Senate Standing Committee on Education

Well, good morning everybody. Assembly Committee on Education will come to order and today there are 24 bills on today's agenda. However, item number one, AB 252 by Assemblymember Holden has been pulled by the author. We have nine bills on consent today. They are as follows.

Item number seven AB 1885 item number nine AB 2019 item number 10 AB 2831 item number 13 Ajar 13 item number 15 AB 2534 item number 16 AB 2690 item number 17 AB 2834 item number 20 AB 2936 item number 22 AB 3087 in the interest of time today, witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to two minutes, two minutes each to ensure the Committee will be able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. In the absence of a quorum, we will begin as a Subcommitee with the first Bill. Welcome Assemblymember Muratsuchi. You may begin when you are ready. Or as I like to say, zero.

Impeccable Japanese Mister chair. Good morning Senators. Good morning everyone. I am proud to present Assembly Bill 1825, the California Freedom the Read Act. We all know that there's been a national movement to ban books at our public libraries, and this Bill is designed to fight back.

We know that our freedom to read is fundamental to our democracy. But according to the American Library Association, last year there was a 65% increase in attempted book bans, the highest level ever recorded by the American Library Association.

Of those challenges, 47% of the challenges book challenges were for titles representing the voices and lived experiences of the LGBTQ community and the BIPOC, the communities of color. This Bill was written by librarians and First Amendment lawyers. It has received bipartisan support in the Assembly, and I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I'd like to find my witness list.

Miss Duran?

Yes? Crystal Duran, representing the California Library Association.

Good morning. Please, please proceed. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee. I'm Crystal Duran, the Library Director for the Belvedere Tiburon Library, and I'm here representing the California Library Association today. So, as our letter indicates, CLA has officially removed its opposed, unless amended position, and we're now in support of AB 1825 as amended.

At their core, library directors and staff believe in protecting intellectual freedom. We support the right of California library patrons to have access to diverse body materials that educate, inspire, inform, and enlighten. We are library professionals, and we're trained in reviewing and securing materials that suit the needs of our communities.

Public libraries do not support the banning of books. What we do support is having informed decisions regarding materials in our libraries to meet local community needs. Many libraries have individual policies that allow community Members to engage with us and raise issues concerning certain materials.

We work together to understand their concerns and communicate the respective decisions around the placement and the materials throughout the public library. Having those clear and detailed policies in place in every public library is essential. This bill will require us to submit those policies to the state librarian will be able to provide technical assistance.

Language in the bill also protects library staff from retaliation for not removing an item that has not been first invented through the review process. CLA wants to thank Assemblymember Muratsuchi and his Chief of Staff for the productive negotiations to date and for accepting amendments that were important to CLA.

As a co chair of the CLA Legislative Committee, I participated in these discussions with the assemblymember and appreciated his thoughtful approach and regardless for the work of the library community when shaping the spell. For these reasons, CLA supports AB 1825, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. And making a grand entrance. Miss Valencia, welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and Committee Members. My name is Cynthia Valencia. I am a legislative advocate with the ACLU California Action here in support of AB 1825.

Public libraries are a cornerstone of our communities, ensuring that people, regardless of age, income, excuse me, education, race, or geographic location, have free and open access to information so they can meaningfully engage in civic life.

They are also bound by the First Amendment, and we must protect the fundamental right of access to diverse and inclusive information at our public libraries.

We are very thankful to assemblymember Muratsuchi for introducing legislation, excuse me, that would prohibit public libraries from exercising their discretion to procure content in a manner that discriminates against or excludes materials based on specified protected characteristics or on the basis that the materials contain inclusive or diverse perspectives.

Over the past year, more than 3000 books have been banned in libraries across America. These books disproportionately feature stories about LGBTQ people, people of color, and historically marginalized communities. Book bans to this effect are not only discriminatory, they are a violation of people's First Amendment right to access information. Politically motivated censorship has no place in our state.

In California, we have seen several municipalities pass legislation to censor books. Fresno County introduced a resolution that is an invasive and unconstitutional form of censorship that targets books based on seemingly disfavored speech, namely references to bodily autonomy and gender identity.

The City of Huntington Beach introduced a resolution that would impose an unconstitutional censorship regime on people's right to access library books and materials protected by the First Amendment.

I had been a resident of Huntington Beach for over 13 years and been a public library user of the Huntington Beach Public Library, Orange County Public Library since I was a young girl.

All of us who use public libraries, and especially young people, have a right not just to express themselves, but to learn from a diverse range of materials, including library books by and about LGBTQ and BIPOC communities. We commend librarians and communities who have rejected these censorship campaigns.

We must protect the fundamental First Amendment right of access to diverse and inclusive information at our public libraries. For these reasons, we we support AB 1825 energy to vote yes.

Thank you very much. You're pioneering a new legislative support run a quarter mile and deliver a statement duathlon. You did well. Thank you. Any other witnesses in support, please come forward with your name, your organization, and your position. Welcome, Mister Pulsipher

Craig Pulsipher on behalf Of Equality California in strong support

Mister Steiger.

Thank you, Mister chair Members and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, also in support.

Any other witnesses in support? Do you have any witnesses in opposition here today? Seeing none, we will come back to the dais, which is impressively lonely. I appreciate the Bill.

We do not yet have a quorum, and so everybody knows we have multiple Committee hearings going on right now, including a budget hearing that includes a bunch of us. So with that, you know, glad to seek a motion. I'm glad to support the bill when we have a quorum, if you'd like to close, Assemblymember.

Thank you, Mister chair. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And thank you to the witnesses. We'll take that up when we have a quorum. Thank you very much. You have two. I'm sorry. To your next bills. Let us do that. You will be presenting AB 1917 or 2226 your choice.

All right. If I may, I'd like to take up AB 1917 first.

Very good. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am presenting AB 1917, which is at its core, a common sense good government bill. It would require all school board Members to receive the basic public education governance law training, including responsible fiscal management, during their time of service on the School Board, so that they may properly and ethically execute their duties.

As a former School Board Member, I know that one of my first trainings as a new School Board Member with the Torrance Unified School District was to participate in the California School Boards Association Masters in Governance program.

A great program taught me the basics of managing multimillion dollar budgets, which a lot of School Board Members, you know, when they get elected, School Boards and they have absolutely no experience in dealing with those kind of budgets, much less issues like public employee, you know, issues collective bargaining, ethics, open meeting laws and so on.

So this bill, again, is common sense, good government bill has received bipartisan support, and here to testify in support of the bill representing the California county superintendents is. I think I have my notes out here. Gayle Garbolino-Mojica, Placer County Superintendent, and Doris Johnson, representing the Association of California School Administrators.

And before I turn over to the witnesses, Mr. Chair, I want to begin by committing to accept the Committee Amendments.

I appreciate that. We'll touch on that as we close. Welcome to both of you. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Gayle Garbolino-Mojica and I am the Placer County Superintendent of Schools, where I serve 16 school districts and 75,000 students across our county.

I am here today as President of the California County Superintendents, an Association that supports 58 county superintendents of schools, and I am pleased to support Assemblymember Muratsuchi, AB 1917. Effective governance is the cornerstone upon which successful School Boards build foundations for educational excellence and community trust.

Board Members represent the diverse voices of the communities they serve and deserve to be supported in their decision making roles.

AB 1917 goes a long way to providing the support because it helps ensure that all Members of the governance team come to the table with foundational knowledge and understanding of topics critical to their roles, open meeting laws, school finance, personnel laws, and school accountability laws.

In the past 18 years that I have been County Superintendent, I have seen firsthand the complex issues School Board Members face. I have seen school boards adopt interim budgets without certifying whether or not they are positive, qualified or negative. I have seen School Boards not understand their fiduciary responsibility when approving collective bargaining agreements and necessary disclosures.

I have seen School Board trustees resign abruptly when it was brought to their attention that a previous action violated government code 1090 or the Political Reform Act. School Board Members go into public service for altruistic reasons.

This bill supports School Boards in their ability to make informed decisions in the context of transparency, trust and good governance as they lead the way for our 5.5 million students they serve statewide. In closing, I hope you will support our students by supporting AB 1917.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Dorothy Johnson on behalf of Acts of the Association of California School Administrators, just want to echo a few of the comments shared by my fellow witness.

But just how important this is to have that foundational knowledge and much like city councils, boards of supervisors, special district directors, lots of different valuable experience brought to the table, but not necessarily in public education and all the areas that were mentioned. So we think this is a reasonable request, a reasonable requirement. We do request your aye vote.

And just want to make a note. We also appreciate the balanced approach for how the trainings are developed and offered. We think this will help with compliance, manage resources, and really, again, maximize best outcomes for the board, the district, the county office, and of course, our students. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support here in the hearing room? Do we have any witnesses in opposite support? I'm going too fast for you. Welcome.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. And we strongly support the bill.

Thank you, Miss Gibbs. Any other witnesses support? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition? Also seeing none. Come back. Please. Mr. Machado.

Good morning. Carlos Machado with California School Board Association. We're a tweener. We have an opposed, unless amended position.

I do want to start off by saying thank you to the author and to his staff for meeting with us and hearing our concerns, and also for the last set of amendments, given that this is modeled on the FPPC process for the development of the ethics training.

And in that setting, the materials that are developed by entities that are going to provide the training must consult with the FPPC.

There's similar language in this bill that consultation, in practice and under regulations by the FPPC, would allow an entity to meet that consultation requirement by reviewing the course curriculum details on their website and providing some other measure of review and understanding of those not necessarily requiring specifically that consultation happen with the FPPC staff that's pursuant to regulations.

The Attorney General, in that instance, also has indicated on its website that they won't be providing consultation in any meaningful way in person on these things.

Given that the Department doesn't have, the Department of Education doesn't have the expertise that other agencies have in some of these areas, we would ask that the bill be amended to reflect the type of consultation that's provided under the FPPC ethics model.

With that, I'd be happy to take it back to our members to see if they would move to a support position. But again, I do want to express my appreciation to the author for his hearing out our concerns on this bill.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? I'm seeing none.

Not yet, but I will. Ready to go? Coming back to the dais. Colleague singular. Any questions or comments for the author?

I do. I do have a question because they brought a really good point out. As a former Member of the School Board in our district, I did go through the CSBA training, and it was incredibly helpful and very, very informative.

And one of the things that I often questioned was why wasn't the majority of the School Board Members going through that program for training? Because I thought it was imperative that every single Member, School Board Member had attending. And it's interesting because as a School Board Member, I wasn't aware that that training was available.

A fellow Board Member from a different school district that brought it to my attention. So he does. And I thought they had a great program for training in our region. So he made a really good point.

