Assembly Standing Committee on Education

All right, I'd like to convene our first meeting, our first Bill hearing meeting of the Assembly Education Committee. We do not have quorum yet, and. And so I'd like to hold off on calling roll to establish a quorum. I'd like to welcome all of the Committee Members to today's hearing, as well as Members of the public.

I understand there's a large group from Irvine Unified School District here, and so why don't we start off. Yeah. Welcome students, PTA representatives, board Members, and the Superintendent from Irvine Unified School District. Welcome to the state Capitol. All right. And I would like to welcome again, our new Vice Chair, Josh Hoover.

Look forward to continuing to work with you, sir. And our new Assembly Members on this Committee. We have Assemblymember Castillo busy getting briefed on the end there. Yeah. Assemblymember Garcia, who, unfortunately, due to a family matter, was not able to attend today's hearing.

Some of them are Josh Lowenthal, who we expect will be joining us, and our new Doctor in the House, Assemblymember Dr. Patel. So welcome to all of our new Members to the education Committee. We have nine bills on file today. One Bill has been pulled, and so we will not be hearing this Bill.

This is file item number one, Assembly Bill 51. So if you're here for file item number one, Assembly Bill 51, there will not be any hearing or presentation on that Bill. There's one Bill today. Yeah, there's one Bill on consent, and that is file item number seven, Assembly Bill 322. So that will also not be presented.

We'll be voting on a consent calendar rather than having the presentation on the Bill. We had another Bill that was on consent, but at the request of the author, was pulled off of the consent calendar. And that is File item number four, Assembly Bill 228 by Assemblymember Sanchez. And so that Bill will be presented today.

Bills will be heard and sign in order. I see. Mr. Kalra, first up, before Mr. Kalra comes up, I'd like to. Let's see, we have these new rules that I'm sure Mr. Kalra is very familiar with. Let's see. Before I read those rules, let me give the basic ground rules for our hearing today.

Each Bill will have up to two witnesses in support, two witnesses in opposition, each of whom may speak for up to two minutes. Members of the public in the hearing room will have an opportunity to state their position. Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the Bill.

Only Members of the public are also welcome to provide more detailed comment through the position Letter portal on our education Committee website. And I have a statement to read regarding conduct at our hearings. We strive to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have an effective deliberation of decisions on the critical issues facing our state.

As we proceed with the witnesses and public comment, want to make sure everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. Folks over here on the right are there to ensure that we maintain order in the hearing room and hopefully we won't have to ask for their help.

We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express in order to facilitate the goal of the hearing as much from the public to hear as much from the public. Within the limits of our time.

We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. We will not accept disruptive behavior, behavior that incites or threatens violence. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the chair. Public comment must relate to the subject being discussed today and no engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing.

Please be aware that the violations of any of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. We will have. We have a quorum. And so why don't we call for roll call for to establish quorum?

[Roll Call]

All right, quorum is established. Want to welcome Assembly Members Bonta and Lowenthal. And so we will move forward. Let's first begin. This is our first Committee hearing. And so with that, we need to take care of the adoption of our Committee rules.

Standard rules by which our Committee operates, which includes our curriculum policy, which was developed jointly with the the Senate Education Committee. Any questions or discussion on the Committee rules? Seeing none, Can I entertain a motion for adoption of the Committee rules? Right. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on.

[Roll Call]

Okay. 6-0. The Committee rules are adopted. All right. Sign in order. First up is File item number eight, Assembly Bill 347 by Assemblymember Kalra. Welcome, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honor to be the first bill of the Education Committee this session and I want to thank you and the Vice Chair and the Members and a special thank you to the Committee staff for their work this bill, not just for this hearing, but for many years really.

At msv we've all learned a lot and I am happy to accept the Committee amendments. AB347 is the Compassionate Learning Advancement for Science Students act, also known as the CLASS Act. This bill is a reintroduction of AB 2640 and receive which receive bipartisan support by this Committee.

AB 347 will strengthen current law that allows students to opt out of animal dissection assignments by giving by being given a written notice informing them about their right to opt out and be able to receive a comparable or a comparable assignment to achieve the same learning outcome.

In addition, students will be able to receive information about where the animal was sourced from and the chemicals they will be exposed to upon request. Many students may not be aware of this current right to opt out and often feel obligated to participate in the animal dissection assignment Fearing it will impact their grades.

Students exercising their right to opt out should not be penalized or discriminated for their decision. Instead, they should be given the same equitable opportunity as their peers to receive a comparable assignment under current law. Agricultural courses are exempt from this law and will continue to be exempt under this bill. Anatomy and dissection are essential scientific pedagogy.

However, with the advancements in educational technology, alternative methods have become more widely accessible and affordable, especially after the pandemic. When I first introduced the very first iteration of this bill, it was 2019. I believe at that time it was an effective path to go down and to walk down in terms of really looking at animal dissection.

But now, certainly since the pandemic, I think that's even more certain given the fact that so many students were still being given instruction on anatomy but were using new tools when they were studying from home and given software and other tools that teachers were very creatively bringing.

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

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

In the analysis it points out that in some cases you can get a lifetime license for certain software for certain types of alternative methods. And it's certainly far less costly than having to purchase animals the animal for dissection year after year after year.

And I would also point out that given the current cost of animal specimens, the the reality is that as important as some may feel animal dissection might be for instruction, the reality is that every student doesn't have access to them either.

So if they were that important, clearly it hasn't been shown through our commitment to ensuring everyone has access to them. However, for a lower cost, we can make sure everyone has access to alternatives to animal specimens. By providing students with a written notice, AB347 will empower them to make informed decisions.

Given a choice to opt out of animal dissection and instead receive an alternative comparable assignment, students have a right to an education. They also have the right to their own self determination, especially as it applies to this kind of practice as to whether they want to be engaged or not.

And I quite honestly feel that we may be turning off a lot of young students that would otherwise be going into medicine by exposing them at such a young age to animal specimens and dissection, things that they wouldn't even have to do in medical school. And we're turning them off to science at a young age.

And I think that that is not the approach we should be taking, especially for those students that choose to opt out. Here to testify and support are Sienna Roth, a former student at Alyssa Niguel High School, and Samantha Crowe, program manager for Teach Kind Science and a former Professor of biology. Thank you.

Hi there. I'm Sienna Roth and I have first hand experience with opting out of dissection. Last year in my senior year at Elisa Nagal High School, my anatomy and physiology class was doing dissection. When I signed up for the class, I was not aware that dissection was involved.

But when I learned of it after the class had already started, I asked for a different assignment. Because my personal beliefs do not align with the activity, I was immediately met with opposition.

Both my teacher and one of the administrators at my school asked me why I was doing the class if I wasn't going to dissect and suggested that I dropped a class.

Not only did they not inform me of my right to opt out of dissection, but they encouraged me to leave a class that would help me get a Head Start on my future career as a nurse. Students like me should not have to choose between their own ethics and learning.

STEM, my school was not aware of their responsibility to inform me of my right to opt out of dissection, which is why there needs to be a written notification and a uniform complaint procedure. This will ensure students are doing the assignment that allows them to learn best.

Dissection is an outdated tool that doesn't teach to the needs and learning styles of all students. I was able to use the getting Nerdy paper model and I scored significantly higher than my classmates on the dissection test.

Not only did I learn much better because I was able to do the version of the assignment that best supported me, but when when I talked to other students in my class they told me they wish they had also done the non animal version. They told me how sad and disgusting and wasteful the dissection was.

Luckily, I had so much support in opting out between my mom helping me find connections and resources, PETA teachkind informing me of my legal right to opt out of dissection, and the incredibly supportive Assistant Superintendent working with me to ensure this doesn't happen in the future of our district.

However, as supported as I was, I had to jump through hoops, attend many meetings and take time out of my busy student life to advocate for rights that should have been integrated long before I started the class. I do not want other students to have the same experience I did.

Teachers should know their responsibilities and parents and students should be aware of their rights so that everyone can learn in a way that best reflects their ethics as it pertains to animal dissection.

Thank you.

That was a hard act to follow. Good afternoon. I'm Samantha Crowe. I am the program manager for PETA's Humane Science Education Division. Thank you for having us Chairman and honorable Committee Members. We certainly appreciate your time.

The class act is a common sense bill that strengthens students rights to choose ethics over grades and I know this because I have been a biology Professor for over a decade and I use completely animal free methods to teach my pre nursing students that. We thank the author, Assemblymember Kalra for introducing this bill.

Animal dissection is not a magical way to get students excited about science. It actually disenfranchises many students and turns them away from the sciences.

Our current law is not enough to protect students as we've heard from countless students who do not know they have the right to opt out and from others who are too scared to do so for fear of being ostracized by their peers or teachers.

Studies show that students who use animal free methods perform as well as and oftentimes better than their peers who dissected animals.

According to a systematic review published in 2022 in the American Biology Teacher Journal, through personal communication, I have confirmed with the College Board, UC and International Baccalaureate that animal dissection is not required for any student in California to get into the UC program or to get into medical school. It is not required.

