Senate Standing Committee on Education

First hearing of assembly bills. There are 13 bills on today's agenda. Six bills are on consent. Those bills are item number two, AB 313. Item number five, AB 606. Item number six, AB 677. Item number eight, AB 927. Item number 11, AB 1216. Item number 13, AB 1438.

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. I see that I do have a quorum, so, Assistant, if you could please call the roll.

[roll call].

The assistant notes a quorum has been established.

Madam Chair, I would move the consent items.

So we will go ahead and move the consent items. Assistant, can you call the roll?

[roll call]

Great. And we will place- We will place that on call. Well, we will get started with our first Item, which is AB 243 by Assemblymember Ahrens. And I see Assemblymember Aherns is here. So you may begin when you are ready.

The podium.

We're not that rude. Patrick, come on. Yeah.

Try to do it from your seat. In the hallway.

Okay. Good morning, colleagues. Thank you so much for being here today and hearing my first bill in the Senate. I want to thank the committee consultants for their work on this bill. I wanted to mention that I will be accepting the committee amendments that was proposed.

So I appreciate that. For AB 243, oftentimes system involved youth face challenges when trying to gain admission to colleges and University or seeking financial aid. AB 243 would reduce barriers to accessing higher education for systems involved youth. And higher education can also provide more opportunities for individuals to learn, grow and develop.

And sometimes people are dealt with the wrong cards in life. And we want to be able to make sure that these opportunities are available to them as well. With me today is Jorge Guitron from Secure Youth Treatment Facility and Daisy DeAmato, formerly Justice Involved Youth and a current Santa Clara County Intern, wanted to. Present our.

And you could come up to the front here. You'll have two minutes each to speak. Yes, right here at the front. And when you speak, you want to press that button on the mic or at the bottom and it lights up red. That's when the mic is on.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Daisy. I'm a former SYTF participant and now in community. I am a SYTF student intern. So since I can remember, I've had a difficult relationship with school. I haven't felt lost in class and I lack the motivation to strive for.

Apologies, but could you pull the mic a little closer so we can hear you just a bit better?

Thank you.

Sorry. When I was 17, I was committed to juvenile hall with a long four year journey ahead of me. This made me make the decision to graduate high school and not let that time go to waste. I started college something I had never imagined myself doing.

Like many SYTF participants, I come from a family who could not help me pay for college. So higher education was never really a part of my plans. I wasn't a straight A student in high school. In fact, I barely passed.

But with the help of FAFSA, I got the opportunity to go to college and found that things were very different. I excelled in my courses, I earned all A's, I made the Dean's list and eventually I made the President's list. But being an incarcerated student did not come without its many challenges.

Our population faced numerous roadblocks such as two factor authentication issues for our student portal and canvas where we accessed and submitted assignments as full time students without phones. Managing deadlines with this was very incredibly stressful. Applying for FAFSA was a more straightforward process for me. As having experienced homelessness as a youth,

I was classified as a Mckinley Vento student, which allowed me to verify my independent status and bypass one of the biggest hurdles many justice impacted students face.

Unfortunately, most of my peers in the SYTF program were not as fortunate as me and I have seen many others struggle to complete the FAFSA verification due to the difficulties in contacting their parents, creating yet another barrier to accessing education.

I believe in this bill because like my peers, post secondary education gave me the opportunity to be successful in my future.

Perfect. So good morning chair and Committee Members. My name is Jorge Guitron and I have the honor of serving as a college liaison for incarcerated youth at the Santa Clara County Office of Education.

We are proud that we have students enrolled in several colleges across the state, from our local community colleges to universities like UCLA and UC Berkeley.

While all students are required to complete the FAFSA, incarcerated students often face significant challenges in obtaining the necessary information to fill out this application due to their estrangement from their parents or guardians, which then categorizes them as a special circumstance. While foster youth have have a standardized process to verify the status.

The process for incarcerated students who are estranged is left to each individual college. As a result, colleges ask for inappropriate proof of the special circumstance, including court orders or thorough letters from professionals, which places us and our students in a difficult position.

These requests pressure us to share sensitive details about their incarceration status and reveal private family matters. We and our students are often very uncomfortable with sharing this information. But if institutions do not receive the necessary supporting documentation, they may deny financial aid, forcing the youth to either pay out of pocket or be unable to attend college.

When we discuss equity and access, I think of this as a major roadblock. As someone who works closely with our youth, I'm often intimately familiar with their situation, and I believe an effective and respectful means of verifying the student's circumstance would be an attestation serving as a formal declaration certifying the student's independent status.

I humbly ask all of you today to consider this bill as it would reduce institutional barriers and promote equity for justice involved youth, enabling them to access higher education without the additional hurdles faced by students who are not incarcerated. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other organizations here in support? If so, please use the mic at the edge of the gate. And please state your name, your organization and position on the bill.

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

Amanda Dickey on behalf of the Santa Clara County Office of Education, proud to be a co sponsor.

Erin Evans on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, Also proud to co sponsor.

Derek Lennox on behalf of the California County Superintendents, pleased to support the bill.

Leticia Garcia, on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, in support.

Good morning, members. Tristan Brown of CFT, a Union of Educators and Classified Professionals, here in support.

Perfect. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now move forward with our witnesses in opposition. Any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, do we have any other witnesses in opposition in this room? Okay, Perfect. We'll bring it back to the- to the dais. Any comments or questions? Senator Laird?

I would move the bill. I would move the bill.

We have a motion by Senator Laird. Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah, I'm gonna. I'm gonna support the bill. I believe this is a- it's a carefully tailored solution to a real problem. As I've been hearing the conversation about this bill and others, though, I think as we're moving into. As we are already in some very challenging budget times that we should understand.

I think the committee analysis does a good job of this, of understanding why we have dependency determinations why we have things like parental asset checks in- in FAFSA and in- in our California student aid determinations, and why we have professional judgment by financial aid administrators in order to overcome those. They are not- They are not established as barriers to access.

They are because for most of- most of our history and for most of our future, we have limit- there are limited resources, including in our financial aid programs, and no dependent student wants to ask their parents to fill out their forms. And many parents don't want to.

But there are also a lot of- of- lot of situations in which young people are estranged from their parents or their parents refuse to participate. And so that's why we- That's why the, the professional judgment exists is because there are so many situations. I know in my- in the LGBT community, this is a common problem. You've been disowned.

