Senate Standing Committee on Education

However, item number 10, SB 1235. Gonzalez has been pulled by the author. Four bills are on consent today. Item number five, SB 1252. Item number seven, SB 1288. Item number 13, SB 1329. Item number 14, SB 1449. And finally, item number 15, SB 1435, is for vote only this morning. Witnesses today are asked to limit their testimony to three minutes to ensure the Committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. SENe O'Quorum let's begin as a Subcommitee with the first regular order Bill. Welcome, Senator Roth. You may begin when ready.

Senator Robert thank you, Mister chair. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 895, it's our more pathways to nursing Bill, which would authorize the California Community College Chancellor's office to select up to 15 community college districts with an existing nationally accredited associate degree in nursing program, an ADN program to offer a Bachelor of science in nursing degree, the BSN.

As you know, for over 40 years, the community college associate degree in nursing has been the basic credential for employment as a registered nurse in a healthcare facility in California. However, due to a push by credentialing organizations to increase the percentage of nurses holding BSN degrees to 80% of those in healthcare facilities, an effort that started a decade or more ago, the BSN degree is now becoming the new industry standard for employment in California hospitals and perhaps in other healthcare facilities.

A BSN, as you know, also happens to be a requirement for attainment of a master's degree in nursing and doctorate of nurse practice degrees that are necessary in order to become nurse practitioners, nurse practitioners in independent settings, and, of course, faculty Members in our California nursing programs. In 2021 in California, a health impact report found that 18% of California hospitals surveyed stated that a BSN was required for employment, twice the percentage noted in 2017, and 54.3% reported a preference for hiring BSN degree nurses.

Significantly, 31.5% of the new ADNRN surveyed stated that the lack of a BSN degree was given to them as the reason for their failure to be hired. The impact of this preference for BSNs appears to have moved to the clinical placement arena as well, with some healthcare facilities recently suggesting that they prefer nursing students from BSN programs over nursing students from ADN programs.

This demand for production of BSN credentialed registered nurses continues to increase without a corresponding increase in capacity to train them at our public, not our private, but our public nursing schools. But there is a path forward to help solve this problem, and that path cuts right through our California community colleges. In 2021 to 22, our community college ADN graduates represented over 40% of the students completing a pre licensure nursing program in California.

To help meet the need for BSN credentialed rns, this Bill proposes to utilize existing ADN programs to supplement the work of our public and private BSN programs.

To meet this demand, the Bill would authorize, as I said, the California Community College chancellor's office to select up to 15 California community college districts with an existing nationally accredited ADN program to offer a BSN degree to up to 25% of each ADN class or 35 students, whichever is greater than when students enter the BSN phase of the pilot program at a district nursing program, they will have already earned their associate degree in nursing, passed the National Council licensure exam, the NCLEX, and secured their RN license.

Participating students would then take the additional coursework necessary to earn the BSN at their community college, allowing students the opportunity to work around their class schedule and family responsibilities. As you may know, from a curriculum standpoint, the nursing clinical component of the ADN program is the same as the clinical program applicable to BSN programs.

There are differences in course curriculum from one school to another, but the basic nursing curriculum, the nursing coursework, the study is the same and the NCLEX and RN licensure requirements are the same. The difference between the two programs, ADN and BSN, consists of approximately 30 course units which generally include humanities and leadership management, and generally one post licensure, one post RN licensure community health work assignment.

But since these BSN students are already licensed RNs, no additional supervised clinical placement, no clinical placement slots are required for this pilot program by supplementing the work of our existing public and private BSN programs.

In this way, additional BSN degree nurses will be added to the workforce, nurses who are qualified to become supervisors and managers in the healthcare facility and who are qualified to become masters or doctorate degree nurse practitioners in independent practice settings and as nursing school faculty Members, I want to specifically thank the chair and the Committee staff for their amazing engagement on this very important Bill. I think together we've developed amendments which I have agreed to take and are described in the analysis briefly.

The amendments will prioritize the selection of community college districts for the pilot program in underserved nursing areas, allow for the provisional selection of community college districts with nursing programs that are in candidacy for national accreditation, direct the community college chancellor's office to develop a process designed to assist community college districts with nursing programs that are not nationally accredited but are applying for national accreditation and prioritize those in the Central Valley State of California.

The Bill will also require community college districts selected for the pilot to prioritize enrollment in the BSN pilot program for students who hold an associate degree in nursing degree from that district and will require community college district selected for the pilot to continue to offer an ADN program for all those who do not wish to pursue, ultimately, a BSN.

Finally, the LAO is directed to do an evaluation of the pilot that is due in 2032, and this sets a sunset date for this program if it's not extended on January 12034. With me today, I have two witnesses to testify on behalf of the Bill, Riverside Community College District dean of Nursing Tammy Venthal and United Nurses Association of's California's President Charmaine Morales.

Welcome to both of you. And who'll be going first? You can flip a coin. Whoever wants to go first, coin.

Go ahead, Miss Morales.

Good morning. Chair Newman and Members of the Committee, I'm deeply grateful for the opportunity to address you today in support of SB 895. My name is Charmaine Morales and I serve as the President of United Nurses Association's Union of Healthcare Professionals, and we're proud to sponsor SB 895. As a nurse and union President, I witnessed firsthand the many challenges faced by community college nurses striving to attain their BSN degrees.

More than half of our nurses at UNIAC, UHCP, myself included, earned their ADNs at community colleges, and I did it while juggling the responsibilities of raising four children. Many nurses have shared the difficult journey to secure their BSNs with me. Hindered by limited slots and CSU programs, many are compelled to pursue costly private schooling, resulting in staggering student loan debts. These financial burdens, coupled with lost earnings due to delays in matriculation, have plunged countless nurses into dire financial straits.

For community college nurse graduates, the path forward is often narrow, with private institutions representing the only viable option for BSN completion, SB 895 stands as a crucial step towards reshaping the landscape of exorbitant nursing education costs. The current trend of health systems favoring BSN prepared nurses has not only exacerbated diversity challenges, but also hindered workforce inclusivity.

SB 895 offers a beacon of hope by empowering nurses within the pilot program to remain in their community and serve their local communities, which would foster a more diverse and representative nursing workforce. For over two decades, nurse leaders have been discussing a national nursing shortage in many states, including, including California, have fallen short of the Institute of Medicine's 2010 goals for BSN workforce attainment, creating another staffing crisis. In the past year, UNAC UHCP has been steadfastly dedicated to growing, educating, and maintaining the nursing workforce.

SB 895 is pivotal in our ongoing efforts to reshape the narrative and cultivate a resilient, empowered nursing workforce. I thank you for your time, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for your testimony. Miss Vanho, welcome.

Yes, thank you, Senator Roth. And thank you to the chair and Members of the Committee for the Opportunity to speak in support of SB 895. The philosophy of the faculty and administrators at Riverside City colleges is that all nursing students deserve the opportunity to earn a BSN. With the support of Senator Roth, RCC was the first community college to partner with two local CSUs to offer ADN to BSN concurrent enrollment programs.

However, half of my students that are admitted are excluded from participating because they either don't meet the GPA requirements of the CSUs or they have work and family responsibilities that are the reality for so many non-traditional college students today. What results for these students, many of whom belong to historically minoritized groups, is they either don't complete their bachelor's degree at all, or they seek the availability and flexibility that for profit nursing programs offer.

Unfortunately, the benefits of open access and flexibility come at a high financial cost. Accredited community colleges are perfectly positioned to offer students a seamless pathway to a BSN degree, one that is accessible, affordable, and high quality. National accreditation requires programs to demonstrate high standards of excellence with regard to the qualifications of faculty, availability of resources, and the achievement of key program outcomes. And let me assure you that offering the BSN at select community colleges will not impact the availability of clinical space.

To suggest otherwise is a false narrative. The clinical coursework in a BSN program is completed post licensure, allowing students to fulfill their clinical requirements and an even broader variety of community settings that are not typically used to meet the clinical objectives of pre licensure programs. So, I'd like to thank you again for allowing me to share my support for SB 895, and I'm happy to answer questions at the appropriate time for Members of the Committee.

Thank you. At this time, we'd love for Members of the public who are in support of this measure come forward and state your name, your organization and your position of Bill.

Good morning. Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association, proud co-sponsor of the Bill, and respectfully request your I vote thank you.

Thank you, chair Senators Dean Grafilo with Capital advocacy here on behalf of the County of LA and Mister chair, per your warm, welcoming, elastic, wasted Denim is trending.

Thank you.

I want to make clear these are Levi's 505, no elastic in the Waistband.

Good morning.

Grace Koppeln, on behalf of Providence and support, thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Doctor Elizabeth Reilly from Cerritos College support.

Thank you.

Doctor Shara Creary from Evergreen Valley College in San Jose, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. NunA grouping on behalf of the Community College League of California proud co sponsors of the Bill and support, thank you.

Good morning. Mister Chair Justin Fanzal, on behalf of Merced College, in support, thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Joe Signs, on behalf of the County Health Executives Association, representing local health departments, in support, thank you. Thank you. Peter Kellison, on behalf of the California Association for Health Services at home in support, thank you.

Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified School District and support thank you. Good morning. Molly Robeson with Planned Parenthood affiliates of California and support, thank you.

Okay, I have a long list. So Mark Mcdonald, on behalf of the Antelope Valley, Contra Costa, Foothill, De Anza, Kern, Mount San Jacinto, Palo Verde, Peralta, San Diego, San Bernardino, Southwestern Community College districts and the California Community College Baccalaureate Association in support, thank you.

Good morning. Stephanie Goldman, on behalf of the student Senate for California community colleges, in support, thank you. Good morning. Janice O'Malley with AfscME, California proud code sponsors thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Anna Matthews with the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges and strong support.

Thank you.

Michelle Reisinger from Sierra College in Rockland and support thank you. Carrie Fogle, Sierra College Nursing student and support thank you. Maria Villos, Los Angeles Community College District co sponsor and strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ashley Walker with Nossimon on behalf of North Orange County Community College District, Mount San Antonio College and Citrus College in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Lynn Vasquez, California Community College Chancellor's office and support thank you.

Good morning. Brian Ricks with the Los Angeles Unified School District in support, thank you.

Good morning. Doctor Sherry Lowen, Saddleback College and for the Orange County strong workforce, in support, thank you.

Good morning. Casey Elliott, on behalf of Coast Rancho Santiago and South Orange County Community College districts and support, thank you. Good morning.

Kyle Highland, on behalf of the Association. Of California Community College Administrators and support, thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Mister Chairman. Manny Diaz, San Jose Evergreen Community College District very much in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Fiona Rashid with Saddleback College and South Orange County Community college district and support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Danielle Lauria from Miracosta College in Oceanside, California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sabrina Means on behalf of Pasadena City College, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister chair. David Nebin. On behalf of Santa Monica College, Allen Hancock, Cuesta, Santa Barbara City College, as well as proud co-sponsors, El Camino College and Cerritos College, in support.

Thank you. Before we go to opposition, let's establish a quorum. Madam consultant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

A quorum has been established. Let's now move on to lead opposition. Any opposition? Witnesses here like to speak to the Bill. Two of you can take three minutes each, if you so choose.

And I don't have you listed, so if you could state your name and your affiliation.

Thank you. My name is Doctor Ann Stoltz. I am the Director of the nursing program at the University of Pacific, and I was the Director at founding Director of the Turo University School of Nursing and was the Director at the California State University, Sacramento as well. So, on behalf of the California Association of Colleges of Nursing, I'm speaking in opposition to SB 895.

CACN welcomes discussions about how to address nursing education and workforce issues and has been instrumental in all of the partnerships that we have instituted since the early two thousand. But this Bill fails to address the underlying challenges preventing an increase in the BSN nursing workforce and in fact serves to increase existing barriers. The reasons that we cannot, as a school, increase our enrollments in our existing nursing programs are the lack of clinical placements, the lack of qualified faculty.

Neither of these issues are addressed in this Bill, and therefore this legislation will not add a single RN student to the workforce shortage. Adding the ability for community colleges to award the BSN does not increase the total number of RNs, and the ADN graduate is an RN with the same scope of practice as a BSN prepared nurse. Additionally, the need to increase the number of BSN prepared nurses is being met through the partnerships that currently exist at public and private universities.

According to the UCSF 2022 survey of RNs in California, 75.1% of RNs are educated at the BSN level or higher. The collaborative programs provide online and concurrent enrollment models with pathways to the BSN in as little as two additional semesters, and we should be encouraging the expansion of these model programs that are already in place, rather than creating standalone programs at community colleges that disincentivize the intersegmental pipeline models to increase the number of BSN prepared nurses.

I propose that rather than investing in a few community colleges, we should focus resources on expanding clinical placements and pipeline programs to leverage existing pathways and incentivize nurses to take on faculty roles and hospitals to accept more students. According to research from UCSF, the nursing shorts in the state is expected to be resolved in the next few years, which begs the question of why add more BSN programs if the issue is rural access?

There are a plethora of online BSN programs currently offered by multiple institutions in the state. So, in short, Senate Bill 895 does not address the nursing shortage and may have unintended upstream effects that decrease this critical supply of RNs in California. So, thank you very much for allowing me to be here and I propose that you vote against this Bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good morning, chair Newman, Members of the Committee, I am Rahman Attar. I'm the Director of Healthcare Workforce Development for the California State University Office of the Chancellor, here to present the system's position on Senate Bill 895. While the CSU is deeply appreciative of Senator Roth's attempt to provide solutions to address the state's nursing workforce challenges, the CSU believes that SB 895 will not accomplish its intended goals. The CSU prides itself in providing programs that educate and train California's nursing workforce at all levels.

However, the state faces systematic and infrastructural challenges, which hinders all nursing programs from growing and expanding. Specifically, the limited availability of clinical placements and over regulation by the state's Board of Registered Nursing both impact enrollment growth in our nursing programs. These challenges are not unique to the CSU and will equally affect the community colleges while limiting the state's opportunities to increase the number of nurses and add to the challenges we are already experiencing.

The CSU believes that addressing these specific issues will benefit all public and private nursing programs. To address these challenges facing the state, the CSU has developed solutions such as partnership programs that provide increased accessibility as well as accelerated pathways for all students. These pathway and partnership programs offer concurrent enrollment, with many California community colleges streamlining the pathway for students seeking their associates in bachelor's degree in nursing at an accelerated rate.

The CSU has also developed a robust infrastructure in nursing education that eases access, flexibility and no longer limits students education to the region where they live. These infrastructures allow faculty to teach online and even at the community colleges that those students are at. These partnership programs benefit students in rural regions and provides the flexibility for nontraditional students as well.

The CSU has the capacity to increase enrollment but is hindered by those external barriers the CSU believes in further investment in these partnership programs, provides a return on investment that will benefit all segments throughout the state, but most importantly, the students that seek to enter the nursing workforce. While this legislation aims to create more BSN graduates, it does not increase the state's nursing workforce supply or nursing program capacity.

