Senate Standing Committee on Education

The Senate Committee on Education will come to order. So, good morning, and first off, welcome to Julie from Missouri. In case you were wondering who that is, that's Amanda Ritchie's mom. She, too, tunes in from her home state to watch her daughter do her work.

Happy birthday as well to April Johnson, who is lucky enough to be married to Ian. Ian asked for the day off today because it was his wife's birthday. I didn't fall for that. There are 30 bills on today's agenda. That's the bad news. The good news is 11 bills are on consent. They are as follows.

Item number six. AB 1984. Item number eight. AB 2048. Item number 10. AB 2768. Item number 11, AB 2074. Item number 12, AB 20112. Item number 13, AB 2165. Item number 15, AB 2181. Item number 20, AB 2492. Item number 24, AB 3131. Item number 27, AB 2953.

Item number 30, AB 3010. We actually do today have another Committee hearing scheduled for this room immediately following this hearing. So we're going to endeavor to move along as we go today. Witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to three minutes each to ensure the Committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion.

Seeing no quorum quite yet, let's begin as a Subcommitee with the first author. And I see assemblymember Ta is here. Is Assemblymember Ting here? He's not yet. You're up. Please welcome and please proceed when ready.

Good morning, Chair, Member of the Committee. First, I'd like to thank the committee staff for their work on this bill. AB 1793 will ensure that dependents of active-duty military members stationed outside California but maintaining California residency will be eligible for Cal Grant and Middle-Class Scholarship Program.

Military service member who are California resident may sometime receive government order requiring them to relocate outside of the state for extended period. And their families often accompany them. Since the parents are still officially resident of California, the student qualifies for in-state tuition rate at our college and universities.

However, under current law, students are ineligible for Cal Grant or the Middle-Class Scholarship Program if they temporarily reside out of state. AB 1793 would only apply to a very specific group of active-duty service members. This bill does not appropriate any additional fund for the Cal Grant program.

It simply allows dependents of active-duty California military member to access the grant. I'd like to introduce you to Seth Reeb with Reeb Government Relation to testify in support AB 1793. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1793.

Thank you, sir. Mister Reeb, welcome. Good morning. Please proceed.

Good morning, honorable Chairman and Members. My name is Seth Reeb with Reeb Government Relations representing AMVETS Department of California, California Association of County Veterans Service Officers, California State Commander's Veterans Council, Military Officers Association of America California Council of Chapters. I'm here to express our strong support for AB 1793.

Which aims to extend Cal Grant and Middle-Class Scholarship Eligibility to dependents of California military members stationed outside the state. The nature of military life means frequent relocations. Often impacting the educational opportunities for service members' children. Despite maintaining California residency. These students face barriers to accessing state-sponsored educational grants due to their temporary out-of-state living situations.

AB 1793 rectifies this by ensuring that military dependents are not unfairly penalized for their parents' service. This legislation not only supports the educational aspirations of military families. But also upholds our values of fairness and equity. I urge you to pass AB 1793, standing firm in our commitment to those who serve and sacrifice for our nation.

Thank you very much. Are there others in the hearing would like to testify and support the measure? If so, please come forward. Do we have opposition present today? Is there anybody who'd like to speak in opposition to the measure? Seeing none, come back to Senator Wilk.

Yeah, great bill. Thank you for doing it. And I will move it when appropriate.

I really appreciate that.

For my part, glad to support it as well. I think you'll have no trouble securing enough votes to pass it. So, thank you. We'll leave it on hold until we establish a quorum. The.

You going to let him close?

I think I'll let him close. Please close. Thanks, shadow chair.

Yeah. Thank you so much for your support. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry not to do that better. All right. Thank you very much. Next. Thank you, Senator Wilk, keeping me on track. Who is our next? Assembly Member Reyes, please. I'll make sure I give you an opportunity to close. So, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members, I thank you for the opportunity to present to you AB 2724. Voter registration is the law. It is an excellent tool to make it possible for 16 and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote. So that upon their 18th birthday, they are automatically registered voters.

This Bill will provide high school students in California. The opportunity and resources needed to pre-register to vote by the end of the 11th grade. Every election cycle, we discuss the low voter turnout from all across California. Unfortunately, millions of Californians pass up on the opportunity. To exercise their democratic right to vote at every election.

One critical strategy we can employ to address this is by ensuring that young Californians who are eligible to vote are registered to do so. Currently, only 11% of 16 and 17 year olds in California are actually pre registered to vote.

By focusing on our youth and bringing the resources to them at their high schools, we can ensure more Californians, especially young Californians, are voting and developing the habit of doing so at an earlier age.

Civic engagement is invaluable, which is why we need AB 2724 the High School Voter Registration Act, so more voices can be heard at the polls on election day. Here to testify and support is Ana-Victoria Chavez, a student organizer with Inland Congregations United for Change.

Welcome Miss Chavez. Please proceed.

Thank you Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Ana-Victoria Chavez. I am a senior at San Bernardino High School in the City of San Bernardino and a leader with Inland Congregations United for Change ICUC. I'm here today. I'm here today to express my strong support for AB 2724.

This school year, I took on the role of promoting voter registration at my school. When I approached students during lunch, many appeared disinterested, as if voting wasn't a serious or important matter to them. This made me reflect deeply because I have a different perspective on voting.

Growing up, I was deeply involved in family discussions on who my parents planned to vote for and what they believed would benefit our country in the long run. These conversations taught me the importance of voting and educating ourselves on the matters of our country in order to make the best decision when voting.

They made me feel enthusiastic and eager about turning 18 and voting, seeing it as a crucial responsibility as a citizen. Therefore, hearing that some of my peers seemed uninterested in voting shocked me.

I've been reflecting on how fortunate I am to have parents that took the time to discuss voting and its importance to me, especially considering I live in a low income area with a large Hispanic population. Many of my friends are first generation American and have not had the privilege of having family Members who encourage them to vote.

This is why AB 2724 is important, because it aims to empower youth like myself to become informed and engaged participants in our democracy. By teaching students that our voices matter and encouraging us to participate in elections, AB 2724 can create a more engaged electorate. By bringing these conversations to our schools.

It will help us students feel involved and care for the future of our country. This Bill in front of you today has been garnering tremendous support both at the state and local level as it has made its way here.

Just yesterday, board members from the San Bernardino City Unified School District unanimously passed a resolution in support of AB 2724. Help us continue moving this forward, and support us in giving every student in California the Education in order to have a voice. Thank you for your time.

Thank you and well presented. I commend you for your advocacy. Are there any others here who'd like to testify in support of the measure? So please come forward. Forward. Please come. Microphone and.

Oh, she was one of our.

Oh, you're a lead witness.

Come on up. Take a seat. Sorry.

Yes.

Ariete. Yes. A field fellow with Power California.

Very good. Welcome. Have a seat.

Sorry, everybody. I was quite all right. I didn't anticipate all that traffic in the Capitol. I apologize.

You have three minutes. Please proceed.

Sure. Thank you. My name is Maria Tolas. I live in Pittsburgh, California. I am represented, actually, by Senator Glazier, who I don't see, but for the past two months, I had the opportunity to work on a voter registration program, and I had the privilege to go back to my high school, my alma mater in Pittsburgh High School, to facilitate presentations on the importance of voting and getting students to register and pre register to vote.

My team and I were able to register and pre register 400 students. I was blown away by the attention and seriousness in which these students took the presentation and decided that they would register and pre register to vote. They show that young people are ready to listen and ready to exercise their voice.

All they need is the information to be able to commit. However, there was a high school in the district that did not allow. That did not allow me to do the presentations. Sorry.

AB 2747 ensures that all high schoolers get the information they need to strengthen their presentation in our government and that voter pre registration happens at all high schools in California. Furthermore, in high school, young voters are already learning about civics and government, which makes it a perfect opportunity for them to exercise real world civic participation.

Evidence shows that when young people vote in their first few consecutive elections, they become lifetime voters. From the last election cycles, we've seen more and more young people turn out to the polls to vote on issues that matter to them and their communities.

Being a DACA recipient, I cannot vote, so I do all that I can to encourage others to vote, especially young people. I urge you to support AB 2724 and give young folks the opportunity to surprise you. Thank you.

Thank you once again. Any others who'd like to testify and support your name, your organization, your position. Welcome.

Good morning. Lucy Salcido Carter, on behalf of the Alameda County Board of Education, in support.

Thank you. Anybody else seeing none? Do we have anybody who'd like to testify in opposition to this measure? Unsurprisingly seeing none. Let's come back to the Deus comments questions, comments? Questions. So I will say glad to support the measure. Appreciate the work you're doing. Appreciate both the witnesses.

I would argue there's an additional need, which is to better teach civics in school. That's a conversation for another day, another Bill. But with that, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll take a motion at the appropriate time, and we'll take a vote. Thank you very much. To the witnesses. Assemblymember Addis is here. Welcome. And the Bill number is.

Well, thank you, Honorable Chair, Members of the Committee, staff, my staff, our witnesses that are here today. A lot of effort has gone into bringing this before you, and it takes a team. And so I want to say thank you to that team. I'm here today to ask for your aye vote on AB 1971, the Student Privacy Protection Act.

As public education and the Internet continue to become more and more intertwined, it is imperative that California takes the appropriate steps to ensure the safety of our students. An often overlooked aspect of student safety is around a student's personal data, which is increasingly at risk of misuse as the Internet and AI become integrated with different aspects of public education.

The Student Privacy Online Personal Information Protection Act, or SOPIPA, was created in 2014 with the intent of providing substantial protections to personal student data in K-12 education. However, SOPIPA has a critical weakness that we can fix. The language defining K-12 purposes is ambiguous when it comes to the inclusion of standardized testing entities.

Therefore, this bill does one very narrow thing, but very important thing, which is simply to clarify that student data gathered via standardized testing platforms is covered by the privacy protections of SOPIPA. Standardized tests and the organizations responsible for them gather and use student data, and therefore student data privacy protection should be in place.

Standardized tests capture numerous types of sensitive data from students, including gender, gender identity, ethnicity, immigration status, nationality, religious affiliation, and more, which highlights the need for stringent data protections. By adding standardized tests explicitly into the definition of K-12 school purposes, students will be able to trust that their data stays out of the hands of third party vendors that truly have no business in public education.

So with me today as witnesses in support are Annie Chou, Legislative Advocate for the California Teachers Association, and then Hayden Meyer, a Granite Bay High School rising senior who just completed AP US History as part of his course of study. So I'll turn it over to Annie.

Who's first?

I'll go first.

All right. Ms. Chou, welcome. Good morning.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association, proud supporters of AB 1971. This bill seeks to better align SOPIPA with existing state and federal laws that protect consumer privacy and student privacy.

Students are required to take various standardized tests to graduate from high school with a GED or be considered for college admissions and for financial aid for those institutions. While students' academic information is protected under FERPA, unfortunately, they are not always protected when they take their GED or make a decision to take tests in order to go to college.

Vendors of standardized tests have the ability to collect and retain a great deal of information about students that use their products, and we must close gaps to ensure that information is appropriately protected as students take the leap towards adulthood. AB 1971 protects student privacy rights while allowing them to further their goals post high school. Thank you for your time. Urge your aye vote.

Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Meyer, welcome.

Chair and Members of the Senate Education Committee, thank you for allowing me to present testimony in support of AP 1971.

If you can put the mic just a little closer. Good.

My name is Hayden Meyer, and I am a senior at Granite Bay High School. Throughout my high school career, I had multiple interactions with standardized testing organizations, from the PSAT as a sophomore to the SAT and ACT as a junior. At my high school, all students were encouraged to take these tests, as they were seen as mandatory steps towards higher education. Even though some universities remove the requirement to support SAT scores, I know from personal experience that many students see these tests as an essential piece of their college applications.

With over 1.9 million students taking the SAT every year, I know that this belief is not confined to my high school. Apart from standardized tests, another constant, today's K-12 education system is technology. From when I started kindergarten to my graduation from high school last May, the amount of technology students interact with on a daily basis has increased exponentially. With technology and the Internet becoming increasingly integrated within the classroom, it is more important than ever that students have adequate protections for their data.

Students need to be able to trust their schools and the vendors their schools contract with to treat their sensitive personal data with the necessary protections. AB 1971 will ensure that students can maintain that trust in their schools, closing a loophole that allows standardized testing organizations to share student data without students expressed consent. As a recent graduate of one of California's high schools, I urge you to vote aye on AB 1971. Thank you.

