Assembly Standing Committee on Education

Apologies for running late. We are waiting for Ms. Addis now for to return to the room and as soon as she returns we will begin it. All right. I'd like to call this hearing to order. Good morning everyone. Apologize for the late notice. This is not my decision to have this hearing on such short notice.

This morning we will have an informational hearing on Assembly Bill 715 and a regular order hearing on Senate Bill 48. In that order, I'm calling the informational hearing on AB 715 first to order. When that hearing has concluded, I will adjourn the informational hearing and call the Committee to order to hear Senate Bill 48.

At that time, I will be calling roll to establish a quorum for the informational hearing on Assembly Bill 715. We will conduct the hearing, testimony and debate in the same manner as a regular Bill hearing. The concurrence analysis for AB715 will serve as the background material for the informational hearing.

It is posted and available to the public on the Assembly Education Committee website. As a reminder, for each Bill we will have up to two witnesses in support, two witnesses in 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.

Please state and limit your comments to your name, affiliation and position on the Bill only. Members of the public are also welcome to provide their comments through the position letter portal on the Assembly Education Committee website. And before we begin, I have a standard statement that I read regarding conduct at our hearings.

First of all, we seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have an effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California.

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

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

Rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comments may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the Chair. Public comment must relate to the subject being discussed today.

No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the or orderly conduct of this hearing, please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. And so now we will begin with our informational hearing on Assembly Bill 715. Assembly Members Zabur and Addis, you may present your Bill.

Mr. Chair and members, today I'm proud to present AB 715 together with my joint author, Assembly Member Dawn Addis, who is here with me today. This bill is sponsored by the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California and is the only priority bill for the Jewish Caucus this year.

Jewish students are facing a crisis of hate in our schools. Jewish students across our state are being harassed, bullied, and intimidated simply because of who they are. In Manhattan Beach, a swastika and anti-semitic slurs were spray-painted on an elementary school playground. In San Francisco Unified School District, teachers were provided materials that justified Hamas's October 7th attack.

In Tarzana, swastikas were repeatedly painted on banners that surrounded an elementary school, and when Jewish parents on their own came to cover them up by painting over the swastikas with hearts, the swastikas were repeated a couple days later in such bold fashion that they could not be covered up, the school did not remove them, and the parents had to call elected officials to get the school to remove the banner so that their kids did not have to see them as they arrived at their school that day.

In Santa Ana Unified, a curriculum committee debated the so-called Jewish Question, committee members refused to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization, and the administration scheduled public hearings on Jewish holidays to discuss curriculum that they knew would be objectionable to the Jewish community and so that Jewish community could not attend the hearings. These are not isolated incidents.

They're becoming more frequent and widespread, and not a week goes by that I don't hear about more incidents from my constituents. There has been a massive 893% increase in anti-semitic hate crimes in the United States over the past ten years, and California schools are not immune to that and it's only increased since the October 7th attack.

When I served as executive director of Equality California, we worked alongside educators, parents, and my colleagues here today to pass laws that protect LGBTQ students from bullying, harassment, and discrimination and to ensure that every child could learn in a safe and supportive environment.

During my first year in the legislature, I authored AB 5, which gave educators the tools they need to help foster inclusive classroom environments and appropriately address the unique challenges that LGBTQ and all students face. When other communities are facing discrimination--when communities are facing discrimination, the legislature has always acted quickly and decisively to protect them.

AB 715 builds on the work by acknowledging that the Jewish, that Jewish students are facing an acute problem right now while also fighting discrimination against all communities.

I'm proud to say that this landmark bill creates an office of civil rights, which will include multiple coordinators who will serve and benefit not only the Jewish community, but all of the communities we must protect under anti-discrimination laws, with specific strategies to address specific kinds of hate that those communities face.

These coordinators will focus on assessing discrimination that is occurring in our school--assessing discrimination--providing recommendations to the legislature, the governor, and school districts, and providing our educators and administrators with the tools that they need to uplift all students. This bill shouldn't be controversial.

This bill is about values we all share: safety, dignity, and equality for all students. We have a responsibility to make sure that every child in California, every child, can attend a school that is safe, respectful, and affirming.

I'd like to thank the Legislative AAPI Caucus, the Black, Latino, Native American, and LGBTQ Caucuses for their partnership and solidarity, the teachers, education experts and education leaders for continuing to hear us and work with us, the Jewish community for their patience through this long, long process and their steadfast support, Senate Pro Tem, and the Assembly speaker for helping us finally address this issue after many years, many years of trying.

We started this several years ago. While this bill will not fix everything overnight or undo the harm which has already occurred and which you'll hear about, some of which today, it is the first step towards better prevention and--focusing on prevention and protection for the Jewish community and all vulnerable communities. Now I'd like to turn the mic over to my joint author, Assembly Member Addis, to provide additional information on what this bill will do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Education Committee, as well as the staff, advocates, and of course, our witnesses that are here today. As you know, and you've heard me talk about, I come to this work as a former teacher.

I spent the first 21 years of my career in public education as a teacher, a teacher leader, a CTA member, an SLCTA site and executive board member, and before that I was even a student president of the Student CTA Chapter of San Francisco State University.

And during my time in the classroom and in union membership, I fought every day for teachers, and during my career, we made huge gains in my school district in working conditions and wages for our CTA members. And during that time, I also taught hundreds of students.

I taught students with special needs and neurotypical students, I taught students who are primary English speakers as well as those learning English as an additional language, I taught students coming from poverty as well as wealthy backgrounds, students who were housed and those who weren't, I taught students from a variety of family structures and belief systems and perspectives, and I also taught students at every grade level from 1st through 12th across English and math and history, social science and science, and even reading.

And in many of my positions, I was the person teaching a child to do something for the very first time, helping them step beyond what they believed they could do and grow their skills academically and socially and emotionally.

And what I know to be true is that each time I set foot on a school campus or in a classroom, I was there for one thing and one thing only, which was to ensure that students left their time with me having learned, and what we know about learning, what the data says about learning is that it happens best when students have two things: they have a trusted adult in the school environment and they have a classroom and school community that is safe, supportive, welcoming, and affirming.

And we know when those things are in place that learning is unleashed for children and they're allowed to become the best of who they are. They're allowed to learn vital knowledge and skills and empathy for both the workforce and to participate in meaningful ways in our multicultural democracy.

But we're here today because, unfortunately, the picture that I've tried to paint for you is simply not the reality for many Jewish students who increasingly face dangerous anti-semitic rhetoric, tropes, discrimination, bullying, and even physical attacks in the Golden State's K12 schools.

And you've heard some of the stories from Assembly Member Zbur and you're going to hear more from our witnesses, Ella and Rabbi Mates-Muchin. Both were here just two days ago and got up and got on the road at 6:00 this morning to be here with you.

And when we all hear firsthand what they have to say, my hope is that together we're going to make a commitment to ourselves and to one another to wipe out the anti-semitic behavior in every place that we see it, especially in our schools.

And we can all start together with a common sense bill, AB 715, that I'm honored to joint-author with my colleague, Assembly Member Zbur, because of not just his heart and his passion but his longstanding career fighting for equity and justice for California's students. And AB 715 recognizes the need to address anti-semitism in schools.

It will create an office of civil rights that will house an anti-semitism coordinator along with other coordinators that you will learn about in SB 48. 715 offers tools for prevention like a website where people can access needed resources about anti-semitism prevention and it'll help define pathways to respond when anti-semitism arises.

And I'll say that the prevention and education in this bill are truly vital because Jewish people are only two to three percent of the population and many people just don't understand or are not able to recognize anti-semitism when it happens.

So AB 715 is about ensuring that every student, whether they are Jewish or come from a different background, have the best learning environment that our state has to offer, and this is why 715 is working as a sister bill to the bill that you'll hear about next, authored by Senator Gonzalez and others.

So I'm deeply grateful for the collaboration and partnerships across two years, two legislative years in this that we've gone through, these iterations, and many on the dais today as well as the chair for his in-depth understanding of education and how to fight hate in our schools, and I want to thank the advocates and families from across our state who have engaged with us. Together, I do believe that we can ensure that every school is a welcoming and affirming place for California's children.

So with that, I'd like to turn this over to our two witnesses, Rabbi Mates-Muchin from Temple Sinai in Oakland, and Ella, a student who's driven up from the Bay Area again to be with you. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Rabbi Jacqueline Mates-Muchin, Senior Rabbi of Temple Sinai in Oakland and the parent of four children who are either graduates of or current students in the Oakland public school system. Anti-semitism in Oakland schools is not new, but it has been emboldened in the last two years.

A high school student in my congregation was pulled aside by her teacher to be told that Israel is committing genocide and that she had a responsibility to know what is happening. She was the only child pulled aside and the only child wearing a Jewish Star.

Another congregant, a teacher in the district, was instructed to use the back door to her office to avoid engaging with a colleague under investigation for anti-semitic speech and was told that Jews just have to learn to sit in their discomfort. She has since resigned from the district.

And recently, when describing what our students are facing, my concerns were dismissed by Oakland City leadership, being told that there are lots of groups that have trauma. Yes, that is true, and as a Chinese and Jewish American, I know that hate against each of us manifests itself differently.

So we need education and training to understand those differences, to combat them effectively. Anti-semitism paints Jews as the villains of society. We are ultimately responsible for all of our problems, including the oppression of other minorities.

When this hateful ideology is internalized, consciously or not, children who are targeted, bullied, and intimidated are dismissed as whiny complainers, if not blamed for their own victimization. My congregation is 150 years old. The cornerstone of our sanctuary was laid the same year that the cornerstone was laid for Oakland City Hall.

Jews are an integral part of our cities and of our state, yet the surge of anti-semitism is making Jewish families flee our school district. If we hope to maintain the diversity and the strength that built and sustains California, we must do more to fight anti-semitism. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Ella. I'm a Bay Area native, and I have been living there all my life. When I was a seventh grader in a public middle school in San Jose, I learned firsthand about anti-semitism. It had changed my life. From a happy middle schooler with many friends, I was reduced to loneliness and abuse.

All my friends turned their backs on me. They called me The Jew. They yelled at me that I was a murderer and that Jews were terrorists. I was made fun of, harassed, and followed around when I spoke in Hebrew. None of this was something that I did.

I was the same child as before when they were my friends. They hated me just because of my identity, my religion, and my parents' nationality. I did not say or do anything to deserve this. At first, I hoped that the school staff would help and protect me, but some teachers and the school board members continued to say and do bias things that made it seem that Jews are bad people, giving additional fuel to the students who said those awful things about me.

With my parents, we attempted to ask for help and stop the harassment. We tried the counselor, assistant principal, and principal. They did not take action. As the weeks went by, the situation only got worse. Some days I had to stay home. I couldn't stand it and I fear for my own safety. Finally, at the end of the semester, my parents withdrew me from the public school and enrolled me in a private Jewish school.

