Assembly Standing Committee on Education

All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Calling this hearing of the Assembly Education Committee to order. We do not have a quorum yet. I'd like to invite our Committee Members to please join us in room 1100. Like to welcome everyone to our hearing today. We have 23 bills on file today.

One bill, file item number one, which was up for reconsideration. Mr. Gallagher's bill has been pulled from the hearing today. So if you're here for File Item number one, AB281, that bill will not be heard today.

There are seven bills on consent, so those these bills will not be heard, but rather will be voted on together as a group without any debate or testimony. They are AB598, AB629, AB642 with amendments, AB927 with amendments AB959, AB1128 and AB1216. So those seven bills are on the consent calendar.

If you're here for those bills, those bills will not be heard. They will be voted on without debate out of the Committee should it receive majority support. Bills will be heard in sign in order.

We have our sign in list going as a reminder for every bill that we have, we will allow up to two witnesses in support, two witnesses in opposition, two witnesses to be designated by the bill author, each of whom may speak for up to two minutes each.

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 comment through the position letter portal.

Basically, the Assembly Education Committee website and I have a quick 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 good deliberation and decision making on these critical issues facing our state as we proceed with the witnesses and the public.

Comments Want to make sure that everyone understands the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate, regardless of the viewpoint they express, in order to facilitate the goal of the hearing as much of the public.

Within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of our hearing. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. I sound like a school teacher here. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place.

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 violations of these rules may subject you to a visit from kind gentleman to my right here. That said, we will now begin with Mr. Gallagher. Is Mr.

Gallagher in the room? Okay, going once. Going twice. Okay, next on the sign up list is Mr. Berman. You're the lucky winner. Come on down. And this is file item 15. Oh, sorry. File item 13. AB887. Welcome, Mr. Berman. The floor is yours, Mr. Berman.

How's that? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present AB887. As we all know, California is the birthplace of technology. From Silicon Valley in the Bay Area to Biotech Beach down South, California is the undisputed cradle of innovation.

However, and I saw this in a job I had before I was elected to the Assembly, far too many students grow up in the shadows of tech companies, yet do not have the opportunity to learn the skills that they would need to maybe one day work at those tech companies in their own communities.

And the reality is that every year, California is falling further and further behind other states in providing equitable access to computer science in our schools. So this is, as the chair knows, this is my third year in a row running this Bill, or an iteration of this Bill.

Two years ago, California was behind 27 states that had already required every high school to offer a computer science course. Does every high school offer a computer science course to their students? This year, we're behind 32 other states. And in fact, 11 states have. Don't, don't, don't just require that the high schools offer computer science.

Taking computer science is actually a graduation requirement. And you might think that these states are states like Washington or Massachusetts, where they have a big tech, tech industry and probably a lot of available people to help teach teachers to teach computer science or come into the teaching profession to teach computer science?

If you thought that, you would be wrong. The 11 states that currently have computer science as a graduation requirement are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Those states are trying to go way beyond what my Bill does, and they've been able to do that.

To change this, AB887 would require school districts and charter schools to adopt a plan to ensure all high schools offer at least one computer science course by the 2029-2030 school year. So four to five years from now, this Bill provides a thoughtful. I wish we did it four to five years ago, for what it's worth.

This Bill provides a thoughtful, phased in approach with additional flexibility measures to ensure schools have both the time and flexibility to implement it successfully. California must do better. It's. It's.

I honestly find it indefensible when I talk with constituents about the fact that we don't even offer computer science to every high school student in this state. And it's time to restore California as a leader. As a leader. And take the step to ensure computer science for all.

And I very much want to thank the chair for our conversations on this policy. And I am very committed to working with AXA and other stakeholders who have concerns about this Bill. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I'm joined today by high school student Sweeki Ratnam. And I apologize if I pronounced your name wrong.

And a high school computer science teacher, Sandra James. And then we also have Nadra Maamo with Project Lead the Way, who will be here to answer any technical questions on the build.

All right, thank you. Thanks.

Hi there. I'm Sandra James, and I teach computer science at Antelope High School. It's part of the Roseville Joint Unified School District. We have a CTE pathway that includes computer science. And I teach all four classes, an intro, two AP classes, and cyber security, all of which I feel passionate about.

I teach them and I think that they have a good sounding platform for kids to learn super important things. Problem solving, logical reasoning, digital literacy, things that are all important. And no matter what they choose as a career, those opportunities are important and they should be a part of every student's, you know, every student's high school experience.

Several years ago, I was teaching at a school in Long Beach, and I taught physics, and I used to teach physics with a little bit of computer programming involved. And I encourage some kids every year to participate in a CyberSecurity challenge at NYU. Students put on for high school students.

My students not only beat the odds of being sophomores, the three of them went to NYU and competed and won. And after that, my school saw it as something important and they added it in. And I got the fortunate job of being the computer science teacher there. So since then, that's what I've been teaching.

I moved from physics to computer science. That's just the beginning. Those little things like that. The school that I'm at right now, my programming students help and support kids that are in the medical pathway when they come to them and they're asking, how can I build an app that can locate people who need CPR right now?

And so the biomedical kids lean on the computer science kids. And they learn together, they build an app and they teach them in their own time how to use those skills. So it conveys outside of just my class, it's actually working in their community as well.

And unfortunately, without those opportunities of having an option of a computer science pathway, they're missing out on those things. And so I think that it's reasonable, the timeline that I see in this, in what we're asking, it's not too fast. It's just one course. I know that it takes a little time to get a computer science teacher.

I happen to have the skills and that's how I ended up getting that job. So I do understand that part. But with a little bit of time and a little bit of effort, I think that it's a good place to start. We wouldn't let kids graduate without math and science.

Why should we let them graduate without having some understanding of computers and technology and the world that they live in?

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chairs and Members. My name is Sweekriti Ratnam and I'm a junior at Carlmont High School and a Director of policy at the National AI Youth Council, one of the nation's largest youth led organizations promoting safe AI regulation.

Today I'm here to express my strong Support for Bill AB887 which would guarantee students access to computer science education by requiring all public high schools in California to adopt at least one computer science course. California has the country's highest number of open computing jobs and 91% of all California jobs are likely to require computer skills.

This is why fostering computer education in our schools is so important, to ensure job preparedness for all students. This Bill will do just that. Ensuring that all public school students have access to computer science, which will provide students with important skill building opportunities to prepare them for employment and life after high school.

I have seen the impact of computer science classes at my high school with many of my friends and peers learning important skills such as problem solving and analytical thinking that they are able to apply in and outside the classroom. This course is especially hard to get into because so many students want to take computer science.

Computer science is the type of education high school students want need. Overall, this Bill will provide all students the integral opportunity to build important skills and job preparedness through computer science classes. I strongly urge you to vote yes on AB887 to ensure all students have equal access to computer science. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, any public comments in support of this Bill, please come forward.

Hello, Chair and Members. Nadra Mamou, on behalf of Project Lead the Way, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Katherine Squire, on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. In support.

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

Zachariah Okenda, on behalf of Alliance for Children's Rights, in support.

Good afternoon. Chris Rosa, on behalf of Silicon Valley Leadership Group, in support.

All right, thank you. Any further public comments in support of the Bill? Seeing none. Any opposition to the Bill, please come forward.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair Muratsuchi and Members of the Education Committee. Diana Vu, on behalf of the Association of California Administrators and our more than 18,000 school leaders, in respectful opposition to AB 887.

While the Bill's intent to expand computer science is commendable, it fails to address the foundational issue at the heart of the problem—the severe shortage of qualified computer science teachers. By introducing additional requirements and programs without first tackling the critical need for qualified teachers, AB 887 risks placing the cart before the horse.

California schools already face significant challenges in recruiting and retaining skilled teachers, generally and especially in STEM fields, such as computer science. Simply increasing the number of programs and requirements will not resolve this issue and may lead to further strain on our education system.

The lack of available and properly trained instructors remains the central barrier to expanding computer science education effectively. Without a sufficient number of qualified teachers, no amount of policy change will have the desired long income—long-term impact—on student learning. Additionally, the Bill would impose new mandates and administrative responsibilities on school leaders and district administrators.

This added burden will divert valuable resources and time away from directly supporting students and teachers in the classrooms. Administrators are already stretched thin and requiring them to implement and manage the proposed changes under AB 887 would detract from the ability to focus on the immediate needs, such as teacher recruitment and student support.

In light of these concerns, ACSA requests an exemption for LEAs, if they cannot project that they are able to secure qualified teachers or necessary resources to teach computer science. This exemption would ensure LEAs are not penalized for circumstances beyond their control and would prevent the implementation of a requirement that cannot be effectively fulfilled.

We greatly appreciate the opportunity to engage with the Committee and the Author's office on this important issue and to share concerns and look forward to continuing to do so, should this Bill pass, Committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill, please come forward. Seeing none. Before we open it up for Committee discussion, I wanted to invite a representative from the California Department of Education to provide some additional input. You know, we would like to make policy that's guided by the data.

And in this case, we have been anticipating data on course enrollment to be provided by the Department of Education. But the current course enrollment data is only current through 2018-2019. And so, I wanted to—I think there was a designated representative coming forward.

Please address the issue of how we should be working to increase enrollment in computer science, given the existing data that we have.

Good afternoon. I'm Cindy Kazanis, with the California Department of Education, and my division oversees data reporting for the state. We are currently catching up on a backlog of these data.

The first data set that we are going to be catching up on for ticket out is our staff demographic information, which should be out in the next month or so. And as soon as we're able to get that out, we will turn over to the course enrollment data.

We have been responsive, I think, to Committee staff in doing these one-time data requests in the meanwhile. So, if there are questions around, I know for computer science we provided the figure of 56% of schools are offering this course.

But as far as the enrollments, we can definitely on, you know, these one-off things, we can definitely provide that support in the meanwhile. So, we are doing our best to catch up to that and apologize for the delay.