Thank you. Well done. Do we have other witnesses in support of the measure? Please come forward.

Becca Cramer-Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action in support.

Thank you. Anybody else in support of the measure? Opposition? If you are, do we have lead witnesses in opposition? If so, please come to the table. Welcome. I see we have two. You have three minutes each. Whenever you're ready. Welcome.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Jennifer Smith. I serve as Associate General Counsel for Privacy for College Board. I have been in higher education for nearly my entire 20 year legal career, most recently joining College Board.

College Board opposes AB 1971 as it appears before you today. This is an unfortunate situation of unintended consequences which will harm California students and families. This bill attempts to amend SOPIPA, as was aptly described by others, which does govern ed tech in the classroom.

The restrictions on use and disclosure of student data by ed tech vendors in the classroom make great sense, with which we comply, including for the assessment spoken about the witnesses you've heard from already today. But by design, the bill before you will reach outside the classroom and govern what students and families do at home. The latest set of amendments shatters the framework of SOPIPA by adding to its scope the administration of standardized tests taken on a weekend, chosen by a student, paid for by their parent, completely at their own discretion.

By applying SOPIPA to a consumer context, it will result in extraordinary consequences, including denying colleges diverse recruitment and hitting unrepresented students the hardest. Let me explain. When you register for the SAT weekend, you do so through the College Board website, and you create a personal account to which high schools do not and should not have access.

You then, as a student, can use that SAT data to create a profile to access other college and career readiness programs, to share data with scholarship programs, and hear from post secondary opportunities. All of this is now being questioned under this bill because those activities are exactly the type restricted under SOPIPA when in a classroom.

Very importantly, students may not be able to participate in Student Search Service. Students who participate in Search are contacted by colleges and receive, on average, 29% more offers for admission. There are currently 828,000 California students participating in Search, 85 California colleges who rely on Search to have a diversity pipeline for their college admission and fill their classes.

Hispanic students found to participate in Search enroll in a four year college at a rate 8.3 points higher percent higher than similarly situated Hispanic students. Black and Hispanic students who receive Search enabled college outreach, the mail you probably all got when you were young or have family members or others in your life who get mail about college and University opportunities.

Hispanic and black students, 46 and 66% respectively, are more likely to apply for college than those similarly and identically situated black and Hispanic students who do not receive those mailings through through Search. And this might just be the beginning. Not only would this diversity pipeline for colleges and across the country be potentially blocked, the reach into SAT weekend by this bill could deny students the chance to learn about and apply for scholarships, apply for financial aid, lose control over their personal data through their personal account where they leverage their own college and career journey working directly with College Board.

Even the basic sending of their AP exam score could be jeopardized as this bill is written. To be clear, College Board has great respect for student privacy. We would be pleased to support ongoing protections for students and their families, as we do today through comprehensive privacy policies, fully compliant with SOPIPA for all in school assessments, and provide choice for students. Taking away the choice for students under the guise of privacy is untenable, and thus this bill must be rejected. I'd be happy to address questions.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. My name is Mary Laufey, and I work for ACT. I work for a company that has, for the past 65 years, made it our mission to serve individuals of any age to achieve education and workplace success. That is our mission. I sit here as someone who for 15 years with that same organization has been a researcher and a policy analyst, and only for the past three years in government relations, tried to positively impact education and workforce policy.

Voting yes on AB 1971 could reduce the number of low income and minority students in California that are recruited by colleges. Since the Harvard UNC Supreme Court decision last year, legally, colleges cannot use race in admissions decisions, and instead they rely upon services like the one Jen described and those similar services that ACT provides in order to recruit a more diverse incoming class, helping students to connect with colleges that want to admit more diverse students, helping more minorities that have struggled, and admitting students who have overcome challenges could be a prohibited activity under AB 1971. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know good policy. I urge each Committee Member today to ask the question, how will this bill impact underserved students in California? And to respectfully consider our opposition to AB 1971. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other members of the public here who'd like to testify in opposition the measure? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, come back to the dais. Colleagues, questions, concerns about the bill? Let me start. So, privacy, protection of data, obviously an important thing for the state.

On behalf of students and others, we've had two bills over the last decade that are expressly geared toward ensuring better handling of data and the protection of private information. My understanding, though, is that ACT and College Board have made a practice of selling user information, is that correct? Sure.

Okay, here we go. So we do not sell student data. We license it for a limited time and a limited purpose to universities to only use for recruitment.

But it's still on a paid basis.

That is a service we do not provide for free. It is something that a student can opt into, and for us to provide the service to the colleges to connect with students, we do charge a licensing fee.

And the provision of those records, is it limited to those records associated with students who have opted in expressly?

Yes, express opt in. And we are fully compliant with CCPA. We know that there was a perceived loophole with CCPA for nonprofits. As you may or may not have heard, ACT underwent a transition within the last couple of months. We are now a for profit public benefit education corporation and are fully under the jurisdiction of CCPA and are already fully compliant with that law.

Okay. And Ms. Smith, the College Board is still a nonprofit but still operates the same service, same practice, right? Licenses data on a per record payment.

It is not on a per record payment. So excellent question. So the Student Search Service, one, is free to students, and two, the colleges and universities and nonprofit scholarship organizations that subscribe to our enrollment solutions pay a subscription fee. It's a flat fee. There is no per name fee.

That was an historical practice of College Board that has since expired, and it's a lump sum subscription fee regardless of the volume of records. And most importantly, that program is not part of our in school testing experience. SOPIPA already prohibits the sale of student data.

It already prohibits us, as an ed tech vendor when we are offering in school assessments inclusive of the PSAT and other assessments spoken to by others, we do not present that search opt in to students in their in school experience. We do not use the data at all collected through the in school experience for Search.

That is entirely done if a student on their own were to choose to come to College Board and engage with us for their own programs and services, such as wanting to register for the SAT weekend or to create a College Board account to create what's called a Big Future Experience, where you could take college and career quizzes.

Through that experience, we present to students the Search program, but it's a robust notice with an affirmative open checkbox consent, with an opt out mechanism available at any time. And it's very clear, and even we tell students in that notice that we charge a fee to the colleges and universities to whom their data is disclosed to support our nonprofit organization to truly just feed right back into our mission. So while we charge a fee, it's not to the students.

So to your point that you know there's making a distinction in school, down at school, I think Mr. Meyer made a very good point, which is to a student it's actually less clear. These are things that could safely or fairly be regarded as necessary steps, taking the SATs. Technically you're not doing that in school, but as a matter of course, if you want to proceed to higher education, you're going to do that, right?

So I don't think a student makes the same distinction. But to either the author or Mr. Meyer, what's the issue, as you see it, with a student who has affirmatively opted in, checkbox, clear language, to receiving those kinds of offers or other information, it's clearly to the good if they've been properly apprised?

No, I appreciate the question. And I would say also 21 year educator standing here testifying, myself a mom of a high school senior, as well as someone who just graduated high school. So have the educator background as well as the parent background as well as the legislative background on this. We agree.

We would like this data to be accessible for students to connect with universities. We think that's an important piece of this. And so we have proposed adding an explicit exemption to allow the sale or the licensing, what have you, of student data to colleges for the purpose of admission or access to financial aid.

And that's an author amendment that we are happy to take between this committee and the next. Due to the timeline on negotiations, we weren't able to get it done before this. Additionally, we have proposed another explicit exemption, which would exempt activities from SOPIPA's requirements if those activities do not meet the definition of K-12 school purposes.

So this would ensure that services provided by the opposition that shouldn't be under SOPIPA would not be under SOPIPA. So we are in no way trying to stop access of low income people or people of color or any group from accessing colleges because that's why they're taking these tests.

You enroll in AP classes, you enroll in AP tests, you enroll in the ACT, you enroll in the SAT explicitly because you want to go to college. And so that's not what we're trying to limit. What we're trying to limit is the, and let me just say, we have shared these amendments with opposition.

They have not said yes to them. I think we're in ongoing conversations, and I'm absolutely personally optimistic. I don't think you heard that, but personally, I think we can get there. So what we want to limit, just to be a little more succinct, is this data going to other parties that really shouldn't have this data. And there is a history of that happening.

Okay, so notwithstanding that history, to the extent that public benefit corporation, nonprofit in the service of your broader mission, I assume you're open to those conversations.

Very much so.

We have been. We have been actively engaged. And the complexity here about trying to introduce the SAT weekend and those other website activities when a student comes to College Board to engage personally and trying to pull apart only protecting that SAT weekend data is that it's all integrated. So when you come to the College Board website, you create a personal account, and you provide information about yourself, all optional. And College Board then creates a profile. That's explicitly prohibited by SOPIPA, creating of a profile.

But I'm sorry to interrupt. But the author's willing to find a basis for making the appropriate exemption there, correct?

Absolutely. If this is connected to university and scholarship admission, regardless of when the test, whether it's on the weekend or during school hours.

Understood. The point is that there is no segmentation. So when a student creates a College Board account and uses that to create for SAT weekend, that College Board account includes that personally identifiable information that they can then use, one, to register for the SAT weekend and or experience all those other suites of Big Future and college and career readiness tools like college career quizzes and whatnot.

And so this proposed amendment to try to say only the part or portion of your website that's for SAT weekend is coming covered and all the others is not, is a factual fiction because you can't segment a one personal account where a student provides their personal information to access all of College Board's consumer programs and services and only segment the SAT weekend part versus college and career readiness quizzes versus applying for financial aid versus the whole suite of services.

It's one College Board account. It's not walled off on one little part of the website. So the amendment is nonsensical. It's impossible to deploy because a profile is created. It's used to serve college and career readiness using that student data for all of those nonprofit education mission purposes.

Again, you can't just pull off what's done for SAT weekend registration because you first create a College Board account to then register for SAT weekend. So we already have the data for the account that's used for multiple purposes. And we can't allow the College Board account to be subject to SOPIPA. And that's where it becomes round hole square pegged to try to take all the provisions of SOPIPA that were written about ed tech in the classroom and put it on a consumer context just does not fit.

But it does seem worth trying if the alternative is something that's fairly restrictive from your point of view. And it seems to me there's two issues, how data's handled and how an opt in is constructed. I would think that would be a solvable problem for some combination of your lawyers and your web folks.

But if you say no, then I guess the choice for us is actually fairly binary here. So, I mean, I hope you'd be willing to do that, and I guess I'd be looking for a commitment to do that. But, you know, absent that commitment, we have a choice here either to protect students all in or to exceed here. And I think in ways that most of us would agree would be at the perspective to the detriment of student privacy, especially given existing laws. So I guess the question really is, for you folks, is that something you're willing to continue working on? Because I'm understanding from the author that you aren't.

We absolutely are happy and agree. I mean, I don't come to the table dragging my feet. I absolutely understand the importance of sharing this data with universities and with scholarships. We want kids and we want families to know that when they go to take the SAT, when they go to take the AP test, there's a purpose for that. The expression purpose is to get into college and to get higher grades.

Understood. You know, the real question here is for, I'm sure your processes are slightly different, but your concerns are the same. You know, how to construct a privacy policy, but also how to handle data such that the opt in includes the ability to circumscribe or otherwise subset data, which says, you know, I'd like only my information to be shared with colleges versus something else. I don't know. I'm not a web guy. I used to be, but I think that's a solvable problem if you're open to it, but particularly if it's necessary. So I guess my question to the opposition here is that something you want to work on?

Speaking for my organization, it is something that we are always willing to continue a conversation to try to improve the language. It is difficult for me to commit to a hypothetical set of words and a narrative that my lawyer hasn't looked at because... But yes, the commitment to continue. No, respectfully, Chair, yes.

Because that's really what's at stake here. We're going to make, by definition, a binary vote. It's either yes or no. That yes could include the commitment on the shared sort of agreement between the parties that you're going to continue working on this. And if you're open to that, I'm willing to support that, but also, I'm also willing to bring it back if we don't make enough progress.

If I may, Chair. I do believe opposition has seen these amendments.

Not really. That's not really my concern right now. It's about, is this a workable scenario?

Exactly.

And so. And, you know, all I'm asking for is a good faith effort here to try and do that before the next legislative step.

Absolutely. And we have proposed several alternative amendments to try to achieve the same goal and have expended extraordinary amount of hours with the staff and representatives to get to a reasonable solution. I just want to be clear that it is not just about the opt in opportunity to share this data with colleges and universities.

It's about how you've constructed these programs and how they intersect. I understand. But again, I'd argue there may be benefit, in fact, necessary, to figure out how to decouple those things in a way that works to meet the goals of the legislation. And so, you know, we have a shared understanding here. Right, Assembly Member Addis? You're willing to continue working. I understand it's not a simple thing.

