Senate Standing Committee on Education

There are four bills on today's agenda. Two bills are on consent. Those bills are item number one, SB241 and item number three, SB389. 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 as we do have a quorum. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. The assistant notes a quorum has been established. I see that we have Senator Weber Pearson here. Welcome, Senator Weber Pearson. If you want to come up so that you can present your Bill, SB437 and you may begin when you are ready.

Good morning. Thank you. Chair and Committee Members for hearing SB437. SB437 would help establish the eligibility criteria for claims related to genealogy and descendancy, utilizing the California State University to explore options to determine how to confirm if an individual is a descendant of a person who is a victim of American chattel slavery.

This bill seeks to establish a clear, concise and evidence based process for individuals to verify genealogical ties and claim benefits or rights associated in regards to their ancestral heritage. In 2020, California enacted AB3121, which established the Reparations Task Force to study and develop proposals for addressing lasting impacts of slavery and systemic discrimination against African Americans.

The Task Force released its final report highlighting significant disparities in economic, health and educational outcomes due to historical injustices. Among its recommendations, the report emphasized the need of improved documentation and recognition of genealogical and descendancy claims to ensure access to reparative programs. However, unfortunately, the Task Force did not state how to determine a person's lineage.

SB437 builds on these findings by requiring the CSU to research and develop eligibility standards on reparative claims. Entrusting CSU with this process ensures expertise, integrity, accountability and public oversight. Placing this process within a state institution also prevents data from being exploited for profit or misinformation.

Recently, there have been concerns about private corporations potentially putting millions of people's sensitive genetic data at risk. In fact, Attorney General Rob Bonta has also raised privacy concerns around unregulated data collection.

I understand that there have been concerns raised in regarding the start date, and I am committed to working with stakeholders to address these concerns to ensure that the bill is implemented in a way that is effective and feasible and while also being responsive to the needs of the communities it aims to serve.

The Committee also mentioned the frequency of the CSU reporting of their findings. For a process as important as determining lineage, the frequency of reporting is necessary to ensure that we have an open and public process.

Open communication with the California Legislative Black Caucus ensures that the public is kept up to date with the process and that everyone is held accountable. Moreover, determining genealogy is also very complex and evolving. Regular check ins allow for adjustments based on new findings and best practices.

SB 437 is supported by the Greater San Diego Urban League, Greater Los Angeles, American Chamber of Commerce, Western center on Law and Poverty, and numerous other advocacy groups and community Members who recognize the importance of this Bill today.

Speaking in support is Michael Willis, who's the Board Chair of African American Genealogical Society and potentially Dwayne Crenshaw, if he gets here on time, who is the President of the Greater Sacramento Urban League.

Thank you, thank you very much distinguished Members of the Senate Education Committee. As Board Chair of the African American Genealogical Society of Northern California, a professional genealogist with 24 years of experience and a recently published author, I thank you for this invitation to speak with you today. In 2022, genealogist Dr.

Kelly Ferriss showed the Task Force on How Confirm an Individual Status as a descendant. Given that SB 518 defines the community of eligibility as the descendants of a chatteled enslaved person or a free person of color living in the United States Prior to the 19th century, Dr.

Farish proved eligibility by tracing a family back to the 1900 census and identifying a 59 year old woman who was born 24 years before the end of slavery. In my 24 years as a genealogist and consultant, that has typically been my experience.

Even within my own personal family research, I've traced my ancestors further back to individuals in the 18th century. As I've documented in this recently published book, when your ancestors choose you. Finding Binky this is a book that's inspired by my maternal grandmother's oral history that she taught me when I was 8 years old.

Now I know that this research is a little beyond the scope and requirement of this Committee's efforts, but the methodology is the same.

So for decades professional genealogists have adhered to genealogical proof standards and methodologies, and the first steps that we have individuals complete are family group sheets where we teach them to start with themselves, work their way backwards, enter in the names, birth dates, locations of their ancestors.

I even did this with former Senator and Member of the Task force, Senator Stephen Bradford. He followed this process and I assisted him with uncovering 10 of his 162 times great grandparents. Within A matter of days. And the individuals were born anywhere between 1810 and 1873.

So we do this by using two family websites to enter the family data. FamilySearch.org and Ancestry.com those two websites contain over 50 billion records for combined records over 80 countries. And so they're the most comprehensive websites that are available on the web. And that process is incredibly efficient.