Thank you. We, you know, recognize that the Department of Education has been understaffed and under-resourced, which, you know, is a challenge not only at the state level, but increasingly at the federal level. But do you know when we can expect to see updated course enrollment data?

So, bit of a struggle for me to respond to that because the data set has actually changed since the data that is currently posted. We've actually changed it to make it more, not only reliable, but not hiding things within how the data are structured. But this is absolutely a priority for the state Superintendent.

I've heard from him multiple times about, you know, this exact issue, and so, we will get it out as soon as we're able to and making sure that it is reliable data, data that the public and yourselves can trust is of the highest quality, as well. So, that is the Department standard when we do get out data.

But we, we know of the interest and we know that this has been, you know, something that's been on our to do list for a while.

Okay, we, we would appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Let me bring it to the Committee. Dr. Patel.

Hello. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. As a former School Board Trustee in a school district that has computer science offered at our high schools, this is obviously very exciting.

However, also as a former School Board Trustee, I worry about the implementation and feasibility, especially after having communicated on various issues, throughout the years, with my local rural school district communities. So, I echo the concerns that our ACSA representative brought forward around staffing and the credentialing of teachers. Is there a plan to work through?

How do you plan on recruiting these educators through the pipeline? Is, is there a timeline for that? And you know, do we plan to do this through the Career Technical Education Pathway, which is a different type of pathway to getting towards credentialed teachers in the classroom? Just, can you talk to me a little bit more about that?

Yeah, all great questions and at some point, I might defer in a minute to my professional witness.

Just to cover a little bit of what we've done so far—California has made significant investments to increase the number of computer science teachers already, including $20 million for professional learning for educators through the Educator Workforce Investment Grant Program for computer science; $15 million for the computer Science Supplementary Authorization Incentive Grant Program to support educators in credentialing; $50 million in the Mathematics, Science, and Computer Science Professional Learning Grant.

And I'll note that, while this includes that—while that included math and science as well—if a teacher has their credential in math, they can also teach computer science.

And then AB 1251, authored by Assemblymember Luz Rivas at some point in the past six years, requires the Commission on Teaching Credentialing to convene a work group to discuss options for expanding credentialing options for computer science.

Additionally, there are exciting new programs like the UCLA Teacher Education Program's STEM-C3, which is a teacher residency program and pathway that allows teacher residents to earn a computer science authorization, in addition to their secondary math and science credential.

And my friend from ACSA used the—either analogy or metaphor—I can't remember what is what, of the horse and the cart. And I actually wonder if it's more the chicken and the egg, because right now, there's no incentive to even get a computer science credential because, as we learned, 44% of high schools don't offer it.

And there is a research study that's currently in progress regarding computer science credentialing, and the initial findings indicate that educators who are leaving preservice programs with a computer science supplemental authorization credential are struggling to find a school that needs a teacher to teach the course. So, it's interesting.

I mean, you know, we need to kind of get through the data a little bit to find out—is it that we don't have enough computer science teachers, or is it that there aren't enough schools offering computer science to create the marketplace, to create the demand, for computer science teachers to encourage, you know, preservice teachers and pre—or people in preservice programs—to get the computer science supplemental authorization credentials.

So, I think there's a lot that we're still working through. I kind of continuously come back to the issue that Alabama and Arkansas and North Dakota require computer science as a graduation requirement. If they can find the teachers in Alabama and Arkansas and North Dakota, we should be able to find the teachers in California.

And so, I, I struggle with the idea. That's also why we have the, you know, very phased-in implementation timeline. I'll now defer on some of the more technical questions.

Yeah, I would just add that we are pursuing implementation of AB 1251 through, now, AB 811, and seeking the funding for the CTC to be able to implement that work group. There is work behind the scenes happening right now to create recommendations, should the CTC convene their own workgroup and want to work off of ours.

In addition to that, I would say within this Bill, there is an implementation guide that would be developed to help schools figure out what's the best way to go about this, what teachers and credentials can be used to start a program, and how computer science can be integrated.

Thank you. And then a follow up question along the lines of implementation or feasibility. Are—do you have a budget request in to support school districts on purchasing the required computers or infrastructure to teach the class, for those districts that are budget impacted, that don't—may not—have a computer lab already?

I know I don't have that in my Q and A, so I don't know how big of a problem that is, but, but my witness might be able to provide some additional context.

There is an active budget request right now, but there are several grants throughout the state that we would seek that funding through and pursue it down the line, should that become more and more of a barrier, as implementation—because it's a phased-in implementation—comes closer.

Yeah. I'd be curious to know how big of a problem, based on all the updates that we've made because of COVID and remote learning and all the technology that had to go into that. I don't know how big of a barrier that is, but definitely open to learning more, and if it is, solving it.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right. Any further questions from the Committee? Thank you, Mr. Berman, for continuing to champion this issue. We see the committee analysis with the summary of all the past bills introduced related to this Bill, and there's a long list of Berman bills, passion project, and you are the right person to be fighting this fight.

You know, we just had a budget subcommittee hearing yesterday. Was it yesterday? Yes, yesterday, where we were talking about the severe teacher shortage, especially in the STEM fields.

And uh, and I'm just wondering, I don't have, I haven't seen any data or any studies on this, but, you know, you have perhaps properly shamed California for not—for being behind a long list of other states in the country.

But I'm wondering if these—some of the other states that you mentioned don't have the industry to compete, you know, because, you know, we are the innovation state, because people have so many options to, you know, make more money than to teach computer science in our schools—that that is part of the challenge.

Regardless, I mean, that's something that perhaps you want to look into. But we are—I am—happy to support this Bill as we, as we supported last year, your last attempt.

And—but we—I'd like to urge you to continue to work with ACSA to—how do we make this realistic, given the teacher shortage challenge that we have, especially in topics like computer science.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I very much appreciate the comments and the questions from Assemblymember Patel—or Dr. Patel—excuse me. And this is something that we'll absolutely have more conversations about.

I'm curious to get a better understanding of how a lot of these other states, that seem to have more barriers than we do, are able to accomplish it. And you raise a good point about the competition that might exist on the younger edge for teachers.

I wonder if there's an opportunity that maybe is still untapped for people who work in tech and who are looking for that second career, who want to go into teaching and want to be able to positively impact their community a little more directly than they do in their first career, who have that expertise.

So, challenges and opportunities—worth looking into. Appreciate that.

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you. Can I entertain a motion? Oh, let's establish quorum first. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a quorum. Now, can I entertain a motion for Mr. Berman's Bill? Motion made. And is there a second? Okay. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, the bill has six votes. Thank you, Mr. Berman. All right, next on the sign in list is Mr. Solache. File item 22, AB 1390. Floor is yours. Oh, wait, hold on. Is your mic on?

Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, good. Well, Good afternoon again, Mr. Chairman. Members of Committee, especially those who are former school board Members on this Committee, want to give you all a special shout out.

With that I am proud to present AB 1390 which will make long overdue updates to the monthly compensation thresholds to local and county school districts, ensuring the opportunity to serve on school boards remain accessible.

Existing law authorizes Members of the County Board of education and school districts to receive compensation not to exceed a specified amount of $60 and 500 per month. I repeat, $60 as a minimum based on the average daily attendance for the prior school year. These compensation thresholds have not been adjusted in the last 40 years. Imagine I'm 44.

That was like literally four decades ago. Not even into take account inflation or the fact that the responsibility in our school boards has grown in recent years.

Having served as a school board Member in Linwood, which is my district for the for 10 years, I can attest that serving as school board trustees is a demanding role that requires a great time, research, training, public engagement and commitment.

In many districts, the level of compensation makes it harder for individuals who are supporting themselves and their families to consider serving on school board. Especially when I was looking at 23 years old. Can you imagine $400? This is why young people can't get as involved and engaged $400 at that time.

And by the way, it's still $400 for those in my linguist school board. AB 1390 will help boards with the required financial capacity to modestly and responsibly increase the compensation to keep pace with inflation while preserving public process. Importantly, helping the ensure students and their families are represented in key decisions affecting their districts and their school districts.

And the opportunities to serve on school boards remain accessible to those in diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. With me and support, I would like to introduce Deborah Bautista Zavala, Board President for the Woodland Joint Unified School District and Vice President of the California Latino School Board Association, Adam Christy.

Thank you very much, Mr. Solache. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Deborah Bautista Zavala and I have the privilege of serving as the President of the Woodland Joint Unified School District.

I am here today to voice my strong support for AB 1390, a measure that ensures Fair and reasonable compensation for school board Members across California.

As board President, I spend at least 15 hours per week fulfilling my school board duties and each of us on my board earns just $240, the same stipend board Members received 40 years, 40 years ago before I was born. During the time I have served, we've we have had to fill three board member vacancies.

I have proudly served on my board for nearly six years and I was first elected to my school board in 2018 while working here at the California State Assembly.

I am an active Member of the California School Board Association where I serve as a delegate and I also serve as the Vice President of the California Latino School Board Association and I'm the mother of two school age daughters which give me a deep personal understanding of the challenges facing our students, families and educators.

Serving on a school board is an honor, but is also a significant responsibility. Members devote countless hours to preparing for meetings, analyzing budgets, reviewing policies, engaging with students and families, negotiating labor agreements, visiting schools and responding to crisis. The civic duty requires deep commitment, yet it also comes with personal and financial sacrifices.

School boards are composed of individuals from all walks of life. Many of us are former students of the various school districts we now serve. We are often parents, educators, spouses of educators, classified staff, retirees, union Members, small business owners, and long standing community advocates. This diversity of experience makes school board Members, school boards stronger.

But if only we ensure that all voices, not just those who can afford to serve, are represented in the leadership position. Many employers hesitate to hire or promote individuals who serve on school boards.

Others fail to provide the flexibility needed to attend meetings and community events, forcing board Members to use personal leave or unpaid time to just fulfill their duties. AB 1390 will not fully address these concerns, but it will bring us one step closer to ensuring that school board service is accessible to all, not just those with financial privilege.

We already know that when our school leadership reflects our communities, our students and schools will thrive. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote on AB 1390.

