Senate Standing Committee on Education

Good morning. There are 15 bills on today's agenda. Item number 14, SB837, has been pulled by the author. One Bill is on consent. That Bill is item number four, SB631. Witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to two minutes to ensure the Committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion.

Seeing that we don't have a quorum, let's begin as a Subcommitee with well, actually, before we get started with our first Bill, I know Senator Stern is currently on his way.

I wanted to make sure to read what the Senate Education Committee Committee's policy was on curriculum, just so we can reiterate that I know we're going to be taking up several bills related to curriculum.

The Committee strongly discourages the introduction of measures which require or require consideration of modifications to state curriculum through changes to the curriculum frameworks or the course of study which require that specific curriculum be taught or which require the development of new model curricula or any other state adopted curriculum.

The Committee encourages Members to engage in the existing administrative processes for modifying state curricula. Members may wish, for example, to provide written comments or public testimony to the Instructional Quality Commission, also known as the iqc, the State Board of Education, or the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Committee staff can share a model letter to the Instructional Quality Commission.

Members may also wish to engage with the legislative Members who are appointed to serve on the Instructional Quality Commission or to engage in the Legislature's oversight or appointment processes for this purpose upon exhausting all administrative processes without success. If a Member wishes to pursue a measure to modify state curriculum, it must meet all of the following requirements.

Members may introduce resolutions requesting that the IQC include specified content at the next revision of a curriculum framework, our next adoption of instructional materials for grades K 8, K through 8, or encouraging local education agencies to instruct students and specified content Number two.

Bills proposing changes to the curriculum frameworks, instructional materials, or the course of study shall either request or require that the IQC consider including content not already included in the existing or draft curriculum frameworks, instructional materials or the course of study, model curricula, or any other state adopted curriculum to be added in the next regularly scheduled revision of a framework.

3. For both resolutions and bills, the author must identify by page number and include in the Committee background sheet all existing content in the current content standards and the current curriculum framework for that subject.

And finally, content proposed as an addition to a curriculum framework or instructional materials must align with an existing content standard or standards for that subject. I just wanted to be sure that we reviewed this because I know we're going to have several bills related to curriculum coming up on the agenda today.

This is a policy that we have here in Senate Education Committee, but that the Assembly Education Committee also has as well so that we have consistency. So just wanted to read that out for the record and we can certainly revisit that.

If any Members have any questions, I am going to go ahead because I see that we have one of our Members here and we do have a quorum now. So if we could go ahead and please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. We've established that we have a quorum. We will go ahead and move on to our first presenter for SB that is Senator Arreguin. Welcome, Senator Arreguin. You may begin when you are ready.

Members for the option 372, which narrowly authorizes a highly qualified nonprofit research institution with a physical presence in California, but is headquartered in another state to be recognized as an independent institution of higher education under the State Education Code, I want to clarify this is a district Bill that's introduced to address the disparity that impacts one institution in my district, Northeastern University, formerly the Mills College in the City of Oakland.

This designation would clarify an institution's regulatory standing with peer institutions headquartered in California, and under current law, many nonprofit universities are classified in the same regulatory framework as vocational schools, and this was designed to protect students from predatory institutions, but now disproportionately impacts reputable nonprofit universities that merge with California schools, such as Northeastern University when it merged with Mills College.

Established in 2009, the Bureau of Private Post Secondary Education protects students and consumers by overseeing California's private post secondary institutions and vocational schools. While these regulations safeguard students against fraudulent institutions, they inadvertently burden students at a highly qualified nonprofit institution committed to serving California.

SB372 would grant an exemption to Northeastern University consistent with other peer institutions and would clarify the University's regulatory standing with the Bureau for Private Post Secondary Education. When a nonprofit college merges with another, students face unnecessary fees and requirements that are not imposed on their peers at similar institutions.

For example, following the 2002 merger between Mills and Northeastern, students at the Oakland campus have been required to declare a major upon enrollment and pay a fee that did not apply to former Mills students. Northeastern University is committed to maintaining and expanding academic programs at its Oakland campus indefinitely.

I just want to acknowledge the incredible commitment that Northeastern has made to the Oakland and East Bay community and their public service mission as well. Given this, a narrow clarification to the institution's regulatory standing with BPPE is warranted.

SB372 ensures that Northeastern University, a highly quality nonprofit research institution, receives the same and fair regulatory treatment as other independent nonprofit higher education institutions in California such as Stanford University, Santa Clara University, and Mills College prior to its 2002 merger.

This is a very narrow, tailored Bill, as you can see, because it only impacts a nonprofit institution that has continuously been in operation since 1877 to 2002 and that specifically would qualify Mills College.

With me here to testify is Renee Jadus Lever, Vice President of Campus Administration and Strategic Initiatives at Northeastern University at the Oakland campus, and Alex Graves, the Vice President for Government Relations with the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities.

And I want to know I accept the Committee amendments and thank the Committee staff and the Chair for your work with our office on this Bill.

Thanks for the opportunity to testify today on Senate Bill 372 offered by Senator Aerreguin. My name is Renée Jadushlever. I'm Vice President for Campus Administration Administration at Northeastern University, Oakland. Prior to Joining Northeastern for 31 years, I served in a variety of leadership roles at Mills College and Historic Liberal Arts College for women.

Founded in 1898, Northeastern is a comprehensive, nonprofit global research University and recognized leader in cooperative education and experiential learning. In 2022, Mills merged with Northeastern, joining its network of 13 campuses across the U.S. Canada, Canada and the United Kingdom, including a San Jose campus offering graduate degrees, which opened in 2015.

Under current state law, high quality nonprofit institutions that maintain a physical presence in California but are headquartered outside the state, such as Northeastern, fall into the same regulatory category as private for profit institutions and vocational schools.

The purpose of SB372 is straightforward to add Northeastern to the list of more than 80 nonprofit independent institutions such as Stanford and Santa Clara exempted from the California Private Post Secondary Education Act.

The Bill would make clear that Northeastern meets the statutory definition of independent institution of higher education under California law and ensure Northeastern is subject to all laws and regulations that apply to private colleges and universities in the state. The Bill would eliminate requirements that currently impede student academic progress.

Academic exploration and discovery are the hallmark of an undergraduate education, particularly during the first year. SB 372 eliminates the requirement that first year students choose a major before they matriculate. The Bill would ease substantial administrative burdens and reduce delays for program approvals.

It would save BPPE staff currently spending time auditing Northeastern despite the fact that the University is well capitalized and poses zero risk of closing. It would also eliminate new program approval reviews which help Northeastern respond more quickly to market demands and meet the needs of California employers for skilled talent.

Similar legislation passed the Assembly and this Committee unanimously last summer, but was held over in Senate Appropriations. SB372 is substantially similar, but nearly eliminates any potential fiscal impact. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Chair and Members Alex Graves the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, or AICCU. We represent over 80 independent nonprofit accredited colleges and universities across the State of California.

Our Member institutions that are headquartered here are all exempt from the Bureau for Private Post Secondary Education. I think as many of us know, the higher education landscape has been changing a lot in the last five to 10 years and will continue to do so.

And we think that Northeastern makes a compelling argument for a narrowly tailored piece of legislation that would bring them into a regulatory framework that's more aligned with their status as a independent nonprofit institution contrary to how they are currently regulated, as noted by my colleague and the Senator.

So again, we think this is a well articulated, narrowly crafted proposal and would respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Great. Thank you for your presentation. We will now move on to see if we have any other support witnesses here in room 2100. If so, please use the microphone outside the railing and state your name organization position on the Bill. Seeing nobody getting up. 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. Are there any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside the railing. Seeing nobody standing. We will go ahead and bring the discussion back to the Members. Do any Members have questions or comments?

Senator Cabaldon Yeah, thank you Madam Chair.

And thanks Senator Arreguin for bringing this forward. Sometimes can be confusing because we have twin histories of the law in this space of one law for vocational schools and one law that was written in order to crack down on diploma mills. So non vocational schools but institutions essentially posing as colleges and universities to issue degrees.

And so the law intentionally covers both of them them and it's an uneasy sometimes complex. I have a Bill on the same topic in a little bit area of the law with a lot of these exemptions as the Committee analysis outlines. But I wanted to I'm very supportive of the Bill.

I think this makes sense to accomplish it also does raise a flag about what we're, what we're going to be grappling with in the coming weeks and months, because the Bill, as our current law does, depends very much on accreditation, in this case, WASC

Now, in most other parts of the law, this wouldn't be an issue because most of our Ed Code statutes reference regional accreditation, which WASC is sort of the local regional accreditor. But in 2017 or 2018, Committee staff could correct me, the Federal Government eliminated the concept of regional accreditation. So there's no longer a any such thing.

And so WASC is free to accredit schools in New Jersey or Puerto Rico or as they are in Dubai and many other places, and vice versa. And so for most purposes now, there is no distinction between those accrediting agencies.

That's challenging because there's a wide range of accrediting agencies that are eligible for the minimum standards for federal approval, but are necessarily the signals of quality and consumer protection that we have depended on in order to create these exemptions. So that's been a challenge even since that time, is that that accreditation alone is not sufficient.

This particular law references wasc, so it's tighter. But even WASCA has become a different kind of accredited since then. But on the horizon, and I shouldn't say on the horizon because there was an Executive order about last week, is potentially dramatic change, radical change in accreditation which will have substantial implications for California.

Both potential threats to WASC, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges that accredits colleges and universities of this type here in California and other parts of the west that we'll have to grapple with because we require institutions to have accreditation. We limit our Cal grants and other student benefits to accreditation accredited institutions in many, many cases.

But the flip side is that is that there will also be a lot of accrediting agencies that are authorized to accredit in the country in this category, in the categories that are in some parts of the Bill that we can't depend on.

The Executive order anticipates lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of more accreditors. And I think to some extent motivated by concern about the monopolies the, that the accrediting agencies have had. And I think that's a legit policy area for conversation. But we're going to have to grapple with that question as well.

So this is the right measure for the right moment, but it is, it should be, it should remind us that in the coming days, weeks and months, we're going to have to grapple with the national changes on accreditation that make a lot of our approaches and a lot of these kinds of exemptions kind of moot because we won't be able to rely in the same way on regional accreditation that we have for the last 50 years.

But I'm definitely in support of the Bill, and at the appropriate time, I'm happy to move it as well.

Any other. Senator Choi?

Yeah. I have a simple question, Senator Aragon. Will this measure only apply to Northeastern University or any other profit secondary institutions?

The way that the Bill was written, it only impacts a nonprofit institution that was continuously in operation from 1877 to 2022, and this is the only one in California that meets that definition. And there was an attempt last year to provide a similar exemption, but it was part of a much broader Bill.

And I think the sponsors and my office felt it was appropriate to really narrowly tailor this, just to be specific, to this one's institution.

