Senate Standing Committee on Education

Okay. The Senate Committee on Education will come to order. Good morning, everyone. There are 24 bills on today's agenda. However, Item Number 18: AB 2046, from Assembly Member Bryan has been pulled by the author. 16 bills today are on consent.

They are as follows: Item Number Three: AB 456, Item Number Four: AB 1939, Item Number Five: AB 3262, Item Number Six: AB 810, Item Number Eight: AB 1575, Item Number Nine: AB 1796, Item Number Ten: AB 1871, Item Number 11: AB 1805, Item Number 12: AB 1821, Item Number 15: AB 1930, Item Number 17: AB 2044, Item Number 20: AB 2173, Item Number 21: AB 2179, Item 22: AB 2268, Item 23: AB 2345, and Item Number 24: AB 2630, and also AB 1955.

Just kidding. We will begin with a special order to hear AB 1955 from Assembly Member Ward. Welcome, Assembly Member. Please take your place at the podium. Today's witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to three minutes to ensure the committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. Seeing no quorum, let's begin as a subcommittee with the first bill. Welcome again, Assembly Member Ward. You may begin when you are ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators who will be joining us soon. I'm here today--

Hey, I'm sorry. We really don't have a quorum. Let me wait for one more member.

Let's wait for one more member. Appreciate your time.

I appreciate your patience. I was on a roll there.

It was a good roll.

Yeah. I would ask any members of this committee who might be watching on a monitor somewhere to please come join us. All right, well, let's welcome to my colleagues. Senator Glazer, Senator Wilk, good morning. I was all raring a go, got started, noticed you were watching.

All right, let me once again say we still do not have a quorum. This is seven-member committee, but again, witnesses will be asked to limit their testimony to three minutes to ensure that we will complete today's testimony, and we will now start as a Subcommittee, and welcome once again to Assembly Member Ward. You may begin when ready.

Well, thank you, Mister chair. And again, Senators, good morning. I'm here today to present AB 1955, the Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today's Youth Act or the Safety Act.

Since 2020, there's been a growing national attack on LGBTQ people, with a number of states and California school districts enacting policies that explicitly require teachers to notify parents if their child identifies as transgender. These policies are known as forced outings.

Forced outing policies that require exposing students without their consent harms everyone, parents, families and and school staff, and importantly, those students by unnecessarily pitting students at risk and removing the opportunities for families to build trust and have conversations on their own terms.

Although many LGBTQ youth have supportive families, some unfortunately continue to face rejection and are exposed to serious harm if prematurely forced to reveal their identity. Young people thrive when they have a parental support and feel safe sharing their authentic selves at home.

In fact, when LGBTQ youth have their parents support, they have stability and they feel safe sharing their identities with them. Unfortunately, not all young people are able to be their authentic selves, and it can be harmful for LGBTQ youth to share their full identities before they're ready.

Forced outing policies have a measurable impact on the mental health of LGBTQ students and have led to a rise in bullying, harassment, and discrimination. We all know that when one population of the student body is bullied, harassed and discriminated against, all students are impacted.

As was stated by Kai, LGBTQ youth who bravely joined us in announcing this important piece of legislation, students who have been forcibly outed before they are ready face harassment and abuse, both at school and at home.

Consequences of such bullying, harassment, and abuse have contributed to LGBTQ students getting kicked out of their houses and, unfortunately, some attempting to take their own lives.

Had it not been for an empathetic teacher who allowed Kai to be able to come out to his parents on his own terms, he not only would have been deprived at the time. Excuse me. Excuse me.

I'd ask the audience to please give the author and all other witnesses a chance to speak, and if you don't do that, we'll have you removed. Please continue.

Kai's truth was that because of an empathetic teacher, he was able to come. Come out to his parents on his own terms. If not for that, he wouldn't have been able.

He would have been deprived of the time needed to form some of the best discussion with his family when coming out, but he also shared that he would not be with us today. His story is one of countless youth who are heavily impacted by forced outing policies that target LGBTQ youth in our state.

Forced outing policies not only run contrary to academic research, but also the laws and policies that target or invite targeting of students on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, which which are prohibited under state and federal law.

As such, I partner with my colleagues on the legislative LGBTQ caucus to introduce the Safety Act to strengthen existing protections against force outings of students in schools. First, it does four things. The Safety Act prohibits and invalidates any policy, rule, or administrative regulation that requires a forced outing.

Second, this bill affirms that teachers and employees shall not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity of students and shall not be compelled to to disclose such an identity unless required to do so by law, such as due to suspicion of harm, as mandated reporters.

Third, this bill protects teachers from facing retaliation for simply doing their jobs, teaching, and providing a safe school environment. And fourth, the Safety Act provides parents, guardians and families of LGBTQ students with critical resources in order to support them in working towards acceptance on their own terms without interference from others.

Now, by strengthening some of the existing protections and supporting families, we will ensure that all students are safe, supported, and not isolated due to any part of their identity, as well as to ensure that families are able to have personal conversations and work towards family acceptance on their own terms.

With me to speak in support of this Bill is Kristi Hurst, a parent and the co founder of our Schools USA, and Shay Stevens, a teacher and parent herself. Also here is Jennifer Chao, the Interim Director and Staff Attorney with the ACLU, to answer any technical questions.

Thank you. Welcome to the witnesses. Please come forward. And I think, Miss Hurst, you are first.

Yes, you're first. You don't have to be first. You can be first. All right. Please, you have three minutes. Welcome.

Hi. Is this good?

It's great.

Good morning. My name is Kristi Hurst. I am a public school parent of three children and also the Co Founder of Our Schools USA, a national nonprofit dedicated to protecting quality public education for all students. Parents across California contact us daily concerned about forced outing policies and the extremist school boards that pass them.

The parents span a variety of races, ethnicities, classes, political groups, and religious views. Their united in recognizing forced outing is harmful, does nothing to improve education and is a waste of public resources. After Chino passed forced outing policy last July, I received dozens of letters from students, parents, teachers, and community members, and I've provided them for you.

They said, my child is actually not safe at their school. I'm a teacher who hears how afraid students are of this policy. Not only is this discriminatory, they also create a climate of fear and bullying in schools that's bad for all my students.

This district needs to stop wasting our tax dollars and start doing what benefits all our children. Forced outing has made our district the subject of ridicule and mockery. It damages our community, its image, and also affects our home values, which are closely tied to the reputation of our school district.

My family has started looking into other school districts. Parents did not ask for a school board to dictate how we raised our children, students said, I feel belittled, uncomfortable and unsafe in my school. The district's job is not to protect the feelings of parents, it's to ensure the safety of all students.

I should not be forced to tell my parent who says slurs against LGBTQ people that I am what they hate. I am afraid that I will be cast away from my family if they find out.

Students and their families cannot survive another year of this not being resolved by the state because the extremists won't stop wasting public money on their political crusades. The time to resolve any ambiguity is now. Pass the Safety Act because we need quality public education and safe learning environments.

We need school boards to be focused on educating kids, not political crusades. Thank you.

Thank you. Miss Stevens, welcome.

Thank you.

Please proceed when ready.

Okay. Good morning. My name is Shay Stevens and I am a high school teacher in one of the 12 districts that has passed a forced outing policy. I'd like to share a personal story about the impact this has had on the culture and safety of our school.

When we became privy to the fact that our board would be voting on this policy, we encouraged our students to come to the board meeting and be part of the democratic process. Inevitably, many in our LGBTQ student community felt compelled to attend.

We sat in our school's library listening to grown adults berate our most vulnerable students by referring to them as abominations, accusing them of pedophilia, and calling them all sorts of dehumanizing names. Some even brought prepared signs to hold up in front of the crowd. Only one identifying student spoke at the podium amid sneers and whispers.

As I looked around the room, many of the kids sat in silence, tears streaming down their faces, unable to find the courage to stand up and defend themselves against those who are supposed to protect them. Encouraging those students to attend that meeting was the greatest mistake of my career.

Since then, it has been one discriminatory policy after the next, from the ban of all flags, Save the American or state flag to attempts to ban mental health services for our students. Board meetings have gone from traditional 45 minutes to four to 6 hours.

We're chasing our tails trying to do our day jobs while also fighting to maintain a safe and healthy environment for our students. It has become blatantly clear that this push from the outside, from outside political propagandists, has nothing to do with parental rights and everything to do with discrimination. Against our most vulnerable populations.

This imbalance of power has made it clear that I, having the privilege of being an educator with a voice, had to come here today and speak to the damage these rogue boards are doing to our children. Student safety should never be compromised by extreme ideology.

It is our solemn duty to protect and serve every student in our classrooms. Please allow us to teach in a welcoming environment where children feel safe, stand with educators, and pass Assembly Bill 1955.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. At this point, I'd ask any members of the public who'd like to come forward and testify and support the bill to come to the microphone and state your name, your organization, and your position only. Thank you.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning. Craig Pulsipher here today on behalf of Prorietta, Translatina, San Diego Pride, San Joaquin Pride Center, the Translatina Coalition, Tom Homan, LGBTQ Law Association, and West side activists in our schools, La.

Thank you. Next please.

My name is Tony Hoang. On behalf of Equality California, respectively ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Kathy Moehlig, she/her Trans Family Support Services I vote, as well as American Atheists, the California LULAC, California School-Based Alliance, Heart of LA Democratic Club, the Inland Empire, Prism collective, and the LGBTQ Center of Orange County.

Thank you. Next please.

Nicole Moroles, on behalf of Children Now in strong support.

Thank you. Next.

Shonda Wesley, on behalf of our families, our voices and strong support, and on behalf of the following allies, parents and family who have asked me to express their support for AB 1955, Miss Goboudreau and Erica Bauman Whittier, Nicole and David Beckstra and El Cajon, Claire DeVries, Folsom, Mara Hui, Sacramento, Christy Barnas, West Sacramento.

Emily Levy, Santa Cruz, Claudia Vieira Allen, Elena Sobrante, Gillian Levi, Escondido, Josh Clark, Sacramento, Monica Tarbuskovich Mather, Dana Watts, Orange County, Peter Dahlan, Jeff Inslee, Chico and from Sacramento, Kristen Wagner, Kim Mickelnay, Queen Boos, Nicole Roberts, Morgan Cotton, Stephanie Baxter, Kelly Stout, Kristen Stout, Paula Knoll, Elizabeth Campbell, Renani Stokes, Christina Niemi, Melanie Bean and Valerie Oldham. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Sylvia Romo from Sacramento with the Building Skills Partnership, also a parent of a Trans youth in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Emily Lowe, parent from Davis in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Frank Bailey, Greater Placer County PFLAG, in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Next please.

Diane Bailey from PFLAG, Greater Placer County, I have a Trans son and strong support.

Thank you. Next please.

