these programs, these problems, so students can take full advantage of these educational opportunities.

This bill seeks to aid students who wish to take full advantage of early and middle college programs that use the school within a school model, meaning that high school students can take community college classes on their own traditional high school campus, often in a smaller cohort of students whose schedules are strategically arranged to allow for substantial college credits to be earned. Whether they are taking community college courses on a community college campus or at their local high school, students who show initiative to achieve higher education goals should be given the opportunity, and this bill will align those goals. I'm joined by Doctor April Moore, Superintendent of the Sierra Sands Unified School District, and James Espinoza, principal of the Middle College High School at San Bernardino Valley College. Thank you. I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I'm April Moore, superintendent in the Sierra Sands Unified School District in Kern County. And according to a study by the Public Policy Institute in California in 2021, dual enrollment participation and outcomes vary across racial and ethnic groups, and in general, White and Asian students are overrepresented in dual enrollment programs, while Black and Latino students are underrepresented. Promoting dual enrollment participation and success among historically underrepresented groups is key and is one of the key factors of AB 2019.

In 2023, four of the nine California exemplary dual enrollment award recipients were located in Kern County, and these four high schools all have a high concentration of Latino students and students of poverty who have historically been underrepresented in dual enrollment programs. In these schools, it makes sense to have a school-wide, comprehensive dual enrollment program. However, at schools where students who have been historically represented make up a smaller population or percentage of the population.

AB 2019 allows these student groups to benefit from dual enrollment while adhering to the same instructional minute requirements currently in statute for early and middle college high schools through early and middle college programs. And these programs have been in place in our state for over a decade. They're getting results for students, and we're seeing more and more districts in California want to model off of that successful model, especially over half of the recent grantees awarded the dual enrollment opportunities grant for middle and early colleges.

We're planning to start or grow a program within an existing school. My own district, Sierra Sands, is partnering with Cerro Coso Community College to host a program on the college campus launching in the 2025-26 academic year. And so, in closing, we ask for an aye vote, as this bill will make a material difference in our ability to launch our program and support our students. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for this opportunity to address the Chair and Assembly Committee on Education in support of AB 2019. I'm James Espinoza, principal of Middle College High School in San Bernardino. I'm also executive board president of the California Coalition of Early and Middle Colleges. At Middle College High School in San Bernardino, 90% of our students are first-gen. Over 95% are from underrepresented groups. 90% of our scholars we target underperforming in our grades entering our school.

Our academic results include a yearly 100% graduation rate, 100% A to G completion, and four-year college acceptance. For 2024, 44% of our students will earn their AA, while the average student will earn 52 college credits that are transferable per student. We've achieved 94% on the most recent CAASPP testing in English language arts and 71% in math. 90% of our students will graduate with a weighted 4.0 or higher.

And on the most recent National Student Clearinghouse data, 80% of our students are graduating from four-year institutions on time, whereas a national average for first-gen students is closer to 20% to 25%. For Middle College High School, 180 minutes of instruction allows our first-generation college students to have the space to do two or more college classes with access, support, and success.

We are currently supporting an early college high school launch this fall 2024 at a Arroyo Valley High School comprehensive high school in San Bernardino. Over 90% of their students are Latinx, high poverty, and first-gen. With the passage of AB 2019, these students will also have a chance to achieve what we have at Middle College High School, as will students in early college programs throughout the state. Thank you for your consideration of this important Bill for closing equity gaps and making dreams a reality for all students, including first-generation, underrepresented students like myself.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any public comments in support of the measure, please go forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jeff Vaca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. Carlos Rojas, with the Kern County Superintendent of Schools, in support. And also on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials, in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Andrea Ball, on behalf of the California Association of Suburban School Districts, in support. Thank you. Thank the author.

Sandra Morales, on behalf of the California High School Coalition, in support.

Paul Robinson, with Santa Maria Joint Union High School District, in support.

David, acting as an individual, in support.

Any witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward. Seeing none, any public comments in opposition to the bill, please come forward. Seeing none, bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none. Thank you very much, Mr. Fong. This is my second opportunity to express my support for this important measure to encourage the early and middle college high schools to provide more opportunities for our students. And so happy to support the bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you mentioned, as schools plan to grow dual enrollment programs, AB 2019 will give certainty to students and schools who wish to partake in early and middle college programs to maximize funding and access to classes. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We do not have quorum yet, and so at the appropriate time, we'll take your bill of our vote. All right, seeing no other authors ready to present, I'm going to jump the line and present my bills. Mr. Vice Chair, if I can pass the gavel to you and I'll get ready.

All right. Thank you, Mister Chair. We're going to start with presenting file item number five, AB 211. File item number six. I'm sorry, AB 2160.

Right bill, wrong file item. File item number six AB 2112.

Vice Chair and Members, I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 2112 which will increase access to high-quality expanded learning programs by stabilizing the funding for these ELOP programs for all LEASs. The Expanded Learning Opportunities Program, or ELOP, serves children in TK through 6th grade with before and or after-school programs as well as summer school.

Research has shown over and over again that these programs are among the most effective in closing the achievement gap and making sure that there are quality programs before and after school as well as during summer school, especially for socially economically disadvantaged communities. ELOP prioritizes unduplicated pupils, low-income English learners, foster youth, but may be provided to all students. ELOP is funded in two ways.