I was 12 years old when I lost all trust in peers, friendships, adults, and good intentions. I struggled to sleep at night and with my self-esteem. Speaking with others who go through horrific, anti-semitic experiences, I hear about death threats, daily harassment, and even physical violence, and I identify with the despair, the feeling of loneliness and hopelessness.

This has to stop. All children in California schools deserve to be safe, including the Jewish ones. I ask you today to ensure no other students go through the pain that I went through and still carry with me. Thank you.

Thank you for coming up here on such short notice as well as everyone in the audience. Do we have public comments in support of this measure? Please come forward to the microphone. Again, please limit your comments to name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Good morning--sorry. Good morning. My name is Joceline Herman. I am vice chair of the Jewish Community Relations Council for Sacramento Region, and on behalf of JCRC as well as the Jewish Federation for Sacramento, I strongly urge you to support AB 715. Thank you very much.

Cliff Berg, on behalf of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee, proud sponsor of this legislation. JPAC represents over 50 statewide and regional Jewish organizations in California, is the Sacramento lobbying arm of the Jewish community. Also here for the Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance in strong support of this legislation.

My name is Clarice Schumann. I am a parent of a K-12 child and I am on the executive board of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento and the Sacramento Countering Anti-Semitism Committee, and I strongly, strongly support this bill.

Good morning. My name is Danny Portman. I live here in Midtown. I'm affiliated with B'nai Israel here in Midtown, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Elisa Switzer. I am parent to Ella Miller, who had to remove her daughter--

Excuse me. Name, affiliation, and position on the bill only.

And I strongly support this bill because I know firsthand that safety depends on it.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Elise Borth, on behalf of the California Community Foundation, in support.

Good morning. I'm Miller Saltzman with JPAC and here in support on behalf of the 73 organizations in the Yes on AB 715 Coalition: Thirty Years After, Adat Shalom Los Angeles, Agudath Israel of California, American Jewish Committee San Diego, American Jewish Committee Los Angeles, American Jewish Committee Northern California, Americans for Hindus, Anti-Defamation League, B'nai David-Judea Congregation, Bay Area Jewish Coalition, Bay Area Jewish Labor Committee.

Beverly Hills Synagogue, Board of Rabbis of Southern California, California Jewish Democrats, California Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, representing over 100 congregations in California, Congregation Beth Ami, Congregation Beth Shalom, Democrats for Israel Los Angeles, Democrats for Israel Orange County, Hadassah, Hillel at Stanford, Hillel San Diego, Hillel San Luis Obispo, Holocaust Museum Los Angeles.

Israeli American Council, JCC-Federation of San Luis Obispo, JCRC Bay Area, JCRC of Greater Santa Barbara, JCRC of the Sacramento Region, Jewish Center for Justice, Jewish Community Action Network, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Democratic Club of Marin, Jewish Democratic Coalition of the Bay Area, Jewish Family and Children's Service Long Beach and Orange County, Jewish Family and Children's Service of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties.

Jewish Family Service of the Desert, Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles, Jewish Federation Bay Area, Jewish Federation Los Angeles, Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara, Jewish Federation of Orange County, Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and the Desert, Jewish Federation of San Diego, Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region, Jewish Federation of Ventura County, Jewish Free Loan Association, Jewish Long Beach, Jewish Partisan Education Foundation.

Jewish Silicon Valley, Jewish War Veterans of the U.S., Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, Kehillat Israel Congregation, Mosaic Law Congregation, National Council of Jewish Women San Francisco, Northern California Council of Jewish Democratic Clubs, Orthodox Union, Progressive Zionists of California, Rabbi Jacob Pressman Academy, Raoul Wallenberg, Jewish Democratic Club, San Francisco Hillel, Santa Barbara Hillel, Santa Monica College Jewish Affinity Group, Simon Wiesenthal Center, StandWithUs, Teach Coalition, Temple Isaiah, Temple Judea, Bali Beth Shalom, Young Israel Century City, YULA High School, and Zionist Movement. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Jesse. I'm the father of three boys in public school here in California. I love them more than anything and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you. Any further witnesses in support of this measure? Seeing none, like to invite the witnesses in opposition to this measure. Please come forward.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Seth Bramble for the California Teachers Association, in respectful opposition to Assembly Bill 715. CTA is dedicated to creating safe and inclusive environments where every student is free from racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and other forms of discrimination.

We represent more than 300,000 California educators offering support and protecting students in need, and as I said in the hearing in the other House, no accusation cuts deeper for an educator than being told they don't care about students.

At this morning's informational hearing, I'm hoping we're going to take some time to really dissect a number of the issues in this bill, the rushed legislative process this bill has seen where because the bill was heard for the very first time after the amendment deadline, there was no ability to make any changes based on public feedback, skipping over the Judiciary Committee despite serious constitutional concerns, the requirement that all instruction be factually accurate, the divisive coordinator structure, the stale three-year-old white paper from the Biden Administration, how anti-semitism is defined, the impact on ethnic studies implementation, and why we wouldn't place the office of civil rights at the California Department of Education.

However, today I want to focus on a phrase in the bill which states that instruction should not be based on, quote, 'advocacy, personal opinion, bias, or partisanship.' If Assembly Bill 715 becomes law, it will certainly create uncertainty for teachers about what they can safely say in the classroom without risking professional discipline, and I'll give you an example.

I started my teaching career as a sixth-grade teacher in the Franklin-McKinley School District in San Jose, and maybe I'm doing a lesson during science class on the purpose of vaccines. Health education standards in our state require us to talk about the human body and about viruses.

So I'm doing my lesson and I say, vaccines train your body's defense system to recognize and fight off harmful germs before they can make you sick, and when lots of people get vaccinated, it stops the germs from spreading, protecting everyone around you. This has for a very long time been a settled issue, but in today's polarized environment, we now have intense debates on Capitol Hill.

Could discussing this topic be seen as advocacy? Could it be seen as personal opinion or bias or maybe partisanship? Would this law empower parents or outside groups to challenge teachers over alleged factual inaccuracies or perceived bias?

This language in the bill, though perhaps well-intentioned, risks silencing educators and creating a chilling effect on their ability to teach about politically sensitive issues. The language in this bill will have serious unintended consequences.

We've recommended an approach to the authors that front loads educators with training and resources to prevent anti-semitism, and when there's an incident, to use a restorative justice approach to turn harm into teachable moments for everyone in the school community. Let's take the time to do this right. We're asking you to make this bill a two-year bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Derek Lennox with the California County Superintendents, representing the 58 county superintendents of schools. I want to start by saying that our members condemn antisemitism. A core function of the county office structure in California is to coach districts on equity, especially when there are cases of discrimination.

So, this hits very close to home for us. I also want to start with gratitude. I had the opportunity to hear the authors, and the members of the Jewish Caucus talk over the course of many hours about the experience of their communities, their community members, their students, and their families.

I felt a lot of compassion for what they were describing, and we definitely wanted to bring a getting to yes mentality to this bill so that we can have something that we can all agree on here. Unfortunately, that's not the case today for our organization.

But I do want to validate what the witnesses said that discrimination, including antisemitism, is very real, and it occurs in our schools. And we see it today through the work that we do in supporting districts. But the most effective way to combat antisemitism, we believe, is through education, not through the overregulation of the classroom.

When we're talking about bias in schools, we're talking about mindsets and beliefs of students and educators and community members. We're not talking about whether it's clear whether discrimination is appropriate or not. It never is.

We would instead advocate, in contrast to this bill, for proactive strategies for educators and students that include culturally competent statewide resources and guidance that help identify and address discrimination and antisemitism, instead of confining the type of conversations that happen in the classroom.

Similarly, when incidents of hate do occur, we must ensure that staff and students and communities have the resources to engage in restorative approaches to processing those events, healing from the harm, and collectively learning to create a stronger culture of inclusion.

We provided many examples of how we could do that instead of the strict confines of what can or can't be said, as in this bill. AB 5, authored by Assemblymember Zbur and now in effect today, is an incredible way to improve the lives of students and faculty members who are part of the LGBTQ community.

The most impactful thing that we could do for our Jewish communities and other communities facing discrimination is to follow that model and branch out so that more students, staff, and teachers have the capacity to learn about what discrimination is and address it.

And for those reasons, we respectfully oppose today and happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much. We also have a technical witness. Would you introduce Yourself?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action, in opposition. Happy to answer any technical questions about First Amendment and our position. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, point of inquiry, Mr. Chair. Over here. Yes. I didn't know I missed, forgive me, who the gentleman who just presented, is representing. Could - would you mind saying that again, please?

Yeah. My name is Derek Lennox and I'm here on behalf of the Statewide Association called the California County Super Superintendents.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. This is an opportunity for witnesses in opposition to the bill to come to the microphone again. Please limit your, for public comments, please limit your comments to your name, affiliation and position on the bill only.

Thank you, Chair and members. J.P Hanna, on behalf of the California Nurses Association, aligning our comments with our brothers, sisters, and siblings in the labor union and oppose this measure. Thank you.

I'm L.R. Roberts. I'm a mother, grandmother and great grandmother of six. I'm about to teach science under an emergency credential at the junior high and high school level. And I'm here representing Peace and Freedom Party. And we are against this bill as it is currently written.

Hi, my name is Tanya Hoshwa. I am a mother and a daughter. And actually, I wanted to ask, opposing this issue. And it's nice that we can sit in this room together as Palestinians and Jews. And I agree there's discrimination.

Excuse me. No comments, please.

No comments. And I oppose this because just one thing I want to say.

I'm sorry. No "one" thing. Thank you. Trying to be fair to everyone.

Is there a time later on we can say more in this hearing?

Not at this time.

Not this time. Okay, thank you.

My name's Deborah Condon. I'm a ESL teacher for students from all over the world. And I'm also a member of Jewish Voice for Peace. Thank you. I oppose this bill.

Thank you. And I was reminded that you can also submit written comments through our Assembly Education Committee portal, which we will add to the record. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Alyssa Kang. I'm a community and political organizer with the California Nurses Association. I'm also a member of the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Alameda County Chapter and the Alameda County Chapter of APALA opposes this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Lauren Freitas. I am a mother in Sacramento. I'm a graduate of Mills College. I have an MA in Counseling Psychology, and I focus on Expressive Arts therapy. I represent Code Pink. I'm an ally of Jewish Voice for Peace. And I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Jasmeet Singh. I'm a product of the California public school system, a student at Sacramento State. And I oppose this bill.

Hello, I'm Annabelle Rojas Garabe. I'm a Chicano student at SAC State and a part of SJP. I oppose this bill.

Good morning. My name is Rachel Hamby. I'm a community college professor and a CTA member, and I oppose this bill.

Hello, I'm Jason Mansour. I'm a senior at Sacramento State University. I'm with Students for Justice in Palestine. And on behalf of Palestinian Youth Movement Bay Area, I strongly oppose this bill.

