Senate Standing Committee on Education

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our annual joint hearing of the Senate and Assembly Education Committees to hear from the California Association of Student Councils and the Student Advisory Board on Legislation in Education, which we might here refer to today as SABLE.

The students have worked very hard to identify problems, research issues, and develop legislative proposals that we'll be hearing about this morning. Several of the students' proposals have been carried as bills in previous years and have become law.

I know this because, when I was in high school, I came up to this very hearing to present to the Senate Education Committee on a legislative proposal related to one of the first bills regarding the local student board members on trustees, on school board trustees, which did not pass. So I'm hoping today we'll get better luck.

But this is an incredibly important time to hear from the students and the young folks in California who are what we're all about and what our policy proposals are all for, and to hear from the campuses themselves and from students and communities throughout the state. So we're looking forward to hearing your ideas, and thank you so much for taking the time out of your schedules to be with us today.

I do want to note, I should say, I'm Christopher Cabaldon, and I'm the Senator for the the 3rd Senate District, which includes portions of Regions 2 and 3 for the California Association of Student Councils. I represent Yolo, Solano, Napa, Sacramento, Contra Costa, and Sonoma Counties.

And I am filling in for the Chair of the Senate Education Committee, Senator Sasha Renée Pérez, who is from Los Angeles. And like several other Members of the Legislature, as everyone has noted, there is a deep fog over the Sacramento airport and most of the Great Valley. And so some legislators aren't able to be with us in person today. And so I'm subbing in for her.

But rest assured that she and every other Member of both committees will be reviewing the tape and the notes and the transcripts of this hearing because I know there's a tremendous amount of interest from all of our colleagues to hear from students today. So we want to get expeditiously to hear the presentations.

But first let me invite other Members of the Committee who would like to make opening remarks. And I'd first like to invite the incoming, as of March, who will be the new Chair of the Assembly Education Committee, Assembly Member Darshana Patel, to lead off with opening remarks. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair Cabaldon or Acting Chair Cabaldon. I am very excited to hear the input from students today. We have the briefing packet. I came from a school board. I served on a local school board in Poway Unified for eight years.

We always had a student board member by our side, a voting member who was able to attend trainings with us. And I'm a champion of this kind of effort, having student input. I also took every interview that the student newspaper or broadcast would ask of me. A big champion of student voice in our education process. Welcome to everyone here and look forward to hearing your input.

All right, thank you. Any other Members wishing to make some opening remarks? Senator Eloise Gómez Reyes.

Thank you so much. I was commenting the moment I walked in how wonderful it was to look at and see so many students. You all look so beautiful. And I can see some future legislators. Maybe the Governor is sitting right there, maybe the President is. And I'm excited to hear.

I see what the panels are, the titles of each of the panels, and the amount of work that goes into it. I have a Young Legislators or Young Senators Program in my district, and one of the things that they do is to present ideas for legislation.

My husband is a trustee for the San Bernardino Community College District and has been involved with the community college for five decades now. So this is something of extreme importance to me. I'm so excited. This is the first time I've been a witness to it. And when I saw this, I said, I'm sending this to my team so they can get ideas. But I look forward to hearing from all of you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to welcome CASC here at Sacramento. Again, I had the opportunity to present during the recess here in Sacramento not so long ago. But more importantly, I walked in one of these hearings a few minutes late and almost missed a huge opportunity, which turned into a successful opportunity, a successful bill on restorative justice that was being presented in the hearing that time. And I think it was...

I can't remember if it was last year or the year before, but the bill was signed into law and hopefully it's doing some good. And hopefully some more legislation will come out of today's hearing by inspiring not only those present here, but keep in mind that this is, you know, this is being streamed all over the building and every office, every legislative office has access to it. So thank you all again for being here. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Senator. Comments?

Also want to echo those remarks. Welcome to everyone. I'm really looking forward to hearing the ideas from the panels. And so, yeah, great job already. Yeah, looking forward to it.

All right. With that, thank you to our colleagues. At this time, we'd like to welcome the California Association of Student Councils Education Policy Director, Fia Nicolaescu. Oh, I'm so sorry. Please.

Good morning. I just want to welcome you here today, and I'm excited to hear what you're going to present. And thanks for being here.

Thank you so much. And apologies again. This time we'd like to welcome CASC Education Policy Director Fia Nicolaescu to make some opening remarks. Welcome.

Good morning, esteemed Members of the Education Committee. My name is Fia Nicolaescu, and I will be your Student Advisory Board on Legislation Education Conference Director. I'm also a senior at Bella Vista High School here in Sacramento.

For more than 70 years, our organization, the California Association of Student Councils, has hosted policy and advocacy conferences just like this one, working to train the next generation of leaders. Now you have 80 of the most dedicated, compassionate, and creative students sitting before you, waiting to give you presentations that may hopefully get picked up into law.

They've only been working on these proposals for two days, and I think that you'll be very impressed with the solutions that they've come up with. But I'd like to start off by thanking you. Because for so long, students have felt like our voices haven't been included in the legislative process, and it's the kind of felt like we've been talking into an empty chamber.

So it's experiences like this one that make us feel like our input matters, and it encouraged us to keep speaking up for what we believe in. So, on behalf of our entire delegation, thank you for giving us this opportunity. Now, without further ado, I'd like to introduce our first group, our Civic Education Council Group.

Fia, thank you so much. And as we're welcoming the panel to come up, let me introduce you some of our ground rules here in the extended state capitol. And one of them which will not be necessary today, but the reason why we have our rules is so if we follow them all the time, then they work best when we really need them.

So today we're not expecting a lot of big fights, but our standard procedure here in the Senate is in committee hearings that we ask folks not to applaud and certainly not to boo or do any or engage in any other loud demonstrations. And so it will be hard.

You'll forget many times during the day, and I will remind you, but we do that in order to assure that it's the voices that are heard that are providing their testimony and that we're not swayed by the demonstrations that are happening in the room. So it will feel completely unnatural, because it is. But know that we do this in these chambers to make sure that everyone gets a chance to be fully heard. And today we have a lot to hear. So we will be having seven panels.

We've asked each panel to present for approximately eight minutes in order to keep us on time because we know there will also be questions and comments from Members of the two committees as well. And so we'll have a Q and A that will follow the eight minutes of presentation. And so please introduce yourself as part of the panel. And let's begin. Sophie, do you want to go first?

Yeah. Does this work? Okay. Hi, I'm Sophie. I'm a sophomore from Newport-Mesa Unified School District in Newport Beach, California.

I'm Ryan. I'm a junior from Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District in Mountain View.

And I'm Addie. I'm a senior at Vista del Lago High School from Folsom, California.

And today we stand before you to propose an annual civic engagement day designed to challenge students' to perceptions of political irrelevance and foster meaningful civic awareness.

So, Ava, one of our council members, attends Woodland Joint Unified School District, where students are currently struggling to confront their school board about issues that directly affect them. Recently, their school board has been exploring eliminating the seventh period to cut costs. With this change, students would be unable to take vital electives and CTE courses.

But despite the magnitude of the of this change, students would be... From college readiness to their overall educational experience, students are refusing to confront their school board, believing their voices wouldn't lead to meaningful change. This hesitation, rooted in anxiety and a lack of understanding of district policies, reveals a deeper issue.

Students do not see civic issues, even those that directly affect them, as relevant or responsive to their participation. Thus, addressing the discrepancy requires more than expanded civic education. It demands opportunities that show students how to actively engage in their schools and communities to see the real impact of their voices.

Combating the discouraging sentiment, we envision schools as a comfortable, pressure free space where students can express their opinions while engaging in open discourse to understand the government, the voting process, and explore their own political beliefs. In classrooms, students aren't told what to think, rather informed on a multitude of civic information, allowing them to think critically.

However, today in schools across California, students feel that political issues aren't relevant to them and therefore avoid voting and participating in civics in general. Lacking substantial exposure to civics and democratic processes, students are limited in their ability to engage and interact with these systems. Civic engagement empowers student populations while cultivating a sense of purpose and identity.

Students fundamentally deserve access to opportunities that bring civic values to life. Therefore, our Civic Education Council Group recommends that the Senate Committee on Education establish an annual Civic Engagement Day. Through this non-mandatory resolution, a Civic Engagement Day could improve not only civic literacy but encourage active participation among students while still maintaining autonomy within local schools.

More specifically, this resolution recommends that schools organize activities to support student agency, reflection, and productive political discourse, setting a precedent for future and lifelong engagement in civic life. With the recommended observance in early November to align with other major civic events, an annual Civic Engagement Day will supplement existing civic instructions with tiered civic activity that could start with simple structured instructions and experiences in seventh grade and then build towards more complex student directed action by 12th grade.

For example, younger students can be introduced to civics with guided Socratic seminar style discussions and basic online mock elections on school issues to immerse students in the democratic process or even a small civic fair held during lunch periods to expose students to current events.

As students get older, Civic Engagement Day celebrations can reflect their increasing independence with activities from designing campaign materials to running online voting simulations and public comment workshops to participate in local government issues. We also suggest that schools consider inviting keynote speakers from local government commissions or community organizations to help inspire leadership and civic responsibility among student populations.

This resolution can be especially and specifically impactful for improving civic engagement amongst younger students. Whereas SB 745 is working to develop a curriculum that aligns classroom civics learning with civic recognition goals, this resolution can incorporate younger students into the democratic processes, symbolizing California's overall long term commitment to nurturing of civically minded students.

According to the Brookings Institution, strong civic education is fundamental to sustaining democratic participation. Therefore, we recommend that Civic Engagement Day take place once a year, ideally in November, to align with other major political events from 7th to 12th grades, so students have repeated an early exposure to civic engagement.

Even brief but engaging exposure to government, rights, responsibilities, and politics from a young age can nurture students critical thinking skills and sense of social responsibility that will last a lifetime. Encouraging positive exposure to civic engagement early, we don't just excite students about voting, but prepare them to lead, advocate, and shape a more just and accountable society.

Unlike other national celebrations like National Constitution Day, which emphasizes learning, or the High School Voter Registration Week established through SCR 48 and emphasizes voting, a Civic Engagement Day encourages students to practice democracy in their everyday lives lives. Moreover, this solution would have a minor to no fiscal impact.

At most, our resolution would potentially require students or schools to purchase services to allow for online voting, decorations, and materials for lunch or classroom activities, which depends on what the school chooses.

Ultimately, this day of celebrating civic engagement allows schools to select activities that match their available resources, ensuring that even campuses with limited budgets can participate. Whether it be through a full day seminar or one day activity, the structure remains flexible, yet still grounded in civic growth.

And when students have the opportunity to practice civic participation through guided discourse, collaboration, and learning, they develop the skills necessary to lead and advocate effectively. It is also highly likely that students will feel more compelled to engage in the voting process and in the future.

Believing in the impact of sharing our voices, we sit before you today as student leaders shaped by a civic education that helped us recognize our agency. With our resolution, we want to ensure future generations of students can feel this same sense of empowerment, graduating not just understanding the principles of democracy, but their own power to uphold and advance them. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Good work, everyone. Thank you very much. Thanks for the presentation. We're now going to turn it to questions and comments from Members of the two committees. And I know you know this already because I've been on the other side of the table, although it's been a minute.

That here, because this is an official hearing of the two committees, we will not be treating you like young people with an interesting idea. We will be acting like peers, raising the kinds of questions and issues that we would, if you were a lobbyist for Clorox or you were the superintendent of Adelanto Unified, that we are here as peers working on these issues together.

