Assembly Standing Committee on Education

Good morning, everyone. We are still waiting for our Committee Members to show up. And so Committee Members, if you're watching this, please come down to room 1100. Thank you. All right, Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is the hearing of the Assembly Education Committee.

We will wait for more Members to show up before we establish a quorum and proceed to operate as a Subcommitee. Like to welcome everyone to this hearing. We have 27 bills on file today. One Bill has been pulled from the hearing.

That means if you're here for File item number 16, Assembly Bill 1122, that Bill will not be heard today. File item 16, Assembly Bill 1122, has been pulled from the hearing and will not be heard today. There are 11 bills on consent. They are AB542, AB563, AB731 with amendments, AB753, AB784, AB964, AB988 with amendments, and AB1034.

We also have AB1233 with amendments, AB1255 with amendments, and AB1381 with amendments. That means that those 11 bills, if you heard the number called, they're going to be voted together as on the consent calendar without any testimony on any of those 11 bills, they will be voted on as a group.

As a reminder, for each Bill, we will have up to two witnesses each in support, two witnesses in opposition, each of whom may speak for up to two minutes. Because we have a lot of bills today, I'm going to have to try to be strict on the time limits.

Members of the public in the hearing room will have an opportunity to state their position on bills. Please limit your comments to stating your name, affiliation and position on the Bill. Members of the public are also welcome to provide comments through the position letter portal, basically on the Committee's website.

And as a reminder, the primary witnesses in support as well as in opposition must be those accompanying. Well, the primary witnesses in support of a Bill must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have a support letter on file. And the primary witnesses must have an opposition letter on file.

All other support in opposition can be stated at the standing mic. And I have a General statement that we read before every hearing. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have an effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing the State of California.

As we proceed with the witnesses and public comments, I want to make sure everyone understands that the State Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run it efficient and fair hearing.

We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express, in order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public as possible. Within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of our hearing today.

We will not accept disruptive behavior that incites or threatens violence. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comments may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the chair. Public comment must relate to the subject being discussed today.

No engaging in conduct that disturbs, disrupts, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. Also like to note that comments should be directed to the authors and Members of the Committee and not to any Committee staff. Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions, and we do not.

1234. Okay, we need one more to establish quorum. And so I would now like to start with our special order file, item number one, Assembly Bill 84. And I would like to turn the gavel over to Vice Chair Hoover.

Okay, so we are on file item one, Assembly Bill 84 by Chair Muratsuchi. Mr. Chair, whenever you are ready to start, go ahead.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 84, which is a bill that seeks to strengthen accountability and oversight to crack down on documented fraud and improper use of taxpayer dollars allocated for public education.

This measure comes from a case involving the A3 charter school network in San Diego which resulted in criminal convictions and the finding that the A3 charter school network had defrauded taxpayers of over $400 million.

The A3 charter network-- Among other things, they took the identities, the names of local little league baseball players and enrolled them in their charter schools without their parents having any idea that the children were enrolled in a charter school in order to bill the state for education that the school network never provided.

A3 charter collected the attendance funding that is intended for public education from the State of California for those children as though they did attend school. This type of fraud goes far beyond just the A3 charter case.

There have been other high profile charter school fraud cases involving A3 Valiant, Inspire, CAVA, Epic, Tri-Valley, Magnolia and Celerity. So that's the problem that we're trying to address.

As a result of the A3 charter scandal, there was a moratorium imposed by the state legislature on non-classroom-based charter schools, charter schools that provide less than 80% in-person instruction. As a result--

As part of that moratorium, the Legislative Analyst Office and the state fiscal crisis management and assistance team were requested to make recommendations on how the state of California can crack down on this type of fraud and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used properly.

The Superior Court that issued the criminal convictions out of the A3 charter scandal also ordered the state controller to convene a task force to issue recommendations also to address this issue of fraud and improper use of taxpayer dollars. This bill is proposing the solution for this documented fraud. This bill today seeks to accomplish three comprehensive goals.

Number one, protect taxpayer dollars through audit reform, greater transparency and strengthen school accounting practices for all schools, both traditional public schools as well as charter schools. Number two, stop the documented fraud, especially among non-classroom-based charter schools, and to improve the quality of education that students are receiving through virtual or online educational practices.

This bill also seeks to ensure that money appropriated for public education is used for public education. And three, this bill seeks to reform school district oversight of charter schools and the funding determination process consistent with the recommendations of the LAO, the Legislative Analyst Office and FCMAT, the Fiscal Crisis Management Team.

With me here today to testify in support of this measure is Mike Fine from the State Fiscal Crisis Management Team and Cassie Mancini from the California School Employees Association. Mr. Fine, thank you very much for being here.

Whenever you're ready.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. As indicated, I'm Mike Fine. I'm the CEO of the state's Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team.

In my background, I'm a former school district superintendent, deputy superintendent, chief business official and in the course of 30 some years in school districts I've reviewed recommended approval and recommended denial of numerous charter school petitions. FCMAT's interest is to enhance and strengthen the audit statutes and the procedures to build parity among local educational agencies.

At the legislature's request, FCMAT partnered, as the chair's already indicated, FCMAT partnered with Legislative Analyst Office in researching and preparing our joint February of 2024 report on non-classroom-based charters. FCMAT was also an active member in the comptroller's multi-agency task force on charter school audits, chair's also mentioned.

So we've had our hand in the topic, in several of the topics that are included in AB 84 extensively in the past year and a half, but certainly going back in history as well. I think before we really get going on the conversation, it's important to note that we have outstanding charter schools in California.

The headlines of fraud and wrongdoing, including one just last night again here locally in the Sacramento region are limited to only a handful of the many organizations that serve kids. This is not dissimilar to our traditional school districts. We have well-governed and well -un school districts.

We have some that that don't meet that standard, and we have the same obviously with charter schools. Today, charter school audits are governed in large part by what the charter school petition says.

So the subject of audits is one of the required elements of a charter school petition when it's first presented to a school district board or a county board of education. Addressing the annual independent audit is a required element. Most but not all petitions simply refer to the Education Code statutes with respect to the audit process.

Specifically 14500 and 41020, et al. Those are the standard audit statutes for K-12 school districts. Existing statute however, does not consistently or adequately address charter schools. It may mention them in one subdivision but not account for them in another subdivision. And the process existing statute doesn't really acknowledge charter authorizers as being part of the audit oversight process.

The audit statute reforms proposed in AB 84 do several things. First, it removes the discussion of the audit from the required elements of a charter school petition and replaces it with a requirement that all charter schools follow the audit statutes like all other local educational agencies.

It provides comprehensive reforms to the existing audit statutes to explicitly apply to charter schools and provides the necessary clarity in how charter school audits are processed and overseen specifically again through their charter authorizer and then to the the county superintendent and then on to the various state agencies.

It makes numerous improvements in the requirements for auditor training, auditor oversight and audit guide contents for all LEAs, not just limited to charters, but all LEAs. These improvements are consistent with the February 2024 LAO FCMAT report and the Controllers Task Force.

AB 84 also provides other comprehensive reforms around charter schools, many consistent with the LAO FCMAT recommendations. AB 84 addresses many long standing concerns about specific charter school practices and policies that had been expressed by oversight agencies over the years.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee this morning and I will be available for any questions at the appropriate time or technical assistance.

Thank you. Next witness please.

Good morning Mr. Vice Chair and Members. Cassie Mancini here on behalf of the California School Employees Association, co-sponsors of AB 84. The A3 case clearly demonstrated how California's existing system of non-classroom-based charter oversight carried out by public authorizers, annual financial audits and the State Board of Education through its NCB funding determination process is entirely inadequate.

That's why the legislature commissioned a report on how to improve the funding determination process in charter oversight. And that's why the judge in the A3 case convened a work group to develop new audit criteria. With the NCB charter moratorium expiring in January, the legislature needs to pass comprehensive reform this year.

AB 84 is the expert backed solution to prevent another A3. This bill is robust and comprehensive, which means it's very long and filled with smart proposals. But I'll focus on three key elements. First, the bill standardizes audit procedures and schedules for all local education agencies including NCB charter schools.

Secondly, the bill improves charter authorizer oversight by ensuring that authorizers have the capacity to effectively oversee large NCB charters. And finally, the bill reforms the current NCB funding determination process.

The current funding determination process is not an effective way to ensure that NCB charters are complying with state law and it does not reflect the reality that wholly virtual charter schools do not have the same expenses as brick and mortar schools with classrooms, buses, cafeterias and maintenance and security staff.

The LAO and FCMAT found numerous gaps in the existing funding determination process, namely that charter schools are only required to submit one year of data on how they spent their LCFF dollars and instead of submitting financial data for every year since their last funding determination. This lack of transparency lends itself to fraudulent behavior.

AB 84 would appropriate funding to non-classroom-based charters based on the amount of in person instruction the school provides, more accurately reflecting the costs associated with instruction and incentivizing in-person learning, which the pandemic proved to us is crucial for student outcomes.

