Assembly Standing Committee on Education

All right, like to call this hearing of the Assembly Education Committee to order. Good afternoon everyone. We will hold off on calling the roll to establish a quorum.

I'd like to invite all of the Education Committee Members to please come down to room 11100 and like to announce that we have 32 bills on file today so a full day of Bell hearings. One Bill has been pulled from the hearing that is file item number 13, AB673 by Assemblymember Jackson.

So if you are here for Assembly for file item 13 AB673 that will not be heard today and one item has been pulled from consent that is file item number 12 AB640 My Bill and so that will be presented.

So if you are interested in File item number 12 AB640that will be heard, there are 11 bills remaining on consent.

They are and these bills are not going to be heard individually, but they're going to be heard or they're going to be voted on as a block without any presentation given that they are have received bipartisan recommended support with no opposition.

These are AB395 with amendments, file item number 6, AB422 with amendments, file item 7, AB453 file item number 8 with amendments, AB503, file item number 10, AB606 file item number 11, AB811, file item 16, AB821, file item 17, AB962. File. Item 21 and AB1009 file item 23.

Also 02 pages here, AB1306, that's file item 28 and AB1369. File item number 291306 is with amendments. So those 11 bills will be voted on together on consent. We have one more Committee Member necessary for quorum and so we'll hold off on voting on the consent calendar.

Bills will be heard in sign in order as a reminder for each Bill we will have up to two witnesses each in support and in opposition. So two witnesses support two witnesses opposition, each of whom may speak for up to two minutes.

I will be trying to cut you off after two minutes, so please try to keep your comments to two minutes. Members of the public in the hearing room will have an opportunity to state their position on each Bill. Please state your name, affiliation and position, support or oppose on the Bill only.

Members of the public are also welcome to provide additional comment through the position letter portal. Basically provide comments through the Committee's website. And we have a standard statement that I need to read regarding conduct in our hearings.

We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation decisions on the issues facing our state. As we proceed with the witnesses and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order around efficient and fair hearing.

We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate, regardless of the viewpoints they express, in order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public.

Within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings, and we will not accept disruptive behavior, behavior that incites or threatens violence. Remember, rules for today include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

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

Please be aware that any violations of these rules may subject you to removal from the hearing room or other enforcement actions. We have Members here to establish a quorum, so, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, we have a quorum. Can we entertain a motion to adopt the consent calendar? Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

How many votes? Okay, five votes. Consent calendar is out and adopted. All right, we had File Item number one, Mr. Gallagher, but I don't see him in the room. And so, Ms. Davies, you are. Okay, so Ms. Davies is agreeing to allow Mr. Gonzalez to go ahead. So this is file item.

This is AB727, file item 14. Oh, okay. Sir, we have more than one Gonzalez in the. In the building. So Jeff Gonzalez yes, of course, we like to fight against that. So this is file item 31, AB 1412 by Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez. Welcome, sir.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I want to start off by accepting the Committee amendments that are highlighted in the analysis. I also want to thank the committee for working with me and my team on this important legislation and I look forward to continuing to work on this issue.

I am honored today to present AB 1412 which would make the transfer process consistent for all types of school transfers for special needs students.

Specifically, this bill requires school districts to adopt or implement a special needs student students current or new individual education program, also known as an IEP, within 30 days of transfer from outside of the state.

Additionally, this bill would require the new school to promptly coordinate with the student's parents and previous school and to take reasonable steps that are consistent with the Interstate Military Compact to ensure prompt student record acquisition. These requirements would ensure timely access to services for highly mobile students with exceptional needs.

AB 1412 is about consistency and protecting access to services for students. Existing law requires that when a student with an IEP transfers between schools within the state, the new school must either adopt the previously agreed upon IEP or develop and implement a new one within 30 days.

This 30 day timeline does not exist for transfers from outside of the state. This means that students with exceptional needs often face delays and hardships in getting the services that need that they need when they transfer from outside of the state.

As a proud marine veteran, I know that military connected children are especially vulnerable to these challenges given their highly mobile lifestyle. We had this in my house, we completely understand this and we had to go through it and it challenged my house.

By adopting a uniform timeline for all types of transfers and by requiring prompt coordination and acquisition of student records, AB 1412 provides necessary guardrails for special education and protects against unnecessary delays. I'm committed to working with the opposition to address their implementation concerns and and I look forward to continued conversations.

With me today to testify and support and answer any technical questions is Ned McKinley and Kelli May Douglas.

Good afternoon Chair Muratsuchi and members of the committee. My name is Kelli May Douglas and I'm with the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Highly mobile children, including military children, experience recurring educational disruptions and challenges. Military families move frequently and change school systems on average six to nine times throughout their educational journey.

For these military families of children of disabilities, transitions between states can be especially overwhelming. Delays in implementation of special education support to military children can create a loss of educational opportunity and contribute to critical learning gaps. These losses can be magnified with each military move.

This bill does not attempt to change existing federal requirements for districts to provide comparable services upon transfer. Instead, it specifies a timeframe for adoption of an IEP for students transferring from another state or jurisdiction, replicating what is provided for those students that are within state.

The intent of the language is to reiterate and leverage existing policies, including federal special education and disability laws, the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunities for Military Children, and state provisions to speed up the time it takes for districts to review records from out of state to better enable them to provide the same timeline that is provided for those with intrastate transfers.

As previously recommended by the Federal Office of Special Education Programs, California districts are encouraged to accept recent evaluations conducted in a previous state. This would help reduce delays in adopting a new IEP upon Receipt of Records. Seven states have enacted this similar legislation and 12 states, including California, are considering bills in the current legislative session.

The Department of Defense is grateful for the tremendous efforts and support that California continues to offer our military families. With nearly 85,000 children of service members currently living in the state at any given time, enhanced statewide policies such as those reflected within AB 1412 can have a significant positive impact on the educational experiences of our military children.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair, members of the Committee. My name is Ned McKinley. I'm with Marine Corps Installations West. I'm here today on behalf not just of the Marine Corps, but all the services in California. Just a couple of things I want to add on to the testimony.

These are challenges we are hearing across the straight state from all our installations. 30, 31% of families in a recent survey said they have delays of more than 60 days of getting their children with an IEP adopted.

The bases include Travis Air Force Base, Los Angeles, Space Force Base, Fort Irwin, Naval Base San Diego, as well as within the Marine Corps. So thank you very much.

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

Good afternoon Mr. Chair, members. My name is Denise. On behalf of. Denise Morgan on behalf of the California State PTA and we're in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

David Bollog in strong support of this necessary legislation. Thank you.

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

Sabrina Williams. I am the lead captain for Mom Army Sacramento and Placer County. I'm also a military family and strong support.

Hi, Seak Smith. I'm the founder of Mom and Dad Army in strong support of AB 1412.

Hi. Florentina DiGiannaro in strong support of this bill and also a parent with a child with IEP.

Christine Bish, Legislative Director for California Parents Union and Vice President of the Sacramento Republican Assembly. We are in strong support of this bill.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any public comments in opposition to the bill or anyone with an in between position? A tweener?

Good afternoon. Kordell Hampton with the Association of California School Administrators. Respectfully opposed to AB 1412. We look forward to working with the author's office on concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing that. Okay. Bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments from the. Dr. Patel.

I am the only committee left here standing to ask some questions. So I'm going to ask you some questions. Assemblymember Gonzalez, thank you for bringing this bill forward. As a most recently former school board trustee in the Powell Unified School District down in San Diego, thank you for being here.

Our military family, I appreciate you bringing this bill forward. I have a couple questions I'm inclined to support, but I do have a couple questions. One of them is, looking at it technically, state education law varies from state to state and I'm not very familiar with special education laws and policies in other states.

And what could constitute justification of an IEP in one state? Is it that different from one state to another? And will our California budgets be able to handle that 30 day timeline? I just want to make sure we are well resourced to do the task that we're putting upon our school districts.

Let me give you a personal and then we'll go to the technical. Right. So we were stationed in South Carolina and we were given orders to California. I had two kids with IEPs. We took those IEPs to California. They said you had to start all over. Those didn't count.

And then when they did the new IEP it was almost the exact same thing. So we said our kids didn't have services just to give us the exact same thing. Like I could see if there was a huge thing. But we came across that with tons of Marine Corps families.

And when I went up in the ranks, it's just the same thing. It was just a copy and paste. So let's say it wasn't. Let's start from let's use what we have and then walk and chew gum at the same time. Right. So I'll pass it to one of my experts.

Oops. Yes. Hi Assemblymember. And thanks for the question. And yes, I'm in Oceanside, so very familiar with your school district, previous school district. So I have, I guess a personal kind of story first. So I was a teacher within the Department of Defense Education Agency. So I taught in multiple states and also overseas.

We modeled this, this 30 day requirement after DoDEA. So that Department of Defense education activity is also known as DoDEA. So we modeled it after DoDEA policy.

DoDEA receives the most is the, is a school district that the Department of Defense runs that receives students coming from around the world, coming from within DoDEA schools and also from all the states and different countries. Even if they can create that kind of 30 day baseline expectation of implementation, we feel like anyone could.

