Assembly Standing Committee on Education

All right, I'd like to call this hearing of the Assembly Education Committee to order. Good afternoon, everyone. We do not have a quorum yet, and so we'll hold off on establishing a quorum. Like to welcome the Committee Members that are here and invite everyone else to join us.

We have eight bills on file today, two bills on consent. They are Senate Bill 374 and Senate Bill 670. We are scheduled to hear one Bill on special order file item number one, Senate Bill 414, but Senator Ashby is presenting another Bill now.

And so while we're waiting for her, we have Senator Umberg here that will be presenting. Let me just go through our standard procedures before we hear from Senator Umberg.

As a reminder, for each Bill, we will have up to two witnesses each, two witnesses in support, two witnesses opposition, each of whom may speak for up to two minutes.

Members of the public in the hearing room will have an opportunity to state their position, but please limit your comments to your name, affiliation and position, support, or oppose on the Bill only. Members of the public are also welcome to provide further comments through our Committee website.

And let me read a quick standard statement regarding how we conduct our hearings. We strive to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so we can have an effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues presented before us.

As we proceed with the witnesses and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands that the State Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people, regardless of the viewpoint they may express.

And in order to facilitate the goal of the hearing as much from the public, within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. And in particular, we will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence.

The rules for today's hearing includes no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place as permitted by the chair. Public comment must relate to the subject being discussed today and no engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing.

Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. And so with that, we have Senator Umberg here with us to present File item number two, Senate Bill 249. Welcome, Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your accommodation. Really appreciate it. I have before you Senate Bill 249. Senate Bill 249 is a Bill that moves the elections for the County Board of Education to the General Election.

You know, all of us extract from our personal experience to the general experience, and one of the things that all of us have is, is we have expertise in elections. And so we all know that Primary Elections have a turnout that is significantly smaller than the General Election.

So, for example, in Riverside County, the voter turnout in the Primary in the last election was 409,000 versus 959,000 in the General. Alameda County, similarly, 330,000 in the Primary, 683,000 in the General.

County Boards of Education have an incredibly important job. And so because this is so unique in terms of their election, which is in the Primary, and by the way, is a plurality election versus a majority election - in other words, you can be elected to the Board of Education with 21% of the vote.

What this would do is this would enfranchise much more the electorate so that you have a more diverse population choosing their Board of Education. This would apply right now to counties that have elections.

There are some counties that don't elect their Board of Education, and in particular to five counties in California, including Orange County, my own county.

With me here to testify in support of the Bill is Savannah Jorgensen on behalf of the League of Women Voters in California.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Savannah Jorgensen, and I'm here on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California to express our strong support for SB 249.

This Bill would require that elections for County Boards of Education be consolidated with the statewide General Election, a simple but powerful change that strengthens our democracy.

Voter turnout in Primary Elections is typically lower and less diverse than in General Elections. That means a small, unrepresentative slice of the electorate can end up making major decisions about public education, decisions that impact every family and student in our communities.

According to recent voter participation statistics from the Secretary of State's office, turnout in the 2024 primary was 35% of registered voters, compared with 71% during the 2024 General election.

And studies show that the primary electorate tends to disproportionately exclude younger voters, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Black voters. By consolidating the county boards of education contest with the General election, SB 249 ensures that more Californians, especially those from underrepresented communities, have a meaningful voice in choosing the leaders who shape our local education systems.

This aligns with the League's belief that local governance should reflect the voice of the many, not just the few. More inclusive elections lead to more accountable and representative leadership.

SB 249 opens the doors of democracy wider and we thank Senator Umberg for authoring this important Bill. We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there public comments in support of SB 249? Please come forward to the microphone.

Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in strong support.

Michael Young with the California Teachers Association. Also in support.

Vanessa Cudabac, third grade teacher at Phoebe Hearst Elementary and I am in support.

Lisa Lennon-Wilkins, President of the Lodi Education Association. And I support this Bill.

Nancy Mauri, first grade teacher with California Virtual Academies and Vice President of CVEU. and I support this Bill.

Hi. Rob Reynolds, I'm a high school teacher at the San Joaquin County Office of Education and strong support.

Jeanette Sansenbach, 4th grade teacher with Folsom Cordova Unified School District also President of the Folsom Education Association. I support.

Nicole Piper, teacher at California Virtual Academies and President of California Virtual Educators United in support.

Anna Cordero, 8th grade teacher at California Virtual Academies. In support.

Good afternoon. My name is Francisco Villasenor, work for California Virtual Academy, and I support this.

Dr. Christopher Anderson, President of the Stockton Teachers Association and 25 year CTE teacher. I'm in strong support of this.

Brittany Ward, third grade teacher and also President of Twin Rivers United Educators here in Sacramento. And I'm in full support of this Bill.

Diana Blockson, sixth grade teacher at Anna Kirchgator Elementary, and I support this Bill.

I'm Fay Grundel. I'm a transitional kindergarten teacher with Orangevale Open in San Juan Unified, and I support this Bill.

Araceli Perez, credential teacher. Fired from Highlands Community Charter for whistleblowing. I support this Bill strongly.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments in support of SP249. Any witnesses in opposition to this measure, please come forward. Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to SB 249?

David Bolland, Mom for Liberty on behalf of too many numerous school board members that are in opposition. We are in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments in opposition to the Bill. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from Dr. Patel? No. All right.

Thank you very much, Senator Umberg, for this presentation and for your Bill. This is not a new issue. We discussed a similar proposal last year and I see our witness in opposition. If you'd like to...

We apologize. We didn't realize you were moving the special order. I've got....

...the high trustees from the Orange County Board of Education, here to testify. Thank you Chairman Muratsuchi.

Fair enough.

Would you like to...id you have a presentation or? If you can approach the witness table.

With you today is Mary Barkey, who's President of the Orange County Board of Education. She has a colleague with her who is catching his breath.

Okay.

And he'll be testifying as well. He's a special liaison to the board.

Okay.

I apologize. I'm Tom Sheehy. I'm their lobbyist. I'm sorry we're late. We didn't see the special order changing.

We met last year on a very similar Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you. Please, the floor is yours. When you catch, give you a chance to catch your breath if you'd like. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The microphone button. Yeah.

Got it. Thank you. Thank you again. I appreciate you letting us take time to speak today. I am the President of the Orange County Board of Education. This is not new. I have been concerned. This is the third time that I've been here before committees regarding this issue.

It started back with Senator Min with SB 286, I believe. Then last year it was Newman with SB 907, and then this year it is 249 with Senator Umberg.

And it just concerns me that we have so many pressing issues here in California. We have crime and we have homelessness. We have fire recovery efforts, water issues, soaring gas prices. And so it just disheartens me that this continues to be a priority here at the Legislature.

Moving our elections to the General Election, people talk a lot about voter fatigue, and I agree. We wind up at the bottom of the ballot and there is fatigue. By the time they get down to these non partisan elections, it's tiring. But more than that, I think it's confusing to them

In my 10 cities, each city, they have their own educational elections. They have their own districts with elections. So they've got Susie or Sam or Diana running and, well, who's Mary Barkey? You know, where'd she come from?

By having us in the primary, we can really get out and differentiate ourselves. Tell them how the County Board of Education differs from the local districts. The County Board is an appeals board much different than the district. So it really gives us a time to differentiate who we are, which we appreciate.

And, you know, considering the budget issues that we have here in California, this is a very expensive Bill. Especially now that it's gone from just the County Board of Education in Orange County, adding four other boards throughout the state, it's a very expensive Bill.

And that that concerns me that, you know, for perpetuity, that is going to be an expense to the state. I don't believe it should be a priority. Last year, Governor Newsom vetoed the Bill based on local control. That was one of his big issues. And that's still an issue. We do believe in local control.

And it is disappointing that with the three times we've seen this similar Bill, we've never had anyone talk to us about it. We've never had a Senator come say, hey, these are our concerns. What do you guys think? Nobody's come to us.

Not only that, but we had our legal counsel and Department go through almost three decades of agenda records and no one has ever brought the issue to the dais, to our boarding boardroom. Nobody's ever been concerned, whether it be constituents or anyone, about this issue.

And so we're just concerned why it's such a priority. And we just hope that you guys will take other priorities that are really concerning here in California.

I mean, we're a mess in California, and so we just hope you'll prioritize something else. And again, I really appreciate you listening to me today. So thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Did you have a, are you also presenting? Yes, please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Brandon Guevara and I am the Board Liaison for the Orange County Department of Education. I am respectfully urging a no vote on SB 249, not simply because of its infringement on local control or its fiscal imprudence, but because it represents a deeper misunderstanding of how democratic engagement actually works.

Supporters of SB 249 argue that consolidating County Board of Education elections with the statewide General election will actually improve voter turnout. However, the argument that more voters means better representation does not hold up when voter attention is diluted.

These elections, which are nonpartisan and educational in focus, are already overshadowed in the crowded November cycle. This Bill will bury them even further, placing critical decisions about educational leadership behind pages of higher profile state and federal races directly impacting parents and students.

We already know from studies and past elections that voting drops off sharply in down-ballot races. This drop off will disproportionately affect County Board of Education seats, which are the exact races that SB 249 targets.

In other words, we are likely to see fewer voters meaningfully participate in these contests, not more. Moreover, SB 249 ignores that there are local mechanisms to make these changes if necessary. This one-size-fits-all mandate ignores the diversity of county needs and local electoral conditions.

This is not electoral modernization. Rather, it is performative policymaking that will not only cost millions, but weaken voter engagement in educational governance and override local autonomy without any evidence of benefit whatsoever. Again, I urge you to vote no.

Thank you. Any comments in opposition to the Bill? Public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none.