If school districts have the capacity to provide this training through the CSBA, how would you be able to align that with yours and trying to ensure that, you know, something that's already working really, really well.

One thing is having, you know, requiring School Board Members to attend the school, the training, and another one is creating a completely different program or a new program for school districts to, or School Board Members to participate in. So how do you, how would you be able to work that?

Okay.

In order to make sure that we don't replace something that is actually really, really effective.

Yeah. Let me share some of my thoughts before I see if our witnesses have any comments on it also. But we're both big fans of the CSBA's Master's in Governance. I was trying to look for my certificate of completion as an exhibit for today.

You know, I would be perfectly happy if it was modeled on the CSBA Master's in Governance program, but we just didn't want to mandate any particular program.

I think school districts should have a choice of what, either to provide development, provide their own training, to try to save costs of contracting out or contracting with paying for CSBA services, to provide the Master's in Governance, to allow those co-board Members to participate in the Master's in Governance program.

And so we certainly want to continue to work with CSPA. We will definitely follow up on clarifying the nature of the consultations with the CSBA and with the CD to make sure that we provide quality training for all our School Board Members. Want to see if.

As somebody who has been a county Superintendent and a district Superintendent for over 20 years, I think we're confusing what this training is versus CSBA's Master's in Governance, which is a wonderful program, but it is a multiple day, very long hours, you know, four to 6 hours, multiple days over the year.

This training that we're proposing is more like the ethics training that elected officials take upon assuming office. So back in 2004, when AB 1234 was passed, it stated that city councils, countywide electeds, Board of Supervisors all had to take the ethics training every two years. That legislation back then did not include School Board Members.

So that has since been rectified just in the last year or two, which will take effect, I believe, in 2025. This is kind of in conjunction with that training. It won't be a multiple days training, it will be probably many hours. It can be completed much quicker.

And as much as the Master's in Governance training is high quality professional development that I would also encourage every School Board Member to take, I see the training being offered by 1917 as the basic minimum level of understanding that School Boards need to have.

So, Mr. Chair, I have an additional question. So you're not proposing that we do this in lieu of the CSBA, but in addition to.

I'm saying that the CSBA is more optional, but it's much more expansive in time and in topics. They'll talk about governance, setting, missions and visions, which are all great high quality professional development opportunities. I see this as more of a nuts and bolts. This is what a government code 1090 violation is. This is what a disclosure when you settle with your associations, this is the required disclosures.

We have School Board Members that get elected in November and they take office in December, and the very first thing that they have to do is they have to approve a first interim.

And I can't tell you in my years of being a county Superintendent how many School Board Members come to me and they said, Gayle, I was not prepared to take action on such an important thing. I didn't even know what a first interim was. So it's more of a nuts and bolts.

This is what you need to have alongside the ethics training which will be required, I believe, next year. At the same time, it doesn't replace what CSBA is offering. It's just I see CSBA as a much more broad and expansive and basically a higher quality of professional development that School Board Members can seek optionally.

Okay, thank you.

So, you know, I do appreciate your comments, Superintendent, and that gets directly to the conversations that you and I have had Assemblymember about my suggestion that to the extent possible, this training take place before a newly elected Member takes office and said, I think you've made the point better than I could.

It's so important and it's not infrequent that, you know, a newly elected board Member has had no prior experience in public service, and they benefit hugely from that training. Conversely, in the absence of that training, we see all manner of problems.

I know, Ms. Johnson, you've testified in support of a bill that I think arose directly out of those issues. So do appreciate you accepting those amendments, because I agree with you. I think that's important. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much for the questions. We will continue to work to make this work for everyone, and I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you again, in the absence of a quorum, we'll take this up when we do have one. Thank you to both the witnesses and thank you, Assemblymember. Assemblymember, I'm sorry, we've got Assemblymember Gabriel, I'm going to have to ask you to. Okay. Yeah. And I do apologize.

He's doing the people's business today, and he took a brief time out to come talk to us.

Welcome, Assemblymember Gabriel.

Thank you very much Mr. Chair and Members, for allowing me to present AB 2316. I want to start by thanking the chair and Committee staff for their thoughtful assistance and I will be accepting the Committee amendments as outlined in the analysis.

AB 2316 is a bipartisan Bill that would prohibit schools from serving foods containing additives linked to cancer, DNA damage, hyperactivity, and neurobehavioral problems in children.

Given these longstanding concerns, in 2019, the Legislature directed the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, known as OEHHA, to conduct an independent and thorough scientific examination into the impact of synthetic food dyes on children. In 2021, after an exhaustive review involving top scientists from the University of California, OEHHA issued a report with clear findings.

Most importantly, the State of California concluded, quote, that consumption of synthetic food dyes can result in hyperactivity and other neurobehavioral problems in some children.

The report also found that current FDA approval of synthetic food dyes is based on 35 to 70-year-old studies that were not designed to detect the types of behavioral effects that have been observed in children and that newer studies indicate that current FDA guidelines may not adequately protect children.

The conclusions reached by the State of California about the harm caused by these chemicals is consistent with that of many other nations around the world, which have banned, restricted, or required these coloring agents to include strict warning labels.

To be clear, this Bill will not result in a ban on any foods in California, nor will it result in any products coming off the shelf.

On the contrary, it will simply encourage companies to make very minor modifications to the food sold in our schools to remove the harmful chemicals and replace them with safer, alternative ingredients that they already use in Europe and so many other nations around the world.

This simple change can make a huge difference, particularly for our students who struggle with ADHD and other learning issues. As anyone who has watched a child struggle knows, it makes no sense to provide them with therapies and intervention in the classroom and then feed them chemicals at lunch that further exacerbate their challenges.

Finally, it's important to note that more than 95% of products served in schools are already free from these chemicals, and that a number of school districts across the state, including rural school districts and Los Angeles Unified, have already stopped serving foods that include these harmful additives.

We have worked with stakeholders and opposition and are accepting a delay in implementation to give industry and districts time to comply and negotiate contracts.

This common-sense measure is sponsored by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and it's supported by doctors, nurses, classroom teachers, the California State PCA, and school administrators across the state, as well as more than 70 plus community organizations.

With me today to testify in support of the Bill are Scott Faber, the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs from the Environmental Working Group, and Kim Franzel, the Director of nutrition services at the California Department of Education. Thank you and I respectfully request your aye vote.

And thank you. Ms. Franzel, you have two minutes. Please proceed.

Thank you Chair and Committee Members. Kim Franzell, Department of Education on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurman, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 2316 and establishing strong public health policies for our 5.8 million public school students. Research confirms, and you heard some of this from Assemblymember Gabriel.

When children have consistent access to school meals, to nutritious school meals, there is a correlation to improved overall health for life, such as fewer chronic diseases, reduced obesity rates, reduced diabetes, less absenteeism in school, better concentration in school, and better academic outcomes such as improved standardized test scores just by making available a wholesome breakfast and lunch each and every school day.

Over the past several years, California has invested and CDE has provided more than $750 million in state grant funds to help our schools bolster and improve their ability to offer more quality foods and offer more freshly prepared, locally sourced and minimally processed school meals.

We can further this commitment through AB 2316 and taking the necessary steps to mitigate a child's exposure to certain dyes and titanium dioxide in our school meal programs.

As the first state in the nation to implement universal meals for all students serving over 879 million school meals annually, we really do have an obligation to create greater access to healthy school meals for every TK and 12th-grade student, while eliminating nutrition insecurity for nearly 60% of our students who are living at or below the federal poverty level. We need to continue our commitment to making available the healthiest school meals possible by this phased approach of eliminating certain dyes and titanium dioxide from our California school meals, we need to think about it as healthy foods is healthy medicine.

I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 2316. Thank you.

And thank you Mr. Faber. Welcome.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Scott Faber. Before I joined EWG, I was the Vice President for federal affairs for the Consumer Brands Association. I'm also a law Professor at Georgetown Law where I teach food law. I'd like to quickly make four quick points.

One is the overwhelming evidence shows that these dyes are making it harder for some of our kids to learn. OEHHA's unprecedented study looked at human evidence of what happens when kids eat dyes, as well as animal studies showing what happens to their brains.

And California State scientists conclusively determined that some kids suffer from the behavioral effects of these dyes and that these dyes are changing not just the structure of their brains, but how their brains transmit signals.

Two, the FDA has not reviewed these dyes since the 1960s, seventies, and eighties, long before toxicological studies could detect the effects of behavior on our kids' brains. And meetings held by the FDA in 2011 of the FDA's Food Advisory Council and in 2019 of the FDA Science Board were meetings of professionals.

They were not the sort of thorough reviews that agencies conduct when deciding whether chemicals are safe. Three, our food school professionals will have many options if AB 2316 were to become law. Only 4% of the 11,000 foods sold on the tray and only 3% of foods sold a la carte.

And none of the commodity foods provided by USDA for the upcoming school year have these colors or titanium dioxide. Only one out of 700 dairy products offered in schools has titanium dioxide on the label. And as Assemblymember Gabriel mentioned, food companies can and do quickly reformulate to eliminate these sorts of chemicals.

When other countries required a warning on foods for these synthetic dyes, companies quickly replaced the synthetic colors in American fruit loops with natural colors, as is in Canadian fruit loops. Just as an example.

The last point I'd like to make is that despite the harms described by the OEHHA report, FDA has no plans to reconsider the safety of these chemicals and is not required to do so. The FDA does not have a comprehensive food safety system.

In fact, 99% of the new chemicals that are added to food since 2020, sorry, since 2000, were reviewed not by FDA, but by the chemical companies. So let's do what's best for our kids, for our parents, for our teachers, and eliminate these synthetic colors and titanium dioxide from foods offered at school. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I think what everybody's wondering is here, are you going to hand out the new one or the old box of fruit loose for all of us to share? Anybody else here in support of the measure? If so, please come forward.

David Bolag, representing the SFE alliance, Informed Alhambra, and the Neighbors of the 40th Assembly District for Sane Legislation. We're happy to support this sane and necessary legislation.

Thank you, sir. Next, please.

I'm Natalie Nax on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support.

Thank you.

Celeste Wicks with Clean Earth for Kids in support. Also supporting: North Equity Justice, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Facts, Grandparents in Action, and the Centers for Environmental Health. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

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

Thank you. Next please.

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

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning. Patricia Rucker with the California Teachers Association in strong support.

Thank you. Welcome sir.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I thank the author for this important measure. Andrew Antwih, on behalf of Foodsafe LLC and on behalf of the office of Kat Taylor.

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning. Stacey Riordan with the Youth Mental Health Equity Coalition in support and thank the author and staff for this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning chair and Members. Karen Amagon, on behalf of a Voice for Choice Advocacy, Stand Up California, and as a mom, we strongly support this Bill.