You're not homeless, but you've been disowned by your family. You cannot get them to fill out the form. And your- your recourse is to demonstrate to the financial aid office through the professional judgment determination process, which is not some sort of like, rigmarole that you're. That is designed to stop you.

In fact, most of the time, the financial- the financial aid administrator is there to help you get to college. They're not trying to prevent you from earning an education. So the situations in which dependency verification is challenging are broad. Very, very broad. But if we didn't have it, then many, many, many Californians with-

of exceptional means from, from intergenerational wealth and what have you would be taking Cal grants and other institutional financial aid that we. That are not unlimited, if we didn't have the FAFSA at all, and you just say, hey, you know, we don't. I don't want to show assets or whatever.

And it turns out that your family has a yacht in Newport Beach. We shouldn't be telling somebody else that you can only get a $5,000 grant because we gave somebody else a $5,000 grant too, even though they have a yacht. So these are- These are necessary components of the process.

And it's why bills like this are incredibly useful because they don't override that.

These are- these are categories of young people and students that can- that are real, very real, too real for their own experience, that can be verified by a third party in order to expedite this process and allow the financial aid office to focus their professional judgment determinations on those- on those applicants, those students for whom the stor- the actual story of and the lived experience needs to be told and to be evaluated.

So I just wanted to put that in context, as we often, you know, we often- a lot of our testimony often is we need. If we just got rid of all these barriers, everybody can go to school. And I'm a big believer, and everybody go to school part.

But they're also necessary to make sure that we're equitably allocating the limited resources that we have. But this bill is- isn't- is the right approach and will actually help, I think financial aid officers do a more complete job of helping students who really need the individual professional judgment, determination.

So thanks for bringing it, and I'm intending to support it.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. Does anybody else have comments or questions? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I'm just grateful that this bill was brought forth by the author. And I just want to echo the very eloquent and insightful remarks by Senator Cabaldon.

Great. Seeing as there's no other comments. Just want to thank you, Assemblymember Ahrens, for bringing this forward. And also thank your witnesses also for your testimony and sharing your personal story as well. It's very powerful. I'll leave it to you to close.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Senator. I also want to thank Senator Cabaldon, for the record, for his eloquent context about why this Bill is so important. And it may not affect millions of Californians, but it affects our youth and our students who are far too often ignored or forgotten in the bureaucracy of-

of higher education and what we're trying to achieve. And so I really appreciate the context and the committee time and want to just thank the bravery of Daisy and our witnesses and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. With that, do I have a motion? Oh, we do. Okay, so we have a motion by Senator Laird and the motion is do pass as amended, to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Can I get a roll call, please?

Yes, in the file. Excuse me. File item one. AB 243, [roll call]

Great. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you, Assemblymember. So next, is Ward here. Oh, right here. So next up, we have item number three, AB 322 by Assemblymember Ward. Assemblymember Ward, you can begin when you're ready.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and senators. We're here with AB 322 because school age children have reported increased mental illness and physical health concerns, especially impacted post the COVID-19 pandemic.

We know that reports show that California ranks 40th among states in federal reimbursement per Medicaid enrolled school age child but also less than 50% of school age children in Medi Cal actually receive the required preventive services that would ensure better health and overall well being outcomes.

This bill, AB 322, the school based Health and Mental Health Services for Students, requires the California Department of Education to encourage local education agencies to participate in existing programs that offer reimbursement for school age, school based health and mental health services including but not limited to local Education Agency Billing Option Program and the statewide School Linked Behavioral Health Fee schedule for outpatient mental health and substance use disorder treatments.

By increasing access to some of the services, mental health illness among youths is reduced and better outcomes for chronic conditions occur and improvements to overall school performance are produced.

In doing so, there will be increased access to and leveraging of funds for LEAs which importantly will expand access to critical health and mental health services for school age children. With me to speak in support of this bill are our sponsors, Generation Up Executive Director of Media and Technology Shivani Ramanathan and Director of Policy Avantika Ravi.

You might want to hit the button when it turns red.

There you go. When it lights up red, it's on.

Okay. Good morning Chair Perez and members of the committee. My name is Shivani Ramanathan and I'm the Technology Director at Generation Up, a student led advocacy organization dedicated to advancing educational equity across California. I'm here today on behalf of thousands of students members to express our strong support for AB 322.

We are in the middle of a youth mental health crisis. Even before the pandemic, suicide was the second leading cause of death among young aged 15 to 19. Now, following years of isolation, grief, and disruption, more students more than ever are struggling with anxiety, depression and trauma.

Yet far too many schools don't have the resources to help. California students shouldn't have to wait until they're in a crisis to receive care and they shouldn't have to leave school grounds to access it.

AB 322 builds on the progress our state has made by encouraging local educational agencies to participate in reimbursement programs like LEA Billing Option Program and the School Linked Fee Schedule. These tools allow schools to unlock federal and state funds to provide critical and mental health services, including counseling, therapy, and assessments directly on campus.

As students, we know firsthand how hard it is to focus in class when you're carrying the weight of unaddressed mental health needs. AB 322 will help ensure that every student, no matter their zip code, has access to the support they need to thrive. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and committee members. I'm Avantika Ravi and I am the Policy Advocacy Director for Generation Up. I'm honored to be here today to provide testimony in support of AB 322. Across California, too many students are without access to basic health care, especially students from low income, rural, and historically disadvantaged groups.

Schools may be the best hope for Medi-Cal enrolled students to access services such as speech therapy, mental health counseling, or even nursing care. And yet, fewer than half of these Medi-Cal students receive these preventative care they are entitled to. This is simply because too many schools don't have the proper funds to offer these services.

AB 322 takes a leap forward by requiring the California Administration to encourage school districts to participate in existing funding programs. Programs which can help pay for services our students are already receiving and making available the ones they are not.

We know that healthy students learn better, they come to school more often, and engage more in the classroom, and perform better academically. By making sustainable funding available through various programs like LEA billing option program, AB 322 helps close the gap between access and need, especially for our most vulnerable students.

So on behalf of Generation Up, I request your I vote on AB 322. Let's ensure no one's health gets overlooked. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Do we have any other organizations here in support? If so, please approach the mic and share your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Isabella Argueta with the Health Officers Association of California in support. Thanks.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists as well as the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, both in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Serette Kaminski, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators in support.

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

Dan Merwin on behalf of the California School Boards Association in support.

Emily Lynn with the American Youth Association in proud support.

Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified in support.

Leticia Garcia with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and senators. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. And we support the bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members, Tristan Brown of CFT also in support.