To illustrate how important this bill is to students of California like Siena Folsom, Cordova Unified School District described students at Folsom, pardon me, described animal dissection as, quote, disturbing. They felt, quote, very uncomfortable. Students who had experience with dissecting animals said, I was not a fan of that experience and I felt bad for the animal.

I was grossed out. Of course, when presented with a choice of dissecting an animal or using an animal free method, one student explained that they felt, quote, more safe doing animal free dissection. Please help students become better scientists and help educators honor students rights by Voting Aye on AB347. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Why don't we have public comments in support of the measure? Please come forward to the microphone.

Hello Chair, Members. Nicholas Sackett, for Social Compassion in Legislation, proud co sponsor of the bill, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairmember Sam Nasher with the Los Angeles County Office of Education and support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members and staff, Mitch Steiger with CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. We're processing a support support position and plan to be officially in support after a membership conference this weekend. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Karen Stout, on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, we're in strong support.

Good afternoon. Ryan Ike, resident of California. I fully support the bill.

Hi. Katherine Hampton. I'm a student and I am in support.

Hi, I'm Cindy Vera. I am a resident of Southern California and I absolutely support this.

Maggie Zurowska, I'm a resident of California and educator. So please, yes, support.

My name is Linda Middlesworth. I'm here on behalf of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. I vote yes.

Hello, my name is Janae Benson. I'm a teacher and I'm in full support of this bill.

Thank you very much. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward. Please approach the table.

Hello, My name is Dr. Peter Reinthal and I'm here.

You can have a seat.

Are you sure?

Yeah.

My name is Dr. Peter Reinthal and I'm here representing the Hands On Science Partnership. This is a consortium of businesses and educational organizations that promote hands on learning opportunities and any policy that elevates STEM education.

I'm also a Professor and a scientist and in charge of a natural history Museum at the University of Arizona. And I've spent close to 40 years teaching evolutionary biology, ichthyology, comparative anatomy and zoology classes that many of which would use some form of dissection in their labs.

I always gave students the opportunity to opt out of dissections and less than 5% would, but they would still be responsible for the material. And I'd say the vast majority did not prove perform as well when they were tested on.

Is my experience that dissection is an effective hands on learning experience for comparative anatomy and it promotes something that the alternatives do not, variation amongst organisms. Students learn and explore and find new things working cooperatively in a classroom. Most students remember their lectures, but they don't remember most of my lectures.

I'm sorry, their dissection labs, but not most of my lectures. I'm a firm believer students already have too much screen time. What I have found is post pandemic. As a college Professor, students were ill prepared for hands on learning.

They lost a lot of critical thinking skills and what they need is to have the hands on laboratories to get the background. If we start with dissection, are we going to get rid of chemistry labs, physics labs next? So effective STEM concepts require this hands on learning. I'd ask you to try to wrap up, please.

Okay, So I urge you to oppose this because it could create time, resource and financial burdens on already stressed teachers. It is duplicative of existing laws and if dissection is replaced by alternatives in July 2028, such action would prevent those students who want to do this.

Most of the companies, all of the companies are more than willing to share sourcing information, chemical information and existing law already requires Prop 59 labels and SDS sheets to disclose the chemicals. All right, thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Josh Krieger and For the past 24 years I have taught science at Cordova High School in Rancho Cordova in the Folsom Cordova School district. And for the last 16 years, I've been an anatomy physiology teacher.

In my biology class which I taught for over 10 years, dissections were a portion of the curriculum and I did offer students alternatives to those that were not comfortable with the dissection. However, in my anatomy and physiology course, dissections make up a large portion of the curriculum.

About six to seven dissections are done a year, some lasting a week, while others lasting several weeks. This Bill would be asking teachers to provide alternative work for about 10 to 13 weeks of curriculum. That is about 60 lessons. When you do the math on that which makes up about one third of the class.

And as a teacher, I find this a little bit unreasonable to have to make up two different sources of curriculum for my students that go on to college and email me back. As my colleague said over here, one of the things that they remember the best and they got the most out of was the dissection.

Students from UC Davis to UCLA, that is what they remember from the class. Why are we asking students to do work that is not going to get them to the same level of learning that something like a dissection were? We do not ask our colleagues to do something that's not going to yield what we're looking for.

Again, having teachers do two sets of curriculum is pretty unreasonable. We do not ask this of our English teachers. If a student does not agree with a curriculum in a book. Anatomy and physiology is an elective. It is not required and is signed up for thy students voluntarily.

Why require months worth of alternative assignments when there are alternative classes like ecology, physics and astronomy and more. I know PETA has come up and created with some amazing things like the kind frog. It is awesome. We have one in class. We love it. It's great for biology.

But the goal of anatomy and physiology is to prepare students for college level classes where animal dissections are likely and is also to see if it's a career that they're comfortable in pursuing. Many students of mine are premed and they have Dr. Aspirations.

But after that first dissection they decide to choose a different path while other students, after their first dissection strikes a passion in them and ignites an interest in them that us teachers love to see. No alternatives really offer that real experience. There's no decent alternatives that are to an actual dissection. All synthetic models, please wrap up, Please.

Okay. All synthetic models are the same and they do not provide diversity. We just dissected sheep brains and we saw some cancer in one and asymmetric hemispheres in another. Real experiences, real challenges and real learning occur with these things. Please consider this from a real teacher that is working really hard to make our students prepared for college.

Thank you very much. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Please come forward.

Peter Ahern, California Association of Science Educators we oppose unless amended.

Good afternoon. Carlos Rojas with the Kern County Superintendent of Schools. We haven't taken an official position on the bill yet. We just want to highlight the need for funding to follow the bill so teachers have the resources, training and instructional materials to provide the alternative projects.

Good afternoon. Matt Patton from the California Agricultural Teachers Association in opposition.

Seeing no further public comments. In opposition. I'd like to bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee? Ms. Banta?

Thank you. To the author, thank you for your testimony. Actually, it was incredibly helpful to me to hear that just by way of background, I've multiple children who have gone through our school system.

The first child came to the point where she needed to do the dissection in her class and relished it, loved every moment of being able to. Be. Able to participate in that. The second child cried and refused to participate in that classroom.

She was also the child who from the time that she was three years old would cry whenever she saw a living thing or a being hurt in any particular way.

So I really appreciate your testimony today because I understand the trauma that can exist for children when they are required to do something that causes them pain because they believe that they are causing life pain. To the author, thank you, Assemblymember Kalra, for bringing this bill forward.

This is pretty technical, but on page three of the analysis it states that the existing law exempts classes and activities conducted as a part of the program in agricultural education that provides instruction on the care, management and evaluation of domestic animals for these requirements. Does your bill remove or change this exemption in any way? I don't.

No, it does not. Thank you. I appreciate you bringing forward this bill.

All right, thank you. Any other questions from Dr. Patel?

Hi. Thank you for your presentation of the bill. I appreciated hearing testimony on both sides, Mr. Kalra, and perhaps for just clarification, what is the being a Member of the budget sub 3, the Committee that oversees the budget for education, what is the financing plan for this new change?

And certainly that will be, I'm sure, something that will be discussed more thoroughly in Appropriations. However, if you look at the analysis, the cost of alternatives is significantly lower than animal dissection if you have to buy the specimens year after year.

So, and there's a reason why we're getting not only California federated teachers but LA County on board is because there's a recognition that ultimately it's a cost saver that doesn't diminish the instruction of the students. So in the long term it'll be a cost savings.

And the, the specific finances, I'm sure if there's going to be any need for that will be done through Appropriations, but we don't have hard numbers on that at the moment.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions from the Committee? Seeing none. I would like to thank the witnesses on both sides especially our student. We always love hearing from students and making sure that we're in touch with what's actually happening in the classrooms. Of course, that equally applies to our teachers who are talking from their personal experience.

Years of experience. Yeah. Normally I, you know, recognize that we learn well from hands on experience. However, that's not what we're debating today. You know, the existing law does not only allow a student to opt out from dissections, but it requires school districts to notify students of their right to opt out.

This is a decision that had been made in previous legislation. And so today, the only issue before this Committee is whether, you know, after a student exercises the right of opting out, should a California public school teacher be required to provide the alternative, given that they've exercised their existing legal right to opt out?

We hear you, sir, in terms of how that may require additional work. But I think the bottom line for myself.

And we'll see where the committee is with the vote, is that if we are going to recognize an existing right to opt out, that a student should not be punished or suffer from not having an alternative developed for them, that is the obligation of our California public school system to.

To make sure that we're meeting the needs of all of our students. And so I will be supporting the bill. But, Mr. Kalra, you have the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and I appreciate colleagues for the questions. I appreciate witnesses that have joined us to offer their expertise and their experiences.

And we'll just second the comments of the Chair that I do think that we have an obligation to provide an alternative lesson if someone is exercising what already is an existing right to opt out. With that, I respectfully asked for an Aye vote.