Mr. Chair, apologies. Tristan Brown, CFT, Union of Educators Classified Employees. Because of the scheduling flip, we were supposed to be here to meet to the support side, so we are in support. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Fair enough. We were scheduled to take up Senator Ashby's Bill in special order, but, so with the change in schedule, are there any further public comments either in support or opposition to this measure? Seeing none. Bring it back. Dr. Patel.

Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I was not here for the previous discussion, so I do have a couple of questions.

First of all, how are the calculations, Senator, how are the calculations determined that shifting the election of County BOE trustees would cost lots of money shifting from the Primary to the General. Would cause an additional cost.

I can't imagine it would. In fact, I think it would be a cost savings. The election is going to happen in the Primary. The election's going to happen in the General. Simply moving one order of races from the Primary to the General, one would think that there's virtually no cost. So to the extent that there's a few additional lines on the ballot, seems infinitesimal.

Thank you. Opposition, do you have calculations on how this would cost, have an additional cost?

Thank you, Assemblywoman. So my name's Tom Sheehy. I'm not only the lobbyist for the Orange County Board of Education, but I was also the Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of Finance for a previous Governor. And I chaired the Commission on State Mandates for several years. So I have some expertise in this area.

This Bill, legislative counsel - your legislative counsel - has labeled this Bill as a mandate yes. What that means is that if this Bill makes it to the Governor and the Governor signs it into law, Orange County, as well as Sacramento County, San Joaquin County, Alameda County and Riverside County, they're going to file test claims with the Commission on State Mandates.

There's a whole cottage industry that helps local governments do this. You're probably familiar with that. San Diego certainly filed a number of test claims over the years. Those test claims, I can assure you, will be approved. It's a no brainer.

Because what this, because the State Constitution says if the Legislature or the Governor forces a local government entity to do something tomorrow, that they're not doing today with certain exceptions like crimes, the General Fund is on the hook for it.

So this will get approved as a mandate. And the Senate Appropriations Committee, not my client, not me, but the Senate Appropriations Committee staff said that for Orange County alone to add additional ballot cards in a presidential election, to do information technology processing and a related staff time and so on and so forth, it would be several hundreds of thousands of dollars just for Orange County.

Now you multiply that by five, you're up over a million. And this isn't going to be a one-time cost because a number of those cost elements will be ongoing, which means every time there's an election, your constituents will be paying for the cost in Riverside County and Orange County, not the Orange County citizens.

So we don't think this is fair to other people around the state to have the State General Fund pick up these costs. Again, this can be done in Riverside County or Orange County or Sacramento, Alameda or San Joaquin on their own volition.

They do not need a state statute to do this. And when the state steps in and passes a statute to do it, it becomes a mandate. That's how you get to millions of dollars.

Yeah. As a former school board trustee in Poway Unified School District, we know that we rarely actually recover the costs from unfunded mandates. So that is a genuine reality.

And I don't understand how shifting from Primary to General, I still am struggling with understanding how it's actually going to increase costs. But putting that aside, when we look at Primary versus General elections, this election is decided in the Primary, is that correct?

And generally voters have this impression that ballots that they cast in the Primary would continue on to a General where elections are decided. In this case, the election is decided in the Primary.

And I think that's really unexpected for many voters out there that that is the deciding vote that they're casting, whether they choose to participate or not. Do you have any comments?

I think you, Senator Umberg, you already did explain about turnout in a Primary versus a General because the electorate generally believes that it's the Primary which counts versus the General that counts and the Primary is just to select a top two or something like that. Is that kind of the trends you're seeing in Orange County?

Well, as was mentioned, this applies to all five counties that currently elect their Board of Education in the Primary. The trend we see in Orange County is the same as everywhere else, that the turnout in the Primary election is very small.

As to what individual voters think, I agree with you. I think common sense tells us that most voters who vote in the primary think that there's going to be another election in the fall and that this is not necessarily determinative.

I agree. In terms of the costs, I also agree with you. Really shifting a few lines from the primary to the General cannot be that expensive.

But let's put that aside. This is a policy Committee. This Committee makes decisions, I think, based on what's best policy for California. And is it best policy in California that we have a much larger and diverse electorate? Choose the representative? I think it is such. That's my point of view.

Whether we have better representatives or not, that's not our job. Our job is not to figure out whether you're better representatives. A fellow named Phil Eisenberg, who was an iconic figure here in the California Assembly, I see head shaking, told me one day says we are not the best of our district. We are representative of our district.

And I think that's true. That's what we want. We want folks who are representative of their district in the General Election. That electorate, I think, provides us a better sense of who is representative of the district.

Thank you.

All right, let me wrap up our presentation for this Bill, Senate Bill 249. Thank you, Senator Umberg. And thank you to our representatives from the Orange County Board of Education also for joining us.

I do agree with Senator Umberg that for democracy to work, we want the greatest participation. We should encourage a greater participation. And for that reason I am in support of your measure. Senator Umberg, would you like to close?

Just thank you very much. And I appreciate Marguerite Reese for her work on the Bill. And Mr. Chair, I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We do not have a quorum yet and so we will take this under submission and call for a vote when we have a quorum established. So thank you very much. I see Senator Ashby is in the audience. I see we also have Senator Grove and Senator Niello.

I will leave it to the Senators. Do we prioritize the public or do we prioritize Senators? All right. With Senator Ashby's accommodation, we'll hear from Senator Grove. All right, thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I do have witnesses that are coming to the dais as well. I'll try to be very brief. And thank you for taking us out of order. We have individuals with flights that leave very shortly, so thank you. And I'd like to thank Senator Ashby for allowing me to present as well.

Today I'm here to present SB Senate Bill 373 which will add additional safeguards for placement of California's children in non public schools. I'll be accepting the Committee amendments and want to extend my sincere appreciation to the Chair and your incredible staff for their thoughtful work.

And I do want to say a special thank you to Tanya for all her collaborative efforts with my office throughout this process.

You really have been incredible and it's been a great partnership in shaping this bill, so thank you very much for that over the past several years, California has taken important action to protect dependent youth in residential placements.

In 2021, the Legislature passed AB153 to end the practice of sending foster youth out of state to residential facilities after widespread reports of abuse and neglect. Governor Newsom followed that up the following year with an $8 million investment to bring those children home and ensure transfer into a safer in state facility.

Last year I authored SB 1043 with sponsor Paris Hilton which aimed to increase transparency around restraints and seclusion use in short term residential therapeutic programs which is the placement used for many dependent youth who returned home from California from these out of state placements.

However, as we began to work on this along with Tanya, we uncovered other serious gaps in the system with most foster youth that were brought back to California STEM students with disabilities, those with Individualized education programs or IEPs were still being sent out of state to non public schools throughout the California Department through the California Department of Education.

Under federal law, the student's IEP team determines whether the needs cannot be met in the public school setting and the district may place them in non certified public schools out of state or in state, but mostly out of state.

The unfortunate reality is that many of these facilities have histories of abuse and neglect, negligence at best, yet remain certified by the California Department of Education.

Additionally, although the on site business is required by the LEA that places this child in the out of state facility, there's no requirement for anyone from California Department of Education or the LEA to have a face to face meeting with this student to ensure their safety while they're residing in this out of state facility for any length of time.

Here are just a few examples that we found and uncovered currently certified CDES or NPSS with serious safety concerns. In Canyon State Academy in 2022, a student died from an overdose and law enforcement responded to more than 230 emergency calls at that facility in a single year.

Discovery Ranch, where just Last year a 17 year old committed suicide. The state found evidence of negligence and the parents have filed a lawsuit and in Provo Canyon School, widespread abuse has been detailed by Paris Hilton on HBO's mini series Teen Torture Inc.

These are not isolated incidents and one of the reasons that we have brought this measure before you today. As the Committee analysis points out, CDE was required to contract for a study that examines non public schools.

This report conducted by West Ed was recently released and highlights the need for this Bill that we have here before you today.

According to Wested study a non public schools, there was significant confusion about state and local entity roles and responsibilities with respect to monitoring and oversight of the process if a student was placed in these non public schools out of state.

SB373 addresses West Ed's reports concerns about unclear roles and monitoring out of state nonpublic schools by mandating standardized LEA oversight, enhanced CDE certification criteria and transparent parent communication to ensure the safety and accountability.

Under this Bill, LEAs are required to go beyond basic site visits and ensure meaningful engagement with the students they place while following a consistent protocol designed to identify potential mistreatment. Specifically, SB373 requires LEAs to continue conducting annual site visits to every out of state NPS serving California students.

Conduct in person interviews with students during those visits aligned with the student's IEP to assess well being and identify any concerns and make quarterly phone calls between the student and the lea providing direct channel to the students to report concerns of risk or help.

The LEAs will need to complete a CDE standardized on site site visit which will now include or expanded to include screening of signs of abuse, neglect and mistreatment, a review of behavioral emergency reports, an assessment of staff professionalism, positive behavioral supports and pupil identity or pupil dignity and an interview directly with the student to ensure their health and safety.

I just think that this should be something automatically that we have already been doing for all these years but we have not been doing that and so I just appreciate the chair and specifically Tom and his recommendations to make sure that we can protect these students when they are difficult.

Decisions are made that families place these students or this Department of Education places these students outside of state. We can't forget about them. They're just kids and we just can't forget about them.

So another thing that this bill does is it bans prone supine and mechanical restraints like you can't hold them down in a hogtied position and mechanical restraints maintains clear policies for students rights for the complaint process and require annual staff training and evidence based trauma informed behavioral interventions. It requires internal policies on restraint, seclusion and abuse.

We had horror stories about restraints, seclusion and abuse and restraints tied up for 24 and 48 hours, urinating, defecated on themselves. One kid died in the prone position. So I'm just. I just think that it's so imperative that we do everything we can to make sure that these students are protected. So I thank you for being here.