My name is Laura Barrett. I live in Sacramento and I have a nonbinary youth in my family. I'm here to support this bill, AB 1955.

Thank you. Next please.

Hi, Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association in support also on behalf of the LA LGBT Center, North County LGBT Resource Center, One Institute, Our Family Coalition, Our schools USA, Carlsbad and PFLAG, Fresno. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Hi, my name is Kristin Milliken, I live in Sacramento. I have a nonbinary youth in my family and I'm here because I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Jackie Howard with California Teachers Association on behalf of my three kiddos in Placer County schools.

Thank you. Next.

Hi, my name is Randy K. Stevens. I'm a parent here in Sacramento. I want all of our schools to be a safe place for our students. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you, Mister chair and Committee, I'm Karen Humphrey, I'm with the National Women's Political Caucus of California and we support this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, I'm Sue Granzella, retired member of from 32 years as a CTA Member, and I'm in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Tiffany Mock, on behalf of CFT, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Kat Besse, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support.

Thank you. Next please.

Doctor Jonathan Higgins with Rainbow Pride Youth Alliance here to support this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Kanan Durham of Pride at the Pier in Orange County and a Trans man, and I support this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, my name is Bri from Glendora. I'm a queer, non binary educator on behalf of myself and every single LGBTQ youth who is no longer with us and cannot speak for themselves, I speak in strong support of this Bill. Because every child needs a supportive learning. Thank you.

I'm Angie Gavant on behalf of Glendale Unified Parents for Public Schools, and we are in strong support of passing AB 1955. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Jessica Geshe, San Mateo Board Member, PFLAg San Jose Peninsula. Strong support of this bill. Thank you,

Thank you.

Hello. Claudia Silva, elementary school teacher and strong supporter of this bill.

Thank you. Next please.

Laura, public school parent of two children and I support this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Jessica Marquez, on behalf of State Superintendent Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond, in proud support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, my name is Linda Ortega from the Mount Diablo Education Association in the Concord area. I am a proud auntie of transgender children, students and my sister. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Anne Bowler from Placer County, and I'm in strong support of this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Millie Yan, a parent of public school kids in Placer County, and I'm here in support of AB 1955.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hello, Jacob Daravala from the Inland Empire. Representing parent Renee Boiardo, the Trans Youth Liberation and Divine Truth Unity Fellowship Church. And we are in favor of this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, my name is Michelle Tong. I'm with Our Schools Placer, and I'm in strong support of AB 1955.

Thank you. Next, please.

Rex Carpenter. I'm with Placer County. I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Meg Wiese. I'm with Our Schools Placer, and I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, my name is Daisy Katherine Gardner. I am with Our Schools USA Los Angeles. I am a parent of public school children and a LGBTQ youth. I am also here for Safe Redlands schools. Tricia Keeling, Amber Easley, and others in strong support of this bill. Thank you so much for considering.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. My name is Doctor Emily Mitchell. My pronouns are she and her, and I am here representing the California Community College LGBTQ Advisory Committee, and we are in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you, Doctor Mitchell. Next, please.

Ellen DeBach Riley, proud citizen of the LGBT community and hoping this bill will pass because it will protect today's youth against what my generation experienced.

Thank you. Next, please.

Barbara Brass, leader of the Rat Pack Resistance Action, Tuesdays and Thursdays in Placer County. I support this, as does my organization. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Celia Medina Owens, proud public school teacher, second graders at Foothill elementary in Pittsburg, California, and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Bob Carson. I'm a proud educator from Antioch, and I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Doctor Rob Darrow. I'm from Santa Cruz. I'm a parent. I am a lifelong K-12 educator in California. I'm an Adjunct Professor in the credential program at CSU Monterey Bay and also Director of professional learning for the Safe Schools Project of Santa Cruz County, and our organization strongly supports this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

I'm Julian Jacaranda Jacqueline. I'm a student speaking on behalf of queer youth and students from Santa Cruz. And all across the county country to say that we all show support for this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Sean McMullen Chen. I'm a teacher, high school teacher in Manhattan Beach, California, and parent and resident of Manhattan Beach, California in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning. Marcela Chagoya, 25 year long career educator, middle school, my entire career here in support of this Bill, representing United Teachers Los Angeles and LAUSD and California Federation of Teachers and CTA.

Thank you.

Hello, Talia Diaz Catano, I'm a proud parent of a first grader and also a public school educator in Boyle Heights in LA, and I'm in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Next please.

Hi, my name is Kathryn Eisenstein, I'm an educator at Lausd. I'm representing UTLA, CTA, CFT and as the aunt of a child who is non binary, I strongly support this.

Thank you, thank you. Next please.

Eve Banas with the Sacramento LGBT Community Center and strong support.

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning. Jesse Aguilar, I'm a high school art teacher in Bakersfield, been teaching for the last 28 years and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning, I'm Hector Vega, here on behalf of the Association De Maestros Unidos. I'm a US history teacher in Los Angeles and I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning. Jay Mason, proud educator from Campbell, California, In strong support of this bill.

Thank you, next please.

Hi, Renata Sanchez, I am an elementary school instructional coach where I work primarily with probationary teachers gaining their credentials from San Jose, and I stand in support.

Thank you, next please.

Hi there, I'm Allison Klabe, high school special education teacher in Palos Verdes and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, next please.

Hello, my name is Dane Contarsi, I'm a teacher at Hawthorne High School. I teach world history, AP Economics, AP government, and AVID and Hawthorne High School, Sentinel Valley Secondary Teachers Association and CTA support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, next please.

David Navarro, public school teacher and father of public school students and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Angela Doramos, fifth grade teacher and a school board trustee in Salinas and I support this Bill.

Thank you, next please.

Good morning. Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth in support.

Thank you, next please.

Good morning, my name is Maureen Kiros Gray, I'm an educator in Norwalk, La Morata, and I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ismael Armendariz, President of the Oakland Education Association. On behalf of our 3000 Members, we strongly support.

Thank you. Next please.

Hi, I'm Kristin Lowevenos, I'm a secondary English teacher in Compton, California, and I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, I am Colonel Pat Thompson, and I served 37 years in military service to our country and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you for your service. Next, please.

Hi, I'm Stephen Frazer, a science teacher in Chino, California, and I'm here in support of this Bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Tracy Taylor. I'm an elementary school teacher in Ontario, Montclair, and I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. My name is Wei-Tsu Loh. I'm a school psychologist for children from K to high school, and I strongly support this Bill from Pomona.

Thank you.

Good morning. Astin Williams, California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network, and we strongly support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in strong support.

Thank you.

Jeannie Kim, law student and Public of California or product of California public schools and strong support.

Thank you.

Kathy Mossberg on behalf of the APLA Health, San Francisco AIDS foundation and the Epidemics Coalition, all in strong support.

Thank you.

My name is Stanley Clover. My pronouns are he/they. I'm a proud Trans man, and I, strongly support this Bill.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm the Reverend Alex De Silva Soto. My pronouns are they, them, and theirs. And I serve as Sierra Foothills Unitarian Universalist and strong support of this Bill and gratitude for it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, thank you for your time. My name is Alicia Watkins. I'm a journalist with the Voices of Placer and as a Member of the 2SLGBTQIA and a parent of a two s LGBTQIA student, I am in strong and passionate support of this bill. Thank you. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Next, please.

Carrie Fantham, Placer County parent of an LGBTQ student. I am in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Faith Lee, with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, we're in proud support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California Action in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, next.

Doctor Amber Bradley, government teacher representing the Washington Unified School District in West Sacramento, and I'm in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Megan Ellsberg, 7th and 8th grade teacher, President of Laguna Salada Education Association in Pacifica School District, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hello, Rachel Merlot from Pacifica, both parent and public school teacher for middle school, and I am in strong support.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Chelsea Grove, parent of three children at Elk Grove Unified School District, and I am here in opposition of this Bill.

Thank you.

This is support. Next, please.

Good morning. Shannon Catanella. I am a resident of California. I am the parent of three children spanning three districts in California in the Placer Area. And I strongly support the protections of this Bill.

Thank you to the sergeants. Anybody else outside? Okay. That's all the support. So terrific. At this point, we do have a quorum. Let me get that established. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We do now have a quorum. And now we will move on to opposition to the measures. So for the principal witnesses in opposition, the measure, please come forward to the table. And as you do, let's welcome Julie from Missouri, who is watching loyally, as she always does.

Is trying to come up right there.

She knows she's in all of the emails. There's just two.

All right. I show two principal witnesses, Ms. Aurora Regino and Dr. Arthur de Lorimier. Which of you would like to go first? Like the other witnesses, you have three minutes. Please proceed.

All right. Hi. Thank you. My name is Aurora Regino. Until the events involving my daughter, I was a registered democrat. I voted for same sex marriage. I am a plaintiff in a lawsuit that I filed against Chico Unified School District for their secret social transition of my 11 year old daughter.

In the fall of 2022, following the death of her grandfather, my daughter was depressed. I also had breast cancer, and our family was going through a difficult time. My daughter was influenced by her school to believe that her sadness was because she was really a boy.

When she told a school counselor that she felt this way, the counselor did not tell me. Instead, without contacting me, the counselor and my daughter's teacher arranged for the entire school to begin using a male name that my daughter had picked out and referred to her with the male pronouns.

The school cemented and encouraged this male identity for my daughter behind my back. Over that period, my daughter's depression worsened. Finally, my daughter told her grandmother, my mother, about what was going on at school. My mother told me. I was horrified that the school had done this without even informing me.

My daughter was just confused about her identity. When I learned of what was going on, I was able to get my daughter the therapy she needed. But because she had been socially transitioned at school, she felt trapped in the new boy identity that the school was encouraging.

She continued to go by the boys name and pronouns for the rest of the school year because she felt trapped. My daughter still struggles with her mental health today. Later, when I complained to the school about what had happened, I learned about the school's parental secrecy policy, which takes parents out of the equation.

This drives a wedge between the parent and child. I understand my daughter's school continues to deceive parents to this day. Had I not found out what the school was doing to my daughter, she likely would have kept identifying as a boy. Like many children, she probably would also have moved towards irreversible medical interventions, like a mastectomy.

Before I learned what was going on, she had already had conversations about breast binding with the school counselor. AB 1955 is misnamed. It should be called "School Secrets Act" because that's what it is. If it passes, children will be universally harmed. Schools should not keep secrets about children's acute distress with their body.

Gender dysphoria can be a serious condition, and parents need to be involved in their children's treatment. If you want to prevent suicide in trans-identifying children, you involved parents. Parents are the people who love their children the most and unconditionally.

Gender dysphoria is a mental health issue completely different from sexual orientation and dysphoric children need help from their parents, not secrecy from their school. The Children's Secret Act puts vulnerable children at risk when they need their parents the most. I am not the only parent with this story. Read duty's opposition letter, vote no on AB 1955. Thank you.