All right, thank you. Can I entertain a motion and a second? All right. Madam Secretary, please call the roll file.

Item 8, AB347. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

7-0. The bill is out. Thank you to everyone. All right, who's next?

Mr. Gallagher. Okay. We had Ms. Aguiar-Curry next in the signup list. But since we don't see her in the room, we see Mr. Gallagher has been patiently waiting. And so we'll have File Item number six, Assembly Bill 281, by Assemblymember Gallagher.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, appreciate the opportunity to present AB 281. And this is really a Bill that I'm hoping in this cycle I can sort of complete some work that I worked on in my first term actually in the Assembly, dealing with transparency and informing parents about sex ed curriculum.

This is a Bill I actually worked with this very Committee my first year and was able to get it passed out on a bipartisan vote. Strong bipartisan support on the floor. Ultimately, we went over to the Senate and did not pass on the Senate Floor.

But we really came together with a lot of the stakeholders, worked very well with the consultants of the Committee to I think craft something that really strikes the right balance with the Healthy Youth Act. It was also passed around the same time. And so really, what this does, it does two things.

One is it ensures that parents have the right to inspect and view sex ed curriculum materials in advance of those being taught to the students. Gives them the ability to make copies of things that are going to be presented in that curriculum.

And then it gives, in addition to the information that goes out in advance of sex ed curriculum being taught, it gives information about the credentials and the training of those who are going to be giving, if you're bringing third parties onto campus, their credentials so that parents are informed of that as well.

So they're really just very, I think, good additions to what we already do in terms of our sex ed curriculum. Making sure it's age appropriate, you know, science based, but also giving that critical information so that, you know, parents, you know, know what is going to be ultimately taught.

Now, I know there was some opposition that was submitted, and I don't quite understand it because what it essentially seems to be saying is that the law allows and requires that school districts tell parents that the materials will be available to view. Right? That's what the current law does.

But then they're saying if the parents actually go in there after they've been told that it's available and asked to view it, that somehow that will have a chilling effect on sex ed curriculum. To me, that makes absolutely no sense. We're telling them that it's available so they can come in and view it.

And that's what my Bill does. It ensures that they have the right to actually view it. Notice already requires them to say that these materials should be made available.

So all we're saying is that parents didn't have the right to go in there, view it, make copies of things that are going to be shown in that sex ed curriculum, and then to know ultimately what are the credentials of any third parties that are coming on campus.

Now, most of the time this is done by teachers, you know, on the campus. Although I do think the analysis pointed out that there's a pretty significant percentage of third party folks who are actually brought onto the campus to help do the sex ed curriculum.

And so when they are, it's just a matter of saying, of informing parents, what are those credentials? And you would probably want to know this, whether on maybe both sides of the political spectrum, if you will.

Here recently in Modesto, there was controversy over a group that they thought was not teaching all of the science behind sex ed curriculum. They thought it was too religious based.

Well, this kind of notification requirement would allow parents to know if it's maybe more of a nonprofit that has a religious affiliation that's coming on a campus. Right on the other side, you know, if it's, you know, someone that's coming maybe from, say, you know, owner of a sex shop, you know, which I know that sounds crazy, but it actually did happen.

We had owners of people who were owners of a, you know, of a shop where he actually came on campus and did part of the sexual ed curriculum in Concord, I believe was in 2016. So this is, there have been instances of abuses that parents thought was not giving them the full information of what was going on.

And you could imagine that caused controversy after the fact, you know, that people were upset, they came to school boards, they expressed that.

So the bottom line is giving people more information, I think actually helps wards these kinds of things off by giving parents the vital information they need ahead of time to make decisions about what they want their kids, you know, what. Whether or not they want their kids to participate in the sex ed curriculum.

And it also helps, you know, I think give more information is better. It helps people better understand what is being taught. And so to me, these are common sense, reasonable additions to our California Healthy Youth Act. Like I said, this had very strong bipartisan support from this body, from this very committee.

And I would like to hopefully finalize this out and pass this into law this year. And so I would ask for your help in doing that, if you would help by giving your aye vote today. And so that's all I have. Mr. Chairman.

I don't believe I have any witnesses of my own in support, but there may be people here to testify in support.

Okay, let's see. Any public comments in support of this message, please go forward.

I am Brock Campbell from the California Baptist Capitol Ministry, and on behalf of Faith Baptist Church in Atascadero and also Faith Baptist Church in Wheatland, we strongly support.

I'm Emily Campbell with the Cal Baptist Capitol Ministry, and on behalf of, Sorry. On behalf of Freedom's Way Baptist Church in Castaic and the Lighthouse Baptist Church in Santa Maria, we strongly support.

Nicole Young, Placer County Moms for Liberty, as well as the Legislative Chair for Moms for Liberty California, representing over 50,000 parents. We are in strong support.

Okay. And since would you like the two witnesses as your main witnesses with up to two minutes to testify? Okay, please proceed.

My name is Molly Sheahan. I'm here on behalf of the California Catholic Conference, and we are in support of this Bill because we see it as a good collaboration between parents and their schools.

We know that our schools thrive best when parents are involved, Members of the community, when they're supporting their students, and when conversations are taking place at home.

So the ability for parents to be able to know that they can access this information and have those conversations at home is critical for this information to truly be passed on to students. Parents are informed and engaged partners in our schools.

It ensures that there's informed consent if parents are aware of what they're able to understand about this information. And like with any school subject, parents often are learning along with their students. Right. So when they're able to review this information, they. They're able to look ahead in the book and then have that conversation with their students.

The kid may come and ask about algebra or about something that they're learning in history, and they're going to have questions. Every single student has questions, and they need help with their homework, and they need to have these critical conversations with their parents, especially on human sexuality.

And so being able to review that information, the parent can take it home and say, all right, let me look ahead. Let me see what you're learning, and then I can have a conversation with you about this.

We know that so often these conversations take place in the car when both parent and child are looking ahead and in the school pickup line when they're on their way to go get frozen yogurt. And these are also the conversations that kids most want.

All of the research that has been done about passing on information about human sexuality finds that or any difficult topic, tobacco, sex, drugs, all of these gangs. Kids want to hear from their parents about these topics and that the best information comes from their parents.

This is what the CDC says, this is what the research shows us is that kids want to talk to their parents and they value most what their parents have to say on this topic.

So parents are really able to back up the school when they're able to see the curriculum, understand it and then talk about it with their student and be able to share their views and their values just like any other homework that their student would bring home.

So we really view this as a positive bill and collaborative between students and parents and their school and that our schools really thrive when that is the case. So for these reasons, we support this. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee seasoned and those that are fresh. My name is David Bollag. I'm happy to be here today to support this legislation which I project will get through all committees in both houses unanimously. This legislation brings a spotlight to the crown jewel of the 21st century education code.

The California Healthy Youth Act. The shining example of California values that mandates comprehensive sexual health in HIV prevention education should be celebrated and showed off. My one issue with the bill is that it only allows parents and guardian access to the school curriculum.

I think any concerned party should be able to discover the greatness that the Healthy Youth Act brings to our school. I would think that the majority party would want to force amendments. Hint, hint.

To have schools place this curriculum on their website so Members can link it to their own website to demonstrate what this legislation is bringing to their district. School bragging rights, if you will.

On a more somber note, I want to bring up that there has been a lot of misinformation that is shared amongst parents and guardian about what is and isn't being taught in our schools. School Board Meetings have had to deal with emotional participants concerned about the curriculum that they may not have the full picture of.

Codifying this Bill will allow parents to see what is and what is not being taught to their children. It will relax parents concerns when they see the beneficial knowledge that is passed on to their kids. This shared knowledge will result in creating healthy dialogues between parents, staff, school board Members and legislators.

I'm looking forward to seeing you all vote yes on this Bill that focuses attention on one of the greatest passages to ever grace the California Education Code, the California Healthy Youth Act.

Thank you. Because we had a mixed presentation process here. Is there any public, any further public comments in support of the measure? Seeing none. Okay. Any witnesses in opposition to the measure. Please come forward.

Mr. Chair, Members, Nick Romley here today on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators. First, I do want to say and apologize for not submitting a letter formally on this Bill. One will be forthcoming with our formal opposition.

And I also want to thank the Committee staff, the author staff in particular, being so willing to work with us on this Bill. And I want to say at the outset, whatever happens with the Bill today, whether it moves forward or not, we are happy to work with the author on our concerns going forward.

So with that, we are respectfully opposed to the Bill today, primarily because we feel existing law is already quite clear that parents can inspect these instructional materials and that this Bill would place a costly new unfunded mandate on schools in terms of staff time. And we know staff are already stretched thin.

And in terms of budgets, as we've been hearing lately, school budgets are stretched in as well. So again, while the Bill also allows to charge $0.10 per copied page, we just don't think that'll cover the costs associated with the Bill. So for those reasons, we are opposed.

But again, happy to work with the Committee and the author going forward if the Bill moves forward today.