Hi, I am Haku Kayono, a student at SAC State University and part of Students for Quality of Education and Students for Justice in Palestine. I am here to say I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Jennifer Van, and I'm affiliated with a Jewish Voice for Peace, and I'm also a taxpayer citizen in the city, and I very much oppose this bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Conrad Crump. I'm with Disability Rights California. And while we are not opposed to this bill, we actually do have some deep concerns that we'd like to work with the author on, specifically relating to SB 48, which doesn't have any coordinators for students with disabilities.

Thank you. Maybe you can reserve those comments when we have SB 48.

And the speed at which everything has been happening. So thank you very much.

Good morning. My name is Ayman Ula. I'm a former high school special education teacher and a current oncologist at UC Davis. And I oppose this bill.

[Foreign Language]. My name is Andrew Vi. I'm a Samoan in Tongan from the Bay Area. I'm also a product of San Francisco Unified School District, also a product of City College in San Francisco. I'm also a product of San Francisco State University, where I got my, I got my master's in ethnic studies, and I now serve as an educator ethnic study, and I strongly oppose this bill.

[Foreign Language]. My name is Levalasi Loi-On. I'm a ethnic studies educator in San Francisco, teaching at San City College of San Francisco and San Francisco State. I strongly oppose this bill.

Good morning. Good - Good morning. I'm Fauziya Faruk with the Council on American Islamic Relations California, and we oppose this bill.

Hello. I'm Annie Khan. I'm a physician and a parent, and I oppose this bill.

Good morning. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association. On behalf of our 29,000 members who work in the CSU, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Ann Wolf, Richmond, California. I'm here representing Berkeley Unified School District, Jewish Parents for Collective Liberation. I am also a member of Jewish Voice for Peace. I am also a member of SEIU 1021. And I am also here representing my colleagues. I am an educator in higher ed.

And unfortunately, so many of my colleagues, who also oppose this bill and will be targeted by it and will be made vulnerable by it, could not be here today to speak their opposition. So, I am here to oppose this bill for them as well. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Robert Lipton. I was one of the people that helped start Jewish Voice for Peace, which is 750,000 members and supporters in the U.S. and 100,000 in California. I was also - I am also part of the coalition of anti-fascist, anti-Zionist Jews. I live in the Richmond area, Richmond, California.

And we strongly oppose this bill, also for procedural reasons. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Carlos Machado with California School Board Association, CSBA is in opposition to the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Thad Gifford. I'm a student at Sacramento State University. I'm here with Students for Quality Education, California Faculty Association, Students for Justice in Palestine and MEChA. I strongly oppose this bill.

Hello. My name is Justine Kanzler. I'm a resident of California and a former employee of the California Faculty Association. And I oppose this bill as it is written.

Good morning. My name is Moiz Mir, Organizing and Advocacy Manager with Asian American Liberation Network. Also, HUB Coordinator of Sunrise Movement, Sacramento; in opposition. Thank you.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Rasem Edalati and I'm a constituent from River County, PhD student at UC Davis. I'm here to strongly oppose the AB 715. This bill will not only resolve the issue by the others.

No comments, please.

This bill would harm -

- freedom of speech. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

- encouraging censorship.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning. My name is Omar Ahmed, pediatrician in Elk Grove and the Chair of Mass Social Services Foundation. And I strongly oppose this bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Tristan Brown with CFT, Union of Educators of Classified Professionals; here in respectful opposition and dedicated to continuing work on this bill.

Good morning. My name is Deanna Grenier Mullins. I am a graduate of UCSF, nurse practitioner. I've got children who attended San Jose Unified and now UC Davis and Sac City College. I have respectful opposition to the bill as it's currently written. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Sheila Bates. I'm a former educator, also an organizer with Black Lives Matter Los Angeles California, and Grassroots. We stand in opposition alongside Black Lives Matter Torrance, Long Beach, Santa Clarita and Lancaster. We oppose the bill.

Good morning, I'm Angelmarie Taylor, a student at Cal State Channel Islands. I'm here today with Black Lives Matter Youth Vanguard, Black Student Union, Students for Justice in Palestine, MEChA, Students Against Fascism Alliance, and Liberation Education. And we all strongly oppose this bill.

Hello, my name is Makayla Ellis. I'm a CSU student at CSU Channel Island. I'm here on behalf of Black Student Union, Students Against Fascism Alliance, the Black Lives Matter Youth Vanguard, Students for Justice in Palestine, and Students for Housing Equity on our campus. And we all strongly oppose this bill.

I'm also - BSU is in solidarity with our black faculty and black studies departments who also will be targeted by this bill and are in strong opposition.

Good morning. I'm Susie Turner, student at UCLA. I'm representing Black Lives Matter Youth Vanguard, among other organizations such as Faces of African Muslims. And we respectfully oppose this bill. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Melina Abdullah with the California Faculty Association with Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, Black Lives Matter California, Black Lives Matter Grassroots. I'm also a Muslim, mother of three, public school children, a professor of Pan African Studies and a voter in the State of California. And we all strongly oppose this bill.

Good morning. My name is Nora Talaby. I'm Mom. I'm a Palestinian American. I represent Muslim and Friends Phone Bank. I'm affiliated with Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow and the Coalition to Defend - California Coalition to Defend Public Education. And I am strongly, strongly opposed to the bill. Thank you.

My name is Lisa Adhikari. I'm a parent of a high school student and educator, representing the voices of many teachers who couldn't get subs to oppose this bill today in person. And I'm a representative of Hindus for Human Rights and the California Muslims and Friends Phone Bank. We strongly collectively oppose this misguided censorship bill.

Good morning. My name is Diana Abouali. I am from San Jose. I am a first generation Palestinian American whose mom was born in Palestine. I am the mother of four children who were educated in the San Jose public school system.

I am the board member on the Democrats for Palestinian Rights Bay Area, which is chartered under the Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee. I am the President of the Arab American Cultural Center of Silicon Valley, which represents tens of thousands from the Arab American community from the 22 Arab nations.

I strongly oppose AB 715 since it creates the opportunity.

Thank you, Ma'am. No comments.

Thank you.

Good morning, members. My name is David Mandel. I am a proud member of the American Jewish community and also a dual citizen of Israel. I'm the proud parent of three, now adult, children who when they were in public schools, I was often invited and really enjoyed going to talking to their classes about Jewish holidays that happened.

Now, the parent of two grandchild - a grandparent of two who are beginning that process. I'm also a founding member of California Democrats for Justice and - California Democrats for Justice in Palestine, a newly chartered organization of the California Democratic Party.

Most Importantly, I represent 100,000 members of Jewish Voice for Peace members and supporters of Jewish Voice for Peace in California who know that the way to fight antisemitism.

Thank you. No comments, please.

Okay. Well, we -

Name affiliation and position on the bill.

Yes, that's affiliation. And we strongly oppose this bill. This is not the way to fight antisemitism.

Thank you, sir.

I'm Maggie Coulter. I'm a taxpayer. I'm a former educator and I am also an advocate, strong advocate of free speech.

I'm here with the Sacramento Regional Coalition for Palestinian Rights and its member organizations that include American Muslims for Palestine, Answer Sacramento, Code Pink Sacramento, Cru, Democratic Socialists of America, Sacramento Friends of Sabeel, Sacramento Region, Grandmothers for Peace, Health Care Workers for Palestine Sacramento, Jewish Voice for Peace Sacramento, Palestine Task Force of the California Nevada Conference of the United Methodist Church, Sacramento Area Peace Action, Sacramento BDS for Human Rights, Sacramento Chapter, the National Lawyers Guild, the Sacramento County Green Party, Sacramento Democrats for Justice in Palestine, Students for Justice in Palestine at CSU, the Talking Drum Newsletter, Unitarian Universalist for Justice in the Middle East, United Nations Association, the Student Workers Union at the Davis Chapter, Veterans for Peace Chapter 87, Wellstone Progressive Democrats of Sacramento, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

We strongly oppose this misguided bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Adela Gutierrez Diaz and I'm here with Students for Quality Education, all 23 CSU campuses. And we strongly oppose this bill.

Hello, members. My name is Sue Saunders. I'm Jewish. I'm in Jewish Voice for Peace Sacramento and member of Congregation B' Nai Israel in Sacramento.

I'm speaking on behalf of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue and the Coalition Defend Public Education supporters, Alliance of South Asians Taking Action, American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Friends Service Committee, Anti Police Terror Project, Anti Eviction Mapping Project, Arab American Civic Council, Arab American Cultural Center of Silicon Valley, Arab Resource and Organizing Center Action, Asian American Liberation Network, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Association of Rasa Educators, Bay Area Muslim Council, Bay Resistance, Bay Peace, Black Lives Matter California, Black Parallel School Board, BUSD Jewish Parents for Collective Liberation, Care Action, California Latino School Boards Association, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, CalSTRS Divest, Campbell Coalition, Guevara for a Free Palestine, Coalition for Liberated Ethnic Studies, Code Pink Central Coast, Code Pink East Bay, Collective for Inclusion Education, Communities United for Restorative Justice, Council on Islamic American Relations, California Care, Critical Resistance Culver City Democratic Club, Davis Jews for Justice, Defending Rights and Dissent, Democratic Socialists of America East Bay, Democratic Socialists of America Santa Barbara, Democratic Socialists of America San Francisco Chapter, Democrats for Palestinian Rights Bay Area, Dolores Huerta Foundation, Fair Chance Project, Feel the Burn San Francisco Valley, Fight for the Future, Filipino American Educators Association of California, Filipinos Igniting Engagement for Reimagining, Collective Empowerment Coalition, Ground Game LA, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, Hindus for Human Rights, Human Agenda, Humboldt for Palestine, IfNotNow California, Indivisible California State Strong, Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism, Interfaith Communities for United for Justice and Peace, Islamophobia Studies Center, Jewish and Allied Educators for Palestine, Jewish Educators Addressing Actual Anti Semitism, Jewish Voice for Peace Bay Area, Jewish Voice for Peace Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Barbara, South Bay, John George Democratic Club, Justice Teams Network, Kahila Community Synagogue, La Raza Community Resource Center, Los Altos for Racial Equality - Equity, Luther Burbank Education Association from CTA, Arab Community Center of San Diego, Monterey Palestine Solidarity, Mount Diablo Peace and Justice Center, Empower Change, Muslim American Alliance, NorCal Resist, NorCal Sabeel, Northridge Individual, Orange County Ethnic Studies Alliance, Peace Academy of the Sciences and Arts, Physicians for Social Responsibility Sacramento, Pride at the Pier, Progressive Democrats of America, Quit, Queers Undermining Israel Terrorism, Rabbis for Ceasefire, Ramallah Club of San Jose, Rethinking Schools, Sacramento Democrats for Justice in Palestine, Sacramento Regional Coalition for Palestinian Rights, San Jose Nikkei Resisters, Progressive Alliance of SGV, Shomeret Shalom, Showing up for Racial Justice in Bay Area, Showing up for Racial Justice San Francisco, Showing up for Racial Justice Ventura County, South Bay Indigenous Solidarity, story "Sunburns": a children's Book Creator Collective, Students for Quality Education Sacramento, Taxpayers Against Genocide, the Truth Project, the United Liberation Front for Palestine, UAW Local 2320, National Organization of Legal Services Workers, UCLA Undergraduate Student Association, External Vice President's Office, University of California Student Association, U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, Viet Rise, Vigil for Gaza, Wellstone Democrat Renewal Club, Wellstone Progressive Democrats Sacramento, Yolo for Palestinian Justice, 1021 Members for Palestine, 14 Friends of Palestine, and the labor groups, including California Teachers Association, California's Federation of Teachers, California Faculty Association, Association for California School Administrators, and California County Superintendents, California School Boards Association, and Council of UC Faculty Associations, as well as 110 racial justice organizations.