Thank you. Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition? If so, please feel free to use the mic right out here. I think there's. Okay. Okay. Great. And you will each have two minutes and you may begin when you're ready.

Is this right? Can you hear me? Great. Good morning Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Meg Madden. I'm a public school and public charter school parent and volunteered in public schools since 2008. AB 322 seeks to further expand public schools responsibilities to provide mental health screening, using unlicensed interns and billing insurance, risking liability.

So before we hand public schools this complex high risk duty, let's ask how are they performing at the job they were actually created to do? Teaching children to read, write and do math? Here are the 2024 CAASPP test results for 8th grade. 54% of 8th graders entered high school below grade standard in English.

69% tested below grade standard in math. That's all students. For disadvantaged students, those whose families need competent public schools the most, the numbers are even more alarming. 70% of disadvantaged white 8th graders did not meet the math standard.

84% of disadvantaged Hispanic students tested below standard and 89% of disadvantaged black students in California entered high school without meeting 8th grade standards. 89%.

It is irrational to expect a system that cannot teach basic academics to take on the complex task of identifying and managing mental illness in children, especially given the extreme risk of misdiagnosis and iatrogenic harm in that population. California's public schools are failing at their most fundamental purpose.

I respectfully suggest this Committee request to hear only bills that directly address that emergency. That is how we will improve our children's futures. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Nicole Young. I am with the Moms for Liberty Legislative Council as the chair and I am also a mother. AB 322 aims to combine health care with education and that is not a combination we need to be creating in this state.

It would be placing an undue burden on educators to screen and assess students and refer services. This Bill will require DHCs to apply pressure to districts to participate in the multi fee payer schedule which will have schools billing Medi Cal as well as parents private insurance with or without permission.

I know this from a new board Member and I quote I attended CSBA's mental health and Wellness Programs Partnership workshop in December. During the presentation and an audience Member asked how leas go about getting insurance information from families for billing purposes. The answer from the dais was to use the information parents submitted on their emergency card.

The implication was the schools have a right to use this information without the parents permission. In essence, you will be creating a revenue stream within our schools turning our children into healthcare patients. These counselors need not be licensed. They can be interns, social workers or certificated counselors.

Essentially, you will be allowing them to practice medicine without a license and using our vulnerable children as lab rats. As of today, only 12 districts out of over a thousand have agreed to the multi fee payer schedule and this will further thwart local control.

There is also the issue of the age of consent and with me is the new medi Cal request for eligibility limited services and there is a section for under 12. The EOB will be sent to the schools. Further keeping parents in the dark. Pay close attention to number four.

I understand I will receive this card and the medical services without my parents being contacted. I hope this body recognizes what a huge liability they will be opening up schools and districts to. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other organizations here in opposition? Please use the mic at the railing.

Hi, David Bolog representing Serving Family values in the San Fernando Valley and the LA County chapters for Moms for Liberty. We are in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other comments or questions from Committee Members? Yes, Senator Cabaldon?

Yeah, thank you. Madam Chair. I just want to point out basically the only real provision of this bill is the following. The Department shall encourage local educational agencies to participate in programs that offer reimbursement for school based health services and school based school based mental health services. That's pretty much it.

Other changes are to make sure that we're talking about all schools, not just school districts, but including county offices and other things. And the rest is all technical. So I was listening to the opposition testimony carefully, but nothing that was addressed in that testimony is actually in this bill.

It's simply a no commitment, no requirement, encouragement to take advantage of something that already exists in law and with the medical providers. It's already there. And there's no new money in here. There's no new mandates, there's no requirement whatsoever. Just an encouragement for those districts and local leas that may not know that these options exist.

So generation up and the young people that brought this forward, it's a, it's a. They are seeing what is. What is a clear which. Which is a great opportunity. But it's not obvious if you're a vice principal or what have you at your local school.

Sure, I could, I could take take advantage of some of these funding options that will support work that's already been happening. Schools have always been involved in health care at some in some way. I know I have the.

I got my bandages and when I got punched in the face, you know, I went to the school nurse, ever since schools have been recognizing that you cannot, you can't succeed in your geometry class if you are grappling with debilitating mental health challenges at the moment. And so this is an important program.

It's a very simple bill that is no mandate, simple encouragement. And I'm going to support it and I'd like to move the bill.

Thank you. No, there was not a question. Anything else? Yes, Senator Ochoa-Bogh.

Hi, so this is a space where I've been very, very keenly following and supporting one, the behavioral health access and just healthcare access in General in the State of California because of the providers that we do not have yet to meet the needs of each California.

I think the concerns that I have and I share with the, with the opposition is that we have, and I know, and I, and I completely understand that this is just a recommendation which begs the question as to if it's only a recommendation, why do we need it?

I mean, if it's already available, the system is already available there, which has been bit by bit expanded throughout just my time here in the Senate the past five years, has been expanding as far as availability and access to our children's health care, just health care.

I think the concerns that I have, and I've shared this in the past in the Committee is the continuous, whether intentional or unintentional.

But I can tell you from the opposition, it's very, it appears to be very intentional, the fact that we continue to provide services that are medical in nature without the, without the participation of parents input. And so when they come to minors within the school system.

So as we've, you know, I remember a couple of years ago and I was going through some of the bills that, you know, sorry, some of the bills that we've had that we signed into law that lower the age of consent for medical treatments, medical procedures and services to children as young as 12 in some instances without parents input, which are, should be and are entitled by constitutionally to be the primary decision makers for health and educational services.

So the courts have ruled on that, have ruled on the fact that parents have to be and should have the right to be involved in those conversations and those decision makings for children.

So I'm surprised that many of these bills have actually passed in the Legislature lowering that age limit of consent without necessarily input or feedback from parents. And so although I don't see it's just an encouragement, this bill does nothing to create anything new besides just encouraging the local districts to utilize the resources already available.

I'm just worried about the mindset and the perception that we're okay with continuing expansion of health care without necessarily including the parents within that. Within that space. And I would love to hear your feedback on that end.

But I think because of that, I'm always now hesitant with anything that encourages or expands health care access within schools when it doesn't necessarily require parents input or participation in that space. So with that, I'm going to be abstaining on this bill. Respectfully abstaining on this bill. Because it's not doing anything new.

It's just letting them know, hey, be sure to use this. So the system's already in place, which I don't agree with the system that we currently have in place. But this bill is just saying, do this. You know, this is available and we encourage you to do this. So I'm going to.