We have. I mean, again, we have the two proposed amendments.

Well, your amendments might be a starting point. Right. But as long as you're willing.

We're willing to continue the conversation. Let's say that. Okay, we're willing to continue the conversation.

Let us quickly, before we lose another Member. So let's establish a quorum. I see you've got your track shoes on. There's no excuses needed here. Go ahead, please establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

All right. A quorum is now present. Okay, so, question for the author. You're willing to continue conversations, you know, noting that this is... This could be technically, fairly challenging to the opposition. You're willing to continue. Okay, you know, I'm trying to be helpful here. But I will say very clearly, you know, I'm glad to learn more, particularly, Ms. Smith, about, you know, sort of the challenge, the inherent challenges that you described.

If it turns out that they're not solvable, I would, you know, I'll respect that. It sounds to me like it should be, especially given sort of the nature of the effort here, which is to protect privacy of students, but also to maintain the ability for your services to share that data in ways that support those same students. So, last thoughts on that?

Nope. Happy to continue to work on it.

Very good question. Senator Glazer.

Chair Newman, I just want to say I support your direction that you've indicated. The bill was introduced on January 30. I know the opposition came in late last week, which I think was out of the courtesy of the Chair. The hearing was deferred on the bill to provide a little more time. It seems like there is a need for some more time. It sounds like you'd prefer to move the bill along today with an understanding that they'll continue to work on it versus defer this to the next hearing, give them the next week. Is that right?

Yeah. I mean, we don't have a ton of time left the legislative cycle for that, but I will say we should solve this problem to the satisfaction of both parties before the next legislative step. And that's my stipulation here for providing my vote. So, anything else?

No, I'd be happy to move the bill.

Alright. Would you like to close?

Well, I just want to say thank you so much to the Chair for working on this. Thank you to the opposition for their commitment to work together for the good of California students. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Glazer. Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

File item five, AB 1971, Addis. Motion is do pass as amended to the Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

The measure now has three votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And Olgalilia.

Welcome, sir. You will be presenting AB 1780. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, let me thank you, the Committee consultants. I know we've had a number of robust conversations on this Bill, so very much appreciate your attention. In your guidance, we are accepting the Committee amendments.

AB 1780 would prohibit higher education institutions that receive public funding for financial aid purposes, to prohibit legacy and donor admissions, or to prohibit preferential treatment for children of legacies, as well as donors, and legacies are defined as former alumni. Legacy admissions is, again, the practice of offering the children of alumni a preferential treatment.

Going back historically, one of the major concerns is that not everybody had traditional access to these institutions. If you go back to hearing people who are third-generation or fourth-generation legacies, the institutions that their grandparents went to looks very, very different than the institutions that exist today.

There also been racial barriers, there have been religious barriers to some of these institutions. And so, again, we believe that this is a very good step for the state and right in line with our constitutional guidelines around equal opportunity and fair access.

And just to provide a certain level of context, we have three institutions, primarily, that offer legacy admissions. According to their own data, as of 2022, between 13% to 14%. That's Stanford, USC, and the Santa Clara University.

And to give you context, that's significantly, almost double the number of African Americans they admit, and almost as many as Latinos that they admit into their class. So this is a very significant portion of those three institutions in their incoming classes.

We also looked at a report by Opportunity Insights that was cited last year that came out on the heels of the Supreme Court decision to ban the use of any kind of racial preferences in the admissions process.

And what they found was actually fairly alarming, which was that looking at Ivy League plus schools, and that's considered Ivy League institutions, plus like minded schools like University of Chicago, Stanford, Duke, that children of families at the top 1%.

And that's roughly people, families that make over $600,000, when all things were being equal, that they had twice as likely a chance to get admitted into those institutions as everybody else. And so the fact that we would think that somebody who had a summer job, someone whose families had to overcome opportunities, that that would be a compelling admissions case.

Actually, the most compelling admissions case, unfortunately, at times, was potentially some family's ability to donate to the institution. And so, again, we believe that it is time to eliminate this preference for the wealthiest folks in our country, that there really isn't any reason to have a preference.

Now, to state this, this does not ban the admission of legacy students or donor students, you can continue to admit students from those families. Absolutely. You just cannot offer them preference. So that's just the big distinction. So with that, I would ask for your support on AB 1780, we have two witnesses.

We have Sarah Arce with the Campaign for College Opportunity and Ryan Cieslikowski, excuse me, lead organizer for Class Action. So thank you.

Welcome to both of the witnesses. Ms. Arce, please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, chair Newman and Members. Sara Arce on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity, we are an organization that's dedicated to ensuring all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, documentation, status, or the zip code that they were born into, can access a college education.

With the Supreme Court's decision last summer to ban race-conscious admissions, it is crucial now more than ever to ensure that those who have been historically excluded and underserved by our colleges and universities have a real opportunity to go to college and succeed.

We can do this by promoting evidence-based solutions and equity-advancing strategies in college preparation, access, and completion. One of these strategies is to prohibit preferential treatment at admissions based on legacy and donor status.

Legacy and donor admissions perpetuate a cycle of privilege that fortifies inequity in higher education, where students from wealthy backgrounds are granted undue advantages in the admissions process.

One study found that legacy applicants who are typically white and wealthy are 45% more likely to gain admission to selective colleges and universities compared to equally qualified nonlegacy candidates, further widening the gap in educational opportunities.

The vast majority of California's college-age population are first-generation black, Latinx, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander students who do not benefit from legacy admissions but have the most to gain from a college education.

The practice of legacy and donor preference in admissions is a barrier to social mobility for these students and a barrier to the economic competitiveness of the state.

Some private colleges in California, like Occidental College in Los Angeles, have chosen to do away with legacy admissions on their own accord in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, and we applaud this decision and commend the college for their efforts to move toward more equitable admissions.

AB 1780 provides a simple solution in alignment with the efforts of five other states pursuing similar policies prohibit preferential treatment and admissions based on legacy or donor status.

We urge you to support AB 1780 and send a strong message that in California, we believe that power, influence, and money should not dictate who gets a seat at our esteemed colleges and universities. We believe all students deserve a fair shot at a college education, regardless of family background, income level, or color of their skin.

And we believe a college education can interrupt racial and socioeconomic inequity. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Cieslikowski. Did I get that right? Thank you very much. Please proceed.

Chair Newman and Members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Ryan Cieslikowski. I am a Californian and a recent graduate of Stanford University.

I'm here today as the lead organizer for Class Action, which is a nonprofit of students and alumni working to ensure that so-called elite colleges prioritize the interests of all Americans, and not just the privileged few. For most people, legacy admissions isn't a controversial issue.

75% of the American public, 89% of college admissions directors, and the vast majority of college students think that it's unfair. Among those students are the undergraduate and graduate Senators at Stanford University, who voted overwhelmingly to pass a resolution endorsing this Bill.

In a powerful testament to the students discontent with legacy admissions, these elected leaders voted in favor of ending a policy which could benefit their future children. Today, I'd like to get across why students at Stanford and around the country are determined to end legacy. I'll make four brief points.

One, they want to enter legacy admissions because their schools accept more students from the top 1% of the income distribution than the entire bottom 50%. And a recent study shows that legacy admissions is one of the leading reasons why.

Two, on this Juneteenth, it's important to remember that legacy admissions was designed in the 1920s to save spots at elite colleges for protestant whites. And to this day, it disproportionately advantages wealthy white applicants. A reality which is all the more concerning after the fall of race-conscious admissions.

Three students who attend elite institutions know that their schools are fast-tracks to the halls of power. And that as a nation, we shouldn't be selecting the next generation of leaders based on familial bloodline. This country should not be an aristocracy.

Fourth, and finally, students want legacy gone because they don't want to be associated with a system that runs on nepotism, especially as trust in higher education is at an all-time low. Students want their schools to be avenues of access, and not country clubs where membership is reserved for those with connections.

Senators, AB 1780 is on the side of students. And I respectfully urge you to be as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Let us now hear from others in the audience who'd like to testify in support of the measure. Please come forward with your name, your organization, and your position.

Good morning. Sabrina Means, on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success, in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Amy Brown on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support

Hi, good morning. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of the Education Trust West in support, thank you.

Good morning. Kate Rodgers on behalf of Generation Up, proud to co-sponsor also in support, thank you.

Good morning. Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California we're proud co sponsor. I'm also here to provide a me too for folks who can't be here. They're Kid City Hope Space, SoCal Can, Latino Latina Roundtable, NAACP, Pomona Value Branch, Council of Mexican Federations in North America, SF Rising, and the Institute for College Access and Success, TICAS. Thank you

thank you.

Hi, Anya Hooper, a Stanford graduate of three days and former legacy student, also a class action organizer.

I support thank you and congratulations. Next please.

Natalie Steiner, Stanford Graduate I'm a Class Action Organizer and a California resident. Support thank you.

Good morning. Sophie Callcott, California native, another Stanford graduate of three days and a legacy student and I'm a Class Action organizer and here in support.

You should be in Cabo or somewhere, next week.

We have beaches here in Sacramento.

Hi Katie Fee, also recent Stanford graduate, legacy student and organizer with Students for Equitable Education at Stanford in support.

Thank you, next please.

Hi James Reed, Stanford graduate, Californian, and Class Action organizer and support.

Thank you, next please.

Good morning. David Ramirez on behalf of the University of California Student Association in Support.

Thank you, next please.

Good morning. Maria Morales on behalf of Hispanas Organizers of Political Equality, HOPE, proud co-sponsor in support.

Thank you. Next please.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members, Tristan Brown with CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals, and a legacy student not of Stanford, here in support.

Thank you. Next please.

Parshan Khosravi, uAspire in support.

Thank you. Let's now go to opposition. Lead witnesses in opposition please come forward. Mr. Graves, good morning.

That makes sense. Good morning Chair and Members, Alex Graves, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities here in respectful opposition to the Bill in print, though would note that the amendments in the Committee analysis taken today do address a serious concern that we had had at this point coming to the Senate.

We have historically maintained strong reservations as a sector about the state dictating admissions or academic practices at private colleges admittedly, but we also acknowledge the importance of the topic following last year's Supreme Court ruling banning affirmative action.

We appreciate and welcome the discussion on how we can ensure students, families, and the public feel that all applicants receive a fair shot. And I do want to be sure to thank the Member, his staff, and the sponsors for taking time to have several meetings with us over the course of this process to discuss our concerns.

Those discussions have helped us get agreement on several amendments, including language that aligns the implementation and reporting with the beginning of the 2025-26 academic year, and also clarifying that colleges can continue to get this information provided it is for purposes that are not considered in the review of their application for admission.

As I noted, our biggest concern had been regarding the civil penalty, but again, we appreciate that that issue has been addressed here. I would just emphasize that our perspective and approach in these discussions has been on the goal of achieving what we would find to be a balanced proposal.

We have urged balance because our schools are compliance-driven institutions who meet the requirements contained in numerous state laws passed each year, including that they have met the obligations outlined in AB 697 to report information on these practices the last four or five years.

We also urge balance recognizing that the data contained in those reports shows that in four years, across the seven or eight institutions who have self-reported that nearly all students identified as legacy who were admitted met the same academic qualifications that applied to all applicants.

And in those four years of reporting, there's only been about seven to 10 applicants who, by the institution's own admission, were offered admission who would otherwise not be academically qualified or meet the same qualifications.

Just for context, last year in our last report, we had seven institutions who self-identified that they had offered admission to approximately 3300 applicants across those institutions who would be considered legacy. Of those about 1700 enrolled, but only one applicant who was offered admission was deemed to have been admitted under academic qualifications.

It wouldn't be the same academic qualifications applied to other applicants. So, and lastly, we believe this balance is warranted because the undergraduate demographics of our institutions show that approximately two-thirds of our students identify as nonwhite.

And even when you look at the seven or eight institutions who have self-reported legacy practices, you find that their undergraduate demographics are strikingly similar to what you would see at UC Berkeley or UCLA. Regarding donor admissions, I know we've talked mostly about legacy.

I would just note that Stanford University, in their advancement office website, does have a very explicit policy stating that they do not, they make it very clear to donors, potential donors, that cannot influence an admissions decision.

It makes very clear that admissions offices are separate from advancement offices and that policy is publicly available on their website if anyone wants to go read it. So again, we do still have some remaining concerns around some of the reporting language and data points that are requested in that.