But I just wanted to say that. I also have a 25 year old son who grew up military and with special needs. And we moved from multiple schools in multiple school districts. Where we see the major difference is in definitions of what is eligible, like what disability is eligible. And so what we're asking would not negate that.

You know, that flexibility that, that states have to have to establish their own definitions of what's eligible. But when you're talking about a student who is likely already eligible, and barring some, you know, huge difference between two states, which we have not seen yet, they're generally going to be eligible for the same services.

But what federal law requires. Right. Is for districts to provide comparable services. So. So if North Carolina has horseback riding as a therapy and then a child's moving from North Carolina to Poway and they don't have any horses, the district has that ability to be flexible. So I hope that helps.

Yeah, that definitely helps. Knowing that being a child of a military family is hard enough. We have lots of friends who are part of the military families and it's just hard enough moving from state to state when your children are young. And then equally, it's so challenging on families, of course, unique opportunities as well.

But raising a child with disabilities is hard enough on its own. And then you put those two things together, families are just looking to have some stability. So I completely understand. I've heard it from many families in our school district over the years. My next question is maybe it's a little more philosophical and technical.

In all of our bills we have at the bottom, this bill would provide that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill contains cost mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The Commission on State Mandates is overwhelmed and under resourced. Do we anticipate this increasing costs?

No.

Okay, thank you.

All right. Seeing no further, committee members and the dais. Thank you very much, Assemblymember Gonzalez, for bringing this important measure. I am a product of the U.S. Department of Defense schools, having been born and raised on US Military bases overseas.

And so I certainly can also appreciate all of the seeing my friends moving every two to four years. And so I'm happy to support this measure.

I hope you will work with ACSA to address any practical concerns they have in implementing your well intentioned on this bill so that we can make sure that we execute your policy, your proposed policy responsibly. So with that, would you like to close?

Thank you. I appreciate the time. And yes, committed to working with ACSA to make sure that we shore up any gaps in it, but most importantly, making sure that we take care of these kids. That's as you and I and all of us know that that's priority for us.

So this bill speaks to that and we will continue to work to make sure that we do that. And I respectfully ask for an I vote.

Yeah, I'm happy to make the motion to move this bill, but I am looking forward to working with ACSA, with the opposition to make sure we get it right. We want to be able to implement this. Thank you.

Okay. I will second the bill for the roll call.

[roll call]

All right, two votes. We'll keep the roll open. It's on call. Two voices here. All right, I see. Mr. Gallagher, this is the file item for reconsideration. File item number one, AB 281. So, Mr. Gallagher, you're welcome back. You are welcome to speak on the amendments only to the bill. Please proceed.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members appreciate the reconsideration of this bill. I've worked with the committee on amendments that I think, you know, strike the balance that we were looking for in our conversation last time on this bill.

And essentially what it requires is that third party consultants, who are coming in to do the sexual education program, would abide by the same rules that we do for guest speakers.

And just providing the name and the affiliation of the organization on the notice, the regular notice that goes out at the beginning of the school year or when there's 14 days out from a special event that goes out to the parents so they have knowledge of that.

And so, I think that strikes the right balance of giving parents knowledge of the sex curriculum and who's going to be actually providing that instruction. And I did, you know, we did remove from here the right to make copies. That was something I did think was important.

But, you know, heard from the committee that that was something you weren't willing to support today. So that language has been removed from the bill. But I do think it's important that we give that, that same notice that we are now giving for guest speakers to outside consultants that are bringing in.

I appreciate the committee consultants who, you know, worked with us on this bill. I think we found some good language here that that works. And I'm hoping that we can have bipartisan support to, to move this forward today.

Again, I think maybe as background I, you know, began on this journey is actually my first term and this and that bill actually made it all the way over to the senate, had bipartisan support all the way through. So, I don't think things have changed that much since that time.

And I'm hoping that we can get this legislation passed this year. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do have with me a witness, Kelly Schenkoske. Did I say that right? I will get that right here soon.

All right. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and members of the Committee. And thank you to Assemblyman Gallagher for inviting me as a witness in support of AB218. My name is Kelly Schenkoske and I am a mom of two children here in California.

I am speaking in support of this bill as an endeavor to streamline some challenges that parents in the state have faced since the implementation of the CHIA law with regards to curricula, transparency, access, and 14-day advance notification.

This commonsense bill enhances family engagement which schools strive to achieve as they partner with parents to ensure parents are adequately informed and involved in the process.

When I had inquired of the curriculum that would be taught to comply with the CHIA and Pacific Grove Unified School District, I was provided a nine-page outline of subject matter topics that the guest speaker would cover.

But I was not provided with the curricula, the slides and presentation mode, the videos to be shown, the web referral links, the activities or resources provided. Other parents have been faced with similar experiences and this bill will easily remedy that without changing any curricular content or materials.

The same district did not adequately notify parents with the 14-day advance notification, and this leaves parents feeling as though they are not able to partner with their child in this lifelong learning journey.

In California schools, it is common practice to provide access at the district office to math, textbooks, science, social studies, ethnic studies materials and I respectfully request your vote in support of AB 281 to enhance family engagement, parent participation and to streamline this process. Thank you.

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

Nicole Young, Placer County Chapter Chair, Moms for Liberty, as well as the Legislative Chair. We are in strong support. Transparency matters. Thank you.

Samara Palko, with California Catholic Conference, and strong support.

Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council, and support. Thank you.

Seak Smith, founder of Mom and Dad Army, and strong support of AB 281.

Sabrina Williams, with Mom Army: Sacramento County and Placer County, and strong support.

Florentina De Janaro, from Yuba and Cedar County, and strong support.

Sophia Lorey, with California Family Council, and strong support.

David Bollog, thank you for the compromise, and support.

Dean Broyles, National Center for Law Policy, and strong support.

Christine Bish, Legislative Director for the California Parents Union, Vice President: Sacramento Republican Assembly, in strong support.

Columbus Ward in strong support.

Seeing no further public comments and support. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward. Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill, please come forward.

Good afternoon. Chair, Symphoni Barbee, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, in opposition. Thank you.

Seeing no further public comments in opposition to the bill. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Dr. Patel?

Hi. I appreciate your work and that you've brought this bill back with many amendments. I still have one concern. Now that it's in its current state. What does this bill do that districts currently aren't already capable of doing? What is new and different?

Right now, the only requirement is to give notice of when the sexual education instruction will be given and if there's any guest speakers that are going to come that you give notice about the guest speaker. All this does is include in their outside third-party consultants who are going to do the construction.

So, you also give them notice on those. Right now, they are not required to do that. And so that's what this bill would do.

But should a parent inquire, they would give it?

I mean, I don't know. I mean, that's one of the issues is there have been issues where parents have gone to get information that they haven't, you know, that's the story of my witness, is that they didn't get all the information.

This just puts, and again, this is really on the outset of the notice that goes out that you would provide the name and affiliation of the third-party consultant who would be doing the instruction. So right now, that's not required. This would require that they do.

Thank you.

All right, Mr. Gallagher, we have had a chance to talk about this not only at the last hearing, but one on one.

And I think while I certainly appreciate your efforts to make sure that the parents have greater access to information, we have to balance that with all the demands being placed on our administrators in terms of reporting requirements. It is my understanding that the health education program does already have significant transparency and reporting requirements.

And so, taking all those considerations and trying to strike that balancing act, while again, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I will not be able to support your measure today. But it's a non-recommendation for the committee, and so we'll see how our committee members vote on this. So, we need to wait for members for a motion and to vote on the bill, and so your bill would be placed on call.

Might I close, Mr. Chairman?

Yes, you'll be given. I'm making sure that I get the right terminology here. So, we will take the matter under advisement and bring it up for a vote when we have more committee members here. But, Mr. Gallagher, you have the final word.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, you know, I appreciate the work with the committee, and I think we came up with some good language here, you know, working cooperatively. That and again, I think really gets to the issue here, which is ensuring notice, you know, to the parents.

The parents obviously can take that information and use that as they decide and then go and have conversations with the school district. There's nothing in here that, you know, does anything more or less on that part.

It's just that, hey, if we are saying that we do need to have notice at the beginning of the school year and we do have to have notice when it's a guest speaker, the same rule should apply when you have an outside third-party consultant doing that. So that's what this would do: make that clear.

And I think that's, you know, a good compromise that meets that need of informing parents so that they can make decisions, you know, on behalf of their kids. And so, I appreciate the work on it, and I hope that we can get the support to move this forward today. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we will take this under consideration and move on. Next to File item number 22 AB 1005 by Assembly Member Davies.

All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and esteemed committee members. I want to say thank you to the committee staff for working with us on this bill. We are happy to accept the committee amendments. Ladies and gentlemen, drowning is 100% preventable. Numbers don't lie.

The statistics clearly show unintentional drowning is the leading cause of death in children age 1 through 4 and is second in children's age 5 through 14. Drowning impact African Americans and Native American children more than any other group. With drowning rates as high as 3.6 times more than the general population.

For every child under 18 who dies from a drowning incident, seven more children will experience a non fatal drowning incident. Sadly, many will experience permanent brain damage as a result. These heartbreaking statistics have motivated me to pursue a statewide water safety educational policy.