The local educational agencies, or LEAs, with 75% or more of unduplicated pupils receive a fixed rate of $2,750 per pupil underrate one and are required to offer ELOP to all TK through 6th-grade students. LEAs with less than 75% of unduplicated pupils are under rate two, which is calculated based upon the balance remaining after rate one LEAs have been funded and takes into account the statewide TK-6 ADA. Rate two LEAs are required to offer ELOP to at least all unduplicated students.

Due to the formula used for rate two, the funding can vary significantly from one year to the next. For example, in the current year, the rate dropped by 12% from the prior year. The LEAs subject to rate two have been notified of their funding allocation shortly before the start of the school year, after they've made all of the planning and then staffing decisions, and you'll hear more about from the providers, making it extremely difficult to plan and staff a high-quality program to meet the needs of their students.

AB 2112 was set a floor for rate two at no less than the 2022-2023 rate of 2,054 per pupil. The Bill will also require the California Department of Education to establish a stakeholder workgroup to look at the overall ELOP program and to provide recommendations on best practices, appropriate funding levels, and to identify data that should be collected in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.

Ultimately, as I'm looking at the Chair of our Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, we understand that this is an issue that needs to be addressed in the budget and I know that our Budget Subcommittee Chair has questions to follow up on this measure. But we want to highlight and explore the policy implications of this funding stabilization situation faced by our ELO programs so that it can further inform the activities to address this in the budget, as well as to make sure that the Department of Education properly prioritizes this urgent issue.

This Bill is sponsored by the San Diego Unified School District, and speaking on their behalf is Nicole Dewitt, Senior Executive Director of Thriving School Communities, as well as Erin Sipes, Director of Expanded Learning in the Elk Grove Unified School District.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair. First witness, two minutes apiece, please.

Thank you for the opportunity to share San Diego Unified's model for ELOP programming. Our main focus for leveraging ELOP funds has been in two areas, our summer offerings as well as the expansion of our extended day programs during the school year. Since just this past summer of 2023, San Diego Unified has enrolled 14,000 individual unduplicated students in one or more ELO programs, which is approximately 40% of our TK-6 unduplicated student population.

To ensure maximum participation for our unduplicated students, we actively advertise the enrollment process in five different languages. We also dedicate a two-month priority enrollment window for unduplicated students to select summer programming prior to other students and ensure unduplicated students are enrolled first into our summer and prime-time extended day programs. In addition, strategic outreach to homeless and foster youth through our nonprofit community partners is leveraged, as well as multilingual office hours and call centers.

Because of this prioritization, ELOP has been transformational for our families, particularly those with the greatest need, giving students access to learning opportunities that they could previously not afford. This has impacted academic performance across all grade levels, with students who participated in 80% or more of their summer program demonstrating bigger gains than non-participants on the fall Administration of the FAST reading and math assessments. However, the instability in rate two per pupil ELOP funding we receive from year to year has been a huge challenge.

We only learn our per pupil funding rates weeks before the start of the school year, putting us in the difficult position of having to plan programs, make staffing decisions, communicate with families, and maintain relationships with our community partners. Without knowing how much funding we'll receive from the state. This current fiscal year of 23-24 our per pupil funding rate decreased by dollar 250 per student, which resulted in a loss of $7.2 million for San Diego Unified.

This cut put a strain on our programs, and we've had to reduce the number and variety of enrichment opportunities we plan to offer this summer.

Thank you so much. We'll just ask you to wrap up your thought.

Thank you so much on behalf of San Diego Unified, we truly appreciate your time and consideration for this Assembly Bill.

Thank you so much. Next witness. Two minutes, please.

Good afternoon, Committee Chair and Members. Erin Sipes, Director of Expanded Learning for Elk Grove Unified School District and on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators. As the administrator overseeing the afterschool programs in Elk Grove for more than 10 years, I've had the opportunity to witness firsthand the positive impact these programs have had on our students, their families, and our school communities. Prior to receiving Expanded Learning Opportunities Program funding, our district had grant-funded programs at 17 elementary schools and served about 2200 students daily.

These programs were life-changing for some children who were now able to have a healthy dinner, for families who were now able to take employment, and for English learners who were now able to receive homework support. With ELOP funding, we've been able to extend our programs to 27 additional school sites, eliminate waitlists at our 17 existing sites, and increase enrollment to 10,000 students in TK-6.

In addition to increasing the number of students served in afterschool, we've been able to add much-needed programs for students in half-day TK and kindergarten classes. We now serve 1,800 TK-K students during the day, which provides supports for families and greatly contributes to the attendance in regular day classes. Last year, our district's ELOP allocation was reduced from 31 million to 26 million, mostly due to the decreased funding of Tier Two.

For a district like ours that operates year-round schools, we must operate 75 days of intersession programming to provide 30 days of opportunity for all tracks. The majority of our sites do not receive additional grant funding, but with large elementary schools serving 800 to 1000 students, we still have hundreds of children at those sites who are English learners, are in foster care, or who qualify for free meals. Adequate ELOP funding allows us to continue providing accessible, equitable program for students regardless of their need.

As an example, a parent of a child with Down syndrome came to me with tears in her eyes to express her gratitude for the opportunity to enroll her daughter in program. As she shared, my daughter has never had the chance to be in an after-school program. Childcare centers turned her away because they could not support her needs. This is the first chance she's had to just be a kid and be with her friends outside of school, and she loves it.