I know that we ensure that families are informed and participants are in placement in this process beginning in 2026 and 2027. LEAs have to access non public school certification status. They also require to do other items. And I know I'm taking up Senator Ashby's time, so I'm going to end and introduce my witnesses.

With the most recent amendments, it reflects an in depth conversation and collaboration that we've taken steps to ensure this Bill is not only meaningful, but it protects those in the workplace as well. With me here to testify is Avital Van Leeuwen.

And she's a survivor and a fierce advocate who is previously placed in out of state facility through the IEP approved by Los Angeles Unified School District. She's here today to share her harrowing experience and an advocate for stronger protections for all students and has become a warrior for that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair Moatsuchi, Vice zero, thank you Chair Muratsuchi, Vice Chair Hoover and Members of the Committee. My name is Avital Van Leeuwen. When I was 16, La Unified School District used an IEP to send me to an out of state non public school called Alpine Academy in Utah.

Alpine claimed they were helping me, but instead I was traumatized by treatment I did not want or need. Today I would like to share my story with you. Growing up was really hard for me. My mother had Munchausen by proxy and manipulated doctors and teachers to have me put on an IEP without strong guardrails.

The school district sent me away and paid for my placement without question. To get to the program, two strangers removed me from my bedroom in the middle of the night and took me away. They called it therapeutic transport, but it felt like kidnapping. I cried and begged for help at the airport. No one listened.

At Alpine, I was completely cut off from the outside world. Force fed medication, psychologically abused and threatened with cruel punishments for normal healthy behaviors. I was not allowed to speak freely and when I tried to call my dad, the staff ripped the phone from my hands and threatened me with physical restraint. Alpine scared me into silence.

My experience there still haunts me to this day, leading to recurring nightmares and being diagnosed with ptsd. Alpine caused me to regress, not succeed for many years. The trauma stunted my development, delayed my Independence, caused learned helplessness, and taught me to accept the abuse and coercive control in my family.

I am here today reliving this story because I am so sad that this is still happening to California youth today. California committed to ending out of state placements for foster youth due to abuse. But those protections didn't translate to youth outside of foster care because hundreds of students with IEPs are still being sent away.

This Bill ensures that any student sent out of state is not out of sight, out of mind. Had this Bill been law when I was 16, I might have felt safer. I might have been rescued. I might not still be healing from something that never should have happened in the first place. Please pass SB 373.

No student should be invisible in a system that's meant to support their mental health and educational needs. Thank you.

Thank you. My second one, Mr. Chair, is unfortunately, Ms. Hilton could not be with us today. However, Caroline Cole, a survivor of a lockdown behavioral modification program during her teens and now a strategic advocacy lead for 1111 Media Impact, which is Paris Hilton's organization that she works with on rescuing these children across the country and the world.

She's also a co host of a podcast, Trapped in Treatment and the co author of Stopped Institutional Child Abuse Act. She's worked across the nation to protect children. I'd like her to testify.

Thank you so much, Chair Muratsuchi and Members of the Committee. As Senator Grove mentioned, my name is Caroline Cole. I work with Paris Hilton's organization and, and for the last five years since Paris came out with her story publicly, we've had the incredible privilege of working on this issue across the nation.

And what has been interesting about that is we have been able to see really the landscape of what we're working with in its full entirety. And I will say California. And as a California native myself unfortunately has earned this reputation as being one of the biggest exporter of children to other states.

And we are so grateful for all of the work that's been done to help remedy that over the past few years. But I think that we've left something on the table here and that is some of our most vulnerable kids, kids who are in the special education system. So this deep, this issue is deeply personal to me.

I was sent from California to an institution in New York. You could not get farther away from my hometown. And so I know really what a life altering experience this can be.

But today I'm not here to speak just to my experience, but the evidence that we see, and that is just last week the California Department of Education released a first of its kind report on non public schools and agencies. And the findings were really sobering.

They found that there's over 300 California students with IEPs that remain in out of state, state placements, many in states with fewer protections than our own. And I also really want to emphasize that we hear from parents that they don't understand.

When they hear that their child's being placed in an out of state, they think that they're going to receive better care, they're going to receive more resources, that they're going to have a chance at their education. And the facts are, is that that is anything but true.

The study also revealed that there's significant concerns around lack of monitoring, insufficient data collection and really no centralized oversight framework. Many of these students are sent to high risk facilities where practices like seclusion, restraint and isolation still occur. And so SB373 really takes direct aim at these gaps. It lets parents and students know what their rights are.

It makes sure that these out of state students are being visited, that they're being monitored, and that there is a minimum standard of care. Thank you so much for your time and consideration on this Bill. We appreciate it. And I know Paris wishes that she could be here today. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Public comments in support of this measure. Please come forward.

Esteban Nuñez, on behalf of the Anti Recidivism Coalition. In support, thank you.

Tara Thornton, cofounder of Freedom Angels in support.

Denise Aguilar, cofounder of Freedom Angels in support.

Michael Mendoza with Latino Justice in support.

Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Christopher Arroyo on behalf of the State Council on Developmental Disabilities and support.

David Bolland representing Serving Family Values. We are in support. Thank you.

Erika Hoffman, on behalf of the California School Boards Association. In support.

Zoe Schreiber, a survivor of an IEP, partial IEP-funded program in strong support.

Elle Grant on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services. We have a neutral position, but really want to thank the Senator for incorporation of many of our amendment proposals. Thank you.

Lauren Azevedo-Smith, credentialed teacher, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments in support. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Dr. Patel.

Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. As a former trustee in a school district representing many, many parents and within those parents, many parents of students with disabilities, this is a huge need.

We sometimes feel compelled to send our children in out-of-school placements because of the intensity and risk. And so we send them to NPS and we hope that they're getting treated well there.

The reality is there are some very bad actors out there. And although this will create a mandate and an unfunded mandate, my inclination is to protect our children. So thank you for bringing this Bill forward.

Thank you, ma'am.

All right, thank you, Senator Grove, for joining my colleague and thank you for bringing this forward. And I want to thank your witness for sharing your personal experience. I was just curious, what time, what years did your experience take place?

That was in 2011. From 2011 to 2012, I was there for 10 months, which at the time was a record short placement. There were some students who were there for years and years.

Yeah, but it's not that distant of a past. And so, yeah, like Dr. Patel, I also served on a school board before I came here to the LES lecture.

And I remember, you know, for the students that we did not have the capacity to be able to accommodate to meet their, their special education needs, there were a number of students that we would send - especially I remember Provo, Utah - there are so many kids sent to Provo, Utah.

And yeah, and I always assumed that the family Members would ensure that the wellbeing of the child. But we know that that unfortunately is not always the case. And so your testimony was a very powerful reminder of that.

And Senator Grove, your Bill is important to make sure that we continue to monitor the wellbeing of our students, whether they're in California or outside. So would you like close?

Thank you Mr. Chair. And thank you, Assemblymember Patel. Zoe, who came up at the last, was one of our lead witnesses last time. And I want to thank our witnesses because they have to come and share their testimony.

But we need to not forget out of sight, out of mind for those 300 plus kids that are still outside of our state's care, custody, and control in the hands of somebody else. And the majority of the numbers that come back say they're not being treated well. So thank you and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We do not have a quorum and so we will wait for the vote on your measure and we'll take it up while we do. Thank you.

Senator Ashby, would you like Senator Niello to go before you or not? Okay. All right, we'll cut it off with Senator Niello. So if there are any Senators that are watching, please stay in your office because Senator Ashby will be next.

And this will be File Item number five, Senate Bill 568.

That is consistent with what I have. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm here today to present, as you said, SB 568. The Ep. I always trip over this word. Epinephripen. Neph. Ephraim. Epinephrine. There it is. Okay.

The Epinephrine in Schools Modernization Act. I know that there's an acronym in there somewhere. I just haven't figured it out yet. I want to start by saying I accept the Committee's amendments and appreciate their good work on this.

In 2014, on a bipartisan basis, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 1266, authored by Senator Huff, which required epinephrine in public schools.

That measure has helped safeguard children, saving countless lives to date, and has ensured our school health professionals have the necessary medication on hand to provide life saving treatment.

According to the Food Allergy Research and Education - they do have an acronym, it's FARE - as many as 33 million Americans suffer from life threatening allergies. It's estimated that nearly 6 million of these people are children under the age of 18.

That is one in every 13 or on average two in every classroom. Many first time allergic reactions that require epinephrine do indeed happen at school. Anaphylaxis is a potentially lethal allergic reaction.

It can happen when a person is stung by a bee, ingests food such as shellfish or nuts, or maybe even just comes in contact with something as simple as latex. I am well familiar with that as I have been wearing this necklace for about 40 years because I'm allergic to Penicillin.

Epinephrine is the first line of treatment for someone who is experiencing anaphylaxis. It can be easily administered and has very little side effect. Allergic reactions can be severe, even fatal, without prompt administration.

Since the passage of SB 1266, the state has made made access to preschool a priority and is now expanding to universal preschool. State preschool was not contemplated when the original Bill was drafted, although it was the intent of the author to provide access to all students.

It's now necessary to not only modernize the code with medication delivery system language changes as new and improved medication has come to market, but also address the potential gap that preschoolers may have by not being specifically called out in the original Bill.

Some school districts have even expressed confusion due to some unintended references in the current election code on whether they're supposed to be provided providing epinephrine in their preschool programs or not.

This clarity provided by SB 568 is needed for schools to ensure that they do not have any exposed liability for their preschool students. SB 568 simply modernizes the code with new terms for medication and clarifies the existing requirement for the stocking of epinephrine in public schools to be sure all children are protected.