AB 1005 will help to ensure that children and their guardians are able to receive drowning prevention education at no cost to them or their school. Drowning is an issue of equity. 79% of children in households with income less than 50,000 have little if any swimming ability.

The bill will establish a swim lesson voucher program for the California's underserved communities. This bill will increase access to swim lessons. With me here to testify from the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health is their State Program Director and California's EMS Commissioner, Steve Barrow.

Thank you thank you, chair of the committee and members of the committee. I want to thank Assemblywoman Davies for taking this on. It has multiple components in this. For years, the drowning prevention community and the safety community, first responders have been working together to try to get drowning becoming more rare rather than common.

Unfortunately, it's common right now and we have since 2000 or 1991, over 13,000 Californians have drowned fatally and almost 10 times that number have had a drowning incident but have survived with a great number of those folks with permanent brain damage because of the hypoxia when you're underwater.

So this is not only a, a really dangerous, fatal issue for children, adults, but it also is an extremely costly type of unintentional injury. One brain injured child hitting a hospital and being revived and then going to a hospital can cost $5 million just in the first two weeks of care. It's an extremely expensive.

Each year in California, drowning. Drowning victims cost the state and it's not their fault. But drowning victims cost the state over 3 billion b billion dollars in hospital costs, first responder costs, follow up care costs. It's an extremely expensive type of injury that we have.

Anytime we can reduce that number and we have been working hard to reduce the number in our state. This bill will bring more. Half of our parents really don't have much of water safety or drowning prevention knowledge. This partners with the schools but brings outside resources to educate the parents.

It also unlike AB 1445, which was a bill that came before this, a Romulus Bill, this bill also will bring those resources to the students at the school, but at an age appropriate and grade appropriate way and at the school's discretion of how we, how we, we do that.

Thank you. If you can wrap up.

Okay. Yeah. The other components of this, developing a voucher program so low income families can access swim lessons and the swim lesson directory is incredibly important. Just hope you support the bill.

Oh, no. Okay. All right. Seeing no further witnesses in support. Any public comments in support of the bill, please come forward. Any witnesses in. Okay, please come forward.

Nicole Young in support.

Christine Bish, California Parents Union Vice President, Sacramento Republican Assembly strongly in support as prior carrier of emt.

No testimony, please. Thank you.

David Bolog in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward. Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition of the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the committee. Any questions or concerns? Dr. Patel?

Yes. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. As a district that's not too far from the beach drowning is definitely, certainly an issue that we worry about all the time. And being water safe is something that's a life skill. I do have one question regarding your bill.

Can you clarify for me whether this is actually establishing a voucher program or developing a plan to put a voucher program together?

Yeah. Because of the complexity of our state, what the bill does is it sets up a partnership between park and rec drowning prevention groups and then has the governor naming a specific agency. There's four or five agencies the governor could name to work in partnership to develop a plan for having a voucher program across the state.

We will take advantage, or the. That partnership should take advantage of current voucher programs. But they. They're small. They only help in a region. But it's to develop the plan and also for swim lesson directory.

So instead of just kind of saying, oh, we're going to have one, we really need to figure, okay, how are we going to do this? Our intention is to work with a lot of the national drowning prevention foundations to bring to the state the resources to be able to underwrite the voucher program.

But it depends on how the plan is developed.

Thank you for that response. I do appreciate that you're bringing folks together who are already embedded in this work to make sure that we're not being duplicative. We're being efficient in making sure we're delivering this potential program to our young people. So thank you for that.

All right. Would you like to make a motion?

I will make a motion to approve.

Oh, we can take the.

Move the bill.

Okay. I'll second it. Ms. Davies would like to close.

Thank you. I want to thank the committee and the chair. As said before, this is something that is preventable. And I have seen, I think, probably most of us, the devastation that it puts on parents when they have a loss of a child and feeling just distressed, and how it actually affects the families as well.

And so I just want to say thank you so much for giving us the time. Respectfully, ask for an I vote and. And for all of you to join me in the fight to end drowning here in California. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1005. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.

[roll call]

All right, three votes. The bill is on call. Next we have file item 19, AB 908 by Mr. Solache.

Good afternoon, chair and Members of the Committee. I am proud to present Assembly Bill 908 introduce in partnership with Equality California. This legislation will help California schools achieve truly supportive, inclusive and safe environments for students. I commend the Chair and Committee staff for their work and thoughtful analysis of this bill. We will be accepting Committee amendments.

These amendments will remove language adding to state priority to local control and accountability plans. AB908 will now add compliance monitoring to existing requirements and education code pertaining to inclusive school instructional material and school curriculum. After the passage of the FAIR Act, California schools are required to have LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum and textbooks.

The inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community and instructional materials is linked to greater student safety of school for all students and lower rates of bullying. Adding compliance monitoring will ensure our students uphold their obligations under state law to create safe and inclusive learning environments for our students.

Our students have their best chance of success when they feel represented and validated in the curriculum of our students deserve equitable, equitable opportunities to grow, thrive and succeed. We look forward to continued engagement with the Chair, my colleagues and stakeholders as we build on this policy.

Here in support, I would like to introduce Craig Pulser, Legislative Director of Equality California.

Good Afternoon, Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Craig Polsberg on behalf. Good Afternoon, Chair and Members Craig Polsberg on behalf of Equality California, proud co-sponsor of this bill and I want to thank Salamber Solace for his leadership and commitment to supporting LGBTQ students for more than a decade.

As you know, Equality California has worked with the Legislature and many of our partners across the state to ensure that all California students have an equal opportunity to succeed. And we are very proud of the work that we have done with this Committee to establish the strongest laws in the nation to protect and support LGBTQ students.

In many school districts these policies are working and we are extremely grateful to the teachers, administrators and other school staff who are firmly committed to creating a safe and supportive school environment for LGBTQ students. Unfortunately, one of the biggest concerns we hear from community Members is that these laws are not being uniformly implemented across the state.

Some schools simply lack the knowledge or resources to fully implement these laws, while others face local pushback or have school school board Members that actively impede implementation. AB 908 is an important measure to help address these challenges and ensure that all local school districts are actively prioritizing the safety and well being of LGBTQ students.

We appreciate the work of the Chair and Committee staff for working with us on this Bill, including the proposed amendments to require compliance monitoring for the FAIR act, which requires schools to have LGBTQ inclusive curriculum and textbooks.

A Quality California Safe and Supportive Schools Survey released last year found that nearly two thirds of school districts have not yet adopted LGBTQ inclusive textbooks and instructional materials consistent with the law.

So this additional compliance monitoring is an important step forward to ensure that local school districts comply with the FAIR act and so the LGBTQ students, students with disabilities and others can see themselves reflected and validated in school curricula.

We also look forward to continuing to work with the chair and Committee staff as it relates to the LCAP and exploring additional ways to ensure the LGBTQ students receive the protections and support they need. So I want to again thank the Chair so Amber Solace for your commitment to this issue and respectfully urge your aye vote.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Tristan Brown with CFTA Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. Happy to support this bill. Urgent aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chairmember Symphony Barbee, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support.

McLane Rosanski with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Elle grant on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Kaoh Yitao, on behalf of Hmong Innovating Politics, in support.

Christine Jordan in support. Strong support. Thank you.

Donna Cecil, parent of an LGBTQ student, in strong support.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments in support of the measure. Witnesses in opposition to the measure, please come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jeff Vaca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. We were opposed to the version of the bill as introduced. Our concerns were around the provisions relating to the LCAP. We thank the author for accepting the amendments that were recommended in the analysis. Thank your staff for working on those amendments.

Once those amendments are in print and we've had a chance to review them, we anticipate being able to remove our opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chairmembers. I'm Sophia Laurie, the Outreach Director at California Family Council, and we stand in opposition to AB908. This Bill will make the LGBTQ policies a state priority in every school's district's accountability plan.

And buried in that priority is education code Section 221.5, which says boys must be allowed in girls bathrooms, locker rooms, and even on girls sports teams, all based on gender identity. Let's stop pretending this is harmless. We are talking about young girls being forced to undress next to boys with exposed male genitalia in the name of inclusion.

We are talking about girls being pushed off the podium and off the field by males and female sports. This is not progress. This is erasure. This is injustice and this is state sanctioned misogyny. Biology is not hate and protecting girls is not bigotry.

And no school policy, no matter how well intentioned, should ever come at the cost of safety, privacy and fairness for California girls. While our schools are spiraling, failing this, Legislature wants to add more political agendas to the priority list. California ranks near the bottom in the nation in reading and math.

Kids can't read at grade level, but we're spending time and money, money on gender ideology. This is insanity. Our policies are upside down. We should be laser focused on academic excellence, not pushing radical social experiments onto children. Stop sacrificing truth for ideology. Stop sacrificing our girls. Your vote on AB 908 is not neutral.

It will either protect young girls or it will directly endanger them. You are choosing between truth and deception, between courage and cowardice, between protecting our daughters or abandoning them. Say no to AB908. It's time to put kids education and girls safety, not politics first. Thank you.

Thank you. Public comments in opposition to the Bill. Please come forward.

Good afternoon. Chair Members. Derek Lennox with the California County Superintendents. We appreciate the Assembly Member taking the amendments that the Committee offered. We align our comments with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools and really appreciate the author's attention to the issue.