And so as we lead into that, I want to, especially given the two days of work that's been done on this, and not to minimize that, but instead to celebrate and to recognize how much creativity can emerge in a two day period and then how much depth that you have fleshed these ideas and their consequences out on is truly impressive.

And I don't know if Ava is the inspiration from Woodland Joint Unified. I don't know if she's here. That's my district. I represent Woodland. And whether or not this passes, if there are any students in Woodland Joint Unified that don't feel that the door is open to them, please, let's connect afterwards. And we will make sure that both it is open and that you feel that as well. So let's turn to questions and comments from Members of the Committee. Senator Reyes.

Thank you so much. Great presentation. I appreciate when we talk about civic engagement, especially for our students. I think that talking about the fact that in your material you talk about the fact that most of the opinions, political opinions, come from family and doesn't allow you that opportunity to make your own, make your own opinions. I appreciate that.

I appreciate the acknowledgement of that. Something that you mentioned about Woodland and others is the cost of having a one day. What is the cost of a one day civic engagement day?

Well, for Woodland, their cost wasn't for... It wasn't specifically for a civic engagement day. It was just for like the seventh period. But we ultimately want this day to be kind of up to the schools to decide how much they want to invest towards it.

So it can be as simple, if you want to keep it more lower cost, it could be as simple as just investing in some online service, like even just a Google form for students to participate in like online voting for any school issue or even to elect some student representative for that day.

But then it can also range up to, if schools want to invest more in it, they can invest more in like decorations and other stuff to like put on more lunchtime activities or even like classroom activities like actual like voting ballots and paper ballots and stuff like that. So yeah, it can really depend on what the school decides.

Thank you. Another comment is that the Dolores Huerta Institution has civic engagement for students, and I know that they would be a great resource for you in putting together your package. And finally, If I may, Mr. Chair, one of my great interests is about the early registration.

Our 16 year olds can pre-register and that knowledge, having that knowledge that you can pre-register to vote and on your 18th birthday you are automatically registered to vote. That's a project that perhaps can be included in this if the panel so wishes. We got it to the Governor. He vetoed it because of cost. And that's why I asked the question about the cost. Something that I hope you will consider. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Other questions or comments? Chair Designate Patel.

Thank you for that presentation. I'm certainly very interested in civic engagement and have noticed. I have three teenage daughters. Two are now in college, one is still in high school.

And in the civics class, which they take as AP Gov, they have a very limited engagement with civics. And we've noticed that actual civic engagement should start at a younger age. So I want to comment that I appreciate that you're starting this at seventh grade. For middle schools that start at sixth grade, is there flexibility in your proposal for them to start at sixth grade?

Definitely, I think there definitely would be a lot of flexibility, especially because of the fact that we're kind of leaving it up to the school and giving them autonomy to kind of decide, you know, what they want to do with it. So there definitely is flexibility in the sense that sixth graders would most definitely be able to, you know, become more civically engaged.

Appreciate that clarification. And then a second my comment is you remarked that students of your generation, and maybe young people in general, at this phase in life, middle school, high school, seem to be less connected to the impacts of legislation on their lives or civic discourse.

Do you see some of this as coming through discourse in general and learning how to appropriately have public discourse? And would that be included in some of the perhaps recommendations, training suggestions that happen on this day?

Yeah, I definitely think it does come from something like that. So we mentioned Socratic seminars. You want students to be able to interact with each other on these days because the only way that they would learn efficiently is that if they're actually talking to each other, discussing civics, discussing policy.

So we want even maybe in as early as eighth grade or seventh grade, we have them discussing topics that are probably more shallow than what we discussed in your senior year, but maybe we talked about the tier system where you can ramp up from six all the way to 12th grade.

So it's sounding like there may be a toolkit or something like that to go along with this resolution, this proposal.

Yes.

Thank you. Those are all my questions.

Senator Cortese.

I noticed you mentioned lack of voter turnout or, you know, being tied to the lack of civic education in schools. I guess by way of background, I want to first say what's difficult for me is that going back to when I was a school board member a long time ago, we had people telling us that there was a degradation in civic education in our schools. As school board members, we were hearing that.

And that was since that time, I've served on a City Council, Board of Supervisors, and here for five years. That was quite a while back. And obviously I'm sold on the fact that something needs to be done. When those folks were saying that to us, they of course made it sound like in the good old days, you know, we had civic engagement.

We had more civic education in our schools. First part of my question is, have you had a chance to kind of go back and look at if there ever were best practices in our public education system in this way? If not, I would suggest.

I don't know what kind of a project it would take to go back and figure that out, but I've always been curious about what form folks were trying to say to me as a school board member. If it was better before, what was there. And then secondly, on the voter reg, I started to bring that up.

Have you thought about, on this day, if it were legislated as a day that was mandated, that voter registration would occur during some convening in the school gym or something like that? I participated in those before. Obviously they're none partisan and they have nothing to do with who you're for. But we also have laws that allow us to register students in the year that they're turning 18. Now, prior to 18. So just if you could answer both those, I'd appreciate it.

Yeah. So this is going to be a resolution, which basically would allow, once again, the flexibility for schools to choose how they want to envision this day, how they want this day to unfold.

It could be just as simple as like a classroom lesson on like how government works or like how the voting process works to more, like, more... What is it called? Like, well organized events like assembly presentations and stuff like that. So it really is up to the schools. And then you said something about best practices in civic education.

Yeah, just going... I'm not expecting that you've done this. Maybe it's more of a suggestion than anything. In either going back and debunking the myth that we actually had good civic education in our schools at one time in California or finding out what those were. That's what I meant by best practices and bringing those forward as something that would become part of a resolution or a bill.

Yeah. So just to clarify, I think our resolution is aiming to kind of supplement that education. So whether that education is already kind of well informing students about the civic processes or not, this is meant to actually show students how civics can be applied to other areas in their lives and that it's actually very relevant to issues that they care about.

And then just from my personal experience with civic education at my school, I kind of came to this discussion on civic education in my council group with the experience of having a civic action project in my AP Gov class, which actually showed me how I can apply the stuff that I learned in the classroom out into my community.

So for my civic action project, like I actually spoke at a school board meeting and it was a very, it was a very insightful experience, and my teacher made it open ended enough for students to pursue issues that they cared about. So I think that's very much reflected in this resolution.

Thank you.

All right, thank you. Just a couple of maybe not questions, but comments in case we're, in case we get to a point where we're talking with legislators about the specific proposal. And you're trying to grapple with both this very specific issue.

But you're entering into a complex multidimensional challenge that we're constantly dealing with here in the Legislature. And that is, what is school for? And how do you, what do you do with a limited amount of time during the year?

And so as you describe the cost, I think the cost estimates you were describing were principally around what would it cost to actually do the day. But we would score it here as what are the cost of all the stuff that's not happening on that day that was supposed to happen on that day.

So we would also consider that dimension. And then we wonder, well, okay, what are we not doing on this one day? Are we doing less history or algebra or other sorts of things? And so that's constantly a trade off here is, you know, in society and in schools. And it's true here in the capitol as well, because we know how important education is.

We often think if we could just have schools, you know, do this thing, this problem in this challenge in society. Like if we just had a disinformation curriculum, you know, and we required every student to take a disinformation, you know, class for, you know, in their junior year or what have you, that we would solve that.

And then we, but some folks forget to say, well then does that mean we're not teaching AP Physics that year? Instead, we're going to teach that? So there's always trade offs in terms of the amount of time that teachers and students have to be able to devote.

And so we try to weigh that. One way to grapple with that sometimes for programs like this is to think about how the other parts of the curriculum might intersect here. So what's already supposed to be in the civics standards or in the social science standards, but other ways too. If you spend a day doing a ranked choice voting experiment on something and then talking about what that looked like.

Ranked choice voting is a mathematical exercise, maybe that may, if it happens to be the year, the semester in which you are in algebra or in set theory, looking at those same kinds of issues. Maybe there's a connection there so that you're not consuming parts of their curriculum and so you're bolstering other parts of their curriculum.

So I'd encourage you to think about that dimension of it. And that there's a trade off then that you have with, we want to be flexible and have it be optional and let people design whatever they want. There's a trade off between that and then making sure that is actually done.

And it's done in a way that does support and is supported by the rest of the learning and curriculum environment. So those are some of the trade offs. We don't like doing mandates here, but we also want to make sure that there's enough room in the curriculum.

And I guess the last piece I would suggest is to think about how we might evaluate it, either us or local districts evaluating. Because we, as I said, whether it's financial literacy or disinformation, for a hot second coding, we're like, hey, every student should take four weeks of coding.

And if we just do four weeks, everybody will know how to code. It's like it's some sort of magic spell that we... If a school does one day of civic engagement, everybody will vote. They will know the truth from disinformation. So we often make very big claims about what a piece of the curriculum might might do.

And then we never follow up after, say, how's that actually working? Like, did, are students substantially better at managing their money and not going into bankruptcy when they graduate from our financial literacy program or not? So we have to both, we have to have big, bold ideas.

So we don't just let the curriculum from 1800 determine what we teach today. But then we also need to figure out how are we going to deliver it within the time that you have and that teachers have. And then how do we, how do we honestly ask ourselves questions afterwards as to how it works? So I really... You've sparked some, you know, all the key issues that we face often. Assembly Member Garcia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, no, I had a question tangentially related to your proposal just because I was interested. How are your schools, or what are your schools doing for America's 250th birthday? If anybody can answer.

So I think that a lot of schools, including mine, don't do anything. And I think that's like, kind of one of the big problems is that people are not civically aware, which is kind of just drawing more attention to why our resolution is so important, because we think that schools should be doing things like that.

There should be more awareness and advocacy, especially regarding those kind of events, you know, so that is important. And so I think the lack of events and celebration of things like that just shows how much more important this is really, our resolution.

Thank you.

I want to say thanks to our first panel on civic education. A well thought out, constructed proposal, raises lots of key issues. But definitely a viable proposal as you're shopping it around to talk to legislators and others about the potential. Hope you got some good ideas. We certainly did from you as well. So thanks to the first panel. Let's ask our second panel on student representation and district funding to come forward. Thank you so much.

Senator Reyes is applauding, but silently. Thank you very much.

Welcome. Welcome to our second panel, and I'm going to turn it to you to introduce yourselves and then to begin the presentation. Welcome.

Good morning, esteemed member committee of the Student Education Committee. My name is Sahaj Dinza. I represent Canyon High School from Anaheim Hills.

I'm Bud Yang from Troy High School in Fullerton.

My name is Justin Echol. I'm a freshman at Santa Susana High School in Simi Valley.

In November 2025, nearly 4,000 students walked into school to discover that a class period would be cut from their schedule for the following school year, a decision unknown to students that would result in the loss of key elective classes students relied on and the firing of several of their favorite teachers.

The student board member of the Woodland Joint Unified School District was unable to change this decision. Unfortunately, not only is this the case for members of our issue group, but this story rings true for thousands of students across California.

Decisions on funding allocations are made by district boards without the consideration of student views, limiting opportunity and having detrimental consequences for students' education. Student achievement should not be restricted by poor allocation of funding. We are delegates of the Student Advisory Board on Legislation and Education, representing the youth of California.

Across the state, districts have been persistently undergoing funding issues, raising major concerns in students, families, and staff. Currently, funding decisions do not actively reflect student input, leading to underrepresentation.

