Senate Standing Committee on Education

Thank you, Mister chair. He grew up in Illinois, or partly, yes. Product of the Midwest. That's correct. Thank you very much. I want to thank the chair and Lynn Lober for working with us on this measure, like all bills, is very important. So I want to explain the catalyst for this Bill. The catalyst Bill came from a young sophomore student at Chino High School named Lawrence Kim, who actually is here with us today, was going to testify on the Bill.

Historically, students with neurodivergent conditions have faced unique challenges in educational settings, ranging from misunderstanding and stereotypes to bullying and discrimination. This hinders students academic growth and affects their emotional and social development. As I mentioned, high school student Lawrence Kim proposed SB 939, which helps and acknowledges students with neurodivergence, which is a spectrum of differences in brain function and behavioral traits, including conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, adhd, dyslexia, and more.

SB 939 seeks to amend Section 234.1 of the education code to explicitly include protections for neurodivergent students, ensuring they receive the same rights to a safe and positive learning environment as their peers. Specifically, this Bill requires the Department of Education to work with the UC CSU Collaborative for Neurodiversity and Learning, to disperse information to local education agencies, and to expand its online bullying training module to include information about how to support students who are bullied for being neurodivergent with links to resources from the collaborative.

With me here today is Dylan Elliott, who's here testifying on behalf of California State Association of Psychiatrists and the inspiration for the Bill himself, Mister Lawrence Kim. Thank you, Mister chair. Thank you. Mister Umberg. Mister Kim, welcome. Glad to have you here. Please proceed. You have three minutes. I'll start here. Good morning. Welcome. You have three minutes. Thank you.

My name is Dylan Elliott and I'm here on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, or CSAP, in support of SB 939, authored by Senator Umberg, which seeks to support neurodivergent students in the classroom, an effort central to CSAPS goals. Research indicates that the population of neurodivergent youth is increasing, or at the very least, the number of diagnoses being made. As a result, the need for heightened awareness and understanding about the different kinds of learners among educational communities grows in kind.

Beyond ensuring that educators are properly equipped with the knowledge necessary to support all students. One of SB 9309's proposed goals is to support students who may be the victims of bullying. For example, according to the Journal of Attention Disorders, nearly half of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorders are victims of bullying, more than double the amount of bullying experienced by neurotypical peers. It's our belief that information, engagement and resources are an important first step to combat this issue.

With the Committee's amendments, local educational agencies would have access to these resources through an existing collaborative between the UC and CSU system and require that information be made available to the public, both on the Department of Education's website, but also on the websites of school districts, county offices of education and school sites. Additionally, it asks the California Department of Education to expand its online bullying training module to include information supporting neurodiverse students, while CSAP supported the version of the Bill in print.

We recognize the concerns outlined by the Committee in the analysis and appreciate your chair Newman's and your staff's effort in finding an effective path forward that still benefits neurodiverse students. It's a straightforward Bill with no listed opposition. Respectfully asked for your I vote. Thank you Chairman. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Mister Kim, welcome. Good morning Mister chair Members. My name is Lawrence Gaiman. I'm a Baltimore currently. Help him with the microphone if you could. Thank you. Not quiet. Getting there. All right.

A little closer to you. Your voice is going to sound awesome when it's amplified. You guys can hear me, right? zero yeah. You sound good. Sounds good. Okay. Good morning Mister chair and Members. My name is Lawrence Kim and I'm a sophomore currently attending the BSD academy at Chino High School. I'm here to show my utmost support for a bail idea that I came up with, SB 939.

As a longtime advocate for neurodivergence awareness, I've often noticed numerous measures being taken by the state to provide support for the neurodivergent population directly. Despite this, I could easily notice within my own school communities over the past years that many of my neurodivergent peers were still being left out and bullied. After thorough conversations with not only my neurodivergent peers, but also with their parents, I was able to identify that the rouge cause of this continual exclusion was a lack of awareness within the student body population.

I had never received any type of education on neurodivergent populations at school, and the sole interactions with my neurodivergent friends was the only outlet for me to learn more about them. It's critical that a student body receives a proper education regarding such a significant part of the school community.

As someone who's been judged for wearing hearing aids and received utmost understanding from my peers after an intervention by a teacher, I can assure you that a mere education of our differences can make a huge impact on a child's life. Once the General student body acquires proper knowledge about our neurodivergent population, it will be a situation working both ways. Direct support from the state along with community support from peers.

I truly appreciate Senator Umberg's initiative in authoring SB 939 and supporting the growing neurodivergent population in our school system. And I ask for an aye vote on this Bill. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for your testimony. Are there any other individuals in the AW than the room would like to testify in support of the Bill? Your name, your organization, your position. Chartered Members Carson Eads, on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support of this Bill? Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Melissa Cortese on behalf of Autism Speaks in support.

Thank you. Miss Cortese, is there anybody here, like, testifying in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Let us now establish a quorum. I believe we have 11234. Unless. I know. Unless I've been in this morning. No. We screen a little more rigorously for this Committee. I'm sorry. We're on other committees, so we do not have a quorum. I apologize. Let us come back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from my colleagues here? Just long overdue.

Thank you for bringing your idea to us and for your very articulate presentation today. Thank you. And can I assume you'll move the Bill when appropriate? All right. Thank you. Any other comments? Questions? Senator Amber, you mentioned the Committee, but I'm not sure if you explicitly accept the amendments proposed. Mister. I appreciate that. So I'm glad to support the Bill. I'm grateful that you accept the amendments.

There is still work needed to, I think, to arrive on an accepted definition of neurodivergence. So that's sort of a larger issue I think that this Legislature at some point is going to have to address. But with respect to the Bill, glad to support it. We do not yet have a corner, but when we do we have a motion from Senator Welk? Would you like to close? No, thank you Mister chair. And Members, I appreciate it. Thank you Mister Kim, for traveling here today.

I suspect that in a few years he'll be on the other side of this barrier sitting with you with a voice like that. Absolutely. All right, all right. He's not in my district, fortunately or unfortunately, but yes. Yeah, right, right. All right. Thank you. Urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you Mister Kim. Thank you Mister Elliott. Next up, I see Senator Archuleta. Welcome sir. You will be presenting SB 1315. And as you're aware, we do not yet have a quorum, but please proceed when you're ready. Okay.

Thank you Mister Chair and good morning. And Members, I would like to begin by accepting the amendments outlined in the Committee analysis and thanking the chair and the Committee staff for working with my office on this particular Bill. As we recognize our school do fantastic work every single day, helping our kids to be better educated and begin their pathway to future endeavors and representatives all in our great State of California.

However, they also do outstanding work in meeting the extreme high number of reporting requirements that are required of them each and every day and throughout the year. Senate Bill 1315 would task the California Department of Education with assessing the total number of reports required of school districts and the amount of work that goes into them, and to report to the Legislature on what reports are no longer needed, which ones can be condensed, and which reports should remain.

I don't think we realize it, but our school districts are overburdened and overwhelmed, in some cases with a number of reports required of them. In fact, current estimates put the number of reports on nearly equal footing with the number of school days that the state requires, which is 180 days. But the real issue that we simply do not know all the reports that are required of the school district.

However, we do know that all the while, school district staff are spending a large amount of time in the office gathering, compiling, drafting, formulating and submitting reports that could otherwise be focused on the needs of our students. The time, effort and money spent. Accountability is crucial part of government that we know, and this measure will help meet the intent and provide the better policy development and improve the outcomes of our public education system.

We must give the time to our teachers and any monies available back to our schools. Lastly, it would also help save money, reducing costs and financial burdens associated with unnecessary or obsolete reporting requirements. My staff also shared with you a picture of the sheer volume of reports submitted by school district, and you see it on the pictures that I've provided to give you an example of what is required on a regular basis.

Here with me in support of the Bill is Sophia Layne, school board member for the Cabrillo Unified School District in Half Moon Bay, who's here on behalf of the California School Board Association, and Tatia Davenport, who is the CEO for the California Association of School Board officials. And with all this, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Welcome, Miss Layne.

Thank you. Dear Chair and Members, my name is Sophia Lane and I'm a board member of the Cabrillo Unified School District in Halfmoon Bay and surrounding communities. I'm pleased to be here on behalf of the California School Boards Association, which is proud to be a co-sponsor of this Bill. SB 1315 is a good government measure that would require CDE to produce a biannual report on the number and scope of reports required of our state's nearly 1000 school districts.

Like the vast majority of school districts in California, Cabrillo Unified is small, with seven school sites and a diverse student enrollment of approximately 2800 students. Accountability is an important component of our public education system as it assures the public that taxpayer dollars are being used as intended and it helps inform public participation toward a functioning and vibrant democracy. We fully embrace this important responsibility and work hard to comply with requirements.

However, when combined with increasingly acute educational workforce costs and shortages and the increase in district requirements and state mandates, our district, like many others, has limited staff and resources to identify, develop, and submit what has become an inordinately high number of reports further to ongoing internal reporting that helps us monitor student outcomes, program effectiveness, and operational efficiencies. It pains me to allocate our very limited funding year after year for inefficient reporting processes that stem from the various requirements that have accreted over time.

Unfortunately, even in this digital age, much of this work must be compiled manually because the data resides in the wide variety of it systems school districts must use at any given point in time, and reporting requirements change each year. This takes district office and it staff time, as well as the time of school site staff and even teachers, all of whom we would rather focus more efficiently on direct student needs.

We do not dispute that public funding should be held to account, though rather support the opportunity to regularly reflect upon reporting requirements that will enable our public education system to determine what should be elevated, condensed or eliminated. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today. Thank you.

Thank you. Miss Davenport, welcome.

Yes, good morning. Good morning. I'm Tatia Davenp, CEO of the California Association of School Business Officials, also known as CASBO. We represent more than 30,000 school business leaders throughout the state. We are the proud co-sponsors of SB 1315 and thank the author for bringing this forward. California oversees more than 1000 school districts responsible for educating more than 5.8 million students. Among the various duties are the submission of the mandated reports to the state. They serve various purposes.

While these reports offer insight into school performance and student progress, the volume and breadth of the requirements are straining our local educational agency's capacity to balance public accountability and educational priorities. CASBO recently entered into a study with Wested of the chief business official, or CBO, role and responsibilities. While the primary role of a chief business official is to conduct comprehensive financial analysis and strategic financial direction, we found that 12% of a CBO's time is spent on compliance and reporting.

This percentage is double for our small school districts and while we work on an ongoing basis to learn more about the volume of recording reporting, we are currently at line item 240 on an Excel spreadsheet and our folks love Excel spreadsheets. The conservative fiscal impact is costing our schools nearly 48 and a half $1.0 million annually. And I say conservative because that is the estimation of time of just the chief business official. In the larger districts, they have financial staff and reporting staff to assist.

That is not included. So while each report contributes to the state's understanding of its public education system, the cumulative burden of years of new programs, initiatives and laws placed on the leas is significant and is diverting administrative attention from the student needs. Analyzing the quantity, variety and extent of the reports will aid in us finding information and opportunities to consolidate identify reports that can be streamlined and certainly those that can be eliminated.

This process will create opportunities to allocate additional time and resources towards our student needs. We believe that ultimately will lead to cost savings for our leas by reducing expenses associated with producing these reports as well as those that can be merged with others for efficiency. CASBO stands ready and willing to assist with this important effort. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses here who'd like to testify in support of the measure? Please come forward. State your name, your organization and your position.

Thank you Mister Chair, Members. Andrea Ball here on behalf of three organizations, the Association of Suburban School Districts, the Central Valley Education Coalition, which is six counties superintendents and districts in the Central Valley, and the Orange County Department of ED, hasn't taken a formal position but is acutely aware and supports this Bill. We would support this Bill moving forward. I think the photo of the boxes came from a district in Orange County. So you really can see a picture is worth a thousand words. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Thank you Mister Chair Members. Jeff Vaca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools and the 23 school district superintendents in Riverside County in support.

Good morning. Barrett Snider of behalf of The Small School Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Diana Vu. On behalf of the Association of California School Administrators in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support of more reports, please come forward. First, unsurprisingly, seeing none. Any questions or comments from my colleagues here? No clear sign of a good Bill, so you. That picture, by the way, is from a meeting that I attended with superintendents from Orange County. So your intelligence gathering is impressive, Senator. I don't think you were at the meeting, you somehow obtained that photo. But you do realize there is a certain amount of irony in a Bill that requires a report about too many reports.

Yeah. Mister Chairman, isn't that ironic that here we're trying to get a report to find out why we have so many reports. But the reality is we've heard that it costs money, time and effort. And with the educational crisis we're in preparing our kids for higher education. Prepare our kids every single day. It is amazing what we've discovered. The cost millions and millions of dollars. Man hours, women hours, human hours, I guess I should say. But it's time to take a good assessment and of what we have here. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I am glad to support it. We do not have a motion. We will from Senator Wilk. When at such time we have a quorum, we'll take it up. But thank you. I suspect this will pass.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members.

Very good. Next up we have SB 1348 from Senator Bradford. So, proceeding.

Just so everybody knows, every Wednesday there's at least three committees that have meet simultaneously. Some of us are either presenting bills or members of multiple committees at the same time. So, apologies for having a very sparse deus here. Welcome. You're shaking your head. Welcome. You have my full and undivided attention. That'll work in your favor, no matter what. Please do.

All right. Thank you, Mr. chair. I'm here to present 1348 and this bill would create a special state level designation recognizing colleges and universities in California that are making significant commitments to promote black student success. Historically, black students are underrepresented on college campuses. The statistics are concerning. Concerning black college students achievement are concerning. National data shows black student enrollment declined 22% from 2010 to 2020. Data also shows black students are more likely to delay attending college after high school.

Black students are more likely to attend college part time, less likely to earn a degree, and more likely to take on greater amounts of student debt and default on loan repayments. 1348 recognizes those colleges in California that focus on black student success by creating and awarding a seal of excellence serving black students.

This recognition would be given to institutions that meet the established requirements, such as having a black student population of over 6% or greater, having a black student success program, offering robust African American studies programs, offering co curricular learning opportunities or campus affinity centers for black students, engaging in outreach programs and services that demonstrate a natural tie to the black community. This Bill also helps students and their families identify colleges and universities in California that deliver high levels of service to black students.

Unlike Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander serving institutions and Hispanic serving institutions to black students, serving institution will be focused on expanding educational opportunities to improve academic attainment and black student success. I respectfully ask for the. I vote. And here today, testifying on behalf of this bill, is Doctor Keith Murry. I mean, Curry.

I'm sorry, who's the President of Compton College. And Doctor Curry is a leader in advancing black student success both on his campus and on the national level. I'm honored to have him join me this morning in support of 1348.

Doctor Curry, welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Bradford, for this bill. Over the last 10 years, I've been involved in black student success programs. I actually am one of the founders of the co founders of the California Community College Black Student Success Week, which is scheduled April 22nd through the 26th. We're offering robust workshops, not only virtually, but also at community college campuses throughout the State of California.

In addition to that, I serve as the national panel on Black Student Enrollment and the black Student Enrollment Expert Advisory Committee, which is a national movement in regards to black student success. I've been chairing that for the last year and a half, so I feel that I have expertise as it relates to this conversation around black student success.