It's difficult to plan for and serve the increased number of students, especially those with additional needs, without stable funding levels. For this student and for all of our students and families whose daily lives are impacted by this critical program, I respectfully request your aye vote for AB 20112.

Thank you so much. And we're going to take a brief pause and establish a quorum, if you're all right with that, Mister Chair?

Yes.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Quorum is established. All right, go back to witnesses in support. Name and organization, please.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Andrea Ball, on behalf of the California Association of Suburban School Districts in support.

Jeff Vaca, on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools and the 23 school district superintendents in Riverside County, in support.

Martha Zaragoza Diaz, representing the California Music Educators Association, in support.

Thank you so much.

David Bolog, acting as an individual, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition of AB 2112? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any question from the Committee? Mister Alvarez.

Thank you. Thank you to our Chair for working on this issue. It's definitely important to talk about the merits of the policy, so I appreciate you doing that. As we had shared, the questions really are more to try to provoke more thought about this, which you've already outlined, I think, and well testified here on the Tier One versus Tier Two instability, which is not really fair for our districts as they need to determine their planning.

So appreciate that this is trying to get to that. I think the only component, and you might recall from our discussion at Budget Subcommittee Three, is that I didn't see specifically outlined, and I'd like you to provide maybe your thoughts of where it fits into your proposal, is that districts are receiving allocations based on raw total numbers of students that might be eligible, but the participation rates are not in line.

Not every student that's eligible and that the district receives funding for is actually participating in these programs for one reason or another. And I appreciate the effort being made to reach as many students as possible, but the reality is that that participation level is not 100%.

So can you share your thoughts about how you hope this will be discussed and what the working group, sorry if I'm calling it the right name, but what the group, will provide in terms of insight and on recommendations for the Legislature?

Yes. Thank you. I would love to hear from our witnesses from San Diego and Elk Grove, but I know that as Chair of the Education Committee, I had an opportunity to visit your district, San Diego Unified, last summer to see how they were using the ELOP funding for their kids, and I was just blown away. The San Diego Unified contracted with the Stephen Covey Center to teach the seven habits of highly effective people to preschoolers.

And they hired San Diego high school students to be summer basically like camp counselors, you know. They were assisting the certificated teachers, you know, running the programs, you know, to provide these programs. And so, you know, I was able to witness firsthand, you know, how it was serving a low-income community, you know, making sure that, you know, we know that so much learning loss takes place during these long summer vacations when wealthier families have all these enrichment activities.

I mean, that's the whole point of the ELO programs, right, is to try to give a fair shot to lower-income kids that may not have all those enrichment activities, these wonderful ELO programs. But what I heard over and over again, and I know you have also as Budget Subcommittee Chair, is that with the uncertainty of the funding, a lot of districts may be conservative in terms of planning out, basically doing the right thing.

What these districts have done to fully take advantage of these dollars to provide the maximum benefit for the maximum number of students. Because of the uncertainty of if we start this, are we going to have the funding to be able to carry through? And that's exactly what's happening to these districts. I would love to give an opportunity to our school districts to share your experiences.

Absolutely. Nicole Dewitt, San Diego Unified. So I think it's really important for us to do outreach to the families that didn't participate. And that's something that we actively do in our district, is we do outreach to families after enrollment to see what were the barriers and what are the challenges. And I think one of the things that I would hope would come out from a workgroup is how do we make the enrollment process easier for our families.

So there's a lot of different programs, a lot of different community partners, a lot of different ways students can experience learning. How do we house that all under one system so that we can track not just enrollment, but attendance and outcomes? And so that's something that we're actively working on as a district to make sure that we can use that in future years to remove that barrier of enrollment as a challenge.

Appreciate that. And I would add, Mister Chair, we are lucky, and I'm sure there are other very good models throughout the state. But in San Deigo Unified, you described one program, but there are, there are, there's a variation of options, and it's like the list is very, very long. So there are a lot of great options. Partnerships, mainly with a lot of community-based organizations, but also our institutions of higher education. There's some really neat things happening.

I'm glad you got a chance to experience those, but I've also seen them firsthand.

But just to go back to my point, and there was some response here is, as the workgroup does their take on this task, given the financial situation of our state that we likely will be in for a couple years, and just good practices in terms of being accountable for the dollars that Californians entrust us with, I want to make sure that as we receive those dollars, they're put to use in the way that we intend, which means serving as many students as possible.

So appreciate the outreach, the contacting families who maybe we believe are eligible, who aren't participating. That's all good, and we should do that. Some of those families may just choose not to because they have another option that they're engaging in, and that's okay, too.

But we need to create that accountability system so that as we true up, if you will, how many kids are actually participating to the funding that gets received for this particular program, given how many other initiatives we all want to see in our school district, that this program receives the funding that serves the number of students that are participating and not in excess of that, so that those funds perhaps could be used for other important programs.

And that's what I want to emphasize that I hope this conversation brings, because we need that component of accountability so that we can budget and allocate and appropriate correctly on a going-forward basis as we look to make this program sustainable. Does that make sense?

Absolutely. I mean, we want to make sure, especially given the challenging budget situation that we're facing, that we want to make sure that every taxpayer dollar is properly spent so that it delivers the intended benefit for our students.