I'm not going to vote no on it. I'm going to abstain on it. But I do want to express and have those comments on record because the opposition is correct in stating that, you know, we're continuously on this path in our state to create health care access, but not necessarily requiring parental input.

And I think that is the biggest concern that many parents are having in the State of California and why many parents are deciding to leave public schools and go towards alternative educational endeavors. So with that, I'll be abstaining.

I wasn't sure.

I wasn't sure if there was a question or if that was just a statement.

Okay. Okay, great. So with that, we'll go ahead and wrap. I do just want to reiterate, I think, what Senator Cabaldon has mentioned already, which is, you know, this bill's not changing anything. It is not expanding the scope of practice.

And, you know, in addition to this, I know there was mention about who would be providing these services. These are school nurses. This has to be a qualified healthcare provider. It cannot just be anybody. There are laws surrounding this and who provides these kind of services.

I think many of us are familiar with our school nurses, you know, when you come in for a cut, a bruise for anyone that has, you know, children in schools or are familiar with some of those services.

So very similar to the nurses that we have here in this building when I was having an allergy attack just a bit earlier. So, you know, I think that these are services that we definitely need. Most schools don't realize that they can get reimbursed by Medi Cal for some of these things.

And we already know that school budgets are very, very, very constrained. So just making sure. That they're aware and so that they're able to continue paying for the qualified healthcare provider who is on their campus. So with that I will go ahead and turn it over to you, Assemblymember Ward to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I really would just echo your comments and those of Senator Cabaldon as well. I think to summarize very quickly what a very simple and purposeful bill this is.

I want to thank genupp and the student leaders that brought this forward, recognizing that this small change but meaningful change is going to be able to help us to maximize existing dollars that we want to be able to help bring down into our schools that they might not otherwise be aware are available to them as they're trying to, as you said, be able to make budgets, budget ends meet.

I think addressing mental health and behavioral health needs for our students is critical. And nothing this bill changes a parent consent relationship or who can or cannot provide certain medical or behavioral health related services.

It's really the direction, the important direction that's going to be able to help the funding question for many of these school districts that otherwise would go without.

And I would say then many of those students would be able to would be left behind in going without when we have the crisis that we have and of course affecting the performance that it is affecting.

So for all of these reasons, again I want to thank our sponsors and I want to thank the ARR of supporters as well that recognize that this can be an important improvement in the way that we can help to maximize a lot of these services which students need.

The Parent Teachers Association, an array of health professionals as well that are in support of this bill. And I respectfully request your aye vote.

Great. So we have a motion from Senator Cabaldon and The motion for AB 322 is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Can I get a roll call?

Yes. This is file item three, AB 322. Ward. Senator Perez. Aye. Perez. Aye. Ochoa-Bogh. Caboldin. Aye. Choi, Cortese. Gonzalez, Laird.

And we will put that bill on call. Thank you. Thank you. Next up we have item number four, AB 503 by Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez. And Assemblymember Gonzalez is here, so you may begin when you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I'm here to present AB 503, the Civic Center Act Maintenance Fee Renewal, an easy bill today which will reinstate the authority for school districts to charge organizations that use school facilities or grounds a fee to help with operating and maintenance costs.

Public schools are the centers of our neighborhoods and communities that can often be the only place where community based groups can meet. And these groups include nonprofit and community organizations such as sports groups, the Boys and Girls Scouts and parent teacher organizations.

When the Civic Center act was first passed almost eight decades ago, it allowed school districts to charge fees for direct operation and maintenance costs to keep facilities available to the public and in perpetuity.

The authorization of school districts to collect the maintenance fee expired on January 1, 2025 which is 161 days ago and counting and AB 503 would rectify this lapse.

Without this authorization, school districts are shouldering the cost for all the wear and tear on their facilities alone and they need to be able to recoup some of those costs to maintain their facilities to ensure safe access and for all of the years to come.

Today to testify in support of the Bill are Nancy Espinoza with Coalition for Adequate School Housing and Colin Bross, the Director of Maintenance, Operations, Transportation for San Juan Unified School District.

Good Morning Chair and Members. My name is Colin Bross, the Director of Maintenance and Operations for San Juan Unified School District and a former high school principal. San Juan Unified serves more than 40,000 preschool, TK through 12 and adult learners at 65 schools and we employ more than 5,000 professionals.

We manage 6.5 million square feet of educational facilities, operations facilities and we maintain over 1,000 acres of landscape, outdoor education facilities, sports fields, pools and performing arts center. We are proud to serve as a heart of the community.

Even residents and families that do not have children enrolled in our schools benefit from the facilities we're able to provide.

We not only serve staff and students, we also support the public with the use of San Juan's indoor and outdoor facilities, with our primary focus being on youth sports, exactly what the Civic Center Act requires of public institutions.

San Juan serves well over 1500 user groups, everything from youth swim teams, theater, softball, baseball, basketball, cheerleading, academic clubs, educational supports to name a few. There are so many more, too many to list. Members, all school facility components have a useful life.

We operate daily physical education, after school cocurricular programs and we support facility users year round. That adds another level of use that puts stress on our building systems, facilities and athletic fields and can reduce the useful life of our systems with high levels of usage. We never shut down.

San Juan is an aging district with an overwhelming facility need. Our most recent master plan has identified over $3.5 billion in need. We work hard in San Juan Unified to maintain our facilities and create safe, clean and comfortable facilities that are well maintained, AB503 provides San Juan with an opportunity to continue that mission.

All users benefit from this approach and AB 503. The types of projects that are funded with the reasonable collection of fees are things like replacing aging scoreboards, fencing audio, visual upgrades.

Would you start wrapping up? You're a little over two minutes.

Okay. Without this authorization, the cost of repair, restoration and refurbishment of the types of investments I mentioned would become limited.

The effect would be the decline of our facilities conditions and a funding shift that would further strain and reduce our already limited maintenance funding meant to keep facilities in safe condition and adequate for the needs of our students. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members. Nancy Chaires Espinoza on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate School Housing. Across the state, school districts, cities, parks and other special districts collaborate in various ways to provide residents with safe places that foster a healthy lifestyle and host a range of activities that build the fabric of their communities.

In many areas, school facilities are a critical part of meeting this demand, and in others, they may be the only option. While their primary mission is the education and development of their students, schools also appreciate the opportunity to share their facilities with the public and by doing so, to deepen their ties to their communities.