But again, want to reiterate that we think the discussions have been productive and that we're much closer to addressing those concerns.

Thank you. Any others here in opposition to the measure? If you'd like go forward. Seeing none, let's come back to the dais, colleagues questions? From my part. Thank you, Mr. Ting, for working with the Committee staff and with me. I believe we found a reasonably good balance.

I do believe strongly, to the extent the state has taken a position as it relates to all of our public institutions, that we should be able to apply that same standard to private institutions that receive state funds. And I think that's what we've endeavored to do. I think we've done this successfully with the amendments.

The amendments to which you referred to three basic things. Remove the civil penalties, adopt language that provide that independent colleges who forgo California grant funds can continue to apply the preferences as we've discussed. I'd argue there's a cost-benefit consideration there. The reputational benefit of colleges like Occidental.

Mr. Graves is a proud graduate of Occidental, who've done that, and I think to their benefit versus the reputational damage for a school that would then opt out. And I believe that reputational damage would be sufficient to inhibit that choice.

Lastly, glad to restore some of the reporting requirements so that over time, we've got a good basis for seeing what this measure actually does. And I think that's important.

And I think it's equally important that over time, that we're willing to revisit this, if in fact, we don't see the kinds of changes that we've endeavored to prescribe here. So I appreciate, again, your willingness to do that. I do think we found a good balance. I'm glad to support the Bill in its amended form.

Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and again, thank you for the dialogue and the discussion, and for working with us. Very proud to put forward AB 1780, which will prohibit preferential treatment for legacies and children of donors or private institutions that accept state funds.

I think it's a huge first step, and also a major, major win to even the playing field for many of these major institutions. And again, our colleges and universities aren't just organizations which take state funds. They have much more impact and much more influence than that.

They really are seen by many people in their country as a way to make your life better, to get greater opportunity, to move classes, whether you're working class, moving into the middle class. That has been the long tradition that we've had.

And I believe that our higher education institutions are probably the main reason we have the economy that we do in California. So we want to make sure that people of every walk of life are able to access those institutions and that their admissions are fair and equitable. With that respect for an aye vote on AB 1780.

Thank you. Do I have a motion? You don't. You know, we can carry it over. You don't have to. Would you like you courtesy motion. We have a motion from Senator Glazer. Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

File item one, AB 1780 Ting, motion is do pass as amended to Senate Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure currently has one vote. We will leave it open for absent Members.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, next I see Assemblymember Jackson. Thank you for your patience. You'll be presenting AB 1818. Thank you to the witnesses.

You may proceed when ready, sir. Do you have witnesses in support?

I do not.

Okay, please proceed.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair and Members. First, I want to thank you, Mister Chair, and your committee staff for working with me on this Bill and gladly accepting the Committee's amendments to clarify and further make sure that we're clear on the restrictions of this pilot program.

Members, AB 1818 is a bill that requires the Community College Chancellor's Office and the California State University Chancellor's Office to establish a pilot program to create best practices to establish on how we can make sure that we are stabilizing our homeless students by allowing them to park overnight instead of in dangerous parts of wherever they may try to find another place to park, to sleep in their cars, while at the same time providing them with services to ensure that they are able to get out of those car vehicles and into stable housing.

This does not allow for RVs. These are just standard vehicles. Also, this pilot program ensures that we follow some very simple social work principles. And that is you identify someone in need, you help to stabilize them and give them a sense of safety and consistency and predictability, and then you offer them services and get them connected.

In this case would be their county's continuum of care and other housing vouchers if there's no emergency housing available on those selected campuses.

And then most importantly, allow for best practices to be developed that can then be shared system-wide so that we can make sure that we are dealing with what continues to be a top priority for the state. And this is simply saying that homelessness continues to be a state priority.

Therefore, we need all of our state institutions, wherever they are, whatever they do, to get in the game, to help to find ways to making sure that we deal with our homelessness issue throughout the state. And so, with that, for me, this is just a moral question.

Are we doing everything that we can to help our homeless students? And for me, this is making sure that this system, who in many cases, are one of the only ones to be able to identify who these folks are and what their needs are, identify them, stabilize them, get them on the course so that they can be able to thrive and focus on their higher education. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Members of the public here in support of the measure, please come forward with your name, your organization, your position.

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

Thank you. Next please.

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

Thank you.

Stephanie Goldman, on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you.

David Ramirez, on behalf of the University of California Student Association in support.

Thank you.

Tristan Brown with CFT in support.

Thank you. Any others seeing none. Opposition. Welcome to the opposition. Please come forward. Welcome to both of you.

Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair Newman, Senators, aides, and those assembled. I am Elliot Stern. I am President of Saddleback College in Mission Viejo. I am here to speak in opposition to AB 1818, which is a difficult task.

We all want to do something about the homelessness situation, and we certainly appreciate that there is within that bill a nod to and the expression of empathy for homeless students. I appreciate that empathy. There is expressed in this bill frustration with our homelessness situation and our inability to get on top of it. I share that frustration.

But the proponents often describe this bill as doing something, and something is better than nothing. I would posit to you that we are not doing nothing, and it is offensive to suggest we are.

Many of the things that Assembly Member Jackson has spoken to are already doing already happening at colleges across the state, at most, if not all colleges across the state.

And what AB 1818 would do would be to supplant those by virtue of its mandate and by virtue of pulling funds from things that we are already doing toward the needed policing that would happen under AB 1818 for less effective practices. Specifically, we follow high-impact practices that are suggested by experts in homelessness across the country.

These force us to focus on doing something immediately for students, rapid response, getting them rehoused as quickly as possible, trying to prevent lack of housing in the first place. If we can help somebody who's behind in their rent, if we can give somebody a security deposit to get a new place, those are the measures that happen.

Prevention, rapid response, and a holistic approach to treating our students, not allowing them to sleep in their cars, but rather getting out of their cars into our basic needs center so we can look at all of the needs that they have. These include food, transportation, wellness, technology. Al the things that students need, need to be addressed holistically.

And if they're stuck in their car in a parking lot, they're not coming in for those services. And the longer they delay in coming in for those services, the worse the prognosis for preventing or getting them out of homelessness in the first place. So, this can actually harm what we're trying to do in many ways.

We offer these basic needs centers that address these needs that I've spoken of very holistically with students, and specifically for unhoused students. We respond in three ways.

First, we offer students vouchers so the vouchers can be for a hotel, a youth hostel, or often we offer Airbnb vouchers to allow students to get a real roof over their head, not the roof of their car. We also offer students referrals to community agencies to help them with longer-term housing needs.

And finally, and most importantly, we offer emergency grants, as I said earlier, to prevent them from becoming homeless in the first place, or to get them in new housing as quickly as possible.

At Saddleback College, in addition to our basic needs center, which are throughout the state at every college, I can assure you at this point, we also offer. We also do a survey, a student needs survey, at the start of the term to actually find out what our students need. And among those questions are, are you couch surfing?

Have you been without a home for one or two days this year? And we go to them. We are proactive in going to them, in making sure that those needs are addressed acutely and quickly and not giving them time to become chronically homeless. AB 1818 would raise costs for me considerably. Here's why.

It's easy for Walmart or for the train station or for a strip mall to open their parking lot. They're not under Title IX. They're not under Clery Act. I have a higher mandate for a higher level of security. This means that I would have to have 24-hour policing and provide a safe space for students.

The cost of that has been estimated for my college, somewhere around $400,000. Other colleges make that estimate much higher. In any case, that $400,000 has to come from someplace. I mentioned to you that we're doing emergency grants. Those emergency grants cost us 500,000.

The 400,000 would need to come from the 500,000, so we would be supplanting an effective measure against homelessness with a less effective measure. This is a step backwards for the state and a step backwards for the good work that the colleges are already doing. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good morning, Chair and Members. So, my name is Ray Murillo. I'm the Interim Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Equity, and Belonging with the CSU Office of the Chancellor, and I'm here to speak in respectful opposition to AB 1818, which would require the CSU to create a pilot program to allow students to sleep in their personal vehicles.

The CSU recognizes severity of the students experiencing housing insecurity and shares the authors and the legislature's goals in supporting housing insecure students. With the legislature's ongoing support to address basic needs, every CSU university has an emergency housing program. These programs range from on campus short-term accommodations to hotel ventures to long-term solutions.

One such program is the Rapid Rehousing Program. In 2019, the Legislature created and funded a rapid rehousing program at the CSU at the CSU to support students experiencing housing insecurity. Eight CSU campuses currently have a rapid rehousing program that works in collaboration with community-based organizations to provide housing options for students.

A noteworthy point for 24-25 is the CSU will be increasing the number of campuses that participate in the Rapid Rehousing Program. When a student utilizes the University's housing emergency housing program, they also receive wraparound services through basic needs case manager, including mental health and meal support.

These state-funded programs have designed have been designed to address the student's basic needs with dignity. In 22-23 the CSU supported 14,000 students through various housing assistance programs and an additional 7,600 students received emergency funding.

With existing programs in place to address student housing and security, the CSU believes it would be a step backwards to fund a program that would allow students to sleep in their vehicles. Campuses have beds available for students experiencing housing insecurity.

It would be a disservice for our students to lower their standard of support and have the students sleep in their vehicles.

While the bill is designed to create a pathway for existing housing for existing emergency housing programs, the CSU feels it is imperative to have the students access existing programs that would provide a safe bed and not have them sleeping in a parking lot.

The CSU estimates that AB 1818 would create a cost to the system about $3.5 million to administer per year.

Financially, we would likely have to divert funds from the other basic needs and housing programs to operate this pilot. The CSU and the Legislature have invested in emergency housing programs that are designed to allow students to find long-term housing solutions while supporting them to be successful in the classroom.

Permitting students to live in their cars as a homelessness strategy would be a substantial change that moves the universities away from the successful programs that CSU and our universities operate to ensure a safe environment that fosters student success and well-being.

On behalf of the CSU and the 23 universities, I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill recognizing the importance of students and existing emergency housing programs. Thank you for your time and consideration.

And thank you for your testimony. Are there others who would like to testify in opposition. Welcome.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Ashley Walker with Nossaman on behalf of North Orange County Community College District, Citrus College and Mount San Antonio College in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Next.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Mark Mac Donald. On behalf of the Antelope Valley, Kern, Foothill-De Anza, Peralta, Palo Verde, San Bernardino, San Diego and Contra Costa community college districts, all in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. David Neben, on behalf of Cerritos, Cuesta, and Allan Hancock College, in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Nune Garipian, on behalf of the community College League of California and the California, excuse me. And the Association of California Community College Administrators. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in opposition? Any tweeners? Not seeing any tweeners? Come back to the dais. Colleagues, questions, comments for the author? Senator Glazer, go ahead.

Well, I really appreciate the sentiment behind this bill. I share the author's concern for the problem easily identified by, you know, I've had the opportunity as the Chair of the Senate Committee on Student Success to travel around to state universities to hear about basic need problems.

Certainly, the problem that you've identified of students not having stable housing, it's a serious issue. We also know it's a serious issue community wide. It's not just for our universities as well.

And I think that part of the responsibility there is on us as a Legislature to provide adequate student housing at some of our universities, and certainly the community colleges have almost none. And that if we could be doing that better, I think it would help alleviate the problem that you've identified in your bill.

But it's difficult to do, and for obvious reasons, it's expensive with limited funds that we do have. It takes away from other things, nevertheless.

I mean, quite frankly, the thing that has always bothered me when I engage with campus leaders about this problem is that to talk about the relationship between the county social service side of things and what happens on the campus, and the fact that in many communities, the campuses are almost seem like islands, that it's their problem and a county who has the social service assistance, that can be very valuable.

Somehow, it's just not their problem. And they don't connect to the student community the way they should. And it's a point of frustration, goes ways beyond your bill.

But it's a part of the inquiry that I know that I have made, I guess, and I appreciate also the fact that you want to do this as a pilot, showing that we want to take some baby steps here in this space. And that's, I think, thoughtful in what you're trying to accomplish.

The thing that makes me pause today, despite the really good intentions that you have, is that we have, at least on the state university level, we've appointed people to be in charge.

And in the Senate, we get a chance to interview them and confirm them if they're qualified to run the state university system, the Board of Trustees. And I have heard, and you can confirm this, that you have not had the opportunity yet to go to the Board of Trustees and ask them specifically to engage in this.

What is an obvious issue of concern that you appropriately have raised? Have you had the chance to have it be agendized, engage the trustees on this to see if they could in their own way come up with a policy that helps advance the goals that you have properly identified?

