Senate Standing Committee on Education

Morning. Welcome to our first hearing this year. There are eight bills on today's agenda. We do not have any bills on consent today. Witnesses may be asked to limit their testimony to two minutes to ensure the Committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. Seeing no quorum or seeing. Well, we do have seeing no quorum. Let's begin as a Subcommitee with the first Bill. Our first Bill is going to be SB 60, right? First Bill is SB 60 by Senator Seyarto. Thank you.

Well, thank you Chair and Committee Members for hearing SB60 this morning. SB60 is a clarifying Bill on the intent of the Legislature for the Calvet Fee Waiver program and the California Military Department GI Bill. Both benefits are for California veterans.

The Calvet Fee Waiver is a benefit for spouses and children of disabled veterans, while the California GI Bill is the California National Guard veterans who have served their required years and fulfilled other criteria.

Unfortunately, some of our public universities have dissected the language of the Calvet Fee Waiver program and used an unintended loophole to deny this benefit to our veterans families for specific degree programs.

This Bill came to me through one of my own veteran constituents who believed there was a mistake when their child was denied the Calvet fee waiver while trying to attend a public University for a bachelor's degree in Wildfire Science and their son wanted to be a firefighter, thus me sticking up for him.

In investigating the issue, we found that extended education degree programs are not included in the definition of mandatory system wide tuition and fees and were therefore being denied. These extended education programs are self funded and unique to individual campuses, hence the use of the loophole of system wide tuition and fees.

In researching this issue under the Calvet Fee waiver, it came to my attention that a similar issue was happening in the application of the California GI Bill for extended education courses at CSUs.

I found that some CSUs did not offer eligibility to National Guard veterans under their GI Bill since extended education courses had a different admission requirement from regular enrollment. Under the UC and community college systems, extended education is limited to certification and licensing classes, largely used by the adult population shifting their careers.

It is uniquely under the CSU system that these extended education programs also host full degree programs. Seeing that these programs can cover much more than degrees, this Bill is narrowly tailored to only cover undergraduate extended education degree programs.

I did this to keep and clarify the original intent of the Legislature in creating the calphit Fee waiver and the California GI Bill. It's time that we close the loophole that is denying benefits intended to provide a free public education to these specific populations.

SB60 will solidify the intent of this Legislature in the Calvet fee waiver program for the families of our disabled veterans and clarify the coverage of the California GI Bill for our National Guard veterans. And I have. I do not have any witnesses today, so we'll start out right quick.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing as you don't have any witnesses and there are. Are there any witnesses here in the room? And support. Seeing as there's none. Do we have any witnesses in the room in opposition? Okay. We will now bring the discussion back to the Members. Do any of our Members have questions or comments?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Senator. I'm grateful for this Bill. You know, it's interesting when we. You know, it is truly, when we say that it is the constituents who actually bring the ideas and the issues to the forefront, things that we would actually not know that were loopholes.

So grateful for the constituent that brought this measure or this idea forward. And I want to thank you for. For bringing this measure forward for us to be able to really fix an issue that had not been addressed. And I'm surprised, but grateful to support the Bill. And when the time is appropriate, Madam Chair would like to make a motion to move the measure forward.

Great. Thank you, Senator. Senator Seyarto, would you like to close?

No, you know, if there's no other questions, I just simply ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. I also want to note that we do have a quorum now, so we'll go ahead and call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. Do we have a motion on SB 60. Thank you. The Bill has been moved by Senator Ochoa Bogue. The motion is do pass to the Senate Military and Veterans Affairs Committee Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

So we will go ahead and put that Bill on call. So, Senator Seyarto, seeing as you have SB6 7 next, we'll go ahead and have you start when you're ready to present that Bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members again, and thank you for hearing SB 67. So SB 67 ensures equitable access to California's higher education system for California military families.

Specifically, the Bill clarifies that if a Member of the Armed Forces of the United States is stationed outside of California for active duty, but maintains their legal residency here, their dependents shall be eligible for the state's financial aid programs.

California law does not currently extend eligibility to these individuals even though these families maintain legal residencies and pay taxes to the state. Furthermore, California already recognizes these dependents for in state tuition, so why would we not recognize them for state grant eligibility? These families are just as much part of our state as everyone else.

It is fitting that we ensure these families have equitable education, access and opportunity for their children. They should not have to pay for any more of a price for the service than the sacrifices for the freedom they have already made voluntarily. So I would respectfully ask for I vote when the time comes.

Great. Thank you. Senator, do you have any lead witnesses here?

Okay. No, we didn't have any lead witnesses with us this morning.

Thank you. Now let's hear from any other support witnesses here in room 2100. Is there anybody here? Yes, Please use the microphone.. Excellent. Great. Anybody else? Do we have any opposition witnesses here in room 2100?

Okay, seeing as we have none, we will now bring the discussion back to the Members. Do any of our Members have questions or comments? Yes, Senator Choi and then Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you Senator for presenting your two bills related to veterans benefits in California. I'm so glad that you have discovered these problems in the presenting. Myself, I presented several veteran related bills when I was in the Assembly.

If this particular Bill is your first Bill passes to a wave tuition for extended education programs, then it wouldn't be matter whether they are residents or not. The first Bill, does it require residency or any veteran with a veteran status, if they enroll in California State University or UC systems, their fees will be waived.

Can you clarify the difference if the first one passes? Sounds like any veteran can benefit regardless of whether they are residents or not. But this one you are specifying the families who have established the residency in California, then their tuition should apply for the in state benefits.

The first one you're talking about does establish does require residency.

So the first Bill also requires a residence? Yes, as well. So only California veterans.

Yes. This Bill just relates to if they get. If you have an active duty person that gets. This is unrelated to the first one.

Senator Choi, I just want to remind you our questions and conversation needs to remain on SB 67, not SB 60. We already voted on that.

That's what I'm Trying to clarify.

If you, if you could keep your motivations focused on 67, that'd be appreciated. Great. Next we have Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you. Madam Chair. I think we have a question for, for CSU, because I, I didn't see UC come up at all in there. I know in the analysis it indicated that UC hadn't provided background information. I'm trying to understand what this Bill actually does.

So existing law requires residency for these programs, but residency not in the dictionary sense of that term. It does not require that you are physically present in California. Residency for financial aid purposes is a term of art that depends on both where you physically are, but also what your long term intent is.

And financial aid offices and counselors have the ability to exercise their professional judgment in that way.

So my understanding, I represent Travis Air Force Base and lots of folks in this situation, but all of them are receiving their Cal Grants because if they are dependent and their parent is stationed in another location, and as the Bill says, and I'm sorry, let's see, otherwise maintains California as their State of residence, even if they're not physically present, that they're already continuing to receive their financial aid, including the Cal grant.

CSU is in support of the Bill. Could you describe sort of what will this Bill mean in terms of your actual practices?

I apologize, Senator. My colleague Maggie White is our financial aid expert and she's out sick. So I was just stepping in to provide support and Committee, but I can have her reach out and connect with your office on your question. Okay, thank you.

All right. I think the analysis raises this at least hints at this question as well. So I mean, a plain reading of the law, I understand why it would cause you, cause us to think that we needed to change the law. I'm going to vote for the Bill, but I do think it is. It is it. There is no actual change to practice that will emerge from this. It is because as I indicated, it is already the case.

And if there are any folks that are in the audience or watching us and you're worried that you might not be eligible for a Cal Grant because you're a parent or otherwise, or otherwise a caregiver happens to have been stationed at another location, you are absolutely continuing to be eligible for residency status in the Cal Grant program. This Bill would simply make a clarifying change to mark that, that what is already the universal practice in higher education is also explicit in the law.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. Oh, yeah, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I'm, I, I'd love To have through the chair an opportunity to hear from the. From the author as to why this Bill was needed in the first place. If there is something already in place, would love to have an opportunity to have hear from the author if possible.

There is some question as to whether the Bill currently extends to this eligibility to individuals that maintain legal status here but are stationed elsewhere. So in the second part of what I My comments, I said specifically, this Bill clarifies that. So it's just a clarifying Bill. Ensure exactly what Mr. Cabodon was talking about, that everybody interprets it the same way.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto, would you like to close?

No, I simply ask for an aye vote. And I appreciate your consideration for this Bill.

Great. Thank you. Do we have a motion on SB67? We have a motion by Senator Cabaldin. The motion is do pass to the Senate Military and Veterans Affairs Affairs Committee. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We will put that Bill on call.

Thank you.

Great. So, seeing as we have a quorum, we'll go ahead and adopt our Committee rules and curriculum policy. At this time, all Members have been afforded the opportunity to review the rules and curriculum policy. Members, is there an objection to adopting the Committee rules and curriculum policy? Seeing no objection, the rules and curriculum policy are adopted. Great.

Next up, we have SB 64 by Senator Grove. Welcome, Senator Grove. You may begin when you are ready.

Thank you, Ms. Chair, colleagues, today I'm here to present SB 64, which establishes the California Education Flex Account act of 2025. California was once the leader in K12 education, a model for the rest of the nation. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.

Despite spending roughly $25,000 per student, which is $1,800 more per student than the national average, California now ranks 37th in the academic achievement of K12 students. Our public education system is deficient for far too many of our children. Too many students are struggling to meet even the minimal education standards, a problem that may impact their entire future.

We need bold action to give every child the greatest opportunity for upward mobility and success. That's why I'm here today, to give parents and students real options in education. The sad reality is students are forced to attend an underperforming school simply because of their zip code.

Instead, we should be giving every opportunity to every child for the best education opportunity possible, no matter where they live. We Know that school choice works nationwide. We've seen results today. 29 states and Washington D.C.

have private school choice programs that identify gaps in their child's education and this identify gaps in their child's education and pursue alternative solutions to meet their needs. And that's what this Bill will allow them to do.

The truth is that when given a choice, black and Hispanic students from poor neighborhoods that are able to attend alternative public schools outperform their counterparts in traditional public schools. Statistics show that 52%. 52% of the top public high schools for Low income Latino students are charter schools. 80%. That's 80.

