Assembly Standing Committee on Education

All right, I'd like to call this meeting to order. Not meeting, hearing of the Assembly education Committee we have 25 items on our agenda today and we do not have a quorum. And so if Members of the Assembly education Committee can please come to room 1100 so that we can get address our busy agenda today. 25 bills. Nine bills on consent. That means these nine bills that I'm going to read now, they're not going to be heard. They're going to.

They're, if we're going to make a motion to pass them all out as a group. And so if you're here for any of these bills, the following bills, you're not going to hear any presentation or any hearing on these bills. Those bills are AB 2206 with amendments, AB 2350, AB 2768 with amendments, AB 2845 with amendments, AB 2865 with amendments, AB 2927 with amendments, AB 2949, AB 2998 with amendments, and AB 3010 with amendments.

If you have a copy of the agenda, those are the bills that have the asterisk next to the file number. And so those bills will be voted on as a group on the consent calendar. Bills will be heard in sign in order. I see a bunch of authors ready to present. Please make sure that you're signed in. As a reminder, for each Bill, we will have up to two witnesses in support, two witnesses in opposition, each of whom may speak for up to two minutes each.

Members of the public in the hearing room will then have an opportunity to state your position on the Bill. Please limit your comments to name, affiliation and position on the Bill. Members of the public are also welcome to provide a more extensive comment through the position letter portal on the education Committee website. Our Bill file item number one, AB 1938 by Assemblymember Gallagher on special order, will be presented for this Bill. We will have American Sign language interpretation.

And so, with our Vice Chair, Mister Flora joining us, would like to welcome Mister Gallagher to present his Bill. Actually, before Mister Gallagher presents his Bill, I wanted to pause to recognize the passing of an important leader in the State of California, Delaine Eastin. We just learned, I just learned this morning of the passing of Delaine Eastin.

Delaine Eastin was not only our first and only woman State Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of California, but she was also a chair of this Assembly Education Committee. She was the fifth woman to be elected to statewide office in the State of California and she will be remembered for her courageous leadership, her intellect, and her sharp wit. But most of all, we will remember her for her fierce advocacy for children and public education. We will miss Delaine Eastin. Thank you very much.

Mister Gallagher, please present when you're ready.

It's a pleasure to be with you all this morning. Or are we in the afternoon yet?

We are in the afternoon.

Afternoon. Been a crazy week. Of course, it's my pleasure to be able to present this Bill today. And as many of you know, I've been a champion of education for our deaf and hard of hearing students in California. And AB 1938 is another step along that path of ensuring equity and education for deaf and hard of hearing students. It's also an honor today to have my brother here with me, Ryan.

And the reason why this is really important to me is because, you know, I've seen my brother, I have two brothers who are deaf, and I've seen them, you know, working to ensure that. That they get the same opportunities. And that was something that was that I saw my parents have to go through in turn and ensuring that they had the services and what they needed to have an equal education and equal opportunities.

And I've seen my brother now working very much in that same environment, trying to ensure those opportunities in his career as well, working with norcal center on deafness and helping in the workforce area, trying to get training, job training and access to employment. And so. And it's an honor for me to have him here with me also on the Committee room today as we take this step. So, Members, I want to thank you for your attention to this Bill, AB 1938.

And I also really want to thank the chair and the Committee staff for their help in making sure that we get this Bill right and align it with all the federal requirements. You know, this is, this is complex stuff, and I really appreciate the hard work that was put into this. But the bottom line is this Bill is essential to help ensure that children who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf blind have the educational opportunities that they deserve.

AB 1938 directs leas to consider the unique communication needs of these children, such as the need for ASL, American Sign Language or spoken language, with the use of visual supplements. When we are planning and implementing inclusion and universal design for learning initiatives, it is crucial that IFSP or IEP teams, when we are talking about setting a special education plan for students, that these teams consider these special communication needs when determining the least restrictive environment for each student.

While a General education classroom may work for some, and it actually did work for my brothers when they were coming through the system, others, particularly deaf and hard of hearing students, might experience isolation without access to specialized settings like the state special schools for the deaf or a state certified, non public, non sectarian school and agencies.

This Bill addresses social isolation issues among deaf and hard of hearing students in mainstream environments by ensuring that all students have access to the appropriate educational settings that meet their unique needs. AB 1938 will align this with federal laws and is practical for the leas to implement and they should implement.

And so, to further reinforce the importance of this Bill, I do have two witnesses to testify and support Sherry Ferina, CEO of NorCal services for deaf and hard of hearing, and Casey Cain, President of California Hands and Voices. So thank you, Committee Members and Mister Chairman, for considering this Bill. And I want to thank the bill's sponsor for their relentless efforts to refine this Bill. Your dedication to our children and to deaf and hard of hearing students is commendable.

Thank you. Before your witnesses testify, I know you thank Miss Lieberman for all her hard work. Do you accept all of her fine amendments?

I do accept all the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Hello? Can you hear me okay? Thank you, Assemblyman Gallagher, for your strong support and being a champion for all of us. We really appreciate your tenacity and perseverance in serving and advocating for deaf and hard of hearing children in California. And that is the reason why I want to bring proof, more than just that, of the longstanding issue and problem of LREs, deaf and hard of hearing deafblind students who are being thrown into classrooms where they are not getting served language issues.

When the result comes from that is the language deprivation that children arriving to kindergarten not able to learn. LRE is the problem, and it's been documented time and time again. So let's start with one of the reports that I would like to share with the Members in honor of former Assemblywoman Member and former Superintendent public instruction, Miss Delane Easton.

This document, report I show in front of you is a report as she appointed me to be chair of the task Force of restructuring Deaf education in California and our recommendations for regionalization. And we're still trying to get there. But I want to go back and share with you the importance of this report that was sent in 1988 to the President of the United States and Congress towards equality or deaf and hard of hearing children.

Just as Assembly Member James Gallagher has mentioned, equality and equity is important to us, and the report to the President of United States and Congress here did define the problem related to LRE. Least restrictive environment is not helping our deaf and hard of hearing children in the United States. A year later, we went back to Congress and we showed another report, educational isolation of deaf children, the misapplication of least restrictive environment for PL 94,142 as it relates to deaf and hard of hearing children.

This report was given in 1989. Then the recent report that I spoke about with Delane Eason that was published. That was published in 1999, another follow up report, but this one comes from the Lao's office. They published in September 2016. Over again, all these reports asking legislators to please hear us, to please understand that this is about communication access. And to have communication access, you have to have language. Without language, you have nothing.

And that is why many children are growing up here in California, across the United States, with language delays and deprivation, and they're not ready to learn or cannot learn. This Bill puts in safeguards and protections into the law to say, hey, you don't just throw deaf and hard of hearing children in a regular classroom without support, without any monitoring, without any tracking, and no expertise in the area to be able to teach deaf and hard of hearing children language. Thank you for listening.

... My name is Casey Cain. I am a parent of a deaf and hard of hearing child and the current board President of California Hands and Voices. It is imperative to recognize that children who are deaf, hard of hearing and deaf blind have unique needs that require our utmost attention and dedication. Regardless of the communication mode chosen by parents, it is undeniable that these children require specialized support.

Deaf and hard of hearing children, in particular, require a least restrictive environment, that is, a language rich environment which encompasses ASL instruction and interpretation, or access to educators who are experts in developing spoken language skills. In advocating for these children, we must emphasize the importance of maintaining and expanding educational programs tailored to their needs. This includes keeping schools for the deaf, whether public or private option schools, and establishing more regional programs to address their diverse needs.

As Sherry mentioned before, the 1999 Superintendent's task force report emphasized regional programs for deaf and hard of hearing students, with California schools for the deaf leading this effort. Likewise, in 2016, the LAO office.

The Lao stressed improving education for these students, urging more regional programs tailored to their communication needs. It's time to ensure that every child, regardless of their sensory abilities, has access to education and support they deserve. I urge you to support AB 1938 and let us make a dream of inclusive and equitable education a tangible achievement. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you both very much. Are there public comments in support of this Bill? If you have public comments, please come forward to the microphone. Working on the technical difficulties there. Can you try it now? Test? No.

We may have to resort to the microphone at the table. Here we go.

Good afternoon. My name is Laura Cavello and I'm here to register support for chat center Sacramento, Weingarten Children's center in Redwood City, the Center for Early Intervention and Deafness in Berkeley and John Tracy Clinic in Los Angeles. Thank you.

Yeah, let's use the corner one.

Hello, my name is Alice McGill and I am in support of this Bill. And I grew up without any support and isolation is what we call we have to just be a survivor. We hope and I hope that future deaf and hard of hearing children have a better opportunity than I did.

Thank you.

Hello, chair and Assembly or Committee Members. My name is Hugh Lafler. I'm here in support of Assembly Bill 1938. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Heather Johnson. I am here in support of this Bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Priscilla Quiroz, here on behalf of the California Faculty Association in support.

Thank you.

Rena Sheehy, representing protection of the educational rights of kids advocacy in support.

Thank you Mister chair and Members, Tristan Brown with the California Federation of Teachers, a union of educators and classified professionals here in support. Thank you.

Victor Torres, representing future leaders of change in support of this Bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon chair Members. My name is Ryan Gallagher. I serve deaf and hard of hearing at norcal providing educational services. You know my wonderful brother, Assembly Member James Gallagher, and I am in support of AB 1938. Thank you.

And we love your brother too.

Vanessa Forsythe, retired school nurse speaking in support.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments in support of the Bill. Are there any opponents to the Bill? Seeing none. Are there any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Yes, Mister Heath, Vice Chair Heath Flora.

Thank you Mister chair. And thank you to Member Gallagher and your brother for bringing this forward. It's a little bit different, but when you talked about hard of hearing and folks that have vision issues, one of my older brothers for a long time was doing horrible in school. And this was before they got the help that they didn't realize that he just simply couldn't see the chalkboard.

And once they got him closer, and so it was a training issue, it was an education issue on the staff's part. But this is the kind of issues that if it's not not noticed or brought to people's attention, it falls through the cracks. So having your expertise, your brother, your family's expertise in this, thank you for educating all of us on an issue that quite frankly, I've just been very honest, I knew very little about. So thank you for educating us on this.

Thank you. I want to join the Vice Chair and thank you, Mister Gallagher, for bringing this important measure. And thank you to all of you that came out to support this important measure. Proud to support the Bill. We will take a vote for the Bill once we establish a quorum. But Mister Gallagher, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you Mister Chairman. And you might see some of the deaf Members of the audience going like, this is how we clap in ASL. And so I really want to thank you for your attention and again for the Committee's work and help with us. I do want to say, you know, the experts are right here next to me, people who have been fighting for a long time for this. As you heard, some of these reports, you know, go back to 198081999.

We need to do this, you know, we need to make sure that that support is there and assailing in Flora. I think you really hit, I mean, just imagine, you know, this, this is about ensuring that people have those tools. You know, imagine if you're in a classroom and you're deaf and you have no idea what's going on, you know, and you don't have the interpreters, you don't have visual aids, you don't have the things that you don't have language.

And language for the deaf is ASL, it's American sign language. And you haven't had those benchmarks, you know, that we talked about when we passed previous legislation. These are the key things that they need. So they just have the same equal access to learn in school and have access to deaf schools, you know, specialized deaf schools like the California school for the Deaf.

You know, that may not be the option for everyone, but it may be the best, you know, place for a placement for a child. And so we want to have these options and this availability for all California students and for the deaf and hard of hearing and deafblind community. So thank you for your attention to this ask for your I vote and let's keep moving forward on deaf equality. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This Bill does have the chair's support, as amended, and we'll take the vote when we establish a quorum. Thank you very much. Okay, next we have, since Mister Jones Sawyer is signed in, but he is not here, so we will skip to Bizhavo. This is file number 24 AB 2999. I see Mister Lowenthal is co presenting. Okay, joint author. All right, so Mister, Ms. Schiavo and Mister Lowenthal with yeah, no, he'll be later.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. I'm so excited to present AB 2999 and start with what I hope will be an impactful conversation about homework and its impact on our students. I want to thank the Committee staff and Chair for your hard work and diligence on this bill. I know there was a lot of back and forth and I am happy to accept all of the amendments today.

AB 2999, the Healthy Homework Act, is brought forward with the intention of starting a new conversation about the real impacts of homework, a conversation I believe is long overdue. This bill was sparked by a conversation with my daughter sitting in the backseat of my car when she found out that if I was elected I would be able to make new laws. And she immediately asked if I could ban homework. Any fourth grader's dream, I imagine.

But the request-- and this bill does not ban homework, just to be clear-- but the request from my kid was not the first time that I had contemplated the impact of homework on kids and families. When Sophia was in kindergarten, she got a big huge packet of homework every Monday that was due on Fridays and it was kindergarten. My first job was actually in early childhood education. I worked for a tribal Head Start program and there was--

I really struggled to understand how this was developmentally appropriate when she had already been in school all day long and then she was coming home and expected to do worksheets in the evening. I started looking at other countries and what they did and found that many countries don't require homework until middle school or high school.

Multiple countries that have much higher educational achievements than us were spending half the time on homework that we do in the United States, and some of them also even have shorter school days. As the years and grade levels progressed, I continued to have concerns. As a working single mother with a demanding job, I also experienced the strain it puts on families to get homework done, get my kid fed, bathed, ready for bed and in bed on time.

And having time to connect with her was just a luxury. My experience in early childhood education and with my daughter led me to-- Sorry, let me skip that part. I also want to say that the research also led me to Dr. Pope, who's here to testify today in a minute. And one of the things that I learned from her is that in her work, homework was reported by students as a top three stressor overall in kids' lives and often listed as number one.

And as we struggle for solutions in a growing mental health crisis among students, this is one way that we could see significantly reduce stress in students lives almost overnight. There's also issues around equity and access to support at home, and ways that school staff have to divert time away from kids experiencing mental health crisis to manage issues with homework, as well as the impact AI is having on work being done at home that makes it even less useful for some kids.