Maybe in the future, would you consider expanding to other private institutions?

Yeah, I think that's a separate. That's a separate Bill. We're only just trying to deal with this one specific institution, and that's why it's nearly tailored in this manner.

Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments from Committee Members, Senator Adequin, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Excellent. We have a motion from Senator Caboldan. Assistant. Could you please call the rule? Oh, and the motion is do pass, as amended, to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. And we will put that Bill on call. Thank you so much. We will now move on next to SB510 by Senator Richardson. I will give Senator Richardson a moment to come up here, but while we were doing that, if we could get a motion on our consent agenda, which is also Senator Richardson's Bill, SB631. We have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh. You call the roll.

[Roll Call]

And we will put that on call. Senator Richardson, you may begin when you're ready.

Well, thank you very much. Here we are again. Right. I don't know about you, but it seemed like the night went pretty quickly there. Well, good morning, Madam Chair and members.

First, I would like to thank the chair and committee staff for the time that they've taken regarding this important legislation and the collaboration we were able to do to refine SB 510.

I appreciate the thoughtful discussions and the opportunity to ensure that the bill remains focused and aligned with California educational goals, and with that, I accept all of the committee amendments.

SB 510 strengthens California's history social science framework by encouraging a more inclusive and accurate representation of the diverse communities that have shaped our nation, including the historical experiences and contributions of African Americans.

This bill recognizes the need for our students to learn a fuller version, an accurate version of American history, one that reflects the resilience, leadership, and cultural impact of African Americans across generations.

By enriching curriculum content and supporting the development of a well rounded, critically engaged student, SB 510 helps to lay the foundation for a more equal, informed, and equitable future for us all. SB 510 ensures students learn a more complete and accurate account of California's history, including the significant contributions and experiences of African Americans throughout our country's development.

SB 510 supports efforts to address longstanding gaps in curriculum that have historically been overlooked, minimized, or frankly, inaccurately documenting the role of African Americans and how they shaped American society, culture, and democracy. By strengthening the history social science framework, SB 510 promotes a richer educational experience that uplifts the stories, resilience, and achievements of African American communities across generations.

SB 510 is a part of California's broader commitment to equity in education, ensuring all students, regardless of their backgrounds, can see themselves in true history, represented in the material that they study.

SB 510 allows educators to enhance instruction without prescribing specific narratives, giving them the flexibility to present African American history, American history, within a broader context in ways that are age appropriate and align with appropriate state standards. With that, I'll pause and see if you have any questions.

Thank you for your presentation. Senator Richardson, did you have any lead witnesses here in support that if your two lead witnesses wanted to come forward and use the microphone at the table in front of us, they're able to?

No, we did not.

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

Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona, on behalf of the California Faculty Association in support. Thank you.

Great. Anybody else? Alrighty. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. If there are any, the two lead witnesses may come forward and use some microphones at the table in front of us.

Any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100? Seeing as there is nobody getting up, we'll bring it back here to the members. Do we have any questions or Comments, Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank the author for bringing this forward. I'm supportive of the bill, to be sure. I think this is an important area for the curriculum to be considered for addition to the curriculum, to the curriculum, and also the author's collaboration with the committee and committee staff and the chair separately.

I would just say, I know we have a lot of these, a lot of proposals today about curriculum, and most of which I'm supportive of in concept. It makes me long for a curriculum suspense file, though, because it's hard to look at them all one at a time.

And then at the end of the year realized, oh, my God, we asked the Instructional Quality Commission to consider 27 new courses for graduation and all of that, which is the point of the suspense filing appropriations to say in the total, how much money are we spending?

And in here we're not talking about money, we're talking about the time, the very precious time in the classroom for teachers and for students. And so supportive of this one moving forward.

And I appreciate the committee's leadership, curriculum policy, and hope we're able to continue to create some discipline for ourselves because the IQC process is not free and certainly students and teachers are already struggling with the expectations that we placed on them.

So this is an important addition, but hope that we keep our own discipline in mind along the way. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. Any other? Okay, we have a motion.

You know, I just, before I have you close, Senator Richardson, just want to acknowledge all the hard work that you put in to SB 510 and the work that you've done with committee staff to make sure that your bill is aligning with the rules that we do have around curriculum policy. And you've been so thoughtful in doing that.

So just want to thank you. We know it's a little wonky, so really appreciate it. And yeah, I really value the work that you've done here. So I'll turn it over to you to close.

Thank you. If I can respond to a few comments and then I'll respectfully ask for your vote. History is one of my favorite subjects and I am a product of a mixed marriage.

And to me, I would love for faculty and educators to accurately reflect on all of our history, not just African Americans, but there are so many cultures that, frankly, we have just not accurately reflected.

So I really view this as a start and I'm sure all the other ones that you have coming before you as really hopefully an impetus that would say just tell us all the history. And if we can eventually get there, I think we would have actually achieved our goal.

But this is just a way of kind of saying there's some things that are missing. I remember as a child growing up and even now as an adult, I'm still learning some things that I never heard when I was going to school. So.

And I think, frankly, what I put in my comments about education, when kids are more well rounded and are versed of their history, they're less likely hopefully, to attack one another verbally and, you know, why are you different? And think if they can actually learn what our differences are and what the value that we bring.

So with that, thank you for the assistance the chair and the committee staff. I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you, Senator Richardson. We have a motion by Senator Troy and Senator Cabaldon. Assistant, if you can call the roll and the motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[roll call]

Great. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much.

Have a good day.

All righty. Next up, we have SB 472, and I see Senator Stern sitting in the audience. Senator Stern, if you want to head up here and we will get started when you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, good morning.

Good morning.

First, I want to thank the Committee Staff for working with us on amendments to this Bill and you know, take your admonition at the outset of the hearing seriously and know that you all have a complex job to do here, when it comes to issues around mandates and curricula.

This Bill is not attempting to impose anything new in law or end around any existing processes. It's, it's really a response to a Governor's Council Report.

I chair the Governor's Council on Holocaust and Genocide education, and since 2021, we've been working to figure out how we can help our schools, both the administrators as well as our teachers, learn how to navigate these incredibly important issues that are part of our history and social studies' standards, in a way that are meaningful to both students as well as to the—to the greater education community.

We know that there are resources lacking, but we also know there's some basic lacks of understanding about how the Education Code works and specifically that there's—it's emphasized in Section 51220, Subdivision B of the Education Code, that there should be a particular focus when teaching about human rights issues around genocide, slavery, and the Holocaust.

When we went to survey and solicit information from school districts around the State of California, in a report we just released earlier this year from the council, we found that there was a disturbing lack of understanding, not just about what's in the Education de, but really a lack of response in terms of people teaching about this subject.

When you're in your history class and you learn about World War II, but you don't know that the Holocaust was a part of World War II, it's analogous to learning about the Civil War and not hearing about slavery.

We are just—we're hoping that this legislation can help put districts on notice about these requirements in our Education Code and offer resources to help get there. So, this section of the Code has been on the book since 1985.

And in the 40 years since then, we know politics have changed, but we don't think that politics should get in the way of a proper instructional education on the foundations for understanding these issues. So, here with me today is the author, lead technical author of the report from WestEd, who we contracted with to conduct this study.

So, I'm hoping that Bryan Hemberg from WestEd can give you guys a little more background and then hopefully, we'll have a discussion and respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote. So, I'll turn it to my lead witness.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Bryan Hemberg, and I work for WestEd, a national nonpartisan nonprofit. To support the mission of the Governor's Council, WestEd worked with Council Members to conduct a comprehensive statewide study on the current landscape of Holocaust and genocide education across local education agencies.

The Study contacted every local education agency in California, resulting in data from 559. Holocaust and genocide education has been required in California since 1985, yet only 26% of responding local education agencies have established Holocaust and genocide programs. Instruction on the topic is fragmented and largely dependent on individual educator initiative. The study also identified existing barriers.

450 of 559 respondents reported that their districts provide no professional development on the topic. 230 cited insufficient time for curriculum development. 132 reported a lack of instructional resources. Many educators reported lacking foundational knowledge and feeling uncomfortable teaching the sensitive topic.

Based on the findings, the Council developed 10 recommendations that California can adopt to improve education about Holocaust and other genocides. The recommendations include communicating California's vision for Holocaust and genocide education.

Many educators were unaware of the existing mandate. Revising the history social science content standards that were adopted in 1998 and have minimal references to the Holocaust and Genocide. Increasing direct funding to districts for curriculum, professional development, and student experiences and monitoring the implementation of the mandate and associated student outcomes to ensure effectiveness.

These recommendations in the Report address each identified barrier and provide a systemic approach to ensure all California students receive high quality Holocaust and genocide education. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Great. Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now move on to any other support witnesses here in Room 2100. If you're here, please use the microphone outside the railing. And please only state your name, organization, position on the Bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Cliff Berg, on behalf of JPAC, the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, which is the Sacramento voice for the organized Jewish community, representing over 38 statewide and regional organizations, including the Los Angeles Jewish Federation, ADL, AJC, San Francisco JCRC, all in strong support of this measure. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jeff Wiener from Jewish Family and Children's Services in San Francisco. We strongly support. Thank you.

Hi. Jessica Marquez, on behalf of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurman, and as a Co-Chair of the Governor's Council of Holocaust and Genocide Education, we are pleased to be working with Senator Stern and his staff on bill Language. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Derek Lennox, on behalf of the 58 county superintendents of schools. While we don't have an official position on the Bill, I did want to acknowledge and appreciate the Senator and his staff for the work on the amendments around reporting requirements.

We will continue to not have a position either way, at this point, but really appreciate the collaboration. Thank you.

Great. 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. And just a reminder that folks have two minutes each to speak.

Okay, I'll start. My name is Daya Gottlieb Elazari and I am with Jewish Voice for Peace Action. My Hungarian great great grandparents and extended family died at Auschwitz, and I wholeheartedly support teaching the topic, as enshrined in Section 51220 of the Education Code.

Genocide education in California must not be framed to meet the political biases of pro-Israel special interest groups. We hope through genocide studies that we learn how to spot the illness—the signs of illnesses—in a society that leads to genocide.

A sign of a successful genocide education program is that students learn how to resolve and prevent it in the future. An unsuccessful genocide education program is one that makes the students so full of fear and sympathy for one ethnic group that was historically victimized, that we justify it when this group engages as an oppressor to another group.

What we should learn from the Holocaust and what the group I represent, Jewish Voice for Peace, understands, is that never again means never again for anyone. This Bill is part of a broader effort to police US education, echoing Trump Era tactics to censor teachers.

SB 472's reporting requirements aim to prevent discussions about the Nakba and the ongoing genocide in Gaza. The bill's drafters have previously taken actions to erase Palestinian voices and now propose outsourcing curriculum development to a grant program that risks weaving Zionist ideology into the curriculum. We must teach history in its full truth, not politicized or weaponized.