Sarah Petrowski with the California Association of School Business Officials. We also appreciate the author accepting the amendments and once they are in print, expect that we will be able to remove our opposition as well. And thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Aaron Friday, president of our duty, mother of a daughter who used to believe that she's a boy, I oppose this bill along with Democrats for an informed Approach to Gender.

Nicole Young, on behalf of all the parents in Placer County as well as the Placer County Chapter of Moms for Liberty, we strongly oppose this bill.

Seek Smith, founder of Mom and Dad Army, on behalf of over a dozen chapters in California, we oppose this bill.

Sabrina Williams, Placer county and Sac County with Mom Army and I oppose this bill.

Florentina De Janaro with Mom Army, Yuba Sutter County of Freedom Coalition and Glad Tidings Church in Yuba City. We oppose.

Meg Madden Radamark I represent the nonpartisan group called Californians United for Sex Based Evidence in Policy and Law and Women are Real, also Nonpartisan with over 60% Democrat membership in opposition.

David Bolog on behalf of the Committee to Repeal 2210 Education Code 221.5 F. Thank you.

We are opposed. Greg Burt, California Family. Council, in opposition.

Christine Bish, Legislative Director, California Parents Union Vice President of the Cal of the Sacramento Republican Assembly. We strongly oppose.

Columbus Ward. We strongly oppose.

Dean Broyles, attorney with the National Center for Law and Policy. I strongly oppose

Seeing no further public comments in opposition to the Bill. Let's bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or concerns from the Committee, Vice Chair Hoover?

Sorry, just getting settled in here. Apologies. You know, just want to ask you, because I know the LCAP is already kind of a complicated mess right now. I would just say that. And so just want to ask your take on whether or not you feel like.

You feel like this simplifies that or kind of what precedent this might set for kind of future changes to El Cap.

Thank you, Mr. Hoover. As a fellow former school board Member, yourself and myself, this Bill literally is just a change. And to add the LGBTQ + addition to the fair plan where already exists, it does not do anything that, you know, was said in some of the opposition comments. A very simple, straightforward change.

After all the amendments we made, it does not involve some of the other original items that we had in the Bill. So we've amended the Bill to, you know, clarify some of the things that folks were concerned about, including our superintendents from Riverside and some of the concerns. So now it's a very straightforward language addition. And. And that's the difference in the. In the current language.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hoover.

And just for clarification, for the Committee's benefit with the author's amendments, this Bill has nothing to do with the L corrected for the record. Correct. All right. Any further comments or questions, motions made, so seconded, seeing no further comments from the Committee. Thank you very much,

Mr. Solace, for always speaking up on behalf of all students, including our LGBTQ students, I strongly believe that the mission of our public schools is to support and to protect all students.

And while, you know, we continue to live in divisive times where some of our most vulnerable students are targeted for attack, I think we need to make sure that we are supporting and accommodating and protecting all students. And so I'm happy to support your measure. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to the Committee Members, again, I want to super highlight that this is, after all the amendments, it's a very straightforward addition change. I respect the position's comments and the folks that I supported.

You know, as a proud person that grew up Catholic in my household, I was brought up to teach and to share humanity and love for one another. I will do that for every single student in California, regardless of how she or he identifies, so we can make a safe space for every single student, regardless of their identity.

We're going to keep doing that in California. And for someone that served 10 years on the school board, ensuring that all students have a voice, we want to make sure we offer more love and less hate. So with that, I support and ask for your support on this Bill. And I know. Thank you.

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

[Roll Call]

The vote is 5 to 2. The Bill we will add allow Members to add on to the vote. Next in signing order. Thank you very much. Next in signing order, we have File item number 30, Mr. Patterson, AB 1401.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Vice Chair Members appreciate the opportunity today to present AB 1401, a Bill to reaffirm a parent's existing rights to their students records. As a dad of four kids, and by the way, that's why I'm late to session every Thursday morning, I drop them off at school.

I know how vital it is for parents to have the tools and information they need to support their children. For decades, studies have shown that increased parental involvement is directly related to increased student achievement.

A literature review published earlier this year that synthesized the results of 25 other studies found that parental involvement in education plays a crucial role in fostering cognitive and academic development in children. This claim is widely accepted and not really debated. However, there's a growing concern that there are records being kept from parents.

And school districts continue to reach out with unanswered questions about what kind of information they can provide parents. In an effort to create a level of trust, it is imperative that the state Legislature clarify existing law and affirm that parents have access to all records, official and unofficial, unless explicitly exempt in state or federal law.

It has become common practice for schools to not store unofficial records in a student's cumulative file. Thus in many cases preventing a parent from having access. The state law extend only to information in cumulative file.

Or is it more expansive, including for instance a survey submitted in class or student information shared with a third party vendor or information even available during a public records request. Just last year this Committee worked with me to pass a Bill out of this Committee which was later signed by law.

So I appreciate the work on that to protect our students personal information and give them more control to ensure parents can request or adult now Adult children request a deletion of private student information being held by third party vendors.

But if parents are unaware of what information is being shared and stored, how can they possibly know to request a deletion of it? It is important to note that this Bill does not affect current protections on student data such as teachers sole possession records or the medical information of an independent provider.

This is an opportunity for the state Legislature to reaffirm their commitment to parents and parental involvement and to clear up any misconceptions regarding parent access to school records. Today I have with me Jessica Spade, an elected school board Member in my district and mother of.

She one uped me a mother of five as the main witness to testify in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Delighted to be sharing my thoughts with two former school board Members as well. I'd first like to thank Assembly man Joe Patterson for introducing AB 1401 and this Committee for hearing this important Bill.

Bill I am an elected school board Member in Assembly men's district and the current board President, an elected California School Board Association's delegate, Assembly Member. Deep breath. And a recently elected Member of Placer County School Boards Association Executive Committee. Now we can get into why I'm really here.

But more importantly, I am here speaking as a mother of five children, one of whom's with me now in the audience on spring break. I'm sure he's thrilled. I know firsthand the confusion that both parents and school districts have experienced regarding parent access to their children's records.

A growing concern regarding the information parents have access to has created significant pressure on school districts. Just look at the alarming trend of loss of enrollment in public education in California. It's critical that both legislation, the Legislature reaffirm their commitment to parents. Both parents and and districts need clarity on what records should be shared with parents.

As a school board Member, I know that we cannot educate students without the help of the parents. I believe this is not unique. Every school board Member and teacher I know wants parents to be involved to ensure the success of their children. There's no question in that.

Official records on file in a student's cumulative file, such as transcripts, attendance, birth certificate, etc, have been widely shared with parents without concern. Parents typically have easy access to their student's file via online portals like Aries.

However, it has become common practice for schools not to include unofficial records in a student's cumulative file, thus creating an area of ambiguity in what can and should be shared with parents. Examples of such unofficial records are surveys given in a classroom, demographics collected and shared, particularly about a student's home life.

What student information is being shared with third party vendors, lists of online services and apps Students have access to at school, just to name a few. This Bill reaffirms the importance of parent involvement and provides a simple clarification that parents have access to all records, both official and unofficial, unless exempt by the state or federal law. Thank you.

Thank you. You timed that almost perfectly. See no further witnesses in support of the measure. Any public comments in support of the measure, please come.

Nicole Young, Placer County Chapter Chair, Moms for Liberty, as well as our Legislative Chair for our legislative group in California, in strong support.

Samara Palko with the California Catholic Conference in strong support.

Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council in strong support.

Thank you.

Seak Smith, founder or Mom and Dad Army in strong support.

Sabrina Williams, with Placer and Sacramento County with Mom Army in strong support.

Florentina De Janaro with Mom Army in Yuba and Sutter County. Three children in public school in support.

David Bollog, another necessary Bill in support of.

Sophia Lori with California Family Council in support.

Christine Bish, Legislative Director for the California Parents Union Vice President of the Sacramento Republican Assembly in strong support.

Columbus Ward strong support.

Dean Royals National Center for Law and Policy and strong support.

Seeing no further public comments in support of the measure. Any witnesses in opposition to this Bill, please come forward.

Good afternoon. Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. We are taking an opposed position on this Bill because we don't have a definition of unofficial documents.

Even with the abiding by the federal restrictions, that leaves a world of possible documents that our administration and staff who really need to be tending to our students, would have to be tending to access to these records.

In addition, we're concerned about things like student journal entries, very personal information that could lead to exposing vulnerable students in ways and actually touch upon some of the FERPA protections, you know, maybe unintentionally, but still could really make that information available in a way that could be harmful for the students.

The relationship between educators and students is, is really one of trust and we want to make sure that that stays strong. It's. It's good for our students. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Tristan Brown with the CFT. Actually, a lot of what the lead witness in support spoke resonated with us in terms of student privacy and the sharing of information in this digital age, which is why we actually are pursuing legislation elsewhere to tackle that problem.

But we do also agree with the county, Alameda County Office of Education on the scope of what might be included in this Bill.

We are unsure at what would be included from the littlest scribble of a note that a teacher might have about a student to revisit later and what lack of context that would have and what that might mean for the parent-teacher relationship.