Thank you. Next please.

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

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning. Marissa Bismark on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, proud co-sponsor and in support.

Thank you. Next please.

Morning. Kristen Zalhart. I'm with Eat Real, a public health nonprofit that supports schools across California and the nation to serve higher quality and more nutritious food. I'm in full support. I'm also in support as a mom. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning. Leilani Aguinaldo, on behalf of Fresno Unified School District in support.

Thank you. Next please.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of a few associations, the Clean Water Action, California Environmental Voters, Friends Committee on Legislation, the Socioeco Education, and the California Medical Association, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Susan Little with Environmental Working Group, but here on behalf of the Physicians for Social Responsibility of San Francisco and Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Let's now go to opposition. Welcome gentlemen and lady. You can come to the table.

Thank you. Mr. Chair.

Please. If you folks would scoot that way. Just one. Okay.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you very much. John Hewitt on behalf of the Consumer Brands Association, I would also like to recognize the author and thank Mr. Gabriel for bringing this important discussion and dialogue to us and in front of us today.

Just a couple points on rebuttal if I will. I'm not going to delve into the reams of reports of science on one side or science on the other. I will just touch quickly on the OEHHA report since much focus has been made of that lately.

The OEHHA report and subsequently the Miller review that followed up on the OEHHA report failed to establish any causation. There was some correlation that was indicated in that you look at the 2021 Senate Health Committee analysis, it laid it out pretty, pretty thoroughly. I won't go back and reread and review that.

I just wanted to highlight that for the Committee's benefit here today. There are severe limitations in the scientific studies summarized by OEHHA. Most notably, there's one quote that stands out that yes, there is a need to reevaluate exposure in children and for additional research to provide a more complete database for establishing protective measures.

But again, there are no sources or actual references to causation. Correlation is about as far as it goes with respect to the OEHHA report. But again, I didn't want to get into this science versus that science.

I think the discussion about what's best for our children is a good one to have and again appreciate the Member bringing this to the forefront. With respect to the policy itself, I think there is an opportunity to make a clean and clear delineation, an opportunity to move forward when we talk about what what the state provides.

The state does provide two meals to all students per day. I think that's a great policy. It's one that was established post-COVID, commend the state for doing that.

You know, and with respect to the tray and those meals that we provide to the students, if we look at opportunities to apply this policy to the tray, I think that's a fair discussion to have.

I know that we've had that with the member's office, but I think there is a distinction when we look at a la carte, competitive adult sales, vending, ASB opportunities, things like that, that are on campus where there is actual choice and parents provide money to kids or kids make the choices based on what their parents have provided them with respect to those.

There's also my daughter had an IEP at school. She did not have a food designation on the IEPs, but those are often included in there as well.

So again, I think there's a clear and clean distinction that could be made about the tray, if you will, the USD or the state-provided meals and then those discretionary foods that students can buy. Interested in continuing to talk to the author about where that delineation and that distinction can be made.

Because I think there's an opportunity to move forward with respect to that, I will reserve the rest of my time for any questions that the Committee or the author may have.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition.

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the American Beverage Association. I wanted to make sure, just because I got some information from some of the offices, what amendments he's taken.

Just whatever amendments that were actually taken. Is it just in the, in the analysis or was there additional ones today? I'd heard some stuff from different offices.

Today being... I'm not sure. I'm not sure. So it's only what you see in the analysis.

Okay, that's fine. That's correct. Correct.

That's where we stand right now.

Sounds great. All I was going to say is that there is a huge policy difference between the food that's provided by the state and the competitive foods.

And those competitive foods, as Mr. Hewitt mentioned, are also available to staff members to that and that money and the funds that are produced by that help subsidize the deficiency that we have with the nutrition program.

And so as we restrain the competitive sales, we could be impacting, and will likely be impacting the subsidies for the school nutrition program. And so that's a real education discussion and one that I think would be important to further explore today. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition, Mr. Regele.

Morning, Chair and Members. Adam Regele on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Peter Kellison, on behalf of the National Confectioners Association in opposition.

Thank you. Next please.

Margie Lie, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Audra Hartmann on behalf of the American Chemistry Council in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning Michael Ians on behalf of Dairy Institute of California in opposition trying to still focus on titanium dioxide. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you. Any tweeners? I see no tweeners. This seemed like a bill that might have some tweeners. Let's come back to the dais colleagues questions concerns for Mister Gabriel. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you. Okay, so this was a- this was a very interesting bill for me. Full disclosure, I was the kind of mom who bought everything organic as much as I could, was the kind of mom who avoided anything artificial and did not give my children any sugar for their first year of life.

So this is why I was very passionate about this particular bill. So I was reading thoroughly on it and I have some questions with regards to.

I was focusing on the letters that we received both from the coalitions for pro and against it and here are the questions that I have because I think it's really interesting to discuss this. When I read the WIHA letter of support I was reading and it was.

And per the Chair he could decide who he would like to answer this.

But according to this paragraph, it said that researchers also found that the FDA acceptable daily intakes for synthetic food diets are based on a 35 to 70 year old studies that were not designed to detect the types of behavioral effects that have been observed, which was mentioned earlier.

Comparisons with newer studies indicate that the current amounts may not adequately protect children from behavioral effects. For some dyes, these comparisons indicate that updated levels would be much lower. Doesn't state which ones. It also goes on to talk about the highest exposure for multiple dyes. The highest exposures are found in juice and during soft drinks.

Also they highlight red number three. It said that if revised ADIs were to be based on newer studies, common exposure to food, diets and foods would exceed the revised guidance. So for the public who has not read the letter, this is on behalf of the report by the California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

It was done within that capacity by our universities here in California. So these are studies that were done here. Now when I went back and studied the letter in opposition to this particular bill, the studies were found, it challenged and said that the FDA in fact has reviewed.

The FDA and the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization have reviewed these particular substances. Blue one in 2011, 2019 blue two 2011-19 green three, red forty, yellow five and yellow six all, both all 2011 and 2019. And titanium dioxide was reviewed in 2024.

So my question here and it was trying to, you know, as someone who's trying to legislate, make a decision based on data and science, it was very confusing to have one report stating that we haven't done these studies in, you know, 35 to 70 years and having another one stating that these particular groups have done studies in 2011 and 2019.

So, you know, as someone who's trying to be responsible, you know, one thing is having a choice as a parent saying, okay, I choose based on the information that I've read not to do this. But when we're trying to make law based on science and data, you know, and you have two conflicting.

You know, we have the State of California, and then we have groups that literally worldwide groups, New Zealand, Canada. What's the other country that I read on here? So I was doing my homework.

You know, we have the UK, we have Canada, we have New Zealand, we have the US all stating that they have updated studies on the US. Who are we to take precedence on and really have that credibility? Because I'm looking at scientific groups and it makes me feel like this is how I feel about climate change.

You have areas that are science data. This is why I'm so focused on education Senator Newman on math and science and ensuring that our students have the up to date education. Because I, as a Legislator, passionate about health and so forth, we're coming up with different scientific groups, literally updated scientific data stating the opposing perspective.

Let's have the author answer this. I think it gets to your broader context and perspective.

Yeah. And thank you. And I think, first of all, thank you, Senator, for putting so much time and attention into this. I know how valuable everybody's time is right now. So I really appreciate your thoughtful approach here.

I think, just to be very candid, and I say this respectfully, there's a little bit of mixing and matching in terms of what the opposition is citing. Right. They're taking some studies that were looking at whether should titanium dioxide be banned in all foods, as it is in the European Union and is not in other countries?

We're not trying to ban it in all foods served in the State of California. We're saying it should not be served in our schools. And the European Union has prohibited, I think it's green 3 and titanium dioxide from all foods in Europe.

So if you went to any of the 27 nations in the European Union, you could not find a product with that dye. You could not find a product with titanium dioxide.

And they have also taken that additional step, as we discussed, of requiring a warning label that says literally says, this product can harm your kids on foods that include these other dyes. So they have looked at the science and taken these steps, and that's why they are providing those warning labels.

I think what OEHA did here is part of the reason that they did this research is there was a lot of this conversation happening in the Legislature, I think a lot of it actually, before I was here, and there was back and forth between groups who said, no, this is harmful to kids. No, it's not.

And so the Legislature said, let's put some money in the budget. Let's ask an independent referee to look at this that we trust, that doesn't have any skin in the game, that doesn't have any money to make. Let's ask our state scientists here in California to do that review. And if you talk about. We have talked about.

Their report was the product of two year multifaceted evaluation. They extensively reviewed existing studies of the effects of these dyes on both humans and animals. They talked about the studies. These studies demonstrate clearly that some children are likely to be more adversely affected by synthetic food dyes.

That's the human studies and animal studies indicate that synthetic food dyes affect activity, memory and learning, cause changes in neurotransmitters in the brain, and cause microscopic changes in brain structure. So they went back and looked at all of the studies, and if you'll allow me, maybe we'll bring Mister Faber into the conversation.

He used to actually have Mister Albiani's job representing the food industry, and told me at the beginning of this, the industry strategy here will be to pick and choose different lines from different studies and try to weave them together in a way that creates a different narrative.

But if you look at what we have asked our state scientists to do, and then you look at this, they conducted a two day scientific symposium to foster discussion among researchers in academia, in industry and government.

And then they sent a draft version of the report for comment by Members of the public, and external peer review by experts identified by the University of California Office of the Press. So this was a very thorough, very comprehensive look at all of the studies involving humans, all of the studies involving animals.

Folks in industry were brought to the table. Folks in government were brought to the table. Independent scientific experts, the best in the world, were came to the table, and they reached a very clear and firm conclusion about the fact that this has an impact on at least some of our children.

And that impact is that it interferes with their ability to learn. So I think we are very comfortable here in the basis of the science that we have, I will say one thing is, if you take a step back, and even if you accept every single argument that the opposition makes, and we don't, we contest that.

But even if you accept every argument that they make, their argument is the science is mixed on whether these chemicals harm children.

And my perspective of that is, if the science is mixed, and we know also that these are not essential ingredients, they can make every single product without these ingredients, why would we not take that little extra step to be protective of our children, especially when we're talking about three to 4% of products served, and especially when we're giving them three years to make those changes.

So to me, it's even if you accept every argument that they make, even if you agree with them that the science is mixed, I would say, well, you know what? Given the minimal burden on industry here, I think we can take that extra step to protect ourselves.

And to that point, in addition to the extended timeline, you've also allowed for the exemption for commodities, correct. Or commodity foods, correct. Right. Okay. And then. I'm not sure that's clearly reflected in the analysis, but it's one of the. Yes, sir.