80% of the top public middle schools for Low income black and black students in math are charter schools. That's 80%. The students have the most to gain from this school choice are the students I just mentioned above. When trapped in Low performing schools just because of their zip code, the results are expected Low results.

When given choice to attend alternative schools tailored to the student's needs, they thrive critically. SB64 is not taking money from public from the public money, excuse me, taking public money away from schools.

Rather, it allows parents to use a portion of their own taxpayer dollars that they pay into the system to benefit child's education in a way that they see fit. California should embrace this proven solution. SB64 will establish a California Education Flex account providing the individualized approach to K12 education.

Under this Bill, parents will have the ability to select an accredited school that best suits their child's needs in the direct portion of their students Proposition 98 funding. Specifically, the Education Flex account will provide $8,000 for tuition and other educational expenses. And the special education account will cover $16,000 for those students with special needs.

To cover tuitions and related cost. Both funds must be used within the school year. Any unused funds will go back to the General Fund Support K through 12 education crossed education across the state. This Bill empowers parents to take control of their child's education, ensuring underserved students are no longer trapped in low performing schools.

Instead, they'll have the opportunity to pursue quality education needs that meets their unique learning styles. Our children have endured enough over the past few years. Let's prioritize programs that put our students first and provide educational opportunities to prepare them for great success in our future. Our future depends on it.

With me here today is to testify is William Reuch. He's a passionate Los Angeles educator with nearly 20 years experience teaching civics to high school students across the city in diverse communities beyond the classroom.

He hosts a Cylinder Radio podcast and recently launched a Padderbox online platform to teach students how to critically think and engage their curiosity in middle and high school programs. That gives them an opportunity to think logically as they move into the real world.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Grove. We will now move on to your lead witnesses and support. So just the one. . Okay. The two lead witnesses here today. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Dear Committee, Dear Members of the Committee, My name is Will Reuch and I've been a classroom teacher in Los Angeles for the past 18 years, teaching in both public and private schools. Having worked with students from diverse backgrounds, I've seen firsthand the transformative impact that school choice can have on a child's education.

When I taught in public school, I had 48 students in my class. When I transitioned to private school, that number dropped to 20. The hard working students struggled to learn because the more disruptive students took up my bandwidth. But due to their financial situation, they were stuck and their frustration grew.

That's just one of many examples of how private schools often provide a more effective learning environment, offering students the individualized attention that they need to thrive. I firmly believe that families should have the freedom to choose the educational setting that best aligns with their child's needs and their values.

Parents understand what environment will help their child succeed, yet far too many families are unable to afford better educational opportunities. As a result, low income families are often restricted to their local public schools, many of which are underperforming and failing to meet the students needs.

We would never mandate that families shop exclusively at their neighborhood grocery store, denying them access to higher quality food in a different area. Yet that is exactly what happens with education. Children are forced to attend a school based on their zip code rather than their potential.

SB64 seeks to change that by providing financial assistance to families and additional support for students with special needs. This Bill is not about undermining public education. It is about ensuring that every child, regardless of socioeconomic status, has access to the best possible education.

I have witnessed how private schools often provide superior academic support and all students, regardless of income, deserve that same opportunity. California's public education system is struggling and quality schools should not be a privilege reserved only for the wealthy. For these reasons, I stand in strong support of SB64 and urge its passage. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Ms. Chair. My next witness is Lance Christianson. He's a Senior Fellow at California Public Policy Center, President of the Public of the California Policy Partners, and has over 20 years in public Policy experience today as California families demand greater choice in schools. Lance is a seventh generation Californian. He's a husband, a father of five, and a dedicated advocate for empowering parents for improving education across our state.

Thank you, Senator, Chair and Vice Chair. So good to be with you as well as Members many of you have worked with for many years on this issue. California has school choice for the really wealthy.

And I know this as a father of five, all who are in the public school system for the time as they were growing up in a Sacramento school district not far from here, all of our kids were going to the same school district as the governor's kids. Well, actually not really.

He lived in the district, but he sent his kids to a private school for $40,000 a year, which is great and wonderful. And I don't, I'm not angry about his choice. He had that choice. Yet many school children in that same district don't have the same opportunity.

And in fact, when the school denied opportunities for my oldest son to take the psat, when they allowed bullying for my second son, when they didn't provide any special services for my youngest or my oldest daughter for her speech needs, we exercised our ability to make school of Choice and moved 45 miles north of Sacramento to provide another good public school opportunity.

Had we had the opportunity for extra resources, we probably would have taken them and stayed in the area and continued to love our community in Sacramento. But many families don't have this choice in your areas. In LA and other places, they struggle because they are forced to go to a school simply because it's in their neighborhood.

Teachers also have school choice. If they don't like a school, they can move, and they do often. And so we just hope that parents can have the same opportunity. This does not deprive schools of funding any more than Gavin Newsom and his decision to send kids to another school deprives that school district of their funds. And so we ask for your support of SB 64. Thank you.

Great. Thank you for your presentations. Now let's hear from any other support witnesses here in room 2100. If you all could please use the microphone outside of the railing.

Samara Palko, California Catholic Conference and strong support.

Nicole Young, Placer County Chapter Chair, Moms for Liberty support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Tom Sheehy representing the Orange County Board of Education. We don't have a position yet. They're going to take this up for vote on April 2, but we wanted. To thank the author for her persistence and her willingness to work with parents on Other ways to finance public education. Thank you.

Good morning. Amber Arias, mom army and support.

Good morning. Good morning. Sikh Smith, founder of mom and Dad Army. I am in full support of SB 64.

Good morning. Jessica Enos with Mom army representing Antelope Valley and Tehachapi. And I am in full support of SB 64.

Good morning. Committee Rocky Rhodes, I am an elected. City councilman from City of Simi Valley. And I also represent the Children's Education Opportunity act and we are in full support of this.

Good morning. My name is Sabrina Williams. I am Mom Army Sacramento and Placer. We are in full support.

Good morning. I'm Courtney with Mom army in Natomas and this is my daughter Riley. We're in full support.

Good morning. Florentina De Janaro, mom of three in private school with mom army in full support.

Good morning. Mary Little, Kern County Superintendent of Schools Trustee, full support.

Natalie Feinberg, mom, grandma, educator and founder of current Citizens for Freedom, in full support.

Linda Willis, President of Bakersfield Republican Women. Full support.

Deacon John Wilson, Education Enrichment Director for West Angeles Church in Los Angeles. That's truly equity proof for our youth and equity instruction proof our youth and give them the right education and stand in full support along with our church and our trustee board.

I just want to remind folks name, organization and position only so we can hear from everyone.

Alison Mino, out of. Excuse me, Oceanside, California and parent advocate, but also here representing Let Them Learn in full support. Thank you.

Good morning. Laurie Eskew, Kern County Board of Education Trustee.

Good morning. Jeanette Beeson, Realtor in Sacramento, San Joaquin. Stanislaus and Kern. county. Full support. Also founder of the River Resource Group. Full support. Shannon Grove.

Sari Dominguez, chapter chair, Moms. For Liberty, Santa Barbara county, full support. Vicki Reinke, Calaveras County Republican Central Committee, in full support.

Good morning. Marissa Forte of College Republicans at Sacramento. State, in full support.

Good morning. Mercy Pena, Greenfield Union School District in. Bakersfield, California in full support.

Thank you. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. If there are any here today. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us, okay?

Good. Is it off? Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Navnit Puryear, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in respectful opposition. CSEA has had a long opposed. History has long opposed efforts like this one to establish private school vouchers and divert taxpayer dollars away from our democratically governed public school schools.

The Legislature over the decades has passed hundreds of laws to support students with disabilities, to ensure that hungry students are Fed and to protect students from discrimination. Passing this Bill would mean providing public funding to private schools that do not need to comply with laws that we've passed.

For example, to provide universal free school meals to or free transportation to foster youth and homeless youth. And in many cases, this would mean funding religious education with taxpayer dollars. In Arizona, where an education savings account program was recently implemented, more than 75% of initial voucher applicants had never enrolled in public schools.

Another study in Arizona found that families in the wealthiest, most advantaged communities obtain savings account funds at the highest rates. Especially now, as California faces a budgetary uncertainty, subsidizing private school tuition for wealthy families should not be on the table.

This Bill would take billions of dollars away from public education, leaving the most marginalized students behind in underfunded classrooms. So for these reasons and many more, we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses in opposition that would like to speak? Okay, so we will go. zero, actually, yes. Great. We have Tristan Brown here from the California Federation of Teachers.

All right, thank you, Madam Chair. Members, Tristan Brown with CFT Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. Happy to hop in here and also express our opposition to this policy. We noticed that there have been advancements in what is being attempted here, and we recognize that not every school is perfect.

We'd like to work together to ensure that that can happen for every student in California. The way to not do that is to take public funds away from the state that would go to public schools to make achievement better and segregate them for other private institutions. School choice is a choice for those schools.

They have the ability to reject students for any reason they wish because they're private. This is not something that will elevate all. This is something that will segregate our students further and. And separate the opportunities that are presented for some other than others. Rather than moving these public funds into private hands, we think we should reverse course.

As a state, we should be looking at those who have been destroying our government on the national level and tax billionaires to Fund schools so that we can pave them in Gold and every child should have the opportunity they can to succeed.

This is a perfectly eligible policy for the state to have, and we've done it as voters in the past to increase income taxes on ourselves to help pay for schools with Prop 30 and Prop 55. This is something that is overwhelmingly supported by voters across the state.

We want more money for education and we should all work together to improve every single public school option possible rather than taking public dollars and making them for the select few. For those reasons, we oppose this policy. And thank the author and thank the Committee for your Time.

Great. Thank you. So are there any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside the railing. And a reminder, please only state your name, organization and position on the Bill. Great. So we will go ahead and move on then. Thank you to all our support and opposition witnesses. We will now bring the discussion back to the Members. Do any of our Members have questions or comments? Senator Caboldan?