All right, thank you. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill, Please come forward.

Yes. Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. In respectful opposition.

Ma'am, if. Ma'am, since we only had one witness in opposition, if you'd like to take up to two minutes to elaborate on your position.

We share some of the concerns that Mr. Romley has raised. Really. We think that there are existing mechanisms in place to provide the needed opportunities for parents to engage in these materials. We have rigorous processes in place for experts who come in to talk about this subject.

You know, we already vet them, so we really don't feel that it adds anything new while at the same time it causes additional costs and challenges for school staff.

Okay.

Thank you. Any further public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bringing it back to the Committee, Ms. Bonta, or Mr. Alvarez.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the members of the public and to the author. I. I genuinely have a question on trying to understand there's a difference in opinion on the access. And as a parent, I certainly, if I wanted to have access to the information, I'd like to have the access.

And so I'm trying to understand I can give the author first the opportunity to explain what the current barrier is to that and how this facilitates having access to the information. And then to the opposition, it's basically the same question. But if you could help me understand what the barriers are.

Yeah. So right now, and I think maybe Committee staff might be able to also inform on this. But the current law requires a notice to go out letting parents know that materials are available for inspection. So that's all that's really required right now.

What this is saying is that it would make it clear that the parents have a right to actually come in and inspect those materials and to make copies of those materials and specifically those materials that are going to actually be used and passed out in the classroom.

So it gives them that right, which is not in law right now. So though there is a requirement letting parents know that things are available to inspect, there isn't a right to inspect. And there have been instances where people haven't been able to come in and actually view the curriculum.

And so that's where this is kind of coming into, trying to close that issue up. And again, my point is, if we're telling parents, "hey, this is available to come view", why would it be a problem if they come in and view it? Yeah, I mean, that shouldn't be an issue.

This law would help clarify that in terms of the maybe somewhat financial burden of making copies. That's why we put in there the tents that districts could require up to 10 cents per copy. That was kind of part of those discussions that we had previously when I ran this Bill before.

Certainly willing to continue to have those discussions. We don't want to be a burden to school districts. But again, making a copy is not too much to ask.

I would say. I'm not as concerned on the cost of copy making.

I'm more concerned if we, we don't have access, which as a parent, you know, I get the notifications when it's that time of the year and those, those sessions are going to be presented to, to my child and we get told you can opt out and, and if I get told you have opportunity to review the, the material and I don't, which I am still not clear on, and I'd like to get more of your responses.

Is it your belief for the opposition? I understand the author's belief that access really doesn't exist. What is the belief of the opposition if I wanted to walk into school and request the material to see what my child is going to be seeing? I don't think there should be any question about that.

Yeah. Thank you, Assemblymember. I couldn't speak right now off top of head to any specific instances of, of a school barring parents from coming on campus to inspect materials. If that's the case, of course, we said we'd be happy to work with the author.

But you know, it's our understanding that the law already permits this and we think is quite clear in terms of says not only is is the notice to go out, but that they are allowed to inspect. And we think that's quite clear. So that's our position.

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. I'm really just struggling with what the added value of this legislation is. I'm just going to ask some questions to be able to try to get clarification around that because I do fundamentally believe that sexual health education and assessment is very critical to our overall health.

And I just want to understand what the current law is and whether this legislation will actually truly advance that. So right now, can parents or guardians opt their students out of all or part of sexual health education and assessments?

Yes.

Okay. And are school districts required to notify parents or guardians of each student about instruction in sexual health education planned for the coming year?

Yes. And the only thing mine would add to that is saying what the credentials of an outside person are when they're coming to provide the sex ed curriculum.

I think currently outside consultants are required to meet any specific criteria. They're required to have expertise in comprehensive sex health education and HIV prevention, education and have knowledge of the most recent medically accurate research on their relevant topics or topics covered in their instruction. I believe that that's what the current law is. In this notification are parents and guardians informed of their right to excuse their child from comprehensive sexual health education and how to do so in the current law?

Yes. And the only thing I would would add to what you said previously is yes, there people are required to have that background. But again, if they have that background, it shouldn't be a problem explaining what their credentials are on the information.

I think that the current law, my reading of the current law is that they actually do. In this notification, are students, are parents and guardians informed of, well, they are informed of who will be teaching their students sexual health education.

No, the current notice doesn't require you to say who is. If it's an outside person, it doesn't require to say who it is or what the credentials are of that.

But they are overall required to meet specific criteria in this notification.

That's my understanding.

In this notification, our school districts required to provide information on any outside consultants or guest speakers involved in teaching of sexual health education, including the date of instruction, the name of the organization or affiliation of each guest speaker and the rights of the parents or guardians to request a copy of this information in the current law?

And again, I think it's in the analysis and has some of the requirements there. What I believe is not in there and what this Bill is seeking to address is the identity of the third, third person and their credentials, you know, their background credentials for why they're qualified to, to come in and teach sex ed.

That's what this Bill would provide.

I think there's already a requirement that they have expertise in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education. Just to the point of kind of the scope or scale of the problem we are trying to solve with this legislation.

What evidence and data or trends do we have that this is an active issue with school districts not complying with the provisions already in existence?

Within the last five years? I mean, there's been several instances of one, parents objecting to what they've seen in the curriculum. There's been parents who have tried to go and actually make copies at school districts, albeit like they've been in the news. And I guess these are more.

I don't know exactly how many there have been, but there certainly have been documented cases of parents wanting to get more information or get copies and not being able to. Now this is, I don't think that's the majority of the case. Right. I mean, I think overwhelmingly most school districts would do that.

But that's why I'm saying it should just be clear in the law that if a parent comes in to inspect, they should be able to view it.

So my read of the news these days is that often things are put in the news to be salacious. And I think it would be helpful to understand the actual scope of the..

The challenge you are trying to address with some more specific data and information to be able to do that, given the opportunity cost and quite frankly the actual cost of the administrative burden and inefficiencies that would come with adding a new law on the books that literally, as far as I can tell, reiterates the existing law?

Just bear with me because I'm trying to get this straight in my head. Do you have a sensibility around the number of school districts or the percentage of school districts that actually use powerschool or contact databases to be able to support communication digitally between parents and schools?

I do not.

I think it's in the neighborhood of at least 85% of school districts, if not more. And maybe the opposition can speak to this from AXA, already have a means to communicate with their parents

and community Members through digital communications. Which I think matters because it means that potentially what we are trying to get at here is creating an opportunity for parents to enter onto a campus and have to engage in dialogue about their protest potentially with a particular piece of information.

Do we have, just from a slippery slope perspective, do we require instructional materials and other subject matters to be subject matter to be reviewed and made available to parents? Algebra? English?

Yeah, I believe, actually, I believe all curriculum can be viewed at schools. And you could go to the school district and want to see what the history or the math or other curriculum is. And that's as my understanding of law, that that is made available and they're allowed to inspect it.

And that's what I'm trying to do here with sex ed curriculum is make it clear that parents can also view that curriculum.

Well, the prior law makes it clear that that is something that is available to parents to be able to do. I just, I worry about the, this sensibility of placing burdens on our school administrators, our school staff, to be able to do something that parents are already able to do.

And quite frankly, not using the mode of information exchange that is predominant right now, which is through digital means. I think that there's ultimately a situation right now where the US Department of Education has cut literally 1300 people from its ranks.

And we will see the impacts of that on our school staff and at the school level in terms of what burdens of work that they will need to do in order to be able to accommodate the administrative functions of that.

And when we're talking about government efficiency, I don't think it makes sense to put on on the books a repeat of existing law that already ensures that parents have the ability to not only get notified, but also inspect that material.

And I think we need to be very careful with the requirements that we are placing on our school staff right now. And for those reasons, I'm not going to be able to support this Bill.

Thank you, Vice Chair Hoover.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could just ask the opposition, is it the goal to encourage as many students as possible to participate in this curriculum?

Assemblymember I wouldn't speak to encouragement or discouragement,

But just in, right, okay. Well, that's fair. But just in terms of, I mean, we have an opt out obviously available, but I imagine that this was created with the goal of wanting as many people to participate. I think a lot of parents appreciate having the opt out if they don't believe their child is ready.

But it seems like we usually create curriculum in order to encourage participation? I would think so. I guess with that in mind, it just seems to me that it would actually increase participation if we increase transparency.

If people actually know what their student is going to be learning about, then they are much more likely to allow their student to participate in that. If we're in a situation where, you know, there's no knowledge of what is going on in that particular curriculum, I would imagine that most parents are just gonna.

Just gonna choose to opt out of it, because if you don't know what's gonna be in it, then you're not gonna take the risk. And so I think for myself, I do appreciate the conversation, you know, on the dais, but I will be supporting this Bill because I think ultimately transparency is a good thing.

I do respect and appreciate the administrative issues, but at the end of the day, I think we usually need to err on the side of transparency and making sure that parents know what's in their child's curriculum. So thanks for bringing the Bill forward.