Thank you. Next we have Carlos Machado, legislative advocate for the California School Board Association, our bill sponsor.

Hi, good afternoon. Carlos Montreal with the California School Board Association. We are the sponsors of AB 1390. I also wanted to highlight that we have some county board Members that weren't. Able to make it to today's hearing. Michael Teasdale from Ventura County, Sheldon Yip. From Yolo County, and Elizabeth Escoval from Yolo County.

They're all board Members serving on their respective boards. We just ask you to for your Aye vote on the bill, and I'm happy to answer any technical questions that you have regarding it.

All right, thank you. Public comments in support of the bill. Please come forward. You don't have to run.

Good afternoon, everyone. Alida Fisher, San Francisco Unified School Board Member, who makes $500 a month at this job, in support.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further public comments and support? Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none.

Just to clarify before we bring it back to the Committee, Assemblymember, your proposal is not to mandate a raise for all school board Members, but it's to allow school districts and county offices of education to vote on increasing the compensation. Is that correct? Correct. Correct. Okay. All right. Any questions or comments from the Committee? All right.

Seeing no comments. Ms. Solache, thank you for, you know, bringing this forward as perhaps the youngest school board Member in the history of the State of California. Former school board Member in the history of the State of California.

Yeah, it was, you know, skinnier, taller, and different. Different. Different days. But now we're here doing the people's job in the State of California. But again, I think I want to highlight what Baltisa said. You know, it gives people that are from community.

My current school board has four alums from the school district and one grandparent that is an active parent. So it just really reflects our local community, and we want more people that reflect our districts to be in those positions that make a difference for our children every day.

Yeah, I completely agree. As a former school board Member myself, who also got that 400 bucks a month for 15 to 20 hours a week of work, we know that our school board Members make very important decisions for our kids, for our schools and our communities.

And so we want to make sure that there's no financial disincentive to serve on our elected bodies like our school boards. So happy to support the bill. Motion's been made and seconded. Would you like to close again?

Just. Thank you. This brings equity. It brings more responsibility to folks that want to get engaged and not a financial burden to. So that that stops them from serving. I think not only privileged people should serve. I think all people should serve, especially in all parts of California where we.

Especially in these times where we want to make sure that there's inclusivity, where our communities are being attacked. We want to make sure that there's people out there that can raise their hand and say, I represent that brown boy, that black kid, that LGBT student.

We want to make sure that these People that are raising their hand are reflective of our community, and I'm just very, very empowered to support our school board Members. I'm no longer on the school board, but I think they should be empowered to serve and have a voice for these students who need a voice as well.

All right, motion's been made in secondary and Madam Secretary, please call the roll file.

Item 22, AB 1390. The motion is due passed. [Roll Call]

Bill has five votes. We'll leave. Leave it open for Members to add on. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. The Committee.

All right. Next we have Mr. Gonzalez. And this is item 12, AB 865, by Assemblymember Gonzalez. All right, Mr. Gonzalez, when you're ready.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Members. I'm pleased to present AB 865, which establishes the dual language immersion instruction materials grant. I appreciate the Committee staff works on this measure and accept the Committee's amendments.

This bill creates not-- creates, excuse me, just a one time $5 million grant administered by the California Department of Education over three years to increase DLI instructional materials. The grant is split into two parts: Grant A, which allocates 3.5 million to schools offering DLI programs in California's top five English learner languages, Spanish, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Cantonese, and Arabic.

Grant B allocates 1.5 million to schools offering DLI programs in other languages, such as Korean, Japanese, and Armenian. All grant recipients must report to the CDE by June 29, 2029 and CDE will report to the Legislature by December 31, 2029.

This bill is crucial as teachers in DLI programs often struggle with a shortage of instructional material that align with the state standards that the legislature set. Publishing companies may submit instructional materials to CDE for review and approval, and teachers may utilize any approved materials from said list. Unfortunately, though, as of today, there are two approved ELI textbooks.

Both are for Spanish and limited only to K-6 students. Obviously, this is not enough, especially given the technology and, of course, given our global economy.

Textbook publishers do not support the vast diversity of languages offered in DLI programming, leaving teachers responsible for developing or sourcing their own instructional materials, which is extremely time-consuming and costly and often left to their own interpretation.

70% of my district speaks a primary language other than English, and our schools offer DLI programs in Spanish, Korean, Mandarin, Japanese, Armenian, Arabic, and French. That is six other languages being taught in DLI programs for which teachers need to create to find their own materials to be able to actually follow the curriculum.

This is just a glaring gap that needs to be addressed and AB 865 will do just that. AB 865 will reduce the burden on teachers, allowing them to focus on instruction and advance equitable access to quality bilingual education for all students. Today we have our primary witnesses in support.

Here to testify in support of the bills are Benjamin Tran from Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California and Dr. Nancy Hong, Director of Dual Language Immersion and Magnet Programs at Glendale Unified School District.

All right, welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. My name is Benjamin Tran with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, the proud sponsor of AB 865. The bill would establish allocate $5 million for schools to fund the development and purchase of instructional materials for dual immersion programs.

As the son of refugees whose parents can speak five different languages, believe me when I tell you that being multilingual is not just a skill, it's a superpower.

In the Global California 2030 Initiative, the state has recognized the need to equip our students with this power and has set the goal to have over 1,600 dual immersion programs by 2030. Two challenges have consistently hindered the success of dual immersion programs. First, the shortage of accredited bilingual teachers.

Between 2022 and 2023, the legislature allocated $25 million to address this shortage. While these funds are being implemented, the goal of this bill is to address the second challenge, a lack of standards aligned, high quality instructional materials. Across the state, there are dual immersion programs in Arabic, Armenian, Cantonese, French, Hmong, Korean, Mandarin, Samoan, Spanish and many more.

Typically, schools procure materials from textbook publishers who unfortunately do not support the diversity of languages that dual immersion programs offer. The responsibility and burden of creating and assembling materials then falls onto individual schools and teachers, which only exacerbates bilingual teacher burnout.

AB 865 will provide critical funding so that bilingual teachers can focus on teaching and invest in a multilingual California. Thank you and I ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Nancy Hong and I am the Director of Dual Language Immersion and Magnet Programs for the Glendale Unified School District. We are a district that offers language programs in seven different languages: Armenian, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean and Spanish.

We started our first program in 2003 with one cohort of 18 students in the Spanish program, and today we have over 3400 students across the district enrolled in our various languages. It is imperative that we are always working towards the goals of a dual language education, which are bilingualism and biliteracy, high academic achievement and sociocultural competence.

A big part of this effort is to have high quality instructional materials across content areas in the partner languages that are taught throughout the district. With the exception of Spanish, publishers whose curricular materials are aligned with the California State Standards do not provide options in other languages.

This leaves districts like mine and many others the responsibility of translating core curriculum, finding supplementary resources and creating additional instructional materials to address the standards in the partner languages. They may do this by creating materials during summer vacation or during the school year.

Districts might create out of district-- sorry, out of classroom positions solely to produce instructional materials for their teachers and some may overly rely on English materials as teachers provide instruction in the target language. As you can imagine, the effort to provide high quality materials is costly, time-consuming and complex.

It is an added load to teachers and district staff and the work is ongoing with each new textbook adoption which occurs every seven to eight years.

This bill would provide much needed funds for high quality instructional materials so that dual language learners have the support they need to attain academic and language skills through their core curriculum and teachers have the necessary tools to meet both grade level and language proficiency goals. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your support.

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

This is Maclean Rozansky with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Sarah Lillis with Teach Plus California in support.

Cristina Salazar with Californians Together in strong support.

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

Monica Madrid, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, also known as. Chirla, in strong support.

Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California proud sponsor. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members, Adam Kaeli, on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Tristan Brown of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, here in support as well.

All right, 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. Motion's been made. Seconded. Any questions or comments from the Committee? All right, well, thank you, Mr. Gonzalez, for this very important measure.

I'm a big supporter of dual language, multi language, you know, programs. And, and we know that they're extremely popular, probably very popular in communities like, like Glendale, as well as. Mr. Gonzalez, I know you represent such a diverse. I. I don't know how many languages are spoken in your Assembly District. You lose count.

But happy to support the Bill. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Members. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, staff, and thank you to our witnesses here today. AB65 fills a critical gap in DLI education, ensuring teachers and students have access to quality instructional materials. In the spirit of unity and opportunity.

This grant program is more than just an investment education. It's a promise to our children, a bridge between cultures, and a testament to the power of language. When we equip our schools with the tools to nurture dual language immersions, we are not just teaching words, we are opening doors, expanding minds, and affirming identities.

Members, let this be our charge. That no child is denied the gift of understanding, that no voice is lost in translation, and that every student, regardless of background, has the chance to thrive in a world that is richer when we embrace its diversity.

This is our mission, our calling, and our moment to ensure that language is not a barrier, but a blessing. Let us move forward with faith, with purpose, and with an unwavering belief in the power of education to actually transform lives. The essence of dual language immersion means opening doors to knowledge, opportunity, and a world without limits.

And in the words of Dr. Seuss, the more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you'll go. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Item 12 AB865. The motion is due. Passes amended to appropriations. [aye vote call].

The Bill has seven votes.

Thank you. All right, what do we have next here? Mr. Brian, is he in the room? Room. All right. Okay. All right. Actually, Mr. Brian, looks like Mr. Gibson beat you to the the sign up sheet. So Mr. Gibson would like to welcome you. Which item is this? Item 10 AB857 by some of Member Gibson.

Floor is yours when you're ready.

Yes, I think my witness is coming. We'll start. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 857 which seeks to require cultural competency training for all K through 12 schools' staff in order in order to foster a safe and inclusive learning environment for our students.

This Bill is essential so that all of our children feels valued, can connect with their personal experience and to culminate this ultimate experience in terms of academic success. This Bill is a priority of the California Legislative Black Caucus as part of its road to repair reparation bill package for this year.

This ideal behind this Bill derives from thousands and hours of research as part of the California Reparation task force. And I also brought the 1,100 page report that the task force worked so diligently and hard to create a roadmap for us.