In order to keep facilities in good condition for students, schools need the authority to collect nominal fees, limited by statute and regulation from outside users for the repair, restoration, and refurbishment of their non classroom spaces.

School boards have demonstrated their responsible use of this authority by crafting policies tailored to their communities to avoid creating access issues, including choosing not to collect these fees at all where they could pose a problem.

For those districts that do need the community to participate in keeping facilities in safe working order for continued public use, these fees are essential.

Without them, students would sacrifice the quality of their facilities for outside users and school districts could face costly liability claims if found liable for injuries occurring through use by outside groups. We respectfully request your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Is anybody else here in support? If so, please use the mic at the railing and state your name, organization, and position on the Bill.

Good morning Madam Chair, Members. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators. Pleased to be in support.

Good morning. Sara Pietrowski, on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials and strong support.

Good morning. Bella Kern on behalf of the Small School Districts Association in support.

Good morning Chair and Members. Kathy McBride on behalf of San Francisco Unified in support.

Thank you Madam Chair, Members. Andrea Ball on behalf of the California Association of Suburban School Districts and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Dan Merwin, on behalf of the California School Boards Association and support.

Good morning Chair and Members Sasha Horowitz, Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Good morning. Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association and support.

And good morning. Maclean Rozansky from the Alameda County Office of Education and support.

Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified School District in support.

Leticia Garcia on behalf of the Office of Riverside County Superintendent of Schools as well as the 23 school district superintendents in Riverside County and the County School Facilities Consortium. Thank you.

Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education and Support.

Thank you. Do we have anybody here in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing nobody getting up, we will turn it back over to the Members. Do Members have any questions or comments? Senator Choi.

Thank you Chair and Assemblymember Gonzalez. Thank you for presenting this to our attention. I wonder. I'll be supporting this common sense Bill. Obviously no facility that I know of any public facilities, including civic centers or City Hall owned community centers, Depending upon what the organization is using, they may have different levels of charging such as nonprofits or city organizations, et cetera.

And I also served on the school board in Urban Unified School District and charging classrooms for churches on weekends. I mean it has been local decision. The school districts always have been charging.

And this Bill at the state level, I shall charge your facility use. I mean this is to me overreaching, unnecessary restatement. You were saying that this is reinstating the authority. In other words, was there any stipulation that you may charge them and that it is sunsetting.

So in other words, without this reauthorization Bill, school districts would not charge them. I don't know. This is a very common sense that without this Bill that the school district facilities would have been charged for organizations about why this Bill was necessary if you can explain.

Sure. I mean the premise of the Bill was because it just, it lapsed. And so here we are 160 plus days later and the goal for this Bill was be able to allow these...

...you know, the YMCA for example, is a nonprofit organization that utilizes schools to be able to have their parent groups meet or other groups meet. And so this allows the $60 per month fee to be charged.

But also in conjunction with reinstating that authority of those school district to charge that fee for simple maintenance and operation. So it's a renewal of that. That's something that was already passed eight decades ago.

Yeah. For example, if this bill passed passed as a common sense. But the if and when the school district, for whatever the reason a particular school district chooses not to charge for certain organizations. Is that the violation of this Bill?

No. I mean, it's just simply providing the opportunity for the fee. So, for example, in my district, and I think you're familiar with.

So it'll stay like "you may charge." Instead of "you shall charge."

Correct. So in my district, which I know you're familiar with, Koreatown. Koreatown will use a community center, will use a LAUSD public school to be able to put their services on that property, but pay a nominal fee just for wear and tear.

if you leave it to the discretion of the school board. I mean, this is very common sense.

So cost savings.

Yeah. Okay. I'll be in support.

I appreciate that, sir. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah, thank you.

So I was here for the 2004 passage of the Civic Center Act as a member of the Board for New Schools and Better Communities, which was really the effort in California, recognizing that the public's assets, and the public, including the voters of California, who have repeatedly invested through the state school bonds in many of these facilities.

But that the public's assets were sitting idle at precisely the moment, times of the week and times of the year in which the communities in which they sit had no, no other, no facilit-, no civic facilities whatsoever.

And so the Civic Center Act was an attempt to try to make schools the center of community, as which they should be and which they have traditionally been in this country. But for a lot of reasons that has been eroding. I'm going to support the Bill today.

I noted, and I wasn't surprised to see all the school administrators and the school districts here in support, but I haven't heard from any of the folks that use the facilities. And so a clean reauthorization. I would have absolutely supported.

The changes to the, what we mean by direct costs and share of costs and wear and tear and all of that are in here, that are described in the analysis I still have questions about. So I'm going to support moving it forward today. But I just want to express that I don't want to, you know.

If changing the language to being a share of the cause and the district can then adopt a schedule of assigning, you know, overhead from the payroll office and all that kind. I want to be very clear that the framework that we've had is the right one and small adjustments to the finances are right.

But this was originally the coming together of the school district community and the community community to say that we need a Civic Center Act. And I don't want to tip the balance in a way that doesn't, that meets the demands of the districts but does not advance the purpose here. So I think it's.

I'm glad you're carrying this. We need. We need this law and I'm going to support it today. But I hope we can continue to have some conversations about what that.

What the changes in the language mean in terms of the relative balance between making sure that schools are fully covered for their costs, but also that schools are the centers of the communities and the communities can access them and make use of the public assets that are there.

Sure. So we'll reinforce that piece of it and I'll. I'll work with our. Our sponsors here to get that local information from that. But it also, to your point, it. It provides that open space. My district is 85% renters. Open space is extremely needed, especially for folks who don't even have a backyard.

Excellent. Okay. Well, seeing as we have no further questions or comments, Assemblymember Gonzalez, appreciate you bringing forward Bill. It is very straightforward, is very common sense. We know especially in dense urban areas like Los Angeles, space is hard to come by. And sometimes partnering with facilities like schools makes the most sense.

But allowing them to recover some of those costs so that they can continue functioning and having these beautiful spaces is what's necessary. So appreciate your work here and I'll turn it over to you to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Members, let's remember that our public schools are more than just classrooms. They are the heart of our neighborhoods. This Bill ensures that vital spaces remain open, safe and welcoming.

This renewal is not just about maintaining buildings. We're investing connection and opportunity in every neighborhood from Boyle Heights to Koreatown. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I make a motion.

So we have a motion by Senator Choi. The motion is do pass. Can I get a roll call?