Thank you very much. We are opposed to bill 715. Thank you.

Thank you.

I represent the groups who, the Semites Educate the Stupid on the Semites, Why the Jews Hijacked the Antis.

Sir. I'm going to have to cut you off.

I'm sorry?

You're.

Those are groups. Sir. You cannot shut me off.

They don't sound...

Why you need? Yes, they are groups. Why you need to stand up? Why? Why your politicians are doing -

Sir. I'm going to -

Chair, please. Chair. Please.

You change the rules.

Chair. Point of order. Chair.

Thank you.

Matt Brod. I apologize I'm late for the support line. Here is President of Congregation Beth Shalom in Sacramento, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Hamid Yunus, Sacramento resident. My three boys couldn't be here because they are in school. At this point in time, and I had to run, strong opposition to the censorship.

Thank you.

Hello. Jeffrey Burdofsky, parent of a young daughter here in Sacramento. I apologize for my delay. I'm speaking in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Rabbi Ben Herman of Mosaic Law Congregation, second largest Congregation in Sacramento, have two young girls: strong support of AB 715. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses either in support or in opposition. I want to, before I bring her back to the committee, want to thank everyone for coming out again on such short notice. It was not my decision to call this hearing on such short notice, and so I appreciate everyone that made it.

So, seeing no further public comments lining up, I'm going to bring it back to the committee and I'm going to start off our conversation. First of all, thank you very much, Mr. Zbur, Ms. Addis. I think we've been talking about this bill, as well as related issues for over two years, I think; I'm losing track of time.

And I know it's been a long and difficult process for all of us. Let me start by saying, you know, I believe everyone on this dais, but just speaking for myself, we absolutely condemn any kind of antisemitism anywhere, including but not limited to our public schools.

You know, I personally, going back to the 1990s, when I was the Regional Director of the Japanese American Citizens League in Los Angeles, I worked with groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles to fight hate. There was a surge of hate crimes targeting the Asian American community.

And the first groups that I turned to, the groups that I saw as experts in fighting hate work groups like the ADL. And so, I have over 30 years of working with the Jewish community to fight hate.

And more recently, you know, I had the opportunity to join the Jewish Caucus to go to Israel to bear witness to the Hamas attacks and to go to the Gaza border to personally witness the terrorist attacks on Israeli people.

And so, I want to make it clear that, you know, I am completely in solidarity with you in your mission to address this crisis of antisemitism across our country, but also here with your bill focusing in California public schools.

At the same time, you know, it is not unnoticed that I see all of the California education organizations lining up in opposition to your bill. We have not only the teachers and our professors, we have our superintendents. We have our school administrators. We have the School Board Association representing nearly a thousand school boards across the state.

And I hate to be in this position where I have to choose in what I see as a false choice that is being forced on all of us between fighting antisemitism and coming up with a responsible policy proposal that will not attack education, that will not suppress critical thinking, open discussion in our classrooms. And so, Mr. Zbur, I know I asked you personally, you know, this is the first time... The first time that I saw this language in its final form was just three days ago, on Tuesday. And I know that the content of this bill...

First of all, let me remind folks in the audience that this bill came before this committee a few months ago. And the bill was largely in the form of legislative intent, focusing on the intent to address antisemitism in California public schools. And I believe this committee unanimously supported that measure.

The measure also passed out of the California Assembly I believe with no no votes. And it went to the Senate. And that's when the original contents of AB 715 were stripped. The language was placed in this bill and became public for the very first time just three days ago.

And so I think most people in the public, their first response is, okay, well if you support the intent, but you want to fix the problems in the bill, then why not work together to fix the problems in the bill? And I've been extremely disappointed that this committee has not had a meaningful opportunity to work with either one of the authors on this bill to try to fix this bill.

And so let me ask you, Mr. Zbur and Ms. Addis. First of all, I do not want to be in this position of having to choose between fighting antisemitism and supporting a bad policy bill that is opposed by every single education advocacy organization. And so I'm asking you, can we make this a two year bill so that we can fix those problems so that we don't have to make that choice?

So first of all, let me sort of remind everyone sort of how we got here. We started this process two years ago where we had already been seeing rising levels of antisemitism sweeping school districts across the State of California. We started out with a proposal that basically focused more on the curriculum and materials part of that, and it was one that focused on transparencies at the school districts.

The education, our education partners raised concerns about that approach. We agreed with the concerns that were raised at that time. And they suggested that we then turn to a bill that is focused on standards. When we got into that process, issues were raised on that approach. And that was what we started out with this year because it was something that was suggested by our partners in the education community. We concurred that a better approach would be...

And this was something that happened this year. And so we had a full bill. It was focused on standards, and we had to pivot to a bill that was focused on antisemitism. That was done in consultation with the leadership of a number of our diversity caucuses.

And there was an agreement that we would move forward with the bill this year based on antisemitism. And so we worked very hard with Members of the diversity caucuses, with our education partners, and with other stakeholders to come up with a bill that was largely in intent form at the beginning of the year.

And we worked very hard and of course had language before the break that was very detailed. And so I think the assertion that this bill is wholly new is not an accurate assertion about what this bill is about. This bill then went to the Senate Education Committee and the...

There were meetings by the Senate Education Committee and the Pro Tem's office with all of the stakeholders and including folks in the Jewish community, the education stakeholders. And we took that original bill and made significant changes to it in response primarily to the comments and the issues of the education partners as well as the ACLU.

The original bill had changes to the definition of nationality and religion, which actually had been suggested by some of the folks in the other diversity caucuses. ACLU had objections to that and we concurred with them and we took that out. We had in the original bill a description of what an antisemitic learning environment might be.

What was. We thought that was important because it's important that school districts understand from the perspective of the Jewish community what is antisemitism. That concerns were raised about that provision of the bill. That entire section was taken out. We had originally in the initial bill, we had sections on how to deal with controversial topics.

Those sections on controversial topics were basically in there at the suggestion of some of our education partners. And then when we started drilling down on that, we were asked to take those sections out. And in return for that, we have some modest protections in the sections related to instructional materials which are already at law, but are some modest modifications on what instructional materials need to look like.

And that is this factually accurate information, which has been the subject of some of the discussions here. I will point out that the reason why we put that language in is because that is almost verbatim language that is already subject, that is already an obligation of UTLA in their contract with LAUSD.

So that that language that is in the bill we thought would be something that would be acceptable to the education, to our education partners. I will also say that with respect to that language, in the Senate Education Committee, we have made commitments that we are going to revisit that language.

We need to have some strong protections to make sure that educational materials that are biased and that are harming our kids, that there's some tools for parents to use with school administrators. But we have made a commitment, an ironclad commitment. They will come back with cleanup language early next year on those on that portion of the bill.

I think the final thing I'll say, and I'd like Assembly Member Addis, is that we are in a place where there is urgency. We since we started this process, the level of hate and antisemitism that these Jewish students are enduring is at a crisis proportion. We cannot wait to do something about it. And I will say that the focus of this bill has now focuses primarily on the creation of a Department of Civil Rights. I think one of the criticisms of the earlier version of the bill was that we only had an antisemitism prevention coordinator here in the bill.

We responded to those concerns by creating I think what is a landmark action by the State of California in having an Office of Civil Rights created with anti-discrimination coordinators that will benefit other communities that are protected by section 220 of the Education Code and will allow, as is needed in this case, will allow there to be specific and targeted responses to the different kinds of hate that arise in our schools.

So I would say that we, and we have taken in this bill, we have responded to all the major concerns that were raised in the bill. The bill focuses on sort of the education, prevention, and doing that through this Office of Civil Rights that I think has been we embrace the restorative justice process approach that our education partners have suggested. And so I think the assertion that this is a brand new bill is not accurate.

I did not say that Mr. Zbur. I didn't say this is a brand new bill. I acknowledge that this has been a long two year process. And let me ask you, you mentioned you worked with the diversity caucuses, you worked with the Pro Tem's office, you worked with the Senate Education Committee. Did you ever work with this committee to address these policy concerns?

Well, I think we worked with you. So I mean and we did work. I did work with your committee.

As I said earlier, the first time I saw this language in its final public form was just three days ago. So let me ask you again. Did you ever discuss this language with me?

This specific language? No, I did not.

Okay. Did you ever consult with any of our committee consultants, you know, on the language in its current form?

We've consulted with your committee consultants...

On the language in this current form.

Assembly Member Muratsuchi, I would respectfully... Chair Muratsuchi, I would respectfully say that this is part of a process where we arrived at language that came out of the Senate and is the normal process to consult with the committee as the language is coming out. So we're doing. We're doing the very best that we can under the timeframe.

Okay. But let me ask again. Did you ever consult with any of the consultants in the Assembly Education Committee in your own house?

I don't know whether our staff members did that.

Have you personally?

I have not personally.

Okay, so now let me finish. And I'll give you, Ms. Addis, an opportunity to speak. So why is it that you never consulted with the Assembly Education Committee?

Because we were in the process of significant negotiations with the Senate Education Committee, and we were not sure where this bill was going to land until literally days before it became public.

Okay, but you knew that the bill was going to be coming back to our committee, and yet you chose not to ever consult with me or with the committee consultants on the language currently in print. Is that correct?

Mr. Chair, I think I've answered that question already.

Okay. And I believe you answered it that you have not. So I'm asking. Well, you know, you also talked about how you have made commitments to the Senate Education Committee to make fixes. I think I heard that when we debated the original Assembly Bill 715, when we took your word that you were going to...

We heard a lot of these, the same concerns about the chilling effect on academic freedom, on, you know, on critical thinking, on open discussions in the classroom. You know, we had the President of the California Teachers Association make the issues clear. And yet...

And we, in good faith, we allowed your bill out of this committee on good faith that you were going to address those issues. And so when you are talking about how you have made a commitment to come back next year now to fix those issues, I have concerns. I feel like the phrase fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Mr. Chair, we had a commitment from you last year that we would come back this year and act this year to protect Jewish students in the schools. We knew that the conditions they were facing were rising. It was a very hard choice to make last year to push this bill off. And we had a commitment from you as well that this would happen this year.