I have not, and I'm not sure, you know, the appropriate way to go about that. I mean, I used to sit on the board of trustees for this issue, and that type of engagement is not usually something that actually happens.

I mean, of course, as a Member of the Senate, you have more engagement because of your appointment powers, but certainly I have not. It's just been the engagement with their offices, their Sacramento representative.

So, if the bill doesn't move forward, I'd be happy to help you with that, that is not difficult to get an item agendized on the agenda of the trustees and to have you come and present and share that concern appropriately.

So, to see whether that board can make some decisions or give some guidance to the 23 campuses about how they'd like to see it handled, maybe even better than what you're suggesting, or at least certainly to get updated to understand how responsive they are to these problems that you have correctly identified.

More than just housing, basic needs is a broad term.

Absolutely. Yeah.

The bill may very well move forward today, but I'd be happy to work with you to help make sure that if you want to go on that course, that I can partner with you to encourage them to engage directly. I think that's a healthy thing.

And by the way, this goes beyond your bill. This is a general philosophical view I have about a lot of efforts to come to the Legislature and try to establish statewide policy in a place where we do have appointing authority and we do have, there is responsibility that we hold governing boards accountable for.

So, this is just beyond your bill. This is my first time to kind of engage on it. That's where I have reluctance today on such a good and caring proposal.

No, I appreciate that. I would just say a few things. Number one, what opposition stated, this is not to state that the preference is for them to sleep in parking lots. If they have programs already and robust enough to prevent that from happening in the first place, by all means, do it.

But if you don't and a student finds themselves having to find some street, some alley, somewhere that is less safe, then we should provide them with that stability.

And it may be a situation where this also requires the student to apply for this special permit, which means now we know who they are, and that would be a perfect opportunity for them to say that, oh, did you know we have these other services available. The idea is how do we get them into that pipeline?

And certainly, what the data says is that we're not doing everything that we can, and this allows us to actually create a best practices by, for any reason this ends up having to be a last resort, not the preference, but the last resort. Resort.

And so, you know, in many cases, I've, those who have decided to meet with me, I have literally engaged very thoughtfully and made amendments to address those. There's many things that were said today that, number one, I've never had the chance to actually meet with them, but never had those other issues brought up to me.

And so, I'm trying to be very thoughtful for this, but also understanding that sometimes institutions have to continue to adapt to find out, to see what's going on the ground and their unwillingness to. I think it's just an issue. Now, I don't represent institutions. I represent the students who are homeless.

And I think that's just a difference from what I believe is my representation. Right? And so, you know, respectfully ask for your aye vote. But at the end of the day, you know, I just trying to continue to move the needle and still open to having those discussions and all those type of things, too.

But I just think that, you know, many cases, these are some things you have to do, continue to push those issues forward so hopefully that they will continue to adapt to the changing environment we're finding ourselves in here.

Could I ask the CSU rep to come back to the table for a question?

Certainly. He's right here. Come back to the table, Mister Murillo. I thank you.

I'd just like to ask, you know, there hasn't been an agenda item that I'm aware of, and you can familiar, on this issue in recent years, is that correct?

Correct. Yeah. We regularly report on basic needs to the board of trustees, which include students experiencing homelessness.

I think I'd like to ask you to take back these, this bill could very well move forward today. We'll see how it goes through the process.

I'd like to request that they agendize this as a formal item so the Assemblymen could come and appear and speak to the concerns that he sees and give them, the trustees, the opportunity to respond. So, that'd be my request to you.

Sure, certainly hoping.

The chancellor.

We were already scheduled or planning to schedule a presentation for this fall for the Board of Trustees on basic needs, so it's in alignment with what we were planning to do.

All right, thank you.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Good morning, Doctor Jackson. Member Jackson.

So, first of all, I just want to note that in the 23-24 the state invested $33.1 million into basic needs and rapid rehousing programs as a total in the state, which as we know, in the past two years, three years, we've funded unprecedented or geared unprecedented amounts of funding towards our schools.

I've also, in budget one, been a proponent of actually building housing on our campuses because of the burden that it poses on the communities surrounding this, these colleges, and how that impacts the cost of living.

I did not know, and I'm just sharing what I've learned since being on these committees is that, you know, we are, as a state, we require our universities, colleges to increase enrollment. And in that we don't always facilitate the housing to accommodate those students. And that has an impact on our communities and the cost of housing.

I know that there was a lot of proposals with regards to vouchers and give them vouchers to accommodate housing within the local communities. And I said, you know, that still has an impact on the housing inventory for our local community members, still impacting the cost of housing. So, it just goes right up, right?

We don't have enough housing and it still goes up regardless of how many vouchers we give. That still does not address the root problem, which is actually housing itself. So, I've been a proponent of actually solving the issue at the root of the problem, which is making sure that we have housing available, period.

Building it on our campuses if we're going to require that. Having said that, I know from discussions in my district, and I'm not sure how that has been modeled or been practiced in other areas, but I know within my district there's been a lot of collaboration between K12 and junior colleges and colleges and counties actually to come together to the table and create systems in which once we know our students in K12 are qualify for a free lunch, they are automatically tagged and be able to share that information as they move to college, community colleges, or the local colleges and the county in order to carry that information, those demographics, to give them the services that they need.

So, that is something that if we're not doing statewide, something that other districts could look to see how they could implement that collaboration of data so that they don't, the students, when they graduate from high school, don't have to apply for all those services, go through it. So, coming to identifying those students can continue moving forward.

So, it's one way where we don't lose them to a system where they become homeless and without services and without resources around them. So, when there is an awareness and then there's a will, we can create those systems of communicating and following those students through, right?

No, absolutely.

So, there's really ways and means to be able to do that. The other question, the concern that I had was, as we implement the liability that happens when we allow our students to sleep in their cars. For the universities, that is one concern.

The cost of diverting the funding from other programs are effective into trying to provide to accommodate this last resort. Now, the impact.

I do have a question, that was a concern, a question that I had was, do we have a number of students who are sleeping in their cars right now that are not being met through the colleges and the universities with the proper resources to accommodate them to where we would need to facilitate this particular program?

And I'm curious about that because I know it happens, but do we have the data as to how many kids we're missing? Because if we have that data, then as a college and a university, we have to make sure that we are meeting those.

I'm just worried that we're going to take away from routing those students towards the resources of having proper shelter, which I get. That's not the course, this is last resort. But in order to implement this, we'll be facilitating or trying to, or remove funding from those programs that are actually accessing those students. So, a lot.

I know I've said it quite a bit, I'm all over the place, but there's just so much already available to me, to the students, based on my experience these past three years and what we've been trying to accommodate, that I'm thinking of, why do we still need to consider such a bill at this time?

And so I'm reluctant to support it because I think in lieu of this, we have to maybe go back and reassess what we already are supposed to be doing and the funding that we're already allocated to these programs and try to see where we need to address the issue at the root of the problem, rather than expanding something that is not ideal or safe and more costly and diverting funding from other current programs.

Yeah.

Does that make sense?

No, no. No, absolutely. Number one. A number in terms of statewide data, particularly to homeless students, each campus has their own data. Right? The data that's provided statewide, you know, is lagging, meaning it's not as current for me to say these are the exact numbers this year. Right?

But there's no doubt even in, I have two community colleges in my district, and they all, they have basic, they have the basic needs program. Right? But there are still not enough places, or they don't have the additional resources to take them out of their vehicles.

So, there's still right now hundreds of students throughout this state who will be getting their basic needs in terms of food pantries from their colleges, but they will be taking them to their vehicles and driving around trying to find a safe place to sleep. This is not intended to divert resources.

And I'm more than willing to do some upon appropriation language and those type of things to address that issue. Not a problem. Right? But the idea is what we're doing is not enough and we've got to still find different ways to do it. There is a safe way to allow people to park in their vehicles.

I know this from my own social worker background. There are models being used throughout this state right now that does that in a safe way. Not the ideal. Right? But there's a way to do it in terms of your liability question.

We addressed it in the bill in terms of liability, and then we asked them for additional language for their own legal people to give us, and they decided not to give me additional language in terms of liability. And so, we have addressed all those issues here.

And I'm even willing to address the idea of trying to take away resources from one thing to do another. That's just, that doesn't make sense to me. And if that's not clear here, I'm more than willing to address that.

So, let me do this, Senator Ochoa Bogh. So, I'm actually going to have to leave and come back. I have to go present Appropriations. And I don't mean to shortchange this conversation, but I want to make a couple of points before I leave.

So, Assembly Member Jackson, you and I spoke, I think, last week, and if you recall, my reaction to this bill was, you know, oppositional to start. I mean, to President Stern's points, I was concerned, one at the prospective cost, two at the sort of what I thought perhaps was a duplicative feature here.

And then third, you know, this question about impact on both schools and communities as related to public safety, and you've addressed one of those, and I appreciate your commitment for a language that makes clear that this would be upon appropriation so there's no adverse impact or squeezing out on the part of colleges.

And you were also, I think, good enough to accept my suggested amendment of no RVs. Right? Because what we're not trying to do here.

We're not trying to have no tailgate parties around here.

Well, okay. But I think what gets lost here, and you made the point very well to me, was that this is a compliment to not a replacement for other programs.

And I do appreciate the logic here that for those students that find themselves in that precarious position, that the opportunity for a very limited period, a respite, as it were, would come with the requirement to actually apply to get a permit on a limited duration basis, and with that, to use that as an integration and screening basis for causing them proactively to access existing services.

And so, I think that's, there's promise in that concept as long as it's done in such a way to President Stern's point that it's not at the expense of other programs, that it's not being done in lieu of other programs.

So, you've made that clear to me that that's the intent. And so, I would ask you also to consider a limited, a limitation on the duration. Right? So, you know, if somebody got a permit, I guess two limitations. One, there'd be a limited time period, couldn't go on open-endedly.

Correct.

And two, that, you know, it's not all day. Right? So, I assume this would be, as a matter of course, that there would be hours. So, you don't need, to the President's point, 24-hour security around the program. But we've also.

You've also accepted the amendments, I think, that we're going to circumscribe this to five CSUs maximum, and the 20 make it proportional across the systems. 20 community colleges with a sunset. Is that correct?

Okay. And, you know, so with that, you still. There still is the larger question about fiscal impact. This will go from here to Judiciary. There may be some legal issues you can discuss, but at the end of the day, you know, it's about the cost. And, you know, this, as you know, is a challenging fiscal environment.

That's correct.

So, you'll have to get through that gate, and I think you'll also have to give the assurance that this won't cannibalize other programs that are equally needed at this time. And so, with that, you know, I'm going to leave because I have to go, ironically, go to Appropriations, make a bid for one of my own bills. But I'm going to give you.

I'll be there next.

I get to beat you there. I know I'll beat you there. Oh, you're on the Committee?

No. I'll be begging.

So, I don't have to be nice to you. That's great. So, you know, I'm going to give you sort of a conditional yes vote here.

But I do think it's important, and I appreciate all of the schools; concerns as well articulated by President Stern, that we have to make sure that this is a complement to and probably integrated with all of the other programs because there is an acknowledgement and I think an ongoing effort both at the CSU and the CCC's to make, you know, to address this really pressing need of.

And very complicated. Yeah.

And challenges economically.

Very complicated. Yeah.

With that, I'm going to pass the gavel back to Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Can I ask a clarification before you leave? I know you're rushing out to get first in line, but.

I'm like, last in line. I'm about to lose my place. Go ahead.

You said subject to an appropriation, so I want to just be clear on that, that the author's agreed.

That's his offer, and glad to take you up on that.

Okay.

All right.

Yes.

Yep. Yeah.

And then for me, I'm just going to. Thank you. I'm just going to. I'm going to abstain on the bill today. I would like.

What I think would be probably best moving forward, in my personal, humble opinion, is that perhaps doing a study of what we currently have across the state when addressing our students in needs and seeing what is working, what's not working, and what the loopholes would be in order to address it, because we are allocating a lot of funding, and we have so many programs available throughout the state on so many levels, whether it's county, whether it's at the college level, that if we're still missing some students in this process, that we should probably look into where we're failing and move forward on that in that perspective.

So, I think if there's still a need, personally, I think a study would probably be best to ensure that we do have the programs or an audit to see, you know, how we're spending those, those fundings and those programs or the funding for programs in our state addressing our students in need.

So, with that, I'm going to lay off because I still don't think that this issue, this bill is addressing the root cause of the problem. And so, I, you know, with the utmost respect, I will be laying off on the bill today. With that, oh, yes.