This is a big bill, but that's because we need the structural reform to prevent another A3. For these reasons and more, CSEA respectfully requests your aye vote on AB 84.

Thank you so much. So we're going to do this a little bit differently for this bill. I'm going to invite-- we're going to hold on public comment for support and opposition. We're going to do that after witness testimony. So if the opposition witnesses could come forward.

While we're doing that, while we're making that transition, we're going to call the roll to establish a quorum. Thank you.

[Roll call]

We have a quorum and whenever-- Whenever the witnesses are ready, you'll have two witnesses, two minutes each. Good. And turn your mic on, I think.

There we go. Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Myrna Castrejón. I am the President and CEO of the California Charter Schools Association, CCSA. And we have a long track record of exposing past abuse, like some of the cases that were referred to, which has been the result of blatant fraud, yes.

But also a failure at all levels to respond promptly to obvious signs of trouble. We appreciate the serious conversation about these issues and I want you to know that we share the overall goals, stated goals of AB 84.

Unfortunately, AB 84 takes a very heavy handed approach that would be harmful to all charter schools, not just non-classroom-based schools. Diverts classroom funding, imposes significant new requirements and costs, and establishes two new state bureaucracies far in excess of the recommendations of the recent studies that have been cited that purport to respond to these issues, like LAO FCMAT, the State Controllers Task Force, and yesterday's published report from CCAP that triple oversight fees, drawing them away from classrooms.

For example, charter schools that serve students through a wide range of blended learning and independent study programs face a funding cut of 30%.

This radical approach is not endorsed by the LAO and no comparable cut is proposed for district operated independent study programs. The analysis cites outdated studies from other states and conflates virtual online schools with a wide range of models that represent California's so called non-classroom-based sector.

The current funding determination process does confirm that these schools are spending on their students within the target set by the State Board. These schools invest heavily in teachers, facilities, mobile classrooms, technology, but are consistently excluded from funding streams that their site-based counterparts receive.

Also, there continues to be zero accountability for authorizers to ensure that they are meeting statutory oversight responsibilities or spending oversight fees for that purpose. This bill does nothing to correct that. AB 84 relitigates settle law, ignores recent progress and agreements already enacted in AB 1505 and 1507 and the significant new transparency and accountability law set forth in SB126.

CCSA favors a much more targeted approach and it supports SB 414 because it offers meaningful reforms without being excessively burdensome, costly or punitive. We all agree--

Please wrap up. Thank you.

--we want bad actors to be out of the system, but we cannot use a chainsaw in the guise of good government.

Thank you so much. Next witness please. Two minutes.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. I'm Dr. Cristina de Jesus, CEO of Green Dot Public Schools where we serve nearly 10,000 students across 18 schools in Los Angeles. We have been good partners in the public education space for 25 years.

Our teachers, counselors and classified staff belong to CTA affiliated unions and our schools have been recognized among the best in the country. Charter schools welcome accountability. Unfortunately, AB 84 goes far beyond targeted accountability improvements for non-classroom-based charter schools and will have a devastating impact on all charter schools.

I want to focus on the direct impact AB84 will have on students, particularly those who've been historically underserved by the traditional system. Simply put, it would take dollars that should be spent on teachers, mental health professionals and other necessary student resources.

AB 84 triples the fees all charter public schools pay for authorizer oversight without any data or evidence that current fees are insufficient or that fee revenue is even used appropriately for oversight requirements. AB 84 diverts even more funding to an unaccountable oversight bureaucracy.

More than $210 million per year will be diverted annually from classrooms to bureaucracy, about 300 per pupil more than current law. That is about $200,000 or two fewer teachers per school per year. As noted in the analysis, the current fee structure creates perverse financial incentives for district authorizers. Increasing these fees will only exacerbate that problem.

Lack of authorizer accountability was a key failure that contributed to the A3 fraud. But the issue is not addressed in this bill. Increasing administrative fees without accountability or or data is not a solution. AB 84 is simply unreasonable. I encourage you to reject this proposal and seek more meaningful and less intrusive measures to address these concerns.

We also have Colin Miller here from CTSA to answer any technical questions about the bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right, so at this time, we're going to start support and opposition testimony together. So whether you're in support or opposition, we're going to do it as a single group. If you would please wait for the directions of the sergeants before proceeding to the microphone. Thank you.

And just a reminder, for those testifying, it is going to be your name, your affiliation and your position on the Bill only. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Alicia Snook, I'm from Citrus Heights and as a charter school mother, I oppose AB84.

My name is Nora Snook from Citrus Heights and I oppose AB84.

My name is Julie from Gridley and I oppose AB84.

My name Is Tucker and I oppose AB84.

My Name is Grace and I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Chris, I'm an adoptive parent from Sacramento. I and my children oppose AB84.

My name is Sophia Sylvester and I'm from Dixon and I oppose AB84.

My name is Nicolette and I oppose AD84.

My name is Sarah Zuev. I'm a credentialed teacher and homeschool parent of medically fragile children with the Cottonwood School and I oppose AB84.

My name is Marie Zuev, my name is Marie Zuev and I oppose AB84.

My name is Anastasia and I oppose AB84.

My name is Sophia Zouf and I oppose 84.

Hi, my name is Rachel Root. I'm a teacher with Clarksville Charter School, a flex-based charter school serving students in El Dorado, Placer, and Continuous counties and I oppose AB84.

My name is Sarah Greco with Feather River Charter School and I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Ashley Gilbert and I'm a public school and charter school, homeschool public charter mom and I oppose AB84. I have a medically fragile child.

Hi, my name is Evgenie Zouf. I'm oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Rebecca Gearhart from El Dorado Hills and I oppose AB84.

I'm Kristi Gage with Feather River Charter School, a flex-based personalized charter school serving students in Sutter County and surrounding counties and I oppose AB84.

Hello, my name is Shannon Breckenridge. I'm a credentialed teacher and a credentialed administrator with with Lakeview Charter School, an award winning, personalized, learning, flex-based charter school serving Glenn County and contiguous counties. I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Liz Williams. I'm a charter school mom and I oppose AB84.

I'm Mason Luttrell and I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Marissa Marquard and I am a charter school mom and I oppose AB84.

My name is Stone and I oppose AB84.

I oppose AB.

Thank you.

My name is Elizabeth and I oppose the Bill.

My name is Heather Brannigan, I live in Elk Grove and I homeschool my third grade daughter with the support of a California charter school and I oppose this Bill.

I am Heather Devivo and I'm from Placerville and I oppose this Bill.

My name is Ivy Devivo and I'm from Placerville and I oppose AB84.

My name is Diana Bergstrand from Elk Grove. I'm a local substitute teacher for a local school district and a mother of four chartered students from South Sutter, and I oppose AB84.

My name is Kari Hughes and my daughter attends CORE Butte in Chico, California and we strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Jennifer Williams from Clarksville Charter and we oppose AB84.

My name is Erin Gilbert from Sacramento and I oppose AB84.

My name is Joel and I oppose AB84.

My name Is Elisa Gilbert and I oppose AB84.

Hello, my name is Miriam Gilbert and I oppose AB84.

Hello, my name is London Van Morris and I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Mel Morris. My students go to South Sutter Charter School which serves students who have public school system has not worked for and I oppose AB84.

Hi, I'm Kaimana Mowers and I propose AB84.

My name is Xavier Lopez and I oppose for AB, AB, AB84.

My name is Blanca Flores and I oppose AB84.

My name is Mar-. My name is Margaret Danielson and I oppose AB84.

My name is Ezra Jack Danielson and I oppose AB84.

I am Roland and I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Leanne Danielson, a credentialed teacher, small business owner and proud parent of flex-based learning. This Bill we strongly oppose. Many of our teachers are here. This would eliminate our jobs.

Hi, my name is Erin Reschke. I live and work here in Sacramento and my children are enrolled in a public charter school and I strongly oppose AB84. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Lindsay. I'm a credentialed public school teacher and my children are enrolled with a public charter and I strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Alessandro and I am 7 years old and I live in West Sacramento. I oppose AB84.

My name is Mandy Flores and I am a homeschool parent. I'm with a public charter school and I oppose AB84.

I'm Laurie Grgich. I am a charter parent at Camino Polytechnic and a credentialed teacher with Clarksville Charter School, and I oppose AB84.

My name is Apollo Catabran, and I oppose AB84. I mean.

I'm Zoe Nino, and I oppose AB84.

My name is Noah Danielson, and I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Amabella Campo. I'm a teacher with Sacramento Homeschool holistic homeschool co-op on behalf of the parents and the moms who's really trying hard to teach our kids and to have this choice, to have the choice to be able to have the curriculum for our children.

Thank you so much. Just name and organization.

My name is Marissa Aroura. I'm a public charter school mom and I oppose AB84.

My name is Anthony Bailey, and I strongly oppose the AB84.

Hello, I'm Zachary Nino, and I oppose AB, AB84.

Hi, my name is Melinda Nino, and my children are enrolled in a public charter school, the Cottonwood School, and I oppose AB84.