In support today I have with me Kirsten Munk, who is a school nurse on behalf of the school, California School Nurses and Dr. Travis Miller, a board certified allergist to provide testimony and answer any technical questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Kirsten Munk. I've been a school nurse for over 17 years and I'm currently an Assistant Professor and the coordinator of the School Nurse Credential Program at Sac State.

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to provide testimony today to address the need for SB 568 on behalf of school nurses and all of the students we care for.

Access to emergency epinephrine in case of anaphylaxis should be available to anyone, child or adult, in our schools. That was the intent of the original legislation, SB 1266 from Senator Huff. Unfortunately, we recently learned that access is not consistent throughout the state.

For example, with expansion to universal preschool, not all districts are allowing access to preschool students. In districts that do allow access, school nurses have to find workarounds and to obtain epinephrine when preschool programs are housed in a separate building.

The EpiPens for Schools program, which provides free epinephrine auto injectors to elementary and secondary schools, will not provide them to preschools.

The California Department of Public Health, which is now writing standing orders for emergency epinephrine, will not write standing orders for preschool students. Districts have had to get their standing orders from individual physicians and purchase from local pharmacies, which incurs additional costs.

We believe the language referencing elementary and secondary schools regarding training of staff and stalking medication in SB 1266 may have been causing this confusion.

Nonetheless, all students need access. 25% of first time anaphylactic reactions in schools occur in children with no previous diagnosis of food allergy.

As a school nurse, I responded to a situation in which a preschool student who did not have a prescribed EpiPen at school experienced an anaphylactic reaction and required stock epinephrine. Fortunately for this student, the preschool was housed on an elementary campus so the stock EpiPen was available.

This is a life saving medication that all students should have access to. School nurses and school districts are asking for the clarification that this Bill provides. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Travis Miller. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on SB 568. I'm a licensed physician in the great State of California for the last 24 years and I've practiced allergy immunology locally here in the Greater Sacramento area for 19 years.

I've held board certifications in pediatrics, internal medicine, and allergy immunology. I currently sit as the Chairman of the Advocacy Council of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, which represents nearly 6,000 allergists in North America. I also sit on their Board of Regents.

I'm authorized to speak on their behalf in relation to to SB 568, and the American College of Allergy has submitted a letter in support of this Bill.

I'm the father of three children who've grown up in California and attended public schools. I understand closely how terrifying and important anaphylaxis, allergy and food allergy are to our communities.

The bracelet I wear on my right wrist is for a reminder of Natalie Georgi, who tragically died from a food allergic reaction even with epinephrine. 568 is an extension of the amazing safety net that we created in schools in the State of California.

When we passed SB 1266 in 2014, we led the nation creating a school based program of unassigned epinephrine to support students, families, teachers, school nurses, staff and faculty who are dealing with these allergic reactions on their campuses.

On any given year, I'm aware of between 15 and 50 incidents of anaphylaxis on campus in which epinephrine is used and arguably saved lives. With a conservative estimate, that would mean that we have saved between 150 or 200 lives in the last decade. But I suspect that's a significant underestimation.

SB 568 would be an extension of that incredible platform of public health safety that we have built in California. I strongly encourage you to move this Bill along for signature. Thank you.

Thank you. Public comments in support of the measure. Please come forward.

Excuse me. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members Leigh Angela Reid, on behalf of the California School Nurses Organization in strong support of the measure and a co-sponsor.

Good afternoon, Chairmembers Allison Barnett with Platinum Advisors here on behalf of Fair Food Allergy Research and Education and support. And sorry for the late ad, but we got our letter in thanks.

Erica Hoffman, on behalf of the California School Boards Association. Very much in support and thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, Members, Bryce Docherty, on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California, proud co-sponsor of the bill in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. David Bollog, serving family values and the Local Chapter of Los Angeles Moms for Liberty. We are in support. Thank you.

Zach Flowers with the Health Officers Association of California in support.

Chairman, Zinger Filo with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of Kaleo with a support if amended position as outlined in our letter. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments and support. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition? Seeing none. Like to bring it back to the Committee, Dr. Patel.

It'd be nice if some of my colleagues were here to ask their questions too. I do have questions. Thank you for bringing this bill forward for us today. Just to clarify, this is currently policy in the State of California for our LEAs to stock non-assigned, as you described, prescription epinephrine on our campuses.

And the intent of this bill would just to be to fill that missing block of new children that are on our school campuses now that we have UTK.

That's correct. There are conflicting references to relevant grades, primary, secondary, junior high school, high school. And so we've just broadened it to local education agencies so that it includes all public schools, including, as I indicated, the preschool, which was not contemplated when Senator Huff had his bill.

And the doses that are kept on campus, are they appropriate for preschool age children by weight?

Well, weight is actually in the language of the bill. I will ask Dr. Miller to address that issue because weight, as I said, is addressed in the bill. And as far as I know, the epinephrine is safe for use of children as little as six months. So epinephrine.

Epinephrine is weight based in the pediatric space. There are a multitude of self injectable epinephrine devices available now on the market, which include the 0.3mg, 0.15 and.1 is available. Different manufacturers have made these doses available through school programs where they're essentially donated without pharmaceutical cost. Although Kirsten was talking about that.

Some schools have to go out and get Theirs. So most preschoolers, I believe, would be 3 years old, and so they would probably be getting the 0.15 dose of epinephrine, which is broadly available. There is a 0.1. There's a 0.3.

Thank you for that. There are some children in certain communities that are smaller. So just to make sure that we're able to cover the bases safely should the need arise. Also, in schools, we know that many of our elementary schools don't actually have nurses, they have health techs.

And in those situations, we ask for volunteers amongst our, usually typically our classified employees to get the training necessary to do that. And this would follow along that same protocol as already assigned. So it's nothing new coming the way of our schools.

We are changing as little as possible in the original bill. Exactly. For that reason. The intent is just to include those lower grades that weren't contemplated back at the time of SB 1266.

Thank you for bringing this bill forward.

Thank you.

Thank you. I also want to thank you, Senator, for bringing this measure forward. Happy to support your bill as amended to move on to the Appropriations Committee. Would you like to close?

Well, I. Thank you. That sounds like it's time for me to make my close. Yes, I respectfully ask an aye vote. All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We do not have a quorum yet, and so at the appropriate time, we will take up a vote on your measure.

Thank you. All right. And thanks again to Senator Ashby, my good friend. All right. Okay.

Senator Ashby, we are taking up file item number one, Senate Bill 414, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the opportunity to be here. And thank you for allowing the other Senators to go first so we could get them on with their day. I appreciate that convenience that you provided for them. Thank you so much. Kind. I am here to present SB414, the Charter School Accountability Act.

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

Start by saying that I accept the proposed Committee amendments, which do the three following things make the drafted amendments to the funding determination provisions, include additional standards and notifications around auditors and the audit guide, and establish legislative intent clause to create a statewide charter school oversight entity. I want to thank the Committee chair truly and deeply.

We've been in these conversations for a while, and I've said this to everyone who's asked, be it media or anyone else, that they've been very cordial, pleasant dialogue the entire time. To your credit, not a single issue. I have enjoyed working with you and your staff and your team and I'm truly grateful to you for that.

Thank you so much. It's been a very respectful, professional and productive dialogue. I'm very grateful.

And while I know we are not supposed to call out staff, I think it would be absolutely ridiculous not to at least say these three names on the record because these three people have dedicated so much of the last year of their life to try and advance this issue for students.

That I'm eternally grateful to Amaya from my office, Chelsea from your team, and Ian from the Senate Education team. Those three individuals have given so much time, attention and expertise to this that it should absolutely be noted. I thank you very much all three of you. State of California is better off for your work. Appreciate it.

Charter schools provide an alternative educational flexibility for families who need a myriad of circumstances, including maybe medical conditions, maybe children with special needs, children who are justice involved, and students who for whom a traditional setting just has not become safe for them. Charter schools serve as a resource for communities.

They deliver vital education programs for students, oftentimes some of our most vulnerable young people. Several audits and reports have identified opportunities for improvement for various charter schools and for charter school authorizers. SB414 seeks to respond to those audits and provide additional accountability across the State of California.

Most of the audit findings point back to a greater need for oversight and transparency. SB414 addresses these issues specifically by holding charter schools responsible for internal accounting and educational outcomes for all students.

The Bill incorporates recommendations from several reports, including Legislative Analyst Office, the California charter authorizing professionals 2024 report and the California State Controllers 2024 audit on best Practices for Charter schools.

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

This Bill codifies important recommendations made through in depth audits and reports across a variety of entities. Finally, I would like to note that this Bill is no doubt going to modify yet again as it moves through this process, which is good because we should be working together on what these outcomes become for our children.

We're doing incredibly important work with this Bill and its companion Bill that's making its way through my side of the Legislature right now. I appreciate all of the people who have participated in the dialogue around these two bills.

Public participation in Your government is the best way to preserve democracy and the best way for these bills to reflect the true value and meaning of what people in our state are are expecting us to deliver when we sit in these very honored positions. So I thank everyone for their engagement. With me.

To testify today are some expert witnesses you probably already know Lynne Alipio, the chief business officer of Altus School and Colin Miller who's the Vice President of Government Affairs for the California Charter Schools Association.

Thank you.

Thank you for affording me the opportunity to speak before you. My name is Lynne Alipio and I have proudly served for over 30 years as the chief business officer for Altus Schools. Is a non classroom based charter schools an educational option and we have served over 7,000 students annually.

We operate nine charter schools throughout San Diego, Riverside County and San Bernardino County including the Charter School of San Diego which is authorized in 1993 and the charter number 28 in the state. The Charter School of San Diego is a two times Malcolm Baldrige National Award recipient for performance excellence.