Appreciate that. Thank you very much and happy to, now that we have a quorum, move the item.

I'll second it. Any other questions from Committee Members? Seeing none. Mister Chair, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. Appreciate especially the discussion related to the budget. And we know that this ultimately needs to be resolved in the budget not only this year, but ongoing years. But we would, to further support these great ELO programs, we would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

File item six, AB 2112. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

Bill, is out. We'll leave it open for absent Members. All right, Mr. Chair, it looks like you're going to present AB 2226 file item number eight.

Yes, this is AB 2226. Okay, thank you. Let me give an opportunity to have our witnesses join us. All right. Thank you. Vice Chair and Members, I am proud to present Assembly Bill 2226 which will require that children attend one year of kindergarten prior to entering first grade, beginning in the 2026 to 2027 school year. A lot of people ask, well, isn't kindergarten already mandatory? It is not. As we all know, this Bill will make kindergarten attendance mandatory.

We know that most students do attend kindergarten. Over 90% of students already attend kindergarten, a key element in preparing them not only for their academic success, but their social emotional success. However, up to 6% of students of children do not attend kindergarten today. And as this varies significantly across different racial and ethnic communities, this creates the equity gap. We know that early education has the biggest return on investment.

And as we are working hard toward achieving our goal for universal transitional kindergarten, this Bill is reminding us, let's not forget kindergarten. And by making this mandatory, we can close those equity gaps and reap the benefits of early childhood education, much as we are working hard to expand universal transitional kindergarten in terms of the equity gaps, for example, approximately 7% of Latino children were not enrolled in kindergarten in 2019. Our academic standards continue to evolve in recent years.

Students are expected to arrive in first grade with basic literacy and numeracy skills. Kindergarten builds on these skills as well as on other elements of the early education system. With children having the opportunity to attend a high quality preschool program at three years of age, a transitional kindergarten program at four years of age, and then kindergarten at five years of age. Children begin school in the first grade will be missing out on those three critical years of early education. A significant opportunity gap.

Again, California has made significant investments in recent years to support universal transitional kindergarten, universal meals, community schools, the e law programs that we just discussed. It's essential that we don't wait any longer to mandate kindergarten to ensure that all of our children, regardless of where you live, have an equal opportunity to gain the academic and social and emotional skills they will need throughout their school career and beyond. And that's why we have seen this Bill. We saw this Bill last year, Senator Rubio's Bill.

And so I'm joining forces to make this a bicameral priority to champion mandatory kindergarten to make sure that all students are enrolled in kindergarten prior to enrolling in first grade starting in the 2026 to 2027 school year. I'm very happy to have two witnesses here today representing Los Angeles Unified as Deputy Superintendent, Doctor Karla Estrada and a teacher from Sacramento City Unified, Ingrid Hutchins.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First witness. Two minutes, please.

Good afternoon. My name is Karla Estrada, Deputy Superintendent of instruction for the Los Angeles Unified School District, and it is with great optimism that I sit before you today representing our district as a proud co sponsor of AB 2226, an equity driven step towards making kindergarten mandatory in our great State of California. It also closely aligns to the investments that the state has made in early childhood and UTK, supporting students academic and social emotional foundations.

You'd be always so pleased to see our little ones in school sitting across from their teachers, their educators, teaching them about reading, math, social skills, wonderful play activities. That's what's happening in our schools right now, and for our kindergarteners, we want to ensure that same opportunity. This Bill represents a cornerstone of California's promise that every child starts their educational journey equipped with the early learning experiences essential for their future success.

It is a bold step towards equitable educational policy aiming to bridge the achievement gap that too often divides students from underserved communities and their peers, such as in LAUSD, where 86% of our students live in poverty or are socioeconomically disadvantaged. Throughout Los Angeles, we continue to see evidence of students benefiting from kindergarten through academic and social emotional growth, including on performance assessments that inform their daily learning.

We see the impact this data in 1st, second, and third grade students have even demonstrated those who attended kindergarten higher achievement levels on their smarter balance assessment as late as into fifth grade. The positive impact of mandatory kindergarten is not confined within the boundaries of lack. Groundbreaking of research by researchers at UC Irvine have shown that students from states that embrace this policy not only have a higher likelihood of pursuing higher education, they are also most likely to achieve economic prosperity as adults.

The data shows that this is most significant among our black and Latino students, underscoring the urgency of providing outcomes for our students.

Thank you so much for two minutes.

Thank you.

Next witness. Two minutes, please.

Hello, my name is Ingrid Hutchins and I'm a transitional kindergarten teacher at Golden Empire Elementary and Sacramento City Unified School District. I'm here in support of AB 2226. It's time for California to acknowledge the important role kindergarten plays in a student's lifelong academic success. Kindergarten provides the essential foundational skills that all future learning requires. Students who attend kindergarten learn social skills such as sharing, taking turns, patience, self-regulation, and group dynamics.

As we saw during the COVID lockdowns, classroom communities provide opportunities to learn and practice these skills in ways that aren't easily replicated otherwise. Kindergarten is where students become readers. Not only do they learn to recite, recognize, and write the Alphabet, but they also learn phonemes, syllables, and rhymes. They learn sight words. About 40 of them start to decode and blend CVC words and then proudly read their first books independently. They learn to distinguish between literature and informational text.