So I'll open it up for questions if you have anything, but thank you again for your time and consideration today.

Thank you. Is your other witness here?

He has not shown up, so we can move on.

Okay. Are there any other support witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside of the railing.

Morning. My name is Mary Moyle. I'm with the CSU. We are still working to finalize a position on the bill, but would like to thank the Senator for working with us. Thank you.

Great. Anybody else? I see someone moving.

Hello. With Black American Political Association of, California, baypack Sacramento Chapter. And we are here in support of Senate Bill 437.

Great.

Brandon Greene. The Western Center on Law and Poverty we're in support of the bill.

Anybody else in support? All righty. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition, if there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table here in front of us.

Mic check. Mic check. One, two. Can you.

You'll want to press it until it's red and then just speak directly into mic.

1, 2, 1, 2. Here we go. Thank you. Good morning, Senators. My name is Chris Lowdson. I'm the lead volunteer organizer and advocate with the Coalition for a Just Inequitable California, the state's leading grassroots coalition born to achieve reparations for California residents who descend from people emancipated from chattel slavery. We're here today in respectful opposition to SB 437. Here's why.

First, the proposal directly contradicts the recommendations of the California Reparations Task Force. The task force did not, and I repeat, the task force did not recommend that the state conduct additional research to determine how an individual might determine their descendancy from US Chattel slavery.

Second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth, the proposal is unnecessary, redundant, raises serious risk of fiscal waste, would create crippling and cascading implementation delays, and was already rejected by community advocates. Specifically, it's unnecessary because tracing ancestry to US Chattel slavery is already a known practice conducted by genealogists literally every single day.

It raises serious risk of fiscal waste because the research proposed directs millions of taxpayer dollars originally budgeted for reparations implementation to a multimillion dollar genealogy research project with no start date and no end date to the research.

It would create severe implementation delays because none of the other Black Caucus bills currently moving in the Legislature targeting descendants can actually take effect until the proposed research project is completed.

Furthermore, last year this same proposal was rejected by community advocates and former Senator Stephen Bradford when Governor Newsom's office proposed nearly a carbon copy of what is now SB437 as amendments to Senator Bradford's SB 1403. Lastly, the proposal in SB437 conflicts with yet another one of Senator Weber Pearson's proposals, namely SB518.

And I'm happy to speak more about that in the Q and A. Senators. Californians whose ancestors built this country through hundreds of years of free labor are tired of research. We don't need more research. We need action. We need reparations. Vote no on SB 437. Thank you so much.

Thank you, sir. Now that we've heard from our lead witness, is there anybody else that would like to express their opposition here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside of the railing. And please only state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Good morning. My name is Aisha Kareem. I am with CPAC and I oppose SB437. Please vote no. Thank you.

Yes. Good morning. My name is Darlene Crummity. I'm a Member of CJAC and ARC Bay Area. Today I'm speaking for Lineage Equity Advancement Project, ETM in the mass media group, the California Black Lineage Society, and we all oppose. No on SB437. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Kim Mims. I'm with the Coalition for Adjusted Equitable California, American Redress Coalition of California, Sacramento and Bay Area. I'm in the Mass Media Group and I'm also speaking on behalf of Lineage Equity and Advancement Project, LEAP and California Black Lineage Society.

I am a no vote on SB437 and I respectfully ask that you do the same. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Molly. I'm with the Coalition for Just and Equal Equitable California. I ask that you vote no on SB437. Thank you.

Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Shamil Watson and I strongly oppose SB437. Please vote no. Thank you.

My name is Zion Tedesa, the founder of Shiva from Foundation, and I am absolutely no on 4037. Thank you.

Good morning. Don Basano. I oppose SB 437 as well and I ask that you do as well. Vote no.

Is there anybody else?

My apologies. Dwayne Crenshaw, Chair and President of the Greater Sacramento Urban League. We are here to Support today Senator, 4th Bill 437 and urge your support. The Urban League is committed to economic empowerment, education.

Sorry, sir, we were just doing those that are. We're here in opposition. Yeah. So if you would like to join us here. Here we have our. Our lead witnesses. You could sit down And go ahead and. share your testimony. We'll give you two minutes.

I need to do it now. Thank you again. Dwayne Kinshaw, President and CEO of the Greater Sacramento Urban League, here in strong support of SB437 and encourage the Committee to support this bill. The Urban League is committed to economic empowerment, education, workforce development for underserved communities.

