Senate Standing Committee on Education

Item number 17, AB 1128 has been pooled. Eight bills are on consent. Those bills are item number 2, AB 323. Item number 3, AB 731. Item number 4, AB 1098. Item number 7, AB 395. Item number 10, AB 466. Item number 12, AB 629. Item number 15 AB 959. Item number 19, AB 1255.

Witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to two minutes to ensure the Committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. Seeing that we have no quorum, let's begin as a Subcommitee with the first Bill. I see we have AB86 first on our agenda. And Assemblymember Berner is here. You may begin when you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. It's Boerner, by the way. At least she didn't do what I think Dr. Pan did once and called me something else. Good morning. AB 86 with standardized health education for grades K through 8. By requiring the State Board of Equal Education Education to adopt instructional materials for health education.

With the state framework established, the State Board of Education scheduled the adoption of health instructional materials in 2020. These materials serve as an optional guidance document aimed at assisting teachers in developing curricula instruction aligned with the state health education content standard. However, the SBE canceled the adoption. That's very exciting over there.

They cancelled adoption of these materials determining that there was a lack of publisher interest. Consequently, many teachers resort to utilizing non standard online resources which potentially lack accuracy and place the burden on our educators. Students would gain knowledge about these issues as well as related topics such as affirmative consent, relationship violence, bullying and sexual harassment. These.

These are fundamentals that we should be teaching our children. By passing ABC86, you can help us take one step closer to a healthier California by giving teachers the materials they need. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you Assembly woman and apologies for no problem. The sudden interruption. If you have any witnesses that are here to speak in support of your bill.

I don't have any witnesses. This is a Tasha B. Special. Okay. That means I'd just be.

Are there anyone else that would like to express their support? If so, please use the microphone outside the railing. Please only state your name, organization and position on the bill. Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified in support. Thank you. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. If there are any.

The two lead witnesses may come from forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us. Seeing nobody getting up. Would anybody like to use the mic at the railing, seeing nobody getting up. I will bring it back here to Members. Do any of the Members have questions or comments? Great.

Well, I will turn it back to you. So, Senator Choi, did you have a question?

Yeah. I wonder if this so called you mentioned as optional guidelines.

Yes, optional.

So in other words, each school district will have their options either to use it as a guidance or not. Exactly. That's what optional means. Okay, so which gives us some flexibility. Yes. And secondly, this area of health education guidance has been always criticized by parents and many conservative Members being too explicit sexual activity guidelines.

So would you give some guidance to what level that many parents would feel comfortable?

Well, I'm a parent and I think it's important that we understand healthy relationships. We understand bullying. And this is optional. As with all optional guidance, a district chooses to do that. And that's a public process. So that would be a public process. I know for my kids.

Every time we got it, we got a whole email with a link to what the materials were beforehand. That's part of standard guidance now. And this is K through 8, so it's age appropriate. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

Thank you. Senator Choi, do you have any questions?

Just an apology for making a splash on this. Okay. I have on this important bill.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm glad that the bill is here. I appreciate my colleague's concern. And it's one we all share about assuring age appropriate instruction. This bill provides for that. It provides the framework and the structure for that. Something that parents can trust, but also that parents can engage in.

And so it provides the transparency and the statewide accountability for parents across California to be able to see and participate in those instructional material decisions. So appreciate the bill. Looking forward when we have a quorum to make the motion.

Thank you, Senator Caboldan. It's an excellent bill. Assembly Member Boerner. So I will go ahead and turn it over to you so you can.

Close at the appropriate time. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. And thank you for the motion.

Excellent. Thank you so much. So we have a motion by Senator Caboldan. So. Well, actually, since we now have a quorum, we will go ahead and vote on the consent items. Well, let's call the quorum first. Apologies. Oh, my goodness.

[Roll Call]

Great. Now that we have established a quorum, let's go ahead and vote on the bill. Then we will vote on the consent. So we have a motion by Senator Caboldan and for AB 86. The motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

Okay, great. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you, Assembly Woman. Now that we have a quorum, let's go ahead. And if we could do the consent as well.

[Roll Call]

Excellent. Now we will move on to our next item which is ACR40 by Assembly Member Fong who is here today. Assembly Member, you can begin when you are ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. ACR 40 expresses the Legislature's support for immigrant students in California regardless of their citizenship status. California is home to 10.6 million foreign born residents, more than anywhere else in the country with about 3.3 million living in mixed status households.

2 million Californians use the free Financial Aid for Federal Free Application for Federal Student Aid, also known as the FAFSA, allowing individuals to access state and federal financial aid for their studies.

Over the last couple years there's been significant decrease in the number of FAFSA applications due to technical issues, but also due to the fear and concern that the Federal Government may use self report information by applicants and their parents or spouses for purposes other than education.

We are proud of our immigrant communities and immigrant students in California and recognize their tremendous contribution towards our economies and communities. Access to education transforms lives and strengthens contributions to our state.

Disruptions to students education due to a lack of financial aid negatively impacts their college completion, student success, economic mobility and lifetime contributions to California's economy and society.

ACR 40 expresses the Legislature support for our immigrant students in California regardless of their citizen status and reaffirms the state's commitment to ensuring that all students, including undocumented students, have access to financial aid and ability to succeed in higher education.

ACR 40 also supports personal information shared by parents and their families provided on a FAFSA should not be used for purposes other than financial aid. I'm grateful to have here to testify in support are, Aj Matthews with the Student Senate for California Community Colleges and Kevin Bibbiano with the University of California State University Student Association.

Also, Alex Zuko from the California Student Aid Commission is here to answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you, Assembly Member Fong. You may begin when you're ready. Hello. Okay.

Good morning, Chair Perez and Members of the Committee. My name is Aj Matthews and I'm here today representing the 2.1 million students in the California Community College system.

I want to speak with you about the real and harmful impact that immigration threats and deportation fears are having on our classmates, friends and families, especially undocumented students and those from mixed status households. For many of us, college is supposed to be about learning, building a future, and finding our place in the world.

But for undocumented and mixed status students, college is overshadowed by a constant, heavy fear. They carry the weight of uncertainty, worrying that a loved one could be detained while they're in class, that applying for financial aid might put their family at risk, or that they could come home one day to find no one there.

At the community college level, we see this impact every day. Some students work multiple jobs just to stay afloat. Others cut back on classes not by choice, but because they feel they have no other option. When students are pushed out, our classrooms lose the diversity culture and perspective that make community colleges special.

In the end, we all lose. These fears aren't just about what might happen. They're also about what is happening right now. Across California, families are facing increased immigration enforcement and uncertainty around policy protections. Even though state law protects undocumented students and limits how schools share personal information, the fear is still real.

And that fear is causing students to pull back from education at a time when we need them more than ever. California is home to over 3 million people living in mixed status households. These are our neighbors, our classmates, and our friends. They are vital to our campuses, our economy, and our future. That is why ACR 40 matters.

It sends a clear message that California continues to stand with undocumented and mixed status students. It reminds us that education is a right and it should be safe and accessible to everyone, regardless of immigration status.

The Student Senate for California Community Colleges stands in full support of this resolution and we're thankful to Assembly Member Fong for bringing it forward. We appreciate our elected leaders and partners across the state who continue to show up, speak out and protect our right to learn and live without fear. Thank you.

And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much for your testimony. If you wanted to go ahead and.

Good morning Chair Perez and Members of the Committee. My name is Kevin Viviano and I'm a first generation college graduate currently serving as the policy and advocacy aide for the UC Student Association. And I'm the proud son of immigrants. I'm honored to be here today in support of ACR 40.

By Assembly Member Fong ACR 40 expresses the Legislature support for students regardless of immigrant background and reaffirms the duty of our state leaders and policymakers to ensure the affordability and accessibility of higher education.

As a student from a mixed status and low income background, I can attest that the elevated costs of college already present financial difficulties for many of us who depend on assistance.

Yet the barriers imposed by the better FAFSA coupled with federal attacks on immigrant communities have worsened our well being, resulting in an alarming decline in FAFSA and CADA applications these past two cycles. The American Immigration Council has reported that fear among immigrant communities results in decreased participation, participation in government affiliated programs and contributes to negative educational outcomes.

The Council cited a Stanford University study which found that in regions where local law enforcement collaborated with immigration authorities, the number of Hispanic students enrolled in public schools decreased by nearly 10% in two years. In this light, the drop in FAFSA and CATA applications reflects students fear that immigration authorities will access their data.

Dozens of testimonials from our peers across the UCs highlight the sacrifices they have to make to pursue an education. Either they apply and risk their parents data being accessed by immigration officials or they defer federal aid and struggle to pay for college out of pocket.

We urge the Legislature to do everything in its power to ensure students have access to the aid they are entitled to. The risk of our scholars and future workforce choosing not to pursue a college degree due to financial constraints or fears of deportation will be detrimental to California's economy and workforce development.

The UC includes thousands of dreamers and students from mixed status families who are critical to the rich diversity and success of our state. I urge your aye vote in support of sending a strong message that California stands with all its students regardless of their background and will seek every avenue to back them. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now turn it over to anybody else that would like to offer their support. Please use the mic at the railing and state your name, organization and position.

Chair Members. Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, the California Community College Association. For Occupational Education, the CCC Extended Opportunities. Programs and Services Association and the Community College Association of MESA Directors and strong support.

Good morning. Justin Salenik, on behalf of the California. Community College Chancellor's Office in support.

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

Morning Chair and Members Dani Mae Santiago on behalf of Calbright College in strong support. Good Morning.

Nuna Griefing on behalf of the Community College League of California in support. Thank you.

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

Alex Zuko for Student Aid Commission in strong support and for technical questions. You may have.

Great, thank you. Now we will turn it over to opposition. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition here? Seeing nobody getting up. If anybody else would like to express their opposition using the mic at the railing. Alrighty, I will turn it back now to Members here. Do our Members have any questions or comments? Alrighty.