Thank you. Dr. Lorimier, am I pronouncing that correctly?

Close enough. My name is Dr. Arthur de Lorimier. I am a Chief of Pediatric Gastroenterology at the University of California Davis. I am a clinical professor and I care for trans-identified children.

My comments are strictly my own opinion as a pediatrician and a California native and are not intended to represent the position of the University of California. A transgender child is a child with a gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria.

Under the current "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders", the dysphoria is characterized by a child's severe and persistent discomfort with his or her sex. Until about a decade ago, gender dysphoria afflicted fewer than 0.01% of the population and mostly young males.

That figure began increasing exponentially right around the time schools started teaching that a person can be born in the wrong body. Social media contributed to this massive surge in adolescents, mostly females, into adopting trans identities. Last year, Reuters reported that in 2016, there were 1000 California kids diagnosed as gender dysphoric.

By 2020, that number had tripled, and that increase continues to steadily climb. Nothing in medicine increases like that without external forces. The Cass Review, published last month, is the largest systematic review in the world regarding gender dysphoric youth.

The report raises significant concerns about socially transitioning minors using new names or pronouns or whatever, stating that the transition is not a neutral act, but a profound psychological intervention with potentially irreversible consequences. The Cass Review also noted that dysphoria is often combined with other acute mental health issues that must be addressed.

Dr. Cass found the quality of the evidence to transition minors was, "disappointingly poor". New court documents reveal that the Johns Hopkins 2020 Review reached the same conclusion. Parents must be involved in their gender dysphoric children at the inception of the adoption of a new identity. Schools should not conduct psychological interventions without parental consent.

Parents play the most vital role in the physical and mental wellness of their children. Gender dysphoric youth are at greater risk of suicide than their peers from the distress of the dysphoria, not from being unaffirmed. Keeping the behavior of these vulnerable children's secret from their parents is ill advised at best. I urge you to oppose AB 1955 in any form and I'm happy to take your questions.

Thank you. We'll get to questions. Please hold your applause. Are there any members of the public who'd like to come forward in opposition to the measure? If so, please come forward to the microphone. As with the supporters, we would ask you to state your name, your organization and your position on the measure. And that is all.

Good morning. I'm also here as a technical witness if you need one on the law. My name is Erin Friday. I'm a licensed attorney. I represent Our Duty, Protect Kids California and Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender. I'm a mother of a daughter who used to believe that she was a boy.

Thank you.

My name is Denise Aguilar, co-founder of Freedom Angels, in opposition. Also speaking on behalf of Sonia Shaw of Chino Valley School District, in opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Tara Thornton, co-founder of Freedom Angels. And on behalf of all the Californians that don't know about AB 1955, do not support parental alienation. We are in strong opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Julie Lane. I'm a lesbian democrat from San Francisco. Here as a member of Women are Real, Women's Declaration International and Women's Liberation Front. And on behalf of the Coalition of No One Can Change Their Sex, the Coalition of Lesbians, Gay Men and Bisexuals, and the Coalition of Sane People. I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Cynthia Cravens. I'm a recent candidate for California State Senate district 11. I'm with Women are Real and I am a lifelong liberal. I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Beverly Talbot, liberal democrat and lesbian from San Francisco. Concerned about gay and lesbian youth being told they are born in the wrong body simply because they are gender non-conforming--

Just your position, please.

Strong opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Nicole Young, Moms For Liberty Placer County, in strong opposition. I'm also representing Kimberly Crabtree from Placer County, Christina Munoz, Dan Sturger, Gretchen Stevens, April Huckabee and Amanda Kuntz. We are all in very strong opposition.

Thank you, Ms. Young. Next, please.

Cheyenne Kenny from Oakland, California, and student at UC Berkeley. Strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Lance Christensen, Vice President of the California Policy Center, in strong opposition to this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Brena Sheehy, representing Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids Advocacy, in strong opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, Joanie Greep, mother of a 15 year old, 13 year old, and eight year old in public schools. I'm a registered nurse. I'm a locally elected board trustee on my school district, and I'm here on behalf of Take a Stand Stanislaus, California Nurses United, and numerous individuals who could not attend today. The following names: Corinne Whitlow, Joseph Whitlow, Kelly Selman, Michael Gamas, Cassandra Gamas, Anthony Durazo, Anna Durazo, Vanessa Santos, Candice Weirck, Laura Estrella, and Stephanie Degrees, in strong opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Megan Short, mother of four school age children, in strong opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Elizabeth Kenney. I come from Oakland, California. I represent poor moms against overreaching hands. This bill is going to destroy the trust every parent has--

Thank you.

Yeah, I oppose it.

Thank you.

Rochelle Conner on behalf of Frederick Douglass Foundation of California as well as Concerned Women for America, representing moms and families across the the state, in strong opposition and respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hello. My name is Margaret Arader. I am the mother of public school students. No child is safe when lies of gender ideology are taught in school. I am opposed to this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Leandra Lepp, and on behalf of myself and other LGBTQ friends who understand the value of parents, we oppose this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Ava Dubose, and I am 13, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Sabrina Williams, on behalf of Mom Army California. We strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Courtney Graves, and I am part of Mom Army California, and we strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Jodi Buda. I've been an educator of California public schools for 25 years, California public school administrator, and I'm against this bill. Along with the South Placer Republican Women's Federation, Ladies of Auxiliary, Board of Placer County, and Moms for Liberty, against this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Zachary Holse, and as a high school student myself, I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Charlotte Johnson, concerned parent. We parents deeply resent schools making us parents the enemy. Is anyone even--

Your position, please. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Beth Bourne. I'm the Chapter Chair for Moms For Liberty Yolo County. My daughter was socially transitioned at Davis. Here's a big article in the Sacramento Bee about how she grew out of her trans identity. And I just want to let you know, I strongly oppose this bill because my daughter was able to grow into a young woman.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Jessica Spade, mother of five, trustee in a local placer county school, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, Chair. Samara Palko with California Catholic Conference, in opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hello, Leslie Sawyer, Moms for Liberty Shasta County. Also here for Katie Gorman of Moms for Liberty Shasta County and Protect Kids California. We super strongly object to this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, my name is Palace Leavitt. I'm the California co-chapter leader of Gays against Groomers, and we strongly, strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council and in opposition with our 70,000 subscribers. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Pastor Brandon Campbell, Faith Baptist Church in Wheatland and Northern California Director for California Baptist for Biblical Values, in opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Christine Campbell, concerned parent, in strong opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Peggy Delgado Fava. I'm a school board trustee, Executive Director for Bridge-Network and Sacramento Networks with at-risk youth and also a survivor of early childhood trauma that dealt with gender identity issues. I'm also affiliated with Amen Clinics as a brain health professional. I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Stephanie Swela. I'm a concerned parent, grandparent and a great-grandparent. We are responsible for our children's--

Just your position, please. Thank you. Next, please.

--I oppose this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Alison Novello of Reality Encompassed Values For Our Women, in strong opposition of AB 1955.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, Senators. My name is David Bullock. I'm representing the San Fernando Valley, excuse me, SFV Alliance, LA County Chapter of Moms for Liberty, Mary C. Weller, TruthXChange, the Facts Law Truth Justice Law Firm, Taxpayer Oversights for Parents and Students, Informed Parents of Capistrano Unified School District and your favorite, Goat Farmers for Better Government. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bullock. Next, please.

Morning. Mike Murray, parent from Rockland Unified School District, speaking on my behalf and on behalf of American Counsel. Please trust the parents in opposition to this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Coming from outside, do we have any? I think we do. None? We're done? We're good. Okay, let us come back to the dais here for questions or comments from my colleagues. If I could, I think if we could have the two primary witnesses come from each side come back to the table, please.

Welcome back. Colleagues, questions, comments for the author regarding the bill? Senator Glazer.

Assembly Member Ward, thank you for your work on this issue. I know it's not an easy one, given the testimony we heard today. I just had some basic questions I wanted to ask you about. Is this bill consistent with the Education Code in regard to parents' access to their school school records?

Yes, it is.

Does this bill interfere in a parent's communication with their child in any way?

No. They are free to communicate with them in any way they see fit.

Does this bill limit the ability of a counselor or a teacher to communicate with a parent if they thought it was in the student's best interest?

It does not limit them. In fact, it requires them to be able to do that if it's in the student's best interest.

Does the school get involved in any medical procedures of a student?

Never.

Thank you very much.

In fact, I would add that that is always--gender-affirming care for minors is always--in the state--is always subject to parental consent.

Thank you, sir. I'm happy to move the bill at the appropriate time.

Appreciate that. Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, and I appreciate the questions by my colleague, Senator Glazer, and I just want to say thank you for bringing this forward. I often say in these environments that I am also mom of a public school student, and I am absolutely in support of this bill because of what it means for the child.

I actually have a neighbor who is transgender and going through his experience, and learning from his experience has not only made me a better Senator, but a better mother, just understanding what these children are going through and that they're not issues that prevent a parent from still having conversations with their child about their identity.

And so with that, it is brave of you and the LGBTQ Caucus for bringing this forward, and I just want to thank you, and ultimately, of course, support. And I know it's already been moved, but would be happy to move it along.

To move it again. Any other comments? Questions? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Hello, Member Ward. First, I want to highlight the fact that it is encouraging to see that one thing that everyone has in common, whether you're in support or in opposition of this bill, is the fact that everyone cares about our children and everyone is trying to do what they feel or understand to be best for that child. And I think we have to focus on that and not--and understand the anger on either side of what it entails as we move forward and to understand that when it comes to the root of all anger, is fear.

So as we navigate this very delicate subject, as we all have family members or friends, colleagues or constituents that are members of the LGBTQ community, that we learn necessarily, not necessarily accept, but most importantly, respect. And I think that's important in the conversations that we have.

And I'm trying not to get emotional on this part because I do see, I do see the needs. With that, as we are going to discuss this bill, I do have some questions, and we're going to flow along with them very delicately, but I do want to preface some facts with this bill. Let's begin.

And I want to clarify, because sometimes what I hear, and I try to be very objective, and when I hear discussions on legislation, I try to hear both sides and try to facilitate the discussion because sometimes we get so involved in our own understanding and our own biases that we can't see the other side, and sometimes what I see is communication that goes like this. So in pursuing the line of questioning, I'm going to be very, very--try to be as clear as I can be. So preface my discussion with a few facts about this bill.

Currently, it's my understanding that there are eight school districts and one charter school that have passed a parental notification policy and none of those policies require schools to reveal a student's sexual orientation. Am I correct?

I believe that is correct.