And with the understanding that we would work together rather than just having this false choice forced upon us. Ms. Addis, would you like to speak?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And certainly there's nothing like education to bring our passions out. I think every single one of us in this room is here because we care about California's children. Many of us are parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, who have tremendous, tremendous passion.

And I really think truly have the same goals in getting to a place where not just Jewish children but every single child in California walks into a classroom where they're seen and where they're honored and where they feel safe to be who they are. Where they feel safe, say in the case of Jewish students, where they feel safe to wear the Star of David.

Or they feel safe to wear a kippah. Or in the situation of Lev, who couldn't be here with us today but was at our last couple of hearings, could be in a classroom where he didn't have to watch a peer of his, as Lev says it, a peer of his use classroom materials to cut out a Nazi flag and then slap it on his back and then have his peers laugh at him all day.

I think that's why this bill is in front of you. I think that's why we have spent the last two years of so many hours by yourself. Chair, I know you and I have had many conversations. I know I've had many conversations with Members of the Committee around the urgency of the matter. People say Jewish hate is the oldest hate in the world. Because for thousands of years... Because for thousands of years, people have said these things about Jews.

They have... They have blamed Jews for their pain. They have accused Jews of being sneaky, and they have said that Jews have no right to protect themselves. And so as we sit here today, we've gone through a process over two years that's brought us before your committee in an informational hearing with the singular Jewish Caucus priority bill. The only bill... Mr. Chair, if I might finish.

The only bill that 18 Members of this California State Legislature have come to rally behind because the problem is urgent. The problem does need to be solved today. It does need to be solved this year. Because there's not a child in California who should go through this any longer, and there's not a family in California who should go through this any longer either.

Let me ask you, Ms. Addis, as a joint author of this measure, and I'll turn It over to my colleagues with this final line of questioning. As I stated earlier, I absolutely agree with you that every child, including Jewish kids, need to feel safe in our California public schools. We are in complete agreement on that. But we have a bill before us that CTA, CSBA, ACSA, County Superintendents, CFA, CFT, as well as the ACLU and others that have testified.

But especially, you know, as a Member of the Education Committee, you know that it is pretty rare that all of the major education advocacy organizations and this capitol community are united in opposition to the bill. And so the issue before us is not do we want to protect Jewish kids in our California public schools.

The issue is, is this the right solution? And I want to get to the right solution. But I just saw this language three days ago, and I'm asking you, will you work with me and this committee, make this a two year bill to fix the shortcomings in this bill?

I would say this, Mr. Chair. Every single organization that you have named exists for one single reason. And the sole reason that those organizations exist is to serve children. And you have children across the state who are begging those organizations. They're begging you.

They're begging this committee and they've begged the Jewish Caucus to please take action, to please take action today, to please act with urgency, to please move beyond words that say that we're allies, but use your actions, my actions, to show that we are here in allyship on behalf of kids across California.

We have worked across two years to metamorphize this bill, to change the policy, to hear the concerns of opposition. I could name numerous parts of this bill that absolutely addresses pieces of the opposition. And I would say on the whole, there is a lot of agreement between the organizations that you have named and the Jewish Caucus.

We have been allies, we have had very important conversations through this process. In the majority of this bill, we are aligned. There are a couple pieces that we have heard time and again that we can continue to work on. We are committed to doing that work. And I think we've shown that we can be trusted.

I think we've shown that as authors, we're trustworthy people. I think the Jewish Caucus is a trustworthy caucus. I don't think our caucus is trying to put anybody between a rock and a hard place or sneak around and do anything harmful to anyone.

I think we've worked in good faith for two years, but we need to act urgently on the part of California's children and we need to then come back and we're happy to do that and do the little bit of cleanup, the minor cleanup that's needed.

Thank you. I'd like to open up to the committee. Ms. Bonta.

I just wanted to have engage in the dialogue around the process, and then I certainly will have other questions or concerns. We did, Chair, vote on AB 715 as intent language. I sat over there where Assembly Member Alvarez is sitting, looking out at people from my district who were incredibly upset with me that I would dare to trust the process and to allow for intent language that had such palpable concern built into it even with the intent language.

And I trusted the process because I was told that it would come back to the Assembly Education Committee so that we would have an ability to review the language in its final form for consideration. And I, as only one of 80, have one thing I can do.

But we are now sitting fast forward after many months with me leaning in hard. Many, many hours of working with this caucus, with the diversity groups, with our education consultants, with my own team, to try to ensure that this language was at a place that we would be able to put forward something in this committee, in this committee on the Assembly side, something that would be strong for us to be able to vote on it.

I feel robbed of that vote. And I actually don't even need to use the word feel because that gets into emotions. I have been robbed as an Education Committee Member of the ability to vote on this bill. We have a lot of mistrust in our government from our constituents, from the State of California.

And what we rely on to be able to say no, there aren't backroom deals that are made. No, we actually are transparent in our process. What we rely on is our process to be able to combat that sensibility around mistrust that is built up in our institutions. And we have been robbed of that opportunity to demonstrate the ability for people to trust us in our process.

I heard, Assembly Member Zbur, your response to the Chair's questions. And I thank you for being deliberate and responsive to the question that he asked because I think it's important to note that we were not engaged because we were not allowed to be able to vote on this. And I think that calls into question what we're voting on.

It does for me, most certainly. And I always want to seek grace. Right. And I see grace from the perspective of understanding the deep pain that people are feeling. It is heartbreaking to see so many people struggling. I'm looking past you all and I'm seeing the tears in my colleague's eyes, which I feel even more.

So I understand the need for urgency. I understand the need to be able to stop the pain. What I don't understand and what I can't abide by is doing so in a way that undermines our ability to have a democratic process and that undermines our ability to have people trust in our institutions.

And so, just on process alone, I'm going to again seek grace. There are incredible challenges still with this bill as written, AB 715, in my estimation. You've been asked by the Chair to make it a two year bill. I've heard very clearly that that is not something that you all are willing to do at this point.

And I fully understand why. I fully understand the perspective that you have in feeling like you've been on a journey, a never ending journey, and you want this to stop and you want action to be taken. I get that. But I put to you, how am I, your colleague, to trust that we will actually be able to continue to work on this language when I've been as close as possible to try to make sure that we've had an opportunity to do that.

And still I have to deal with the fact that a committee, a policy committee around this subject has not been able to be afforded the right to vote on this bill. How, just on that, on process alone, how would you all recommend that we move forward with whatever corrections that need to be made on this bill?

Well, thank you, Assemblymember. I know that you have been an incredible partner in this process and you and I have spent many, many hours on the phone on zoom in person, shed many tears together as I think we are here in this Committee.

And your commitment to equity and justice I think are unrivaled in many ways in this Legislature, the way that you fight for your community. And I know that this has been an incredibly, incredibly tough road we have over the course of this process. I'll just speak to 715 came before the Education Committee.

The Committee was very gracious in moving an intent Bill and I think our colleagues in the state Assembly understood how important this is to the Jewish community and near unanimously basically supported us in getting this over to the Senate Floor, over to the Senate Ed Committee.

As you know, it's been a very lengthy process over in the Senate. A lot of conversation and collaboration and various discussions went over, you know, went on over there. And that's where the Bill was largely slimmed down. And as you heard, Assemblymember Zbur described many large pieces taken out of the Bill.

And I think if we went through some of the things I heard the opposition say that they want, you'd find that many of those things are already in the Bill today right now. Things around education for teachers, things around restorative justice. At one point, I heard the opposition talk about cultural competency.

It was actually something we had had in and various opposition asked us to take out cultural competency of one of the pieces of this. So, you know, numerous times that we've worked in good faith and tried to whittle it down. No Bill is perfect. I think we all know that.

And these last days of session can become very compact. We see a lot of bills that are not exactly perfect. But I'll reiterate, I do believe that probably 90, 95% of this Bill, we have a lot of overlap with what we've been asked to do from our education partners, and I do believe they're partners.

And there's a couple things, you know, you've heard people talk about factual accuracy and we have made the commitment over multiple hearings now in Senate Education, Senate Appropriations. I think you've heard heard us recommit here in this hearing that we're absolutely willing to work on that piece.

I recognize where opposition is coming from and I too wish that we were in a world where we didn't disagree around facts anymore and nobody questioned and we didn't have to go through that. So I recognize that's where the opposition is and we need to continue to work. And you absolutely have my commitment to do that.

Assemblymember, I adore you. You know that I do. That was largely non responsive to the question that I was asking of my colleagues around how we address the process of violating the commitments to have the this piece of legislation come back to the Education Committee on the Assembly side, Assembly Member Zbur, Assembly Member Addis, so that we would be afforded the ability to deliberate and vote on this piece of legislation.

So I think, you know, I would like there to be more time. I would like there to be a different process and I think, as you know, I think hopefully understand I wasn't the one that was in charge of the process.

I mean, we've basically been trying to do the best we could given the what happened in the negotiations under this Bill and the fact that as the, as a part of the negotiations on moving from the prior version of the Bill to the Bill that ended up becoming the intent Bill that you did that we, that you all graciously reviewed and moved forward, we were having negotiations on the specific elements of that Bill up until right before the break.

And that involved, as you know, the diversity caucuses included like lengthy conversations with our partners here. And that happened and that resulted in language that was released right before the break. And you know, I think the bottom line is this is, as you know, this is the process that, that we have.

It's a process that allows you to look at the Bill, understand the Bill. It's, it's more of a process, unfortunately, than we have with many bills that we are moving forward to address very urgent problems. And I would ask you to ask us the questions you have on the Bill. You have it before you.

I know it's not a lot of time. I don't like processes that are this rushed. I acknowledge that it is, but it's rushed because this is an urgent problem for California's kids.

I do have other questions, Chair, but I will cede my temporarily my additional questions to others.

All right. We can come back to you other Committee Members, Ms. Dr. Patel, and then Mr. Garcia.

We'll start with one round. I think we're going to end up doing a few rounds as a matter of level setting.

The guiding light I was once given many years ago as I started down this journey of leadership in education was that our primary job is to keep kids safe at school because if they're not safe, they're not learning. Similarly, as Californians, our civil rights should be protected because if they're not protected. We're not thriving.

And as a new Member here, I've learned very quickly that the process used here with working groups and subcommittees to bring forward proposals in the 11th hour is not very unusual. I came here thinking that that would be unusual. There are many reasons and many times where that process does not seem to be fully transparent.

And then we rely on our colleagues to do their jobs. And in this process, I was not directly involved in a lot of it, and I wish I was. I came from a school district where we successfully implemented ethnic studies. And we did it in a way that was inclusive, that brought communities together.

And I wish I could have been more deeply involved in that process. We might have still ended up at this spot, but I think. I think as a Committee Member, that would have helped me. But there we go.