For the reasons stated above, as well as a strong objection to duplication of programs and the President this Bill will create, the CSU would respectfully request a no vote to SB 895. I thank you all for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there others here who'd like to express in opposition position to the Bill? Please come forward.

Good morning. Chair and Members Alex Graves with the Association of Independent California Colleges and universities representing private, nonprofit colleges, including about two dozen that have nursing programs in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Steve Rain, representing the academic Senate of the California State University system, in opposition to SB 895. We request a no vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister chair Members. Brian Howe with the California Faculty Association. This is the one time that we are in agreement with the management, with the CSU. This is the one issue that we have to oppose. We apologize to the Senator, but this Bill creates a chilling effect for our workforce. You know, first it's this baccalaureate, and then what next? So we would like you to consider the unintended consequences that this measure poses. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's come back to the desk. And so let me start first by saying to Senator Roth, thank you for working sort of closely and with a lot of back and forth with me and the Committee on this Bill. And I'll hold. I have some other questions, which I'll hold. Let me, colleagues, any questions or comments, concerns for the, the author on the Bill? Senator Choaboak?

Yes, I'm gonna go. So first, I commend you for working on this measure. I know it's challenging on that. We had early conversations about your intent on moving forward with this particular Bill. I've also, I'm very cognizant as to the challenges that our current schools have in the clinical placement of our nurses, the ability for this body, the Legislature, to allow you to expand very much the responsibility of this Legislature, the challenges that you folks face on that, in that component, on that end.

So, there is something to be said about what the Legislature could do to expand our current programs, to be able to do more in that. And if I recall correctly, I think in one of our earlier meetings, we had talked about in our business and professions, we had talked about also, if I recall correctly, I think it was in that capacity, on whether or not there was an accurate count of clinical placements available throughout the state. I'm not sure if that was the case or not.

If anybody here has that information, I'll be wanting to hear on that end. But I believe that that was the case. It was not quite an accurate account of where or nurses could be taken. So they have, you know, the opposition has a valid point in which, you know, if we were to create this program, we still have the issue of the clinical placements.

Now that could be remedied by understanding whether or not there is an accurate count of clinical placements available throughout the state and whether or not we should prioritize our current systems in moving forward on that end. The other question, I do have a couple of.

You want me to answer them one at a time or.

Oh, sure, yes, because I do have a couple. So please go ahead.

Well, remember this Bill, this pilot program only applies to associate degreed nurses who are passed the exam and are licensed as RNs. So, they already had their clinical placement. You're not admitted into a community college nursing program as an RN ADN candidate without a clinical placement. These folks have moved through the program, and this is the add on at the end, after they're licensed. So, I understand, I mean, I'm listening to the opposition talk about clinical placements.

This Bill has nothing to do and does not interfere one bit with anybody's clinical placement, doesn't take away a clinical placement from a CSU school or a private school, public for profit or nonprofit. Secondly, I do agree that there is a deficit in the state in terms of trying to figure out where the clinical placements are.

And so, for that reason, we're moving a clinical placement Bill through the Legislature this year that requires health facilities, both hospitals and clinics licensed by HKI, to report both clinical placements that are utilized and clinical placements that are available.

HKI and the Board of Registered Nursing and gives the Board of Registered Nursing the authority to work with the schools directly to try to locate available clinical placements, not to displace anybody who has one, but to locate available clinical placements and match those up with nursing schools up and down the state.

So we're working on the clinical placement issue, but I can't emphasize enough, this Bill does not impact anyone's clinical placement or the availability of clinical placements or the utilization of clinical placements, because the people that are impacted by this Bill are nurses licensed. They need no clinical placements.

Perfect. Great point. Thank you very much. The other question I have for you is what timeline would the community college programs need to even scale up to the bachelor levels program, and would there be faculty hiring needs? Would you need a different type of accreditation for that?

It's about, well, it varies, but probably 12 to 18 months it's going to take to get programs set up. Credentialed is what I understand. I guess it depends on how fast you move and how experienced you are. There will need to be, the BSN piece will need to be credentialed in order for the community college selected to award a Bachelor of Science in nursing degree. So, there will be that.

The thought is that perhaps these community colleges that are selected can work together to develop a uniform additional curriculum to cover whatever it is, the 30 extra hours so that it's a one size fits all to help each other move through the process. That answers the question as to faculty. Remember, these are 30 hours. One of the courses, or maybe more than one, are humanities. That's what the community colleges teach in Riverside.

Riverside City College, the chancellor tells me, has more employed phds than the University of California at Riverside. So faculty Members are qualified. There are faculty Members. To the extent that there's a faculty Member hiring required, I would suspect it would be fairly minimal. And by the way, this program is intended to be revenue neutral. So districts that are selected for the program sign up to the Proposition that they have to Fund the program within existing resources.

And actually, that's where my next question was heading. According to the LAO notes that the nursing programs are costly to operate at community colleges. This raises questions about the argument from proponents of SB 895 and the cost of the state for the expansion of BSN to community colleges that will be non-existent.

And that, of course, is a misunderstanding of the program. Remember, in order to participate in the pilot program and enter it, you have to be an associate degree nurse past the NCLEX with an RN. The expensive part of the program is the nursing clinical piece, the brick and mortar, the Low student to faculty ratios, the expense of the equipment and the simulation equipment that are required for the clinical piece of undergraduate nursing education. We're not talking about this.

We're talking about people who already are nurses who may have the opportunity, if this Bill happens to pass, to take a humanities course, a nursing leadership and nursing management course, to participate in. Usually it's about one community health program where you link up with a nurse or you link up in a clinic. You're not dealing with simulation labs, you're not working in hospitals where the high expense of nursing programs in fact exists.

Thank you, Senator Ruff, for your thoughtful answers. And one last question, Mister chair. If you indulge me a bit, I'm just going to curious as to the opposition from the academic Senate as to why they're in opposition to it, if you don't mind.

Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to come back. Steve Raine, academic Senate of the California State University system a lot of reasons, but I'll just say for one cost, expanding existing CSU nursing degree programs will be less expensive for the state than an expensive pilot program to offer a BSN through community colleges. We have existing capacity if our spaces are limited by the board of nursing. We can't offer more students placement.

The obvious solution, in my mind is to offer more nursing placement option or degree program admits in CSU programs. We currently also have excess capacity in the ad associate's degree of nursing to BSN programs that CSUs already have. So that's a quick summary. I could go on if you'd like.

No, I'm good with that.

Thank you.

And one final, and I'm not sure who this goes to.

Your second final question is that.

Yeah, sorry, my follow up just enlightening. It's my understanding that many of our nursing programs actually have waiting lists to be able to move forward at different universities currently. I'm kind of curious if anybody knows the statistics as to the waiting list to be able to enter those programs currently. And the reason being is that, you know, COVID really showed us the fact that we are in extreme shortage.

And I know the estimates are that we were going to be up to par by 2026, but currently moving forward as population grows and hopefully keep our Californians, instead of fleeing the state, that we're going to be needing more nurses as we move forward. So I could answer that.

I can answer for my program. So we currently admit 40 each semester, and we have. We turn away about 300350 just for one program at the University of Pacific, and it's an MSN entry level MSN degree program. One other issue is that if they're going to offer the public health nurse certificate, there are clinical placements associated with that. And right now those are very difficult to get. They're not tracked as much as the clinical hospital placements.

But the PHN placements are very rare and hard to get. So I would disagree that it won't impact clinical placements. It will at the PHN level.

May I respond to that?

Yes, you may.

That's not the intent. It's my understanding that as part of a BSN program, there's some community health course that needs to be taken by the nurse in order to qualify for the Bachelor of science degree in nursing. This is not intended to even begin to approach a public health nurse certification program. So I appreciate the comment, but that's not what we're doing here at the community college level.

And to that point, if you wouldn't mind expanding, there seems to be some ambiguity among stakeholders as to what this is, what this isn't, and there's a difference between a workforce challenge and a workforce shortage. You and I have talked about it. So if you wouldn't mind clarifying, this Bill is not intended to address or solve the shortage. Correct?

Right. It's intended to address a changing environment in the nursing field, in the workplace, where hospitals and health facilities, either because they feel they need to, for credentialing reasons or accreditation reasons, or for any other reason, are moving toward preferencing Bachelor of science degree nurses. And of course, we're in the State of California, where 40% of the rns that come out of our programs in the state are associate degree nurses.

And so if we don't make some adjustments somehow, whether it's expanding existing brick and mortar facilities at the CSU or let the privates take the market or work on a program like this, that makes some small incremental change. Where are our associate degree nurses going to work in the future? Convalescent care facilities. We need to adjust our programs to meet the demand, the ever evolving demands of the workplace. And that's what this program does. It doesn't. We're not trying to meet the overall shortage of nurses.

We're not creating BSN programs at the community college where the college takes in students in a large scale and tries to compete with the CSUs. It should be a team effort here. And I have to tell you, I'm a little disappointed. If I may continue, Mister chair.

You're well on your way. Go ahead.

I'm a little disappointed.

As they said in animal house, you're on a roll.

I've been around a long time, and I've worked on these healthcare issues in and out of the Legislature for a long time. And I remember the early two thousand when the California State University decided to challenge the master plan itself as an institution. And it was Chancellor Charles Reed at the time who decided that CSU should begin offering an education doctorate degree. Well, those of you familiar with the master plan know that doctorate degrees were at the time reserved for the University of California system.

And there was a big fight. And the arguments made by the California State University at the time were, we need to meet the demands of the workplace. We educate undergraduate teachers. We need to be able to offer advanced degrees up through the education doctorate in order to meet the demands of the workplace. The debate occurred right here in the California State Legislature. UC obviously was opposed, citing the master plan.

And of course, UC ultimately lost, and the CSU was awarded the given the opportunity to award PHDs. The same program and process moved through this Legislature when we were talking about Doctor of Physical therapy, which the workplace was demanding, and Doctor of nurse practice, which the workplace was demanding, and in fact, we need more of for our nursing faculty at all of our schools public.

I appreciate it. And so that sort of jurisdictional argument continues, right? It's obviously a subtext here. And if I could, some clarification. So Mister rains from the CSU made the argument that the CSU would be a less expensive sort of institution to do this. But probably more importantly, why not? Senator Roth, focus on more partnerships with the CSU as a sort of an intrinsic component of this Bill?

Well, as you know, the pipeline program referenced in your excellent Committee analysis was a pipeline program that my team and I facilitated in our office, district office in Riverside, California, starting with a meeting with the, I think it was the Executive vice chancellor of the California State University system, the presidents of Cal State Fullerton and Cal State San Bernardino, the nursing school deans, the provosts, and through a series of meetings, what resulted was an effort to build that was successful, a common curriculum to provide for dual credentialing of faculty Members, and dual, and most importantly, dual enrollment of students referenced by the Riverside City College nursing dean.

So when students and the program was implemented in Riverside, it was briefed to the California community college chancellors, all of them. They took it on the road nationally. It's the subject of a peer reviewed journal article on the success of pipeline programs, and it has been successful for those students who can and find themselves able to participate. The problems with the program are the problems that the RCC nursing school dean highlighted.

One, we have CSU admissions requirements that not all students who attend community college can meet in terms of GPA and the like. We have a flexibility issue with the way, in some cases, the CSU pipeline programs and the courses that CSU offer are structured in terms of. We have. In many cases, our community college students are placebound. They have family Members who are sick or ill, need care.

They have jobs that they need to work in order to put food on the table, and they cannot be that far from their home. With respect to online access, we know that here, with all the debates that we engage in on broadband access, online works for some students. It does not work for others, either because the broadband is not sufficient or they don't learn effectively that way.

And so we have presently about 40 to 50 students, split between Fullerton, Riverside, split between Fullerton and, and San Bernardino. At the Cal State's in the pipeline program, the students that want the pipeline program select the pipeline program. Remember, they also have to pay CSU fees, not just community college fees, in order to participate. There's no statutory prohibition on the expansion of pipeline programs.

And what I say to my friends at CSU and the Faculty Association is, if you want to expand the pipeline programs, I will help you. But we engaged in our effort, I don't know, 5, 6, 7 years ago, and there's been plenty of time to allow plenty of expansion in pipeline programs where the community colleges want them and where there's a demand by the students.

Mister chair, appreciate that. Any other questions? Comments? Sure. Keep briefly, please.

Yeah, so in regards to the, you know, what was mentioned earlier about the master plan, this is not a debate in regards to who owns what degree. We're in agreement that there is need for more BSN students, whether it be at the CSU or the private sector. Our opposition is more in regards to the support needing foreign nursing education. There is a severe lack of clinical placements that's only going to be compounded by this issue. This issue will also compound the need for qualified faculty.

Our goal is to increase the accessibility for all students and in regards to placebound and the availability of access for community college students or students in rural areas. We do have programs where faculty actually teach at the local community colleges. This is something that's not new for us, and it's part of our partnership program. And thanks to Senator Roth's office, we've been able to innovate on those partnership programs to allow our faculty to go to the students.

So it's not just an online accessibility, our faculty can be made available to them. And there have been great partnership programs with many community colleges throughout the state that we've been able to achieve this with. And then lastly, in regards to tuition and fees that students have to pay, we're really committed to increasing accessibility to all students.

And a lot of our campuses have worked on getting private scholarships and grants for our students in order to lower the fees or even get them their fees totally eliminated. We recently revisited our student undergraduate grants to allow students that are part time to to also receive those grants to lower their tuition. So, there's a variety of mechanisms, I think, and tools that are already available within our current infrastructure that can continually be invested on.

And I think it's a more effective and turnaround time to implement these sort of programs that won't take 18 months, it'll take six months at a minimum to get these partnership programs up and expanded a little bit more.

I appreciate that. Miss Van Hall, you can come forward. I'm sorry. I want to make sure we have a proper hearing. Right. So sorry you lost your seat here at the table.

Tammy Van Hall, dean of nursing at Riverside City College. I was just going to comment on the public health piece. I've. Excuse me, I was very fortunate to be an associate degree graduate myself, but very fortunate to go to very innovative schools for my bachelor's, master's, PhD, so on. And I've seen this done, the public health piece, the community health piece, in very innovative ways. And, and again, these are licensed nurses.

For instance, for me, I did my leadership and public health through my employer, so it benefited my employer as well. Didn't need extra clinical spaces. I just worked with my employer. So I just wanted to comment on that.

Okay, before we leave this in, Senator Cortese, you have a question with respect to qualified faculty you and I have discussed. I mean, this is actually part of the justification for this program, right?

Exactly. At some point, we're going to have to recognize, and I've had discussions with my friends at CSU about this.

The one thing that community colleges never will be able to do in my lifetime and beyond is award master's degrees in nursing and doctorates and doctors of nurse practice, both of which are required one, to build a cadre of more nurse practitioners, including nurse practitioners in independent settings who can go into the Central Valley and go into Coachella and eastern Riverside County and the deserts in San Bernardino county to provide healthcare services where there are a few doctors and also the Doctor of nurse practice degree.