We serve a diverse student population where majority of students are not on track to graduate. Our independent study program grounded in academic rigor and personal support help students succeed through a hybrid flexible University model. Our schools have strong record of academic, operational and financial performance including spotless audit history over decades of operation.

We have 41 resource centers or I call it instructional facilities totaling 200,000 square feet with a total annual list of $37 million and this cannot be counted under the funding determination expenditures.

We are here today because like many charter schools we are deeply concerned about the fraud and abuse and in the public education system including high profile cases like A three in our own community. This is why we support. I support Senate Bill 414 and this Bill takes a measured thoughtful approach to strengthening accountability.

The Bill directs the State Board of Education to formulate and strengthen funding determination process clarifying expectations, aligning to audited data and allowing us to count significant instructional facility cost. While out to schools have always met this funding requirements without needing mitigation. The process is complex and resource intensive and even for the most compliant schools.

This Bill raises standards without driving qualified auditors out of the field which is critical given that already we have a small pool of audit firms that is education focused.

Ma'am, you're at two and a half minutes. I'm going to ask you to wrap up.

And this could potentially delay reporting, increase compliance costs and reduce transparency. This Bill reflects targeted, effective and sustainable. Please support this important measure and I thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Colin Miller. I'm here on behalf of three organizations, the California Charter Schools Association, the Charter Schools Development Center and the APLUS, network of Personalized Learning Schools and we are concerned about fiscal abuses in public education.

Our coalition supports SB 414 because it represents a balanced approach that focuses on several key areas of improved accountability. First of all, SB414 implements a number of additional audit requirements and new Auditor training and oversight in line with many of the most significant recommendations of the state Controller's report.

It also implements recommendations by the legislative analysts related to the funding determination process for non classroom based charters and establishes clear standards and oversight requirements for any vendor agreements for educational enrichment activities enrollment, ensuring that they are controlled by credentialed teachers.

This Bill would clarify and strengthen many authorizer duties and establish an early warning process to report fiscal irregularities to state officials who would be required to investigate. SB 414 also acknowledges the LAO's finding that the term non classroom based is a misnomer.

The change to flex based more accurate, reflects the current law and the practice in this field. In 2019, when the egregious A3 fraud case was finally investigated and prosecuted, the Legislature took quick action to significantly improve fiscal accountability, governance and transparency and to prohibit for profit entities from operating and controlling charter schools.

SB 414 builds on those early actions. It takes a deliberate approach to implementing the most impactful recommendations of recent report. Heeding the controllers caution about the high cost of many of their recommendations. This Bill attempts to balance the serious need for reform with the realities of cost and fiscal impact.

Without new resources, each dollar diverted to excessive administration comes right out of the funds for student needs. We appreciate the hard work of the author, her staff as well as the Committee staff engaging in extensive conversations to work toward consensus with considerable amendments requested by the Committee.

SB414 provides meaningful improvements in all areas of charter accountability and we ask for your aye vote thank you.

Thank you all the comments in support of the measure. Please come forward.

Mr. Chair and Members Kirk Kimmelshue here today on behalf of Real Journey Academies in support.

Tara Thorton and on behalf of Denise Aguilar as co founders of Freedom Angels in support.

Lauren Azevedo-Smith, teacher with Pacific Coast Academy serving families in Chula Vista in support.

Hello, I'm Joe Wood, Executive Director Superintendent for Natomas Charter School here in Sacramento, also a charter school parent in support of 414.

Hello, I'm Shannon Breckenridge. I'm the Associate Executive Director of Lakeview Charter School, Feather River Charter School and Clarksville Charter School serving students in 14 counties in Northern California. And I support SB414.

I'm Marcie Boyd. I'm the Director of Instruction for Clarksville Charter School, Feather River Charter School and Lakeview Charter School. And I encourage your support of SB414. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Julie Crandall. I'm the principal Superintendent of Home Tech Charter in Paradise, California and we support SB414.

Hello, I'm Debbie Gooding, Executive Director of the Learning Choice Academies in San Diego. And I'm in support.

Good afternoon. Mary Cox, Superintendent of Core Butte Charter School, 2024 California Charter School of the Year, in support.

Good afternoon. Jeff Rice, founder and Director of APLUS representing more than 100 flex based personalized learning charter schools and more than 100,000 students. We are in support.

Sharon from MP3K through 12 charter. And I'm in support.

Eduardo De Leon, I'm the Executive Director of the Language Academy here in Sacramento and in full support.

Hello. Evelyn Anderson, principal of the Santa Rosa French American Charter School, in support.

Hi, I'm Stephanie Cardenas with the California Montessori Project and we're in support.

Hi, Juliana Hubbell, charter school parent and representing Springs Charter Schools, a Credo Gap busting school and we are in support.

Hi, Jillian Tonkin with JCS Family of Schools in San Diego and Riverside. And we are in support.

Jennifer Cauzza, Superintendent of the JCS Family Of Charter Schools in San Diego and Riverside serving 1800 students in support.

Laura Kerr with the Charter School Development Center, in support.

Hi, Larry King, former Superintendent of the Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District, currently the Senior Director for Sage Oak Charter Schools and in full support of 414. Thank you.

Hi. Erica Stevens, California Pacific Charter School, in support.

Mr. Chair Members. Adam Keigwin, on behalf of the Anti Recidivism Coalition and Alliance College Ready Public Schools in support.

All right much Shorter line than my Bill this morning. Witnesses in opposition to the measure, please come forward.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak in opposition.

You'll get a yes. Okay.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Cassidy Mancini here on behalf of the California School Employees Association in very respectful opposition.

First, I'd like to really appreciate the hard work of the author staff, Amaya and the Committee staff in convening the sponsors of SB414 and AB84 twice a week for the past month to discuss the important issues covered by our bills.

I'm encouraged by our progress and we're very grateful to Senator Ashby for her amendments removing the section related to the government Claims Act. That being said, there are still several aspects of our bills that remain apart.

Our concerns center around ensuring there are multiple layers of robust oversight to prevent and detect fraud and waste by non classroom based schools. The A3 and in the A3 and Highlands cases, we saw California's existing system of NCB charter accountability and oversight fail to the tune of $580 million.

We need all of our systems, audits, authorizer oversight and the State Board's funding determination process to work together seamlessly and effectively to prevent and detect fraud, waste and abuse. The LAO and FCMAT made several recommendations on how to enhance our systems to that end.

For example, the current funding determination process only requires that NCB charters submit one year of data establishing that the school met thresholds for spending on teachers and instructional services and maintained a set student to teacher ratio. However, there are no checks or even reporting to the State Board of expenditures in the intervening three years.

SB 414 lacks a proposal to resolve this key issue. Furthermore, the LAO and FCMAT recommended limits on small district authorizers. A3 specifically sought out small districts, all but one with a total district ADA of less than 300 because A3 knew those districts didn't have the capacity to effectively oversee charter schools of their size.

The LAO and FCMAP found that over a third of California's non classroom based charter ADA is authorized by just 14 small school districts. SB 414 disregards a key report finding and recommendation on this topic that the Legislature should set limits on small district authorizers who do not have the capacity to oversee large non classroom based schools.

Highlands further prove to us that we must also find ways to hold authorizers of all sizes accountable for conducting thorough and high quality oversight. However, SB414 proposes no new methods to ensure authorizer accountability.

To that end, the analysis really thoroughly lists many other missing pieces and for these reasons we remain opposed to SB414, but we look forward to continuing productive conversations through summer recess on how to best protect students and ensure integrity in our public education system. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Nicole Piper. I'm a teacher at California Virtual Academies, also called cava, which is a fully virtual non classroom based charter school.

I also serve as President of California Virtual Educators United, representing over 1100 educators across the CAVA network as well as Insight and IQ schools serving over 14,000 students in the State of California. I've taught every grade from kindergarten to 12th grade over my 13 years as a virtual educator, but my passion is really?

Reading intervention helping our most struggling students gain skills and fall in love with reading. Hopefully virtual education is complex and specialized work. During the pandemic, I think many of us got a view of what that work looks like, how challenging and how vital the work is. But unfortunately, our school's budget does not reflect that.

At CAVA and schools like ours, millions of dollars are sent out of state to contractors instead of staying in the classroom with our students and our teachers. It might not always be outright fraud like we've been hearing about today, but it's still a system that prioritizes private vendors over our students and our educators here in California.

That's not the worst of it. In those two investigations we've heard about, there's over half $1.0 billion in fraud, waste and abuse in the NCB charter sector. That money should have gone to our students for their instruction. The LAO and FCMAT gave you clear evidence based recommendations to prevent future harm, but SB414 does not implement them.

Passing SB414 as it is lets charter administrators and management organizations decide for themselves which rules to follow rather than holding them to the standards recommended by your own oversight agencies. Please remember that charter schools aren't just made up of administrators and CMOs. That there are hard working dedicated educators there too.

And virtual educators like me are doing our best with too little while money gets siphoned away from our schools. Passing incomplete measures that don't take into account educator voices like sb414 and that don't fully address all the issues leading to the A3 and Highland scandals will result in continued fraud and abuse that harms California's students.

We urge you to vote no on SB414. Thank you.

Thank you. Public comments in opposition to SB4 14. Please come forward.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members Tristan Brown of CFT very appreciative. Of the ongoing negotiations. We are still opposed to the Bill and print, but look forward to landing this plane together.

Michael Young with the California Teachers Association, similarly opposed to the Bill, but appreciate the ongoing conversations around this.

Thank you.

Ivan Fernandez, California Labor Federation. I align my comments with our affiliates.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Vanessa Cudabac, Vice President of Sacramento City Teachers Association, teacher at Phoebe Hearst Elementary and mother of charter school graduate and respectfully opppose.