Okay, I will go ahead and turn it back to you, Assemblymember Fong. But you know, just want to state how incredibly important and valuable it is, I think, to bring this resolution forward. It is, you know, unfortunate that we are at a place in time where students feel scared to complete the fafsa.

That is on top of all of the challenges that students students are having completing the newly created FAFSA that's created so many logistical challenges already for students coming from mixed status families.

But really just reiterating that utilizing students data in this way, particularly immigrant students and students that are coming from mixed status families, is really harmful to them and actively scares students and intimidates students away from from completing their financial aid application.

So appreciate you bringing this forward just given everything that we see happening at the Federal Government today. So I will turn it back to you to close.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for your comments and thank you so much to the lead witnesses as well. In these challenging times, more important than ever to continue to support our diverse immigrant communities here in California, especially our students. And with that, I respectfully ask for an ivo.

Thank you and I will go ahead and do we have a motion. And we have a motion from Senator Laird and this is for acr40 and the motion is to be adopted if you can call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Excellent. And that we will put that, that resolution on call. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Fong.

Thank you so much.

Next up, we have AB 361 by Assembly Member Schultz. Assembly Member Schultz is here, so you may begin when you are ready. Assembly Member.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Thank you very much for having me. I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 361, a good governance Bill that if adopted, would remove the sunset for the Los Angeles Unified School District's best value procurement method for school construction projects and expand that option statewide.

For the past 10 years, LAUSD has been the only school district in the State of California authorized to use the best value procurement method. This method allows schools to consider factors such as experience, quality, and performance and not just the lowest price when selecting and awarding public contracts.

This transparent and objective process has proven to be a success, with an independent report showing that the method has successfully avoided delays in the project and reduced contracting and administrative costs. With all of that said the pilot, which is currently in place, this pilot program is set to expire in 2026.

This Bill quite simply removes the sunset on the best value procurement method and expands that to a statewide option. For the next five years, billions of dollars in state and local funds will be spent on school construction projects in the following voter approval of Proposition 2 and numerous other local construction bonds in 2024.

It is imperative that school districts across the state have the necessary tools and flexibility to reduce risk and maximize efficiencies. With me today is Sasha Horwitz with LAUSD, sponsor of the Bill, who will be testifying in support.

Thank you. Good morning Chair Perez and Senators. Sasha Horwitz with the Los Angeles Unified School District. We are the proud sponsors of AB 361. Because of its size, Los Angeles Unified is frequently the testing ground for new education proposals, especially ones that deal with labor contracting.

This gives us the chance to work out kinks of a pilot program before it expands to other school districts. That way, schools across the state can share in the benefits of a well refined policy. That's exactly the case with this Bill.

10 years ago, Los Angeles Unified was first authorized to use the best value procurement method as a pilot. Then five years ago, the program was extended with LAUSD making a commitment to support expanding it to other districts. After that, we are excited to fill that promise.

Today, in standard public contracting, the lowest responsible bidder will be awarded the contract for a project. But in reality, for complex projects, lowest price is not the best way to decide if the bidder is right for the job. This is especially true for school construction where children's safety is paramount.

The lowest bidder may have a contractor's license but no relevant experience in school construction or in working with the division of the State Architect or in building to Field Act standards. This alternative option allows, but does not require a school district to evaluate price and other qualifications when awarding a contract.

It is a transparent and objective process that ensures the public and the contractors competing for school construction projects understand the evaluation criteria utilized in the selection process.

An independent analysis found that the Los Angeles Unified School District was compliant, diligent and accurate in its best value procurement practices and that Los Angeles Unified achieved the expected benefits from the best value procurement method, such as fewer change orders, less schedule delays, and fewer claims.

For those reasons, we respectfully ask your aye vote to allow other school districts to share in the same opportunities that we have had. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else here that would like to share their support for this board Bill? Please use the mic at the railing and state your name, org and position on the Bill.

[Inaudible]...school district and support.

Good morning. Mishaal Gill on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials and support.

Great. Seeing nobody else. We will turn it over to opposition. Do we have any lead testimony for opposition in the room? See nobody getting up. Do we have anyone that would like to use the mic at the railing? Alrighty. I will turn it back to the Members here in the Committee. Do you have questions or comments? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I do. So Member Schultz, I'm going to respectfully oppose the Bill today and I'll share with you why as far as the best value procurement, best practices procurement method which the Bill will authorize for projects that are one million dollars and more for school districts.

So just as a background, you know we talk about life experiences, we talk about how that is very important to bring to the dias into the Legislature in order to bring different perspectives to the table and express you know, why we feel and bring a different lens to legislation and policy into these into the discussions for legislation such as these.

So give you a little bit of background and to context in which this Bill is not supportable by folks, you know in my district is the fact that when it comes to building schools and expanding it, one thing is to have a pilot program that is being implemented in a school district that is supported by the Members in that area.

But I represent Senate District 19 which is Riverside and San Marino Counties and we - I come from a family - my father in law owns this construction company that has been around for over 40 years in the area San Bernardino and Riverside County serving that district, employing local hire people that live in that area.

As a matter of fact my husband was a graduate of the local community college which at some point was able to bring forward and do construction projects on that school and many of the school district schools within that area.

Their primary business starting over 40 years ago as a tower company, a steel tower company that was removing towers at that time eventually evolved into building schools around our region.

Local elementary schools, junior highs, high schools, community college. That's what they've done for a very very long, for decades now, employing sometimes three generations in that company.

They don't qualify under the union, what we deemed here as a union company. But they train their workers, they have full benefits. They employ formerly incarcerated folks, black and brown community members of the region, everybody. And when we have bills such as this, you're putting literally our business out of business. This is what you're doing.

So this is personal to me. You are expanding this to the rest of the state, putting businesses like mine out of business, putting folks that work for this company that have been there for decades, out of business, out of work. So this is personal. And you know, when we talk about skill and training, we talk about opportunity.

You know, that flag is about opportunity. That flag allows us to have opportunity in this state. And you're taking that away when we support bills such as this. Well intended, right, because of some of the areas that you address today.

But the unintended consequences is the impact that it has on local companies that don't qualify under the skilled and trained labor workforce or union companies that you're referring to.

This is why I'm here and I speak respectfully and give a different perspective to the Bill that's happening because we have over and over again expanded bills that limit the opportunity for folks to work and bid projects.

And they, you know, sometimes they'll talk about, "no, there's other opportunities for bidding," yes, but you stack the decks against them. That makes it very costly and inopportune for them to actually bid the projects. Makes it very difficult. They already have a very difficult time working in constructing in this state.

It is very difficult to work in construction. But this is what my 80 plus year old father-in-law who still goes to work and is incredibly dedicated to his community, who is dedicated to his employees, cares for his employees and you are literally putting them out of business with this particular Bill.

When it comes to construction code, sir, construction code is standard in all of California. When we talk about public projects and projects such as school districts, the highest level of scrutiny becomes is available is there on site because they have various, various inspectors all over on site inspecting to ensure that everything is welded correctly, bolted correctly.

And if it's not, they have a process in which they follow, that is construction code that's followed, that has to be followed. So it's actually, it's contrary to thought and good business practice to have people that don't know how to construct and especially if they're not trained.

So I just want to, I want to share those thoughts because people don't think about it. They don't think about the little guy. You know, the company that my father in law has had anywhere between, you know, 30 to 100 employees, depending on construction, because construction also fluctuates throughout.

There are times when companies like my father-in-law, literally my mother in law, they've been married for they're going on 60 years this year, have had to mortgage their home time and time again to ensure that they could pay their employees. So when we have bills that literally codify their inability to work in the state.

It's heartbreaking for those families that literally work for these companies. And I plead it. I plead it and I talk about this. And I will continue to advocate opportunity for all. We have a license or a license that contractors have to have training. That has to happen.

And businesses will not stay in business if they don't provide a product that meets standards. So I will respectfully ask for a no vote on this Bill. And I can't in good heart support something that expands a pilot program that was, you know, something very local that they wanted locally. And I can respect that.

But to expand it to areas such as my region where my family literally has been working for over 40 years, has employed local hires, local graduates, and have their inability to work and provide for themselves and their families and students, by the way, they also employ students. You talk about representation across the board, you've got it.

This company represents all of them. So with that, I'm going to respectfully oppose the Bill today. And I do.

I want people to think about what we're doing as far as when we're talking about certain companies having the privilege to codify their ability to work and excluding others from economic opportunity and achieving their version of the American dream.

Thank you, Senator Choboke. Senator Choi.

Thank you. I will be also opposing to this Bill. In addition to Senator Chobo's personal feeling about this Bill, I served on the school, Irvine Unified School District and also City Council. This very issue came up time and again many, many times.

The major reason that you are advocating for this type of approach, I hear that it's more convenient and also timely manner. You can execute the project. But for a long time in this country, such large projects, we all know that it takes time.

So you will have to go through, you know, time schedule when to put out RFPs, request for proposals for public bidding. And not necessarily you will have to bid on the lowest bidder. They may be a little more expensive, but that's the time you factor into reference checking and quality checking.

For example, when our great park development in Orange County, the board Members, we even took a trip to Europe when we considered the top three bidders that were considered to be the best. But we had to witness and we made a trip to see the project's completion and then also checking with their references.

So there are certain processes and also giving the opportunity for other people. If you entirely leave such decisions for that entity, either city or school board, then there is a room for corruption. We used to. We trust you and giving bribes. Continue to use us. Don't give to RFP process. So you are not considering that aspect.

This is more of a public trust issue and the public money will be properly used through such process. And this process has worked.

But this particular Bill says rather than up to $1.0 million, this over $1.0 million, that means endless anything that above and beyond $1.0 million, which is a large sum of money, this big project needs to be varied and to save public money that we have to go through the evaluation what the quality will be, what the cost will be.

Their past performance has been whether they had a bad habit of extra billing for additional, what do they call it, additional corrections and adding cost. So there are certain bad practices by the construction companies. So that's the part that we, you know, bet on their performances and the references of what they have done in the past.