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair, and appreciate all the other folks who've made the trek for the hearing today and the author for her continuing work on collaborating to improve education in California. There are a few concerns about the Bill, both in the macro scale and the micro one.

And I think today's hearing has been mostly teed up as a battle between choice and money. And those are not unimportant issues, but they're not the principal ones for me. We do already have substantial options for choice within the public school system. I grew up going to the first magnet school in all of California myself.

The charter school movement, as Senator Grove, as the author mentioned, the charter schools also provide lots and lots of choice opportunities, but they do so within the framework of the public system and in the democratic governance and the very significant regulations and oversight that we have here.

And so the data that was provided around charter school achievement, it doesn't really apply in this case because charter schools are fully public schools. And the evidence here is very mixed on the big picture. And I think I'm being charitable here. So when Louisiana adopted the same approach, vouchers plus.

And by plus we mean cost beyond tuition and fees, student achievement declined by. Here's a. I'm a college Professor, so here's by 0.4 deviations. That doesn't mean anything. But student achievement nationally due to Covid declined by 0.25.

So student achievement declined by 50% more after the introduction of this educational savings account voucher program in Louisiana than it did from all of the school closures from. From COVID and So, and we're seeing results like that around the country.

Students that return to the public school system, because most of them, a majority who leave the public schools under a voucher system and go to a non public school, a majority of them end up returning to public schools.

And some research shows that they are, they are improving their achievement upon return to the public schools by as much as 20%. And so the notion that it's a question of, you know, we can get higher quality over here, but it's going to cost the public school system money is not, that's not the reality.

The reality is it's a very mixed bag and it's the reason why we have school boards in the first place and all of the policies that make sure that student achievement for all is really put at the center.

So I think the larger question around whether or not this is the right policy for me is still the evidence isn't there. The Constitution is there. The Constitution makes it clear that this is not allowed. California Constitution very, very clearly says that you cannot, that you can't do this.

California's constitution is the strongest in the country on that question. So I think that, you know, obviously that's a, that's a key, key issue. But the other is the fiscal one after the SB 64 doesn't require accreditation. It requires either accreditation.

And accreditation is simply the means by which schools look at each other and say, hey, are you like, are you passing the smell test of being a decent institution? That's what accreditation is for. We all rely upon it.

But SB64 simply requires that you either be accredited or that you have an application pending for accreditation and have never been rejected or been unaccredited before. That's a very broad net.

And in fact, in other states where these kinds of policies have been enacted, those states have seen hundreds and in some cases thousands of pop up schools emerging once these funds are put into place.

Pop up, schools start popping up all over the place, apply for accreditation and receive this money with 0 oversight from either the public sector or from the accreditation system. So it isn't surprising that we're seeing some of those results in terms of declining student achievement. And I guess the last piece is just fiscal, which is the this is a vouchers plus piece.

We haven't really emphasized that much in the hearing, but that means it includes books, school supplies and equipment, tutoring, special ed, transportation to and school from school and school functions, which we don't guarantee that last one for even all public school students.

And so I think the potential fiscal exposure to the people of California, not just, as the analysis points out, not just to the traditional public schools.

Because this Bill by, by, by providing funding for students who are not currently in public schools at all would dramatically increase the cost to the overall General Fund and that is to our health clinics, to our public safety, to our prisons, to everything else in state government as well.

So this is not just a shift from the public schools to the, to, to private schools. It is that. But because it applies to everyone, regardless of where you're currently enrolled, it also would have dramatic unsustainable fiscal consequences for everything else that California Taxpayers Fund in the state. And so those reasons, I'm sorry, I can't, I can't support the Bill today. And I would urge a no vote.

Thank you Senator Cabaldon, Senator Choi and then Senator Cortese.

Okay, thank you Senator Grove for bringing up this issue. School voucher system has been around for a long time.

As far as my memory goes, about 26 years ago when I ran for school board in Irvine, parents asked me one of the questions why if I would support the school vouchers system and all the candidates there were 10 of them, nine of them all answered no, they don't support that.

And I was the only one brave enough to say yes, I would support that. Why are you afraid of the voucher system which is a school choice? In other words, like a school we are so proud in Irvine as good schools. Not necessarily all the private schools are better than public schools.

And this will give public schools to be better, to be more competitive and keep the students in. So this is the notion is that the public schools will lose students. This is simply providing the option for the parents for them to choose based upon their evaluation and the circumstances.

So that's the way I answered and was a very brave answer. And luckily I don't know whether that was the right and so what not they voted for me, I got elected. And the same issue is going on here. So we can see both sides merits and some potential problems.

But the author stated that California ranks number 37 out of 50 in the school performance standards. This is really shameful. I know we are not the number one per student capital investment. I think number one is New York and money is important but it's not everything this system, how we focus upon academics.

And there are so many reasons and ways that we need to study the school students academic performances, how to improve the academics. So I think my position at that time, my answer still stands. We public schools should not worry about losing students and rather focus hey the there's a school choice system.

We need to improve and compete with the private schools. Good schools let's be better and higher attract more capable teachers and incentivize for them to excel in their classrooms and encourage them put them in the competition Just like open market system, capital market system. So I think this is a while ago mentioned the shopping kind of choice.

You don't shop based upon your zip code. You go anywhere. So in that vein I've been always open this school choice system that we should give it a try and the public schools can wake up and do better.

Only question that I have to the author is that school voucher will have value maximum current per capita student tuition. If there's to simplify $20,000. But schools private school tuition could be $40,000 to $50,000. The difference will be automatically covered.

Or if the parent takes a $20,000 voucher then do I have to still pay make up $20,000 in the private schools?

It's not. Thank you for the question through the chair. Yeah, thank you for the question, Dr. Choi. The Bill was designed to benefit public schools as well as individuals who choose to take their child outside of the education system. The $8,000 would follow the student in a flex education account.

If the money is not used, it would be returned to the General Fund. The $8,000 could be used for, like Senator Cabaldon said, additional things like transportation to drive across town and or educational materials that would help better that child's educational opportunity needs for upward mobility. The intent of this Bill was not to harm or hurt the public education system.

And the way I saw it from a business perspective, we all have different spheres of influence and I look at it from a business perspective is if you're getting roughly $25,000 per student to educate your child and there are roughly, I don't know, 30 students in a class. That's $750,000 for that classroom for that year.

We don't pay our teachers any near that. And the dollars are used for a traditional public education system. If $8,000 follows a student and that student leaves that system like my witness was describing, a food desert is the best analogy.

Not being isolated by just their zip code, but wanted to go across town to Whole Foods, in this case across town to a school that offered better opportunities for their child, that $8,000 would follow them. Whether that tuition at that private school is 10,12,000 or 30,000, it would be an assistance.

But back in the traditional public school. That $17,000 remains in that school for fewer students to be educated. So $17,000, another way to look at it is left in the traditional public school where the child left because the parent thought they would have a better opportunity for their kid.

And that $17,000 remains in the public school and they're not required to educate that child anymore. So it's a win win. And it does create an opportunity for those students and those parents who are stuck in these Low performing schools just to give them an opportunity.

And yes, I used a charter school example, but there are many school examples where black and brown students, if their parents can afford it, are going to schools just across town or sometimes in the same neighborhood. It's just a private school that gives that child, they are outperforming their counterparts in the public school system.

This is just an option. It just expands the choice and gives parents an option. So thank you for asking that question.

So what I'm interpreting hearing is that the voucher value maximum would be $8,000 and the remaining will remain in the public schools.

It's a flex savings account and the $8,000 is the maximum. It's an assistance program. I've heard from parents in Los Angeles, in the Bay Area, in low performing, where there's low socioeconomic, disadvantaged communities mostly. I don't have a lot of wealthy people that are paying $30,000 for their kids to come to school going, hey, I want that $8,000.

I'm having parents come to me from Low performing schools and I have a single mom that came to me that's working three jobs and her mom, the grandmother, takes care of the kids at night so that she can put her on the spectrum, somewhat autistic child in a school that will allow him to grow and learn instead of being warehoused in a public school system.

And this kid is thriving. When he got in trouble all the time because he was bouncing around or jumping or not, they, you know, they didn't like the way he wasn't paying attention in class and he constantly got sent to the principal's office. But this kid is thriving and learning in this environment.

And this $8,000 would help that single mom address this issue. This is not going to be a flee or a mass exodus from the public school system.

This is tailored to benefit the public school system as well as a private school system and to allow parents to have a greater choice in the outcomes of their child's learning environment.

That sounds like a very thoughtful consideration and not only school choice, but trying to still protect the financial stability for the public schools. So even though there's some argument it could have gone a little bit farther, entire money, just like I was talking about the $20,000 after I pay all the taxes, I should carry that anywhere.

But putting the cap in that will really, you know, cap any financial losses for the public schools. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Cortese.

Thank you very much. Just a comment. No question, I appreciate the deep dive especially Senator Cabaldon undertook in terms of breaking down the Bill. I've, I just have a sharp difference of opinion, you know, going forward on this issue. I, I do appreciate the author's persistence to echo what one of the witnesses said.

You know, this is a, always been, as one of our colleagues said, a national issue, a state issue. To bring it in to the Education Committee, you know, for further debate and consideration is, is admirable, but it's, it's philosophically not something I support and so I won't be able to do that today.

We also, you know, sort of, to make matters worse, in San Jose right now In Senate District 15, we're experiencing a severe declining enrollment problem with our non basic aid schools to the extent that schools are closing half a dozen at a time in some of our districts.

And I think it would justifiably be perceived if I were, you know, to support some opportunity like this or a Bill like this, that I was doing something to exacerbate those problems in my own district. So I just wanted to explain that and you know, indicate my appreciation for the work, but also my difference of opinion on it. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Senator Cortese, I appreciate your comments and I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I would suggest to you that because of the declining enrollment, parents are taking a stand. They are tired of what's going on with the failed education.