My name is Sarah Crane, and both of my kids are part of South Sutter, and I strongly oppose AB84.

My name is William and I oppose AB84.

Hi, I'm Caitlin Hellar I'm the co-founder and Board President of the Dixon Montessori Charter School, and I strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Darian Medlock. I'm a credentialed education specialist and parent of a charter school learner, and I strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Berto Ramirez, and I oppose AB84.

Hello, my name is Alejandra Lemas, and I'm with American River Charter. I'm an instructor and tutor as well, and I oppose AB84.

Hello, my name is Yoen Mcmanus. I live in Somerset, California. I have two medically fragile special needs charter school students and I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Derek Conley from. Placerville, and my two children attend Clarksville charter. I strongly oppose AB84 as well.

Hi, my name is Kira McAfee. My three children are enrolled with charter, Clarksville Charter School, and I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Weston and I oppose AB84.

Hi, My name is Jackson. I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Paisley, and I oppose AB84.

Casey Taylor, Superintendent, Achieve Charter School of Paradise in Chico. Oppose.

Good afternoon. I'm Shawn Roner. I'm the Executive Director of Heritage K-8 and Escondido Charter High School in San Diego County. We serve about 2,400 students and California Distinguished School, and I strongly oppose AB84.

My name is George and I oppose AB84.

My name is Charlotte. We homeschool through South Sutter. I strongly oppose AB84.

Hello, my name is Kate and I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Amelia and I oppose AB84.

HiI, my name is Cynthia Granick of El Dorado Hills. My daughter goes to Cottonwood School and I oppose AB84.

Jason Fox of the California Society of CPAs. We do not have a position on the Bill, but we have raised concerns related to the CPA oversight provisions that may be unworkable under the existing CPA regulatory framework. Happy to work with the stakeholders and continue the conversations, but wanted to note it for the record. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Brook MacMillan, Executive Director of Granite Mountain Charter School, and I oppose AB84.

My name is Paul Keefer with Pacific Charter Institute and we have Valley View Charter Prep which was awarded Schools to Watch and I oppose this legislation.

Good afternoon. Matt Watson with iLEAD Schools, recognized by Stanford University's CREDO as a gap-busting organization. I'm also an elected trustee with the Saugus Union School District Board of Trustees and I oppose AB84. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Stephanie Cardenas. I'm with the California Montessori Project and I oppose AB84.

Good afternoon. Ben Claassen with Shasta Charter Academy. 2023 and 24 Education Results Partnership honor roll awardee in opposition of AB84.

Good afternoon. Mary Cox, Superintendent of CORE Butte Charter School, the 2024 California Charter Schools Association charter school of the year. And I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Leslie Shebley, co-founder of Kairos Public Schools, recently redesignated National Schools Watch and we oppose AB84.

Jared Austin, co-founder, Superintendent of Kairos Public Schools, California and National Schools to Watch and we oppose this Bill.

Jeff Rice with APLUS+ representing 100 flex-based personalized learning charter schools in strong opposition.

Hello, I'm Sarah Avanessian with Method Schools. We service thousands of students from San Diego to Los Angeles and I strongly oppose AB84.

I'm Sarah Delawder, Director of Curriculum at Method Schools serving students from San Diego through Los Angeles Counties. And I oppose AB84. Thank you.

I am Krystin Demofonte, the Executive Director for Pacific Coast Academy, and I strongly oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Bradley Johnson, Superintendent, Dehesa Elementary. Also ground zero for A3. And I've sent a letter to some of the Committee Members and I strongly oppose AB84.

I'm Erin Kahn from Sutter Creek, California, and as a parent I strongly oppose AB84.

Hello, Committee. I'm Sylvia Sorensen. I'm also here on behalf of Moms for Liberty, many parents in Emory County, and we appreciate the flexibility of the schools and in particular the charter schools, And I oppose AB84. Thank you.

Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Ed. Though we haven't taken a formal position, we really appreciate the conversations we've had with County Committee staff on county-related amendments. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ashley Lugo on behalf of the California County Superintendents. Though we do not have a position, we want to thank the Committee and the staff for their thoughtful amendments and we look forward to our continued collaboration. Thank you.

My name is Michael Cox. I'm the Executive Director of Western Sierra Charter Schools, serving students in Madera Counties and Fresno counties for over 30 years. Strongly oppose the Bill.

Hello, I'm Jody Jeffers. I'm CBO for Western Sierra Charter Schools and we also oppose this Bill.

Hello. My name is Carol Barfuss and I am tall. I'm a former public school teacher and my children both attend charter schools as well as the public school system and I oppose AB84.

My name is Elizabeth Foxworthy and I have two children with Feather River Charter and we strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Laura Regan from Rockland Academy family of schools. We serve students in both Sacramento and Placer Counties and we strongly oppose AB84.

Hi, I'm Rosemary Martins, a charter school parent and I've worked with foster children and children with special needs and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Christine Feher, Superintendent of California Pacific Charter Schools. All three of my schools are Purple Heart designated schools by the CDE. Strongly opposed.

Shannon Green with California Pacific Charter Schools, a 2025 Purple Heart Award winning school. In opposition.

Krista Woodgrift, Superintendent of Sage Oak Charter Schools, also received the Purple Star Award from CDE and the ERP Honor Roll status. I'm also the parent of students at Inland Leaders Charter School and strongly oppose this Bill.

Hi, my name is Lisa Thompson with Sage Oak Charter school, a 2023 ERP honor roll awardee and I oppose.

Hi my name is Lawrence King, former Superintendent for the Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District and currently Senior Director of Outreach and Development for Sage Oak Charter Schools, and I strongly oppose AB84. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Heather Ferenc, proud charter school parent, defender of school choice and Director of Education at Excel Academy Charter Schools, both recognized as California Distinguished Schools, and I'm opposed to AB84. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Heidi Gasca, the Executive Director of Excel Academy Charter Schools, both 2023 California Distinguished School and ERP Honor Roll recipients in strong opposition. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Erin Bunch with Sage Oak Charter School, and I oppose AB84.

Hello, I'm Brandie Brunni with San Joaquin County Office of Education. Although we don't have a position at this time, I would like to thank the Committee for our thoughtful conversations related to county offices. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Martha Hanson. I'm with Little Lobbyist of California and Little Lobbyist. I am also a mother of two sons with epilepsy and autism and a daughter who will be blind by adulthood, and I'm strongly opposed.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Jennifer McQueen. I am a charter school parent of three students and I am also a board member and we strongly oppose AB84.

Hello, my name is River and I'm from Sacramento and I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Rose McQueen. I'm an 18 year old senior at a local charter school and I oppose AB84.

Hello, my name is Faith McQueen. I'm 19 years old, a former charter school graduate, and I just graduated from phlebotomy school, and I oppose AB84.

Hi, I'm Windi Eklund, Director at Suncoast, a non-classroom-based charter school serving 1500 students in SoCal, and we oppose AB84. Thanks.

Hello, my name is Theresa Grant. I'm a credentialed staff member in special education at Suncoast Charter and I oppose AB84.

Hello, my name is Katie Walker. I'm the Special Education Director at Suncoast Preparatory Academy and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Hi, I'm Patricia. I'm a credentialed education specialist in Suncoast in SoCal, specializing in reading instruction and remediation. Also nominated as Teacher of the Month by a major California media group. I respectfully oppose AB84. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Breanna Humes. I'm a credentialed teacher, charter school mom, as well as the owner of 34th Street Prep Academy, who is a vendor with many charter schools. And I oppose AB84.

Good afternoon. My name is Alex Feruzka. I'm a UPK teacher representing Suncoast Academy. And I oppose this Bill.

My name is Drissell. I homeschool through Suncoast and I also work there. And I strongly oppose AB84.

Good morning, Cynthia Rachel with IEM Charter Schools, including American Literacy Corporation award winner and Sky Mountain Charter School, which recently earned the ERP honor roll honoree. Thank you.

Bronshae Jones on behalf of Lifelong Learning Administration in K12 and the schools that we work with in opposition.

Bob Morales representing 83 schools in California and 64,000 students. Strongly opposed on behalf of Learn for Life.

Hi. Jillian Tonkin with Julian Charter School. We have two California Distinguished School awards and I oppose.

Kathleen Hermsmeyer from Springs Charter Schools. We were recognized by CREDO as a gap-busting network and we oppose.

Jennifer Caza, Superintendent of the JCS family of charter schools. Two California distinguished charter schools in our network, 1,800 students in San Diego and Riverside County. I oppose.

Terri Novacek with Element Education. We operate Dimensions Collaborative School as well as Community Montessori which is a green ribbon school. We are authorized by the San Diego County Office of Ed and we strongly oppose.

Thank you.

Dr. Barbara Nemko, Napa County Superintendent of Schools in my seventh term. We are the authorizers of Mayacamas Charter Middle countywide Charter Middle school. I am opposed to this Bill because of the adverse effects on classroom.

Thank you.