And each one of us is carrying bills that speaks to this reparation task force that was finalized report in 2023. Again, the ideals comes from here. This reports note deficiencies that African American students face in school. Look at our history. Education has been denied to African Americans in order to control them. An unequal system and segregation.

Therein is some way for us to one rewrite the wrongs that have taken place in our states. On paper based on enrollment, California is the sixth most segregated state in the country for African American students. And schools with large black populations thus receive far less resources and often suffer equitable in their education.

I state that this information not seeking to further exacerbate this issue, but also shed a light on the reality that exists. This enduring inequity has led to a loss of opportunities for African Americans including in employment as it relates to lack of access to quality education and has hindered economic mobility for generations.

This Bill seeks to help educators develop the skills to communicate efficiency, efficiently with students and families from diverse backgrounds, fostering a strong relationship. Thus trust educators who feel equipped to meet the needs of the diverse student populations are more likely to experience job satisfaction and a sense of purpose moving forward.

This will ultimately lead to more equitable outcomes in education and address some systemic inequities leading to improve academic success for our students. Before I introduce my witness, I want to say thank you very much to the Committee and Committee staff working diligently with my team, and I will be accepting some of those amendments that we talked about.

And some of those amendments are as follows. Giving structure to the training schedule by requiring at least one hour of this training annually for five years. Exempting students. Excuse me, exempting school employees who have already completed similar training within the last 10 years.

So to avoid duplications, a report on competency to the Legislature after the five year training is part of this terms. And so with that, I would like to introduce my first witness, Mr. Tristan Brown, on behalf of the California Federation of Teachers, speaking in support of Assembly Bill 857.

All right. Before we go forward, Mr. Gipson, did I hear you correctly? You're accepting all of the Committee amendments?

Yes, I read those off and I will be accepting all those amendments and thank the staff for working closely with us.

Okay. Not. Not just the ones that you read, but I understand that there are-

Yes, we accept these amendments.

All the amendments. Okay, thank you with that clarification. Welcome, Mr. Brown.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Tristan Brown with the CFT, proud to be here in support of the Bill. While we're not the sponsors, we do see the value here. I'd like to make two assertions. One is that the diversity of our student population in our state is a crown jewel of our public education system.

And despite some of the best efforts of other leaders in this country, we think that diversity is something that makes us better. It is not a threat and is something to be promoted and celebrated.

And the second assertion is that in order for educators to really make the most genuine impact, it requires trust between the teacher and those students. To have a gap in cultural competency really eviscerates that trust for the student.

Knowing that they're not being understood or that they're coming from a different perspective than that is alien or foreign to that educator might create some unneeded and unwarranted friction.

We think that there's high value here in making sure everybody understands that we all come from different walks of life and how to cooperate with those different walks and come to the same great goal of our public education system. And that is to instill that learning and the love for learning in everyone.

And until we can make sure that we're making that connection and this training will go far into helping us do that, you know, we're still going to be a little bit behind. So we see great value in this project and we really appreciate the author for bringing this to you and that's why we're wholeheartedly in support today.

All right, thank you very much. Any public comments in support of the Bill, please come forward.

Navnit Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association. In support.

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

Jennifer Baker with the California Association for Bilingual Education, in support.

Sarah Lillis with Teach Plus California. In support.

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 or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Thank you very much, Mr. Gipson for bringing this to the Committee.

I would be honored if you can add me as a co author to your Bill. And-

Be honored to take you.

And would give you the last word.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and thank you to Committee. First of all, thank you for your co authorship on Assembly Bill 857 and I thank Mr. Tristan Brown from the California Federation of Teachers, as well those who lend their support behind this Bill. Again, I brought the reparations book task force report.

This comes directly out of that and the research that was given to justify this particular piece of legislation moving forward. And as Mr. Brown has already indicated, we represent a diverse population in terms of our students and we need to make sure that our students are understood culturally and all the diversity.

California is a mosaic, you know, State of different diversity and we embrace that. That's what I think set California apart and makes California very unique. And this Bill is moving in the right direction. I respectfully ask for your aye vote and thank you in advance.

Thank you. Can I entertain a motion and a second move? Is there a second? Second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 10 AB857. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Bill has five votes. Thank you. All right. Mr. Bryan, and this is File Item Eight: AB 677.

Great. Floor is yours, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'm proud to be here to present AB 677, a bill that will increase Accessibility Division and dental screenings for housing-insecure students in our K through 12 schools. Current law allows for nonprofit providers to contract with school districts to offer dental and vision screenings on campus at no cost to students.

However, unhoused students must obtain written parental consent to participate in screenings, which creates an obstacle to their engagement. Education Code states that if a student is screened, parents must be notified if a defect is identified. To comply with this mandate, schools require access to a student's directory information such as their name and date of birth.

In the case of unhoused students, this information is additionally protected unless parental consent is obtained, and it's additionally protected for good reason, but in this instance, it actually serves as a barrier for these students to obtain the free screenings that are available to all other students, thus creating an unjust access gap that we're looking to solve.

As a direct result, LAUSD has reported a disproportionately low rate of unhoused students utilizing the free on-campus screening services that all other students are utilizing. This is especially harmful as unhoused students are primarily students of color, low-income, or in foster care when other groups are already less likely to receive essential vision and dental care.

The inability to access these on-campus screenings exacerbates existing inequalities for our most vulnerable students. AB 677 will clarify that the directory information of unhoused students can be released solely for the purpose of on-campus vision and dental screenings, establishing an opt-out procedure for these students that is the same as all other students.

It will also bring parity between both housed and unhoused or housing-insecure communities. Joining me today to provide testimony in support of AB 677 is Sasha Horwitz, a Legislative Advocate at LAUSD and Maryam Sesay, Director of Operations for QueensCare, Los Angeles based nonprofit.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Good afternoon, Chair Muratsuchi and members of the committee. I'm Sasha Horwitz, Legislative Advocate with Los Angeles Unified School District. We're the proud sponsors of Assembly Bill 677, which expands access to free school-based vision and dental screenings for unhoused students.

These screenings help identify dental and vision problems early, which is particularly meaningful in areas with large populations of low-income students and other vulnerable children. At Los Angeles Unified we work with service providers to set up no cost MOUs to screen students on our campuses.

Parents and legal guardians still have the choice to pursue these services on their own and with their private health providers. For those who do not have means to do so or who choose to take advantage of this free service, we provide the option for students to receive the service at school alongside their peers.

Current law requires that a local education agency receives affirmative consent--that is to opt in--from a parent or legal guardian of an unhoused student to allow the LEA to share specific directory information with these service providers.

In essence, all students, including foster students, will receive vision and dental screenings unless the parent or legal guardian opts out in writing, all students except unhoused students, who must take the extra steps of opting into screenings, typically through a permission slip signed by a parent or guardian, and returned to the school.

As you can imagine, this is a challenging group to contact, giving their housing insecurity. Because of protections designed to protect the directory information of unhoused students, the percentage of permission slips signed and returned by them is very, very small.

The end result is that the vast majority of the most vulnerable students are missing out on critical services that could greatly benefit their lives and future health outcomes. To bridge this gap in healthcare access, AB 677 amends the Education Code to allow homeless students the same access to critical health screenings as all other students, while maintaining the parental right to opt out if desired. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and commitment to student health and wellness, and we ask for your aye vote when the time is appropriate.

Good afternoon, Chair Muratsuchi, as well as the members of committee. I am Maryam Sesay, Director of Operations at QueensCare. For over 30 years, QueensCare has worked in partnership with LAUSD to bring essential health services to its students.

Through its longstanding MOU, QueensCare is assigned to qualified schools to provide dental and/or vision services to students while they're on campus. All services are provided to students at no cost to their families. Our mobile dental program offers screenings, X-rays, and treatment in collaboration with the Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry of USC.

Our mobile vision program offers screening, vision exams, and free glasses to those that need them. Every year, QueensCare brings quality healthcare to thousands of students who otherwise may not have had access of these services. As the law currently stands, we are unable to provide services to unhoused individuals without a signed consent form.

There have been instances where we've been at a scheduled location. By the time the consent form is obtained from the parents of the unhoused students, we've already completed services and left the school. The challenge is often having difficulties tracking down parents of those students and their attendance at school, which can result in the students missing out on care. One example of how services like this makes a difference is a student at a school with behavioral concerns.

After receiving our service, the principal informed us that the student didn't actually have behavioral issues but was struggling with reading due to poor vision. Once QueensCare received the directory data from LAUSD, we use it as a reference list to identify students who need to be screened for services.

We only enter students' information into our electronic health records to document services provided to those who receive care. The information is stored and maintained in compliance with relevant regulations. QueensCare adheres to HIPAA regulations, and through the MOU agreement, clearly states that we do not share or sell patient information to third parties.

QueensCare is in support and very grateful for Assembly Member Bryan for authoring AB 677 as it will significantly increase the likelihood of early intervention, early identification of healthcare needs, especially for those that are underserved. The earlier these issues are met, the better the chances the students--in the students' academic successes. So thank you.

Thank you. Any public comments in support of the bill? Please come forward.

Mr. Chair and members, Eric Dowdy with the California Dental Association, in strong support.

Maclean Rozansky with the Alameda County Office of Education, in support.

Sarah Kaminsky, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, in support.

Brianna Bruns, on behalf of the California County Superintendents, in support.

Brandie Brunni of San Joaquin County Office of Education, in support.

Leticia Garcia, on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, in support.

Kim Lewis representing the California Coalition for Youth. We actually have a support if amended position, and we appreciate the author's office and sponsors for working with us so that we can hopefully address our concerns, particularly around our unaccompanied homeless minors experiencing homelessness. Thank you.

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. Any questions or comments from the--Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you. I don't have any questions. I just wanted to make a comment of appreciation to the author and certainly for the folks who are working on this issue. As a young person who did not have healthcare growing up, it was because of the vision screening that I had at my school that I had access to a pair of eyeglasses which were critical to my ability to be a better student, to learn better.

