Senate Standing Committee on Education

The Senate Education Committee will come to order in 30 seconds. Good morning. There are 10 bills on today's agenda. One Bill is on consent. That Bill is item number nine, SB416. Witnesses may be asked to limit their testimony to two minutes to ensure the Committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. We do have a quorum, so Assistant, if you could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. The assistant notes. A quorum has been established.

And Madam Chair, since we have a quorum, I would move the entire consent agenda. Item number nine.

Great. So if we could go ahead and call the roll on the consent agenda for item number 9.

[Roll Call]

Great. And Madam Chair, just one note. I want to apologize to the crowd. I am on three simultaneous committees this morning, Local government and labor, as well as this. And I'll be going back and forth. And it's not because Bryan Ha just stood up and started speaking. I had to leave anyway, so just wanted to make that clear before we're in those moments.

Yes, we're going to be doing a lot of musical chairs today, so appreciate that. Senator Laird, we will go ahead and get started with our first item on the Committee agenda, and that is item number one, SB307 by Senator Cervantes and I see we have Senator Cervantes here. Welcome, Senator, and you may begin whenever you are ready.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members for your time today. I am here to speak for SB 307, a critical measure to protect the educational future of undocumented students in California.

SB 307 mandates that the California State University system adopt clear proactive protections for undocumented students who are subject to federal immigration action and respectfully urges the University of California Regents to do the same.

If a student is detained, deported or otherwise prevented from fulfilling their academic responsibilities due to a federal immigration order, SB 307 ensures the that designated Dreamer resource liaisons and staff at CSU and UC campuses provide comprehensive support including assistance with financial aid, academic advising and access to all available student resources.

Two, the student's eligibility for in state tuition is preserved regardless of their immigration status as long as they meet the requirements already set forth in state law.

The Bill also requires a uniform system wide policy, establishes to address the academic consequences of immigration enforcement. This policy must include protections for student grades, re-enrollment rights, academic standing if they are forced to withdraw due to immigration actions.

The Bill also has a defined reentry window that is guaranteed allowing students to return and resume their education at the same academic status upon written notice of their intent to return. California is home to over 410,000 undocumented college students, the largest such population in the nation. These students are hardworking, ambitious and deeply invested in their futures.

Yet they live under the constant shadow of deportation, many without the protection of DACA. Over 17,000 Californians were excluded from DACA due to the Trump era policies and court rulings. Another 100,000 are ineligible for other reasons. These students face not only legal uncertainty, but also emotional and educational instability.

And now there is a signal to ramp up mass deportations and the threat is no longer hypothetical. It is imminent. Colleagues, these young people are future engineers, educators, doctors, entrepreneurs. Our public institutions have a responsibility to provide them with stability and support.

Not just a designated office or liaison, but real, enforceable policies that protect their academic continuity in times of crisis. SB 307 is about preparedness. It's about justice. It's about ensuring that no student is forced to abandon their education simply because of shifting federal immigration policies.

California stands with students, all of them, in safeguarding their right to pursue an education without fear. With me to testify and are co-sponsors in support of the Bill is Dr. Margarita Berta Avila, who is the President, incoming President of the California Faculty Association.

Thank you. Good morning Madam Chair and Members of the Committee.

As shared, my name is Margarita Berta Avila and I am a Professor of Education at Sacramento State University and President Elect of the California Faculty Association, which represents over 29,000 faculty, including tenured track professors, lecturer faculty, librarians, counselors and coaches from all 23 campuses of the California State University system.

I am here today for my students and students across the state who are living in fear due to the federal administration's attack on our immigrant communities. California is home to the largest undocumented students enrolled in higher education.

The current attacks on our immigrant communities put our own very own college students at risk, raising the likelihood that undocumented students in California may encounter actions from immigration authorities such as detention or deportation.

SB 307 would enhance protections for undocumented students at the CSU and UC in the event that an undocumented student is detained, deported or otherwise unable to attend school due to actions undertaken by immigration authorities. I want to just pause just for a second.

It is heartbreaking that this is the second time around that our students in the CSU and my students in particular at Sacramento State are feeling the fear, that they are fearing. They are coming into my office and I'm just a little bit off script right now, so I hope you just give me a little grace here.

They are coming into my office ready to just prematurely leave campus because they don't know what's going to happen, because the investment that they have made is not just for themselves but for their families.

And not being secure with what could happen if they are to be deported is terrifying for them as well as those that are dependent upon them. So this is not just about a Bill that will help them, but about a Bill that can sustain the livelihood for them and their families and what they're trying to do.

And if you wouldn't mind just wrapping your comments up, we're at 2 minutes and 30 seconds. Thank you.

So this Bill would enhance protections by ensuring that students maintain eligibility for in state tuition and require educational institutions to develop uniform system-wide policies that would allow impacted students to re enroll at the representative higher education institutions and retain their previous academic status when they are withdrawn for nonattendance due to actions undertaken.

So CFA is a proud co sponsor of SB 307 because we stand with our undocumented students and I urge you all to do the same. Please support SB 307. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Good morning. Good morning Members. I'll keep my testimony under a minute. I wanted to yield my other minute to my President-elect. I want to applaud the author for bringing this Bill forward. It's a very important timing. We are living in a very difficult political climate.

So again, the timing of this Bill is very important. You heard from my member leader that protecting our students at this time has become a priority. So it's a very important Bill.

I also want to finalize my testimony by saying we would like to be we would like to be listed as sponsors of the Bill, not co-sponsors moving forward. And we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Now that we've heard from our two lead witnesses, do we have any other support witnesses here in 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside of the railing and please only state your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Good morning Madam Chair. Adam Keigwin on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support.

Good morning. Dr. Feliza Ortiz-Licon on behalf of the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition in support.

Good morning. Nancy Jodaitis, founder of Institutional Solutions in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Anybody else? We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition, if there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphone, microphones at the table in front of us. Seeing as I don't see anybody getting up, we'll move on to anyone else that would like to share their opposition, please use the microphone outside of the railing.

Great. I will go ahead and turn it over now to our Members. Members, do we have any questions or comments that you'd like to share? Okay. We have a motion from Senator Laird. Senator Cervantes, would you like to close?

Certainly. Thank you, Madam Chair. Our international students are legally here working to not only better themselves with education, but also enriching our campuses, our communities and our country with the paths they study, the gains made in their areas of expertise, and the contributions they achieve that make our nation greater. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Cervantes. We have a motion on SB 307 by Senator Laird, and the motion is do pass to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Assistant, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We will put that Bill on call. Excellent. For our next Item, item number two is SB 670, also by Senator Cervantes. So I'll go ahead and give her a moment and we will get started once she's ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members, for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 670, a vital step forward in the effort to ensure that California's adult education system fully recognizes and supports the unique challenges and contributions of our immigrant communities.

This Bill defines immigrant integration within the adult education program for the first time, laying a clear, unified foundation for how we help newcomers thrive socially, emotionally and civilly in our state. California is home to over 10.6 million immigrants, nearly a quarter of the nation's entire foreign born population.

These individuals are not only an essential part of our economy, they are our neighbors, our co-workers and our children's classmates. But far too many face steep barriers, limited English proficiency, low wage employment, lack of legal status, and difficulty navigating institutions that weren't built with their needs in mind.

Without targeted support, too many immigrants remain excluded from the promise of economic mobility and civic participation, two pillars of the American dream. Adult education and skills programs are uniquely positioned to address these gaps. But existing policies often treat all adult learners the same, ignoring the distinct experiences and systematic barriers faced by immigrants.

We have mismatched services, unutilized resources and missed opportunities to uplift entire communities. SB 670 changes that by defining immigrant integration and law this Bill and strengthens the program's ability to serve adult immigrant individuals more effectively. It emphasizes English proficiency, economic inclusion and civic engagement, three essential components for long term success.

It is not just a policy shift, it's a statement of values. It's about ensuring that the immigrant worker struggling to advance in their job, the parents striving to support their child's education, and the asylum seeker trying to contribute to their new community are met with program design with their needs in mind.

This framework enables programs to better align their services, education, job training and community support with the lived experience of their learners. Undocumented immigrants alone contribute $8.5 billion in state and local taxes annually. Their success is California's success. Colleagues, 670 is more than just a technical clarification.

It's a call to design with inclusion in mind, to build systems that meet people where they are and to help them rise. With me are the co-sponsors of the Bill. We have Dawn representing the California Council for Adult Education and the California Adult Education Administrators Association who can speak to the importance of the Bill.

Great. Madam Chair, thank you. Good morning again. Dawn Koepke on behalf of the California Council for Adult Education and California Adult Education Administrators, I am pleased to be proud supporters and co sponsors of SB 670.

As you may be aware, CCAE and CAEA are representing K12 adult education providers, so classified teachers as well as administrators in the K12 system working within our adult schools in California across many of your communities.

Our adult schools through the adult Education program offer a variety of services and programming, everything from low cost classes for adults in high school equivalency, broader basic skills, learning to kind of to read, write for English proficiency, short term career training, as well as citizenship classes that help put our immigrant refugee students on a pathway to U.S. citizenship.

CCAE and CAEA have been deeply involved in immigrant integration discussions and policy development over the last 10 years, including co sponsoring AB 2098 by former Assemblymember Kevin McCarty in 2018 establishing immigrant integration metrics within the adult education program.

We appreciate Senator Cervantes's efforts to further strengthen immigrant integration as part of that initial legislation through SB 670 to provide a more detailed definition as a two-way process that not only describes the role of receiving community, embracing and welcoming immigrants, but also solidifies the importance of active engagement, contributions, expectations and responsibilities of immigrants.

Academic literature has emphasized the importance of collaboration and co creation of cohesive communities by both immigrants and the established community as a dynamic process.

Further, the inclusion of multigeneral, multi generational integration within the language is also of greater value given its alignment with the adult education program with specific program areas to help parents supporting their K12 students process and progress.

So for these reasons and as strong supporters and co sponsors, really pleased to support SB 670 and encourage your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there any other support witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside the railing and please only state your name, org and position on the Bill.

Madam Chair and Senators Adam Keigwan on behalf of the California Charter Schools Associations Court.

Great. Anybody else? We'll now move on to lead witnesses in opposition if there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us, seeing nobody getting up. Are there any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside the railing. Alrighty.