And so to be bold and courageous, and this is not to add, but parents are declining enrollment is happening across all of our districts and parents are doing everything they can to make sure that their child has upward mobility and to just allow them the same $8,000 doesn't detrimentally affect what's happening. Parents are already making that move.

So let's support these parents in the educational choices that they have. But I really do appreciate your thoughtfulness. You are always thoughtful on every Bill I bring forward. So thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Senator Ochoa Bogue and then Senator Gonzalez after.

So we've seen this Bill several times every year, but you know, I, what I miss today and I, and I, you know, I'm grateful for the witnesses that were able to, to come today and testify. But you know what?

I really, I want to just express, and my vote has always been the vote for the voice of those parents. I have spoken to you. I miss that mother that you brought, I believe it was last year, a black mother from the LA area who came in passionately, pleading, begging for help.

She was from Los Angeles to have. Options for her children. And I've seen her a couple of times here and there. And I, you know, I think of her when you bring this Bill forward all the time.

And I wish she had been here for the new Members to actually hear her testimony, which was so powerful, so powerful. As to the need for choice, a couple of things that I would like to address. You know, California spends approximately about 40% of our budget, of our state budget on education. 40%.

I've asked the Superintendent for his professional opinion as to, well, if that is not enough, well, how much of our budget should be going to education in order for them to be successful? That's a lot of money. A lot of money.

Approximately right now we have in California allocating the most amount, and you know, I'm grateful for the Governor for allocating, you know, a huge amount of money. The most we've ever spent on California students, $18,918, that's right now for California spending.

If we have the federal funding that should be coming to us, it will be $24,764 per pupil in the State of California. Now, I'm speaking as a former teacher, I taught first, second and third grade English language learners.

And one of my biggest concerns, and I haven't said this publicly, but I'm going to say it today, there really doesn't need a lot of money to teach a child how to read. We don't need a lot of money on how to teach them how to do enough.

And on behalf of the chair, we're not supposed to hop in here, but thank you. I feel important now, but we just need passionate teachers who believe in the child. Right. Unless that child has a behavioral health issue and then we come in and actually help that child with resources to be able to meet that need.

But when we look at where California stands right now, 37th out of 50 states, when it comes to our reading writing, we just had our report card when it comes to reading writing. And I'm looking into that a little closer now to see where and how and why that's happening.

But when we look at where we're performing Right now, as a state with our children's reading, math and reading, math and science, it's actually very, very disheartening, incredibly disheartening, especially when we're spending 40% of our budget on our students now.

And I'm going to bring this back to, and I sound like a broken record for those who have heard me speak, speak before on this issue, but the Department of Defense came out in an article last year, I'm sorry, in 23 in the fall stating that the.

California or not California, I'm sorry, that the United States was not producing the STEM related graduates or the workforce to meet the demands for the Department of Defense, for our nation, having to import much of that talent and workforce prepared to our state, to our state, I mean, to our country to be able to, to provide the workforce.

And now when we look at this, if the, if the nation is not providing what we need and California fares at 37 out of 50 states, right.

And we have parents who are coming and testifying here, pleading to have options for their students where in this case, with this particular Bill, out of that $18,918 in California or if the federal funding is included, $24,764, they're asking for $8,000 to move with that child to a school that will meet the needs of that particular child.

Now, as a former teacher who taught in public school, right. When my kids were little, had them in Montessori. Then we transferred to public schools, sat in the school board, we had public and we had private charter schools in our city in addition to private schools.

The board discussions that we had because of the competition that we had was phenomenal because it made us think outside the box and say, hey, what programs can we bring into our school district so that we can compete with the programs that the private school was having or the charter school was having? That's what we currently had.

When we had competition, healthy competition, it wasn't, you know, any toxic animosity. It wasn't like that at all. It was more about, well, they have this program. What can we bring in so that we can provide this program? Options and choices need to exist because not every child learns the same way.

Every child is unique and not every school has the opportunity, the resources, and I mean professional resources to be able to meet the needs of every single child. So we have the ability, the opportunity right now to empower these students.

Parents with $8,000 out of the $18,918 are going to be left behind to put their child in a school that meets those needs. We can then ask as a state, what do we do with that extra funding that is left behind in our public school system?

And account what do we do with that leftover $10,000, $11,000 just in California funding? What do we do with the leftover of the 24,764, the potential that we could do in the public school system? What else could we Fund?

This is a win win situation for both our public institutions as well as our private charters, private schools and our public charter schools. There's nothing to lose here.

It is a well balanced, everybody wins, everybody gets to have a choice, including our public school system, including us as legislators on the Budget Committee where we're allocating money to different programs. So I'm grateful for this Bill. I'm grateful for the opportunity.

I don't think we're thinking all the way through, but I hope that today we've had a little bit more insight as to why this is desperately needed. White public schools will not completely lose.

They'll at least have some leftover or the state will have some leftover money, because otherwise we're losing these families, these children to other schools or to out of state. We need options and everything that we can do to actually empower our families in schools that are not meeting the needs of that child, they need options.

The other thing, as far as, you know, we're using tax dollars and putting them in schools that don't necessarily, you know, that might be religious. Well, folks, when it comes to tax dollars, these parents who may choose to put their child in a religious schools, they're also taxpayers.

That tax money is their money as much as it is for anybody else. And to have an option as to where that money can go, goodness gracious, they paid for it. They should have a right to have a choice as to where that money goes.

So this notion that public funds do not pertain to them is a false narrative. False narrative. And it sends me that we would carry that notion forward. There are as much taxpayers as we are going and choosing what school should be their choice. There are more states that are actually following this through.

And you know, we talk about leading the way. If we were to pass this, we would not be leading the way, we would be following. So on that end, I wanted to address that point. Let's see, what else did I want to address really quick.

I'll leave it at that. But thank you for the opportunity to speak on this, on this measure. Thank you for bringing this measure one more time, Senator Grohl, for your passion on that end.

And for those parents, my vote today, for those parents who are stuck in those schools are failing their children and for that mom that came and spoke, he goes my aye vote today is her voice on this. Daisy, thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I will an, aye vote, but I do want to make the motion for this, for this Bill when the time is appropriate.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh, Senator Gonzalez,

Thank you, Madam Chair. And it's your first time chairing the meeting, so welcome. Thank you. To the, the good Senator from the Central Valley. I also commend you.

I know you've been working on this for some time, but I have real questions here because obviously the analysis, if this were to move through, the analysis does point out a few different issues, specifically on accountability.

And as you had mentioned, you know, you've pointed out black and brown students very clearly and how this would bring accountability for those students, those students that may have lower academic performance, special needs students. And these are real questions.

This is all on top of the Department of Education right now being essentially what it looks like is being unwinded and dismantled. Over 1300 layoffs.

So the question is on top of the like lack of accountability that it shows in the Bill for, you know, operational questions, measuring student achievement, regular state audits, tax accountability, would you also require disclosure of financials for these private institutions?

How would all that work, especially in this moment where we have a dismantled or on the way to being dismantled. Department of Education.

Sorry, thank you for the question. There is accountability in this Bill. Again, I think we're missing the mark that this is a parent's choice to select a school. So let's just say there is a Catholic school, Catholic Conference is here.

So there are a lot of Catholic schools, a Catholic school that is in the same block as a Low performing public school, this gives that parent in that neighborhood in that zip code or to go anywhere.

But specifically if they don't have transportation or there's other barriers to making sure that their child has upward mobility and education, they can use this $8,000 to send their kids, kid or their child to this private Catholic school.

And the opposition that came up here with her old talking points was incorrect, no disrespect intended, but the United States Supreme Court has said that public funds can be used for religious schools under certain conditions. So long as the funding is directed by the parent choice, it can be directed by us.

But if a parent says, I want to use my taxpayer dollars that I Fund in these states to go to this Catholic school where my child is going to get a better education in my neighborhood or a single mom with five kids or whoever, this money allows it. And the Constitution allows it.

The California Constitution, which was brought up earlier, and I apologize that Mr. Cabalton had to leave, says that every child is entitled to a free education. It doesn't say it has to be in a government building paid for by government funds and run by government organizations.

So the California Constitution and the United States Constitution back up this legislation with the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education. It was established in 1979, and you said, I believe, 1300 layoffs. It was established in 1979. And since 1979, our academic curriculum or our academic achievement rates have dropped almost 40%. So what's going on in D.C.

has little effect about what this Bill does today. This Bill only allows parents. I have the opportunity to represent. And I'm just giving you this example. More millionaires per capita in this state and more individuals that are farm workers that live below the poverty level in this state. That's how diverse my district is.

The parents that are paying for their child to go to Catholic school or a private school or legacy academy or anything in my district, they're writing that check every month. But I have farm worker families, and I have families that are coming to me all over the state.

Since we've got this Bill out in Los Angeles, specifically, Deacon Johnson is here, who represents a diverse black organization that is. Is trying to find opportunities for children to be able to get out of where they're trapped. Senator Cortese's statement. There is a declining enrollment in public school systems. We're just trying to. Where parents are already moving.

We're just trying to give them an opportunity to have resources. And they're already taxpayers. They're already taxpayers. So when you say that there's no accountability. There is. They have to be accredited schools. The same accreditation. Accredited schools. You can't just go. This is not for homeschools, okay? It's not home schools.

It's for accredited schools that are out there where parents have the opportunity to pick where their child goes. You can afford it. I can pay for my grandkids to go to a school, which I do, because my kids can't afford it. So they go to a private school. Two of my grandkids do.

Four of them go to public school. But that's their parents options. And the only thing I'm trying to do is give that option to parents like the beautiful mom that came up and testified last time when Rosalice or Senator Ochoboga, I apologize, was talking about. She's now started a parents union. She has over 100,000 parents. 100,000 parents.

She's been at it one year. Parents are moving this way. And this ballot measure that's coming up is going to be worse than Prop 36 on the people who opposed it because parents want this and poor parents need this. I can pay for it.