Meg Madden, A little bit taller, I guess you thought. Charter school parents since 2008, including with South Sutter Homeschool Charter on behalf of my three charter school children and charter school parents, Arthur Mark, Genevieve Polisi, Chris Palisi, Laura Dixon, Ivy Larson, Alicia Contreras, Amy Anderson, Heather McClure, Audra Starrett, Amy Rush, all in strong opposition to AB84. Thank you.

Thank you.

Nicole Young. I represent Placer County Moms for Liberty as well as San Luis County, Santa Barbara County, Fresno County, Shasta County, Lake County, Contra Costa County, Tamine County, San Diego, County, Yolo County, Orange County, L.A. County, Alameda County. The Children Matter Kern County, Kern County Against Mandates and my wonderful charter teacher who unlocked education for my six children. Thank you. I oppose.

Anna Seymour, Assistant Superintendent at San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District. I oppose as written, Section 30 needs to be amended.

Thank you.

Andrew Lucia, with San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District as well. We oppose as written and request that Section 30 be amended. Thank you.

Chelsea Osenga, teacher at San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District. And I oppose as Section 30 needs to be amended. Thank you.

Amanda Campos, parent of two children and staff for Suncoast Preparatory Academy. And I oppose AB84.

My name is Gladys Gonzalez. I'm a media specialist at Suncoast Preparatory Academy and I respectfully oppose AB84.

Thank you.

My name is Catalina Garcia. On behalf of our families at Suncoast as well as our staff, I oppose AB84.

My name is Andrea McQueen. I have children that are students of Cottonwood School and I oppose AB84.

My name is Jamie McQueen and I. Attend the Cottonwood School and I oppose to AB84.

Hi, my name is Elise McQueen and I attend the Cottonwood School and I oppose.

My name is Michelle Moon. I'm from Hollister in San Benito County. I'm a charter school parent to special needs and learning disabled children and I strongly opposed AB84.

My name is Ian Moon. I'm from Hollister in San Benito County. I am a non-classroom-based charter school student. I oppose AB84.

My name is Casey Truax and I'm from Fair Oaks and I oppose. I oppose AB84.

My name is Whitney Ellis and I'm from El Dorado Hills. I am a parent of two children that are learning and thriving with Clarksville Charter and I oppose 84.

My name is Rohan Amin and I oppose AB84.

My name is Shoshana Aman. I am a California credentialed teacher and parent of a charter school and I oppose AB84.

Hello, my name is Rachel Tinkler. I am a California credentialed teacher from Cameron Park, California. I educate my son with the support of a flex based charter school, Clarksville Charter School. I oppose AB84.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Comfrey Lim. I'm from El Dorado County. I'm a parent of my children who are in a charter school and I oppose AB84 as it would restrict their access to educational programs.

Just a reminder. Name, organization and position on the Bill for those.

I'm Hazel Birch. I'm from Georgetown. I am from Clarksville Charter School and I oppose AB84 strongly.

My name is Piper Birch. I live in Georgetown, California. I'm a student with Sequoia Grote, Grove Charter Alliance. I oppose AB84.

My name is Stephanie Birch. Pardon my throat. I live in Georgetown, California. I'm a parent of two charter school students. I'm also President and CEO of Wildwood Nature Explorers, an educational nonprofit for non-classroom-based learning and I strongly opposed AB84.

My name is Eric Almond, El Dorado County. A parent strongly oppose AB84. Thank you.

I am Crystal Kint. I'm from Placerville, California and a charter school parent and I oppose AB84.

I am Eva Kitty and I oppose AB84.

I'm August Kent and I oppose AB84.

I'm Everett Kent and I'm from Placerville. And I oppose AB84.

Hello, my name is Jessica Esquimazi. I'm a homeschooling parent through a district charter school and I oppose AB84. Thank you.

Good morning. My name Is Adelita Gonzalez. I'm traveled here from Alameda, California. I'm the President of the Homeschool Association of California. I'm here on behalf of all of our students who are at risk, underserved and underrepresented position opposition.

Thank you.

Hello, My name is Kimberly Cargile. I'm a homeschool charter parent and I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Anna Grace and I strongly oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Rowan Doyle and I oppose AB84.

My name is Chloe Myrick and I strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Cora Carlile and I strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Lauren Fujimoto Johnson and I oppose AB84.

My name is Kylie Sanchez and I strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Maddox Reali and I strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Jude Fan and I strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Jude Donneth. I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Andrew Realy. I have three boys out of Placer County and I oppose AB84.

Hi, My name is Kristin Myrick. I'm a teacher and parent and I strongly oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Renee Miller. I am a teacher and a parent and I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Wyatt Wood. I'm from Placerville and I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Owen Wood. I am from Placerville and strongly oppose AB84.

Hi. Hi, my name is Heather Wood. I'm a credentialed teacher and I strongly oppose AB84. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Mike Haislip. I am an author, educator and journalist. I'm not here representing anyone. My views are my own. Do not represent any institution or publication. I strongly oppose this Bill on behalf of my neurodiverse students.

Hi, my name is Dawn Soules. I'm a parent and I'm also a charter school vendor serving over 600 students, and I strongly oppose AB84. Thank you.

My name is Aroura and I live in Placerville drive, and I oppose AB84.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Angela Berry and I'm from Placerville. I'm a parent and I strongly oppose 84. Please consider the little people who will lose the most.

Thank you so much.

Hi, I'm. I'm Grace Berry and I am from Placerville and I oppose 8084.

Hi, my name is Crystal Barton. I'm from El Dorado County and I oppose AB84. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Katie Ostland. I'm also from El Dorado County, and I oppose this Bill.

Hi, my name is Katie Brizzi. I homeschool through a charter and I oppose AB84. From Sacramento.

Hi, my name is Elijah Brizzi, and I oppose AB84.

I'm Julie Bates from Woodland, California, and I oppose AB84.

I am Logan Bakey Rick, College City. Yes. I oppose AD, AB84.

Hello, my name is Melissa Bakubic of College City up north in Colusa County. I am the mother of a medically complex child and I strongly oppose AB84. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Carolina Park, and I homeschool with the help of Pacific Charter School in Contra Costa County, and I strongly oppose AB84.

Hi, I'm Lauren Raimundo and I homeschool with a non-classroom-based charter in Contra Costa County. I also teach homeschool enrichment classes. And so on behalf of my students in Contra Costa County, Sonoma County, Solano County and Alameda County, I strongly oppose AB84.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Heather Hollis, homeschooling mom of three kids with two different charter schools. I also teach homeschool support classes and I strongly oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Raya Hollis, and I oppose AB84.

Hello, my name is. Hello, my name is Alessandra Park from Contra Costa County, and I strongly oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Jamie Pizzagoni. I am a homeschooling parent within a charter in Contra Costa County, and I strongly oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is McKenna Kelly. I'm from Contra Costa County and I strongly oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Milana Kelly, and I strongly oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Mia Moore. I'm from Contra Costa County and I strongly oppose AB84.

Hi, I'm Lily Pizzagoni and I'm from Contra Costa County, and I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Emily Calboy and I, oh, wait. I'm from Contra Costa County and I strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Harper Wong. I live in Rancho Cordova and I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Yen Wang. I'm from Rancho Cordova. I'm a homeschool parent and I oppose AB84.

I'm Rebecca Ramirez. My kids are enrolled in River Springs Public Charter School, Riverside, and I strongly oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Heather Welch and I'm from Sacramento County and I oppose AB84.

My name is Tessa Underwood. I have five children. I homeschool three of them through Cottonwood Charter School and the other two are in public school. We strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Thaddy Underwood. I oppose 84.

My name is Heenak Underwood and I oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Bernadette Walton and I strongly oppose AB84. I'm a homeschooling mom of two children within Sacramento County. I apologize. And my children are special needs children and they benefit from non-traditional smaller classrooms. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

My name is Sarah Ensco. I'm a charter school mom with South Sutter. I've graduated two students successfully who are getting their honors in their master's programs and in from UC Davis and graduating honors from Maramont. And we charter schooled them through all, all 12th grade. So. Thank you. I oppose AB84.

Thank you. Name, organization and position, please. Thank you.

My name is Waverly and I oppose AB84.

My name is Jerriann Loydolt. I am a former classroom based charter school teacher and currently a non classroom based charter school mother of four. I oppose AB84.

Thank you.

My name is Clara Nymer. My children are in a home-based charter school and I'm also a vendor for a charter school and I teach science classes and I oppose AB84.

My name is Elise Nymer and I attend a homeschool charter and I oppose AB84.

My name is Lillian and I oppose AB84.

My name Is Amanda. I'm from Riverbank, California. I am a homeschool charter teacher and mother. I strongly oppose AB84 on behalf of parent and student choice.

My name is Jessica. I'm a homeschool charter school teacher as of 20 years and I'm also a homeschool mom and I strongly oppose AB84.

Good afternoon. My name is Jennifer Johnson from El Dorado, California and I'm a homeschooling mom who utilizes the public charter school of my two kiddos and we are as a family. Oppose, strongly oppose AB84. Thank you.