What I'm actually excited about with this bill, it gives an opportunity for colleges and universities to show that they demonstrate that they're doing work as it relates to support of black students success not only by enrolling those students, but also retaining the students as well through providing those programs and programs and services on their campuses. This bill is a bill that's needed not only in the State of California, but also needed nationally.

And California will be at the forefront of the conversation regards to black serving institutions. And I truly support this bill. And thank you to Senator Bradford for taking the lead on this bill as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Are there any other folks here in the committee hearing like testimony, support of the bill please come forward.

Good morning, Toby Uptain-Villa with the California State Chancellor's Office, here in support.

Monique Barrett, educator from San Diego, here to support.

Thank you. Anybody else? Anybody here like, testify in opposition the bill? Seeing none come back to the dais. Welcome, Senator Ochoa-Bogh. Any questions or comments for Senator Bedford? Thank you. Likewise commend you for the bill. We obviously don't have a quorum yet, but when we do, we'll take a motion, put it to a vote. Thank you. Thanks very much. All right, next up would be number four.

I don't see Senator Dodd, Senator Ochoa-Bogh, you have the option, I guess, of presenting your bill in the absence of a quorum. Or we can wait. You wait. Okay, so we wait. I guess we'll take a short recess while we wait for one or more authors. No.

In order. And Senator Dodd, you're going to present SB 1380, and you are quite welcome to proceed when ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to first thank you and your staff for the work and many hours of discussion on this Bill. SB 1380 is first and foremost about fiscal responsibility and the stability of our California public schools. This Bill helps protect school districts against insolvency when evaluating petitions for new charter schools, and closes a loophole that currently allows a petition lawfully denied by a district to be resubmitted as a substantially similar countywide charter.

This maneuver is an abuse of the existing appeals process, which was carefully negotiated by this body, and this Bill does not change. And it also ties the hands of county boards who currently cannot consider the fiscal and community impact that previously denied the charter petition.

A countywide charter petition should be approved on its merits, but existing law is so vague on how we distinguish a countywide charter petition from a single district petition, that it leaves room for the types of abuses I've seen in my own district. The Committee analysis highlights the need for the Bill, but also some areas to work on, including tightening up the definition of substantially similar petitions, making sure we only target districts in financial distress.

And I'm committed to doing the work with Chair Newman, this Committee, and stakeholders on what that should look like. Lastly, this Bill gives county boards the ability to formally hear from districts that would be impacted by the establishment of a charter school. Now, you may have heard from charter advocates that this Bill impacts the renewal of existing charters, and I can assure you that it is not.

The changes under my Bill only impact petitions to establish new charters or those that have material revisions to their charter, seeking to expand sites or grade levels, something that is already--let me repeat that--this is already subject to the same evaluation as a new petition under existing law. I would be glad to clarify this Bill, this in the Bill, if needed.

I do want to point out, too, that I have some amazing charter schools in my district, and while I think I've heard here and there that Dodd's anti-charter. Look at, I've got the Clarksburg Charter School. That's just high performing, the Kairos Public School. High performing. We've got other charter schools in Yolo County, Sonoma County, Napa County and Solano county that are high performing schools. And nothing could be further from the truth.

This here is, in my view, is like legislative review, legislative oversight, and improvements on existing on the legislation that was passed by this body and by the the Legislature and signed by the Governor, that we can do better for the future. So I have here today William Spalding, the Superintendent of Vallejo Unified School District, and Dana Dean, who's a trustee at the Solano County Board of Education, to speak in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome. And I guess Miss Dean, looks like you're ready to proceed. Please.

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Newman and Committee Members. I am Dana Dean. I have served as a trustee on the Solano County Board of Education for 11 years. Prior to that, I was on the Benicia Unified School board for five years and I have served on the CSBA Board of Directors. County board members have come to understand truly the important role that charter schools play in our communities.

That's why I worked with CSBA and my fellow county board members to protect the county's de novo review in the appeal of denied petitions, as well as the authority to consider countywide petitions when AB 1505 was adopted by this Legislature. SB 1380 would simply address an issue in the current law that serves to undermine the work that this body did so well in reforming the Charter School Act in 2019.

One of the key components of that reform was enabling governing boards to authorize high quality charter schools while considering the sometimes very significant impacts an approval can have on the districts remaining students. That loophole, the loophole that the Bill would fix here, currently allows for petitions to be denied by the district and then get another bite at the apple, and it can also enable petitions to circumvent the district altogether while impacting that district greatly. We have seen this occur in various parts of the state already.

In fact, this problem resulted in new litigation in San Benito county. These lawsuits reduce funding that would normally go to students, and importantly for us, create a tension between the local districts and the county boards who really should be focused on working together to serve kids. The Bill not only protects charter school authorizing in California by making the district and county wide processes more compatible, but it also restores the integrity of important protections for existing students.

Cuts to or eliminations of existing programs, increased class sizes and even closures of school sites are just some of the harms that would be prevented by this Bill. I ask you to continue demonstrating your strong support for all students, charter or traditional, by voting aye on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Spalding, welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Newman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is William Spalding, Superintendent of the Vallejo City Unified School District, a co-sponsor of SB 1380. As one of four districts in the state currently in receivership status, Vallejo looks forward to making its final payments with interest on the $60 million in state loans as part of the 2004 emergency appropriation after the district became insolvent.

While the district has faithfully repaid the loan and looks to emerge in the next several months from receivership, the last several years have seen precipitous declining enrollment, and our fiscal recovery is buffeted by further declining enrollment, attendance challenges and uncertain school funding. Vallejo has met these challenges thus far with significant annual budget cuts in school closures and consolidations. We do not want to return to receivership or otherwise burden the state by seeking further financial assistance.

Other districts, like Napa Valley Unified, have made tough budget decisions to avoid Vallejo's fate. These school districts have followed their financial stabilization plans, such as staff layoffs and school closures, to avoid financial catastrophe. SB 1380 recognizes these local efforts and the nullifying effect that new or expanded charter schools would have on these districts by allowing these districts to consider the fiscal impact of a charter school petition. Additionally, SB 1380 would install financial safeguards for fiscally distressed districts to be considered in New County wide charter petitions.

Without these safeguards, fiscal devastation could befall adjacent vulnerable school districts. LEAs are the first and last resort of public education institution, having the fundamental responsibility to accept and educate all children, regardless of circumstances or conditions. To meet this constitutional mandate, districts must be viable and successful. What we seek is a matter of fiscal sensibility and fiscal responsibility. No more, no less. We urge the Committee to support SB 1380. We thank Senator Dodd for his support and foresight in protecting fiscally vulnerable school districts. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any people in the audience who'd like to testify in support of the measure? Please come forward to the microphone. State your name and your organization and your position.

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

Diana Vu, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators in support.

Thank you.

Glenn Amboy, Vallejo City Unified School District trustee, in support.

Thank you.

Cindy Watter, President of the Napa Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees, in support.

Thank you.

Dr. Rosanna Musetti, Superintendent of the Napa Valley Unified School District, in support.

Thank you.

Robin Jankiewicz, trustee, Napa Valley Unified School District, in support.

Thank you.

Rabinder Mangewala, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services, Napa Valley Unified School District in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Carlos Machado with California School Board Association, a co-sponsor on the Bill, and in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Patti Herrera, on behalf of the Oakland Unified School District and San Diego Unified School District in support. Thank you.

Andrea Ball on behalf of the San Jose Unified School District in support.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, let us now hear from witnesses in opposition. Do you have any lead witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. We'll find you space at the table here. And so, Mr. Spalding, if you could move, actually, Jeremiah's in charge. Which way are they going? Going this way. All right. Stage right. Stage left. Do you want, Ms. Dean, do you want to stay together? I don't know. Divide and conquer, I guess. Surround him from a pincer movement from the sides. Okay.

All right. To the witnesses. So you each have combined six minutes across both. So please proceed.

Good morning, I'm Colin Miller with the California Charter Schools Association in opposition. I'm going to be here for questions or for discussion, but I'm going to hand it off to our witnesses. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Miller.

Good morning, Chair, Committee Members. I am Alfredo Rubalcava, Superintendent of Magnolia Public Schools, in opposition to Senate Bill 1380. Magnolia operates 10 charter public schools in Southern California. All of our schools are in high-need communities, and nearly 80% of our pupils are eligible for free and reduced price meals. Magnolia is currently growing and just received a highly competitive federal grant award to expand and replicate our proven and successful model.

SB 1380 unnecessarily expands the ability of school districts to deny new and expanding charter schools based on the district's sole evaluation of vaguely defined conditions. This Bill will also threaten the ability for schools to successfully replicate and expand on a regional level by limiting the countywide benefit option. If this Bill passes, these new constraints could result in the rejection of our expansion plans and our federal grant would be in jeopardy.

But most importantly, the families and students who deserve access to our quality program would be denied that opportunity. SB 1380 solves no problem. Current law is sufficient. Districts truly in fiscal crisis already can deny charter petitions solely on those grounds, and county boards must already determine that a countywide petition meets a need that cannot be met by a single charter.

Magnolia recently submitted a countywide charter petition, which includes more than five pages of rationale as to why the countywide petition was necessary and how it will meet a regional need. This requirement means that the petition already will be substantially different than our existing local approved charters. The vague terminology in this Bill will only create further disputes and lawsuits. SB 1380 would also require that each district opponent of a countywide petition receive the same amount of time as the single petitioner at the county board hearing.

This removes local board discretion and would stack the deck in favor of charter opponents at the public hearing. This Bill was crafted in response to specific regional politics with two school districts in Northern California, but it will have a sweeping statewide impact that will only further deny access to high quality education to students throughout the state. We ask you to reject SB 1380. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next, please.

It's on. Okay. Very good. Good morning, Committee Members. My name is Terrence Johnson of Caliber Public Schools, where our commitment to educational excellence is unwavering, particularly in serving underserved communities. Today, I stand before you with deep concern regarding Senate Bill 1380, a proposal that threatens to undermine the very foundation of educational opportunities in our community. Allow me to provide some context.

In 2021, recognizing the pressing need and the overwhelming demand for a quality high school option in Vallejo Unified, we sought to expand our successful TK-8 program to include a high school. Sadly, Vallejo Unified is a district facing chronic challenges both academically and fiscally, denied our charter petition. Despite the positive analysis of our high school proposal, Vallejo Unified staff by the Vallejo Unified staff and overwhelmingly support from the community, our charter petition was rejected purely due to fiscal concerns because the district had received a state loan 20 years earlier. Despite no evidence of current fiscal crisis, the state board upheld the local decision, citing the current law. Now, Senate Bill 1380 looms before us, threatening to further exasperate the injustice of expanding the reasons and the timeless, unilateral charter denial for all school districts, even though those not in fiscal crisis.

If passed, it would further limit educational options for families in Vallejo and throughout the state, perpetuating the cycle of limited choice and missed opportunities. It fails to acknowledge the dire consequences of such limitations, forcing families into agonizing dilemma. Settle for failing schools or uplift their lives and search for better alternatives. Senate Bill 1380 does not promote fiscal health. It will not improve fiscal and academic underperformance in Vallejo schools.

But it will disregard the voices of our students, our parents, educators who are deeply invested in future education in our community. In conclusion, I urge you to prioritize the needs of our students and families and reject Senate Bill 1380. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any in the Committee hearing like testify in opposition to the Bill? Please come forward. State your name, your organization, your position on the measure.

Thank you. Nicolle Young, Placer County Chapter Chair of Moms for Liberty as well as the Legislative Chair of for the California Moms for Liberty chapters. We are in strong opposition. Children should not be shackled to their failing public schools.

Thank you.

Margaret Arader, longtime charter school parent, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Dr. Ramona Bishop, former Superintendent of Vallejo City Unified School District, current visionary and CEO of Elite Public Schools serving Vallejo students.

Thank you.

Laura Kerr with a Charter School Development Center in opposition.

Thank you.

Casey Taylor, Achieved Charter Schools, opposition.

Mr. Chairman, Brian White on behalf of Association of Personalized Learning and Schools and Services, respectfully in opposition.

Thank you.

Roxanne Villaseñor, Superintendent of River Charter Schools, oppose SB 1380.

Thank you.

Krista Woodgrift, Superintendent of Sage Oak Charter Schools, parent of students at Inland Leaders Charter Schools, in opposition.

Thank you.

Mary Cox, Superintendent of CORE Butte Charter School, in opposition.

Matt Taylor with Gateway Charter Schools, serving 6000 students in Yolo County and Sacramento County, in opposition.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Windi Eklund, Placentia resident and Suncoast Prep Charter School Leader, representing 1200 students in Orange County and surrounding counties, and we are opposed to 1380.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, my name is Nikki Nicola. I'm with Suncoast Charter as well, and in Orange County and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jared Austin, Kairos Public Schools Executive Director, Backfill, Solano County, in opposition.

Thank you.

Christine Ferris, Superintendent of California Pacific Charter Schools, in opposition.

Catelyn O'Haller and Heller, representing Dixon Montessori Charter School, in opposition.

Thank you.

Elizabeth DelConte, teacher representing California Pacific Charter School, in opposition.

Thank you.

Shannon Green, representing California Pacific Charter School in opposition.

Thank you.

Nick Driver, Superintendent, Griffin Technology Academies in Vallejo, Solano County, in opposition.

Thank you.

Dr. Sherry Segura, and I'm representing the Foundation for Hispanic Education as the Superintendent in East San Jose, in opposition, respectfully.

Beth Bourne, Yolo County Moms for Liberty, opposition.

Thank you.

Mimi McMahon, retired teacher, in opposition.

Thank you.

Magaly Zagal with Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Aspire Public Schools, in opposition, thank you.

Thank you.

Kara Marquish, Yolo County, in opposition.

Charlotte Johnson, fed up parent with public schools, in opposition.

Thank you. Thank you to all the witnesses. Let's come back to the dais. Questions, comments, concerns from my colleagues? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I have a set of questions.

Sure.

All right. So the first question that I've been, that I'm going to be posing is that we recently approved AB 1505 that allows districts in fiscal distress to deny charters without regard to the quality of schools in the district or the quality of the proposed charter. Vallejo used existing law to deny a charter because the district had a 20 year state loan and state oversight.

This Bill will give the district five more years after the loan is repaid to deny charters, even if the district is failing academically. So the question lies as to why are we extending that time frame in which they can deny charter schools? And lastly, let's see. So, current law also has specific criteria and an independent determination by the COE and the FCMAT to assess the fiscal impact of a proposed charter school on a district.

This Bill will allow any district to claim fiscal crisis to deny a charter if the district has enacted a necessary budget solution within the prior five years. This does not appear to be defined in the Bill, and presumably all districts enact budget solutions every single year. So the last question would be, who determines what the reasonable solutions would be and whether the district's unilateral determination is reasonable? There is no criteria to, there's no clear criteria and no appeal on this.

Well, let's start with the first question. Mr. Spalding, do you want to respond to that? The question was, it allows five years after, it allows five years after you've left receivership to be able to deny charter schools. And her concern is, why is that in the Bill?

So there's long standing issues in a lot of.

I'm sorry, I don't think that mic's working. Yeah, we've been having some AV probs. There you go.

As I made, as I had said in my opening comments about kind of longstanding fiscal issues that have befallen the district, and a lot of it is pretty precipitous declining enrollment, which continues. This allows us some additional time to emerge from receivership. The other thing is it tracks with a five year process that's already in the law that has us follow a fiscal stability plan that's overseen by the county Superintendent.