Mister Chair, if we may, just a second on. I had just a couple less than a minute of comments, but I did want to just ask about the. I did review the Committee analysis wasn't completely clear to me what the exemption for commodity foods was. If.

Mister Chair, if I may ask, this is the easiest way to nail this down. Let the author speak to it, and we'll clarify if necessary. Go ahead.

Yeah, so I see. I mean, what's listed on page seven of the Committee amendments? The following amends delay the implementation date. I believe we've agreed on December 31 of 2027. So, a full three year delay, which I think is actually more than what we had talked about, in some cases with opposition.

So we're giving them more time to reformulate than the conversations. And then it says, an exception for you, the USDA food program, I think that was talking about titanium dioxide that might appear in dairy. As you heard from Mister Faber, they identified one of 700 foods that have titanium dioxide. So we're happy to provide that exemption.

And I was led to believe that was pizza. Pizza. I don't know if it's true. You had another comment, Mister Ferritin?

I just wanted to respond to your comment, Senator, because I'm not sure. Your honor. Oh, sorry. Can you hear me now? Yeah. So, first of all, thank you for all the work you've done to dig into this issue. It's really important. And I also teach chemical safety law at Georgetown Law School.

And when our government, whether it's the state government or the Federal Government, asks, is a chemical safe? We look at all the ways that a chemical can harm the body, as well as all the ways that we might be exposed to that particular chemical. And that's what Aweha did in this study.

They looked at all the clinical studies, 27 different clinical, double blind, crossover studies that looked at how kids respond when they are fed these dyes, as well as many hundreds of animal studies and in vitro studies, to understand how these chemicals impact our bodies.

And as Assembly Member Gabriel said, the OEHA scientists found that these studies not only change our brains physically, but interfere with the neurotransmitters in our brains in ways that make kids less likely to be attentive, to increase the likelihood of hyperactivity.

But the other thing to your point, that OEHA looked at was how much more we're being exposed to these chemicals. So it's not just a question of the harm that it might cause to one of our organs, but how often are we being exposed to that harm?

And what we have found was that there's been a five fold increase in our exposure to these dyes, especially in products consumed by kids.

And so if what OEHA did is what we'd all hoped FDA would do, which is asked, given how we're now exposed to these chemicals and what we know about how they harm our brains, are kids more likely, some kids likely to be susceptible to the neurobehavioral harms caused by these chemicals? FDA has not done that.

What FDA did was they held two meetings of professionals to have a conversation not unlike the conversation we're having now, that's not the kind of systematic, thorough, comprehensive review of hazard and exposure that governments typically do when they regulate chemicals, I think we all wish that FDA would do that.

And as someone who has spent many years trying to persuade FDA to look back at these decisions that were made in the sixties and seventies and eighties based on using toxicology, that didn't understand how these chemicals interfered with our brains or harmed our brains, which used an estimate of exposure that is badly out of date, ideally, FDA would update those studies, but they're not going to do that.

I wish that were not the case. So it's really now, in light of that, the question is, will the state step in? Based on the fact that your state scientists have done the work that we all hope FDA would do. And can I just say one quick thing about these other governments just on titanium dioxide?

One quick thing, because I know. Wrap up here. Go ahead. One quick thing.

Yeah.

So the fundamental difference here, I'm happy to sit with you and go through this, but that if you assume that the nanoparticles think of them almost like microplastic, the nanoparticles, the tiny little particles that enter your body when you eat titanium dioxide, if you assume that those nanoparticles enter the gut and ultimately go through the membrane in your gut and into your bloodstream, and that if you assume that happens, then there's lots of evidence that that will harm organs, especially the liver.

The agencies that have looked at this question and have concluded that titanium dioxide is still safe to eat did not assume that titanium dioxide, these tiny little nanoparticles, would ultimately get into your GI tract and enter your bloodstream. That's the fundamental difference.

Since the European Food Safety Authority EFSA drew that conclusion, other studies have also found that these nanoparticles enter your gut, enter your bloodstream and can harm your organs, causing harm to your DNA, they can cause neurological harm, can cause immune system harm.

So there's new science since the 2022 EFSA review that suggests that these nanoparticles pose the harms that EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, and let me in the interest of even hand this, give Mister Hewitt a chance to respond.

Thank you Mister Chair. Just in the interest of time, I'm not going to debate the science as much as Mister Faber and I have a good time doing that. I will just focus on just three quick points. USDA, the Biden Administration just updated the school nutrition standards that was based on consultation with FDA about total diet, etcetera.

They updated it with respect to sugars, sodium, fats, et cetera, calories. They chose not to address the issue of ingredients, color ingredients. Secondly, to the extent that the author would like to have a discussion about on ramp, we're not going to debate the science. I don't want to do that here.

But we can have an on ramp to add these ingredients back in based on an FDA review. More than happy to have a discussion of what that looks like. If Mister favor wants FDA to review these items, we're happy to have a discussion about what that on ramp looks like. To include them back in.

I think that would only be fair. And then thirdly, I think there is a key distinction and policy distinction still to be made that with respect to the mandatory meals that the State of California provides on the tray.

I think there's policy distinction about separating those out from the discretionary purchased items by adults and other students in the ALA carte program. So those are just the three items that we're still willing and open to discuss at this point. But thank you Mister chair for the additional.

Appreciate it. And I will say of the author, I think you've been more than sort of amenable having these discussions as the bill has moved forward.

You have one more thing, one final, just final comment. So in debating and really looking into the information that was given to us on both sides, I was reading and I was looking literally the scientific findings from the different countries that have come up with their findings.

I'm going to base, I'm going to support the bill today and I'm going to share why. I'm going to give the weight to our California scientists and our universities who have done the research up to date. I'm hopeful, I'm optimistic that they did an extensive review here.

Based the fact that we're the California Legislature, I think it only falls upon us to ensure that we're using our California based science and data that we have access to. So because of that, I'm going to. But I am.

I'm very hesitant because we do have worldwide organizations that actually have done their own studies are coming on the opposite of where we're coming from. So I am. That's the debate that I'm having today. But I'm going in with faith that they did, the California scientists did their research and their work.

And I rather, I rather be wrong on the safety of our kids.

Appreciate that. Senator Wilk.

Thank, thank you, Mister Chair. So I've enjoyed spending time with you and being educated by you. And the one thing that I feel sad about is that my parents have passed. Because now I realize I wasn't a bad kid. I ate too many cheetos, which I think probably happens to a lot of kids.

So the facts are this. There's dye. Why is the dye in there? The dye is in there for marketing. It has no nutritional value at all. Zero, zilch. So that's 12 as you said, even if the science is mixed, don't we want to err on the side of the children? So, of course.

And then I know for me, just anecdotally, when I travel internationally, I always feel better than I do in America. And I've come to the conclusion that it's the food that we consume. So with that, I'm supporting you today.

Thank you.

I just have one question, and for the opposition, as the author pointed out, I mean, there's a very small number of foods that are actually affected by the proposed legislation. So how should we think, and also allowing that the author has taken the amendment to provide additional time to make that transition.

So to the extent that you're opposed, and we're talking about either 5% or 4% of food is available to children, how should we think about that in a larger context?

Mister chair, thank you. I think, first of all, I went through and read the two different reports that CSPI had put out with respect to this. I tried to find those exact numbers. I couldn't. I'm not going to dispute that. There was one spot in there that said 15%, but 4%. 15%.

Let's just talk about the impacts of that. The fact of the matter remains that a LA carte items are used to subsidize and help make school districts whole. Those items are utilized for financial purposes. The State of California is spending over close to $600 million a year, you know, with respect to providing two meals a day.

They do so at a loss to many school districts. They utilize the a LA carte items to backfill. Some of those a LA carte items have those colors in there. We think that there's a distinction, again, a distinction to be made with respect to that. So again, whether it's 4% or 15%, 4% of 500 million is.

590 million is a lot. 14% is even more. But again, I'm willing and happy to have a discussion. I don't know that the author is equally as excited about. You know, look, we'll have FDA do the studies the Senator mentioned about giving deference to OEHA.

If FDA comes back and re reviews these items and says everything's fine based on some independent criterion standard, there should be an on ramp to include these ingredients back into our nutrition program.

Okay. I appreciate it. I expect. Okay, please.

I just want to make a comment regarding the competitive foods and point out that in California, we were the first in the nation to take strong, make strong standards around the competitive foods, to the point that USDA actually followed suit many years later to some of the standards that we set, knowing that we wanted to get caffeine out of elementary schools, that we didn't want to have sodas as competitive foods.

So I would encourage everyone to consider keeping the competitive foods on the table for the elimination of these items. Additionally, with the universal meals, the State of California is giving $1.9 billion to support schools to pay the difference between the federal reimbursement. So schools are in better financially, in a better place.

And many schools have opted not to do competitive foods for the very fact that they want the healthiest foods possible and to really promote the universal meals through a breakfast and lunch each day.

Appreciate that. And so I know you'll touch on many, if not all of these issues in your close. I also wanted to point out that the bill is currently structured does not include char schools. Is that correct? It does. It does. It does. All schools. Okay. So I don't want to be clear on that. Very good.

Any other questions? No. Sorry about that. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator. And I just want to appreciate everybody, both the opposition and the witnesses and all of the Senators for the thoughtful conversation. I was going to take Senator Wilk's beautiful comments as my close, but since I've been admonished by the chair to respond, I'll just make a few comments.

One is, you heard from the Department of Education, from Miss Franzell, competitive foods. The food safety regulations have always applied to both foods on the tray and competitive foods. So essentially what the industry is asking for here is really an unprecedented carve out for a very small number of chemicals.

You know, we agree that that is not how food safety law has worked. It is not how we have done the work in our schools. And to me, that would seem to be a really radical departure from the way that we have always worked to protect children in our schools.

I will say I'm not sure I quite buy the argument that this is somehow going to impact the bottom lines of schools. We haven't seen any evidence to that.

And I feel pretty confident that if our schools were going to take a financial hit, our State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the PTA, and certainly CTA and CSCA would not be in support of this Bill if this was going to meaningfully reduce school budgets.

There's no way that all of these education stakeholders, so many, so many districts, so many superintendents, so many school board Members, would support this Bill. So I don't actually, I guess I'm less, I'm extremely confident that there's not going to be a financial impact on our districts from doing all this.

And one of the things that we haven't talked about today, but I did a chance to talk with some of you about, which I think is important that people understand because of the school nutrition requirements already in law, many of these companies have already reformulated and are already selling different products in our schools.

So the bag of chips that you buy across the street at the convenience store and the bag of chips that you buy in the school, even though they may have the same packaging, they're actually different because the bag of chips at the convenience store doesn't meet and comply with the nutritional standards that are already part of law.