My name is Skylar Johnson and I am from El Dorado and I oppose AB84.

My name is Mariah Riker. I'm from Placerville. I am a homeschool charter mom. We are with Clarksville and we strongly oppose AB84.

Hi, my name is Wyatt from Placerville. I am a fifth grade student with Clarksville Charter and I oppose AB84. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Maureen Tanay from Elk Grove, California. I'm a parent of a special needs child. I strongly oppose AB84 because it violates the rights of disabled who can only learn in specific environments.

Hi, my name is Summer Jessie. Both of my children are enrolled with a public school charter. We have been in this environment for 13 years and I strongly oppose AB84.

Hi, my name's Seth and I live in Rescue and I oppose AB84.

Thank you.

My name is Mary Doherty. I'm from El Dorado county. I'm a 17 year homeschool mom with Clarksville Charter and I strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Elijah and I oppose AB84.

My name is Lynn Hughes, and I strongly oppose AB84.

My name Is John Cotton from Carmichael and I strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Robert Doherty from El Dorado County. Strongly oppose AB84.

My name is Autumn Layer. I'm from El Dorado County. I strongly oppose AB84. 18 years, homeschool mom and associated with Cottonwood, and....

My name is Elizabeth and I oppose AB84.

My name is Hudson and I oppose AB84. I'm in kindergarten and homeschool.

Thank you.

My name is Ben Lehrer and I oppose AB84.

Thank you.

My name is Rachel Crueley. I'm from El Dorado Hills, California, and I have three kids ages 5, 13, and 16. They are part of three different charters. John Adams Academy, Foothills Academy, and Classical Conversations. We oppose. Thank you, AB84.

Hi, my name is Cadence and I oppose for AB84.

My name is Victoria and I'm from a public charter school and I oppose AB84.

My name is Valentina. I'm from a public charter school and I oppose AB84.

My name is Matias and I'm from. Wait. What? I oppose AB84.

Good afternoon. My name is Carolina Lopez Klug. My children attend a public charter school and I strongly oppose AB84. Equity and education for all.

Alina McLean, homeschool mom of two boys through Cottonwood Charter. I oppose AB84.

My name is Carissa Luck from El Dorado County. I homeschool through Visions Charter School, Sacramento, and I strongly oppose abs.

Hi, my name is Jessica Hall. I'm an independent study charter school teacher and this is my son, Blake. He's also an independent study student and I oppose AB84. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Sochi Campos. I'm a small business owner. My business directly works with charter school kids and it would shut down if this passed. So I strongly oppose AB84 as well as a homeschool mom.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Ruby Rolden and I oppose AB84.

Hello. My name is Alina, and I am from a public school. And this, this is my family. Mommy. And my siblings. And this. And I. And I oppose AB84.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jamie Patrick from Reading, California. I am a parent to four children who attend Chassis View Academy and I oppose AB84.

My name is Gabby and I'm from Reading and I oppose AB84.

Good afternoon. Carlos Machado with California School Board Association, CSBA. would like to express its support for the Bill. Thank you.

My name is Anna Reyes. I reside in Mariposa, California, and I homeschool through a charter and I oppose AB84.

[Inaudible]. I oppose AB84.

I'm Carrie DeLuca and that's my kid. I live in Rancho Cordova and I oppose AB84.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Tristan Brown with CFT, a union of educators classified professionals. Hard to compete with this cuteness. But we are in strong support of this Bill as co-sponsors. Thank you. We urgent an aye vote.

I'm Gabby DeVilla and I'm from the Salinas Valley. Public educator. and I am in support of AB84.

Ivan Fernandez with the California Labor Federation, a proud co-sponsor in support of the Bill. Thank you so much.

Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California and strong support.

My name is Roxanne Azario. I'm a parent from Los Angeles. My daughter attends Learn for Life Assurance Academy. Regular schools do not work for her. So I absolutely oppose AB84. Thank you.

Hi. Debbie Gooding from Learning Choice Academy Schools down in San Diego County. And I oppose AB84.

Hi, I'm Dawn Gius and I'm a credentialed teacher and I also homeschool my son and I really oppose AB84.

Laura Kerr with the Charter School Development Center in opposition.

Mr. Chair and Members. Kurt Kimmelshue on behalf of Real Journey Academies in opposition.

Chris Bollinger on behalf of Lighthouse Charter and Opportunity Youth Schools Coalition in opposition.

Mr. Chair, Members. Adam Kegwin on behalf of Ednovate and Alliance College-Ready Public Schools in opposition.

Thank you so much. I believe that is everyone. Before we move forward and bring it back to the dais to Members, I do want to make sure that two of the seats up here are for support witnesses if they want to come back forward for questions and then two for opposition witnesses.

So if one of you could maybe you can use the mic, the standing mic, or we can rotate around, but yeah, thank you so much.

And with that, I will bring it back to the dais for any Member questions. Assemblymember Castillo.

So first, I want to apologize for not being here for the author's opening remarks and statements and the witness testimony. However, I have read through the Bill and I'm concerned with how this Bill will affect the charter schools.

You know, you know, listening to the witnesses, and as a dual-licensed psychotherapist who has worked with severe mental health children, and who I was able to see thrive in a charter school setting where they were having many challenges in the regular public-school setting, that is something that concerns me.

And because of that, I won't be able to support the Bill because it's going to affect those who have the most challenges in school. So, that is, that's how I stand on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Any? Yes, Mr. Garcia.

As, as a 21-year educator, nine of those years as a school administrator, also eight years School Board Member, I think I'm well versed in education and I'm glad to serve on this Committee, and you know, three of those years in education happened to be at an, at a non-classroom-based charter school.

And I am well too familiar with the corruption and the questionable expenditures. And it's one of the big reasons that as an educator I couldn't continue working there and sought employment elsewhere. So, I applaud you, Mr. Muratsuchi, for your efforts to increase transparency and accountability for these schools.

And I know folks that are really happy with their charter school experience. This should enhance and strengthen it. And I applaud you. I would ask if I could be a joint author.

Thank you very much. Vice Chair, if I may, through the Vice Chair.

Yes.

I have had an opportunity to hear from Mr. Garcia of his personal experiences, as he stated, the corruption and the misuse of public taxpayer dollars. That is what this Bill is about. It's not about trying to shut down good, honest charter schools.

It's about going after the bad actors. And you know, I have always, I have always negotiated in good faith with the Charter School Association, and you know, but it takes two to negotiate in good faith, but I remain committed to negotiating with the charter schools, to make sure that we focus on the bad actors.

There's nothing in this Bill—I want to assure everyone in the audience, there's nothing in this Bill that is trying to stop homeschooling. Nothing in this Bill that's trying to stop independent study. Fully recognize that families, especially those that have medically sensitive kids, to be able to address the unique circumstances facing their kids.

This is about going after those documented corrupt bad actors, to shut them down.

Thank you. Assemblymember Patel.

Thank you, Chair Muratsuchi, for bringing this Bill forward. I do have a few questions that I would love to get some understanding around.

First of all, in your Bill, if a family has a child with disabilities, that is on an IEP or a 504, and they are part of a, you know, a charter school, whether it's non-classroom based or not, would there be any disruption in their IEP or 504-based services or programming that they're being offered, or are those part of a maintenance of effort process?

Nothing in this Bill would undermine any Individual Education Plan, any IEPs.

So, if the programs and services, if the child is on an IEP and they're receiving some special programming or services, those will continue on?

Absolutely.

Thank you. Another question I have is regarding the differences. What we see here, and correct me if I'm wrong, we're not doing, we're not asking our charter schools to do anything different in their reporting and auditing process that we're asking our public schools to do—is that correct?

That is correct. And in fact, in my opening comments, I, I emphasized how, you know, these audit reforms, the strengthening of the, the, the auditor requirements, all of those are designed to increase transparency measures, that those would apply to all schools, including traditional public schools, as well as charter schools.

We want to make sure that we root out fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars in both traditional public schools and in charter schools.

Yeah, I think as public funding dollars for public education get tighter and tighter with our current state of economic affairs, we definitely want to make sure that our taxpayers are able to know and feel confident that their money is being spent on instruction that meets the standards that are part of the California public education system.

So, I do appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. As a Member representing San Diego, as communities in San Diego, we know very well the extreme edges of what can happen in charter schools, and we hope that none of our charter schools have to face controversy like that.

It undermines the mission of those charter schools to see them in, in bad press in the public like that. We do want to help them strengthen their ability to adequately report their expenses to the state. So, thank you for bringing this Bill forward.

Thank you. If I may, your last point, Dr. Patel, on expenses. I know that, you know, the Charter School Association, as well as Green Dot, express concerns about the proposed increase in the oversight fees. You know, that is on the table for negotiations.

The goal is to make sure that, you know, charter oversight districts have the adequate capacity and the resources to be able to do their job. You know, we saw what happened.