And so while we're being basically held in probation, this tracks for the same period of time, which allows for us to be able to deny other kinds of things that might come in and exacerbate our fiscal situation. So we tried to find a five year track that was similar to the track of probation we're on once we exit receivership.

And the next question. Did you, are we tracking on that?

Yeah.

Do you care to repeat the question, because--

Go ahead, Senator.

Oh, sure.

So who determines what the reasonable solutions are and whether the district unilateral determination is reasonable? There's no clear criteria and no appeal on this within the bill.

I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?

Absolutely, yes. So let me--would you like me to read the paragraph before? Absolutely. 'So current law has specific criteria and an independent determination by the COE and the FCMAT to assess the fiscal impact of a proposed charter on a district. This bill will allow any district to claim fiscal crisis, to deny a charter if the district has enacted a necessary budget solution within the prior five years. This does not appear to be defined in the bill, and presumably, all districts enact budget solutions every year.' Who determines what reasonable solutions are and whether the district's unilateral determination is reasonable? There's no clear criteria and no appeal of this.

So we start with the district itself, which actually knows what's happening on the ground. So--and those folks are elected for that purpose by the people in the community. So that would be my first answer. Secondly, as a county board member, I will tell you that we often hear whether there is a specific appeal process or not, and I'm not actually sure there isn't an appeal process, but whether there is a specific appeal process or not, we hear from--and the Superintendent--we and the Superintendent of Schools for the county hear concerns and address concerns throughout the process.

And so, Senator, through the Chair, I think that's a valid--I think it's a valid concern, and I think that the staff, Committee staff had mentioned to us in the staff analysis that this is an area that we can tighten up on, and that's something that we intend to do, and if this bill gets out today, you can be assured that that will be an area of strong consideration in terms of tightening that language up.

Okay. Thank you.

If I could add one thing further, the County Board often, you know, we have our own school system and we serve students directly, but also we serve as an appellate body on any number of issues, including expulsions, transfers, charter appeals. So it would be quite natural for us to participate in that.

Okay. And then one last question: the bill--actually, I have a lot of questions, but I want to just narrow it down here--the bill would deny a similar petition for being submitted as a countywide charter. If it had been denied locally, would this apply, even if a charter was denied wrongly by the local district and even overturned at the state? Wouldn't that reward bad behavior?

So in terms of a petition being denied wrongly at the district level, the appeal process remains in place. So, for example, in our county, we have received appeals of a district denial and actually approved that charter and then became the authorizer. And that's still in place. That doesn't change. But then, I think more particularly here is the idea that the exact same thing be brought on a countywide level.

Now, there's absolutely a place for countywide charters and countywide petitions, but the idea that you simply cut and paste--and honestly, I've seen that in my 16 years. I've seen other charters, charter applications that were used in some other jurisdiction just mimeographed almost. So that's what we avoid with this bill. Absolutely the pellet process is still in place and it's been successful in our county.

So let me just share my last comments. This is just personal. Sorry. I mean, completely support that our--that our schools need to be--our school districts need to be fiscally viable. It's paramount that that is the case, and as a former Member of the Budget One Committee for Education funding, I was an advocate to ensure that we had the funding going to our school districts to make sure that they were provided for.

But there is kind of a concern that I have that as perhaps declining enrollment, which we can all ask ourselves as to why there's variety, we've heard it all. You know, this is my fourth year on this Committee. Variety of reasons of why we're losing our children to our public school system.

And in light of perhaps that impact that it has in our school districts, along with, you know, the reports that many parents feel that we're not meeting the needs of our children academically, based on the data that's coming in as far as the reading levels, math, science, you know, in every--in the performance part of our schools.

As our public school districts have declining enrollment, as the performance levels are not meeting the standards that many parents believe that they should be performing at that certain level, you know, succeeding, I'm really hesitant to create a system that's going to make it more difficult for charter schools or for parents to have options that will meet the children's needs.

And so I'm nervous that because of those fiscal decisions or academic or fiscal decisions that a school district as a whole may have that may have jeopardized or is jeopardizing the fiscal viability that we are putting the weight of those choices and that performance on the ability for charter schools to be able to be in existence as an alternative for families and children.

And so this is where I'm having a really hard time with this bill is because I don't want to jeopardize what may be perceived or maybe the reality of systems that are failing our students and not have viable options as an alternative for kids. They should not be responsible for those particular reasons. So that's where I'm coming from as far as I'm grappling with this particular bill.

I'm happy to speak to that. I think--personally, I think that's a pretty broad statement about the bill, and, you know, I don't agree with a lot of--I hate to use this word because I'm very respectful of the circumstances we're in, but the sense of scare tactics that are being used about the bill. The bill actually--and from my view, as a practitioner, somebody who sits there and does this--the bill actually tightens up the process, and from my view, actually makes it more fair.

So I don't see this as a bill that's suddenly going to destroy charter schools in our state. In fact, it's a small tightening of a really good process that you all have put together that allows us to operate fairly. So there's a whole thing about fairness that hasn't really been brought up here. This is not the destruction of charter schools. This is making processes.

That's not the point that--I'm not stating that at all.

I'm sorry if I missed--

No, no. Not that it's destroying charters, it's just that it would make it difficult for them to be approved or in existence because of the decisions that the school district has made. So those decisions that are creating an environment where we're losing our students, perhaps, maybe one aspect of it, or the fiscal decisions that were made by a certain school district is, in my opinion, unfair to be putting that weight on the ability for charter schools to exist. And that is one concern that I have in general.

I am an advocate for public schools. I've been an advocate supporting, making sure that they have what they need, but by the same token, it's really disheartening to see that we have over and over policies that really infringe on the ability to have our public, our charter schools in place. And so I want to find a balance on that, not jeopardizing our public schools, but also--ensuring that they have the tools--but also ensuring that we have options for our parents.

Thank you. Appreciate that. I want to give the opponents a chance to respond, and let me frame it just a little bit. One of the questions here is about the distinction between a local and a countywide charter, and sort of as a subset of that is whether or not that process has been used to subvert the otherwise normal proceedings with respect to the approval or denial of the charter school.

So your thoughts on that or your response to that, but also on the broader question, like what should the difference between the countywide charter and a local charter as it relates to the situation that's the kind of catalyst for this bill?

Yeah, I'd like to go back to the original question, though, which is about AB 1505 and when we initially agreed on a process to allow districts to consider fiscal impact. The important part of that was a very closely negotiated arrangement of how that would be impacted.

And it did include a process that FCMAT and the county offices would weigh in on that, on some schools, and in some schools they would have the opportunity to deny a charter across the board with no discussion if they were in state receivership, but for other reasons, they would have to go to the County Board and to FCMAT to have an assessment that the charter actually would have a fiscal impact. We know that in Vallejo, charter schools didn't cause their fiscal crisis.

That happened 20 years ago, right? They've had 20 years to recover from that. When this charter went before them, there was no evidence that the district was in any kind of financial crisis. They had a significant reserve in place. They had not been in a negative certification for over ten years. So even with that, the law is very clear that because they were in receivership, they could deny the charter. We think that's very generous.

We don't see a reason why extra time is needed past that 20 years of state oversight and recovery from a state loan that now they would need another five years, and the opportunity to deny in any case, based on a simple fiscal solution, whatever that is. So this goes way far beyond that agreement that was carefully negotiated. And the same with countywide benefits.

So with the countywide benefits situation, when 1505 was passed, one of the trade-offs that was in that bill was the elimination of a statewide benefit option, which had been in law for many years. And in eliminating that, there was an acknowledgement that the countywide benefit would be somewhat of an alternative. And that opportunity was already in current law as well. But it was very important to maintain that as a viable option.

But Mr. Miller, if you could, I mean, to this question of substantially similar and whether or not in these instances, as opposed to from scratch, you know, there is justification in the case sort of cited for the countywide charter in light of the original denial.

Yes, in this case--in the case that this is being triggered by, the countywide charter is substantially different than the one that was denied. They've added a different technology program into the petition. They're reshaping their program to be a regional, countywide program, which by definition and by requirements of the law, the petitioner has to show how and why this meets a countywide benefit that couldn't be met by a local charter. That's very clear in the law.

So Alfredo--just, they're going through that process right now, and he's not up here, but I'll try to speak for him. They submitted their petition for a countywide benefit recently under this expansion. The Magnolia Schools submitted the petition for a countywide benefit charter recently as part of this expansion grant that they got from the federal DOE, and in that they had over ten, 12 pages of justification as why the countywide benefit was different and why it needed to be approved as opposed to individual charters.

That's a requirement of the law right now. So by adding this additional requirements, substantially different, undefined, you're just simply throwing more mud into that dialogue of what it means. The county approval is very different from a local approval in that for a countywide benefit, the county can deny a charter for any reason they find reasonable. They can do anything. There's no appeal for a countywide benefit.

It is definitely--it's clearly the option of the county to choose to approve that charter based on what they need in their county. So there's really the opportunity to deny is not based on the same criteria as a district. It's a very flexible option for counties, and they have a lot of discretion in that process.

Thank you. So it seems to me that one of the issues with this bill is we appear to be talking about two very different things. On the one hand, we have, on sort of the author's side, you know, the assertion that there's a problem with the process that's sort of easily addressed through the provisions of this bill. And I appreciate, Senator Dodd, I mean, your willingness to continue working with staff on sort of clarification or rendering objective some of the distinctions.

But on the other side, it seems that, you know, the assertion here is that, you know, this is at a systemic level, kind of an existential threat to the continued success of charter schools, and so, I guess, if you wouldn't mind, Mr. Miller, speak to that, right, because that really does seem to be the subtext of this discussion.

Yeah, I mean, there are things in the bill that definitely have a significant statewide impact, and we talked about, for instance, the impact on growing schools. With respect to the author, the bill is very clear. The law is very clear that when a charter school grows, they add a grade level or they change to a larger site. They have to go back to the district, and this fiscal impact criteria applies. So this affects growing schools as well as new schools.

As far as I know, we don't have enough great schools in California. We have a problem that we need to deal, and charters are part of that solution. Rather than fighting with charters and opposing them and denying them, these districts that are not serving students very well should be reaching out and learning from those experiences and try to figure out what's working best. We have an opportunity through chartering to really provide some good practices and some good experience, and in many places, that cooperation is happening for a statewide impact and community-wide impact. Creating more tension between charters and districts is not the right solution.

I appreciate that. And I will point out, I mean, that really is the essence of the charter school experiment in California. Senator Dodd, if you'd like to close, please. I'm sorry. Senator Wilk, did not see your hand.

That's cause I didn't put my hand up. I sent it to you telepathically, something I've been working on.

Yeah, well, we gotta work on it.

If Elon Musk can do it, I can do it, because I'm pro-charter school, and frankly, you are, too, but the assault on charter schools has just been brutal. And I was very disappointed when the association caved on 1505. Bad bill. Voted no on it. You probably had no choice, considering the people who sit in the seats in this Legislature, but I do have a problem with this substantially different. I mean, that's not codified at all.

And so anybody could just come up with their own thing and say, that trouble--there's bad actors on both sides. I think one of the reasons for 1505 was a charter school in my district, and I saw what kind of havoc they wreaked. But I've also seen school districts turn down fabulous charters. So I'm really--and I apologize. I wasn't here for the beginning. As you know, we have multiple Committee hearings, so wanted to throw out to both sides about this substantially different, and how does that get determined if it's not in statute? And then I reserve the right for follow-up questions.

Well, from our perspective, the current law already addresses that. The requirements to be a countywide benefit charter are already substantially different than what a local charter is, and the law specifically says that you have to justify why and the County Board must approve findings that show why this is different than a local charter.

Okay. So what's the difference between current law and what's in this bill?

Well, this bill then throws in this other prohibition if it's not substantially similar, or if it's substantially different then--if it's not substantially different--

But you just said it's already in the law, though.

It is. And so now we're creating a different--we're creating another layer that when law is perfectly clear, this vague term is going to muddy the waters and just make all kinds of confusion and lawsuits, and you're going to see districts, you know, going to counties and filing lawsuits like there are now because the county did something they didn't like. And you know, this is just going to give more fuel for that fire.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I'm assuming you want to weigh in, right?

Yes. Thank you, Senator, and you know, we're willing to work with--oh, sorry. Carlos Machado with--

Everybody knows Mr. Machado.

Well I don't.

Who are you with again, because--

The California School Board Association. So substantially similar was added to the bill in attempt to address situations where a district has denied a petition and the petitioners have then either not willing to go through the appeal process all the way through or trying to get a second bite of the apple and just going straight to the county as a countywide charter.

So substantially similar is a way for us to try to address those types of situations in lieu of being able to define more clearly what a countywide charter is because right now, in statute, in essence, the definition is anything that isn't a district-approved charter school. So the line isn't that clear. So we thought this would be a good way to be able to address that.

And the way that that's addressed is by allowing the county to have the ability to differentiate between those two types of petitions. And as our author noted, we are ready and willing to have conversations with charter advocates to see if there's a way to craft that language to more specifically target the instances that we're talking about when it's the same school site or a similar school site, and where the two petitions are targeting the same student population.

So those are key elements that we've seen in the situations that have come up in Napa and in San Benito where they have really focused on it. There's a lot of elements to a petition that are very similar, whether it's a petition in Southern California or Northern California. We're not trying to capture those as part of being substantially similar, but just the key elements that do make them substantially similar like the ones I just mentioned.

Just an added note on that, we are concerned that that provision could have unintended consequences where charters would be forced to either go to what could be a very unfriendly district or go to the county, and if they didn't have the choice to do both, they would just bypass the local. And so you're really removing the local from that dialogue when you force that--you force one path or the other. So, a problem with that.

I would just add they're not supposed to be interchangeable. Those two authorizing processes are not interchangeable as they're written in statute. Our provisions do try to preserve what's in statute by making them distinct, both a district-authorizing process and a countywide authorizing process.

And I will add, I think, as Committees pointed out--and Senator Dodd, you and your staff had conversations--that still, that definition still needs work, right? You know, still needs clarity. Anything else?

Yeah. So where does it--again because I was at another Committee hearing. Where does this go next?

It goes to Appropriations next.

So do we--so I heard willingness to continue to negotiate. So do we have time to allow those parts?

Well, we're not going to do that from the dais here.

No, not from the--of course not from the dais. That's what I'm, asking about--

We have ample time, right? You know, so there's ample time.

Yeah.

I'd like to be supportive, I just--I can't. I just can't. I can't get there. I can't get there today. And I--but I want to be supportive, so I'm just on that as a possible alternative.

Yeah.

What's the--exactly--

I don't know. The gentleman from the school board just said, and there's been--

And that will happen. I think we have a commitment from Senator Dodd to, you know, to work deliberately to make that happen. Not uncommon, right? Okay. Anything else, Senator Dodd?

Yeah. So here's my problem, because I've been here 12 years now, so I know how it works. If we let it out of this Committee, it's going to fly. So our only possible opportunity to have a real discussion on this is in--

Well, I mean, on the one hand, I think I take in earnest the author's commitment to work on this, and, you know, I think--

I trust the author. I don't trust the process.