We hope that every parent and teacher can form a strong partnership for the best intentions of their students and work together to meet any challenges that arise. Flooding a record with discovery of unknown notes and scribbles and data does not seem to shed more light on that, does not seem to help that partnership.

Rather than face to face dialogue being able to discuss the students needs and work together. So we would appreciate a slightly different approach with a more defined set of guidelines to know what to share, how to share it, and work together with parents for the best interest of the students.

So for those reasons, and apologies if our letter is late on this, but we did have big concerns with the lack of definition and therefore oppose.

Thank you. Public comments in opposition of the Bill. Please come forward.

Sarah Petrowski, on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials, apologies for not getting a letter in, but we are in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. See no further public comments in opposition to the Bill. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Vice Chair.

Just for the opposition, did you offer the author a potential definition that you'd be comfortable with.

We engaged in conversation with the office and asked if they had some ideas about a definition, and some ideas were bantered about, but we did not land on anything. And would I be curious to hear if they do land on a definition.

We've had significant capacity issues and have been unable to sit down and talk about it yet.

Okay. I mean, is there any. I mean, is it your understanding that there are unofficial school records, that they exist.

Without a definition it's very difficult to say. I mean, there are written documents that exist, but we don't know whether they're in the office. We don't know where they are and who has possession of them. Especially without a definition, frankly.

We'd share that concept that a note home might be now a part of a record. And what does that mean? And what does that mean for safekeeping of that record?

A message in an online application to a parent may now be a record of something, and that might change the context of what's shared and how often and things like that. So it is quite still vague to know what to do with it.

So I guess my last question for the opposition would just be where do you think we should draw the line as a state between what parents have access to and what they don't have access to?

I'm not sure we could say there is a line, but there is a, I think a nexus what with Gardwi was speaking to earlier that parents and teachers should be working together in collaboration and having strong communication. Does that mean that there's a record created in that communication? Perhaps that is unnecessary.

And obviously you are communicating with a parent, so who else really wants to look under that hood? So I think we would be more than happy to entertain dialogue on how we could foster better interactions between parents and teachers to work together.

Obviously, once a semester, student-parent-teacher conference might not be hitting it out of the park. So not a line, but I think a vague nexus of where we could improve.

And we too would welcome engagement in that kind of conversation. We really support parental access to information. So I think, you know, we have some common starting, starting points to work from.

Thank you. I think for the author, you know, appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. What, what do you. What is your kind of. Are you open to working on a definition, kind of to further refining this and what is kind of your thoughts on what, what sort of information that we'd like to provide parents?

Well, you know, I mean, I have four children, you know, when I was a little kid, I'm still little, but not a kid.

I was.

You were not gonna say that.

I was not gonna say that.

You know, my mom used to always tell me, like, nothing you do is private, you know, and, you know, not, not to say that I. I do kind of subscribe to that philosophy personally, but that's not what I'm trying to do, you know, on this Bill.

But what's crazy, sometimes you introduce bills and you don't really understand, you know, what all the impact is going to be maybe more times than others.

But just last week, I received a, a survey from my child's teacher, and, and it said, hey, look, this is to connect with some stuff that, you know, we're learning in, in class and for more information, and I think it would be really great. And for more information, click on this link. And so I clicked on the link.

And essentially, I mean, just to top lines here, my kid was going to be a guinea pig of some kind of survey, and some data was going to be kept on whatever was observed by these observers.

And so I asked them, I said, well, how do I get access to what, are you going to be collecting specific information tied to my child? Because I did the Bill just last year that passed out of here unanimously that would give me the authority to delete that information when I left the district.

And so I said, what kind of information are you going to be collecting on my child? And poor teacher, by the way, like, she shouldn't have to put up with these. She, she frankly couldn't, wasn't really in a position to be able to answer that question.

She went back, you know, to the Administration and said, hey, look, we'll find another activity for your child to participate in. And what that really signaled to me is that I don't think our system is really. There are a lot of surveys going on in our schools. Parents don't even necessarily know about them.

I just happen to click on it. And the school itself couldn't really identify what kind of data was going to be obtained because if it was kind of just macro data on, hey, we observed kids looking at flowers today. Okay, fine, whatever. You know what I mean?

But hey, no, we saw so and so Patterson, you know, doing this and reacting this way. I'd want to know that. That's really important for me to know how my son is reacting to various inputs he's receiving as part of this activity.

So, but to just one last point I want to say on that is I would love for somebody to come to me and say, what kind of information should be excluded from parents to actually define that rather than, hey, well, we're willing to work with the parents. What I do know is that there's law.

There are laws on the books right now that exclude certain types of information, including teachers, notes within their sole possession, things like that that are excluded from being disclosed. There are current laws on the books that exclude certain information. And my law doesn't change or my proposal doesn't change any of that. And so we're just clarifying.

And one last thing. Sorry, I don't want to burden the schools, but we do public records requests into the school district, as you know, and volumes of information get sent to the public, but the parent doesn't have access to that unless they themselves put in a public records request.

Thank you. You know, I. I do think that is a good point that you're raising to me. I always say we should err on sharing more with parents, not less. And my concern with, you know, opposing a Bill like this would be that, you know, what are we trying to hide from parents?

Now, obviously, I don't think the opposition is trying to hide anything from parents, but I think that it would be better to work in good faith to figure out where that line should be drawn.

And at the end of the day, I can assure you there are things that we probably don't see or don't have access to that we should. And, you know, I actually agree with the opposition that we, unless there was some sort of mental health crisis or something, you know, some medical seriousness, that we're not trying to open up student records and student privacy issues with, like, personal journals and things like that.

But anything that the school is producing, whether it's a survey, whether it's notes, whether it's, you know, some sort of, you know, document that the school is producing about your child, absolutely parents should have access to that. And so I appreciate you bringing the Bill forward and happy to support it today. And I'll move the Bill. Thank you.

Motion's been made and seconded. Any, Mr. Lowenthal?

Yeah. First of all, I want to. I want to thank my colleague from. Mr. Hoover. Where are you from? From Sacramento. Folsom. Folsom. You know, I have worked with the author and with Mr. Hoover on very critical, important legislation protecting children. And I know what's in their hearts.

And what I feel the most that's happening in a Bill like this is an intense level of mistrust across the aisle, which is really the root of what we need to get to here, because what we're talking about is legislating against bad parenting as opposed to good parenting, because of course, good parenting, there's this deep collaboration with our schools and our districts and there is trust because it is a village.

And that village is so critically important in our kids development and our broader economy and all of those things. I don't disagree with anything my colleague from Folsom brought forward. And I believe in parental rights. I also share in a bit of the mistrust. I need to be, you know, I need to be open about that.

When I see so much hard fought rights, especially by those in the LGBTQ community have fought for and worked so hard for, that I align myself with and I believe in those rights.

And so what I would like to figure out with a Bill like this, because I know how you're wired and I know that you're really trying to make the system better for everybody. And this doesn't, you know, this may not just be about the issues around our Trans community, about LGBTQ community.

This could be about mental health issues, issues around discipline, around bullying, around gang activity and otherwise that should concern all of us, where we should have a village approach whenever we can to the benefit not just of those students and that family, but for everybody on that campus whenever possible.

So I want to ask you an open question. What is in your heart as it relates to this Bill? Why are you bringing this Bill forward? Where is the pain? Where, where is the genesis of this Bill and what is it trying to solve precisely?

You know, this has been, just going back to legislation that I like because of. I'll just, I don't know, maybe, hopefully nobody's listening. But if you look back at a lot of the issues that we've worked on together, I mean and I see it happening to my kids right now.

You know, when you see social media and you see, you know, the kids in, in the way they interact with each other and things go sideways, I mean, there are externalities that it is hard for us to really know what's going on in our child's lives. And that's when they're home.

Which, by the way, is a smaller. Or, sorry, that's when they're. Yeah, that's when they're home, which is a smaller percentage of time that they're actually spending at school.

And so for me, when I look at, you know, the animosity or the division that's happened in our state over who's best to care for a child, and I think I don't want to put words in your mouth. I think we probably. I'm the best person in the world to take care of my child.

You're a good parent. Again, we're legislating against bad parenting.

Yes, and that was a great point. You know, but it's hard to look at my Bill in the plain language of the law with all the distrust going on and just not look at it for what it's, what the face is. If the concern is, hey, look, this is overly burdensome, that's something we can work on together.

Let's talk about how we make this less burdensome. If the concern is this might fly in the face of some existing law that's already on the booksm my Bill doesn't address, my Bill doesn't, doesn't supersede other laws that are on the books. I don't take them off. The Legislature's made determinations.

But you do understand the sensitivity associated with that.

Yeah. And, you know, and you and I were on different sides of recent votes on that matter, but there's so many other issues that are creating divides in community.

Actually, when I was sitting down with Ms. Spade in my office and we were just kind of talking about some of the things that were going on, I mean, I was actually shocked to learn that there, there are applications out there that track whether a kid went to this dance or whether his, you know, they got three stars at school today, you know, things like that, to know how they're behaving at school.

So I'm just saying. Why is that secret?

If I could jump in, I, I. On the issue of apps, what apps students are using, what tech, they're using their digital footprint while they're at school. I absolutely think that's critically important for parents to have that information.