We just learned yesterday, local community school, Highlands Community Charter School, you know, that—I mean, there's a state audit pending on that—but clearly, the charter authorizing district, you know, was not doing its job and so, we need to make sure—a big part of this Bill is to make sure that the authorizing, the charter authorizing district, you know, has the resources.

But in terms of whether, you know, how much we increase the—authorize our fees to the districts. Again, I am open to negotiate in good faith.

So, a final in—with regards to that, a final question.

We, in my Assembly District, we do have several charter schools that are operating in good faith, and I do want you to work with our opposition to make sure that there is an undue burden on them, while at the same time bringing that transparency and accountability to the light. So, thank you.

And thank you for working with our, our county schools as well.

Thank you. Of course.

Thank you. Assemblymember Addis.

I want to appreciate you for attending to this issue. I'm, I'm with you on that audit. I know how important this issue is. I also represent charter schools that are good actors, that are incredible—incredibly beloved—in parts of the district that I represent. And frankly, I was very impressed by the opposition.

I do want to say that, if the opposition is still watching, that it takes a lot of bravery to come here and to come up to the mic and to say what you want to say, and so, very impressed with the kiddos, in particular, that came and did that, but would really request that you continue to work.

There are good actors out there. I think we all acknowledge that. I do think the policy continues to need work. And so, I want to appreciate your commitment. You're saying you're committed to continuing to work with those folks that are good actors to make sure that those programs aren't decimated by the legislation.

Absolutely. I, you know, I suspect that the reason why they brought Green Dot up here is because I've expressed in the past and I continue to respect, you know, Green Dot and the, you know, the charter schools that they operate.

Again, this Bill is trying to go after the bad actors, but of course, absolutely, I have always, you know, worked with the Charter School Association in the past, and if they want to negotiate in good faith, rather than through press releases, then my door is open.

Thank you.

Okay. I guess that leaves it to me. So, I do have a few questions as well. I think my first one is, you know, I think there is pretty broad agreement between you and I, the Assembly Members here, that, and actually, I would argue the charter schools as well, that they do not want to see corruption, they do not want to see bad actors, and that there, there are some tangible reforms we can do to fix that. I think my concern with this Bill is kind of the—how broad it is.

So, you know, why not be more targeted? I know there was a reference to a Senate Bill that also has some provisions in it. Why not be a more targeted, as opposed to including things, you know, like this, this authorizer provision for small school districts and things like that. Do you have a—is there a willingness to maybe narrow this Bill down?

You know, again, I am open and ready for good faith negotiations. I want to emphasize, first of all, that this Bill is the only bill in the Legislature that incorporates all of the LAO and FCMAT recommendations. You referenced a Senate Bill. The Senate Bill is, you know, basically cherry picked the low hanging fruit.

We're talking about the LAO and FCMAT here, institutions that should have unquestioned bipartisan respect and support. These are good government proposals from the LAO and FCMAT and we shouldn't be cherry picking their recommendations. We should be adopting all of their recommendations. And the issue of the small school, you know, authorizer issue, that is also one of the LAO recommendations.

So, you made a few comments, I think in a few different parts of your testimony and kind of, I guess a theme was that your belief is that traditional public schools and charter public schools should be treated the same. Am I stating that correctly?

As to the—yes.

Okay. Okay, so.

That's the goal.

I think where I have a challenge with that is there is a huge thing that charter schools have to do, that traditional public schools do not have to do. Charter schools have to be reauthorized every five years. You know, I would love to have a conversation about reauthorizing traditional public schools.

In fact, I have, in my hand, a list of nine public schools that—I'm sorry, nine public school districts—that have basically been had to—been bailed out by the state because of fiscal mismanagement. And I, and so, you know, when we're talking about holding bad actors accountable, I do wholeheartedly agree with that.

But would you agree that there are fundamental differences between charter schools and traditional public schools, that need to be respected?

I would agree. Yeah. I'm very much aware of that process of charter schools having to be reauthorized and the scrutiny that they undergo. But, you know, If I may, Mr. Chair, to address the, you know, the reasons why we need all of the LAO and FCMAT recommendations. If I can ask Mr. Fine to address your questions.

So, with respect to the nine districts that have gone through state receivership, I, I would characterize the bailout being a little different. Those are all re—those all have to be repaid by the local district, right, over time. They are, as I included in my comments, we have great charter schools in the state.

We have great traditional school districts in the state, and we have some bad players on both sides, right? And I think, in time, that has been the case. There's a fundamental constitutional difference, though. Our Constitution requires those traditional school districts to continue to operate.

That's why, as a Legislature, whose response, who the courts have repeatedly ruled are ultimately responsible for the continuity of instruction, if you will, to our kids, charter school—for traditional public schools—charter schools don't enjoy that same constitutional protection. They are a creation of, of statute of the Legislature, right, as opposed to the constitution.

So, that fundamentally distinguishes them. I would emphasize, just in my work over the years and in FCMAT's work over the years, I would emphasize that I think it was absolutely the goal in the Charter Schools Act to make some distinction. And we see that, I think, very clearly in the original act and even in amendments over time.

One of the emphases that AB 84 does is bring parity, or less distinction, specifically on the audit issues—that everybody should be held to the same transparency standards, the same audit standards, that same process. And AB 84 does do that, and the Chair is 100% correct.

This is the only—the only one of three current pieces of legislation that touch on the audit issue, that incorporates all of the recommendations. And so, I would emphasize for some things, with respect to charters, there should be parity.

They should look like any other local educational agencies. For other things, by design, they're meant to look different and have some different levels of, of flexibility, I guess would be an appropriate word. I think that was the intent of the original act.

I would agree with most of that. I think it was the intent of the original act. In fact, the Charter Schools Act was passed by Democrats and supported by Democrats in the 1990s to, to do exactly that, to provide a more flexible alternative for families and for students.

And so, I do respect the fact that there does need to be parity in certain ways. I think my concern is that year after year after year in this body, we have slowly made charter schools have to do everything that traditional public schools have had to do.

And over time, it has led to much less distinct, distinct differences between the two schools. And so, again, I think on the audit provisions, I think there's an openness to work on that and I think there's probably an openness to work on that from the charter schools, as well.

With that in mind, I do want to ask a question of the opposition, if I could, to just kind of explain to me in a little more detail about—I think the two provisions I'm most concerned about are number one, the increase in the, in the authorizer fees and how that's going to impact charter schools, but then also this authorizer provision where, you know, it prohibits small authorizers.

And really, what is that impact going to be on our rural communities? What is that impact going to be on parts of the state that really have no other options? And just would love to hear more on that perspective.

Well, that is certainly a concern. I'll start with your last question first, the question of rural districts.

There's no question that the situation in rural districts presents a very different circumstance than where the element of choice, introduced in, like, very dense urban areas, creates a very different environment of, like, different layers of authorization and choice, and diversity of programs that are readily accessible for parents to make the best choice that best fits their children's learning needs, etc.

The question of the small rural districts, especially when breaching, trying to cross bridge that gap right between access—a lot of non-classroom-based schools, many of whom you've heard from today, are dispersed across a very broad area.

And if they cannot be authorized by a small district, there are, over time, we've been working on a number of statutory provisions that prohibit out-of-area authorizing, which basically means that you can't cross county boundaries.

And therefore, if you're only restricted to the small district where you're located—with your home office or whatever—then that basically means you basically can't be authorized, period.

Because of the increasing number of statutes that have, you know, worked to refine and restrict authorizing for a number of years, starting with 10 years ago, 1994, and also further in the reforms of 2019.

And that is part of the reason that we really have objections to what we see as real overreach, that a lot of these provisions respond to a pre-2019 statutory framework, where a lot of these things are redundant or go further and relitigate issues that we had settled in 1505, 1507, and SB 126.

And the question of boundaries continues to create a problem. Not to mention that, as Mr. Fine correctly points out, the system is designed to have differences in complementarities. They're not intended to be equal and the same because there are different statutory frameworks and conditions that respond to the issue of creating a system of choice.

There is a perverse disincentive that is created here, where we introduce elements—the element of natural competition becomes a fiscal intent—incentive—for the district to make money, frankly, off of charter school authorization, and still, the Bill doesn't address those issues. That's actually what happened with A3.

The big element of the fraud was district complicity in the fraud.

Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Yes, the author—Mr. Chair, go ahead and respond.

Thank you. I, you know, as an example of our continued good faith effort to negotiate, you know, my staff has met five times with the Charter School Association and one of the Committee amendments, which, before I go any further, I accept all Committee amendments.

One of the Committee amendments changes the requirements to allow small districts to continue to authorize if they have the capacity, with the adequate staff. To further elaborate on this point, I'd like to ask Ms. Mancini to add to that.

Yeah, absolutely. I think that we would completely agree with the Charter Schools Association that district authorizers that haven't been doing their job adequately, that haven't been spending their existing oversight fees adequately on that oversight, are part of the problem, and that's why this Bill requires the expenditures of oversight fees by districts to be audited, so we can make sure that that money is actually being spent on oversight activities and not anything else.