Lisa Lennon Wilkins Middle School science teacher, President of Modi Education Association representing 1400 teachers and I respectfully oppose

Nancy Mowry, first grade teacher with California Virtual Academies and I oppose.

Ashley Lugo on behalf of the California County Superintendents not in opposition, but expressing concern related to authorizer implementation. Thank you.

Anna Cordero, 8th grade teacher at California Virtual Academies and proud charter parent, respectfully opposed.

Jeanette Sansenbach, 4th grade teacher in Folsom Cordova Unified, President of the Folsom Cordova Education Association, I respectfully oppose.

Brittany Ward, third grade teacher in Twin Rivers Unified School District whose board was the oversight Committee for Highlands. And I respectfully oppose.

Deanna Blockson, 6th grade teacher, Anakirchka Elementary School and I respectfully oppose.

Tanya Halverson, California Virtual Academy's high school teacher, opposed.

Francisco Villasenor, Special Education High School Teacher, and I oppose Senate Bill 414.

Araceli Perez, Teacher at Highlands in 2018 when they thought they dodged the bullet because Thick Mat only gave recommendations and there was no legislation. 2019, Twin Rivers renewed their charter because they only had to follow the 1992 Charter Schools Act. So I respectfully opposed.

Going to remind folks to please keep your comments to name, affiliation and position on the Bill.

Faye Grundle, transitional kindergarten teacher at Orangeville Open in San Juan Unified, parent of a charter student and I oppose.

Sarah Petrowski on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials with a concerned position related to authorizer implementation issues.

Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified, also with a concerned position from an implementation perspective.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Sarah Karlinsky from Association of California School Administrators also registering concern regarded to authorizing implementation issues. Thank you.

Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education also expressing concern in our role as a charter Authorizer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members. Jeff Vaca representing the Riverside County Superintendent Of Schools, like the previous speakers, concerns related to authorizer implementation issues.

Barrett Snider, be with the Small School Districts Association, the San Diego County Office of Ed with the same concerns.

Good afternoon. Rob Reynolds, alternative ed teacher in San Joaquin county expressing opposition to this.

Dr. Christopher Anderson, 25 year educator in Career tech education, President of the Stockton Teachers Association. I oppose.

Good afternoon. David Bolland. My apologies we missed the first roll call. We are in support from Serving Family Values. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further comments either in support or in opposition. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee, Mr. Alvarez?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the Members of the public for your testimony. And thank you Senator for bringing this issue forward and for expressing your concern with some of the things we felt quite acutely in San Diego.

It was not a proud day to see the headlines over the last couple of years as a result of what's happened with the mismanagement and outright fraud on the part of some of our schools back home. So appreciate you focus on that.

I think my questions are in reflection to the analysis and I want to give you an opportunity to respond to whether you believe the recommended Committee amendments address these issues or not. There were several very respectful or I'm very respectful to the analysis that the LAO's office put forward on this issue.

And the analysis before us today identifies several recommendations from the LAO that are not in recommendations that are not in your Bill. And I just would like to give you an opportunity because some of them are quite significant and we could probably spend a good amount of time here, which I won't, on every one of these.

But maybe if you could identify a few that you think are important, perhaps where you have disagreement with the Lao on and I'd like to hear what your perspective is on that.

So first of all, give you a little bit of information from my vantage point and then if it's okay, offer one of my expert witnesses into the more detail of it. But I would just say that there are there are many components to the audits that we're still negotiating, which I think you heard.

There's a few things even in the language that we're putting forward today, that's intent language, just hopefully identifying for folks the notion that we're not quite done on those items. This is certainly one of those areas, especially as you're talking about the smaller authorizers, which is I think. But you heard it today, right?

We just put the intent language in and you already had eight people line up with concern. So we have to find that balance. And your chair and myself and the folks that have been working on this weekly are very dedicated to doing that. They're just not quite there yet.

So in this particular Bill in 414, what you have is the intent language to figure out which of those items would work best and how they would mesh together. And ultimately, I think at the end of the day, Chair Mayor Suchi and myself want the same outcome.

We're just trying to figure out the best route there and the one that's implementable in the time and space that we live in today, which is a down budget, tough budget and a time where we need to do two things, have oversights we can afford. Neither one of us want a vetoed Bill.

We want one of these to make it right and two, where we protect every dollar because I sympathize so much with you on the headlines had a Few myself here of late days that I'm not proud of in our region. But what we do about it is what defines us. Right.

And so that's why we're so focused on the audit guidelines. We're so focused on things like the clauses around the highest amounts paid, the top 25 payments, giving authorizers more ability to identify for themselves things that they'd like to look into more.

We've really pushed very hard on the audit training components and how we get auditors prepared for this work.

We're trying to find that balance between what we can do that would honor the findings of all three of the audits and at the same time be implementable in California and really produce the outcomes we're looking for, which is to hold all schools really accountable for the dollars that the precious few dollars that we have to give to education in this state and make sure all of them make their way to students.

So I don't know if you want to, through the chair, have expert witness or if that's good enough for you.

I appreciate that response. It's definitely helpful. I think the spirit is very clear, which I appreciate as well, of trying to understand where we could together get to a place that is, as you said, implementable and accountable. I think that that certainly is the goal. That was certainly.

I've been very clear about my perspective on this issue from our. The Bill that our chair had. So I think. I appreciate that. I think that does require more work. Maybe. Maybe a better question for you would be, are there any that are. You said you're working on most of them.

Are there any that are just we should know about now as you head into this negotiation that are non negotiables for you as part of what has been outlined in the analysis, again, mainly reflected on the LAO recommendations, including things like funding determination and the small district authorization.

Yeah. I think for us, there's not a specific item outlined in. Or I'll say for me, because wielding one of these groups, no two minds. Right.

But what I would say to you is from an author standpoint, I'm open to all dialogue and I think actually the Bill where it sits right now, and I will say both bills as they sit right now are probably very different than where we thought they would sit. So I'm open to anything.

But here's what I'm not open to. I'm not open to something that's so punitive that all charter schools take a haircut. No matter what's happening, I think kids have a value. I'm very focused on students and student outcomes in all of this. The reason I even took up the Bill, I come from a community.

You saw some of my schools here today, Natomas. And I mean not just Sacramento, but Natomas, where charter schools and traditional public schools are both beloved. And I honestly feel like a very long time champion of both. That's why, you know, Tristan and I are very good friends. I've. I've been working in this space for long time.

I want kids to feel valued in every school. I've done two school bond measures as a City Council Member in my own name for all the schools because it's important that kids have safe environments and that as many of our dollars as we can make it into those classrooms.

But I don't think kids should be valued based on which school they are at. I don't think that the per daily attendance value of a student is lower because of where they go. And I think that's a piece where we, where I would hold a line.

I wouldn't say I've received a lot of pushback, but I would say that's been a piece on the determinates that I think we would hold the line on. I think making sure we identify folks that are bad actors, where dollars are being spent is. It's totally unacceptable.

These headlines that you have in San Diego, the headlines that I have in Sacramento, completely unacceptable. We can't, we can't. We have to react to that. We have to react to that. And we need stronger audits and oversights.

And I know there's still more work to do on this Bill, which I acknowledge as, as I said here and I think was also said in the Senate Education Committee earlier today, we know we have a little more work to do, but honestly I'm, I'm very encouraged by where we are today and feel that there's really nothing that's totally off the table.

As long as students are the focus, kids get a well funded program and there are far more oversights for the schools than there are right now. I do think the auditing standards are incredibly important. We fought hard for those as well.

Okay, well then maybe what would make more sense, appreciate the response to that is for me to reiterate what I've already said. So nothing new here. You know, a small district, as is pointed out in our analysis on page eight, New Jerusalem Elementary School District with 22 students overseeing a 4500 charter school system.

When you've got probably the Superintendent being the principal and perhaps the custodian and the nurse, I don't know, really seems like perhaps something could be done to fix that. So you didn't address that specifically, but I would say that's certainly something I would be looking to in whatever final iteration of this is funding determination, recalling for everybody.

We're not talking about all charter schools. We're talking about non classroom based charter schools that have a different model than all charter schools. And I want to just reiterate, I like you and I think from everybody I've heard, nobody's trying to penalize those that are teaching our kids in traditional school settings.

We're talking about non charters, non classroom based settings. Those are, those are different. And I think, I hope that you would be open to that.

And then the last thing I would say is, you know, some of the, the issues on some of the field trips and extracurricular activities that are normal school kids, as you said, we should be treating folks as closely as possible to the same, you know, we don't have programs where kids can take trips to theme parks and things like that on based on LCFF funding.

So those three, I think are important. But you know, I appreciate you being so open here with us publicly about the work that needs to be done. I think we acknowledge that at least when I spoke on behalf of our chairs Bill on the floor of the Assembly, work needs to be done.

And I am encouraged by both of you getting us to a place where we all will be in the same place of accountability, transparency, transparency and serving all students in California. So I thank you for that.

I appreciate that. And I would agree with almost everything that you said, especially the small authorizers. I think we're just trying to find the line. The example you gave is a very clear example. But there's some other, you know, on that spectrum, where is the right line for us and how do we address it?

Actually, Chelsea, Ian and Amaya have made great gains in that area. I don't have any doubt that we will land on that answer. We're just not quite there yet. The only piece I would push back a little bit on is the hybrid education system.

Sometimes what it takes to work with a student who's in a hybrid situation can cost even more than a traditional classroom setting. Depends on what you're dealing with. Depends on if it's a justice involved kiddo or a special needs kiddo or a kiddo who's dealing with some medical issues. Sometimes these are really challenging environments.