All of this led me to pursuing this legislation. I hope that AB 2999 is an opportunity to have a new, very intentional conversation around homework. A conversation that requires meaningful input from teachers, students, parents, administration and mental health workers, and one that protects and preserves local control and is not prescriptive. It makes no requirements on what the homework policies are, but it does require consideration for current research on homework, reflects developmentally appropriate practices, particularly for elementary school, as well as considering the impacts on mental health, physical health, equity, and to students with learning disabilities.

I also want to thank the education unions who we reached out to early and often for input, and who have given helpful feedback throughout this process. I'm also proud to have our California Teacher of the Year who came up from my school district and our community today to speak on this bill. He is supporting the bill.

He's the chair of the Valencia High School English Department, and during COVID their Department decided to work smarter and not harder. They severely limited homework and saw their test scores improve. It was the only school in the district to have test scores go up following the COVID pandemic.

Here to testify with me today is my daughter, 6th grader Sophia, who is the inspiration for the bill and often called the 81st Assemblymember by my colleagues who know how often she was around and with me on the Assembly floor, and around last year when she was going to school in the corner in my office when I didn't have another option.

And Dr. Denise Pope, a former professor at Stanford University and who is an expert on homework and co-founder of Challenge Success, a nonprofit organization that's worked directly with school districts on policies to reduce homework and rework homework practices around the country.

Before we turn to your daughter, I want to give Mr. Lowenthal--

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. Before I begin, just truly appreciate the very appropriate and kind words about Delaine Eastin. Thank you so much for saying those. I'm here as a very proud joint author of AB 2999 also as a proud father of three school age girls. And I'm a firm believer that our kids should not be losing sleep, missing family or recreational time, or becoming overly stressed due to unnecessary loads of homework. The key word there is unnecessary, unnecessary loads of homework.

These are some of the most formative years of our children's lives, and our most important job as parents is to ensure that our kids are healthy, both physically and mentally. AB 2999 does not require that LEAs adopt any specific policies. Rather, it just requires that they take key aspects such as equity and mental health into consideration when they are forming their own homework policies. The LEAs, the school districts know what is best for their communities.

They know the challenges their students face and what it takes to better set them all up for success in the classroom and in life. With the passage of AB 2999, California's K 12 students and their parents will be able to confidently go into the school year knowing what to expect and what is expected of them. Uniformity between teachers, parents and students will enable the leas to properly cater to the unique needs of their community and keep their students engaged in a constructive learning environment.

Every school district in this state is different. Whether there is a digital divide amongst students, lengthy school commutes for students, or other nuance factors that affects a student's life, the homework policy needs to reflect these realities to properly serve that specific community. Through AB 29999 LEAs will use a data driven approach in creating their policy to not just maximize their students academic success, but also improve their overall quality of life.

The last thing we want is for our kids to be burnt out in the 8th grade from tedious and excessive loads of homework. We want our kids to be energized and engaged in all aspects of their lives, in the classroom and out. I'm extremely grateful for Assemblywoman Schiavo for championing this extremely important piece of legislation to improve the lives of our children. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Now I'd like to welcome our 81st member of the State Assembly, Sophia Schiavo.

Mr. Chair, Members, my name is Sophia and I'm in 6th grade. I'm here to support our Healthy Homework Act, AB 2999. I hope it means that school boards will really look at the impact homework is having on students like me and my friends. I love to read and learn, but when it comes to homework I absolutely dread it. It causes so much stress and worry and takes up all of my time after school.

I don't have time to have dinner with my mom and family, to play with my little cousin, or just have time to relax and recover from the stress of the day. I have after-school programs four days a week. That means I don't get home until around 6:00 p.m., or later often. I usually have around one and a half hours of homework or more each night. I often eat dinner while I do homework in my room alone.

I have hardly any time to connect with friends because I have too much homework and need to shower or get ready for bed as soon as I am done. Homework causes a lot of stress in my life. I had a lot of nights where I end up upset because I just can't finish the homework before bedtime or I'm scared that I will be kept in from recess, get in trouble or that it will hurt my grades. I don't want my teacher to be disappointed in me so sometimes I just stay up really late so I can--

So I can finish my homework before bedtime and I'm scared that I will be kept in. Oh, and it's not just me. I've heard this from all of my friends, even the smartest kid in class. Homework is exhausting. It's overwhelming and it's depressing that my whole day, from when I wake up until when I go to bed is nearly all taken up with schoolwork, with most of all of my time scheduled for me.

It's making me not like school at all. I know the work we do in school is important, but I think things that support mental and physical health, like connecting with friends, having downtime to recharge, and time to do the things that make me happy, like art and learning languages, are also really important and should also be considered. That's why I asked you to support our Healthy Homework Act. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you for having me. My name is Dr. Denise Pope. I'm a senior lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and co-founder of Challenge Success, a nonprofit that partners with K-12 schools nationwide to improve student well being, engagement, and belonging. I'm pleased to be here today to share insights from data collected through the Challenge Success Stanford survey of school experiences, which has been completed by over 300,000 middle and high school students across the US.

Today's data reflects on the voices of more than 13,000 California high school students during the 22-23 school year and is very similar to the national sample. We believe it's really important to bring student voices like Sophia's into conversations about policies that affect their well-being. For example, 45% of students reported overall workload and homework as a major source of stress. This was selected from a long list of other stressors, including future plans, college, and relationships. Homework is often the one that gets top billing.

California has already championed student well-being by recognizing the need for students to get more sleep and the connection between sleep and mental health. And we commend the recent implementation of a later school start. Yay. Now we ask you to consider the rest of the student's day.

After spending 7-8 hours at school and then doing an average of, in our sample, two and a half hours of homework at the high school level, plus extracurricular activities, paid work, or family commitments, there's not enough hours in the day for students to get the 9 hours of sleep they need per night. In fact, 57% of students reported that homework often or always prevented them from getting enough sleep.

We also know that more than half of students surveyed reported that schoolwork and studying has prevented them from having time for family, friends, and other activities they enjoy. We know from extensive research that playtime, downtime, and family time are actually considered protective factors for children and are fundamental to healthy child and adolescent development. We also know from reviews of research articles on homework at the early grade level, there's almost no correlation between time spent on homework and achievement, with the notable exception of reading for pleasure.

Finally, we're very concerned about the inherent inequities presented by homework. We know that not all kids have adequate support, technology, accommodations, or resources in their homes to complete the homework they're assigned. At the national level, this is about 17% of students who report this, and with particularly economically marginalized kids, it's almost 25% who are unable to complete their homework. Thank you for considering the well-being of California children and the critical need for sleep, play and family time as you review this homework bill today.

Thank you very much. Are there public comments in support of the bill? Please come forward.

Mr. Chair, Members, Jim Frazier, the Arc of California/United Cerebral Palsy Collaborative, in support. Desperately need this bill to be passed. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Casey Cuny. I'm the 2024 California Teacher of the Year, Valencia High School English teacher, Department Chair and instructional coach and I overwhelmingly support this bill and the potential for best practices collaboration.

Victor Torres, on behalf of Future Leaders of Change and as a high school student, in support of his bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. I am Rohan Jagadisan. I'm in 6th grade and I support this bill. And here are some of my friends that also support this bill: Aiden Barriero, Neosha Ramadan Solana Dasha, Max Johnson, Jackson Peace and Faith Matthews. Thank you.

Any further public comments in support of this bill? Seeing none, any opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Before I go any further, I'd like to ask Madam Secretary to call roll call to establish quorum.

[Roll call]

Okay, we have quorum. Questions, comments from the Committee? Ms. Bonta.

I want to thank our witness for really having the voice of so many 6th graders that I know personally. When I was on the school board, we actually had to talk a lot about homework and everything that you said in terms of the anxiety, the stress, the way that it pulls you away from being able to connect with your family members and all that you expressed is exactly what so many children that I have met with over the years say as well.

So I'm very thankful to you for likely being a very important source for the authors to bring forward this bill. And to our 81st Assemblymember, I want to thank you for making sure that we can have every youth have an opportunity to not have that kind of stress in their lives by reviewing our homework practices in a very meaningful way in taking our social emotional wellness into account. Thank you, Miss Sofia.

Thank you. Vice Chair Flora.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to just say to the co-authors of this bill, you guys did a really good job. Well done. But to the 81st, you crushed it. And so incredibly well done. Super proud of you to be here. And honestly, you brought me back to my 6th grade year.

My staff is going to laugh when I say this, but then they're going to find it hard to believe, but I was like a squirrel chasing a shiny object most days, and I'm not sure I saw the light of day. I spent so much time on detention because I didn't get my homework done. It was unbelievable. So when you brought up you're not seeing recess because of homework, it's a really good point to be made. All right. Some of us just learned differently. All right, so well done. Happy to support this bill, and you did a great job.

Thank you. Ms. Addis.

I will just echo. Sophia, you're such a bright spot in my day. You don't know this, but these are a tough couple weeks for legislators, so it's been wonderful to come and hear your testimony. On a personal note, and I've said this before, I taught students with special needs for a very long time, and then I worked with English learners and English learner programming for a very long time.

And we have a number of students in our school system that have undiagnosed or unclassified needs when it comes to learning differences. And so I think as we're considering homework policies, of course there's a piece where we want our kids outdoors, we want them to have fun after school. We don't want the stress, we don't want the mental health issues that can come along. But in addition to that, there's a lot of kids that have different learning needs.

And our homework policies absolutely have to fit those. They need to match those. And we need to be considering that when we're creating policies that are going to affect children's academic outcomes as well as their entire lives. And so happy to move the bill. Really appreciate you bringing this forward.

All right. Is there a second? All right. Well, thank you very much to Ms. Schiavo and Mr. Lowenthal for bringing this bill forward. And thank you to 81st. That's going to be your new nickname. And thank you, Dr. Pope. As a parent also, I recognize the importance of this topic right away. When Ms. Schiavo, early on in this lesson of year, brought this topic to my attention.

I know that my own daughter, I also have a daughter named Sophia who was staying up late, even in elementary school. She was staying up until midnight. And my wife and I often had conversations about how thoughtful were the teachers being in terms of, not only in terms of the amount of homework that they were assigning, but the cumulative impact of, of all the different teachers and the classes and the homework that they were assigning, whether it's on the evenings or even on weekends.

And so I think this is a very timely and very important measure that is going to call on districts to have their own local discussions with their own local communities on what is a more thoughtful, evidence-based policy on homework and having that discussion with teachers, with families, with students. And so hopefully you're on the cusp of something big coming forward. And so I'm very happy to support this measure. Would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And you know, one of the things that Dr. Pope said when we first talked about this bill was, and it really struck me because I come out of the labor movement fighting for an eight hour day, right? And she said, kids are the only ones that we asked to do three shifts. They go to school all day, they go to after school or after school activities, and then they go home and they do homework at the kitchen table all night.

And so we're trying to get to what is an equivalent of an eight hour day for students now, right? And that's really, I think, what we hope will happen with this bill. We know that our education system is committed to supporting healthy, smart kids, and this policy directly helps us to do that and ensure that we're supporting the whole child. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, motion has been made and seconded. Please call the roll.

File item 24, AB 2999. The motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]

Four. We'll keep the roll open, but the bill is out. Congratulations. All right, next we have, in sign-in order, file number 12, AB 2548 by Mr. Ta.

When you're ready.

Good afternoon, chair Member of the Committee I 'd like to start by accepting the Committee Committee amendment, and I'm very pleased to present AB 2548 this afternoon. In 2021, the state introduced a five year plan to gradually expand traditional kindergarten, aiming for universal enrollment by 2025 to 2026. To meet this timeline, district move quickly as district outreach to their families about TK families had expressed a desire to enroll four year old whose birthday falls outside of the eligibility window.

Districts were told by the state that they could enroll these children, but they would not receive attendance funding to serve them. Many districts in particularly high need communities choose to offer tcare to meet the needs of their families. School district plan and budget at least nine months in advance of the next school year, which typically begin around August.

However, in July 2023, a new law was enacted imposing stricter requirements for district offering early TK, including Low glass size and adult to student ratio along with penalty for non compliance. Many districts offering early Tk were not able to meet new requirements because the school year was weeks away from starting. Districts were faced with the decision to either turn away families they had enrolled in TK or be penalized fiscally.

Many districts choose to serve their families because of the high number of students who depend on free access to education and care. Despite the state fiscal penalties, AB 2548 would waive the early TK penalty for the 2023 to 2024 school year. First school district that was striving to serve their students and meet the needs of the communities. I want to make this clear that AB 2548 intention was not to undo a budget deal and understand that this policy came to the budget process last year.

AB 2548 is an effort to raise awareness and discussion on the policy that came from the budget process and with me today in support to testify are Doctor Kabila Murphy, Superintendent of Garden Row Unified School District, and Doctor John Garcia, Superintendent of Downing Unified School District.

Thank you Mister Tah. Mister Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you so much for having us today in support of Assembly Bill 2548. As Mister Ta said, my name is John Garcia. I'm in my 11th year as the Superintendent of Downey Unified School District in southeast La County. I consider myself very lucky being the fourth Superintendent since 1970 in that district and having served for the last 11 years.

We accelerated early TK in our district to meet the needs of our families and to support our educators in the classroom. Over 70% of our students are unduplicated. The vast majority of those are from high poverty families. In order to offer opportunities and meet the needs and quite frankly, give those students an opportunity understanding we wouldn't get average daily attendance for them. Our community really asked us to move forward in this.

We extended the deadline last year and then this year we extended it through June 30, which was our understanding of the end of the school year. So under education code and during the rollout, we had always interpreted the end of the school year to mean June 30 of the of the following year under education code 37200. And so that's what we did this year, extending it to June 30.

The timing of the trailer Bill last summer was very unfortunate in regard to the passage of that. It was passed in about mid July. By the time that rolls out the nuances of trailer Bill Language roll out to school districts, quite frankly, most of us start the second week of August.