And to be sure that districts aren't receiving 1% and spending less of it, because the existing law already requires that you can only charge oversight fees up to the actual amount you're spending. So, that's a really key element.

But again, we would point to the LAO FCMAT Report, especially calling out small district authorizers. The Report says that 14 small school districts were authorizing one third of the state's non-cost, room-based charter attendance.

And if those small districts don't have the staff capacity to actually do that, as the Bill, as amended, now requires, then that process needs to change and that oversight responsibility needs to go to a district that can adequately oversee those charters.

Thank you. And I'm going to, you know, if you guys would like to respond, that's fine. I did have one additional question for the opposition and then I'll shut down my questioning. But if you want to respond to that.

But also, this, this vendor piece, how is this Bill going to have an impact on the activities that are provided and allowed for students and families in non-classroom-based charter? Specifically, because of, you know, obviously, within that context, you know, vendors are typically used because there isn't the traditional school format.

First, to the question of the authorizer capacity. Look, there's no question that a lot of the reforms and questions around what authorizers do, we absolutely share those concerns. We simply disagree that increasing fees without clearly defining and including provisions in statute that would hold authorizers accountable, actually hold them accountable, there is no certainty that it would result in any kind of quality result in any way.

And many organizations that have been studying this issue for some time, including CCAP, that issued its report yesterday, was strongly disagreeing with the fact that just throwing more money, without very clear guidelines in accountability that's enforceable, makes any difference whatsoever.

Or that how exactly investment in fees and capacity and at what levels do we define quality, that is well defined at all. We don't disagree with the concept at all that authorizers should do a better job.

We were the whistleblowers on A3, in fact, and we urged the State Superintendent to exercise this already existing supervisor and oversight authority to investigate, and nothing happened.

So, you know, I guess we have a little bit of experience and don't feel confident that money equals capacity, but would definitely would like to see that there would be a better balance of what that looks like, and what exactly would those monies be used for.

On the question of vendors, I definitely believe that there are parameters around which the question of how and to what end the vendor relationships can be better described. Some of those provisions are there. There are some additional requirements, of course, included in the Bill, around certification and specifically around security clearances and other elements.

But the, there's, the fundamental question here, I think that we continue to have profound differences of opinion of what this Bill could accomplish has, ultimately, to do with the blanket increase tripling of oversight fees for all schools, and we keep talking about non-classroom-based schools, but let's be clear, provisions apply to all charter schools, almost 1300 of them.

And it's a very, very broad, broad stroke in ways that are going to impact every single school's capacity to deliver programs, especially right now when we have a lot of fiscal uncertainty. Our colleague here in Green Dot just got notification that a federal grant got cancelled—of millions of dollars.

This is not the time to be throwing—reducing investments—in the state, without a very clear purpose and justification and very strong guardrails, as to targeted intent.

Thank you.

I think with that.

Yes, please, please.

If, you know, if the Charter School Association agrees that they want to root out bad actors and they recognize—they agree—that, you know, the charter authorizers need to have the capacity to do their job, then we are all open to better ideas.

You know, we've been waiting, we've been waiting for proposals from the Charter School Association, and thus far, you know, we haven't gotten any on that. So, stop criticizing and offer some solutions.

Thank you. I think with that, I don't have any more questions and I'm happy to pass to my colleagues, but I did want to make a comment first. I think, you know, Assemblymember Garcia spoke of his experience in his schools, you know, and I'll tell you my experience in my schools.

So, I, you know, I'm a former homeschool student, I am a charter school parent, and I'm a former School Board Member that saw, up close, the authorizing process and actually debating and discussing a charter petition at the local level.

And, and I can tell you from my experience in that the dac—the deck—is very stacked against charter schools already. And so, I think that is where my biggest concern comes with this legislation, is—it is already incredibly difficult with the changes that we've made in this body, in recent years, on facilities, on authorizing standards.

It is already difficult. And so, I would not be comfortable supporting this Bill unless it was substantially narrower than it is today.

I think that, at the end of the day, my ultimate goal, and I, you know, I think I would hope that many of us share this, is that I want as many options for families in our state as possible.

And the way that I view this Bill, at least in its current form as impacting charters, is that it's going to reduce options for families. And I think from that perspective, and for those reasons, I won't be able to support the Bill today. Thank you. And then, is there any—Assemblymember Bonta or Lowenthal?

I didn't know if you wanted to make any comments or—okay. Okay. Assemblymember Bonta.

Thank you. I want to thank the Chair for bringing forward this measure. I know that you've worked very closely with our Committee and with the proponents of this Bill to thread what I believe is a very careful needle.

At the end of the day, I also want to make sure that we have the ability to ensure that all of our very hard fought and protected public resources are used for the sake of ensuring that every child has the ability to have the kind of education that they need and deserve.

And I don't want any gray areas where there is an opportunity for people to end up perhaps misusing the resources that should be very clearly supported, for the purpose of public education, in those resources.

So, I feel like you've worked very hard to ensure that there are guardrails in here, that ensure that that doesn't happen, and then also ensure that we have an opportunity to be able to allow people who do want to make different choices, and still be associated with the public education system, to be able to receive the resources that they need.

So, for those reasons, I will be supporting this Bill today. I know that also, Chair, you are an author who will continue to work bills as they go through the process and want to thank you, the Committee staff in particular, for the work that you've been able to do on this Bill so far.

Thank you.

Okay. With that, I will give the author a—the—opportunity to close.

Thank you very much, and first of all, I want to thank everyone that turned out to express their support or their concerns or their opposition about this Bill. I will take all of that, you know, in consideration to—and I want to reiterate that I will continue to work with opposition to address concerns.

But I just ask Members of this Committee this closing thought. Again, you know, the less set of analyst's office, FCMAT, our state fiscal crisis management team, all of their recommendations should be adopted. The state controllers' recommendations, pursuant to court order, all of their recommendations should be adopted.

The bottom line is we want to make sure that we are protecting taxpayer dollars, you know, to, to, you know, shut down this—these—documented cases of fraud and improper use of taxpayer dollars allocated for public education. With that, I respectfully asked for an "Aye" vote.

Thank you. I need a motion. If there is a motion?

So moved.

Motion from Assemblymember Bonta.

Second from Assemblymember Patel. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill currently is 5 to 1. I believe it is on call. It is out, the Bill is out and we'll leave it open to add on. Thank you so much. We're now going to take up the consent calendar. I have a motion from Assemblymember Addis. Second from Assemblymember Patel.

The consent calendar motions are as follows. AB 542 do pass to Appropriations. AB 563 do pass to Appropriations. AB 731 do pass as amended to Appropriations. AB 753 do pass to Appropriations. AB 784 do pass to Appropriations. AB 964 do pass to Appropriations. AB 988 do pass as amended to Appropriations. AB 1034 do pass to Appropriations. AB 1233 do pass as amended to Appropriations.

AB 1255, do pass as amended to Appropriations. And AB1381 do passes amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Consent calendar is out. We'll leave it open. Sorry, what's the 60? We are going to skip down to file 26 AB 1454, Rivas, Rubio and Muratsuchi and please start whenever you're ready.

Thank you Mr Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 1454 alongside my colleague. I also want to thank the Committee, the Committee staff for their extensive work on this Bill. I have always prided myself on being a teacher before a Legislator.

As a matter of fact, I keep my credential active and I am currently on a leave of absence in case this gig doesn't work out, I can go back to what I love to do. It's to teach children.

The success and outcomes of our children has always been and will continue to be a priority of mine, which is demonstrated by the months and months of work leading to this bell before us today. Between the leadership of Mr. Speaker, the partnership with Mr.

Chair and the continued advocacy of countless stakeholders, AB 1454 is a significant step forward to addressing very real concerns with our student outcomes while supplying teachers with the tools to ensure they succeed in their roles. Despite the robust spending on K12 education, California is facing a literacy crisis.

According to the 2024 National Assessment of Education Progress scores, California nationally ranks 33rd in fourth grade. Reading proficiency data shows that if a student is not a proficient reader by the end of third grade, they are four times less likely to graduate from high school and eight times less likely if they are from a low income community.

The vast majority of children falling behind are economically disadvantaged, disproportionately black and Latino, and English learners. AB 1454 is a powerful step forward in supporting our educators and our students.

This Bill ensures teachers have the tools they need to build student confidence and success in reading by strengthening professional development, modernizing instructional materials, and making sure administrators administrator training includes proven evidence based literacy strategies. This Bill has three main components.

First, it requires the California Department of Education to create a list of professional development programs that support effective literacy instruction with a focus on teachers of transitional kindergarten through fifth grade.

Second, it requires the State Board of Education to conduct a subsequent adoption of instructional materials for English language arts and English language development, ensuring that such materials are aligned with evidence based approach approaches that to literacy instruction and are consistent with the ELA ELD framework.

Lastly, it requires the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to update administrator preparation standards to include training on supporting effective literacy instruction by 2027 with full compliance by 2029. Some of the state's largest school districts, including LAUSD and Long Beach Unified, have implemented evidence based literacy programs in their elementary schools with promising results.