But what about someone in your district that is just dying for this $8,000 so they can take their kid to a private education system and there is accountability. I'm not saying, these are accredited schools.

Well, thank you for that. I think that I just, I don't. I didn't hear the specifics on accountability again. Would you. You wouldn't. Would you require disclosure of financials for these private schools schools?

It's what accredited schools across the state.

Have to apply for operational measuring student achievement. So you would require all of that. Would you explicitly put that in your Bill?

I can explicitly put that in the Bill and list. I will work with you. You know me. I've been here long enough for us to build a relationship together.

If there are measurements that you want in this, it's already required to use an accredited school, whether it's an accredited charter school, that's a public school, accredited Catholic school that's a public, you know, that's not a public school. Catholic schools are measured. They have accountability and they are accountable to the parents who pay those resources.

The same parents that are going to get, if they got access to this money would hold that Catholic school accountable just like the people who use their own resources to do it.

Well, look, I know you've worked on this for quite some time. I just would need to see. I mean there needs to be requirements in there because I don't believe that there is any accountability whatsoever in here. You help me get this out and I will work with you on it.

They may be accredited, but the operationals, the finances and most importantly, measuring student achievement. If the parents are talking about accountability, which is accountability on public schools, then there should be absolutely accountability on this side. But you know, I talk about philosophical disagreements. I don't believe this is the way that we should move forward.

But if you have been working on this for so long, the accountability measures, if this is going to be a windfall of $4-6 billion on taxpayers, per the analysis. Well, it just seems as though that there's a $4-6 billion that would be applied if this would be moving forward. If you're providing $8,000 per parent or per student to be able to make this happen, that is very costly on the taxpayer. And taxpayers need accountability in this.

It's not. It's funding that comes from the taxes that are already paid by parents that are desiring to use the resources.

But it's still taxpayer dollars. That's the whole point.

But the parents choosing to send their kids to a different school are taxpayers, so it's their money too. Right. And then if you look at we all pay taxes. Yeah, we all pay taxes. But the problem is that the taxpayer dollars aren't being able to be used by parents who wish to have something different.

And when you look at the parent, the dollars, the public school system, the public school system, if a child is, and not everybody. The analysis based on every single student that leaves the public. No, not every student is going to leave the traditional public school system.

So if you take that, that child or 10 children in a classroom or a school that would leave and parents would use this, whatever the number is, the $8,000 falls it. But the remaining federal and state dollars, 17,000 remains back in that school. So a teacher instead of, let's just take it out of one classroom.

If three students left, they would still keep $17,000 per those three students to spread across the other students that are there to provide better educational opportunities. Different programs that have been cut, they still get those resources. It's a win win.

Well, you say it's a win win, and I really would like to believe that, but it's very difficult when there is precedent out there. . Well, I'd like to see if you're going to be continuing to move this forward.

I'd really like to see additional requirements on accountability that I have yet to see. And I think ... Black and Brown students and we're utilizing them in our speeches like that. Then measurements on, you know, their student achievements need to ensure that they are in there.

I'm sorry, Majority Leader.

What I am saying is that when we talk about black and Brown students.

There is an educator in this room that runs a complete community that represents a tremendous Black and Brown. He's here and he represents how many thousands of students it's a local program in Los Angeles that, that gives parents can't really afford to, but they raise money and they get grant programs and they give people the opportunity. And these students are outperforming.

I hate to interrupt the discussion, but Senator Gonzalez, do you have any further questions?

No, I don't. I think this has been very clear with me. My whole point was that when we are talking about students of color, I'm not dissing anybody that's in this room. When we are talking about students of color, we should talk in this Bill specifically about accountability on their achievement. Absolutely.

As it is important for public schools. So we don't need to make this divisive. That's just my point. With that, I will not be supporting the Bill today, but look forward to additional discussions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. I want to kindly remind the audience and I appreciate those that are participating today that we, we do ask for you to remain silent as we're in discussion.

I know there was clapping and, you know, expressions of, you know, whether it be agreement or disagreement, we just want to ensure that my Senate colleagues here are able to discuss with one another. So kindly ask you to continue to maintain decorum. Excellent.

So I'll go ahead and I wanted to make some comments before we gone to making a motion here. You know, I think first and foremost, foremost, before I get into my own talking points that I wanted to share, you know, I wanted to share.

Senator Grove, as I was listening to you, you know, today, there were a couple of things that you brought up. And I want to start off with, I think, some agreements that we have.

And you know, that is this recognition and wanting to focus our education system on addressing these equity gaps, wanting to improve performance outcomes for black and brown students. This is something that I think is completely necessary and I would love to continue having conversations with you about.

It's a conversation that needs to be at the forefront of all of our discussions that we have in the education system, whether that be in the K through 12 specific space or in the higher education space.

In addition to that, this idea around direct cash assistance to parents, particularly Low income families, also one that we know that's very necessary. We've seen the benefits of that. And you know, I do think that there are substantial benefits to programs like that.

I do not think that SB64 is the right method in order to achieve that for a number of reasons. Senator Cabaldon. And, you know, I know that he did leave, but did an excellent job of pointing out, I think one of the most critical pieces of this, which is that similar programs have been implemented in other states and they've not been proven effective.

And in studying some of the outcomes from those states, we've not seen the kind of outcomes that you would want to see from a program like this. And as someone that's spent my career in the education space, particularly studying outcomes for diverse students, that is something that is incredibly important to me. And so to not see these types of programs yield results in other states does create cause for concern.

But the nexus of what you're trying to get at ensuring that we are improving outcomes for these diverse students, that we're focusing on equity, you know, is, is a, is a, is a battle that I think that we all need to join in on. And I look forward to continuing to have discussions with you around that.

I just wanted to go ahead and overview a couple of specifics around SB64 colleagues today we are in, we are considering SB64, which would shift billions of public education dollars to private schools through the creation of school school choice flex accounts. While proponents argue this Bill expands opportunities, there are serious concerns about its impacts on public schools.

Student equity and accountability. This Bill would divert critical funding away from public schools to subsidize private school tuition for students who already attend private schools, many from higher income families.

At the same time, our public schools, especially those serving Low income and high needs students, would see fewer resources, making it even harder to provide a quality education to those who need it most. Private schools are not required to accept all students, meaning those with the greatest needs.

Students with disabilities, English learners or those from disadvantaged backgrounds may be excluded. And while this Bill provides funding for private school tuition, it does not cover the full cost, leaving Low income families with few real choices while wealthier families benefit most.

Unlike public schools, private schools receiving these funds would not be held to the same accountability standards such as teacher credentialing and standardized testing. If taxpayer dollars are being used for education, there must be oversight to ensure quality and equity.

Beyond educational programs funded by Prop 98, this measure would put significant financial strain on other areas of the education budget, including child care, UC and CSU Cal grants, and so much more.

And this doesn't even take into account the broader impact on the state budget where potential cuts could affect other critical services such as housing, health and human services, public safety and infrastructure.

As was mentioned by Senator Caboldan, rather than undermining our public schools, we should be investing in them, supporting teachers, reducing class sizes, and ensuring every student has the resources they need to succeed for these reasons, I will not be supporting SB64 and urge my colleagues to do the same. I'll go ahead and take a motion.

Oh, apologies, Senator Grove, would you like to close?

Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair, and congratulations on your first Committee hearing. You're doing a really good job in making sure things stay on task again. I want to reiterate that the analysis is wrong, that the resources will stay within the public school system because they're getting $25,000 in combined dollars to educate one student.

If that student leaves and they are no longer under the purview of that education system, they still get to keep $17,000 of combined dollars to spread across other students still remaining in the public school system. Not everyone is going to pull their student out of the public school system to go to a private school.

But there is declining enrollment and parents are vocally making their decision because of this declining enrollment across all of our school districts and every one of our communities. And it's diverse.

If you get the numbers and we can provide them to you, that it's individuals with Low incomes, middle incomes, and high incomes that are pulling our students out of traditional public school. They are making a statement.

This Bill was just to assist those individuals who are struggling with making sure that their student has the best opportunity laid before them for success. It's $8,000 for a student, $16,000 for those individuals that deal with developmentally delayed or special education students so parents have an opportunity to. To provide them an opportunity for success.

I do believe there is accountability in this program. In this program, there are accredited schools that we require to them. And I know Senator Cabaldon left, but he compared Louisiana. Louisiana doesn't Fund their students like we Fund our students in California. They are well below the funding mechanism that we have here for 25, roughly $24,780 something dollars.

So roughly $25,000 per student here. That is very much lower in funding in Louisiana students. So they already started a disadvantage. We Fund our students $1,800 more per student in our public school system, and we are ranked 37th. Parents are fighting, begging and pleading across the state.

Not just in my district, not just wealthy, but poor parents as well, are asking for this measure to be able to follow these students so that the students, the parents, have the choice of education and upward mobility for their students.

There's a ballot measure coming, and I just want you guys to know that you're on the wrong side of this issue. And the analysis that was prepared for you by the consultants is incorrect. It does not provide you with the adequate information that you to make a decision.

It's right to allow poor families to have access to their own taxpayer dollars that they pay. They might work at three different minimum wage jobs. They still pay taxes and their dollars should follow their student where they choose that their student should go.

They should not be stuck in a food desert or in this case a school desert. If they want to go to Whole Foods or the Christian or Catholic or charter or non public school down the street, the dollar should follow them and allow parents to have that choice. And I respectfully ask for your. I.

Thank you. Senator Grove, do we have a motion on on SB64? Thank you. The Bill has been moved by Senator Ocho Bogue. The motion is do pass to the Senate Revenue and Taxation. zero, apologies. Well, that's what she's motioning for, right? Yes. Okay. Apologize. Yes. So Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

If it fails, we will grant reconsideration.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your patience.

All right, so next up we're going to hear SB399. Welcome, Senator Niello. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to present SB399 and I'll begin by saying that I do accept the amendment suggested by the Committee and my staff wants to thank them for the assistance.