At this point, we had already started school, but even more so, our planning and our commitment to our family started in January of 2023 when we shared that we would be accepting four year olds born that will be turning five through June 30. In our district, that equates to about 70 students. But because of the way the penalties are structured, we are looking at a penalty of about $1 million, obviously going into a tough budget times moving forward.

So that being said, since we were at the start of school, our choices were obviously very limited in regard to classroom space, in regard to hitting those ratios. And so again, as assemblymember tah so eloquently put, we're just asking for relief for the 2324 school year. We've made adjustments moving forward into 2425 and we'll be able to meet the ratios just fine.

But again, because of the timing of this between our school calendar and when we start accepting families in January and February for the following year would have been a huge, huge loss for our families. So thank you. Thank you, Mister chair.

Thank you. I'm Gabriela Malfi. I'm also in my 11th year. Like John, as Superintendent of Garden Grove Unified School District, proudly serving 38,000 students and three most recent national blue ribbon schools, our board, similar to Downey, made the decision to accelerate the TK implementation for a simple reason. We're 81% on duplicated count. Our families do not have access to free full day preschool so that they can work. And we have a majority, 95% students of color, majority of students first generation. They can't afford paid preschool.

And our state preschool is only allowed for 3 hours a day because due to contractual elements with our unions and with also the CDE guidelines, that we can only offer a three-day program. I couldn't work for three days if my child was only in school for 3 hours a day.

So we went ahead. We accelerated, knowing full well that June 30 was that stop date. And that's clear from Ed code has been understood. 3700200. However, the change in the trailer Bill, which we understand was very last minute to the June 2, meant that all of the students that were born between June 3 and June 30 now incurred a penalty.

And so, just for an example, we have my class size in my district at T-K is 21 district wide, so we don't have large class sizes. We actually staffed at 18 per class. But after October November, we had some age eligible students in TK come in. You can't turn away an age eligible student for TK.

So therefore, a class might get to 21 if there was one early enrollment student in that class that incurred the ratio penalty, even if it was just 0.5 above, as well as the class size penalty of about 60, almost $60,000 per class. So we provide a six and a half hour free PK program with highly qualified teachers, full time aides who work with toileting, so that parents, our high poverty families, can go to work and know that their children are getting a top notch education.

We believe it was an unanticipated consequence that the majority of the schools that served and districts that served to accelerate were high poverty districts attempting to serve their families who were coming to us and saying, please, please, please, will you serve my child in the TK program? We're asking for your support as these families haven't yet emerged from the fiscal crises brought on by COVID. And we're asking for this fix for just one year. And we're prepared. I'm staffing at 15 per class.

Just prepared for the unanticipated changes. As you know, staffing allocations are very variable with the earliest grade levels. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Public comments in support of this Bill, please come forward.

Diana Vu, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators and support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair Members here. On behalf of three organizations in support, the Orange County Department of Education, the Marin County Office of Education, and Superintendent John Carroll and the California Association of Suburban School Districts. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brian Ricks with the Los Angeles Unified School District and support.

Thank you.

Jeff Balka, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools and support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and Members. Lee Angela Reed, on behalf of the Alameda County Office of Education and the Small School Districts Association in support.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments in support, any opposition to the Bill, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and Members Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here this afternoon on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium, which must respectfully oppose AB 2548. The Early Care and Education Consortium is a nationwide nonprofit alliance of child care providers who operate private 480 centers in California with the capacity to serve nearly 68,000 children. AB 2548 undermines the budget agreement reached just last year to allow for optional early transitional kindergarten, but only if specific adult to student ratio and class sizes were maintained.

In order to ensure that districts that did choose to opt into this early enrollment TK met the legislative mandates which exists to ensure the safety of these very young children, the Legislature put in place additional penalties for noncompliance. This Bill is proposing to waive those penalties. As you heard, if a district is unable to meet the class size or adult to student ratio, they should not have enrolled early enrollment TK students.

The budget defined as you heard from other witnesses and support those students to be ones with birthdays between June 2 and September 1. You've also heard from proponents that because the budget trailer Bill was enacted in early July of 2023, they did not have the time to make the changes to. They did not have sufficient time, excuse me, to make the changes that were reflected in the budget trailer Bill.

However, when TK was enacted in July of 2021, the Legislature included a 10 to one ratio for all TK classrooms, which was to begin in the 2023 to 24 school year, which is the one we're now talking about.

Districts should have spent those two years preparing for the 10 to one ratio that was law until July 10 of last year, when that same budget trailer Bill that the proponents are concerned about pushed back that 10 to one ratio from 2023 school year to the 202526 school year. The analysis includes an example from the Garden Grove Unified School District that stated they accepted all students in TK that turned four by September 1 in the 2324 school year.

This was a violation of California law prior to the enactment of SB 114, the education trailer Bill in July, districts should not have been enrolling children with summer birthdays until the Legislature passed that change in state law and the Governor signed it, which, as you've heard, was early July of 2023. Additionally, the analysis cites a support letter that says districts plan and I think the author mentioned this as well, and budget at least nine months excuse, excuse me, me. In advance of the next school year.

Given that the law did not allow for early enrollment Tk. Nine months before the start of the 2324 school year, districts should not have been enrolling or planning to enroll these children. Mister chair, you were in that hearing this morning where we heard from a school district that stated that they started to reach out to families for early enrollment TK.

Based on seeing the proposal in the governor's January budget, this completely cuts out the Legislature in the budget and policy process if districts are enrolling students based on the governor's proposed budget. And that was not what was actually enacted in the agreement with this legislative body. Eventually, the Legislature did reach an agreement with the Governor to allow for early enrollment TK, but only with the necessary safeguards to protect these young children, which included penalties to ensure compliance.

You've reached your limit.

Okay? So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote to ensure the safety of these children.

Thank you. Any additional opposition testimony? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition? Seeing none. Let's bring it back to the Committee.

Thank you.

Miss Bonto, thank you. I'm very familiar with the challenge that we're being proposed with here, and quite frankly, I think the budget deal that was essentially made was really in order to be able to ensure that the ratio of 10 to one would be respected and honored. And I just want to essentially allow for the rest of the testimony that the opposition would have offered here. It is highly problematic if the Legislature gets cut out of the decision making process.

We included this as a part of the budget deal, and ultimately, we have a situation now where, as you've testified, we had TK younger than should have been in TK, early TK students not having 10 to one ratios, not being able to be submitting to the class size maximum.

So I have concerns with this Bill, and we spend a lot of time trying to make sure that we strike a balance between implementation and opportunity for school districts to be responsive to the budget cycle that we put forward and their ability to teach our children. I also just want to share that the impact of moving forward in advance of the scheduled timeline with these strategies had a devastating effect on our early childcare community.

It did not provide the opportunity for us to be able to have the balance of parents able to make a decision to either have their child in early childcare and pre-k or in T-K. And the consequence of that is that we now have providers that are outside of our TK 12 system who are suffering significantly because of that. In some instances, precipitous move that did not align with what we, as a Legislature asked for. So happy to hear any responses from that.

Would also like to hear from the opposition whether what I was saying aligns with the. Around the impact on early childcare, whether that resonates as well. And I have serious concerns with being able to essentially allow school districts to get out of the commitment that we made to our children.

If I may respond, the expansion schedule that was provided by the state did list that all districts could accept students earlier as long as they would turn five by the end of the school year. The shared definition amongst all school districts, the State of California, CDE, and the Legislature by edcode 37200 was that June 30? Was that cutoff date. The trailer Bill did change that.

So then, in effect, the students born June 3 to June 30, which up until that time were always allowed to enroll, were not allowed to be enrolled in my district. Just to clarify, we did not enroll any of the students who were the true EEC students July 1 and later unless it was below 20. My average class size in my district is 21, so we have the majority. About half of them are under 20, and then there's a few that are above.

But that was a change that happened that we became aware of only in the summer as school was beginning. So that was a critical element for us.

John, can I just ask, through the chair, may I ask a question? Is this legislation, as drafted right now, so specific as to essentially capture just the first June 3 to June 30 population and is seeking essentially a. An exemption for that particular population as it's written now? Does that legislation?

I can't speak to whether it's written to that or not, but I do know that in regard to our testimony, Doctor mafia and I, that is what we are requesting as the end of the school year under align with ED code 3700200 and be June 30. So it would cover June 3 to June 30? I can't speak in regard to the specific legislation. Miss Ponta.

Mister Chair, can I respond to that? Yes, and maybe you should turn to the Committee staff. But my reading of the legislation is it is all of the penalties for any child who meets the new definition that went into effect with the budget trailer Bill. So that's June 2, birthdays through September 1. So this Bill is not specific to only those 28 days that the proponents are saying that they're aiming for. This Bill is much broader than that.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the penalties only apply to those children. Right. Because that is when there are penalties that have been in existence since TK started for not meeting the 12 to one ratio. This new penalty only went into effect in July with the budget allowing for early TK enrollment. So I just think that's important to point out that districts knew that there were penalties that would exist if they didn't meet the ratios since TK was enacted at 24 to one.

Thank you. Comments questions.

To the Committee, to the chair and the staff. Is your read of the legislation that it is specifically around the June 3 to June 30? Because essentially what we're having now is we're having a difference in terms of the testimony that is offered and the legislation as it stands. So I just want to make sure that there's parity so that we all as a Committee know that we're very clear on what we are, what we are voting for.

So our committee consultant is underlying the relevant text and showing Miss Bonta.

Yeah, I mean, I was just shared that the language goes through September, which is problematic for me. So for that reason, I will not be supporting this Bill.

I fervently believe that we should have prepared more of a bridging opportunity for early childcare providers and students who are served early to be able to have the response that they needed as we were rolling out TK and the fact that we are kind of essentially allowing school districts to be in advance of that timeline and waive the penalties that were put there for a reason, to be able to have that practice not be promoted is problematic for me.

So I can't support this Bill at this time.

Thank you. Seeing no further comments for the rest of the Committee, Mister Ta and superintendents, I think this is a very important discussion that needs to be had. So I thank you for bringing this Bill forward to have this discussion. I was hoping that Mister Alvarez, the chair of our budget Subcommitee on education, would be able to attend. But I know that this is probably one of the craziest weeks of the legislative year, and so.

Well, I'm sure his staff and others are paying close attention to our discussion here for my end. And is it, Miss Carvaccio, you heard my comments in the budget Subcommitee when this was raised at our joint budget Subcommitee hearing, informational hearing this morning on this topic.

I understand that there was a budget deal struck last year that was trying to address the difficult balancing act between how do we continue our work to offer quality universal preschool education to to all California kids while at the same time supporting and not undermining the critical childcare industry that so many working families rely on. It's my understanding that that was.

The basic intent, the basic goal of the budget deal last year. But from an educational perspective, you know, I hate to see districts being penalized for trying to do the right thing in terms of extending preschool opportunities and, you know, and at a late point in July of 2023 being told that you have to either disenroll the kids or to face the fiscal penalties. Exactly what Mister Ta said. So ultimately, we know that this needs to be addressed in the budget.

And so I thank Miss Bonta for her comments because it helps me to fully appreciate I was not part of those discussions last year. And so I, you know, I've been trying to learn more about the nature of those conversations, but I think this is an important topic. I know it's a, it's a critical issue that so many districts throughout the State of California are facing.

And to support, you know, seeing if there's any opportunity to, you know, to re examine, to take into consideration any potential unintended consequences of the penalties, I will support this Bill moving forward. And so I recommended that we support, as amended, Mister chair. I mean, Mister Ta, would you like to close?

Zero, I really appreciate the comment from the chair. I really appreciate that. I think that, and I, and I understand the concerns from Assembly Member Banta, but the reality, I believe that a lot of Members, a lot of us were not aware of this issue during the budget process last year. And that is a fact. And I honestly, I don't want to see many school district of Ross state right now, they don't know what to do.

So I think that it's really fair that we give them like at least a year for them to figure out how to budget for next year. Because they go at the end of the day, the school district, if they, if they don't know how to figure it out, I think that our children, our kids, our students will be really one of the issue for us to even have concerns. But I really appreciate your comment, Mister chair, and I respect.

Thank you. Can I entertain a motion, Mister Flora? Motions made and seconded. Adam sector, please call the roll file.

Item 12, AB 2548. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.[Roll Call]

Bill is on call. Thank you very much. All right. We saw Mister Jones Sawyer coming in here. He did sign in first. So this is file order, file number five, AB 2052 by Mister Jones-Sawyer. I'm here in the peanut gallery behind you, Mister Jones Sawyer. Motion has been made and seconded.

Members, I present AB 22052 which will strengthen the public school health center support program and ensure funds and continue to reach students who experience difficulty assessing medical care. School based health centers give students who would not otherwise have access to physical and behavioral health services the opportunity to lead healthier lives and have been shown to increase attendance, academic achievement, and improve school climate. AB 2052 will update multiple parts of the program.

This includes clarifying the definition of a school based center, requiring the Office of School Based Health to coordinate with the grant administrator, the California Department of Public Health, aligning grant recipient preference with existing definitions in the education code, and prioritizing school health centers that increase access to care for California's most underserved students. Communities in many communities, school based centers are the only source of healthcare a student has access to.

Funding is limited this year, but this Bill will be set up will be set up school based centers to receive funding in future years and use those funds effectively and efficiently. With me in support of the Bill is Sergio Morales. On behalf of the Bill sponsor, the California school based Health alliance.

Thank you, sir. Please proceed.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Sergio.

Do you. You're good? No, you're good.

Okay.

Is this better?

I think Mister Jones saw is messing with you, basically.

All right, let's go.

So, good afternoon. My name is Sergio Morales. I'm the Executive Director of the California School Based Health Alliance. We are a statewide nonprofit organization that is dedicated to improving the health and academic success of children and youth and by advancing health services in schools. Simply put, we put healthcare where kids are in schools.

A primary focus of our work is to help start, expand, and improve school based health centers and public schools so children and youth can get the medical, dental, and behavioral health support that they need to succeed in school and in life. School based health centers are designed to meet the student and community's health needs. They're student focused, providing age appropriate clinical services by passionate health professionals who are dedicated to adolescent health.