You don't trust the institution. I appreciate that. I'm sure there are many in this room who would agree with you. But, you know, I think last year we had a bill about the disposition of charter assets. You know, there was an ongoing conversation throughout the legislative year to try and find a workable solution. I think, you know, the commitment here is to do something similar. Is that correct, Senator Dodd?

Yeah. So without any further comment from Senator Wilk, you're welcome to close.

Yes.

Yes. I was going to say in my close that all, you know, the arguments that I've heard are red herrings. Upon further review and listening here today, I don't really think that's true. I think there's an honest--in most cases--dispute on the intent of the language. I will say that having even talked to a numerous people from local charter schools about--first of all, I've talked to numerous charter schools over this time or since we've had it.

Let me tell you, I've never been involved really with bills in this Committee like this. I don't like the charter versus public schools debate any more than anybody in this room maybe does or on the dais, but when I saw what was at stake here, and I look at this like I said in my opening, this is like legislative overview of existing language, and we don't have enough legislative oversight on bills that have already passed from best practices.

So we're seeing what best practices are in the district, and the best practices in the district from the legislation that we have here are not working well. This is an opportunity to make them work better. So the extra five years that we've heard about, that's a problem after exiting receivership. I've never heard that before this hearing today. I don't understand why somebody didn't come up and offer an amendment. No amendments were offered in that area.

The impact on current charters, we made it clear to anybody that's talked to me, I do not want to impact current charters, current successful charters. You heard the opposition today. A lot of great charters; particularly in this District Three, I do not want to impact. But have we had one amendment proposed to us about how we could do that in this bill? None. Finally, you know, the similar arguments, is it substantially similar or different between a charter--excuse me--the local and the county charter.

I think that kind of makes sense to me, too, but not once have we had any offer of any amendments that could make that provision any more clear. So I'm saying when you have opposition that just doesn't want a bill and says no and hell no, it's very hard to work in that environment. So I would invite the opposition. I've been known in my ten years in the Legislature.

I work with opposition on every single bill that I have, and I keep my word to my colleagues on the dais. This is my last year and I do not intend to change my position on that. I will work and work hard to try to make this the best bill that we can have, not only for charter schools, but for public schools, but moreover, for the State of California and the importance of this policy going forward. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I appreciate for that. Thank you. So we do not yet have a quorum, but we will bring this matter to a vote at such time as we do. Thank you to everybody for your participation on this measure. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Want to do a Bill? Want to do a Bill? Yeah, let's do it. Let's do it. All right, next up, again, sans quorum, we have Senator Wilk SB. SB 996. I would note you've left the dais. You can't get your readers. You have to do this. You have to do this in memory. All right, sir, you are presenting 6.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Member. And let's talk about sex. Way more interesting topic than charters. Anyway. SB 996 is a simple transparency measure for school districts to be required to publish their sexual education materials on their website and inform parents how to access those at a publicly noticed meeting. Under current law, sex ed curriculum materials are required to be provided for review upon request, but school educators and administrators are already overworked, underfunded, and there are no timeline requirements currently in the law.

Effectively, the process is to obtain these materials oftentimes becomes excessively difficult. Posting sex ed materials on the district website simplifies the issue for both parents and school districts. Schools would only have to post curriculum online, occasionally update it, and refer parents to the site when necessary. Parents would simply have to look up the materials and request their child to be opted out, which is the current law, if they believe that the if that was the appropriate decision for their child.

Simplifying the process for both sides is important because this issue can quickly and drastically become very heated, and I think it's the highest priority of a parent to educate their children in the way that they want. Schools have a responsibility to make their best judgment regarding what constitutes age appropriate sex ed materials. On the other side, parents should be able to review materials that districts have determined are age appropriate for their children without having to request them so they can make the appropriate choice.

AB 996 removes all barriers to transparency while significantly decreasing administrative responsibilities of schools. Both sides want to provide the students with the best possible education. SB 996 eliminates a significant distraction that has for far too long stood in the way of this goal's realization. Respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have a lead witness?

I chose not to have a lead witness.

Chose to okay you? Yes, Miss Friday. Welcome.

I would. I'm happy to have me toos. Don't want to have a lead witness.

All right, me, too. With some allowance for color.

Well, your chair. I'll defer to you.

No, I'm deferring to the author. We don't have a quorum anyway. Actually, I think it is fair. So I'm sorry. So, Miss Friday, you have three minutes. Please proceed and we will stipulate that you are speaking on your own behalf and not on behalf of the authors.

These are my words. Erin Friday, licensed California attorney, co lead of our duty. So there's not a week that doesn't go by that I don't get an email or a phone call from a parent asking to get access to the sex materials that are being taught to their schools. Not a week. And these parents are being untruthfully told that the material is not available to them because it's copyrighted, which is not actually the law.

These parents then submit requests for records and they are again denied the curriculum, which they are required by law to provide. Then the school districts ask these parents to come in physically into the district's office to review the materials and they lock down the various hours that the parent is allowed to look at it. And they also stand over them. I personally experienced that myself where someone sat in the room and watched as I read through the sex ed curriculum. So this Bill is really needed.

And it's a very, very simple Bill, and it will. I mean, why are we hiding this from parents? I don't understand. When parents have an ability to opt out or opt in, they need to know what they're opting in or opting out to. So thank you very much.

That was outstanding testimony. I will tell you this was driven.

Thank you.

We still have a process. Right?

Okay, whatever.

Hold that thought.

Go ahead. Witnesses in support. Me too. Witnesses, please come forward. Station your name minutes. No, I think that was sufficient.

Concerned mother, believe it or not, with the hair of a 6th grader. And yes, I very much support this Bill.

Thank you. Next please.

Placer county chapter chair, moms for liberty. I represent over 1200 parents in the Placer County area. We support this Bill.

Thank you. Next please.

Charlotte Johnson, a parent asking what's to hide?

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning, Mister Chairman. Senator Wilk. On behalf of Perk Advocacy, we are here on support. Thank you.

Cynthia Cravens, longtime Democrat, former candidate for California State Senate, district 11. And I'm very much in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Next please. You're free to bring the mic back down at normal people's height after.

Mimi McMan, retired teacher and very concerned grandparent about the what is being hidden from parents and grandchildren.

Thank you.

Beth Borne, moms for Liberty, Yolo County. I'm one of the parents who did submit a public records request for the sex ed at my child's school and was told it was copyrighted and that I couldn't have access.

Thank you.

My name is Arwen Funk. I'm another fed up parent who was told I could not access these materials. I'm in favor of this legislation.

Thank you.

Mike Murray, representing the American council in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Carole Marquis, Yolo County Moms for Liberty. I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you.

Dalia Shehita. I'm a proud coptic orthodox from our church. I support this Bill.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses here in opposition to this measure? Please come forward. And you have the. Okay, you have the opportunity for three minutes of testimony as well. All right. We're having mic issues. Welcome. Thank you. Okay.

Good morning, Committee chair and Members, Diana Vu, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators and our more than 17,000 Members, acts as a proponent of transparency and believes parents and guardians of students attending schools should have the ability to access comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education materials. As such, current law Education Code Section 51938 already requires the local education agencies to notify parents and guardians of their rights to inspect written and audio visual materials.

In addition, parents and guardians also have the right to opt their child out of any or all parts of these particular health education subjects. SB 996 moves beyond transparency for parents and guardians of students and provides outside groups a pathway to influence local curriculum. In recent years, leas across the state have increasingly found themselves targeted by external groups seeking to impose their ideological agendas on local schools.

These groups often use tactics ranging from aggressive lobbying and misinformation campaigns to legal threats and coordinated harassment of educators, administrators, and school board Members. Their goal is to exert influence over curriculum decisions, teacher training programs, and other aspects of education policy to align with their narrow interests, often at the expense of academic rigor, diversity, and inclusivity.

This external pressure has created toxic, divisive atmosphere within our schools, undermining the ability of educators and administrators to focus on their primary mission, providing a high quality education to all students. Instead of fostering a collaborative environment where diverse perspectives are respected and valued, these outside forces cultivate discord, feeling contentious debates, and eroding trust within communities.

In addition, these external entities subvert the authority of elected school boards and undermine the voices of parents, educators, and stakeholders who have had substantial involvement in the adoption of instructional materials per education code Section 6002. For these reasons, we respectfully request your no vote on this Bill.

Thank you. Any other witnesses here in the hearing room would like testify in opposition to the measure.

Molly Robeson with Planned Parenthood affiliates of California apologies for the late submission of our letter, but we are respectfully opposed.

Thank you, Miss Robson. Anybody else? Okay, let us come back to the dais. Senator Ochoa Bogh, any questions? Comments for the author?

I've seen this Bill a couple of times since I've been here. You know, it's interesting because I completely agree that they have a right to everything that you said as far as opting out and inspecting the materials. But the problem lies in the fact that many of these parents were hearing reports across the state where they're being denied the opportunity to, despite the fact that we may have parents that may be a little overzealous.

Of course, as a Latina mom, I get why some parents would feel angry. And I think I just want to, for the record, just discuss a little bit of, when we look at anger, and I'm saying this everywhere in my district, and my poor staff is probably sick of hearing it, but the root of all anger is fear. And we have to ask as to why. You know, some parents have so much fear on what is going on.

So I respect the fact that they are, but we are looking at the fact that there are reports across the state where parents are being denied the opportunity to view them or making it very difficult for them. So as a state Legislature, we have to kind of look and ask ourselves, how do we make this a more transparent process in which it can be readily accessible for parents to review? And I don't know how we, I don't know how we can, haven't looked into them.

That's probably something that we might want to look into. But the whole notion of the copyrighted discussion, I haven't looked into that. But we do have to make the, the public school system a little bit more transparent, more parent friendly, because we're losing the trust of californian families and they're either leaving the state or pulling their kids out. And when we look at the declining enrollment in our schools, we have to ask, well, why is that happening?

And start addressing those issues, because it is a detriment to our public school system as a whole. So how do we make our public school system better functioning, more transparent, more, you know, build a trust by Californians so that we can move forward. So that's, I think, what we're seeing and we're trying to mitigate with this particular Bill. So I'm grateful to support the Bill. We'll be happy to move it when the appropriate time is here.

Thank you. If you wouldn't mind. I'm sure you wanted to respond anyway, but to this, to the assertion around copyrighted materials and the use.

Yeah, I don't know anything about that.

And that you don't know anything about that.

I'm going to defer to my new attorney.

Okay. All right. Your pro Bono attorney. Okay. Miss Friday.

Yeah. So all books, every book that a child is reading at school, their textbook has a copyright. That doesn't mean that parents aren't allowed to look at those books.

Well, I think the issue starting up is the posting of those materials on a public website.

Copyright goes to whether the person who is reviewing it is then reusing it for financial gain. So if a parent is just looking at it and reading it, they are not violating any copyright.

Right. The question is, is the district violating a copyright by making it publicly accessible? But Senator Wilk, that's really not your goal. Your goal is simply to make parents apprised of materials that have access to materials.

I've had anecdotally parents come to me and say that the schools would not access it. I can't remember what platform we posted on that we were doing this Bill, and my DM's or private message or whatever was just filled with parents saying, this is a frustration. Now, when I. So a couple things. So when I had kids in school, I was known as Mister Vanessa Wilk because she was PTA President for three years. And I served on the site council.

But I know back then how rumors and gossip would spread. I got to believe it's even worse now. I think this Bill does two things. One, it empowers parents to be able to look at the information to see if it is, in fact, age appropriate for their child. And two, I think it's going to actually reduce the heat and just reduce the heat, and it's going to save administrators a ton of time with dealing if people are trying to stir it up again.

Prior iterations of this Bill was required parents to opt in. We're not doing this. You would have to opt out. It'd probably be single digits, is my guess. But a parent has a right to make that decision, and I'm not doing this because I'm approved. My wife for about seven years, was part of a nonprofit that taught HIV education in the schools. In fact, we'd be at the mall or at a supermarket and kids would go, hey, there's the sex lady. So I'm married to the sex lady.

So I'm definitely, I think they were saying sexy lady.

No, the sexy lady.

So I'm definitely, I'm definitely not approved. But this is, this for me stems from the. I can't remember the Bill number. It was the Corey Jackson Bill last year, 1078. Yeah. And I'm sitting on the back of the floor and we're like all talking over each other instead of having real dialogue. I think this is really simple. I mean, if you're against this, I feel like you got something to hide because you just put it there. You legally have access. You legally have access to it. It's there and then.

Sex lady.

All right, Miss, I have to give you a chance to respond.

Thank you, Senator. Again, we do not oppose transparency. We've absolutely fully supported it. It sounds like the issue is with copyright because when it comes to public posting, it does go public. And as we've seen in our educational environment, it goes beyond the community nowadays.

So I appreciate that. And I want to get some clarification from Senator Wilk. So you are not, as I understand, advocating or committed to posting these materials in total on the website. You're simply, as I understand it, you want to give parents an opportunity on a publicly accessible website, a chance to see exactly what's being presented. Is that correct? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So you're sort of mindful of that copyright problem. That's the goal, is not simply to repost.

My attorney just informed us there is no copyright. There may be other attorneys, but people. Are not using it to turn a profit. There's no infringement.

Because I want to be clear about what you have in mind here. So is it going to have a publicly noticed meeting where parents are going to be informed about just so they can be informed, so they can inspect the materials? But does that inspection include access to the whole of the book or simply an accounting or listing of these are the materials? Because people could then go somewhere else.

Or I think there's a scenario for a school portal that's probably password protected that provides some level of protection on a copyright basis? Is that what you're considering? Do you want to post these materials on the web so everybody can read them from cover to cover? Yeah, you do? All right. Well, there may in fact be copyright issues.

If I may. Here's the problem with the copyright argument. First of all, the public is paying for these materials already in their taxes. So these entities that create these curriculum are paid, I don't know, $30,000 for the curricula if it is put on the website and the parent is just reading it and they are not reusing it. There is no copyright infringement if another third party comes in and looks at, let's say, health connect's curricula and then steals from it.

Well, then there can be a lawsuit. For copyright and there's an easy solution there.

So there is a solution.

You hold it, sir.

And it is in the Bill. If there's a copyright issue, the LEA would set up a portal for parents to go in to access it.

I just mentioned that. But there's sort of two types of material, right? There's curricula that's developed and sold kind of on a contract basis. And then there's books. Right. And so they're different. So on the curriculum side, you can easily build into that licensing agreement or that service agreement with the curriculum provider that they would understand that these materials would, in fact be available. Right. So that would be part of the deal.

But from the point of view of an author or publisher that has, I think, a justifiable fear of cannibalizing their sales, you have to be mindful of that. Right. And this is about actually a book that's all about your body kind of thing. Yeah. Not your body per se. Body.

You don't want my body.

Okay, so, but, you know, speak to that because, I mean, because that's, that is a, you know, that's a valid concern.

We've been discussing this issue for a decade now, and this is the first time this has ever come up.

Well, I wasn't sure. Yeah. So, but, all right. But are you open to narrowing and clarifying?

I'm open to anything that creates greater transparency so parents can be informed. And I'd love to have the whole bite of the apple, but if I only get a part of it, I, you know, I'm in the super minority.

I'm happy just with an emphasis on Miss Vu. Would that come closer to sort of meeting your concerns around copyright? I mean, all we're really talking about is sort of extended transparency, then.