So it doesn't have to be lowest bidder, but the quality checking is done through such RPs. So but this one is totally leaving to that entity to decide on their discretion. So this is not the best way that the public can trust what they are doing. And this is the beginning of some very potential corruptions.

For those reasons, I won't be able to support.

We're also available to answer questions if the Committee has questions.

I'll turn it over now to Senator Cabaldin.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to the author. Welcome to Senate Ed, where we often share perspectives across the aisle as we're trying to figure out these issues. So I want to pick up on some of these issues just make sure I understand exactly how the Bill works.

So I also come from local government, although I never had the great pleasure to serve on a school board.

But on City Council, we grappled with these questions quite a bit where we were forced to pick the lowest, the lowest price bidder when we knew either from our own direct experience or the city next door that they weren't going to get the job done or that we were going to be buried and change orders or what have you.

So the, that process is full of problems. As, as my colleague from Irvine said though, that that process exists. The reason why it's so, it's so tunnel vision is because of the, of the, of the prospect for contract corruption might be strong, maybe it's not.

But in local agencies, particularly school districts, where there are really only a of significant interests that involve themselves in school district elections, the teachers, the construction groups, and sometimes once in a while, the chambers of commerce, it's really not a, it's not a broad based electoral process. And so the potential has to be acknowledged here.

And so I think the issues that Senator Choi are raising are real and it's why we haven't made these kind of changes before.

So I'm curious though, because I didn't, I was trying to understand like how best value, what it really means and, and how much of a delta we're talking about, maybe from the experience in La, and what are the guardrails here in that respect?

Because if one of the rural communities that I represent, their school board and they have a $1,050,000 project, they're not always in a position where they can find anybody that is ready to negotiate a PLA with them.

There isn't the density there, or there happens to be a stadium project In a million 14 billionaires in Fairfield trying to build a housing project consuming all of the attention and the energy of the folks that you would normally negotiate these kind of agreements with. LA never has this problem. Right.

So, but, but, but a small district might. And so trying to understand like what is the, how much of the difference the delta in cost to the taxpayers?

You know, here's the lowest bid and then here's the next lowest bid, but it meets all the criteria of the Bill, but it's twice as much or three times as much.

Like how do we, how do we know that we're, that this is really still within the ballpark essentially of, of the, you know, it's not so that the qualifications don't trump any consideration of what price is. And I know the Bill says you're supposed to balance them, but that's on the local agency, right?

Or is there something in the Bill that addresses this question of how much, how much can the local agency decide pre qualified bidders in a PLA is enough to swamp a doubling of the price, in which case I wouldn't be supportive of it. But, but I've been through plenty of these agreements where, you know, a reasonable delta.

I think this, you know, this kind of approach does make sense and it should be legally authorized.

So can you give me any sense about what the, either the experience has been and, or how the Bill might, might assure that we're not, we are not diminishing the public's capacity to build schools and, and renovation and repair and air conditioning projects by substantially increasing the cost of the projects that are in the pipeline?

Well, thank you, Senator Cabald, and I just want to thank you for the question and the opportunity to have a back and forth and to have a dialogue with that said, I'd like to start by deferring to my technical expert and then I'll have some comments to follow. Great. Thank you for the question.

Senator Capaldin. While I can't tell you across the board what this delta would be, there are hundreds of projects that we've entered into and the numbers can be there's going to be a range, but we're not talking about doubling or tripling the amount.

The difference between the lowest bid and the selected bidder and sometimes the lowest bidder is who you end up going with the F value method. What we are seeing is that we're probably looking at less than 1020% delta on average. I could pull up the data, but I don't have that available to me to right now.

But that's only on the initial bid. That's not accounting for all the costs that might come down the line.

So if there's a person who puts in a company that puts in a bid that we're thrilled because it's low and it's much lower than the other competitive bids, we might go with them only to find out that they don't have the skills and knowledge they need to complete the project within the bids that they had originally scoped, leading to change orders, leading to depending on delays, leading to added costs.

So we've actually found that this is a more efficient process and we think works better both for the contractor and the school district who's using the project. I'd also add that this is a voluntary program. It's not forcing every school district to use this method.

And in the current language of the Bill, there's actually a requirement that they submit a report to the Legislature showing how effective the program has been.

And so I'm hoping that that information will address the questions of the Committee when they're saying and they want to make sure this is not an expansion that is used and abused by users.

There's a check, there's a five year sunset on this as it applies to other school districts as well as reporting requirements so that that data can be analyzed by the Legislature.

And Senator, what I would add is really twofold. I have a very similar experience and background as you. Having served in local government. I have firsthand seen the what I would there's a lot of reference to corruption.

I've seen a lot of fraud and misrepresentation, quite frankly, in companies attempting to come in and offer the lowest bid who have absolutely no capability of actually delivering that result.

And yet local jurisdictions are bound by the confines of existing law we view this Bill, we talk in this Legislature so often about the importance of local control and empowering local authorities to have more factors to consider in making the right choice for their community.

I think this is an opportunity to quite literally put our money where our mouth is. This is about giving local jurisdictions the ability to include not just the lowest bid, but quality of work experience. All of these are important factors. So we view this as a local control measure.

That's helpful. I appreciate the experience in LA as well. And the sunset provision, I'm going to support it today because I think it's, it's in, it's in the right direction. I know we're going to the floor next. I'm not committing to the floor, although it's likely.

It would be, it would be a lot clearer to me if the best, if the definition of best value gave primacy to, to, to price or cost, even if that's the long term.

I think the way the definition is constructed now, like price and qualifications, with an assumption that qualifications are always related in some way and offset the price issues. And I'm not, I'm not asking you to take an amendment or anything like that.

I'm just flagging kind of what's, how I'm thinking about this is that to me that's still the actual, the dictionary definition of best value is still, to me the number one concern. It should be for the public.

And I'm not sure qualifications are the right offset on the price side, but accounting for the long term costs and, and issues that the Bill is trying to get to, I'm supportive, I'm going to support it today.

Hope to keep the conversation going, but thanks for bringing it forward and I hope we can figure this last part out.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldin, and I've appreciated the robust discussion that we've had on your Bill. Assemblymember Schultz on AB361, you know I will be supporting your Bill and you know, my recommendation is an aye vote. You know, I come from local government as well.

You know, we've both been mayors in Los Angeles County and this process, you know, best value procurement and the method that Los Angeles Unified School District has been using for the last several years I think has yielded some really positive results.

And we've seen that through this pilot program that you now all have had and it's proven its success.

And I think allowing other school districts to, to be able to participate is a good thing, especially given the results that we've seen in LAUSD thus far and ensuring that you all are able to continue utilizing this program rather than coming back to us every couple of years, which I know is probably takes some time to have to have someone come up here from Sacramento so that you all can perform your bids the way that you would like to.

And so I think that this is a. It's a good program. And, you know, setting it up as a pilot for other school districts, I think is the first step to allowing those school districts to utilize this to see if it yields the same successful results as it has for the Los Angeles Unified School District.

So appreciate your comments and you being here today. And I'll turn it over to you to close.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. We are, of course, respectfully asking for your aye vote. I want to thank those of you who actually engaged and offered an opportunity to respond in commentary. And to Senator Cabaldon, to the extent that there are concerns that remain, we continue to be an open door.

We're happy to look at every issue. We want this to be the best possible Bill that we can. But at the end of the day, this is about giving local jurisdictions the opportunity to opt in. Not a requirement, but the opportunity to opt in.

We view this as a wonderful Bill and a step in the right direction, something that will actually bolster the ability of local jurisdictions to deliver better projects for their community. With that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on this Bill?

Well, first, I want to point out that Mr. Horowitz did not come all the way from LA, is a constituent of mine in Senate District 3 in the very convenient, easy Commute City of West Sacramento. But that notwithstanding, I would. I'd move the Bill.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. We have a motion from Senator Caboldan for AB361 and the motion is do pass. If you could call the roll, Senator Perez.

Aye. Perez. Aye. Ochobog. No. Ochobog. No. Cabaldin. Cabaldin. Aye. Choi.

No.

Choi. No. Cortese Gonzalez Laird.

Thank you. And we will put that Bill on call, it looks like. And thank you so much. Assemblymember.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Member.

We have Assembly Member Jackson here in the room with us to present AB 422. Assembly Member Jackson, you may begin when you are ready. I also want to highlight that Budget is going to be beginning very soon, so I will likely have to step away and turn over the gavel to somebody as that happens. So, Assembly Member. Yes.

We got Budget too on the Assembly side. We're all scrambling around today. Well, I appreciate it, Madam Chair, Committee Members. This is really a simple bill. AB 422 would update the criteria for the State Seal of Civic Engagement by incorporating a deeper understanding of democracy.

It's imperative that our students understand the institutions that maintain our democracy and the differences between government and democracy. Obviously, we've been having deep discussions even as a society in regards to our democratic principles, whether our institutions are holding, whether what are the key protectors of our democracy.

And in many cases, we forget that there are things outside of government that our founders actually did set up in order to make sure that our democracy can hold and be held accountable. One such democratic institution is a free press. And like I'm sure many of you, I spent my holidays reading the Federalist Papers and found that there's a lot more to what protects our democracy than sometimes is taught in government class. And so this simply just begins to implement.

And we're using this process to be able to craft responsible, balanced language so that we can make sure that we expand it to other things. But we thought that this was just a small way of being able to have proper discourse in regards to our democracy. And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Jackson. Do we have any witnesses in the room to speak in support of AB 422? Seeing nobody getting up. Do we have anybody that would like to express their support at the mic at the railing? Seeing no one getting up. We'll now turn it over to those in opposition.

Do we have any witnesses opposing the bill? Seeing no one moving toward the table. We will now turn it over to those who would like to use the mic at the railing. Alrighty. And I will turn it back to the Members here. Do we have any questions or comments? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So thank you for this bill. That actually have been working quite a bit in ensuring that our students. I work on a bill with Senator Allen with regards to civic engagement and having a course on ensuring that our, you know, have a one year process of learning and learning about the civic process. Because it's interesting to note how many, how many individuals we have that really don't understand the role of government and, you know, and understand California government, federal government.