We are here now, and I understand that it will take substantial effort from all of us to change culture in the state Legislature. So we don't have things that happen at the 11th hour. And I came here with the mindset of operating in good faith at all times.

But this is the situation we have, this is the process we have, and this is the culture that we have for now. So let's get back to the merits of the Bill. My understanding is this Bill has evolved through a desire to directly address the statistically significant increase in anti-Semitic incidents at our schools.

That is the specific, narrow intent of this specific piece of legislation.

And that there is a companion Bill that is proposed to directly address other protected classes that will that have also been impacted by current affairs that are going on both here, domestically and abroad, where kids of different kinds of protected classes are being impacted by increasing amounts of hate.

It's my understanding that this Bill and the companion Bill will establish coordinators housed in the Office of Civil Rights. And my understanding is that the ethnic caucuses have worked together and will continue to work together to make sure that no kids are left vulnerable. I think we all have a deep rooted commitment to that.

So, as I said, this Bill is to directly address the statistically significant increase in anti Semitic incidences that has led to parents withdrawing their kids from public schools because they don't feel safe. And I do believe that our public schools are supposed to be places where all children can thrive.

So now I have several questions with that little preamble, and I'll ask a few, and then I'll yield my time to them colleagues and we can go back and forth a little bit. The first one is, what is the current process? Just so we have a good background to appeal a concern of discriminatory material for a parent.

Is and is that process working?

So the current, the current method is to file a UCP complaint with the school district. It's not working for Jewish students or for Jewish families in the State of California. There were portions of the Bill that addressed trying to reform that.

And as part of the discussions with our education partners, I think there was a concern that one, we couldn't reform what is essentially a broken system on the UCP front in this Bill. So we moved away from that.

And that is part of the reason why the other elements of the Bill are important, because this Bill does not address reforming the UCP system in a way where we're putting in more requirements, more standards in place. And so that is actually one of the I think the deficiencies of this Bill is that we're not tackling that.

But we think we had a commitment in the discussions with both our education partners and with other the representatives of the ethnic caucuses that we would tackle that in another way and in another year and probably not necessarily led by the Jewish Caucus.

Thank you for that. Can you explain how we have govops housing, the Office of Civil Rights and not the Department of Education?

That was a request from we had engagement with the governor's office and that was a request from the governor's office.

Thank you for that. That is interesting. So another question and then I'll pass it on to someone else for a bit. How does implementation look like in the classroom? And let me ask why. So there are concerns that this Bill will result in teachers being restricted in their ability to instruct in the classroom.

I think that is a General concern and I've heard witnesses say that materials that there's concern that they won't be able to provide factually accurate materials. Can you explain where in this legislation the terms, the context of the terms factually accurate come from and what is that intent?

Let me get the authors first and then we can go to you.

And if I might just sort of roll the question back. Assemblymember Patel, you asked sort of what would this look like in the classroom.

And while there's things that, you know, will could happen with materials and around factually accurate, which we've agreed to come back and work on that language and totally understand the reason the reason I'd like to roll that back, that question back out back a little bit is I know you as a former school board Member and educator yourself, you know that so much of this is fixed with prevention and so Boots on the Ground, by having the antisemitism coordinator and the other coordinators that we hope to enact under the Senate Bill that you'll be hearing, that person would have the ability to to educate around antisemitism, to create a model training.

We would have a website with materials around antisemitism prevention. And then boots on the ground would be able to use restorative justice and other kinds of practices. Certainly not required to use restorative justice.

But that is one tool in the toolbox that I think educators and educator groups across the spectrum have agreed as a good tool to have.

So without just honing in on that one piece, there's also these preventative pieces and then these pieces to help us get at healing and responsiveness that play into the whole picture of what that would look like. Boots on the ground. And maybe I'll let Assembly Members Zbur talk a little bit more specifics.

And in response to your specific question, the language that you're referring to arises in Section 51500 and 51501 of the Education Code. One of those provisions focuses on what is appropriate instruction in the classroom, which already exists and that we're actually amending to include this language that has been the subject of so much discussion.

And the other one deals with textbooks and materials. The language I'll just read that from the second one.

Instructional materials including but unlimited to materials adopted by the state order any governing body shall be factually accurate reflected adopted curriculum and standards as described in subdivision C, which is already a requirement in the law of Section 60200 and be consistent with accepted standards of professional responsibility rather than advocacy, personal opinion bias or partisanship.

Again, this is language that came almost verbatim out of the UTLA contract with LAUSD. It was placed in this Bill by the Senate Education Committee in as a to respond to taking out from the original Bill sections that dealt with how to deal with controversial topics. And so there were a lot of protections there.

Those provisions came from the California Department of Education guidance. But I think our education partners and others had concerns with some of the details of that moving a guidance document into statutory law.

And so in order to have an ability for parents to sort of point to school administrators about things that were happening in the classroom, we were looking for something that gave parents additional tools. I know that this isn't perfect.

I think our education partners have raised some some examples and Senator Cabaldon, some examples in which the factually accurate doesn't work in all cases. So and that's the reason why we have actually committed to specifically come back and work with them on something that addresses that issue.

I think it might be going back to some element of how you deal with controversial topics, but that is something that we're committed to working with our education partners and with this Committee and with the Senate Ed Committee as we move forward.

So, Dr. Patel, I'm sorry, just on that point, I'm going to give Mr. Bramble an opportunity to respond to that.

Yeah, tough conversation, emotional conversation. And I know that we're concerned about what the implications might be on teachers and on our students. Certainly, like I've heard from many in the room, we condemn anti Semitism and are committed to fight it in all forms, whether in our schools or otherwise. But I do have to set the record straight.

I feel like now twice I've heard the author, my neighbor here, say that the language around factually accurate is taken. At one point he said, verbatim from the UTLA contract, United Teachers of Los Angeles. That would be factually inaccurate. There's nothing.

If you search the UTLA contract and look for that phrase factually accurate, you won't see it anywhere. It comes directly from education code. It is one of the criteria that the State Board of Education uses when they're looking at new textbooks to adopt, when they're looking at the materials that they're going to use.

And that is a very, very, very different phrase than what's in this Bill. This Bill is not suggesting that it's one of their criteria when we look at materials. It's suggesting that all instruction, all instruction in California must be factually accurate. And there are huge implications for that kind of language.

Just, just on this point of utla, what, what is in the UTLA contract, I'm going to quote, instruction shall be consistent with accepted standards of professional responsibility rather than advocacy, personal opinion, bias, or partisanship. That language is in the UTLA contract. The words factually accurate are not in the UTLA contract.

There is nothing about one of our 1100 contracts that we've negotiated in this state that we think should be applied statewide without careful deliberation.

When leaders from the Jewish Caucus approached me about this particular issue, about whether this came from the UTLA contract, I suggested they should reach out to free speech advocates like the ACLU and think about whether we really should be applying something like this statewide, whether we should consider.

I know that when they were bargaining that language, they probably didn't consult with free speech expertise, constitutional attorneys and such. And I appreciate that the Analysis that you have before you today really highlights and points out some of the constitutional questions with that phrase and problems that may occur.

But I also heard the author, my neighbor to the right, talk about these are modest changes. So I'm just painting you a picture. I know that when this was in Senate Education Committee, Senator Cabaldon brought up the fact.

I don't know if he was saying he was a government teacher or as a government teacher, as an example, but that he would use, for example, Hamilton to get kids excited about learning about government. If instruction, all instruction in the state must be factually accurate.

Can you show Hamilton what's the application in an English language arts class when generally we read and analyze fiction that's not factually accurate? This is not a small, modest change. This has a widespread, very dramatic implications for every classroom in the State of California. It focuses on rote learning of facts.

It shifts away from some of the more important things we teach in our schools, like creativity, critical thinking, inquiry, learning together in groups. We're very concerned with what the implications are of that language.

But I just felt like we need to set the record straight about what is and is not in the United Teachers, Los Angeles and LA Unified contract.

Thank you for that clarification. As a follow up to that, then, with your commitment, as I said earlier, I act in good faith and I expect my colleagues to do the same. With that in mind, hearing that you have committed to working on cleanup language.

Yes, we've made.

That is part of that cleanup language.

This is the specific, this is the thing that we have specifically committed to work with this Committee, with our education partners and with the Senate Education Committee on specifically. We've made that commitment.

This is now the third time.

I'm sorry if I could jump in. So, Mr. Zbur, you will commit that you will work with this Committee to address the issue of fact, factual accuracy.

Yes, and we've made that commitment in every hearing we've been in.

This is the first time that you're before this Committee.

Absolutely.

Thank you for that. I do have follow up questions, but I'll yield my time for now.

Thank you, Mr. Garcia.

Thank you everyone. I have more of a comment, not a question. I do want to thank the chair for accurately summarizing the process with this Bill. And I want to echo the sentiments of my colleagues to my left have been learning that, you know, a lot of bills kind of get thrown on you at the 11th hour.

And I do want to also say that I feel that a lot of it is based on trust. So I know that the intent language that this Bill was passed in this Committee based on intent language as well as on the Assembly floor.

And I spoke with us and Member Addis and I said, I trust you and I trust that you will get it right. And yet here we are on the last day of session going over a Bill that was in print three days ago and it's not right. And I just want to say that my colleague yesterday is.

I'm done. I'm done, y'all

Mr. Lowenthal.

Okay. Very first thing I'd like to say is how resentful I am. Mr. Chair, at the tone that you're taking to our colleagues, we're trying to work as hard as they can to address crisis for millions of Californians.

As my colleague said from Oakland, there's an unbearable pain that our community is going through right now that is empirical, that is anecdotal. Any which way you slice it, it's awful. I heard you speak about how the process is bad. You personally have experience fighting hate, how you have gone to Israel.

But I did not hear at all about the crisis that is taking place for children and families in schools in the State of California.

I did not hear that from the opposition representing our teachers, who basically made three main points about how all lives matter, about how we have a flawed process and that there are points of view that feel that they may be silenced. And did say something that you are committed to fighting anti Semitism.

I have not heard what that commitment is in response to a question.

And what I hear from the people that have come to me to and testify on this Bill in multiple hearings, this Committee, on multiple events, occasions, Senate Education and otherwise, is there's a huge gap in pain between multiple communities that are not addressing what is best for children. As my colleague said so well.

My colleague from San Diego said so well. The number one challenge in education is protecting children. My children don't feel protected. I did not feel protected in public schools. I spoke about this from this very chair some months ago. Well intentioned discourse in education can have disastrous outcomes, unintended disastrous outcomes.

The goals of this legislation is to fill those gaps. How many more anecdotal stories do we need to hear about children who are unsafe now, who are withdrawing from school now?

You heard from my daughter come up and testify a year ago on different legislation that actually this would, this would address where she was bullied relentlessly after hours and off campus online. Our school administrators, Superintendent, attorneys said they didn't have jurisdictional authority to address it, even though it exists in ed code. Now. This would address that.