So I really just, when I read this bill, I certainly felt deep appreciation for you thinking about individuals who, again, as you stated eloquently, for the right reasons we prevent this information from being accessed to this population, but in this case, we have a good program that can create a change in somebody's life and we have to ensure that they have access to those services. So I want to thank you for the work that you're doing in this regard, and I appreciate moving the bill forward.

All right, motion has been made. Is there a second for the bill? It's been--motion made and seconded. All right. Seeing no further questions or comments from the committee. Thank you, Mr. Bryan, for always standing up for our most vulnerable students. Happy to support your bill. Would you like to close?

Yes, sir. There was a study a number of years back that was able to correlate third grade reading levels and outcomes with the amount of prison beds we would need in the future because we know that a lot of acting out in school and behavioral problems are rooted in an inability to read or understand what's going on in class, and that happens at a very, very young age. We also know that children who have adverse childhood experiences tend to also struggle in those environments and one of those adverse childhood experiences is being housing-insecure.

That's why the state stepped up to provide free dental and vision screenings for students, period. The problem is, through this additional layer of protection for our unhoused students, which is important and necessary, we've actually created a barrier for the most vulnerable students to access dental and vision care, leaving tens of thousands of students just in LAUSD without this critical care.

I'm setting them on a pathway that's gonna lead directly to the School-to-Prison Pipeline. We can break that, we can get them the care that they need, we can get them the eyeglasses they need; all we need to do is pass this bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File Item Eight: AB 677. The motion is do pass. [Roll Call].

Bill has eight votes. All right. She has been patiently waiting. This is Assembly Member Ávila Farías, File Item 14: AB 903.

Okay. Alright. The floor is yours. Your microphone.

Oh, on.

Is the light on?

Hello.

Yeah. There we go.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, I'm pleased to present AB903. I would like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments and I would look and I look forward to engaging our schools, our County Office of Education and other stakeholders on this measure.

AB903, the Education Technology Empowerment act of 2025 directs the California Department of Education to establish best practices to harness the power of technology and to accelerate student academic achievement. The COVID 19 pandemic highlighted and exasperated the digital divide K-12 education in response to the crisis, schools, teachers and students rapidly adapted to new technology platforms.

The parents took on more active roles in learning in the learning partners. California schools, along with state and federal relief assistance, rapidly deployed digital devices online programming to facilitate assistance learning. However, many public schools serving high need students lack the prior experience or infrastructure to integrate and innovate resources effectively.

During the time we began to connect with more critical than ever and unequal access to modern technology and broadband deeply expose the digital gap, particularly in schools serving disadvantaged and rural communities. While taking each local district's resources and capacities into consideration, AB903 takes an important step in addressing deep digital divide in K-12 education.

By expanding access to technology and incorporation in our public education, we are opening doors for the next generation workforce and empowering them to complete in the modern- compete in the modern economy, Today with me is testifying in support of AB903 is Augustine Arguelles, Executive Manager of School and Home and Christine Feenstra, Executive Director of Computer Director of Computer Educators.

Okay, great. Can you hear me? Okay, terrific. Well, first of all, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in support of AB903 on behalf of the California Emerging Technology Fund. I am the Executive manager for School to Home, a strategic initiative that CETF carefully designed to close both the digital divide and the achievement gap.

School to home assists Title 1 middle schools to maximize the impact of technology on student outcomes. We do so by supporting administrators, parents and students in establishing a collaborative environment where technology is intentionally integrated into the school's efforts to improve academic achievement.

This bill is extremely timely as it will not only help address the growing digital divide that impacts students attending our highest need schools, but also the gap in student academic achievement impacting these very same students.

This is why it is critical that it becomes the policy of the State of California to harness the power of computing and Internet technologies to accelerate the improvement of student academic achievement and prioritizing our highest need schools. Our experience confirms that when you implement technology with adequate support and guidance based on the principles listed on the bill, technology can serve as a powerful tool for administrators, teachers and parents which helps them maximize the positive impact of all of the devices, great software, learning platforms, parent portals, and in their respective school communities.

This legislation builds on over a decade of experience that we had at School to Home and also with input with partners who are committed in eradicating the achievement gap.

We urge this committee to support this bill and School to Home and our coalition partners are ready to share our best practices with the appropriate state entities so we can positively impact as many students as possible across the state by guiding them and showing them how teachers and schools can use technology to enhance learning, to personalize instruction, address all the gaps that are there, and we're happy to provide support.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the Education Technology Empowerment Act. I'm Christine Feenstra and I'm the Executive Director of Computer Using Educators or Q California's leading organization at the intersection of education and technology.

I speak today in strong support of AB903, which recognizes a truth that we can no longer ignore. Technology is not a luxury in education. It is a necessity for equity transformation and academic success. During the pandemic, California's educators rose to the challenge using technology to keep students learning and connected.

That wasn't a temporary fix, it was a foundational shift. AB903 ensures we sustain and build on that momentum. This bill is a smart, equity driven investment by embedding best practices into LCAPs and creating a statewide advisory body. It gives every district, regardless of zip code, the tools to close the digital divide and accelerate student learning.

But we must also be clear. Effective use of technology goes beyond devices and internet access. It's about using tech to empower students through collaboration, creativity and personalized learning. That only happens when we invest in ongoing professional development and universal design for learning in mind.

We must stop treating the edtech as a crisis tool and start training it as an essential education infrastructure. AB903 does exactly that. I respect- respectfully urge you to vote yes.

Alright, thank you. Any public comments in support of the bill, please come forward.

Marvin Pineda on behalf of WE Conduit and you Start Housing Development Corporation in support.

Vanessa Keel on behalf of Parent University and the Parent University Consortium. We support.

On behalf of the Digital Equity Coalition and Digital Navigators in support.

Patti Bibby with the Get Connected Call Center in support.

Good afternoon Chair and Members Alejandro Solis, on behalf of the Rural Prosperity Center and Rural Development Centers, as well as Los Amigos De La Comidad in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. Jeff Vaca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools with the amendments that the author has agreed to this afternoon that are reflected in your committee analysis. Those address the concerns that we had with the version of the bill as introduced.

And upon our review, once the amendments are in print, we'll be pleased to remove our opposition. Want to thank the Assemblymember and her staff and your staff, Ms. Reese, for the analysis as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. There we go. Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. We, too, were in opposition to the bill, and we'll be preparing to drop our opposition once the amendments come through. Thank you.

All right, any further or any public comments in opposition of the bill, see none. Bring it back to the committee.

I just have a quick question. I want to first thank the author for bringing this forward. I love that we're digging into this, and I was wondering on the committee if you're already including members with student data privacy expertise or if you consider that when you. When the committee is put together.

We definitely would consider that when the committee is put together. There has been discussion on it, but we're going to wait for the committee to be put together.

Happy to move the bill.

All right, motions made and seconded. Any further questions or comments? Thank you very much, Ms. Avila Farias, for bringing this important measure of closing the digital divide. I had worked with the Emerging Technology Fund on prior legislation to advance this cause.

And so I appreciate you continuing to fight to ensure that all communities throughout the State of California have access to affordable, reliable Internet service, as well as to make sure that we're adopting best practices for technology in our classrooms. And I want to thank also the opposition for working with the committee.

You know, we always strive to take good intentions and make it workable for all LEAs, Local Educational Agencies throughout the state. And so we appreciate your willingness to continue to work with them to make your intention workable for. For all. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Today I appreciate an aye vote so that we can move forward and very grateful for the opportunity.

All right, thank you. Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

File item 14, AB903. The motion is due passes amended to appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

Eight votes for the spill. You have a second Item file item 15, AB917.

Yes. Thank you. My witnesses are here.

All right.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, today I'm here presenting AB917 to ensure the deserving educators and school employees in all school districts and county offices of education have an opportunity to achieve a permanent employment status. Status.

This Bill would require local education agencies to grant permanent status to certified employees in school districts and counties with an average daily attendance of less than 250 for regional occupation and centers and programs operated by the County Office of Education or joint powers of authority.

This is an already requirement for schools with the average daily attendance of more than $250 due to process. For teachers, process plays a critical role in protecting against racial discrimination. By requiring fair and impartial procedures for employment decisions, AB17 will help attract, retain potential educators, provide them with career stability, and diversify California's education workforce.

Testifying with me in support of AB917 is Patricia Rucker, legislative advocate with the California Teachers Association.

Thank you very. Hello. Hi. Thank you very much. Assemblymember Avila Faris. Mr. Chair and Members, my name is Patricia Rucker with the California Teachers Association. I want to thank you for this opportunity today. And I just want you to think for a minute.

In any of your past jobs, before you took on this public role, if someone walked into your office or your cubicle or your classroom where you were working and said, you're fired, your natural instinct, besides looking at me and saying, well, who are you and how can you fire me?

Your natural instinct would be to ask why, under current law in California, if you're not an educator with permanent status in a California classroom, current law doesn't require the employer to answer that question. You will hear in my testimony reasons why it's important to support this bill.

But I'm also going to tell you you're going to hear arguments today by organizations representing counties and districts that are affected by prior and related proposals. They will tell you that because of their size, even slight fluctuations in enrollment might mean the difference between needing a second teacher for a specific grade or not needing that teacher.

For example, between the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school year, Montague Elementary School's enrollment dropped from 175 students to only 154. That's a 12% drop in one school year. And that would be the equivalent to Long Beach unified losing over 8,600 kids between academic years.

The fact is this proposal does not limit a district's flexibility to change professional assignments to respond to the services they need or to address the needs to reduce force reduction in the workforce because because of enrollment.

Even if an educator has permanent status, the layoff process provided under California law allows for the reduction of staff if a particular kind of service is reduced or discontinued. Furthermore, there are exceptions to seniority based layoffs when a less senior employee has specific qualifications or competencies.

Providing all teachers a path to attain permanent status simply ensures that they have due process rights that they can ask the question why and get an answer.