I have letters that I receive via email confusing our office with the federal state office. And so I realized that we have to do a better job in ensuring that people understand civic engagement and civic just awareness education. So very much share with you the goal.

Can you provide me with some additional insight about the items you have listed, namely, and this is where you caught me. You got me. Because I was trying to figure out compulsory education. How do you envision this being that being taught? The definition of what is that being taught?

Sure. You know, when you actually read the Federalist Papers and particularly the writings of Thomas Jefferson, sure, they talk about the separation of government. The three branches of government, House, the Senate, Executive, and the Judiciary. But they also said that, at the end of the day, when all institutions fail, if they fail to do their job and checks and balances appropriately, then the ultimate stopgap is an educated and informed citizenry. Right.

And so which is why they created the compulsory education system, which is just our K-12 system. Meaning from a certain age you have to be in school. People just think that that's just because of reading, writing, and understanding and engaging in contracts, which is part of it. But it's also a part of it is also to be able to read the Constitution itself, to be able to understand how government was set up, and the ability to understand what we should be expecting from our elected officials as well as.

So compulsory education is just an old way of saying there's a reason why we have a compulsory education, why we require a K through 12 system and we require students to go through that system. Part of it is education, but the other part is to be prepared to protect democracy in the long run.

Okay, I was really curious when I read that. What does he mean?

And we also say libraries. Right. The idea that government should not be trying to dictate who gets written word. Right. Of course, back then books were hard to get a hold of, but the idea is that our libraries are also a key part of our democracy because it allows people to be able to access information, access knowledge on their own, so then they can actually be responsible thinkers as well.

So I'm supportive of all of that. I think the only difference that I think you and I historically have a little bit of a difference is, you know, the standards or not for school libraries, you know, where they're age appropriate. I think that's the only difference.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I understand your argument for that.

But other than that, I think we're completely aligned in ensuring that we literally educate the populace in order to be able to think and be able to converse. So I, with that, I am going to be supporting your bill today on that version, and I look forward to our continued collaboration in education, Assembly Member Jackson.

Appreciate you.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. And it looks like we have no other comments or questions, so I will turn it back to you, Assembly Member Jackson, to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Excellent. Do we have a motion for AB 422? Do we have a motion for AB 422? Okay. We have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh. If we could get a roll call. The motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

Great. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much. Assemblymember Jackson, do we know this budget started yet? Okay, so we will go ahead and carry on now to AB537 by Assemblymember Ahrens. Assemblymember Ahrens, I just want to flag.

Budget has not started quite yet, but all of us here do serve on budget, so if it does start, we will have to pause. So we'll try to get through your Bill quickly and we'll probably head into recess.

You can just pass the bill. I'll stick around for it. No doubt, Senator. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Chair and Members. I want to start off by saying that I'll be accepting the Committee's proposed amendments for AB537. The California College Promise Program was established to reduce financial barriers to education by waiving tuition fees.

Currently, our California community colleges support over 2 million students statewide, nearly 2/3 of whom are part timers. However, part time students are not eligible for this program, as you know, creating a gap and access to these benefits.

AB 537 aims to make the California College Promise accessible to part time community college students by allowing the California Community Colleges to waive fees for all students regardless of their enrollment status, whether part time or full time.

Expanding this program is crucial to ensure that we reach as many students as possible, providing them with the necessary resources to succeed in our higher education system. While some believe that the primary purpose of community colleges is to provide a quick path to a bachelor's degree, the reality is that not everyone can enroll in classes full time.

Many individuals must balance full time jobs, caregiving responsibilities with their educational ambitions.

As someone who grew up in extreme poverty and utilized the community college system to improve my own situation, I can personally attest that to the transformative power of our higher education system for our community colleges, we should encourage more people to pursue this path regardless of whether they can attend school full time or not.

With me today is Annie Koruga from the, Vice President, they are the Vice President of Legislative Affairs for the Student Center for California Community Colleges, the official voice for the California Community College students. And we have James McGeever, the President of AFT 1521 and a Professor of sociology at Pierce College.

I was a recipient of and benefited from the Promise Grant program. And I cannot underscore for you how great of a program that was for me entering community college.

It took a giant weight off my and my family's back that the State of California had decided that they cared so much about the education of its population that they would cover my tuition.

Because of the Promise Program, I was able to save money, which I'm now applying to my concurrent enrollment at UC Berkeley and I'll graduate with my bachelor's debt free. The Promise Grant program directly contributed to my success because it supported me and allowed me to focus on my education without worrying about how to pay for it.

Unfortunately, many of our community college students aren't eligible for this wonderful program. And their ineligibility isn't due to their lack of drive, their lack of care. Not for their academic performance, not for anything that they've done wrong. Instead, it's because they don't have the privilege to be a full time student.

In fact, in fall of 2024, over 70% of California's community college students took less than 12 units and thus are currently ineligible for the Promise Program. Ironically enough, those students who can't afford to be full time students are likely the ones that need this the most.

I've met many wonderful part time students who due to life circumstances, can't be full time. From student parents balancing work and school to caregivers balancing familial obligations with their studies. And it would have been much easier academically for these students if they had access to the Promise Grant. Part time status for these students is often a need.

It's not an indication that they care any less or will do any worse. These are wonderful students who are just as successful and just as deserving of assistance as full time students.

In sum, we need to expand this amazing program to part time students who are a majority of our students, so that California can say to them, like it said to me, that the state cares so much about their education that they'll cover their tuition too. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, my name is James McKeever and I'm President of AFT 1521 Los Angeles Community College Faculty Guild, as well as a professor of sociology at Los Angeles Pierce College. And I'm here to support AB537. This Bill is near and dear to my heart as I am a community college graduate.

I was a single father at the age of 18 who had to work full time to support my son and me. That made it nearly impossible to take a full course load. It took me nine years to finish my AA degree. However, college was far more affordable back then and I didn't accumulate too much college debt.

College is no longer affordable. Many of our students are low income parents have to work full time, take care of siblings and have to help pay rent and mortgages on their family's homes. This is the reason that only 10% of our students at the LACCD, the largest district in the state, take advantage of the current college promise.

AB537 will enable more of our students to pursue their college dreams without accumulating additional debt. While I would ideally like to see no minimum number of units or maximum years added to this Bill, I understand that this may be necessary due to the current fiscal constraints.

If we can support our students access to low cost education or no cost education, they can achieve the American dream that has been promised to them, work hard, get an education and be able to buy a home. This is something that is not possible under crushing student debt.

I want to especially thank Assemblymember Patrick Aarons for sponsoring this Bill and and Senator Sasha Renee Perez for her support. Thank you all for what you do. I urge you to support AB537 and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now take testimony from other support witnesses in the room. If you can use the mic at the railing. Tiffany Mock on behalf of CFD, proud to sponsor this bill. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of the California Community Colleges Association for Occupational Education in support.

Good morning. Justin Selnick on behalf of the California Community College Chancellor's Office in support.

Good morning. Valerie Johnson with the Campaign for College Opportunity in support.

[Unintelligible] with the California Teachers Association. We're also in support.

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

[Unintelligible] behalf of the Community College League of California in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members, Jason Henderson on behalf of the California EDGE Coalition in support.

Thank you. Now we will turn it over to witnesses in opposition. Is there anybody that would like to say speak as the lead witness in opposition seeing no one standing up? If anybody would like to express their opposition, please use the mic at the railing. Great. Okay. But we'll turn it now over to our Members here.

Do we have any comments or questions, Senator Caboldan?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to first thank the author for bringing the issue forward. There are very few legislators that are strong community college champions as Assemblymember Ahrens, and I know he's worked hard on the Bill. This is an area that's very close to my heart and to my work.

I think most of the Members know I served as vice chancellor of the community college system, and my city in West Sacramento was one of the first three in California to enact a College Promise long before the State of California did.

And partly as a result of that work, President Obama appointed me to represent all state legislators and mayors around the country to lead the expansion of the College Promise program to what is now in 800 cities and states across the country. So I've spent a lot of my work on this program, and it isn't.

It is not only or mainly a financial aid. It's not one more financial aid program about cost. It really is about delivering on the promise.

The notion that, as President Obama said, that in the 21st century, just as at the turn of the 20th century when we created universal high schools essentially and compulsory attendance, we are now at a point where every American needs post secondary education, but they need to complete post secondary education for that promise to be real.

They need to complete, whether it's a transfer in a bachelor's degree or an associate degree, a certificate, they need to complete for that promise to mean something.

And being a former tenured faculty Member, I know our culture, which is, you know, if we just get people to come and be, you know, be in our halo, that they are better off for it. The challenge is this was a design, a very strong design factor in the College Promise program from the outset.

And that's because I think this Committee understands quite well the research that's shown repeatedly In California, only 30% or so, maybe 30% plus. Now, of course, students entering community colleges ever complete a degree, a certificate or a transfer. It's an extraordinarily low number, but that masks big differences. And we're not the only state that's in that position.

So there's nothing wrong with our community colleges, but completion rates are extraordinarily low. And it is the completion that results in economic opportunity, in civic engagement and all the things that we're trying to accomplish. But the differences for part time and full time students are enormous. They are enormous.

The completion rates for part time students are depending on which metric you're looking at 20%, 8%. The completion rates for full time students are 607080% in the same programs. So it's a massive difference in the outcomes that students can expect to achieve.

Now I'm old enough to have been here when we enacted the Maxine Waters legislation to crack down on proprietary schools, trade schools and diploma mills and we cracked down on any of the men had completion rates of under 20%.

We said it's fraudulent to be going to a bus stop or to a welfare office and recruiting students to come to your trade school when you have completion rates that are under 20%. You can't do that. We do not allow that in any of the professions. And so we have to take this seriously.