Well, thank you to our witness. We'll now bring the discussion back to the Members. Do any of our Members have any questions or comments? Did you have a question?

Actually, before I have a comment, just want to appreciate the author bringing this Bill forth. I think it's incredibly important to ensure that we have courses, especially in adult education, with immigration integration.

And it's funny because I, especially for those that are going through the immigration process, it is so helpful to understand how to become part of this new country that they're embracing and literally helping them navigate what this country stands for.

And it's interesting, I do want to say, I don't know if people know this, but the United States actually immigrates legally about 1 million folks every single year. Right.

But in that process, we also have many folks that are in the queue to gain immigration status, which takes between 15 to 20 years to be able to do that. But anything that we can do to help our immigrant families go through the process, be integrated into country, know how it functions.

You'd be surprised how many folks that actually go through the immigration process or are going through the immigration process know more about the government that we currently have than our own very own US Citizens.

So whatever we can do to help folks literally integrate into this country and understand the systems in our country, I think we're going to be it's going to be incredibly beneficial for everyone living in the US. So happy to support the Bill.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. And I also think I heard Senator Laird move the Bill. So I'll go ahead and have you close, Senator Cervantes.

Thank you for your comments and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. So we have a motion by Senator Laird for SB 670 and that's do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. And we will place that Bill on call. Thank you so much, Senator Cervantes. Okay, so next up we have item number five, SB 305 by Senator Reyes. And Senator Reyes is not here today, so Senator Laird will be presenting for her. We'll go ahead and give Senator Laird a moment and then we will get started.

Whenever you're ready.

Good morning. Thank you. I am, as you said, presenting Senate Bill 305 on behalf of Senator Reyes. It establishes a systemic approach to ensure that first time and continuing community college students apply for financial aid or opt out during their college and orientation process. It expands on the success of universal financial aid.

And right now, community college students receive the PROMISE Grant which waives enrollment fees, but and they do not need to submit a FAFSA or free application, Federal Student Aid or California DREAM Act Application, but about half of them don't.

And so the goal of this Bill is to make sure that every opportunity is afforded to these students because the additional aid many times deals with non fee expenses and really allows them to be able to attend community college and do it economically.

The Community College Chancellor's Office Vision 2030 includes a goal to increase the number of community college students receiving Pell Grant and promise grants by 10% by 2030. This Bill is a step toward aligning that goal. So hopefully these are the two authors that I have. I mean two witnesses that I have.

But I show that I have Deja White, Legislative Affairs Director for Region 5 with the Student Senate for California Community Colleges. And Alex Zucco, State and Federal Policy Manager with the California Student Aid Commission. Are we good there?

I'm out right at the appropriate time. Then I would request an aye vote.

Yep.

Good morning Chairmembers. I'm Alex Zucco, a state and Federal Policy Manager with Student Aid Commission. In 2021, then Assemblymember Reyes authored AB 469 requiring high school requiring high schools to ensure that seniors complete the FAFSA, California DREAM Act application, or opt out of the process after learning more about the consequences of not applying.

Prior to AB 469, California typically ranked in The Middle of the Pack Nationally for FAFSA Completion in the very first year of implementing the Universal High School Financial Aid Completion Policy, California led the nation in growth of the percentage of seniors with a completed application with over 74% of high school seniors completing the FAFSA or California DREAM Act application.

Access to federal and state financial aid is one of the most critical tools for supporting student success in higher education and career training.

In the 2023-24 academic year, at least 500,000 of the 1.4 million community college students did not complete the FAFSA or the CADA. And as Senator Laird mentioned, when students are completing the Board of Governors waiver, completing the FAFSA and the CADA is not required.

In a survey done by CSAC, over 60% of financial aid applicants at the California Community College reported experiencing food and or housing insecurity at some point during the academic year.

So, even with the demonstrated need at community colleges, students are missing out on hundreds of millions of dollars in federal and state aid by not completing the FAFSA or the CADA.

Given the disparity that exists at the community college level in financial aid applications, the expansion of the FAFSA CADA completion requirement ensures that students are both informed and have access to the most possible amount of financial aid available to them.

On behalf of the Student Aid Commission, we thank Senator Reyes and Senator Laird for the leadership on this issue and ask for your support of SB305 and I'm here to answer any technical questions. And we have Deja here from SCCCC.

Good morning Chair and Members. My name is Dejalia White and I proudly serve as a Legislative Affairs Director for Region 5 with the Student Center for California Community Colleges for representing over 2.1 million students statewide. I am also a student worker and student leader at Reedley College.

As a statewide student leader and advocate, I've listened to countless stories from peers across California, each with unique barriers and triumphs navigating the complexities of financial aid. This year, I've had the privilege of serving as a student representative with the California Student Aid Commission, which deepened my passion for advocating for equitable access to aid.

Through that work, I've connected with students who shared their stories in hopes of building a better system. Financial aid has been critical in helping me pursue higher education without needing to create further barriers for myself, and thankfully for me, I was able to successfully navigate the financial aid process.

But for other students, that is not always the case. Today, I want to briefly share the story of David, a student from Mount Santosino College. David returned to college in his 40s while working multiple jobs to support his four children. Like many adult learners, he struggled to navigate the financial aid process alone.

It wasn't until his second year, after an error in his FAFSA led him to a financial aid counselor, that he learned about the full range of benefits he qualified for, Veteran Aid, Dependent Based Grants and incentives for accelerated study.

With that support, David was able to reduce his work hours, focus on school, and continue to provide for his family. He's now on track to graduate with honors and become the first in his family to earn a degree. All because he finally received the support he needed to access the aid he was entitled to.

David's story is not unique. Too many students miss out on financial aid simply because they don't know it's there, don't know how to apply, or come across an error which puts their application on hold. SB 305 ensures our community colleges don't leave students to figure out financial financially alone.

Instead, it requires institutions to actively guide students through the process just like we successfully done in high schools. Now it is time to extend that same support to college students. We owe it to every student, traditional or returning, first gen or working parent, to make financial aid accessible, navigable and equitable.

SB 305 is a step forward to toward that promise and we respectfully ask for you to vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. We will now see if there's any other support witnesses here in room 2100. If so, please use the microphone outside of the railing. Please only state your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Anna Matthews with the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Sarah Bouabibsa on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success in support.

Good morning. My name is Blanca Godoy and I'm currently a senior at USC and a Policy Fellow with uAspire and we are strongly in support.

Nancy Jodaitis, Institutional Solutions in strong support.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members, Parshan Khosravi with uAspire and the Financial Aid for All Coalition in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members. McKenna Jenkins with NextGen California in support.

Good morning. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of EdTrust West proud co sponsors and Alliance for a Better Community in support. Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members. Karen Stout on behalf of the California Community Colleges Extended Opportunity Programs and Services Association, say that five times fast, in support. As well as the Student Senate for California Community Colleges. Thank you.

Good Morning. Justin Selnick on behalf of the California Community College Chancellor's Office. We do not have an official position at this time, but we are supportive of the intent and we'll continue to work with the sponsors and the author. Thank you.

Great.

Thank you. We will now move into lead witnesses in opposition. If there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us. Seeing nobody getting up. Are there any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone at the railing. Alrighty.

Well, thank you to our support witnesses. We will now bring the discussion back to Members. Do any of our Members have questions or comments?

That's you, Dave.

Great. Well, Senator Cortese has moved the Bill. Senator Laird, would you like to close?

Let me thank everybody that testified and the witnesses thank Senator Cortese to move this. This is a great Bill because we have made such progress in financial aid and we need just to continue to move forward. And this will be a step in that. I respectfully, on behalf of Senator Reyes, request an aye vote.

Thank you. Great. Thank you. Senator Laird, we have a motion by Senator Cortese and that motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. That Bill is now on call. Great. Okay. Well, Senator Cortese, seeing as you're the only author currently here, if you would like to present either one of your bills, either SB 494 or SB 550, we'd love to have you up there.

So I'll just proceed in file order if that's okay with the chair.

Yeah, absolutely.

SB 494.

Okay.

And I'm very appreciative of the opportunity to present this bill. It provides parity to classified employees in schools by guaranteeing that their disciplinary appeals are heard by an administrative law judge. Under current law, teachers already have this right.

So if a K12 teacher chooses to appeal a disciplinary decision made by their district, it's overseen by the Commission on Professional Competence. Community college faculty are also guaranteed a third party arbitrator paid for by the district. However, classified employees are not guaranteed the same right under current law.

This system is not equitable, and it denies many employees a fair hearing. While classified employees represented by a union can collectively bargain for a third party hearing officer, the vast majority have not been able to do so. It's not been successful.

SB 494 provides classified employees with the same right as K12 teachers, community college faculty, and many other public employees. This bill is a reintroduction of SB 433 from last session, and that bill made it through the legislature just fine, but it was vetoed due to cost.

So this year, the sponsors have been working on a budget request and following up on a budget request. And additionally, in this version, appeals are made to administrative law judges rather than third party hearing officers, which is, we think, an important change made to more closely align this process with teacher appeals than what we had last year.

This bill is co sponsored by the California School Employees Association, otherwise known as CSEA and AFSCME. It's also supported by other California labor organizations. With us today to testify is Navnit Puryear with CSEA, and at the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Navnitt Puryear, and I'm here on behalf of the California School Employees Association, a union representing more than 250,000 classified public employees across the state. We're proud to co sponsor SB 494. At its heart, SB 494 is a parity bill.

It will provide classified school employees with the same disciplinary appeal rights as teachers and community college faculty. Currently, a classified school employee who is suspended or terminated and wants to exercise their right to an appeal hearing must have that hearing conducted by the school board.

This deprives many classified school employees of a fair appeal because school boards typically vote to take the initial disciplinary action. It's unfair for the same board that voted to terminate or suspend an employee to also be the appellate body. I like to share the stories of two members who could not be here today.

One district terminated a maintenance employee over vague allegations of incompetence and insubordination. An arbitrator found that the district did not have sufficient evidence to support the termination and the employee should be reinstated. Another district terminated a member shortly after she became chapter president and raised concerns at a school board meeting.

She appealed to an attorney represented by the school board. The attorney refused to reinstate her. She was denied a fair disciplinary hearing. Classified school employees deserve the same disciplinary appeal rights as teachers, college faculty and other public sector employees. So for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. We will now see if there are any other support witnesses here in room 2100. If so, please use the microphone outside the railing and state your name, org and position.