We've identified the origin of this issue as a direct lack of consideration of student perspectives in district funding policies, which is why our proposal aims to ensure student representation on district boards statewide, extending their rights to improve their ability to be effective student advocates.

We've realized student voices are not sufficiently heard in school across California. The existing Ed Code Section 35012 already mandates that districts must establish a student board member position, but only if a student petition fights for one. Students shouldn't have to fight for their voice to be heard as school districts are meant to support students.

We can only feel represented once our lived experiences are considered. All districts should have a student representative on the board to advocate for student views, especially regarding decisions on funding. We cannot stress enough that students are the most impacted by these decisions and must be included in these conversations.

We propose to amend Ed Code Section 35012, requiring the establishment of at least one student board member per unified and high school districts with an extension of the student board members' rights. While student board members would maintain their existing preferential vote, all student board members would be granted the additional right to motion during board meetings.

District would also have to provide their student board members with appropriate and necessary training that elected board members already received for topics relevant to the student's purview, including but not limited to the Local Control and Accountability Plan and district budgeting.

By implementing this change, student board members will be equipped with the skills to provide valuable contributions to district funding discussions, a direct avenue to increase exposure to student lived experiences.

We recognize that smaller, less resourced districts are faced with logistical challenges that may prevent them from enacting our mandate for which each-- they could be required to submit an appeal for approval by the Department of Education.

Our proposal will ensure that student board members are informed and prepared to effectively advise decisions on funding allocation and advocate for student needs when consequential decisions are made.

Our proposed amendment to existing Ed Code guidelines on student board members will ensure that every school district includes students in the decisions that directly impact them, like guaranteeing them a role in the decision-making process.

This would allow students' needs in regards to funding to be heard and sufficiently addressed by the district, especially concerning budget allocations that affect them. Not only this, but the students would be on the same level of awareness and they would have equal training as the other board members.

The framework for this proposal is already established in existing Ed Code, including motioning rights, training on their role in the establishment of a student board member position in itself. We are simply asking that the practice is mandated statewide so that student representation is not merely a privilege but a standard.

We assess this bill as having a relatively low cost. We aren't asking for extra training. We are only requesting that student board members be included in regular board training, which already exists, and it would cost as little as a few hundred per student board member. This is already being done for at least five board members per district.

Adding one more is a very low cost. Not only that, the meeting attendance cost and support from the administrative staff also have relatively low cost. If we want to look at a precedent for this, we can see that the original implementation of Ed Code 35012 had a relatively negligible fiscal impact on the state and is commonly viewed as providing student representation, not creating excess costs to the state. Our proposal is a simple extension of that: not creating excess cost.

By implementing this proposal, we can strive to achieve our vision where marginalized groups are accurately represented within district funding and socioeconomic status does not impact student wellness and opportunity.

We urge you to take on this bill and amend Ed Code 35012 to standardize student representation for California's almost 6 million students, ensuring that each district not only listens, but truly considers student input in their decision-making. The need for student voice is widely recognized.

Currently, two-thirds of California school districts already have a student representative on their board. This amendment is a necessary extension to provide all students with a voice, but more importantly, the ability to drive change within their education system. We envision an equitable and transparent school funding system where student representation is guaranteed.

Student voices are not one factor in decision-making. They are the reason decisions exist. Student needs should be prioritized because these policies are created to improve their well-being. True transparency means each student feels supported by the system and involved in the decisions that actively shape their opportunities and cater to their unique needs. Thank you.

All right, thank you very much. Let's turn to the members of the two committees for questions. Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just curious about the language: at least one student board member. Just picking that up out of the summary sheet. So when you have a school board that has five members, as we all know, the reason for the odd number of members is so that you don't end up in tie votes and unable to do anything.

That said, is it presumed that when you say, at least one student member, it will sort of force those boards to actually add two voting members so that they have an odd number again or what's your thinking about that?

We're only asking for at least one because student board-- or boards that don't have a student board member should have student representation in that, and we're not asking to make the student votes an actual binding vote. It will still remain preferential, so there should be no threat of ties.

Got it. All right, thank you.

Chair Designate Patel.

Thank you for your presentation. The school board that I served on for eight years had a school board member every time, and I must say that oftentimes, the student board member's voice was not only insightful, but also grounding.

Sometimes when we were having very heated discussions on the board about how to implement something or what priorities would be, even in LCAP discussions, it was often the student board member that brought us back to, why are we here and what is our purpose?

And so I value student input on the board, especially when it comes to helping us get clarity around decisions that we're making. A couple of questions I have for you. One is that in our district, the LCAP is on a different budget cycle than the academic year.

Do you have a recommendation on whether that should be a junior second semester to their senior year first semester, or whether it should be the senior's year and then their budget year is split into two different parts of the cycle?

I would believe that it would focus on this-- it would be on the same board schedule that normal elections follow and it could be split with the senior year, like a budget year and their term.

Okay. Because that did tend to create some complexity for a student board member. They they were coming in the middle of a budget cycle and weren't able to necessarily affect the kind of change because they weren't there to see the full budget cycle through. That made it a little more complex.

And the next question I have is regarding the-- have you done research or were you able to do research on why those districts that don't have a student board member, what is their roadblock, barrier, challenge to fulfilling that recommendation that's already in law, that that option is available? And in fact, I believe it was last year or the year before that the Legislature also approved offering a stipend to that student board member as well.

Ma'am, I believe the main reason is that, currently, the law requires a student petition that requires at least 10% of vote to establish a student member board. So there's school that doesn't have that kind of petition, like students are unaware of this policy, so I believe making it mandatory would be a good way to establish a student voice in every single district in California.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments? My heart's conflicted on this one because I share-- I agree with all the comments of my colleague on the topic and everything that you've said.

But I also know that we support the things that we create and there is something about-- there is something to-- just as it's true if you're organizing union representation at your school, or at your factory, or at your Starbucks, or anything else, there's something to initiating the efforts yourself.

And if you can't get to 10%, what is your voting turnout likely to be for the trustee later? So it's not-- I'm not-- I'm supportive of the concept, but that does-- to me, it does raise a question. Are there-- and maybe it's building off of Assembly Member Patel's question is that, are there systemic barriers that are preventing folks from doing it? Is it apathy? Is it, I just don't care?

Those are-- at which point then you have to wonder how much-- how serious the actual engagement will be by students writ large. So that would be a-- like, that's not a technical question but it is one to think about in terms of how meaningful is it. The second piece I would just point out is that when 35012 was first drafted, it was drafted as an allowance for local districts to do these-- to do student trustees.

And the reason why it didn't cost anything is because that wasn't a state mandate, right? So this bill would be the first time we've directly required every single district in the state to have a student trustee, and that means even those districts in which they did it voluntarily, it now counts as a mandate.

We'd be required to reimburse them. So we would need to interrogate whether or not the cost is much larger than we might expect. And you would say, well, how expensive is it really? And it's not really.

When you look at a single district, you know, my old school district, you know, they spend a little bit of money doing the recruitments and the publicity and then they have a seat and they have to print another one of the agendas.

But even a tiny amount of money, when you multiply it by every single school district in the state, quickly adds up. So as we think about-- we need to think about what the cost implications, both in the real world, but also the way we score those costs between the state and the local government.

Because with 3,000 or 4,000 school districts, it doesn't take very much to turn into millions of dollars of cost for something that seems completely inexpensive at the local level. So those are the kinds of-- that's the kind of technical issue.

Now, we kind of crossed that bridge a little bit with AB 261, so it's not a complete break from that original legislation, but the fiscal implications are real. That said, I think the basic idea makes a lot of sense. The other-- one other technical issue that I encourage you to think about is this motions and seconds issue.

It seems obvious if you just look at Robert's Rules or even the way that we operate, but school boards-- city councils and board of supervisors are the same. We have lots of different kinds of motions.

And so the question is, like, can a single school board member make a motion on a--let's just say--random topic on a Tuesday night and then have it placed on the agenda the following week? Like, what's the scale here?

Like, if I am a member of a board, and we've seen this in many places where folks use the motioning power in order to tie things up or to grandstand and what have you, and so, you know, thinking about, like, on the scale of Robert's Rules and motions, or motions that are only on the items that are on the agenda, I would think we would want to be more precise about that power because it's not trivial.

The power to make and second motions is the power to plant a flag and claim the time of the Board of Education and all of the community members that are participating. So it's a very serious thing, and students should be able to have the ability to be a part of that. But I think, you know, we'd want to be thoughtful about how to construct that.

All right, thanks so much to panel two. Great work. You've given us a lot to think about, hopefully we have as well as we continue to work on and refine the proposals. But fantastic job. Appreciate it. Thank you. Let's now ask panel three to come forward. And panel three is on financial literacy.

All right, welcome to our panel on financial literacy. If you'd start by introducing yourselves and then go right into the presentation.

Good morning, esteemed board members. My name is Lakshmi Jilakanti and I'm a sophomore at Santa Susana High School, Assembly District 42, Senate District 27.

My name is Andrea Dalvila, a junior from Beaumont High School, Assembly District 47 and Senate District 23.

My name is Ethan Hong and I'm a sophomore from San Marino High School, Assembly District 49 and Senate District 25. Now, just last year, I watched my best friend's illiteracy, financial illiteracy, lead him to lose over 90% of his money after gambling on random stocks recommended by uneducated Reddit users.

He didn't understand the finance behind stocks, which is what resulted in these implications.

A close family friend of mine graduated at the top of his class, but he signed student loans that he didn't fully understand for college. Now three years later, he works two jobs and he still owns—still owes—more money than he originally borrowed because nobody taught him how interest works.

He blames this on the fact that he never grasped the one year material his high school economics class taught him.

A friend of mine from Corona Del Mar High School has recently graduated and now attends UT Austin. She did not have any high school or middle school financial literacy education, and since that basic life skill was never taught, she is now experiencing the drawbacks of being financially illiterate.

Her lack of understanding of paying bills, taking out loans, and managing credit cards has resulted in extreme stress, credit card debt, and poor financial management.

These stories are the experiences of students right now whose financial illiteracy has led to these dire mistakes. Now, California has already made trendous—tremendous—strides to alleviate financial illiteracy, as I'm sure you're all aware of the passing of the Bill AB 2927, which requires a one semester course on personal finance to be added to the graduation requirement.

And although this is helpful, students before high school still lack the fundamental and crucial understanding of these important life skills. This knowledge is equally important for middle schoolers as it is for high schoolers because it gives middle schoolers the opportunity for crucial experiences that instill self control and mitigate potential financial problems in the future.

In addition, students entering high school may feel confused and overwhelmed by a sudden introduction to financial illiteracy—financial literacy—without an opportunity for earlier exposure.

A short unit long introductory course in middle school would provide a basic understanding of personal finance before high school, which would not only reduce the pressure that is inherent to a high school course, but it would also allow students to develop sustainable habits earlier on in life.

The knowledge gained through this unit can be practiced in daily life, which would allow middle schoolers to develop healthy habits such as budgeting and investing. By teaching these pivotal financial habits earlier, we are equipping students with lifelong skills that significantly promote stability and future success.

Financial literacy has improved by leaps and bounds over the past few years and continuing to work on it, this time on implementing it in middle schools, is critical as we must continue the forward momentum to ensure the brightest and most promising future for all students.