And so this issue is not a fiscal issue to me. You know, we'd find a way to afford extending promise grants. It is using the power of the profession and the State of California to tell students that they should pursue a path that we know they have less than a 20% chance of completing.

And it is, you know, it is as though you went to a Doctor and said I can't take off work for the full chemotherapy treatment. The Doctor cannot. It's malpractice for the Doctor to say, well come in for every other one.

Like there is a dosage of higher education that results in the outcomes that students are coming to us for. I appreciate the Committee staff work to try to address this issue with the amendments and trying to make that more plain to the students so that they have a better understanding.

Because it isn't just that you're likely to not, you're very likely to not succeed and complete, but also that you are exhausting your eligibility so you can't come back later and say, you know what? Now I figured it out.

It is that you are no longer going to be eligible for not just the promise, but other financial eligibility that you will have exhausted. So the consequences are extreme. So but the challenge is that 47% of part time students at community colleges believe they will graduate complete within one to two years.

So 47% half of part time students walk in the door enroll believing that they will complete within one to two years, but only 8% of part time students actually complete within four years.

And so we can't simply rely and I know this is a 1960-70 mindset that we have in community colleges sometimes that it's all about the students autonomy and we should encourage them to explore and take the.

Many of our students are coming to us with one shot to complete a nursing degree, to complete an advanced garment manufacturing certificate or what have you? And it's our job to use the accumulated knowledge that we have.

All the data, all the evidence that says what you should do is what all the evidences you are far more likely to complete if at least in your first year you complete 20 units. And that is more than cost price, the cost of housing.

The number one predictor of whether you will succeed in year one is did you complete 20 units? Not how much aid did you have, not how much was your rent. None of the other factors that we sometimes think did you complete 20 units?

And so it is educational malpractice for us to be designing programs that do not, that do not guide students.

This is the point of the guided pathways work as well that guide students strongly, very strongly in this case because the differences are so big into the pathway in which they will complete what they are trying to, what they are trying to achieve. So that's my.

The author and I have talked about this extensively trying to figure out is there some amendment that we could do. And at least to this point I haven't come up with it. But to me it's just a fundamental question that we have to the profession of higher education educators.

We have to, we have to see our students the way that most other professions, especially in healthcare, but elsewhere as well that we, we are charged with the extensive, we have the expertise and the knowledge, the evidence and the tools to guide students to where it is that will make them successful just as a Doctor does healthy.

And too often we're like, well, but what do they, you know, what's, what do you feel like at the moment to the student? Or maybe yes, you should take your first year and explore and figure it out. Because that's what I did in the 60s or in the 80s or the 90s.

That is not why students are coming. They are coming to complete that degree make a better life. And first generation students are the most at risk of making decisions that don't fit with the data. Even if we give them a lead based paint disclosure mortgage kind of notice. Don't forget, you may not. Here's the data.

We're asking first generation students in particular to do something that is beyond what they will make very bad choices and cut their at their future educational possibilities off.

And as has been said, the students most at risk, the students most at that margin where they're deciding between 8 units and 12 units, by far the vast majority of those students are the BIPOC students in our state. And they deserve our best guidance and our best policy. So I can't support the Bill.

Appreciate the author's work and the Committee's work as well to try to improve it. But I think we have a fundamental responsibility here to make the right decisions that will lead to our students achieving equitable success and the goals that they come to our colleges for. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Caboldan. Do we have any other questions or comments? I will go ahead and wanted to share one. I appreciate the Assembly Member for taking the Committee's amendments and feedback.

I think part of the reason we wanted to include and highlight the limits to the College Promise program is because unfortunately we know that many students don't know about the fact that the aid is limited and that it can run out.

And so making sure that those students are informed of that I think is something that is incredibly important. I appreciate you know what Senator Cabaldon shared and am very familiar with the research that he's referencing. And as he knows I've worked on actually a significant amount of that research and looking at completion rates.

That's very funny to be in this room where, you know, Valerie Johnson was just speaking a second earlier, who used to be one of the students I used to work with and Linda Vasquez is here, who was my Boss at 1.0. And very familiar folks in the education space.

We know that encouraging students to take a full course load is going to yield the maximum success. But we also know that that's not the reality for so many of our students that are in the community college system. And that is a challenge that I think we continue to face every single year.

And oftentimes those costs that they're dealing with and forced to navigate, it's not simply tuition. So much of it is external costs. It's the cost of housing, it's the cost of transportation. It's, you know, being able to balance having a full time job with kids. And more and more community colleges are serving.

We used to call them non traditional students, but I remember at 1.0 when I was working at the space, we were like, we need to stop using that term. These are traditional students. These are most of our community college students. They are older, they do have kids, they are taking care of loved ones.

And so I recognize that we are constantly trying to balance both of these things, making sure that our students are informed, particularly our first time college students, about the limits of their financial aid and encouraging them to take as many units as they can and at the same time trying to reduce the cost barriers that they're facing.

This is a constant challenge and you know, I appreciate your work on this and trying to address that and making sure that, you know, we're meeting students where they're at.

I think if we had a magic wand and kind of a perfect situation, you know, we would ensure that all students were taking the exact amount of courses that they needed, you know, to graduate, that we were very clear on all of those pathways, that we could ensure that they had enough financial aid to actually enroll full time, regardless of what their financial situation may be, that they have the support, all of the support necessary.

But, you know, unfortunately, we're not there. I worked on the Cal grant equity framework almost four years ago, and we've still not gone to full implementation to even increase that amount, that aid amount. So, you know, we'll be supporting your Bill. Appreciate the conversations that you've had with Senator Caboldin, the amendments that you've taken.

As I've shared with you too, I do think that this is something we need to monitor and see what implementation looks like after and see how we can better improve the, ultimately the experience and the outcomes for those students that are walking through the doors of our community college system.

So thank you, Assemblymember Ahrens, and I'll be recommending an aye vote. We'll turn it over to you to close.

Well, I just want to say thank you to this Committee. It's really an honor to be working with titans in the higher education space in the Legislature. I think if there's any silver lining in this budget process is that we have, you know, our champions who are serving in the Senate in regards to these issues.

I've had lengthy conversations with both Senator Cabaldon and you, Madam Chair, and I am really looking forward to continuing the partnership of finding solutions to address the need for our part timers to get the access and the help that they need and to really see what moves the needle in terms of the data to get completion to really uplift these vulnerable students out of poverty.

And, you know, there's many more discussions to be had. And indeed, the Legislature has historically invested significant amount of money to this aid. Our past budgets have been very kind to the community colleges just testifying. I can think of Calbright as a main example where we've invested a significant amount of resources to help students.

And I want us to be just as critical about Calbright's outcomes of their students as well, because I think of it being very similar to that model where we're offering free Calbright classes.

And I'm still waiting to see the student outcomes from many of their student body, while our part time students don't get the same amount of aid from the State of California. So there's certainly conversations that I think that can and should be having in our higher education space, especially in our community college system.

But really grateful for the Committee work on this and for the. For the chair's work. Looking forward to continuing these conversations with you all.

Thank you. Assemblymember Ahrens, do we have a motion on this Bill?

I'll be happy to.

So Senator Choboke has moved the Bill. Can we get a roll call, please? And the motion is do pass as amended, to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[Roll call]

We will put that bill on call. Thank you all.

Thank you. Yeah. So I am going to move our Committee into recess as we have budget that is currently going and every Member that is here is a part of the Budget Committee. I apologize. Assemblymember Loentoy and Connolly and Valencia. We will go ahead and break and return back as soon as we can.

We do need to exercise this room by 1:00, so I'm hoping that this will be faster than I'm worried about it going. But we'll be back very soon, so thank you.

Right. The Senate Education Committee is reconvened from the recess. We are going to resume hearing bills. We're going to start with file item 13. That is AB 772, which is Mr. Lowenthal, Assemblytmember Lowenthal, welcome. And we'll get right to it as soon as you're ready. Thank you for your patience.

Well, thank you, Senator, and thank you to the staff. I know everybody's trying to accommodate everyone on a tough day. Interesting day. I believe my witnesses are still coming down.

Senator, if you want to go ahead and begin your presentation. I'm more than happy to pause a little bit if you want.

I think we should be okay. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Proud to present AB 772, which will require the California Department of Education to develop a model policy aimed at addressing certain acts of cyberbullying that occur outside of school hours and require that each local education agency adoption CDE's model policy or develop their own policy.

I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments. I want to say thank you to the Committee staff for their work on this Bill and the very, very thoughtful analysis. Bullying and harassment amongst peers in school is not a new phenomenon.

However, the digital age and rise of social media has drastically changed the landscape by expanding how and when classmates communicate with one another. Cyberbullying and harassment are unacceptable. Should occur on campus and during school hours, but of course, it's no longer limited to the school day.

Bullies are empowered to continue their harassment through social media platforms, posts, text messages, and particularly via group chat on snap, circulating harmful or humiliating content directly to classmates or to a wider audience.

Students shielded by their parents by having little to no digital presence are still not immune when it comes to harmful cyberbullying when it's circulated amongst others. Moreover, digital ubiquity leaves our kids susceptible to bullying at any time and any place.

The data and statistics on cyberbullying speak for themselves. 59% of U.S. teens report experiencing at least one cyberbullying behavior. Some say they've experienced someone other than a parent constantly asking them where they are, what they're doing, or who they're with.

Some report that they've been physically threatened, sadly. Others say that they've had explicit images of them shared without their consent. Research consistently identifies the impacts of cyberbullying on our youth self esteem and mental health.

41% of people who were cyberbullied developed social anxiety, 37% developed depression, 26% had suicidal thoughts, 25% self harmed, and 20% skip class as a result, victims experience lack of acceptance in their peer groups, which results in loneliness and social isolation.

The young person's consequent social withdrawal is likely to lead to low self esteem and depression. Students who come to school with low self esteem due to cyberbullying are distracted. They're not mentally prepared to learn within class. Being involved with cyberbullying affects the self esteem of not only the victim...