Our shared humanity depends on it. Thank you.

Good morning and thank you. I'm Seth Morrison, also representing Jewish Voice for Peace Action. We definitely encourage genuine education on all genocides, including the Nazi Holocaust. But the authors of SB 472 are using a noble cause to further their agenda, that of building support for Israel's oppression of Palestinians.

This is a MAGA-like effort to control public education and create an unprecedented reporting requirement that will be administratively burdened to teachers and school districts, which your Committee Consultant has recommended be removed. Unfortunately, the statistic being cited to justify the need for this Bill is being used out of context.

The study claims that 26% of local education agencies have Holocaust and genocide education systems in place. What you have not been told, but is in the study, is that most Holocaust and genocide education is developed at the school level.

So, in reality, most students are learning about the Holocaust, and they do so in social studies, history, English, ethnic studies, in various programs. Even more significantly, this Study shows that the Holocaust is heavily overrepresented in this work, and it points out that most other genocides are barely taught.

In terms of money, the Study notes that $34.4 million have been dedicated to Holocaust and genocide education. 28.5 million, 83%, has gone to Jewish, pro-Israel institutions. So, it's not coincidental that the bulk of our tax dollars go to exceptionalize the Jewish Holocaust. Last, this Bill does not include any language that requires fair and equal treatment for all genocides.

Going to remind you of the time, but you wrapped up right, right at that moment. So, thank you. We will now see if there's any other opposition witnesses here in Room 2100. If so, please use the microphone outside of the railing and state your name, organization, and position on the Bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Jeff Vaca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. Our opposition to the Bill was based on the reporting requirement. With the amendments that have been shared with us, we will be able to remove our opposition. Thanks, Senator Stern and his staff, and your Committee Staff for working with us on this. Thank you.

Sarah Petrowski, on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials, echoing the comments from my colleague in Riverside County Office of Education. Thank you to Senator and his staff for working with us to remove our opposition as well.

Helen Finkelstein, from Jewish Voice for Peace, representing 100,000 members in California, and I am opposed to the Bill.

I'm Clyde Leland. I'm a member of the Jewish community and of Jewish Voice for Peace, and I oppose SB 472.

Hello, my name is Alex Day. I'm a high school ethnic studies and history teacher in Berkeley, California. I'm also a member of a rank-and-file group, BFT, Berkeley Federation of Teachers for Palestine, and I oppose this Bill.

Hello. Hello. My name is Nicole Kozlowski. I'm from Marin, from Jewish Voice for Peace. My grandmother is a Holocaust survivor and a partisan fighter. I shouldn't be here. I'm very Jewish and very Polish. I oppose this Bill.

Larry Handel, also from Jewish Voice for Peace. I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Eva Crasanti. I write the substack, Marin County Confidential, and I've been investigating what happened with the prior monies for California Teachers Collaborative, and I am in opposition. I am also the daughter of a survivor of a Holocaust that doesn't get much attention—the Japanese Occupation of China. And I think we need to look a little more closely at that history and other histories. And unfortunately, what's happened before with California Teachers Collaborative has not lived up to it. Thank you.

I'm Alejandra Escobar. I'm from Redding, California, and I'm here because my mother was also victim of a genocide that's not really talked about. So, I think there should be support about genocides that aren't talked about. And I oppose this Bill.

My name is Jasper Larkins. I'm also from Redding, California, and I'm here because I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Morning. My name is Marie Hoff. I'm a Jewish American with Jewish Voice for Peace, and I oppose this Bill.

My name is Anna Rogers and I'm a—almost a 30-year advocate now of Peace and Safety for the Palestinians. I've been there many times and I'm with Jewish Voice for Peace for 30 years, or whenever it started here in California, 25 to 30 years, and I'm very strongly opposed to this legislation.

Thank you. I'm Paula Rainey, a member of the Christian community and also representing Alameda Friends and Families for Collective Liberation as well as Northern California Seville. And I strongly oppose this legislation. Thank you.

My name is Dr. Alisa Nowik. I'm from- with the Berkeley Jewish Parents for Collective Liberation. I'm a parent. I'm Jewish. My child attends the Berkeley Public High School. My father was a Holocaust survivor from Warsaw, Poland. And I believe our children need to learn all of history, all about all current and past genocides and suffering. Thank you.

And I oppose this bill.

Hi, my name is Dylan Castleton. I'm a concerned Berkeley parent. I believe that exceptionalizing one group story over others is not good for any of us. Thank you very much. I- I strongly oppose this bill.

Good morning. I'm Eve Gordon. As a former teacher and a high school principal and a Jewish mom, I strongly oppose this bill.

Good morning. David Mandel from the Sacramento chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, also a human rights attorney, retired. I also strongly oppose this bill.

And I think, as you've seen from the parade of witnesses here, it's- it's- it's in and of itself not a horrible thing, but it's reflective of an agenda that unfortunately is ignoring a very current genocide that's happening. That- That is what brought us here, and that's the genocide of the Palestinians in- in Gaza. And it's spreading elsewhere.

And we need to- to be able to include that in our curriculum. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Alicia Yaffe. I'm an anti Zionist Jew. I'm a member of Jewish Voices for Peace, a member of the Golden Gate Jewish Labor Bund, and I'm also the US Project Director for a humanitarian aid organization known as Dignity for Palestinians. We do humanitarian aid work serving thousands of Palestinians in Gaza.

We are an independent organization and we have been serving since last March. So we are working to help those who are displaced by this genocide in Gaza. I strongly oppose this bill. As a alumni of the Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution with an expert in white-

with expertise in whiteness and race in the United States, as well as plenty of studies around genocide education. So thank you very much. And I oppose this bill.

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?

Sorry, Madam Chair, I was wondering if- if- if it's possible, first for the- if - if- if it's okay for the committee staff to summarize the amendments that are before us.

Oh, sorry.

Yeah. I'd be- I'd be happy to do that and want to- to take a moment to acknowledge that Senator Stern has done a significant amount of work on the this bill to make sure to address the issues that were raised in the committee analysis and to make sure that we are being mindful of precedent setting and keeping in line with what is traditional policy in the education space here in California.

So I know there was some concerns particularly raised around reporting requirements. Senator Stern is no longer including a reporting requirement and instead we were looking at a survey option, which, you know, I think is still important.

But I think the ultimate goal of what Senator Stern is trying to achieve, as we've discussed and as I think even the opposition highlighted, is to capture that there's actually a lot of schools and a lot of classrooms that are talking about Holocaust, that are talking about genocide that weren't adequately captured in that kind of initial study and- and making sure that we have some of that data.

So just want to highlight that. And that was one of the major discussions that we had was figuring that out. I'll go ahead and- Do you want to? Or do you want me to just read out? Okay, so I'll go ahead and- and walk through some of the amendments here.

And I again want to recognize that this is quite wonky. So the major amendment is to section one of the bill. 51221.2 a 1. And so we have eliminated this section which begins each local education agency shall that section down to point B and it has been replaced with,

the department shall issue a notice to all local education agencies serving students in grades 7 to 12, clarifying pursuant to subdivision of Section 51220, that social science instruction is to provide a foundation of understanding of human rights issues with particular attention to the study of the inhumanity of genocide, slavery and the Holocaust.

In furtherance of this instruction, the notice shall advise. Local education agencies of the following: Holocaust and genocide education are part of the adopted history social sciences content standards and framework. The adopted history social sciences framework provides information about instruction on Holocaust and genocide.

The department shall, within the notice under paragraph 1, provide the respective local education agencies with information about the existing resources available to support local education agencies and educators in the instruction of Holocaust and genocide education.

The department is authorized to issue a survey to local education agencies no more than two years after the issuance of the notice under paragraph 1 on the status of the Holocaust and genocide and instruction in their schools.

And you know, I- I recognize we are moving in a fast paced timeline, so this was not information that was in print. But Senator Stern has accepted these amendments. So just want to highlight that. And, you know, again, reiterate, while the-

the bill was based off of reporting that was done around Holocaust education, you know, Senator Stern has broadened this to include Holocaust and genocide education because, as was mentioned before, we know that there are other atrocities like this that have occurred across the world, across history, that we want to make sure that our local education agencies are able to teach about.

And I know I've had other groups, you know, support me in support of this bill for those reasons. So is there anybody else that has any other questions? Okay. Yes, Senator Cabaldon.

I just want to make a comment about it because I really appreciate the work of both Senator Stern and the chair and the committee staff to try to thread the needle here. This is- It's an important topic. And our Vice Chair was a teacher. I was a professor. The- The very act of- of teaching requires choices.

It does require exceptionalizing, because you cannot teach every single thing about every topic where schools are now mounting their financial literacy curriculum as result of the ballot measure. And do you teach about balancing a checkbook? Should you be teaching the 401k versus a pension? Probably not that the second one, because kids aren't ready to process that.

You have to make sure we cannot cover every single topic. In my own community, assmeblymember- the Attorney General, when he was in the assembly, carried the first legislation to finally get some recognition for the experience of Filipino Americans in the farm labor movement. Anti Asian legislation.

But we know that we ca- that the- that the- that the- a teacher cannot cover every- every single piece of anti Asian, anti immigrant legislation that's ever been passed. And so that it isn't a choice for- for every genocide and every atrocity will be covered the same. That isn't possible in a- in a classroom.

And so the- the- the- that is why it's not our role to do that here, to sort of pick and choose. And we're not allocating 18 minutes for this subject and another 12 for this.

We've seen too many examples in the history of this country where politicians and government trying to mandate every aspect of the curriculum, all often for good reasons, sometimes not, leads to both poor educational outcomes and- and- and to- to not inspiring. What the purpose of these courses are is not to make sure

we make sure every child knows every single fact by the time they graduate. It's how- how are they learning to process disagreement, conflict? How are they thinking critically? How are they building the capacity to navigate the information that's out there?

And to do so, you need to- you need to- you need to be able to focus and dive in in the curriculum to do so.

So this bill has been amended in such a way, I don't think any of the objections that have been out there really apply any longer, but it's this, along with many others that we have today and that we've had all year.

It's just a reminder that it's- it can feel, especially in the moment, to feel like, you know, wouldn't it be great if every child was taught this one thing and then they would just do it? And I just.

I often sort of flippantly remind people how many of us can still do sines and cosines or any of algebra 2. I can't do any of it.

It's not that having a course requirement or a curriculum piece alone is not enough for learning to occur and especially for value- valuable learning that is important for citizenship and for career success and for community building, and that's why we play a role here.

But we also defer greatly to the Instructional Quality Commission and to the community of educators who are charged with- with delivering the instruction as well. So I'm supportive of the bill. Appreciate the amendments by the- by the chair and the author. Thank you.

Thank you. And appreciate Senator Cabaldon, I think, just laying that out so well. And, you know, just want to remind folks, as what he just said, this legislation and also what we do here in this committee is not dictate or prescribe what is taught in the classroom.