Thank you. Any further? Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you. I'm reviewing the language in the Bill and current law does. It's a little, you could say, unclear. Although my reading of it is pretty clear. It does say in,

In section B1, Section 1, B1, where the amendment is being made, each of the parent advise the parent regarding that written and audio visual educational materials used in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education are available for inspection. Period. That's current law.

Your amendment says available for inspection and adds this section "and that during the inspection, the parent or guardian may make copies of the parents or guardian's pupil school of any written educational material that will be distributed to pupils". It goes on from there. But why is this not sufficient access for a parent today?

It's pretty clear in the law that it's available for inspection.

Yeah. Again, the notice lets parents know that it's available for inspection. And part of what my Bill does is make it clear that they will be able to come in and inspect it and that they can make copies of materials. So I really think it's actually complimentary.

I understand the copy, what you're trying to do with the copy. That's. That's pretty clear. It is available for inspection today. And so we could agree or disagree that copy access should be allowed or disallowed, but to say that inspection is not available. It is available.

Yeah. I think it's really more about just clarifying the law to make it clear that they can, it right now, it says available for inspection. Right. But that the parents actually can come in and do the inspection, and not only can they do the inspection, but they could make copies of the material.

So I see it as clarifying that. And there have been some instances, you know, documented where people have not been able to get access to the curriculum. And so that's why I think that clarification is needed.

Yeah. So I came in unsure of which argument I'd be persuaded by. To be honest, initially, with what you had stated, I felt much more inclined to support it, given the ambiguity. I would be willing to support something that makes it crystal clear that this is available for inspection for parents.

If there's any other way to do that, happy to do so.

I'll take that as a friendly amendment.

I don't know what that amendment would be, but certainly would be willing to allow this to move forward, at least from my perspective in an aye vote with that understanding, and that's the component I'm most interested about.

I am less interested and have not been persuaded on the issue of the outside consultant language that that requires the name, organization, and affiliation of each outside consultant. That also seems to be duplicative. It does say that should be available in terms of the guest, which. The guest speaker, which could be the outside consultant. So, yeah.

Again, I appreciate what you're trying to do with making sure that parents have access to the information. I will always be on the side of that. More transparency for parents. Am willing to support today, but I don't think this is the final version of a language that I would support eventually.

Thank you. Just. Assemblymember, happy to continue to work with you on that as well. And your points are well taken.

Ms. Addis.

I want to thank the author. I want to thank you for your thoughtfulness. It's a really important topic. I agree that parents are trusted sources and that we should have strong school and family partnerships and those should be built on trust. I do think we have much of this in the law already when it comes to transparency.

I do think sex ed is a little bit different in terms of its level of transparency that's already built into the law. And I know that many will say the staff time issue isn't a very big deal, because what's the big deal about making one photocopy?

But I will also say at a time where our schools are really struggling to staff up and front offices are incredibly busy and you have people that are doing multiple kinds of work at once, that these requests to make copies can become overburdensome.

To the point where students aren't receiving services they need, or the phone isn't getting answered, or a discipline situation is sent to the front office, somebody is off at the copy machine and they can't attend to that, or a kid needs a band aid. All kinds of situations that are being triaged in front offices.

And then on top of that, some somebody is off needing to potentially photocopy copious amounts of material. And it has nothing to do with being against people having access to the information. I actually think most information is already copyrighted and so probably wouldn't be under this.

But things that aren't copyrighted could end up being extensive amounts of time. And so I heard the opposition say they're really interested in working with you.

I'm just wondering where your thinking is at in terms of addressing the burden that I really deeply do believe this could cause to front offices, particularly those with multi grades, which are all of our schools.

Yeah, totally sympathetic to that issue. I mean, at my own kids school I deal with the front office staff a lot and you know, they do a whole lot of things on a daily basis.

So like I said really last time through some of those conversations where we came up with the 10 cents, you know, on the, on the copying.

But definitely willing to continue those conversations and figure out, you know, how we can ensure that there won't, you know, be a significant burden on schools while also just protecting the rights of the parents to be able to access and make copies.

And just to clarify, I'm not even talking about the cost.

I'm talking about like the actual time that it will take somebody from their typical job of answering the phone doing the many, many things that we have asked schools to take care of with very short staff, and then being pulled for one more thing and what that might look like. That's probably my biggest concern right now.

And the reason I may not be able to support it today is I do have significant concerns in that area.

I mean, I don't know if I have the exact answer today, but I will definitely continue to work with opposition on that issue to try and ensure that that isn't the case. And again, we're trying to, you know, just balance both of those, both of those issues and find that. And I think we can.

I really do.

Okay. Any further comments from the Committee? All right, well, thank you, Mr. Gallagher, for bringing this forward. Oh, Ms. Patel, Dr. Patel.

Yes, I do have a comment on this. Just wanted to echo some of the concerns that my fellow colleagues here on the dais have raised but. But also provide some feedback as to how this happens. In the district I came out of, parents go to the district office and ask for this information.

And in this way, without parents necessarily getting copies of uncopyrighted material, we use all copyrighted material. They can walk the parents through in a discussion the material that's being taught and that provides a higher quality of information to those parents who are coming in seeking information.

A parent who's just coming in and walking out with a stack of copies and then sharing it with friends could take things out of context and not have that high quality value of information on what the content is. And trust is certain, in sex ed.

Trust is certainly the utmost aspect of making sure parents and community members know what their children are being taught. And so that can kind of thwart a school district's ability to make sure accurate information is being conveyed and that is not being taken out of context.

Okay, Any further comments? Okay. Mr. Gallagher, I appreciate you bringing this forward. As a parent, I can certainly appreciate, you know, being notified of what my child is being taught. I remember especially my wife is an immigrant.

And so when we received our notice of our daughter's sex ed class, she was, you know, asking me, you know, what is this all about? And so I had to have a conversation with her about the often politicized or overly politicized, depending on your perspective, you know, nature of sex ed in our public schools.

I gave it a non recommendation for the Committee because I expected a range of opinions. You know, with so many parents on this Committee especially, I think, you know, we could fall in different places on this.

I, I have to agree with some of the conversations earlier that when parents already have an opt out right, they have a right to be notified of the right to inspect.

And they also have the right to be notified when an outside consultant, when they're going to be coming into the class, the name of the organization, affiliation of each guest speaker. I feel comfortable as a parent and I feel that that is sufficient for parents in California.

And so I will not be able to respectfully support your measure today. But you get the last word.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the conversation. The only thing that I just want to clarify, and I believe this is correct, and you can check with your consultant.

But right now for third parties, they have to have the same training, same background, but there's no requirement that the parent is informed as to who it is and what their credentials are.

So that's what this would add, is that when you send out that just be one addition to that, you know, information notice that gets sent out that says, okay, if you're going to use an outside consultant, just tell the parent who it is and what their credentials are.

And I think that really helps, you know, give the full information to the parents. Then the other side of this is the access and ensuring that parents have the right to come in and review it. And I think that's, you know, what most parents do are

They're coming in to review it and try to better understand what is going to be taught. Some may want to make copies, you know, and take those as well. And so it just provides that as well. And again, I think that's trying to strike that balance because as you said,

Mr. Chairman, I mean, this is a very important conversation that parents really need to be at the center of. And I think it's very important that parents are involved with their kids and talking about sexual education and involved with the school district. Again, having those strong relationships across the board, I think are very important to our kids development.

And it's, I think it actually having these conversations, having these rights helps maybe spur those conversations that are important. So I think this all fits together and is consistent. And again, I, you have my commitment.

I'll continue to work with the opposition and the comments of Members made here today, try to work through some of those issues as it moves forward. Obviously, I cannot continue to move this forward without Democratic support, you know, and.

And I said we got very strong bipartisan support on this measure when I ran it before, and I'm hoping to, to do the same again. So thank you for your attention to it, and I'd ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there a motion? Moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll file.

File Item 6, AB.281. The motion is due passed to Appropriations. Muratsuchi? Muratsuchi, no.

Hoover?

Hoover, aye. Addis?

Not voting.

Not voting. Alvarez? Alvarez, aye. Bonta? Bonta, no. Castillo? Castillo, aye. Lowenthal?

Aye.

Lowenthal, aye. Patel?

No.

Patel, no.

Okay, so a cliffhanger. We have four to three. Four aye's, three no's, and one abstention. And you need five votes to get out of Committee. So we can ask for unanimous consent for reconsideration? If the author desires.

Yeah. Certainly. If it does not ultimately pass, I would ask for reconsideration.

And is there any objection from the Committee?

I didn't understand that condition.

You know, you haven't reached the end of the Committee, and people may come to vote? Yeah. Yes. I would just ask reconsideration.

Okay. So hearing no objection to reconsideration. So the motion fails, but reconsideration is granted.

Thank you. Well, I mean, I guess what I was asking, Mr. Chairman, is. I'm understanding, like there's still people who haven't voted yet. And so at the end of the Committee, are you going to call for the Bill again or?

We do have one Committee Member who is not present.