You will hear similar concerns from representatives of county offices and JPAs that because of their source of funding like the CTIG grant for vocational programs, they need the flexibility to change their staff with changes because of the focus in their program or funding Today.

This Committee later on will hear the chair's proposal AB401, the California Career Technical Education Grant, the acronym CTIG. These program recipients would be entitled to receive renewal grants for up to four years. In addition, the Superintendent of Public Instruction is required to designate 90% of the funds set aside for this program for renewal grants.

This bill also adds a cost of living adjustment to the CTIG grant. I'm not here to advocate for the CT grant, but in another day I promote it. The fact is, the JPAs who will receive these grants are required to show demonstrated success in the programs they have implemented.

They are accountable not only for the academic progress of the students, but they are accountable to show when they apply for a renewal grant that they will be maintaining, continuing or even expanding their existing programs. Layoffs for these staff are therefore neither exigent nor likely.

Further, these programs seem to be benefiting from the state's goodwill to to assure stable funding. This proposal will not limit existing law and the authority that JPAs have for the flexibility to change professional assignments to respond to the services they provide to LEAs through their programs.

Even if an educator has permanent status being employed for a JPA, current law allows layoff procedures for the reduction of staff for a particular kind of service.

The fact of the matter is this means rather than having safe due process rights as all other teachers in California's education workforce, we have a class of teachers who work in an at will environment and may be terminated at any time without cause.

The last consideration I want to offer to you and I will close is that when County Office of Educations downsize frequently it's due to take backs in programs and and normally the County Office of Education staff follow those programs and are hired by the districts taking over those programs, negating the need for a layoff.

Many of these are likely small, necessary schools that receive additional funding to keep them open. They are geographically isolated and staff teach classes with multiple levels. Because of these factors, again, layoffs are not necessarily exigent and are not prevalent to begin with. Dollars related to layoff in these small districts come from Proposition 98 and through the LCFF.

It's it CTA believes it's in the interest of small communities and schools and programs like those I talked about today to maintain a high quality, experienced workforce. And we believe it's important to support this proposal today and I earnestly ask for your Aye vote.

All right, thank you. Any public comments in support of the measure, please come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Tristan Brown with the CFT also in support of this bill.

Seeing no further public comments in support. Witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward.

It's There you go. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Julian Rodriguez. I'm the Superintendent of Southern California Regional Occupational Center, which provides career technical education for six Los Angeles school districts in LA County in the South Bay, and I'm here today to share my concerns with AB917.

I am not here to argue against teacher permanency, but rather I'm here to advocate for OCP permanency. ROCPs are at the core of California's workforce development, and we are striving to be a permanent part of California's plan for career education.

Specifically, AB917 threatens the permanency of ROCPs because it mandates staffing decisions for programs that do not have stable funding sources. Unlike LCFF funded Schools, ROCPs survive on competitive grants and partnerships. AB917 staffing mandates assume stable funding that simply does not exist. Yet it puts programs at risk when grants when these grants expire.

These competitive grants also have their own requirements for which pathways can be funded, for example, courses that are aligned with community colleges or aligned with emergency industry needs.

An inability to offer these programs will jeopardize access to some grant funds, such as K12 Strong Workforce Program if we can't offer programs that are aligned with regional labor market needs. AB917 also threatens the permanency of ROCPs by disrupting regional CTE coordination and partnerships.

Many ROCPs, such as myself, serve multiple districts that rely on us to develop and maintain programs that serve our region's diverse needs.

AB917 will result in fewer CTE pathway options for students likely as a result of the loss of specialized instructors because because we had to provide March 15 notifications before we could even finalize our enrollment for the upcoming year.

Many CTE teachers at ROCPS are industry professionals who teach part time or are on short term contracts because they maintain their jobs within industry. AB917 would make it more difficult for us to innovate and employ industry professionals to teach emerging pathways because teacher seniority would be the primary consideration over student and industry demands.

AB917 is well intentioned that, but it would undermine the state's plan for CTE by jeopardizing our milit our ability to remain regionally minded, innovative and responsive to evolving workforce needs. Thank you.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Members. Leangela Reed on on behalf of the Small School Districts Association and While I adore my good friend at the end of the table and think she's really smart, I don't need her to testify for that said she did. She's right.

I'm going to tell you a few things that you said because that's the truth Current law regarding small school districts and county offices with Ada of less than 250 students was negotiated between Education Management and Labor through the as part of the Hughes Hart Education Reform act of 1983.

This flexibility has been allowed since to address the changing needs of a student population that creates unique staffing challenges. The Legislature has repeatedly recognized that super small districts and county offices need flexibility to appropriately address the needs of their students within their limited capacity and resources. My good friend mentioned diversity. Let's talk geographic diversity.

We have districts as small as five students districts. AB917 will force small LEAs to not only pink slip every teacher every year. How's that for morale? It will limit the courses and programs available for students for students. When we talk about At Will employee as a 20 past 20 year legislative employee, I knew at Will every day.

Given the budget restraints and limited resources, a small LEA can't risk hiring a teacher who may not be serving any students in three years due to changes in population or needs.

The due process due process procedure is thoughtful but it is lengthy and if you have a Superintendent, principal, teacher, they will be away from their site for weeks and weeks upon end, if not months to resolve the issue. There is precedent through Education Code to treat small LEAs differently. Small LEAs are exempt from the budget Reserve cap.

Rural districts are exempt from the late start time and necessary. Small schools receive additional state funding to support their operations. It is an appropriate acknowledgment of the operational, personnel and budgetary circumstances that small leas face and are adept at navigating.

We simply ask that you continue to let us be good stewards of the flexibilities we have now that have been in place for years, sometimes decades. AB917 will force small leas to limit options and services for students and families, including and break an agreement that has stood for years.

We ask you to oppose this legislation and we thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much. Public comments in opposition to the bill. Please come forward.

Afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members Chris Reefe, on behalf of the California School Boards Association. In respectful opposition.

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

Good afternoon. Michelle Gill, on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials. In opposition.

Leilani Aguinaldo on behalf of the CTE JPA Coalition. In opposition.

Jeff Vacca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. In opposition.

Good afternoon. Andrea Ball, on behalf of two organizations in respectful opposition. The Central Valley Education Coalition and the California Association of Suburban School Districts. Thank you.

Caitlin Jung, on behalf of KWOP, the Association of Career and College readiness organizations and the School Employers Association of California. In opposition.

Isabella Farland, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators. In opposition.

All right. See no further public comments. In opposition. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee you want to do Rock, Paper, Scissors?

I'm thinking deeply about this one, but I do represent a very, very tiny school district in Big Sur with just 100 students and so super sympathetic to the issues that the bill is trying to address, but also very concerned for my teeny tiny school district.

And just wondering from the author, there's so much opposition on here, some of it for good reason, and I'm sure there's lots of other reasons for opposition, but just wondering what your thinking is moving forward for a teeny, tiny district like mine that is incredibly important to the community that it serves right.

Like any public policy, especially in education, it's a complex space and we have to move towards changing how we have consistently operated as a 30 year public employee.

Whatever space you're in, education, whatever area of service as a public servant, there's nothing worse than having the unknown of going to work and not knowing what your destiny is going to be in whatever classification. Why I did have opposition today, it's mostly from administrators. It's not from our frontline staff that occupy these roles.

And I think it's really important that as we change public policy and due process, everyone wants due process and I think we Just need to recalibrate for the smaller districts. I'm willing to work with everyone to figure out a new pathway.

But I think we all in the space as a former county board of education, we have to recalibrate how we envision our new academic spaces, our educators. And it starts by changing things that are harmful to our employees.

And so I'm happy to work with all the opposition, but I think it's time in the State of California that we start with our be employee centric, student centric and how we treat our employees because how our employees are treated is how our children are going to be welcomed into these environments.

And so I ask that we are given the opportunity to work with the opposition and try to reimagine what this would look like. But I don't think due process should ever be questioned. And as a public employee I've been in exempt positions. I've had permanent positions.

I've had positions that allowed me to know that they were 12 month positions, six month positions. So I don't think we are going to harm school districts with smaller positions. So. But I'm willing to work with everyone on it.

And I want to say thank you and was a teacher and part of one of the teachers unions that are supporting this bill for 21 years and so really appreciate your perspective, trust you as an author.

I really respect your commitment to continue to working with opposition particularly the small school districts are very important to the people that live in Big Sur small community that love their schools. And so thank you for that.

All right, Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you. Thank you to the author. Excuse me. And I.

It's hard not to talk about the regional occupation programs and the attempts that are and the conversations we've had in this Committee thanks to this chair in oversight hearings in the past about the funding and how it is not a predictable source of funding, how it's a. Unfortunately another patchwork of multiple departments.

Not even one single Department or agency that manages funding for this. So I think acknowledging that that reality exists is important in light of this bill. And I think that I would ask that we think about what that process would look like for. For districts that are piecemealing at the moment anyway. And hopefully this changes.

I think that we all in agreement in that that it needs to change. But at the moment and if things don't change going forward, it's a.

It's a again working really hard to put together these programs and anything that we do to potentially jeopardize the ability for those for there to be incentives for locals to do these programs and put in the extra work.

And the effort to find the funding to do these programs is something that I don't think is in the best interest going forward. So I would echo the concerns about an alternative. We absolutely must find a way that people who are dedicating their lives to doing this work are respected and that we find ways to ensure that.

Certainly due process, but I think not only due process, we want to treat them as valuable as they are to the profession that they've chosen.

But I do think in having heard over just the last year in this Committee the concerns of funding and how that all comes together piece by piece, I'd be concerned about this long term and what that would do to the to the ability to commit to a robust program that I think again, we all want to have.

And that even is in the goals that you've stated in this bill. So I'll support the Bill going forward today. But I think we need to have an overall conversation about how this all fits together. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions or comments? All right. All right. So I have a few questions because I have a little history on this issue. Full disclosure, I'm a former trustee of the Southern California Regional Occupational Center, a regional occupational center that is a joint powers agreement of six school districts and Ms. Avilafarias.