You, you know, Senator Stern's bill, what he's trying to do here is offer resources to those districts that are seeking them and might want those resources. It is not specified just for Holocaust education. It is also inclusive of any genocide, of any atrocity.

And the need of that school district might change depending on the population that they serve. You know, I've been contacted by folks in the Armenian community. I represent the community of Glendale. We have one of the largest Armenian communities in the state, located in Glendale. They would like to focus on the Armenian genocide.

So there's an interest and a desire there. And that's why this bill has been amended and shaped in that way. And that's why, you know, Senator Stern has worked so hard around this.

So I just want to make sure that, you know, those that expressed opposition understand that a lot of the concerns that were raised have been addressed.

And I think the vision that Senator Stern has is about just getting our school districts that are frankly, very under resourced resources if they want to teach this kind of education in their classrooms. So, Senator Stern, if you'd like to close, happy to turn it over to you.

And also would like to request that you state that you accept the amendments as well.

Very much so. Hardly accept. Appreciate the comments. I don't want to talk past the articulate words of Senator Cabaldon on this, nor you, Madam Chair. I would just simply say that this is, I hate to have to clarify this, you know, to try to explain myself and say that there's not some hidden Jewish agenda here.

The- The words and the tone and the tenor are so deeply hurtful. And the coded language being used is right up into that anti Semitism area where you can imply an agenda is being pursued.

I'd like to request the audience, please, if you, you guys can be quiet. The Senators closing. I'd appreciate that. And I request that for everyone. Thank you.

It's. I- I do- I do pray that everyone will read the bill language itself and not sort of imply motives to an author simply because of who they are. And if you read the language and you understood the context, I think everyone in this moment is worried about things like fascism.

The word genocide is used very casually and thrown around as if people understood what that really meant, the entire destruction of a people as defined in the legislation. But I don't- I'm not going to make that defense here today because I, I worry it will fall on deaf ears.

I'll just simply say that I believe in not saddling our school districts or our teachers with more reporting requirements and things that are going to make their jobs harder. We want to make their jobs easier to do. And it's a difficult time, especially with this pressure.

The notion that it would be somehow controversial to- to ensure that when you're teaching about things like World War II, you're not deleting the Holocaust, I would think would be a place of consensus, but maybe those consensuses are harder to reach in present times. I think this only underscores the need for this bill.

And I hope that the next generation that comes up will have that context and know their history, because we are doomed to repeat it if we don't understand it. And so that when you know, when terms are being used or when allegations are being made that people really understand what they're saying.

So I think this legislation will follow up on the council's report, which I think is going to be ongoing, important work. And I think CDE, I appreciate superintendents folks being here.

We're really looking to them and the Board of Education to keep working on developing a framework in this legislation here that can move the ball forward and- and hopefully get some more attention where we worry that people are avoiding these uncomfortable topics simply because of political pressure from a extreme minority of- of activists.

So with that, I would ask you to make a motion and do what you need to do to move this bill forward. And I thank the chair and the committee staff. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. So we have a motion from Senator Ochoa Bogh and that motion is for, give me one moment, is do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you. We will put that bill on call.

Next up, I see in the audience that we have Senator Limon. Senator Limon will be presenting SB584. And Senator Limon, you may begin when you are ready. Thank you.

And we're going to call our witnesses up while I speak. I want to thank the chair and colleagues. And I also just want to start off by saying that this does not create new curriculum and the curriculum is already in place. This is an attempt to coordinate existing curriculum that is used in our schools.

SB584 promotes civic learning in grades one through eight. It would do three things. It requires the Instructional Quality Commission to expand civic education and social sciences curriculum to include experiences with governmental institutions.

It expands the criteria for local education agencies to apply for the existing California Serves grant program under the California Department of Education to include grades one through eight for professional learning and instruction materials on civic engagement. And it creates a Civic Engagement Pathways recognition program to recognize students who have demonstrated progress in civic education.

With me today to testify in support of the Bill, we have Dave Gordon, Superintendent of Sacramento County Office of Education, and also Dr. Cesar Morales, Superintendent of the Ventura County Office of Education.

When it lights up red, that means it's on.

Good morning, Chair and Members Currently in California civic education is only required in 12th grade as a part of a one semester government course. The State Seal of Civic Engagement, which was added a couple of years ago, is voluntary and only available to students in high school.

We strongly believe we cannot wait until students are in high school to begin preparing them to become informed, responsible citizens.

SB 584 emphasizes the need for elementary and middle schools to establish pathways for students to ultimately seek and earn the State Seal of Civic Engagement when they enter high school by providing opportunities for them to learn about our nation's founding, the principles of our Constitution, and meet and engage with civic leaders who establish policies they live by, school board members, mayors, City Council Members, judicial officers, local, state and federal legislators.

The Bill calls for the Instructional Quality Commission to include civic engagement experiences for young students when the California History Social Science Framework is updated. The California SERVES grant offers funding for high schools to implement service learning programs, meaning sending young people out to help in the elementary schools.

Finally, SB 584 encourages LEAs to celebrate and recognize students who are on the path to becoming engaged citizens. When the work was done by the framers at the Constitutional Convention, a woman on the street asked Benjamin Franklin, what kind of government have you created for us? Franklin responded, a republic if you can keep it.

The only way we can keep it is if we require civic learning to be part of every child's educational program beginning in the early grades and not waiting until high school. Passage of SB 584 will help us keep our republic and strengthen our democracy now and for the future. Thank you.

To further reinforce what Superintendent Gordon was saying, the time is now to strengthen our democracy and help students in an era of instant gratification, know what it is like to to work collaboratively with one another on issues that help improve their local existence, be it their school, their neighborhood, their cities, counties and state and find a viable stake in the process.

This is already occurring in many places. I want to thank the work done with the social studies framework, in the past, that already highlights numerous activities on how civic learning can exist within the social studies curriculum and many of our teachers and schools are trying to find ways to reinforce and promote civic learning.

I happen to represent the county that has the elementary school that was the first to be recognized for civic learning and that is Madera Elementary in Simi Unified School District and it is beautiful to see students in this school have elections and ballot initiatives monthly on issues that impact their school and community and which spark projects that not only help their local school, but their community, such as homeless initiatives, food pantry initiatives, and then also embark on questions of engaging with their local City Council, County Board of Supervisors, their school boards, as well as the County Office of Education.

It is so beautiful to see. I don't look at this as a burdensome Bill. Okay, good.

I'll ask you to wrap up.

I firmly believe that the time is now to give a spark to civic education. And I'm very appreciative of this Bill.

Thank you very much. So, just as a reminder, we're going to continue. We usually have two witnesses in support, two lead witnesses, and they have two minutes allocated to each witness. We then continue to our #MeToos, which you state your name, the organization which you represent, and your position on the Bill, please.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. We are so pleased to be a sponsor of this Bill and strongly urge your support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. I am Owen Ngida. I am a student at the Sacramento City Unified School District, and I strongly support this Bill. I believe that civic education starts at younger levels and it is one of those subjects that is meant to be built upon. Thank you.

Thank you.

Fred Jones, California Council for the Social Studies. In support.

Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California in strong support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Derick Lennox, on behalf of the California County Superintendents, representing the 58 County Superintendents of Schools, pleased to support the Bill.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in support. Will now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to SP 584. Seeing none. Do we have any in the audience that would like to testify? #MeToo? Seeing none. We'll bring. I'm the only one.

Okay.

So just as an FYI, we have many of our Members who are either presenting bills or also sitting in concurrent committees. So they're not being disrespectful. They're just. They're multitasking this morning. So we wish they could be here. But I do want to thank the author for bringing this forward.

I'm huge on civic education and engagement, especially because I've been able to hold. This is my fifth year in the Senate, and I've been able to hold 60 town halls within my district since given the permission to do so after Covid. So being very engaged with my community members.

It's so interesting to note that so many adults do not understand the differences between federal and state government, who their Local elected are what the makeup of the Legislature is here in the state.

I find myself many a times literally in Government 101, trying to inform people on how government functions in the State of California, first and foremost so that they can actually understand how to be actually engaged in the process, besides voting, And also actually including the importance of voting because so many folks feel that their voice is not heard and that their vote does not count.

So I am grateful for this measure, Senator Limon. Thank you for bringing it forward. I'm supportive of the Bill and I hope to see this and anything we can do to help encourage our young students to understand how valuable and important their voice is in government is very, very encouraging.

One last note that I do want to make sure that we put notice also understanding what the role of government should be. So understanding how government works, but also the important role that government should play in people's professional and personal lives is also very important. So the US Constitution and the California Constitution, incredibly important as well.

So on that note, Senator Limon, would you like to close?

Well, I actually think you summarized the Bill very nicely and the reasons for it. So I'm going to allow that to be my close. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote when it's the right time.

Thank you very much.

I believe we have a quorum. zero, we don't have a motion. Thank you.

All right, thank you.

All right, we'll place that Bill on call and take a vote on it when our Members come back, we see Senator Valladares. We'll continue with File item number six, SB612 by Senator Valladares. Welcome, Senator Valladares, and please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you and good morning, Madam Chair and Members, and thank you for the opportunity to present SB 612 which proposes a simple but meaningful shift requiring every California high school student, including those in charter schools, to take at least one semester of standalone career technical education courses before they graduate. That's it? Just one semester?

It's not that deep and honestly, it should have happened a long time ago. Right now, we bundle courses under the same graduation bucket as Visual and Performing Arts and World Language.

And while those subjects matter, CTE needs to stand on its own because let's be real, too many students are being pushed onto a four year college track that doesn't match who they are or what they want. We are failing to show them the full range of options they actually have.

In my own family, my uncle built, my uncles built good lives for themselves through trades. Welding, electric work, mechanics, one of them was on job sites by 18 and owned his own business by 30. He didn't need a degree to do it. He needed opportunity and exposure, and that's what this Bill is about.

We're talking about a one semester class that opens a door. And schools can still offer full year options for students who want to go deeper. Existing partnerships with community colleges, you ask, they'll continue and they'll count. This isn't about tearing down anything. It's about building something new alongside what we already have, and here's the reality.

Over 23% of first time college freshmen in California drop out. More than 6 million Californians have some college credits but never finish. And 3.8 million Californians are carrying $142 billion in student debt. And that's not a pipeline, that's a problem. We need to give students real world tools and a realistic sense of what paths are out there.

Not every student is college bound and that's okay. Many thrive in hands on skills based environments. We just, we've just stopped treating them as equally valuable. This isn't a partisan issue, and in fact Governor Newsom just rolled out a 57 page master plan for career education.

In his own words he said, we don't want you to feel like your life is over if you don't have a fancy four year degree. And he is 100% right. This Bill aligns perfectly with the direction the administrator, with the direction the administration is already heading in.