We are committed to the economic success that starts with recognition and access to opportunity. Which is why lineage verification matters. Establishing a fair research based lineage verification process is critical to ensuring that resources meant to address historical inequities reach the right communities. Economic programs, from business grants to educational investments, rely on accurate data to be effective.

This bill ensures that lineage determination is done reasonably and equitably. Recognizing and verifying lineage is more than just a process. It's a pathway to economic opportunity. SB 437 lays the foundation for future policies that can drive economic success, close wealth gaps, and create new opportunities for historically marginalized communities.

I urge the Legislature, this Committee, to pass this bill so that we can move forward in a way that is fair, transparent, and economically empowering for our community.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses that have not spoken yet here in room 2100. Okay. Seeing as there's no one else, thank you to all of our support and opposition witnesses. We will now bring the discussion back to the Members. Do any of our Members have questions or comments? Yes, Senator Laird.

I would like to ask the author. I know that you would probably have addressed the issues that were raised in your clothes, but it'd be probably helpful if you address them now.

Thank you so much. Would love to address. I think the. The primary issue was the concern about it being a research study. And for those of you who are not aware, this is the reparation task force right here. It's 1100 pages. A lot of time, energy, effort, community hearings, research was done to produce this report.

As I stated in my opening, unfortunately, in this 1100 page report, there was nothing that specifically outlined the exact way to accurately and evidence based do Genealogy.

But what we do have in this report on page 658, when they talk about genealogy, is that we needed something to support potential reparation claimants by providing access to expert genealogical research to confirm reparations eligibility. This is what this Bill does.

It follows the recommendations from the task force by allowing the ability to figure out how we determine one's eligibility. Some people, like Senator Bradford, are very fortunate to be able to say, my mother is this person, my grandfather, my great grandfather. But not everyone has that opportunity.

And so we need to make sure that those who may not be able to trace their lineage back easily through an ancestry.com or one of those other websites have the option to see if they truly are descendants of American chattel slavery.

You have things out there like, you know, 23andMe, which is having issues now, but when you do those, and some of my family Members have done them, it tells you which tribe you're from on the continent. It does not verify that you are actually a descendant of American chattel slavery.

In order to move forward on some of the bills that we need to do that will specifically go towards those who are descendants of American slavery. We need a method for them to be able to, to do that, to find that out. And that is what this is doing.

So, you know, I respectfully disagree with the opposition and the fact that we don't need more, quote, research because this is not, was not elicited in the reparations report. And they actually did state that more research needed to be done.

Madam Chair, can I ask a follow up question? Thank you. So if your bill passes, it meets that recommendation, but does it then actually provide a formal, recognized process by which people's ancestry would be recognized?

So that is the whole purpose of the bill. We placed it in the CSU because they have lots of resources, they have academics, and we also gave them the flexibility to work and utilize other corporations, entities within the state and outside of the state.

We know that there's an amazing geological genealogical Department in South Carolina at their African American museum. We know that there are other organizations that have great history, historical data on African Americans in this country.

And so, yes, the plan is for them to determine the process so that it can then go over to the agency and an African American can go to the agency and say, I believe I'm an ascendant and this is the process in which they can actually verify their lineage.

Then I would make a comment because I know that there's at least a couple of us on this panel that are Genealogists for our own genealogy and have been doing it for decades. And I do this really old stuff. It does get into the 1700s where you hit brick walls. And there's nobody that certifies my work.

There's nobody that says I have sort of nailed it with regard to heading somewhere and having it. And so if that is part of the process, then I appreciate that.

And I know that when I was secretary for Natural Resources, we had the African American Museum at Expo park in our portfolio, and there was work to access the Friedman records and bring them to the public in a way that there was an accessible place for people to come and be able to access their ancestry that didn't exist in other ways.

Appreciate at least the CSU witness. And so my own preference would be to move this bill along and to give you the chance to address any of the issues that were raised. And I appreciate your effort.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah, so I'm the other one. Other. There may be others genealogists on the Committee, but I appreciate the bill and I'm supportive of it.

I think, as you continue to work it through, I think answering some of the opposition questions, but more importantly, in addition to how to confirm, there are also, as you know, all the policy and implementation questions.