Interdistrict transfer permits have been a long standing tool that families and students have utilized if they need to seek a change from their current education situation. Inter district transfers allow a student to transfer from one district to another district if both districts consent, excuse me, to the transfer and the student meets any local determined conditions.

For instance, districts receiving these transfer students may require students to meet certain attendance and or academic standards. The Legislature has worked on numerous bills over the years to streamline the process to be sure that it is transparent and fair.

While there is statute to define circumstances a student can transfer under, as well as statute for the process schools must follow for the posting of procedures and timelines. There is very little transparency at the state level as to how often it's happening and the reasons for for which students are seeking to leave a district.

This leaves educators, parents, students and policymakers alike lacking on the why of these requests that they're happening in the first place. School districts already gather much of this information, but it is not reported at the state level.

Without this type of performance and utilization information, it's difficult to understand the full extent that inter district transfers are being utilized and again, why they're being utilized. This bill actually builds on AB 1984 by then Assemblymember Weber, which unanimously passed last year.

The bill requires local education and agencies to provide the California Department of Education with data on pupil transfers due to Disciplinarian reasons and for the CDE to collect and publish that data on its website.

SB399 requires a school district to maintain a record of all requests for interdistrict transfer and records of the disposition of those requests in It'll also require a school district on or before the end of June of each year to submit the information described above for the current school year to the state Superintendent of Schools.

The bill would require the Superintendent on or before August 1st of each year to post the information submitted for the current school year on the department's Internet website.

Here today with me for a return performance is Lance Christiansen of the California Policy Center, who is in support and also joining is Kenneth Kapphahn, who is with the LAO to provide technical information as needed. Thank you.

Lance Christiansen the representative of the California Policy Center. Thank you, Chair and Vice Chair and Members. A bill like this is pretty amazing because it really doesn't change any major laws in terms of responsibilities or over school boards, but it provides accountability.

I know this Committee is very strong on accountability, and so we want to make sure that these school boards are able to account for the reasons why or why not students are able to change. We track lots of information through lcaps, through data in terms of average daily attendance.

We do things in terms of, as was noted before by the author, discipline reasons as well. So this bill is worthy of your time and attention and allows for a robust conversation about why parents may be moving from district to district and. And how these districts are responding to. Them and keeping them accountable.

So thank you for your support.

Thank you. Did you want to have your. Oh.

Well, I'll just ask if Mr. Kapphahn has any additional comments or technical insights.

Thank you, Senator and Chair and Members, Kenneth Kapphahn with the Legislative Analyst Office. We're really here in a technical capacity. A few years ago, our office published an evaluation of a different interdistrict transfer. Program with similar data requirements as this. Bill would enact for the interdistrict permit process.

So we're not here to make recommendations, but to answer any questions you might have about the state's experience with that program that might aid your deliberations about this bill. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Apologies. Great. Now let's hear from any other support witnesses here in room 2100. Please use the microphone outside of the railing. And please only state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Nicole Young, Placer County Chapter Chair, Moms for Liberty, as well as the California chapter Legislative Chair, in strong support.

Mary Little, Trustee, Kern County Superintendent of Schools, in support.

Thank you. Anybody else? Are there any opposition witnesses? We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Sarah Petrowski. On behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials, representing over 30,000 school business leaders statewide, I first want to thank the author's office for reaching out to us and getting our input on this bill as they were considering introducing it.

Our Members pride themselves on being data driven. CASBO also prides itself on being data driven. We understand there are times where we need information to help us make decisions, but we have seen over the years an explosion in the new reporting requirements that are being placed on our local educational agencies.

Last year CASBO was a proud sponsor of SB 1315, which required the California Department of Education to summarize all of the reporting requirements that our local educational agencies are facing right now, including information on why those reports are required.

And the bill required CDE to also provide recommendations on places where we can streamline reporting, remove duplication of effort. In February, we sent a letter to the budget committees and the Education Policy committees with a coalition of our colleagues and noted that we remain concerned about this explosion in reporting, which these reports are often duplicative and unnecessary.

The report our letter raised six questions from the Assembly's analysis of SB 1315, which we urge the Legislature to keep in mind when considering these new reports. Specifically, six things, the purpose of the new reporting requirement, the audience for that report, the value that that reporting requirement would bring, its feasibility.

Specifically for small LEAs which have state staff that are doing multiple jobs, duplication and duration of those reports. Our school districts or local educational agencies are facing tighter budgets than ever and staffing shortages. And we just ask that we prioritize our resources on those things that directly support our students at this time.

So thank you for hearing the testimony and we respectfully oppose.

Thank you. Are there any opposition witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside of the railing, seeing as there's none. Thank you to all our support and opposition witnesses. We will now bring the discussion back to the Members. Do any of our Members have questions or comments on this bill? Senator Cortese, thank you.

Madam Chair, I just have one question and it's let me set it up by just saying I feel like I understand the need for this and I'll be supporting it, you know, from a policy standpoint because of work that I had the opportunity to do in Santa Clara County, especially where we had non unified districts, feeder districts.

In one case, seven feeder districts feed into a large High School District.

And it's very, very difficult in my opinion, and not necessarily everyone agrees to this, but to have a ninth grader come in and, for example, not have an understanding in that case where what that student's academic background and even disciplinary background has been in the prior grade and then have that student move again from our east side district over to our west side district for 10th grade and not have, you know, those kind of records follow certainly eliminates negative things like tracking.

But it also, I think, creates a situation where sometimes six weeks into, into a new year at first grading period, you're just starting to figure out the hard way, you know, what the deficiencies or or needs of that student are. So that's all good.

What we had to do, though, is to set up a freestanding database through our County Office of Education because most of the districts were, were operating with, with different, either proprietary software or different data systems that didn't talk to each other.

There's just no way to, you know, expect, you know, in terms of, of mandating something on, on the districts for them to, you know, keep a ledger or something of, of, you know, a manual file that's moving around when you have 20-25,000 students at a time, sometimes in the mix.

So I, I believe that the, in our case, the database we created through our County Office of Education and frankly, the county government had to step in and kind of help fund that, you know, help pull all that data together into, you know, sort of a single district facing district facing dashboard on each student that obviously had confidentiality wrapped around it under the ED code.

And it still exists. But when I look at that and then look at what the Commission on State mandates may say, you know, in terms of trying to do that statewide, you know, clearly you'd have an extraordinary appropriations issue. And I think that's just symptomatic of what the opposition witness was speaking about.

I mean, the conditions of trying to deal with this less on the regulatory side, frankly, I'm not concerned about that, but just on the. Putting the mechanics of it together, you know, is. Certainly raises some extraordinary appropriations issues. But you're here in a policy Committee. The policy, I think is right.

I'm not sure how to go about getting something like this done, whether it's. It's your bill with what may be a big appropriation tag, or if it's setting up or supporting those kinds of databases first, you know, through, through a budget ask that would, Would then allow this kind of data to move freely.

But I do agree it's important. And I didn't even get into, you know, bringing in health and human services issues and things like that in the state and age. We ran a bill.

I authored a bill a couple years ago that was signed into law that now allows government code and ed code health data, including mental health, behavioral health data, to be moved back and forth so our counties and our school districts can each have access to that, you know, sort of a similar kind of an issue.

It allows, it doesn't mean, you know, they've figured out how to pay for it and so forth. But in this day and age of those kind of underlying issues, again I just wanted to indicate my support for the principle of doing this.

The policy of doing this just might be a tough year to, to get it paid for. So I wanted to be realistic about that. With that said, Madam Chair, I appreciate the little bit of extended time to give my thoughts on that bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Senator, also understand the information needed, but a question this may be for Judiciary, but I just want to make sure it's answered. Now on the student privacy, if this were to be published publicly, what that means for student data, especially that of English language learners.

So have you thought of what that could look like in terms of remedies?

Well, it would not be unlike the result of then Assembly Member Weber's AB 1984 reporting the information specifically for disciplinary requirements. But this bill would require more reporting, but of a very similar variety. So if the privacy aspects were satisfied with regard to AB 1984, then they should be for this bill too.

Okay. I will probably lay off the bill today just given I'd like more clarity around that. I will certainly look at AB 1984 as well. I understand, you know, the, the intent here, but still feel a little uneasy, especially now given a lot of student feeling around immigration and obviously that's a huge issue.

So I will lay off the bill today, but look forward to talking to you.

I'll be happy to talk with you about it.

Thank you very much. I know you will.

Great. Do any other Members have questions or comments? Great. Well, Senator Niello, I had a just a quick question for you that I wanted to follow up on. You know, yesterday I met with several school administrat that are from districts in my region and from across the state and we talked about particularly SB 1315.

And I think part of the frustration that I've heard from our school administrators is when navigating some of the multiple reporting requirements that we've placed on them that it, it feels like all of their time is being consumed with data gathering and providing reports. Many of them that they've pointed out are quite duplicative.

Many of us pass bills and, you know, oftentimes don't realize that some of that legislation may have been done before.

And I'm sure you're more familiar with that than I am and have, you know, described this as a challenge that's really placed a lot of bureaucratic red tape on them and really prevented them from being able to do the important work of engaging with their teachers, engaging with students and getting to provide some of those direct services.

So I wonder if SB399, which you've presented here, have you had an opportunity to look at one, whether or not there's been legislation passed before that gathers data similar to this? Are there school districts that are maybe already gathering some of this data for other reasons and other purposes?

Another thing that I heard from some of these school administrators was wanting to understand what the outcome and the purpose was of gathering some data. Sometimes it's just submitting the data. And all the California Department of Education says is great, thanks for the data you passed, rather than providing any sort of meaningful feedback.

So what is the outcome that you hope to accomplish with gathering this and to further improve systems? What kind of guidance would we then provide schools after they gathered this data?

A couple of things. With regard to SB 1315, I certainly support the intent of that. The data that we're asking for is not duplicative. This is not currently reported to a super county Superintendent or the Department of Education currently. So there would appear to be no prior bills that would require something similar.