Now, I'm going to move the bill under the conditions that have been set by the Chair to.

You have my word on that.

And that your heart is totally in the right place doing the right thing. And I would go back to the CSU and say, I know you're having an agenda on basic needs, but I want this specific proposal. If it doesn't move through this year, I want to make sure that it's clear that the specific proposal by the Assemblymen is one I hope will be part of that agenda so they can address specifically about parking on campus. Okay. I'm happy to

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Member Jackson. Would you like to close?

I appreciate discussion. Very complicated issues, but there's nothing but complicated issues left. So, here we are. I appreciate it. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Member Jackson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item three, AB 1818, Jackson. Motion is do pass, as amended, to the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Roll call]

Thank you. We have one vote registered for the for AB 1818. And we will put that on hold for our absent Members. Okay, we have Member Ward present. Item number, file number four, AB 1858 next.

Welcome.

Thank you, Senators. Let me start by. I want to thank the Committee for their work. And I'm very happy to accept the Committee's amendments. They're clarifying in nature, but also aligned with the intent of what we're trying to achieve through this bill. In California schools, there are clear policies and procedures for earthquake and fire drills.

Unfortunately, this is not the case for active shooter drills. School shooter drills take many forms, from being as basic as modified lockdowns to extreme active shooter simulations with gunfire, fake blood, actors on campus. Students and staff not being made aware that a drill is taking place and causing significant trauma to all who are involved.

Nowhere else in our school system is there something so abrasive and unregulated. When we're doing a fire drill, you wouldn't fill the halls full of fake flames and turn up the temperature. And when you have an earthquake drill, you wouldn't start shaking the room.

AB 1858 seeks to standardize school shooter drills by giving clear guidance to the California Department of Education so they can update their current requirements for school districts to use when conducting these drills. This guidance will focus on age appropriate drill procedures. Ban simulated shooting and violence. Provide local resources for students to reach out to address trauma.

Require students and staff be told when a drill is beginning. And notification of the drill the week of and following the drill the same day. So we understand that there's a drill coming. And it is not the real thing. I am testifying in support of AB 1858. Cassandra Whetstone from Mom's Demand Action.

And Tristan Brown from the California Federation of Teachers. And when the time is appropriate, I would respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Member Ward, welcome. Thank you. Good morning. Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Cassandra Whetstone. I'm a parent, I'm an educator, and I'm a volunteer with mom's demand action. I'm here today asking you to support AB 1858.

This Bill will guide schools conducting active shooter drills to utilize a trauma informed approach, including advance notification of drills to staff and parents, limitations on drills with simulations, and availability of mental health resources. Active shooter drills come from a place of good intentions. Student safety.

As an educator, I know that students learn best when they feel safe, confident and comfortable. But these drills have measurable negative impacts on the stress and anxiety levels of students.

Research has found that drills involving children have not proven to be effective in preventing school gun violence, while simultaneously finding that these drills significantly negatively impact students mental health. AB 1858 will help to mitigate these stressors by including guidance for age appropriate drills and making sure these drills are trauma informed.

With the well being of students taking priority. This bill is backed and guided by research, a report published by everytown for gun safety, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association.

While we don't recommend active shooter drills for children, if they are happening, we believe that they need to be conducted in ways that will minimize the harmful impacts on our school communities. On behalf of Every Town for Gun Safety, Mom's Demand Action, and Students Demand Action. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1858.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Tristan Brown of CFT. We represent over 120,000 educators in this state, all of which are living in their constant fear that someday might be their day to unfortunately be a part of a tragedy at school. So we do take this policy area extremely seriously.

We know that our members have had to serve as shields for children in the past. And seen unspeakable tragedies in our campuses. Unfortunately, as these continue to grow in our communities year in and year out, we need to be prepared. But preparation does not require trauma to also accompany it.

We were excited to see that the author of this Bill put this policy forward to prevent unneeded trauma to both educators, classified staff, and students to have to live through a very serious and traumatic experience.

Anecdotally, we know that some campuses have tried to make a very authentic training happen where notice was not provided to students or staff in a way to make it as most realistic as possible. This does keep people up. This does create trauma that they have to live with. And we don't need to have to see the gore.

We don't have to live through the shots to understand what to do in case of an emergency, to vacate, to hide, to fight in some circumstances and whatever the best training methods are, we hope and send all positive energy that we never have to live through a day like this again.

But in that event, we're hopeful that we can do so being properly trained without the trauma associated with live fire, with fake fire, with gore, with any of those elements that will keep staff and pupils awake at night, reliving these traumatic moments and wondering when their day is coming.

We'd much rather have folks know to hide and to seek out law enforcement and to seek out safety, whatever the best practices are, but not needlessly send folks through a very traumatic experience. So the Federation of Teachers, both representing classified and certificated staff in our state, are happy to support this Bill and we urge your aye vote this morning.

Thank you very much. And we'll continue with any witnesses in support of AB 1858.

Yara Jidal, Volunteer with Mom's Demand Action in support.

Kimberly Manfredi, a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action in support.

Clara Whetstone, a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action in support.

Julie Chapman, a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action in support.

Jillian King, volunteer, Mom's Demand Action and retired K12 administrator.

Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in strong support.

Rebecca Marcus, with the Brady Campaign in support.

Good morning, Madam Vice Chair and Senators, Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support.

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

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support.

Lucy Salcito Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Zarmude Kacherno, with Twin Rivers Unified School District in strong support.

Wendy Bramble, just a normal citizen, in strong support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in the report, we'll now move to any witnesses in opposition to AB 1858. See? None. We'll bring it back to the dais. Senator, welcome.

Well, you gotta acknowledge me. Why was this not on consent? Was not privy to those discussions. Well, I'd admonish the chair if he's here. In fact, I will admonish the chair because he's not here. This should have been on consent. So, back in those of you who heard the story before, I'm sorry.

So, back in 2019, I was out hiking. Early in the morning, I come back to the house. The TV's on, and it's an aerial view of a neighborhood. I go, that looks like my neighborhood. And it was because 20 minutes earlier, there was a shooting at the high school that my kids had gone to.

Anybody that you know of, who knows that area, would say, that would be the last school in America where that would happen. So it can happen anywhere. And the thing that was interesting about it, obviously, it went down the right of way.

First responders were so impressed by the way the students executed the game plan that they had learned, and they learned it without all the trauma and all that. So you can do it without that. That's one. And number two students, well, actually, three students died. The shooter, two others, and then two were wounded.

One of the wounded students, who actually was the target, she did not have the same feelings for the shooter as he had for her, a friend of ours. So that shot in her went through cleanly. So that was good. So we went to go visit her after she got out of the hospital. It was Sunday.

The Patriots game's on. We bring a gift. We go there like 20 minutes and have a great time. Another family comes, so we leave. And then it's interesting, my wife and I get in the car and we both start crying. And we're just triggered from that.

So I could see where you could get triggered from some of these extreme examples that I've seen about or heard about. So I think this is just a common sense. And again, I can't believe it's not on consent. But anyway, he's already moved the bill, but I'll vote for it. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Glazer.

Well, just for the record, to protect the chair in his absence, a bill on consent typically gets there because there's agreement between the chair and the Vice Chair. That's how things appear on consent, just as I understand it. And by the way, it's okay to be sensitive. Senators are sensitive. And that's all right.

I'm happy to move this bill. Thank you for bringing it to us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Senator Glazer. So now. Well, would you like to close?

Thank you, madam Vice Chair. No, I appreciate your consideration of this. I think it sets important guardrails in place where, of course, we want our schools to be safe spaces. We need to go through exercises that are going to be able to think about what to do in the tragic eventuality of a really difficult situation.

When we introduced this bill, it might not surprise you that we received a lot of communication statewide from students or former students that had lived through a drill that had induced trauma.

Some of them were still living for that years after the fact from, I remember calls from the peninsula, from the Central Valley that they just had an experience where they thought it was the real thing that, you know, I think just really, and, you know, they heard sounds or they heard activities that just really induced and triggered a real fear for them.

So let's, and I'll say for the record, too, that, you know, a lot of our school districts are using drills, but they're doing so responsibly.

And the fact that we just haven't had statewide guidance that is actually creating some conformity and some guardrails about best practices and what to do or not do is helpful to make sure that well intentioned or other districts that may be thinking about something designed that is just going too far.

But for all their good intentions, we're preventing that. And so I'm looking forward to this guidance, being able to support schools so that they can continue to be, as we heard, the safe and thriving environments that we want and would respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, Member Ward. Madam Secretary, please call the rule.

File Item four, AB 1858 award motion is do pass as amended, to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you. Three votes, and we'll put that on call for APPCN Members. Okay, so we have the wonderful presence of Member Kalra. You'll be presenting item 18 and 19. Would you like. Do you have a preference of which one would you like to.

We'll go in order. I think 2398 is the first.

So number, file item number 18, AB 2398.

Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 2398 would require the California State University system to conduct an external audit of each of its campuses by January 1, 2028. It would also require all audits of the CSU system or its campuses to be made available to the public. Currently, the CSU system conducts an external, system wide audit each year.

It also conducts smaller, irregular audits of various programs operated by individual campuses. However, it does not currently conduct standalone external audits of each of its 23 campuses. While existing audits contain some information regarding each campus's financial status and activities, they do not constitute the full inspection that would be offered by a complete campus level audit.

For example, while these general overviews reference instructional expenses and payments to employees, they do not include any detailed information about faculty salaries. Just last year, the impact of this data deficit was illustrated by a turbulent collective bargaining process between the CSU system and the California Faculty Association.

While CFA asked for a 12% raise, the CSU system said that it could only afford a 5% raise. However, an analysis by Independent Accounting Professor Dr. Howard Bunsis concluded that, in 2022, the CSU system had around 13.8. 13.8 billion in net assets and 8.1 billion in mostly unrestricted reserves.

Unfortunately, this difference in financial assessment was not immediately resolved, leading to a series of historic, system wide strikes across all 23 CSU campuses. Eventually, CFA and the CSU system came to an agreement that included an approximately 10% pay increase.

AB 2398 will shed much needed light on the general financial health of one of our state's most crucial educational institutions. By requiring a complete audit of each of the 23 CSU campuses, this bill will help us make better financial decisions that will positively impact faculty, students, and the CSU system alike. With me to provide supporting testimony is Priscilla Quiroz, on behalf of the California Faculty Association.

Welcome, Ms. Quiroz. You have three minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of the California Faculty Association, proud sponsors of AB 2398. Just want to thank the Assembly Member and his staff for all the work on this measure. AB 2398 is a crucial step towards enhancing transparency and accountability within the California State State University system by requiring external financial audits for each CSU campus by January 1, 2028.

As the Assembly Member stated, earlier this year, the CSU system faced an unprecedented strike, the first of its kind in the nation, with all 23 campuses going on strike. The discrepancy in bargaining numbers underscore the need for accurate financial information. AB 2398 will complement the system wide annual audit by auditing individual campuses. This is essential for understanding how public funds are utilized effectively and appropriately. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any others here who'd like to testify in support of the measure? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, do we have opposition to the measure? Is anyone here in opposition to the measure? Again, seeing none. Come back to the committee. Senator Glazer.

I will ask a question on this. You know, the bargaining that takes place is not a campus by campus agreement on salaries and benefits. It's a system wide agreement. So I'm trying to understand why this is really going to affect the bargaining aspects that you raised in your opening.

Thank you, Senator. The positive benefits of a campus by campus audit is not simply related to bargaining or will not only have benefits related to bargaining, however, it could shed light and create more transparency as to the funds that are available system wide if you're doing a campus by campus audit.

Because, since they don't do campus by campus audits, oftentimes funds are, it's not easily delineated where the funds are. And so by doing a campus by campus audit, oftentimes, or in many cases, there are, it could be, through the bargaining process, specific assets of specific campuses.

Or for example, right now, I've worked with sounds of San Jose State University, both in terms of housing issues as well as in terms of facilities upgrades. It'll be very helpful to know how they're dealing with their money before they come and ask for money from us through our budget process as well. So it's not specific, the benefits aren't specific just to bargaining.

However, I think that if the numbers were more clear, and the campus by campus audits would have made the numbers more clear, it could have potentially prevented a strike. Because some of the funds that weren't as clearly identified would have been more clear on the campus by campus level. Oftentimes, money that you're looking at at a CSU level is actually being kept at a campus by campus level. And so I think there's opportunities not just for benefits to bargaining, but a much broader basis.