Good morning, Madam Chair Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in strong support. Thank you.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT, a Union of Educators and Classified Professionals in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition, if there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us. And you may begin when you're ready.

Okay. Apologies. Chris Reefe, on behalf of the California School Boards Association, very much just want to say first thank you to the Senator and the sponsors. We've have met with them in the past. Not sure if we're going to be able to get to a place of agreement, however.

And I also want to say, you know, we work very closely with our labor partners at the local level and just unfortunately we are in a position of oppose. There is already an existing process that allows for the due process of in these scenarios, even as provided by the supporting testimony.

There are many districts throughout the state that actually do bargain and have a reach agreement to be able to provide access to a third party hearing officer. That is a very common tool that is used across the state.

This bill would put that disciplinary rights into the hands of a third party that is an unelected entity and is beyond the scope of the district. And it inherently strikes at the heart of what is the role of an elected school board.

A duly elected school board is also one that does look at the law and follows the letter of the law. Otherwise they put themselves at liability when they're handling issues of disciplinary appeals. This bill also presumes that there's inherent bias with school board members. We would respectfully disagree with that.

There are a number of scenarios that can occur that does require a hearing officer to come forward and to be able to render that decision for a school board. School boards often do, and school districts often do again, collectively bargain for these rights.

And so there is not a statewide systemic issue that is occurring here where there is unfair hearings occurring before school boards. To imply that the school boards are biased or lean against the employees is contrary to what the spirit is of a school district.

We are facing a staffing shortage at the moment, and we will do and work very hard to try to retain staff for as long as we can, recognizing that our education staff shortages is real and stark. So with that, respectfully ask for your no vote, unfortunately.

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

Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education and also representing the California Association of School Business Officials in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Cindy Livers on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Edwin Gomez, in opposition.

Good morning. Ashley Lugo on behalf of the California County Superintendents, in opposition.

Good morning. Andrea Ball on behalf of the Orange County Department of Education, in opposition.

Hello. Nona Grieping on behalf of the Community College League of California, in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Stephanie Farlan on behalf of the Small School Districts Association and the School Employers Association of California, in opposition.

Anybody else? Alrighty. Well, thank you to our support and opposition witnesses. I'd bring the discussion back to members, but it's just myself and Senator Cortese here. I, you know, do want to share.

I'm am supportive of this bill, but, you know, because we don't have another member here in present to make a motion, we'll go ahead and wait for some members to return back so that we can go ahead and make a motion at that time. But Senator Cortese, would you like to close?

Well, just to say thank you to the committee for- in- in- the Chair, of course, but also the- the committee under its prior composition for moving a bill. As I said, that's been adjusted a little bit to deal with a couple concerns that came up before.

But we've received so much help through the committee process here to try to get this right. And again, at its heart, it's a parity bill. I think that's been recognized and I'd respectfully ask for your- your aye vote when we get to that point. Thank you.

Thank you. So we will go ahead and move on now to SB 550 by Senator Cortese, and you can begin when you're ready.

Okay. Thank you again.

I appreciate the opportunity to present this time on SB 550, which is a bill that addresses a long standing gap in our legal education system, particularly in the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara, by creating a pathway there to establish a public law school in San Jose, a city now of approximately a million people, with no public law school.

The bill simply authorizes a potential merger of a nonprofit state accredited law school that has existed for decades and decades and still exists and is still accredited into San Jose State University as a fully recognized academic unit. San Jose is the third largest city in California.

As most of us know, it's the largest city in the Bay Area and the largest city in the United States without a public law school. Santa Clara County is home to nearly 2 million residents, yet the region lacks an affordable, accessible option for legal education.

In Santa Clara County, over 65% of the population identifies as Asian or Latino. Both groups remain severely underrepresented among licensed attorneys statewide, but comprise typically a significant majority, if not a super majority of the students at Lincoln Law School in San Jose. Now, the average debt for law school graduates now exceeds $130,000.

A 2024 study conducted by the American Bar Association found that 67% of all young lawyers, including those with and without loans, reported feeling stressed about their finances. Again, this particular model has operated thus far as a model that particularly caters to working adults and folks, oftentimes who are well below average median income.

This cost barrier that I just described, of course, drives talent away from public service careers and prevents first generation and underrepresented students from entering the legal profession. A 2024 study from Equal Justice Works found that 79% of recent law school graduates cite low salary as a reason they would not pursue public interest law.

In 2023, only 9.7% of law graduates secured public interest jobs. This amounts to only 3,095 positions. 92% of low income American civil legal needs went unmet in 2022. It's really a staggering number. 92% of low income American civil legal needs went unmet in 2022. And an estimated 150 million legal problems go unresolved annually in the United States.

SB 550 helps close this gap by enabling the development of an affordable public law school to serve the heart of Silicon Valley and diversify California's legal pipeline. And again, it's focused on a school that does that. Now, that already exists. SB 550 reflects substantial stakeholder engagement.

And I want to note for this committee that I've agreed to take amendments in Senate Judiciary Committee to address concerns raised by this committee, including requiring five years of accreditation for any emerging law school to ensure academic stability, clarifying that CSU is not precluded from pursuing ABA accreditation for the law school in the future, and confirming that the CSU Board of Trustees must approve any potential incorporation.

These amendments will be formally accepted again in Senate Judiciary and reflect the collaborative approach that we've taken. We'll also note that the bill does not impose any mandate or any timeline or any implementation or implementation schedule. It gives CSU, through their Board of Trustees, full flexibility and control. The potential incorporation is entirely contingent.

A mutual agreement between CSU San Jose State University and the eligible law school. With us today is George Leal, a recently retired law school dean and staff member of the State Bar Office, as well as Magnus Herrlin, President of the San Jose State University Pre Law Society. Thank you again, Madam Chair.

And again at the appropriate time, I'd respectfully request an I vote. I'm not sure who's going first.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Thank you, Senator. My name is George Leal and I, as the Senator indicated, spent a number of years as the dean of a registered school that operated under the authority of the California State Bar, the Committee of Bar Examiners.

I worked at the State Bar for a little over eight years and was very intimately involved with the committee's work to accredit and register law schools here in California. What I'd like to impress upon the committee is California is unique in this nation.

It has an incredibly unique opportunity, as it has for over 100 years, to provide a legal education, a pathway to the profession for many people who can neither afford nor be admitted to an ABA school.

We have a very strong system of non ABA schools that operate often in very smaller rural communities up north in Chico, through Fresno, down to Bakersfield, of course, in the Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego. These schools provide an incredible opportunity. I can give you an example of my school.

I was the dean for a little over six years. We had a large contingent of peace officers. We had a good working relationship. Our school operated in southern, but well before Covid we were on on campus with a fixed facility program. And after Covid we went online.

But still, both before and after the pandemic, we had a strong contingent of law officers, peace officers from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. One today is now a sitting judge on the Superior Court Of Los Angeles, having spent 11 years after getting her license to practice law in the District Attorney's office.

She was a working mother of two as a peace officer and in no way in the world would have had the time or the opportunity to go to law school full time or frankly, could have afforded any of the UC schools or any of the private law schools.

Unfortunately, the State Bar, and I speak for myself alone in this, has done a relatively mediocre, if not a poor job in extolling and making public what these schools have done in many communities. I understand the senator is a graduate, a proud graduate of one of these schools.

I worked in practice law in San Francisco for 15 years.

If you can start wrapping up your comments. You're past your two minutes.

So I would say that the senator's bill would provide a great opportunity for the CSU system to provide the same kind of education to its students that go to CSUs that would then want to choose to go to law school.

So I'm in strong support of and thank you for the opportunity to provide some context to the senator's bill.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Magnus Herrlin and I'm currently a proud student at San Jose State University. To highlight the importance of SB 550, I want to first tell you a little bit about my own story.

In high school, I had a semester where I had a GPA of 2.7 and I felt lost. But coming to San Jose State was the best decision that I ever made. San Jose State was a place that allowed me to flourish.

I worked hard every day, and this coming fall I will attend law school on a University of California campus. But my story is not unique. It's the SJSU's story, one that I have heard countless times from my peers. The story of San Jose State is about giving people a chance at success. This is why SB 550 matters.

By creating the first public law school in the CSU system, students like me and students who will come after me will be given a chance at a legal education. According to the ABA, 75% of attorneys changed their initial career plans due to the high cost of a legal education.

Many of those changes were from a public interest role to a private sector role. Simply put, California is losing out on many public interest lawyers simply due to the high cost of a legal education. The CSU system was created to serve the people of California and that should include providing access to an attainable, quality legal education.

This bill is not about mission creep, but it's about putting justice within reach for all Californians. Thank you for your consideration and I humbly ask for your support of this bill.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. We'll now go ahead and hear from any other support witnesses here. Here in room 2100. Please use the microphone outside the railing and please only state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair and the committee. My name is Jason Amezcua and I serve as the dean of Lincoln Law School of San Jose. In support.

Thank you. Great. Anybody else? We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. If there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us. You can begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Jessica Duong with the University of California here in respectful opposition to SB 550. We appreciate the author's intent of providing a public law school option in San Jose. However, the Master Plan on Higher Education maintains that UC has the exclusive authority to offer doctoral degrees for the public segments.

We do understand that the Master Plan was adopted in 1960, and over the years, education and labor force needs have changed in this state. That's why in 2023 we came to an agreement with CSU to allow joint applied and professional doctoral degrees.

This law, AB 656, includes a review process that would ensure non duplication of existing UC doctoral degree programs with an evaluation of this process done by the LAO in 2028. In addition, the legislature is considering multiple bills on higher education coordinating bodies and it may be best to discuss changes to the master plan within this body.

We look forward to continuing our conversations with the author's office and taking a look at the amendments that were discussed. Thank you.

Great. Good morning. Alex Graves, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, or AICCU. We represent 87 independent nonprofit colleges and universities throughout the state, including 18 that offer law programs.

You know, I think similar to my colleague from UC, there have been numerous proposals over the last several years through legislation to expand degree authority at our public universities in ways that are beyond kind of the scope of the master plan or other agreements in place regarding degree expansion.