The University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute conducted a two year study for middle school students requiring a financial literacy course. The result reported over 90% of students increased their knowledge of financial literacy with a 22% gain, revealing that middle school students cannot only handle such information properly, but will thrive with this knowledge.

Students who learn about personal finance earlier on in life will demonstrate higher efficiency and engagement in real world financial situations, bringing this crucial knowledge into adulthood.

To implement financial literacy knowledge in middle school, the California Department of Education, or CDE, can develop a curriculum for financial literacy and carry it out through multiple avenues and policy pathways that support long term implementation.

Senators and legislators can determine how financial literacy should be incorporated within existing classes, a potential example being replacing a unit in mathematics rather than creating a separate stand alone course.

Integrating personal finance into an existing class will not only ensure a larger audience of students is affected, but it will also allow students to maintain their elective preferences in middle school while increasing accessibility to essential financial skills without placing additional course requirements on these students.

Legislation can direct the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, more commonly known as the CCTC, to ensure that financial literacy training is incorporated into existing certifications for new teachers by a set deadline within the next 10 years, which is because faculty training is something that needs long term planning to ensure efficiency and proficiency in the role.

10 years will allow ample time for development, teacher preparation, and program adjustments. By providing a viable way to train teachers to teach financial literacy and a practical way to gently introduce finance in classrooms, this solution is able to effectively enable middle school students to start making good financial habits early on in life.

Another concrete route to achieve this is having legislation direct the Instructional Quality Commission, also known as the IQC, to include financial literacy in the next update of the state curriculum frameworks for the chosen course it will be implemented into, ensuring alignment with statewide academic standards.

This means that the next time the state curriculum framework is updated, it will ensure sustainable implementation of financial literacy across all districts, rather than relying on temporary initiatives to convey this crucial information to individuals of all ages.

Both of these approaches can work in conjunction with existing resources committed to furthering financial literacy within youth, such as Junior Student Achievement and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations, also known as FDIC.

These two approaches will ensure that financial literacy is consistently taught in middle school classrooms across California and is implemented in a structured, sustainable way that will promote financial literacy among all students.

Ultimately, the consequences of financial illiteracy are not abstract; they are already affecting students across our state, from young adults losing their savings through uninformed investing to college students trapped in long term debt and recent graduates overwhelmed by credit card bills and financial stress.

Integrating financial literacy at the middle school level ensures students are equipped before these irreversible decisions arrive, giving them the confidence to manage daily finances, budgeting job checks, and make informed decisions choices about their futures. Financial literacy is not about memorizing definitions for a test.

It is about creating equitable access to essential life skills that prevent financial harm for every single person, regardless of their age. If we want students to succeed beyond graduation, we must start by building early, consistent systems of financial education that truly prepare them for the real world. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Are there members of the committees that have questions or comments? One of our, one of our members today is Assemblymember Leticia Castillo, who is the Vice Chair of the Jobs Economic Growth Household Impact Committee, something like that, with a lot of interest and expertise in how Californians can navigate many of these challenges.

And I don't know if you have any comments or questions that you would like to make.

Okay. Not at this time. Assemblymember Garcia.

Yeah, I had a question regarding the curriculum for the seventh, eighth grade. So, are you proposing that changes be made to the adopted materials?

We're proposing that changes be made to existing classes. So, by, let's say, like we take a math class, we know that math is really related to finance, so, we can replace one existing unit with new curriculum that can be developed by the California Department of Education, and they could also use third party resources into this development.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks. I'm excited about the concept here. I will have some challenges to put before you as well, but I used to Chair the National Council on—essentially on financial literacy through the Mayor's dollar wise council. It is a crisis in every age group in our country, in our state.

And it's why the voters did approve the, the addition of the course as well. And so, they know that that's true. You may already know some of the concerns I'll have, because I mentioned them on an earlier proposal as well, and that is we're facing—so, I think folks like to call it the poly crisis.

Just so many challenges at one time. And in many of those cases, the initial response has been we should do something in school. So, I'm, I'm about to be the chair of the committee that oversees AI and artificial intelligence—artificial intelligence and social media and other issues.

And folks have said, well, you know, every, every young person should, should take a course and teachers should be trained in recognizing deepfakes and disinformation independently. We should be teaching young people how to navigate and social media, we should be teaching young people how to be the masters of AI and not the other way around.

And these are all, these are all—and that's just in the technology world. We've heard bills in the Senate Education Committee on mental health, on domestic violence. I mean, anywhere you look in society and the challenges that we face, it's almost—you can almost guarantee somebody is proposing a course or a curriculum in our schools.

And so, it is a challenge because there is only so much time in the day. As I said earlier, it isn't as though every curriculum decision we made, and, you know, 1920 or 1980 even, is perfect and forever.

So, it isn't that we should be resistant to change, but we do have to recognize, I think, some humility about both what the schools can accomplish, but then also what we can do here.

Because I really like the, I really like the math example, but I'm trying to think about how the math example would work from a state law. Like how would we create—because you're talking about the intersection of math and financial literacy, but math is also related to coding and to make a million other things.

So, I'm going to try to pull these pieces out. Even though they make sense, they may not make sense in the one room schoolhouse in Alpine County; they may not make sense in the dual immersion classroom in my own city. I mean, there's a lot of context that we're grappling with. There's so much diversity in California.

And then, next year, there'll be a new proposal on something else that the poor teacher and students are trying to grapple with. And so, it's not a, it's yes, but that—but those are concerns to me.

More specifically on this one, though, I guess my bigger concern is that we are, you know, we're still in the process of implementing 26, 27. So, that course doesn't even exist yet, right, and that's scheduled to come online in two years.

And so, the professional development, the teacher training in preparation for that course, seems to me like the top priority on the financial literacy side, that we should start thinking about middle school preparation and the middle school look ahead to the high school course, once we know what the high school course is.

And that seems like a long time from now—not really—so, I mean, I think, so, if you came to my office to talk about this, that would probably be my biggest question is why not wait two years until the high school curriculum that has already been approved by us and the voters, let that come into existence so then we can backwards map, reverse engineer, what is important to know in middle school and also, what teachers in middle school should be starting to plan and embed for their students as they proceed to high school?

Any, any instant reactions to that feedback?

Yeah. So, for the first thing that you said about it being implemented into classes, we actually did discuss this, and we thought about it because we know that there's a course called Sex Ed, which schools require, and we know that throughout California, it's implemented into a lot of different classes.

So, for him, actually it's implemented into his English class, and I believe for her, it's in her PE class, and for me, it was in my science class. So, this is why we kind of wanted to let it be up to you guys.

And we just wanted to make sure that whatever it was, it was still implemented into it because we see how crucial it is, but we aren't looking for it to exactly align with the subject that it's implemented into.

And for the second part that you stated about how it should be taking time, we completely understand that, which is also why we propose the 10-year timeframe. And we're also interested in like looking into having a pilot program or something after this two years, if that's okay with you guys, if you guys are open to this idea as well.

Solid. All right, thank you. Seeing no further questions or comments. Thanks so much to the panel. Great job. And now, we're going to excuse you and ask our next panel to come forward, Panel Number Four on restorative justice. And we'll ask you to introduce yourselves to the Committee and then begin the presentation.

As we know, suspension is ineffective, as what's explicitly stated on the California Department of Education website. Good morning, esteemed Committee Members. My name is Raelyn Chaco and I'm a sophomore at Monte Vista High School in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District.

My name is Kapil Shastry and I'm a sophomore at Mountain View High School in Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District.

My name is Rhea Manoj and I'm a junior at Chino Hills High School in the Chino Valley Unified School District.

And today, we'll be discussing a prominent issue across all of California education, the lack of innovation in our disciplinary systems. Currently, California is experiencing a cultural shift from punitive zero tolerance discipline to rehabilitative restorative justice.

Restorative justice is the framework that shifts school discipline from punitive measures like suspension toward repairing harm and rebuilding relationships and policies reflected this ongoing change. The state has successfully passed laws, such as SB 274 in 2023 banning schools from suspending students in grades K through 12 for willful defiance, meaning that students can't get suspended or expelled for smaller nonviolent infractions such as talking back, dress code violations, or even refusing to follow directions.

But that's not it. In 2024, AB 1919 was introduced, creating a law requiring districts to adopt at least one restorative justice practice. It ended up getting passed by both the Assembly and Senate, but after finally arriving on Governor Newsom's desk, it was vetoed.

Newsom's office released a public statement asserting that the state simply didn't have the budget for it, since the implementation of restorative justice would cost millions and millions of dollars. But regardless of the fiscal cost, the necessity of implementing restorative justice is still very much present in our education system today.

Our solution involves mandating the creation of a task force convened by the California Department of Education and that staff with a PPS Certification are authorized to use training materials regarding restorative justice when deciding repercussions after an incident of misconduct.

Currently, every school is required to have at least one staff member with a Pupil Personnel Services Certification, also known as the PPS Certification, which can vary from a counselor to a school psychologist.

This certification involves specializing in school counseling, school social work, school psychology, and the additional authorization of child welfare and attendance services, and people such as mental health counselors or therapists possess these certifications.

With this certification, along with additional training, we believe these staff members would be a suitable fit in order to establish restorative justice among students from various schools all across California. According to SB 1445, authored by Senator Cortese in 2024, if a Student Board Member, also known as an SBM, is present within the district, the governing board of the district is authorized to include the SBM in the closed session expulsion hearing process.

Similarly, we propose that a PPS certification holder also be authorized to attend the hearing process.

This is because SBM's continue to lack voting rights on expulsion matters and SBMs are only entitled to limited case information necessary to formulate a restorative justice recommendation, rather than the full evidential file available to the rest of the board.

Furthermore, the task force would be made up of a diverse background of professionals, including but not limited to teachers, social workers, therapists, and potentially students.

We hope the training framework is developed based on the previous passed bill, AB 2598, authored by Senator Weber in 2022, which passed the Best Practices Report, which provides a blueprint for schools that choose to implement restorative justice.

This training framework has a goal of sharing these principles and teaching people with a PPS certification how to accurately manage situations including restorative justice. Costs will be reduced by allowing the course to be digital and the task force personnel will be volunteers.

However, funding is needed from the state to cover the cost for the online course created to train a PPS holder, should the PPS holder choose to train using these restorative justice materials, as well as any additional resources used that the PPS holder may need for the student.

In our current system, when students engage in misconduct, they face a punishment, but the source of their poor action is often not discovered. Traditional disciplinary approaches in schools tend to focus primarily on the behavior itself, rather than investigating the underlying causes that drive the students to act out.

When a student receives a suspension, expulsion, or another form of punishment, the intervention typically ends there. This system addresses a symptom but fails to diagnose the disease. This reactive, rather than proactive, approach means that whatever triggered the misconduct, whether it's trouble at home, bullying, learning difficulties, mental health challenges, or peer pressure, remains hidden beneath the surface.

Without a systematic way to detect these root issues in our students—our students' behavior—schools are forced to wait until problems become serious enough to warrant disciplinary action. What's needed is a proactive system that can identify struggling students based on earlier behavior indicators, such as subtle changes in attendance, engagement, or social interactions.

This is so that support can be offered before any formal misconduct occurs. Moreover, this pattern creates a cycle of punishment without rehabilitation. Students learn that certain actions result in consequences, but they don't receive the guidance, resources, or support needed to make better choices in the future.