Because the law, what the CSU does today is they provide expenditures of 50,000 or more are posted. Right. So those kinds of... And an audit is determining whether the balance sheet is accurate. So I am trying to wrestle...

I know that, look, transparency is good. But I am wrestling with whether this is going to create an expense. This is now. I mean, audits are very expensive. They're very expensive. I chaired the Audit Committee at the CSU, so I know. And this is going to require 23 new audits, new hiring of new accounting firms to determine whether the balances are reported and reported correctly, despite the fact that they're already providing this detail at great, significant level. In fact, we had a bill a few weeks ago that brought it down to, does it bring that to $10,000?

Which is, I didn't support it. It's like, that's excessive to me. One final thing, and again, I know the intentions are good here, but a lot of the criticisms during that strike is, I understand it was about the reserve policy of the system and of the campuses. And I found that to be challenging to understand, because when you're talking about salaries that you have an obligation to pay every year, you don't pay it out of one time money, and the reserves are set aside for one time.

I understand why there could be criticism of it, of how much you have, but the idea that a reserve level could somehow compensate for an ongoing salary obligation was really difficult to follow. But I know the intentions are to try to create a Kumbaya moment between the faculty union and the system.

I know that's a positive thing to accomplish. I'm just not so sure that these additional expenses that this bill would force the system to incur... That means that that affects tuition, that affects money available for salaries and benefits. I mean, there is a cost here. But this isn't the Appropriations Committee, so we don't have to deal with that.

And, Senator, I think you're 100% correct. The intention certainly is not to increase tuition, what have you. To your point, a lot of the details are already kept. A lot of the information. They have, the information there that would be made available relatively easily for an external audit to occur.

This would require audits of the campuses every three years, which means they wouldn't have to do all 23 every year. It would be seven or eight audits a year. Again, that's... And we delayed it to 2028 also to consider the cost, especially the ramp up, in order to reduce that ramp up cost.

And so these are issues that have been brought up over the course of this bill moving forward, and we're taking them as seriously as we can. We definitely don't want to see any impact on students. But I think that, given the fact that a lot of the details that would be required for audit are already kept, I think it would be a matter just make them available to an external auditing firm, which does have cost to it, obviously.

But some of the information that's gleaned from the system wide audit can also be used as well. And so I think that we have to balance it. There's no doubt about it. In terms of what the costs are, what savings can be gleaned from the cost of an audit, and in terms of the reserves as well. I mean, I think there's a lot of ask for funding for infrastructure improvements on campuses and there's large reserves.

You know, I think that should be considered when we're asked for state money to go to some of those costs, if there are reserves, as to why they aren't using some of those reserves for some of those infrastructure costs as well. Which they may have a good answer to, but I think those questions need to be asked.

Let me ask kind of a follow on question then. With respect to the current audit process, is your concept, will the individual campus audits be separate and distinct from that, or can they be incorporated into the KPMG annual audits that are done?

There's no reason why they couldn't also contract with that same firm, again, to reduce cost. I think it's easier to have a multi-audit contract with the firm that you're already using. So I think there are cost savings that could be made, particularly because that firm is going to have an understanding of the fiscal operations of the larger entity. And so there's absolutely opportunities for it, for efficiencies to be occurred. No doubt about it.

So then what we're really, over a three year span, you're looking for sort of an audit plus, as it were, which is on an ongoing basis, seven, either seven or eight campuses for each of three years to be prospectively be included into KPMG audit. And that shouldn't be too onerous.

It shouldn't be too onerous. But as Senator Glazer's point, there's obviously going to be a cost. It's not going to be unsubstantial, but I think it's absorbable within the CSU costs of their, you know, in their auditing processes. Also, in being made available to the public.

They already have a website that post their audit publicly, so I don't think it'll be too onerous to include, you know, links to each of the campus audits once they're available as well. So the infrastructure is in place. And I think oftentimes that's the most expensive process, creating, kind of getting out of first gear, creating that infrastructure. That infrastructure is already in place. So I do think, to your point, Mr. Chair, that the cost won't be as much as it was from the ground up audit process.

Right. But cost is always a factor. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So would you be requiring the audits for the universities to be held every single year for every campus?

Every three years. All campuses every three years. That means each about seven or eight campuses a year. And so for each individual campus, it will be every three years.

Every three years. And this would only add to what is currently already in place. As far as the current audit, how does this all play in with regards to the bill that we saw last week that would lower the threshold of the audit components to be lowered to 10,000 versus 50,000? How does that all combine into...

And I think that helps in terms of setting up this bill for success. Because now, if you're actually lowering the threshold, that means there's going to be even more data that's going to be readily available to an auditing team. And so I frankly think it makes it that much more cost effective if you're lowering that threshold. To Senator Glazer's point, I don't, that's pretty onerous to lower all the way down 10,000. But if that's happening for the purposes of this bill, I think it actually adds to the efficiencies.

Okay. And then I think the last comment that I have is, what's interesting is the bill that we saw last week had opposition, but on this one, it's my understanding that there is absolutely no registered opposition with regards to this bill. I find that very interesting, actually. Thank you.

It speaks to your point. I mean, on the one hand, transparency, to argue against transparency, in the other, there's probably an efficient way to do this. Any other questions, comments? Looking for a motion, give you a chance to close.

As a courtesy, I'd be happy to make the motion.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you so much, Senator Glazer. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Respectfully, good conversation. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

File Item 18, AB 2398, Kalra. Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure has two votes and we will leave it open. And we are now moving on to your second measure, AB 2640. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'd like to thank the Committee for their work on this bill and will be accepting the committee amendments. AB 2640 is the Compassionate Learning Advancement for Science Students Act, also known as the CLASS Act.

This bill will require teachers in schools to provide students with a written notice informing them about the right to opt out of animal dissection assignments. In addition, students will be able to receive information about where the animal is sourced from and the chemicals they'll be exposed to. Under current law, students already have the right to opt-out.

However, many students may not be aware of this right and feel obligated to participate in the animal dissection assignment, fearing it will impact their grades. The class act is a step in the right direction to strengthen students' ability to opt out while encouraging alternative methods to help increase student engagement and support their interests in learning about anatomy.

Anatomy and dissection are essential scientific pedagogy. However, with the advancements in educational technology, alternative methods have become more widely accessible and cost-effective. This was really shown during the pandemic when those alternatives had to be used for every student and every teacher.

These alternative methods, such as a synthetic frog model or frogopedia, an application for mobile phones or tablets, offer a practical alternative method that allows students to still participate in the material.

In addition, purchasing the animal specimens can be costly and may only serve as a one-time use, whereas alternative methods can be reused year after year, resulting in cost savings over time for our schools.

By providing students with a written notice, AB 2640 empowers them to be informed, given the choice to opt out of animal dissection and instead receive an alternative comparable assignment.

The bill has received bipartisan support in the Assembly, and I'm happy to have with us to testify and support Katherine Hampton, a student at Chapman University, and Samantha Crowe, Program Manager for TeachKind Science and a former professor of biology.

Welcome, both of you. Please proceed whoever would like to go first would like to go first.

Okay. Press this? Hi, my name is Katherine Hampton and I'm a student at Chapman University in Orange. I was born and raised in the Bay Area, and my family moved to El Dorado Hills when I was entering middle school.

Throughout my time in middle and high school, I had growing concerns regarding lessons that regularly took place in my science classes. Because of this, I strongly support AB 2640. Year after year in grade school, I found myself forced to participate in the dissection of various animals, from worms to cats.

During these lessons, I was presented with a previously living individual to cut open and observe their anatomy while being given information about bodily functions. I was exposed to the pungent smells of formaldehyde that overwhelmed my nose and made my eyes water.

As a student who was born with a severe asthmatic condition, I took it upon myself to monitor my health extra carefully on dissection days. Moreover, as a student who prefers non-animal methods, I became panicked and anxious when I was told I needed to dissect a cat for a grade.

When I asked for an alternative, I was told to quote, just do it, and even after repeating my concerns to my teacher, I was not offered an alternative.

Several of my classmates who were also disturbed to be dissecting cats had to leave the room because they were so upset, and they told me they would have opted out if they knew that they could. Learning about anatomy and biology is essential.

However, students like me are pressured to dissect animal cadavers, making it impossible to effectively absorb the information that we're supposed to learn. An alternative assignment will enable students to participate meaningfully in anatomy lessons rather than exiting the classroom and missing out on valuable learning opportunities due to exposure to harsh chemicals or ethical concerns.

Or, let's face it, by simply being grossed out. The law in California is not currently protecting students as it was intended, and it must be changed. That's why AB 2640 is so important. Students should be provided with accurate information and empowered to make informed decisions regarding animal dissection.

I encourage you to reflect carefully on the potential benefits that enacting AB 2640 could bring to students throughout California. As a student in this state, I appreciate your willingness to consider my perspective on animal dissection in the classroom.

Thank you, Miss Hampton. And welcome.

Honorable Chairman and Senators. Thank you for your time. I'm Samantha Crowe, Program Manager for PETA's Humane Science Education Division and a former professor of biology. AB 2640 is all about empowering students.

The CLASS Act is a simple bill that strengthens current law by ensuring that students are aware of their right to opt-out and empower them to make an informed decision. Students will not be told to drop a class or accept a failing grade if they refuse to violate their ethical convictions.

Animal dissection is not a magical way to get students excited about science. In fact, it disenfranchises compassionate students and can often turn them away from the sciences. Animal dissection is an antiquated instructional strategy that has not changed in a century.

Animal dissection is not required or even mentioned in the NGSS, CTE, IB, or College Board AP classes and no medical schools use animal dissection, and experience with it is not expected or required of incoming students.

In fact, the updated AAVMC, which is the American Association of Veterinary Colleges, in their new handbook for 2024 the use of animals in vet ed., highlights the need to make progress in incorporating humane non-animal methods into veterinary schools.

Animal dissection is less effective than non-animal methods of teaching anatomy. According to a 2022 systematic review published in the American Biology Teacher Journal, comparing student learning outcomes shows that students at all educational levels, when comparing non-animal methods to animal dissection, performed as well as or better in 95% of the studies.

This is a systematic review of the literature, and this happened when they were learning anatomy using non-animal methods. Non-animal methods prepare students better for higher ed than animal dissection with in-depth layering of anatomical parts, correct colorization, and simulations of body systems within a living organism.

None of these things can be accomplished by using an animal cadaver. While TeachKind Science recognizes educators' professional judgment in selecting instructional materials as well as their responsibility to ensure those materials are safe, humane, cost-effective, inclusive, and aligned with the principles of social and emotional learning and trauma-sensitive instruction.

Please help students become better scientists and help educators honor students' right by voting aye on AB 2640. Thank you.

And thank you. Are there others who wish to speak in support of the measure? Welcome.

Hello, my name is Nick Sackett, on behalf of co-sponsors Social Compassion in Legislation, courtesy for Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and Animal Legal Defense Fund in support.

Thank you.

Mason Melito, recent college graduate and resident of California in strong support.

Thank you.

Hi. Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the Humane Society of the United States in support.

Thank you.

Wendy Bramble supporting this bill for PETA and also as a recent Master of Public Health graduate from Loma Linda University. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello Senators, I'm April Joyce, I live in Sacramento, California. I am a lifestyle and performance medicine coach. We are the newest branch of the American Medical Association. We treat, prevent, and reverse disease through lifestyle. I'm also a member of the Physicians Committee on Responsible Medicine and I'm an ACE-certified personal trainer. Just like the Bill we heard before us about school shootings.

Your position please.

I vote strongly for this because I vote strongly for compassionate empathy. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Next please.

Zarminika Churian with Zarminika Churian with Twin Rivers Unified School District. And as a parent and the 7th grader in me who had to take an F for refusing to dissect the frog who almost failed that class because of that situation, but in college succeeded the software application with the same project and received a B plus. Thank you.

Thank you.

In strong support of AB.

Appreciate that. Next please.

Hi, I'm Rajeli Holstein. I'm a former teacher and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Linda Middlesworth. I'm in support of this compassionate action and I work for Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Thank you very much. Opposition. Do we have witnesses in opposition? Mister Wenger, welcome. You have three minutes. Please proceed when ready.

Mister Chair and Members, John Wenger here on behalf of the Hands-On Science Partnership. We're a consortium of businesses, educators, and other stakeholders invested in improving student achievement and science through hands-on learning. First, I'd like to thank the author, the staff, and the sponsors for robust dialogue. We've had good conversations with them.

Also, I'd like to thank the Chair and the Committee for all their hard work on the amendments. Certainly, appreciate the direction that this bill is going.