To build more faculty in nursing programs, we're working on the clinical placements to try to locate them in FQHCs in clinics, remote clinics where we can put nursing students to train the CSUs and those and the privates that are able to award master's degrees and Doctor degrees. We need them to, frankly, from my perspective, concentrate their efforts and boost their production.

And, of course, the pool, having more bachelor of science degree nurses in the pool will give us more people who potentially we can recruit into those programs to increase the healthcare workforce in the advanced practice areas.

Thank you, Senator Cortese.

Thank you. So I'm legislatively very invested in the clinical placement issue, and I do think that regardless of what folks want to debate in terms of how much this Bill touches upon that issue, it's a separate legislative issue.

I always, we see it a lot, but there's a lot of times when we see somebody coming through with a Bill that's focused on, you know, a very specific area and the other issues surrounding, you know, this particular space, in this case, education space, you know, want to be talked about. I mean, this, these committees tend to be a forum for, zero, boy, we get a chance to talk about all these other issues.

I would love to see a lot of legislative support on the clinical placement legislation and appreciate Senator Roth mentioning that in his Committee's efforts to make that happen. But what I'm not clear on, and it's just not computing for me, and it's actually going to mean I'm going to be supporting the Bill. Because until I get this resolved in my mind one way or the other, I'll either continue supporting the Bill later or I won't or Reserve the right to reconsider.

But we have a nursing shortage. We know that. That's what the clinical placement issue is all about. That's, in part what this issue is all about. We have outstanding community colleges, like the one square in my district that I've lived next to for most of my life in San Jose, been nationally recognized. There's no reason they can't help with this problem. And I like Senator Roth's point about this should be a team effort. I'm concerned about unintended consequences to faculty.

Of course that should be a concern. But if we have a nursing shortage and we have open positions at the CSU and we're getting bottlenecked by clinical placement and these community colleges also have capacity, then we should be putting a lot of people to work. I mean, this shouldn't be a case of scarcity. This should be a case of both systems should be thriving, especially given the shortage that we have.

I'm just doing sort of back of the envelope arithmetic, not really math, just saying, look, how could you be doing a good thing if we've got a nursing shortage? By bottlenecking either system, which is capable, quite capable, of producing nurses in a hurry other than whatever those bottlenecks are. So, I think the team effort should be on all sides. CSU and community colleges removing the bottlenecks and getting the systems back.

Well, in the case of community colleges, getting them operating at their full competency in terms of educating nurses, and as far as the CSUs, getting them running on full cylinders again. On all cylinders again, because that's just symptomatic of the problem that we have. So, again, I'm going to be supporting Bill. I'm open to hearing more from CFA and folks worried about worker protection and position protection and position control and all those kinds of things.

Perhaps that will change my mind between now and when I see the Bill again. But I think right now we need to keep this going and try to work through those issues. Appreciate you bringing the Bill forward and tackling a thorny issue you can either.

Respond or save it for your clients. Yours.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister chair. Thank you, Senator, for those comments. You know, if we were opening 15 new nursing schools and filling faculty slots in nursing schools, I think that would be one thing. But remember, we already have nursing schools at what, 80 community colleges, and a very small number of them, up to 15 may be selected for this pilot program if they qualify.

But the pilot program doesn't involve any undergraduate nursing education or training, which is faculty intensive, where you have Low student to faculty ratios, Low students, high faculty, very expensive. The impact on the faculty situation at CSUS, the privates or the community colleges should not be impacted by this Bill given the limited number of coursework, course hours that need to be taken for the BSN non clinical. But thank you for your comment.

Thank you, Mister chair.

And for my part, I think that's an important distinction to note here, which is, you know, this is a pilot program. I think the original concept was significantly larger. We've reduced it to 15.

We've placed some parameters around it that I think you just touched on national accreditation and left to the discretion of the chancellor at the end of the day to choose those schools, but also with an eye on, I think, sort of the essential feature, which is the placebo nature and the challenges that come with that, which is why the pilot makes sense, for my part. But to your point, there's nothing mutually exclusive about this pilot and the CSU kind of redoubling its efforts.

And so, you know, that's why, you know, over time, I think we've come to an agreement that this is, in fact, a good approach. This is why I'm glad to support the Bill today. But it's, again, relatively small contribution by way of workforce. Right. So 15 or up to 15 times, approximately 40 bsns over time. And the pilot has been deliberately structured to allow for the ramp up. Right.

And so we will see, I think after the six years, we will see if this is a good approach. We will see if this changes the dynamics, especially in those places that are geographically isolated, where there's placebo and students, if it increases the number who move from the ADN into the BSN pathway. But I do appreciate the CSC's concern. I do appreciate the larger issue of, you know, the discussion.

We still need to have to render clear what is, what are, you know, the roles and responsibilities of CSU, CCC, and in some other context, the UC, by way of the kinds of degrees or offerings they may present. So with that, if you'd like to close. Appreciate the discussion today.

Thank you, Mister chair. No one seems to disagree. The publics, the privates, the community colleges, the healthcare community, that we need more credentialed nurses now and in the future. The studies and surveys, the workplace, the growing trend to prefer BSN students in hospital clinical placement programs right now, which is significant from my perspective, all tell us exactly that.

So, given our current and future budget challenges and the high cost of setting up and expanding undergraduate nursing programs, both in terms of the cost of the equipment, the brick and mortar facilities, and the Low student to faculty ratios, why not try using the underutilized team Member?

With campuses most accessible to students, one with a cadre of fully trained and licensed adns ready to earn the relatively few humanities and leadership course units required for the award of the BSN credential at their local community college as they perform critical health care delivery duties in our local communities, it's critical that we use, we use all the tools in our tool chest to address this critical need, and the time to try it is now. I would respectfully ask for your.

I vote at the appropriate point in time.

Thank you. With that, we need a motion. The motion is from Senator Choa Bogue. Madam Consultant, please call the roll file.

Item one, SB 895. Roth. The motion is do pass as amended, to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure has three votes. We will leave it open for absent Members.

Thank you, Mister chair Members and staff.

Thank you, Senator Roth. I will note, I think this is the last time that we will see you in this Committee, so I appreciate all of your hard work. Next we have SB 1115. Senator Limone, welcome. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and colleagues. SB 115, 1115 provides professional learning opportunities in literacy and mathematics for teachers and staff to help close the widening gaps in student academic outcomes and disparities. In California, approximately one third of black students, American Indian students, and Hispanic Latino students pass literacy standards in 2023 exams, respectively. Less than 20% passed math standards.

In addition, the smarter balance summative assessments that test literacy and mathematics have reported a decrease in students mean scores from 2019 to 2023, going from 51.1% to 46.6% in English language arts and from 39.7% to 34.6% in math for students who have met or exceeded the same standards. As efforts continue to be made to reach assessment goals in California, education staff play a crucial role on the growth and development of students.

SB 1115 aims to support student success by providing professional learning opportunities for credentialed education staff in literacy and mathematics. With me today is our California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond, to testify in support of the Bill, and the California Department of Education Statewide Literacy Co-Director Nancy Brynelson, to answer any technical questions.

Thank you. Welcome, Mister Superintendent. Always nice to see you. You have the customary three minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, we're here today to talk about something that is proven to help raise the proficiency of California students. It is not a new subject that California students have experienced an achievement gap over many decades, a gap that was exacerbated during the pandemic.

But we know that robust professional development and training for those who teach math and for those who teach our kids to read, can close that gap and make sure that our students are ready to read by third grade and make sure that they're ready for bright futures. Unfortunately, the experience for most school districts is that one teacher gets training and is expected to come back to the school and do a turnaround training for others.

That's not an effective way to close the literacy gap or the math numeracy gap for our students. What we propose is ambitious, that we can provide training for more than 300,000 educators across all grade spans and that it will have results. We encourage with the funding that would be received to provide this professional development districts to use trainings that are proven that get results for students to help them improve their proficiency.

We know that our kids have been through tough times academically and mentally, but we know that they are capable of being successful when we provide rigor and we provide training to their educators to help them navigate and close learning gaps. And so we envision a bold action to help more than 300,000 educators get professional development and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for technical assistance. Is that correct? Any other witnesses here in the hearing room like to come forward and express a position of support for the measure.

Mister Chair, while those folks are coming forward, I wanted to regretfully announced that a Member, a former Member of this Legislature, passed away. The state Superintendent. The former state Superintendent, Delaney Easton, who served as Superintendent from 1995 to 2003 and served in the Assembly from 1986 to 1994, were flying flags that have mass for her today. And we will be having a moment to honor her memory that we will invite all the Members of the Legislature.

I appreciate that. So start here. That I knew and admired Delaney Easton very much are there any witnesses here in opposition to this measure, please come forward. And you may come to the table if you like. You have up to three minutes.

Good morning. We're not necessarily in opposition. Cristina Salazar with Californians together, we're actually a tweener. We agree that we need more professional learning for educators, but we do have concerns with the Bill specifically focused. It mentioned science of reading, and it also names two commercial programs, and that's kind of where we stand.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other opposition, please?

Good morning. Jennifer Baker with the California Association for Bilingual Education. We do not have a formal position yet and have been communicating with the author's office. We have the same concerns that we've expressed that Californians together has and hope to have a collaborative conversation about a path to move forward.

If you wouldn't mind, if you could elaborate just a little bit on those concerns.

Specifically, we're concerned about targeting science of reading. We have a lot of very effective programs that we currently already have in law that actually science of reading. And we are also concerned about specifically identifying vendors. We think that California can have a much more broad approach, specifically that's going to have very positive long term impacts on English learners.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? I'm seeing none. Let's come back to Committee. Any question, comments for the Committee? No. None. None. Oh. Okay.

Just really quick on the question. Superintendent Thurmond, so you want to focus on educators that we currently have in our classrooms. Do you have any concerns as to the preparation part of ensuring that our teachers have the right preparation before they get into the classroom? Because this is after the fact. But have we looked into our current programs to ensure that they have the same type of training that you're hoping to see prior to coming into the field?

Thank you, madam Vice Chair. We believe that this Bill actually does what you're asking. It recognizes that the Commission on Teacher credentialing has said that all new teachers should know certain things about how to teach children to read, but there's nothing that's being done for those who are already educating in our schools. And this provides the same rigorous professional development that the Commission on Teacher credentialing is saying any teacher or any new teacher should have as it relates to helping a student learn to read.

I would say that we think that it's important to mention the science of reading because that has been identified as a way of helping students to have success, to have access to phonics and to other things that help them.

But the language of this Bill is very balanced in that it talks about the science of reading, and it talks about the ELA, ELD framework, which is a seminal piece that has been created to talk about all of the components that are necessary to help students learn how to read. And so, we think that it's balanced.

And with all due respect to our partners with whom we have great respect, we think that we can do this in a way that accelerates the needs of students who need great support to learn how to read, and we can do it in a way that meets the needs of English learners. And we have given examples.

This is not a mandate in any way, but we've given examples of training that has been able to have great results in helping students from all backgrounds and trainings that help students who come from English learner backgrounds.

And the other question I have for you, follow up on that. I understand there's another literacy Bill that is coming in that it would be addressing the training for teachers in the Assembly through Assemblywoman Rubio. How does this compare to your particular Bill that you're presenting here today?

I think that the Bill, which has currently been passed and won't be having a hearing in the Assembly and will come to the Legislature again next year. I think that the Bill actually maintains many similarities. It calls out the need for the science of reading and for phonics. It talks about changing curriculum materials that educators get access to to help them be ready for teaching students to read.

I would say a significant difference between ours is that both bills focus on literacy, but ours also talks about math because we have many teachers who teach math who will say, I know math, but I'm not confident teaching it. And we think that there should be rigor and training and support for those who teach math as well as those who teach our kids to read?

So, my final question, promise. So, going back to the, to my first question, which is, do we need to relook? And are you working collaboratively with our California teaching credentialing program in order to ensure that they have this training moving forward? So, they're coming into the field knowing what you want to currently teach our teachers who are already in the field.

The short answer is our Commission on teacher credentialing has already done that work, and Miss Brynaldson, to my right, has helped the Commission through that process. And I'd like to give her a moment to talk about that because those requirements are already in place.

Thank you for the question. SB 488 did require changes in the credentialing of teachers seeking a multiple subject, single subject and education specialist credential. And so new accreditation standards for literacy have been developed and adopted by the Commission. Teacher credentialing and they are in effect as of the fall of 2024. A new literacy performance assessment is in development and will be, in effect, replacing the older reading instruction competence assessment in July of 2025.

So in many ways, what we're proposing today aligns with much of the work that the Commission has done, and we're now going to start seeing candidates come forward out of these revised programs for credentialing.

Approved in the credentialing teaching program and now allowing our teachers who have been in the field prior to this be updated with the new. With the new standards of the science reading. Is that correct?

That's absolutely correct. And we thank Senator Limone for authoring this Bill, and we thank you for your interest in it, and we hope that you'll take bold action to help our students accelerate their proficiency in both literacy and in math.

Appreciate that. So just, you know one point I think, to touch on is, and I appreciate your sort of predicate, that the existing motive to kind of train the trainer isn't working particularly well. We're not providing sufficient professional development for teachers already in their jobs. But that's not inexpensive. Right. And so I understand there's money in this budget for professional education, but, you know, is there an estimate as to what the fiscal impact if you were to succeed with the Bill?

What are we looking at by way of cost to do this right?

We can give you some unit costs, what it would be to train per teacher, and then just multiply that out by, you know, our goal is to reach more than 300,000 teachers. And I would say that cost is significant.

I would say that while the state has issued money for professional development before, there has not been an allocation that would allow for a significant number of teachers and educators, I should say educators, because this could be for teachers or classified staff or reading coaches and others, principals, others who are engaged. There hasn't been the type of investment that's needed for us to really make progress towards closing the achievement gap. And so we can give you an estimate per teacher.

You've given me sort of the basis, right, 300,000 times. This amount of money is a large amount of money. And so my understanding is there's approximately $20 million in this budget, but that's probably not sufficient to meet the goal. So your challenge is going to be a fiscal challenge in this current environment, which is real, but I think not your main movie Bill I'd have committed today. I just wanted to get that on the record. So thank you.

With all due respect, Mister chair, we agree that the cost may be high. We think the cost is greater than not. Take the.

I won't disagree. I just think our resources are limited. Right. I absolutely agree.

Given the deficit, we understand that there might need to be options pursued, like delaying the implementation or the start. But we agree that while it might be a large cost, the reward will be even greater, and the cost is even greater if we allow California students.

To back to proficiency. I would make the same argument.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, we're facing a real fiscal challenge this year. Mister Perry, I understand you had a. Me, too. That you wanted to add. Yes.

Thank you, chair Members, and apologies for being tardy. Max Perry, on behalf of collaborative classroom Core learning in the California Charter School Association, I want to echo the comments of the supporters and sponsors and aspronite vote. Thank you.

Thank you. With that. Appreciate the Bill. Glad to support it. Today with the kind of observation that we're going to be. We have a fiscal challenge that this will intersect with. Senator Lemon, if you'd like to close.