...bystanders, bystanders also demonstrate lower amounts of self esteem than those that are not involved with cyberbullying in any way. But the perpetrators too are at risk. They're more likely than non bullies to engage in a range of maladaptive and antisocial behaviors and they're at risk of alcohol and drug dependency.

Like victims, they have an increased risk of depression and suicidal ideation. According to the latest CDC statistics, approximately 95% of high school aged youths used a social media platform, with approximately one fifth reporting almost constant social media use. And actually the average use of our youth is 5 hours per day right now. That's the average.

Statistics from the CDC on suicide rates between 2001 and 2021 also showed the increase in suicide rates correlates directly with the same time frame that social media use became widespread.

Suicide rates for people aged 10 to 14 tripled from 2007 to 2018, which is right after Facebook opened to the general public for users 13 and older The suicide rate for people aged 15 to 19 increased 57% from 2009 through 2017. That's right when Instagram launched.

While students are universally accountable for cyberbullying that happens on campus or during school hours, there's unfortunately well documented misinterpretation of existing law concerning the authority of LEAs to intervene when cyberbullying takes place outside of school hours and off campus. It is the law now.

Education Code clearly states that LEAs do have jurisdictional authority over cyberbullying that takes place after hours off campus if there is a nexus to the classroom. Our Legislative Council has provided a written opinion reinforcing that this authority exists today. Yet in practice we see many school districts unsure of this authority.

They're reticent to act and enforce against after hours cyberbullying despite witnessing the effects of these harmful activities bleeding into the classroom impacting the campus climate. I ran into that ambiguity myself as a parent happy to share those experiences.

AB 772 will help provide districts with the necessary clarification on actions they can take to ensure all students enjoy a safe and productive learning environment during school and after school.

This Bill will equip school districts with a model policy in order to address after hours and off campus cyberbullying that occurs outside of school hours and off campus, either as a policy that they may adopt themselves or as a reference point for policy that they create.

In either scenario, they may manage expectations for all community stakeholders impacted by this phenomena of the digital age that is dramatically impacting student performance wellness. Senator, here today, Mr. Chair, to testify in support of AB 772 is Dr. Monica Valencia, elementary school principal in Anaheim.

Very significant, that is that Dr. Valencia is an elementary school principal dealing with this matter. It's not just a high school issue. And Pamela Gibbs, Executive Director of Government Relations for the Los Angeles County Office of Education.

Okay, thank you, Assemblymember. We'll move to the witnesses. You'll have a couple minutes each. Thank you for being here in any, any order you like.

Good morning, Madam...Madam Chair's not here. Good morning, Senators. My name is Monica Valencia. I am a principal of an elementary school in Anaheim, California. As a site administrator over the past seven years, I've seen a shift in the types of student conflict that we face.

While in-person issues remain, online conflict and poor digital citizenship have become more common even among our young elementary scholars. Children are gaining access to smartphones, social media, and online games at younger ages.

While these tools can support learning and connection, they also expose students to interactions they are not yet ready to navigate. And most of these behaviors occur off campus, outside school hours, when students are no longer under our supervision.

This makes it harder for schools to detect when harm is happening and even harder to address it. The devices used are not school property, and we often have no control over how platforms respond or how consistently families are able to monitor this online behavior.

In fact, many parents come to me asking for help. They want to support their children, but they may not know how to navigate these platforms or how to access relevant resources because they didn't grow up with these challenges themselves.

Just a few months ago, a parent came to me overwhelmed after discovering her child had been part of a group chat that turned mean-spirited and she didn't know where to start. Even though these interactions happen off campus, their emotional impact does not stay there.

Students often arrive at school carrying the weight of these online conflicts, and that emotional burden can affect everything from their focus and participation to their sense of safety and belonging.

AB 772 will provide schools with clear guidance and will support collaboration with families to address these issues consistently and proactively. It sends a message that we take all forms of harmful behavior seriously, whether they happen online or in person, on or off campus.

This Bill empowers schools and families to work together in supporting supporting the well being of all students. For these reasons, I am proud to support this Bill. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Next witness please.

Thank you and good morning Mr. Chair and Senators. Pamela Gibbs, Executive Director of Governmental Relations for the Los Angeles County Office of Education and we proudly support AB 772. Cyberbullying events that occur outside of the school's jurisdiction can impact life on school campus.

As you've heard, a model policy to address certain acts of bullying, cyberbullying or intimidation or worse occurring outside of school hours and off campus would support student growth and create a pathway of alternatives to address these types of behaviors. Early resolution to these issues support a positive school climate.

Training and support for implementation of this policy will be a critical component of of its success. And county offices of education should be considered as a resource for local education agency supports. For example, at LACOE, we provide positive behavior intervention support training as part of a multi tiered system of support to schools and to students.

Our goal is to ensure a culture of wellbeing and to promote safe learning environments for our students while on or off campus. For these reasons I urge your aye vote on AB 772.

Okay. Thank you both for your testimony. We'll ask if there's anyone in the Committee room who wishes to come forward and express a support position, if so, support, affiliation, and your name of course.

Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of TechNet and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Dominique Donette with Edvoice and support.

Thank you. Seeing no one else come forward in support. Do we have opposition witnesses? Please come forward. You here as me-too or?

Sure. Or more oppose unless amended. Kind of a tweener.

Go ahead. Yeah. Well, if you're going to have to explain, I just want to make sure I'm going to need you to two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Chris Reefe on behalf of the California School Boards Association. Respectfully have an oppose unless amended position. Do appreciate the work of the author and his staff, the work of the Committee and the Committee staff on this issue. Unfortunately, we still remain in an opposing less amended position.

We do not dispute that districts have the authority to be able to adopt policies and to address issues that can occur. However, the question is whether they should. The question is whether or not districts should be expanding their reach beyond the school day, beyond school campuses for things that they're beyond their control.

There are very clear statutes in the education code that require and provide the authority for districts to address these types of behaviors if they're connected to the school day, even in cases where it occurs to when a student is traveling to and from school. Right.

And that gives us the jurisdiction, gives us the legal authority, gives us the opportunity to be able to do the positive behavioral interventions. Other efforts that my colleague from LACO had explained. These are circumstances, though, that can be outside the control of districts.

Is it appropriate for a school to address the behavior of a student that occurs during the weekend that has no relation to school? Is it appropriate for the district to intervene itself in what might be a private matter? What happens, for example, if the two students who are engaged are members of the same family?

What if the students are from different schools or different districts? This just broaches a much larger philosophical question about whether or not school districts should be inserting themselves and trying to address these fundamental issues that exist beyond the scope of what public education is.

Do very much appreciate the effort. Do very much recognize the challenges that come with bullying, cyberbullying, something that school boards up and down the state take very seriously.

But then the question comes down to what is the appropriate level of requirement and intervention that should or should not be required of a school district beyond their control? Thank you very much.

If you will, I just have a question. We're just going to have you officially be the opposition witness since you took that opportunity. Do you not feel that CDE is qualified to deal with those issues, those variables that you just brought up in creating a model ordinance? It seems to me they would attempt to answer those questions along the way.

So CDE, as charged by the Bill, yes - would be required to develop a model policy that district could or could or could not take off the shelf and adopt or modify at their whim. That is certainly something that we would, if the Bill passes, that we would engage with. CDE has done work in this year.

We have also done very good work in this area in terms of the roles and responsibilities and what is appropriate. The issue is, is it appropriate for a district to extend beyond the school day, extend beyond school campus, or school grounds to something that is not within their control or authority or is a matter that is maybe it's. it's a matter of a, if a criminal nature or something that has to be addressed in terms of law enforcement engagement, for example.

All right, well, thank you. I think the. The author has identified an arbiter of those kinds of issues here. Are there others who wish to express an opposition position. We can take name, affiliation, and oppose.

Hi, good morning. Sarah Kaminsky, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, just registering our concerns with the Bill. Appreciate the Committee amendments to limit the scope and working with the author on those amendments and that language. Thank you.

All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee, which is basically me. And I already asked the question I wanted to ask. So we'll come back to the author, but we're going. We'll let you close.

Obviously, we're going to have to table the notion of motions since I can't do that in the temporary role I'm playing right now as the Chair. But please close. And thank you very much for your leadership.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Procedurally, without a motion, how does the Bill move? Would a motion happen after?

As soon as we have absent Members back, we will take it up immediately for a motion as soon as we have that opportunity.

I know a vote can be taken later. I didn't know that a motion itself could also be taken. Okay. First of all, Mr. Chair, I appreciate it and I appreciate the extraordinary day that we find ourselves in. So thank you for being here and taking the helm. This is very important policy.

This affects, I don't know, a family in the digital age that this doesn't affect. I don't know of one. And with all respect to my colleagues at the CSBA who I am working with on this topic and want to work even closer with, this isn't even an issue of whether this should be done or not.

There are districts throughout the state that don't understand that they have this authority right now, and they haven't created policy simply because they're getting bad advice from their counsel. And I have a story to explain that. So my oldest daughter, all three of my daughters have dealt with cyberbullying.

My oldest daughter was cyberbullied at 4pm. It was pretty awful hate. We contacted law enforcement. Law enforcement said hate speech is protected. This doesn't rise to a level of hate crime. We're happy to go talk to the family. Went and talked to the family. The family told them to go away.

We went to the school administration, the school administration and the Superintendent, school board members. They all said, "This is awful. We're happy to go talk to the parents, but there's nothing we can do about it." They went and got legal opinion from the Orange County Board of Education who said that they do not have jurisdictional authority.

That led us to this journey of going through and understanding in ed code and getting a written opinion from leg counsel that that authority exists right now. So there is a wide disagreement in the law of what is possible and what isn't possible.

As we heard from Dr. Valencia, you have parents that are coming and trying to get guidance right now, and that guidance does not exist. And really what we need is to establish boundaries.

And the way that this Bill is written, each district has the ability to create what those boundaries should and shouldn't be based on the nuances, the resources and otherwise, and the community engagement of those communities. We allow them in this legislation to create those own rules. There's no one size fits all here.

