Assembly Standing Committee on Education

Good afternoon. I'm calling this hearing of the Assembly Education Committee to order. It looks like we will start as a, a subcommittee. And once we, have quorum once we have more members, we will call for a quorum. Do we have it now?

Thank you. So we do have quorum. It looks like we have quorum. Secretary, can you please call the roll?

Patel? Here. Patel here. Hoover. Alvarez?

Here. Alvarez here. Bonta Bonta here. Castillo?

Castillo here. Garcia Lowenthal. Pellerin?

Here.

Here.

Pellerin here. Zuber.

We have quorum. A quorum has been established. Thank you. I would like to welcome committee members and members of the public to today's hearing. We have 12 bills on file today.

Two bills are on consent. They are AB 2302324, sorry, with amendments, and AB 2429. Two bills have been pulled from this hearing. They are AB 1644 and AB 2362. By prior arrangement, Assembly member Pellerin will present AB 2460 by Assembly member Celeste Rodriguez.

We will now begin our hearing, with a special order for file item number one, AB 2651 assembly member Bonta. While she's stepping up, as a reminder, for each bill, we will have up to two witnesses in support and in opposition, each of whom may speak for up to two minutes. Members of the public in the hearing room will have an opportunity to state their position. Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill only when you step up to the mic.

Members of the public are also welcome to provide comment through the position letter portal on the committee's website.

Before we begin, I have a statement to read regarding conduct at our hearings. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on critical issues facing California. As we proceed with the witnesses and public comment, I want to make sure that everyone understands that the assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing.

We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings regardless of the viewpoint that they express. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. The rule rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. No publiccom or public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place as permitted by the chair. Public comment must relate to the subject being discussed today. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing.

Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. We will now begin with assembly member Bonta who has file item number one in special order, a B2651. You may proceed when ready.

Good afternoon, chair and members. I wanna thank committee for working with my office, and I accept the committee amendments. AB 2651 notifies parents when their child's school vaccination rate falls below the level required to achieve herd immunity. The herd immunity rate is the percentage of the population that must be immunized to prevent disease transmission and thus provide some protection even for those who lack immunity. The bill ensures that parents have the information they need to keep their children safe from preventable communicable diseases.

A 2024 study published in The Lancet is estimated that vaccines have saved a hundred and fifty four million lives globally since 1974, comparable to a rate of six lives per minute. Of those saved lives, ninety five percent were children younger than five years old. Alarmingly, outbreaks are increasing. While measles was once eradicated in The United States this year, 10 counties in California alone have reported a total of thirty four measles cases.

For twenty twenty four twenty five, 12 of the state's 58 counties, twenty one percent, reported that the percent of kindergarteners with all required immunizations was below ninety percent.

In addition to the dire health outcomes that, could be prevented, preventing the spread of disease is also costly. LA County approximates that its first three measles cases of 2026 cost $231,000. To ensure herd immunity, parents need school level vaccination rates. However, currently, to find this data, parents would need to be aware of the concept of herd immunity, make the time to find the reports themselves, then have the knowledge to interpret the reports.

Parents would also need to be do additional research across multiple sources to find recommended herd immunity thresholds.

These burdens constrain parents' ability to make informed decisions about school and childcare settings, particularly for families with young children or medically vulnerable individuals who rely on high vaccination coverage to reduce exposure risk. AB 2651 removes these burdens for parents who rightfully wanna be able to make informed decisions. This bill requires schools to notify parents when their child's school vaccination rate falls below the herd immunity threshold established by the California Department of Public Health.

The notification uses data that is already collected and already public, so the bill does not publish any new type of information. In addition, by calculating rates for school, no individual student can be identified.

CDPH has also taken precautions for students' deidentification in small schools. Here to testify in support are two experts on the importance of children's health and, and, a technical witness, doctor Mariel Concepcion Mariel? Mariel.

Right? Mariel.

Mariel Concepcion, one of only two full scope primary care physicians in all of Calaveras County, and Robin Clough, who is the director of legislation for the California State Parent Association. And

Your witnesses may proceed when ready. Two minutes.

Good afternoon. My name is doctor Mariel Concepcion. I'm a family physician and a mother of two children who attend public school in Calaveras County. I am here on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians cosponsor of AB 22651. In my practice, I care for infants too young to be vaccinated, pregnant women, and immunocompromised patients who rely on community immunity.

I also work with parents trying to make the best decisions for their children, decisions that depend on accurate timely information. Right now, when it comes to whether their child's school is protected against measles, they simply don't have that. The data exists. CDPH collects it, but it is not easy to find. AB 2651 puts that information where it belongs, in the hands of the people who need it most.

Look at what's happening in Calaveras County right now. Copperopolis Elementary has an MMR rate of ninety one point four percent. Albert Michelson, fifteen minutes down the hill for myself, is at ninety point two percent for all required vaccinations. And Mountain Oaks Charter has an MMR rate of forty three point five percent. The county level MMR rate sits at ninety three point nine percent.

Sadly, I just found out about this data myself this week. But this is below the necessary ninety five percent threshold. Counties like mine with severe primary care shortages and an under resourced public health department are not equipped to handle infectious disease outbreaks. Diseases like measles do not wait in a room with one infection excuse me, in one in diseases like measles do not wait. In a room with one infectious person, nine out of ten unvaccinated individuals will contract the disease.