I mean, we'd be happy to focus on the copyright piece as long as. But we do have issues with the public posting of it.

Okay, so clarify in what sense?

In what sense? Because it just brings out further contention. We believe, we believe that the law already provides this information to parents. And if what I'm hearing is that Leas do not believe that they can provide this information to parents because it's copyrighted.

No, no, no. I'm sorry to interrupt. They could simply, they could provide on a publicly accessible website, links to all of this in a screenshot of the cover for instance. Right. With no damage to a copyright. Right. No liability. But, you know, so that's. That is something closer.

I'm totally open to that.

Yeah.

Can I get back to you on that? We'd have to...

I think it's a given, right? It's a given. So the question to Senator Wilk prior to your close is, are you open to continue working on this to address some of those haven't heard.

This is the first time I'm hearing from them, but happy to sit down and discuss.

Okay. You do seem happy. Okay. Senator Ochoa Bogh, anything else?

No, I just wanted to ensure that the. I think we already discussed the possibility of having a portal if the.

That's in the Bill.

That's in the Bill. And I just wanted to highlight the fact that it's already in the Bill. I appreciate it in that aspect.

That's in the Bill.

Yep.

All right. So with your commitment to continue working on this in ways that satisfy some of the concerns, but while allowing additional transparency, feel free to close again.

This is all about transparency. And as Senator Ochoa Bogh said, building trust. I don't know about you. I don't trust anybody anymore.

Wow.

I don't trust government because I'm in it. I don't trust it. I don't trust the media. And schools should be a safe place where there is trust and education going on. Parents have an important role to play in that, and they should be partners and not enemies. And I just think having transparency and allowing parents to make the decision for what's age appropriate for their child just is common sense and good governance. And with that, I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you to both you. And with that, we are seeking another author. I guess I could do one of. One of mine, I think I appreciate. I'm gonna do a non controversial Bill, and I'm gonna give the gavel to my colleague.

Madam Chair?

Yes, sorry. Welcome, Senator Newman. You are here to present SB 1080.

We're going to do the less conversational one. So, Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1080, which would require school sites to offer culturally appropriate halal or kosher food options at any school site where a significant portion of the student body adheres to such practices. In recent years, and especially in response to the intense need illuminated by the pandemic, California has made substantial progress in addressing food insecurity and barriers to nutrition in its schools.

In 2021, as you know, California became the first state in the nation to permanently provide free school meals to all k through 12 students, irrespective of household income, and we should be very proud of that achievement. Unfortunately for students whose creeds entail the observance of certain food preparation practices, California's current School Meals For All program does not include provisions for halal or kosher food in their existing meal plans.

As a consequence, though, every student is now technically eligible to receive a free school lunch regardless of family income, students who have specific dietary restrictions still find themselves left out of the program. SB 1080 will ensure that these students can meet their religious dietary needs by requiring qualified California school sites to offer appropriate school meal options consistent with their cultural practices.

Under its provisions, any school site where the student population includes a share of 5% or more of students who observe either halal or kosher dietary practices would be required to offer meals consistent with those practices. And so doing, SB 1080 will improve nutrition, reduce stigma, promote cultural understanding and appreciation, and generally build a more tolerant environment that breaks down stereotypes and prejudices.

SB 1080, which would be the first statewide, culturally appropriate school nutrition program of its kind in the country, offering halal and kosher meals will allow all students to participate in school meal programs and allow every student, regardless of religion or dietary restrictions, to fully engage in school and feel fully valued and included in their communities. With me to testify are Rabbi Evan Rubin, the president of the Sacramento Board of Rabbis from the Kenesset Israel Torah Center. I'm looking for a rabbi.

Do we have a rabbi in the house? Rabbi, welcome. We might. We might. And also with us is Rosa Haidari, a student from Laguna Creek High School in Elk Grove, who is Muslim, and Keith Salal. Welcome. So glad you're here. I'm respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Senator Newman and, Rabbi Rubin, would you like to begin? Please state your name one more time.

Rabbi Evan Rubin, president of the Sacramento Board of Rabbis. Good morning, Senator, Madam Chair, other Committee Members. As someone who, through part of my school career, was a public school student and now currently having a daughter in San Juan Unified, I feel particularly qualified to speak on the subject. It's complicated, although complication we've lived with for all our lives, to not be able to receive school lunch because it doesn't fit our dietary needs.

It's particularly refreshing and exciting to have been contacted by Senator Newman's office that this is a goal in K-12 schools, appreciating the fact that not all of the schools in this area would rise to the 5% that is required in the bill.

I accept the fact that you have to have some sort of of critical mass in order to make the bill viable, but nonetheless, having the ability to not have to work either the night before or early in the morning to prepare lunch and having something that is available to be eaten on site is a tremendous advantage. Creates less stress in the home and less economic stress in the home as to not have to provide lunches for our children on a daily basis. So with all that in mind, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, Rabbi Rubin. Welcome, Ms. Haidari.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair and Members. My name is Rosa Haidari. I'm a student and the president of the Afghan Student Association and the vice president of the Muslim Student Association at Laguna Creek High School. As a student that eats only halal foods, SB 1080 is extremely crucial and important. Personally, there have been various times where at school I had to skip out on eating lunch because by the time I got to the lunch line, everything that I could eat was out.

Thus, offering halal foods is significant to ensure respect for the dietary needs for Muslim students. It creates an environment where all students feel valued, but also promotes and celebrates their religious diversity in our schools here in California, fostering a sense of belonging and equality. Additionally, providing halal food options encourages healthy eating habits and accommodates students needs, contributing to their overall well being and academic success.

By providing halal options, school demonstrate respect for students' religious beliefs and ensure that they can practice their faith while participating in school activities, thus upholding their principles of the religious freedom outlined in the First Amendment. I request the Committee's just vote and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you so much for being here and testifying. Now we will proceed with any other witnesses in support of 1080. This is the me too. Your name and organization, your support.

Good morning. Sam Nasher on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support.

Good morning. Gabby Davidson with the California Association of Food Banks in support.

All right. Do we have any other witnesses? Support? Seeing none. We're now going to proceed with witnesses in opposition to this bill. No lead opposition? Any witnesses in opposition in the room? The me too. Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the dais. Any comments or questions?

Just happy to move the bill. Someday we'll have one when appropriate. Thank the Senator for bringing the bill forward.

Thank you. I did note that. And, Senator Newman, would you like to close?

Yes. So thank you to my two witnesses. Thank you for your patience. But, Ms. Haidari, well done. It is encouraging to see a young person come and advocate to your government. I'm glad to have brought this bill. We should be very proud of offering school lunches to all students, but the emphasis should be on all. And so there are a substantial number of students in California schools who practice either halal or kosher dietary practices. They should be included.

We've endeavored to create a threshold at 5% that we think, to the rabbi's point, constitutes critical mass. There are some challenges around this. We're glad to keep working on it, but I think the goal is eminently desirable. I look forward to working with everybody to get that done, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote today.

Thank you, Senator Newman. And we'll place that bill on hold for until we have a quorum. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you.

I guess I'll just present safe. zero, does he want to? Yeah, he has to do that. Okay. Do we have any other authors in the room that we're not seeing? Okay, I guess you better go again. Okay. So which one? Number nine. So, welcome again, Senator Newman. You're presenting SB 1171.

And thank you again, Madam Chair. And again, apologies to everybody here today that we don't have a quorum or sort of a better pathway to getting this done in a productive way. But having said that, I'm glad to present the SB 1171, which would afford Cambridge University's advanced academic curriculum, the same standing in the California education code as other internationally recognized providers of advanced academic programs for k 12 schools.

Cambridge is a globally recognized, world renowned college preparation provider, providing a comprehensive and adaptable k 12 educational framework known as the Cambridge Pathway for schools employing it. The Cambridge pathway begins in the early grades, and as you move into middle and high school, students receive lessons in critical thinking, practical skills, and a mastery of knowledge in over 50 subject areas.

Colleges and universities around the world have acknowledged that students who matriculate after taking Cambridge programs in high school are exceptionally well prepared for making the transition from high school to college and for the rigors of college coursework and for succeeding in college and beyond. The Cambridge International system is highly regarded both across the United States and globally, and in those jurisdictions participating students receive recognition, placement, or credit for as or a level exams.

The Cambridge International program has been implemented in five California school districts, two of which are in my Senate district, Fullerton Joint Union High School District, Montebello Unified School District, Englewood Unified School District, Placentia Yoruba Linda Unified School District and Canyon Elementary School district as California school District. As districts in California that participate in Cambridge continue to expand, there is an understandable interest in affording it the same recognition and credit that two similar programs which do.

Those are the advanced Placement or AP program, about which most of us are familiar, and the International Baccalaureate program as well. However, though California's higher education institutions have widely acknowledged the effectiveness of the Cambridge International system in preparing students for post secondary studies, the program does not currently enjoy the same incentives or statutory recognition California as the AP and IB programs. This discrepancy places schools and students who have embraced this demanding and rewarding education program at a disadvantage.

SB 1171 addresses this shortcoming and adds the Cambridge program to the relevant sections of California's ED Code, which specifically reference advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate, thereby extending the benefits of this rigorous and proven curriculum to the schools which currently offer it, as well as to others who might also benefit from it. Moving forward.

Nothing in this Bill will inhibit or discourage schools from working with other providers in this space, nor will it have any impact on the admission or credit policies of the state's colleges or universities. With me to testify are Steve Mclaughlin, Superintendent of the Fullerton Joint Union High School District, and will minster, principal at Troy High School in Fullerton. And in addition, we have Sherry reach here to answer any technical questions on the Cambridge assessment process. I am respectfully asking for an I vote today.

Thank you, Senator Newman, and welcome to our witnesses, Mister Brocklitz, Mister Mclaughlin, and Mister minister.

I'll go ahead and start. Good morning. Thank you, Senator Newman. Madam Chair, my name is Steve Mclaughlin, proud Superintendent, Fullerton Joint Union High School District in support of this legislation. Just a point of reference, Fullerton Joint Union High School District has 13,000 students approximately serving the cities of La Habra, Fullerton, Buena Park and Fullerton, Buena Park, Lahabra, and a small slice of Los Angeles. We also have four feeder districts with approximately 33,000 pre K eight students that will feed into our district.

Overall, our philosophy in our district for decades has been to seek out innovative programs to expand offerings for all of our students. We have expansive CTE ROP, we have local and state award winning VAPA programs and access to the most rigorous courses available. And so five years ago, when Doctor Minster and his team at Troy High School brought Cambridge to our district, we felt it was a natural extension of our overall district vision.

This provides a unique, distinct pathway under Doctor Minster's leadership has been successfully implemented at Troy High School and we're getting ready to graduate our first group of Cambridge students this year. So very excited about that. We believe this will codify the work that we are currently doing. And we see this as an opportunity throughout the state as districts look to advance options for students and provide the most rigorous curriculum available.

To provide an opportunity for them to learn and grow both locally throughout the state and then internationally and globally. Thank you for your time.

Thank you Mister Mclaughlin. Mister.

Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Senator Newman. Thank you for this opportunity. Troy High School is a comprehensive high school with a magnet program that serves about 70% of the students. You don't have to be in a magnet program though to take the either AP or the Cambridge or IB.

We have over 2500 students, almost 2600 students that come from about 125 different middle schools from four different counties, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange and La. And we have at our school right now 39% free and reduced lunch or socially economically disadvantaged, about 4.5% El English learners and special education, about 6.8%. We are a well known, highly decorated school. We have numerous distinguished school awards, most recent in 2021 national blue ribbon. We're often ranked in the top schools in state, in the nation.

I think we're like number 28 in the nation right now on one of the ranking entities. Number two in California, also number 28 in California, depending on another ranking entity. But we're a strong school academically. We offer a lot of opportunities for students to be engaged. We have had AP at our school from the get go. When the school began back in the 1960s, we brought in IB in 1986. Along the same time we brought in Troy Tech.

And then five years ago we learned of Cambridge. When we saw on the common app something called Ace, we didn't know what it was, so we did some research and we linked it and understood it was Cambridge. And then we saw the a levels and we knew what a levels were. And many in our community know what a levels are. Also parents who've been through that system in other countries. And so we researched it. We saw that it was a good fit for us.

It gave our students additional opportunities, and so we brought it in with our first year of actually teaching it in 2021. And so that was year one. We got to 2122. That was the first year any students tested as sophomores. And then every year, the number of kids testing has gone up.

And so what we have right now across these three different high level programs that do receive college credit and are another means of students being able to identify what they know beyond just a letter grade. This year, we're going to give an advanced placement. We have 1452 students taking 3774 tests. International baccalaureate, we have 70 students taking 212 tests. And in Cambridge, and as and A level exams, we have 169 students taking 306 tests.

We will have, in terms of international diplomas, 38 international Baccalaureate diploma graduates. This is our first opportunity this year with the seniors. In Cambridge, we have 40 ace diploma graduates. So it's a tremendous opportunity for our students. It serves all students. Again, with an AP, 15% of the students are free and reduced lunch. With an IB, about 11% are free and reduced lunch. And with Cambridge, 10% are free reduced lunch. So it's something. That's a tremendous opportunity.

It's another thing that they can put on their college applications, and in their transcripts, it says they are. Are ready for college. They are ready to be for the next level, for college and career. So, again, thank you for your support.

Thank you. You're right about. I mean, to close. Thank you so much for your testimonies. Now, we're going to continue with any witnesses in support of 1171 here in room 2100.

Madam Chair Members Kevin Gordon and I'm representing the Montebello Unified School District as well as the Inglewood school district. Both in support of the Bill. Both have programs running and very, very excited about the accessibility, both culturally and linguistically, to higher advanced academic programs that this offers. So we urge your support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Here in room 2100.

Erin Friday, attorney and I support.

Thank you. We have one more.

Retired teacher who's concerned that California is 48th in the nation. I'm in support.

Carole Marquis, Yolo County. I am in support.

Thank you. All right, seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now continue with any lead. Witnesses in opposition to SB 1171. Having none, we'll now continue to any other. Me, toos. In opposition to SB 1171, here are room 2100.

Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the top. Yes. Guess there's nothing here I'm in support of the Bill. Thank you for the opportunities. I respect options and choices, and for students, as we know, we're all very unique, unique interest, and I think the more options that we have, I think overall, it benefits our students and our workforce, our future workforce. So in full support, thank you for being here today. And, Senator Newman, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you to both of my witnesses. Let me brag on behalf of one of my high schools. Troy High School is, the principal was modest, not to mention it's one of the most decorated high schools in the country for academic excellence. And so I think in Principal Minster and the district, that's a good validator for the quality of this program. I want to put on the record, though, that this obviously is in addition to the existing two programs that are generally recognized.

We are working deliberately with both of them, especially with the college board, to make sure that we align these programs in a way that doesn't disadvantage anybody and will continue to do so. But this is, to the points many have made, this is a wonderful program. This is Cambridge University's program. Very rigorous, proven, and will make an excellent addition to California's high school curriculum. I especially asked for an I vote.

Thank you. So we'll place the Bill on hold for the other Members to arrive. Thank you very much for being here today. It.

Thank you, Senator Newman. And you are here to present SB 1263.