Okay.

Mr. Garcia is not present. Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

I think the question is, do we have Members who are not. I don't mean to speak for you. Is the question, do we have Members who are not present right now who may come back to be able to vote before the committee's over?

Yeah, I'm saying it happens very often at the end as you guys do a roll call vote at the end. And you know, maybe the Bill passes at that point and then. But if it fails, then yes, I would request reconsideration.

Mr. Garcia has been excused from the Committee. We did not appoint a replacement for today. And so I think everyone that's going to vote today is already here. All right, thank you. All right, next in signing order is Ms. Aguiar-Curry. And that is file item number two, AB65. Floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members today, educators can currently earn paid pregnancy leave. If teachers need time to recover from pregnancy and pregnancy related health issues, first they have to use up all their sick leave, if they even have accrued sick leave. After that, they receive differential pay.

Differential payments is a fancy way of saying a teacher must pay half of their salary to cover a substitute teacher. Our teachers have heard time and time again that they can schedule their pregnancies based on the school calendar year or they just forego pay.

For any of you that are parents, I am sure you know how well scheduling a pregnancy works in real life. Give me a break. Doesn't work. As we are trying to join the rest of the world in providing employees rights to care for their families, why are the very people who care for our families treated the worst?

The current system puts pregnant educators at a deep financial disadvantage. Data from CalSTRS shows women will receive almost $100,000 less in retirement benefits than their male counterparts. Let me Repeat that. Almost $100,000 less in retirement benefits than their male counterparts. In a profession where 70% are women, that is shocking and quite frankly, unacceptable.

It is systemic sexism and it's time that we fix it. Meanwhile, California is struggling to recruit and retain the exact professionals we. We are trying to help with this bill, California Department of Education data shows that there are more than 10,000 vacancies in California public schools by the end of 2022, and the system has not recovered.

Fixing these outdated sexist policies is a crucial step toward addressing these staffing and retention issues. As we do our best to invest in our youth and their education, this bill makes sure that people who dedicate their lives to developing the minds of the next generation are treated with the respect and dignity they have earned.

Members, we must correct this injustice where the people who take care of our children have to pay to take care of theirs. Speaking in support with me today is State Treasurer Ma and Mara Harvey on behalf of the California Teachers Association.

Thank you very much, Members. Fiona Ma, California State Treasurer My mother was a public school teacher for 20 years and so I saw firsthand how difficult it is to balance family and work.

More than 70% of our educators in California are women, and women should not have to choose between having a family or going to work or their own health versus getting paid.

And as also a Member of CalSTRS, as the Assembly Member mentioned that, you know, when CalSTRS, when a teacher retires, CalSTRS converts unused sick leave to additional service credit.

So if a woman has already exhausted her sick leave and if she has a baby and has complications, she has to continue to use other, not only her sick leave, but other leave as well and pay a substitute to come in if she cannot come back in.

So it's actually a losing, losing, losing proposition for some of the teachers and they just decide not to even bother to come back after having a family. So on average for CalSTRS teachers in retirement, they are losing on average $100,000 because of this phenomena.

So we hope that you will help address this issue and it's time to make sure that our teachers can teach, be happy, have a family, and also not have to worry in their retirement. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Mara Harvey. I'm the President of the Natoma's Teachers Association here in Sacramento, a 22 year teacher and I'm here on behalf of the California Teachers Association as a proud co sponsor of AB65.

I want to thank Majority Leader Aguar Curry and the other co authors and co sponsors for bringing this Bill. CTA Secretary Treasurer Erica Jones was scheduled to speak before the Committee today, but her toddler needed to go to urgent care this morning.

Highlighting the importance of providing educators with paid pregnancy leave, but ensuring that we also don't completely exhaust our sick leave when we have a baby. Currently, you heard, pregnant educators are forced to use all their sick leave when they have a baby, and only after that we get differential pay, which is half of our salary.

So just to put this into terms, when I had two children early in my teaching career, it cost me about five years of accrued sick leave between both of the kids. And early on in my career, after my differential pay and paying my mortgage, I had $200 left for the rest of the month.

So I want you to remember that when I came back to work after that, I had absolutely no sick leave left to take care of my newborn children. Ultimately, though, this is just bigger than paid pregnancy leave for educators. This is part of the demand to invest in public education.

As a local President, I can attest to the people who leave education because they can't afford to take time off to have a child. And we need to invest in our workforce, in our students, every single day. Pregnancy leave is such an important part of retaining and recruiting educators.

If states like Arkansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia can invest in paid pregnancy leave for their teachers, then so can California. We urge you to vote yes on AB65 today. Thank you.

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

Jennifer Robles with Health Access California in support.

Lang Lei on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California and also representing the following organizations, California Work and Family Coalition, California WIC Association, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Food Empowerment Project and Insure the Uninsured Project.

On behalf of all these organizations, we are in strong support of AB65.

And I want to start by agreeing with what the Governor wrote in his veto message of a related bill that said paid leave is a noble goal in this area and our concerns are mostly fiscal.

Anna Matthews with the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in strong support. Hoping to come on as co sponsors.

Navneet Puryear, on behalf of the California School Employees Association. We're proud co sponsors. Thank you.

Mitch Steiger with CFT proud to co sponsor. Urge your support.

Sarah Lillis with Teach Plus California in strong support.

Marissa Bismara on behalf of State Superintendent Tony Thurman, proud co sponsor. Thanks for the support.

Sonia Carney, teacher in Irvine. support

Griffi Alba, teacher from Irvine and support.

Zane Pang, teacher Irvine. Strongly support.

Juan Resendis, teacher, Irvine and the University of California. Strong support.

Hi. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in strong support. And also by proxy Children Now as well. They weren't able to stay to give their #Metoo. So in strong support.

Blair Podor, administrator in Irvine. Strong support.

Megan Brophy, teacher from Irvine, strong support.

Vela, teacher from Irvine. Strong support.

Eric Paredes on behalf of the California Faculty Association and strong support.

Matt Patton, California Agricultural Teachers Association and strong support.

Joycelyn Martinez Wade with the California State Teachers Retirement System in support.

Lakeisha Kamiece with Black Women for Wellness Action Project and also in Coalition with California Work and Families Coalition Partnership in strong support.

On with Black Women for Wellness Action Project in strong support.

All right, thank you very much. Seeing no further public comments in support of the bill. Witnesses in opposition, please come forward. We can make some. That's fine. Okay.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators with respectful opposition to AB65, which reflects prior positions on similar legislation.

I know this is not Appropriations Committee, but when the policy goal is is so fiscally related, it's hard not to speak to that issue. We've appreciated the early conversations with the sponsor and the author about where this money could come from.

And we have to ensure that this is not coming from Prop 98 resources or other funding streams that are dedicated to students and schools. We are deeply concerned about the continuous cost, especially since this leave, like no other, has no guard rails.

It can be taken as many times as needed and there's no requirements for eligibility is on your first day. So we do feel additional safeguards will be helpful to ascertain the costs and also understand how big of a problem we're potentially dealing with.

And finally, we do strongly believe that until a funding source is identified that this should remain at the local level as a collectively bargained agreement. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Committee Members and Committee staff. Michelle Gill. On behalf of California Association of School Business Officials representing over 30,000 school business leaders statewide, we acknowledge and appreciate the intent of the author to provide additional support to employees experiencing pregnancy related conditions.

However, we oppose AB65 due to the fiscal impact that would have on our local education agencies. Without a corresponding budget appropriations to cover the new benefit. AB65 would increase financial pressures on local education agencies by imposing a very costly unfunded mandate.

Last year the legislative Appropriations committees estimated that a very similar bill, AB 2901, would cost school districts, charter schools and community colleges hundreds of millions of dollars to implement.

Because the budget picture of local education agencies is very uncertain, we must be mindful of creating any new fiscal uncertainties that would impact the provision of services and supports to students. Due to this concern, we respectfully oppose AB65 and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Please come forward.

Carlos Rojas with the Kern County Superintendent of School's Office in opposition.

Nick Romley here on behalf of the Small School Districts Association, the School Employers Association of California and the San Bernardino County District Advocates For Better Schools. Opposed unless amended. Agree with the cost concerns but also want to raise an issue around potential for long term disruption of student instruction.

State should take a look at that if we're going to implement a policy like this. Thank you.

Seeing no further public comments in opposition. Like to bring it back to the Committee any. Mr. Lowenthal?

I'll just be very brief. I'm so proud of the author for bringing this forward. I hope you will consider me to join as a co author. I can't think of any better way for the state to be spending its money than investing in our educators, investing in education and doing the right thing. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Addis.

I want to thank the author for finally defending people like me. I was one of those teachers. I'm a CTA Member. I was in the classroom for 21 years. We have an April baby and we have a February baby. February came first and then April thinking about when was summer going to come.

And I will also make the comment that that $100,000 that women lose out on is money that we don't have to pay for our children's college. It's not not just about retirement. It's also about the financial well being of our families for decades even before we retire.