We had talked when you first arrive in the capital, the need to do things differently to especially make sure that we are meeting the needs especially of our black and brown students who too many of our public schools are failing.

And one of the reasons why I'm a big supporter of Curate technical education is because we know that the data shows that the CTE programs are one of the best ways to engage students, especially our black and brown students. We know that there are higher graduation rates.

There's so many data points to show how CTE programs engage our African American and our Latino students.

And so you know, it concerns me while you know, I'm on principle fully in support of permanent status for all teachers, it concerns me when you know, there broad opposition and concern that this can challenge basically the business model of many of our career technical education programs.

One of the issues with our career technical education programs is that they rely on people from the industry that provides much of the instruction in our CTE programs. And that's to make sure that our students benefit from having the most up to date relevant on the in the workplace experience to share and to teach our students.

And I know that, you know, with the chairs, the chair of our budget Subcommitee, you know, highlighting the inconsistent funding model that our CTE programs face, that there's the constant challenge of keeping CTE programs flexible enough to be adaptable not only to the funding but also to the workforce needs.

And so I had an opportunity to have a conversation with is it Dr. Rodriguez or. Mr. Yeah. Yeah, Dr. Rodriguez.

And you know, he shared with me one of the concerns is that if your bill were to become law, you know, teachers, all teachers, would achieve the permanent status, but they would have to switch to the ironic situation of firing their teachers and then rehiring them every year. Maybe I should ask Dr.

Rodriguez, can you explain what could be a likely scenario of the outcome of this bill?

In one of the scenarios that I've had experience with, when we have CTE teachers from the industry that come in newly credentialed and you put them on campuses with teachers that have been there for maybe some single subject or multiple subject credentialed teachers who also have designated subject credentials.

The example that we talked about recently highlighted in the, in the Leo's report on CTE was that 23% of the CTE programs in the State of California are arts, media and entertainment industry sector. And that is a very common designated subject credential for a lot of single subject teachers.

So if I have an AME credentialed teacher coming from industry and I put them on a campus with somebody, you heard a teacher earlier for another Bill who is a physics and a math teacher who also has a CTE credential, if I'm bringing somebody from industry in and I pit them against somebody with a single subject and a designated subject, unless we've worked to make those competencies part of our job descriptions, and if we did, we're pitting that person with industry experience is not going to rise above the more senior teacher.

And I know that part of the opposition and the analysis, it states that we can write job rewrite job descriptions to highlight these competencies. But if we did, that puts at jeopardy, ironically puts at jeopardy those teachers who have been there for 16 or 17 years and also have a designated subject credential.

And if they're looking to fill that spot, I would have to have them reapply. So I think that's the scenario that we had discussed.

And so I would like to ask cta, I mean, your response, I mean, is this, you know, if the unintended potential unintended, would you agree that that may be an unintended consequence of the bill, that teachers would have to be asked to reapply for their jobs in order for these CTE programs which do not operate like our traditional public schools.

Okay.

One, would you agree that that is a potential unintended consequence? And two, would that be in the best interest of our teachers?

So in my family we have this phrase that begins, what had happened was so you know you're going to hear something strange or different than you expected. It is likely that there will be districts who feel that they have been put in the position of having to go through a scenario like that. But it all.

But the But I would proffer that's not necessarily necessary under current law.

And as before, I say that if you were to just simply Google frequently asked questions on permanent status, you would probably get a handbook published by the California Teachers Association, a handbook published by by the California Federation of Teachers that explains due process rights and permanent status and layoffs and bumping.

And you would see in there a very convoluted explanation about skipping and bumping and what is in the statute called a particular kind of service.

And in the scenario that is described here, districts have the flexibility under current law and it's not affected by this bill to create a particular kind of service in making decisions about layoffs and about faculty and staff based on their certification.

And based on their certification, they can skip over teachers who have different certifications if the applicable certification they need to teach a particular course meets the particular kind of defined service in the layoff descriptions and process that they write. That's what a particular kind of service allows for.

So the answer is yes, districts could find themselves in that scenario, but they should use the flexibility and have the advice of counsel to explain to them how to use the particular kind of service flexibility provided in the education code to avoid that scenario altogether.

Okay. And yes, you know, it's my understanding that existing code would allow for, as we discussed, Dr. Rodriguez, for job descriptions to be written very specifically to try to protect your need for flexibility to meet the changing demands of the local economy and the local workforce. Could you comment on that?

Yeah. In addition to that, I did want to respectfully respond. Some of those competencies and those certifications, especially coming from industry aren't always documented. One of the examples that we common that we commonly use is somebody with an automotive who has automotive experience.

But I have a body shop course or pathway isn't necessarily documented as body shop course or pathway. But if I have a teacher who is an automotive technician, they still have the same credential designated subject credentials work like that. The specializations aren't written into that.

Now, in terms of rewriting job descriptions on an annual basis, that's not work that we're afraid of. It becomes insurmountable, though, with we referred to California a little while ago as a State of innovation and with innovative job market and labor demands.

That's a constant redoing of job descriptions that frankly and inversely and ironically would make a teacher who got this job two years ago with new job description in two years have to reapply again. So we're back in that scenario. That's the that would be my response.

Okay.

Mr. Chair. Yes. Again, I feel fully equipped and I hope I can inspire confidence as a 30 year public employee who's been on the employee side and the management side to navigate this with the opposition and CTA to figure out a space that we can work.

You said it perfectly that education is, you know, in a trisection of a new model. And a new model starts with a new process. And so I would ask that as all this talent that's in this room to start looking at education issues. We have to start looking at how we are educating the next workforce.

And so I think this is a step and I'm committed to working with all the stakeholders in this to bring a bill that addresses some of these concerns that we can run scenarios all day, but I'd be happy to work with our community partners in figuring out a path how this model would work.

Thank you. I appreciate that. You know, I am supporting the bill to, to move the bill forward, keep this conversation going.

But I do believe, you know, based on my experience, that if you have, you know, small school districts, rural school districts, as well as our ROCPs, saying that this is going to, you know, lead to many unintended consequences. You know, you're going to have to deal with the possibility of your bill being vetoed.

And you know, that's not what any of us want to see. So again, I support permanent status, but I want to make sure that we can keep our rural schools, our small schools, and our ROCPs running. So, any further comments from the Committee?

Would you like to close?

Just. Thank you for the consideration. You have my commitment that I will work with all our community partners. And I appreciate an Aye vote on this. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Motion's been made and seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll file.

Item 15, AB917. The motion is due pass. [Roll Call]

Five votes. We'll keep the roll open. Thank you. Thank.

All right, what's next? I see a Seattle Seahawk in the audience. Mr. Valencia. Okay, you have two bills. I'll leave it up to you which one you want to present first.

Appreciate that, Mr. Chair. Buenas tardes. Can we please start with AB 378?

Okay, that is file item number two, AB 378.

Thank you, sir. AB 378 seeks to extend eligibility for participation in the Classified School Employee Summer Assistance Program to employees of joint powers authorities. This change will ensure that all classified school employees who provide transportation, nutrition, special needs and other vital services are treated equally regardless of their place of employment.

Many classified school employees work less than 12 months due to the length of a typical school year averaging around 9 to 10 months. Understanding this challenge, the legislature established the Summer Assistance Program to backfill the months of unemployment. However, the definition of "local educational agency" excluded employees of JPAs.

Since JPA employees are not included in the Summer Assistance Program, they do not have the safeguards as their counterparts in traditional school districts, leaving them vulnerable to financial hardship. I'd like to have a moment for Ms. Navnit Puryear to provide some testimony.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Navnit Puryear and I'm here on behalf of the California School Employees Association, a union representing more than 250,000 classified public school employees across the state.

CSEA is a proud sponsor of AB 378, which would fix an inequity in existing law that prevents classified staff employed by joint powers authorities from participating in the Classified School Employee Summer Assistance Program, also known as CSESAP.

Since 2018, CSESAP has proven to be a critical lifeline for classified school employees during the summer months when work is unavailable. The program allows low wage classified school employees to set aside up to 10% of their pay during the school year to receive up to a dollar for dollar match from the state during the summer.

This is crucial for our members because they are ineligible to receive Unemployment Insurance during the summer and it's often difficult to find temporary work for just one or two months. JPAs, like school districts, may employ classified staff for less than 11 months to serve the needs of our students during the school year.

For example, JPA classified workers provide school transportation, prepare healthy school meals, and support students with disabilities. AB 378 is a simple parity built to ensure that all eligible classified school employees have the opportunity to participate in CSESAP. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Tristan Brown of the CFT on behalf of our Council of Classified School Employees. We emphatically support this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Elmer Lizardi, on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any questions or comments? Move. Seconded. Any questions or comments? Thank you very much, Mr. Valencia. Happy to support your bill. Would you like to close?

On a personal note, just wanted to share that my mother was a CSCA member and, of course, a classified employee back home for 29 years. And both my brother and I and our family benefited from this exact program.

So I do believe that every classified employee should have a chance at this program. With that, I respectfully ask for a yes vote.

All right, thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 2, AB 378, the motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

All right, the Bill has five votes. Next you have file item 21, AB 1224.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And once again, buenas tardes to all Committee Members. I first want to start off by thanking Chelsea for her work on this Bill.

AB 1224 aims to provide greater continuity to students whose teachers are out of the classroom for an extended period of time by allowing a substitute teacher to serve in the classroom for up to 60 days.

Recent amendments ensure that districts employ an individual with an intern credential, an emergency credential, or temporary permit of statutory leave before using the 60 day sub authorization. California continues to face an unprecedented teacher workforce shortage which has exacerbated the need for substitutes.

While this legislation does not solve the teacher shortage, it is an interim step to support our schools until longer term solutions can be implemented and take effect. In addition, it will provide stability for students in the classroom which leads to educational success. With me to provide testimony is Dr.

Dustin Gacherieu, Director of Human Resources at Castro Valley Unified School District, and Alida Fisher, school board Member for the San Francisco Unified School District.