And so, you know, whether that's been nursing degrees at community colleges, public health doctoral degrees at CSU, teacher credentialing degrees in community colleges or what have you, we believe that this legislation kind of continues that trend of kind of legislating this degree expansion.

And we think that, you know, with several proposals out there regarding some form or another of a higher ed and workforce coordinating body, we believe that would be the more appropriate place for these types of considerations to occur. And so for those reasons, we are opposed to the bill in print.

Certainly look forward to looking at the amendments.

Thank you. We will now hear from any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100. If so, please use the microphone outside the railing, seeing as we have nobody getting up. Thank you to all of our support and opposition witnesses. And we will now bring the discussion back to, to the members.

I am going to have to head out in just a moment, then we'll return.

But, you know, do just want to highlight, I know I've had very deep discussion with Senator Cortese, you know, around this bill and appreciate, I think, the larger vision that you have, senator, for what you're trying to do for your district, which I think ultimately is to bring more educational opportunities to San Jose and to your constituents, which I think is a meaningful endeavor.

I do think that there are some big questions that the bill raises, you know, as we discussed, and concerns around potentially setting a precedent given that the UC, you know, is typically the institution that would have a law school like this. I know that you're still been having some active conversations with the UC system.

I know we discussed possibly including language about the UC having the first right of refusal in this process. And there's still a lot more questions here to be answered. You know, in addition to that, both the CSU and the UC are facing some real financial challenges. Right.

The governor's proposed some pretty significant cuts, cuts that we're going to be fighting to make sure that we're filling, you know, that 8% and this would be quite, quite a huge financial endeavor, as well as the kind of staff time involved in making sure that they have the capabilities really in the infrastructure to be able to take this on.

And I frankly don't have the answer to those questions. It might be easy, it might be hard. I really just don't know. I am going to vote yes on your bill today and we'll see what the rest of our colleagues here on the Committee do if it does move forward.

You know, my request of you is to continue working with our staff and allow them to continue to be a part of the conversations that you're having with both the UC system and the CSU system to figure out what this looks like and to offer, you know, receive more guidance from staff around that and shaping this.

And, you know, also want to say, depending on what this bill is looking like as it moves through the process, I may pull the bill back here to committee. You know, for us to have deeper discussions on this.

I, you know, I, like I said, understand the intention of what you're trying to do, but I think, as was noted by the opposition, want to be mindful of setting a precedent here.

I do think it's a worthwhile conversation for us to talk about the kind of setups that we have, but do think that that kind of holistic conversation does need to happen more within an intersegmental body with the three systems present.

There's been discussions like this before about allowing community colleges to offer BAs and think it's a, It's a worthy discussion, but is a very big discussion. So I want to share all of that with you and hope the staff can be helpful, you know, with that and we can continue that, that meaningful conversation.

So appreciate the big vision that you have here. I think big, bold ideas are, you know, worthwhile exploring and, you know, think some good will come out of it just simply having the discussion with folks. So I'll go ahead and we'll transition the gavel over to, to my Vice Chair.

Can I. Can I just do a very short close? Just a. Thank you. First and foremost, I have deep confidence in this committee. As you know, I've had the, the honor and the privilege of serving on, on the Education Committee since I got here, now going into my second term.

So even if that were not true, your every comment that you made in terms of, you know, continued oversight, continued assistance is welcome, very welcome. We aren't here trying to in any way, shape or form indicate that this ends up being a simple transaction on its best day.

It's something that requires a lot of thoughtfulness and eyes on it, and I can't think of a better committee to assist with that than this committee. Secondly, I just want to say, of course, we have to have things like the Master Plan for Education, but in 1960, I was alive then and I lived in San Jose.

There were 85,000 people in the City of San Jose. 85,000. I lived on a prune orchard. It was called the Valley of Hearts Delight. It looked a lot more like rural Fresno or someplace like that in the valley. It changed in one generation.

Obviously, it now has a higher GDP, the county itself, than all but 25 countries in the world. An amazing thing. An amazing thing. But two things that the Master Plan for Education calls for. Access. It doesn't exist now that we have a million people in the city and 2 million people in the county, roughly.

We don't have access. We don't have access to any UC other than some satellite programs. And we certainly don't have access to a public legal education, as we've all talked about here, you know, and certainly appreciate all the deep conversations with you. And secondly is affordability.

I mean, this is, as my witness indicated, the dean indicated, a segment of the legal education system that has succeeded in providing an opportunity for folks to gain a legal education that just couldn't do it at the only other law school we have in our county, Stanford University. It just wouldn't happen.

So all that is to say thank you for giving us a chance to move forward and, you know, further demonstrate that need and see if the parties can get together. This is really about getting them to the table. Thank you.

We'll take that as your closing statement. Senator Cortese, is that your closing.

We're in a position not to.

I was presenting a bill, so I apologize, but we're back.

Yeah, I. I just did my close and I would respectfully ask for an I vote. And I don't know if it's. I've never had to make a motion on my own bill, so I don't think that's allowed.

And I can't make a motion either. So we'll wait till. We'll put it on call or no call, but we'll wait till the rest of our members get back.

Witness to witnesses to understand in the public. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. Do you have any other authors?

All right, the Committee on Education will be. Will recess for a couple of minutes. We're waiting for some of the authors to come through. Thank you.

Recess. Great. So we are back from recess and want to thank everybody for their patience while I had to step away. Next up on the agenda we have item number three, SB414 by Senator Ashby, who's here today, and Senator Ashby, you can go ahead and get started when you're ready.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Appreciate it. What a crazy busy day in this building today, right? Like we're all running around as best we can, trying to be everywhere. I am here to present SB414, which is the Charter School Accountability Act.

This Bill makes several changes to fiscal oversight and financial reporting for charter schools and for charter school authorizers, including important transparency and accountability components.

Let me start by saying that I accept the proposed committee amendments to one strike the requirement for the LAO to conduct a study of charter oversight models in other states and two to amend the vendor contracting provisions to require background checks for all vendor personnel.

I want to sincerely thank your Committee and the Chairwoman herself for your dedication to helping me improve this Bill. I believe those two modifications are significant and improve the overall package. Thank you genuinely.

Charter schools provide alternative educational flexibility for families with a myriad of circumstances, including young people with medical conditions, with special needs that are justice involved students for whom a traditional setting has just simply become either unsafe or untenable. Charter schools serve as a resource for for communities.

They deliver vital educational programs to students and their families, oftentimes, most times our most vulnerable young people. Several audits and reports have identified a number of opportunities for improvements for various charter schools and for their authorizers. SB414 seeks to respond to those audits and their calls for accountability.

Most of the audit findings point back to a greater need for two oversight and transparency. SB414 addresses these issues specifically by holding charter schools responsible, responsible for internal accounting and responsible for educational outcomes for all students. This Bill incorporates recommendations from several reports.

First of all, the Legislative Analyst Office and Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance team's 2024 review of funding determinations process for non classroom based charter schools as well as the California Charter Authorizing Professionals 2024 report protecting California Public Schools and the California State Controllers 2024 audit on best practices for charter schools.

It is vital vital to implement strong accountability measures and to establish proper oversight to ensure that students receive a quality education in a safe learning environment regardless of the type of school they attend. SB 414 puts students first, particularly students who often have specific needs best addressed by an individualized specialized educational program.

This Bill codifies important recommendations made through in depth audits and reports across a variety of entities. Finally, I would like to note that this Bill is no doubt going to be modified as it moves through this process.

The analysis from this Committee, as well as other bills moving through the Legislature in this or a similar space will most certainly be a part of the ongoing dialogue. And you have my commitment to that end as we all work together collectively to protect the educational integrity of learning for all of California's young people.

With me today, I have two support witnesses. First, Alex Lucero, who is the Chief Executive Officer with Real Journey Academies, and Colin Miller, who's the Vice President of Government Affairs with the California Charter Schools Association. And at the appropriate time, I will urge an aye vote from this Committee. And thank you very much for your time today.

Thank you. And just as a reminder, both of the witnesses, you each have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Perez and Members of the Committee. My name is Alex Lucero and I'm the CEO of Real Journey Academies, which educates approximately 2,500 students in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. We are sponsoring SB414 because something must be done to stop fraud and misappropriating of public funds in both charter schools and additional K12 system.

Last year we sponsored SB 1477, which was passed by this Committee and the State Senate on a unanimous bipartisan vote. We are returning this year because the Assembly Education Committee wanted a more comprehensive reform Bill. In the lights of the three statewide reports relating to fraud and abuse of public funds, this Bill answers that call.

This Bill largely tracks the recommendations in those three reports. However, we have only focused on policy changes on those that have minimum state cost in light of this difficult budget year. This Bill addresses the lack of adequately trained auditors. This Bill strengthens auditing standards to ensure that bad actors will get caught.

This Bill requires the State Board of Education to investigate fraud complaints that it receives. This Bill requires that charter school boards be notified when there is any material concern noted by a school district that authorizes a charter school.

This will allow the charter school board to take appropriate disciplinary action against bad actors and strengthen their policies and procedures. This Bill addresses the need for greater financial transparency so that authorizers and the general public can better understand where the charter school money is being spent.

As a charter school operator, I can see the gaps that untrained auditors and lax auditing standards have created. With your help, we are going to change that. We are asking for an aye vote from you today and hope that you will join Senator Ashby as co authors of this Bill as it leaves the Education Committee.

Everyone should be against fraud involving public school funds. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Colin Miller. I'm here on behalf of three organizations and their members. The California Charter Schools Association, the Charter Schools Development Center and the A Plus Network of Personalized Learning Schools.

We've worked together with Real Journey and the author on this Bill for quite some time and we're here in support because it represents a balanced approach to focus on three key areas of school accountability. First of all, as was mentioned, audit requirements.

There are several new audit requirements that are represented by by the controllers report and in line with the most significant recommendations of that. Also we have some changes to the funding determination process for non classroom based charter schools. This is a very bureaucratic process.

It does have a role in ensuring that non classroom based schools are using their funds primarily for education to students and not profiteering. The changes in this section does not reduce or change the regulatory authority or or the thresholds in those regulations. I wanted to be clear about that.

It simply confirms that the intent of the original law, which is that failure to meet those targets actually would be an indicator of profit sharing or financial abuse. We also acknowledge the LAO's finding in terms of non classroom based charter schools and that this term is a misnomer in the current education code.