We asked CDE to create a model policy. I know that CSBA itself creates model policies as part of its role for for it. And we expect all of those things to happen. But we've got to focus on what's a safe learning environment.

What's a learning environment where we're forcing victims to be around their perpetrators and we see that the awful mental health incomes that come from that and the poor educational outcomes that come from that. And it's got to stop. With that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you again for your leadership and what will happen here. If it's any consolation, as soon as we have Chair or Vice Chair back, I will offer a motion. So I'm happy putting that on the record now, especially since you have witnesses that are going to be leaving and so forth. So.

Appreciate that, Mr. Chair.

Procedurally, there won't be a problem getting to a vote. Thank you again and again, thank you for your leadership.

That concludes our hearing on item 13, and we have Assemblymember Connolly here. That would be file item 8, AB 419. Mr. Connolly, you can come forward and present as soon as you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members.

We're hoping we'll have some absence Members here.

Oh, great. Okay.

Well, hopefully during my... Yeah. Pleased to present AB 419 today, which will help our immigrant student community by requiring schools to post the Immigration Enforcement Actions at California Schools Guide for students and families. This would be in schools and on their website, county offices. This guide, developed by the Attorney General, and it's known as Know Your Educational Rights, advises immigrant students and their families of their educational rights and protections under the law.

The guide outlines what information is required for school enrollment, tools for family safety plans, steps to protect student information, and resources to prepare for situations where parents or guardians are detained or deported. From 2011 until 2025, ICE operated under a policy prohibiting immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, including schools.

However, the Trump administration issued a directive in January rescinding these protections on sensitive locations. Our California students, regardless of their immigration status, have the right to a free public education and the confidentiality of their personal information. Undocumented students and students in mixed status families often already face disadvantages related to language and income, and these struggles are worsened when students are removed from school due to fear of immigration enforcement.

AB 419 will ensure that immigrant students and families know what their rights are, what information is required for school enrollment, and what steps they can take to protect their information. Every child in California deserves to pursue a public education without fear. With me to testify in support is Jennifer Baker, legislative advocate from the California Association for Bilingual Education, and Tiffany Mok, legislative representative for CFT.

Thank you, and the witnesses can start in whatever order you prefer. You'll have a couple minutes to thank you.

Good morning, Senator Cortese. My name is Jennifer Baker. I'm the legislative advocate for California Association for Bilingual Education, also known as CABE. CABE works to promote bilingual education and quality educational experiences for all students in California.

Our mission includes increasing California's capacity to create caring and highly effective learning environments that promote multi-literacy to support English learners in all diverse populations. I'm pleased to be here today in support of AB 419, which requires schools to post guidelines on educational rights related to immigration enforcement actions.

Our state is fortunate enough to include a melting pot of linguistic diversity, providing enriched cultures and experiences that has resulted in shaping the world's now fourth largest economy. Ensuring students and families are able to understand the guidelines included in this legislation is key to providing the empowerment that they need.

CABE believes that California must lead the nation in vigilantly protecting and supporting the safety and well being of the state's immigrant community, many of whom have already experienced harassment, intimidation, and deportment. It is imperative that California takes proactive measures to keep students safe and informed, including their families and guardians.

This important legislation will affirm California's dedication to the educational equity and the protection of all students. When students and families know what their rights are, we can take an important step to creating a caring and effective learning environment to promote biliteracy, cultural competency, and quality educational experiences.

By requiring schools to prominently display the Know Your Educational Rights Guide, this bill importantly promotes transparency and accessibility of crucial information for immigrant students in their families. Thank you, Senator Cortese and Committee Members. I respectfully ask for your aye vote when AB 419 is voted upon.

Thank you for your testimony. Next witness please.

Senator Cortese, Chair. Thank you so much for your time. Tiffany Mok with CFT, a legislative representative. Just wanted to urge your support for this legislation for the reasons that were noted by Jennifer Baker. CFT believes that all students should have the greatest opportunity to learn.

And being frightened of immigration enforcement, both for your family and your community, is not conducive to learning. This bill simply provides notice of the individual's rights and the students so that they can understand and have a safer place to learn. With a safe environment, they can learn to their best ability. So for those reasons, we support this bill and really echo the comments made by Ms. Baker. Thank you so much, and we urge your aye vote.

All right. Thank you very much. Others in the Committee room who wish to express a support position can come forward at this time with name, affiliation, and support please.

Good morning, Chair. Sam Nasher on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support. Thank you.

Lizzie Cootsona on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the County of Marin in support. Thank you.

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

Annie Chou on behalf of or with the California Teachers Association in support.

Cristina Salazar with Californians Together in support.

Valerie Johnson with the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition in support.

Leilani Aguinaldo on behalf of Fresno Unified School District in support.

Good morning. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality in support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. That concludes the support testimony. We'll move to opposition. Do we have opposition witnesses on this bill? Seeing none come forward. Is there anyone in the Committee room who wishes to express opposition to the bill? You may come forward now. Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Senator. Senator Choi, just want to make sure you don't have any comments or questions on the bill. We'll come back to the author at this point for your close. Thank you.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Senator Choi, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to make a motion or a courtesy motion just so we can begin the voting process. All right. We will table the item until we have other absent Members here so we can again entertain a motion at that time.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Appreciate you. And I am supportive of your bill. All right. I'm told Assembly Member Alvarez is here. There he is. Please come on forward. We are going to now hear file item 14, AB 833. Assembly Member, welcome, and proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, Senator. Really truly appreciate you being here this morning to allow us to present our bills to you. And in my case, Assembly Bill 833 by National Teachers Expansion Act.

It's really a pleasure and honor to be here and I want to thank the Chairwoman, certainly when she gets here, hopefully get a chance to thank her personally and the Committee staff for the work and analysis on the bill.

Assembly Bill 833 is about strengthening and expanding the world language teacher exchange program by focusing on our collaboration with Mexico. Assembly Bill 833 takes this step further by explicitly requiring that the State Board of Education include exchanges with Mexico and its rules and regulations.

And it also extends the program to school districts, County Office of Education and charter schools, while allowing designated visa sponsors in addition to the California Department of Education to bring those teachers from Mexico into California on a temporary basis. This will promote cultural exchange, which is our classroom with diverse perspectives.

The bill is a critical step to address California's urgent teacher shortage and that's really, I think, the center of this, to ensure that every student has access to quality education. So especially in classrooms with bilingual needs.

It's critical because our state has been facing a severe shortage of teachers in recent years that I think you are all well aware of.

And by expanding the teacher exchange program to include Mexico and giving the opportunity for districts and locals to engage in this exchange program, we can bring qualified educators into our classroom again on a temporary basis to help fill the gaps and ensure that our students receive the quality education that they deserve.

I'm a proud bilingual learner and bilingualism is more important than ever in our diverse communities as almost half of the California student population is also a bilingual learner. Assembly Bill 833 promotes cultural and linguistic exchanges by bringing these teachers into our classrooms to make sure that we have teachers that reflect the students needs and understand those needs.

We recognize the value of diversity in education. With this bill, teachers from Mexico bring unique perspectives, teaching methods, and they are prepared to teach the classroom. That's what this program is about. Teachers who are prepared to come on day one to help us serve our state. Our state is diverse. Bilingualism education is a necessity.

It's really the way of the future. And this bill supports the placement of Spanish speaking teachers in our schools, helping students to develop those language skills that are increasingly more needed in a competitive workforce. The teacher shortage has disproportionately impacted underserved communities.

And this bill will help address by giving again locals the opportunity and the option to accept exchanges of teachers in order to serve the needs in their own local communities and all of our communities, particularly those who are underserved. So again, thank you very much for allowing us to introduce.

I'd like to turn it over to our testimony. Dr. Abram Jimenez, he is a Chief Strategy Officer with International alliance group. And then Dr. Edgar Lemkin, who is CEO of Kabe.

Good afternoon Chair or Good Morning Chair Members of the Committee. My name is Dr. Abraham Jimenez, Chief Strategy Officer at the International Alliance Group and I'm in proud support to speak on behalf of Assembly Bill 833. This bill is simple in language but powerful in its impact. It corrects the inequity that has existed for far too long.

And it's time that we fix it by opening up visa sponsorship to U.S. Department of State approved organizations and not just the California Department of Education. Currently, international teachers from nearly every country around the world are welcomed into California classrooms through a streamlined visa process.

But only teachers from Mexico are held to an outdated and restrictive standard, one that requires them to go through the California Department of Education for visa sponsorship. This bottleneck has resulted in fewer than 25 teachers in our classrooms each year, compared to hundreds of other teachers from other countries.

Let me just be clear that this is not just a policy issue. This is a matter of fairness. California is home to the largest population of Mexican origin students in the United States. Representation matters. Our students deserve to see themselves reflected in the educators who guide them.

Our bilingual communities deserve teachers who not only speak the language but also live the culture. And our dual language immersion programs are biliteracy pathways and the seal of biliteracy. All initiatives California is proud to champion depend on having educators who are authentically connected to that mission.

Yet we have hundreds of positions left unfilled or programs that collapse because they do not have educators to fill the position. AB833 brings fairness, strategic alignment and educational opportunity to a process that has long excluded the very teachers our communities need most. It is time that we honor and value the Mexican educators for what they bring.

It's time that we support students with teachers who reflect the communities and aspirations by allowing U.S. Department of State visa sponsors to place Mexican teachers in California, not just the California Department of Education. This bill is more than just a fix. It's a step towards inclusive, culturally responsive educational systems we say we believe in.

I also want to point out that the former Chancellor of New York City Department of Education and former Superintendent of San Francisco Unified School District Richard Carranza is here in strong support of AB833. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Senate Education Committee. My name is Edgar Lamkin, CEO of the California Association for Bilingual Education, CABE. Our mission is to promote biliteracy, multilingualism and multicultural competency as essential for preparing globally competitive students. I rise today in strong support of. AB. AB 833, authored by Assembly Member David Alvarez.