Okay. And the reason I say that is because we're talking and referring to this bill as an outing, and I think there is a misunderstanding that right now, currently, as there's a contention between whether or not parents are informed or not informed, we're viewing that as a means of publicly letting people know where a child is with their sexual orientation or their gender dysphoric. And we're going to go through that really quick. So what I understand is that--

Senator, if I may?

Yes, yes.

Actually, my notes were miscorrect. Actually, the Chino Unified School District does have a policy that is both on sexual orientation and gender identity, and certainly, given the status of the ambiguity that we have today, any school district could be able to pass a similar policy as well.

Similar. Okay. So we're going to request--I'm not sure if anybody here has the language on that because it's my understanding that it doesn't include that. Oh.

I do. I'm a Chino parent, and as well as the head of Our Schools USA, and the Chino policy requires that it is actually under an injunction at the moment, but when it was put into place, it requires parent notification if a child asks to use a restroom of a gender other than what their bi ons on their birth certificate, if they ask to play on a team, and also if they ask to use a pronoun or a name in their official or unofficial records.

That is how the policy reads in Chino. So--and that's the similar policy that has been adopted by districts across the State of California. So I believe Anderson has the same policy. There's a few minor changes across the state, but Chino is the only district that has ever actually implemented the policy fully, but again, it is under--temporary. It's under an injunction at the moment, and they have revised the policy as well, but that has not come forward or nothing has happened with the new revision.

Ms. Froy, you want to comment on this specific issue?

Yes. Please, because I wrote the policy for--I wrote the parental notification policies. So the parental notification policy for Chino Valley does not touch on gen--or sorry--sexual orientation at all. None of them do. I wrote the majority of them. They all deal with whether a school is participating in the social transition of a child.

So when a child asks the school to change their name, when a child asks the school to call them different names or accommodate them by permitting them to use different bathrooms or a different sports team, it does not cover where a child--where a teacher hears that a child is transgender. There is no notification requirement whatsoever. It's only if the school participates in the social transition, which is a psycho, social, medical intervention for the child.

I appreciate that. Ms. Hirst, to your point, that at least implicitly, that's exactly what's happening if a parent is notified about a student's choice of restroom, correct?

Correct. But again, it is under an injunction, but that was it, and it is if a student asks to even use anything. It doesn't have to be likes changed in the record. If a student asks the teacher to call them by a name other than what is on their official record or go by a pronoun other than what is on their official record, that would prompt a notification.

Okay. Now Senator Ochoa Bogh, ask for clarification so we can move on. I don't know if we provided it or not, so go ahead, Senator.

Thank you. So basically, change the record--or so, these policies only require parental notification if the student requests that the school participate in the social transitioning? Correct? Meaning that they're requiring different bathrooms or different name pronouns or if they want to use sex-segregated spaces that don't align with their biological sex?

If a student requests to go by a pronoun or a name other than what is on their official records, that prompts a notification to their families, their parents. Correct.

Yeah. We wanted to make sure that we have that clear. Okay. So, many school districts have adopted the 'secret' social transition plans at their schools, basically not informing their parents that their child struggles with gender dysphoria. The plans are a result of the Department of Education's frequently asked questions.

What is the--what is interesting is that the Department of Education's lawyers have admitted in court that the secrecy--this is not my words, by the way; not my words; I'm reading here--'the secrecy policies are not law. AB 1955 will require the schools to keep the students' gender dysphoria private from the parents unless the students give permission.' Is that correct?

So, first, I would object that characterization that schools are adopting secrecy policies.

Okay. Privacy.

Privacy policies are upheld under both the U.S. and the state constitution, and in fact, that is what has basically come under challenge in many of these court cases, and so as we are seeing, ultimately, general consistency that a constitutional right to privacy prevails over other questions that are being evaluated, still some ambiguity under some of the technical details when a certain element of that case needs to be permitted to be able to move forward. So that's where we're trying to be able to clarify sort of the common baseline here through this bill.

Okay. And AB 1955 would apply to a student of any age, is that correct?

It does apply as general policy throughout school districts. However, the support direction under the fourth point of this bill is actually applicable for grades seven through 12.

But it is for--it could potentially apply for any, for any child, any age?

It applies for any school or school district.

Okay. Got it. Okay. So under this bill, what would happen to a teacher or school employee if they tell the parents of a student's struggles with gender dysphoria or that they have adopted a transgender identity without the permission of the student?

Nothing would happen under this bill. If a teacher, as a mandated reporter, does feel that there is reason for concern, if there is an exhibition of, you know, declining performance in schools, struggles, clear attribution of mental health struggles, or the worst, of course, a self-reported worry or risk of harm, for any of these reasons, using, I think, best-sense judgment, there is an allowance for them to be able to exercise their duty as mandated reporters, but what this does do is it does not actually create or permit an overarching policy that prohibits forced outings.

And that is the distinction there: use basically an individualized discretion to be able to do that, and it also would prohibit, I think, the activity, the overarching activity that we're seeing at some of our schools that are putting teachers in a very difficult place where they don't want to be the gender police. They want to teach.

So when we say forced outings, what you're really technically referring to is informing the parents? Not necessarily, because I don't think any, any policy or any teacher would publicly disclose a child's sexual orientation or unless that child requests to be publicly referred to by certain pronouns. I don't think any teacher would publicly inform the rest of the school district about the child's personal identity, right? When you say outing, you're referring to parental notification, letting the parent know?

Yes. So, I'll simplify yes, but maybe summarize in later thoughts.

Okay. All right. So.

Please. So, Ms. Chou.

Just to address, Senator, your question about the Attorney General's statement in the Mirabelli case. So the Attorney General did say that the guidance issued by the California Department of Education is not binding, but that's true of all agency guidance.

What the Attorney General did say is that the law that underlies the guidance, California's anti-discrimination law, California Constitution, that is what is enforceable. The Attorney General has issued a clarification to say that specifically. And so it's not true that the Attorney General has said that the CDE guidance is not enforceable.

Briefly, Ms. Friday.

They have said it four times. I have the court documents that the guidance is guidance and it's not mandated by law. We need to talk about actually what the constitution permits. Is there a privacy right between a child and a parent? Do children have a privacy right against their parents? They do not.

And that's what the federal court said in the Mirabelli case, is that as between parents and children, there is no privacy right. So that is the Constitution of the United States. Also, the 14th amendment provides that parents get to care and custody and control of their children. So this law is unconstitutional as written.

And this statement in the bill that says this is just declaratory of existing law is a falsehood. I would love for the author to talk about what law it is actually that permits and requires schools to lie to parents.

If I may, the Regina case, I believe you're the lead plaintiff, did have a lower court dismiss the case finding under the US Constitution that a parent's rights were not violated. That is on appeal to the appellate court. So you can see the ambiguity right now at both the state and federal levels.

Yeah. And I was, you know, I was kind of curious. I was trying to look a little bit more, and I found this article, Landmark Court Decision Affirms Parental Rights in California, which it had really interesting points and in which it said, amongst other things, that, and this is where I'm going because I understand the intent of the bill, but the way that it's being formatted, I'm afraid that it's going to be found unconstitutional based on literally just the court findings that have been-- and I apologize if you folks see my watermarks here, but I spelled something on the paper.

But the court-- So there's various court cases that we have right now on the federal level, but part of it, there's some that said the laws concepts of the family rest on the presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions.

It just goes on and on and talks about the parental rights superseding the child's rights on here. So I'm reading all of these, and there's just so much, so much already that's been decided upon federally, that states, based on the Supreme Court, that it talks--

And I'll be more than happy to share this with you afterwards of what I found, but it actually the parents rights supersedes that of the child, according to the federal cases. And I'll be happy to share with you just this printout that I have on there. So overall, I think we need to clarify that what we're trying to do when it comes to addressing our children's course is the fact that one, parents do need to know.

I really, truly do believe, and I believe from my personal sphere of family and friends, dealing with these type of health issues, behavioral health issues, whatever you-- transition issues, sexuality.

I can tell you that no parent, when their child is going through this and knows that there is a risk for suicide or that there has been suicide attempts, that those parents will not love that child regardless. They might not accept, but they will definitely respect their child.

And I know this, I know, I know this from conversations with family members, friends that are going through this. And it might be right away, and there is anger for many, many parents.

At first it might come out as anger, but I think a lot of it is that fear of what is going to come after, what they're going to be dealing with. So it's a very difficult issue. It really is. It's a very-- I wouldn't say difficult, it's a delicate issue, really is a delicate issue for parents.

On that end, I just wanted to cover one last point here, and it has to do with the suicide component and why I think it's important. So we understand that there are elevated suicide risk for trans-identified youth. The figures go from 41% who have thought about suicide to 78% in last year's--

Let's see, in last year's bill, AB 665 all the way to 87%, which was the figure from the Attorney General's complaint against the Chino Valley Hills. And what I beg to say is when we look at the suicide attempts, they usually don't happen at school. It happens usually privately at home or somewhere else.

And this is one of the reasons why I feel it's imperative the parents do know. And once again, it's not regard to the whether or not you're gay. It's whether or not, you're experiencing gender dysphoria.

And I think that's the most important part for me, is that if a child is, in fact, going through that, that parents do need to be notified so that they can be aware if there's anything that could take someone's life at home, whether it's medication or whether it's guns or whatever it may be.

I think it's important for parents to be aware that that is available and that their child is going through this so that they can secure the home in order for those children to be safe and to really start having the conversations and the resources available for the families in order for them to be able to have and start those conversations.

So there's components on the bill that I truly, truly support. But fundamentally, I think the biggest holdback for me is informing those parents immediately that their child-- not the fact that they're gay, I don't think many parents, you know, they might have problems, but the one of concern to me is the gender dysphoric, just because that one has medical possibilities that are more impactful. And so that's where I fundamentally can't support this bill today.

But I understand the effort that you're trying to address today, and I hope I'm clear on that end and how sensitive I am to this subject at hand.

And I hope, I hope that we can find more healing amongst both sides in trying to build relationships on both sides, that we're trying to work towards the betterment and the well-being of our children, rather than vilifying each other and trying to understand the other side viewpoints and concern.

And I think that's just my seed that I'm going to plant today on that end, because we all, we all do care about our kids as they go through this stage in life. And with that, thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Chou, if it's about the law, do you want to add, please, clarification on the law?

Yeah, just to address something that Ms. Friday said. So it is true that under the Supreme Court, parents do have the right to care, custody and control of their children. That is one of the most fundamental rights in this country.

However, the Supreme Court has also said that that right is not absolute and that governments are able to enact laws and policies that touch upon that right when there is a narrowly tailored and compelling government interest. And the Supreme Court has also found that the creation of a safe and welcoming school environment is a compelling government interest.

So I just wanted to put that finer point on something that Ms. Friday said.

Briefly. Go ahead. Go ahead, Ms. Hirst.