And all I'm saying is let's make sure our high school students reflect that vision too. Now we have 39 million people in this state. That's a popular the population of 21 other states combined. That means we can't afford to treat every student the same. Some will pursue four year degrees, some won't.

And every single one of them deserves to graduate knowing what their options really are. And here to testify in support of the Bill is Mike west with a legislative advocate for the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California and Bode Gower, Chair of the Northern California Youth Policy Coalition.

Thank you very much and welcome. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Mike West and I represent the hard working women and men of the state building trades. I want to thank the Senator for bringing this Bill forward and would like to add some insight from a personal perspective.

Along with marginalized students who do not intend to pursue a traditional four year college. Some of us did not have the financial or family support to even consider college fortunately for me, the high school I attended had metal shop and I took Wood shop in junior high.

I started my journey in the trades on October 17, 1982 and in honor of education Committee I did the simple math that works out to 42 years, six months and 13 days ago from today.

Milestones along the way were Journeyman, foreman, Superintendent, organizer, political Director and now lobbyist for the state building trades replacement, representing the same hard working people that also pursue a path in the construction trades.

I graduated my four year apprenticeship program with no student loan debt as the Senator mentioned, and have been able to earn a middle class wage with benefits and the opportunity to someday retire with dignity.

Many of the apprentices in the building trains earn wages and have benefits well above those of their peers, their siblings, and even in some cases their parents on the path to becoming journey workers. As a father, I too wanted to provide an opportunity for my kids to go to college if they chose to.

Only one of four of our children has a college degree and two of them are gainfully employed by their own choosing in the construction trades. A diverse and broad introduction to potential pathways to higher education as well as careers in the military.

The construction trades and other vocational careers presented to students in high school is essential so that, as the saying goes, no child is left behind. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and again thank you to the Senator for authoring this important measure.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

There we go. Good morning and a very special thank you to the Senator for authoring Senate Bill 612. My name is Bodie Gower, Founder and Chair of the Northern California Youth Policy Coalition, and I'm here today to express my support for SB612.

The Northern California Youth Policy Coalition represents youth from over 250 high schools across 30 different counties across Northern California, giving a voice to rural youth in the policy process. I'm speaking today in strong support of SB612 because for many of us, especially in rural communities, CTE isn't just a class, it's a lifeline.

It's a real chance to learn skills that lead to good paying jobs. Stability and purpose. An SB612 would require students to complete a standalone CTE course as a graduation requirement for rather than allowing it to be blended with subjects like arts or languages.

And Governor Newsom's recently released Master Plan for Career Education emphasizes strengthening career pathways and increasing access to workforce training. And by 2031, it's estimated that a third of good paying jobs will require a bachelor's degree. While demand for skilled Workers, especially in rural areas like Mendocino County, where I'm from, continues to grow.

And with thousands of high paying trade jobs unfilled and employers struggling to hire, we must invest in our students and give them an opportunity to succeed. For students in disadvantaged and rural communities, CTE offers a lifeline.

It prepares them to enter the workforce with real in demand skills and reduces the pressure to take on debt for a four year degree. An SB612 helps to expose students to practical career pathways early on.

And by doing this, we can lower dropout rates, we can increase job readiness, and we can create meaningful opportunities for long term success, especially for those who need it the most. I strongly urge you to support SB612. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue with witnesses here in room 1200 in support of SB612. Please state your name, your organization, and your position on the Bill, please.

Madam Chair Bronchie Jones, on behalf of Lifelong Learning Administration and support, Good morning.

Jared Moss, on behalf of College Board and support, thank you very much.

Now we'll continue with any, we're going to continue with our two lead opposition witnesses and you'll each have two minutes, a total of four minutes. If one goes over, we'll subtract that from the second witness's time.

Yeah. Thank you. Madam Chair and staff. Jeff Vacca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. We are in opposition to the Bill, regretfully so, because as a County Office of Education in Riverside County, we provide the educators for our CTE programs, we develop the curriculum for our CTE programs, we provide 58 career pathways, 15 different industry sectors.

Definitely support the goal of the author and agree with many of the things that she said during her presentation. Some of the things that the analysis points out are the reasons for our concern.

Education code Section 51220 has come up a couple of times this morning that outlines the course of required study for graduation at a high school in California. We have been adding things to that required course of study for a number of years. Honestly, we've supported some of those bills.

With the increased number of graduation requirements, as well as mandates such as late start times for high schools, it makes it difficult to fit everything into a regular school day. Having said that, those are adult issues.

We try very hard to acknowledge and recognize the diversity of our students and provide them with programs of interest, regardless of whether they're bound for college, bound for career, or some combination of the two. The analysis also notes that we have so many CTE programs at this point. We have ctic. We have the Strong Workforce Program.

We have Golden State Pathways. We're hopeful that the Master Plan for Career Education and they talk about a statewide court planning and coordinating body for various CTE programs. We're hopeful that that might provide a forum to continue this discussion, but we don't think that a standalone course is the right answer at this time. Thank you.

Thanks. Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. Just want to support the comments that Mr. Baca made, but also wanted to add we are generally also very supportive of cte. However, adding yet another item to the growing list of graduation requirements we believe is counterproductive, productive.

Enforcing this requirement for CTE can push students to take courses that they aren't interested in, especially in places that have limited cte. We want to make sure that students have the flexibility. Also, every requirement removes students opportunities to take electives. Again, we want to make sure that students have those chances.

And then with regard to LEAs, it puts strain on schools already feeling challenges in hiring CTE teachers in places where there are shortages. And it complicates master schedules and flexibility for AP and dual enrollment options and also creates challenges for students who need to complete English language development courses. So just wanted to point out those additional challenges.

And with that, we are in opposition to the Bill.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any witnesses in opposition to SB612 here in room 1200.

Good morning, Colonel Hampton with the Association of California School Administrators in opposition.

Carlos Rivera, California Teachers Association, in opposition.

Nick Romo with Craig California Network of Arts Educators expressing our concerns this morning. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition will bring it back to the dais and I guess I get to direct the conversations this morning. So thank you very much to all our witnesses, both in support and in opposition to this particular Bill.

You know, it's interesting because I was quoting and I have been for these past couple of weeks in Committee talking about. Mr. I believe his name is Mike Rowe. Dirty jobs, right? I think it is Mike Rowe. Right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's been very, very vocal about the need for, you know, technical, career, technical jobs that are necessary right now in our country and how we don't have enough of our skills, trades, trained folks in our state and our country to be able to meet the needs.

But it's interesting because one of the things that we've learned here in the Education Committee, this is my fifth year in this Committee, which I absolutely adore and love serving in this capacity.

I've learned so much, and I've learned so much about what we need and about the workforce requirement, the workforce needs that we have in our state and in our country. I've learned so much about how our kids are lagging in STEM education and they're lagging in their ability to read performance. Covid played a huge, huge impact.

And in goodwill and in good faith, many, many of us, including myself, have introduced bills to actually help our students and emphasize and focus education or career, bills that address all of these issues.

But it's also been my observation that, you know, we have been posing a lot of requirements on our school districts, our leas, our local educational agencies, and I've been speaking, you know, with many of them these past, you know, this is my fifth year, so for five years now, speaking to many of our representatives in different capacities, whether it's our teachers, whether it's our administrators, whether it's our students, just speaking to everyone to try to understand what is going on in our educational system.

And I have come to a personal conclusion that, you know, we have to look at the whole plan on what we're requiring our students in our schools to actually implement and start addressing it from a holistic perspective instead of trying to just do everything in isolated spaces.

And I think it's one of the reasons why, you know, reluctantly on my part, you know, I wasn't very happy.

But when the Committee decided that they weren't going to address curriculum changes anymore, and I could see why, though I could see the discrepancy that was happening in our state because we were trying to change and address curriculum here.

And so, you know, it came about that we are now trying to emphasize the emphasis on, you know, focusing considering, you know, when they have curriculum changes with the IQC, Senator Cabaldon was talking about the importance of the, of the IQC and their role in implementing and coming together with curriculum. So that's very, very important.

So with this measure, when I was reading, I was supportive of the, you know, providing an opportunity for career tech education. But where I'm hesitant a little bit, and I will support the Bill today, but I am, and I, and I hope that you have further conversations with those in opposition because they really do have a point.

We have so much, we're adding so much to our, to the expectations, and the school day is only so long, and with everything else that's required, anything that requires a school district to do something is of a concern to me. We can advise, we can counsel we can suggest.

But I am very, very hesitant and reluctant to require, even though in my heart there's so many things that I would want to require. The requirement part here is where I'm struggling with.

But I will support the Bill today in hopes that you will continue conversations and try to understand why it's very difficult to implement just another requirement.

And I think they were very clear today in expressing their concerns as to the limitations that they are faced with in trying to meet all the other requirements that they have on their plate without removing anything from the table. And so I'm hoping that you will continue those conversations. And with that, I move the Bill today.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh, and thank you for handling the Committee. Well, I had to step away for a quick moment. I appreciate first of all, Senator Valladares, you bringing this Bill forward, SB612. You know, I value CTE education and you know, I do think that it's very important and a value part of our education system.

And know in recent years, starting when I was actually still in high school back in 2009, that we saw many of those programs be cut as a result, you know, of budget cuts, and we've not seen those programs return. Obviously we've been facing major budget crisis and we continue to face one in the state.

I do want to highlight, I don't think that adding more graduation requirements is a good approach. And part of the reason is because we already have a minimum of total of 13 year long courses that are already required for graduation.

And as Senator Ochobog actually just, just mentioned, adding something on without removing something, I mean it just, it creates these challenges. Right? I mean, this is part of the reason why we have the IQC process.

We try to be very prescriptive and also unbiased in the way that we enforce that curriculum policy that we have not just here in Senate Education, but also in Assembly education.

But requiring something as a graduation requirement, while it might not be a curriculum change, it is in many ways because you know, most of our want to make sure that they're completing their A through G requirements and moving on to a college or a University.

So in addition to that, I know many school districts, including my own, and the one that I went to allow for CTE courses to actually be used as a additional course for, I was going to say extracurricular, that's not the right word. What is the right word? It's for, an elective. There we go.

It's been a long time since I've been in high school, for an elective course. And they define actually which courses would meet that requirement. And I know that I think some of those details were missing from your Bill.

CTA could be a broad range of categories and you know, being really intentional about what CTE courses could be included or could fulfill that elective requirement. We want to make sure that we're being intentional about that and do you think it's necessary?

So appreciate the intent of your Bill, but unfortunately will not be able to support it today in its current form. So I do hope that, you know, we'll be able to maybe revisit this topic.

I think that there's some work to be done here within the current framework to explore what courses are currently CTE courses are currently being allowed to be included in E3G through the elective category. So there is some space there already and would be a very worthwhile conversation.

I will go ahead and turn it back to you, Senator Valladares, to close so.