Well, I just want to say that I think our Superintendent has closed for me in a great way. But I also want to just let you know, the tweeners know they're. You know, both Cabe and Californians together are organizations we work really closely with. So we're committed to continue the conversation should this Bill move forward at a Committee today. And so with that, I respectfully ask for nigh vote.

And so, I think. Senator Cortese, you made. Either of you. Senator Ochoa-Bogh has made a motion. And madam assistant, please call the roll file.

Thank you.

Item two, SB 1115. Limon. The motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you. That Bill currently has three votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members. Thank you very much, everybody who participated.

Thank you, Mister chair and Members.

Thank you, Superintendent. Next again, for Senator Limon, we have SB 1195, and if you have support witnesses, they can come forward to the table.

Great. Thank you, chair and Members.

Please.

Okay. I present to you SB 1195, a Bill that ensures students have an opportunity to take an advanced placement AP exam. The AP exam is designed to allow students to showcase their proficiency in particular subjects and earn college credit based on their performance. The college board administers the AP exam once a year during a two week period in May.

While some students may qualify for late testing in May, many are limited to the two week period, which can be challenging for students who are under a block schedule in the fall block schedule, students have to wait roughly a whole semester before they can complete the May exam, which can lead to almost a five month learning loss for students, which then we see that it has a scoring gap amongst underrepresented students.

This Bill requires the local education agency that operates a block schedule to request that the College board to provide an alternative testing date to ensure that students who take an AP course have the opportunity to take the exam immediately following the completion of the course. With me today, we have Diana Vu from the Association of California school administrators in support of the Bill.

Miss, welcome. You have three minutes. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning Committee chair and Members, Diana Vu on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators and our more than 17,000 Members, AX is pleased to support SB 1195, which provides a comprehensive approach.

You could get just a little closer.

This is better?

Much better.

Okay, thank you. Which provides a comprehensive approach to addressing the challenges faced by students enrolled in advanced placement courses operating on block schedules. One of the most critical aspects of SB 11908, 1195 is its recognition of the learning retention challenges that students on block schedules face. The nearly five month gap between the end of the course in December and the traditional AP exam period in May can lead to significant learning loss.

By providing an alternative testing date closer to the courses end, students can better retain the information they've learned, ultimately enhancing their performance on the AP exam. Moreover, SB 1195 also addresses equity concerns by acknowledging the disparities that exist between students from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

Students from less resourced schools may lack access to extended learning or course review opportunities, putting them at a disadvantage when facing the traditional may AP exam, offering an alternative testing date shortly after the course completion levels the playing field, giving all students a fair opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and earn college credit. This provision ensures that the success in AP courses is not limited by student zip code or financial means. Additionally, one of the key strengths in SB 1195 is its emphasis on flexibility.

By providing students with the option to choose between taking the AP exam at the end of the semester or during the regular may testing period, the Bill empowers students to make decisions based on their preparedness and personal circumstances. This flexibility not only accommodates the diverse needs of students, but also helps alleviate the stress and pressure associated with high stakes testing.

By granting students autonomy to select the testing date that works best for them, SB 1195 promotes a more student centered approach to education by addressing issues related to learning, retention, equity in education, and flexibility the Bill seeks to enhance student outcomes and ensures that all students have an equal opportunity to succeed in their AP coursework. For these reasons, we request your. I vote on SB 1195. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses like to come forward in support of this measure? Seeing none. Is anybody opposed to the measure? Also seeing none? We'll come back to the Deus. I will start. So I truly appreciate what you're trying to do, and I think it's a reality that if you take an AP course and you have to wait five months to take the exam, you're clearly not going to be as well prepared as if you took it at the completion of that course.

But what you're endeavoring to do is to find leverage to sort of invite or otherwise compel the college board to meet this need. And so this is sort of strangely reminiscent of a Bill I did yesterday in a different Committee that sought to find that sort of indirect leverage to do something about which you had the good quote in Politico, I might add. So how to think about this? We can ask the college board to do this, but, you know, how do we actually compel them or otherwise achieve this goal?

So we have actually had good conversations with the college board, and so they're not here, but we're in conversations with them. And I think there is a shared interest in making sure that the exams are reflective of the knowledge that, you know, of the course that they took. And understand for anyone, not just students, you don't have to be a student. There is learning loss after several months of not using, not practicing right, not reading, not being in the course. And so, you know, it's our hope that at some point that they would be, you know, supportive, but we are having good conversations with them. So, thus far.

All right, so if we. The other issue, I think, is sort of, you know, the basis on which that invitation is kind of extended. So at the LEA level, I could see where you'd have lots and lots. Not sure if that's more persuasive than doing it through some centralized channel, but we can work that out. But this is something you're going to work on. I think it's an eminently valid goal. It's sort of a shame that it's just not the default that they do this now.

Agree. I think it's a shame it doesn't happen now, but I think that there is an openness to considering what it would take to happen. To your point, whether it's a centralized, is it more like regional, sat, like kind of model, right, where someone does it, as opposed to every single school. I think we're really open to having those conversations.

What we want is for the students that are in these classes to be able to accurately reflect their knowledge and get this college credit, as appropriate, by taking the exam immediately after the completion, as opposed to waiting to months. And so that's our ultimate goal, and we're open to ideas.

And I appreciate that, so if the response to the college board is like, yes, we can do that, but only on a kind of a regional basis, what's the thinking there? By way of making.

No, no, sorry. I was responding to your comment about.

I understand, but I could see where, you know, if you had schools kind of up and down the state that said, you know, we have a particular AP offering, and we're on a block schedule, and, you know, we have three students, 10 students. You know, the college board might say, look, that's awesome. We'll offer a test in Fresno, Sacramento. Have you considered. I mean, it seems that doesn't seem unlikely, right?

I think that's still not our ultimate goal. Our ultimate goal is that the students are able to take the exam at the school site. Why? Because that is their school. So we know, especially for a lot of rural communities, it would be really difficult to get to, you know, even an urban city. And so we. Our ultimate goal is to figure out a way to do it at the school site.

But I think we also recognize that we want to just inch our way to be able to be. To offering these classes, these. Sorry. These exams, on a more regular basis, particularly for a lot. I mean, thousands of students in our state who are taking them.

Understood.

We're open to it.

$1.0 billion corporate, you know, the entity, the college board. So it's beyond calling upon their sort of goodwill, you know, this is something you have to figure out as you move forward. But I'm happy to move forward.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion from Senator Cortese, Madam Consultant? Please call the roll roll.

File item three, SB 1195. Limon. The motion is due pass. [Roll].

Very good. So that measure has three votes? No. No votes. We'll keep it open for the time being. I understand. Senator Lemin, you are going to do the good deed and present SB 1471 on behalf of Senator Stern?

I am, yes. On behalf of Senator Stern. I will start by accepting the chair's amendments that are listed on page three of the analysis. SB 1471 proposes to offer teachers the option to facilitate a 62nd moment of quiet reflection at the start of each school day, inviting student participation. In today's fast paced and noisy world, it can be challenging to find moments of peace. This simple yet powerful practice allows students and educators to pause, center themselves, and cultivate a sense of mindfulness.

This quiet time will offer students and educators an opportunity to transition and focus on the day, help develop the ability to focus, allow the brain to absorb new information, help students to self-regulate and relieve tension and stress, and is also beneficial for the neurodivergent individuals who may be sensitive to sensory stimulus. Sometimes students just need a minute, and educators do, too. SB 1471 provides the opportunity to meet students where they are at school and allow for a moment of mindfulness.

With us today providing testimony and support is Gary Cooper on behalf of Saving Lives Camarillo.

Mister Cooper, welcome.

Thank you, Senator. As Senator Limone stated, I am representing today saving lives Camarillo. Saving Lives Camarillo is a coalition in her district that is made up of educators, law enforcement folks, religious leaders, and basically their mission is to deal with youth drug addiction and alcohol addiction. And they're very supportive of SB 1471. The Bill.

Basically, with the Bill, California Legislature acknowledges that too many young California citizens do not have the opportunity to partake in even a very short period of time to be with their own thoughts before starting their daily life. The quiet moment, as we like to call it, will offer the students a minute to voluntarily reflect on a positive value that we hope will be shared by their parents or guardian.

And that is something we are very strong on, wanting to make sure that the parents and guardians and families are participating in this. This is not something the schools are just foisting on them, parents and the guardians and the family to participate in this. Schools have reported that students who participate in quiet moments have displayed improved grades in school, better behavior at home and in school, and increased respect for their teachers and parents. It has decreased anxiety, bullying, disrespect, depression, and crime and drug use.

So for that reason, is the hope of the saving lives Camarillo, that it will be recognized in communities as a positive way to enhance the mental and emotional well being of students in a non threatening environment. And for that reason, we strongly support SB 1471 and do respectfully ask for your support today.

Thank you. We have any other folks here who'd like to express a support position for this measure? Is there anyone here who'd like to voice opposition for the measure? I see? None. I will come back to the dais. There's more to the story, right? I mean, saving lives. Camarillo is the listed sponsor. You and I have talked over the years, so if you don't mind, because we talked about it, the genesis of this idea comes from where?

The genesis of idea. Yes, you're right. There's more to the story, but it's been picked up in 35 states around the country. The genesis of this is the Lubavitcher Rebbe in New York, and he, from the chabad community, believed that education and student education and student mental health was very, very important. And he created this many. This idea many, many, many years ago. And many states have picked it up, whether it be with the Jewish community or non Jewish community, the Christian community.

They picked it up as an idea, you know, to make sure that students had the opportunity to take that quiet moment and think about something positive. This is not. You know, I want to make it very, very clear. This is not a Jewish Bill. This is not a Christian Bill. This is not a religious Bill. This Bill is only for students mental health. And there's nothing to be implied by this as saying that there's any prayer involved.

This is only a voluntary moment for the students to think whatever they want to think about, but hopefully do it quietly, and that will help them during the course of their day and hopefully their life.

So, I appreciate that, but there is some concern in that very delicate First Amendment space about religion and its intersection with public institutions, especially schools. So how do we ensure that no school who employs a moment of quiet reflection actually does that in the service, explicitly or implicitly a religious doctrine?

We've made it very clear in the Bill and with the amendments that we're taking that this Bill will be adhering to all federal and state laws dealing with the Independence of School and Church. So, there's nothing in the Bill implying that there's anything religious, and with the amendments that we have taken, we want to make sure that nothing is, you know, put in statute that's implying or requiring any religious activities.

So any amendments that have been suggested by this Committee have been accepted to make sure to cover that exact issue.

Right. And so, just to clarify on behalf of Senator Stern, I believe you have accepted or he has accepted the amendments, Senator Limon?

He has. Yes, he has.

Okay. Very good. Okay. Okay. I mean, you know, those concerns will persist. I think they will be a backdrop to any further conversations or deliberations about this Bill. I'm happy to support it today to move forward with that. Do you have a question, or you want to make a motion?

Yes, I think we should amend it to ensure that the Senate Education Committee begins with that 60 seconds of.

Oh, we do. We often begin with 67 minutes waiting for people to show up, but it's quiet reflection.

You know, I think you should lead the way, Senator Newman, and make the educate the Senate Committee on education an example of, you know, this Bill.

So I'd happy to state our Committee rules every year. Maybe that'll be something we consider at the beginning of next year. And can I consider that a motion, Senator Ochoa?

Absolutely.

All right. We have a motion for Senator Ochoa. Bogue, do you want to close on.

Behalf of Senator Stern?

Okay, very good. Madam Consultant, please call the roll file.

Item six, SB 1471 Stern.

The motion is do pass as amended. [Roll Call]

That measure has two votes for zero against. We'll leave it open for Members to come back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Lamon. Thank you, Mister Cooper. We will now move on to our next agenda item. If I could find my Senator. Excuse me. If possible.

I don't see an author anyway, so, Senator Ochoa Bogh, just you and me having fun on education. Let's do it. And that is SB 1410. I'm sorry, is that the first? zero, that's the first one. I'm sorry. Okay, SB, you have two. One, SB 1368.

Although, do you want me to wait?

It's your two bills to choose from. Either. Whichever one works for you. At your service.

Good morning Mister chair and Members somewhere watching.

There are millions watching.

You can rest assured many are watching. Thank you for being here today. I'm excited to begin the discussion regarding an important resource for our youth. SB 1368 would update the comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention education required for students in 7th through 8th 12th grade to include information about licensed pregnancy centers.

As part of the instruction on local resources for sexual health and pregnancy, the California Healthy Youth act requires every school district to provide information about local resources, how to access local resources and pupils legal right to access local resources for sexual and reproductive healthcare such as testing and medical care for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy prevention and care. Information on licensed local pregnancy centers has not been presented to students in grades seven through 12, despite the variety of services these centers offer.

These centers serve women and couples facing unplanned pregnancy with empathetic reassurance and free services that may include medical services like pregnancy testing, ultrasound and STD testing, options counseling, community referrals, prenatal medical care and practical aid. We have a looming primary care provider shortage in California. These centers are filling this gap where we need more reproductive health care providers, particularly in rural areas, Low income areas and for people of color.

The federal Health Resources and Services Administration reports that more than 13.1 million californian residents live in a primary care shortage area. Many women know where to go to get an abortion. You know you can go to planned Parenthood, but most women don't know that free resources from pregnancy centers exist. There are 166 Planned Parenthood locations, which are primarily in urban areas, and 98 licensed pregnancy centers in California.

There certainly is room for all when it comes to reproductive healthcare, and in fact, many pregnancy centers report that Planned Parenthood will refer women to pregnancy center cares if a woman refuses an abortion and wants to keep her baby. Young women in crisis bear the heavy weight of making life changes decisions, often in secret.

Licensed pregnancy clinics allow women to talk about all their options with a medically licensed, sympathetic person in hopes that they may be able to make a decision with a clear conscience and have a full support system behind them along the way. I like to emphasize the Bill will not will not replace current curriculum or remove existing resource information from instruction or the Department of Education's website.

It simply brings into parity the resources offered to students giving them information on both Planned Parenthood and licensed pregnancy centers license keyword because with diverse options, we create informed futures. But let's allow the statistics to speak for themselves. In 2019, pregnancy centers in California provided services and materials valued at more than $14.3 million serving 93,957 women, men, youth and families.

There were 33,802 yes two free pregnancy tests 22,264 free ultrasounds performed by registered nurses and medical sonographers 4571 total STD STI tests performed by rns, 77% female and 23% male. These medical services totaled 7,341,844. But we're free of charge for our communities. The free material items have also made an impact, providing a total of 187,127 total free baby items to families in need, 56,100 packs of diapers, 31,931 packs of baby wipes, 97,176 new and used baby clothing outfits, 1180 new car seats and 740 new strollers.

All of this is made possible by the amazing staff behind these centers, 2579 of whom are completely volunteers. These centers are licensed by the California Department of Public Health. Additionally, some are also accredited by the Accreditation Association of Ambulatory Health Care, also known as AAAHC. AAAC was founded more than 40 years ago to encourage and assist healthcare organizations to provide the highest achievable level of care for recipients by continuously adding new standards while updating existing standards to reflect cutting edge ambulatory care knowledge and practice.