I'm upset. I'm upset at the focus on process where I have never seen in my life legislators work so hard and be bounced around so much in response to concerns about process and so much of that for political reasons not to actually address what is happening to kids in school.

Now, I heard today from people that this is misguided censorship. Anti fascist Zionists.

My community, we were addressing ceasefire resolution in Long Beach. I watched people go to the microphone and talk about how Jews control financial paradigms that were part of an Epstein cabal. We do forced castrations. We control information and news outlets.

The Jews that had gone to that hearing that night were chased to their car, spit on, intimidated, harassed. I don't hear enough from the education community, from our education unions, is that this is a crisis. All I see is resistance, resistance to process, resistance to the way the Jewish Caucus is trying to address this in every way.

And blame. And I hear that in the questioning, from our. I hear that. Blaming the authors of this bill for a process that they did not create and a process that they've been responding to. And I resent it. No, I'm not. And I resent that.

It is about time that this community feels heard for the crisis that it is and is understood that we have not been treated so well in this process. The questions about the legislation itself are germane. Are important. We should be talking about those. I appreciate that. I appreciate the concerns that my colleague from Oakland has.

I want to talk about those things. There should not be sides on this issue, folks. There should not be sides. We've got to get away from that. We've got to stop blaming each other now. I'm done. Mr. Chair.

Vice Chair Hoover.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I know that you had to leave, but I wanted to start by acknowledging the student witness who spoke. I believe her name is Ella. Okay.

She may be watching in the car. She had to get back to school, but she may be watching. Your comments, Mr. Vice Chair.

Thank you. I just want to commend her bravery for coming to this Committee, for speaking her personal story into this, into the record. I know that wasn't easy to do, and I just, you know, it strikes me because I don't think any student should ever have to be treated the way that she was treated.

No student should have to be treated the way that many Jewish students have been treated on our campuses. And, you know, I do. I do realize. I can feel the tension in this room, and I do realize there's a lot of passion involved in this issue on many sides.

But I do want to thank the authors for your work on this. I know you started this process quite a long time ago, actually, and I was actually supportive of your efforts from day one. I know that the initial focus was more on the curriculum.

That is actually something that I would love to continue working with you on. But I also know that this has been a tremendously Challenging negotiation. And I'm quite frankly disappointed in how difficult it has been for you all to negotiate this bill. How difficult it has been, how it's taken two years. It is disappointing.

And that's not on you. That is on just all of the opposition and the challenges surrounding these issues. But it is disappointing that it took two years to get to this place. Hi, Ella. How are you? I hear my colleagues concerns about process, I truly do.

And I hear those because I regularly raise concerns about process in this building. I'm slightly less sensitive to it because I feel like, as a Member of the minority party, we are regularly asked to vote on bills that we have not had time to digest, that we have not had time to vet. And that is frustrating.

And so I do hear the concerns being raised by my colleagues on process. But I do think it's important to remember that this conversation has been taking place for multiple years.

And I do think that we, you know, while the specific language has not been in print for very long, these conversations have been happening for a very long time. I'll be honest, if I may get a little bit personal. This has been a really hard week for me.

I think for a lot of us in our caucus, it is. I think the violence that has occurred this week has really hit home.

And it has been really difficult as a dad, myself, and a conservative in this nation to see what took place this week and not feel pain and not feel scared, frankly, for expressing certain beliefs. I do not believe that we can fix all of the hate in this world.

I don't believe that this bill is going to fix everything. I don't think this bill is going to end all of the discrimination. And this bill isn't perfect. But I do think this bill is necessary, and I think it is critical that we must act to protect Jewish students across our state like Ella.

And I commend your leadership in bringing it forward. And for those reasons, I will be supporting the bill when given the opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today is a personally difficult day for me. It's four years ago that I lost my father, who was an important figure in my life. And this time of the year is always a little bit challenging and heavy.

And I always bring him to mind during this time of the year, generally, obviously even before serving in the Legislature.

And sometimes it's unbelievable what happens in your life and how tragedies like that or a loss, in that case, I wouldn't say a tragedy, but loss of our father, of my father can help you perhaps deal with what's happening in the moment today.

And I couldn't help but listen to every word that everybody said, every one of you colleagues, everyone who testified and all of the witnesses, and be reminded of the lessons I learned from my father, which were always about respect for others and really honestly believing that other people are acting in good faith and in the interest of making the world a better place.

He never had a role as a janitor, as a farm worker, to make the world a better place in the way that I think we all have the distinct honor of doing as we serve in this position, but certainly make his world, which was his family and his community, a better place.

And I say that because I believe truly in my heart that everybody who's spoken one way or the other has that intent. I truly believe that the opposition who's here wants to accomplish that. And I think we must recognize that the opposition, anyone with children in public school system, always tries to do that for our kids.

I want to start by thanking the education partners for what they do for our children, who the work that they do is to try and raise kids in our society into a better place. I also believe very strongly that that is the intent of the authors.

And so we actually find ourselves in a conversation on how to approach that what I believe is common goal in making things better for, in this case, children like Ella and others in our school system, because looking forward to going home on Saturday like everybody else.

And you know the reasons those of you have spoken to me, I get to be with my kids, and I want my kids to be in our schools in a place where they feel safe. They will only feel safe if kids like Mr. Lowenthal's kids feel safe.

Because if they don't feel safe, my kids might also not feel safe. And so I believe that that's where we're all trying to go. We're all trying to go in that direction.

With that said, I would also say that today important questions were raised, and I have a few, and I don't want to get into now the technical aspects of what could become just very technical and nuanced questions to discredit or perhaps make anyone feel like there is no sympathy.

And I hope I can reach the level of empathy what's happening with the Jewish community, which is very real. But I need to ask technical questions. And I do think that in a process like ours in the Legislature, which often this occurs where big important things need to happen, happen, unfortunately, this way.

But I do think, and I don't want to undervalue the work that important people in the work that we all do. And we recognize them and we say it a lot, our staff does.

And there are important and valuable Members of staff of this Committee that I think it is important that we listen and that we analyze things with the questions that get raised about how we're going to really implement this bill, which is to accomplish what the authors would like to accomplish.

So and that's based not so much on policy. I think the questions and the opposition is I think, more based on process and the technicalities of how we're going to do that. So I want to get into that. But again, recognize and thank all of you for what you are looking to accomplish here.

Let me just start with some basics that will help me, I think, better get to understand where we're going. I attempted to review the date of implementation because we are now having a conversation about returning next year to fix some of the issues that have been admitted by the authors that need to be corrected.

And so believe it or not, I was not able to identify when this becomes operative and when this becomes implemented. Can you share that with me?

Believe it would become operative at the beginning of the year. And then there are sections of the bill related to the beginning of reports that become that deadlines are set in early 2027.

So then the question, as you might imagine, would be then, if this becomes operative, January 1, 2026 what happens with some of the items that need to be corrected, which at this point, unless you have any other further information, this is tomorrow will be the last day the Legislature meets and will not be able to take action on anything else before January 1st of 2026.

So first of all, the factually accurate part of it, the one thing that I will also point out is that that is already in existing code in paragraph 3 of Section 602, the factually accurate requirement as it pertains to instructional material.

I think the goal and what we talked about with the Senate Ed Committee and we would make the same commitment with this Committee is that we would move work over the course of the the end of the year so that the beginning of January, hopefully we're prepared in the very first month or two to come back with something and hopefully that would be something that we could move forward with urgency and make those fixes.

It was a little low on the volume. I heard you say bring something forward in January with an urgency clause, January, February. So as soon as we can get with with an urgency clause.

And you might want to pull the Bill Language in front of you because the questions I have are on the specific sections and I want to make sure we all follow through. In Section 3 of the Bill, the amendments which are in 262.32. There's a reference to the complaint being submitted through the Superintendent.

Is that a reference to the Superintendent of California State Superintendent or to local superintendents? Yes.

Yes and that's not a change that our Bill makes. It's the state Superintendent. Okay.

Moving to Section five. This is on the Office of the Civil Rights. There were some questions already by colleagues, but I'd like to get more understanding. We currently do not have an Office of Civil Rights in any Department in the State of California. I don't know the answer to that. Definitely not an education. Yeah.

Not in education and not within the governor's office currently. Let me ask you about the Department of Justice. And I just don't know. Do they. Is there a unit in the Department of Justice as it relates to civil rights and were there any conversations about bringing them into this?

There were conversations I know through the discussions that were had with the pro tem's Office and Senate Education Committee evaluated a number of different areas. Frankly, this was one of the issues that the Governor's Office came back to us and said that asked us to place it in this Department. It was really one that was.

I think the concept is this would be sort of a separate entity and it would be administratively housed in that Department. But there's, as you can see, there's requirements of consultation with the Board of Education and the Superintendent.

Yes. Mr. Alvarez, if I can just clarify for the record on I believe page nine of the Committee analysis, at least my copy of page 9 under the section discussing the Office of Civil Rights, the correct information is that the Department of Education currently does have a Office of Equal Opportunity, which is a state which is charged with ensuring compliance with the state and federal civil rights laws and regulations that are set forth in the Committee analysis.

That's correct. I was gonna ask about that actually, Mr. Chair

And I was not implying that the Department of Justice was. Would be the place to house it. I was just inquiring about that. I was going to ask about that that is identified in our analysis. And the answer was it was a request from the Administration to put this to create a new office.

Was there analysis on housing this under the office of in the Department of Education.

There was equal opportunity office. I know that there were that the as part of the Senate Education Committee, they evaluated a number of offices, a number of places, including that. And this was where the Governor asked us to place it.

So it was just based on a request from the Governor to create a new office and his Administration.

I think each of the options, for various reasons, were not viewed as optimal. And this was where the Governor asked us to house it. And we were interested in making sure that we had a place to house it and that we were able to house the entire office. And this is where the Governor asked us to house it.

And I asked that previous question, as I transition to the next set of questions, really is based on the role that I've been tasked with, which is to focus on our education budget.

And clearly the creation of a new office of a new bureaucracy is going to be an additional budgetary obligation, which would then, as you know, in times that we live in, make it challenging for other things to be funded. And so I'm trying to understand what that implication would be long term.

And I'll have questions about 48, because there are other offices or positions that get created as a result. But that transitions me into questions related to cost.

And this is where I'd like the opposition, certainly the Superintendent's representative, which I know your letter is aligned with, School Board Association, where I'd like to ask you to chime in on some of these things because I think what I hear from you, which are, I believe, concerns we should at least acknowledge and think about how are going to be better addressed, is on potential liability and process.

And so let me begin with section number seven, and this is a section where it Begins by Section 51500 is about teachers shall not give instruction to school, goes on to say, based on promoting discriminatory bias on Section 7. New Section 7, discriminatory bias in instruction.

Why isn't that something we would all want to occur in our school setting today? And what is the concern with that? I'm asking opposition. And then certainly Mr. Zbur responds.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Discriminatory bias is already prohibited under existing law in the Education Code. We heard many instances of families that felt that they could not receive remedies under that existing construct.