Yeah. You know, I appreciate what the Senator was saying regarding parents. And so I wanted to just say that, you know, I am a parent and of course I'm involved and I think parents need to know and should know what's going on.

This is not the way to find out because no matter how we feel as parents, the fact remains that when you forcibly out a child, it harms them. That's it. This is harmful.

And I can tell you that I would not want my child forcibly outed to me because I know that's going to harm my relationship with my child. If my child is experiencing thoughts of suicide or struggling mentally, the school has policies in place that require them to notify me.

So I know that my child is safe because if they're experiencing that, I will be informed. And finally, I just want to end by saying and pointing out that the Senator brought up increasing suicide ideology thoughts.

And I have in my organization partnered with the Rainbow Youth Project USA and we have a crisis hotline for the State of California. And that was brought here when forced outing began. Since its implementation, that hotline has received over almost 1500 calls just from Chino Valley Unified School District. And these are from affirming homes, also, because these policies are harming all students.

It is bringing dangerous situations because they are being mistreated when we see these policies being brought forth, they've also received almost 5000 calls from the State of California. Their number one call is that the student is in crisis because they feel their government hates them.

Their government and their school board does not want them to exist. That is up from the year before the crisis reason being for fear of being forcibly outed. So when you see these increase in numbers, I can tell you that that is true for the State of California as well as their national numbers. The increase is due to these policies.

Ms. Friday, you wanted to make a point of law and I'd ask you to keep it brief.

Yes, about--

We want to settle all of the questions around the actual law here today. Go ahead.

So privacy is so important to understand. For a privacy right to exist, there needs to be an expectation of privacy. That's first and foremost.

When a student tells everyone at school and all the teachers and all the administrators and all the students know that the child has taken on a transgender identity, then that privacy right is lost. It's gone. And the only person who doesn't know about the child's transgender status is the parent. That is not called a privacy right.

And it is not permitted. So there is no privacy, right. When a child tells everyone, everyone. And that is true with sexual orientation, too.

There is a case from the appellate court that says once the student talks about their sexual orientation or private issues and they've publicly announced it to the entire school, it is no longer private.

So when a child tells everyone at the school to call them by a different name, use a different pronoun, treat them differently, that privacy right is gone. And the federal courts have found that to be true.

Thank you.

If I may, because I actually have from personal experience, that is not true. Anybody's ability to be able to decide for themselves to whom and the time and the manner they choose to be able to disclose any part of their identity is theirs to own always.

When you are a member of our community or you love somebody who is a member of our community, you've seen this play out not necessarily the first time. I had to come out in college, I had to come out again when I moved to a new community.

I had to come out again when I returned to graduate school. And so just because I had disclosed to some in spaces of who I was did not mean that I had to be able to evaluate a new environment and decide on my own terms to whom I'm going to come out.

Outing is a deeply personal situation, and it is important for them to be able to retain control over that in any situation.

Let me ask you a few questions, and we're going to move on, to first Assemblymember Ward. So, you know, the bill is about invalidating policies that require a school to notify a parent, right? But there's nothing about the bill that prevents a school from acting in the best interests otherwise of a child. Is that correct?

That exists in today's law.

Fair enough. And so I guess to the opposition's point, you know, what we're talking about is honoring the self expression of a child in the school environment versus, I think, the assertions been made here that certain school districts were taking an active role in the transition of a gender dysphoric kid. That's not at all what you have in mind with this legislation?

That doesn't exist. Look, the school's obligation, and honestly, our obligation as state lawmakers is to make sure that all school districts have safe and supportive school environments with a common thread of guidance and financial support that allows them to be able to do just that.

And so anything as we saw, I'm glad that our witness was able to bring up, you know, just let it crystallize for a second, the fact that in one school district that started this off just last summer, that we've had more than 1500 calls to youth mental health crisis lines and just that narrow geography compared to 5000 statewide.

Now imagine if this is something that was a statewide policy, the number of students that would be in distress. It is this change last summer in injecting politics into local school boards that have actually caused more harm than good. So I agree.

We have a lot that we agree on, and I know that you come from a really sincere and good place. And as a parent as well, I have a lot of faith in my kids. I think they're actually, you know, smarter than any of us give them credit for.

But they're growing humans and they have to be able to evaluate a lot of these questions, and they should also be able to, I hope, know that I have a trusting environment, that they'd be able to bring these conversations back to the kitchen dinner table. And I, as a parent, invite those questions.

So nothing I feel interferes with my parental obligations to be able to have those conversations. But I trust, and I would want our school districts to be able to focus on an environment that allows a student to thrive and succeed and excel at their academic attainment.

And so, at least by inference, you know, you're describing or pointing to an opposite situation where a child does not feel comfortable bringing those conversations to their parent. And Senator Ochoa made the point, and I know it comes from the heart that all parents at some point are loving and will be accepting.

But I think clearly that is not the experience among many children, which is precisely why they seek refuge and want that sanctuary that a school might provide them because they dont feel comfortable at home. So if you or one of the witnesses could speak to that. You may start.

I will just say again, let's not say all. Most parents are loving and accepting. And actually, most of these conversations happen at home. There are a number of parents who may have anger or may have shock or may have to process a lot of feelings, and that's understandable.

And they do come around, as many of us have experienced, but there are many who are kicked out, who are ostracized. So you cannot say all. There's a healthy number, it's a very sad number of youth who are immediately expelled from that home environment.

And this is why our foster care system is disproportionately made up of members of the LGBTQ community. This is why those who transition out of those systems, 40% of youth who are on our streets identify as LGBTQ youth because there is a disproportionate effect on those youth who do not have a supportive environment.

This is why the Trevor Project zone study show that 40% of youth do not feel they have a safe and supportive environment at home. Because maybe they've heard something. Maybe they've heard the way that parents talk about others, right? Not even realizing that it's somebody in your own orbit who you do love.

And that is the risk that they have to really walk. And sometimes you feel like talking to a student, a peer, or maybe even a teacher who you do trust is a gentle way to sort of test some waters about being accepted.

I also wanted to speak to the logistics of this. So, like, in theory, the policy that my school passed says that within 72 hours of noticing that a student is non gender-conforming, by choosing a new bathroom or asking to be called a different pronoun, we are to notify their parent.

Logistically, that is a nightmare, because how do we do that? And we're told we can send an email, we can make a phone call, or we can send a letter home.

I, as a parent, cannot imagine what it would be like to receive a letter in the mail from a teacher that says, I think your child is A, B, C, D for whatever reasons. I have no knowledge in how to deal with things like that.

I don't have the background, I don't have the capacity to understand this delicate topic. To write that letter home to a parent, the logistics there don't make sense. And asking us to do that puts us in a very precarious situation, not only with the student, but with the parents as well.

Because what if you get an angry parent that thinks that you're overstepping? Or what if that letter that you send home goes to an uncle or a friend or a grandparent who's not accepting? You don't know who's going to get the mail. You don't know who's going to get the email.

There are things that we are being asked to do that are absolutely unrealistic and the logistics of it are, in my opinion, cruel.

I appreciate that. And Ms. Friday, I want to be clear. You're a technical witness for issues of law, is that correct? So is this about a matter of law or something else?

Well, it's about the law, because the parental notification policy does not require a teacher who notices that a child is going by a different name to notify the parents. It's only if the student asks the school to participate in that social transitioning by calling them a different name, by changing records.

But to be clear, that can take an informal form, right? Where there's no form that a student has to fill out, right. Student makes a request--let me finish--to a teacher, you know, that's a request to respect their self expression as opposed to naturally being a request to participate in their transition.

The participation in the transition is when an adult agrees that you are born in the wrong body and that you are transgender and that you are actually a boy, that is--

But an adult is not necessarily agreeing to that by simply according that child the respect of the self expression that goes with the preferred pronouns.

I think the doctor can speak to what affirmation is.

Not even remotely accurate. So when you say to a kid, oh, yeah, okay, Johnny, you're Sally now, from that kid's perspective--

If the kid says, I'd like to be called Sally, and you say, okay, I'll call you Sally, that is not saying by any means that you are now Sally. It's simply saying, I will respect your right to self expression.

No, it's not that simple, sir. When an adult figure, especially a teacher, starts playing into any, in any way into the perception of reality of the child, and that perception of reality is still under a great question, the child is going, oh-- they think black and white. The adult is saying x, they're buying into it.

So how should we think about modes of play where a child wants to play dress up? It's a male child wants to wear female clothes.

That's an entirely different situation.

How's it different?

It's different because the child is-- That's taking place predominantly at a much younger age, when the child is exploring a lot of things, but it's not something where the child actually verbally says, I want you to start-- I think I'm a girl in a boy's body.

And I'd like to speak to the point about this fear of parents. And this is 33 plus years of being a pediatrician and dealing with the Child Protective Services and taking care of hundreds of kids who have been abused in various ways, both physically and mentally.

And I can tell you that the vast majority of the kids, even when I feel that they should be taken out of the home, are not taken out of the home because the CPS folks seem to think that in general, the parents are the better place for these kids.

I've learned over time that in general, they tend to be compared to a lot of the foster situation. That's a wholly separate conversation, I got it. But the reason I bring that up is because this bill is cutting off the legs of parents who, the vast majority of times, care desperately about their kids, even when they are a little bit dysfunctional, the parents, I mean. And it's accurate to say suicide takes place in the home almost always.

So if the parent doesn't know about this, if the parent is totally kept in the dark over what's going on. Yeah, the kid is at far more risk. And oh, by the way, the kids who start doing this transition are far more likely to enter the medical parts and the surgical parts.

And the only, giving the devil's advocate to the folks who think this is a good idea, the only justification that was ever really brought up that said, oh, we should probably do this is to prevent suicide. And now we see that's not happening.

In fact, the people who are going through this transition are more likely to commit suicide as adults. And that's the reason that the Dutch closed these and the UK closed these and nearly all of Europe has closed this.

Doctor, that's fine, that's fine. But I think--

No, that's a huge deal.

I'm saying I appreciate your testimony. I'm not saying it is fine. I think we're to get to a point of kind of diminishing returns here. Very, very briefly.

Yeah. I just wanted to bring up the fact of a not what if situation. This situation happened in our family, and my daughter was 11 and she was confused and they kept it a secret from me. And what happened with her was it actually made her more confused and more damaging.

And everybody talks about, you know, the bullying. Well, she was bullied at school with no support at home, and she was loved the most by us and she wasn't even, she was keeping a secret from us.

She kept a secret from you, right. And this is really the operative question. Assemblymember, which is, you know, there is at least you can infer a reason or a basis for a child keeping a secret for a time from their parents about their preferred--

Children keep secrets all the time. Sometimes they sneak a cookie, you know, and it doesn't mean that you're a bad parent because of that.