So, again, I will just, I think Senator Wilk summed it up beautifully. You know, when we're thinking about some potential minor, I would argue, hypothetical burden on industry, we're standing with our kids, protecting our kids, protecting the ability of young people to learn. As a dad, I'm going to stand with the kids every single time.

And with that, respectfully request your.

I thank you for that. And again to point out that one of your amendments includes provision for sufficient time for the market to readjust to these new formulations. With that, we do not have a quorum, so we will not take a motion until such time as we do. But I'll support the bill when we do.

And I appreciate all of your testimony.

Thank you very much.

All right, Assembly Member, you probably wish that were briefer, but it was. It was at least very thorough, and I apologize. I have to go present a bill in another Committee. I'm going to leave the gavel in the capable hands for my Vice Chair, and I will be back as soon as I can.

Good morning, umo. I'm Omarisu ji. Grateful to have you. And you will be doing Bill file item number five, AB 197017. Right? No, sorry. Number six, AB 2226.

Yes. Thank you very much. You're ready. Thank you, Vice Chair Ochoa Bogh. I'm presenting a bill that is very familiar to this Committee, and so I won't belabor the point. A bill that would make kindergarten mandatory.

I first want to thank Senator Rubio's leadership on this topic, and she was trying to make it for the hearing, but I believe she is in another Committee hearing.

But as this Committee well knows, the biggest return on investment in terms of closing achievement and opportunity gaps, especially in Low income black and brown communities, is quality early childhood education. While we are working so hard to provide universal access to transitional kindergarten, we are missing between four to 5% of kids who are not enrolling in kindergarten.

And we know that that is especially the case. There is a higher percentage of African American and Latino kids that are not enrolling in kindergarten. And so it's absolutely important that we join 17 other states in the District of Columbia that already require kindergarten to be mandatory.

And so I would now like to turn it over to our witnesses, Anna Ioakimedes with the Los Angeles Unified School District and Tony Troguero with the California Teachers Association.

Thank you. Good morning chair and Members, I'm Anna Ioakimedes legislative advocate with the Los Angeles Unified School District. Los Angeles Unified is a proud sponsor of Assembly Bill 2226 to make kindergarten a mandatory grade level in California starting in 2026.

Los Angeles Unified views mandatory kindergarten as a key piece of California's vision to make sure every child has the early learning opportunities they need to succeed. It's also fundamental to equity and closing the achievement gap we see between some of our kids coming from disadvantaged backgrounds and their classmates. At Los Angeles Unified.

We've seen that kids who attend kindergarten do better on their year end assessments in 1st, second and third grade and have higher scores on their smarter balance tests as late as fifth grade. These impressive results are not unique to Los Angeles Unified.

Recent research done by experts at UC Irvine demonstrated that children in states with mandatory kindergarten do better. They are more likely to go to college, earn more, and are less likely to be poor as adults.

These impacts are strongest for Latino and black children, which is exactly the groups we need to focus on to level the playing field and make sure all kids in Los Angeles and California graduate ready for the world. As with all other mandatory grades, the same parental rights to use private school or home school are maintained.

With our mandatory kindergarten Bill, we hope that California will join the 17 other states that prioritize early learning for all children and make kindergarten a mandatory grade. And respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tony Troguero, on behalf of the California Teachers Association, a co sponsor of Assembly Bill 2226 and a longtime supporter of the importance of kindergarten, particularly as it relates to student achievement.

Kindergarten provides the building blocks of physical, social and emotional development, as well as the basics of language, literacy, thinking, cognitive skills. Kindergarten teaches cooperation, patience, sharing, listening, and other social and emotional learning skills. If a child misses kindergarten, they miss early milestones in reading and math skills, which forces them to confront those hurdles in the first grade.

Without kindergarten, children will be far behind their peers when entering first grade. The disparities for students who do not attend kindergarten are not only physically visible as it pertains to a student's confidence and participation in class, but also academically measurable.

Now more than ever, we must ensure our youngest learners receive critical instruction early on to prepare both socially and academically. And the best way to support classroom teachers is by having students prepared in the classroom as they move up each academic grade level.

We need to give every child the opportunity to reach their full potential, and kindergarten is the key. On behalf of our 300,000 Members of the California Teachers Association, we respectfully request and I vote.

Thank you, ma'am. All right, now we'll continue with any witnesses in support of AB 2226 here in room 2100. Welcome.

Good morning. Cassie Mancini. On behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California. We're in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jennifer Baker with the California Retired Teachers Association as well as the California Association for Bilingual Education in Support.

Good morning. Celeste Wicks for Clean Earth 4 Kids in support. Also supporting North County Equity, Justice and Eco Sustainability Peeps. Thank you.

Sierra Coco, San Diego Unified in support.

Stella Johnson on behalf of San Francisco Unified School District in support.

Espon Nunez on behalf of the California Charter School Association. In support and also on behalf of the Alliance College Ready Public Schools. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any witnesses in opposition to AB 2226. Your name, sir?

Good morning, Senators. David Bolog.

On behalf of Informed Alhambra, with the backing of the SFE Alliance, with five reasons why, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Number one, we acknowledge the author's intention to further early childhood development. Whereas the sponsors motivation may be to increase declining enrollment at a Unified School District and raise more union dues for the CTA.

Number two, children develop at different rates. Mandating kindergarten ignores the natural variabilities in early childhood development. Some students may benefit from an additional year at home or in a less structural educational setting.

The decision about when and how a child begins their formal education should largely rest with their parents or guardians who are most familiar with the child's development and readiness for school. Number three, according to education code 4800, kindergarten classrooms are limited to 24 students with a 12 to one teacher to student ratio.

The kindergarten teacher's assistant is not always in the classroom, which leaves the teacher alone with 24 students for extended periods of time. Number four, children that are more active have a harder time sitting still. This has led to misdiagnosing children with ADHD or attention deficit disorder, resulting in children taking unneeded medications.

We all know these drugs are not without their undesired side effects. These mind altering substances could and often do kill the spirit of the child in order to control them for the benefit of the classroom. We wouldn't want this happening to any children even younger.

And number five, in Mister Marisucci's own Assembly District, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District infrastructure is becoming more dilapidated by the day and badly in need of structural maintenance and repair. This has caused the district to shut down one of its schools for three days this year due to a lack of electrical power.

With the current mandate for compulsory schooling, the state cannot or lacks the will to meet its obligation to provide funding for safe and adequate learning facilities. These reasons show that parents, school and the state is not ready to add on more for schooling demonstrating. The best choice for this Committee is to reject this legislation.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition to AB 2226 here in room 2100? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any comments and questions? No? Okay. Well, historically, you probably already know I've been opposed to mandating kindergarten.

Not because there is no merit to it, because I do believe that there's great benefits to kindergarten. Of course, our children do incredibly well. But I also believe, as a parent and as a former educator, that children develop in different ways, and especially in those first five years, the maturity is very, very different for many, many children.

And I think once we have a mandate for a grade, especially a brand new grade level, making a mandated, that means that our parents don't have as many choices in making decisions for their kids, because now the state comes in and says, now the state has authority and jurisdiction over those children.

And so that's where I, you know, I have a concern is that those kids are only ours, truly ours, for the first couple of years. And after that, the school comes in and says, okay, this is what is best for your child. This is what you should do with your child.

And it infringes on the freedoms of the choices of the parents. And that's why I wholeheartedly support kindergarten. But I don't support mandatory kindergarten. If the parent chooses and thinks that their child is ready for that grade and to come into the classroom and participate, then lo and behold, it's there for all of our kids.

But there are some kids and some parents who believe and will be under the understanding that, no, this child is not ready to go into kindergarten. I have parents who have put their kids in public schools and at some point see a change in their child's behavior and say, you know what?

You're not ready for public schools to be on their own. So we're gonna do some homeschooling. We're gonna change the schools for you. So those are options that parents make when they have the ability to do that.

And in this case, I will continue to oppose the mandatory kindergarten, but I'm grateful that we offer it as a state, that we offer it to all of our parents. And quite frankly, we only have, what, maybe three to 5% of kids who are not attending kindergarten.

So with that, I will respectfully not be supporting the Bill again this year. And we don't have a. We don't have many Members here, so we'll leave it open for our Members who. He's going to have a close? zero, yes, absolutely. Sorry, those were my comments, but yes, absolutely. Please, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Vice Chair. Again, this Committee has taken up this proposal many times with Senator Rubio's leadership. Just to quickly address your concerns, Vice Chair, I just wanted to emphasize that the Bill will allow for homeschooling to give parents that option. It also allows for private schools.

It also allows for either full day or half day kindergarten.

And so I think when you balance that with all of the clear data showing the long term benefits, the opportunity to close those achievement and opportunity gaps, especially where Latino and African American communities are participating in kindergarten at a lower rate than other communities, and that there is abundant data showing that the achievement gap largely starts before kids get to k through 12.

And so why wouldn't we want to have all of our kids at the same starting line? That is the intent of the bill. I appreciate your concerns. Respectfully ask for the senator's aye votes.

Thank you, Member Muratsuchi, for your time. All right, we'll now continue with Member McCarty. File item number four, AB 2508.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Present to you a bill with no opposition. Unanimous support so far. This expands on our CalKIDS Program, which was one of the biggest wins of the past few years in the budget process, where we created universal college savings accounts for kids when they enter kindergarten. And the research is clear.

Pretty amazing that even if you have less than dollar 500 in your name for a college account, you're 25% more likely to go on a college, basically building expectations. College shouldn't be just about kids that have trust funds. This should be about offering opportunities for saving early on. So we created this program.

But one little bit flaw is some of our most vulnerable students are in the education system are foster youth students. And so, of course, if there's a foster youth that starts as a foster youth when they're in kindergarten, they'll enter this program and get a CalKID account in their name.

However, if they become a foster youth later in life, like second grade or third grade or fourth grade they miss the boat. And these are the kids that we need the most to be able to have a solid education opportunity. So this would just expand eligibility.

No new monies, but an existing allocation for all kids who enter the foster youth system between first and 12th grade would be eligible to enter the CalKIDS Program. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today are the John Byrne Advocates for Youth and a former foster youth from California. Thank you.

Wonderful welcome.

Thank you very much. My name is Debbie Rauscher and I'm the Chief Program Officer at John Burton Advocates for Youth, or JBAY. JBAY was founded by Senator John Burton and works to improve outcomes for youth who have been in the foster care system.

Among all student groups in California, foster youth face the greatest barriers to achieving their educational goals. Abuse and neglect in the home, removal from family, and frequent moves contribute to the poor outcomes we see.