They compare and contrast familiar stories and engage in discussions about the characters. They sound out new words, write them, then build sentences to share their ideas with others. Kindergarten is also where students start to become mathematicians. Kindergarteners learn how to count to 100, add and subtract within 10, and decompose numbers. They learn the concept of time, positions of objects, and how to analyze 2 and 3 dimensional shapes. Kindergarten is a student's first exposure to algebra and geometry.

These examples are just a few of the 70 standards that are taught in English language arts and math alone in kindergarten. Imagine what it must be like to be one of the approximately three to 4% of students in California whose first experiences in school is when they enter first grade. Their peers are entering first grade prepared for the increased academic rigor thanks to their early literacy skills, numeracy skills, and social emotional skills. In kindergarten, while new to school, first graders enter school a full year behind their classmates, academically and socially.

Thank you so much. We'll just ask you to wrap up your thoughts.

Thank you. I'm in support.

Thank you so much. Other witnesses in support of AB 2226.

Shelly Gupton, CTA fifth grade teacher from Elk Grove Unified School District

Annie Chow at the California Teachers Association proud co-sponsors of this measure.

John Winger, on behalf of the California Charter School Association in support.

Jennifer Baker on behalf of the California Retired Teachers Association and the California Association for Bilingual Education in support.

Good afternoon Chair and Members Tristan Brown with CFT here in support.

Xong Lor with the California School Employees Association in support.

Martha Sarragoza-Diaz, representing Delta Kappa Gamma California and the California Music Educators Association in support.

Cristina Salazar with Californians Together in support.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Members Dominique Donette from Ed Voice in support.

Sierra Cook with the San Diego Unified School District in support.

Good afternoon. Martha Alvarez, the LA Unified School District, proud co-sponsor thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? See none. Anyone in opposition to AB 2226? Two minutes, sir.

Thank you, sir. It pains me today to have to oppose this legislation. Unfortunately, because of pass legislation prior, SB 277 in 2015 and SB 20, SB 276 in 2019, schools now require that students be immunized with the student with the childhood vaccine schedule. There is still a group of Californians here that do not wish to participate in that because they feel it's not safe for their children. And they do wait till the last moment to get those shots because they cannot afford to do homeschooling.

They're not in a position to do that, or they do not have individual education programs. So I do request that the author implement an amendment to this, that those students, before they enter kindergarten, have an exemption to not be required to get that until first grade, because those parents also feel that the longer they wait to get those vaccines, the safer those children will be. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lance Christensen, Vice President of California Policy Center. Thank you for having me here. I'm here in support or in opposition to this Bill, but in support of the tens of thousands of parents just simply don't want their children kindergarten for any number of reasons to force them to do so. They may be emotionally or otherwise immature, not the ability or functions to get to school. Or maybe the parent just simply wants to have them for another year.

As a parent of five who sent all of their kids to kindergarten, I can see the value in it. I also can see the value in kids just staying home with their parents, because thats simply what they want. So we respectfully oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in opposition to 2226 name and organization only seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Seeing none. Mr. Chair, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. You know, if I may, I just want to briefly address the concern raised about not every family may want to send their kids to kindergarten. This Bill does allow parents the choice of keeping their children home until they're six years old, as that is the current requirement for compulsory education. And the Bill also clarifies that kindergarten attendance can be through homeschooling if they choose to. And so families that want to homeschool their kids can fulfill this kindergarten requirement through homeschooling.

But the bottom line is that we want to send a clear and consistent message to all communities, to all families, that there is so much importance, so much learning, so much social emotional development at the early ages, and that we want to make sure that we don't allow for these equity gaps in these communities by sending mixed messages in terms of the importance of kindergarten. Kindergarten is important. Every kid should attend kindergarten. And with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will go ahead and move the Bill. I'm not gonna be able to support it today, but I think we might need a motion here, so I'll move the Bill. Okay. Madam Secretary, please call the roll file.

Item eight, AB 2226. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That Bill is on call. We'll leave it open for absent Members. And we're moving on to file item number one, Assembly Bill number 1825.

And in fact, as the staff analysis indicates, according to the American Library Association, there has been challenges of book titles in the United States. Across the country increased 65% from 2022 to 2023, the highest level ever documented by the American Library Association. The point about the titles in particular, representing the voices and lived experiences of LGBTQ and black, indigenous and communities of color being targeted, they made up 47% of those targeted in the censorship attempts here in California.

In 2023, there were 52 challenges to 98 books in public libraries and school libraries. That compares, in 2022, there were 32 attempts to ban 87 titles. So this Bill. I reached out to the American Library Association and to the ACLU, and this Bill seeks to prohibit public libraries. And let me distinguish public libraries from school libraries. We had a Bill last year that dealt with school libraries. This Bill deals with public libraries.

This Bill would prohibit public libraries from banning books that discriminate against or exclude materials based on race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, political affiliation, or socioeconomic status on the basis that the materials under consideration contain inclusive and diverse perspectives. We want inclusive and diverse perspectives, and that is exactly the point of this Bill. Unfortunately, the freedom to read a cornerstone of our democracy has been under attack, not only in California, but across the country. For example, in Fresno County.