And I think that many aspects of the Bill try to address that by clarifying what remedies exist if, for example, school boards or local educational agencies do not respond in a timely way as required under law. There are different appeal options. So I think the first part of the answer is that those rights already exist under law.

But I'd be happy to expound upon that or speak more if you have more specific questions. Okay. Yes, sir.

So, yeah, that bias term is next to the term advocacy. It's next to the term partisanship. It's next to the term personal opinion.

I do think there are some questions about, in a highly politicized environment where we have seen in some cases people bringing political agendas into the school environment to disrupt, does this create potentially law and legal tools that will increase those kinds of tensions?

And so I saw two questions pose in the analysis regarding this question that I thought were valuable. Would a poster of women mathematicians posted to promote gender equality in STEM be considered unlawful DEIA advocacy by a teacher? I added the DEIA part. That's okay. Would it be lawful to celebrate Black History Month?

Some of these things that we routinely do in our schools to celebrate the rich diversity of our state in the middle of a political environment in some areas of the state where that's being weaponized against the operations of schools could result and I think legal liabilities. There's other kind of off topic stuff. Talk about the Biden document.

I could talk about in terms of liability, but to your specific question, I think those terms, those are very subjective terms. Who decides, you know, what's personal opinion? Who decides what's partisanship? Who decides what's advocacy? Is me identifying as a transgender person and talking to my students about my pronouns. Is that advocacy?

Is that a personal opinion? Or am I just expressing who I am? It opens the door to a lot of potential litigation in school districts across the state, especially in this political moment.

I would say this is a little bit of a comma here or pause. I think people who would hear your response may be thinking, well, that sounds, you know, unfounded or unrealistic. I want to acknowledge that we've, we have done legislation in the state in the past with some unintended consequences.

And I do think it's important that we pause and that we really make sure that we understand that the way it's written doesn't lead to those unintended consequences, which I am certain, without even asking, but certainly responds to the authors, that is not their intent.

And so I think that's why when I started my comments, we want to get to the same place. Let's make sure we do that and not trip over ourselves as a result of the way that this has been currently drafted and again has already been acknowledged, may need some cleanup. So let me move on to now.

In response to that, though, same section, new letter B section, teacher instruction shall be factually accurate and aligned with the adopted curriculum and standards as Described in paragraph 3, subdivision C. Now, the instruction I heard representatives from our education partners is what is concerned because in Section eight, without trying to jump around too much, there is new direction that reads that the board of education should make sure that instructional materials themselves should should not be biased in those ways.

Would we all agree and this may be where a lot of the sticking point is already identified by, by the author here.

But I'll ask the SBA first that Section 8 provides some level of clarity protection, if you will, because the board would be responsible for deciding on materials and that will not be in a burdensome or potentially challenge for local agencies to make those decisions themselves.

Thank you, Assemblymember. And first, just a point of clarification. I'm not with the School Boards Association. With the your superintendents. Thank you. But your letter is joined with, oh, with. I'm sorry. We have many of the same arguments as CSBA. Okay. A couple of things.

First, having discriminatory content in adopted instruction materials is prohibited under 51501 under existing law. I'm not against the clarification of additional code citations listed there because school boards should not be adopting materials that are in any way discriminatory. I think you know, Dr. Patel asked earlier about the implementation challenges.

One of the implementation challenges of this is not in the process of adoption because boards go through a long good faith effort with their community Members and partners to do that. It's in a later part of the Bill, which is 60151 in which the Bill would require the immediate and permanent removal of entire books.

Yes. And other instructional materials, if the state Superintendent determines that there's even one instance of discrimination within those materials.

And as many of you know from serving on school boards, when you go through the procurement process on instructional materials such as software or other items like that, or textbooks, it can be a years long process, a multimillion dollar investment.

So to have an instance like this where the language specifically notwithstands existing law that would allow schools to bring in new textbooks at the appropriate time as early as feasible, this is a huge constraint and liability for districts, one that we raised through the negotiation process and is not currently addressed in the Bill and that notwithstanding.

Thank you. I wanted to get to that. And let's give now a chance to the author to respond to that because I do find that a little bit of a question here. The potential liability on the adoption in that way by locals, their exposure, a lot of good.

And remind us, good faith bills have led to a lot of exposure to our school districts. How would this particular issue be addressed, in your opinion?

Yeah, I mean, I think in terms of, I'm not sure if I'm because I pulled away for a minute. In terms of materials, instructional materials, the factually accurate standard is already in the Ed Code.

So that is not something that's new, but I guess I would say is, you know, so, so the Ed Code, for example, that's already a standard. That's it is imposed when textbooks are reviewed and approved as part of that process. So I don't think this increases liability.

What it, what it would do is instructional materials also include things that teachers bring into the classroom. It's not the textbook. And that's primarily where the problems are happening in schools.

I get that, and that's a good point. And I was going to ask superintendents. The state goes through a vetting process.

How is it that you think you're going to end up with materials that have not been appropriately vetted with this law, if it were to be a law in place that would authorize you to utilize textbooks that would be violating this law?

That's a great question. When the State Board of Education goes through the textbook and instructional materials adoption process, it has mandated materials that at certain grade levels you shall use these materials. And at other grade levels, a local governing board has the authority to decide we may use these materials. And most do for good reason.

They may also find their own materials which need to be factually accurate and so forth. So I think that I just want to separate the factual accuracy conversation that's happening about teachers and instruction between the hours of teachers. Yes, let's do that. I think we understand that and the instructional materials.

And then I think the Assembly Member, the author, brings up a very good point, which is we're not just talking about textbooks in this case. And I gave the example of textbooks. We're also talking about supplemental instructional material materials, in which case there is guidance from the CDE about how to do that.

We really advocated the CDE ought to beef that up and state lawmakers can help with that to identify what do we mean by factual accuracy rather than a standalone clause in a statute that may lead to litigation challenges and other local adoption.

So let's say you find yourself in that position where you adopted some material that was not instructional material but alternative material. That then someone sues your ate one of your school districts because you're utilizing what would be your process for remedy besides being liable for potential damages?

The way you understand this? Sure. And I can say what would happen under current law and then under this Bill, under current law, what would happen is that the district would have to either omit those materials in order to remedy the situation or, or find some other way to address the problematic material.

I gave the example of a single usage of a term that at some later point it's determined, zero gosh, this is a really problematic term. Our students should not be exposed as it's discriminatory. One way a district might address that now is by teaching about it. To say, this author talks about this term.

When this author wrote about it, here's what he or she was talking about, but here's how we understand and learn from it today and about how it affects students and other people in the real world. And that's a teachable moment that I think we will want to preserve for our students.

What that section of the Bill talks about now is that unequivocally that item must be removed. It doesn't need to be replaced if it's a textbook. If you can't replace it, there's no exception for that. It just needs to be removed.

And part of what we were hoping to accomplish in the negotiations was that we would have some sort of grace to be able to teach, contextualize, and instruct about it or omit it, because that may be a perfectly valid option too, if there are larger problems. So that's the two situations.

So is this a policy disagreement to the Author and to Ms. Addis, do you believe that perhaps material that is discriminatory and offensive in any number of things, if the approach suggested by Superintendent's representative here is adopted, that the material may remain, is that perhaps what you're thinking?

Or why not go the direction of the way the current law allows the correction to occur?

Well, I mean, I think it speaks to a couple of things of one, I, you know, I'll go back to the very beginning of sitting down in this chair and talking about children feeling welcomed, safe, affirmed, supported in their classrooms.

And when there's discriminatory terms used in instructional material time and time and time again, and a person in power is making the decision that we should continue to use those terms, just talk about them better, I think that creates a potentially very harmful situation for students, and we've heard that from students time and again.

Actually, this is not theoretical talked at the top of the hearing about the urgency of this situation and what we have heard from students time and time and time again is that adults in the classroom are bringing in discriminatory things.

I'll just use the word Zionist as an example and then having what the adult in the room is deeming a discussion and the child is absolutely being ostracized and othered through that experience.

But I'll just say I think it speaks to the importance of another part of the Bill which is the anti Semitism coordinator who if that was to be allowed to continue, could do the education and preventative work. But also that it's very dangerous when these materials are allowed to stay and boots on the ground.

Very difficult to imagine. Like would a school go through every single book and just cross out the word? Would they tear out the page of every single textbook and leave the lesson unfinished? You know, if you're only going to remove part of it.

To me, just having been in the classroom for such a long time and through many, many discussions, that just doesn't. Seem realistic, I guess.

And I'll try to end. I know I've gone very long, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate your indulgence allowing me to ask questions based on the Bill itself. What I'm still missing here is I understand now what your policy objective is, that that's important.

What I'm not understanding is more of how this will get implemented and how it gets corrected before it becomes a liability. And I raise that again sounding perhaps unsympathetic or empathetic. That's not the intent. Right.

It's as a chair of a Budget Committee that has seen the budget of our school districts and hearing from them every single year that they're more and more constrained as a result of liabilities, as a result of laws on the books that we in the Legislature passed.

I think that question has to be asked and I'm still not will acknowledge here, not understanding how we can fix it before it becomes a liability. That's what I'd like to get from you. And a response from the Superintendent's representative.

I think this is an important set of questions and I think the response is, you know, I guess what I would sort of say is the objective of this and some other portions of the Bill that have been part of the dialogue, in particular with the superintendents and the School Board Association has generally focused on materials that the teachers are bringing into the classroom.

And so generally the issues that are rising in schools are not about textbooks that are purchased by the school.

I get that Mr. Zbur to try to move the conversation. That's pretty clear and that I think there's a mechanism in place to provide because of this the board's involvement in that. It's the additional material that to me leaves a little bit of a gray area.

And if I were running a school district would want to know clearly what are my. Not an attorney so I sometimes forget the cure that could occur prior to being sued and then liable.

I think they would remove the portions of the material which are largely going to be not in the textbooks. It's going to be what the table teachers are bringing in.

Let me just, I'll end Superintendent's representative, is that your understanding of what would allow you to not find yourself in a position of being liable?

We would prefer that implementation but the Bill says shall immediately and permanently omit all course materials and shall not be used in any course offerings or any subsequent course offerings.

Yeah. I'll let you say one more thing because I know we haven't even talked about the factually accurate teaching which is not materials specific but you mentioned the.

Impact on school funding. Would it be too far off to just speak to that? I know that it's important to you in other roles you have in the Legislature.

I'd just say when we make a teacher's job this difficult, like if I'm teaching about impeachment and I give examples from our current Administration and I get political blowback from a community like it get teaching is really hard and we have a massive teacher shortage and we're making that job harder and harder and harder.

And I'm concerned about number one for districts and leas. They're going to have to spend more on recruiting. There's unintended consequences here that we're not thinking about. That money is coming directly from instruction that should be provided for students to lower class sizes. Bring counselors in.