And so it's ironic to me that our schools are charged with creating the very best environments for children. But when those same children are in the womb of teachers who are teaching the future, we say we just simply can't afford.

And so I was sitting here listening to, well, thinking of some comments colleagues have made to me of how could we have not done this sooner and how important it is.

And was recently at a different forum where people were saying women are often told, it's just not your time, it's just too expensive to do the things that need to be done to have healthy women, healthy children and healthy families. And it's often just not the right time. And I think now is the right time.

And I want to just appreciate the author for your courage and your perseverance on this one.

Thank you. Any further comments from the Committee? Dr. Patel.

Thank you for bringing this bill forward.

As the mother of three who benefited from eight weeks of paid family leave in the private sector on top of paid family leave from the State of California for my first two daughters, I sincerely appreciate you bringing this forward to try to address these historic challenges with recruitment and retention of our educator workforce.

As a Member of budget sub 3. I'm looking forward to hearing more about the budget conversation for this. That is clearly a concern and I look forward to hearing what that looks like. I also have concerns about this next needing to come out of Prop 98.

We're already struggling with balancing our budgets on the school sides and want to make sure we have a good plan going forward. Thank you.

No, thank you very much for the comment because we are continuing to work with the opposition, the concerns that they have. And we did do a budget letter in request to make sure we can get through this. So we will continue to streamline and have those conversations. And I appreciate your comments.

Any further comments from the Committee? Okay. Thank you, Majority Leader, for bringing this again. I was proud to support the measure last year and I'm proud to support this measure again this year.

I mean, I appreciate the, you know, the comments from AXA and from Caspo that of course, as, you know, fiscal stewards for our schools that we always need to ask the hard questions about how are we going to pay for this. But this presentation today.

It really reminds me that it's really a question of whether the state pays for it or whether teachers pay for it. You know, teachers are, as Ms. Addis said, she had to pay for it. And, you know, that's not the way we should support our teachers.

And so, you know, I also, as a Member of the Budget Subcommitee on Education, look forward with our Chair to have this discussion of how to pay for it. But it should not fall on the backs of teachers. And so I would ask that I be added once again as a co author of your bill.

You have the last word.

We can't wait any longer. I simply ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Motion has been. Entertain a motion. Motion made and seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll file.

Item 2. AB65. The motion is due. Pass to higher education. [Roll Call]

6-0. The bill is out. Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Schultz has been patiently waiting. File item number nine, AB 361, Assembly Member Schultz. The floor is yours. Oh, actually, your mic is not on. Thank you.

Okay, there we go. That's a whole lot better. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Pleasure to be with you all today to introduce a bill that we're very excited about. This is Assembly Bill 361. I would like to say right out the gate that we appreciate the leadership of our esteemed Committee Chair, and we are happy to accept the committee's proposed amendments. AB 361 is a good governance bill that amends current law which has a sunset in place for the Los Angeles Unified School District's best value procurement method for school construction projects.

This bill will eliminate that sunset and expand this to make it an option for all public school districts statewide for the next five years. It's imperative that our school districts have the necessary tools to select a quality contractor with a good history and a competitive price to avoid project delays and cost overruns.

For the past 10 years, LAUSD has been the only school district authorized to utilize this method. And this is a really critical method that school districts, every school district, should have the opportunity to use because it allows our schools and our school administrators to consider other factors such as experience, quality, and work performance, and not just the lowest price when selecting and awarding public contracts.

This transparent and objective process has proven to be a success at LAUSD, as evidenced by independent reporting showing that the method has successfully avoided delays and reduced contracting and administrative costs. So this bill is essential because if we do nothing further, the sunset will take place in 2026 and LAUSD and every other public school district will not be able to take advantage of this really critical program.

In conclusion, and before I turn it over to our witness here today, I just want to mention, as you all know, with the passage of Proposition 2, billions of dollars in state and local funds will be spent in the coming years on school construction projects following for this voter approval, as well as other local school construction bonds that have been recently passed.

And it is imperative during these next formative years that school districts across California have the necessary tools to reduce risks and maximize efficiencies. So thank you all for your indulgence. And with that, I'd like to turn it over through the Chair to Sasha Horwitz with LAUSD who is sponsoring this bill today.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Sasha Horwitz with Los Angeles Unified School District. We're the proud sponsors of AB 361. Because of our size, Los Angeles Unified is frequently the testing ground for new education proposals, especially ones that deal with construction contracting.

This gives us the chance to work out the kinks of a pilot program before it expands to other school districts, that way all schools across the state can share in the benefits of a well refined policy. That's exactly the case with this bill. 10 years ago, LAUSD was first authorized to use best value procurement as a pilot.

Then five years ago, the program was extended with LAUSD making the commitment to support expanding it to other districts after that. We're excited to fill that promise today. In standard public contracting, the lowest responsible bidder will be awarded the contract for a project.

But the reality is that for complex projects, lowest price is not the best way to decide if a bidder is right for the job. This is especially true for school construction where children's safety is paramount. The lowest bidder may have a contractor's license but no relevant experience in school construction or in working with the Division of the State Architect or in building to Field Act standards. Best value is an alternative that allows but does not require a school district to evaluate price and other qualifications when awarding a contract.

It is a transparent and objective process that ensures the public and the contractors competing for the school construction project understand the evaluation criteria used in the selection process. You've already mentioned the independent analysis that found this led to fewer change orders, less schedule delays, and fewer claims. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote to allow other school districts to share the same opportunities that have benefited LAUSD. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses. Any public comments in support, please come forward. Motion's been made and seconded.

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

Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified School District in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Mike Monagan on behalf of State Building Trades and my daughter, who's a teacher at LAUSD, in support.

Mishaal Gill with California Association of School Business Officials in support.

Dan Merwin on behalf of the California School Boards Association. We actually took a support if amended position and our amendments were to recommend that it expanded to County Offices of Education. We appreciate the committee and the author for taking those amendments. On the reporting requirement, we'll actually have to take that back. But we do have a history of looking to reduce, truncate, or eliminate those. So thank you very much.

All right. Seeing no further public comments in support. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the committee. Any questions from Mr. Alvarez?

Thank you. Thank you for bringing the bill forward. Maybe to LA Unified, on the best value procurement method, does that also include the design or is this all post-design?

I would have to take that question back to my folks to make sure. I believe it is post-design at a point where we are just bidding for the builder to come onto the contract.

Okay, I'd be interested in that. My vote is not contingent on this at all. But as I try to spend more time on understanding how to bring down the cost of constructing projects so we can build more projects, one of the things that has sort of surfaced as a theme is the flexibility in addition that you're seeking with best value procurement.

Not just post-design upon bid of this is what we want built, but also some savings associated with less change orders when design. The design process is also included in the procurement process. So just intrigued and interested in that maybe going forward, maybe more ways to save money. But otherwise, appreciate the author bringing this forward and continuing to expand the opportunity to save dollars that are much needed to build much infrastructure in our schools. Thank you, and be happy to move the item if it hasn't already.

All right. Any further questions from the committee? Seeing none. Thank you very much, Mr. Schultz, LAUSD for bringing this forward. You know, anytime we have management and the Building Trades in agreement, I think it sounds like a win win. So happy to support the measure. Motion's been made and seconded. Madam Secretary, please... Oh, yes, Mr. Schultz. Would you like to have a...

I will just say thank you all to the committee for your questions, your comments. Thank you again, Mr. Chair, for the amendments. And we respectfully ask for the aye vote.

Thank you.

File item 9, AB 361. The motion is do pass as amended. [Roll Call]

Five with one abstention. Bill is out.

Thank you.

Okay. I know Ms. Sanchez has been patiently waiting, but Ms. Boerner did sign in before you. I want to make sure you knew that. Yeah. So, Ms. Boerner. This is file item number three, Assembly Bill 86. And, Ms. Boerner, do you have two or three witnesses?

Yeah. Okay. All right. Yeah. No, I thought there was a request to have three witnesses, but the floor is yours.

I have two.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. AB86 would standardize health education for grades K through 8 by requiring the State Board of Education to adopt instructional materials for health education. With the state framework established, the state. The State Board of Education scheduled the adoption of health instructional materials for 2020.

These materials serve as an optional guidance document aimed at assisting teachers in developing curricula and instruction aligned with state health education content standards. However, the SBE canceled the adoption of these materials, determining that there was a lack of publisher interest.

There could be many reasons contributing to the lack of interest, including the Covid 19 pandemic, which took precedence in 2020. Consequently, many teachers resort to using non standardized online resources, which potentially lack accuracy and places the burden on educators.

Students can greatly benefit from learning about sensitive subjects such as how to establish and maintain healthy relationships presented in age appropriate ways, including how to identify and report child sexual abuse and human trafficking. Students would gain knowledge about these issues as well as related topics such as affirmative affirmative consent, relationship violence, bullying and sexual harassment.

These are fundamentals that we should be teaching our children. By passing AB86, you can help us take one step closer to a healthier California by giving teachers the materials they need. I respectfully asked for an Aye vote.