The change in the Bill to flex based more accurate reflection reflects the current law and practices. And we also note that that change in policy was previously endorsed by this committee.

And then finally SB414 would clarify and strengthen many authorizer duties and establish an early warning process to report fiscal irregularities to state officials who would be required to investigate. It does not limit or reduce authorizers obligation to oversee and revoke schools with significant fiscal irregularities. I want to be very clear on that point as well.

And finally, I would like to note that in 2019, when the egregious A3 fraud case was finally investigated and prosecuted, the Legislature took swift action to enact a package of bills to significantly.

And if you can begin wrapping up your comments.

Yeah. Significantly improved fiscal accountability, governance and transparency for charter schools. There were at least three bills in that year on this topic. So we want to build on that progress and. And we think this Bill offers a balanced approach. Thank you.

Thank you. Excellent. Now that we have heard from our witnesses in support, are there any other support witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside the railing. And please only state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Eric Premack with the Charter Schools Development Center in support. Thank you.

Matt Taylor with the California Montessori Project in support

Kevin Dobson, founder Executive Director for Capital College Career Academy in support.

Laura Bariel, Teaching and Learning Director at Natomas Charter School in support

Robin Stout. Superintendent, Rockland Academy Family of Schools in support.

Mary Cox, Corbute Charter School Superintendent 2024 Charter School of the Year in support.

Jeff Rice with A Plus representing 100 Flex based personalized learning Charter Schools in support.

Paul Keefer, Executive Director of Pacific Charter Institute and School Watch Valley View Charter Prep in support.

Chris Bollinger on behalf of the Opportunity Youth Schools Coalition as well as Lighthouse Charter in support.

Eduardo De Leon, the Executive Director of The Language Academy of Sacramento in support.

Joanne Fountain, the CEO of Delta Managed Solutions, providing back office business services for over 40 charter schools in support.

Steve Korvink, Chief Business Officer for Westlake Charter School in support.

Sharon Mancini, NP3 Schools in Sacramento in support.

Keilen Fong, representing the Cal Asian Chamber in support. Thank you

Madam Chair and Senators Adam Keigwin on behalf of Alliance College Ready Public Schools and support.

Thank you. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition if there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us. Thank you for joining us and a reminder that you each have two minutes.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. Tristan Brown with CFT Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. We are here in opposition today. I think this marks my 11th year operating on behalf of educators in the charter reform space.

In 2018, the in the Public Interest Research Group released a report that demonstrated $149 million of waste, fraud and abuse within the industry at that time, which was alluded to earlier in the supporter comments. We did come to the Legislature begging for real reform in the finance parts of charter industry.

What we were able to accomplish was better laws and authorizing renewing charters, but mostly the doors were left open on having better financial controls. So one year later, after 149 identified million dollars in waste, fraud and abuse, we saw the A3 scandal take over $400 million.

That of course had prompted the Fickmat and LAO, who we deem as very objectionable experts in the field of school finance, to write the report.

I think you'll find that there are other vehicles that hopefully will come before you that take a starting position of incorporating all of their wonderful advice and suggestions to rectify the situation and make sure that all of the doors that might be open to any bad actors, of which I will say are few, but exist nonetheless to be able to better safeguard the public funds that go through this industry.

We would much rather start from that perspective of everything on their list and see how we can tailor fit that to the current existence of how charters operate rather than start from maybe an opposite side.

We really appreciate what the author is attempting here and I know as actually a personal constituent her desire to make sure that every school is the best one it possibly can be.

And so we do want to continue dialogue to make sure that all of the reform that are offered by the experts get incorporated into the new realm to make sure we avoid any future A3's in our public education system.

So for several reasons of flex space which we don't know how it's defined, how the determination needs to be tweaked, we respectfully oppose but hope to continue to land the proper policy.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members. Cassie Mancini here on behalf of the California School Employees Association and respectful opposition. I would align our remarks with CFT and agree we strongly agree with the author's intent here to ensure that there is strong oversight of non classroom based charter schools.

The A3 case really clearly demonstrated how California's existing system of NCB charter oversight carried out by public authorizers, annual financial audits, and the State Board of Education through its funding determination process is woefully inadequate.

That's why we commissioned these reports by the LAO and FCMAT and that's why the judge in the A3 case convened a workgroup to develop new audit criteria.

Unfortunately, we feel that SB414 falls short not just of the comprehensive reforms needed, but also proposes some problematic changes that are worse than the status quo and entirely unsupported by the expert recommendations.

I'll start with the funding determination process changes that would give all non-classroom based charters a 100% funding determination except in cases of demonstrable financial abuse, profiteering or grossly excessive administrative expenses. The consequences for NCB charters engaging in those kinds of practices should be charter revocation, not just reduced funding.

This proposal makes the submission of expenditure data to the SBE simply an exercise in paperwork and erodes any existing protections for NCB educators, directly countering the LAO and FCMAT recommendations calling for stronger fiscal accountability.

This Bill also disregards many other LAO and FCMAT recommendations, but I'll highlight one key proposal that's entirely absent from this Bill that the Legislature set limits on small district authorizers who do not have the capacity to oversee large NCB charters.

And finally, and inexplicably, this Bill proposes adding charter schools to the Government Claims act, thereby extending a form of Sovereign immunity that is only reserved for public entities to private nonprofit corporations. Government privileges should only be extended to democratically accountable public governing boards.

And this proposal is not based in any of the NCB reports and will increase barriers for workers to bring liability claims against charter schools. We need a really comprehensive Bill and we need a Bill backed by the expert.

Backed by the expert reforms that were proposed by the LAO and FCMAT, by the charter authorizing professionals and by the audit work group. So for these reasons, we respectfully request a no vote.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone at the railing and stand your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Ivan Fernandez with the California Labor Federation in opposition.

Thank you. Jason Fox with the California Society of CPAs. We're the CPAs that provide the audit services. We don't have a position on the Bill, but we have flagged some concerns related to provisions that oversee CPAs and how that might interplay with existing oversight of CPAs.

We've had conversations with the author and other stakeholders and the controller's office and looking forward to having those conversations as this moves forward, but wanted to note those concerns for the Committee. Thank you.

Anybody else? Okay. Well, thank you to all of our support and opposition witnesses. We will now bring the discussion back to members. Do any of our members have questions or comments? Senator Cabaldon?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the author for bringing the Bill forward and recognize that there's there are lots of bills on the topic and several of these topic here areas and that what we're doing today is helping to set the table for those, those important discussions to continue and issues to be worked through.

And I know there's another vehicle in the Assembly that sort of takes a very different approach and the only way for those discussions to be had productively is for both vehicles to move forward. I have a Bill also coming hopefully to the committee next week that addresses a small part of this as well.

But I'm very strongly supportive of, of moving this bill forward today recognizing some of the concerns that have been mentioned and I know some of them are concerns across all of the entire.

It's not a package because they're not in agreement, but the entire set of bills to some of the kind of the optics points here though I do want to say in our community colleges we've seen year after year of reports first 25% of our students not being real, you know, through through fraud in our system that was first undetected and we've had then it was 28%, now 32%.

I don't think any of us would propose eliminating the community colleges or canceling their, their legal authorization to operate. I certainly wouldn't. They're struggling with those challenges. I don't believe at this stage there's no evidence that there's any intent or malfeasance or what have you in that case.

But I think that as we're talking about charter schools that we really need to be focusing on, on, on criminal activities, fraud and abuse.

And we need to make sure that we have every protection necessary in our auditing and accounting, accounting oversight, authorizer oversight and all of the components to make sure that we are catching, punishing and then prohibiting those operators from continuing to, to exist.

But I think we should also avoid the hubris of thinking that the rest of our systems are always perfect because they clearly aren't. And particularly given today's the nature of online and other approaches to education that that becomes more and more challenging.

I think second the voters ability to reach things like joint powers authorities, other corporate forms that are formed by school and community college districts or also by UC and CSU and have full access to the state claims process.

Charter schools are public schools and they are operated under the aegis of state law with, with authorization from the, from, from an agency elected by the public in order to do that.

So I'm, I welcome the conversation, but I wouldn't from the outset say that charters in this case are less democratic than a joint powers authority or some other remote appointed board that is not subject to direct accountability by the people either.

And then last I think you know that probably to me which is the least important issue, but I know it's a big deal to a lot of people which is the names that are being used here. You know, it's only my, my fourth month on this Committee, but I've been in the education world for a long time.

We work really hard not to define and name things based on what people aren't. We've made. We, you know, even today we struggle with calling people homeless. That their identity is the fact that they don't have a home.

I was a faculty member at SAC State and my colleagues who were permanent full time lecturers really did not appreciate being called non-Senate faculty.

As though the most important thing about them, the only thing you needed to know about them was that they weren't Members of the Academic Senate or students who would enter any of our institutions of higher ed being called remedial students and their courses being called remedial.

We in the world of education, more so than most other policy domains, we don't focus on the deficits. We don't focus on what people are not. And non-classroom based isn't a useful moniker. Yes, it's, we've been using it, but we've been using all those other terms for a long time too.

And whether flex based is the right one or not, I don't know.

But I think we, you know, we should be, we should be finding what, we should be determining what is the proper term in the law and in our discourse for what these, what these schools are and give that term its meaning and not be locked into a term that only tells you one small thing about what those institutions are not.

So I appreciate that the analysis raises a lot of important issues and I think, and I know the author is committed to working those through in the multiparty negotiations that are going to proceed.

But I think it's important that you have the opportunity to do so with the Bill that is in a strong form as possible as those negotiations proceed. And so I'm intending to support it today. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. And I'll, you know, I just want to take a moment to, I think, acknowledge a couple of things. First of all, I want to thank you, Senator Ashby, for the amount of work that you've put into this Bill.

I know that we've had some conversations about this and what a priority it is to you and you've been working diligently with staff and appreciate that you've accepted two of the amendments but have not accepted the other two amendments at this time, particularly those related to the flex based terminology change and to the proposed changes to the funding determination process for non classroom based charter schools.

As I've raised, you know, with you, I think that those are two very critical components of this, I think creating and whether or not we change the language or the name.

I think it is more about defining the kind of vast differences between a school that is 100% in person versus 100% online and all of the differences in between there and creating a definition and a system for that and then figuring out how we fund those schools.