This can lead to escalating disciplinary measures as students rack up repeat offenses, potentially resulting in suspensions or even expulsions that could have been prevented earlier with more thoughtful intervention. Higher levels of exposure to restorative justice or rehabilitation has also been shown to predict lower rates of exclusionary disposition or suspension for all students of analyzed groups.

This includes Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian students. Additionally, the California Healthy Kids Survey includes analysis that confirms a statistically significant negative relationship between restorative practice exposure and the probability of suspension for all demographic group study. Our proposed solution would help introduce restorative justice into schools, which would significantly help all students.

In conclusion, we strongly believe that our proposal prevents a very feasible solution. Previous research suggests the top 10 restorative justice practices seen in AB 1919, which was authored by Senator Weber in 2024, are successful in restoring justice for our students across California. This solution allows students to improve their life by offering help through guidance during difficult situations.

Thank you for listening to our presentation.

All right. Thank you very much. Thanks to the panel. Are there questions or comments from members of the Committee? Maybe we can lead off with...since he was name checked? Senator Cortese.

Well, I appreciate, as part of your presentations today, that your focus on restorative justice again, you know, with this panel, the bill that, that we did, 2024, was, you've got that laid out here, even though my name's spelled wrong. But that's okay, it's phonetic.

You have it phonetically correct, which is more than I can say for a lot of people with an Italian American name like that. But back to serious, serious business here. We went down—I believe the restorative justice recommendation that came from CASC in 2024 was more similar to this.

And through kind of the bill negotiation process, there was a lot of pushback in terms of allowing the student board members actually in the closed session hearing because of, of concern about highly confidential information that might come up, which is typically, of course, it's, it's held confidentially, let me say that.

So, to the extent a board member is in effect sworn or held to that same closed session confidentiality as a student board member, it shouldn't be a problem.

But the question was kind of whether it would have a chilling effect on the speech of parents, for example, that are coming in accompanying their student who is up for discipline, suspension or expulsion, with another student sitting there, especially if they were, you know, familiar with the other student for some reason, played sports together or something like that.

There were all these what ifs that came up about having the student actually in the closed session, so the compromise became that the students, the student board member, would have access to the same materials that the closed session hearing would take up, that the non-student board members would still be the hearing, essentially the hearing officers in the closed session hearing, but that they had to take into consideration any recommendations made by the student board member, as they went into that hearing or prior to going into that hearing, which I think is an improvement, a significant improvement.

And it goes back to what a lot of people were saying as we started the hearing today, that, you know, we—many of us—have a belief that the student perspective is critical in the governance process of our public schools in any number of issues.

When I was a school board member, I remember somebody brought—the superintendent brought—a measure to eliminate the wearing of hats at school of any kind because they were worried about gang affiliation or colors. And students were basically organized—the student board members organized, I think three or 400 kids to come down and object to that.

And they won out eventually, but it showed what a dramatically different perspective students had on, you know, freedom of expression, freedom of what they would wear at school.

Similarly with this, I think the student perspective is critical because I think that the difference between what may appear to be a very bad act and what students might see as a one off, a one time mistake, a mistake that can be reconciled through restorative justice by making amends to the community, by, you know, establishing a new course of action, right action to deal with that one time behavior.

The old saying is if any one of us were judged by the worst thing we ever did, none of us might be here right now. Permanently judged. Permanently judged. And so often, school discipline feels like permanent judgment, and sometimes it actually is if it's coincident with penal code justice at the same time.

So, I am all for continuing to push forward on this and try to get—try to maximize the amount of student input, even though I was the author of a bill that had to effectuate a compromise in 2024.

And lastly, let me just say part of that is not just conceptual thinking on my part, but in Santa Clara County, when I was on the Board of Supervisors there, I spearheaded the creation of a peer court that was done in collaboration with our judicial system. Judges presided over the peer courts.

Students were the jurors, and students were both the prosecution and the defense attorneys.

They were trained to do that and our probation system participated in the process because if those—if that jury came up with a restorative justice option and the accused student rejected it and said, I don't care, I'm not interested in making amends, I'm not interested in a new social contract with my school or my peers or anything else, probation would basically tell them, fine, you know, you can go back to a sitting judge and have a non-restorative justice hearing and deal with the penal code if that's what you want.

Most—every time, that did not happen, but most every time, the students themselves, who were jurors, they were jurors that were allowed to interact directly with the student during the hearing. That was the one thing that was different than a regular court trial.

They could essentially raise their hand and say, I have questions now, once the case was presented against the student. And so often, the student's questions, when I sat through those hearings, were extraordinarily on point. Sometimes they were as simple as, what were you thinking?

You know, that you can't put graffiti on the inside of a restroom at school, it's damaging property. Why did you do it? Was there peer pressure? You know what—in the responses to those questions, informed, always informed the final recommendation of what should happen to that student.

I was convinced most, each and every time, that an adult jury or adult judges would have never gotten to the right place in terms of landing that student in a place where they were going to be included back into the social fabric of the school instead of ostracized.

And we all know that when a student is expelled, they don't poof, disappear, or go to some other part of the solar system for three days or a week or a month. They go across the street and wait on the corner, oftentimes for school to get out so they can interact with their peers again.

So, it's a broken system, and I commend you all for pushing hard. I'm sure there are other offices besides mine that would like to work toward further restorative justice practices like you're calling for here.

Certainly after this hearing is over, please feel free to engage with my office in terms of trying to help you navigate this, you know, to improve things this year, to build upon what we did in 2024. But if we can't do it, we do have bill limits here on how many bills we can run.

That's one of the biggest challenges to doing things like this. But I know for my part, we would certainly help you to try to find another author besides me who would be interested in pursuing what you're calling for here. Thank you.

Senator Cortese, thank you very much.

Sorry about the monologue.

Well, you have more expertise. You have an incredible amount of expertise and experience in and insight, so thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to excuse the panel.

I also want to know, just because I'm becoming famous now for technical issues at the end of each of these panels, it's a common myth from folks who come into the Capitol for the first time that if you could just get people to volunteer for task forces, then it would be free.

But that's not how it would get, how it would get written up here. So, a bill like this, you know, one of the staffers can, can correct me of the magnitude, but we see proposals for task forces that are all volunteers quite a bit.

And I think they're typically, you know, depending on the agency and all that, they're typically scored at 400 to $800,000 just for the task force, and that is because somebody has to—somebody in the Department of Education would be in charge of it. So, that's their job now. So, we have to pay them.

They're organizing the meetings, they're reserving the meeting venues, and they have to write up the report and in state governments, everything costs more. So, I could see the attempt to try to seriously address the potential cost issues by insisting that they're volunteers. But most, for most state task forces, the cost isn't actually in the people serving.

It is in the, it's in the rest of the, to make sure that it's open and public and transparent, that the report actually gets written up and there's follow through. So, I think probably looking in the half a million-dollar range in order to do something like this. But very much appreciate your work on this, Senator Cortese's offer to help and facilitate.

I know it's something—it's something very valuable and so, I would encourage you all to follow up with his office and talk to other members as well. Thank you very much to this panel. Next, we're going to turn to Panel Five, which is on mental health.

Good job. Thanks, Ben.

And welcome to each of the students and please begin by introducing yourselves and then go right into the presentation. Welcome

Good morning esteemed Members of the Senate Committee of Education. My name is Josie Song and I attend Kate High School in Senate District 21.

My name is Angelina Santos and I attend Lincoln High School in Stockton, in Senate District 5.

And my name is Tristan Perugnan and I attend Santa Susanna High School in Senate District 27.

From growing up in Los Angeles to living in South Korea and finally going to boarding school in California with over students from over 20 countries, there has been one commonality around the world a worldwide youth mental health crisis. No matter your race, religion or gender, mental health has a toll on each and every one of us.

The rise of youth mental health crises in California has reached an all time high with nearly one in three Californian adolescents reporting symptoms of serious psychological distress. However, the responsiveness is defective with only 53% of children with diagnosed mental health conditions receiving treatment.

Often the cause of apprehension towards conversations about mental health is stigma, fear and lack of awareness. We understand that efforts have been made to promote mental health literacy in schools, such as Senate Bill 224 in 2021, which requires middle and high schools to include instruction on mental health topics in health education.

But what we've been seeing in our own Schools is a 10 minute presentation Met with passive listening with no hands on work. What we've learned from our own personal experiences is that the best way to retain memory is to engage actively with multiple senses such as visual, motor and tactile, creating richer memories that last longer.

For this proposal, we want to advocate for active participation rather than just passive listening. For example, students are actually applying skills such as time management, organization, and soft and interpersonal abilities in lessons in short, mental health and life skills that can directly shape our future far beyond our teenage years.

Furthermore, we need a larger emphasis on the mental health and life skills that should be learned in childhood. In our current school curriculum, we identified that students lack the skills necessary to manage their stress and time efficiently within increasingly stressful school environments.

One survey presented by the Los Angeles Outpatient center found that 64% of California adolescents with depression did not receive adequate care, in part due to insufficient services.

What was particularly brought to our attention was that students feel that they do not know how to deal with the high levels of stress that are brought upon them in academic life.

This is because students are not taught basic coping mechanisms, not taught how to manage time effectively, not supported in balancing rigorous coursework and replacing systems that prioritize academic achievement over student wellness and essential life skills.

Our solution to the ineffectiveness of mental health education so far is to recommend allocating engaging time to the mental health colloquium at least twice a semester to apply mental health skills to 7th to 12th graders.

If school administrations do choose to implement the program, they will still have autonomy on how to implement the finer details like choosing which teachers or counselors to teach the allocated time and when would be most optimal for them to hold these days.

This dedicated time will be done in the classroom and taught by teachers counselors who have received the proper training to actively teach students how to better prioritize health and well being, manage home and social life, and stray away from the mentality of competitive academics.

The first phase of this program would be a recommendation of four school districts to administer to seventh to ninth graders to see the efficacy of holding 10 to 20 minute mental health periods.

During this period, students will receive interactive learning on how to manage their time efficiently, different coping mechanisms, and also learn more about interpersonal relationships, whether that be among friends or family, as a contributing factor towards mental health.

The first phase will also be an opportunity for student and parent feedback to further improve the program, after which we will administer the second phase and recommend the program for seventh or 12th grade.

The infrequency of our program being only twice a semester is to ensure that the material being given out avoids repetition and maintains the quality of instruction.

The information being taught will also mature along with the grade levels, with seventh graders receiving a simpler curriculum on topics on how to talk through conflicts and segmenting homework, and 11th to 12th graders receiving advice like how to properly manage studying for their classes, social management and coping mechanisms.

The implementation of this is more feasible than attempting to recreate an entirely new program as the session will only take up to 15 to 20 minutes of one period twice a semester, focusing on seventh through 12th grade, which is a period of time where students face stress due to not just academics but also outside sources.

Students can learn different ways to manage distress before crises occur. Teaching mental health management to students as early as seventh grade and having the curriculum grow as the students age helps them prepare for the future whether it is high school, college work, mental challenges or social situations.

Also, assigning only two sessions per semester and keeping it interactive makes it interesting and unique for the students while still preparing them for the years ahead. As we are introducing a wide range of situations, it ensures that students who have different focuses or life situations feel included during this dedicated time.

Since it will be introduced in the classroom, it is also still considered instructional time. This means schools and districts are not losing any money if they implement this into their classrooms. When it comes to education, the biggest concern is how we can include underserved districts while not making them spend the money they might not have.

We will be providing the curriculum and ideas for the dedicated time that have optional resources. For example, if we are teaching how to use a planner, the school should have the choice on whether or not they are able to provide the planners to the school.