[ROLL CALL]

All right, we will put that BIll on call. Thank you, Assemblymember Gonzalez. Next up we have item number seven, AB 681 by Assemblymember Elhawary. And she is here. So you may begin when you are ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm proud to present AB 681, which increases the annual DREAM Loan cap from $4,000 to $20,500 to match federal graduate loan limits. Undocumented students can't access federal aid, leaving them with limited ways to pay for school or often falling into predatory loans.

California created the DREAM Loan program back in 2014 to fill this gap, but the current $4,000 annual cap hasn't kept up with the real cost of graduate programs today, especially in fields like law, medicine, social work and engineering, where tuition and fees easily exceed $20,000 a year. AB 681 doesn't add new costs to to the General Fund.

It simply raises the cap within the existing program, making the funds we already allocate more effective and better aligned with the actual financial needs of our students. This is about opportunity, equity, and building a stronger California for all.

At a time when ICE raids are escalating and protesters are being met with militarized force, our immigrant communities are under attack. We should be doing everything we can to expand opportunity to, not limited.

California has always led when it comes to educational access, and AB 681 makes sure we continue to lead, especially in moments like this when it matters most. Joining me in support is Jessica Duong from the UC Office of the President and Patricia Ordoñez-Kim, the Executive Director of the UC Graduate and Professional Council.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members. My name is Jessica Duong with the University of California. We are the proud sponsors of AB 681. The California DREAM Loan Program was established in 2014 to provide an affordable loan option for undocumented students. Since then, the program was expanded to also include graduate students.

The benefits of the DREAM Loan Program include a lower interest rate than most privately available loans. No interest will accrue for students enrolled at least half time, and there's a six month grace period before the student would need to begin repaying their loan post graduation.

The DREAM Loan Program is funded on a one to one match with the UC system with a $2.5 million appropriation annually. We have learned from graduate students who have mentioned that the cap of $4,000 per year was too low, given that the cost of graduate programs can go up to $115,000 per year.

In 2023-2024 only 47 UC graduate students received a loan from this program. AB 681 increases the appeal of the Dream Loan program by raising this cap to $20,500 per year or $138,500 for the entire loan amount. For these reasons, we request your aye vote. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Patricia Ordoñez-Kim. I'm the Executive Director of UCGPC and I'm reading a testimony on behalf of a student, who is undocumented to protect her anonymity and safety, especially during this climate. This is her statement. "Good morning. My name is E. I'm a Master's in Public Health student at UC Riverside Medicine."

"As an undocumented student and a parent, I want to share the importance of expanding the DREAM Loan Program. The current reality for undocumented students is one of constant financial struggle. The existing DREAM Loan provides just 4k annually, a mere drop in the ocean of grad education costs."

"To put this into perspective, if I had not received scholarships this year, I would already be $55,000 in debt, with interest rates hovering around 10.5% that begin accruing the moment I receive the loan. My Butterfly scholarship provides only $1,000 monthly, which barely covers a fraction of my educational expenses."

"As a parenting student, the financial pressure is even more intense. My spouse has been our sole financial provider, co signing loans that come with punishing interest rates, a burden that many families like mine cannot bear. Unlike my documented peers, I have zero access to federal financial aid."

"Each semester is a financial chess game, calculating how to continue my education while managing overwhelming costs. The proposed expansion from 4K to $20,500 isn't just a number. It's a lifeline for students like me who are committed to higher education despite systemic barriers. The Bill represents more than financial support."

"It recognizes the potential of every student, regardless of their immigration status. It will remove barriers that prevent talented, motivated individuals from contributing to our communities through education. The current loan limits don't just limit our financial options. They limit our dreams."

"Expanding the DREAM Loan Program would create genuine pathways to education for students who are often marginalized and overlooked. I share this testimony to you not just as a student, but as a testament to the resilience of undocumented folks who continue to pursue education against tremendous odds." Thank you.

Thank you. I've taken over the chair temporarily, and we'll ask if there's anyone in the room who wishes to come forward and express support for the Bill.

Good morning. Maggie White with the California State University System here in proud support. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Ayon Hanif with the American Youth Association here in proud support. Thank you.

Emily Lynn with the California High School Democrats in proud support.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support.

Good morning. Carol Gonzalez, on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality and support, thank you.

All right. Thank you. Seeing no, others will move to opposition. Are there opposition witnesses on this Bill today? Seeing none. Is there anyone who wishes to come forward and express opposition to the Bill today? If so, step forward now. Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Comments, questions, concerns?

All right, I'm going to go ahead and ask the author to close.

By updating the Dream Loan limit, AB 681 removes a financial roadblock and guarantees that undocumented students pursuing graduate degrees are not left behind. No one should be denied a future because of how they came here or how much money they have. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Let me see if we have a motion on the dais, currently. Seeing none. We're going to bring the Bill back up for a motion probably when we lift the call, but or sooner as Members return. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right. All right. Mr. Hoover, welcome. Yeah, this is AB 962.

I think it's file item nine. And you may proceed.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, members, wonderful to be with you here this morning. AB 962 is a simple cleanup of a bill that we worked on last year, the Phone Free Schools Act, which many of the members of this committee supported.

It's actually a cleanup of current law that existed and was created in 2019 to make sure that administrators have a little more discretion and flexibility in emergencies on their school campuses. I'll let my witness explain a little more, but would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright, thank you. We'll turn to the witness now. You have a couple minutes to present.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and member Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, proud sponsors of the bill, pleased to be in support of this clarifying measure.

We definitely thank the assemblymember for his continued focus in this policy area and the work of the committee to make sure that our bill in a clarifying manner meets its intended goal, which is really to provide clear guidance for school policies when we're looking at comprehensive school safety plans and also smartphone policy use for students.

This was an issue that was directly uplifted from our own members who are trying to reconcile their adopted safety plans, which speak to the use of smartphones by students. As reflected in the analysis. There's a couple examples and the forthcoming adoption of a mandatory phone limitation for students.

So trying to figure out how those two pieces fit together. We know that both of these plans are adopted with community engagement, hearing direct feedback from their school communities. We think this is the right approach to take to uplift school community safety for educators, teachers, parents, students most of all.

And for these reasons respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Alright, thank you. Is there anyone in the committee room wishes to come forward and express support for the bill? If so, please do so now.

This is limited to name, affiliation and support, of course.

Cooper Kenney, on behalf of California IT and Education, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Bella Kern on behalf of Small School Districts Association in support.

Layla Alicon on behalf of the California School Nurses Organization in support.