And even if once you have that matrix of options, because there won't be a single one, how then do we begin to implement? How do we. I am. I. I'm. I use ancestry.com too. Every other month, I'm getting a new. A new email like, hey, guess what? Your ancestry has changed. You know, you were.

You were part Chinese last week. Now you're part Afghan. And so these are. These are evolving determinations. And although who do you think you are? You know, Henry Lewis Gates, whenever he does these on TV, they're. We only see the cases that got to resolution. Right. The vast majority of them do not. And I know this might.

It's very hard to trace my family, My, the Filipino side of my family, because they were. They were here legally, but they were subject to intense persecution in this state and nationally. And so the records are just not. There are criminal records and maybe a few ships records that conflict with one another.

People would write different things at each census, for example, because of how Filipinos or Hungarians or Germans were thought of at that moment. And so we have to remember these are socially constructed records, and they are very much a matter of their time.

And so part of the policy question that becomes, even as Information changes, does your eligibility change? What does that mean really? And so I think there's both the question that the bill is directly answering, which is an absolutely critical one.

We've grappled with this in California many times before, before we settled on why don't we just, why don't we, why don't we defer to tribes when they determine who their members are? We used to try to do this too, and people would, would game the system.

They would declare that they were Native American or American Indian in, you know, when they thought it was a college application, and then they would forget all about it when it came time for anything else.

And so it matters when we're talking about the recommendations of the task force, which are profound and broad, that we get it not perfect, it never can be with this kind of information, but that we have a framework for understanding the range of how we're going to keep getting better at it and fairly and equitably to those that are participating.

So I think the bill, I'm hopeful that the first round of deliverables of this work is both progress towards a set of tools and approaches, but also recommendations for agencies and for us about then how to incorporate it in policy given the. What will be enduring uncertainty and change over time.

And the only way to do that is through this kind of, this kind of research. And so I think this, CSU is the right. There's no perfect institution. Nobody's been doing this. This is the problem. We've been ignoring this for so long. So CSU is the right institution. The frequency.

I appreciate what the Committee analysis raises the question, and it's a good question, but I think the answer is this is an evolving field and California will be leading the way nationally in terms of the incorporation of this in so many ways.

The reason why, other reason why I think CSU is the right entity is that it is in higher ed where we've seen some of the most profound effects of things like Proposition 209, that, that, that allow us not to, not to engage in other ways of reparations in our, in our, in our, in our near past and in our present.

And that despite all of our counseling and outreach programs, we have not been able to catch back up particularly and exclusively for black Californians. And so it is in higher ed that I think one of the most, one of the biggest opportunities for the deployment of this definition in order to achieve some steps towards justice.

Higher ed is one, is the area that has some of the most, the biggest opportunities. So CSU is the right place to do it. I thank you for bringing the bill forward. I look forward to continue to help it in any way I can to continue to refine it, but it's an important step.

And as for an Aye vote, thank you.

Yes, Senator Choi, thank you.

Chair, I wonder if you have thought about how you're going to select which campers of CSU will be more qualified and how long it'll take for them to finish the trace of a genealogy.

Yeah, thank you so much for that, Dr. Choi. Once this bill passes and is signed by the Governor, the CSU will create its own kind of like RFP in a way to determine which campus would be best you.

You know, I've spoken with the CSU representatives so that we can hopefully find one that is satisfactory to everyone's approval. Being closer to Sacramento is great. Having of course, the resources and a relationship with the California Black Caucus is also extremely critical. And you know, to your point about the end date, I am not a genealogist.

I'm a scientist. And as a scientist, I have no idea how long this will take. We've heard from three genealogists today. I didn't know we had two in the Senate, but that's cool. And they even talk about the length, the extensive time to figure out someone's genealogical lineage.

And so that's one of the reasons why as of right now, there is no end date. We can definitely have conversations about a start date. But that's also why there is a requirement to come back and report on an annual basis, which is something that unfortunately we don't often do.

We often give money away or pass things and then we don't have follow up. But this has more follow up so that we can see what the progress is, have an idea of when it will be done and what other assistance they may need.

Okay, thank you. Speaking about genealogy, I'm not really familiar. Only thing I know is that tracing your ancestry, father, my grandparents and great, great parents, where they lived, et cetera, et cetera. So does it involve the involve genealogy tracing methodology involves any DNA.