Despite the fact that 90% express a desire to attend college, the percentage who go on to earn a two or four year degree is less than a third of that for the population more broadly. Research shows that college affordability and the need to work is the primary reason California's foster youth choose not to attend college.

They simply can't afford it. The CalKIDS Program is poised to play a major role in changing these statistics. Research shows that children with college savings in their name are three times more likely to enroll in post-secondary education and four times more likely to graduate.

One study found that students who had a college savings account were 40% less likely to be chronically absent than students without an account. When the Legislature adopted this program, the intention was to provide enhanced deposits for foster youth. However, under the current language, nearly half of all foster youth are ineligible for this enhanced deposit.

Only if a child's foster care involvement overlap with census day of the first grade are they eligible for this benefit. But this isn't how the foster care system works.

Abuse and neglect can happen to a child at any age, and the state bears responsibility for the well-being of all of its children in foster care, not just those in the first grade. Foster youth of any age face enormous barriers, and they all have the same hopes and dreams for a better future.

AB 2508 will remedy this oversight, opening up the possibility of higher education to thousands of foster youth. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2508.

Thank you very much and welcome.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Wednesday Pope and I am a current student at Folsom Lake College majoring in Law and Public Policy. I'll be transferring to a four-year University this coming year. Because the CalKIDS Program currently only applies to students in foster care in the first grade, unfortunately, students like me are not eligible for this vital program.

I spent over eight years in and out of foster care starting as a newborn. However, never in those eight years was I actually in foster care in the first grade. I am a first-generation college student.

Growing up, I experienced not only foster care, but also extreme poverty and no one ever spoke to me about college and the benefits. I thought it was something out of reach. I had heard that it was expensive and would lead me into long term debt.

At the age of 16, I graduated high school early while experiencing homelessness by the age of 17. Despite lacking an emotional and financial safety net, I decided to take a risk and give college a try with the hope of creating a better future for myself. Despite having financial aid, I still struggled to make ends meet while in college.

It wasn't an easy journey. It has taken me seven years to get where I am today, at times having to take a break from college just to make sure my basic needs were met. Every dollar that I spent towards school was a dollar that I didn't have for food or housing.

Having a CalKIDS account could have given me the resources I needed to stay in school my first semester. There are many kids in foster care just like me who didn't think that college is possible for them and believe it is something that they can't afford.

Expanding these CalKIDS accounts to all youth in foster care in the first through 12th grade sends the message to youth that they are college material and creates hope that resources are in place to help them succeed. It is for these reasons that I urge your support in AB 2508. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. All right, now I'll continue with any witnesses in support of AB 2508 here in room 2100.

Good morning. Paige Clark with the National Center for Youth Law in strong support.

Good morning. Annie Thomas, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Hi, good morning. My name is Tranecia Jones and I am a former foster youth and I'm currently attending Sacramento State and I support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Celeste Wicks with Clean Earth for Kids in support. Also supporting this bill, north Eco-Equity and Justice and Eco-Sustainability Peeps. Thank you.

Good morning. Caroline Nguyen, the UC Student Association in support.

Sara Bachez Children Now in support.

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

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now continue with any witnesses in opposition to 2508, seeing none. I'll now bring it back to the dais. Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Obviously, we don't have a quorum. Happy to move the bill when we do. I know for me, one out of every three foster youth in LA County resides in my district. And pre-Covid, Lackey and myself on a regular basis would pull in foster youth, buy them lunch and just listen to their stories.

And one, it's a rough life with a lot of times with very little hope. This actually provides hope which can spark. Thank you for your testimony, by the way, and thank you for everything you're doing on your own. It's very impressive, but we need to lift up everybody. This is a great program.

I'm glad to see it being expanded. Happy to support it today. And I want to thank you for all your work in this space in your entire legislative career. I think you've been a real advocate and I want to thank you for that.

I echo those sentiments. Wednesday, wow. I can just see the aura that you're emanating. You are just an old soul. But I have to say those life experiences, as harsh as they might seem, I think has brought forth this beautiful young lady that we see before us.

And I think a lot of it is because of your life experience that will guide you in leadership moving forward. I'm excited to see your future endeavors and what you do in that capacity. But kudos and continue on that journey. And whoever was your support system, thank them. Thank them for that.

I thank them for the work that they've done in helping, supporting you, getting you this far. On that I will also be supporting this bill. Thank you so much. Member McCarthy for the work that you've done in education as well.

I know we've had many, many discussions when it comes to education, and thank you for your counseling and your guidance with that. Would you like to close?

Thank you for those really kind words. You know, this is my final year here, and I look about some of the things that we did over the years, and this is, I think, one of our huge accomplishments, and this is a way to make it better.

And that's what we should do is look back at our laws and where did we miss out? One thing that really gets me is what Senator Wilk just mentioned is the lack of resources and opportunities for extremely vulnerable population. We all know the statistics Wednesday here. Frankly, a miracle here. And here you are sharing your story.

And too many young Californians don't have your story, but when you get a college savings account with your name on it, you get a letter to you and it's like, I have this money to go to college. And that's the brilliance of this whole thing.

It sets up expectations and people like, I have money for me to go to college, and it shouldn't be just trust fund kids are going to go to private schools. You know, this really has a remarkable opportunity to expand opportunity and build up expectations for success.

So we're going to reallocate the existing allocation, the budget for the CalKIDS Program, which has been undersubscribed. So this will maximize participation and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll leave it open until we're ready to vote when we have a quorum establishment. Okay. We see Member Weber here in our Committee hearing room where she'll be presenting file item number eight AB 1919.

And Member. Yes. Proceed when you're ready.

Okay, great. Good morning, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I want to thank the committee staff for all your thoughtful work and conversations on this bill. I am here to present AB 1919, which will require local education agencies to adopt at least one of the evidence-based best practices for restorative justice on school campuses from the list of recommendations from the California Department of Education.

This bill will authorize participation in a restorative justice program identified as best practice as one of the alternative means of correction that schools may use before they consider suspension of a student. The disproportionate incidence of suspensions and expulsions among certain populations, including Black students, has gained nationwide attention in recent years. Data shows that punitive and/or zero tolerance school discipline policies that rely exclusively punishments are ineffectively and stand in the way of student achievement.

Data also shows that these punitive discipline policies disproportionately impact Black students, particularly Black males and students with disabilities. Black students are four times more likely to be suspended than their White counterparts without indication to show that they behave more--misbehave more. Restorative justice practices engage in collaborative problem-solving, empowers change and growth, and focuses on building systems that address disorderly conduct in a way that strengthens relationships.

In 2022, AB 2598 was signed into law, which required the California Department of Education to work with stakeholders to develop a standard model to implement restorative justice best practices for local education agencies and make them available on their website as a part of efforts to improve campus culture and climate. This bill will build upon 8528, create a supportive school climate, and will allow the dedicated focus necessary for the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of all students.

AB 1919 will address remaining inequities within our public education system and improve school climate, which leads to increased attendance, reduced feelings of isolation, bullying, classroom disruption, truancy, antisocial behavior, and disputes among students. Restorative practices and restorative justice methods allows for greater understanding and community healing in addressing youth behavior.

With me here to speak in support of the bill is Matin Abdel-Qawi, Chief Program Officer of Kingmakers of Oakland and Taneicia Herring, government relations specialist from California-Hawaii State Conference, NAACP. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Weber. Welcome.

Good morning. Good morning and greetings. My name is Matin Abdel-Qawi. I am the Chief Program Officer for Kingmakers of Oakland. With 30 years in education and youth development, I have dedicated my career to creating supportive environments where all students can thrive.

I have served as a teacher, a principal, and a high school network superintendent in the Oakland Unified School District, working directly with underserved communities to promote educational equity. Our organization, Kingmakers of Oakland, is committed to transforming the lives of Black boys through education and community support.

We reimagine systems of education, culture, and wellness while driving narrative change that celebrates Black people and culture and improving educational and life outcomes for all Black boys. We believe that restorative justice is crucial to achieving these goals as it directly addresses the systemic issues that lead to high suspension rates and educational disparities.

In California, Black students are suspended at rates three times higher than their White peers. This disproportionate suspension rate leads to significant learning loss, with suspended students being twice as likely to drop out of school. For Black males, this reality is even starker, contributing to a cycle of disadvantage and disengagement.

When I was a principal in Oakland, we implemented restorative practices and witnessed remarkable transformations. One student who had faced multiple suspensions was given the opportunity to participate in a restorative circle. This intervention allowed the student to express his struggles, take responsibility, and develop a plan to address the harm that was caused.

Over time, this student improved academically and even became a peer mediator, helping others navigate conflicts. I saw firsthand the impact of restorative justice on individual students and the school community. Kingmakers of Oakland supports AB 1919 because it aligns with our core values, King-centered, love, African-centered, collective will, and partnership.

This legislation promises to reduce suspensions and promote restorative practices, which are essential to educational and personal growth for our youth. We urge you to support AB 1919 and help us build a more just and inclusive educational system for all.

Thank you, sir. We usually have a time limit of four minutes, two minutes each witness, so you have about a minute--just over--just a minute and 15 seconds.

Okay. No problem. Thanks.

I should have mentioned that before.

It's okay. Thank you. Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Taneicia Herring, and I am with the California-Hawaii NAACP, and our principal objective is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of minority citizens in California and eliminate race prejudice. We are proud to support AB 1919 as this bill directly relates to our previously sponsored bill signed into law, AB 1165: McCarty, people discipline.

For an incident of racist bullying, harassment, or intimidation, AB 1165 encouraged local education agencies to have both the victim and perpetrator engaged in a restorative justice practice that is found to suit the needs of both the victim and the perpetrator.

AB 1919 takes a step further and will require local education agencies to implement at least one of the California Department of Education's list of best practices for restorative justice before moving on to suspension or expulsion in any case. Black students often fall victim to zero tolerance policies adopted at schools.

While having the attention to maintain student safety, these policies disproportionately affect them. Enforcing these policies, students are subjected to suspensions and expulsions. Students suspended or expelled for a discretionary violation are nearly three times more likely to be in contact with the juvenile justice system the following year.

In extreme cases, Black students are arrested and sent to juvenile detention centers by school resource officers. About 15 percent of K through 12 public school students are Black, but they make up more than 30 percent of students who are suspended, expelled, or arrested.

Zero tolerance policies criminalize Black students for minor infractions and contribute to their school-to-prison pipeline, pushing them out of classrooms and into the juvenile criminal justice systems. We appreciate the efforts of this bill, particularly that the measure mandates schools keep records of the alternate form of correction that is used, particularly when a kid is suspended as a last resort.