So I don't see how it is duplicative. The and in my career as a Legislator, one thing that I have always been known for is to resist mandates to anybody other than the state, by the state, be it private businesses or local governments.

I served on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and I saw how many times the state would impose mandates on the county and similarly on school districts. I have been solidly cautious of avoiding that.

But this is a situation where and by the way, that's usually involving a particular task that the state or a Legislator wants a local government or a business to do and then tells them exactly how to do it. This is a little bit different.

This is an issue that has to do with information regarding the ability of parents and students to choose a school different than the school that they're in and the reason why for that. And we don't know that that's extremely important from the standpoint of the district from which the student is transferring to know why.

So if there's a problem in the particular school from which the student is transferring, that could be addressed, or if the school to which the student is transferring has a particular value to those parents and that student, what that is so others can learn by that this is important information relative to the quality of of our school districts.

I don't intend just to create a reporting burden for schools. I think the result of this information, the value of this information for parents, for schools, for educators, for districts, is very important.

So that's how I view It a little bit differently relative to the issue of mandates and also that I do not see it as duplicative because we're not getting this information currently.

Thank you, Senator Niello. I appreciate you sharing that. That's helpful and I will be supporting, I think, the basis of, you know, this policy, but do want to continue to have these conversations. You know, SB 1315, as was mentioned, was actually supposed to go into full effect already, and it hasn't. And.

But I appreciate that you've looked to ensure that this is not duplicative. But, you know, do want to be mindful of these new requests that we're making for data collection. So appreciate that. Do we have a. Oh, apologies, Senator Niello, it's now time. Would you like to close?

Well, I just want to emphasize the last comments that I made that this is information that I think is important to parents, to students, to educators, to districts themselves. And I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Right. Do we have a motion?

I make a motion.

Okay. Senator Choi has moved and the motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Can I get a roll call?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We will put that bill on call.

Thank you.

Next we will have SB 33. I will give Senator Cortese a moment.

Thank you. Madam Chair, welcome. I'm here today to present SB33. We've been calling this the California SOAR S O A R Guaranteed Income program. This program is based on the fact that we have an enormous amount of students in our K12 system statewide who are experiencing homelessness. And that number has been increasing.

It's increased according to CDE, by 48% in the past decade. You'll note in the analysis, I think it's around page six of an eight page analysis. Some reference to the growing numbers. And.

And although those numbers differ a little bit depending on whether you base them on census like California Department of Education does, or on other data that we have, the fact of the matter is, since this Committee last saw this proposal, and this proposal was in print and moving in the last session, there's been an increase of 2,000 students since the Committee last saw this Bill.

So no matter whose numbers you're using, the fact of the matter is that these numbers are increasing.

And what it means when you have somewhere between 17,000 at the lowest estimate in your analysis, you'll see a number of 24,000 12th grade students, 12th grade students who in a couple of months from now will walk across the stage to get their diploma and immediately lose their Mckinney Vento benefits.

Those are the benefits that all K12 students receive once they're identified as not having a roof over their head at night. There are somewhere between 245,000 and 270,000 total students in the K12 system. Again, I want to reiterate that in the State of California.

So we've created, certainly not purposely, but we've created in effect a youth conveyor that is graduating 12th grade students right into adult homelessness onto the streets where they have no benefits at all.

And in most cases, as soon as they would have benefits is those who are admitted to higher education where they would receive financial aid and those kind of benefits in the fall. So there's about a four month period where there's basically a lack of available support for the youth experiencing homelessness that we're referring to here post graduation.

What we know is happening during that four month period is that the majority of these students are admitted or qualify for higher education. UC, CSU, community college, etc. But there's a concept or a phenomena called summer melt. Because of the lack of support and benefits.

We're about 40% of those students in any given year are failing to enroll four months later post graduation. So we're really having a double hit. We're graduating kids into adult homelessness without benefits and then losing them in our enrollment, actual enrollment process with higher education. Our solution is guaranteed income model, which there's definitely precedent for.

You'll hear about that a little bit more from the witnesses. It's a no strings attached guaranteed income approach, which is how virtually all of our guaranteed income programs now throughout the state and within the state function, meaning there's no actual requirement or condition of entering college or entering the workforce.

We know from exit interviews with similar programs, including foster transitional age programs that we have done in our counties and here at the state, that the guaranteed income stipend, in this case $1,000 a month for four months, is tremendously helpful in terms of keeping kids housed, keeping them out of street homelessness, and helping them with other day to day necessities, including their ability to seek out employment because they're now supported adequately with a guaranteed income program.

To make that happen, SB 33 will equip youth experiencing homelessness with the financial resources to embark on a path towards stability and success and I think cut off and start to mitigate these numbers that have been rising and rising. Unfortunately, the state leads the country in the quantity of youth homelessness that we're experiencing.

Here to testify in support of the Bill, we have Melanie Jimenez Perez, who's the Guaranteed Basic Income Program Manager in Santa Clara County, administering the pilot program we were able to establish for foster and homeless youth. I think she may be talking about a program that also replicates this Bill at the county level.

And Genesis Watson, a Guaranteed Income recipient from the Collegiate Guaranteed Income Program at Sac State to speak about her experience. Thank you Members and at the appropriate time, I will respectfully ask for your I vote.

Great. Thank you so much, Senator Cortese. We will go ahead and now move on to lead witnesses and support. You can go ahead and get started.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members. My name is Genesis Watson and have been a United Way Collegiate Skill Scholar Guaranteed income recipient since April 2024, along with nine other former foster youth and current CSUs Guardian Scholarship students. I've been receiving $500 a month for one year, starting in May of last year.

These funds have completely changed my life. Before receiving the support, I was constantly overwhelmed trying to survive while balancing school and work. I had to work two jobs just to cover basic expenses and it was exhausting physically, mentally and emotionally.

My paycheck never stretched far enough, but this guaranteed income gave me breathing room for the first time in my life. It allowed me to fix my credit and cover the bills my paycheck couldn't. More importantly, it gave me the freedom to take more classes without the crushing pressure of working nonstop just to make ends meet.

Now I'm on track to graduate this coming school year, something that felt just impossible just a year ago. After high school, I had to work two jobs to help pay for college. I didn't know anything about financial aid, so my income was the only way I could afford books and classes. It drained me.

I would come home from work exhausted, knowing I had to get up and do it all over again the next day. I wanted to be a teacher. That was my dream. But it started to feel like a fantasy.

I couldn't keep up with school while working so much and eventually I just had to make a choice, school or survival. I chose survival. I dropped out of college and convinced someone like me, someone who grew up in foster care, who had no safety net, didn't get to have big dreams. I was homeless for a while.

There are nights I didn't know where I was going to sleep or how I was going to eat. I felt so alone, like I was fighting a Losing battle. If I had received this kind of support I have now, my life would have been different. I wouldn't have to choose between getting an education and surviving.

I could have stayed in school, I could have afforded student housing. I wouldn't have felt so hopeless. This guaranteed income gave me more than just financial relief. It gave me hope. It showed me that I'm not alone and that my dreams are actually possible.

For the first time, I feel like I'm building a future instead of just trying to survive day to day. I realized that I don't have to settle that I can choose a career that allows me the life that I want. To travel, to raise a family, to feel secure.

I urge you to consider how life changing this kind of support could be for like others like me. And vote for SB33, which is which will expand guaranteed income to more people like me.

So many young people aging out of the foster care system and youth who are unhoused are forced to give up their dreams because they have to focus on survival. This program will give me, gave me the chance to dream again and to believe that those dreams are possible. Thank you for your time and consideration and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

My name is Melanie Jimenez Perez and I'm a program manager with the County of Santa Clara and we are a very proud sponsor Co sponsor sorry of this Bill. And that is because I am fortunate enough to have worked with Senator Cortese who's our former supervisor on guaranteed basic income since 2020.

And Genesis story models what I am seeing with our clients day in and day out, not only with foster youth, but this summer we launched a pilot with 175 average age 18 years old, unstably housed individuals who had relied on their Mckinney Vento Liaisons as a sense of not just support, but comfort and safety.

And once they lose that resource, we don't have anywhere for them to go for that continued support. By us implementing this summer, we were able to be that connection. We were able to also let the Mckinney Vento act Liaisons know they were doing well, they were on track, they were staying engaged.

Because just like Genesis shared, this gave them the chance to dream that they didn't think they would ever have. It's not even just a sense of imagining. They were always just focused on how to get by. Our data shows that their top stressors were housing and school.

And when we asked them how they would use the money, overwhelmingly it was for rent and food. 18 year old students who are Focused on rent and food with their lowest important items were clothing and school. We want to change that trajectory and this is what guaranteed income will do.

It provide them that opportunity to be 18 year olds and experience life and dream for more. So I know I've reminded you enough that they are 18, but this is also an investment that allows them to help their families, their siblings. So it's an investment in a future that they wouldn't have expected.

And I hope that you will provide them with that chance so we can continue to spread this because we, we are very happy to be supporting this and we look forward to see what our clients will do and where they will go with this opportunity. So thank you for your time and your attention today. Thank you Senator, for continuing to bring this forward.

Thank you. Now let's hear from any other support witnesses here in room 2100. Please use the microphone outside the railing and please only state your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Elle Grant, California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Issa Farland on behalf of the Alameda County Office of Education. In support.

Caitlin Jung on behalf of the Michelson Center for Public Policy in Support.

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

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members Gregory Cramer on behalf of Disability. Rights California in support.

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

Mona Masri with Economic Security California Action A co sponsor, strong support. And on behalf of Western Center for Law and Poverty in support.

Good morning. Leilani Aguinaldo on behalf of Fresno Unified School District and the Santa Clara County Office of Education in support.

Good morning. Steve Lins, United Way, California Capital Region. Board Member in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Members of the Committee, Vincent Rosso on behalf of the UC Student Association. And we're in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us. I don't believe there are any. Are there any opposition witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside the railing.