And I don't think there should be an automatic trigger that that child's educational expense is lower, in fact, sometimes may be higher. So just think we need to be open to that.

I agree with you on that. I know there are models. I've seen them, I've heard from them. I know they are in my own backyard that are dealing with those special circumstances and acknowledge the work that they've done and how successful they are. You definitely don't want to stymie or eliminate that potential innovation that's happening.

But at the same time, there's there, there has to be again, as you said, a line drawn as to who. What are those models that are really investing in that way, and let's support those. But not everybody is the same.

So I'm looking forward to your work over the next month before we see this at the full Assembly. And again, thank you for your work.

Thank you for digging in. Truly, thank you.

Before we proceed, I'd like to call for the role to establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

Quorum is established. Who would like to go next? Dr. Patel.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this Bill forward and for the substantial amount of work you've acknowledged that has gone into this Bill and our chairs Bill as well, and the collaborative efforts. I want to just echo briefly some of the sentiments of my colleague from San Diego. We both spoke on the floor.

In fact, I think our whole delegation spoke on the floor. We are so impacted by good charter schools. And then the couple that draws some really striking headlines in our communities definitely want to make sure that those charter schools that are following transparency and accountability requirements are able to be successful and educate children.

The primary goal of all of these schools, public or charter or private even, is to educate children. Definitely have some lingering concerns around small authorizers. We know what their capacity looks like.

As my colleague mentioned, sometimes it's a very, very micro essential school district whose principal is performing many roles and really doesn't have the capacity to implement the amount of oversight and accountability that's required to. To ensure that everyone is able to comply with the guidance.

And I would always hope for best of intentions with compliance that everyone's trying to comply, but there just isn't capacity. So we wanna make sure that those that are authorizing charters within their own jurisdictions are able to then oversee them. Have the capacity before the. Yes. Agreed. Yes.

And looking at some of those other recommendations out of the LAO report, we'd love to see some more of those get addressed and. And look forward to seeing it on the floor in that complete package. Thank you.

Appreciate you and your lifetime of service and education. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions? Vice Chair Hoover.

Thank you. I won't say too much because I've expressed a lot of thoughts on this discussion in this room, so everyone kind of knows where I stand. But I just want to say thank you to the author.

I think appreciate the thoughtful process here and just want to reiterate that I think there is a bipartisan consensus that more accountability is a good thing. And I think a process that stays focused on that accountability while preserving educational options for families is really important. So I'll just say that. And happy to support the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember.

All right. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none. Thank you, Senator Ashby. I want to also acknowledge our staff that have been working hard on both of our bills. And we know that. I'm hearing.

You know, we had a long and extensive conversation on this subject matter this morning and Senate Education Committee, and I think it really comes down to where do we strike the balance between charter school flexibility and necessary oversight and accountability. I believe that we share, you know, the basic goals and principles of achieving both of those goals.

But where we strike the balance is the exact subject matter of our negotiations.

I do want to highlight that, you know, one of the clear differences between your measure and my Bill is that my Bill attempted to incorporate all of the recommendations from the LAO and the FCMAT as well as the state controller, and that the measure before this Committee addresses some of the recommendations.

I think that goes to that fundamental conversation that we're having in terms of where we strike the balance. And I know that we are all working hard to try to resolve our differences with a common effort. Happy to support your Bill today to move the negotiations forward. You get the last word.

I think I could sit here and tell you more about the Bill, but you know it. We've been talking about this. You're not on this Committee on accident. You know about education. That's why you're on this Committee. I think what I'd rather say is I hope the world is watching because we have opposing bills.

I don't chair education. His Bill will not come before me. I cannot issue him an ireco. And yet he has done that here today for me. And this is what good government is all about. We're trying our very best to work together and to land this plane.

And so is every Member of the staff that has worked on this with us. So I will take no more of your time today. I appreciate you all so much and your commitment and dedication to the State of California and these people. The utmost respect for you, Chairman. I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. The chair's recommendation is as stated to support SB414 as amended. Madam Secretary, please call. Can we understand a motion? Motion made by Mr. Alvarez, second by Ms. Patel.

[Roll Call]

Seven votes. The Bill is out. We will thank you. All right, who is next? Senator Cortese. File item number seven. Senate Bill 743 by Senator Cortese. It.

Good afternoon, Chair Muratsuchi and Members of the Committee. I'm very happy to be here presenting SP743, which establishes equalization Reserve Account designed to provide additional dollars to underfunded school districts. Fixing long standing funding inequities in California public schools. For far too long, Where a Child Lives has determined how much funding their school receives.

This Bill ensures that all students, no matter their location or their zip code, have access to the same quality education. Research shows that an increase in per pupil spending leads to improved student achievement, higher test scores, better graduation rates and greater college readiness.

Putting the negative decrease for some students relative to others is putting them at a disadvantage. Teachers will also benefit from the additional funding which can be used for better salaries, professional development, smaller class sizes and so on. This will help reduce teacher burnout and turnover, ensuring that districts can retain and attract high quality educators.

The Bill establishes a framework for allocating additional dollars for purposes of equalizing districts that are on the inequitable side of education funding in California without impacting the money school districts are currently receiving. This Bill is about providing students and teachers with the resources they need to succeed regardless of where they live.

It's about investing in the future of all California students by ensuring they have equitable access to a quality education. This is a long term solution, not an overnight solution, but it'll help close the funding gap and improve student outcomes, particularly for those in the most disadvantaged communities.

With us here today, we have Lisa Andrew, to my right, CEO of the Silicon Valley Education Foundation. Further over, Chris Norwood, President of Santa Clara County School Boards Association Legislative Action Committee, and Kenneth Kapan from the Legislative Analyst Office is here in technical support.

And with that, at the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

That way. All right. Good afternoon, Chair Muratsuchi and Members of the Committee, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. We are here because we have seen firsthand how unequal funding affects our students and to emphasize the urgent need to address the problems.

Now as we speak, across the state, students in one school district are using 3D printers, participating in hands on STEM experiences and traveling the halls of an art museum.

While in another school district within the same county, students are cutting out cardboard shapes with Scissors, watching a YouTube video about frog dissection and learning about the ocean from a book. Let's be honest. Would you rather look at the ocean on a screen or see the waves crash, feel the sand under your feet?

As a teacher, principal, Superintendent, and now CEO of an education foundation. I have experienced the near impossible task of preparing students to become productive and engaged citizens with limited resources. All because my school district was located in an area with limited property tax revenue.

As a teacher I made choices such as buying a ream of copier paper or new PE equipment for my classroom budget. And as a principal I had to choose between funding a school counselor or to reduce class size by hiring another math teacher.

And my all time favorite choosing between bargaining for a teacher professional development day or giving a 1% off the salary scale payment as a Superintendent across the state, California's investment in a student's education varies within the same county.

In Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, the Delta in average per pupil funding between basic aid and non Basic Aid Districts is approximately $24,000 per pupil per year. In Santa Clara County, the Delta is approximately 13,000. Sacramento county consists of only non basic aid school districts which average per pupil funding is about $10,400 per pupil per year.

This is $8,000 below the basic aid average for all school districts in California. Equitable education funding is about outcomes. According to the Learning Policy Institute, increasing funding by just $1,000 per student over three years resulted in a full grade level gain in reading and math that is less than filling in the gaps fully.

As I described earlier, this same three year $3,000 investment led to an 8.2% point increase in graduation rates and improved college readiness.

I'm going to ask you to wrap.

Up the students in your Assembly districts in the state deserve more than a promise of education. They deserve an equal opportunity to thrive because of their education. Thank you Senator Cortese for authoring this bill and thank you to Committee Members for your consideration of an Aye vote.

Good afternoon Chairs and Members of the Committee. My name is Chris Norwood.

I'm the Chair for the Legislative Action Committee for the Santa Clara County School Boards Association, a three time elected board Member in my 11th year serving my fourth term as board President of the Milpitas Unified School District where we serve 11,000 students and strive to build a culture of we.

I come today to represent one of the most diverse districts and communities in the state. Milpitas is a place where families from every background socioeconomically come to build a Better Life. Where 52 languages are spoken and retail and service sector jobs are the norm and where opportunity is often undermined by our lack of key resources.

As the Chair of the Santa Clara County School Boards Association Legislative Action Committee, I have analyzed our survey data over the past four years of over 60 school board Members of the 31 districts within our county.

And the overwhelming request for policy is focused on additional funding for the basic needs of today's students, College and career readiness, wellness and investment in its strong educators. SB743 passed by the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote because it speaks to something that cuts across party lines and that's the perpetual investment in the future of our children.

This Bill recognizes that California's TK through 12 public schools are the backbone of the state's economy and our workforce. To become productive Members of society and prepare to solve the challenges of tomorrow, our school systems must be equipped with the ability to provide quality education to every enrolled child, regardless of where they live.

But today, vast disparities persist. Some districts can afford robotics labs, mental health counselors, artificial intelligence resources, while others struggle to maintain the basic services like high quality textbooks, Internet access and technology.

As a school board Member, I joined my local Santa Clara County school board associates and colleagues, the the California Latino School Boards Association, as well as the many other school board Members in the state in supporting SB743 because we need a better system, one that is innovative, that gives us the ability to plan, design, implement and ensure that every student has a strong foundation to pursue the happiness that America talks about.

As we enter a period of uncertainty at the federal level where local funding will play an even greater role, California must stand ready. My dad used to tell me as a kid, if you stay ready, you don't have to get ready. SB743 creates a statewide endowment Fund where money is responsibly invested to create long term educational funding.

This is not a partisan idea. It's a prudent one. I urge you, yes, vote for SB743 to build a stronger California education system. Thank you. Thank you.