AAAC is one of the main nationwide accreditation organizations for us healthcare facilities. Licensed pregnancy centers often have medical teams that consist of an OB GYN physician, a nurse practitioner, licensed registered nurses, and RDMs licensed sonographers. There is plenty of evidence that supports how resourceful these centers are in our disadvantaged communities. This is why we need to spread better awareness among them to our youth.

Joining me today to testify on behalf of California pregnancy centers, we have Kathleen Jones, who is CEO of Life Choice Pregnancy center in San Bernardino. We also have Kelly Bradford, who will speak on the perspective of a pregnancy center client.

Welcome to both of you. Please, three minutes each. Please proceed.

Thank you Mister Chairman and Committee Members. My name is Kathleen Jones and I am the CEO for Life Choice Pregnancy Center, a state licensed community medical clinic in San Bernardino. I'm also board secretary for the California alliance of Pregnancy Care.

I'm here in support of SB 1368 and grateful for Senator Ochoa Bo's heart and passion for educating the youth of California Life Choice Pregnancy center, as well as other pregnancy care centers affiliated with California alliance of Pregnancy Care are fully committed to educating, informing and guiding students regarding human development, sexuality, pregnancy, contraception, and sexually transmitted diseases and infections. The 98 licensed pregnancy care clinics across our state are easily accessible and free to everyone in need of assistance and education.

These centers and clinics provide pregnancy testing, ultrasounds, material resource assistance including maternity clothes, baby clothes, accessories, diapers, wipes, food, formula and this is just a small sampling of the material aid we provide at no cost to our clients, our community and the state. California's pregnancy care centers and clinics provide information, education and material assistance while delivering high quality health care and support.

All California students deserve a complete listing of the available community resources during their comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention education, which should include pregnancy centers and clinics. I urge you to vote I on SB 1368 to ensure that our middle and high school students are fully informed about all community resources available to help them make educated, informed decisions about their sexual health. Mister Chairman and Committee Members, thank you in advance for your support and a yes vote on SB 1368.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, please.

Good morning. My name is Kelly Bradford. I am 44 years old, and I have had five abortions. Unfortunately, when I was growing up, I was misled and told that Planned Parenthood was the only place for me to go to receive my care for my pregnancy other than the hospital. When I went to Planned Parenthood, they did not speak with me about continuing my pregnancy or provide prenatal care, support or resources.

Not one time did they sit down with me and educate me on my options other than abortion. Not once did they show me what an abortion actually is and what the different stages of abortion look like depending on how far along, I was. Because if they did, I know I would have made some different decisions.

When I learned about alternatives to pregnancy center and others like it, I was blown away by the quality of care they're providing and the time they take to sit down with each patient to go over their options when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. But I was also baffled because I didn't know pregnancy centers existed when I was faced with an unplanned one and needed help.

Through my experience with alternatives pregnancy center, I've personally been able to meet women who also chose to abort and are still battling with that decision many years later and have asked the same question as me. Where were the pregnancy centers when we needed them? But because of alternatives, I have received free prenatal care when I was faced with an unplanned with pregnancy and healing through their abortion recovery classes.

SB 1368 is such an important Bill that means more than many of you up here today will ever know. Women deserve to know all of their options, and pregnancy care centers provide vital information that we need to make the best decision for ourselves and our unborn child. Whether it's to be a parent, to choose adoption or abortion, it's only fair and just that we give our students all options. So, Senators, please do what is right and make these resources available to our youth. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Bradford. Any other witnesses in support of this measure, please come forward. State your name, your organization and your position.

Samar Palko with the California Catholic Conference in full support.

Thank you.

Jeanette Chen, President of California alliance of Pregnancy Care. And I'm in full support.

Thank you.

Mike Murray, representing the American council in support.

Thank you.

Sophia Lorre with California Family Council in full support.

Thank you. Deacon John Wilson, Los Angeles. In support of women who are going through difficulties, I think they need to help. Thank you. This is your position. Thank you.

My name is Matt Newton. I'm a pastor here in Sacramento, as well as have a daughter and full support.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Caroline Laurie. I'm a parent of 42 in public school and a retired LA Unified School District teacher.

Thank you.

My name is Misty Jones, and I am a mother. I was also. I'm a mother of four. I was also a teen mother. And I am not in support of this Bill.

You are not in support. All right, we'll get to opposition when we. She's gone, so let's move on to opposition. Is there, are there any lead witnesses in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. Are there any in the room would like to express opposition to the measure? We had one. Let's come back to the dais. I'll start, says Senator Ochoa Bogh. Appreciate what you're trying to do. You've made, at different times, an emphasis on the word license. License. Pregnancy centers.

My understanding is the Bill refers only to pregnancy centers generally.

So what licensed. We have an amendment that said should be licensed.

And is that amendment. Is the Committee aware that? The Committee's not aware of that amendment.

I am pretty sure we have the amendments to ensure that it was licensed. The deadline was Monday, last week.

So my understanding is the deadline for amendments passed prior to your submitting that language?

Well, the intent, and I promise you, is it was submitted. It might have been late. It might have been late, but the intent is to only include licensed pregnancy centers. That was the intent from the very get go. How it did get messed up on the original language. I don't know how that happened, but when I was made aware of it, and I read that we did ensure that we had an amendment in saying that it was amended. So.

Okay. I think that's the.

If it passes the Committee, you folks are able to amend it moving forward.

All right. Okay. That's fair. And so I guess I'll give you a chance to close. My understanding is I can't move it. Senator Cortese is not inclined to. We'll have to wait for another Member to come back to make the motion. So go ahead and close.

Absolutely. Well, I want to see your excitement there, Chairman Newman, on this Bill. So, most importantly, I want to make sure that we are in absolute agreement that these only cater to licensed medical pregnancy centers. You know, one of the beauties about being able to serve in this capacity as a center is the availability to, to the information, the ability to talk to many stakeholders throughout the state in different spaces.

And I have to be honest, I did not actually know about pregnancy centers until I was actually brought forth with the idea of carrying this particular Bill. And it compelled me to actually attend and visit one of my, actually my local pregnancy center. And I was so impressed with the work that I, that I was exposed to from the fact that it was a warm environment, caring environment, nonjudgmental, and more importantly, that there is this.

I know your question was, we already have facilities with Planned Parenthood that offer services.

That was not my question.

Oh, oh, sorry. It was my understanding that we already have these services available. What we don't have is the fact that we have licensed pregnancy centers that actually provide services throughout the pregnancy and after the birth of those babies. With all of the facts and the data that I presented today, we are a Legislature full of data. We like to have data that backs much of our legislation, which is why we've included everything that they, all of the services that they actually provide.

It is another additional resource that we don't currently have access to and in the understanding of DEI diverse options equity, as mentioned earlier by Kelly Bradford. And thank you for sharing your being so vulnerable today and sharing your personal experience. It is very powerful and inclusion, including different perspectives and approaches to making decisions about pregnancy, or abortion, for that matter, for choice. But what this Bill provides, we don't have currently in place.

And I believe as legislators, as we learn about the resources that are available to our community and to our, to our, to the young women and older women, whoever might have an unplanned pregnancy, to make sure and ensure that our systems actually provide the ability to have access to these grocers and awareness of it. And with that, I will close with. Senate Bill 1368 would provide additional resource for middle and high school students alongside the resources they already provide.

Given that licensed pregnancy center management and staff offer extensive information and confidential services to young people who are facing difficult pregnancy decisions at no cost, this should be a resource offered to students under the state's curriculum. Students receive state mandated education, deserve to know all available options so they can make fully informed decisions about all the issues surrounding their sexual health.

This is a companion to what we currently have in systems with Planned Parenthood, a collaborator in ensuring that our young women have all options and resources available. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We will leave that matter on hold until such time as we have additional Members present. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Thank you for the discussion. And we have.

Do you want me to.

No, actually, Senator Grove is. Actually, she's been waiting, so if you don't mind. And she is in the hall. And. Jeremiah, Senator Grove left again. All right. Senator Archuleta, nice to see you. Nice tie asking for me. Okay. And with that, and before you start, I apologize, I have to go present another Bill in Rev. Intact. And so I will hand the gavel to my Vice Chair, and I'll be back as soon as I can.

And you're gonna leave? I'm with you in spirit.

Okay. Yeah. Well, good morning, Madam Chair.

Welcome, Senator Cortese. Glad to have you here.

And, Member, thank you for allowing me to present my Bill. And today I'm presenting Senate Bill 1388, which establishes that a community college district cannot hold unrestricted financial reserves over 16.7% of its annual operating budget unless three goals are achieved by the district. Number one, they participate in the part time community college faculty health insurance program. And number two, they participate in the community college part time office hours program. And number 3, 75 percent of its teaching hours are taught by full time faculty.

If the school complies with these three goals, they would be exempt from the cap. If a district chooses not to use unallocated funds for these programs to benefit students learning and faculty stability, the funds would be distributed to non-supervisory staff to encourage stability for staff members who may currently provide some of these services uncompensated.

In the past decade, California has provided significant financial support for community college districts to provide part time faculty health insurance, compensation for office hours, and to ensure that most teaching hours are being performed by full time faculty. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars invested by the state, the programs which provide community college district with these financial resources and reimbursement are undersubscribed and underutilized, with many districts choosing not to use the generous state resources at all.

Only around half of the California 73 college community college districts participate in the part time community college faculty health insurance program despite partial or full reimbursement from the state. With such strong financial backing from the state, it is unacceptable that many part time faculty are not afforded employer health insurance. The community college part time office hours program similarly provides up to 50% reimbursement to community college district who compensate their part time faculty for office hours.

However, over 20 school districts continue to not participate in the program despite state funding. Consequently, there are many adjutant or part time faculty at community colleges throughout California who are still not provided access to healthcare and students who still do not have access to office hours for their courses or a stable faculty in spite of California investments.

And we all know the mentor, the Professor, when he spends he or she spends time with you, she just might, or he just might change your course of action to stay in school. Imagine a young lady or young man walking into the faculty room to sit down sobbing because they're having difficulty for whatever it might be. And that mentor, that Professor, because he's giving up his time, two or 3 hours in some cases, is not being compensated.

And yet the time and effort provided to that student opens up another door and the student eventually stays in school and begins his or her life to continue on. But yet, that teacher was not compensated. For more than 30 years. For more than 30 years, California has established that district should have 75% of all hours of instruction taught by full time faculty and has contributed to significant resources towards that goal. So the state has done its part.

Despite this, recent years have actually seen a decline in the number of teaching hours taught by full time faculty. With only a handful of these districts currently at the 75% level. Community colleges continue to accrue record level local reserves. During the three year period of 2020 to 2023, the number of districts with reserves in excess of 33% has doubled. Nearly one in four schools have over 40% and 10 districts carry nearly reserves of over 60%.

And remember the number, the cap was 16.7 and we're talking reserves in excess of 60%. Those monies could be used towards, as we said, insurance, full time faculty, and certainly taking care of those teachers and professors who work with the kids after hours. Senate Bill 1388 promotes financial accountability and responsibility within community college districts while also directly benefiting faculty and students by setting a reasonable limit on unrestricted General Fund balances.

This Bill ensures that the community college districts do not hold excess funds unless they first ensure a baseline level of support for their staff and their students. With me today to testify is Jim Mahler, President of AFT Local 1931 and Professor of mathematics at San Diego and Grossmont Kyimata Community College, as well as David Hawkins, legislative advocate for the California Community College Independent and I respectfully ask your aye vote and thank you for the time, if I may.

Thank you very much, Senator Archuleta, and please proceed with your name and your affiliation and proceed when you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. David Hawkins with the California Community College Independence. We represent 12,000 community college faculty teaching roughly a half million students. I want to be clear that Senate Bill 1388 doesn't cap a district's Reserve. It simply sets a level that the chancellor's office has already determined is adequate.

The 16.7%. Districts will still be allowed to exceed that simply by complying with fundamental legislative priorities that have been in place for decades that the districts have not complied with, one of them being the 75% of instruction be taught by full time faculty, that part time faculty are compensated for office hours so our students have access to academic counseling and mentoring, and then the healthcare issue. Here's what has occurred over recent years. We don't believe this is a local control issue.

We think this is a local control issue that has lacked any sort of oversight or accountability. In the last three years, the number of districts that have exceeded 33% in their budget in their unrestricted budget reserves has more than doubled. Currently, one out of every four districts have budget reserves in excess. Again, unrestricted budget reserves that can be used for programs for students and faculty. One in four exceed 40%.

We have 10 districts that now exceed 60% in unrestricted reserves that could be used for other purposes. One of these issues has to do with the 75% rule in regards to instructional faculty. So this is a goal that you established back in 1988. You have given $450 million to increase that percentage. Recent state audit that we sponsored that came out February of last year show there's actually a decline in that percentage.

And what the Auditor found for the district that they audited is that districts were either not spending the funds correctly or simply weren't spending them at all. Another consequence of allowing districts to have local control without any adequate oversight or accountability has been an increase in full time administrative positions during a period where you've had a 20% decline in student enrollment, administrative positions unrelated to student outcomes or student success programs increased by 45%. So we're not asking to limit and cap the districts.

We simply want the districts to instill the priorities that this body has given hundreds of millions of dollars to initiate and put some controls over the level of reserves based on their willingness to implement those programs. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm Jim Mahler. I'm a faculty member at San Diego City College in the areas of mathematics, engineering, and physics. I'm also President of our local and I'm an active officer in the statewide union, CFT Union of Classified Professionals and Educators. We represent over 120,000 Members throughout the state, and the Senator laid it out perfectly. The argument in support of this Bill. I'll just be the window dressing to his comments, as well as my colleagues.

Having been in education for many decades in community college world, all of us in the community college world, as well as education in general, we get into that profession because we want to help students and we want to serve students. And to that end, we've sponsored several pieces of legislation over the years going back to 1988, AB 1725, the community college reform Bill.

One of the main tenants in that Bill was to get to 75% of all instruction being taught by full time faculty compared to part time faculty. That's been over 30 years, and that needle has not moved at all in that 30 year time period. We have not made any progress towards that goal as a statewide system. There are several studies that show the number one determining factor for student success is faculty contact. The more faculty contact students have, the more successful they're going to be.

That's why we've put these legislative proposals forward and why they've been approved by the Legislature and the Governor, is to achieve that goal. Our adjunct faculty, despite the fact that, you know, we would like to see their numbers diminished at the expense of having more full time faculty, they still remain the majority of our employees. In terms of headcount, our adjunct faculty outnumber our full time faculty two to one.

Because of that, we've had to add other incentives to make them want to stay in the workforce as well as feel part of the institution, such as the office hour program and the healthcare program.