These and other school schools piloting similar programs need the support of the state to scale and implement the curriculum with fidelity. As a classroom teacher for over 16 years, I witnessed firsthand the struggles students face when they aren't equipped with the necessary foundational skills needed for academic success.

These struggles are preventable, especially in the fourth largest economy in the world. AB 1454 is a step in a very necessary direction and will put California students in a position to succeed and thrive in the classroom and beyond. The goal is simple. Get kids reading and support our teachers along the way.

I would like to give a very special thank you to the sponsors of AB 1121, ED Voice, Decoding Dyslexia ,Families in Schools and the California CHAI NAACP California and who have been on this journey with me and our team and our team for almost two years.

I would also like to thank the hundreds of advocates, parents and teachers that have emailed, called and called to support this effort. Their passion for this Bill for uplifting and improving the lives of kids in the state is clear and unending. Thank you again. This would not be possible without your tires tireless advocacy with me today.

I have Marshall Tuck from ED Voice to answer any questions that we may have. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Mr. Vice Chair. I I'm proud to join my colleague Ms. Rubio and you know, all of the education stakeholders that we have brought together on AB 1454 and I want to thank our Speaker Robert Rivas for his leadership in bringing together all of the stakeholders to reach what we are proposing today. Assembly Bill 1454.

This Bill will advance the foundational goal of teaching every child in the State of California to read. This Bill will promote evidence based literacy instruction to teach reading skills that will lay the foundation for lifelong success. After more than two years of working with Ms.

Rubio and the stakeholders on this measure on this proposal, I want to also express my appreciation to to the stakeholders, especially the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers, Californians Together Ed Voice, the Association of California School Administrators and the California School Board Association, among many others that have been that I have been working with to reach this point where we have this joint Bill to move forward.

I appreciate all of our stakeholders to come together to strengthen professional development for early literacy instruction, update instruction materials and provide training and support for school site administrators. And so I'd like to join Ms. Rubio in turning the mic over to our stakeholders. Thank you. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon Committee Members. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Ms. Rubio. My name is Patricia Rucker. I'm here on behalf of the California Teachers Association. But in speaking to the Committee this afternoon, I am also representing the many affiliate and assorted or statewide organizations that have formed the Literacy Concerns Coalition.

We have worked together very diligently not only to refine and think outside our own boxes, to come to some common understandings about where our priorities should be and exactly what is the problem we're trying to solve, but then to turn around and have a conversation with Ed Voice and the organizations that Marshall Tuck has organized so that we could come to an understanding about the best ways to move forward.

Here's why CTA knows today that that this compromise is not only important, but a step in the right direction. A good compromise like this piece of legislation is like a good sentence, says the former high school English teacher. Everyone can recognize it and everyone says huh. This kind of works.

From the beginning, we as a coalition have sought an approach to teaching reading and to supporting professional development that allows school communities to serve the students and meet the local needs of the students they are teaching.

We have learned a lot through the work of the California Collaborative on Educational Excellence on what professional learning looks like and how teachers learn and grow and improve their craft by the ways that they are allowed to study and understand what their students performance in reading is telling them.

An approach that is thoughtful and and funded so that the investment can empower that work to continue and empower educators to continue to learn more about evidence based strategies to address diverse learning needs and adapt. Evolving literacy research is what is one of the hallmark and foundational pieces of this proposal.

Teacher involvement in the selection of instructional materials that align to the ELA ELD framework is is a necessary component to support equitable access for the state's multilingual student population. A good start generally refers to beginning something that is in a successful and positive, well prepared manner.

But more importantly, it sets a positive tone for the work that we are doing.

We're committed to continuing the work on this Bill to keep the Bill moving forward and I too want to add my appreciation and thanks on behalf of the coalition and CTA to the leadership shown not only by the legislators who asked me to join him at the table this morning, but also by Senator Rivas.

This is the type of leadership that we are relying on and California continues to show the rest of the world what leadership looks like. Reasonable people can disagree on reasonable things. But we also can show the world how you can disagree and come together.

So I appreciate most that Marshall and I can sit at this table, call each other by our first names, and maybe when this is all done, we'll go have a cup of coffee.

Next witness, please. Thank you. Two minutes.

Mr. Vice Chair Members and Mr. Chair, thank you all so much. My name is Marshall Tuck and I'm the CEO of Ed Voice.

And on behalf of dozens of organizations that have been advocating for significant leadership literacy legislation for a long time, including Decoding Dyslexia, California Families in Schools, and NAACP California Hawaii State Conference, we are thrilled to be a part of this group that is focused on lifting up reading outcomes for kids in California.

And we are grateful for the collaboration with CTA and others that we've been finding the best way to move forward for our kids. Thank you to Speaker Revis, who's just led in a big way. Thank you, Chair Muratsuchi, who's been on this issue visiting schools for a long time and of course, deep thanks for Senator.

Rubio, who's been an absolute champion for our kids. We urge you to pass AB 1454 as proposed and amended. When you think about a public education system, the number one responsibility is to keep kids safe. That's number one. But number two is to teach kids to read. Because reading is the gateway to all future knowledge and opportunity.

But today In California, only 3 out of 10 third graders from low income communities are at grade level in reading. Our state, our grade State is 33rd in the country when it comes to 4th grade proficiency in reading.

And we have one of the greatest gaps between high income kids and low income kids of any state in the country. This is a civil rights issue that demands urgent action and collective action. And we're grateful to be a part of that collective action. Now the good news is we know how to teach kids to read.

Decades of reading research shows us how the brain develops the neural pathways necessary for children to learn to read. States that have really adopted evidence based literacy instruction have seen real results. Mississippi was 49th in the country in fourth grade reading. They're ninth today after just over a decade. Louisiana was last. They're 16 today.

We believe California should be number one. We should be number one on reading. And what's nice is this state has made real progress in recent years. This fall, 1.2 million kids, kindergarten, first and second grade, will be screened for reading difficulties, including risk of dyslexia. Because of actions you all have taken.

All future California teachers are being trained in effective means for teaching literacy. Right now in our teacher prep programs, we have TK for all. We're expanding bilingual. We're making progress. AB 1454 is the next big step to take for our kids on literacy.

So we urge you to pass this Bill and then let's all work together to get this thing fully funded so that our teachers have the tools they need to educate every kid to have a chance to read and just unlock those doors of opportunity.

We're grateful to be here on the team to get this Bill passed and funded.

Thank you. All right, anyone in. Yeah, we're. Yeah. So anyone in support of the Bill, please come forward and walk up to the microphone. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. Tristan Brown with CFT, excited to support this wonderful compromise and get folks reading and urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Leslie Zoroya. I'm from the Los Angeles County Office of Education, and we wholeheartedly support this initiative. Thanks so much.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Baker with the California Association for Bilingual Education. Excited to collaborate and looking forward to the conversation.

Good afternoon. Santi Soriano with the Sacramento County Office of Education. And similar to LACOE, we're also very much in support of this legislation.

Good afternoon. Ingrid Rivera Guzman, Assembly District 55. I am here with families in schools to urge an aye vote for AB 1454. Thank you.

Barbara Nemko, Napa County Superintendent of Schools and former reading teacher in New York City. Strongest possible support for this Bill.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Mary Lee on behalf of Families in Schools and as an advocate with special needs kids, I do support 1454.

Cristina Salazar with Californians Together in Support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members. Andrea Ball, here on behalf of the California School Library Association, part of the coalition. Thank you for all the work on this in support of the Bill.

Good afternoon, Tanisia Hearing on behalf of the California Hawaii State Conference and the NAACP in strong support.

Good afternoon. I'm Sanam Jorjani on behalf of the Oakland Literacy Coalition, urging you support for this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lindsey Nofelt on behalf of Reading for Berkeley in support of this Bill.

Good afternoon. Azucena Hernandez, Executive Vice President at Families in Schools and a mother, 100% in support of this Bill.

Buenas tardes. Olga Corona De LA Cruz, Senior Campaign Director with Families in schools, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Amy De La Salle, individual in support of the Bill.

Marvi Hagopian, Sacramento County Office of Education, retired, and I'm here in support of the Bill.

My name is Darrell White. I'm a former administrator, K12, and I represent the black parallel school board. And I'm definitely in support of this Bill.

Buenas Tardes, Gracias.

Hello, my name is Sandy Mendoza and I'm here to support AB 1454. It's the right thing for kids. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Wendy Kaufmann, educator on behalf of Families in Schools, and I support this Bill.

Hi. Yesenia Fuentes, instructional coach, educator, and I'm here to support this Bill. Thank you.

Hi, Sandy Hernandez. I'm an educator and I am here on behalf of Families in Schools and I am here to support AB 1454.

Hi, my name is Alyssa Vallejo and I'm here on behalf of Families in Schools. I am a reading specialist and I am fully in support of AB 1454.

Good afternoon. I'm Lori Caruthers Collins. I'm an educator with Families In Schools and I'm full support of this Bill. Thank you.