And I want to underscore what my friend, the opposition witness from Alameda stated and my other friend from CFT, which is, you know, what we're suffering from in having this debate right now is a lack of definition.

And it's troubling because you and I are aligning on concepts, but we're voting on creating law which relies upon specific definitions that, you know, are amorphous right now. So I don't think that your goals and what I'm hearing from you, that's in your heart and the concerns that you have are necessarily bad things.

And certainly if you're not trying to usurp existing law that's been worked on for so long. And I want to. I always, you know, you're a wonderful Legislator and I believe in things you're saying there. I'm concerned that with a lack of definitions that are have right now, it's going to lead to more confusion and more distrust.

And so I encourage you on the other side of this, however the vote turns out, that you work hard on that topic, on clearly defining what those things are and what they aren't.

So we eliminate the distrust and we can talk apples to apples on exactly what this Bill would do and what it wouldn't do or a future version of the Bill.

Thank you. As a parent, I've said it many times in this Committee, I want to have access to the information that my child, my children are receiving at school. So I think I have some sympathy for that as I learn about the way this works. We are working every day on stuff.

And yesterday night, as I was reviewing all this, the question that came up was very specific as to what are the examples, what is the information that is not being received.

As a parent, I'd like to know what is out there that is potentially damaging information or important information that I consider important that I like to have access to. I feel that I currently don't have access to the information that I would like to have access to in order to understand what my children are doing.

That doesn't mean that that information doesn't exist. I will acknowledge that. But I think we've attempted through our offices to try and get specific examples on that. And I don't think those have been able to be produced. And so I am concerned about that. Even prior to the testimony in the hearing, what exactly are we talking about?

Um, so I would encourage that we. That you spend some time on that. I'd also like to ask, because you raise an important point, PRAs. You mentioned PRAs. People have access to information that parents, unless they PRA, would not.

You know, whether or not when a Public Records Act request comes to a school and there's personal identifiable information for children, is that released?

You know, it's interesting you say that. I can name at least one example where that was released. Now, whether or not, I can, and whether or not that was lawful or not is obviously debatable.

But as you can see from, I'm a former City Council Member, local governments have dealt with for years, including school boards, ambiguities surrounding what is a record that should be provided. And this is no different than that, is that there's.

I acknowledge there's going to be some ambiguity in there. But they do with public records requests they make those determinations for the public. But what about the parents?

But I don't believe there's ambiguity on personal identifying information of a minor.

Correct. I agree. I agree on that. I'm just.

I just raised that because you were using that as an argument which could be very persuasive. Oh gosh, if somebody else can get access to the information, why can't me as a parent do that? And I just want to make sure that that's factually not what occurs.

If I may speak, it is excluded.

And so again, I'm interested in what information is being collected and being very specific about that is. And what information do you believe based on examples is critical enough to reach a threshold that it should be made available?

Because if it's not made available, I would assume that then there would be lawsuits and then there would be exposures to a school district who doesn't provide a particular record that maybe someone thought it was just a teacher note, if we want to use as an example that maybe a teacher just assumed was a normal thing, a normal exchange of communication.

But it wasn't produced as required by this potential law and therefore the exposure to the school districts. I think that's why it's critical to not be ambiguous about what information we want to delineate as wanting to have access to.

And again, reasoning what is being collected. What, what do you feel is being collected by schools and kept in students' files that we think should be available.

I agree, if it's any, any utilization of technology and applications, I kind of feel like I get notifications on that already from their schools. But if, if that's what is exposing kids, then I'm interested in hearing about that.

But sort of a blanket, again, I'll call it ambiguous, really lack of definition makes it really hard to say this is exactly what we're going to accomplish by this law. So I have, I have difficulties with that.

Could I give you an example?

Sure.

Okay. Would you mind going?

Yeah. So recently there was, there was a PRA that went through our county and information was released. That information was shared with another local school board member when they identified that their city was easily identifiable with an address, with student name, with student medical information on accident.

Immediately upon receiving that information, they let the party who released that information know that private information was released. That information was only received because it was in there within that student record.

And if the parent realized that there was a chance for a lapse to be able to remove some of that information, that information wouldn't have been shared with the public. But it was.

And I think that you know, regarding the ambiguity at Code 49061 states that any item of information directly related to an identifiable pupil, other than directory information, obtained by the school district and required to be maintained by an employee in the performance of their record is a document, it's part of their record.

But there are, there is information that we don't have access to through Aeries or elsewhere. And when we talk about providing transparency, I think the, the issue here with ambiguity is there are different.

We need to clear up common practices throughout the districts across State of the State of California and misconceptions and I, and I agree with Assemblyman Hoover that you know, in, in chances where there's. Should we share the information or not?

Unless it's exempt by current law which exists to protect students specific student information that we should err on the side of transparency and providing that information to parents as elected officials. I don't feel it's appropriate for me to decide what another parent should have or not have outside of what the bounds that we have through our law.

So is it your opinion that every item that a student produces work wise in the classroom would be required to be produced to a parent?

That's not certainly not what I believe the spirit of this is in my interpretation. But anything that the district is maintaining on behalf of my student and they're not keeping every piece of paper. And as you had mentioned earlier about the notes that's already identified in law that that's not a part of a required student file.

Yeah. I think the problem is we can't base it on the spirit. I think we need to be more concise as to what exactly we're talking about. Not just that the intent is or the spirit of, but we're writing law and we can define those. And if you're able to do that, I'm willing to consider revisiting this.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any further comments or questions from the Committee? All right.

I, Mr. Patterson, I, as a parent, as a fellow parent, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I would agree, I would just not without repeating my colleagues comments just echo what they're saying that you know, we have the federal law FERPA that provides and specifies and clarifies what records parents have access to and we can't just have an open ended, you know, unofficial records exception.

And so for that reason I cannot support your Bill today. But you get the final word.

Great. Well, thank you Mr. Chair and Members. I appreciated the discussion around this and you know, fortunately, in the great State of California, we have a track record of, of providing information that maybe some people might say is very broad.

And I again referenced the California Public Records Act only because I remember one time we got a public record request in my city that said, this is a request for all records. And a reasonable person would probably say, that's too many records. So those weren't produced in such a manner.

And I don't look at this as too much different yet nobody has been able to identify for me what records people should not have access to. I mean, just philosophically, if I go and ask my son's teacher for what they're going to be learning in school and what, but mostly, what information are you going to be holding from my child by this third party, I, I should be able to access that.

Unless it's excluded by law I just philosophically believe that I should have access to that. And I think it should be more about the law should say you can't have access to certain information if that's the way the Legislature wants to go.

But I think we should err on the side of make it unambiguous that parents get access to those records. Unless some other law says you can't, you can't have it.

So, unfortunately, you know the opposition, which, you know, I appreciate the conversation. I know them and my staff had a lot of conversation about it. Nobody's been able to identify what information should be kept from parents. And until that time, we're not going to be able to come to resolution.

But I'm always interested in that conversation and somebody identifying what should be kept from parents so we can have that conversation. But until that time, this is a Bill we have, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

File item 30. AB 1401. The motion is do pass to Privacy Committee.

[ROLL CALL]

Two to three. The Bill is on call. All right, we're going to. Before we proceed with Mr. Mark Gonzalez, we are going to take the. Or entertain a motion on the file item number one. A motion's been made. This is file item number one for reconsideration. AB 281 by Mr. Gallagher. Is there a second? Okay. Madam Secretary, this is. Yes.

[Roll Call]

The vote is three to three. The bill is on call. All right. Welcome, Mr. Gonzalez. This is File Item Number 14: AB 727.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to express my gratitude to the chair and to the committee staff for their work on AB 727. I also acknowledge and accept the committee amendments. As hate and discrimination rise across the nation, LGBTQ + youth have now become a target of the Federal Administration.

Our community, especially our youth, are being exploited by political opportunists more focused on gaining media attention and social media clout than on representing their constituents and addressing real issues. AB 727 is a bill rooted in urgency. We are confronting a growing mental health crisis among LGBTQ + youth across our state.

Schools should be a safe place for children to learn, build friendships, and develop a sense of belonging. Unfortunately, the reality is stark. Our schools are the third most common location where LGBTQ plus youth experience hate crimes, bullying, incidents, and so much more than doubling more between 2018 and 2022, according to the FBI.

A study by the Trevor Project found that among 18,000 LGBTQ plus young people ages 13 to 24 surveyed nationwide, 39% seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, and 12% attempted suicide. That means thousands of children have actively attempted suicide because they felt they had nowhere else to turn. We recognize that more must be done.

This bill is a small but necessary step toward providing critical resources to students by including the Trevor Project suicide hotline on the back of student ID cards. Before I turn it over to my witness--my witnesses, excuse me--I want to acknowledge the amendments that are taken.

While private schools are now exempt from the bill, I strongly encourage them to ensure that their LGBTQ + students receive the support that they need and that they receive the support now. My primary witness in support with us today this afternoon to highlight the impact of this bill is Eve Banis--excuse me.

And she's the--is the Sacramento LGBTQ Plus Community Center's Advocacy and Training Lead, and Bridget McCarthy, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, who is here with us now to share a personal story about her son. But we'll kick it off with Eve.