So all of these programs have been put in place to provide a more sound educational environment and commitment to the institution of our faculty, so that they can provide a better service to students, so our students can succeed, so they can be trained appropriately to seek out workplace jobs or transfer on to four year colleges and universities.

Despite all of these efforts, despite the funding available, despite the access to these programs, as mentioned, there are far too many districts who, instead of taking advantage of the funding made available, have instead opted to either spend it in other things or to just save it. Our community colleges are not intended to be savings and loan institutions. They're intended to be there to serve students. So you're going to hear from.

We're going to have to ask you to wrap up.

Okay. You're going to hear from districts that we're, you know, taking away their favorite f word, flexibility, and we are, because they haven't used the money where it's been intended to be used over all these years. So that's why we're bringing this Bill forward. So we urge your vote in support. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. So we'll continue with any witnesses in support of SB 1388 here in room 2100.

Bryan Ha with the California Faculty Association, on behalf of 29,000 Members, we're in strong support. Thank you.

Anna Matthews, former community college student, on behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, representing 7000 part time and full time faculty Members. Proud co sponsor of the Bill.

Good morning. Katie Hardeman with the California Teachers Association, representing 310,000 Members. We are also a co sponsor of the Bill in strong support.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no other Members in support of SB 1388, we'll not continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to SB 1388.

Good morning. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California we are respectively must be opposed to SB 1388. We want to thank the author and his staff for meeting with us and having a chance to talk about our concerns about the Bill.

We are concerned about the Bill because we are fundamentally concerned that this will take away our ability, our college districts, on behalf of our 73 districts and 116 colleges, the ability to address a fiscal crisis should it come up in the future, and that it takes away the local districts ability to manage their budgets as they see appropriate. I think the pandemic has certainly been a challenge for our colleges as we return back to normal.

The influx of revenues coming in from the state and federal have been a blessing to us, but it's also been a challenge for us to ensure that we've are in a situation where we are managing those dollars appropriately. And so I think you might see that that's part of the reason why reserves are going up so significantly as we are trying to spend down those dollars that have a certain time limit to them attached to them.

And also, honestly, we are deeply appreciative of the Governor's Budget that was proposed for us in January, and we hope that it holds into the May revision as well. But we are very cognizant of the fact that this year is not looking great for the state. Next year also is going to be a challenge in the the following two years as well will be a challenge fiscally for the state and therefore a challenge for us as well.

We are very cognizant of the fact that our sister institutions, CSU, California State University System and University of California, face deferrals this year as part of the early actions and recognize that that's always a potential possibility in the future for us as well going forward. Giving us the tools and ability to manage that deferrals, if they come into the future, would be tremendously important for us to avoid doing furloughs, layoffs and so forth.

The 16.7% was intended to be a minimum level of reserves recommended to ecologists to have on hand. It was never meant to be a cap. So placing that cap in place would be tremendously challenging for us going forward and recognize that you can go above it if you hit those three points, but it will be a challenge for us going into the fiscal challenges that are facing us in the future.

So for those reasons, because we want to make sure that we're able to have the tools necessary to handle emergency, ensure that our districts have the fiscal controls that they have been voted on by their constituents to have that those remain in place. We must be opposed to this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Michelle Mckay-Underwood, on behalf of the Association of California Community College Administrators, in respectful opposition, we believe this Bill would place an artificial and inflexible limit on the district's reserves. This is an affront to local control that prevents district leaders from making local funding decisions in the best interests of prudent fiscal operations. The Committee analysis does a great job of highlighting the many funding uncertainties that colleges face.

There's shortfalls that we've experienced in state funds and local funds and student fees, none of which are guaranteed to be backfilled by the state. So we have to be able to plan for that and be able to smooth over those deficits. We believe the policy is especially dangerous as the state faces a budget gap in the tens of billions of dollars. Should districts be required to liquidate their reserves and then be hit by deferrals?

You know, we would be very concerned that we would have significantly fewer resources to be able to weather that storm, and that would result in more draconian cuts than should those reserves have been preserved in order to, you know, make or make wiser decisions, should we be hit with deferrals. As stated, the 16.7% level is a minimum for fiscal stability, which benefits colleges, students and staff.

I think one of the other things to sort of reflect on the conversation this morning is that if the goal is to, you know, mandate some of these programs that the state has made optional, we think that tying it to a Reserve cap is really a tenuous link that we think there could be other ways to have that conversation than to force the reserves to be be with drawn down. So on behalf, again, of the community college administrators, we are in opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now we're going to move to witnesses in opposition to SB 1388 here in room 2100. Welcome.

Thank you. Madam Chair Members Mark Mcdonald, on behalf of the Antelope Valley, Contra Costa, Kern, Palo Verde and San Bernardino Community College districts, in opposition. Thank you.

Madam Chair Members David Neben, on behalf. Of the Allen Hancock and Cuesta colleges, in opposition.

Good morning, Kyle Hyland, on behalf of the Sierra Joint Community College District and the Miracosta Community College District, and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Casey Elliott, on behalf of South Orange County Community College District, in opposition.

Good morning. Manny Diaz is representing San Jose Evergreen Community College has also opposition.

Hi. Good morning. Cade Storietto, representing West Valley, Michigan Community College District, in strong opposition.

Thank you very much to all our witnesses and both in support and in opposition, hearing room 2100 for SB 1388. We're now going to bring it back to the dias. Do you have any questions or concerns, Senator Cortese? No. Okay, so. Oh, we have a motion to move the Bill. I guess we can. What's that?

I'm not sure if we should take up the motion. I'll leave that to the sheriff.

Sure. Absolutely. I think I just have one question slash comment on, on this particular concern that we have, especially with the capping. I am concerned with the budget deficit that we are currently facing and that is projected to proceed in the next couple of years and so forth. Do you believe that now would be the best time to do, to move this Bill forward? Considering the fact that our school districts are going to have to kind of navigate, you know.

When do we turn things around and make them right? Because we had a wrong. We're talking about students, hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds, thousands of students that look upon the professors as that mentor, as I mentioned. And when they're not there, the question is, why aren't they there? Because they're not paid to work after hours. And there's no reason for that because of the fact that we have allocated the funds.

And when we do have a Professor, we have professors in the system that have been teaching 5,10,15, 20 years, and they're still part time. Why? Because they found a system and a way to get around the funding that has been allocated by the State of California for that purpose. And yet at the same time, we have teachers or professors that are without health insurance. And you know what they call them?

Freeway flyer teachers, because they have to go from one community college to another community college to another community college to make a living. And that's not right because they should be stable in one college and one college only because of the fact that millions. And again, I say this is not today's problem. This problem has been going on. And so when you yourself were up here just a minute ago, you were fighting for someone who, who needed help.

Well, I'm up here fighting for thousands of people who need help, the teachers, the faculty, the students and everybody else. We can't overlook what our community colleges contribute to our society, and it's in dire need of help, no doubt. But we need that to be provided to the teachers, the professors and everyone else. And when we look at the numbers over the years, millions of dollars have been given allocated specifically to increase their teacher numbers.

And there's a line item and it says 3 million for teachers, 2 million for teachers, and it goes right down the line. And yet they didn't do it. Why? Because they wanted to keep that Reserve as high as they could. Keep it 50, 60 some it even high as 80%. Statistically, when 16% is fine. And if they want to go ahead and continue, fine. So we're not putting a cap on it.

We're just saying take care of those students and those teachers that are working so hard to preserve, to preserve our educational system. So this Bill 1388 is not tying the hands of the school boards. It's actually telling them that it's okay to do what you're supposed to do. Mandated almost by the state, monies are given. Specifically, what if the money was given for healthcare, as an example, what you were talking about earlier, and they didn't use it shamefully.

Well, if it's allocated, then let's use it for that. And the state has done that. The regents that we talked about, they're the ones that put this on the table. So it's time now that we adjust and we go back what we're supposed to have done. And if the scale goes up and down, so be it. Because if we're talking 20 years back, 30 years back, it's something they did wrong. We've got to correct it. And now is the time to do it.

So as the chair just walked in, I want him to know that the faculties that, or the Members that, that were in opposition, not one mentioned the students, not one mentioned healthcare. Oh, I'm so sorry that we've had people for 20 years working and we haven't given them a full time job. No one said that. No, they want to make sure that that money is there. But no one talks about the students and the mentors that are needed.

So let's turn this clock around and make sure we go back to where we started, to take care of the students, the faculty, and certainly to do what we're supposed to do. And that's why I urge an I vote on Senate Bill 1388. And I think that going forward and taking it on to the Next Committee will open up quite a few doors for the students and faculty in the future. And with that, I ask for an I vote.

A little more. A little more. Mister Hawkins, I think you had something you wanted to.

Senator Newman, thank you. A startling figure came to us yesterday in the Assembly budget Subcommitee. They did an analysis of the reserves. District reserves exceed $3.0 billion. 3.1 billion of funds that could be used to help students and faculty. We think that's absurd and should not be. Should not be allowed $3.1 billion.

Senator Newman.

Appreciate that. Senator Archuleta, I believe that was your close.

It was, sir. And I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you. I've got a motion from Senator Curtase. Madam consultant, please call the vote.

File item eight, SB 1388. Archuleta motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll].

All right, that measure has two votes four zero against. The moment, we'll leave it open for absent Members. Thank you to everybody who participated.

Thank you, Mister chair.

Thank you, madam.

Mister chair.

Okay, Senator Grove, you have been waiting patiently. You are here to present SB 1203. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As your witnesses, get seated, you may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today I'm here to present SB 1203, which would establish the California Education flex account for k-12 education. Now, California school system is in crisis, and we all recognize that. It's a baseline. Public schools should be able to educate our children on the fundamentals of reading, writing, and English, and proficiency in math and science. Despite spending $1,000 more per student than the national average, California has consistently ranked below the nation in academic achievement among fourth and 8th graders for several years now.

The Legislature introduces thousands of bills every year that create new policies or fix old policies because they seem to have a problem. And we do that, we fix those things. Too many children are failing, and we need to meet the minimal education standards. This is a problem that impacts every single child for the rest of their life.

We need a solution that will disrupt the status quo, which is why I'm here today to give students and parents options in education. Too many so-called solutions are forced on keeping our kids and our students in underperforming schools just because of their zip code. Instead of focusing on every child. Instead of focusing on giving every child the best academic opportunity that they could possibly get and provide upward mobility, we need to look at solutions like the one I'm presenting here today.

We know that parental choice works in education with 29 other states that have some form of parental choice programs. It allows parents to identify the gaps in their children's education that can be filled with alternative options. We know that school choice works in the studies have shown that black and brown students in charter schools have accelerated and outperformed their peers in traditional schools. There is a problem with our education system, but thankfully, as I said earlier, there is also a way to fix it.

Senate Bill 1203 will establish a California education flex account of 2024. This innovative legislation creates an individualized approach to k-12 through 12 education by allowing parents to choose what accredited schools best suits their child's needs and have those students share of Proposition 98 funds follow them. SB 1203 will create an education flex account which will allow for $8,000 to be used towards the tuition and education expenses.

It also creates a special education flex account which will allow for $16,000 to be used towards tuition and other expenses that students have with special needs. I want to share with you a young lady in my district who's not a medium level functioning down syndrome child, which was traditionally just warehoused in a school system, the traditional public school system in a special education class. Her parents found a charter school and it's $9,000 a year.

And they picked up extra work to be able to pay that $9,000 a year. This young lady is now thriving. She's playing sauce softball. She's developed an artistic ability where she, where the art teachers have worked with her, and she's very confident. She goes out and meets and greets people, shakes their hand, engages in communication where before that was not always the case. Alternative schools and our total solutions that parents pick for their children really does work.

And I think we should get every child, including the down syndrome child that I just spoke about and those in lower performing schools, an opportunity to have the upward mobility and the best education possible. Both of these funds must be used during the school year, and any underused funds from that school year, would go back and revert to the General Fund to be used for k-12 education. Think about it. Underserved students would no longer be institutionalized in low performing public schools.

Their parents could have the opportunity and the resources needed to get them a great education that suits their learning style. And if staying in that traditional public school based on their zip code is the best option for those students, they can still have that choice. This bill will empower these students to enroll their children in schools better suited for individual and educational needs. Our children have suffered enough through the last several years of education disruption, COVID shutdowns, and remote learning.

California should begin to fund students and not systems that don't work for far too many of our children. We have to start investing in the next generation. Let's provide funding to to programs that are putting students first and providing additional educational opportunities for school children up and down the state. Because our future depends on it. I had a witness that came and testified last year that talked about her son that was severely autistic. And she got him.

He was just being held in a classroom at a traditional public school. He was non verbal. And then he also came up to the Committee. He got training so that he could identify, this is a nonverbal student that could identify things that couldn't be identified in certain computer languages. And he was very good at it. And now he's excelling in that.

And he has the capability of getting a job in cybersecurity just because he recognizes things that our brains don't recognize. Why shouldn't all of our kids have the opportunity for success and upward mobility? Here with me to testify today is Dr. Hagan, the President of Capital Christian Schools and Destiny Christian Academy, Dr. Hagan and also Lance Christensen.

Doctor Hagan, welcome. Please proceed. You have three minutes.

Hello, my name again is Dr. Scott Hagan and I hold an earned doctorate from Gonzaga University and I was recently awarded a postdoctoral fellowship at Princeton University in New Jersey, which I'm currently a part of. For the last six years, I served as the president of North Central University in downtown Minneapolis. My university was located on Chicago Avenue in the inner city of Minneapolis and was right near where George Floyd was killed. I soon found myself in the center of that American moment.

I had the privilege as the president of North Central University of opening up our campus and hosting the George Floyd Funeral. It was seen by over 100 million people on CNN. I had the honor of organizing and speaking at the memorial service. It was also there that I launched on CNN the George Floyd Scholarship, which in turn was covered by Forbes and has resulted in over $50 million raised for low access students to college. I say all that not to boast.

I only say that to let you know that I care deeply about education and creating access. I spoke for three minutes and 18 seconds at the Floyd Memorial service and immediately following, Harvard, Yale, Michigan, UCLA, Penn State, all followed and has raised between $50 and $75 million for students.

After retiring from that role at North Central and Minneapolis last May, I returned to my hometown here in Sacramento, California, where I have unexpectedly found myself navigating the transition of Capital Christian School on highway 50 to Destiny Christian Academy, one of the most prominent k-12 private school entities in all of California with nearly 1,000 students. It's located on highway 50 and Bradshaw. A large portion of our current student body are students of color, many coming from low income families.

The curriculum and expertise of the faculty at this k-12 school here in Sacramento has put graduates at Vanderbilt Cal, UCLA, Harvard, UC Davis, scores of other universities. For many of the students, the combination of a private religious and liberal arts curriculum has been the winning ticket for them educationally.

But the fact remains that there are still scores of those kids that come from single parent and even two parent homes who cannot access this level of education that is fitted and tailored to their educational needs. SB 1203 has the potential to be a transformative policy, to create upward mobility, and not just access, but greatness. I know that it all requires that it pass through the hands of legislators and subcommittees, and I just hope and pray that you will give this possibility a legitimate chance.