Rashal Melvani on behalf of the American Youth Association, in strong support.

Good morning. Michelle Gill, on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in support.

Thank you. We'll turn to opposition now. Do we have oppositional witnesses on the bill in the room? Seeing none. Is there anyone who wishes to step up and express opposition? Seeing none. We will come back to the committee and noting that we are absent enough members to take the bill up on a motion right now.

We'll do so later. But let me give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Just would respectfully ask for an aye vote and did want to clarify that we are also accepting the committee's amendments. And I appreciate the work of your staff on this bill. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you very much. And I know you just closed, but appreciate that these school safety plans are going to need to be continually updated.

I've had my experience with this kind of work a couple years ago in going all the way back in my career to being a school board member when school safety plans first became statutorily required. It's clear when you look at them that they need to be brought into basically the new millennium in a number of areas.

So I will be supporting the bill. I just want to make that clear.

I appreciate that.

We'll wait until we can.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it.

Assemblymember Rubio is here too.

All right, we're going to move to file item 10, AB 1009. Assembly Member Rubio, welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators for allowing me to present AB 1009 relating to administrative credentials for occupational and physical therapists that work in California public schools. This bill will provide administrative eligibility for occupational therapists and physical therapists in our education setting.

Currently, OTs and PTs working in the school system are not eligible to receive an administrative services credential or participate in most high level conversations with the school systems. Due to the high level of training and qualifications for both occupational therapists and physical therapists.

The Commission on teacher credentialing has stated that they believe both should qualify for an administrative services credential without any additional educational training. Authorizing OTs and PTs to obtain an administrative services credential will allow qualified personnel an opportunity to move into the administrative roles and share their unique expertise at a leadership level within our schools.

With me here to Testify today is Dr. Erin Dolan, a Doctor of education, registered and licensed occupational therapist and program Director for Clovis Community College's Occupational Therapy Assistant program, as well as Carl. As well, I have Carl London. On behalf of the California Physical Therapist Association. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. You can go in whatever order you prefer. You'll have a couple minutes each. Thank you.

There you go. Okay. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dr. Erin Dolan and I'm here on behalf today of the Occupational Therapy Association of California in strong support of AB 1900 so cupational therapists. Thank you. Okay, I'll get closer. Occupational therapists and physical therapists are vital to student success in California schools.

We are knowledgeable on neurological foundations of learning. We support access, inclusion, functional engagement and participation. All of these are foundational components of learning for all students and especially those with diverse and unique needs.

Yet despite our advanced education, entry level of master's and doctorate, board certification, state licensure, and extensive school based practice experience, we're currently excluded from eligibility for the administrative services credential. I'm an occupational therapist. I have been practicing for 25 years. I spent 18 years in school based practice. I earned a doctorate in educational leadership.

I completed all the coursework for the administrative credential and I really wanted to make a bigger difference in the system that I worked. After all of that, I learned there was no pathway forward for me. Not because I wasn't qualified, but because my discipline was not eligible. Physical therapists are also not eligible.

The door was not available for me to open, So I left K12 education. I now am the program Director at Clovis Community College for the Occupational Therapy Assistant program. And I am very proud of the work that I do and I absolutely love it.

However, I could have made a meaningful difference and an impact in school leadership if that door had been open. So I'm not alone. We're losing passionate and highly qualified professionals who are very eager and very highly capable to lead at a time when our schools need interdisciplinary, equity driven leadership now more than ever.

So OTs and PTs, we bring a systems level lens that's grounded in collaboration, access and functional outcomes. And we work across classrooms, campuses and teams and we understand what students need to fully engage and we know how to connect big picture thinking with the day to day supports that actually move the needle on learning.

So AB1009, it does not hand out a title, but it creates an opportunity for those who choose it and it creates a fair and earned pathway for OTs and PTs to bring their strengths and participate at the leadership table in service of every student to be successful. So I humbly request that you pass this. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. London.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Committee. I'll be very brief here on behalf of the California Physical Therapy Association today and really put myself behind Ms. Dolan's comments. One thing I would just point out, this is really an accident of history. Every other healthcare service provider that works in the schools has access to this credential.

PTs and OTs don't because at the time when this was handed out, they were not part of the school environment. If a child needed OT or PT services, they left campus for an appointment.

Now those services are provided on campus as part of the school based environment to help the student access their education as fully as they possibly can using those services.

So what this does is, as Aaron has pointed out, is allow them the opportunity, if they like to seek this credential, to be able to move up in leadership positions if that's something they want to do. We took a survey of our Members. Well over 90% of them said this was a reason they're leaving school districts.

If you can't find a PT to work in your school district as an employee, guess what that means you have to contract out that service that's not ideal for the districts. We would urge your Aye vote on this and we thank Ms. Rubio for pursuing with us this journey that we've had on this bill.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. Others in the room who would like to express support Name affiliation support please. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Kathy McBride on behalf of San Francisco Unified in support. Thanks.

Cassidy Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association and support thank you.

Thank you. Chair and Members. Sandra Barrero on behalf of SEIU California Proud co sponsors and thank you Assembly Member Rubio for authoring the bill.

Good morning. Sarah Karlinsky, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators and support.

Good Morning. Patrick McGrew, on behalf of the SELP Administrators of California in support.

All right, thank you. We'll move to opposition. Do we have opposition witnesses in the room? I'm seeing none come forward. Is there anyone who wishes to express opposition, name affiliation and opposition? Seeing none. We'll come back to the Committee.

And again, we'll note that we don't have the ability to take up the bill in terms of a motion right now. We will later as absent Members return and want to thank you, Assembly Member Rubio, for your work on the bill. I do support the bill. I'll put that on the record.

And and I do think it's will solve an open issue that's out there. Thank you for that. And you may close if you like.

Absolutely. Just thank you. And I ask for an Aye vote when appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright, we're going to move to item 12, AB 1306. Assemblymember Muratsuchi, you may come forward and you may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much. Senator, I'm here to present Assembly Bill 1306 which seeks to address the problem of the teacher shortage, especially for English learners.

We have over 1.1 million English learners in the State of California and we want to provide access to more opportunities for our teachers to get the additional training and certification to properly teach our English learners without compromising on our Commission on Teacher Credentialing Standards.

Here to testify in support of the bill, the sponsor of the bill, Sasha Horwitz, representing the Los Angeles Unified School District, as well as Manuel Buenosro from Californians Together.