Where school based health centers exist, barriers are reduced, access to healthcare services increases, and helping students connect to the care that they need. AB 2052 is important. School based health centers are growing immensely as education leaders and school district leaders rightly recognize that undiagnosed and untreated behavioral and primary healthcare challenges are obstacles to attendance and learning.

With our 30 years of leading this work, we know that students who have access to a school based health center are more likely to have yearly dental and medical checkups, less likely than their peers who don't have a school based health center to go to the emergency room, be hospitalized, or have other adverse health conditions and outcomes. School based health centers provide a positive impact on absences, dropout rates, disciplinary issues, and help improve academic outcomes.

This state grant program, which has been in place since 2008, is outdated. AB 2052 will update the language to reflect the current reality of school based health programs in California. This Bill will also ensure that the California Department of Public Health and California Department of Education are collaborating effectively. AB 2052 will foster more intentional collaboration and integration, leveraging partnerships, and collective impact so when California does have sufficient funding available in the future, the systems are already in place to administer it effectively. Thank you.

Respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any further witnesses in support of this measure? Any public comments in support of the measure, please come forward.

Vanessa Forsythe, retired school nurse speaking in support of the school based health centers.

Good afternoon chair Committee Members and staff. Carlos Rojas, representing the Kern County Superintendent School's office in support.

Priscilla Quiros, here on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support.

Good afternoon training Members. Jessica Moran of the California Dental Association. We actually have a supportive amended position on this one and are seeking amendments that would require grant, sorry, grant application. Grant applicants who are providing dental services to students to meet the standard of care by providing clinical examinations and diagnosis and treatment findings. Looking forward to work with authored in the Committee to align with those concerns.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister chair Members. Lee Angela Reed, on behalf of, excuse me, the California Association of School Counselors and the California School Nurses organization is full support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Victor Torres with future leaders of change and as a high school student in support of this Bill. Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill please come forward. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill please come forward. Seeing none, bring it back to the Committee of two Motions been made. Addis already seconded. Mister Jones Sawyer. Thank you for bringing this forward.

I think I know that especially in Los Angeles, there's a big push for community schools, and providing school based healthcare services is a big part of recognizing schools as a backbone of our community in so many ways. And if we can take advantage of the school infrastructure to provide wraparound services for our students and our communities, that is certainly something that I want to support and so proud to support your measure. Would you like to close? No, I want to thank you.

And we are going to go ahead and make sure that we provide. All right. Medical, including dental. I mean that, I mean, dental is just as important as the other medical services that are provided at these places. And so I will continue to work with the California Dental Association so we make sure we can get as much into each of those centers as possible so that we can provide wraparound services to all our young people. With that respect, they asked for your. I vote. Thank you.

Take a roll call.

Please file item five, AB 2052. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, the Bill is on call. Thank you very much. Next we have Mister Gipson, file number 17, AB 20816. Please proceed.

Thank you very much Mister Chairman and Members. Thank you for allowing me, and I appreciate the, the item being moved. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2816 which seeks to establish a school mapping technology on k 12 campuses. This school mapping technology will allow emergency response to have access to school layout prior to entering the campus. This technology would drastically decrease response times and could potentially be life saving in the case of emergencies.

In 2023, 2023 there was reported 346 school shootings incidents across the United States. Injuries. About 191 students were injured. And from 2018 to 2023, 1073 people were wounded or killed in school shooting incidents. In California alone, 96 school shootings incidents happened within five years, resulting in 82 people being wounded or killed. These statistics are significantly affecting students.

Their mental wellness in school caused by 58% of the students to worry about a school shooting taking place on their particular campuses, thus creating anxiety, filled with emotions, and creating a different environment on school campus. Our children deserve better and their lives should be at the forefront of our decisions to making sure that their school experience is a safe one, a pleasant one on school campuses. I just want to also recall a tragic that happened that I believe that everyone is aware of.

And it's the Uvalde incident where people did not know where the shooter was because they didn't have the proper mapping. They didn't know because they was unfamiliar with the school. And their response time when you have a shooter on campus is absolutely critical. It's critical for our first responders, special law enforcement, to want to address the issue, confront the issue and eradicate the issue. But they don't know if they're unfamiliar with the school layout. And that's what this Bill does.

And create the kind of technology that I believe it's warranted for our time that we're living in today. Here with me to provide supporting testimony today is Joseph Hanson, the Vice President of Sales from Critical Response Group.

Before your witness begins, Mister Gipson, do you accept all the Committee amendments?

I accept all the Committee amendments, including any amendments you have right now. No, I'm just kidding.

Thank you very much. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee. I want to thank Mister Gipson for carrying this vital legislation. And also Committee staff for working on amendments that improve the Bill. I am honored to provide testimony in support of AB 2816. My name is Joe Hanson and I live in Mammoth Lakes with my wife and two small children. For background, I spent 11 years as a military special operations officer where communicating effectively under stress was a common occurrence for us.

And those experiences now inform my second career as Vice President for Critical Response Group, one of many national companies that specializes in communicating during an emergency. AB 2816 will solve two problems of creating accurate and accessible school safety maps for California schools. School blueprints and floor plans, as they exist today, are inaccurate and not designed for emergency response. Additionally, they are inaccessible in the disparate software systems that are used by first responders and school districts.

Current blueprints would often add confusion to emergency scenario versus providing actionable information. Just as in the case of Uvalde, Texas, a direct quote from the after action report reads, "the schematic maps of the campus used by law enforcement to identify potential points of entry were inaccurate". Law enforcement officers testified to the Committee that when asked whether they could gain access to the classrooms through windows, they were deterred by inaccurate floor plans.

In the case of Sandy Hook, neither floor plans nor schematics of the school were readily available for the tactical teams or search units. This Bill and the requirements that OES establishes will allow companies to offer these mapping services to school districts in order to provide them with communications tools necessary to navigate a school campus in the event of an emergency. I thank you for your time and I'm always reachable for questions now or in the future.

Thank you. Any other comments in support of the Bill, please come forward?

Mark Epstein, California Environmental Technology Education Network, want to point out that I have worked with many secondary students with WebGIS having the ability to students to the ability to.

We're not accepting testimony from. Thank you very much again. Name, affiliation and position on the Bill, please. Thank you. Any further public comments in support of the Bill? Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill please come forward.

Any public comments in opposition to the Bill please come forward. Seeing none bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Motion has been made. I will second it for the sake of moving the ball and happy to support your Bill, Mister Gipson, Mister Flora

I just want to say thank you to the sponsors and the author for bringing this Bill forward and thank you for your service. And I think it's using this kind of expertise to increase public safety in our schools is exactly what we need. We need experts making these decisions. So thank you for putting your expertise to good work. Once again, thank you.

Thank you. And I want to join our Vice Chair, and thank you, Mister Gipson. As a former law enforcement officer, we know that you are always making sure that our communities and our children especially are protected. And so we appreciate this measure. Would you like to close?

Yes, I want to say thank you very much for the comments and moving the Bill. I just want to point out, because I know that one of the Members had a question with respect to, will there be other opportunities for other companies to come in? OES will set the requirements and then companies will apply from there. So it's not just one single company, it's multiple companies. Anyone wishing to work in this space can apply, but OES will set the standards and requirements.

I respectfully ask when I vote. Thank you.

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

File item 17, AB 2816. The motion is due pass as amended, to appropriations. [Roll Call]

The bill is on call. Thank you very much. All right, Mr. Berman, file number six, AB 2097.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

Oh, is the mic on?

I think so. Can you hear me?

Yeah. There we go.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I assume Vice Chair. You're Vice Chair of every committee. I forgot. I would like to begin by thanking the Chair and committee staff for their engagement on this bill, which is a critical first step. I will be accepting the Committee's amendments described in the analysis. I should say also the patience of the Committee in these conversations. From Silicon Valley to Biotech Beach, California is the undisputed cradle of innovation.

However, far too many students grow up in the shadows of tech companies, yet they do not have the opportunity to learn the skills that they need to one day work there. The reality is every year California is falling further and further behind other states in providing equitable access to computer science in our schools. Last year, California was behind 27 states that already required every high school to offer a computer science course. This year, one year later, we're now behind 31 states.

Four other states have since required that every high school at least offer a computer science course. As amended, AB 2097 would require school districts and charter schools to adopt a plan to ensure all high schools offer at least one computer science course by the 2028-2029 school year. California must do better. It is time to restore California as a leader and take the step of ensuring computer science for all. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I'm joined today by Mary Nicely, the Chief Deputy Superintendent at the Department of Education, and Amy Pezzoni, a high school computer science teacher.

Is this on?

Yes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Once again, my name is Mary Nicely, Chief Deputy Superintendent at the Department of Education, speaking on behalf of State Superintendent Tony Thurmond, who is a proud sponsor of AB 2097. And Mr. Muratsuchi, I want to thank you for acknowledging the passing of Delaine Eastin. It's a sad day at the Department. We have many staff that worked with her for many, many years, and her legacy still lives on with us. So thank you for acknowledging that.

And thank you, Assemblymember Berman, for your leadership on this bill. As was stated, we have 55% of high schools in California do not offer any computer science courses, lagging behind 40 other states. Yet we have the highest number of computing jobs in the nation, with salaries averaging over $150,000. We are not giving California students the opportunity and access to these jobs in the state they live in, the birthplace of the high-tech industry. This needs to change.

Technology permeates our lives and computer science is needed even for those not planning on entering the tech industry. We see technology growing across every industry in agriculture, construction, health, entertainment, fashion, banking, elections, the arts, and more. Our California Computer Science Standards call on our students to understand the impacts of computing. Computer science is about more than coding.

I remember taking my first class in 1977 and being so excited when I made that little spider walk around the room in BASIC and just that joy of being able to have access to something where you can do something. With the rising use of artificial intelligence and machine learning, the need for digital literacy for everyone, not only our students, will be essential in thriving global economy and highly connected society. So California adopted its Computer Science Standards in 2018 with introductory standards for grades nine to twelve designed to be accessible to all students in California.

Ms. Nicely, the two minutes are up. If you want to try to wrap up.

I will wrap up saying that there have been massive investments in the State of California in training for our students as well as credentialing opportunities. So I'm proud to represent CDE and urge and aye vote on AB 2097 on behalf of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

On this important measure today. My name is Amy Pezzoni, and I have been a teacher in the Central Valley, trying to wave to Flora, for over 10 years. My hope is to give you insight into my classroom and what computer science can offer California students. Like my parents made me take this class. I don't know how I got this class. I didn't ballot for it. I'm only here until the counselor can switch me out.

These are the few of the answers that I get to start of the year interview questions like why did you take this class. These students who have no intent of taking computer science as an elective become some of my favorite students. As they're doing the interview activity, students light up when they are talking about the things they are really interested in. They talk about what they've done, they talk about what they're working on, and they talk about what they hope to accomplish in the future.

As I introduce to new topics in computer science, I weave those passions into our class. I offer fun facts like did you know that modern cars have more than 100 million lines of code? I encourage them to apply the skills we are learning into their topics of interest. For the HTML project, maybe consider doing an homage to your cats. Frame concepts in an area of interest, but what is a recipe but a structured algorithm?

And help them find connections between what they are most interested in and technology that can support, enhance or aid it. I love that you want to go into medicine. Let's take a look at what doctors do with those surgical robots. As my students discover how much more of their chosen world opens up to them, they become some of my most enthusiastic students. And these are the students introductory computer science helps most. Right now, they think computer science is not for them.

They think they are not smart enough. They won't find people in the classes that look like them, that it doesn't connect to their interests or or their futures. AB 2097 shows them none of that is true. Thank you so much for being here and for choosing education as a priority in your legislative careers.

Thank you. Public comments in support of the measure, please come forward.

Hi. Emily Pappas, Niemela Pappas & Associates, in support on behalf of Salesforce.

Good afternoon. Kirk Kimmelshue on behalf of Code.org in support.

Good afternoon, Chairman and Members, Nick Brokaw from Sacramento Advocates on behalf of Microsoft in support.

Chair and Members, Max Perry on behalf of the College Board, also in support.

Roxanna Villaseñor, former high school math science teacher, veteran administrator, and now Superintendent of River Charter School in support.

Amanda Dickey on behalf of the Santa Clara County Office of Education in support.

Good afternoon. Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jose Torres with Technet in strong support.

Dave Brown in support, CS Forward.

Good afternoon. Lee Angela Reid on behalf of Project Lead the Way in support.

Good afternoon. My name is Rosie Ortiz, and I support.

Good afternoon. Ana Rivera from Watsonville High School, and I support.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments and support any witnesses in opposition. Seeing none, any public... oh, please come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Tristan Brown of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals here to actually remove our opposition on file. Thanks to the work of the author at the sponsors to taking the amendments. We appreciate all the hard work. It will be a neutral position for now. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Carlos Machado with California School Board Association. Again, I'd also like to thank the Committee for its hard work on the bill. I will be taking the amendments back to our legislative Committee to reevaluate our position. We appreciate the hard work on the measure. Thank you.

Mark Epstein, California Environmental Technology Education Network. We are in opposition unless amended to deal with the problem of substantial percentage of students that do not have the basic digital skills as a prerequisite to succeed in a computer science class.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments in opposition, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Thank you, Mr. Berman. I was looking through the Committee analysis that shows prior related legislation. Berman. Berman. Berman.

You have truly been a champion for promoting digital literacy, for promoting, you know your district as the center, the global capital of innovation, and it's only fitting that you are the author of this bill. Thank you for working with me and the Committee and proud to support your measure. Would love to be added as a co-author. Would you like to close?

Thank you for that. Honored to have you as a co-author. I also want to thank Superintendent Thurman for being a huge supporter of this initiative. And this is representing my district in terms of the employers. It also kind of stems from my experience working for an education nonprofit before I got elected to the Assembly. And just seeing the drastic inequities that we have even in the heart of Silicon Valley, not to mention across California.