And with me today, I have two amazing students from Stanford University who have witnessed firsthand how this has affected our kids. Emily Sue and Melody Chang.

All right, please proceed.

Hello, my name is Melody Chang and I am a student at Stanford University and a co creator and supporter of AB86. Since high school, I have volunteered to teach health education workshops at local under resourced elementary schools. Initially, I was a math tutor, but when the pandemic hit the principal personally requested that I teach health instead.

She explained that due to budget cuts, their district lacked a comprehensive health education program and she was deeply concerned that students lacked the knowledge to lead healthy lifestyles, especially while learning from home without access to school nutrition or physical education programs. This experience opened my eyes to a much larger issue.

Through conversations with school districts and teachers across California, I realized that the lack of health education was not just the local problem, but a statewide crisis affecting students in both well funded and under resourced schools.

The root cause is the lack of standardized instructional materials, forcing teachers to put together lessons from unreliable sources or skip teaching health altogether due to their demanding schedules. While most subjects like math and science receive regular updates, health education has not had a statewide curriculum adoption since 2004.

AB86 ensures this long overdue adoption of updated health instructional materials. AB86 is an affordable, efficient solution developed through extensive collaboration with policymakers, educators and education organizations. Research from the CDC confirms that early health education improves long term health outcomes and reduces health care costs.

More importantly, educating just one student about public health creates a ripple effect that extends far beyond the classroom, empowering families, strengthening communities, and breaking down socioeconomic barriers. For these reasons, I urge you to support AB86. By passing this bill, we are not just improving education, but we are investing in healthier generations.

Let's act today and not wait another two decades to give students the education they deserve. Thank you,

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Emily Sue and I'm a student at Stanford University and a co creator and supporter of AB86. I'm from San Diego where just a few years ago, our County Board of Education allocated $2.5 million in grants to support reliable health education resources in underserved districts.

Right now, districts have the option to opt out of teaching health education altogether and this funding served as a temporary fix. It showed us that across California, districts struggle to provide health education, leaving our students vulnerable to preventable health issues.

Right now, teachers are doing their best with the resources they can piece together, but the reality is that without standardized instructional materials, the existing health education framework in California is incomplete. Instructional materials are what connect our current health framework to our teachers and ultimately to our students.

They bridge the gap between abstract standards and concrete actionable lesson plans, ensuring that what is taught in the classroom aligns with what students need to know to lead healthy lives. In 2020, the California State Board of Education recognized the need for the updated health education materials.

The pandemic interrupted the adoption process, but today AB86 offers a clear, easy path forward to providing teachers with the resources they need. This bill does not change content standards or create new guidelines. It simply asks the state board to adopt standardized instructional materials based on the existing framework.

It's a low cost, practical solution that ensures that every student in California receives the same high quality education. And at the heart of AB86 is equipping teachers with the tools they need to deliver health education with confidence and ease.

I urge you to support this bill because every student deserves the opportunity to learn how to live a healthy Life. And through AB86, we can make that a reality for all of California. Thank you.

Thank you. Public witnesses, public comments in support of the bill. Please come forward.

Mitch Steiger with CFT. We're also processing a support position on this one and anticipate being in support officially by next week. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified in support.

Thank you.

Seeing no further public comments. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing no one coming forward. Any public comments in opposition in the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Addis.

I'll just. Just briefly thank you to you. I've worked in the school district when we were trying to read kind of redo health curriculum and it's very, very challenging without adopted instructional materials. So thank you for that.

All right. Happy to support your excellent idea. Ms. Boerner. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 3, AB86. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Five votes. The bill is out. All right, Ms. Sanchez, this is file item number four, Assembly Bill 228. All right. Floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 228. Zachy's Fast Act is an important measure. We will help ensure that schools can provide students with the latest federally approved epinephrine delivery systems to treat instances of anaphylaxis. Over 5.6 million children in America have food allergies. Nearly 40% of these children have experienced a severe allergic reaction.

And many of these reactions happened on school campuses. It's crucial to emphasize that food allergies can be life threatening. Anaphylaxis is a potentially lethal allergic reaction that can happen within minutes and if not treated properly, prove fatal.

No student should feel unsafe on campus and no parent should have to worry about whether their child's school is Aware of all available resources when it comes to food allergies. New federally approved treatments and delivery systems have been and are currently being developed to safely treat anaphylaxis.

Unfortunately, California's current law makes it unclear whether schools can stock these new delivery systems. That is why I've introduced this measure, AB228, which would clarify California's law to ensure that schools are able to stock any type of federally approved epinephrine delivery system, auto injectors, nasal sprays and other future systems.

To be clear, this is not a mandate on schools, but rather provides them with more flexibility to effectively and safely treat instances of anaphylaxis on campus today. Testifying with me in support of this bill is Zachy and Priscilla Hernandez. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome. Good to see you back. All right, you're a veteran. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Assembly Education Committee. My name is Zachy munoz and I'm 12 years old. I'm here in support of AB228, the Zachy FAST Act. FAST standing for Food Allergy Safety Treatment. My journey has brought me to Sacramento the past several years.

During this time I've been able to help push the needle for the millions of students in the food allergic community. And thanks to this California Legislature, we have also been able to fill the void in the systems to protect those living with this disease.

6.0 million children suffer from food allergies and 700,000 of them are right here in California. I am one of them. There is no cure, so we are thankful of a life saving medication to keep us safe during anaphylaxis with epinephrine.

Victories in legislation and research have led the way for a greater look at the needs for this disease. So much so that now I stand in front of you and ask you to support something that we have instead of something that we don't, which is really exciting.

The FAST act merely evolves the outdated language in education code that refers to epinephrine in one way. An auto injector to encompass all FDA approved epinephrine devices to make room for choice. This last year, the FDA approved the first needleless option of epinephrine with more in the pipeline.

And at five years old, I experienced my first epinephrine shot. And the memory of a larger than life needle still makes me anxious to this day. And the bill may seem more of a clerical change, a small change, which it is, but for those affected by this disease, it means the world.

Therefore, I respectfully ask you to continue to make change for us in school with food allergies, let's continue to make change together and pass AB228, the Zachy FAST Act. Thank you.

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

Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. In support.

Sam Nasher with the Los Angeles County Office of Education. And support.

Sasha Horwitz with Los Angeles Unified School District. In support.

Jim Leung with the California State PTA. In support.

Isabella Farland on behalf of the California School Nurses Organization. In support.

Dan Merwin, on behalf of the California School Boards Association. And support.

All right, thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Lowenthal.

I just want to thank the author on bringing forward such an important bill. My daughter Raquel is one of the 700,000 students in the same boat.

It is so stressful for us as a family, and any way that we can connect with technology and make sure that we're on the cutting edge and streamline it so that students can not have to worry while they're at school and parents alike is so critically important. So great piece of legislation. Happy to support today.

I wanted to commend you on your presentation of the facts today. You did a really excellent job advocating for your position, not just for yours, but for hundreds of thousands of kids out there who are also struggling with this. I also want to highlight how clever this bill is in that it's future proof. Right.

Dr. Patel

So we know that whatever delivery device our research scientists come up with, you won't have to keep coming back here. And you can enjoy that knowledge that you've helped all these kids going forward, too. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Ms. Addis.

No, I'll add a me, too. Wonderful to see you here as a witness. And thank you for standing up for kids all across our schools and all across California.

Thank you, too.

All right, Ms. Castillo, thank you.

I wanted to thank you for bringing this bill, and you did an amazing job. As someone who also has allergies and uses this, I thank you for it. Yeah.

Thank you.

All right, well, thank you to Ms. Sanchez and to Zacky for coming back. Continue to make a difference for so many kids in the State of California. You know that none of us have a bill or a law named after us, so.

Yeah, but we know it's not about, you know, the names on the bill, but the difference that you're making. And so thank you for continuing to come back to the state Capitol to help so many other kids. Proud to support the bill. Motion's been made. And Secretary. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Oh, Ms.

Sanchez, would you like to close?

You said it beautifully. Thank you so much. And this is an incredibly important future focused bill. And I believe it's crucial that we allow schools to stock new types of epinephrine delivery systems. AB228 does just that. And I respectfully ask for your Aye vote on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you.

File item 4. AB228. The motion is do pass through appropriations.[Roll Call]

5-0. The bill is out. Congratulations. All right. Is that it? Oh, yeah All right. Next we have file item number five, Assembly Bill 279 by Dr. Patel. Dr. Patel. That's a signal. Yeah.

Well, I am going to introduce this because it's good practice for me. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Before I begin, I would like to thank the Chair and committee for their work on this bill. I will accept all... AB 279 requires Instructional Quality Commission to recommend adoption of updated model school library standards and for those to be adopted by July 1, 2028. These standards are last updated and approved in 2010. Additionally, the bill requires that these standards to be reviewed and possibly updated every eight years. Library standards for K-12 have not been updated since 2010.