Keeping it optional makes it inclusive to all school boards, whether they have a large or small budget. When it comes to who will be teaching these small courses, we recommend counselors.

The schools are able to pick if they would like to change that to teachers who are just for mental health, or if they would like teachers from specific courses to teach it. But it does not require new hiring. This leaves it open to the school or district if they would like to pay for training.

That could be a little bit more specific. We believe keeping it this flexible makes it inclusive to all schools and makes it so it is not difficult to implement it into their budget or schedule.

We ask for your support to reach a tomorrow where students around the state can. Can achieve mental health literacy through the proper introduction of life skills and coping mechanisms. A tomorrow where students are no longer afraid of mental health stigma, rather a place where the conversation of mental health is normalized and understood.

Thank you. All right. Thank you. Great job. There are questions, comments from Members of the committees. Assembly Member Castillo?

Yeah. I'm a dual licensed psychotherapist and I used to work for the county of Riverside Department of Mental Health before being in this role here. And I worked with children to adults and, you know, I worked in a few children's clinics and the referrals that I would get would come from the schools.

So I'm listening to what you're saying about this proposal and I'm trying to really understand it and see how it would. How it would work. Right. Based off what schools are able to do and adding more onto teachers to do. Right. I just don't see it to be something that would be.

I get it that you're saying like the students and the benefits and whatnot, but coming from my perspective and working with kids who have the mental health issues, it has to be rooted out, not within, because then that creates a disruptive, you know, within the school system.

And I just think that that's too much to put onto the schools and the teachers in that, in that. In. That space, you know, being referred out to someone who can better deal with those things. There isn't a quick class to learn on it.

I have a master's and you know, specializations 3,000 hours of training before I would be able to sit and take my licensing exam. So those types of skills aren't just something that you learn in a quick training to be able to deal with that skill stuff.

So, you know, I'm just having a hard time, you know, I'm trying to piece it all together but you know, I'm having a hard time seeing how it would actually work.

We understand your concern and thank you so much for sharing your perspective. I think that's something that we've seen in our own schools is that right now we understand that we can't teach all these life skills to students in one sitting. And we totally understand that.

But right now we're seeing in our time that we're just going to get a presentation that doesn't necessarily have any active skills and doesn't really prepare us for the future. Because we understand that currently what is implemented in schools is some sort of like mental health literacy. And we totally understand that.

But it hasn't been really effective in any sort of way. So what we want is to add something that's a bit more active, that's not just passive listening and rather more hands on work that we can do. And we understand that that isn't going to solve the solution perfectly.

But I think that it would definitely help engage students more and have this longer memory retention of the things that we're actually learning in schools and help benefit us.

And in a way it wouldn't be focusing on like how teachers can fix their mental health issues rather than giving them skills to like time management. Because we know a lot of people like a lot of students in schools, they have a lot on their plate and they don't know how to manage it correctly.

And so it just leads them to get really stressed and it can affect their mental health. And so it's not more of like this is we're giving you a solution to your problem.

It's more of like giving them these skills and trying to teach it to them at a young age so that when they progress they don't have to have this full effect on themselves.

Right. And I understand that part of it, but what I'm trying to say is as a therapist in a clinic who worked with kids where you're saying that it's not just listening. Right? That's not what a therapist does, right?

So you know, the students, you know or the clients come in, you hear what their issues are and you develop a plan. And I would always tell them, you know, therapy isn't here. Therapy is what we work on.

And I send you out into the real world to use those skills and then come back the next week and let's go through what things you did that week and how you applied the skills you learned.

Because if you go to therapy, you learn things, but you don't go out and apply them in your real world experiences, then it's not going to work. So that's why I'm saying I'm having a hard time understanding how that's going to work in the school setting.

Because those are really weeks and weeks that you go and you work with a therapist and you go out and try those skills and bring them back to therapy and you discuss how things either worked or didn't work and how to actually plan. And these are lifelong skills that we teach that last forever.

It just depends on the individual whether they're going to apply them and use them on a regular basis.

I think what we're referring to isn't necessarily students that go to therapy, rather mandated lessons in classes, for example, teaching them about how to manage your time.

And something that is implemented in my school is that they show us how to organize your AP classes, how to put that in a planner so that you know weeks in advance that you will be having assessments later on. And it kind of helps manage stress management.

It's not necessarily students who are currently going to therapy, it's not therapists that will be then doing these hands on works. It's rather teachers who are currently in their school setting and in their classes teaching just the basics of mental health. Because I think that's a standard procedure in most schools. For example, what exactly is mental health?

And it's not necessarily students who are receiving professional help that of course we understand take weeks and months to help them.

Senator Cortese.

I think I understand your approach and you know, with as much mental health urgency as there is in our schools, I think probably a variety of things need to be done.

Understand the distinction that you're making in terms of trying to weave into educational curriculum or educational settings a little bit more information that will take down anxiety or lack of preparedness for onset of something or maybe just insight into it. I guess you didn't say that.

But one of the things that we've had a lot of success with in the area that I'm from, you know, the San Jose area at this same grade level 7 through 12 would be wellness centers. And some of the schools, some have them, some don't.

But there's 200 schools where, through state money and the Mental Health Services act, which is a lot of money, the county actually funded professionals to be on school sites that are willing to have them there. So that the wellness center actually has a professional. Could be.

It's a clinician in any case, could be a psychotherapist, could be somebody else. And there's a peer referral system in most of those schools. So that if you say, hey, I'm experiencing this feeling that's really bothering me, you might say, hey, let's go over to the wellness center.

Because I know that they probably have the answer to that question. Have you looked at that piece? I don't want to. You know, we have another saying around here. I'll tell you, tell you all the different sayings we have, but we have a saying that, you know, that's a different Bill. That's not my Bill.

That's not my proposal. It's okay if that's not your proposal, but I'm just wondering if in the scope of researching what you're proposing here today, if you looked at wellness centers and whether or not those should be expanded and whether or not the coordinators who are on campuses, who actually are Clinicians need to be expanded.

Because it's kind of a bias I have coming in that that is needed. But you can push back and tell me whatever you want to tell me. I just wanted to know if you'd looked at that.

We understand that there has been a lot of money being funded to mental health resources in schools across the entire state. However, what was told to us through our concept reviews is that how is that information being given out and how is that being brought aware or.

Yeah, being more aware to schools as we want in these, like, mental health periods per se, that we could like, suggest to the students that there are mental health or bring more awareness to the mental health centers, wellness centers, to peer students who may not be educated on that these things are available out there.

And I feel like that is something that we wanted to specifically emphasize in our presentation example that in schools and the presentation that we're given on mental health resources, we feel that it is lacking and that it's just a little presentation that's just blown away.

And these important things like what you've mentioned, the wellness centers, that these are not mentioned in these presentations, even if they should be. This proposal is trying to make it more engaging to bring more awareness to those options that are available to us.

And when it came to wellness centers, we did talk about that a lot when we were making this proposal. But something that repeatedly came up is that a lot of schools don't have money to fund for those professional therapists or to even make wellness that are in their school.

So we were trying to find something that could be like, that could be very open to all districts and like I said, to a wide range of budgets because we made it a little bit more optional to provide these resources or if you wanted to share them in different ways.

Thank you. You have answered very clearly. Appreciate that. I think it would be worth looking at maybe something that's less prescribed and you know, right into the curriculum in classrooms. Although that's a very noble goal, I think.

And actually, you know, try to empower young people like you to turn what you're trying to do into a student driven awareness process. I think it would just be an amazing thing if there were students on every campus who were essentially responsible for helping to create insight for other students where there may not be some.

How are you feeling? But not just in a casual way, not by texting each other, but by again, a student. We were talking in the restorative justice earlier about how important the student perspective is. I surmise that the student perspective in this area is very important too, that another student would be.

Might find it more compelling to hear from students, the student body, that if this is what you're experiencing, that could be an indication of need. If you don't have a wellness center, there's certainly outside referrals. You know, we know that and I think that's what our colleague was saying down here.

It may need, it may be imperative for that student to get to an outside resource if there isn't one at the school. I don't know how to structure that because I don't like, remember what organizational tools there are on campuses right now for youth.

But I'm not sure that would be as ugly as an unfunded mandate that would require a bunch of money and appropriations or anything.

If we just had a Bill that said, you know, the schools should be either either required or strongly encouraged to include either in their school safety plans, which are already adopted every year, or in some other document. A plan for students to be activated on each campus to share information is really what I'm saying.

I think that would be even a huge step forward. Mental health, I'm not gonna speak for anybody else, but it's touched most of our lives, whether it's children or nieces or nephews. When you're talking about my generation as boomer generation, we've all been hit by it and hurt by it.

And there are very, there's very little in the way of operating manuals out there, even for parents as to, you know, how to best direct their own youth. And so I think anything that brings up that information level is a good thing.

Not sure this is the easiest way to accomplish it, but I think you're off to a good start. So stick with it and let us know if, if you come up with other alternatives to trying to achieve this. Thank you.

Yeah. Just to bring this panel to a close, I want to add, and also I'm a former university professor before I came to the Senate and just want to join Assembly Member Castillo, just from the practitioner perspective, the actual ability of teachers and counselors on a campus to design effective, effective programming, engaged programming in 20 minute increments twice a semester.

I'm skeptical that we have the, that it's possible, but also that we have the training to do it. I mean, this is always, and it's clear you've done a good job of really trying to test. Look, we know there's not a billion dollars here we can't fund.

What we really need is a lot more wellness centers and a lot more investment in this space. And we're trying to figure out how to do it as cost effectively as possible. But sometimes the challenge then is then our grand vision doesn't match our actual implementation.

So I am personally skeptical that 15 or 20 minutes twice a semester is going to be able to deliver the outcomes that you're describing, effective time management and many of the other issues that are here, because I'm still learning those things now.

And actually I've learned much more on YouTube videos and other things than I ever did in a classroom. And so we just got to think of like, what's the right modality intervention?

I think the other, the other insight, like the interesting thing you're doing here, essentially proposing since you're not proposing a whole new class and curriculum and whatever you're proposing the equivalent of like Instagram reel or a YouTube short, like we're just going to do a quick horizontal video on mental health today and we'll come back again and do it later.

And I'm not sure we're ready to start parcelizing the school day in that way.

And I think ultimately I've kind of come down on the same side that Senator Cortese was pointing to, which is that we don't, I don't feel like we know enough yet at the state level that we need to have some humility that local schools, groups of students and faculty and staff and counselors need to be coming together and trying other solutions that aren't always adding curriculum component but things that really do require everybody to take responsibility, everybody to innovate and create that we can then learn from.

So I think our former Governor Jerry Brown used to say not every human problem requires a law. This problem definitely requires some laws, but I'm not. But this particular issue around you know, the sort of the one way passive learning framing that some of the requirements that we might have previously passed have been implemented as.

I'm not sure that that requires another law as opposed to thinking about how teachers are, you know, teacher training, the materials that they have, the templates that we might have as teachers to be able to engage in more active learning practices, but also, you know, making sure we're getting right the prompt, the promises we're making about what the impact is going to be relative to the actual amount, the dosage essentially of intervention here.

So I think it's the right topic. Whether it's the right topic for law or not, I'm not, I'm not personally convinced yet. But I also appreciate the creativity in trying to construct and frame these issues up in a way that's not let's add another five year class mental health section, semester seven.