Fresno county introduced a resolution that constitutes an unconstitutional form of censorship targeting books based on seemingly disfavored speech, references to bodily anatomy, sexual content, and gender identity. And we're going to hear more from the City of Huntington Beach, which introduced a resolution which would impose an unconstitutional censorship scheme on the people's right to access library books and materials protected by the First Amendment. This Bill was drafted by librarians and First Amendment advocates as represented by the American Library Association and the ACLU.

I have had very productive discussions, and I expect to hear from our California librarians through the California Librarian Association on further work that needs to be done to make sure that we get this policy right in this complicated area.

And before I turn it over to the witnesses, let me just say that, you know, not only as an advocate of the freedom to read, but also as a parent, you know, who has had many conversations with other parents about whether this Bill is going to allow for pornography in our state libraries or, you know, whether it's going to take away the ability of librarians to be able to exercise their professional judgment and discretion to make sure that books provided to the public are age appropriate and developmentally appropriate.

The goal and the intent of this Bill is to entrust and, you know, give the authority that discretion to librarians in a way that allows for such judgment as to where and how such books should be displayed, but in a way that doesn't allow the minority voices and communities to take away from the majority of Californians who want simply to be able to enjoy the freedom to read the books of their own choosing.

With me, I'm very proud to have a Council Member from the City of Huntington Beach who's fighting the good fight, and he's going to share much of what's been happening in Huntington Beach in terms of their book banning taking place in their community. Councilman Dan Kalmick has been fighting that effort, and he's going to share his experience and also proud to have, representing Equality California, Craig Pulsipher, very much appreciate both of them joining us in support of the Bill.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Two minutes per witness, please.

Thank you, Chairman Muratsuchi, Members of the Education Committee staff, my name is Dan Kalmick. I'm an Elected City Council Member for the City of Huntington Beach. I appear before you today in support of Assembly Bill 1825, the California Freedom to Read Act. This Bill would help protect my library and my city that is under attack by those who have a misguided view of what libraries are and are supposed to be. Libraries are for everyone and for all ages.

But my mayor and council majority have decided that our team of award winning librarians and trained library staff are harming our children, a problem that objectively does not exist. So they've taken it upon themselves to create, under existing law, the Community Parent Guardian Review Board for the procurement of children's library materials. This envisions to have 21 residents reviewing all the books in our children's library and new material being acquired, which is effectively a ban if they are determined to not be allowed in our library.

Now, it should be noted that they're defining children as anyone under the age of 18. These parents and guardians are not required to have any training or expertise to review some 6200 books and materials that we acquire annually. We need this Bill to protect our more than 100 year old library system from a group of short term bandits, folks that espouse a belief in the constitution and Bill of Rights.

But that are, shortly after being elected, immediately turned to restricting the rights of others that don't conform with their narrow and often hateful views. Tangentially, in a move to gain greater control over our library, they're looking into outsourcing the management and operations. So I'm glad to see language in this Bill that would cover that eventuality as well. Huntington Beach is a charter city, and as the Attorney General is aware, we have an anachronistic of distinction of having an elected city attorney.

His office has sent our city on many a fool's errand just for the sake of fighting a fight with taxpayer dollars. The library issue is no different, which is why we need accountability in this Bill. The ability for a user of the library to take civil action against the city and library entity and not the librarians therein is a must. Accountability is what's missing from this entire conversation. The Committee I spoke of earlier does not include any appeal process.

The 21 random political appointees with no qualifications at all will have the final say in what enters our library. That's not democratic. That's not American. America relies on experts. The Apollo Program didn't rely on amateur politicians to do calculations for lunar orbital insertion. No. They used the best people for the best jobs.

Thank you so much. I will ask you to wrap up your thought, please.

Thank you. I'm a parent of a four year and a one year old. The right to stop children's right in the sweet spot of the children's library. I believe that it's parents that should decide what their children should read and not what my children should read.

Thank you so much for that. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, Craig Pulsipher from behalf of Equality California. Proud to be here in support. Appreciate the Assemblymember bringing this Bill forward to ensure that our public libraries remain committed to intellectual diversity and ensuring that folks can see their own stories and communities reflected in the books they read. As we've seen over the last several years, California is not immune from the growing efforts to suppress free expression and intellectual freedom.

And national campaigns to restrict the freedom to read, learn and think are coming to our state, resulting in harmful policies like recent attempts to ban books that reference LGBTQ Civil Rights Leader Harvey Milk or speak truthfully about race and systemic racism in the US. According to a recent Pan America report, books that include diverse characters, primarily characters of color and lgbtq people, were overwhelmingly the subject of book bans. And at the same time, most book bans primarily target female people of color and lgbtq authors.

Of the nearly 6000 instances of book books banned across the country during the previous two school years. 36% include lgbtq characters or themes, and 37% include characters of color or discuss race and racism. We've also seen an uptick in bands that weaponize alarming rhetoric and misleadingly characterize books as age inappropriate or obscene to censure materials that humanize lgbtq people and experiences.

These policies all contribute to the current spike in bans targeting lgbtq people, leading the American Library Association to report that the majority of books challenged since 2021 drew complaints for their lgbtq content. We stand with our partners and allies to denounce book bans designed to rob lgbtq people, people of color, and other marginalized groups of the ability to contextualize their own experiences, histories, and culture.