And so we've been trying for eight years to try to close that equity gap. I know it's challenging in California and how diverse we are, but I think this is something that we should absolutely be accomplishing. So grateful for your support, and thank you for working with us.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? We did a motion, and I'll second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll file.

Item six, AB 2097. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, bill is on call. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, next. Mr. Ramos, file number 14, AB 2711.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I would like to start off by accepting the Committee amendments and thanking you and your staff for the hard work that went into this much-needed bill. AB 2711 brings us a step closer to supporting our youth who may be struggling with substance use. It aims to be proactive rather than reactive when addressing these issues.

It makes the crucial move of ensuring students are offered supportive services prior to suspension, providing a much needed lifeline for those who may be struggling. The numbers show that the status quo resorting straight to suspension is negatively affecting our youth, especially socioeconomically disadvantaged students and those of color. Alcohol still remains the number one killer of Native Americans throughout the United States and here in the state of California.

In order to better protect our youth, we must look at addressing the health needs of students in these situations to reduce the likelihood of future substance abuse and addiction. I look forward to continuing to work on this bill so that we can ensure our students receive the help they need and address the inequities we witness in current practices. We need a constant approach throughout the state of California when dealing with these issues.

With me today to testify is Adrienne Shilton with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services and Caleb Merrill, a firsthand experience with the Sacramento Youth Action Board.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Adrienne Schulton, representing the California Alliance of Child and Family Services and we represent nonprofit, community based organizations across California that are serving vulnerable children, youth, and families in public systems. And we're the proud sponsor of Assembly Bill 20711. So we're coming to this issue about how we better support our kids because the research is clear that punitive school discipline approaches have a disproportionately negative impact on students who are already facing higher barriers to education.

And the statistics really speak volumes about what's happening across our state. Over 83% of drug related suspensions impact sociodisadvantaged students. Students who are involved in our foster care system and who are homeless across all race and ethnic groups are also punished far more than their peers, and they do not have access to the same learning opportunities.

According to some recent data from our California Department of Education, youth in foster care lost 77 days to instruction due to suspension per 100 enrolled students, and homeless youth lost 26 days per 100 students. In comparison, the statewide average for all students was 10 days lost. So we really have to stop perpetuating the cycle of exclusion and missed opportunities for our young people, and AB 20711 really embodies that shift, prioritizing supportive services first over punitive measures.

The bill recognizes the interconnectedness between student well being and academic success. I ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Caleb Merrill and I'm honored to be here today not only as a person in recovery, but as a previous youth that this bill represents. Thank you all for coming together today and giving me the opportunity to share my personal testimony. My journey with substance use began at 13 years old, a time when I should have been navigating the typical trials and triumphs of adolescence.

Instead, I found myself seeking refuge and substances as a means of coping with growing up in a world that often felt overwhelming and hostile. The halls are schools that continuously encountered a system ill equipped to address the complexities of our struggles. For many people, substances have played a complex and multifaceted role, a role that cannot be easily reduced to the simple notions of right and wrong.

It felt as though we were not treated as we were not treated as individuals and needed consistent support and understanding, but problems to be solved, or worse, ignored until it was too late. By 16, it felt as though I had already been marked as being too much trouble and pushed to the side, left to spiral deeper. I felt like my world was crashing down around me, leaving me desperately searching for ways to hold on.

I had already witnessed the loss of multiple of my peers who had faced these similar experiences. When I say I am fortunate to be here today, it is also with a heavy heart. Sticking with the current policy would be a disservice to the youth. While punitive measures may seem like a deterrent, they often only exacerbate existing issues, perpetuate stigma, and further marginalize the youth who are already struggling.

Pushing them away and turning a blind eye to the underlying experiences is not a solution. It is meeting fire with fire when we should be guiding and uplifting them to something new. This bill represents a crucial shift in how we respond to the needs of the youth. It recognizes that substance use is not a moral failing, but a complex issue rooted in deeper societal and individual challenges.

It is our hope that schools will be empowered to provide students with the guidance and support they need to address the root causes of their struggles. This is about more than just substance use. It is about creating an environment that nurtures and empowers every student, regardless of their struggles or setbacks. It is about recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of every individual, providing them and the schools with the tools they need to thrive.

In closing, I urge each and every one of you to stand with us in support of Assembly Bill 2711 to stand with the youth, to champion their cause, and to build a better future where every child has the opportunity to flourish and succeed. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Gregory Cramer on behalf of Disability Rights California in support.

Good afternoon. Gia Chan on Behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction programs and professionals in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Marika Collins with Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services and strong support.

Vanessa Forsythe, retired schools nurse in strong support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Tristan Brown with CFT, happy to support this. Thank you.

Danny Thirakul on behalf of co-sponsor CYEN, California Youth Empowerment Network, in support. Also on behalf of Mental Health America of California in support.

Hello chair and members, Rachel Bhagwat, ACLU California Action in support of this Bill.

Darryl Evey with Family Assistance Program in support of the bill.

Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth and Espiritnet, in support.

Amanda Dickey, on behalf of the Santa Clara County Superintendent, in support.

Alicia Benavidez, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in strong support.

Joe Saenz, on behalf of County Health Executives Association, representing local health departments in support.

Trent Murphy with the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives in strong support.

Sergio Morales, with the California School-Based Health Alliance.

Brian Ricks, with the Los Angeles Unified School District. We currently have a support if amended position. We really want to thank the author for working with local education agencies and look forward to supporting this bill when it's in the Senate.

Nora Lynn, on behalf of co-sponsor, Children Now in support.

Priscilla Quiroz here, on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolecent Psychiatry, proud co-sponsors and strong support. And also on behalf of California State Association of Psychiatrists in support. Thank you.

Victor Torres, on behalf of Future Leaders of Change and as a high school student, in full support of this bill.

Ana Rivera from high school and strongly support.

Yanely Martinez, Greenfield city councilwoman and as a mother of four, in full support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill please come forward. Seeing none, any public comments in opposition to the bill?

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members and staff and author's office Kern County Superintendent of School's Office Carlos Rojas we currently have an opposition position on the Bill, but want to thank the Committee staff and the author's office for working through some really important amendments. And with those amendments, once they're published, we'll be removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments in opposition, bring it back to the Committee. Vice Chair? No. Mister McCarty? No questions. Thank you, Mister Ramos, for bringing this important measure.

As your sponsor testified, we should try to help before we punish, and I think that's at the core of your Bill. At the same time, you know, thank you for working with the Committee. We often have to make sure that we're making policies that work for all of our kids, to make sure that we can continue to operate our schools, to make sure that the needs of all students are addressed.

I think your Bill, with the amendments, strike that balance, but at its core, I know that we have talked about this and I completely support the core mission of your Bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Mister Chair and Committee Members. This is a Bill that starts to move us in a more proactive approach than reactive when dealing with the issues that plague the State of California.

And I believe that working with the Committee and further work that we can do starts to strike that balance. I believe it's time that we stand with our youth in the State of California to start to bring resources to them so that they could act drastically at the resources they need. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Entertain a motion and a second. Mister McCarty. Vice Chair. Okay.

File item 14, AB 2711. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right. I do not see Mister Alanis, and so I see Mister Ting. File number 22, AB 2967 by Assembly Member Ting.

Bill is on call. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Committee Members.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I just want to say, I want to thank you and the Committee for your help with the Bill. And we are happily accepting the Committee amendments. AB 2967 expands the Teacher Housing Act to include employees of publicly funded nonprofits that operate on school district property and serve children from low and moderate-income families. I'll give you a great example.

I have a district in, I have a school district in my district where they built housing for their employees on school district property. Great project. They did it in record time. Put sort of my own city to shame, because we're still trying to build a teacher housing project. And what we realized is there are other employees, for example, who run the child care center, run the after school programs, run the early ed programs, who, again, are probably getting paid less than our school district.

Employees definitely need housing, and they're a key fabric of the educational environment. So this Bill simply expands the Teacher Housing Act to include them and give them the opportunities to get housing as well, because they're a key fabric of our educational system. With that, I have my witness. Audrey Ratajczak from the San Mateo County.

Perfect. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mister Chair Members of the Committee, Audrey Ratajczak from Cruise Strategies on behalf of San Mateo County. San Mateo County is a high-cost Bay Area community, and we have plans to build 20,000 new housing units for our lower-income residents over over the next eight years. One of the critical projects that the assemblymember mentioned that we've been working on is the redevelopment of a property called Midway Village.

This site was once owned by the local school district prior to it being converted to public housing. We're currently in the process of redeveloping the property to replace its 150 aging units with 555 new affordable homes. One of the critical things we've heard from our extensive community planning process was a desire to provide a preference for early childhood educators.

So early childhood, pre-k and transitional kindergarten. Early childhood educators in California earn almost 40% less than their colleagues in the k-8 system, and they would be considered extremely low income in our county, where the average monthly rent is over $3,000 a month, these early childhood educators face housing insecurity and are often forced to leave the profession, find second jobs, or undertake very long commutes.

Though there have been several bills passed in recent years supporting the building of more teacher housing, early childhood educators are not currently eligible for affordable housing developments under the Teacher Housing Act. So we're supportive of AB 2967 to expand this law by extending the critical affordable housing opportunities to this important group of educators that set young children from low and moderate income households on a path to better academic outcomes. Thank you.

Thank you. Public comments in support of the Bill please come forward.

Mister Chair and Members. Tristan Brown of CFT in support.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments in support, any opposition, either witnesses or public comments, please come forward.

Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School of Employees Association, not in opposition. Just wanted to thank the author and his staff for working with us to ensure that school employees and educators are prioritized for access to these units.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses, either tweeners or opposition coming forward, bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Thank you very much Mister Ting for continue to be a champion for housing, especially for childcare workers. This is part of the effort to build more workforce housing. Taking advantage of school district property to build workforce housing. Proud to support your Bill. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

File item 22. AB 2967. The motion is do pass as amended to the floor. [Roll Call]

We are going to take Mister Connolly out of order given that he has, I believe he has witness issues. This is file number two, AB 1864.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Good afternoon. Children attending public schools and daycares in California are intended to be protected by a regulation that restricts the most drift-prone agricultural pesticide applications during the school day, namely from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday. In practice, though, this regulation is often unenforceable.

While notices of intent or NOIs must be submitted to county agricultural commissioners before using pesticides that are classified as restricted materials and must include the method of application, often the information provided isn't specific enough to determine whether or not the method triggers school regulations. For example, if the application method listed on the NOI is ground, it's unclear whether that means a ground rig sprayer which has a distance restriction, or a hand pump sprayer which does not.

Further, the exact location of applications cannot be verified under current reporting requirements, and exact start and end times are often inaccurately reported. To address these barriers, AB 1864 would require county agricultural commissioners to require an NOI for all applications, restricted or unrestricted, that are within a quarter mile of school sites and that use an application method restricted by school regulations. Of the more than 1000 pesticide active ingredients registered for use in California, just 52 are classified as restricted materials. That doesn't mean the others are safe.

Among the unrestricted pesticides are many that DPR in fact is classified as carcinogens and reproductive toxicants, and many more that are known to trigger asthma. The Bill would also require permits, NOIs, and pesticide use reports to include the exact method of application with the same degree of specificity as a regulation, in other words, not just air or ground or fumigation.

Additionally, the Bill would require change permitting and reporting requirements to require growers to demarcate and report separately any portion of a field inside the quarter mile buffer zone. Crucially, the Bill extends the protections offered by the current Department of Pesticide Regulation to include private schools with six or more children. The dangers of pesticide exposure are well-documented and alarming.

A 2021 Nature public health emergency collection analysis of studies from the past 10 years found the types of cancer reported most frequently linked to pesticides were multiple myeloma, bladder cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, prostate cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. We must protect our most vulnerable populations from the dangers of pesticide exposure. AB 1864 accomplishes this with common-sense fix-it changes to reporting requirements to enable confirmation of compliance with the school's regulation and extensive protection to private school students.

So, I'll now pass it off to my witnesses, Jane Sellen, Co-Director for Californians for Pesticide Reform, and Victor Torres, representing Future Leaders of Change.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Jane Sellen. I'm Co-Director of the statewide coalition, Californians for Pesticide Reform. I thank Assembly Member Connolly for his leadership for authoring AB 1864, which is a critical step toward ensuring that all California children are protected from agricultural pesticide exposure at school. Given their inherent toxicity, pesticides carry many health risks for communities most exposed to them, and especially for the growing bodies and brains of children.

The data show that pesticide exposed exposure and related health impacts disproportionately impact communities of color in California. In 2014, the California Department of Public Health released a report detailing the extent of agricultural pesticide use in close proximity to schools in California and the marked racial disparity for students attending the most impacted schools. As a result, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation developed a regulation restricting drift-prone pesticide applications within a quarter mile of public schools and daycares during the school day.

In the six years since the regulation was implemented, ground truthing by our coalition has revealed some serious issues with enforceability of the regulation, which can be addressed by simple reporting changes. This Bill would ensure that compliance with existing regulations can be verified by aligning pesticide use reporting requirements with the provisions of the regulation and requiring separate reporting for any segment of a field that falls within the quarter mile buffer zone.

The Bill would also extend the existing protections to students attending private schools who are currently excluded. Finally, the Bill would require growers to submit a notice of intent for all pesticide applications within a quarter mile of school sites that employ a drift-prone application method and that would be subject to the provisions of the school's regulation. This provision would improve the ability of agricultural commissioners to ensure that applications are in compliance with the regulation before they happen.

Thank you so much. We'll ask you to finish up your thought, please.

Okay, sure. To clarify, this Bill will have no impact on pesticide use on campus or on the Healthy Schools Act, and I'll pass the testimony on to my colleague Victor Torres.

Thank you very much. Two minutes, sir.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Victor Torres, and I am 17 years old. I am currently a senior at Greenfield High School in my hometown of Greenfield in the heart of the Salinas Valley in Monterey County. I am a volunteer with Future Leaders of Change and a co-founder of this organization based in both Greenfield and the City of Watsonville. I am here today to bring awareness to you about the danger of pesticide application near our schools.