So there I think are a variety of different types of genealogical testing. So what you've heard from today are was like with Senator Bradford is actually taking the information of their parents and grandparents and then taking that and like searching through history.

If you go on ancestry.com like the website, they have like a family tree, so you put your name, your parent's name and some information and then they try to link it up with documents.

But there's Also that genetic testing that I kind of talked about at the beginning, like 23andMe, where you swab yourself and they check your DNA and they run it through other systems. But that generally tells you like what, what area on the continent you came from.

So this is why this is very important to be able to figure out a way to accurately determine if someone is, you know, has lineage to American chattel slavery, regardless of if they know their family history or not. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Choi. Any other Senator Ochoa Bogh?

So I come from a family that does a lot of genealogy. I have not, I've done a little bit, I've dabbled in it, but I'm not completely immersed in it. But I do have family Members who have really immersed in genealogy. And of course, depending on where you come from, there are better records than others.

It is a, you know, human touched space which has the ability to be faulty on that end. I think that's one of the reasons why people are pursuing the DNA component to see originally where their families came from. And I understand the purpose of what you're trying to do here.

I think it's going to be very, very difficult. A little easier for some folks, a little harder for other folks because of lots lack of records. Especially within the, within the history of the black community. It would be very, very difficult to, to actually follow that genealogy.

I had a question with regards to, I had a question with regards to the comment that stated that your proposed bill conflicts with your other bill that you're currently with, SB 518. I was kind of curious if I could hear from, from you.

I don't know of any conflict, so you'd have to ask the person who stated, oh, okay.

Happy to speak to that. And, and also I would like to address, if I may Chair, a couple other comments that were made by Senator Lay and Senator Cabaldon here as well.

If you could just speak to Senator Ochobog's question.

Every one of you was hopefully given a couple of handouts before the hearing started. There's a handout, the One that has SB437 on the front, it's a fact sheet. And then SB518 on the other side. If you look to the gray arrows, those are the sections that specifically address Senator Chobolk's question.

The fact sheets for both bills say that the bills are doing the same thing. If you look at the language in the fact sheet and if you read the bills themselves too, SB518 creates a state bureau with a genealogy Office to determine a process for how to determine lineage.

SB437 creates a research project to create a process for how to determine lineage. That is a direct conflict. Literally a direct conflict. The two bills are in conflict with one another.

And also, respectfully, the task force, to Senator Weber's point earlier and to Senator Ochoa Bogh's question, the task force recommended that the state create a state agency with a genealogy office with a genealogy office to create a process for those to help identify that they were descendants.

They did not recommend that we do additional, no start date and no end date research on how to determine how to determine who is a descendant. And that's actually what the bill does. That is actually what the bill does. The bill does not only ask the CSU to create a process for how to determine lineage.

The bill also says that the CSUs need to research how that process is supposed to happen. That's not what that. That's not what the task was recommended. We don't need that additional research. What we need is to create the process and start actually doing genealogy, genealogy services. That is what the bill.

That's what the task force actually recommended.

So let me explain what the task force has recommended and what the bills do, since I've read the report and I'm the author of the bills. So the bill that is before you today will establish the process of how to determine one's lineage.

It will do the research that was explicitly discussed in the task force language that I just read for you on how to determine one's lineage. Once that information has been determined, then that will be given to the genealogy division at the agency, and I stated that already.

So that any African American or someone who believes they are a descendant, they might not even be African American because of what has happened during slavery, but they may have lineage to someone who was in chattel slavery, can go to the agency and say, I think I'm a descendant.

The agency has the information on the ways in which they can then verify that through genealogical testing. And that's how it's done. So the CSU is doing the research to determine the best method or methods. We have the funds for that. We can get that started now.

The agency is where the individuals will go to actually get that testing done.

Senator Ochoa Bogh, did you have any further questions?

No, I'm good, ma'am. I'm sure.

Thank you. No other questions from Members. Senator Weber Pearson, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you so much. I want to thank everyone who came to discuss the bill, those in support and those in opposition. You know, this is a, a working progress, but really looking forward to the possibilities and respectfully ask for your Aye vote on SB437. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Weber Pearson. Do we have a motion on SB437? We have a motion by Senator Cortese. Assistant Please call the roll file.