That's not a comparable situation. So this is the question, right? I guess, and I have a question for Dr. Lorimier, is I think you can make the distinction, I believe, and I believe that's what the legislation is trying to do, between respect for self expression and identity versus active participation in gender transition.

So what's a line that shouldn't be crossed for you, Doctor, in a school environment? Is it simply not recognizing the preferred pronoun or is it something beyond that?

When an adult in a position of authority is clearly buying into the perception that the child is the different gender that is crossing a line. Now, how that is manifest on a day-to-day basis is real difficult to pin down in any situation.

I can just tell you from my own experience after taking care of hundreds of kids, now thousands of kids, that when a teacher, even the teachers they don't like, agreed to a certain mode of perception of reality, the kids start saying, oh, yeah, yeah, that makes sense. I must be right about this.

Instead of an adult taking the time to say, hey, Johnny, what's going on?

But again, there's nothing about this legislation that prevents the teacher from having that conversation.

No, no, there's not. But the thing is there is in this legislation, preventive of the teacher actually recognizing this is going a little too far. I need to tell mom and dad what's going on.

But that teacher, in sort of conversing with the student, could secure that student's permission to talk to a parent under this legislation. What this bill, as I understand it does is it prohibits the blanket requirement of notification in that instance of-- Right, so, Ms. Hirst? Okay, good.

I know you asked me a question about, you know, kids being out of their homes. And I first want to start off by saying that through my work with the crisis hotline, we have had children in the State of California this past year who are kicked out and homeless because of being outed at home.

So I do want to make that point. I also wanted to state that if a child is struggling mentally and in harm or being bullied, those are situations where parents are notified. That exists outside of the privy of this policy and of itself. That's already a policy that exists.

And parents absolutely have the right to be involved in that. And they are. And I just, it is my understanding the doctor told the National Catholic Register he's a pediatric gastroenterologist who does not specialize in gender-affirming care. So I think that taking what he's saying is maybe not-- I have concerns about some of the treatment.

You're the opposition witness. We'll give you all the respect that you're due as the witness, but understood.

Can I just make a point about that? First of all, the idea that a child can trust what a parent is going to say, or what a school board is going to say is a real big question. Okay. When they talk to an adult, and they reveal something to them that is in some way potentially harmful, they--

We, as adults, need to make decisions about kids all the time, and I don't believe for a moment that schools are going to rethink or think logically, necessarily, and particularly about the bullying issue. You know, we've all been through schools here. I've been through public school here.

Plenty of people in here have been through the public schools and private schools, and I've never seen a kid getting bullied, very seldomly seeing a kid getting bullied, who any of the administrators or teachers talked about it. They don't talk about it. And these kids--

I'm not sure. What's the point you're making here?

The point I'm making is that to say that they're instructed to inform anybody that the kid is getting bullied, that's a nice thing to say, but in reality, that doesn't happen.

Again, separate policy, separate conversation about bullying. And I think the evidence is quite clear that LGBTQ and transgender kids do, in fact, get bullied whether or not you see it.

--that the school board is going to be in the best position to report that, or the school, the teachers, whoever, they frequently fail a lot of the time.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to better than that. Only on a question of law.

Question of law. So what everyone seems to be missing is currently, almost at every school district, there's a policy called AR 5145.3. And this policy requires that schools keep a transgender student's transgender identity secret unless the student says that it's okay to reveal it.

So it is the child that is making the decision, the child who could be 4,5,6, the child who could be suicidal, the child who could have other mental health issues. The child is the one dictating whether this is revealed.

However, everyone at the school knows except for the parents, the parents who are the only ones who are able to keep them safe. And Aurora's daughter was told by the school to lie to her about her transgender status, to lie to her own mother. That's what happens at the school.

Okay. And that may have happened in that instance, but I'm not sure that's what always happens. Ms. Hirst, very quickly, I know you have something you want to add.

I know we're talking a lot about kids perspectives, and since there's not a child here, I'd like to read an excerpt from a student's perspective shared in this building.

Earlier this month, Kai said, "had I not had a single supportive adult in my life, [his teacher], I never would have been able to find the strength to come out to my family or teach them what I had learned about who I am.Without a supportive adult, I would not have had my supportive parents beside me here today."

And what these policies really end up doing and what we saw in Chino Valley, is that the students who need the most support actually then closet themselves and they are unable to seek support.

They are unable to come to the support of adults in their life and teachers and let them know they are being bullied for their gender identity and their transgender status because out of fear that then they will be forcibly outed. And so we are isolating these kids who need our help the most.

And I think I would hope everyone in this room, no matter how we feel, we can set that aside and look at the facts. And the fact is, when you forcibly out kids, we prevent them from getting help and support, and it is harmful. The data shows it over and over, repeatedly.

And families that are affirming do not want these policies because we know that when our child is forcibly outed, it is harmful to them and it harms our relationship.

And as a mom, of course I want my kids to come to me, and I try to ensure that will happen by open communication with my teachers, with the school, and with my children, explicitly letting them know that I will love and accept them no matter what.

I speak positively about LGBTQIA issues, and I know that when they come to me, it'll be done in a healthy, communicating, supportive way.

So let me ask-- Briefly.

This has to do with the point about being a pediatric gastroenterologist. In that role, a big chunk of the kids I take care of are adolescents who have bellyaches, who I need to do a big differential and workup on for their bellyache.

And a majority of them are otherwise abnormal kids physiologically, who are neurotic and upset and anxious. And I've seen, over the course of just the last three years, a huge increase in the number of these kids being trans-identifying female adolescents who often will be coming into my office. And this isn't just a one off.

I've seen a bunch of these kids like this. They're dressed in real bulky clothes, oversized. And when you really get into talking with them at length and you get to know them over time, they just want to be a little girl again, and they don't want to be seen because they've had too many advances from nefarious adults.

And the flip side is true. I've had kids like this who come into my office, who are trying to find a way to be a different sex because they don't give the attention that they want in the given sex, and it has nothing to do with whether they're transgender.

I appreciate your point, but the real question here is what happens at school, right? So, Assemblymember Ward I guess there's been a lot of discussion around gender dysphoria, but the point was also made that unfortunately, because of these policies, LGBTQ or questioning kids get caught up in this and are forced to be outed as part of it.

Is there any way that would you make a distinction, like within the legislation, between the gender dysphoria portion versus simply respecting a kid's sort of evolving sexual identity? I mean, I assume you can't, but how do we think about that?

Let's be clear, because we've gone down a tangent, a related tangent, but that's not what this bill does.

It is not about gender dysphoria and it is not about medical decisions. That is covered in separate conversation and is very also clear in today's law in California, this is about harmful policies and when we are going to have a local district policy which forcibly is outing students and it furthermore, and I think to some of these points as well, actually is proactive in its way to be able to provide district resources that really take that conversation out of the classroom.

Referrals for parents, guardians, families, and students to support groups, safe spaces, reference to anti-bullying and harassment policies, counseling services. These are appropriate interventions and support networks that aren't necessarily for the classroom, for the teacher to be able to do their job, and that is to teach the subjects for which their job is directed. So I just-

I don't want to distract, I think, the core obligation of this legislation from what it is intending to do, separate from other questions that I know intersections with this population.

And I appreciate that. And I'm glad you brought us back to the purpose of this legislation. And so, Senator Wilk, go ahead.

Thank you, Mister Chair. First of all, I appreciate our conversation yesterday, and I appreciate the way that you're handling this. And you already know that I'm not going to be supportive, and these may be bad or rogue school districts, but I think parental, in my view, parental rights trumps bad policy there.

It's much easier to change school board members. I mean, if we got judged on the job we do as policymakers, we should all be out of here because we've not done a good job for California. But that's aside. So this is going to become lost. I know that.

So I just was reading through the bill last night, so I just got a couple sections I want to read, and then just so I have it on the record. And I think you're going to know, I'm not trying to-- You're going to have answers to all this.

I just want to kind of get it on the record. So I'm going to read the section and then ask the question. So in Section 2 (k)(1), it states "teachers and school staff can provide crucial support to LGBTQ+ young people and play an important role in encouraging them to seek out appropriate resources and support."

So a couple questions. So, under the bill, if an elementary school, because we've already identified that it could start kindergarten up, if an elementary school student identified as questioning and said they didn't want their parents to know and wanted to learn more about gender identity and potentially transitioning, what would an educational provider be required to do to comply with that law?

So the subsection that you had referenced is part of our findings and declarations which establishes, you know, we know how to write a bill. And, yes, it's just an affirmative statement that it's not exclusionary of other statements as well, that teachers and students and staff can provide crucial support to young people.

And so to your question, what would the direction, that I think references also is highlighted in the analysis, a teacher to be able to do. And that is to be able to access resources that are regularly updated, which are able to be able to provide for serving pupils in grades 7 through 12, a menu of options that provides for support groups, safe spaces, existing policies like anti-bullying, harassment, suicide prevention policies, counseling services, a gamut of options that can come with that.

So, again, they can be able to decide for themselves and hopefully, hopefully take that home to the parents and have these conversations.

Right. Well, you and I have already talked about. I know, because I know you're a great parent, and I know you and your spouse and I haven't met your kids, but I'm sure that they're great. And we know that vast majority of parents love their kids and be very supportive, and there is some that aren't.

And so sometimes I think we penalize the 97% that are good to go after the 3% who are bad. So I got just one other question as it relates. So, under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, parents have an absolute right to access any and all public records related to their child.

So under FERPA, would parents be entitled to access information regarding the child's gender identity and pronouns?

I do have a response for that. Can you read the-- Read it again?

So under federal law, parents have an absolute right to access all the information. So would they have access to that?

Yes. Under FERPA, they have access to school records.

So if the school, if the student changed their identity or whatever, is the school district obligated to put that in the official records?

Any official record say, and I think that would include medical say at the school nurse's office, anything that is a record would be eligible under FERPA.

Appreciate that. Again, I'm not going to be able to support you today because just conceptually, I think it goes too far. But I really appreciate the dialogue we've had and the way you conduct yourself and trying to bring the temperature down, because these are, as you know, sensitive issues.

So I just appreciate you, but just can't be there with you today.

Thank you. And let me also point out, Senator Wilk had a bill earlier this year that would ensure that parents had access, or everyone has access to instruction materials that are provided by school.

I'm sure it's going to get killed in the Assembly.

I was happy to vote for it. And so we're going to wrap up here, and let me say I want to honor the sort of assertion by all of the participants that the parents do love their kids and they want the best for their kids.

And that's kind of the irony here, that this bill is not really intended for those parents who have a relationship with those kids that allows for that sort of free and loving exchange information.

This is a very different situation where students, children do not have that comfort and find in school the only place where they can actually sort of exercise and affirm their gender identity at that time in their lives, which is a challenging time.

And so it's for those kids who are going through, you know, an awkward and very excruciating time that I think this bill is necessary. And there is, as I understand, there's nothing about this bill that prevents a school or teachers from acting in the best interests of those children.