Thank you, Assembly Member, and good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Eve Banis with the Sacramento LGBT Community Center, proud co-sponsor of AB 727. I'm here today to speak in support of this simple bill that will help save the lives of our most marginalized youth.

The Center works to create a region where all LGBTQ plus people thrive. We support health and wellness, advocate for equity and justice, and work to uplift our diverse and culturally rich LGBTQ community. At the Center, we are a trusted resource for LGBTQ plus youth seeking mental health support, and we often hear stories about the harassment youth experience in schools and the lack of affirming resources available to them.

Harassment and discrimination make it difficult for children to feel a sense of belonging at school. This negatively impacts their ability to thrive both personally and academically.

In 2024, the Trevor Project found that 39% of LGBTQ plus youth and a staggering 46% of transgender youth seriously considered suicide. I'll repeat that: nearly half of trans youth seriously considered suicide in the last year. Despite this, LGBTQ plus students still lack access to suicide prevention resources specific to their unique experiences and needs.

This bill will help fill these gaps by adding the Trevor Project's hotline to the back of student ID cards. Suicide hotlines are a trusted and effective strategy to help prevent youth suicide and increase mental health resource availability, and by adding an LGBT-specific hotline, we ensure that our most vulnerable students have an easily accessible resource to support them during a crisis because that is the purpose of this bill: preventing youth suicide. It's really that simple.

We ask that you stand with LGBT youth today and advance this life-saving suicide prevention legislation. In the face of so much hate and violence, these young people need your support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much for having me. My name is Bridget McCarthy from the American Foundation of Suicide Prevention, the Greater Los Angeles and Central Coast Chapter, and I'm here because my amazing son, Riley Chart, died by suicide in September 2020. He died in his bedroom less than two weeks after his 16th birthday.

His birthday balloons were still up in his room. Immediately after, I started two memorials to spread the word, one with the American Foundation of Suicide Prevention, which is the nation's number one public funder of suicide prevention research, and one with the Trevor Project, which is the nation's number one resource for LGBTQ kids, like my Riley.

Suicide is a huge cause of risk among young people, and I believe that AB 727, as introduced by Assembly Member Mark Gonzales, offers vital help. After Riley died, we discovered that while in crisis, he had texted a friend. The friend did not reply.

Despite extensive therapy, visits to doctors, hospitals, Riley did not have a single suicide hotline in his phone, but being a proud member of the LGBTQ plus community, I believe sincerely he would have reached out. I believe he would have phoned the Trevor Project number because they would understand his pain.

The Trevor Project knows exactly how to support LGBTQ people in crisis, and giving that space between the suicidal feeling and the action is crucial because the suicidal feeling wanes in mere minutes sometimes. When I found Riley just a few minutes too late, the last text to a friend for help was just 15 minutes earlier.

My son was reaching out for help, but no one to reach out to, and that especially breaks my heart. I have no agenda in this at all. This to me is a public health issue. My child's suffering was absolutely real and I want to stop another parent from the worst kind of grief imaginable. There is nothing that prepares you for losing a child. Please pass this bill. I believe from the bottom of my heart that it will save lives like my Riley. Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair and members, Tristan Brown of CFT. Happy to support this bill.

Mr. Chair and members, John Wenger, on behalf of the California Charter School Association, also in support.

Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, in support of the bill.

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

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

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

Donna Cecil, parent of an LGBTQ parent, in support.

Skye Tooley, they/them, fifth grade teacher in Los Angeles. I support.

Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California, in support.

Tony Ayala, Faculty of Child Development and Family Studies, in strong support.

Sarah Weber. I'm a resident of Sacramento County, and I support.

Seeing no further public comments in support, witnesses in opposition, you have two witnesses.

Good afternoon, respected members, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dr. Tiaf Casey, and I served on the Democratic Party previously as a delegate as well as a member of the Executive Board of the San Marino Democratic Party. However, I left due to some of the ultra-left ideology that was being promoted.

And regarding to the Trevor Project, I like to inform you that on behalf of the Muslim community, I write and express my deep concerns and strong opposition to Bill 727 because if you were to go inside and look through what's being promoted, you know, it's completely unacceptable.

Promotion of a child separating from his parents and choosing a whole new family, these are routes that do not reflect any of the Muslim community. While with her Riley, we support and address mental health as a very important matter to prevent the youth suicide, we are deeply concerned that the proposed AB 727 undermine the religious liberty, parental rights, and the identity of the faith-based communities.

Mandating an inclusion of the Trevor Project connect information on every student's ID card imposes a single ideological approach on a diverse and multi-faith student population by exposing the student to an array of identities that are not aligned with our religious beliefs. To us, God created man and woman.

To have someone stealing our children and undermine our religious belief is very unacceptable. The fact that an adult talking to our children without being consented, without being a parent present, is not acceptable.

As a physician, I can tell you we cannot even treat a child without a family member, an adult who's going to consent on them, yet somebody else can have our child completely steered away from what the family believes in just because the person on the opposite side is steering their children the way they want to.

The Trevor Project, through presenting the suicide prevention resources, promotes content and values that contradict Islamic teaching and in fact teaching of all Abrahamic religions on gender, sexuality, and identity. It is not aligned in beliefs of the Muslim communities as well as those of the Christians and Jews who believe in the Abrahamic religions.

Muslim parents, like all parents, have the right and responsibility to guide their children to moral spiritual development. AB 727, as I said, undermines and we strongly oppose it. As a previous member, co-chair of the LA County Department of Health, Faith-Based Advocacy Council and served on multiple boards including the TA and their needs and everything, okay, I know what suicide is.

I've served on those panels and we worked on developing programs that are truly for suicide, and my condolences, and I feel your pain. No parents should go through that, and I have people that are within my congregation who have lost their children in suicide.

We're going to ask you to wrap up.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And I do feel your pain. However, the Trevor Project, the ideology behind it is not acceptable. Thank you.

Chair and members.

No.

Chair and Members, I'm a constitutional attorney and serve as a president of the National Center for Law and Policy. The opposition letter I submitted details how AB 727 violates the free speech of religious schools protected by the First Amendment and harms parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Your highest duty as legislators is to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. For more than 100 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the care, education, and raising of their children. Children do not belong to the state.

They belong to their families. This fundamental right of parents includes the right to inculcate religious beliefs and make healthcare decisions, including directing mental healthcare and counseling when their children are in distress. Parents are best situated to know, love, and care for their children.

Neither the state nor the Trevor Project have the authority to circumvent, question, or undermine parental authority for minor children. The only exception is when parents are unfit, and the state may not assume that parents are unfit merely because they do not affirm the state's sexual orientation and gender identity ideologies. Yet AB 727 does precisely that.

It assumes parents are the enemy of their child's best interest when experiencing gender identity confusion or same-sex attraction. It was recently held in the Mirabelli case cited in my letter; that is precisely when children need their parents the most.

Yet AB 727 provides Trevor Project's contact information separating children from their parents by allowing the struggling child to contact an organization with no government or parental oversight or accountability. A group that maintains a myriad of unregulated chat rooms where adults posing as children can interact with minor children regarding sexual issues with no guardrails.

This is a groomer's paradise and it violates parental rights and is unacceptable in a civilized society. Children don't need protection from their parents. They need protection from the Trevor Project in this bill. Thank you.

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

My name is Meg Madden Radamark. I represent CAUSE, Californians United for Sex Based Evidence in Policy and Law, and Women Are Real, nonpartisan groups representing many Democrats and gay and Lesbian adults in opposition to AB 727.

Greg Burt from the California Family Council, in strong opposition.

Seak Smith, founder of Mom and Dad Army with over a dozen chapters here in California. We vehemently oppose AB 727.

Sabrina Williams, representing Mom Army Sacramento and Placer County. We're in strong opposition.

David Bollog, committee to repeal Education Code 221.5[f], in opposition.

Nicole Young, Placer County Chapter Chair Moms for Liberty as well as the Legislative Chair of the Legislative California Moms for Liberty group, in very strong opposition.

Florentina de Janaro with Mom Army, Yuba Sutter Area, Freedom Coalition, and Glad Tidings Church in Yuba City, in strong opposition.

Christine Bish, Legal Advocate for the California Parents Union and the Vice President of the Sacramento Republican Assembly. We strongly oppose this bill.

Columbus Ward. I strongly oppose this bill. We have a 988 number, sir. You don't get to testify. You had. There are two witnesses in opposition. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Sophia Lori with California Family Council in opposition.

Thank you. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none as bonte, I want to.

Thank the author for bringing this bill forward.

I just want to clarify right now that on our existing law allows our student ID cards to have a 988 suicide number, crisis lifeline, a national domestic violence hotline, and more specifically, sometimes a QR code that links to mental health resources and in higher education settings, the addition of a campus police telephone number, the addition of one number that ensures that our LGBTQ students have the ability to recognize that they have resources, I think is incredibly important and critical.

And I want to thank you author for bringing forward this bill. We all need to be able to have the support that we can reach out to. And the simple thing of putting 10 digits on the back of a card knowing that it could save a life, I think is something that California should do. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further, Vice Chair Hoover?