Item 2, SB 437. Weber Pearson. Motion is do pass to the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Do we need to put that on call? Okay, so that so the vote is out. 5 Ayes, 2 No's. And the it is do pass to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So we will go ahead and move on to our next bill. And that is file item number four, SB 438 by Senator Cabaldon. And I will give Senator Cabaldon a moment to go ahead and get up, and then he'll start when he's ready.

Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you. I'm here to present SB 438 to expand dual enrollment pathways and support students that are undertaking them. The College and Career Access Program is perhaps the most effective policy intervention that the Legislature has undertaken to promote equity in California in the last decade.

That program, according to the Public Policy Institute of California, 82% of participants in that program go on to college within the first year. 82%. That's compared to 66% of students who are not in dual enrollment. Students in the program have GPAs that are much higher than students who are not in dual enrollment.

And those GPAs are rising as the program gets better and better and better. Students in this program and when they go on to the community college are far more likely to complete associate degrees or certificates than students who did not complete this program.

And uniquely, this is the only dual enrollment program in California where Latino students have achieved and exceeded parity. It's the one program where equity has been, has been a significant step forward. There remain gaps in dual enrollment statewide, equity gaps, but that's partly because all students are doing better.

But with CCAP in particular, the equity gaps have been closing for Latino students and for Asian students as well. So this is a program that works, and it works in a way that supports students and that is far more efficient for the State of California. These are students who enter college with significant units, but units that count, units that count toward their programs, toward their degree, towards their transfer. That means they don't have to repeat courses again in college, and it means we don't have to pay for those courses again in college.

And so dual enrollment, when it's properly done, when it's not random acts of dual enrollment, but structured, effective dual enrollment that works like this program does, it is a major cost and time saver for students, makes it much more likely that they will actually complete the degrees that they hope to achieve.

And it's a significant cost savings to us as students do not have to repeat those courses again. Dual enrollment is the, and CCAP in particular, is the fastest growing initiative in California. CCAP is the, is the fastest growing portion of dual enrollment in the state, and that's from Irvine to Santa Clara to areas around Cuesta College, to Yucaipa to Long Beach. Everywhere in California, school districts and colleges have identified dual enrollment, and CCAP in particular, as a high.

As a high value Proposition for themselves to keep colleges strong and to, and to advance the prospects for students. Despite all of these benefits, schools and students are right now penalized by our minutes requirement. And it exists uniquely among dual enrollment programs just for CCAP.

So for those of you who are education nerds in high school, including our Vice Chair, early college high schools, middle college high schools, other forms of dual enrollment. In those programs, there's a recognition that you are completing your coursework essentially for two purposes. And so the number of instructional minutes that are required is more flexible for students in dual enrollment programs. We don't provide that same flexibility for CCAP.

That creates both a disincentive for schools, but also sends exactly the wrong message to students who say, look, I took this dual enrollment course, whether that is in a career pathway or it is my history course or my advanced mathematics course, and you're saying, I learned everything, I'm qualified for college, I've demonstrated my college readiness, my math and English preparedness, and yet you're saying I didn't, I just didn't do enough minutes.

That's not the message that we need to be sending. The point of dual enrollment is to achieve efficiency not just for the school, but for the student. And so maintaining a minutes requirement at the level that it is, this bill doesn't propose to eliminate it at all.

It simply aligns it with middle college high school and early college high school. Maintaining an extraordinary minutes requirement when these students are achieving at such high levels, with such deep, profound equity is not fair to them. And this bill would help to address that.

And so we're simply seeking to extend the same policy and fiscal lens to CCAP as we do for early college and for middle college high schools in order to allow students to continue to take more college courses, more enrichment, and allow schools to no longer be penalized for setting their students up for success. So I respectfully urge an aye vote on SB 438. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. We will now move on to lead witnesses in support, if there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us.

Good morning, Senators. It's a sincere pleasure to be with all of you today. My name is Ron Carruth. I'm a retired superintendent. I spent 16 years as a superintendent of schools in both Southern California and Northern California. For the last three years, prior to retiring a few months ago, I had the chance of serving as the Chair for all of California superintendents, and I currently serve as the Executive Director for the California High School Coalition. I think the Senator spoke importantly about the impact that our early and middle high school college relationships have resulted in.

It's incredibly effective for our students to be able to dual enroll in both high school and college. I think for any parent there's a great anxiety of how you afford college, and this helps our families be able to support their students in college. There's a great desire for all of us to ensure that we have the best workforce possible as we look ahead. This specific bill, by reducing the number of apportionment minutes from 240 currently to 180 like we see in those other outstanding programs, would have an extraordinary positive impact on the students of California.