1263. I'm reminded I'm from a small town in upstate New York, Poughkeepsie, New York, and apparently the band, the Police, when they first went on tour, played a whole tour, and they came to my town and nobody showed up. They didn't know what they were missing. This feels a little like that. So I am pleased to have the opportunity to present SB 1263, which would eliminate the existing requirement for teacher candidates in California to undergo a formal teacher performance assessment, also referred to as a TPA.

Currently, as a condition being awarded a preliminary teaching credential, all teacher candidates in California are required to fulfill a series of requirements. These include subject matter proficiency, teacher preparation course requirements, reading instruction competencies, 600 hours of clinical practice, and the successful completion of a teacher performance assessment. On top of all those other requirements, and against all of the other stresses which aspiring teachers are forced to navigate in this very expensive, very complicated state, the TPA has become both unduly onerous and essentially redundant.

Moreover, the demands it places upon teaching candidates have the net impact of detracting on applying the concepts and skills of teacher preparation coursework done in real classrooms and overseen, excuse me, by mentor teachers during supervised clinical practice. Despite its well intentioned purpose, the demands associated with preparing for the TPA have actually had the perverse impact of reducing the overall quality of teacher preparation by undermining the capacity of teacher candidates to focus on what's most important, which is their clinical practice.

Despite all of the good intentions behind it, the TPA may in fact be disproportionately discouraging teachers of color and thereby contributing to the recent trend of continued reduction in diversity within the teaching profession in California. Recent studies have shown that aspiring teachers of color perceive the current teacher performance assessment system as racially biased and feel that its demands pose a major barrier to completing the credentials and entering the teaching profession.

It's by now well known that California has an ongoing teacher shortage that it needs to develop plans to address. For the 2023-24 school year, counties reported that nearly 25,000 teachers were needed to fill new or vacated positions.

The 2022 to 2023 Commission on Teacher Credentialing report to the Legislature notes that the number of new credentials issued were the lowest in the history of that report, one of many clear indications that the current educator pipeline is insufficient to meet forecasted demand for teachers, especially against the aging of the current educated workforce and the steep rise in attrition which we saw in the wake of the pandemic.

In light of those facts, and considering the broader challenges associated with expanding and improving California's educated workforce, particularly with respect to diversity, the discontinuance of the TPA as provided for by SB 1263 makes good sense. This would be a change that would be more than offset by a renewed emphasis on the value of clinical practice. Such a change will ultimately support the growth of a better prepared, more diverse teaching workforce.

Here with me to testify in support of SB 1263 is Dr. Mandy Redfern from the California Teachers Association and Dr. Nick Henning from the California Faculty Association. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Senator. Welcome. Please state your name and the organization you're presenting and proceed when you're ready.

Good morning. Mandy Redfern, and I am in support of this bill. My name is Dr. Mandy Redfern, and I am the elected chair of CTA's Credentials and Professional Development State Council Committee. Over the past 20 years, the TPA, or the Teacher Performance Assessment, has evolved into a high stakes, time consuming, costly barrier for aspiring teachers. The current iteration of the TPA has been proven to be ineffective at preparing educators for the realities of the classroom.

The CTC's data shows that TPAs disproportionately harm aspiring BIPOC educators, creating an unnecessary barrier to a more diverse educator workforce and I'd like to draw your attention to an example from the CARE ED CFA letter that looks at that data from the CTC from 2018 to 2023.

The ED TPA the average pass rate for all candidates is 74.72%, while the average pass rate for black candidates is 59.63% and then respectively, in the Cal TPA, the average pass rate for black test takers was 66% compared to 77% of an overall pass rate. The CTC's annual teacher supply report from 22-23 released last week and the data here is concerning. The fewest number of credential candidates were issued in over 25 years. There is also an 11.7% decrease of new candidates entering into credential programs.

CTA survey of more than 1,200 current educators who passed the TPA found that 78% of teachers surveyed said the TPA did not prepare them to meet students' needs, 81% believe the TPA should be eliminated, and 89% responded that the TPA had a negative impact on their personal lives. And here's one such example. This person said the TPA caused so much additional stress and anxiety that I had to reconsider whether or not I truly wanted to pursue the profession.

It drove away my passion for education and I eventually had to seek mental health care. In less than two weeks, 1,500 passionate educators have sent letters calling for an end to the TPA. CTA fully supports the high quality program standards and the revised teaching performance expectations that SB 488 brought to the profession. These standards effectively improve teacher preparation through coursework, clinical practice.

CTA is committed to working with the CTC to ensure all teacher performance expectations, including the literacy TPEs, are effectively measured through credential programs and the induction program. TPAs unnecessarily harm our teacher candidates our state should be focused on supporting candidates with learning activities embedded in their teacher preparation programs that unequivocally benefit their development of the expertise they need to meet the needs of California students. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Dr. Redfern.

Hi. So, my name is Dr. Nick Henning, and I'm a professor of secondary education at Cal State Fullerton. I'm here to speak on behalf of both the California Faculty Association's Teacher Education Caucus, of which I am a tri-chair, and CARE ED, which is a collaborative of scholars who collect research on topics like these, in support of SB 1263, which, as you know, would eliminate the requirement for teaching candidates in California to undergo a teacher performance assessment, or TPA.

I am also here to speak on behalf of my students, past, present, and future, who I promised I would share their stories as well as mine. I've been a university based teacher educator in California for 23 years at UCLA, Claremont Graduate University, and Cal State Fullerton for the last 15 years. And for almost all that time, I have been involved in the implementation and scoring of multiple forms of TPAs that have been offered by California for hundreds of candidates.

From the beginning, when it was just a pilot and unconsequential, not inconsequential, non-consequential. Until now, in its official and high stakes form. Today, the research is clearer than ever. High stakes TPAs do not improve education for k-12 students or for their teachers. Instead, they widen longstanding inequities, place unnecessary and demoralizing burdens on teacher candidates and those that support and train them, and unnecessarily duplicate both informal and formal assessments or an official part of an accredited teacher preparation programs.

My own experiences in scholarship confirm this. Now, you may ask, if we don't have the TPAs, what's going to happen? Well, California already has very rigorous standards called the Teacher Performance Expectations. It's different from TPA. They're called TPEs. Just to clarify that.

Now, inclusive of the new literacy TPE, which is our 7th set of TPEs, which all programs at this moment, including my own, are responding to and implementing in their programs, if not right now, for sure by next year when it's required, and also has a thorough and demanding accreditation process that evaluates whether a program's candidates are meeting those standards. As part of that process, credentialing requires an extensive continuous assessment of candidates.

Ending the TPA mandate does not mean that our classrooms will suddenly be flooded with untrained, incapable, novice teachers. To become a teacher in California, candidates must complete an unpaid, post baccalaureate program of study, including a minimum of 600 hours of student teaching, with daily observations by mentor teachers and regular observations by university supervisors. Courses that they take must document how they address the TPEs, and during student teaching, candidates are formally evaluated multiple times regarding these TPEs.

Professors, like me, supervisors, and credentialed mentors are all involved in evaluating candidates. A TPA is simply unnecessary. So please end the mandated use of TPAs in California's teacher education programs. Support our institutions in developing and implementing their own more holistic assessments, and please reaffirm California's commitment to entrust in high standards and a rigorous accreditation process. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. So we want to thank both of our witnesses for being here today. We'll now open it up to any witnesses in support of SB 1263 in room 2100.

Steve Trimble, Val Verde Teachers Association, speaking in support of this proposition, this bill.

Renee Pena, Merced City School District, special educator, in support.

Renata Sanchez, nationally board certified teacher, teacher mentor, and TPA scorer, in support.

Jennifer Lafferty, first grade teacher in Fremont Unified School District in support.

Hi. Yolanda Munoz in support, Pasadena Unified third grade teacher and mentor lead induction teacher.

Joanne Johnson, Glendora Unified virtual educator, in support of the bill. I'm also a mentor teacher.

Lenora Gerber, third grade teacher, Salida Union School District, in support.

Erin Githens, Orange County teacher of fifth grade, recent TPA taker, in support

Adrienne Miotti, Irvine Unified teacher, recent TPA taker in support.

Elizabeth Phillips, Merced United High School District, high school art teacher and recent TPA Taker.

Morning. Mitch Steiger with CFT, also in support.

Good morning. Magaly Zagal on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, in support.

Kimberly Rosenberger, with Service Employees International Union in support.

Xong Lor with the California School Employees Association in support.

Sam Nasher with the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support.

Laura Bolling, Riverside Unified School District second grade teacher, in support.

Miska Pearson, transitional kindergarten teacher, Elk Grove Unified School District, current mentor teacher in support.

Monique Barrett, San Diego Education Association, special education teacher in support.

Good morning. Barrett Snider, Small School Districts Association in support, thanks.

Good morning. Teresa Montano, professor, Cal State Northridge, California Faculty Association, and board member for LACO, in support.

Good morning. Stephen Filling, professor at Stanislaus State in support.

Errol Garnett, high school math teacher, Alvord Unified, Riverside in support.

Good morning. Bryan Ha with the California Faculty Association. We're proud co-sponsors. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Jonathan Howard with the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Commission is meeting later this week and this item will be a topic on our agenda. While the Commission has not taken a position on the bill, the chair and Executive Director have sent a letter expressing their concerns with the bill.

In its current state, TPA is an essential tool for ensuring teacher candidates are prepared to enter the classroom and the only measure of a candidate's ability to teach real students in a real classroom prior to earning a credential. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in support of SB 1263, we will now continue to with our witnesses in opposition to SB 1263. And we have Mr. Brian Rivas, senior director from Education Trust West.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Brian Rivas, speaking on behalf of the Education Trust West, respectfully in opposition to the Senator's bill. Wanted to share a couple of things. I think we agree that we need to be examining the requirements to become a teacher and earn a credential. Appreciate the Senator lifting up the need to diversify the educator workforce.

We support the governor's proposal to remove the basic skills requirement because we looked at the research and we found that the research didn't conclude that there was a value add to teacher effectiveness by making credential candidates complete that requirement. Where we disagree is in our interpretation of what the research tells us about teaching performance assessments. We concluded when we reviewed the research that teaching performance assessments are the best available measure of teacher preparedness and whether or not a candidate is prepared to enter a classroom.

We think, and I think your Committee analysis alludes to this, that the research shows that there's, at the very least, an association between improved student achievement and passing the teaching performance assessment. I think your analysis says that there's a slight connection. We think it's stronger than that. And then finally, we think the teaching performance assessment is needed because we know that credential require or credential programs can vary in quality.

The teaching performance assessment gives us a common standard to measure how well those programs are preparing teacher candidates. Lastly, I would say on balance, we're concerned about what happens to low income students of color if you remove the teaching performance assessment. These students are already taught disproportionately by new novice teachers. We think that this is going to exacerbate the challenges that those students are facing in accessing a fully prepared, properly assigned teacher. So for those reasons.

And then lastly, sorry, I forgot to mention the CTC adjusted scoring to relax the scoring requirements. So now that if a candidate is within one standard error of the passing score, the credential program can look at other evidence that would indicate that a candidate is prepared to enter the classroom. We think reforms like that may be a preferred approach to relaxing the requirement, modifying it, but we disagree with removing it entirely. So for those reasons, we're opposed.

Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Rivas. Would you like an opportunity to respond?

I think are there any other opposition?

Oh, I'm sorry, yes. Do we have any witnesses in opposition here in 12, in room 1263? I'm sorry, in room 2100 for Bill SB 1263 in opposition. Sorry.

Glad we did it. Okay, so you asked me to respond. I'd ask my witnesses also to tune in. So I will say the test. The question is, is the test necessary? I think the consensus is that it's in fact redundant. But more importantly, the degree to which the test is either encouraging or discouraging prospective teachers from making their way through the process.

I think it's very clear that it is not only discouraging those teachers who are in the process of becoming educators, it probably is also true that it's discouraging people who otherwise might consider it, who watch what their friends and peers go through. And I think that's important. I will say there are multiple measures that we use currently to bring teachers along the continuum toward proficiency. We can improve those measures.

I think there is a consensus that we need to, but removing the TPA will actually allow us to do that smartly while ensuring that there's no impediment getting in the way of precisely the kinds of young people that we want to enter the profession, most specifically diversity, so that they are reflective of the students that they are teaching.

There's a ton of research that shows that a BIPOC student with a BIPOC teacher is far more likely to succeed than some other scenario, and I would ask my witnesses to comment briefly on that.

Yes, thanks for the opportunity, and I think I do, I appreciate the sentiment behind what Mr. Rivas is saying, and Trust West are saying they've always been concerned about the experiences of all students and especially in low income communities and communities of color.

But I think that they're wrong on this and they're wrong on this because there is some, I did look at the opposition letter, and there is some mention that there is research showing that CALTPA, EDTPA pact, the different forms of TPA that we utilize in this state are some guaranteer of teacher quality. We actually don't have that research.

So one of the things that always surprised me about this debate about teacher performance assessment is that those who are in support of it in a continuing another decade say that, well, it guaranteers teacher quality, and we actually don't have that research. So that for me first is a very difficult thing to argue against because that research doesn't exist. I've been studying this issue for more than a decade. I've done my own research.

I've published numerous articles on my own experiences and teacher educators' experiences and sort of looking at that existing research. And so that doesn't exist. So that, just leaving that aside, I think it also is interesting to think about the CTC's response and saying that we are willing to lower, we were willing to let someone go through who has a lower score than passing on TPA if we use other evidence. So then we have to ask the question, what is that other evidence?

It's not evidence submitted to the CTC. It's evidence submitted to us as teacher educators. We've already evaluated, observed, taught these teacher candidates. They've set, they've been in front of students, they've had full, almost full responsibility for the teaching of young people for a semester, if not longer. Right. That's the evidence that they're going to look at and they're going to ask us.

So I guess what we're asking for is that California follows the example of five other states like us, including Georgia and Wisconsin, and trust teacher education. We are under intense accreditation by the state and the CTC. It is very thorough. We follow all the different guidelines, we do everything. And then at the end of it, our students have this high stakes test.

What it actually does, the research actually is really strong on this point, is that what actually happens is the quality of teacher education is actually degraded because of the TPA. We all know this phenomena of teaching to the test, right?

And this is something that enters into the debates about all high stakes tests, is that eventually, if a test is the only way that a school is rated and in this case, the only way that a candidate can become a teacher, we know as teacher educators that we have to be responsible for that. So we begin to craft and shape our programs to make sure that they can play the game.

Because in my experience of doing this for 20 years, is it's a game in the end. It's a game. If someone could just pass the TPA, and that's the best guaranteed teacher quality, well, then just have them do the test first and not do the 600 plus hours of actually being in front of young people in an unpaid capacity. Just go to that end point.

But we don't because we know that that actual work with young people and being evaluated and directed and taught by people who are credentialed, people who are interested in their welfare, actually is the best guarantee. So those are a couple issues that I would draw attention to on that.

Thank you.

I think I would just add, if possible, if you're not aware, the TPA actually takes approximately 100 hours or more for a candidate to complete. And during that time, it's detracting from their actual work in practical classrooms. And in addition to that, the feedback that they are given by their university professors or their mentors while they're doing those 600 hours or more of practicum experience, they are getting immediate feedback, and so they're able to make changes to their practices immediately and become more effective.

The feedback from the TPA can take months before they get that feedback, and it's typically minimal at best. And so enabled to inform practice, we know the best practice is to have immediate feedback, which is what we're getting from these programs, from our credential programs, which are accredited, and from our intern or our mentor programs when they go into induction.