Thank you. So I think what one of the witnesses in opposition was trying to get to, but I, you know, obviously understand testimony was over, was actually a question that I had. And it's that. Is there not already a hotline that is required to be placed on these student IDs? Currently.

Yes. So there is a requirement to have 988 on the back of student ID cards currently. However, that's not a specific hotline to LGBT folks. And so it might not be clear to LGBT people experiencing a crisis that there are resources from people who understand them, understand their identities, understand their unique experiences.

And so the intent of this bill, the purpose of this bill, is to add something that is an LGBT specific hotline to the back of ID cards to address the disproportionate mental health impacts, suicide risk for LGBT populations.

So. zero, go ahead. I was just going to add, and also keeping in mind that this generation, we are focused on our youth. We have a text hotline, not a 988. You can't text a 988 number. Let's be clear about that.

Okay, Well, I hate to disagree on that point. Actually, if you go to the 988 website right now, there is a text option, a call option. It is something that is provided. So I do agree with you. We gotta be able to reach young people where they are. And texting is a Great way to do that.

The 988 number does allow that. It's my understanding 988 number is designed to serve everyone. Do you have specific examples where the 988 number has not served everyone in an appropriate way?

So, you know, the purpose of this Bill is to have an overtly LGBTQ resource available to students. I think when students are in crisis, it's important that, you know, a young LGBT person sees, zero, this is a resource designed for me. This is a resource that's going to address my specific needs.

And that is not going to be clear to them, just seeing 988 on the back of their ID card.

I also just want to add the point that although you might agree that it does, you can text 988. You actually have to explain that. And, you know, it doesn't say that on the Back to text 988. And so that's also another piece of it.

Also, the fact is that we can create a QR code, and I think that's also have. We have to be creative and innovative to include that piece of it on the phone number. I'm not sure what folks are so afraid about adding a number to prevent somebody from being taken off this planet. I wish I had that.

And frankly, here's my student ID from when I was, you know, many moons ago. Guess what? There's nothing on the back of it. And my point is to say that it's a very simple step at the right direction to save lives. And that is not a Democrat or Republican issue. That is a human issue.

I think, you know, I actually can say for sure that I wholeheartedly agree we need to have a number on these cards. We do have a number on these cards. I believe I supported that legislation. I don't, I don't remember what year we passed that.

But if, if, if I, if I was here, I absolutely would have supported that and did support that. I think here's my concern. And you asked the question, you know, why would someone be concerned? I think the concern is which number we're talking about here. So I guess, you know, my question.

I guess next question would be, does the Trevor Project in any way advocate it, Advocate for political causes or have any resources involving political.

So It's a national 24.7LGBT hotline. Again, if you're going to, if you feel that you are going to remove yourself from this planet, it's not a political issue, it's a human issue. And you have to understand that if the person is at the brink of.

Of where they are at in their life or they just need to talk to someone or text someone. This is the line in which to do it, which creates a safety net for those individuals who feel they can do that. 988 is not a number people are familiar with. They're familiar with the Trevor Project.

And it's not just anybody who' LGBTQ plus it is a lot. It's a line for everybody who can have accessibility to that. Folks shouldn't be a sk shouldn't be afraid of that.

So. And again, my. My concern has nothing to do with the ability to call a hotline. Obviously, that is something that I support.

I think where I disagree and where I have objections are, is that if you go right now, not calling the hotline necessarily, but if you go right now to the Trevor Project website, there are a number of resources provided that are very political in nature.

There is access to a number of things that I would argue a lot of parents would be uncomfortable with. The website itself actually acknowledges this itself. When you log into the website, it actually says, if you need to get out of this website quickly, just triple tap it and it'll go back to Google.

It'll get out of the screen. I mean, those are not actions that you take when you have resources, you know, that you are not concerned about people viewing or parents seeing or anything like that. Now, you may be right. And I fully understand your support of the Trevor Project.

I think the question, though we have as policymakers is, is this an organization that we should be putting on every student's ID card? Now, I do want to say I really appreciate the Committee amendments that took private schools out of this Bill.

I think that was a very inappropriate thing that was included in this Bill and probably would have had some pretty serious constitutional concerns as well. So I do appreciate that amendment. I think that makes the Bill a lot stronger. But I do just want to make clear kind of these objections.

I think that what we have already done in this body and what we've already supported is absolutely necessary and important to supporting people that are considering suicide.

I do think that this legislation specifically takes it into a direction that I am not comfortable with, because it really does open it up to an organization that is not just about preventing suicide. It's about other causes as well. And so for those reasons, unfortunately, I will be able need to post a Bill today.

Thank you.

And if I could just address those two pieces. The reason why the Google piece where it says you need to escape this quickly is because you're afraid to tell your parent or somebody who's around you. So you exit out of that quickly.

If you don't have a privacy screen or you're looking up something that you don't want somebody to look at, you want to have that tool available to you to be able to quickly put that away because you feel ashamed and embarrassed.

And so the point of that is, is simply to provide that tool so that someone can exit very quickly so they don't get in trouble. And the part about private schools not being taken out of this equation, I frankly think it's wrong. I.

We agreed to the amendments because we want this Bill to pass, but private school students probably have it the worst.

In Harvard west, like, about a month ago, 10 students committed suicide because they weren't meeting their academic goals or they were LGBT plus because folks who said, I'm so afraid about, you know, I'm not going to come home with those grades or I'm not going to be able to come out to my parents, and they took their life because of that.

That's why this Bill is here. And those are the schools that need this the most. Most.

Thank you, Ms. Castillo. Then, Ms. Bonto.

I just wanted to add, as a licensed marriage and family therapist and a licensed professional clinical counselor who has worked with children in a. In a clinic setting, and I see how the 988 number is on the cards.

I'm going to tell you right now, from my personal experience in working with children, when they're going to be in a crisis or when they are in a crisis, they're not looking for who's going to be LGBTQ, who's. Understand they're just going to call that 988 number and talk to whoever's on the other line.

I never had one kid who was LGBTQ come into my office to ask me if I, you know, was a supporter or wasn't. You know, I'm there to help for their issue that they're having and help them process so that they don't go through with whatever it is that's on their mind.

So the 988, I feel, is sufficient to be on the card. And I'm giving this information as someone who has worked with the population and has, you know, helped a lot of kids from going that route. That's fair. Thank you, Ms.

Bonta.

I just wanted to respond to Assemblymember Hoover's line of argumentation. And now Assemblymember Castillas, to some extent, we not only need to meet children where they are. But we need to meet children as who they are. And our youth in particular, those who are lgbtq, often have a very, very strong sense of identity.

And developing identity and research evidence practices around, like, best practices around youth development really speak to making sure that that youth has the ability to quickly access people who have affinity for the identity that they are experiencing and that that is theirs.

And having a brand that is known, like the Trevor Project, be that outreach will make a difference. And again, I just. I also don't see why we are in such vehement opposition to making sure that we meet children as who they are and that we're providing resources specific to who they are.

That's an incredibly important thing for us to do and that we somehow are trying to broaden it out to say, zero, that's already provided. It's. It's actually not. If it were.

Yeah.

Then people would be alive.

Thank you, Dr. Patel.

Could I just add briefly that I do believe that my son had a very unique view of himself and would have called somebody that thought that they could understand them. They would have the community that would be able to relate to the bullying and the struggles and everything else.

And if you call 988, you might get an adult, you may get somebody who doesn't understand that, and that will not be the case. 14% of our kids attempted suicide. 14%. So adding a number, we will absolutely save lives. That's just all there is to it. It's just 10 digits. And we will save lives.

Thank you, Dr. Patel.

Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I was a school board Trustee when the 988 line got added to our school district, ID student ID cards, public school district, and we definitely appreciated providing children, students with that opportunity to access a much needed resource when they're in crisis.

Hearing some comments today from my Assembly colleague here, I agree that we have to meet students where they are.

And it might not be every time that a student looks on their ID when they're in crisis, but if they're searching for a friend who may not be able to counsel them or who may have phone restrictions and have to put it away late at night and may not be able to answer that call, then there will be a line for them to call.

And if we could interrupt that, those thoughts of suicidal ideation, that is critical. My question to you today with the Trevor Project. I am not as familiar with the Trevor Project. I haven't done web searches or investigations. I know we have community Members in my community that are very Supportive.

And some that have raised concerns about the Trevor Project over the past several years. Are your crisis prevention hotline attendees, the people who are the counselors who answer the calls, do they have some cultural competency training with regards to other religions, other faiths, other cultures? So that we're counseling in a culturally responsive way?

Because I know our LGBTQ students and community Members are by their very nature, intersectional. They have multiple identities. They are from faiths, from communities, from traditions, and also identifying within the LGBTQ community. So they are absolutely intersectional.

So what I can say, we know that the suicide risk for LGBT folks is disproportionately higher for LGBT people of color. So this is something that the Trevor Project has in their statistics, in their studies.

And what I can say about their hotline, I don't work there, but their hotline, they do require everyone who works for the hotline to undergo rigorous training. They are required to pass background checks, and they are required to have supervised calls.

So there are these metrics in place to ensure quality and to ensure that they are meeting students where they are and being available to all students, all young people who need access to that resource.