Please, please, please don't let this conversation die. California can lead the way. Governor Newsom has taken some wonderful steps to connect with the religious and private communities of faith, to work in other arenas of access and delivery of services to people in our state. I believe California can lead the way and create a well informed relationship between private education and the state of California. So, as an educator and pastor, I believe in the tautology of access and merit. I believe they go together. We must innovate educational access. SB 1203 is that exact path to innovation. Please, please, please keep this conversation alive.

Thank you, Dr. Hagan. Mr. Christensen, welcome.

Chair and Members, good to see you again. Lance Christensen at the California Policy Center. I'm here on behalf of, or in support of SB 1203. And Senator Grove outlined a lot of the challenges that our education system faces in California. So I don't want to go for all those stats, you know them. But what I would like to talk about is the state constitution. Just go to Article Nine. And in there it says that California is to provide a free and common education for all children of the state.

What it is not saying there is that that should be housed in the government building or provided by a government program. It just says that we should fund a common education. That's become interpreted to be that of just traditional public schools. But we would argue that private schools are indeed public education for the common good. And so we look at these opportunities for parents. There are other options, has been outlined in the analysis, and I appreciate this. For clarification, this is not a voucher program.

It's a savings account of sorts, which allows for the money to go into a private account that is segregated from schools. This doesn't go directly to the schools, and allows for a parent to regulate that money, as well as the government have some oversight. California's on a literacy crisis. We have 1.7 million pupils in our grades one through three. Many of them who are from low income families. And our efforts to improve our public schools have not been, not come to bear.

We would just ask for parents to have the opportunity. And as you think seriously about the budget situation in the state of California, you have 100 billions and billions of dollars to deal with. This could be an opportunity to shave some of the costs off of your challenges. As of this month, 18 states have passed similar bills, and we think that California could be the 19th or 20th, depending on how fast you act.

Parents should have the tools and resources necessary to provide the best education opportunities for their kids, regardless of where they live. And that's why we support SB 1203. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody here who would like to testify and support with your name, your organization, your position?

Chair, Samara Palko, Director of Education, California Catholic Conference in full support.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Senator Grove. Tom Sheehy, here on behalf of Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids Advocacy here in support today for SB 1203. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Greg Burt with the California Family Council in strong support.

Thank you, Mr. Burt. Next, please.

Richard Maher with America First Policy Institute in support of this bill.

Thank you. Let's now hear from opposition. Do we have opposition here to speak in opposition to the measure? Mr. Christensen, Dr. Hagan, if you just move over one seat, you can stay. Just move over one seat. Make room. No, don't. That's weird. Why don't you move that way so we keep everybody separate? We like not to intermingle. Opposition and support get ugly. All right. There you go. Welcome.

Got sharp elbows. All right. Good morning. Katie Hardeman with the California Teachers Association. CTA is strongly opposed to SB 1203. This bill will allow Prop 98 funding intended for public education to be used for private school vouchers, including religious schools. CTA poses this effort for many reasons. I will highlight a few. First, the bill simply undermines public schools by diverting desperately needed resources away from our public school system.

Private school vouchers are particularly detrimental to our most vulnerable students, such as students with disabilities, English language learners, low income students, LGBT students, and others. As these students can be discriminated against and are less likely to be accepted or to be able to afford a private school, even with a voucher. Therefore, this proposal does not offer real choice for students and families. Also, I'll note the bill has a significant impact on the state budget.

The LAO estimated a similar initiative would cost about four to $6 billion just to fund existing private school students. This would either come from existing Prop 98 resources or from the General Fund side of the budget, depending on sort of what tests were in Prop 98. So CTA believes the state should fully fund our public schools and opposes any system that would allocate public tax dollars to non public agencies. And for those reasons, we oppose the bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Cassie Mancini here on behalf of the California School Employees Association in respectful opposition. CSEA has long opposed efforts like this one to establish private school vouchers and divert taxpayer dollars away from our democratically governed public schools. Like Katie, we have numerous issues with this bill, but I'll stick to the highlights. The Legislature over the decades has passed hundreds of laws to support students with disabilities, to ensure that hungry students are fed, and to protect students from discrimination.

Passing this bill would mean providing public funding to private schools that do not need to comply with the laws you've passed. For example, to provide universal free school meals to students or free transportation to foster and homeless youth. In many cases, this would mean funding schools that teach religion using taxpayer dollars. We'd also note that in one state that recently implemented a private school voucher program, Arizona, more than 75% of initial voucher applicants had never been enrolled in public schools.

Especially now, as California faces a budget deficit, subsidizing private school tuition for wealthy families should not be on the table. This bill will take billions away from public education, leaving the most marginalized students behind in underfunded classrooms. And for those reasons and many more, we respectfully oppose this bill and ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Others who'd like to speak in opposition, please.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, we respectfully oppose the bill.

Thank you. Next.

Mr. Chair and Members, Yvonne Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in opposition.

Thank you. Okay, seeing no more opposition, let's come back to the dais. Colleagues, questions, comments, concerns? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

In order to carry on the conversation, I believe you carried this bill last year.

And the year before.

And the year before. I think what I was missing today for this particular bill, no offense to our gentleman here today, but it was the mom that spoke on behalf of her children.

The Black Parents Union. It's her child that's severely autistic, that was just wasting away in a public school system. And she got a second job in order to give him coding. And now he's working on some of the most high tech computers. He's non verbal. He doesn't think like we think, but he has the ability to do things that our brains can't do. And it gives him upward.

That training that she paid extra for allowed this student to do that and be gainfully employed after he got that education. You have a young black boy that was in a low performing Los Angeles school district. And now this young man is making probably more money than all of us because his mom took on the responsibility of making extra money to pay for that when Prop 98 monies. I agree with Mr. Christensen. You're guaranteed a free public education.

It doesn't have to happen in a public building or by public employees. And this is just an opportunity to let more children like that. We have ran this bill for three years. We tried to focus on just those students with special needs, and then we tried to focus on. We tried to narrow the bill and take amendments. I mean, I'm a champion for students and parents to be able to make those choices so that they can have upward mobility.

But in order to make concessions, I guess you would say, can we do a pilot program with the lowest performing schools and see if that works and just show you how it would change people's lives, especially in these black and brown communities where they're just trapped in underperforming schools by their zip code. That bill failed. We brought it back. We brought you examples on disability or special needs kids that are thriving because of the outside education that they did.

But like this young lady, Chloe, that I talked to you about earlier. She's severe or mid level to high severe down syndrome. She's a glowing artist now. Some of her pieces go for $35,000 and $40,000, and she's still just an 18 year old. She's in dance and she does cheer and she thrives. And she started her own Instagram phase. She wants to be an influencer. And she's Chloe of Bakersfield, and she is just thriving where before she wasn't.

And her parents scrap together $9,000 a year so that she can continue this education that she's been getting for the last three years at a private. It's a hybrid high school. It's two days education, two days at home. It's a hybrid high school. But they have sports programs and other programs as well. I think we're failing our students. I really, really do. And I'm only here for two more years.

So the opposition is going to have to deal with me because I think we need to give students an opportunity. I mean, I'd start anywhere you guys would give me the opportunity to start. You pick the lowest performing school. We allow this to happen to those students and let parents make decisions and just watch the change and watch these kids thrive. And they are the next generation that's going to make decisions about our life. And I think they need every opportunity for success.

And again, the way we've interpreted this, the constitution is it has to be a public school. Well, there are a lot of private schools, a lot of alternative schools that are public schools. And the resources should be available to the parents. So yes, I have introduced it, plan to bring it back next year and the year after and hopefully we can get someplace to address this issue.

So two questions, Mr. Chair, to the witnesses. So I would like to give an opportunity to witnesses in opposition to the bill on here. How would you respond to parents whose current public school system is not working for them in their current school districts?

By zip Code or whatever it may be geographically. This would empower those parents to have options and choices, because I know, I know as a former teacher and a school board member, not every school school has the capacity to meet the needs of every child. We don't have every program available. We don't have specialized teachers in those areas. So how would you respond to the needs of those particular parents and families whose current system is not working, understanding that, what do they have?

What options and recourses should they have if this is not the case? And would you be more comfortable if they actually narrowed it down to certain demographics that weren't excelling or if this bill was narrowed to only public private schools?

Sure. So I guess I would say, as outlined in the analysis, there are some public school choice options, like charter schools, open enrollment, things like that. I think from our perspective, if a school is not performing and students are struggling, we should be lifting up all of the students in that district and in that school. So the state should provide the resources needed to help all of those students. I think related to a pilot program or something like that.

I think there are major constitutional issues with this that would have to go to voters. And so even to do a pilot program, they would have to go to the voters to decide that and make major changes to our constitution. Separation of church and state. The Proposition 98 currently goes to public schools and is counted the ADA of public school students.

Can I allow Mr. Christensen to respond to that as well because he studied the constitution on what? Is that okay through the Chair or not?

Yeah, briefly please.

I just note that actually Supreme Court has talked about this twice and said that there is no issue there for public money to go to religious places if there's not other opportunities. And so this would simply, the Blaine amendments is what she's writing referring to, which has been proved to be unconstitutional. And so this would actually have no problems. Yes, it would have to go back to the voters. So let's give the voters a choice. Let's let that, let's let them have the decision and make the decision on whether they think that the current system is working for their kids or not.

But this bill has nothing to do with the Constitution or that particular Proposition.

No, there would, let me make clear, there would have to be some constitutional changes to accommodate for Prop 98 issues, and it actually removes the old and dead Blaine amendments from the Constitution. But no, it doesn't have any constitutional issues.

There is a corresponding SCA that would have to be passed in order for this bill to.

That is correct. You had another question.

So just following up on that. So this, would this be considered as just. I don't think it's going to pass. Sorry. But in the case of, if this were to move forward, there would be an additional, would it be like a bill?

It's a companion measure, SCA nine, by Senator Grove, which we are not hearing today.

I've covered that in another bill. It's a Concurrent Resolution. It's a constitutional amendment. So I. Excuse me, SCA, Senate constitutional amendment. And I have that bill. It's not being heard today. It's being heard another day. And they go together. They go together. So we did cover that and think about that.

And there is a different schedule for constitutional amendments so that the not later than date is June 26, I believe, and we may or may not hear that. It's in Rules right now.

So just once again, I knew the bill was not going to pass last year. I know it's not, probably not going to pass this year, and I apologize for that. But I'm going to support the bill today because that testimony that I heard last year from that mom, who I happen to see quite a bit on the airplane going back and forth on there. She's passionate. She sees me every time she gives me a big hug, you know, for supporting her. I'm going to move forward and move the bill today. And I'm going to, my vote today is for her.

Thank you.

For her, which I wish he would have been here because she did, no offense to the current witnesses, but she did a phenomenal job in advocating for her child. And I know that she represents many, many other parents in the same position that she is. So I will be happy to move the bill.

I know you folks, you know, are not going to be threatened here today by this vote, but I do believe that, you know, we have the responsibility to represent all voices in education, all parents.

She's mobilizing black parents all across this state that are having troubles with their children being warehoused in these non performing public schools and low socioeconomic disadvantaged communities. And they're joining that group because she's a force to be reckoned with. And it may not happen today. It didn't happen last year or the year before, but it will happen because parents recognize that the traditional public education system is failing our students and we are in big trouble. And I can tell you that.

I can tell you that she is going to be a force to be reckoned with. My heart bleeds for the students that are still trapped in that situation with no alternative education that will allow them to have the upward mobility, the ones that will get passed over, the developmentally disabled kids, the kids with special needs that don't have the access, or parents don't have the resources to be able to pay for these additional programs that allow coding and allow, you know, their inner goal or their inside of them and who they really are to develop and to achieve greatness in that capacity.

And parents don't have that choice. So I think it'll take a few years, but I think eventually the lame argument that's being proposed by the opposition about dollars, I mean, we already get $1,000 more per student than the national average. It's not just about resources, it's about putting the students first. So she is a force to be reckoned with, and she will be back. So thank you for that.

I look forward to her hugs moving forward on my trips through the airport. So with that, I move the bill.

I am clearly not taking the right flights. Nobody ever hugs me.

I can make that arrangement for you, sir.

Appreciate that. You know, I do appreciate your testimony, Mr. Christensen. You know, always good to see you. And so, as noted, this bill and its accompanying SCA would create a private school voucher or similar program. We can argue about the terminology, but as noted, you know, this issue has been put before the voters in California several times before. It's been rejected. In 2000, there was a Proposition, Prop 38, on the ballot, and it failed with over 70% opposed. Times change.

But last year, this Committee heard a similar bill from Senator Grove. And Senator Grove, I deeply admire you your commitment to this issue, and I want to acknowledge that. And it comes from a wonderful place. And last year's measures, SB 292, SCA five, they were similar measures. Both failed.

And so the voters and many of my colleagues, myself included, have real concerns that the witnesses for the opposition have touched on about the prospective destabilizing impact of redirecting public monies to private schools and the impact it would have on our broader statewide educational system in California. This proposal would do that.

And, you know, California already, to the opposition's point, offers a whole host of very diverse public school alternative opportunities, charter schools, Magnet Schools, and a program that I have legislation to extend, the District of Choice program, which allows students and families to make choices with respect to their public education opportunities. And I will note that, you know, there are many instances of students being failed by the current system, and I think our imperative here is to make sure that that does not happen.

You know, the question is, how do we do that? I'll point out, I mean, you know, to this story, which is very moving. You know, there are likely, I mean, surely there are other wonderful examples of students being helped, saved, mentored in public schools, in public charter schools and other situations. So, you know, let's note that.

And so I'd say instead of focusing on these initiatives, you know, let's focus, as is my intention, on improving the quality of publication across the board in California to eliminate those sad stories. And for those reasons, despite my admiration for your effort, and I appreciate the work and contributions of the supporting witnesses, I'm going to oppose this measure today. Would you like to close?

Absolutely, sir. Thank you for your comments. Again, we'll be back next year. It's public money. Public money means paid for by taxpayers. It's public money. And it's just as much a parent's money that's in a low socioeconomic, disadvantaged black and brown community where their kid is feeding failing. It's their money, too, and they should have the right to use it how they so choose to best provide the advancements for their child.

Or it's public money that belongs to a parent with a kid with special needs, and they should be able to have opportunity to provide that student and their child with the best education that they can get. And so respectfully ask for an aye vote. And thank you for your time.

Thank you. We do have a motion from Senator Ochoa Bogh. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item four, SB 1203, Grove. Motion is do pass the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure has one vote for, two against. We'll leave it open for absent Members. Thank you to everybody.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And Senator Ashby is here. Welcome, Senator Ashby. You will be presenting SB 1477.

And you have a witness. Welcome to your witness. Witnesses, plural. Proceed when ready.

Hello, Chairperson Newman. How are you? So good?

I'm good. This isn't normally part of the back and forth.

Oh okay, great. Good. All right, well, then we'll just move forward. It's a little down in here. So, I was, you know.