Well thank you so much and I can definitely empathize with the opposition and that you have an ever growing list of requirements placed on you. However, you know, when I look at the intent of this Bill and the student it is going to impact, I think it is a worthwhile requirement districts have.

And just to add, you know, districts do have the discretion to offer course that best works for their schools one semester year long. They can partner with community colleges and the majority of high school students also have several elective slots. And this requirement will have little disruption on that.

The entire goal here is to give students access to practical career skills. This is also personal to me. You know, I talk a lot about my father who never graduated high school, but he took an automotive class when he was 15 years old and built his first engine for a 57 Chevy when he was 15 years old.

And you know, he never graduated high school, but because of that skill that he learned in high school, he was able to take care of his family. And, you know, I think we have a very thriving family thanks to my dad.

I'm very proud of my dad and I just want to make sure that more of our students have access to those type of opportunities leaving high school, whether it's going into the workforce. And I think that this is an important step in that. I'm very excited about that.

This is important to the administration as well and their education master plan. And I also think that CTE teaches more than just job skills. It's really about teaching confidence, Independence and basic life know how, and for a lot of kids that one semester might be the moment that they realize I can do this.

I can build a life with this skill. And I just want to give them a chance, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Valladares. I know that we have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh. So Assistant, if you could please call the roll and the motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Senator Perez. No. Senator Perez, no. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Cabaldon. Choi. Cortese Gonzalez. Laird. Thank you.

We will put that Bill on call. Next up, I see we have Senator Padilla in the audience to present SB638. Senator Padilla, you may begin when you are ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you. I am pleased to present SB 638, which is part of the Senate Affordability Package and is meant to help rebuild the middle by increasing access to opportunity for all Californians. Recently, a PPIC survey found that 70% of Californians think that when their children in California today grow up, they will be worse off financially than their parents.

Moreover, about 60% of Californians think that achieving the American Dream is harder in California than in other places. Put simply, the opportunity is slipping away for millions of Californians and their families. It's primarily for three reasons. First, California's education and workforce development system is not working as well as for those who are not or did not seek a traditional four year baccalaureate degree or higher.

Our income gap in our state is growing rapidly, and we are not churning out the workforce to meet the growing demands of our economy. Secondly, our education and workforce development system is disjointed. Programs are spread through multiple agencies, and these agencies are not communicating always effectively with one another.

We have in recent years spent more than $7.3 billion on a broad range of efforts, but that funding is spread across different programs that often require different plans, applications, and requirements, making it difficult for communities, especially rural ones, for example, to access these funds.

California is rapidly becoming a tale of two economies, that of the rural poor and that of wealthier regions. A growing percentage of these historically disadvantaged communities across California find themselves economically stranded. Rural and inland communities, for example, tend to have higher unemployment rates, lower levels of education completed, and more families struggling to put food on the table.

A recent CalMatters article on dual enrollment titled, and I quote, more high schoolers are taking college classes, but no surprise which students benefit most, unquote, discussed these disparities. The article stated that data shows that some of California's rural students, as well as males and students of color, don't enroll in and complete these courses at the same rate as others. SB 638 begins to solve these problems.

The bill creates a coordinating body made up of broad stakeholders to coordinate interagency programming across ed and workforce development, as well as adopt regulations to better administer and streamline programs related to career technical ed, career pathways, and workforce development.

To address regional disparities in the short term, the bill creates a grant program to inject resources to high unemployment, low income regions of the state for local education agencies to create career tech education and career pathways for historically underrepresented populations in partnership with California community colleges and employers.

We cannot afford to continue to push forward while only bringing certain communities with us. This approach is not strategic. It doesn't align with workforce and labor demands, emerging industries, or more broadly affects the opportunity for more Californians to even participate in our economy today. With me is Su Jin Jez with California Competes.

Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm Dr. Su Jin Jez. I'm the CEO of California Competes, and I'm here to voice our strong support for SB 638. California's promise of economic mobility is slipping out of reach for too many Californians, particularly low wage workers, student parents, and Black, Latinx, and Native American students and residents who face fragmented systems that make it harder to access the education that helps them build the skills they need to thrive.

Employers, meanwhile, are left without the qualified talent they need to drive innovation and growth. This is not a failure of effort or intent, it's a failure of coordination. California is the only state without a higher education coordinating entity and in this instance could be a state leading the charge in broadening the scope to include our K-12 systems while also focusing specifically on work and the economy. What can we achieve by having such an entity?

Well, billions of dollars in workforce program funds could be strategically deployed to create career pathways and close skill gaps. Public benefits will become seamlessly accessible through coordinated systems that proactively connect Californians with the resources they need, and students will navigate clear, purposeful education and career pathways with consistent guidance and support at every transition point.

What does this look like for your constituents and communities that you serve? In theory, these coordinated systems would provide seamless access and clear pathways. However, in practice today, we often see cases like that of Anna, who lost her restaurant job during the pandemic and applied for unemployment like 19 million other Californians.

What our current education workforce development systems failed to let her know was that she qualified for the Golden State Education Training Grant Program, which provided scholarships to those who lost their jobs. This funding could have supported her to attend college and pursue her dream career of nursing. But because this grant program was administered by a state agency that doesn't know who is employed in California, Anna never learned about this opportunity.

And she struggled for months, remaining underemployed while our healthcare sector continues to struggle and face critical shortages. It's not just Anna's loss. It's California's loss when we have disjointed systems like this. To be clear, this is not an isolated example. There have been other major programs that the Legislature has set up and funded only to fail to roll out because of how siloed our state government is.

I apologize, but if you could start wrapping up your comments. You're about 26 seconds over time.

Yes. So this proposal isn't just about more state bureaucracy. It's about the people, our students, workers, and employers that make California the prosperous economic engine that it is. We urge you to support the entity's establishment and help build the infrastructure necessary to fulfill California's promise of opportunity for all. Thank you.

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

Good morning again. Alex Graves with the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities in support.

Good morning. Mike West on behalf of the State Building Trades in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. DanielleMae Santiago on behalf of Calbright College, the online community college district, in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Danielle Bautista with the United Ways of California in strong support.

Anna Alvarado on behalf of the California EDGE Coalition in support.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Mark MacDonald on behalf of National University in support.

Anybody else? Great. 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. Seeing nobody getting up. Are there any other opposition witnesses here in Room 2100? Okay, well, we will go ahead and turn it back.

I know my fellow Senator stepped away for just a moment, so I'll go ahead and speak a little bit just on this bill. Senator Padilla, I've been really grateful for you for moving this forward, SB 638. You know, I think it's incredibly important that we do a better job of coordinating and improving our system of, you know, students that are moving through the educational system and onto the workforce and taking a real look at what, at what that movement looks like.

Whether they're going into an opportunity, you know, directly employment opportunity outside of high school, you know, into a trade, or if they are going to college and university and whether or not that degree is landing them in the career, you know, that they aspire to be in.

All of that is really important and valuable information. We have so much, you know, resources that we've invested particularly into this effort. And we need to make sure that we're coordinating and working with so many of the agencies that are already established around this work. So I think that you've done an excellent job with this already.

You've included many of the existing frameworks that we have in place, namely the Cradle to Career Data System, which I'm particularly really excited about. And I know Senator Cabaldon, who's not here today and just stepped away, would also express his excitement over as well.

So appreciate the work that you've done to coordinate these systems, make things more efficient, and get better results ultimately for students and for the people of California. So I'm very excited to be supporting your bill. Look forward to continuing to work with you on this and partner with you on this. And yeah, but I know we don't have a Member here to move it at that time, but once we do, we will go ahead and take that vote. But happy to support it.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and to the Committee staff. And I would also just say I want to thank you personally for your leadership in this space, for your amazing involvement and contributions to the working group. It's been invaluable. And I think we both know that all of these bills, as we move this package forward, are always works in progress. We're continuing to take data, input, refinement from all important stakeholders, and I'm looking forward to continuing the partnership. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. Excellent. So we will move on next to item number 10, SB 751 by Senator Becker. Today, we have Senator Jones presenting for Senator Becker. So Senator Jones, you can begin your presentation whenever you are ready.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members when they get here. I appreciate your hearing about SB 751 by Senator Becker and myself. 751 establishes a five year pilot program to research the therapeutic use of psilocybin for veterans and inactive first responders.

The pilot will be overseen by the University of California system and will study protocols for providing psilocybin treatment to specific target populations in strict compliance with FDA and DEA regulations. A few years ago, if you had told me I'd be involved in advocating for the use of psilocybin.

You would have thought I was crazy and I would have thought you were crazy for me thinking I was going to do it. But that's because, like so many others, I was unaware of the untapped potential that these compounds hold to help our veterans and first responders struggling with trauma related mental health issues.

Every day, an average of 17 veterans die by suicide. First responders, those who run toward danger to protect the rest of us, are more likely to die by suicide than in the line of duty. These are individuals who have experienced repeated trauma and too often are existing mental health treatments that simply do not work for them.

Our veterans and our first responders are owed a debt of gratitude we will never ever be able to repay. But if we can help them in this small way, I say shame on us for not trying to do so and even sooner.

As it stands, many of these heroes are now turning to underground or unregulated sources of psilocybin, or even traveling abroad to seek relief without medical oversight and without the safety precautions that the State of California could offer.

Our veterans and first responders are asking for this treatment to be made available to them, and we owe it to them to at least give it a try in a controlled, limited way, utilizing qualified medical professionals and researchers at the world's leading institutions of higher learning.

California happens to be home to both, and we ought to take advantage of that fact by passing this Bill. With that, I would like to invite our witnesses in support of the Bill today. Dr.

Brian Anderson from UCSF, University of California, San Francisco, and Angela Graham from the Siren Project to provide their testimony on the Bill and the Committee.

Thanks for having me here. My name is Dr. Brian Anderson. I'm a psychiatrist at San Francisco General Hospital and a faculty Member at UCSF in the School of Medicine. I'm sharing my personal perspective and not that of UC. I've studied psychedelics for over 15 years. I work at UCSF.

I also work at UC Berkeley and collaborate with UCLA. In this work, I can tell you psychedelic medicines have a remarkable potential for treating severe mental health and substance use disorders like those commonly suffered by veterans and first responders. This includes ptsd, depression and addictions.

Psilocybin, however, also does have risks and that needs to be studied and mitigated. Importantly, the clinical outcomes of psilocybin therapy depends not just on the dose of the drug. It really depends on how it's administered, where and by whom. Fundamentally, psilocybin therapy needs to be understood more as a procedure and not just a pill.

And this is why studying how best to implement it in real world settings now is important for preparing California to be ready to safely and effectively offer this unique form of care in the future when we have some form of regulated access to psilocybin.

To date, the pharmaceutical industry and the NIH has not funded this type of real world implementation research, but the University of California Office of the Presence has.