And this Bill is an important and timely measure that will protect intellectual freedom in California and prohibit banning books solely based on partisan views or discriminatory bias against minority groups. Again, appreciate the chair bringing this forward and respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 1825? Name and organization, please. Hi there.

Rachel Bogwood, ACLU California Action in support of this Bill.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to AB 1825?

Thank you Mister Chairman and Members, I'm Christina DiCaro. I'm the lobbyist for the California Library Association. We represent city, county, special district, and other types of libraries. CLA has an opposing, less amended position on the Bill that is before you today. In our letter to the author, CLA highlighted various points of concern, including the private right of action language and the reference to the ALA Bill of Rights.

I am pleased to report, however, that last night Mr. Muratsuchi spent almost a full hour with my client, deliberately going through each point of contention that we had with the Bill. We were incredibly impressed with the thoughtful and productive approach that the assembly member took with our group. He really listened to the real world impacts that the Bill could inadvertently have on our libraries, and he offered some solid solutions to us.

Based on our conversations with the Assemblyman, there does seem to be an acceptable path forward, and we are very hopeful that we can reach a resolution very soon. I want to personally thank him for the time he invested with the client. His sincerity is coming from a great place with this Bill. We appreciate it very much. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please. You have two minutes.

My name is Cynthia Cravens and I'm testifying on behalf of Erin Friday, attorney, and thank you attorney and lead of our duty. We oppose AB 1825 unless amended in conformance with the submitted opposition. The intent of this Bill is obvious. The preamble references public school libraries, unified school districts, and union high school libraries, demonstrating that it will not merely affect what one normally considers a public library. The cost section references school districts.

Another telltale sign if we are wrong, take out all references to school districts or better yet, state in the Bill that it is inappropriate to school libraries, applicable to school libraries or co located libraries. We know that we are right. This is the part of the agenda to disempower school boards from deciding what books they believe are appropriate to be purchased and shelved in their own communities. The Supreme Court in PICO held that school boards have great latitude in deciding what books are appropriate.

And you want to remove that? This is another Bill ensuring that the sexualizing of children continues unabated. We request that this Bill be amended to ensure that harmful material, that is obscene material as it relates to children are shelved away from children's sections. And we firmly believe in the right for public libraries as opposed to school libraries to carry offensive materials covering all viewpoints. A well written Bill would actively be helpful to us who believe in biological reality.

Books such as lost in transnation, irreversible damage, the transgender craze, seducing our daughters parents with inconvenient truths about trans transing our children and Trans will be required to be shelved and available to the public. Please vote no on AB 1825 Erin Friday, Esquire co-lead of Our duty USA and Executive Committee for Protect Kids California

Thank you, thank you so much. Any other witnesses? Opposition to 1825 name and organization only, please.

David Bolag representing California Parents Against Pervasive Vulgarity in our school libraries in opposition unless amended as our duty requested. Thank you.

Charlotte Johnson individual parent opposed to AB 1825.

Lance Christensen, Vice President of California Policy Center opposed unless amended as indicated. Thank you.

Greg Burt California Family Council opposed unless amended.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in opposition to AB 1825? Seeing none. Bringing it back to the Committee Members seeing none. Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Addis.

It's not a question. I'll move the Bill. But also I just want to appreciate you, Chair Muratsuchi, for bringing this forward. I think it's incredibly important. I want to apologize to the transgender community for what you've had to listen to today, any of the rhetoric in this room, because it's absolutely unwarranted.

And I think it's particularly important that we have bills like this that stand up for all children and all people in our communities and stand up for the importance of intellectual engagement and literature and the availability of literature that truly does represent our communities. And so just want to appreciate all of you for taking the time. These are hard things. There's been so many attacks lately, and every time we hear these attacks, they become re-traumatizing for people. So I just want to say another thank you for that and for your leadership on this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other second? We got a second. Ms. Bonta, Mr. Chair, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of the concerns raised by the Bill. Number one, as I stated earlier, the Bill only deals with public libraries, not with school libraries. That is highlighted in the Committee analysis. Under existing law, there is a definition of public library. It's in a section of the education code that deals with non school public libraries.

But I'm happy to explore whether there needs to be further clarification to make it absolutely clear to anyone that this only deals with public libraries. Last year, we had a Bill that dealt with school libraries, and so the intent of this Bill is to just deal with. With public libraries. I want to acknowledge and appreciate the California librarians, as I stated, the history of this Bill.

I mean, my goal in this Bill is a Bill that is supported by librarians wholeheartedly and by civil libertarians, as well as all of the strong support from the LGBTQ community, the ACLU, and other communities that have been impacted by these book bans. All Californians that want to fight book bans.

Through the process of drafting this Bill and redrafting and redrafting the Bill, I have learned some of the politics of librarians, what works for the American Library Association, which helped draft this Bill, original Bill, you know, may not work for the California librarians, but as you heard from the representative from the California librarians, I'm fully committed to addressing their concerns. Especially, I want to highlight the private right of action.

The only reason why we put the private right of action is because we wanted to have an enforcement mechanism for, you know, for violations of what we see are the core values in terms of supporting the freedom to read. But we also heard loud and clear from California librarians, especially from small and rural libraries, that they are concerned about how this might invite unnecessary litigation. And, you know, I certainly this is not a partisan issue. We want libraries to be fully funded. We don't want that funding to have to be spent on lawyers or have to deal with lawsuits.