It's, we're trying to ensure a situation where we don't require, as a blanket matter, schools to insert themselves in a way that's inappropriate, that may inflame those tensions at home. And so with that, this is clearly a big deal. Ms. Friday?

What FERPA and the way it works in the real world because I am a licensed attorney. And so when my daughter came out as a transgender child, I did a FERPA request to test the school to see if the school would lie to me one more time.

I requested under FERPA all of my daughter's records, and I knew that they were calling her by a male name and using male pronouns, and I did not receive one of those records.

And I work with hundreds of parents and I tell them to send the same FERPA request, and they know that their child is being called by a different name, and they never get those records. I guarantee you they never get those records because they create a secret file that is held in an administrator's office, so they keep that information secret from parents.

So let me-- That's fair. So Assemblymember Ward, does this bill allow for a school to keep a secret file or otherwise not adhere--

No, that's blasphemy. This law does not supersede FERPA. Right, state laws do not supersede federal laws. We understand this, and I'm sorry. If there was a record they did not provide for you, then you probably have grounds to be able to challenge them further on that, but they should have provided you all of the records that existed.

Is there anything implicit in your bill that would encourage a school not to adhere?

Absolutely not.

Fair enough. So, having said that, you know this conversation, and I've given it a very deliberate kind of long leash because I think it's important that we hear both sides and we hear it fully, and I think we have today, and I appreciate the input of both the support witnesses, the opposition witnesses, and all the members of the public here.

I will be supporting the bill today, and I hope that we will continue sort of working on these conversations to the satisfaction of all parties. And so with that, Assemblymember, if you'd like to close.

Senators, I want to thank you for your time this morning for a very important issue. I know that the conversation does need to continue, and because there are a lot of related points that are worthy of consideration, that this deserves to be able to continue. So I'm grateful for your attention this morning.

The fact of the matter is, over the last year, we have seen an explosion of unrest and ultimately harmful policies across our state.

I want to also highlight and thank our State Superintendent of Public Instruction, who went right down to Chino Valley and was forcibly evicted from that school district's conversation, unable to be able to contribute as our lead, as our lead for the Department of Education.

Our Attorney General, who has, through his leadership, been able to show a testing of a lot of these important questions as well. And some of those are not fully resolved through our legal system. But where this brings us here today is an affirmation that I think on several fronts.

One, much of the court discussion has been upholding, I think, superior elements of the law that respect the right to privacy and really try to de-emphasize, I think, the politicization of a lot of this policymaking. Two, we've got to remember that nothing in this bill actually prevents parents from having that conversation with their children.

And that should be done in a time and a place in a manner that is appropriate to them as well so they can have a sense of conversation. I encourage them to have those conversations.

And if a child is expressing any confusion or question or just, you know, how their development is going, I would hope that they would love them unconditionally.

Third, it makes sure that through all of this politicization and local district noise that we're seeing, that we're just getting back to where we were a few years ago, which is allowing teachers to teach and be able to provide a safe and supportive environment in which to thrive.

Because when that doesn't happen, and that our own research is showing those students that are feeling that they don't have a safe and support environment are less likely to continue on to higher education, more likely of harm to themselves.

And the spiral effect downward, I think, is showing in the number of youth that we see on our streets and those that are having mental health challenges as young adults and even latent effects into full adulthood.

So for all of these reasons, I believe that the safety act as we provided here today is well grounded not just in its conceptual principle and what some of us feel are best approaches, but also in the data that we've seen over the last 12 months as this has exploded in our, in some home communities.

And so for that I ask that you let the conversation continue to be able to work on some of these issues. I am always revisiting my own legislation to make sure that we are getting this right.

And I'm willing and open to be able to think about some of the deep and fundamental questions that especially this bill, but any of my pieces of legislation work on. But there are principles, and I think those are much data driven for me that we have to draw a line on.

And ultimately this is about protecting our youth. And that's why I've introduced this here today. And I'm grateful for your consideration. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And I know we had a motion from what seems like a very long time ago, from Senator Glazer. And with that, Madam, please call the roll.

File item one, AB 1955 Ward. Motion is due passed to the Senate Health Committee. [Roll call]

That measure now has four votes for, one against. We'll leave it open for the absent members, member. And with that, thank you to everybody who participated today. We're going to take a short recess. I'm not sure you all want to stay for Assemblymember Holden's bill. Although you should. He does excellent legislation. Thank you, everybody.

The normal order of business here. We welcome now to the podium Assembly Member Holden. Thank you for your patience, sir. You might have wished you didn't show up on time. We're glad to have you here. And you'll be presenting AB 359 and you may proceed when ready.

First of all, thank you Mister Chair and Committee Members, for giving me an opportunity to present AB 359, which is a phase one of dual enrollment reform. I'd like to thank the Committee and the Chair for working with my staff and coming up with additional amendment that we're happy to accept and I appreciate the collaboration.

AB 359 consists of policy recommendations from dual enrollment advocates that were presented at last year's Assembly Higher Education oversight hearing. This Bill makes necessary changes to existing law to ensure the success of CCAP by making it more accessible to every student to participate.

The evidence is overwhelming just how impactful and equitable CCAP is at improving college readiness for our students. CCAP students are more likely than others to graduate high school and earn college degrees.

It has always been my intention since the introduction of AB 288 in 2015 to allow schools the flexibility to prepare their students for the workforce and for four year universities. This Bill builds on great work CCAP has accomplished by eliminating barriers faced by underrepresented students, local education agencies, and community college districts.

AB 359 provides clarifying changes and establishes a framework to integrate pathways into every CCAP partnership. Specifically, AB 359 does the streamline student enrollment and participation in CCAP by removing the principal's recommendation and requiring students to complete one application. Allow schools to partner with community colleges outside of their service area if certain conditions are met.

Provide schools with the opportunity to teach courses online with appropriate student support in place, and ensure students receive credit for the courses they complete on their unique pathway. With me to testify and support are Celeste Lopez, former CCAP participant and current college student, and Carol Gonzalez, legislative advocate with Education Trust West. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And your witnesses. Welcome to both of you. Please proceed when ready. You have three minutes each.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Celeste Lopez and I am a sophomore. Is it working? zero, it was. Yeah.

Just. Yeah. Bring the mic just a little bit closer, Miss Lopez. You're good. That doesn't count against your three minutes. Nope.

Good morning, Taren Members. My name is Celeste Lopez and I am a sophomore majoring in political science at Sac City with future goals of going to law school to become a lawyer. I participated in the CCAP dual enrollment program the first year it was introduced at Davis Senior High as a junior in 2022.

Given the only limited variety of courses was available, I only managed to take seven courses across my remaining high school years. When I first heard about the CCAP program, it honestly seems like an opportunity too good to be true.

As someone whose goal was always to pursue my education while equally wanting to do so in the most financially efficient way, the opportunity to take college courses and receive transferable units at no cost seemed incredible. Even still, the dual enrollment program offers so much more to students than a more attainable pathway to college.

The HSI team at my school went above and beyond to ensure that I was never alone in the application process. Once I was ready to transfer to Sac City and reassuring that I felt secure in knowing that help was only a phone call away.

My college journey would not have been as smooth and as easy had I not gotten acclimated directly because of the program. In trying to find something negative about dual enrollment, the only thing that comes to mind is disappointment that I did not have this opportunity since I was a first year student in high school.

As I know the enormous possibilities and influence this would have had on youth across California in their academic dreams as well as mine, Assembly Bill 359 would only help reinforce the life changing pathway the CCAP dual enrollment program would offer, especially to those facing financial challenges in pursuing their education.

There is never a downside to providing the opportunity and path to those whose educational dreams of success seem far reaching. For these reasons, I absolutely support Assembly Bill 359 and hope it resonates with you. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please welcome.

Hi, good morning Chair Newman and Members. My name is Carol Gonzalez and I'm here on behalf of Education Trust West, a research and advocacy organization committed to advancing policies and practices that dismantle the racial and economic barriers embedded in our California Education System.

In a landmark report, Jumpstart Ed, trustwest analyzes dual enrollment data and finds that local education agencies and community colleges are not yet equitably serving black, native, and latinx students. Through dual enrollment, education leaders and policy makers have an opportunity to reimagine how strategies like dual enrollment can transform our system and students lives.

Therefore, strategies to increase dual enrollment access and participation must center on the needs of these students and families. College and career access pathways, or CCAP partnerships, aim to provide early exposure to college courses for students who may not be college bound or are underrepresented in higher education.

AB 359 will make it easier for LEA's and community college districts to develop partnership agreements and expand expand course offerings, an essential first step towards improving access.

We are particularly excited about the student friendly amendments that eliminate the requirement of the principal recommendation, clarify that students should only submit one application for their participation, and enable colleges to offer courses only to high school students at college campuses, high school, or online modalities.

We also appreciate that AB 359 prohibits from offering pre transfer coursework through CCAP and enhances students access to college level coursework. These challenges, these changes, sorry. These changes will ensure that CCAP partnerships are aligned and engaged with statewide efforts to phase out remedial education.

With that, I want to thank Assembler Holden for being a steadfast champion over the last few years and committed to getting CCAP program right since its inception in 2015. We greatly appreciate your diligence working with stakeholders, advocates, Committee staff to address dual enrollment student needs and challenges.

It's our goal to make CCAP a reality for every student and to ensure they get a jump start for their education, just like Celeste and how she shared with us today. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you both for your testimony. Are there any other Members of the public who'd like to come forward in support of this measure? So please come to the microphone, state your name, your organization, your position on the measure.

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

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Sara Bachez with Children Now in support.

Good morning. Samara Palko with the California Catholic Conference in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Anna Ioakimedes on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Dominique Donette with EdVoice in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Maria Morales, on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Adam Keigwin on behalf of the Television Academy foundation and the California Charter Schools Association in support.

Good morning. Stella Johnson, on behalf of the Association of Career and College Readiness Organizations and Small School District Associations, in support, thank you.

Bella Kern, on behalf of Pasadena City College in support, thank you.

Good morning. Sean O'Neill, Director of dual enrollment for Los Rios Community College District in support thank you.

Good morning. Nayeli Chaidez, Sacramento City College Hispanic Serving Institution Early College Program and support thank you.

Brendan Amberman, student support specialist on behalf of Sacramento City College and support, thank you.

Hello. Sam Nasher, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education and support, thank you.

Good morning. Carl Rodriguez Veltran, on behalf of the campaign for college opportunity, and we're in support.

Thank you very much. Let's now go to opposition. Is there anybody here who'd like to speak in opposition to the measure? Seeing none, let's come back to. zero, please. Sorry.

Tiffany Mock. On behalf of CFT, I just wanted to thank the author for the continued discussions. We hope that the program exists as exactly as the outstanding witness had discussed.