Well, thank you very much. So I guess we'll bring it back to the dais. Do we have any questions, comments? To the dais.

Do we have a quorum?

Yeah, we do have a quorum, so maybe we should do that. Yeah. I actually appreciated this. I learned a lot today, and I'm now switching my position. So good job.

The benefits of attending a hearing. Nice to hear. Thank you all for being here.

I get it. And said, for the record, Senator Wilk has been here throughout.

For the record.

Yes. Well, let's establish a quorum. Yeah, let's establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. And we have a quorum. We have established a quorum. So now, any other comments or questions by our community members? I do have a question. As far as has there been. I'm surprised that we don't have the data yet to try to figure out why that is the case.

But just out of curiosity, have we taken any data that shows us as to why we have deficiencies in our black and brown populations in able to pass successfully or score higher in these exams as a whole?

So that's a really interesting question. It was actually, that was a question asked by a staff member, and it was a really good question in that this idea of why in these types of assessments, racial disproportionality, sort of failure. Right. Or lower rates of passing, we actually, there's probably 10 different, 10 different theories for exactly why that is.

But one of the things that we talked about with the staff members, we actually said we actually had two teachers of color that were part of our lobbying group, that were there as part of our team, and they actually talked about their relationships with their students, students that look like them, students that were seeking mentors, seeing themselves as having certain cultural understandings that they felt were really helpful to them as a teacher.

And so actually, the way that we answered it was to say, there's actually a couple answers. One is to actually think about what is the incredible benefit that educators of color bring to a classroom where they have students that look like them? And I know that doesn't answer your question because there are 10 different answers, and there's not really a definite research based answer to that. And I know that's what you're looking for.

But I think one of the things we want to think about is this goes again to the validity and reliability of a test like the TPA, which is that if we are a standardized test, if we are something that has reliability and validity, that we shouldn't have these racially disproportionate scores. We shouldn't. That is an ultimate test that regardless. Right, folks that are taking this, we should not have the predictability that we do in terms of that.

So as we look through all the different things that we ask teachers to do in terms of standardized tests throughout this process, we're going to see that pattern. We are going to see that pattern, and we don't really know why, but we know that exists. And that questions that assessment, does that make sense?

I just recommend that we do look at the system as to why that is, because I think it's befitting to make sure that we have a system that actually, you know, allows everyone to perform at the same level.

Agreed. Agreed, Senator. Agreed.

I would encourage somebody to do the research.

I think we have someone from the CTC who'd like to speak. Please.

Thank you, Members of the Committee. Mary Vixie Sandy. I'm the executive director, Commission on Teacher Credentialing, and I have some of the data from our most recent report. And there are disparities on first attempt across multiple different groups, but ultimately, we have had more than 50,000 people in the last five years passed this assessment, for African American, 73% 1st time pass rates, 95% ultimate pass rates, which is right within the norm. An average for the whole population of teachers who've taken it.

So that's on the Cal TPA. Very similar results from the ED TPA. There's a recent or a pending report coming out from the Learning Policy Institute which I wish was published already today. I've shared a preliminary copy with your staff, but what it looks at is the relationship between preparation and pass rates and the ways in which preparation supports the pass rates of candidates across the board. And I'd just like to read one of their key findings for you, with your permission.

Pass rates do vary across preparation programs. Across the 263 preparation programs that they studied in California, nearly two-thirds or more than 90% of their tested candidates pass the TPA and 23% of all their candidates, and had 23% of all of their candidates pass the TPA. In contrast, 35 programs, or 13%, had passing rates under 80%, including 14 programs that passed with below 67%. What this data suggests and informs is that there's variation across preparation.

We have more than 80 institutions in this state that we accredit, and hundreds of different preparation pathways, and many, many, many faculty, graduate students and others who are supervising student teachers in practice. While I support the quality and the intention of our faculty to do really well at this, and our programs to do really well at this, the TPA gives us a look at how everybody and how every program is doing this.

The other key part of this finding from the Learning Policy Institute is while there were disparities in pass rates by candidate race and ethnicity among the lowest performing programs, among programs with passing rates above 90%, there were no statistically significant differences in pass rates by race and ethnicity. So a key ingredient to ensuring that we have equitable preparation is that we have well prepared teachers who are prepared to do and perform well on the TPA.

And one last thing is that the tasks included in performance assessments are the very tasks that candidates are expected to complete during student teaching and clinical practice. The fact that there's redundancy is a good news because that's what they're supposed to be doing. What the performance assessment gives us is the opportunity to look at that across programs and across the state and get the kinds of insights that we have. So thank you for giving me an opportunity to assist with that question.

Thank you so much. Yeah, I think they're being, well, concerned. I'm supportive of the bill. I'll be supporting the bill today. But two things. Oh, any other comments from. No. Okay. So just really quick. It's interesting, you know, when we designed the TPA and we passed legislation here, which all of you folks were supportive of, and you said, this is what we need, we pass it in, you know, in 2021, the question lies as to, well, who designed it in the first place?

And, you know, was it not tested because they understand. I was under the impression that there had been a pilot program first, and then it was placed into law in 2021, which is only three years ago. Three years ago. Two years ago, the TPA.

The TPA in general?

The TPA may have been modified, but it should have been in place for much longer than that.

Over 20 years.

Okay, so, no, in 20. I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that.

If you wouldn't mind. Just to clarify some clarification from the CTC.

I'm happy to help with this. So this was initially. The performance assessment was initially placed in statute in 1998 and was piloted for many years. It became a requirement for a credential in 2008. It's been significantly modified almost every year that we have implemented it for 20 years. It is based in a continuous improvement model. It's developed by faculty and practitioners working in partnership together and working towards improvement.

The literacy performance assessment, however, as a replacement for the RICA, was passed in 2021 as part of Senate Bill 488, and that required that we eliminate the standardized Reading Instruction Competence Assessment, RICA, and replace it with a performance assessment that would be embedded in TPAs. That's been under development for the last three years. And I'd just like to add that it has been informed by the survey that the California Teachers Association conducted and the results that they brought to our Commission over the last several years.

We have taken the findings, the feelings, the expectations and experiences of candidates taking this into consideration and have made significant adjustments in the literacy performance assessment that will comb through all the rest of the performance assessments as we go. So.

So we still have a component for literacy.

Well, the literacy performance assessment that we've been working on under SB 488 would go away with the passage of this bill and we would revert to the RICA standardized test. That has been a significant barrier, especially for candidates of color, for 20 years.

So we're going back to RICA?

This bill does not do that. This bill simply endeavors to eliminate the.

Yeah. So just to think about it from the teacher education program point of view, because I know there was a lot of work to eliminate the RICA, and we had definitely been in support of that. And so in terms of the literacy TPA, one of the things that we're definitely wanting to be able to do is work in partnership to develop something different than that, that isn't through that TPA. One of the things to the teacher education point of view is that what we.

There are many things that still remain from SB 481 of which is already being implemented by programs right now, not in an official capacity, but will be next year, which is that seven set of TPEs, which are all about literacy, which contain everything that would have been measured supposedly by the literacy TPA, which, of course, is untested. It would have been in pilot mode. But all programs right in this moment, including my own colleagues actually today, are revising memorandums of understanding.

We are looking at every single course that we teach. We're looking at every single way that we evaluate candidates according to those TPEs. That is the biggest response that the state will get and CTC will get is around what they do around TPEs, because that's what we do continuous throughout a program and even before a program. So that will still remain.

And I want, and I'm hoping that all of you sitting here can be confident that all those different reforms that were fought for so hard are already being implemented in programs and for sure will be by next year. And our programs are changing because of that in our evaluation. So the same robustness that we have in terms of evaluation that we have in terms of teaching, that happens before this will continue. So we are in support of that and we are moving forward very quickly. Like I said, my last department meeting was all about that, and we're excited about a lot of the different things that are included there.

Thank you. So, any other comments from the dais? No. Okay. We have a motion to move the bill. Senator Newman, would you like to close?

I would. Thank you. Thank you to my witnesses. Thank you, by the way, to the folks from the CTC for their input. You know, there's a theme today, starting with Senator Archuleta's bill of sort of going back and rethinking, you know, against the layers of requirements or reports that we have in California. Are they all working? Do they work sort of in tandem?

And I would point, you know, the goal here is to make it more attractive to become a teacher, not easier, not easier, but more practically attainable. It is really hard to become a teacher in California. You heard some of the requirements, including 600 hours of non-paid work in the classroom, which, you know, you do that math, that's a lot. Add to that the burden of simultaneously preparing for a test that is very high stakes.

It should come as no surprise to us that those who are most challenged are probably those who are most likely to veer from that path or maybe not take that path in the first place. We had a hearing last March about the state of the educated workforce, and it is challenged, and it is a serious problem, and it will be a hard problem to solve.

So what we're endeavoring to do here is to eliminate one of the barriers, one of the friction points, but without diminishing quality. I think you heard that very clearly from my witnesses, and I would say that, you know, it might be useful, moving forward to have some assessment of teachers that gives us insight into the quality of the profession or the quality of programs that are preparing teachers.

But it probably makes sense at this point not to make that a credentialing test because of the adverse effects it's having. I would say it's probably worth noting that if you going 3 hours ago or so, when the me toos came up, that there were both witnesses, there were teachers and administrators from both charter schools and public schools. So that tells you something about sort of the consensus and momentum here.

So with that, what we're looking to do is against that sort of larger notion of addition by subtraction. Let's subtract this onerous feature. Let's ensure, as we do, that we provide all of the quality instruction and assessment and mentorship to aspiring teachers. And in so doing, I do believe that we'll increase the quality and the quantity of those teachers, especially in those communities that are most in need. I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Newman. We have a motion by Senator Gonzalez. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 10, SB 1263, Newman. Motion is do pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. Newman. [Roll Call]

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, so we are going to recess briefly. I unfortunately have to go to another Committee across the way and present a bill. When Senator Ochoa comes back, we will reconvene, and I think we don't have too much left, and then hopefully we can get to it and then vote on the remaining items.

This on again, off again. Hearing will be on again, and we will continue our agenda with Agenda Item Number Seven: SB 1445 from Senator Cortese. Senator Cortese, welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'd like to thank the Chair and Committee for working with me on this bill sincerely. I'll be accepting the Committee amendments, and everything we've gotten back from the Committee has been very helpful. I'm here to present SB 1445. This bill would enable school governing boards to allow their student board members to provide restorative justice recommendations to the larger board before they go into expulsion hearings.

Existing law allows student board members to participate in all school board meetings except closed session meetings. These meetings are held to discuss sensitive and confidential topics such as litigation, collective bargaining, employee evaluations, and, of course, expulsion cases. Although California has made strides in recent years to address overly punitive actions in schools, low-income students, students with disabilities, and students of color are still expelled at higher rates compared to their peers. The California Department of Education data shows that expulsion trends are returning to pre-pandemic levels.

In the 2022-23 school year, 4,718 students were expelled in California. Of those students, 88 percent were considered low-income. Even more troubling, a quarter of those expelled were students with disabilities, nearly twice as many as the prior year. Despite Black students accounting for 4.7 percent of California student population, they were at 12 percent of all students expelled.

Excluding student board members from commenting on the expulsion hearing process prior to those board members going into that closed session deprived students of the opportunity to make recommendations, be it advocate or other advocacy or other recommendations for their peers. Restorative justice alternatives are necessary to protect our most vulnerable student populations by ensuring they remain in school while emphasizing the importance of collaboration and community-involved conflict resolution.

While it certainly is not--restorative justice is certainly not applicable to every situation, and maybe not even most situations, there is a history of success with it in certain fact patterns or situations. I had the opportunity to establish one of the first peer courts in any major metropolitan area in Santa Clara County some years ago which used restorative justice to deal with the criminal side, not the Education Code side, if you will, but the Penal Code side of things. Has been a tremendous success.

Again, not for everyone. Not applied to all cases. In fact, only applied to voluntary cases like this bill would call for where parents and students give permission or parents and juveniles give permission to go forward and allow other young people to make comments. Here to testify, we have Lawrence Kim and Garrett Xu from the California Association of Student Councils. Thank you Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'll turn it back over to you now.

Thank you. Mr. Kim, Mr. Xu, welcome. Please proceed, either of you. Mr. Xu.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Garrett Xu, and I am the Serving Vice President of Region Two with the California Association of Student Councils, or CASC. Established in 1947, CASC is a student-led nonprofit dedicated to amplifying student voices and developing future leaders. The Student Advisory Board of Legislation in Education, SABLE, is a CASC program where students annually gather to develop proposals of legislation and present those to the education committees.

So SB 1445 is based on a policy proposal by student Brian Rodriguez from Watts, Los Angeles, and his group developed during SABLE to advance a restorative justice solution for students, specifically those facing expulsion. Punitive actions in schools disproportionately affect low-income students, students with disabilities, and students of color higher rates compared to their peers.

In historically marginalized communities like Watts in Los Angeles, where Brian currently resides, students encounter various forms of discrimination stemming from institutionalized racism, and this pervasive issue manifests in community-wide problems and also, too, a school's lacking adequate funding, and students facing the effects and consequences of growing up in such an environment result in pursuing an education--lack of support in pursuing education in the California school systems and incarceration, which is important to consider when looking at restorative justice in such settings.

And often, for peers dealing with expulsion from minor discretions, no further measures are taken to rectify the issue themselves or support them in finding another pathway to address the environment around them and those effects that the expulsion may have had on their situation.

Now, restorative justice alternatives are necessary to protect our most vulnerable students population by ensuring they remain in school while emphasizing the importance of collaboration and community-involved conflict resolution. SB 1445 allows school student board members to receive limited expulsion case information, of course, with the consent of the student facing expulsion and their parents or guardian for the purpose of providing restorative justice recommendations for the larger board's consideration in their closed session meeting.

We believe that allowing the student perspective and peer support will diversify the decision-making process to ensure their approach to school punishment keeps restorative justice in mind. We appreciate Senator Cortese's leadership in authoring SB 1445 and supporting restorative justice practices and student voices. So we ask for your vote on the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Kim.

Testing. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Lawrence Kim, and I'm the Governmental Affairs and Policy Director at the California Association of Student Councils. Would it be all right if I had made a statement on behalf of Ana Petero, who is on a Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District Governing Board Trustee for Area Six?

Within your time, absolutely.

Thank you. According to Ana Petero, whilst teachers have the good fortune of educating students, most only have them in class for an entire year. Conversely, students grow with each other in school and out of school. Beyond a classroom, they engage with each other during recess, lunch, and extracurricular activities, giving them unique insight into one another's lives: socioeconomic status, personalities, and character.

Therefore, when disciplinary action is concerned, student board members provide a perspective different from adults and ought to be included in addressing the disciplinary action on behalf of their peers. Thank you for your consideration of SB 1445, and I request your aye vote on the bill.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses here in support of the measure? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, is there any opposition to this measure here in the Committee hearing room? And you may act as a lead opposition witness if you prefer, in which case you can come to the table.

I'm here for support.

Oh, you're here for support? I'm sorry. I rushed you. Please.

Hello. My name is Jennifer Abdon from Sacramento School District, Senate District Eight, and I am on behalf, as well for CASC, in support of the bill 1445.