Well, good afternoon, honorable chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Dr. Dustin Gacherieu and I've been a public educator with the Castro Valley Unified School District for 21 years, serving as a teacher, principal, and currently as Director of Human resources.

Today, I'm also representing the 18,000 administrators of the Association of California School Administrators urging you to create more continuity for kids by voting aye on AB 1224. California schools are facing significant staffing challenges, and this bill is needed to reduce the churn of subs. Let me share an example why?

This year three teachers in our district were suddenly diagnosed with cancer, needed to begin treatment, and with hours notice needed to be on medical leave for several months. We immediately placed 30 day subs in the classroom while we searched for fully credentialed substitutes.

However, 30 days is not long enough to advertise, select, clear and have a fully credentialed sub start in the class. Because of the current 30 day limit, these students will have at least three different subs while their teacher is on medical leave and that's if we can find a fully credentialed sub.

These situations are even more challenging in special education classrooms. When a special ed teacher goes on leave, we struggle to find a sub with that background since anyone with that expertise is likely already in a teaching position.

What results Is students in the special education environment experiencing the most turnover and the least continuity since the current 20 day limit for special ed on subs will on substitutes results in even more staff rotation. In Castro Valley, we are trying to add continuity by deploying a bridging strategy in special ed settings where we allow the incoming and outgoing subs to overlap in the classroom to provide a warm handoff for students. During the pandemic

the flexibility helped provide greater continuity to students. The passage of AB 1224 would prioritize student success by granting more continuity by greatly reducing the number of times we need to cycle out subs. Thank you and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Good afternoon, Chair. Excuse me, Chair Muratsuchi and the Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today on this very important measure. My name is Alida Fisher, and I'm a school board Member for the San Francisco Unified School District and a CSBA delegate for Region 5A. In San Francisco

we serve approximately 49,000 students, more than half of whom qualify for free and reduced meals. We have an unduplicated people count of just over 60%.

As you know, like many other districts and county office of EDs across the state, we were facing serious workforce shortage challenges prior to the pandemic, and since the pandemic, the shortage has become a Crisis. In the 23-24 school year, we began with 20% of our classroom teacher positions not filled.

In both the 22-23 and 23-24 school years, 15% of classrooms were staffed by either substitute teachers or teachers on special assignments. Like my colleagues beside me in San Francisco, we strive to identify, recruit, retain qualified staff. However, the challenges are real and omnipresent.

From the cost of housing to the high cost of living in San Francisco to the financial debt many newly minted teachers carry. These are significant barriers districts like mine face on a daily basis when working to recruit teachers to serve in our schools.

So what we did in San Francisco was in October of 2023, we authorized historic raises for teachers in PARAS. We built teacher housing, and still, we had 90 openings for teachers at the beginning of the school year. And still, Today, we have 200 substitute teachers actively working in our schools.

So while we greatly appreciate the investments the state has made to increase funding and expand resources to attract more people into the profession, they are sorely needed and very welcome right now. But we need help to respond to the staffing shortages we face right now.

While school districts and county offices of ed strive to put credentialed and qualified teachers in every classroom, substitute teachers fill an important role to help serve and educate our students. Allowing substitute teachers to serve in a single classroom foR up to 60 days is a matter of consistency.

Instructional consistency in classroom stability benefits everyone, especially our students, and it is far better than our current reality. So for these and other reasons, I respectfully request your AYE vote on AB 1224. Thank you very much.

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

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members Carlos Rojas, representing the Kern County Superintendent of Schools office and the 46 school districts in Kern County. As the witness testified earlier, continuity is critical, for student success and for that reason, we support this Bill.

Serette Kaminski on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators as a proud co-sponsor.

Good afternoon. Brianna Brens, on behalf of the California County superintendents, also a proud co-sponsor. We urge your support. Thank you.

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

Michelle Algail on behalf of California Association Of School Business Officials. proud co-sponsors urging an aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Andrea Ball here on behalf of three organizations in support. The Orange County Department of Education, the Orange County School District Superintendents Organization representing the 28 district superintendents and the California Association of Suburban School Districts.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Magaly Zagal with SELP administrators in support.

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

Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified School District in support.

Lee Angela Reid, on behalf of the Small School Districts Association. Thank you.

Caitlin Zhang, on behalf of the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools in support.

Isabella Farland, on behalf of the School Employers Association of California in support.

Sasha Horowitz, Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Michelle Underwood, on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education and the Torrance Unified School District in support.

Leticia Garcia, on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, in support. As well as the 23 school district Superintendents in Riverside County. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Daniel Thigpen, on behalf of the San Juan Unified School District, 65 schools, 39,000 students and 6,000 staff and educators in support of this Bill and continuity of learning for our students. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Adam Kwan, on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association and support.

All right, any witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

Good afternoon. Chairman Mersucci, Members of the Committee. John Affeldt from Public Advocates, been working on teacher quality issues and equity in California now for 33 years and 20 years ago was one of the lead counsel on the Williams v.

California case, which and responsible for the teacher quality aspects of that case, one of which was an effort to end the issue of rolling substitutes in California. And it is a requirement under the ED Code now for districts to have permanent substitutes, at least minimally certified teachers in their classrooms for the entire year.

And that settlement legislation was agreed to by the School Boards Association as well as the Schwarzenegger Administration and a broad cross section of interest holders. We urge you to oppose this Bill. We see that when there are teacher shortages, as Linda Darling Hammond has written, we see states lowering standards and that's not the right response.

When there are teacher shortages. We need to expand pipelines and we need to figure out ways to get more fully prepared teachers in our classroom for the whole year. Not 60 days, not 30 days, the whole year. And so we would urge you to resist this Bill. It makes life easier for districts, no doubt about it.

We just saw a parade of districts attest to that. But it is a poor teacher quality that will result for students. Substitutes are not qualified to be educators long term. They're caretakers. We appreciate the role they play. I was a school board President. I understand we need to get subs and we.

We paid our subs more so we could compete for them. It's. But substitutes only have a ba Any BA it's not necessarily a BA in the subject matter that they are substituting for.

Substitutes don't have any pedagogical training to teach English learners, to even teach the subject matter they're teaching, much less the special students, like English learners who have additional needs, special ed students who have additional needs. They are caretakers in the classroom and we shouldn't be expanding the time for them. Districts.

The Bill requires districts or recites the 44225.7 in the ED code there's a hiring hierarchy. You're not supposed to be asking for waivers or going to subs unless you can certify there's not a fully prepared teacher available. That doesn't happen. That doesn't. I'm currently locked in litigation with West Contra Costa.

Lip Service gets paid to that hiring hierarchy. And districts very easily go down to substitutes and start filling. Even though there may be dozens or hundreds in the case of certain districts of fully prepared teachers who are not in teaching positions, they're in non teaching positions or their administrators in the district office.

We saw when the new Superintendent came into LAUSD 2022, he transferred 700 people from the district office to classroom positions because he's like, we can't have all these subs in here all the time. We need districts to prioritize getting fully prepared teachers in those classrooms before going to the easy solution of a sub.

And we're not going to solve things by doubling the time for students to be exposed to not qualified educators. There are existing mechanisms in place in the Ed Code to address the worst problems. We supported Public Advocates and helped craft the stipsil, the short term permit for statutory leave that deals with the kind of Castro Valley situation.

There are waivers in the code that require districts to go to the state on a case by case basis and show this is the person who's the best available. We've tried everything and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing reviews those requests and says, okay, you've made a good hardship case here. Here's your waiver.

The person could maybe teach a semester, could maybe teach for the whole year. That's better than 60 days. The waiver process, the SPSL process, we have existing mechanism to deal. On the other hand, the solutions really are what the administration's trying to do by expanding the pipeline. With $300 million in the budget.

We would suggest the author and this Committee consider allowing retired teachers to teach at least for a whole year without a hit to their stirs. That's a big pool out there that's prepared and available. Those are the kinds of solutions we would recommend. And this we would respectfully request. You opposed? Because we are opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Public comments in opposition to the Bill, seeing none, bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Chair Hoover, Vice Chair Hoover.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. Appreciate. You know, I actually understand the opposition's concerns. I think you probably both align on the goal to increase and improve the teacher pipeline. I think we all want to do that.

I think the challenge with the concerns that I heard from the opposition is that it's not really comparing what is happening within the status quo to reality where in reality you may have a 30 day substitute get replaced by another 30 day substitute, not necessarily a qualified credentialed teacher.

And I think that's what this Bill is trying to resolve. I think in the absence or until we can improve that pipeline, it's really critical that our students have that continuity in the classroom. This is obviously, as the author pointed out, not a long term solution, but it is an important solution. So in the meantime. So I'll be supporting the Bill today. Thank you.

Any further questions or comments? Motions are made and seconded. Thank you. Well, actually, before I turn over to you, Mr. Valencia, Mr. Affeldt, I always appreciate your perspective and for always challenging us to do better, whether it's the school bond or whether it's this issue. I mean, would you. What is your response to.

I mean, I think we're just trying to make the best of a bad situation here that we have this critical teacher shortage and you know, it doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the kids that we know you're fighting for to have constantly changing substitute teachers.

And so I know it's not the ideal situation, but is your concern that we're taking the relieving the pressure off all of our efforts to address the teacher shortage?

Yes, on a macro and the micro level. And we think it's a false Hobson's choice to say, well, either we're going to have three sets of 60 day subs for the 180 day school year or if we don't do this Bill, then we're going to have six sets of 30 day subs.

So it's rolling subs either way, which is not legal under Williams, but it's not. We think that's a false choice. It's like either this really bad option or that bad option. And we think that the solution is to require the district to use its better options because that's not happening.

They're not going to down their roster of who do we have who could fulfill this classroom vacancy for the next 6090100 days? zero, you know, we have this person in this role who's not teaching. That's too bad. But we gotta.

We gotta move them into the teaching position because that is the primary mission and that is the primary duty, according to the ed code, is the teaching position. So that. So that's. So we refute the, I guess, premise that, you know, it's one bad or the other bad.