This bill is not only timely, it is transformative. California is home to over 1.1 million English learners.

...nearly one in five of the K12 students. Yet we face persistent shortage of qualified bilingual teachers, especially in Spanish, math, science and special education.

AB 833 opens the door to much needed talent by expanding teacher exchange opportunities with Mexico, allowing districts to recruit skilled educators who bring not only linguistic proficiency, but also deep cultural knowledge that reflects and uplifts our communities.

As a former school district Superintendent, I saw firsthand the power of this approach. During the pandemic, we hired a teacher from Mexico, Oaxaca, to be specific. She quickly became a model educator, not only mastering distance learning through our professional development programs, but winning over colleagues and inspiring collaboration.

Together, they hosted rich cultural events like Dia De Los Muertos, Dia Del Nino - Day of the Child, Las Posadas, that reignited family engagement and boosted student pride and heritage while fostering a strong sense of belonging as Americans. That teacher exchange changed the climate of the entire school.

AB 833 will allow more districts to benefit from this kind of leadership and heart. This Bill is not just about filling vacancies. It is about building powerful dual language programs that help students read, write, and speak in at least four languages and step confidently onto the world stage.

Let's make California not only the Golden State, but a global one. We urge you to have an aye vote for AB 833. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Do we have any witnesses here in opposition who would like to speak or. No, I'm sorry, Any Members that would like to speak in support, please use the mic at the railing and state your name, position on the Bill, and organization.

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

Sierra Cook with. The San Diego Unified School District in Support.

Of Californians Together in support.

Adam Keigwin, on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, in support.

Thank you. Now we will move on to witnesses in opposition. If there are any. Seeing no one standing. If anybody else would like to state their opposition, please use the mic at the railing. Okay. Well, we will turn it back to Members for questions and comments. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Hi. So I actually like this Bill because as someone who's been here for quite a. Quite a number of years in the Senate Ed Committee, I understand the shortage that we have when it comes to our teachers in the State of California. And we're working to build that pipeline in the state through various programs.

So we're working on that. But in the meantime, it would be wonderful to actually, you know, collaborate with not just teachers from Mexico, but from all over the world.

But I do want to express a couple of concerns that I just want to make sure that we put on record so that we continue to have those conversations as we move forward with these, with these programs.

And one is to ensure, first of all, before I begin on that end, also let me note that having had an education in Mexico, when I lived in Mexico with my grandparents in Media De Yucatan, I have to say that when I got back here, especially to, at the time we were my parents, my mom was living in Hawaii, I was so advanced academically in comparison to the students that I was going to school with in Hawaii.

So. So I have great faith in many of the teachers from Mexico, because that's what I know. This Bill actually works with all teachers from different types, different countries that are available to come.

But the education that I received in Mexico through many of them, including I had a lot of aunts who were actually teachers, a lot of family Members who were in the teaching profession in Mexico, they have an amazing program, and they really do prepare our students really, really well.

So I'm actually excited to see their program perspective and their impact, their training coming in here and sharing those skill sets and those approaches to math. As a matter of fact, I'm a little point of privilege here.

My uncle, who is a Professor in UNAM Universada De Mexico in the Astrophysics Department, actually has written a book on how to teach math using the Mayan symbols, the Mayan mathematical symbols on that end. So when I talk about being vested in education in Mexico, my interest is huge.

So that's what I'm excited about, bringing that perspective into the US now, having said that, I do want to make sure that we have continuous conversations on the following points. And one has to do with the reporting period on this.

I understand that the reporting requirements for this Bill were removed in the Assembly, and I don't exactly know the reason behind that.

But I think it's important to note, you know, and have record and have the Legislature know as we're moving forward, this program, approving this program, and as we're working towards our educational pipeline here in California, that we know how many teachers are coming from different countries, what subject matters they're teaching.

And I think there is value to that point, and I know that it was removed from this Bill, but I think it's important, incredibly important for California, the Legislature, to know that, to know who we have here, what they're teaching and how well they're doing, or not in different spaces.

So I think it behooves also the teaching profession to know what we have because in a way, it's not a competitive right now because we have such a need, but eventually it might pose a, a concern when and if we ever get to the point where we have teachers that are fully qualified and trained to meet that demand.

So how many do we allow to come in? How many do we say, okay, we're going to limit it to this number and how long will they be here to be able to teach? So that's why I really, really do believe that reporting requirement is needed.

And then the other area I, I did have a question with regards to it's my understanding that in May 27, 2025 the President of the US ordered the US embassies and consular sections to temporarily pause the scheduling of new interviews for student and exchange visitor visa appointments until further guidance is issued.

And this includes J1 visas for teachers. How does this Bill actually interact or contradict or work with what is currently being advised with the Federal Government?

Thank, thank you, Senator. To your first point, I'll tell you, I don't think in the Assembly you'll have someone who is very much more interested in ensuring that there's data and that there's information being gathered for by certainly by the mandates that the Legislature or the state creates.

And I think I'm that person who really believes in that. This was removed, that language specifically was removed in the Assembly because of the burden and cost of the Department of Education and what that would have created. It would have potentially blocked this, you know, program from moving forward.

But I do agree with you and I think we've talked about how do we get because this is an opt in program, so districts get to choose whether or not they want to do this, how we can make sure we're getting the information from those who are participating provided to us so that we have a better understanding and that there's data collection around that.

So I pledge to you that we want to continue to figure that out because we want to be able to demonstrate whether it's working or not and how much is being utilized. So we'll continue to work on that. On your question, I'll certainly turn it over.

But as you well noted, the program requires that you receive the J1 visa, otherwise you're not able to come and teach. And so to the extent that that program unfortunately is halted or preventing any type of workforce exchanges, which is, I think, a bigger question here in California, we have many workforce issues is one of them.

And this could become problematic to ensuring that we have the workforce that we need, in this case for the classrooms. But I'll turn it over to IAG because they work directly with Homeland Security on procuring those visas.

Yeah, so great question. While there was a momentary pause, the pause has been lifted. And so all consulate interviews are now in place and all of the teachers that have received a DS2019, which is the invitation to then go to for their interview at their home country at the U.S. consulate are now taking place. Okay.

And as a J1 visa sponsor, you know, there are guidelines and compliance things that we need to take care of as being a part of that J1 visa program of intercultural exchange.

So just for clarity purposes. So as of May 27, when this was given, it has been lifted and we're okay now moving forward?

That is correct.

Thank you very much. That's very helpful.

If I may add, something that I think is critical as well, that has not been mentioned in regards to the importance of the teacher exchange? Just as much as there is a need here in California, there's also a need across the border.

Currently, over 42,000 US citizen students that speak English are living in Baja California without a lot of support because there's a critical need for teachers that can develop Spanish language development, that can identify what those strategies are, that can support access to the core content for these students.

And so this opens the door for the possibility of being able to do teacher exchange that will benefit both Baja California and California when it comes to the need for teachers in the US for bilingual teachers that have that high level quality of expectations and high level quality of academic Spanish and can support our teachers here as well, as well as teachers in Baja that can provide as exchange teachers those needed, highly needed services for Spanish language development and access to the core content.

So, Madam Chair, just one more follow up question if I may. So just for clarification, is your Bill, is this Bill exclusive to just the exchange between the US And Mexico or not just Mexico, I mean any, any country exclusively to the English language component teaching Spanish or English or just any subject in General?

It's any subject that is needed by a district. But giving the high need for bilingual educators, certainly that's one of the main benefits that hopefully will come. Okay.

But it's any subject and there's so just wanted to have this clear. So I have my, my points clarified. So thank you very much and I look forward to making a motion for the Bill.

Great, thank you. You may Close. Assemblymember Alvarez

Thank you Chair. Appreciate you giving us the opportunity. Again your staff's work on this and as noted, we have a large percentage millions of students in California who are English learners who could definitely benefit, whether it's to gain English language or in a subject matter, as was just presented as a question by Senator and this would give us an opportunity to make sure we serve those students appropriately, that we can not continue to rely on long term substitutes, but on teachers that are prepared to have gone through an education process and are ready to teach on day one on a temporary basis to provide that to our students, particularly our communities where we are in higher need of teachers, but also to make sure that those cultural exchanges allow for professional development within our own schools and districts so that they can collectively be better prepared to serve students, particularly those who are English learners.

And so for that reason I thank you for allowing us to present and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. So we have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh which you call the roll and the motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

Great. And we will put that Bill on call.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Assemblymember. I see Assemblywoman Avila Farias in the audience to present AB 1045. Assemblywoman, you may get started whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 1045 today. Service learning is an innovative educational model that combines academic instruction and meaningful community service. Unlike traditional work—volunteer work—it is designed to meet both community needs and educational objectives, students engaged in service activities tied directly to their coursework, gaining hands on experience while contributing to their communities.

Research shows service learning improves academic performance and strengthens civic engagement. Recognizing its value, both the UC and CSU system have committed to expanding service learning and other career relevant experimental learning opportunities.

However, few financial incentives currently exist to support such opportunities for undergraduates in California's public universities. 1045 authorizes participating UCs and CSU's campuses to provide financial incentives to nonprofit partners to facilitate these programs. This supports the campus goals, enriches student learning, and strengthens local communities.

I wish my technical witness a speedy recovery, but they weren't able to join us today. So, I will be answering any questions you all may have today.

Thank you, Assemblywoman. Do we have anyone here who would like to share their support? Please use the mic at the railing. State your name, organization, position on the Bill. Seeing nobody getting up, we'll move on to witnesses in opposition. If there are any. Seeing no one getting up.

If there's anybody that would like to share their opposition, please use the mic at the railing. Alrighty. And I will turn it back to our Committee. Do Members have any comments or questions?

Okay, great. I will turn it back over. Assemblywoman, if you would like to close.

Thank you. Service learning experience can be a turning point, empowering students to engage deeply in complex social issues and inspiring them to seek meaningful solutions. This bill has no opposition and passed with strong bipartisan support. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.