Thank you. Again, is there anybody here in opposition to the measure? Seeing none, come back to the dais here. Colleague, seeing if there are any questions for the author?

No, I think--well, just for the record, concerns with the amount of information that would be shared with our students for the record I think would be important to state as well as clarification as to whether or not students would be allowed to attend the closed meeting.

And under this bill, they would not be allowed to actually enter in or participate in the closed session itself. They cannot be in the room. They can prepare comment before going into the closed session that would be turned over to the school board members and then utilized, you know, however they want, basically. So that's the answer to that part of the question.

The other recommendation is something I've become aware of in the last couple of days that we might want to put--we definitely want to explore, and we might want some restrictions or guardrails on information going, you know, even with parental permission, even with the pupils, the accused permission to not allow the school boards to include certain things in the batch of information that would be given to the student board member.

For example, I think arguably, and I don't make a commitment on this at this point because I--in the early process of gathering information on this--but as a former school board member like yourself, I think you were one, am I correct? You get students' transcripts in that setting inside the actual closed session, and they often become part of the dialogue with family. I'm not sure the students need that information to help with restorative justice recommendations. They need the fact pattern of what happened.

Somebody did some property damage or something like that, and this is what's recommended. Probably doesn't--they could probably leave, you know, a couple of items of that packet to the school board itself, but we will keep working on that. I give you my commitment on that, and I'm very sensitive to that issue.

We've had school board members early on say they shouldn't be inside the room, not because there's a distrust of the students, which seems like the obvious reason why, you know, someone might come up with that. Well, how can we trust the student to maintain confidentiality and all that?

Not that, but whether or not it was appropriate for them to be involved in some of the more intimate questions and answers that oftentimes school board members have for members of the family who are there to support the student, for example, in terms of their domestic situation and so forth. There were just concerns about that with--we don't need to put them in the room. We can let them just provide a report basically as part of the larger report that goes there. So that's the idea with that.

And for the record, two last things: will the student board members be trained, and in what capacity will the victim be included in this process?

They're going to have to be trained in Brown Act, because Brown Act, part of the training is not just the open meeting side of it, but the closed meeting side of it, and what happens in these instances, much like other reports that are provided into closed session by third parties, by outside parties, the closed session privilege extends out to them, right?

Those reports are confidential, and that needs to be the case where we're trying to leave as much to local control as possible so those local school boards can decide based on how they function, you know, exactly what to do in terms of training or how much training to add on to what they're already doing with the board members. But we're very open to, again, putting some more guardrails in or guidance in terms of that, what minimum training should be, for example.

Well, thank you. I look forward to seeing the final--I'm going to support the bill today, but I do reserve my right to see the final language and change my vote on the Senate Floor, but thank you for bringing this measure forward, and thank you to our student advocates for being here. We'd love to see our youth engage in the legislation and ideas. Thank you.

And so, with respect to the Brown Act, that the student board members are already trained on their Brown Act responsibilities, correct?

They are not--the legislation that we passed recently--I know you and all of us here, at least three out of four of us were here when we passed the legislation--excludes them completely from closed session--

No, that's not the issue. The issue is, you know, if you're a student member of a board, for those boards that have student members, they do get training on Brown Act matters. They just don't participate in executive session, nor would they hear, correct? I just want to make clear that's not a new element. The question here is whether or not they'd participate directly in a closed session. Your answer is, obviously they wouldn't, but they would provide input by way of peer-provided restorative justice recommendations? That's the gist of the bill.

Okay.

Right.

You're absolutely right, Mr. Chair, and clearly--I shouldn't say obviously because you make a great point there--in order to just be part of the open session proceedings, they would have to be trained in the Brown Act just like other board members. So they know that section of the code, and they know what it can and cannot do out there in terms of open meeting rules.

Right. So for those boards that have student members, that's not a new thing. We just want to make that clear. They're already afforded that training and that respect as a member. I like this bill, and I think for Members of the Committee, if you recall, this actually was one of the ideas that was presented to us as part of the SABLE hearing that we do once a year. So this is actually quite cool.

This bill was obviously good enough to kind of make it through to the major leagues, as they say. But I think it's a very valid, very compelling idea. With respect to disciplinary matters, peers do have insight, and in fact, a unique level of insight to the conditions and motivations of an incident that might lead to an expulsion recommendation. So I commend you for the idea, and I commend the author for bringing it to us. Glad to support it. Do I have a motion? Oh, would you like to comment? I'm sorry.

No, I had a question, thank you, and I'm sorry I missed some of the dialogue, so forgive me if this is repetitive. I wanted to just get a sense--I know that when a student is in this role, and I'm really excited about restorative justice being prioritized and centered here, but does it--who gives the student the information about the incident? Is it the school district? And is that information fully provided to the students? Do the students have all of the information? Does the district limit what they know about the actual issue or incident that's being discussed?

Great question. So, as the bill is written, we've left that to the ordinary processes of discretion of the school district. They would have an expulsion packet put together, and the thought was, if the parent and the accused student are signing off on having that information given to the student board member for purposes of recommendations, that that packet would be turned over.

We're open, and I just answered Senator Ochoa Bogh earlier because we've been giving some thought the last couple of days, in part because of some inquiries from colleagues. In my own experience as a school board member, you know, maybe there's a couple of items in there that can be excluded that we should put in the bill and not leave completely local control. I'm not sure of how important that is, and I want to think through it a little bit more, but I use the example of transcripts.

I'm not sure the student member needs to have the transcripts of the other student to make restorative justice recommendations, although it sometimes does prompt questions. How come your grades work great semester one, two, three, and four and then they dropped all of a sudden? And then that dialogue--we're expecting dialogue to occur here. You know, the accused student might have some great information to provide. You know, I was bullied. I got cut from the basketball team, and I started hanging out with the wrong crowd.

You know, you hear those kind of things. So we have to think through that. I don't think there's harm necessarily in giving it to them as long as they're bound by confidentiality, but I--I am willing to put some additional restraints on the bill as it goes forward if there's compelling reasons to do so.

Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't ever an effort where the district was trying to sway the recommendations in any way and therefore limit--and not just sort of confidential information, but just elements of the packet sort of arbitrarily. So I just wanted to make sure that there's a process where those student representatives are fully respected, that they have all of the complete information that's needed to have a viable and impactful recommendation.

That side of the issue is compelling, too. I understand your point better, and I think the idea of what's in that packet, is it exactly identical as to what the board members get--the adult board members, or is there some reason to keep, you know, something that's particularly sensitive out? I think everything about--

We would never--I could tell you, as an author, I would never take anything out or want to take anything out, be willing to take anything out of the bill that would limit the information about the fact pattern itself and the youth's history, you know, in terms of, you know, their behavior in the education system. It's what we see in peer court. They're allowed to ask those kinds of questions. Have you been in trouble like this before?

And if the person says no and the peers no, that's not true. It's important for them to challenge the student on that. But wait, the packet says you were smoking on campus two years ago, or whatever the example is, and force them to be candid and honest and so that they can help them, so they can help, you know, devise some recommendations. So we'll be--I don't want to get too granular and right?

We--all the school districts out there that feel they want to do school-based and district-based decision making, of course, and I respect that, but we'll be continuing to look at that piece of it as we go forward.

Thank you. I plan to support the bill. I just wanted to make sure that we're still--you're still working on that and committed to it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Again, I'm supporting the bill, and I'm impressed by these two young men. Do we have a motion?

I move the bill.

Thank you, Senator. Would you like to close, please?

Again, thank you, Mr. Chair, for your support. That means everything, and again, as I said at the outset, help from the Committee in terms of guiding this and suggesting amendments and so forth, what is very important, and I think will continue to be important, that kind of analysis along the way, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

File Item Seven: SB 1445: Cortese: motion is 'do pass as amended.' [Roll Call].

That measure has four votes. We'll leave it on call. I now have to go present my fifth bill of the morning. I'm sorry, Senator Ochoa Bogh. I'll be back as soon as I can. And I'm going to leave the gavel with Senator Cortese, who will chair in my absence as Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Okay. The Vice Chair would normally be presiding in the absence of the Chair, except in this case, the Vice Chair is Item Six: SB 1435, and she's going to be presenting instead of chair. Senator, you may proceed when ready.

Thank you. That's your wealth of information.

Just making sure we've had so much progress. oh, he's in his way. Okay. Thank you, Mister Chair and Member. Last year, I began a conversation about age appropriateness and content of schools. Content found in schools this year, I introduced SB 1435 to establish standards for public school libraries and to advocate for the protection of children from material that is objectively harmful to minors.

Although there are laws pertaining to the adoption of textbooks and instructional materials available to schools and classrooms, there's a lack of state guidelines specific for school libraries at any grade level. In fact, the last update to our state's education code regarding content in school libraries was in 1990, and that only permitted local school boards to remove material that is political or religious in nature. No one disagrees that it's necessary to protect our children from sexually explicit material.

However, as this material becomes more readily available through social media, movies, books, and other digital mediums, the state Legislature has been slow to provide the necessary oversight, and as a result, these materials have slowly crept into our schools. This year, we have Senator Wahab, who has introduced a Bill addressing AI in the making of images with regards to obscene material and using children images.

Although local challenges to reading materials are rare, when the material is brought to the public attention, school board members and communities are often shocked by the content found in these books. For example, last year in this Committee, we heard testimony from a parent who brought a book found in a middle school library. She read aloud the book's instructions on how children can sign up for apps designed to find sexual partners and how to give or oral sex.

When these types of books are called into question by parents or guardians and brought before the school board for review, the materials are censored for the safety of the viewing audience. This is because existing FCC regulations prohibit the broadcasting of obscene material on television and radio.

The City of Santa Barbara passed an ordinance that required the blinders be placed in front of materials displayed in public that are considered, quote unquote, harmful matter, as defined by Penal Code 313 in Barrie versus the City of Santa Barbara in 1995, the ordinance was deemed constitutional, declaring that the Supreme Court had consistently held that states and municipalities have a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of minors and specifically in preventing minors from gaining access to materials deemed obscene to them.

It was found that the orders did not violate free speech and that press provisions and press provisions of the First Amendment. So SB 1435 is not about censorship. Unlike AB 1078, which updated standards for curriculum and instructional materials, SB 1435 is about updating school library standards for the first time in over 30 years. The Bill ensures that the content that is objectively harmful to children and has no serious scientific, artistic or literary purpose is not found in school libraries.

The April 8 amendments would require the removal of content that is specifically harmful to children from school libraries serving pupils in preschool through 8th grade by next school year. These amendments also protect books and materials that serve legitimate scientific or literary purposes. The amendments also remove all criminal liability for failing to remove a book or material that is harmful to children from school libraries by July 31, 2025. Instead, it allows parents and guardians to file a civil injunction.

Joining me in support is Lance Christensen, Vice President of the Education Policy and Government affairs for the California Policy Center, and Erin Friday, attorney and co- lead of our duty USA

Chair, Members of the Education Committee. Thanks for having us here today. My name is Lance Christensen, the Vice President of the California Policy Center. I'm also a father of five children, all who have gone through the public school system. SB four, T 35, is simple and it's commonsensical, and over the 20 years that I spent associated with this Legislature, it seems like a no brainer. The Bill simply does this.

If you can't watch it on broadcast television or listen to it over the airwaves or hear it in a school board meeting, it shouldn't be in our young children's public school classrooms and libraries. We're asking the Legislature to codify some version of these FCC obscenity standards, which were referenced earlier, something that Congress has done for over 50 years.

The Miller Test, which is based upon, confirms that obscene content does not have protection in the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has been consistent on that for many, many years. How can a Bill set to establish age appropriate standards for our public school classrooms and libraries up until the 8th grade have serious opposition? Many of the objectional books in our public school classrooms and libraries are not literary masterpieces or coming of age stories and appeal to peering interests.

Assail kids with enough vulgar and obscene content and they will become desensitized, locked and loaded for a life of superficiality and objectification. The state does not have a salient process for prohibiting or removing obscene or harmful matter that is age inappropriate for public school classrooms and libraries. We're not pursuing this Bill underneath the disjointed and sometimes unintelligible PICO standard. If this Bill is not sufficient, we would ask the Legislature, spend time talking about where is the line?

Can schools draw a line on what is obscene, harmful matter, or vulgar for our kids? This Bill seeks to draw that simple line from Pre-K through 8th grade that the FCC did years ago, and I ask for your support. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Before I get started, I want to apologize for being vulgar. My name is Erin Friday. I'm a Democrat and a Lead of Our Duty, a group with gay members. It's alarming that we need this Bill. But schools, despite claiming that they are safe spaces, are shelving harmful material, aka obscene materials, as they relate to kids. There is nothing transphobic, homophobic, or racist about this Bill. It merely aligns an existing law that prohibits the distribution of harmful material to kids.

It doesn't add any criminal punishments. Meeting all three prongs of harmful matter is an extremely high bar, so only the most offensive books will be removed. The book this is gay is found in our middle schools. The glossary defines glory hole, a hole in a wall or partition through which a man pokes his penis. Rimming, licking the bottom, scat eating poop. The book. This book, Flamer, has boys ejaculating into a bottle, and whoever doesn't do it must drink it.

The book, let's talk about it encourages kids to explore their kinks as well as porn. It has cartoon depictions of different sex acts. Schools encouraging young kids to view porn as dangerous. It encourages sexual behavior in children under 14, which naturally result in pregnancies and STD's. The New York Times over the weekend featured an article about how porn affects children. It's causing the youth to believe that choking is now a normal part of sex. Girls, of course, are on the receiving end.

An accidental death and brain injuries result. So, if you don't vote yes on this Bill, you will be on record that you believe that children should be exposed to the type of harmful matter that I just presented. There can be no other interpretation.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there others in the Committee room who wish to come forward and express a support position at this time? Your name and affiliation and support is what's allowed during this me too process. Thank you.

My name is Dalia Shehita. As a proud Member of the Coptic Orthodox Church, I am honored to serve as a television talk show host for logos.

You can't testify. You can only say your name, your affiliation and support. Under this part of the agenda, we're limited to two people testifying.

I think that's what she's saying.

I am getting it.

Okay.

I'm getting specific. Yeah, it's a little bit long. Yeah, I'm almost there. So. Okay. I am here to represent the Arab Community of California with the blessing of pop tabadros and metropolitan serapion, here to support SB 1435. I respectfully seek your aye vote on Bill SB 1435.

Thank you. You did that perfectly well.

Thank you.

Margaret Reeder, mother of a 6th grader, in support.

Charlotte Johnson, concerned parent don't let them tell you this is book banning. It is not.

Mimi McMann, grandmother, retired teacher and I request your support to protect our kids from this pornography.

Brena Sheehy, representing protection of the Educational Rights of Kids Advocacy and support.

Cynthia Cravens, longtime Democrat and former candidate for California State Senate, District 11. I support this Bill. Thank you.

Nicole Young, Placer County Chapter Moms for Liberty, in strong support.

Mike Murray, father of two young children. Representing the American Council in support of this Bill.

Arwen Funk with Chico, Parents Against Sexual Abuse by Schools with Porn. I support this Bill.

Carol Marquis, Yolo County Moms for Liberty. I strongly support this Bill.

Beth Warren, Yolo County Lifelong Democrat I strongly support this Bill.

Anna Fahim, I'm a high school student. I support this Bill.