A school that's 100% online versus a school that's 20% online and 80% in person and requires facilities is probably going to have different funding needs, frankly. And I think it's important for us to recognize that. But as we've discussed, I think you need more time to work out some of those things.

You know, I want to acknowledge, I do not agree that, you know, those schools should all be everything in between that should be funded at 100%. And so there needs to be some sort of mechanism. But I know that you're committed to figuring that out and working that out.

And so, you know, as I've shared with you, I will be supporting your Bill today, you know, and I've not given a recommendation out to the rest of my colleagues. But, you know, should this Bill move forward, I, I do want for you to continue working with staff on this.

We're going to continue monitoring the Bill and, you know, depending on what happens, you know, I have the expectation for these issues to be resolved. And if they're not, we'll be calling the Bill back to committees so that we can further have these discussions.

But want to give you the opportunity to be able to work through some of these, these issues here that I think are really key to the FCMAT report with the opposition and with other folks. And also want to acknowledge, too, as Senator Cabaldon just did, that both he has a Bill in this space.

We know that there's a Bill in this space as well in the Assembly. Both of those bills will be coming here. We're going to give them the exact same level of scrutiny and really encourage you to partner and work with those other authors to figure this out.

You know, I think the FCMAT report, you know, raised some really important concerns and it is, it is going to take some time and thoughtfulness to figure out how we address those things. But think between, you know, three very talented members and very smart m embers that you all can figure it out.

So, you know, appreciate the time that you've given and the thorough discussion that we've had around this and the work that you've done thus far. So I look forward to continuing to monitor the process and seeing the direction that this goes. And I'll go ahead and if you'd like to close from there. Yeah, sure, sure.

Well, thank you so much. First of all, Madam Chair, you have been quite gracious both with your time and your patience and your attention to this issue in an incredibly busy time in the Legislature with lots of priorities. So from my heart, truly thank you for that.

And unfortunately, or fortunately, but unfortunately for them, you have an incredibly gifted staff on this Committee. So there's no chance I will be moving forward without calling on them as we move through this process. Sorry, your job is not over when we leave here. I will still be calling you, unfortunately for them.

Also, I do have their phone numbers and know where their offices are. And as you have heard, Mr. Brown knows where I live. So there's also no chance of me getting out of this without some more conversations with everybody involved. I have every confidence that he will find me. And I did speak to, I speak to Mr.

Cabaldon often. Senator Cabaldon's Bill has sitting in my Committee waiting to come here. So we will deal with that. We will deal with that. And I did speak with the Assembly Member yesterday actually about these two bills. And you know, we're both very prepared and willing to sit down and start finding a way to the middle.

The opposition's points today are well taken. I don't agree with all of them, but I in many ways the comments that Mr. Brown made point to the actual need for SB 414 or some other Bill like SB 414 that addresses actually the hard work of their organizations.

Those are the people who required these audits to occur wisely because we shouldn't allow things to pursue the way that they are. That has to stop. And so this is my effort to do that. I like to think of myself as fairly in the middle here.

I have another Bill I'm doing with the Teachers Association as my sponsor. And I think the community that I live in values all of these entities greatly. And so my obligation in this building always is to one entity, the people of Senate District 8.

And there are several of them in this room today, both at that table and in those seats. And I promise you, none of them on any side of this issue are going to let me off the hook without a very comprehensive package where everyone feels heard.

And it is my commitment to them which is the strongest commitment I can make, as well as my commitment to you that I will give it everything I've got on behalf of students across the State of California because we know we need them all.

We know because when the fires ravaged your community, kids had to go online that were never online before, but you were able to keep them in school. Good on you for doing that. We know that justice involves students always have the same opportunities for classroom based learning as other kids.

We know that we ask our County Office of Educations to be so creative, so creative that they push the bounds on many things to help students who are unhoused, to help students with special needs, to help students in a myriad of situations.

We know that there are over a half dozen schools across the State of California that specialize in serving LGBTQ youth who don't feel safe on campus. I'm here for them. I want to protect them. And I know all of you do, too. I know your hearts. So there is a pathway here through the middle.

I'm hell bent to find it, and I have a lot of people who are going to make sure that we do so. So I promise you that you have my commitment here to push as hard as I can.

I have no doubt that when this Bill comes back the next time to the Senate, it will look different than it looks right now. That's the hope. It's a dialogue starter. This is not the finish line. So I appreciate you deeply and your staff deeply, and I urge an aye vote today.

So we have a motion by Senator Caboldon for SB414 by Senator Ashby. And that motion is do pass to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Thank you, colleagues.

Roll Call

Okay. All righty. Apologies for the delays. So we are going to try to move through these all very quickly because we have another Committee hearing in this room at 1:30. Next up will be item number four, SB226, by Senator Cabaldin and Senator Cabaldin, you can start when you're ready.

And thanks to the members of the committee here to present SB 226. Let me say at the outset, this is a district bill. It's crafted in a way that's consistent with the constitutional requirements for statewide application. But the criteria in the bill means that it applies only to one county in California, and that is the County of Yolo.

The master plan for higher education, when it was adopted in 1960, declared for the first time that every part of California should be in a community college district. Prior to that time, community colleges were sort of optional add ons to high school districts. And many had them, but many did not.

The master plan said everyone should be part of a community college district. And the locals were directed to figure out where. It didn't all happen.

And in 1975, the State Board of Governors, on its own initiative from statutory authorization, then acted to assign areas that were not already part of a community college district to a community college district.

Leading up to that meeting, the people of Woodland in Yolo County had voted by a margin of 83% against joining the Yuba Community College District. And so some background. Yolo County, particularly at that time, although it's similar today, is comprised of four cities and some more rural areas. But Woodland, West Sacramento, Davis and Winters.

At the time, there was no West Sacramento. We existed as a place, but not as a city. And the prize in Yolo County for every community college district around us was Davis. Everybody wanted Davis. They wanted the University, they wanted the tax base.

Because this is pre Prop 98, they wanted the tax base and they wanted Davis and its voters. The only way to accomplish that for a district like Los Rios, which represents most of the rest of the Sacramento region, was to go through what is today West Sacramento and pick up Davis, leaving behind the rest of the county.

And so Woodland and Winters, the two Latino majority cities in Yolo County, were assigned to more remote districts. Winters was assigned to Solano Community College District, and Woodland to the Yuba Community College District, to which it had very little social, economic or political ties even then. And then the.

The southern part of the county was assigned to the River Delta Community College District, which is anchored in Stockton. So unique among California counties, Yolo parceled out across all these places.

This is the one of the most compelling examples of educational redlining ever to occur in California districting, where the choice was specifically made at the request of some of the Los Rios leadership and the state board over the vast objections of the people of Woodland, of Woodland, who voted overwhelmingly against it, to be assigned out of away from their neighbors to district with lower tax assessment value and with less fewer opportunities for transfer and connection to the main institutions that those students wish to attend, which was Sac State and UC Davis.

So that's the history. So some of the opponents to the bill have said, we're here, we want to protect local control. That's exactly what this bill is about. Local control means, in this case, the people of a community, which expressed both through their votes back then.

But ever since the percentage of students at Yuba Community College that are from Woodland is less than 3%. Many, many Woodland residents are enrolled in colleges all around the rest of the area. Los Rios, Solano, and elsewhere. Woodland belongs with the rest of Yolo County.

Winters belongs with the rest of Yolo County, and they belong in the region. So SB 226 seeks to accomplish that, to reunify Yolo County in some form attached to one of its four community college districts. Wholly or potentially, you could imagine a new community college district being formed.

There is a process, as the analysis points out, for accomplishing that, and it's based on the system that was created for school districts a century ago. It requires a series of studies and petitions and votes and committees and all of that. It has never once been successfully executed in a situation like this, not once.

The only time that a community college district has been reorganized, other than with a very particular exception of Feather River Community College in the Sierras, being a part of the Peralta Community College District in Oakland for a hot minute, for pure, a pure marriage of convenience.

Other than that very special exception, only one time as a community college district been reorganized in California, and that was accomplished only because of legislation by Senator Ochoa Bogh's predecessor, Senator Jim Brulte, who represented largely the same territory. And Senator Brulte came forward and said, look, it is impossible to get through this process.

And the area around what is now Copper Mountain Community College needs to be its own district. And folks in that area recognize that there's very few transportation linkages. They are not connected to Desert Community College. And so the legislature, actually I was a staffer, just like Ms. Lorber and Ogalilia as well at the time.

I tried to stop it, but Senator Brulte prevailed. And he was right. The only way a district reorganization to accomplish that can actually happen is through legislation that has been the, the only procedure ever to successfully reorganize a district. So SB 226 is intended to, to accomplish that and, and to allow that to happen.

I want to acknowledge the, the, the comments that are in the analysis. I agree with them. We, absolutely.

And I'm making my commitment to you as I have to the chair, that we will resolve all of those issues around that sort of, the transactional details of how this would actually happen with some of those are required by law. How bonds would be affected, collective bargaining contracts, other personnel matters. Those are already required by law.

The Board of Governors could not make this action, take this action without satisfying those.

But the other issues that have been raised in the analysis as well, of course we need to, but we also, we need to do that in the context of an agreement between the parties and also an understanding as we get further along, of which is the most likely.

I know there's been a lot of conversation about Los Rios, but it could theoretically also be instead Solano or Delta or you could imagine, as I say, even a new district emerging.

And so my commitment is to continue to work with your staff as I have for the last 20 years, but on this topic, and to drive it towards accomplishing this so that we can right that wrong that was done in the 1970s and make Yolo County whole and restore the educational equity, the community equity, the opportunities that are going to be available to students throughout the county and especially in Woodland and in winters.

And so with that, I ask for an I vote. I'd like to introduce our two, our two lead witnesses, if that's all right, Madam Chair, Jesse Ortiz, who is, who was involved in many of these issues in many regards.

He's been at Woodland Community College, but has also served in a distinguished capacity as the Superintendent of Schools for Yolo County. His successor is our other lead witness, Garth, who has served as the Superintendent of Yolo County Schools as well. And they are here to provide background and the compelling case for why SB 226 needs to happen.