And so we want to make sure there's just a few more things we're looking over to ensure that every child has the quality access to these outstanding programs that we heard in the testimony.

Can I register you as a tweener? Yes. Okay. Very good.

Thank you.

Hello, Chair, Members, Kristal Padilla with the Community College League of California. I'm here on behalf of our chief Executive officers of California Community Colleges Board on an opposed and less amended position. We greatly appreciate the author for engaging with us as we work through our position and concerns.

More specifically, we look forward to working on the format of the request letter, the recipient of the request letter, and establishing a length on the CKAM agreement outside of the service area. Again, we look forward to working with the author and our board as we reach a collaborative agreement. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let us now come back to the dais colleagues. Any questions or comments? Senator Ochoa Bogh

Welcome. Thank you for this Bill. I'm very excited for it. I been an advocate. I just have one question, which it's always been kind of at the edge of my mind for many years.

When you do the dual enrollment and you graduate from the program, are you technically a, do you receive a high school diploma or do you receive a college diploma? How does that work?

Well, it depends on how many credits that you're able to accumulate during your time in high school. As was pointed out, if you take the, you start the program in your junior year or senior year, then you're probably not going to be able to get as many. It's 15 credits per semester. Per year.

And so for, as an example, there are eight students in the Pasadena Unified School District this year who will graduate with their AA degree, in addition to their college, their high school diploma. So you get both right. And so they start based on the amount of credits that are applicable to the University that they would be attending.

They could potentially start as a second year or first year junior.

I love this program. I'm grateful for this Bill, and I'll be happy to move it when appropriate.

Appreciate that. For my part, I appreciate the Bill as well. Grateful for you accepting the amendment. What that amendment also does is it aligns it with the Bill that I have, SB 1244 which is substantially similar. Yours probably has some more features. May the best Bill win anything that's. Got it for good of the cause.

I appreciate that, and I'm glad it supported, and I will say of dual enrollment, the most important thing, and I think Miss Lopez touched on it, is what it gives to students, especially those students who might otherwise not have realized how far their path might take them.

So that exposure to higher ed that you can get during high school is so important to help with attainment and graduation in high school, but more importantly, to give young people a chance to at least see their possibilities. So I thank you, Miss Lopez, for being here.

You're a terrific example of what dual enrollment can do with that. Would you like to close?

You know, this is, this is my last year in the Legislature, so 12 years of writing a variety of different types of bills. This was one of the first that I wrote when I became a Legislator, and it's one of the last.

And the whole idea was to establish a foundation, which CCAP does, to allow for these students to really get the most out of their experience in high school and prepare for their future. As we've noticed as time has gone on, there were DACA students who were not included, so we wrote a Bill to include them.

There were court students who were not included, so we wrote a Bill to include them. So this has always been an evolution of meeting the needs and creating flexibility. And as the.

And I don't want to refer to the opposition as opposition, I hope that they would consider themselves tweeners as well, because I've yet to have opposition on any dual enrollment Bill, because at the end of the day, we're looking at creating new horizons for young people who maybe didn't see themselves as college prepared or being the first in their family to, you know, to get over that hurdle.

And so when you're able to work in an environment like this, I heard it referred to earlier and previous hearing that we don't get a lot of good things done or worse to that effect here in the Legislature. I beg to differ. I think that we do a lot of important things, and this is one of them.

And I'm excited about this Committee and it's allowing the Bill to move forward today.

But I also recognize this is a Bill that will continue to evolve as the years and decades unfold and meet the needs of a growing and more participatory, diverse group of students who will see and hear from others, who will come back and tell them how valuable it's been that they can really have an opportunity to achieve their highest goals.

And so I thank this Committee for your efforts in support of this Bill. I respectfully asked for your. I vote. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam consultant, we had a motion from Senator Choa Bogue and madam consultant, please call the roll.

Roll Call

That measure has five votes. Four is it. Five has five votes. We'll keep it open for absent Members. Thank you very much. Next Assembly Member Pacheco, welcome. You'll be presenting AB 1160, and we look forward to hearing from you whenever you're ready.

Please proceed.

Thank you. I think it's still morning, but good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I am here to present Assembly Bill 1160. The bill you see today reflects months of conversations with opposition and good faith attempts to address concerns and provide clarity on the bill's intent.

This bill aims to protect students from the educational and economic harms associated with institutional debt, while preserving essential tools for colleges to collect debt and maintain revenue streams. It is important to note that AB 1160 does not cancel institutional debt nor require institutions of higher education to cancel such debt.

It does not allow students to enroll in a college for free, nor does it absolve students from their responsibilities to pay their institutional debt. AB 1160 will grant students a one time grace period where they can re-enroll in their coursework and make progress towards their degree while they work to get back on track and repay their institutional debt. To benefit from the grace period, students need to be able to pay for the term they're enrolling in and must enter a payment plan for their past debt if they want to continue enrolling after the grace period.

This bill establishes safeguards on the use of for profit third party debt collection, requiring schools to wait 180 days before subjecting students to collections or reporting negative marks on their credit reports. The bill also requires schools to communicate to students the significant financial consequences of being subject to collections.

These provisions will help ensure that students have the same debt collection protections that are afforded to Californians with medical and other debts under California law. Additionally, AB 1160 provides more time for schools to build out data reporting systems to ensure they have the resources and capacity to adequately collect and report data on institutional debt.

The institutional debt crisis has gone under the radar for far too long. According to the most recently available data, more than 750,000 low income students owe more than 390 million in debt to California public colleges. We can and we must do more to protect students across our state, and AB 1160 will do just that.

The bill today is a compromise, and I believe it will benefit students and colleges alike. And I have here two witnesses in support. I have Celene Aridin, current UC Davis student who serves as the President of the University of California Student Association. And also we have Professor Charlie Eaton, Associate Professor of Sociology at UC Merced. And I'll pass it on over to them.

So, Ms. Aridin. Correct?

Yes, correct.

Please proceed. Welcome. You have three minutes.

Awesome. Hello. My name is Celene Aridin. Thank you for the warm introduction. I'm a student at UC Davis, and I also serve as the President of the UC Student Association where we represent the 230,000 plus undergraduate students throughout the state. And we are a proud co-sponsor of AB 1160.

Institutional debt is a major problem for students across all California higher education segments. While the institutional debt crisis is not new, it was exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Over this same time, our state has been facing an enrollment crisis. Institutional debt bars many people from returning to school and achieving their higher education dreams.

It can also have serious long term implications for a student's future, whether that be their future employment due to diploma withholding or hurting their credit score, which takes years to rebuild. Many times these debts come up unexpectedly for students without time for them to correct the issue, as in the case of Anna, a student who was just two semesters away from earning her degree at Cal State Dominguez Hills.

Anna had been working diligently towards her goal for many years, and her dedication was a source of pride and excitement for her family. However, when her husband suffered a stroke, Anna made the difficult decision to drop her courses immediately to be by his side.

This decision, although necessary, resulted in significant institutional debt that then triggered an enrollment ban on her account, which has prevented her from returning to complete her education. Anna's story is a painful example of how life's unforeseen circumstances can derail even the most determined students, burdening them with debt and disrupting their educational journey.

In the case of a UC student, one of my fellow UC Davis students, Ava, was dropped from all her courses and had to reapply for financial aid and scramble for new courses after the quarter had begun due to just a $3 debt from a drink she forgot she had purchased on her school account.

These situations highlight the critical need for AB 1160, and passing AB 1160 would be a significant step in supporting students like Anna and Ava, ensuring they have opportunity to overcome life's challenges and achieve their educational goals without being derailed.

It is also important to note that institutional debt disproportionately affects low income students, who are also more likely to belong to racially marginalized communities. At UCs, nearly one third of undergraduates are the first in their families to attend college, and nearly half of UC's students are from underrepresented communities.

In addition, half of UC undergraduates receive the Pell Grant, indicating their financial need. The UC prides itself as a leader in social mobility, with multiple campuses receiving national recognition from publications such as US News and World Report and the Wall Street Journal. This critical mobility is hampered when institutional debt prevents a student from completing their degree.

There is a major need for legislation like AB 1160 to ensure that students are not only able to enroll in our institutions but also finish their degrees. As you deliberate this bill, I urge you to consider Anna's story and Ava's to help address the state's enrollment crisis and improve graduation rates. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please. Professor Eaton.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm an Economic Sociologist and Professor at University of California Merced, where I co-founded the Higher Education, Race, and the Economy Lab. Our lab co-authored the Creditor Colleges study of institutional student debt with UC Irvine Law Professor Dalié Jiménez and UC Berkeley Law Professor Jonathan Glater. Institutional debts work differently than student loans, and they tend to be more harmful. We estimate that 300,000 mostly low income California students incur these debts in an average year.

Currently, only around 25% of these debts are ever repaid because students lack the means. AB 1160 will help thousands of these students to complete their education, as you just heard, and it will also help our higher education segments to bring in additional revenue to serve students.

Here's why. Most students incur institutional debts when they withdraw from school in the middle of an academic term because of a health or economic hardship. Schools are required to return some of these students Pell Grant and student loan aid to the US Department of Education.

Most schools then place registration holds that bar further enrollment until students repay their federal aid to the school. AB 1160, as amended, would grant students a one time grace period to re-enroll for an academic term after incurring an institutional debt. This would allow time for students to arrange a payment plan for what they owe while continuing to progress towards their degree.

This grace period will actually be revenue positive for schools, and this is because students with institutional debts are often eligible for Pell Grant and Cal Grants to cover tuition during the grace period, and these grant funded tuition payments are likely to exceed the students debts. But grants can't be used to make payments on institutional debts themselves.

Using the grace period to arrange a payment plan will also be likely to increase the likelihood that a student will repay the debt. Several community colleges, CSUs, and UCs have already demonstrated success with this approach, and contrary to some misunderstandings, AB 1160 will not create a loophole for students to get out of paying tuition.

This is because AB 1160 preserves schools drop for nonpayment policies. These policies drop students when they have not paid tuition for the current term. In sum, AB 1160, as amended, takes a balanced approach to protect students while helping schools to keep them enrolled when hardships create unexpected debts. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses here in the hearing room would like to testify in support of this measure? Please come to the microphone. State your name, your organization, your position.

Good morning. It's Samantha Seng with NextGen California in proud support and co-sponsor. Also on behalf of some other co-sponsors that couldn't make it today. Student Borrower Protection Center, Student Debt Crisis Center, the CSU Student Association, Young Invincibles, and Consumer Reports, all in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Seng. Good to see you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Anna Mathews with the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in strong support of this bill.

Thank you.

Bella Kern on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success in support.

Thank you.

Chair Newman, Senators, David Hawkins with the Community College Independents Faculty Union in support.