Alright, thank you, assemblymember. You may begin in whichever order you prefer and you'll have a couple minutes each. Thank you.

Morning, chair and members. Sasha Horowitz with Los Angeles Unified School District. We are pleased to sponsor AB 1306, a simple bill with big implications designed to expand the pool of teachers able to provide bilingual instruction. With over 1.1 million English learners statewide,

the California teacher workforce has a shortage of teachers authorized to provide instruction to English learners to grow the teacher workforce to meet the growing English learner population in California. Simply more programs are needed to meet this demand.

While current law allows school districts and county office based teacher preparation programs that lead to a multiple subject or single subject teacher credentials, they cannot offer a California Teacher of English Learners or CTEL program because existing law requires a minimum number of semester credits, effectively limiting this authority only to college and university programs.

To address this, AB 1306 authorizes the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to approve local school districts and county offices of education to offer a California Teacher of English Learners program or credentialing programs that enable candidates to earn a Cross Cultural Language and Academic Development Certificate or a bilingual authorization certificate.

Accreditation for these LEA based programs must be approved by the CTC and must follow the same exacting standards required by college and University based programs. The only difference will be the location where the teachers are prepared. Thank you. And we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alright, thank you. Next witness, please.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Manuel Buenrostro, Director of Policy at Californians Together and we're a coalition committed to ensuring equitable access and academic success for the state's more than 1.1 million English learners and multilingual learners across California.

We are pleased to support AB 1306, which is a step in the right direction to address California's persistent shortage of educators with the training and credentials needed to serve English learners, particularly in bilingual settings.

California's English Learner Roadmap policy adopted in 2017 by the State Board of Education laid out a vision for building educator capacity as a cornerstone- cornerstone of supporting English learner success. Yet today, eight years later, we continue to face gaps, especially in the availability of teachers with CLAD, CTEL and bilingual authorizations that can teach in bilingual settings.

This bill helps close those gaps by allowing school districts and county offices of education to offer preparation programs that lead to those authorizations under the same standards currently used for universities.

It creates more access points for educators, specially classified staff and community rooted individuals who are ready to step into these high need roles but may be unable to navigate traditional university pathways due to cost, geography or schedule.

By expanding access while maintaining quality, AB 1306 aligns with the state's broader efforts to diversify the teacher workforce and make it more reflective of students we serve and expand our bilingual programs and offerings across our schools. We respectfully ask for your a vote and thank Assemblymember Muratsuchi for his leadership on this issue.

Alriight, thank you for your testimony.

Others in the room who would like to come forward and express support, name and affiliation.

Annie Chao at the California Teachers Association, in support.

Good morning. Sarah Kaminsky on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, in support.

Good morning. Ayan Aneef with the American Youth Association here in support.

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

Emily Lynn with the California High School Democrats, in support.

Bella Kern on behalf of the Small School Districts Association, in support.

Leticia Garcia on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, in support.

Good morning. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of the Education Trust West in support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We'll move to opposition. Do we have opposition witnesses in the room seeing none come forward. Is there anyone who wishes to express opposition? I'm seeing none. Alright, we're bringing it back to the committee

and again, we'll note that we're going to have to deal with moving the bill one way or the other here as soon as we have the numbers to do it on the committee waiting for absent members, but we'll give you an opportunity to close in. I'm certainly supportive of the bill myself. You have-

You have me lined up and we, again, we'll expect to get you a disposition shortly here. Mr. Muratsuchi, please close.

Thank you. Respectfully ask for your vote.

Alright, thank you so much. Thank you all for being here.

We are going to recess for a few minutes and see what we can do about getting some Members back here to lift the call and obviously to move or entertain motions for some of these bills that we haven't had an opportunity to do. That said, feel free to relax for a few minutes until we get started again. Thank you. So we'll go straight into.

Yeah, so we'll just. Yeah, and we'll just let down. So we don't have much. Okay, so we will go ahead and lift the call. Assistant, if you could call the roll here.

This is the consent items. Cortese. Cortese. Aye. Great. Consent is out 6:0. Okay, we have file item 1, AB 243.

Arends with current vote is 5 ayes, 0 no's with the chair voting aye. And Vice Chair voting aye. Cortese. Cortese. Aye. Gonzalez. And that bill is out 6:0. We have final item 3, AB 322 Ward. Current vote 2 ayes, 0 no's with the chair voting aye. Ochobo. Cabal. Excuse me. Choi. Cortese. Cortese. Aye. Gonzalez. Laird. Laird. Aye.

Great. That Bill is out 4:0. We have file item 4, AB 503. Gonzalez. With the motion is do pass. Senator, we have four ayes, zero no's with the chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye. Cortese. Cortese. Aye. Gonzalez. Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. That bill is out 6:0.

Great. So we need a motion on item number seven, AB 681. So we have a motion by Senator Cortese. The motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Assistant, please call the room.

Yes, we have file item 7, AB 681. Ellawarhi. The Senator. Perez. Aye. Senator Perez aye. Ochoa-bogh. Ochoa-bogh. Aye. Cabaldon. Cabaldon. Aye. Choi. No. Choi. No. Cortese. Cortese. Aye. Gonzalez. Laird. Laird, aye.

And that bill is out five to one. Next up, we have AB 962 by Assemblymember Hoover, and the motion is do pass as amended. Do we have a motion that's been moved by Senator Cortese, Assistant? Please call the roll file item nine.

AB 962. Hoover. Senator Perez.

Aye.

Perez, Aye. Ochoa-bogh. Aye. Ochoa-bogh. Aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, Aye. Choi, Choi. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Gonzalez. Laird. Laird. Aye.

Yes, it's file item 10. AB 1009. Rubio. Senator Perez . Perez aye. Ochoa-Bogh. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Choy. Aye. Choi aye. Cortese. Cortese. Aye. Laird. Aye. Laird aye.

That bill is out 6:0. Next up, we have AB 1009 by Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio, and the motion is do pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. Have a motion moved. Moved by Senator Cortese, Assistant. Please call the roll.

File item 12. AB 1306. Marisucci. Senators Perez. Aye. Perez aye. Ochoa-Bogh. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon aye. Choi. Choi aye. Cortese. Cortese aye. And Laird. Laird, aye. Great.

That bill is out 6:0. Next we have AB 1306 by Assembly Member Marsucci, and the motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Do we have a motion moved by Senator Cortese, Assistant? Please call the roll.

That bill is out 6:0. Thank you so much. The Committee is now adjourned.