And just as a reminder, you each will have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, Members of the Senate Education Committee. My name is Jesse Ortiz. I'm a retired Yolo County Superintendent of Schools, and I come here this morning as a retired Yolo County Superintendent of Schools.

I would like to share a brief historical context of how we got here, and some of it may be repetitious of what Senator Cabaldon just mentioned, but I believe it's important enough to share it again. We're here today because the vast majority of the governing bodies in Yolo County support SB 226.

The historical context would be in 1972, the California legislation gave each city until September 1975 to join a community college district. Each city would have an opportunity to have an election and vote to become annexed into a community college of their choice.

In 1974, the California Community College Board of Governors angered the Woodland community by giving voters only the choice to be allowed to vote yes or no for annexation into the Yuba Community College District, giving no option for Los Rios Community College District, the district of choice, which was Los Rios Community College District on November 1974.

The vote was 83%, 83% against Yuba Community College or 83% against Measure C. It was also over 80% of the registered voters participated in this election.

In September of 1975, at the Board of Governors meeting in Los Angeles, the board voted 10 to 3 for Woodland to become the first city in California California's history to annex N2 Community College District not of their choice. It would become effective July 1, 1976.

The reasons given were Woodland's rural orientation was comparable to Yuba Community College District, desire to halt growth in the Los Rios Community College district, and a June 1974 Board of Governors plan that called placing Woodland into the Yuba Community College District a plan that no Woodlanders knew about.

The reasons that were those reasons were questionable in 1975 as they are today. At the Board of Governors meetings in September 75.

If you can begin wrapping up.

It was not supported by President Dan Walker. The Yuba College District. Yolo County local leaders know what's best for the communities. Give them a chance to make a wrong to right after 50 years for Woodland Yolo County, we ask for your support.

Good morning Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of SB 226 and thank you to Senator Cabaldon for your leadership on this legislation that prioritizes the needs of students and our community's shared commitment to educational equity.

As has been noted, my name is Garth Lewis and I'm the proud county Superintendent of Schools for Yolo County here representing today a diverse residency of 220,000 residents including over 31,000 TK through 12th grade students, 72% of whom are students of color, all of which are working hard every day to reach their college and career goals.

As has been established, Yolo County is the only county in the state eligible under SB 226 and that eligibility reflects a long standing governance challenge. Today, three different community college districts serve Yolo County's five school districts, Woodland Joint Unified, Winters Joint Unified, Esparto Unified, Washington Unified and Davis Joint Unified school Districts.

That means no single community college district is fully accountable to the needs of our students or position to partner with us on long term planning.

The strength of SB 226 is that it allows for realignment under a single existing community college district or potentially a creation of a new community college district, importantly, creating a pathway to improve consistency, equitable access and coordination without disruption of programs or personnel.

Notably, as has been mentioned, the vast majority of governing bodies in Yolo County, including our five school districts and the County Office of Education, supports this becoming a reality for our students.

In Yolo County, we are deeply invested in early college credit, dual enrollment and career pathways that match our local economy and ensure our students are competitive in their futures. However, the lack of a unified community college partner slows progress, complicates transitions and limits our ability to provide targeted supports to our students.

SB 226 provides a fair process.

Would you mind wrapping up your comments?

SB 226 provides a fair process for change with local governance no longer reflects local realities. As a result, I respectfully urge an I vote today. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. We will now see if we have any other witnesses and support. If you could please come up and use the mic at the railing and state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Madam Chair, members, Amy Brown, on behalf of the City of West Sacramento in support.

Morning Madam Chair, members. Lucas Frerichs, Member of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors in support of this bill.

Good morning. Thank you. My name is Jake Whitaker, former Board Member for the Woodland Joint Unified School District. Here in support.

Karen Bayne of Woodland, former Member of the Woodland Community. Sorry, Woodland School Board and President of the Woodland Democrats in support.

Board President, Deborah Bautista Zavala for the Woodland Joint Unified School District Board. Thank you. In support.

Marlan H. Skip Davies in support. I've been mayor and Council Member in Moulin for 12 to 14 years. Also served K12 education for over 40 years. Eight years with the school district and 25 years with Los Rios. Thank you.

Elodia Ortega-Lampkin, the very proud Superintendent of Woodland Joint Unified School District. In full support.

Good morning Madam Chair, Senators. My name is Angel Barajas, Yolo County Board of Supervisor representing District 5, North Woodland, East Woodland and the 10 unincorporated rural towns of Yolo County. Thank you. In Support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators, thank you for considering the support of SB 226. Victoria Fernandez, retired school teacher, former mayor and of the City of Woodland and Council Member thank you.

Thank you so much. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. If there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us. A reminder that you all have two minutes each and you may begin when you're ready.

Chair and Members, My name is Nune Garipian and I'm here on behalf of the Community College League of California, representing the state's 116 colleges and 73 districts in respectful opposition to SB 226. I would like to begin by thanking the author and his staff for the ongoing conversations with us on this bill.

While we appreciate the author's intentions to narrowly craft this bill to impact two districts, we are very concerned with the precedent this may set for colleges across the state. California's community colleges are governed by locally elected boards who are responsible for making decisions on what best serves their institutions.

Education code section 70901 details the responsibilities of the State Board of Governors, stating that the board should always strive to maintain and continue to the maximum degree permissible local authority and control in the administration of the California community colleges.

This bilateral governance system is vital to the success of our institutions, allows colleges the flexibility to meet the unique needs of their communities. SB 226 circumvents this local process by granting the State Board of Governors the sole authority to reorganize districts upon its own initiative.

In practice, this means that local districts could be reorganized without their input or their agreement. As the analysis outlines, this goes directly against the local district decision making authority of districts and reduces the discretion of local governing boards to initiate, vet and agree to change to changes concerning their district boundaries.

SB 226 establishes a very concerning precedent, especially as we enter hard, hard budget years where districts could be reorganized without their approval. For these reasons, we must respectfully oppose SB 226 and look forward to further conversations.

Thank you, thank you Chair and Members. Tiffany Mock representing CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, respectfully opposing SB 226. I want to first thank the author and the witnesses for their deep understanding of the history of this bill and want to emphasize that CFT deeply supports the goals of this bill.

We unfortunately do not believe that this current bill would effectuate the goals, however, in part because of the history that was laid out first. Why would we empower the board that had caused the redlining further import to make a unilateral decision when they are unelected. I feel like this is what got us here in the first place.

Second, we believe that without the current process we will not be able to preserve the current educational opportunities for residents in the affected district. What assurance do we have that class sizes will remain small? What assurances do we have that there will not be a reduction in course offerings that may be specific to this campus?

The current process exists because of the deliberations and was created to ensure student opportunity and fiscal stability. This isn't mere speculation.

As the analysis notes, the process was successful in transferring a territory using the same process, though I do appreciate the author's analysis and deep understanding that it has not been used in a situation that exactly represents the bill's goals and the situation. For those reasons we deeply respect but have to oppose SB 226. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your presentation. Are there any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside the railing.

Anna Matthews with the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges. Not in opposition. Betweeners also respect the intention of the Bill, but have concerns about setting a precedent. Thank you.

Okay, anybody else? All right, thank you. To our support and opposition witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to the Members. Do Members have any questions or comments? Okay. We have a motion by Senator Cortese. I, I just want to take a. A moment to, you know, acknowledge a couple of things.

And I know, you know, Senator Caboldan, we've talked quite a bit about SB226,226, and I have appreciated, I think, the amount of, you know, thoughtfulness that you've given this.

And also working with staff, I think, you know, as you acknowledged in your statement, there's still some work to do here in terms of clarifying procedurally what this will look like and making sure that, you know, you're kind of working with some of the local partners.

And I know that you've shared, you know, you want more time to be able to work out some of those specifics and to continue to engage in some of those meetings.

So, you know, I've asked you if you can continue working with staff, if staff can be a part of those meetings and those discussions, and we can allow you to move this Bill forward, but we'll Reserve the right to pull this Bill back if we don't see those conversations happening and feel as if it's moving in the right direction.

But, you know, I trust that you want to continue to have those discussions. And, you know, I appreciate the intention and the vision of what you're trying to achieve here. So just wanted to share that I will be supporting your Bill today. And the. The motion will be do pass to the Senate Appropriation Committee.

And if Senator Cabaldon, if you would like to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members of the Committee and the witnesses on both sides of the issue. And I absolutely do make that, that commitment. This is a complex implementation in the end. But the policy matter is simple, which is that we need to write this historic injustice.

I don't think The League did not exist in 1975, so it wasn't there to testify at that moment when local control was trampled and the state imposed its will contrary to 83% of the people in that community. So this matter is absolutely about local control.

But just as in city government, you don't get to redline and then claim that you can never change the redlining because, well, now it's all a local matter of local control, like we have to be able to overcome that notion in order to right these particularly racial but also social injustices in the community.

So that's the purpose that we're trying to achieve here. We. I think our focus, as you've heard from the testimony, has been around Los Rios, and we continue to work with them, hoping that we can find a resolution that's not $100 million, but. But we're trying, but our priority is to resolve the issue.

And so one of the reasons why we can't necessarily agree to present the final form of the transaction is it might be one of the other districts, or if we can't reach agreement listeries, it may be that, that we, that we propose and come back to you and say we now want to move forward with a completely separate new district.

So we will work in that way. And similarly with CFT and others. See, this is also an issue. You know, CFT is actually a great example here because CFT represents faculty at both units, Yuba and in Los Rios. Actually more at Los Rios than at Yuba, when you consider full timers and part timers.

And they will, they'll be grappling with these same questions from their own Members. What am my seniority rights and how can I transfer and, well, how will I bid for classes? So there are those issues to work through. We are committed to doing so in advance of obviously, this Bill going to the governor's desk.

Appreciate your support, your willingness to let us to proceed to make this happen. So thank you very, very much. Ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We do have a motion from Senator Laird. Assistant, would you please call the roll? And the. Oh, it was Senator Cortese. Apologies from Senator Cortese. And the motion once again is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

And we will place that bill on call. I will now go ahead and pass the gavel over to my good Vice Chair, Senator Ochoa Bogh, as I will be presenting.

All right, we'll continue on with file item number eight, SB 323 by Senator Perez.

Great.

You may proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm here today to present SB 323, the California Financial Aid Assurance Act. SB 323 does two things.