But really trying to think about alternative ways. I'm not sure we're there either like Senator Cortese said. But I think it's a good start. So thanks so much to the panel, very much appreciate this, thank you. We're going to move next to panel six, which is AI implementation in classrooms.

And I'm going to say step out of the room for just a moment. I have constituents that are here to see me. I will come right back in a moment and ask Senator Cortese if he'd be so willing to lead here.

But I've been waiting for this panel all day because it aligns directly with the Committee that I'm about to chair. So you can be better. I will be back in just a second, but welcome to the panel and thank you, Senator Cortese.

Welcome and - I'm over here. He just handed me the gavel. I'm not going to move. Welcome and you may introduce yourselves and begin in whichever order you prefer. Thank you.

Good morning, esteemed Members of the Education Committee. I'm ... I'm a junior attending Piedmont High School in Oakland in Senate District 9 and Assembly District 14.

Hi, I'm Bryn Jones and I also attend Piedmont High School as a junior.

Hi, I'm Arjun Prabhram. I'm a freshman attending Santa Susana High School in Simi Valley, which is in Senate District 27 in Assembly District 42.

We represent the Artificial Intelligence in Classrooms group. We are living in the future. In seconds, students can access explanations, summaries and analyses through tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. Yet research from Digital Promise, a national edtech nonprofit authorized by Congress, shows that fewer than 25% of California school districts have clear guidance on AI use in education.

As AI advances rapidly, educators and families are questioning its impact on learning, academic integrity, and student development, or whether it belongs in classrooms at all. And to address the obvious concern up front, don't worry, this speech is 100% human made. But that disclaimer alone proves the point. Ignoring AI does not protect education, it weakens it.

For the long term success of future generations, education must adapt to this ever evolving technology. Public responses to AI's inevitable and vital presence in education are highly polarized, which means a binary approach is ineffective. For example, a blanket ban on AI may satisfy teachers who oppose AI, but it would alienate teachers who support its use. On the other hand, having no policy at all creates an unstandardized system that leaves students and educators alike confused. The solution must preserve teacher agency while still providing clear structure and statewide consistency.

That is why we urged the Senate to require public middle and high schools to adopt the California Department of Education AI Working Group's Responsible Use Rubric. SB 1288 created this working group bringing together educators, students and policymakers, and under CDE oversight, it released statewide AI guidelines on January 1, 2026.

The Responsible Use Rubric included under Academic Integrity, gives schools a clear, flexible framework. Our proposal codifies that rubric into law. It is research backed, collaboratively developed, and ready to implement. More importantly, it moves California forward by guiding responsible AI use instead of pretending it does not exist.

The Responsible Use Rubric would be used by teachers allotted to each category of course assignments, tests, essays, etc. A level one being the least AI allowed, a level five meaning the most. The Responsible Use Rubric articulates the following: if an assignment is assigned as one on the rubric, then no AI assistance is allowed for the assignment. If assigned as a 2, then AI is allowed to be used for idea organization, providing prompts, examples, or initial responses. However, students are required to produce the final work themselves inside any AI support used.

If assigned a 3, then AI is allowed to support drafting, but students must significantly revise and refine that content themselves with a clear clarification between what the student and the AI tool inputted, respectively. If assigned a four, then students may include AI generated elements in their work, but they must critically review and edit those contributions.

Students use of AI must be transparent and and they must give proper citations to AI when used. If assigned a 5, then AI becomes a co creator for the assignment. However, students must provide a rationale for AI use, ensuring that their own original thinking remains central and clearly cites AI involvement.

For a deeper understanding, let's refer to an example. A school district, after thorough consultation with the high school's English Department, decided to give the course English 9 honors an AI usage level average of 2. This means students are allowed to use AI as a tool, but all AI sources must be cited and the final work has to have no direct AI input. All teachers who teach English 9 honors must assign an AI usage level to each type of assignment they give.

These levels must follow the district's AI scale, and when averaged together, they must equal the course's assigned AI level of 2. For instance, teachers may set essays at level 2, daily assignments at level 2, presentations at level 3, and exams at level 1.

If each of these categories are given equal weight, then when average, they equal the course AI level average of 2. Although this proposal may carry a significant fiscal impact, the solution provides tenfold returns for California students. Individual school departments would meet to determine the appropriate level of acceptable artificial intelligence use for each course, with the primary cost being compensation at the district level for mandating Committee meetings and designing AI levels to courses.

Educators may refer to existing webinar recordings provided by the California Department of Education during evaluations to assist them in their decision making processes if they deem necessary. If an LEA chooses to, they may compensate teachers to watch these webinars or develop an alternative staff training method with regards to the given AI guidelines.

The root issue that we identified regarding AI use is the lack of guidelines. Most of the students that get caught using AI actually use it because they simply don't know what the rules are. This method is best at solving for missing guidelines because we mandate guidelines which are simple enough to be understood by students while being meaningful enough to mend the miscommunication. The more time that goes by without a fix, the worse the student teacher relationship will get, and learning efficiency will further decline.

By establishing transparent expectations, we transform AI from a tool of deception and harm into a resource for growth. This clarity replaces suspicion with trust, ensuring students develop digital literacy without compromising their integrity. At the end of the day, time is running out, AI is advancing, and students are in desperate need of something that will help them.

This issue is not hypothetical for students. It is already affecting us in real and consequential ways. In my own experience, I was flagged for academic dishonesty after submitting an assignment that had been revised using Grammarly's AI Powered grammar suggestions.

I did not use the tool to generate content or ideas, only to make my writing more concise and grammatically correct, yet I still received a zero on the assignment. While this would make sense if we were told not to use Grammarly, no expectations regarding acceptable AI use were given, which only further exacerbated the confusion for both parties.

More importantly, this was not an isolated incident. Students at Los Altos, Clovis North, and many other schools across California reported near identical experiences. And according to the Center for Democracy and technology, only 28% of teachers say that they have received guidance about how to respond if they suspect a student has used generative AIs in ways that aren't allowed.

Unclear and inconsistent AI standards across classrooms lead to student penalties without shared expectations, leading them to have to navigate through ambiguity that undermines fairness, trust, and the learning process itself.

AI is rapidly shaping how students learn and produce work. The responsibility now lies with the policymakers to ensure integration of AI in schools is intentional and academically sound. Every year without clear guidelines widens the gap of understanding between teachers and students. That's why we urge the Senate to adopt SB 1288's Responsible Use Rubric by June 2029, the start of the 2029 school year, in order to establish clear standards for artificial intelligence use in public education. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Are there questions or comments from Members of the committees? Senator Cortese.

I know in the interest of time, minimize any comments. I'm just more interested in asking all of you, do you feel that you know the Responsible Use Rubric that you just walked us through, 1 through 5, is comprehensive enough. I know we have - basically we need to get somewhere in a hurry.

And I agree with all of your comments, which were poignant, very poignant about how fast we need to to go because we're getting more and more behind all the time. This is not an institution that moves very quickly, unfortunately.

That said, I just want to know when I look at, when I think of, of different ways that even I use AI to try to set up modeling for, you know, a project or something like that to test assumptions that I have. I'm not sure one through five actually captures that. Maybe it's. Maybe it's two which talks about brainstorming and collaboration. Would that be where that's at?

If the teacher in the classroom said, we actually are going to all use AI because I want people to, you know, to come up with different models as to how, how to create mental health programs in our schools or something like that as an exercise, is that captured into that kind of collaborative work? I'm just using that as an example, a teacher led exercise in the classroom.

I'm not sure if this answers the question, but in particular for a level two, let's say a teacher says, okay, this assignment is going to be a level 2. It's a threshold, so it's not required AI usage. It's just if.

I guess what I'm getting at is I feel like this is really good, these levels to try to avoid accusations of cheating and so forth. Look, this is a one, this is a two, this is a three. This is how you can use AI. I'm not sure if it goes far enough yet to actually.

Maybe level six is. And then there's assignments where we're actually mandating that you use AI because we want you to work through an exercise that can best be done through. You know, through artificial intelligence assistance. And I don't see that here, but maybe it is.

In our proposal. It says that this scale is. Sorry, it says that this AI rubric is scalable. How that will be determined in the future will have to be - will have to be talked about. But this scale, like, because AI is rapidly evolving, a level 6 could mean something like completely AI, no co creator whatsoever. But I don't necessarily know if 5 doesn't capture that just because I believe that level 5, regardless if a student use uses AI or not. I think, we think that a written justification explaining how AI was used in a rationale, regardless of how fast AI is evolving, I think there should always be like a rationale for using it. Does that answer your question?

I think so. It helps answer the question. But I just think we're rapidly getting to the point where AI is going to be not just viewed as something that needs to be vetted for cheating, but something that's actually part of an assignment that's required by everyone. And how you include that here is all I'm really suggesting.

Yeah, so we didn't necessarily include that because, like Ari said, it is a threshold at this moment.

You're working off of frameworks. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Off of a framework that's already.

Already certified by the CDE.

Yeah, thank you. I get that.

Questions or comments? I'm excited about this. I think this is an issue that is - it is critical. And I also agree with every single thing that Senator Cortese has said. I think that need here is strong, but this is one of those challenging areas where the landscape is changing so rapidly.

As you and he have both noted that we have this tension between we want fixed guidance and the state - we're the worst ones for fixed guidance because we spent all year making the fixed guidance. And then the soonest we could ever fix it again is next year. And this topic is.

And that's, if we're lucky. This is a topic that is changing so quickly that the notion that the state should be promulgating mandatory rubrics is just, it's a challenge. You know, as the incoming chair of the Committee that oversees AI, that this is a common problem. Now, how does. How does law.

How can law be adaptive over time? Like, how are we designing systems and curriculums and teacher training, collective bargaining contracts and student, you know, ethics expectations? How are we creating - how are we maximizing the likelihood that the existing systems, you know, can react and respond in real time, as opposed to us, you know, okay, this year we just learned this one thing. Now everybody do this for next year. And then next.

Tomorrow a new version or a new instance of AI comes out, and it blows up everything that we considered. So that's the real tension here. Obviously, the answer isn't to do nothing and say, well, okay, it's just too hard, just too difficult to keep up. We have to do something.

But then figuring out how to do that in a way that also promotes and allows and encourages faculty and students and administrators and school boards to learn and to create new rubrics as they're going on. And so we want to.

I would just want to be careful that as we say, here's the rubric that everyone now must follow that are we creating enough room for people to breathe and say, we're going to try this different approach? I think the other challenge for me is the rubric. I appreciate it's very well thought out.

The task force did good work. It definitely feels like an English teacher's bias, though. Like, writing is a higher level than ideas. So the, you know, when I talk to Claude about policy ideas, you know, it's at a very, it's at a very rudimentary starting, rudimentary level.

And then deep philosophy, like, what is the appropriate role of government in impinging on personal freedom? Or like, so it's more than just, I have an assignment and here's what I have to write about. And I'm just, I have ideas that I'm, that, that I'm playing with ChatGPT about. It's, it's much more fundamental in this kind of a rubric that's, that's level two.

Yep.

But saying, okay, now that we've been talking about it for seven hours, Claude, now, now, you know, you know, and here's my draft. You know, edit it, edit it for grammar and, you know, is it really hitting hard the way I want it to? That's level three. But that's actually less, that's less critical thinking. That's less the application of philosophy and logic and other things than what I was doing first. Right.