And please only state your name, organization and position on the Bill, seeing as there are none. Thank you to all of our support witnesses. We will now bring the discussion back to the Members. Do any of our Members have questions or comments? Senator Ochobo.

Thank you. Senator Cortese, You've brought measures forward before that actually kind of mimic this one. I just had a question. I'm. I'll be Supporting the Bill just because I, I do, you know, when it comes to our foster youth and our unhoused youth, my heart just, you know, I, I understand the challenges.

You know, I have a 19 year old, a 23 and a 25 year old and we're there for them. The thought that these kids still are kids, it's a safety net and it's not permanent. It's just literally a transition.

We've heard so many, I've heard so many stories about our youth when they're in 12th grade either aging out of the foster system. And I'm going to refer to the foster system because that's what I know. But I know that you have it here as the homeless kids are unhoused.

But with our foster youth, as they age out and they don't have a place to go, you know, those 34 months between the time that they graduate or they're still quite just still at the end of their senior year of high school, entering college, how vulnerable they are during that period of time.

And for those that might be, you know, on the side where they feel that this might disentivize them from actually working, we know that $1,000 right now is minimal. They can't survive on $1000 a month. No one can, especially when it comes to housing. So I'll be supportive of the measure.

And you know, it's still a band aid because it doesn't fix the actual root of the problem, which is, you know, what got you in there in the first place, not having the support system in there. Right.

It's not something that fixes the actual issue, but it's something that's going to help kind of navigate and transition over until hopefully you have a full time job or you further the educational opportunities that you have available to you, which this state is so incredibly generous when it comes to education, educational opportunities.

So thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I hope it's successful in moving forward, being signed by, by the Governor.

But you know, for many of our youth out there, whether they're unhoused, whether they're emancipated, whether they're foster youth, you know, those are the kids that we really need to and young adults that we need to support until they get on their feet so that they can have an opportunity to become civically engaged and successful Members of our community.

So thank you for sharing your testimony today. Thank you for the courage that you've shown and that inner drive that you have to succeed. Grateful that you're here.

Great Senator Cortese, would you like to close?

Yes. First of all, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to your Committee for the analysis work and helping us to continue to understand even just the numbers that are out there. We appreciate the work of the Committee in that regard.

I want to thank Senator Ochoa Bok for her comments, which I think were spot on, much appreciated. And yes, there's been a version of this Bill in the last two year session. There was a version of this Bill, Senate Bill 333.

This is Senate Bill 33, you know, and I was happy to say that the Bill moved along through policy committees with a great deal of support. This last year certainly wasn't a very good year to be bringing any kind of an appropriations issue forward.

We have managed the cost of the Bill down a little bit, so I think we have a much greater chance. And we've been receiving support from Members of both Budget Subcommittees that would have some jurisdiction over the matter. So we're optimistic that this is the year.

I want to thank Genesis, you know, for having the courage to come in, you know, kind of Barry, your soul. It's necessary, you know, you're speaking on behalf of what may be 20,000 students out there that are keeping their fingers crossed that your testimony is as good as it was today.

So thank you, and thank you to Melanie and Santa Clara County for coming in. I just want to show my appreciation for making the trek here and testifying. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Cortese. And again, just want to thank the witnesses, too. I know this is an incredibly, you know, personal issue, so it's powerful to have you here today. Thank you. Do we have a motion for SB33? Thank you. The Bill has been moved by Senator Ochobog.

The motion is do pass to the Senate Human Services Committee. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We will put that Bill on call. Great. For SB316, I'll be presenting on behalf of Senator Reyes, so I'll go ahead and pass the gavel to Senator Ochoa Bogh. I'm going to bring all of my items with me.

Welcome, Senator Perez. Glad to have you here. You will be presenting File item number six, Senate Bill 316 by Senator Reyes. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 316, the high school Voter Registration act, on behalf of Senator Eloise Gomez Reyes. Every election cycle we discuss how low the voter turnout is across the country, especially for our youngest voters.

This bill would provide high school students in California the opportunity and resources need to pre register to vote by the end of 11th grade. SB316 is an excellent tool that would make it possible for 16 and and 17 year olds to pre register to vote so that upon their 18th birthday, they are automatically registered voters.

By bringing the resource directly to our youth, we can ensure they are developing the habit of being civically engaged, regardless of their party affiliation. Civic engagement is an invaluable contribution to our democracy and SB316 will increase participation on Election Day. Here to testify and support are two students, Kylie Barker and Jara Rodriguez.

Hi and welcome. Please proceed when you're ready. Is the button on?

Good morning. My name is Jara Rodriguez. I'm a sophomore out of Royal Valley in the City of San Bernardino and a youth leader with Inland Congregations United for Change. And I'm here in strong support for SB316. Throughout my life, I've heard all about the importance of voting.

About how it defines the future of America and how through it, vital decisions are made about healthcare, education and economy. I'm also aware that our interests at the local, state and national levels are represented through voting.

And if we do not have the proper intuition about the procedure of voting or the knowledge of pre registering, we risk sending out our graduates out into the world lacking the knowledge about how to make their voices heard. This is our future and we should know how to shape it.

Unfortunately, I know that many youth my age are not properly equipped to become active voters once they turn 18. I, along more than half a million youth across California, will be turning 18 within the next year. While there is current legislation that helps support pre registration across our state, this tool continues to significantly be underutilized.

SB316 aims to change this by requiring schools to offer clear guidance on pre registering to vote. Integrating pre registration can play a pivotal role in equipping students to seamlessly transition into active voters once they turn 18.

I witnessed this firsthand by seeing how my peers at my high school become engaged and empowered after being able to pre register to vote. I would like to see this happen across our nation.

You have two minutes. Would you mind just wrapping up the commentary, please?

By empowering our youth with the opportunity to pre register, we are not only preparing them to vote, but creating a future where every citizen is engaged and every voice is heard.

Thank you so much. Appreciate your testimony today. And we have our second witness.

Good morning. Oh, sorry. Good morning, Committee Members. I'm Kylie Barker, a Member of Power California and a Merced resident. Thank you for taking your time to hear my testimony. Young Californians are on track to being the largest voting bloc in California by 2028. But often they do not become civically engaged until later in life.

However, we do know that the earlier they engage in our democratic process, the more likely they are to become lifelong voters. In 2020, I was 18 and a senior in high school, but I did not vote. Not because I didn't want to, but because I didn't know how to.

No one in my high school talked about the importance of voting or what made me eligible. It wasn't until a peer from Power California showed me how to register and the process for voting that I became civically engaged.

I feel like I missed out in 2020 and I still remember my passion around that election and wanting to vote because of how impactful the presidential race was. Since then, I've been getting my younger family Members and peers politically engaged. Like my younger cousin, who I've had many conversations with this last election to prepare her to vote.

I've also engaged in get out the vote efforts online to get young Californians to vote with Power California. Bills like SB316 remove voting barriers and engage young people early in their high school careers, creating more opportunities for them to become lifelong voters. I would have benefited from a policy like this during high school.

So I ask you today for your Aye vote on SB15.

Thank you so much. We will now move on to any witnesses in support of SB316 here in room 2100.

I, Angela Cardenas, youth organizer and senior at Dino in support of this bill. Thank you.

My name is Anna Victoria Chavez. I am with ICUC from the San Bernardino region and go to San Bernardino. High School and I fully support this bill.

Good morning. My name is Ximena Priciado. I am currently a youth organizer with icuc, a proud Spartan from San Gardonia High School in San Bernardino and I. Am full support of SB316.

Hello, my name is Natalia Resendiz. I am a middle college high school student in San Bernardino and I am in full support of this.

Natalie Navarro, lead youth organizer with Inland Congregations United Change in the San Bernardino region. Attending high school, Cajon High School, in full support.

My name is Damian Degado from Pacific High School in the San Bernardino City, and I'm a leader in ICUC. I am full support of this bill.

Hello. Hello, my name is Natalie Mendez. I'm an ICUC leader with. I'm a youth leader with ICUC and go to San Bernardino High School, and I'm in support.

My name is Marco Sevilla. I am with ICUC from the Coachella. Valley and I go to Desert Morris. High School and I support this bill.

Hello, my name is Antonio Hernandez. I'm a student organizer with ICUC. College student, and I support this bill.

Hello, my name is Cycla Oliveira and I am a current high school student in Palm Springs High School, and I support the bill.

Hello. Alejandro Palomares, a youth organizer at the Coachella Valley, also with ICUC and I fully support this bill.

Robert Muchria with California Chamber of Commerce, just, you know, trying to support democracy. So in support. Thank you.

Dr. Rhonda Rios Kravitz, Dean Amerita from Sacramento City College, and strongly support this bill.

Hello. Madam Chair and Committee Members, Vincent Rosso. And on behalf of the UC Student Association's, UC We Vote campaign, we're in. Strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Arturo Roscoe, civic engagement organizer with ICUC in San Marino region, and I support this bill.

All right. Seeing no additional witnesses in support. We're not going to continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to SB316. Seeing none. Alrighty, I guess we'll bring it back to the dais. Do we have any comments, questions from the Dais? Seeing none. I do want to make a couple of comments.

First of all, let me just begin by stating that. So, as a San Bernardino High School alum, I welcome you. I personally want to welcome you to the Capitol building today. I've been a past supporter of icuc, actually worked with former Senator. Oh, my goodness. Which one? Was it Leyva? I think it was Leyva.

Her and I worked together to actually help appropriate $6 million to ICUC in order to have outreach efforts in the community in San Bernardino. So I want you to know that I'm very, very close to San Bernardino. I just got redistricted out, so. Heartbroken. Heartbroken to lose that.

But it's great to see all of you here today, recognize some of these faces. Next, I do want to make a comment. I will not be supporting the Bill today just because we currently already have a bill or we already have law in place.

That with the approval of the administrators, coordinate election related activities on their campuses, including voter registration drives, mock election debates, and other election related outreach activities. The curriculum framework for government addresses voter registration in a significant way. And so it's already in play, it's already law.