I think first and foremost, Hands-On Science Partnership does support a student's right to opt out of animal dissection, and we support ensuring those rights and ensuring that those rights are communicated to the student. I think our overarching concerns with the bill were sort of twofold.

One was the structure of the notice, which we thought from our perspective was actively discouraging students from participating in hands-on learning. And then the second component of the bill that was encouraging school districts to explore alternatives by 2028. I think the amendments do address some of our concerns around the notice provisions.

We still believe a written notice is a little bit overly burdensome to teachers and could take up valuable class time. But the changes to the notice do seem to be more neutral. So, we do appreciate that. We do appreciate the Committee removing the word strongly from section 32255.4 B.

But we do continue to object to that provision which encourages schools to explore alternatives to animal dissection. We continue to believe that that decision should remain at the local level with the school districts and with the teachers, and that the State Legislature shouldn't really be weighing into that decision from a state policy perspective.

Overall, we do believe hands-on dissection does serve an important purpose. We believe that it enhances students' understanding of anatomy and physiological concepts and that hands-on dissection provides additional sensory information and anatomical variation that many of the alternative models cannot provide.

So, we do have a opposed position on the bill currently, but we do appreciate the author's commitment to at least having a dialogue with us and we appreciate the Committee's work on this but are opposed today.

Appreciate that other witnesses in opposition if any? Seeing none. You are an army of one Mister Wenger. Let's come back to the Committee. Questions, comments from Members? I actually have a quick question. It might be for you but it's starting with Miss Hampton. So, you were how old when you asked to dissect a cat?

I was a senior in high school, so I was 17, 18.

And I don't know if you know Mister Wenger, I'm more used to kind of frogs, etcetera. How common is it for schools to be using house pets for a dissection?

I would need to check with my client and ask them that. I'm not entirely sure. I think I believe those types of dissections typically happen in the more advanced anatomy and biology classes, but I could definitely follow up.

That does seem sort of out of step with current sensibilities. I too had concerns about the notice and you know so we've tried to make that a little less onerous because I think you know we've had this conversation in different meetings.

You know I have a little kid in school, and we get way too many notices about everything and I'll admit I don't read most of them, so you know the concern is. I'm a bad dad, I'll admit it, it's on the record. My kid would tell you if she was here, she'd tell you.

I do my best. So, that is a concern about communication and making sure that a notice is properly distributed but in ways that aren't adverse to the broader the goals. I'm also sort of concerned, intrigued by enforcement. Right?

And so, to your, to the witness point, you have every right under California existing statute to opt out of a life dissection. But you were told that, and I think one of the witnesses actually said that their child was told that they would take a failing grade.

So, that's improper and I have real concerns about that, and extends well beyond this area. But how should we think about that Assembly Member?

Well Mister Chair, I think that the fact that we are now asking that a written that basically their right to opt-out is given to them in a written form, a standardized written form will now give the student the information that they do have the right to opt-out, regardless of what the teacher says.

They now have to provide this form that expressly informs them that they can opt-out.

Right. And so, you know, the concern there is, if it's a parent, like me, and it doesn't come back, that's an effective, that's a default opt-out, unless, you know, so is there a time limit there? I mean, how do we make sure that it's not inferred as an opt-out when in fact it's just not noticed? So, I don't know. Mister Wenger?

Yeah. We're still having, I think, discussions with the sponsors on how the mechanics of the, the parents.

And you're open? You're going to continue that conversation?

Well, yeah, I think the amendments that the Committee put forth were part of them, came through the conversations with the opposition. But I would just say, look, you know, we, yes, there are a lot of notices and what have you for our students, but that's on issues that are really important.

These animal dissection kits already have notice on it. They're called Prop. 65 warnings. So, you know, we have to recognize that we are giving these chemically laden.

No, I appreciate, but you know, it's already an obligation for the teacher to give some sort of.

Yeah. We've just heard anecdotally through the National Science Teachers Association that a lot of teachers are actually not aware of California current law. So, I think there's definitely some conversation to be had at the district level on ensuring that the teachers are aware and are giving the students those rights. We definitely support that.

Okay. Anything else from colleagues? And so, you make clear you're accepting the amendments?

Okay. And with that, you know, glad to, glad to support the bill. Got a motion from Senator Glazer. Would you like to close Assembly Member?

Yes.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And I appreciate the dialogue on this. This is really just about informing students of a right that they already have that they may not be aware of, and the teachers may not be aware of. So, I appreciate the work by the Committee and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Madam Consultant, we've a motion from Senator Glazer. Please call the roll.

File item 19, AB 2640, Kalra. Motion is do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Very good that has six votes, and we will leave it open for the one missing Member. But thank you. And thank you to the witnesses. And Assembly Member Fong, welcome back. I feel like I've seen your twin brother over at Appropriations.

Yes.

He's looking good today. You may proceed when ready.

Good morning, Mister chair and Members. Thank you, Mister chair, for being a partner in our work on Assembly Bill 2047. Assembly Bill 2047 would establish a system wide office of Civil Rights at the CSU Chancellor's office and the UC Office of the President.

The bill would also require each campus at a CSU and UC to designate a Title IX coordinator and a Title IX office to process sexual harassment complaints on campus.

The system wide office will be tasked with monitoring each campus to ensure effective actions are taken adequately prevent and address sexual harassment on campus with the ultimate goal of preventing a recurrence. The Title IX offices will now have codified responsibilities to address and prevent the occurrences of sexual harassment.

California is a pioneer for change in our country and its measure and the call to action bills build upon the federal Title IX regulations and are based on best practices established by the US Department of Justice and the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights.

Assembly Bill 2047 will provide the necessary structure for CSU and UC campuses to address sexual harassment in a manner that will restore educational equity and have positive impacts on the health and well being of our campuses. With me today to speak on the merits of the measure is Kay Rogers of Generation Up.

Miss Rogers, welcome again. Please proceed.

Good morning, Chairman Newman, Members of the Committee. My name is Kate Rogers. I'm the Co Chief of Policy for generation up. I'm also a current UCLA junior. We're proud to co sponsor of 12 of the call to action bills, including AB 2047.

So, representing thousands of students across the state, it's Jennup's responsibility to advocate for legislation that will create safer campuses. So I want to thank Assembly Member Fong for supporting the call to action package and for introducing AB 2047. One in four undergraduate women will experience sexual violence while in college. One in four. That number is astronomical.

And I'll admit that I didn't fully grasp the magnitude of that statistic until I myself became a part of it. In my nearly three years at UCLA, I've heard many, many stories similar to my own. Stories where students were reached out to Title IX and were met with indifference, like me.

Stories where students felt too hopeless to even reach out at all. And I will say that I have yet to meet a student student survivor that actually has received justice by going through the Title IX process. But I've met probably dozens that have either not reached out or not received the help they needed.

So, like I said, when I was faced with my own decision to contact Title IX, I chose not to. And sexual violence feeds off of our silence. I, like many of my classmates, had completely lost faith in my school's ability and willingness to protect me.

So as long as our Title IX offices fail to protect students, we'll know it and we'll choose not to come forward, and then there'll be no progress made on this issue.

So AB 2047 and the call to action package as a whole really has given me hope for the first time in a long time, that things might actually change. So by establishing a consistent Title IX framework, this bill will ensure that UC and CSU systems have much more reliable access to, like, services for their students.

So through this bill, for the first time, I think every single student will have their rights respected and access to the resources that we really do need. So, on behalf of generation up, I respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses here or individuals here like testifying support of the measure, please come forward.

Good morning. Maggie White with the California State University Office of the Chancellor here in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next please.

Hello, Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, President of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mario Guerrero on behalf of the University of California, we don't have a position on this bill, but we really wanted to thank the author. Your staff has been amazing. I think we addressed a lot of the issues we had, and we're happy to consider the bill as it moves forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Any other tweeners? No other witnesses? Let's come back to the Committee. Committee Members, any questions or concerns for the author? I've got a motion from Senator Glazer. You know, just to note very clearly, this bill addresses one of the report's recommendations from the recent hearings and the report that followed.

So appreciate you bringing this measure forward. Glad to support it. I've got a motion from Senator Glazer. Would you like to close?

Thank you so much. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. With that madam consultant, please call the room.

File item seven, AB 2047, Mike Fong. The motion is due pass to the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Very good. That measure has six votes. We'll leave it open for the time being, but it will pass. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you, Miss Rogers. Welcome, Mister Mccarty. I see you have two bills. Whichever order you choose.

We'll go with the order in the file, so AB 2565.

Please proceed when ready.

Yeah. So this is a bill that I wish we didn't have to present in this day and age. It's about the impacts of horrific school shootings throughout our country and trying to protect our students and staff by making sure our schools are safer. The simple concept is, when schools a remodel on their school sites, this would focus on a requirement that they install interior locks while they undergo construction projects.

After the tragic Sandy Hook shooting nearly a decade ago, this was a top recommendation and clearly found that not a single locked door has ever been breached during a school shooting. And one quarter of schools don't have interior locks. This is a common sense, bipartisan approach. And we do have a funding source that we identified in the Assembly side for the bill that passed last year. And so with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Mr. Brown, welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Tristan Brown of CFT. This has been a long time coming. This has been a high priority of our membership for many, many years. We have made incremental progress towards obtaining interior door locks throughout our school system. I think hopefully this bill puts us across the finish line to make sure that this important safety measure is available to every student and staff member on campus.

Many of you just heard me testify on another bill about how our members are constantly worried that their day is coming to have a school shooting in their campus and prepared to be shields for their students. It is not a world that we want to live in, but unfortunately, here we are.

So we hope that we can finally make sure every classroom is equipped to have an internal door lock so that, if the worst does happen, our members can keep our students safe until such time that help arrives and the incident has passed. So with that, we do urge your aye vote this morning. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Any opposition to the measure, please come forward. Seeing none. Back to the dais. Got a motion from Senator Glazer. Very briefly, if you could. You mentioned you've identified a funding source. If you could just expand briefly.

Yeah, there was a bill that passed this house last year. It's a surcharge or fee on gun and ammunition wholesale purchases throughout California. A part of that is for school safety in the measure that we pass assigned into law. And this adjusts the definition of school safety, focusing on interior locks.

Very good. All right, we have a motion from Senator Glazer. Happy to support the bill. Madam Consultant, please call the... Well, I'm sorry. If you'd like to close, Assembly Member, unless that was your...

Ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

File Item 22, AB 2565, McCarty. Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Very good. That measure has six votes. We'll leave it up for the time being. And your next measure is AB 2927.

Yes, thank you. This next measure is, I think, a really exciting opportunity for California to push forward the issue with financial literacy. And our high school students, I know with two teenagers at home, they're all about money. And when we had them go to a course last year to learn about personal finance. They were intrigued.

They didn't know the difference between a credit card and a debit card. And so many people go to college now, and they get a financial aid package, and you ask them, what does that mean? Is it a grant or a loan? I don't know. I got financial aid. So those are two big differences.

And, you know, when you go to college on those first days, you see more credit card tables than you do the library or where your classrooms are. So this would put California forward and get us in par with 17 other states that have a financial literacy requirement for high school students. For graduation.

75% of students surveyed said that they would greatly benefit from this. And they learned so much of their information, unfortunately, from social media. You know, I asked my kids recently, I says, how much do air Jordans cost? And they're like, well, it depends. You know, who cares? Let's say, yeah, let's say $200.

They said, and I said, what if you bought those Air Jordans on buy now, pay later, affirm, which when you boot on your phone, you use your apple pay your credit card or firm.

I said, what if you miss one payment and you go from the teaser rate and have your interest rate tripled and you pay minimum payments for the lifetime of those Air Jordans? You'd be paying $500 for those same pair of Air Jordans. And that's not fair. And so I think young people don't understand that.

And so what we're trying to do is focus on this from our high school graduation requirements. In the high school education, as you know, there is a ballot measure that's qualified. I think it's better to have the Legislature focus on our own solution. We can craft it and iron out some of these issues.

We think we have done so working with parties in removing the majority of the opposition. This is now an option for students to take this in lieu of economics.

And we think that's a choice that they can make and have similar type input that they would get as far as dollars and cents and monetary policy and personal finance. This has a multi year implementation, so it wouldn't start till the 2031 class.

We think that we've checked the boxes to push forward this issue to help our young people succeed in California, but also working with our educators and our school districts and our, and our, you know, people in the education field to make sure we focus on what's needed to put this issue forward. So thank you.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote and ask for my witnesses to present now as well.