I myself was a victim of pesticide drift at the age of 10 at my local middle school. No child should have to worry about their health in a place of learning. No child should have to be rushed to the emergency room for something out of their control. We need better protections around schools for both public and private.

It is important for us to know the exact location of the pesticide application and how pesticides are applied, but most importantly, that every notice of intent or NOI brought to commissioners is examined thoroughly before approval. This would in fact guarantee that no other 10-year-old has to experience the consequences of having such dangerous chemicals applied near their schools. As my colleague Jane Sellen noted, there are many hazardous pesticides that are not classified as restricted materials and so currently no NOI is required.

When I was a victim of pesticide drift, there were eight different pesticides involved, and not one of them was restricted even though four of the eight are known to trigger asthma. Another of the eight also unrestricted was Dacthal or DCPA. The U.S. EPA now says allowable levels of DCPA are 1500 times more harmful to developing brains than is considered safe. Half of all DCPA use in California is in my county, Monterey County.

There are 29 growers who plan to apply DCPA within a quarter mile of 65 schools in Monterey County in the current school year. We are the future leaders of change in the community, and I ask you all to provide an opportunity for us to not only learn, meet with peers, but also to enjoy our childhood in a safe environment. Thank you, chairs and member of, Chair and Members of the Committee and I urge you to vote yes.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in support of AB 1864? Name and organization only, please.

Abigail Alvarez with the Pesticide Action Network and the California Food and Farming Network in strong support.

Rebecca Marcus with Center for Food Safety and CalPIRG in support. Thank you.

Nora Lynn with Children Now in support.

Rosie Ortiz Rivera from Watsonville High School and I support.

Anael Rivera Espinosa from Watsonville High School and I strongly support.

Hello, my name is Raul Garcia and I'm with the Tulare County Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety, also speaking on behalf of the Central California Asthma Collaborative and the UFCW Western States Council all in support of AB 1864. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Angel Garcia, Co-Director with Californians for Pesticide Reform, proud co-sponsor and in strong support. Also, on behalf of Valley Improvement Projects, in support. And lastly, on behalf of the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment, also in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Anne Katten of California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support and also on behalf of Sonoma Safe Ag Safe Schools, Sierra Club and Central Valley Air Quality Coalition. Thank you.

Vanessa Forsythe, speaking in support for these organizations, Clean Earth for Kids, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, North County Equity and Justice, Interfaith Council for Environmental Justice, NCCCA, ESP, Facts and Grandparents in Action.

Yanely Martinez, in support and also support on behalf of Safe Ag Safe Schools Monterey Bay, a proud co-sponsor, Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety, Ventura County, Rincon Vitova Insectories, and also as councilwoman of the City of Greenfield, in full support.

Mark Weller, in support on behalf of Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, Pajaro Valley Federation of Teachers, and Center for Farmworker Families. Thank you.

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

Tristan Brown with the CFT in support.

Luis Torres in support.

He said, Luis Torres in support. He's a parent of an impacted student.

All right, thank you very much. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill, please come forward.

Mister Chamber of Members or Mister Chairman and Members. Chris Reardon, California Farm Bureau. Good afternoon. California Farm Bureau takes very seriously our responsibilities to protect our farming activities in and around schools. After all, our children and our grandchildren attend those schools as well. Many people don't realize that farmers and schools located in agricultural areas have a long history of communicating with one another, particularly when it comes to pesticide applications occurring in their areas.

This happens each and every day all over this state, and it's happened for a long time. We understand Assemblyman Conn0lly's legislation. We've had opportunity to sit down and discuss our concerns with him, but we still have some outstanding issues. I think it's also important to note that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has the most comprehensive pesticide program anywhere in the world. And our county ag commissioners carry out our pesticide use enforcement at the local level and are actively engaged on this issue on a daily basis.

They manage a restricted use permitting process in this state and carry out enforcement activities as well. Our concern with this legislation has to do with now looking at both restricted and non-restricted use materials to submit notices of intent for an application within a quarter mile of the school site, which candidly, Mister Chair, will overwhelm the NOI process in this state because right now it's constructed just to control just restricted use materials.

So, when you add in both the non-restricted and restricted use materials, the ag commissioners who oversee this process at the local level won't have any way of following, at least in a process that makes sense as it does now.

It's important to know that also restricted use, and I think it was mentioned earlier in one of the testimonies that there's already restrictions around schools from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. right now. It's not clear to us that this Bill would provide any additional safety measures to applications around schools that doesn't already exist. We'll also note, and it was mentioned earlier as well, that now we're going to add new private schools in 2026. That will only increase the challenges to notification on this particular issue.

So, for us, when you look at the restricted use.

Your two minutes are up, if you can wrap up.

My last comment is when you look at our notification process, this will implode everything, not only restricted use, but non-restricted use as well. They won't be able to do sort of their existing program as it currently stands. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members Matthew Siverling, on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association in opposition today, similar comments as Mister Reardon just made. State law tasks the ag commissioners with responsibility for regulating pesticide use at the local level in cooperation with the California DPR. They take their job very seriously and their mission statement is to protect human health and safety and the environment by ensuring that pesticides are used safely and legally.

The core and one of the most fundamental aspects of the program is field-based enforcement inspections, most of which are surprised and unannounced. This is in addition to the tens of thousands of permits ag commissioners already to review and issue, and the NOIs that they review as well. The safety of school children is already one of the highest priorities of ag commissioners and we implement the current pesticide use near school regulations. Again, that's been referenced several times today.

The 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. regulations in order to accomplish that. AB 1864 represents a significant new unfunded mandate that will take our inspectors out of the field and stick them in the office to push paper rather than be out in the field actually doing the work that needs to be done. And as mentioned before, several times 90% of the pesticides that are used in California are not restricted. So, this will represent a huge workload increase to review NOIs related to non-restricted materials

Finishing up, we must review every NOI and the requirements of this Bill would significantly change our workloads and add a massive number of NOIs, each of which would need to be reviewed at the expense of field enforcement, including monitoring applications near schools. And for those reasons, we oppose the Bill today. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Matthew Allen with Western Growers Association. We are respectfully opposed unless admitted to the Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Mister Chair and Members, Carlos Gutierrez on behalf of the Western Plant Health Association in addition to the California Association of Pest Control Advisors and a number of agricultural commodity and commissions with an opposed and less amended position. Thank you.

Good afternoon. John Moffat on behalf of the Milk Producers Council, opposed unless amended.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments in opposition. Bring it back to the Committee. Vice Chair Flora.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Mister Connolly, I always appreciate you. And we may have to just agree to disagree on this one. As a kid that was raised in the fields of the Central Valley, what the Farm Bureau's and the AG Commissioner's office and relationship that we have with our school system. I just. I don't know why we need this Bill. I really don't.

I think there is a tremendous amount of notification that goes on and then the expansion of what is currently going on into non-regulated pesticides as well. It just. It's going to be the wild, wild west. It's the effect when we talk about a quarter mile around a school and now public schools. It effectively shuts down a large portion of our area, especially in my district. And these are pesticides that nobody and gentlemen from the Farm Bureau mentioned this. Our kids play in these fields.

Our kids go to these schools. Our grandkids, my daughters. Right? So, if there was anything that would hurt them that we were putting on our crops, we wouldn't want to do that.

And I think the bigger issue that we have is as the urban communities have moved in, as we've sprawled, and really narrowed that into ag land, there is a lack of education on our part as an ag community, on what we're actually using and how these products are, for the most part, safe with the proper notification.

So, I would just encourage you, as this Bill, you know, potentially moves forward, and I would love to have a conversation with you offline and see if we can help narrow this to some place where I could support it. Because what your intents are, I appreciate. Right? I just think the way this Bill is written in print, really, really, all due respect, screws over ag in a way that it's really hard to come back from. So, I appreciate you. I appreciate your openness. I'd love to have this conversation offline.

Any further comments or questions from the Committee? Mister Connolly, thank you for this Bill. I do actually have a question. I'm looking at the analysis, and I hear the concern, especially about the non-restricted pesticides. Could you talk about? Forgive me if one of your witnesses already covered this, but could you talk about why it's important to receive the NOIs for the non-restrictive?

Yes, and let me just. Because I think we have made progress on the Bill, and I appreciate the sentiments of my distinguished colleague. We have effectively removed opposition, and we have agreement on the issue of greater specificity in the reporting. I think we can, if not already, have resolved the issue on private schools. Because I agree the ag community should not have to guess where, what is a private school or where to be provided with that list.

So really, it's coming down to the restrict the inclusion of unrestricted as well as restricted. So, I'll just offer some quick thoughts on that, starting with. And this is with respect to the work that our inspectors do. The too much paperwork defense to public health risks is never that persuasive to me. Furthermore, you actually have someone sitting to my right who actually explained to this Committee the real-world impacts of unrestricted pesticide use that drifted at his school. He suffered the consequences of that.

That's one story. It sounds pretty credible to me, but we also are hearing the facts. I try to give a little bit of flavor of that, as did Jane, on the number of unrestricted that still often pose risks, even though they haven't made it to the restricted use yet. That having been said, let's keep talking. I think we're getting there, but my goal is to get this across the finish line. So open to continued discussions.

All right. Thank you for the clarification. And I'm sorry I had to step out. So, I missed your second witness' testimony to that exact question that I raised. So, I apologize for that. This Bill does enjoy a do pass recommendation. Would you like to close?

Thank you again for your consideration. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much.

I'll move the Bill.

Motion is made. And I will second the Bill. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item two, AB 1864. The motion is do passed to Appropriations. [Roll call]

Okay. Bill is on call. Thank you very much. All right. Next in sign in order is Miss Irwin. File number 5. Is Alanis, Mister Alanis is here? No? Oh, Mister Alanis is there. All right. Like Casper. Mister. Mister Alanis, you are next in sign in order. Sorry about that, Miss Irwin. This is file number four, AB 1927.

The program also allows the California Student Aid Commission to award grants of up to $20,000 to students who commit to at least four years of work in a priority school, which makes up almost 90% of the schools in my district. This Bill was amended to clarify that all grant recipients must work in a priority school, which make up about 90% again of the schools in my district and many underserved communities. Following these amendments, all opposition has been removed.

I am proud to have support from county superintendents, school administrators and many other representatives from the education field. Members, I urge you to vote aye on 1927 for two reasons. First, this Bill addresses the teacher shortage by taking students who are already working towards their credentials. And second, this Bill helps our youth across the state by promoting the placement of highly educated, long-term teachers in schools and further supporting youth seeking CTE paths.

With that, I would like to introduce my witnesses today, Dana Tafoya with the Mariposa County High School and Sarah Nocito on behalf of the Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Hi, good afternoon. Thank you Assemblyman Alanis and Committee Members for inviting me to share support for AB 1927. My name is Dana Tafoya and I'm a medical careers, CTE career, and technical education teacher from Mariposa County High School in Mariposa County. In 2018, after 25 years in emergency medical services and public health, I followed an opportunity to share a passion for medical science and teach high school students about the many career paths in the medical field. Involved in adult and peer education.

Throughout my career, the jump to high school education was not without trepidation. Truthfully, I did not know exactly what to expect. What I did know, however, is that the medical careers program would not exist at MCHS without a CTE teacher, and our local community healthcare workforce would also continue to experience severe shortages, thus limiting the medical services to our community members. I'm grateful for the opportunity that I did take because it continues to be an exciting and rewarding journey.

It's exciting because we continue to provide the medical careers program with plans to expand to a certified nursing assistant program and emergency medical technician program next year, and this will provide students with entry level certification and a cornerstone for their own medical careers. It's very rewarding because now I see on a regular basis these previous students working in our local healthcare facilities providing service and care to our community Members. CTE teacher shortages are common in health science medical technology pathways in addition to other pathways.

At MCHS, unfilled positions have closed public service pathways and have threatened one of our strongest pathways. It is a challenge to recruit a qualified, industry-experienced person interested in becoming a teacher with the expectation the teacher also pursue the requirements for preliminary credentialing, then pay tuition and enroll and complete courses required to then clear their credential. AB 1927 will provide an opportunity to decrease this cost barrier associated with CTE-designated subject credentialing, thus encouraging industry experts to become CTE teachers and measurably decreasing CTE teacher shortages. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mister Chair and Members Sarah Nocito on behalf of the Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange, the region's oldest and largest Construction Industry Association, as well as the California Builders Alliance and Association of Industry Exchanges throughout the state, we're proud to support AB 1927, which we see as an important step in expanding CTE programs in California.

The construction industry, like many other industries, is struggling to close the skilled labor gap, especially in the face of increased demand for building trades workers to reach the state's ambitious housing and infrastructure goals. Today, for every five construction workers who are preparing for retirement, there's only one in the pipeline to replace them. Our Construction Industry Education Foundation introduces and empowers high school students to pursue careers in the built environment, including the skilled trades.

We serve more than 10,000 students through interactive CTE programming at public schools and juvenile justice facilities across California and in four other states. None of our programs can exist without credentialed CTE teachers. Demand for our programming is currently outpacing our capabilities, and one of the largest limitations to growth is a lack of CTE teachers, especially at priority schools. Expanding CTE pathways will help attract a diverse range of students who may otherwise face barriers to entering the construction field.

For example, women face severe underrepresentation in construction, engineering, and manufacturing professions, making up only 8.9% of the construction industry, and we believe that making these pathways more accessible in high school will help eliminate some of these barriers to employment. Research shows that gender and racial diversity is associated with increased performance, innovation, and opportunity. Being able to expand our programming allows us to reach more diverse students, and we believe that AB 1927 will help to increase the pool of instructors trying to earn their CTE teaching credential.

Thanks to Assemblymember Alanis for his leadership on this important issue and we respectfully urge your aye vote.

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

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Sam Nasher, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education, in support.

Megan Baier with the Association of California School Administrators in support.

Tristan Brown with the CFT in support.