One of the difficulties by holding the 240 minutes is we have a limited impact of what we can actually do and what we can accomplish for high school students. But if we can drop that to 180 minutes, as SB 438 indicates, it will have a profound impact on the students in California.

In every single community, but particularly those communities that are underserved and underrepresented. Not all the doors are opened for those parts of our state, and this would ensure access in a much larger scale for appropriate students that can benefit from this. We really do look at SB 438 as a simple fix, but really having a truly profound impact for the students of California. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Elizabeth An, and I'm a high school dual enrollment practitioner in the San Gabriel Valley and a constituent of Senator Perez, District 25. For the past nine years, I've supported students in dual enrollment by guiding course selection, offering academic and social emotional support, and collaborating with our local community college partners. Last year in my district, over 1,100 students participate in dual enrollment, with 91% earning a college credit with a grade of A, B or C.

Despite this success, scheduling barriers continue to be a significant challenge, especially for historically underserved students. Currently, students and CCAP programs are required to meet a higher instructional minute threshold than those in early and middle college high schools, making it harder to fit in college courses.

We often talk about closing the achievement gap for underrepresented students, but despite our efforts to market the program and offer translations in multiple languages, including Spanish, participation among our Hispanic students remain low. While they make up 43% of our student population, they only represent 25% of our dual enrollment participants.

Rigid instructional minute requirements may disproportionately affect underrepresented students in general, limiting access for those already facing challenges with scheduling, transportation, and other responsibilities. As a first generation college student myself, I took dual enrollment classes in high school. But since they were only offered after school in person, my mom had to drive me to college.

I can honestly say that I really enjoyed the classes and it made me feel like I could succeed. However, when she was diagnosed with cancer, I lost transportation and I had to stop, an obstacle that today's more accessible programs, including online options and on campus CCAP courses, could have removed.

SB 438 will eliminate this unnecessary barrier by aligning CCAP instructional time with early and middle college models, creating a more accessible system that increases dual enrollment access, especially for students who stand to benefit the most. This bill also ensures that schools can maintain their ADA funding, allowing them to retain teacher positions and potentially even reduce class sizes without financial loss. I urge your support for SB 438. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other support witnesses here in Room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside of the railing. And please only state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Maria Morales on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality in strong support. Thank you.

Melissa Bardo on behalf of EdTrust-West in strong support and proud co-sponsor. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon.

Kordell Hampton with the Association of California School Administrators in support.

Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified School District in support.

Sara Bachez with Children Now in support.

Madam Chair and Senators, Adam Keigwin on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support.

Anybody else? Great. Are there any other... We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition, if there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphone at the tables in front of us. Seeing as there's no one, are there any other opposition witnesses here in Room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside of the railing. Okay. All right. Thank you to all of our witnesses today. We will now bring the discussion back to the Members. Do any of our Members have questions or comments? Yes. Senator Laird.

I think this is a good bill. I appreciate the points that were made by the author and the witnesses, and I would move the bill.

Are there any other comments or questions? Great. Senator Cabaldon, would you like to close?

Just to say thank you to the witnesses, thank you to the Committee, and thanks, Madam Chair. Ask for an aye vote.

Great. A quick question. Which school district do you teach at? I'd love to know.

I think you might know, but I'm here as a private citizen, so I not sure if I can really say what district I work.

Where might we see you tomorrow?

Where it's known as like the Chinese Beverly Hill with the best Asian food area, if you know what I mean.

Very well. Okay. I know exactly where. Thank you. Great, and lovely to have you here. I always love to see folks from the SGV. All righty. Can we... We have a motion from Senator Laird, and the motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Assistant, can you please call the roll?

On SB 437, Cabaldon [Roll Call]

Great. That Bill is out. It has seven eyes. No no's. And the motion was do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee Committee.

Madam Chair. Yes. Would you like a motion on the two consent items, item one and item three?

Yes, that would be excellent. We have a motion on the consent items, both SB241 by Cervantes and SB389 by Senator Ochoa Bogh, Assistant please call the roll

[Roll Call]

Great. Those bills are out 7 to 0. And then what do I need to do here? Great. Thank you to all the individuals who participated in public testimony today. We have concluded the agenda. The Senate Education Committee is adjourned.