Requires the California Student Aid Commission, or CSAC, make the California Dream Act application permanently available to all students, regardless of their eligibility for federally based financial aid, and requires CSAC and higher education institutions to collaborate to communicate consistent, transparent and accurate information to students and their families about their college financial aid application options.

California's investments in state financial aid toward college affordability have opened doors for hundreds of thousands of Californians to pursue and succeed in higher education. In 2013, California enacted the California Dream Act and extended access to state and institutional financial aid to California college students who are ineligible for federal forms of financial aid.

At the federal level, there were major changes applied to the Free Application for Financial Student Aid, also known as FAFSA, with the intent to simplify the application. While seemingly well intended, these overhauling changes have caused a myriad of technical issues and raised new privacy concerns for many FAFSA eligible students and their families.

I'm sure many of you probably received phone calls from students that were struggling to complete their FAFSA application over the past year. I certainly did.

In addition to these technical issues, additional troubling federal government education related dynamics that are causing students to reconsider seeking financial financial aid and even applying to college altogether are the unclear future of the U.S.

Department of Education as well as the unprecedented levels of data sharing between federal agencies create new concerns for families. As college bound students and families deliberate and may become dissuaded from pursuing college because of what may be happening with the federal government.

It is incumbent we provide California college bound students with a stable, safe and alternative state based financial aid application to feel safe in applying for financial aid and choosing to go to college. We cannot afford to lose a generation of students and that's why I introduced this measure.

With me here to testify in support of SB 323 today are Aditi Hariharan, President of the UC Student Association. And also here to speak in support and help answer technical questions is Jake Brymner, Deputy Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the California Student Aid Commission. At the appropriate time, I ask you for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Brymner, will you be beginning?

I'll start us off. I think- Is it still good morning, senators? I don't have my watch in front of me. Right at me. Well, good afternoon, senators. Jake Brymner with the California Student Aid Commission.

First, on behalf of the Commission, we're proud to sponsor Senate Bill 323 and we're very grateful to the Chair for her leadership on this critical measure. In 2020, enactment of the FAFSA Simplification Act required that the U.S. Department of Education update the FAFSA to make it easier for students to complete.

However, as you heard the Senator describe, now for two consecutive years, the FAFSA has been full of technical issues that prevent many students from especially those from our mixed status families who from successfully completing a FAFSA.

Mixed status families are those in which a student who is eligible for federal aid may have a parent or spouse contributing to their application who does not have a Social Security number. According to Pew research estimates, over 12% of all students in California's K12 schools are from mixed status families.

The national environment and unprecedented access to personal data at the federal level has exacerbated fear among many students in their family in addition to those technical issues.

To help address these FAFSA related challenges, last year the Commission made the California Dream Act Application, also known sometimes as the CDAA, available as an alternative to students from mixed status families.

While the CDAA does not grant access to federal aid, it does ensure that students are considered for their state and campus based aid to which they're entitled.

There has not been an adopted uniform state policy on the use of the CDAA for students who cannot or are reluctant to apply for aid using the FAFSA and this has created ambiguity and confusion over which students can use the CDAA

beyond those technical issues. SB 323 responds to these FAFSA challenges and it's also a proactive measure to uphold access to state and institutional aid to students who are either unable or unwilling now or in the future to submit that FAFSA.

So with that, thank you, we respectfully request your support and of course I'm here to help with any technical questions you might have.

Thank you very much. May proceed.

Hi, good- good afternoon and thank you Senator Perez, Committee Members and CSAC for having me. My name is Aditi Hariharan and I'm the President of the UC Student Association which serves as the representative for all UC undergrads and we're a proud co sponsor of SB 323.

Last year, thousands of students applying for the FAFSA struggled to submit their applications after the launch of the 24 to 25 application cycle. The better FAFSA was met with delays and technical glitches that prompted an extension of the state priority deadline had institutions struggling to calculate offers because data was months late.

And importantly, the Student Aid Commission opened up CDAA to students from mixed status backgrounds in an attempt to support students stuck in this- in this limbo.

A high school senior attending a Title 1 funded school in LAUSD faced unsurmountable hurdles when FAFSA would not allow her parent to verify their income, causing a two month delay to receive a financial aid offer between March and May even while acceptances from CSU and UC campuses were pouring in.

Facing college registration deadlines, she had anxieties about commuting to a local CSU or living on campus at a distant UC, but faced uncertainty due to these FAFSA delays and contemplated if the CDAA would save her college dreams.

Thankfully, some institutions extended their deadlines, allowing flexibility for her to weigh her options to get support, and she was barely able to register for the UC. This should not have happened and I'm so grateful that she's a UC student now.

But the CDAA being a resource for her to fall back on for state and institutional aid would have enabled her to have a better sense of direction of what decision she wanted to make for the next four years of her life.

Another student, one of our very own student leaders who's an Inland Empire native graduating this year from UC Santa Barbara, had their FAFSA delayed for months because their parent veri- verification would not process in time for the priority application deadline.

She had to go through numerous advisors and counselors and could not get a hold of the FAFSA help center because of long wait times for the thousands of FAFSA inquiries being processed. The CDAA was necessary for her to be able to be graduating now in this timeline.

Aditi, you're right at two minutes.

Okay, I'll finish off with one more sentence. I know students personally who are removing college as one of their options due to all of the uncertainty present right now with with everything going on federally. So I please ask this committee to vote aye on this incredible support for students in their affordability journeys. Thank you.

Thank you for your advocacy and for being here today. Now we'll continue with any witnesses in support of SB 323. Please come to the microphone. State your name, your organization you're presenting and your position on the bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Blanca Godoy. I'm also a current student at USC and I'm also a policy fellow with uAspire and we are strongly in support of this bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Parshan Khosravi, on behalf of uAspire, the Northern California College Promise Coalition and the Financial Aid Coalition, we're in strong support and thank you for authoring this.

Good afternoon, Chair Perez, Members. Adriani Silvano. I am a first generation and recent alumni college graduate at the University of California, Riverside. And as someone who's personally dealt with the bungled rollout of the FAFSA Simplification Act, I'm here in strong support of SB 323.

Good afternoon. My name is Nicole Bautista and I have also dealt with these issues and so I am also in support.

I'm Janani Sundaram. I'm the organizing director for the External Affairs Vice President office at UC Davis. I have personally heard a lot of stories about all the difficulties that are going on and I am in very strong support of this. I really hope you guys support this. Thank you.

Anna Matthews on behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of the Cal State Student Association and the Alliance for A Better Community, proud co sponsors in support. And on behalf of EdTrust-West, in support. Thank you.

Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Southern California College Access Network, who's a proud co sponsor and the Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California who's in strong support.

Nancy Jodaitis for the Institutional Solutions who supported thousands of students who are addressing these concerns. Strong support of the bill.

Good afternoon. Dr. Feliza Ortiz-Licon on behalf of the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition. We are co sponsoring and on behalf of CHIR, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in strong support.

Brian Ricks with Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Good afternoon. McKenna Jenkins with NextGen California in support.

Good afternoon. Karen Stead on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, in support.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ruby Ceja on behalf of SPEAK, a student organization at UC Davis for undocumented students and students from mixed status families, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sarah Bouabibsa with the Institute for College Access and Success. While we didn't get to provide a letter for this committee, we look forward to providing our support in the next committees. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Mariana. I'm a graduate student at UC Davis and I was one of the first. I was able to use CDAA many years ago when I first started my college education journey. So I know what it means to be able to have access to this as someone who has undocumented parents.

And I encourage you to support this so that we can continue supporting education for all students.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support of SB 323. Will not continue with any witnesses in opposition to SB 323. Seeing no witnesses in opposition. We'll bring it back to the dais. Do we have any comments or questions from our Senator Cabaldon?

Yeah. So first, as a former Vice President of the UC Student Association probably two or three years before you, I'm very strongly in support of the bill. It's an important step and an extremely necessary tool.

It is also the case that we want as many students who can and will not be penalized by the federal government to use the full FAFSA and claim everything that they are entitled to under the Pell Grant program and all other federal and all other federal financial aid.

And so as we are all contemplating the budgets for the universities and the colleges in the coming budget, the amount of additional work that not this bill, but the situation is creating for financial aid offices, for communications offices and others on the campus, both in the administration and in student organizations and for faculty to be up to speed on what the- what the latest is.

It's- It's- It's not inexpensive to mount the staff response to make sure that- that we're threading this needle just as close as we can so that every student who needs access through- through CDAA can get it and every student who can without risking, you know, their- their- them themselves and their family can get everything that they're entitled to through the FAFSA process as well.

So the bill is a great one. We need to make sure that- that- the UCs and the community colleges continue to have the resources they need to be able to effectively serve students as they implement it.

Absolutely. We have a motion. I- I do have one question as- and- as this bill is currently written.

Just one clarification for the record, that it does require the California Student Aid Commission to consult with the colleges to promote the use of the California DREAM Act in a way that maximizes the amount of federal aid that students may receive while also apprising students of the choices available regarding which application they and their families may use.

However, it's not clear how much information will be provided to students on the amount of federal financial aid they may be leaving on the table by only using the California DREAM Act.

Have you folks considered an amendment to include a notice on the California DREAM Act application that alerts students who are also eligible to file for the FAFSA that they own- that if they only complete the DREAM Act application, they will not be considered for federal financial aid?

Senator, it's an important question and we included that language specifically to try to address the point that Senator Cabaldon just very eloquently laid out.

I'm pleased to share with you that we already in the California DREAM Act application as it's situated today and how it makes access available for students from mixed status families already include language that helps notify them that if they choose to proceed with this application pathway, they're doing so and foregoing that federal financial aid.

But we would appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with our segment partners to make sure that as we're presenting this as an option for students that aren't able to take that step to submit a FAFSA, that they're doing so in recognition of what it does and what it does not do as it opens up those doors to financial aid.

So what it does and does not, does that include the amount of funding that they may be missing out on? Or is that possible?

Because the amount that students could receive is so individualized, based on what they provide through the FAFSA, it's hard to give them a specific dollar amount.

But we do lay out that federal financial aid is not something they're applying for, including programs such as and what types of financial aid is available federally, but not through the California DREAM Act application.

So for my clarification, just to educate me, so when the students apply, is it one or the other, not both at the same time?