We thank Assembly Member Dr. Akilah Weber for writing this critical and crucial legislation, and we hope that AB 1919 will be a starting point for the marathon ahead of us to increase the use of restorative justice practices on school campuses in place of utilizing suspensions and expulsions as first choices. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That was pretty quick reading. We'll now continue with any witnesses in support of AB 1919 here in Room 2100.

Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified, in support.

Stella Johnson, on behalf of San Francisco Unified School District, in support.

Kathleen Fay for California State PTA, in support.

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

Wonderful. We'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions, comments? Oh. I guess, yeah, I forgot. Sorry about that. Good point. Do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 1919? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais.

So I just have one quick question. So the schools have to keep a record of what they do. Are we going to be collecting that data?

Yes.

With the Department of Education? So we can take a look at it? All right. Great. Thank you.

Thank you. So no other--we don't have any members here today, so would you like to close, Dr. Weber?

Really appreciate those who came out and speak in support of this bill. This is extremely important. You know, I am data-driven, which is why the original bill that required CDE to look at best practices and post them on the website was one of the first bills that I authored because understanding that restorative justice works, want to make sure that our schools implement the best practice to ensure that our schools and our students and our communities are able to deal with children who may be perceived to have some kind of behavioral problems, for whatever reason is going on in their social environment.

And instead of punishing them, oftentimes at very young ages, and turning them away from school and education, this is a way in which we can bring them in, show them that they mean enough to the community and to the school so that they can continue to focus on what's important, which is getting their education, coming back, and giving back to the community that had given them so much.

And so this is extremely critical. I am a mother of two young Black boys and am very ashamed to say that my oldest dealt with some disciplinary issues disproportionately, starting at the age of three. And this was when his mother, his grandmother was a State Assembly Member and his mother was a practicing physician.

All of us had graduate degrees. So it is real, it happens, and this is one way to stop it. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote when it's appropriate on AB 1919. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Weber, and thank you to our witnesses for coming here today and testifying. We appreciate your time. We'll now move forward with--okay. Member Hoover first, File Item Number 11.

Madam Chair, I'm going to let Miguel skip me.

Oh, okay. Okay. So we have Member Santiago presenting File Item Number 12: AB 2093. Welcome.

Thank you, and I just want to keep my commitment to being quick and for no other reason, otherwise I'd love to present for this for an hour because it's something I've been working on since 2017, where we've made community colleges free for all students available if they go full time.

Today, we would present before the committee to make community colleges education free, even for a BA, and this is something incredibly important. Now, in the interest of time, I will move over to my two witnesses, but I do want to thank Mr. Wilk, who when first back in 2013--sorry--2017, we introduced it, he reached across the aisle, having had community college background in his own history, that he understood, and we understood how important it was to give free community college.

Some folks might say, well, you know, it's a handout, but really what it is is for full time students, and the success rate for students jumps up exponentially when you commit to going to full time. So not only does this make sense for those students who are in need, but it also makes sense for the educational institution, which now increases its full time--sorry--its, its enrollment hours.

But it also makes sense for society in general when you have students now going to community college for free who have committed to go full time, which their success rate is much higher. So for all the right reasons, free community college makes sense. Today we want to introduce that for BAs as well, and we have two witnesses. Thank you.

Thank you very much, and welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Vice Chair and Honorable Members of the Committee. My name is Maria Luisa Veloz, and I'm sharing testimony on behalf of Dr. Francisco Rodriguez, the Chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District. The Los Angeles Community College District is the proud sponsor of AB 2093.

AB 2093, an expansion of the California College Promise Program, will allow students who choose to pursue their baccalaureate degree at a community college to complete that degree tuition-free at the California Community College of their choice, relieving them of significant financial burden. By choosing to pursue a bachelor's degree at LACCD, students can save significantly on tuition costs.

The approximate cost of a BA degree at LACCD is 10,560 dollars as compared to the the estimated 30,000 dollar price tag for a CSU four-year degree. Furthermore, as you know, CSU is projected to increase tuition by 30 percent over the next five years.

According to a recent UCLA study, students enrolled at community college bachelor's programs had an average income of roughly 40,000 dollars. These students are likely to be older, a third of them between the ages of 30 and 39 years old. They have families and dependents. Immediately upon completing their BA degree, they earned an average of 65,000 dollars upon completion of their degree.

AB 2093 is a legislative victory for equity in higher education that will uplift thousands of families by creating pathways to higher paying jobs. It will significantly impact the economic landscape of our community, and for that reason, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, ma'am.

Good morning, Vice Chair and Members. My name is Dr. Celia Esposito-Noy, and I am the Superintendent President at Solano Community College District. As many professions require a bachelor's degree, community college baccalaureate degree programs are essential for students wishing to access affordable and relevant programs that meet workforce needs.

Approximately 1,600 students are enrolled in community college baccalaureate degrees statewide. Students are opting to enroll and complete their BA degrees at their local community college, not only because they can remain close to home, but because these programs make them job-ready. These programs have high success rates.

For example, at Solano College, 100 percent of our biomanufacturing students graduate, and 100 percent of those graduates secure employment and/or are accepted into graduate programs. The average starting salary for these graduates is 80,000 dollars a year. These bachelor degrees are affordable and equip our community with an educated workforce to meet local demands.

95 percent of the students who complete a bachelor's degree from the community college remain in California. If AB 2093 is passed, it would allow us to see our California Community College Promise Program funds to make the baccalaureate degrees free for all four years, providing significant financial relief to students and their families.

This, in turn, would provide our communities with an educated workforce that is not saddled with student debt. Just like AB 19 made the first two years of community college free and SB 850 and AB 927 expanded access to baccalaureate degrees, this is another landmark bill that will improve access and completion rates for all students. For these reasons, I request that you vote yes on this important bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now move forward with any witnesses in support of AB 2093.

Thank you, Vice Chair and Members. Mark McDonald. I have a list here on behalf of the Antelope Valley, Contra Costa, Foothill, De Anza, Palo Verde, Peralta, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Southwestern Community College Districts, as well as the Los Angeles College Faculty Guild and the California Community College Baccalaureate Association, and really want to thank Assembly Member Santiago. It's been great working with you over these years on this goal. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Carol Gonzalez, on behalf of Long Beach City College, in support. Thank you.

Tiffany Mok, on behalf of CFT, in enthusiastic support from my members, so thank you.

Celeste Wicks, for CleanEarth4Kids, in support. Also in support: North County Equity Justice and Eco-Sustainability Peeps. Thank you.

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

Bella Curran, on behalf of Santa Monica College, in support.

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

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now move to witnesses in opposition to AB 2093. Seeing no witnesses in opposition, we'll bring it back to the dais.

I know we have to be out of this room for another committee hearing, so support the bill. Thank you so much for all your work in this space. It's going to be a loss for this Legislature and for Californians that you're leaving us. I know you're going to go off and do bigger and better things, but it's really been a pleasure serving with you.

Member Santiago, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Oh, sorry. Sorry. Before we close--just made aware--do you accept the amendments?

Yes, I do, and I apologize about not stating that at the beginning. Thank you. I appreciate the work on the committee.

Okay, wonderful. So the amendments have been accepted. Once again?

Yeah. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you again for that.

Thank you very much, and we'll have to wait for a quorum before we're able to vote on this. Thank you. Now we're going to move forward with Member Hoover. We're going to be presenting or he's going to be presenting File Item Number 11: AB 3216.

No worries. Thank you, Senator. Senator, you got it. Happy to add you as a co-author.

Yeah, that was, Senator, for those that could not hear, Senator Wilk has offered or requested to be added as a co-author.

I haven't even said anything yet.

So welcome, Member Hoover, and when you're ready, please proceed.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present this really important Bill, Assembly Bill 3216. I'm here today, obviously, as a Member of the Assembly, but also as a parent of a high school student, of a middle school student, and of an elementary school student.

So, children who span the age range and will be affected by the impacts of AB 3216. Our kids are in crisis. Rates of depression and anxiety in the United States have risen by more than 50% from 2010 to 2019. The suicide rate has risen 48% for adolescents aged 10 to 19.

And for girls aged 10 to 14, the suicide rate has gone up 131% during that period of time. Rates of cyberbullying are also at an all-time high. And when I was looking at introducing this legislation, I had to ask myself, and after reading a number of studies on this as well, what is the correlation here?

What has happened during that period of time that has led to this? You know, one of the biggest things that has changed is that smartphones have become much more prevalent in the hands of young people starting in the early 2010s. Grades we know suffer when learning is disrupted as a result of smartphone distractions in the classroom.

Up to 15% of teenagers reportedly engage in problematic social media use, which includes symptoms such as preoccupation, withdrawal symptoms, neglect of other areas life, and lying to parents and friends about time spent on social media.

In the latest Gallup data that we have, American teenagers reported spending around 5 hours per day on social media platforms alone, something that we have never experienced in our history prior to the early 2010s. We have seen a 70% increase in the number of high school seniors expressing that life often feels meaningless.

Now, more than one in five seniors express this. Poor mental health outcomes and smartphone use are also most strongly correlated in kids under the age of 14. And so a lot of these statistics are why is what led me to introduce AB 3216, which is a very simple Bill.

It will require school districts to take action to address this crisis simply by requiring them to pass a policy limiting smartphone use in the classroom.

Districts that have already done this across the state have seen incredible results, and momentum is growing for this movement across the world, as noted in the Bill, in September 2018, France adopted a nationwide smartphone ban in all primary and middle schools in order to promote pupil achievement and healthy social development.

England has done something similar, and the London School of Economics and Political Science published in 2015 a study that found test scores improved significantly at schools that banned mobile phone use and that the most significant gains in pupil performance were made by the most disadvantaged and underachieving pupils, another major goal that we have here in California.

In 2015, Spain enacted a restriction on mobile phones in school settings, showing an increase of students test scores as well as a documented decrease in incidents of bullying. I think I'm very grateful to the strong bipartisan support we've already had on this Bill.

We have our Chair of the Assembly Education Committee, Al Muratsuchi, as a joint author, as well as Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal as a joint author, also was very grateful to see Governor Newsom come out and support of this concept last week, and the largest school district in California, Los Angeles Unified, just passed a policy on this as well.

I want to keep up this momentum, so would greatly appreciate support of this Bill. Before I close, turn over to my witnesses, I just want to point out a couple points that I think the opposition will likely raise.

We crafted this Bill very carefully to provide a lot of flexibility when it comes to allowing school districts to craft the policies that work best for their local community. Nothing in my Bill prescribes what has to be done at the local level.

It simply requires that action be taken, and so I want to be very clear about that. The Bill also provides exceptions during emergencies when permission is given by a teacher or administrator, when a doctor deems the smartphone use necessary, or when the smartphone is required in an IEP.