Public comments in support of the measure. Please come forward.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Elise Fourth, on behalf of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. And strong support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Nico Molina, on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments in support of the measure. Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. Dan Merwin with the California School Boards Association. I'd like to first start by thanking the Senator for bringing this bill forward. Addressing the systematic funding disparities that exist within between districts, even with LCFF, is complex and an issue that deserves attention.

And we applaud the Senator, his staff and the sponsors for raising the issue. CSBA is not opposed to equalization, but rather the mechanics of SB743. In our view, any solution to the equalization problem needs to be both guaranteed and consistent, and the best way to do that is to ensure the funding is captured with Prop 98.

The requirement that any funding generated under SB 743 be excluded from Prop 98 removes those protections which would otherwise guarantee the funding is allocated to schools, that it grows with inflation and changes in attendance that it is not repurposed for other uses.

We'd also flag that this exemption raises a larger question about the ability of the state to adopt mechanisms that Fund schools contrary to the intent of 98, thereby weakening 98 overall.

We suggest a simpler solution would be to increase Prop 98 funding and then use that funding to increase the LCFF based grant which would then grow over time.

With COLA, we'd also suggest considering the adequacy of school funding under LCFF in General and including equalization as part of that discussion to address the very issues that were raised here. That conversation could then focus on ensuring adequate educational opportunities for all children in the state regardless of where they live.

And CSBA would be happy to lend its expertise to any such conversation. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote.

On behalf of the California Charter Schools Association. We have a tweener position here. We're opposed unless amended. I want to be clear, we don't actually have issues with the policy in chief in this bill.

We actually agree completely with the Senator's stated goal of making sure that the state's school funding system is more equitable no matter where a student attends school. We completely agree with that.

This bill seeks to create a program that will aspirationally Fund non basic aid schools at levels closer to what a basic aid school district is able to receive and we think that's great. However, we're concerned with the eligibility of the program that is being created here currently. It includes non Basic Aid Districts.

It does not include direct funded charter schools. Direct funded charter schools are funded essentially at the same levels as non basic aid school districts. And so we're concerned. We see that as an equity issue.

We're sensitive to this because we've seen charter schools sometimes cut out of certain funding streams and so we're unable to access certain funding and our students are unable to access certain programs. As a result, we want to make sure that we don't create such an inequity. The fix, I think is pretty easy.

I think we probably need to just look at the definition. This bill probably needs to include all non basic aid leas it likely needs to include direct funded charter schools and probably county offices of education. And so I'd say I would encourage us to take a look at that and maybe redefine, you know, who is eligible.

Any, any public school that doesn't receive basic aid should probably be included or amended into this bill. So given that we've met with the author's office, they stated to us that it is not their intent to exclude us. We appreciate that. I appreciate that statement a lot.

And so we look forward to continuing to work with the author's office over recess and trying to sort this out as this moves forward. So really appreciate your time and appreciate the author. Thank you.

Thank you. Any public comments in opposition, please come forward.

Sarah Petrowski, on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials in respectful opposition based on the reasons articulated so well by my colleague at the School Boards Association. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comments, bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Alvarez, I know this is your subject matter here, but Dr. Patel.

Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I am certainly intrigued by the idea of having an endowment for our public education children. That concept is very intriguing to me. We know very well in public education that the funding is insufficient and inadequate. We know that Prop 98 tries to do that by creating a floor.

Unfortunately, we have seen that floor used as a ceiling. This is common language. We've heard it many, many years and it's consistently inadequate year over year. Frankly, even the base is insufficient for our LCFF funded schools. So a few questions on the actual plan. I'm.

I'm very curious about this era and how it would perform and act and be managed. Can you clarify for me in simple terms where will the funds be sourced from and is it going to create resentment from the non Prop 98 side funded programs?

I mean it's always possible like in, you know, any, any budget discussion we're having just like the ones we're having now, the one we just concluded that there's going to be competition and some rivalry for General Fund, for lack of a better word, surplus or discretionary funds that are available.

What this is saying is that we continue to grow such a year over year over year increasing disparity between basic aid and non Basic Aid Districts that we need to use some of any given year's surplus which essentially will correspond to those same years when 98 is triggered. Based on the way alleged council helped us write this.

Looks like you understand that and it. Hopefully I'm answering your question, but it. This is Surplus over this is after the Prop 98 guarantee has been taken. The, the formula here would set aside obviously a lesser amount.

If, if you look at the, the actual formula, probably in a year like the year we started with this year, we tried to kind of model things that way, where we actually had a Reserve account in the base budget that was a couple of $1.0 billion.

I'm sorry, I don't remember the exact figure, but it was in the low billions. And that Reserve account of course was, was very discretionary and it went away already.

The idea here ultimately, and this Bill won't do it by itself is, is to have the companion constitutional amendment which absolutely excludes any encroachment on Prop 98, doesn't handcuff the Legislature's ability if they wanted to at some point to route the money in a certain way through LCFF or something like that.

But it establishes a Reserve account without getting into that issue per se, both in this Bill and then ultimately with the success of a constitutional amendment that says that that Reserve account can only be used for equalization purposes.

And true, where the Bill is landed right now is defined by equalization between non basic aid and basic aid schools. And then we, one of my colleagues brought up a great point in Senate Education that we have some wobblers out there.

And so we put in a provision that would say over a three year period, by looking at that window and making that determination, the school could move from basic aid to non basic aid and suddenly be eligible for this money.

But we tried to leave discretion and of course this is a Bill so there's someone can void it and start over again next year. But the idea is to leave the Legislature and the budget act some fluidity in terms of exactly how to reach equalization.

But again, our target is trying to bring those non basic aids up because that's, that's the most devastating growing disparity right now.

Yeah, thank you for bringing up those wobbler school districts. We have one of those just outside of my Assembly District in Carlsbad.

It has, you know, struggled as sometimes in some years they're able to transfer in students and then in sometimes some years they have to deny those students returning back to the school districts because they go in and out of basic aid and can afford those students coming in.

Another question, and maybe this is something you've given some thought to, but there isn't concrete answer around. But again, curiosity, who do you plan to have manage these funds and are there guardrails around the investments that these funds are put into.

Well, clearly the ledge. oh.

Once they're pushed downstream, the presumption is that they follow the ordinary path of getting to being added to the non basic aid funding stream and they arrive at non basic aid school districts and then the school board itself at that point has got to balance its budget with the oversight of the county office and ultimately the state.

So we haven't in this Bill gotten prescriptive about anything else. I'm certainly open to.

I meant the investment itself. The investment instrument itself which will generate the interest.

Yeah, the, in the investment. What we basically indicated in the Bill is just that the investment goes into the state investment pool, whatever the treasurer. Our understanding is the treasurer makes those decisions, the office of the treasurer. So up to them to try to maximize return on investment on those dollars. We hope it would be a lot.

The principal doesn't get touched in this Bill so that there wouldn't be a roller coaster ride. It would. The idea is to, is to throw off interest and dividends almost like a CalPERS type of return on investment and that's what ends up getting pushed out. So it will take time.

That's why I said earlier and I appreciate you understanding, I guess for everyone's benefit we aren't going to fill up the endowment Fund overnight and solve this problem or close the ultimate gap overnight. But it took us 46 years to get here.

I mean ever since Prop 13 passed we've had this disparate funding formula of basic aid and non basic aid. That's just it grows.

The irony of it all is that even when the Prop 98 guarantee is triggered and goes up, it great, it's pushing more money out to education, but it's actually growing the disparity even more because of the disparate funding formula.

So something has to be done soon and frankly it may take hopefully not as many decades, but decades to eventually close the gap. That's the idea.

Yeah. And I have to agree with some of your opposition here on the Bill that I do wish that we could have this come out of directly increasing Prop 98. That would be the ideal way to do it and to increase base funding and make sure that there's an equitable distribution of those funds.

I would certainly prefer it to come that way. But this idea still intrigues me and I'm interested in seeing it come out and see where you take it from here.

I think there's still some work to do on it and, and I hope that we get to a point that it's okay to try both Strategies, we don't have to choose one or the other, but we can continue to look at both as a multi pronged approach to ensuring that our California children get the education that they deserve.

Thank you. And if I may just through the chair and I know again probably everyone on this Committee understands this. I think the poll, the tension around Prop 98, even though 22 issues we can increase it beyond the four in a triggered year and then that funding again goes out based on current day formulas.

So ironically everybody gets more money, but it increases the disparity. But there's also been a reluctance to add on by the Legislature knowing that we're actually increasing the floor in an irreversible way. It's, it's not, not to say that can't be done, as we all know.

So as we tried to build this going back months and months and months ago and, and, and, and you know, obviously work very closely with experts led council that can understand the mechanisms and have written some of them in the past.

The thought was we don't want to strike fear into the hearts of anyone that we're reopening with a constitutional amendment. Prop 98, which is for a lot of folks and a lot of stakeholders in the Education Committee has worked well enough that they wouldn't want to see that tinkered with.

And we certainly aren't going to get away with opening up Prop 13 and changing the original 1979 formula around because that strikes fear into the hearts of voters everywhere it seems.

And so it seemed like almost by process of elimination you got to the point, we got to the point where the best way to go about it is to, is to isolate this problem and create its own almost Prop 98 Junior if you will.

But, but for these non basic aid schools and just isolate the problem without touching or interfering with some of the, the sacred cows. And for good reason. Some of them are sacred cows, let's face it. So that's, I just wanted to explain how the inspiration also had some. You.

Know, gut checks along the way as to what could you actually pull off and get to the governor's desk? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you. I'll be brief. Thank you, Senator. I also, I like to use the word by my colleague from San Diego, very intrigued by this. I think as chair of the Education Finance Committee, obviously looking always for ways to try and not only protect but do as best as we can for public education.