In the past we have funded at least one study of ketamine assisted therapy for methamphetamine use disorder in public health settings, and we can build off of that by offering a program of psilocybin therapy in real world settings to help veterans and first responders. Now this is compassionate use research that veterans and first responders are asking for.

We've provided compassionate use studies for patients at risk of death from cancer and AIDS for decades and we can do that for people struggling from mental health conditions. Ask you to please support751. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Angela Graham. I'm a retired firefighter of almost 20 years. I'm also the co founder and Executive Director of the Siren Project. We're a nonprofit funding and facilitating retreats for first responders using medicines to treat symptoms of post traumatic stress. We're also a co sponsor of the Bill.

My husband and I started this after having to navigate the system in search of my own mental health treatment when all available modalities had failed. Fortunately, we had a friend who was a veteran to help connect us with trustworthy providers.

Soon after, I got on a plane to San Diego, met up with a group of strangers and we smuggled ourselves across the border to do drugs in Mexico.

I had gotten to the point that I was having so many breakdowns and angry outbursts I felt I needed to take extreme action to protect my son from all I was exposing him to. After my experience with these medicines, I was able to calm my anger and find peace like never before.

Nothing had given me such immediate and comprehensive relief from my symptoms. I was finally able to be the mom my son deserves. Today, the fire service is more accepting of mental health issues than ever before. I personally had access to more therapy and therapeutic modalities in the last few years than when I started.

Yet the suicide rates are climbing. The suicide rate for firefighters is 500% higher than it was 20 years ago. This is despite a more Kinder and accepting fire service. We are three times as likely to die by suicide than on duty activities, not to mention the generational trauma being created and passed on.

This is all despite more acceptance and available therapy. Clearly, what is legally available right now is not enough. Now, before we fall further behind, California needs to set the standard for safe, effective access to these crucial resources. These medicines may not be safe for everyone.

It also takes a lot of work and support before and after a journey to see the benefits of these therapies. For these reasons, safeguards like medical screening and properly trained space holders are needed. This Bill is not perfect, but it is a much needed step in the right direction.

As we keep going back and forth on the details, people are waiting and suffering. Please show your support for all the first responders in your communities by supporting this Bill. SB751.

Thank you for your testimony. We will now move on to lead witnesses in support if- we will now move on to support witnesses here in Running- Room 2100. Please use the microphone outside the railing and state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Madam Chair, Anthony Molina on behalf of Law Enforcement Action Partnership, another co sponsor of the bill, in support. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jeremy Palmitier. I'm a former flight paramedic for the State Department's International Narcotics and Law Enforcement's Air Embassy Division. I'm also a current firefighter paramedic for the City of Mountain View, and I support this.

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 microphones at the table in front of us. Please begin when you're ready.

There we go. Chair and members, my name is Greg Burt with the California Family Council, and I rise in strong opposition to SB 571. This bill is not just premature, it is fundamentally illegal. The State of California does not have the legal authority to conduct psychedelic research outside oversight and approval of the federal government.

Psychedelic substances like magic mushrooms remain classified as Schedule 1 under federal law. Without FDA and DEA approval, any research under SB 571 is not only invalid, it's illegal. If you want to make this treatment available long term, you need to get federal clearance. Otherwise, exactly what are we doing here? I ask you plainly.

Do you believe in the rule of law? Because during your oath of office, each of you swore allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and promised to respect the authority of the federal government. That wasn't symbolic. It was a foundational commitment to our legal system.

Yet this bill acts as if California is now an independent republic, free to disregard federal laws it finds inconvenient. Now to the second point, public safety and the unpredictability of magic mushrooms. Two years ago, an Alaskan Airlines pilot named Joseph Emerson, after taking psychedelic mushrooms two days earlier, suffered a terrifying psychiatric break in mid flight.

Though he wasn't high at the time, the lingering effects of his trip caused him to believe he was in a dream. He attempted to shut down both engines, putting over 80 people at risk. He later said he thought crashing the plane would wake him up.

If this is the kind of unpredictable mental state these drugs can induce even days later, how can we responsibly administer them to vulnerable veterans and first responders? We must not confuse compassion with recklessness. We all want to help those who serve and sacrifice, but not by bypassing the law, and certainly not by endangering public safety.

So please vote no. Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon, representing the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Chad Bianco. I just have a few comments. We definitely support the intent of the- of the bill and legislation and the attempt to rectify some of the effects that it has on our profession.

I've been in profession- in this profession for the last 23 years, and I have personally been touched by a colleague of mine who recently shot herself and committed suicide. So this is near and dear to my heart and all of our hearts and public safety. However, I believe that this bill is- is premature. There are-

It- It- Introducing these substances has unpredictable psychological responses to include persistent psychosis, it lacks robust medical backing at this point, and it can induce hallucinogen, persistent perception disorders, which includes disorganized thinking, paranoia, visual disturbances, and mood instability.

And when we introduce these substances who- with people who have military and police tactics, as well as who also have firearms, this is dangerous to introduce this. And our message is we support the introduction of these substances, but how about we change the target population to someone or to a population that doesn't have these tactics and firearms?

Maybe domestic violence survivors? Let's try with them first, see if it works. And if it does, then we'll introduce it to public safety personnel to provide more public safety and accountability to these methodologies and substances. So with that, we stand in respectful opposition to this measure.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside of the railing, and please only state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Seeing nobody getting up, we will now turn it back to our members. Do any of our members have questions or comments? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I help facilitate the conversation. I'm the only one. So I had the opportunity several years ago to actually meet with the groups that represented many of our law enforcement and our military folks about the level of depression and suicide rates in our state. And it was incredibly heartbreaking. Incredibly heartbreaking.

And I think I share the same sentiments as Senator Jones that, you know, prior to that, I would have probably said, absolutely not. You know, and I'm still very hesitant with a lot of psychedelics being used. You know, I-

I- I- I have been always very supportive of medical Marijuana to, you know, when people are at that stage of- of, you know, cancer treatments or, you know, whatever it may be, not supportive of recreational for many reasons. When this idea came through, I was also very hesitant. But I do think.

I do think that the opposition actually made really good points and I don't know where. So I'm going to ask a couple of questions for clarification. I do want to, I appreciate the comments by Mr.

Burt with regards to, you know, our job as legislators is to help direct and create law and we're also sworn to uphold, you know, the law in our positions and our Constitution.

So on that end I'm going to have a couple of questions with regards to how does this actually, this facilitate this research that is being done or pilot program? How does that work within the federal law considering the fact it's that it's still considered a class one? And correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not.

I don't know the drugs very well and the levels that they're in. But I believe that, you know, how does this work within federal law in our state to be able to facilitate the law, to- to facilitate the study or the pilot program? Number two, and this will go to any of whether it's support or opposition.

You folks are the experts. I know Mr. Hu here is a attorney, so I respect his opinion. And then number two, why this particular group and not someone say, without the military experience or even access to weapons.

And you know, I'm a huge proponent of the Second Amenment- Amendment, but there is some concern with regards to, okay, you're- you're testing this psychedelics with people who literally have military experience and- and where does their access to say, guns come into play? Because that is a very fine line where, you know, I'm protective of the- of your Second Amendment.

However, you know, and I'm a little concerned because I don't want there to be a stigma in attaining or- or pursuing behavior health and the information that I may have on your other liberties as a citizen. And now you're meshing it with psychedelics.

And so it's a little muddy for me right now in trying to balance all of the personal liberties, not- not having the stigma behind behavioral health seeking treatment and you know, going outside and doing research for medical purposes. So I'm- I'm literally, I'm muddled in all of that context. So any clarity would be incredibly helpful.

Senator, I would be happy to answer those. So first off, as an investigator at one of the UCs, I do conduct these studies. We conduct them entirely federally, legally. We have FDA oversight, DEA oversight, and the bill requests us to conduct this research. So we would not be allowed to do federally illegal research through the UCs.

So that just wouldn't happen. And we have all the approvals for federal and state regulations to be covered. That's to answer that part, the drugs themselves, the medicines would come from DEA regulated sources. So this is not just from a dispensary in somewhere in California.

It has to come from a manufacturer permitted by DEA to provide for research. Two on risk. People who have access to firearms are also probably at higher risk of suicide. And so we always take the context of clinical care into consideration when enrolling someone in a study.

One thing that we often do is we don't just say, do they have the diagnosis? But do they have the support it takes to go through this? It's also why this would be embedded within or sort of done with community clinics. So the idea is that these patients are known to providers there.

They've gone through risk assessments, and they're being referred by clinicians who know them, who also think this could be helpful for them and can help follow them and reduce risk over time. Again, we're not just giving a pill. This is a procedure.

And there's a lot of wraparound care that we already use to keep this as safe as possible in research settings.

Ye- Oh. Through the chair. It's the chair's prerogative.

Yes.

As far as my understanding, reading the bill, although the bill requires the testing to be done according to FDA standards, it does not require FDA to oversee the testing.

There are currently, my understanding, several psychedelic studies that are approved by the FDA currently going forward, what we're doing here in California is we're bypassing that approval system and we're simply setting up our own. Right? And so we are not getting FDA approval. We're not turning to the DEA to get approval from them before the studies start.

That is not required on the bill. And if I am wrong, I'd love to be corrected.

I can address the, if you'd like, both issues, I think briefly, regarding the FDA oversight and approval, that's one of the reasons why we're putting it in the UC system is so that it's a bona fide trusted system doing the testing and the research.

Both the committee analysis and the Republican analysis, or I should say neither the committee analysis or Republican analysis, found that to be an issue. And the FDA has recognized psilocybin as a breakthrough therapy, which does open up certain doors for it to be researched and pursued.

I think we all trust the UC system to do it properly, as Dr. Anderson is communicating. Regarding the firearm issue, I think that is a legitimate issue. I- I- I understand the opposition's comments on that. I- I- That's kind of a late point that they've raised that this concept of psilocybin. Has been in the works here in the legislature for four years.

If you all remember, you know, four years ago when it first came up, it was opening it up to certain recreational uses as well. Many of us did not support that. The governor's veto, that bill actually passed and got to the governor's desk.

The Governor vetoed it and asked for the legislature to reconsider the issue with many of the parameters that we built into the bill last year that passed the Senate and unfortunately got held up in Assembly Health.

This year, the bill is even more narrowly tailored and more prescriptive on the research that can take place and how the research is to be handled. For myself, there is a bright line between therapy and recreation on this particular substance.

And you know, based on the same conversations I've had with the veterans community and the first responder community is how I got to the point of thinking that there is a chance that this therapy will- will be helpful. These former first responders, inactive first responders and veterans, if they have access to firearms, have access to firearms.

The ones that are asking for this are already mentally ill and already suffering with PTSD and already subjecting their families to these urges. And the hope here is that this therapy will fix that for them and that they won't be in danger of harming themselves or others with those firearms that they already have access to.