And so we are discussing with stakeholders if we can accomplish the goals of the Bill which I believe we established in our meeting yesterday, we're in complete agreement that we need to have identify the core values to protect the freedom of right to read, as well as to have a mechanism to enforce those core values in a way that doesn't invite unnecessary, excessive litigation that may threaten the important library services. So, overall committed to working with any concerns being raised.

And last, but certainly not least, I've gained tremendous respect for the important work done by professional librarians and all of their training, all of their experience, to exercise their judgment, their local control, to be able to develop collection development policies on what books to procure and how to make them available to the public. It's a balancing act that works in different ways in different communities.

But ultimately, the goal of the Bill is to establish those core principles to support the freedom to read, while at the same time giving proper deference to the professional judgment of our local librarians. Those are the guiding principles of the Bill. It's a work in progress, but very much appreciate the support that we've received thus far, and very much would appreciate your support today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Madam Secretary, please call the roll file.

Item one, AB 1825. The motion is do passed to Judiciary. [Roll cAll]

A Bill is out. We'll leave it open for absent Members. Mr. McCarty, you're up.

We are, I believe, the final Bill. Well, we still need to take all the votes on the bills, but for presentation, the final Bill, item number 17, AB 3131. The floor is yours, Mister McCarty.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I present this Bill today, AB 3131, related to career education, CT Education in California, as well as Black Californians. This was an important issue of the reparations report that came out over a year ago.

It's a priority Bill of our Legislative Black Caucus as we look forward to tackling education and economic mobility issues among Black Californians through our reparations package. We do have this career CTE education program incentive grant program in California, and this just better aligns that with our Black students in California, who have unfortunately, too many times been excluded from career education programs. Oh, we'll go back to the beginning, Mister Chair.

Thank you and your Committee staff for working with us, and we will be accepting these Committee amendments. Again, our reparations report focused on this issue and found that expanding access to high quality career education programs is a vital step in closing the existing achievement and opportunity gap that separate too many Californians and frankly, have too much unequal education outcomes. Research shows that there's a wide discrepancy in STEM oriented CTE courses in many of these programs throughout the state.

And this would be an opportunity to make sure that we focus on moving forward in 2024 and rewrite historic wrongs. With me today is a representative from the Greater Sacramento Urban League. Respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members for having me today. My name is Doctor Troy Williams. I'm a public health researcher and the Chief Impact Officer at the Greater Sacramento Area Urban League. The Urban League is the largest and second oldest civil rights organization in the United States. For well over 100 years, our organization has been advocating for Black people to have access to jobs, education, and housing. Our organization serves over 300 communities and has over 90 affiliates nationwide.

So what that means is that on a monthly basis, I have the opportunity to interact with my colleagues and hear about how they're fighting for civil rights. So when we had the opportunity to testify and show our support for this Bill, we stepped up and we were very excited to do so. Now, I was born and raised in a red line community, and I attended a high school that was under resourced and overcrowded.

When I graduated high school, I had no idea what I was going to do. My entire high school career, nobody spoke to me about my post high school decisions. So after I graduated from high school, I ended up getting four jobs, Sam's Club, K Mart Warehouse, Flowers Bread Company, and Holiday Inn Select. I was working 96 hours a week and I was miserable.

Daily in my job, I have the opportunity to interact with community members who are experiencing the same things, and they tell me the same instances of them working blue collar, low skilled jobs, barely able to make ends meet. And we often discuss if we had the opportunity for these types of programs in our high schools, how different our lives would be. How we would love the opportunity to learn these types of STEM careers and professionals in our community, facilitated by people who love us.

So investment into high quality CTE programs that combine academic education with occupational training offer essential tools against persistent inequities. This Bill will help break down those barriers to educational access and create pathways for economic mobility for underserved populations. By prioritizing equity and inclusion in our education workforce development initiatives, we can build stronger and more resilient communities and create opportunities for all Californians to thrive. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Any further public comments in support of the measure please come forward.

Good afternoon, Members and Chair. Erin Taylor, on behalf of the California Dental Association in strong support.

Samantha Johnson for the California African American Chamber of Commerce in support.

Taneicia Herring, on behalf of the California Hawaii NAACP in strong support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments? Motion's been made. Second. Seeing no questions or comments. Thank you very much, Mister McCarty, for this important measure. I know it's part of the larger reparations package and you're being a leader, especially in the education policy space, is an important part of that larger effort. Proud to support the measure. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you for engaging on this and working with us. And we were kind of at the beginning trying to figure out how to best target these resources because, let's face it, black students go to schools all across California and historically redline neighborhoods don't always have that same population after what's happening with housing and mobility and gentrifying neighborhoods.

So we came up with, I think, an appropriate approach looking at the work that we did in this Committee with the equity multiplier, focusing on schools that have high African American student populations and targeting these existing state resources for career education to those schools and those students. Thank you and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

File item 17, AB 3131. The motion is do pass as amended to Higher Education. [Roll call]

5-0. The Bill is out. All right, believe we've concluded presentations on the bills, and so we will now take a vote starting with the consent calendar. Can I entertain a motion and a second for the consent calendar? Is there a second? Second.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll just open the agenda for any add ons for our Bill.

[Roll Call]

The Bill is out. Thank you very much. It.