Very excited to have with me today two wonderful people from my district. Going to start with Tarek McFaul, who is the principal of Sutter Middle School in Folsom, and then followed by David Reed, who is a board member and former President of the Folsom Unified School District. Thank you.

Wonderful and welcome. And you have two minutes each.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Tarik McFall. I'm going into my fourth year as proud principal at Sutter Middle School in Folsom Cordova Unified School District. I wanted to speak to you briefly about my experiences with smartphones on campus.

Prior to the 23-24 school year, students in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade were allowed to have their cell phones during lunchtime. And what I have found in my years of experience, 12 years of experience in middle school, I found no situations where students should have their cell phones out on campus.

It made it very difficult to monitor. And so during the 2023-2024 school year, our board voted on a policy which kept students from having their phones during lunch. And what we found on our campus were less incidents where students were airdropping inappropriate materials on their cell phones. There were no incidents of vandalism in our restrooms.

We had a reduction of fights on campus. So what we also saw for the positive aspect were more students going to the library, more students joining clubs at lunch, more students actually having face-to-face conversations, which was remarkable. I want to talk about a really powerful email I received from a parent who also said.

She emailed me and said how happy she was about this policy because her child, their family, had chosen not to have cell phones or buy their child a cell phone. And during lunch his 6th grade year, his two friends had cell phones, but he didn't.

And he found it very hard to kind of interact with them during that time. And this past school year, he's been able to, with the cell phones put away, they've been able to have actual conversations. And again, what we have seen is just a tremendous positive influence by not having cell phones out.

And so for that, I wanted to say that I wholeheartedly support AB 3216 and moving forward, I think it will be a great way for all schools to move forward.

Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is David Reed and I am a trustee with the Folsom Cordova Unified School Districts Board of Education. I am here in support of AB 3216 and to share FCUSD's experience with adopting a cell phone policy.

FCUSD was one of the first school districts in the state to adopt a cell phone policy in 2020. Before adopting the policy, we sought the input from parents, teachers, and students. Based on this input, we decided to adopt a graduated policy where we banned cell phones in elementary schools.

We allowed the use of cell phones at lunchtime at middle schools, and we allowed the use of cell phones at lunchtime and during passing periods at high school. The policy was a complete success at the elementary level. Our experience at the middle and high school levels was more challenging.

Many middle and high school students continued to use cell phones during class instruction despite the new policy, not to mention using their phones for other purposes in contradiction to board policy. Based on frustrations expressed by middle school teachers, the FCUSD board amended our policy in 2023 to extend the cell phone ban to middle schools.

This ban took effect with the 23-24 school year. We had an immediate transformative change in our middle schools once the ban took effect. One middle school teacher heartbreakingly commented, she forgot what it was like to have students pay attention to her.

As other districts learned about our policy, we started to receive requests to share our policy with them. As a result of our middle school experience, the FCUSD board will be discussing the pros and cons of extending our cell phone band to our high schools at a September board meeting. This was FCUSD's experience.

I recognize that every district has their own issues and what works for one district might not work for another district. That is why I think it is an important element in AB 3216 is that it only requires school districts to adopt a policy. It does not tell them what the policy must say, leaving that to local control.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any witnesses in support of AB 3216 here in room 2100?

Anna Iokimedes on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, madam Vice Chair and Members, Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. We support the Bill.

Thank you. Do we see we have no other witnesses in support? We'll now continue with any witnesses in opposition to AB 3216. Seeing none will bring it back to me. Well, thank you very much for bringing this measure forward.

I will be supporting the Bill today, and it's interesting, I think there's a lot of discussion and a lot of, as you said, momentum with regards to the cell phones and the impact that social media has on the brain. Interesting to note.

I just wanted to point out that back in the day, so my oldest child is 24, 22, and my youngest is 18, just graduated from high school. But when I was in, I did the.

In our school district at that time, when they were little, they had a preschool parenting program where the student was actually the parent and there was a preschool program. And in that, every week we had classes where the parents would split up and we would take classes on child development brain development or child development brain development.

Positive parenting skills as well as other subject matters that were important to parents in helping them become better parents in raising their children.

But in one of those classes that we had back then, and this was probably 19 years ago, 18, 19 years ago, they had a class segment on technology and the impact that it had on our brain, and they showed us slides and pictures of what, you know, even 2 hours of technology and how that rewired in the brain looked differently in a child's brain.

So from a very young age, I mean, we've had this knowledge for many, many years in which we've known that technology really does impact, rewires the brain in our children, how that impacts their personality, their behavior. And so I've always taken that into consideration, which is why my children did not have cell phones when they were little. And I was incredibly upset when my husband decided to give them a cell phone in junior high.

I was like, what? Without consulting their mother? So, needless to say, we had a very heavy discussion at that time. But I'm grateful for this Bill that you're bringing forward, because it really does carry on that momentum and those conversations that we're having that we've. Should be having at this time.

So with that, you know, I'll be happy to support the Bill when the opportunity comes forward.

Appreciate it. Thanks so much for the opportunity to present.

Thank you. All right, we have Member Calderon here. Welcome. And she will be presenting file item number 24 AB 3240. Grateful to have you here today.

Thank you. Good morning. I think it's still morning, isn't it? Yes. Good morning, Member, Madam Chair.

Yes. So, morning.

I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 3240, which would prohibit the displacement of gift aid awards upon the receipt of private scholarships for students who are eligible for Kell grant awards.

Existing law established by the California Ban on Scholarship Displacement act prohibits public and private institutions of higher education from reducing students institution based gift aid offer below their financial need. However, the Scholarship Displacement act only applies to students who are eligible for the federal Pell grant or the California Dream Act.

Prohibiting the practice of scholarship displacement is essential to make college more affordable. Adding Cal grant eligible students to the California ban on Scholarship Displacement act would impact nearly 92,000 students. AB 3240 ensures our most vulnerable students receive greater access, equity, and financial assistance to achieve their college dreams.

This bill has been supported unanimously thus far and has no opposition. With me in support of the bill is Supriya Patel, a student and policy manager at What We All Deserve.

Hello, Madam Chair and Members. As the Assembly Member mentioned, my name is Supriya Patel, and I am a policy manager at What We All Deserve, a youth led economic justice organization. I am also an incoming college freshman, and so I am very familiar with the issue of paying for college, especially with exorbitantly high college tuitions.

Currently, students with existing financial need are unable to fully utilize outside scholarships when higher education institutions reduce their financial aid. Financial aid is frequently reduced by the amount of the private scholarship known as scholarship displacement, which the Assembly Member also mentioned. And this results in essentially no net benefit for students.

And so the California ban on Scholarship Displacement Act currently prevents institutions of higher education that benefit from state funding or that enroll students receiving state funded financial aid from reducing students institutional aid offers below their financial need.

And AB 3240 would increase equity in higher education by extending the protections of the California ban on scholarship displacement to students who are eligible for Cal grants. Private scholarships are essential to lowering the cost of college for Californians with the most need.

Such scholarships help students pay for classroom materials, transportation, and room and board, a lot of which are not covered in state funded scholarships. AB 3240 levels the playing field for Low income students, helping these individuals achieve their higher education aspirations.

And as an excited incoming college freshman and recent college graduate, I urge you to support AB 3240 and thank you guys for your time.

They will now continue with any witnesses in support of AB 3240.

Sorry, I should have been closer to the mic. Valerie Johnson with the Campaign for College Opportunity in support.

Hi, good afternoon. Jesse Hernandez Reyes with the chancellor's office for the California Community Colleges in support.

Good morning. Espan Nunez, on behalf of the Television Academy Foundation and support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now move on to witnesses in opposition to AB 3240. Seeing none will bring it back to me. Well, thank you very much for bringing this measure forward and want to thank the witnesses for coming and testifying. Madam President, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Senator, I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. For those that just tuned in, we do not have a quorum established and we don't have any Members but myself. So we're holding onto the bills until everybody comes back. Right? And we're going to continue with Member Friedman. We're going to. She'll be presenting file item number 14, AB 2507.

And welcome, Member Friedman.

Good morning, Madam Chair. And Members. Madam Chair, as we all know, financial barriers pose significant obstacles for Low income students striving to complete their college education. High tuition fees, along with expenses related to housing, transportation, textbooks, et cetera, often force our students to juggle multiple jobs to make ends meet.

The issue is particularly acute for Californians who are grappling with increased levels of student loan debt. Moreover, the long term repercussions of repaying student loan debt over several decades cannot be overlooked.

With the current landscape of student loan interest rates in California soaring as high as 9%, AB 2507 would establish a pilot interest free and no free student loan program at the University of California, Los Angeles, California State University, Northridge and Glendale Community College to meet the skyrocketing demands for students who are Low income, homeless, at risk of homelessness or food insecure to have their financial needs met while in pursuit of a higher education.

Implementing an interest free, no fee student loan program would afford graduates the chance to repay their loans within a reasonable timeframe while saving to start a business, buy a home, pay their rent, all the things that people need to do to succeed. This Bill has no opposition and is received bipartisan support.

Testifying in support this afternoon is Cliff Berg with the Jewish Free Loan Association and the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California. This Bill, I believe, is also a Jewish Caucus Tacum alum priority Bill. Thank you. Thank you very much and welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Cliff Berg, on behalf of the Jewish Free Loan Association here, sponsor of AB 2507, urged the Committee to support the establishment of a pilot zero interest, zero fee loan program.

Students, as you know, are having an extremely difficult time meeting the skyrocketing demand for financial support, particularly Low income, homeless and at risk students who are food insecure. I want to thank the author for carrying this Bill.

The Jewish Free Loan Association has been providing zero interest, no free loans for over 120 years and understands firsthand the impact these loans have on students facing dire financial circumstances. Interest free, no fee loans are a lifeline to those in need and repeatedly provide financial assistance when people have nowhere else to turn.

California students are facing more and more obstacles as they navigate getting into and out of graduating from college. Financial barriers hinder Low income students from completing college due to high tuition, housing, transportation and textbook costs, often leading to multiple jobs and accumulating student debt.

I think this program is particularly unique at this time because not only is it no interest, no fee, but the loans are able to be used for support, not just for tuition and books, but for transportation, housing and other life necessities that without financial support, students are at risk of dropping out of the system.

Jewish free loan has been providing as many loans as they can. The program is oversubscribed. Jewish Free loan has over $18 million in loans outstanding started providing loans 120 years ago for small businesses, for everything from birth to death.

They continue to meet those demands, but there is an overwhelming demand from Low income students who need help staying in school. And we would like to demonstrate in this pilot project the importance of not piling on additional interest and fees on students who need financial support.