So I think this notion, I understand this kind of a hierarchy, and they're not really super hierarchical, but the way that the level nomenclature gives it that impression that the drafting, as opposed to the thinking - drafting, is not a higher order skill or competency than the think, than the ideas are in the first place.

And so I'm not proposing the rubric be different, but it points to the challenges of thinking about how do you apply the rubrics and then how do you apply them in biology, where maybe the drafting isn't as important. Right.

So it's not that they don't work, but the, but again, it's this notion of how you construct them and how are they resilient then to all kinds of different coursework into different disciplines, and then to changes in the technology itself. And I think Senator Cortese is exactly right.

When I teach, I encourage students to use it, but with the expectation and the requirement that you have to share your entire prompt conversation, all of it, because I'm more interested in how you think, how you apply the lessons that we've been covering in class and how you control the AI versus the other way around.

And the actual product at the end is not as important as that, that process, because I'm seeing how you think and how you learn and how you now will order around the Robots, that's what we want. So that a rubric needs to account for that. Right? That I don't.

In the end it may be AI was the co creator, but it's not really that big of a deal. Because what I'm really seeing as an, as a formative assessment as a teacher is actually what you. How you. How you know how to apply what we - the curriculum that we're trying to teach. That's the exciting part. But the AI may produce the final product, but the final product is really incidental to the process by which the student is. Is going forward.

So to address the rubric comment, I mean thank, thank you so much for your feedback. So two, three, four and possibly five all don't explicitly say cite the complete AI prompt. But hopefully that is implied. Two, three and four are saying to cite any AI support used.

And that would include the AI prompt in which you asked ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini. Because I mean that's kind of the only way you can cite it. You can't just cite ChatGPT. So you would cite what you asked it, what responses it gave you. And I totally agree. My AP US History teacher also does that. He says if you use ChatGPT it's okay, but you have to cite the entire prompt. And I definitely agree with that. That should be included in the rubric.

Great. So I think it is though the challenge that we face in, in teaching and learning is that is that component. So I think there is clearly a role for the state to play here, whether it's in the law or the State Board of Education or you know, there's a unit in CDE that has got more flexibility than we do. Not quite. I'm not fully convinced yet. You're making a good case.

I'm not fully convinced that a sort of a statutory. You know you'll go to prison unless you, unless you do this specific rubric is necessarily the right way. But there is a key role to be playing I think both because it's asking a lot of a seventh grade French teacher to be able to try to keep up with all of this and then on her own to figure out how then to apply ethics and pedagogy and everything else.

And so some guidance from the state is the right approach. But it feels to me like that guidance should be the foundation by which teachers and schools and students together are able to keep iterating on this at the local level. And that we should be learning from them as much as we are mandating back to them.

Right. And I definitely agree with you that training is really important, but fiscally, we calculated that it would be like hundreds of billions of dollars if the state state paid for overtime to watch these videos. So that's why we recommend that teachers and staff Members watch these AI webinars to get more of an understanding of AI and its safe and ethical uses in schools. But fiscally, we just can't mandate that.

All right, thanks so much to the panel. Great work.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, we're now going to proceed to our final panel, which is on supporting students with disabilities. I'd like to invite the panel Members to come forward. I'll take my privilege as the representative for Napa county to especially welcome Itzia Enriquez from Calistoga High School. Welcome.

Good afternoon esteemed Members of the Senate Committee on Education. My name is Heaven Ortega. I'm a senior from Wheatland Union High school. Senate District 1, Assembly District 3.

Name is Serena Zhang. I am a sophomore of Kate School Senate District 21, Assembly District 37.

My name is Itzia Enriquez and I am a senior from Calistoga High school. Senate District 3, Assembly District 4.

Growing up, I witnessed firsthand the consequences of inadequate support to students with disabilities. At the various schools I attended, they were unprepared to meet the needs of these students with different disabilities. The school support existed, but it was made for a narrow range of students with these different disabilities, leaving many without assistance.

This failure was deeply personal to me. My sister who has a learning disability, struggled tremendously due to the lack of tailored support. This left me to become a support system for her as our father who did not complete primary education was not help to her. And while she was older than me, I helped her with her homework and adjusting to school. Even me at my young age, this was not my responsibility, but it was for the school. Although she graduated, she was not prepared, helped or pushed in academic setting.

Ultimately, this lapse was because the school did not know how to help students with different disabilities. However, at my current high school, Wheatland Union High School, we had programs that supported and addressed every student with disabilities, even providing guidance for them in post secondary education, teaching them real world skills and ensuring that they all applied and were prepared for college.

Even last year when I witnessed one of my close friends, a student of this program, be accepted into UC Davis and go on to pursue a higher education in special education. We all want to stand witness the success of thousands of students with disabilities across the California school systems. But how can districts provide this support for these students without the data to do so?

We strongly encourage implementing counties to provide full, transparent information about students with different disabilities so that in the future, schools know which students with disabilities need the greatest support and can adjust to their needs, enabling them, too, to have a bright and independent future.

The issue of disability in education is crucial as traditional school systems are often built around a single narrow definition of success caused by a lack of transparency and knowledge of the appropriate needs of each student with disabilities. These students may understand the material thoroughly but struggle to demonstrate their knowledge on timed exams, especially under heavy pressure and workload. When schools equate academic success with these limited measures, they mislabel capable students as underachieving or even unmotivated, which in turn affects their grades, course placement, and overall trajectory.

Even more, schools not only shape academic outcomes and a student's future, but also a student's sense of belonging. When educational systems fail to implement specific accommodations for students with different disabilities, they reinforce inequality by treating differences as a deficiency rather than a part of natural human diversity.

Currently, the National Center for Education Statistics offers data surrounding the graduation and dropout rates of students with disabilities specific to each state, but it treats disability as a binary category. Students are classified simply as having a disability or not without distinguishing between different types of of disabilities.

How can educational leaders make authentic change without data to identify gaps in our system? Without detailed data, how can school systems make changes to support students of all mental and physical states? Because accommodations must be tailored to specific needs, grouping all disabilities together risks oversimplifying the level and type of support required. Without this nuance, data can fail to inform effective policy and may reinforce one size fits all solutions that do not adequately support all students.

To address the underrepresentation of students, particularly in the Special Education Department, we asked the Senate to consider transparency and educational data for students with disabilities. We want to incorporate an additional subset under the California Dashboard using the California Department of Education information that recognizes 13 categories of disabilities already addressed under the Individuals with Disabilities Act.

Going deeper and allowing the California Department of Education to improve teaching practices for students with disabilities and achieve long term success. We're asking for consistent and transparent district wide test scores, graduation rates, and higher education success for students with with these disabilities to be available to the public.

We want to create districts that have the support that kids need. Transparency and data on students with disability is essential as it enables educators, school faculty, administrators, and policymakers to highlight gaps and support students on focus areas for improvement, thereby enabling implementation of effective interventions. When data is analyzed, districts can quickly allocate resources and improve their teaching strategies, which ultimately increase students achievement and quality of life even after high school.

With this transparency as a starting point, we opened a plethora of doors and opportunities for future legislators to enact policies addressing specific disabilities to better support students with special needs. By giving educators an area of focus, we as community can recognize accommodations needed for for development.

I know that if my school had this disaggregated data, they would have realized how severely my sister's disability was hindering her academic success. I would have seen the school understand and implement programs that supported these students, and I would have seen data gaps filled and seen the programs to help students just like my sister.

I would be able to go through my life knowing that she was prepared and ready for any obstacles she may face. This Bill could be the change that we need so that no other families, friends, or little sisters like me have to worry about their loved ones being held back. If this Bill were to be enacted, students with different disabilities could receive the support that they need from policymakers and educators, giving them a chance to achieve more than they ever dreamed possible. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions or comments from Members of the Committee?

Just that I appreciate the presentation and I do believe that this type of transparency is very much needed. I did author a Bill a couple years ago that got signed into law that had to do with transparency around classroom inclusion of differing needs students. So I need to look at this more and study it some more. But I appreciate you going down this path. Thank you.

Yeah. The dashboard is an incredibly important tool for students, for parents, for communities, for civil rights organizations, for chambers of commerce, and for us to insist on accountability, on making sure that we're continuing to make progress, that we have our eyes on the prize in every way. It has to also be comprehensible.

So this is one of the - when the dashboard and its predecessors were first conceived of, I think they started off as paper, and then they were like, maybe they were PDF files. And we face a big challenge with proposals like this because, you know, the more information that's on the dashboard, the less likely it is that anyone will actually read it. And particularly the folks whose attention you want to get, folks who are already like, pouring through all the data and every agenda from every school board meeting.

They'll read whatever we add on there. But if the dashboard becomes eight pages long, then parents don't know how to navigate it. It just starts to become too oppressive of a document. So we tend to be very protective of the readability and the usability of the document.

Because the dashboard, given how complicated and multidimensional education is, it could go on for thousands of pages if we wanted it to. With the web based usage of the dashboard, it does open up other possibilities because then we can create expandable categories, click on this carrot to open up and see the full report or what have you.

And so I don't know the extent to which our laws are now, we've adapted to those changes, but that's always been the trade off. And so as you continue to think about the proposal, I would just keep that in mind that there's always a trade off between adding more information, to be transparent that's relevant to someone, but also that the more information it is, folks just will not look.

You'll see in my college classes, they tell me to add 180 different elements to my course syllabus because all for good reasons, because like every student should know about where the basic needs are and they should know about all these different services that are out there.

And then you get to class and you realize no one has read the syllabus and I wouldn't either. They're like, but what's the important part? And so we often have to ask ourselves that as well. And this is an important part. But the question is we want to make sure that it's important and that folks will see and take notice of it. So as we think about the implementation and what proportion of users of the dashboard are relying on the web form as opposed to static things for which it would become longer. Those are the trade offs that we're typically grappling with.

Yeah, 100%. We understand that everything needs to be accessible these days, especially online. But for this, our proposal mostly focuses on giving this to educators and legislators so that they can see which areas of disabilities, whether it's like mental or physical, need specific accommodations.

Because obviously you know someone who has mental disabilities and physical disabilities, they need different support. So for this it's less of for like parents or students, but more for legislators and educators. Thank you.

All right. All right, thanks so much to the panel. Appreciate your time and expertise and the effort that's gone into this. And thanks to all of the students who have participated today on behalf of both the Senate and the Assembly Education Committees.

I just want to emphasize how much we value the perspectives, the ideas, the creativity, the intense focus on what actually works and who's going to pay for it and how will it get implemented? Which we - I wish we would see more often from our, you know, from folks that bring big ideas and. But it's not new.

This is - CASC is well known for, you know, keeping up. We want to come back on the same issue we've been talking about for five years, because we need to get the implementation exactly right. And we heard a lot of those issues today.

And so where some groups come here with a new $10 billion idea every week, CASC and the student leaders of California schools take this as seriously as it is. And so I just want to say thank you to the really thoughtful, smart work that's been done on these proposals.

And I know you've taken notes on the comments that have been made by the legislators who have been serving on the panel. Also want to say thank you to the parents, the teachers, the advisors, the volunteers, the CASC Alumns, who have supported everybody that's participated in ... today and over the weekend throughout the whole process. This is.

There's a reason why the two legislative committees do this on an annual basis. We do not do this for, you know, for every possible education group. This is a special. A special hearing. I want to say, also acknowledge the Members of the Committee who put a lot of time here. Senator Cortese has been with us the entire time. Thank you very much. And with that, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all very much.