Thanks for bringing that positive energy.

Lift it up a little bit. Come on. It's Ed. Committee. This is all fun stuff. I am here to present to you SB 1477, which broadens oversight for charter schools to prevent fraud, improve charter school governance and transparency, and hold bad actors accountable. A recent joint report from the Leg. Analyst Office and the Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team identified concerns with the lack of non-classroom-based charter school oversight. Many of those concerns center on accusations of fraud and misuse of funds.

These issues raise concerns regarding concentrated power and conflicts of interest, especially when a single entity or individual holds undue influence over a charter schools board. SB 1477 implements a number of recommendations from that LAO report, strengthening auditing, contracting and enrollment policies for all charter schools. The Bill improves transparency and oversight of charter schools while also ensuring better accountability. Several components of the Bill have been subjects of discussion with various stakeholders in the education community.

My staff and I will continue to engage with all sides and find pathways forward. With me today are John McClure, Executive Director of Liberty Charter School, and Kirk Kimmelshue on behalf of Real Journey Academies and Visions in Education, and I'll turn it over to them.

Thank you very much. Mister Kimmelshue, I see you're going for the mic. You're first.

Sounds great.

You have three minutes.

Good morning. Kirk Kimmelshue, as the Senator mentioned on behalf of two of the co-sponsors of this Bill, Real Journey Academies and Visions in Education. Real Journey Academies is a network of five schools in San Bernardino and Riverside counties serving approximately 2,400 students and Visions serves more than 7,000 students in Sacramento, Contra Costa, Yolo, Placer, El Dorado, Amador, San Joaquin, Solano and Sutter counties. In recent years, the charter school sector has faced challenges related to financial oversight and education practices.

And while these incidents were the actions of only a few, they underscored the need for legislative action. Just like SB 1477, which aims to strengthen auditing standards and ensure education activities meet safety, value and cost standards, the majority of charter schools are dedicated to providing quality education with integrity and accountability. SB 1477 is a thoughtful response to a clear need for improved accountability within the charter school auditing process.

By refining auditing standards and ensuring that educational activities meet common-sense standards, standards of safety, educational value, and cost reasonableness, SB 1477 aims to safeguard the integrity of our public school system. As the Senator mentioned, the Legislature's attention to these matters, prompted by comprehensive reports from the Legislative Analyst's Office and the Anti-Fraud Task Force, underscores the urgency and the bipartisan recognition of the need for reform.

While SB 1477 does not address all the issues in those reports, it is a meaningful and measured and responsible proposal that will improve school accountability and transparency and be a critical deterrent to potential bad actors. The path laid out by SB 1477 is one of constructive reform aimed at enhancing the accountability of charter schools without stifling their ability to innovate and educate.

By supporting SB 1477, we affirm our shared commitment to education that is both innovative and accountable, and we thank you for your time and urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Mister McClure, welcome.

Good morning. My name is John McClure. I've been the Executive Director of Liberty Charter School in Madera since 2020. I'm here to ask for your help. Our school is a site-based charter, which was formerly known as Ezekiel Tafoya Alvarado Academy, was the subject of a FCMAT report released last year. The report revealed more than 1 million in funds appeared to have been used for questionable purposes during the 2016 to 2019 years.

This included, but not limited to, the hiring of a highly inappropriate individual as a life coach for 8th-grade students, multiple Ford Raptor truck purchases, and tuition for a child of the former Executive Director. This audit, done by the FCMAT team, took over two years to complete. Ironically, during the same period of time that FCMAT audited for, all our independent financial audits conducted by auditors on the state controller's approved list came back clean. The auditing process for charter schools is broken.

How can a volunteer board hold management accountable for financial irregularities if an independent auditor does not raise issues of concern? Since I took over, our board has instituted new fiscal policies to ensure this will never happen again at our school. But that is not enough. Before and after our school experienced issues, there have been a long line of fiscal fraud problems in charter schools, including a $400 million case in San Diego County.

It is outrageous that more than $400 million could be taken from the state, and yet the state still has done nothing to improve audits for charter schools. This Bill is a significant and thoughtful first step toward transparency and accountability, and we welcome it and commit to working with the author and supporters to make it even stronger as it goes through the process. Thank you for listening to our story and we ask for your vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses here in support of this measure, please come forward. Any witnesses in opposition? I understand you have a tweener, Mister Bramble. Tweeners go last. Go ahead. Okay. You want to come to the table? You have three minutes, sir.

Mister Chair, Senator, Seth Bramble for CTA. We do have serious concerns about this approach. If California passes an incomplete set of reforms to non-classroom-based charter school law, there will be efforts to lift the moratorium established via our 2019 Bill, AB 1505. This moratorium prevents any new non-classroom-based charter schools from being established until we fix what's broken in the law and the moratorium expires in January of 2026.

While the moratorium is in effect, this Bill proposes to radically redefine what a non-classroom-based charter school is, changing the name of an entire instructional model. As I've said in the past, while there is a moratorium currently in place is an attempt to avoid notoriety like switching cars to avoid being followed. Two serious concerns. First, research has consistently shown very poor student outcomes at charter schools that are 100% virtual.

We represent a large local chapter of educators in a virtual charter school who have been organizing in efforts to get the school to invest in students in teaching, rather than sending big bags of money to a for-profit company in another state.

Second, stopping fraud in a learning environment where there is not a brick-and-mortar school that you can walk into and see teachers teaching and see students learning, where much of the accountability is based on easily manipulated paperwork and computer files, has been ineffective. As part of the budget last year, the Governor and the Legislature enacted an effort to develop some third-party recommendations about how to fix what's broken. The author mentioned this LAO report.

If we want to get serious about improving this area of law, we should start with this kind of comprehensive approach. There's probably, I don't know, 15 to 20 recommendations in here. This one is like, maybe one of them. The elements of Senate Bill 1477 don't even scratch the surface. This Bill will not prevent another A3 scandal, which is detailed in the analysis in terms of the details there. But do please take these concerns into consideration as you consider the Bill.

Appreciate your testimony. Let's come back to the dais. Senator Ochoa-Bogh, any questions? Comments? To Mister Bramble's concern, which I think is legitimate, about the prospective impact on the moratorium? That's not your goal, right?

No. This Bill doesn't touch the moratorium. Moratorium is still in place for a few more years. We didn't tread into those waters. We're just trying to create accountability based on the LAO report and the fiscal team's report. Put some parameters in place to deal with the bad actors in the charter universe as soon as possible.

All right. And one concern, I think, relates to how an auditor is selected. And so, there is some concern that if a school can pick its own auditor, that doesn't tend to work. It. Go ahead.

Just wanted to respond to the relationship. Just wanted to respond to the relationship between the moratorium. I do think that there's a redefinition, if I'm reading the analysis correctly, on what a non-classroom-based charter school is, and the moratorium is about non-classroom-based charter schools, right now, a charter school must be at least 80% in person or they are considered a non-classroom-based charter school. There's a policy preference in the law for in-person instruction, and this could look a couple different ways.

Maybe kids go to school on a Monday through Thursday, or maybe four to five periods every day they're in school. This Bill proposes that a charter school must be at least 20% in-person, or they're considered a non-classroom-based charter school. So, if there's a five-hour school day, a student really needs to only come for 1 hour a day.

Stated a different way, a student could come into classroom on Thursdays and Thursdays only, and under this Bill, they wouldn't be considered a non-classroom-based charter school. There are serious concerns here. Our response should be comprehensive. In broad strokes, students are not doing well, instances of fraud and abuse are growing exponentially worse, and we have to tackle real problems with real solutions. The recent LAO FCMAT report does provide a roadmap to get started.

It seems like we're ignoring a very logical starting point, so we're concerned.

I appreciate it to the extent that you made the assertion you're not looking to undermine or not respect moratorium, I assume you'd be open to insert a clarifying language to that effect.

Of course. I think that's why Mister Bramble is a tweener, even though his comments are pretty strong. We've been pretty cooperative. These guys all know where I live, so you know, and it's here with them.

Of course we're going to work with them all the way across the finish line, but the reality is that this doesn't I understand that they're very concerned about any impacts on the moratorium, and many legislators smarter than me have treaded into these waters prior to me, which is why I'm only going onto the shore banks here and trying to address the most egregious component, which is how we provide immediate oversight to charter schools with really egregious examples of what's happening with funding to protect education in the State of California.

The moratorium is a conversation for another day, and potentially another Senator, but I will, of course, continue to have conversations with him as far as we go here.

Well, I mean, to the extent that, you know, these things rely on definitions, to your point.

You know, I'd ask that you work with.

Sure.

You bet. That's an easy yes.

All right. Easy yes. Okay. Do we have a motion for Senator Ochoa-Bogh? Would you like to close?

Thank you all very much, and I appreciate all three of these folks here contributing. It's going to make the Bill better as we go. Urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

File item nine, SB 1477, Ashby. Motion is do pass to Senate Public Safety Committee.

That measure has two votes for, none against. We will leave it open, and so that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Ashby. I think we have the consent. Ochoa-Bogh has and consent. And so. we're looking at 1410 we haven't done. All right, let's do it. I'm here for you. SB 1410.

That's why I love being your Vice Chair.

Please proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. I would like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments, which makes SB 1410 consistent with other legislation that suggests framework policy recommendations. As amended, the bill recommends that during the next mathematics curriculum framework revision, the Instructional Quality Commission will encourage school districts to offer Algebra One and Mathematics One courses to 8th-grade students. Last summer, the Board of Education approved a revised mathematics curriculum framework that suggests that algebra courses are advanced and should only be taught in high school.

This suggestion has been heavily criticized by parents, college professors and subject matter experts because the decision to no longer offer algebra in the 8th grade immediately puts future California college students behind, especially those interested in STEM focused majors. This is because CSU requires five years of math for incoming freshmen entering a math intensive major in 2014. The San Francisco Unified was the first to experiment with moving Algebra One exclusively to high school.

In March, after nearly 10 years of declining results, San Francisco's Proposition G, which urged the school district to offer Algebra One through 8th-graders, passed with 81% support. SB 1410 would require the Board of Education, during its next mathematics curriculum framework revision to recommend that Algebra One and Mathematics One courses should be available to 8th graders. Once again, recommend.

Joining me in support is Dr. Elizabeth Statmore, a math teacher at Lowell High School in San Francisco, and Deacon John Wilson, an enrichment program director for youth in West Los Angeles.

Welcome. Please proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Dr. Elizabeth Statmore, and I'm a math teacher at Lowell High School in San Francisco. I'm here to share my thoughts in favor of SB 1410. I returned to teaching after a 25-year career in Silicon Valley as a software entrepreneur and executive, from my own startups to landmark companies, including Steve Jobs company Next, the forerunner of today's Apple.

I came back to teach math because it was clear to me that the majority of our state's diverse and disadvantaged young people were still not getting through the math pipeline. And that loss causes two problems. They're missing out on incredible opportunities, and we're missing out on their brilliance. Any effective engineering manager can tell you that your project will have major blind spots unless your team has some diversity on it.

That's how we ended up during COVID with pulse oximeters that couldn't measure blood oxygen levels on darker skinned patients. This is a matter of life and death. When SFUSD blocked access to Algebra One in 8th grade, the community fought back. That led to a Rube Goldberg system of absurd and expensive workarounds. At my school, we made trade offs to Fund extra sections of 9th and 10th grade math courses so that any student who wanted to accelerate could double up.

But that's costly, and it shouldn't have been necessary. Science and technology are some of California's biggest industries, and a huge number of our K-12 students will be second or third generation engineers. Their parents are extremely fluent with the prerequisites for engineering education. So why should we bring the power struggle over reasonable access to acceleration to the whole state? This makes no sense. SB 1410 is a sensible guardrail that props the door open and protects Algebra One access for all 8th graders in California.

This is important because the new non binding framework for publishers conflicts with our binding math standards. We don't need more math curricula that claim to straddle this chasm, but just shut the door on acceleration. What happened in San Francisco shows how quickly things can spiral out of control. I respectfully urge you aye vote on SB 1410. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please welcome, again.

Hi there. I'm Deacon John Wilson, education enrichment Director, program Director for West Angeles Church of God in Christ in Los Angeles. This program serves in some way over 800 families in Los Angeles inner city and surrounding areas. We provide college access programs for affordable colleges, career development. We're advocates for families on educational challenges in school, and our program has had great success in improving student performance in math and science, whether it's over the summer or during the school year.

I highly support and recommend that you pass 1410 with any improvements that are needed. I heard some were done in process in order to. In order to support the principal, students with the necessary prior learning should always have access to take algebra in middle school. Every middle school in California must be required to have a way to provide Algebra One to any student who's really ready for it. Hence, there needs to be a law in the books with teeth to make that happen.

I assume even for reasons of equity, it should not be the policy of our state to determine that Algebra One be taken only in high school.

As an inner city enrichment leader, I know this type of low regard or assumption that disadvantaged students are all at the same level of ability is condescending, actually, as it is, parents in the know and with financial resources indeed get their students algebra two in the summer, or they double them up on the math, as she mentioned, ones in the know and the ones that don't. In our perspective, STEM students, minority STEM students in many cases, many not, but.

But could not have that chance to double up and they end up just floundering. Finally, if we want to get more students to hire paying STEM jobs, you need to ensure they can take advanced math in that last year high school. I don't want to go through each year, but you can see that if they don't start with it in 8th grade, they could lose that opportunity to get that. Let's bring everything in line with the Department of Education website. Let's have algebra in 8th grade.

What do you say? For these reasons, I respectfully urge that you vote aye on SB 1410.

Thank you very much. Do we have other witnesses here in support of this measure? Seeing none. Seeing very few people. Is anybody here like to testify in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. Let's come back to the dais. In your opening remarks, Senator choa Bogh, you referenced, you do accept the amendments. Appreciate that?

Yes, I do.

And I'm happy to support the bill in its amended form. Senator Cortese, would you entertain a motion? Senator Cortese moves the bill. Would you like to close, please?

Thank you. Mr. Chair. We know from the experience in San Francisco that delaying algebra until high school doesn't serve students well, and especially our black and brown students, especially those who want to attend college. It's critical that the framework's current suggestion to delay algebra until high school is reversed. For those reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

File Item 12, SB 1410, Ochoa Bog. Motion is do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Newman? Newman, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Ochoa Bogh aye. Cortese. Cortese, aye. Glazer? Gonzalez? Smallwood-Cuevas? Wilk?

That measure has three votes, 4-0 against. Thank you to the witnesses. We will leave it open for absent members who will hopefully come back soon. If you are a Member of this Committee, we're coming toward the end. I think we just have the consent calendar back and the vote only as well. If you remember the Senate Education Committee and you're watching somewhere, please make your way to 2100. Thank you. You guys are good? Sure, you just have consent left, right?

[Roll Call]

All right, so that measure also fails with two votes for, three against. Thank you, Senator Glazer. With that, we have completed today's hearing of the Senate Committee education, which is hereby adjourned. Thank you to staff for all your good work.