Good afternoon. Mishaal Gill, on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in support.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Sometimes this is hard. I doubt anyone from CSAC is here on this issue, so it's hard to ask questions. We're obviously reviewing this program which has been supported in the budget context.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill please come forward. Seeing none, any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none, bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Mister Alvarez.

And so I just want to sort of start off with saying that it's in the, my questions or my comments maybe are in the context of the budget and the limitations of funding to expand the program.

I think in this case, what makes me more comfortable certainly is it's essentially an expansion of the eligibility, but with the same parameters which are critical, which appreciate you accepting the amendments, which is to ensure that those who receive these or participate in this program serve at priority schools, which is very, very important to me. So with that though, have you had a chance to talk to CSAC, the Student Aid Commission, about what this really would mean in terms of participation?

Is there a demand for CTE teachers that are seeking this, that are ineligible today because they maybe are seeking a different career path? Just again, I know it's hard, they're not here so they can't answer. But anything you can shed light on, on that?

Yes, obviously same concerns. Obviously we care a lot about budget and where money is going, but actually CSAC was actually a big part of giving us the technical, technical assistance in the amendments that we were taking. So they're part of this conversation.

Okay. And then also just want to acknowledge there's a few bills out there, I think it might be an analysis, I'm not sure, on career technical education and teachers who are entering that. So one, acknowledge your involvement in the conversation, which is important. We need to strengthen CTE in the state, but there are sort of a lot of moving parts to how to accomplish that.

I think this is definitely in the right direction of trying to address that the issue of identifying teachers who could be prepared to serve in those roles. So with that, and just with the caveat that we are having budgetary discussions on what we can do with this program and how far we can go and stretch. I'd be supportive today, again, letting you know that we're having budgetary discussions on how to implement this. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you. Any further comments from the Committee? Questions? Seeing none. Mister Alanis, thank you for the conversations we had about this Bill. You know, I think we're all big supporters of CTE, and so I certainly appreciate your leadership on this Bill. I fully expect your Bill to pass out of this Committee. I just wanted to raise the concern and I'm glad that Mister Alvarez is here as Chair of our Budget Subcommitee on Education Funding.

That according to the data that is discussed in the Committee analysis, the data on the shortage of CTE teachers appears to be mixed, depending on which industry sector and what areas of the state. And given that we're talking about the Golden State Teacher Grant Program running out of funds, I expect that we may be having discussions about identifying where the teacher shortage is the greatest. Which I think has always been, and probably will continue to be math, science, and special education teachers.

And so that is the only reason why I have a non reco on this Bill. And that I will be abstaining. But again, because everyone loves you, Mister Alanis, I fully expect this Bill to be passing out. Would you like to close?

Yes, Mister chair. Thank you for those words and I do appreciate our conversations that we have. I share the same concerns and I think it's great that you are having those as your priorities as well. And also with Mister Alvarez, as well as budget. As I used to sit on budget, I totally get all that. That is why we also made sure that we had a budget ask of 10 million on that as well. On the side note.

But as you all know, CTE is going away. We still need people to make the buildings that we're working in and that were the roads that we're driving on. And unfortunately, these phones are taking over everything and apps and technology as well as that goes. But we still need people to get up in the morning and swing a hammer, lay concrete, and all those other things that go with it. That workforce is obviously depleting and I'm hoping we can bring it back.

And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you guys.

All right. Do we have a motion? A second? Motion made. Entertain a second. Hoover. All right, there we go.

Still reading.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item four, AB 1927. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Five. You have five votes. The Bill is out.

Thank you.

Congratulations. All right, next in sign in order, we have file number 15. Miss Irwin. AB-2723.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB-2723 which provides some code cleanup for the Cradle-to-Career Data Center referred to as C2C. As the Committee analysis outlines. I have been involved in C2C since its inception in the state budget and currently serve as the Assemblymember on the governing board. C2C celebrated its first round of data submissions from data providers last fall and anticipates making its first analytical tools data dashboards available later this year.

As with any maturing state entity, there are aspects of a governing statute that benefit from refinement, and that is what this Bill seeks to provide a vehicle for. I would like to accept the Committee amendments listed on page 7 and 8 of the Committee analysis and thank the Committee staff. These additions will clarify the role C2C holds in relation to the data they maintain on behalf of the data providers and reinforces how C2C works within the Information Practices Act.

I do not have any support witnesses with me today, but I'm not sure if you have any questions I can't answer. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Any public comments in support of the measure? Please come forward. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Pease come forward. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Please come forward. Seeing none, bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from the Committee, Mr. Alvarez?

I'll give it a shot. A question you can answer. When is the credit secure data system going to be up and running?

Parts of it are running already.

In its full implementation?

In its full implementation? I do not have the answer to that, but I think there is.

That's not a gotcha question.

No, we do have an answer provider in the audience, so right here.

Please.

Thank you. Assemblymember Irwin, Assemblymember Alvarez. Eric Flores, Deputy Director for Legislative Affairs with Cradle-to-Career. We anticipate analytical data tools being available throughout 2024. We have an iterative process, both supporting our practical tools in our data system as well as those data dashboards. We anticipate sometime throughout 2024 with expectations of the fall for our first two dashboards.

Thank you. I only ask that because I know Miss Irwin, like me, is someone who likes to have accountability in the projects, and there are a couple of different data systems related to education that are out there. We are discussing as should we maybe consolidate and figure out how to have one system. I know you're into that kind of work, but I really wasn't clear on when this particular system was going to be fully implemented. That's why I was asking.

And California is one of three or four or five states that do not have a longitudinal database that really tracks students all the way from cradle to career. So this is the state effort that is putting that database into effect, and it'll have additional options for students to help them, let's say, fill out their FAFSA or talk about transferring colleges. Transferring colleges will help them figure out what the best careers are and the pathways to them.

Yeah, we're looking forward to that. Thank you for your work on this, on the board or working group. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Miss Bonta

Thank you for bringing this forward. I know that the State of California has made a significant investment in establishing college savings program accounts for our children. One of the challenges up to their, I think, first grade, one of the big challenges with that is in the cradle time when they are not in the. When they're not in the school system to be able to fully sign up for those accounts and access them.

Do you have any sense of whether or not the C2C would ensure that there would be integration with our college savings program?

I don't think right now that is being planned for, but there are, I think, at least 25 different data providers. And so there certainly is, there would be opportunity to use the data to reach out to students proactively if we asked for it.

I think we should.

All right, thank you. Seeing no further questions or comments from the Committee. Thank you very much, Miss Irwin, for your continued leadership on this important effort. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? We need a second on the motion. Second. Madam Secretary.

File item 15, AB-2723. The motion is do-pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

6-0. The Bill is out.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next in sign order, we have Miss Rubio, file number eight, AB-2254.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for allowing me to present AB-2254 relating to charter school renewal criteria. I would like to start by thanking the Committee staff for their diligent work. With the passage of AB-1505, in 2019, state law anticipated that charter authorizers and charter schools would be able to rely on supplemental data to inform the crucial renewal or closure decision process, at least until the statewide student growth model was included in the dashboard.

At the time the sunset was put in place, the law assumed the growth metric would be included in the dashboard before the sunset expired. As a result of the pandemic delays, in testing data and other issues, the incorporation of a growth metric into the dashboard has still not been realized. The circumstances that led to the inclusion of the use of verified data for renewal have not changed. The status and timing for inclusion of growth metrics in the dashboard is still unclear.

Extending the authorized use of State Board of Education approved supplemental assessments will allow time for the dashboard to make progress on implementing a growth metric and help ensure the best possible outcomes for students.

As a result of extensive conversations with Members of this Committee as well as stakeholders, I am proposing author amendments that would include an extension of the authority to use verified supplemental data for three years or until the student growth metric is fully implemented within the dashboard, as well as including the proposed Committee amendments numbered two through six. With me here today to testify is Cristina De Jesus of Green Dot Public Schools. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair Muratsuchi and Members of the Committee. My name is Cristina De Jesus and I am the CEO of Green Dot Public Schools and I have the privilege of representing 10,000 current Green Dot students and over 22,000 scholars who have graduated from our schools since the year 2000. Charter schools embrace accountability and are the only schools in California that have to earn the right to continue serving students every two to seven years.

It is critical that authorizers have the complete picture of a school's performance when making these high-stakes decisions before inadvertently closing high-quality school options. Ánimo Ellen Ochoa Middle School, a Green Dot school in East Los Angeles, is a perfect example of why verify data is critical. In 2020, this school was labeled a low-performing school using metrics from the California dashboard, despite the fact that state test data showed its students were learning at close to two times the pace of their grade-level peers.

That same year, verified data showed that students at Ellen Ochoa grew more than 97% of their peers across the state in literacy and more than 57% of their peers across the state in math. Thankfully, we successfully renewed the school and it continues to be a bright spot in East LA to this day. In fact, earlier this year, Ánimo Ellen Ochoa was recognized, along with four other Green Dot schools as a California distinguished school. Proof that this school was worth fighting for.

AB-2254 is a step in the right direction toward a more holistic evaluation process. We know that even when the dashboard metric is fully implemented, there will still be gaps, particularly for high schools, and more data may be necessary to support the high performance of schools like Ellen Ochoa. The narrow focus on proficiency rates undermine student achievement at schools like ours, who serve large populations of students entering below grade level.

Additionally, verified data allows authorizers to use data for grade levels not included in state testing, thereby adding more accountability, not less, during the renewal process. Without the use of verified data, decisions could be made to close schools like Ánimo Ellen Ochoa that truly are transformative in helping their students accomplish life-changing growth. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Colin Miller. I'm the Vice President of Government Affairs for the California Charter Schools Association, the sponsor of this Bill. I want to start off first by just thanking the Chair and the staff for all of the dialogue and conversation around these very, what can seem to be, very technical issues related to the data that's affected by this Bill. And while we all can get really buried in the weeds of those technicalities, the principle here is really quite simple.

When making high stakes decisions in our lives, it's always important to look at the most complete and relevant information that's available. That is the premise behind this Bill. This Bill would simply allow charter schools to continue to provide specific supplemental academic data in addition to the state dashboard in order to inform the high stakes decision to renew or close a school, a decision that will impact hundreds of students and families.

Extension of the use of supplemental data is essential, particularly at this moment, because of these pandemic related delays that have resulted in not only a delay in the growth metric into the dashboard, but has also created delay in the use of these metrics for charter renewals because renewals have been delayed as well. So the rules that we applied in 1505 simply haven't been implemented yet.

The dashboard growth data is a critical component to assess school success, and as of now, it's still unclear when, if, and how that will be incorporated into the dashboard. We know that when fully implemented, the growth metric will leave notable gaps for growth in high schools, for early elementary schools, and for small schools, for example. Addressing these conditions will require a deeper look and further dialogue in the future.

AB-2254 will maintain an important backstop to ensure that high-stakes decisions are made using the most complete and relevant data. Extending the sunset now will not resolve all of these issues, but it will provide time and experience necessary to evaluate the most effective means for quality decisions in the future. So we request your support on this measure available for questions. We also have our Chief Schools Officer here for any technical issues that come up.

All right. Thank you very much. Public comments in support of the Bill, please come forward.

Laura Kerr, with a Charter School Development Center. In support.

Jeff Rice, with the Association of Personalized Learning Schools and Services. In support of the Bill with the author's recommended amendments. Thank you.

Alice Kessler, on behalf of Aspire Public Schools, also in support.

Roxanna Villaseñor, Superintendent of River Charter Schools. In support.

Matt Taylor, with Gateway Charter Schools. In support.

Jonathan Muñoz, with Green Dot Public Schools. In strong support.

All right. Seeing no further public comments in support of the measure. Witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Mister chair, Members Seth Bramble.

Oh, your mic is not on.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and Members Seth Bramble for CTA. In opposition, this Bill allows charter schools to continue using different metrics than other neighborhood public schools for school accountability purposes. And it's time we all got on the same page. I want to provide a brief history to illuminate a problematic sequence of events. In 1992, charter schools were established in California with a promise.

We'll give you the freedom to innovate and you will show us results, and we'll look to you to determine whether there are some policy shifts that could benefit the entire public education system. How can we learn from each other if we are being held to different standards? In 2017, California launched the dashboard, our state's school accountability tool. We rejected toxic testing, and now we look to multiple measures, school climate, parent engagement, graduation rates, facilities. It's time all public schools use the same measuring stick.

The dashboard in 2019, we sponsored AB 1505, in part to hold charter schools and neighborhood public schools to the same standard. Our Bill was the result of significant negotiations with the sponsors, and although the interest of the public is best served when all public schools are on equal footing, the sponsors pushed for a transition period to use so called verified data through January 2026.

Last year, the Governor and the Legislature granted a delay in renewals that will mean some charter schools will not face accountability for nine years. Yet here the sponsors come back again with more. Please. Wait, wait, wait, wait. We're not ready. Charter schools are defined in law as public schools, and the policy path forward is to hold them accountable to the same system that we hold all of our public schools. That's the dashboard.

As we get closer to the date when charter schools will join the rest of our public schools and being held accountable to the dashboard, it's frustrating to see the sponsors continue to muddle up the process. Using data sources outside of the dashboard, De-emphasizes areas needing improvement and mass deficiencies that require attention. If we're serious about every child's future, let's get serious about doing what works. We urge you to reject this proposal.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chairman Marcelo Key and Members. I am Carlos Machado with California School Board Association. CSBA is opposed to AB 2254. Our Members recognize and support the important role that charters play in providing one of an array of choices that families have in districts. The others include magnet schools, CTE programs, open enrollment, districts of choice, and intra district transfers. One of the responsibilities that governing board Members don't relish as an authorizer is the prospect of non renewing a charter school.

We recognize the profound impact and disruption that this can have on students and their families. They do not take this decision lightly, and it is as hard as a decision to close one of the district's traditional public schools. However, it is at times necessary to protect the interests of students. For this reason, it is important that the tools authorizers use during the renewal process to assess how well a charter school is serving its students are consistent with the state's rigorous accountability standards.