Madam Chair, may I ask one more question? Yes.

Yes, of course.

To the Riverside County Sheriff's representative here today. I'm kind of curious and I don't want to open a can of worms, but maybe I will. I'm curious because I really do.

I do have a lot of sympathy and empathy for our, for our law enforcement and our military folks who are, or I should say just public safety and military folks that are suffering from behavioral health and want to ensure that we create an environment where we don't stigmatize it and they're comfortable with reaching out and seeking help.

How does that all play in with their ability to retain their ability to have access to guns per se?

Thank you for the question. First, I'd like to respond to Senator Jones. This is not a late introduction of this- this concern. We have- We have objected to this bill since Senator Wiener introduced it a few years ago, and we've included this argument in- in our previous letters in opposition to address your concerns,

Senator, once you retire, you are eligible to have a CCW, so long as you don't have any 5150 encounters. Right. You don't have those hospitalization on your record.

And so one can have PTSD as a retired law enforcement officer and have a CCW and be allowed to carry a firearm so long as that person hasn't been hospitalized into a mental psychiatric institution. So they are able to have firearms and possess firearms.

And so we're just concerned that the mixing of these substances and the long term effects and how they interact with someone who has these training and firearms in their possession.

Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and just check to see if Senator Laird has any comments or questions on this. Okay. I just want to take a moment to. First of all, Senator Jones, thank you for presenting on behalf of Senator Becker. I am very supportive of your bill, SB 751.

And I want to share with you that I actually in college did research in this area back in 2011.

So I remember doing a presentation on this very subject and it was around some of the early research that was done by John Hopkins University showing early results that psilocybin treatment can be very helpful with improving depression, you know, dealing with anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder, and some of the early kind of results of that.

I appreciate what the opposition has raised just in terms of the concerns around firearms ownership, you know, other issues that may come up. I think that that is very well something that could be addressed in a study that the UC can perform.

And I also want to highlight too, this is not going to be a legalization of psilocybin for the masses. This is allowing for a treatment to be better researched to determine its efficacy so that it can be better utilized for folks that need it. And I think that that is something that is important.

The UC system is one of the premier research institutions and not just in this country, but in the entire world. So I think, you know, allowing that to be done is something that's important and it is a worthwhile conversation. We've been tinkering for years. I mean, as I told you, I first wrote a report on this.

You can actually find it online back in 2011. We're now in 2025. That was 14 years ago. So there's more research that needs to be done in this area. If we continue to not do research, what is going to happen?

And what I have found from friends of mine that, you know, are dealing with very severe depression and anxiety is that they will seek those modalities elsewhere without the proper guidance and, you know, folks kind of overseeing the process.

And that in my opinion actually presents an even greater danger is to not have a science driven approach, a research driven approach as folks seek that out and you know, I just want to share.

Part of the reason I even initially, you know, did this research and did this report back in 2011 is because I myself have, you know, struggled significantly with depression and was really fascinated to hear and read these stories. And I'm very moved also by your testimony as well to hear about the impacts of this.

So, you know, research and these kinds of studies are worthwhile. They're very valuable. You know, I understand what the opposition raises about firearms. And yet, you know, as you described, and I'm so sorry to hear about the friend that you mentioned who recently lost her life. I have friends that have lost their lives to suicide.

I have friends that a friend that attempted suicide and was not successful and is now permanently disabled. And that is- that is also another factor to consider in this, that if we don't help these folks, this is something very real that people deal with.

And so I think that this is a righteous effort to try to figure this out, to further look into this using the valuable systems that we already have in place to look at that research for a very specific population and for our university professors to be very thoughtful in what we need to consider as we go about that.

So absolutely be supporting your bill and appreciate you bringing this forward, Senator Jones.

Thank you.

So. And with that, I will have you close.

Close, Madam Chair, I will take your comments as my close. Very well said. And I agree with everything that you said.

And I will entertain a motion. Okay. We have a motion from Senator Ochoa Bogh. And the motion for SB 751 is do pass to the Senate Appropriation Committee.

[ROLL CALL].

Great. We will put that bill on call.

Thank you all so much. Alrighty. So we are going to take a short recess. We're waiting a moment for Senator Allen to join us over here. So we'll take a recess for about the next five minutes and then we will return. So.

From recess. Great. Thank you all so much. Next up on our agenda, we have item number seven, SB 531 by Senator Rubio, who is here. Senator Rubio, you may begin your presentation when you are ready.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Today I'm proud to present SB 531. This is an important bill that will save lives. Before I served in the Legislature, I was a classroom teacher in elementary for 20 years. And I want to tell you about a little girl that I taught. She was just 8 years old in my classroom, and she threatened to kill me every single day. Every day she told me she heard voices in her head that were telling her to kill Ms. Rubio, and every day she was concerned about what she would do to others.

She told me she heard voices at home, out in the playground, and everywhere she went. But she was too young to be diagnosed. Her mother was terrified, so every night she would lock the room. Not out of punishment, but because she was afraid that she was going to harm her little brother.

So every day she would lock her up. In the morning, they would open the room and the room was destroyed. It became routine every single day for that mother, and she didn't know what to do and how to help. Some people still think that mental health challenges doesn't show up until high school.

And I'm here to tell you that that's not correct. Mental health starts early, and our kids are too valuable not to act. As I already shared about my little girl, it's not only difficult on the parent, on the rest of the students in the classroom, and on their teacher.

We were not prepared to teach mental health education, nor did we have the resources, but yet we're tasked with doing it anyways. SB 531 ensures that all California students from first grade on receive age appropriate mental health education as part of their health curriculum. We're not talking about teaching first graders about suicide or depression.

Just like we don't ask kindergartners to write a three paragraph essay. It doesn't work that way. What we do teach in younger levels is vocabulary. What is happy? What is sad? What is anxiety, loneliness? We teach what bullying feels like and how to ask for help.

And as students get older, we build on that foundation and we start introducing more complex terminology. How to manage stress, recognize anxiety, and find safe adults to turn to when things feel overwhelming, including when they want to kill themselves. Because here's the truth. Young children often don't know what they're feeling.

And I think that is why it is critically important for me to pass this bill because I saw it, I experienced it, and I know how distressed parents were when they couldn't do anything about it. They don't understand their emotions. They don't know if it's right or wrong. They don't know what to do.

They don't know what's happening inside of them. So SB 531 gives them the language and the tools to name what they're feeling and the confidence to speak up. We want students to know it's okay to talk to your teachers and it's okay to go to your parents and it's okay to ask for help. It doesn't mean that there's something wrong with you. But we don't get that moment unless we start early and teach kids how to talk about their emotions and how to get help without being shamed.

Senate Bill 531 is a solution to help students cope, not only cope with themselves, but when they see their classmates experiencing something where they can step in and provide support. We've all heard it from so many parents after shootings, after tragedies. I didn't know my child was feeling this way.

I didn't know my child had mental health issues. And it's very difficult. It doesn't matter if a parent is literate or not. It is a difficult topic for a child to approach a parent or a parent to approach a child. The increasing frequency of school shootings has led to heightened anxiety and panic among U.S. children.

Studies indicate that exposure to such violence can result in diagnosable mental health issues like generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder, particularly in younger children ages 2 to 9. What's happening around the world, even in our backyards.

From ICE agents going into Los Angeles schools to try to deport families, separate families. Coming out of a pandemic where children were isolated, they didn't know how to deal with the stress and the anxiety that they were feeling during that time, and coming out of it, how to reintegrate with their class, society, and their peers.

We're at a boiling point where we need to do something about it. It's a crisis. Mental health education is not a luxury. It's a line of defense against lifelong instability. We either invest in early support or we pay for emergency services, shelters, and prisons later.

Over 70% of incarcerated individuals read below a fourth grade level, and many report untreated trauma or mental illness that began and childhood. By integrating mental health education and support into our schools, we're not just helping kids feel better, we're giving them the tools to stay in school, build resilience, and avoid the justice system altogether later in life.

Early investment in mental health is one of the most powerful, cost effective interventions we have to reduce future incarceration. According to the National Center for Education Data, 65% of fourth graders in the US are not proficient readers. The academic struggle increases the dropout rate and it diminishes the quality of life later.

And a lot of it is attached to mental health issues that were not diagnosed. Equally important, academic failure, especially dropping out, is a key risk factor for future poverty and homelessness, which we continue to say in this legislative body we need to solve.

In fact, according to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, over 30% of the homeless population report having experienced serious mental illness, and many say it began in childhood. When kids don't get support early, the risk isn't just emotional distress. They may lose their future and they may lose their lives. Homelessness doesn't begin on the streets.

It begins with a child falling through the cracks, and this bill will address that because every child matters and every life is important. I would like to turn it over to my witnesses. So I have Chris Miller, a high school educator and mental health champion, and Chaitanya Verma, high school senior, mental health advocate, and a young advisory board member at the California Alliance of Child and Family Services. If I may.

Good morning, almost afternoon. My name is Chris Miller. I am an educator based in San Francisco Bay Area, Santa Clara County. In fact, my personal and professional experiences have shown me why Senate Bill 531 vital. In 2009, I began working for a faith community in Palo Alto, where there was a cluster of five teen suicides over a period of nine months. Those tragedies moved me to join suicide prevention efforts, trying to understand what could drive a young person to jump in front of a train.

A few years later, when I was teaching in Connecticut, I faced my own severe depression. I was hospitalized for passive suicidal thoughts and ultimately returned to California to recover with help from therapy, support networks, and treatment. Only then did I truly understand the grasp that depression could have on somebody. Since that time, I've dedicated myself to mental health education advocacy.

I supported Senate Bill 224 in 2021 and earned my health science credential to teach health, including mental health, in California schools. The past few years, I taught 11th grade religious studies at a Catholic high school in the East Bay. My suicide awareness lessons included resources like Know the Signs campaign.

In 2022, after I shared my personal story during one of those sessions, a student named Evan wanted to come up to me after class and talk. He told me that he too has struggled with suicide, suicidal thoughts during his freshman year. We stood there, just the two of us, and talked quietly for a few minutes. He told me that hearing my story made him feel seen and that for the first time he realized he wasn't alone. That moment of connection is one I will never forget.

As the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention reminds us, talk saves lives. Mental Health Education saves lives. It's time to ensure in California, students, all students grades 1 through 12 have access to this life saving knowledge. Senate Bill 531 helps to do exactly that by expanding mental health instruction in our schools. Requiring mental health education via statute is the only way to ensure the subject is taught.

The content is already in the health science framework as promoted by the IQC, which I attended numerous CFCC and IQC meetings, adopted and which was adopted by the State Board in 2019. So that is not a viable option. The reality is that mental health education for our youth across this great state is in your hands as a Committee. Let's talk about it. Let's reduce the stigma. Let's support Senate Bill 531. Thank you.