Many of our Members have expressed serious concerns about extending the use of verified data. The variations among the more than 20 different assessments and their differences with the state's own assessments make them inherently unreliable and add complexity, especially for the many districts in the state that do not have staff that are primarily work on charter oversight. The issues of unreliability is especially concerning when the results lack the sensitivity to identify issues before they become serious.

School districts and county governing board Members want their charter schools to be successful. When a charter school fails, it leaves not only families, but also district and county programs to pick up the pieces for the impacted students. CSBA is also concerned about creating a bifurcated system of accountability in the state, one for traditional public schools and another for charter schools. AB 2254 would set a troubling precedent that divides our public school system.

For these reasons, CSBA is opposed to AB 2254 and respectfully request that you vote no on the Bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill?

Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in opposition.

Mister chair and Members trusted Brown with the CFT still in opposition.

Thank you very much.

Elmer Lazard on behalf of the California Labor Federation in opposition. Seeing no further public comments, bring it back to the Committee. Questions? Comments.

Thank you to the author for bringing forward this Bill. I know that you are always trying to ensure that there is balance throughout our entirety of our public education system. Two questions. One is the assertion that this closures are so high stakes that we need to continue to use verified data. I wanted to have you all the proponents address the actual process for closure when there are schools that are in the kind of lower performing category.

My understanding is that there are significant safeguards and kind of guardrails along the way to ensure that it's not exclusively based on unverified data.

Yeah, so what happens with the dashboard data as it relates to charter renewals? A process that, by the way, doesn't happen with school districts, is that they are placed into three different tracks for renewal relative to their performance on the. And so we have a high track, Low track, and a middle track.

Those schools that are in the Low track are really the most vulnerable as it relates to not getting renewed, because the presumption in the law is that those schools will not get renewed unless, you know, unless there's sufficient verified data through a very rigorous process that can support the approval of the school and that there's a plan for improvement in place. So this is different than the dashboard system for everybody else, which is about identifying schools for improvement and then continuing on.

There's a presumption of denial. For schools in the Low track. If they do get renewed, they're only allowed to have a two year renewal. So they'll have to be back every two years in order to retain that their school to stay open. So it is a much higher bar in terms of that.

So for those schools, for instance, if you had a high school that was in the Low track, you would not have any growth data available, even when the growth metric is in the dashboard, because high school only tests it one year. And the dashboard growth system data, as it's designed and ready to be rolled out, actually only has growth for grades four through eight. So, for instance, in high school, what would you then do to evaluate that school that fell into the Low track?

Maybe because only of status, where, you know, in the example, though, Ochoa-Bogh, the school may be, may be accelerating improvement for students, but that won't be reflected in the dashboard. So that's why some of these issues become really important.

But the bottom line is that for those schools that are in the lower tier category, they have an opportunity to kind of go through a due process procedure, enable them, they are able to get an improvement plan put forward. And the one consequence is that they have a limited renewal for two years, not closure.

I just want to clarify that.

But the data that would support that is available through this verified data process. So when you expire that and it goes away, then that will no longer be an option.

Well, presumably there would be an alternative. I have another question, and I guess this would be to the opponents, isn't verified data a good thing to consider?

No. I think that what we saw prior to the adoption of the dashboard was overemphasis on toxic testing. We had folks teaching to the test. We had a thinning of the curriculum. We've pushed back against that and developed this multiple metric system. Verified data is really overemphasis on test scores. And California school accountability system is no longer based on test scores. They're just part of the story that's told by the dashboard verify data has always been bad policy.

The analysis points out on page five that some verified data sources use CAHPS data and then weight the growth that students are expected to achieve differently based on race. So I would ask you, assemblymember, you know, do you think black students, for example, would gain about six months this year on their test scores? In terms of a prediction, how far would we expect Latinos to grow in on these test scores? This is not good data.

The analysis identifies clear and undeniable racism, and as a state, we have moved away from focus on test scores to a more holistic view of whether a school's performance is meeting the needs of students it serves both school wide and for student subgroups that are significant. When we established the Local Control Funding Formula in our state, we set up a school accountability system that is drawn from 10 priority areas of the Local Control Funding Formula. We look at instructional materials, we look at chronic absenteeism.

It's time to let verify data go and get on the dashboard. Charter schools are public schools, and they should be held accountable to the same levels of transparency and accountability as all other public schools through the chair.

Can I just ask one more question? So I appreciate that. And presumably that's why this sunset was put in place. And I think it's a fair thing to have at the end of the day, all of our school systems on one data system. We just essentially looked at a Bill where there's problems when we're kind of looking at apples and oranges throughout our educational system. Just to the author, I heard you mention some amendments that you are considering. Can you elaborate on those?

Yes, absolutely. Because I do understand the argument. The point is that, but dashboard was supposed to be online for this data on June 30. All we're asking is an extension because it won't be available on June 30. And so what I proposed, and we've been discussing with the Committee, is how long is long enough, and that's why I'm proposing three years or when the dashboard is fully implemented, whichever is not comes first. But whatever is available at the time.

If it's not available, then we would come back and ask for an extension in three years. I'm being honest about kind of the process, but if it's available sooner, which is the. I think the point of contention is that it will be available sooner, then that's why I'm proposing three years. Or when the model is available, the dashboard is available, and that's why the original sunset was set on 1505, assuming that that was going to be available on June 30.

And because of the pandemic and other issues, and, you know, it's, we have different issues in state government when we're trying to implement, especially systems like this, that it may take longer. That's why I'm proposing either the three years or when the dashboard and the growth data is available.

All right, Mister Hoover, Mister Alvarez, and Mister Mccarty.

Thank you. Thank you, the author, for bringing this forward. Think this is a great Bill. You know, I'm a little confused by the opposition here. Verified data. You know, we just heard that it's not good. But Carlos, isn't it true that school districts use verified data to identify their struggling public traditional schools? I mean, I know as a school board Member, we looked at verified data, so I'm confused on kind of this point that verified data is a bad thing.

I appreciate the question. So our concern with the 30 or so assessments that are approved by the State Board in these instances do provide for some areas where it doesn't accurately measure what is happening at the charter school. Those points have been highlighted in the analysis. We're concerned about these particular assessments that we think don't suit this purpose appropriately.

I think it's important to identify those inadequacies where they're happening in those charter schools early so that either we can bring differentiated assistance to the charter school earlier or be able to monitor problems before they become more serious later on. So that's our concern with the use of verify data in this particular instance.

Okay, so you mentioned in your testimony that you want to see similar accountability standards used across the board. What are the accountability standards that are being used for traditional public schools right now?

Well, we have the dashboard and we have the testing that's happening now. That's consistent through all schools, and that should apply to whether you are a charter school or a traditional public school.

Remember, there was discussion about three tiers for charter schools. Like school districts also face three tiers in terms of you have assistance, you have differentiated assistance, intensive support also as part of. So school districts that qualify for the state systems of support show if they show such Low performance that there's not progress being made among the student groups and they fall into the Red Zone. In the dashboard, it's like color coded on two or more educational indicators on the dashboard.

Test scores, suspension rates, all these things. California's accountability system means that a school district that's not performing well in the dashboard can be required to implement intensive interventions by the state. Superintendent of public instructions. Similar how the state takes over the fiscal decisions by school board when a school district goes into receivership. But charter schools are an experiment in ignoring the laws that are codified in the education code.

And if they're not delivering results, then the experiment should end and students can go back to their neighborhood schools that are ever present as a safety net. So, bottom line, it's time for charter schools to join California's school accountability system just like all other neighborhood public schools. Doing so enhances accountability at Fosters Trust, it facilitates informed decision making, and it supports quality improvement efforts.

Seth, with all due respect, you just pointed out a major distinction that will continue to exist. Right. So I guess my question for you is instead of having charter schools having to renew every five years, would you support a Bill that instead would simply require them to go through an intensive process with a state Superintendent, or would you support legislation that would require traditional public schools to have to go through a renewal process and a performance review? I mean.

I mean, that would be putting things on the same playing field. Is that something that you would support.

Again, you know, charter schools, I think I envision as, like, the research and development section of, like, the public education system. So when you have this experiment where schools don't have to follow any of the laws that have been developed over the course of, you know, since 1992 in the education code, and that school is not performing well for students, you move on with that experiment.

And you did say that every five years, just to be clear, part of 1505 was that if the school is doing well, they can be renewed actually for seven years, and there's default approval. So just like we have default denial for a school that's not a great learning environment for students, we have default approval for a school that has shown that they're doing really, really well.

Thank you. Last question for the proponents. Can you talk to me a little bit about the, I guess, shortcomings of the dashboard, particularly when it comes to measuring growth? Because when you're going into a charter renewal process, it's all about not necessarily where students are in that point of time, but have they shown growth in that school over a period of time? What are the limitations that we face with the dashboard that, you know, verified data allow us to get a better picture?

I'll point at a couple things and then I can turn it over to Colin. One is that it really measures how close or far away students are for, I'll just say, proficiency or status. It measures last year's kids against this year's kids. So it's not a true student growth cohort growth measure.

And there could be students who are growing tremendously in the case, for example, of of Animo Elinochoa, but who aren't at proficiency or are still far away from standard who will not show up in that growth measure. And so in essence, the students are the furthest behind. We're not, a, getting credit for and nor are those students getting credit for their growth. And b, we really have no idea across the state who is serving the students who are the furthest behind the best.

To me, that is the biggest gap in the dashboard.

Yeah, I would just add to that there also is gaps. And what we're talking about, we have no problem with the dashboard for charter renewals. It does have array of values and priorities that the state has, and that's a great thing. We're really glad the state's moving toward a more holistic approach of accountability. What we're talking about really is the academic metric in the dashboard and how that's used for charter renewal.

And in the charter renewal statute, academics are considered the most important factor in the renewal decision. So it's important that we get that right. And what we have is we have a growth metric that eventually will be in the dashboard that will only address grades four through eight. So if you're not in those grade levels or you're serving students out of those grade levels, you're not going to be reflected in growth in the dashboard. And as Christina said, even for those grades, it's a limited growth.

It's not really looking at individual student growth in terms of their own improvement and the school's improvement. So it's quite limited. We know that the schools that are also getting identified for the Low track because the dashboard is a proficiency based metric and it's a really good metric for identifying schools for improvement. What it does is also it over identifies schools that are serving the most high need students for that improvement purpose. That's probably a good thing.

When we're talking about improving schools statewide, if you're looking at that, and that's also the trigger that over identifies schools into the Low track for presumptive denial and closure of that school, that's not a good thing. And we see that in the dashboard data as we look at these renewal tracks. Overrepresented in that Low track are the schools that are serving the most high need students in the state.

That's a bias that cannot be fixed because it's based on how the dashboard was intended to be used for identifying schools for improvement. But having that additional data to show how those students are working and how well they're improving is critical to make that decision effectively.

Okay, simply Member, may I clarify a couple more things? Sure.

One, I just want to say clarify a few things. Charters are no longer an experiment. We are a part of the fabric of public education system. Two, AB 1505, as Collins states, requires us to focus on academics. So we can't not focus on testing and verify data would allow us to provide more data to show how schools are doing. Verified data is a list of data that was vetted by Wested and is approved by the California State Board of Education.

It's not a random set of data and we are not on the same system. As you pointed out. If we really want to get serious about great schools for all kids, let's put traditional public schools to the same system. Let's put them up for renewal every two to seven years. And in fact, by our own analysis, approximately 700 traditional public schools will qualify for the Low tier right now. What are we going to do about it?

Yeah, yeah, I couldn't agree more. I think that definitely is an excellent point. Now I will just say, you know, just. And then I'll be done. I know I've taken a lot of time here, but I really appreciate the author for bringing this forward. We'll be supporting it today.

I think as a, just as a former school board Member, I think at the end of the day, and I know CSBA brought this up as well, these are really delicate decisions and discussions that are happening at the local level. In my opinion, it is better to have more information when you're looking at a school, particularly a school that is serving specific populations, that you have as much information as possible when you're making these decisions.

And so I think we do need to extend this for the three year period. So we're happy to support that. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mister Alvarez, then Mister McCarty, then Miss Bonta.

Thank you. Want to take the moment to maybe have us all take a breath, deep breath. It seems like we are right now in some of these responses going to our worst common denominator and that should not be what this conversation is about. I will say, and I don't think I've said this ever publicly to any of you, is that I was involved in my younger activist days before I even had kids, in actions to close a charter school in my own neighborhood in Barrio Logan.

It was actually my former middle school, which then converted into a charter school which was just a complete failure. And we organized as a community and certainly the charter folks wanted to continue operating. We had struggles with the board of education, but after a few years, it felt like we were able to successfully do that. And I only share that story because I do think that there are instances in which schools should be shut down. Absolutely.

And so I don't think people should be able to just allow to operate indefinitely. And so I was concerned with the Bill, when I read this Bill on essentially the removal of that sunset entirely, which I would not have supported. I also am concerned as a parent of two, an elementary school student and a middle school student, that some of this verified data by people who I highly respect in education is being identified as not really great sources of information.

Because as a parent, I depend on some of these sources of information to understand how my kid is doing in school. Obviously also in consultation with the teacher and the parent teacher conferences which we just had not long ago.

But, you know, the first in the analysis listed which I know is used a lot by our elementary school achieve 3000, which measures the growth of, or at least gives me an understanding of where my, my child is as it relates to reading that's relied upon a lot by our school. I was part of the PTA. We had to raise money to buy that program so that our kids could have an additional tool.

And so to say that that tool, and I'm sure there's other good ones that I don't know about as much are just like to be dismissive about it is maybe topic for another conversation, but definitely concerning to hear. I'm going to operate it under the assumption that the folks at the State Board of Education determined that these are decent tools to measure how much our kids are learning for the moment, for this discussion.

But I think what is most important, again, just like the previous item when I asked about it's a shame that I don't think the Department is here. Is anybody from our state board of education here in the room that can answer questions on this Bill? No.