California has confirmed thirty five cases in 2026 according to the data that I was given across multiple counties. This is a disease The US eliminated in 2000. So early accessible information is what allows families and physicians to respond before a quiet gap in coverage becomes an outbreak we cannot contain. This is not about compelling a decision, it is about making sure the information that already exists reaches the people it is meant to serve. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair Patel and members. My name is Robin Cloud, director of legislation for the California State PTA, representing over half a million members statewide and a proud cosponsor of AB 2651, the Informed Parents Healthy Schools Act. Every parent sends their child to school trusting that the system is working. But when vaccination rates drop below safe levels, parents are the last to find out if they find out at all.

Right now, vaccination rate information is only available to families who know where to look, how to interpret what they find, and can read English.

In fact, 428 California schools are currently being audited for low vaccination rates, and most parents have no idea. AB 2651 fixes that. This bill ensures that when a school's vaccination rate falls below the threshold needed to prevent an outbreak, families receive notification from their school in the languages that their communities actually speak. That's it. This bill does not collect new data.

It doesn't change vaccination requirements. Student privacy is protected. No individual can be identified from school level data. The inform parents healthy schools act ensures that already public information reaches every family who needs it, including those with medically vulnerable loved ones or children who cannot yet be vaccinated. Parents deserve to know when the risk changes in their child's school.

This bill respects parents by keeping them informed and supporting healthier school communities. It's about transparency, safety, and informed decision making. On behalf of the California State PTA and the families we represent, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we will have public comment and support. If you are here to support, please step up to the mic. State your name, your affiliation, and position on the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair. Sandra Barrero on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Good afternoon, committee chair and members. Yerely Mangayon with Political Solutions here on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics California and the Children's Specialty Care Coalition in support. Thank you.

Madam chair and members, Betsy Armstrong on behalf of the County Health Executives Association. I urge your support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kat Brackmann on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

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

Madam chair members, Andrew Antwie with Shaw, Yoder, Antwie, Schmelzer and Lange here today on behalf of the California Medical Association in support.

Madam chair members, Tim Madden representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians and also on behalf of the American College of OBGYN's District nine and the California Podiatric Medical Association, all in support.

Madam chair and members, Daniel Sanchez with California Advocacy on behalf of the California Primary Care Association in support. Thank you.

Madam chair and members, Tristan Brown with CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals here in support.

Hi. Selena Latore, California State PTA, proud cosponsor here in support.

Madam chair, Josiah Katanga, California State PTA, proud cosponsors in support.

Thank you. We will now have opposition witnesses step up to testify. You will each have two minutes, and you may proceed when ready.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is April Robinson, and I'm representing a Voice for Choice advocacy. We remain opposed to AB 2651 unless further amended. Over the last few weeks, we've worked closely with the committee staff and the author's office to improve the bill. We appreciate the amendments, especially clarifying the data as kindergarten specific.

However, key concerns remain. The data is still a snapshot at the start of the school year when compliance is lowest. Many counted as not up to date or conditional entrants completing doses by year end. This snapshot risks misleading families. While small class suppression helps, it doesn't help stop identification within school communities.

Even a small group in a 100 student cohort is often known, children with IEPs, medical needs, or family instability. Broad notifications risk stigma, bullying, and isolation, something the bill its itself acknowledges. Beyond data, this bill expands CDPH, the California Department of Public Health's role, moving from neutral data collection to behavior influence via public disclosure, and it shifts enforcement from schools' established compliance systems to social pressure among parents with no evidence it improves outcomes.

This this also creates an administrative burden on schools who will have to handle parent communications without additional resources. Finally, the bill applies a herd immunity framework to all vaccines, which isn't scientifically appropriate in every case.

For instance, tetanus isn't person to person transmission. We respectfully request that the amendments exclude conditional and exempt students, use end of year data, and limit notification to those truly due for vaccines. Without these changes, AB 2651 risks more harm than good. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Joshua Coleman, cofounder of V is for Vaccine. The vaccine conversation is extremely contentious. Mainstream media has documented sharp divisions over mandates and widespread negative attitudes toward the unvaccinated. A Washington Post article titled, how much do vaccinated Americans dislike the unvaccinated?

We measured found that fifty eight percent of vaccinated individuals expressed negative sentiment toward the unvaccinated. When asked to describe the unvaccinated in one word, common responses included stupid, selfish, ignorant, and unsafe. So that context matters when we consider how some parents may react to receiving a notification that their child's school has fallen below a vaccination level considered safe. It's reasonable to expect that some parents will be scared, some angry, and some both. That raises the question of where that concern may be directed.

The analysis of this bill acknowledges this risk, and here is how that risk plays out in real school environments. In California, parents understand how narrow the exemption system is. The only students who can remain permanently in school without all required vaccines are those with IEPs or medical exemptions, children who are disabled, or medically fragile students.

Even with efforts to de identify data in real world school communities, if it it often doesn't take much for a small group of students to be inferred or associated with these rates. I am concerned this could lead to students with disabilities being viewed differently, potentially as a source of risk, and could contribute to stigma or exclusion.

That raises serious concerns under Section five zero four, the Rehabilitation Act, which is designed to prevent unequal treatment of students with disabilities. Transparency is very important, but it must never come at the expense of protecting students from discrimination and harm. Please protect our disabled and vulnerable children and vote no on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move to public comment in opposition. If you're here in opposition, please step up to the mic. State your name, affiliation, and position on the bill only.

Catherine McBride with V for Vaccine, Strongly oppose and ask for no vote on this unconstitutional bill.

Adrienne Hoeft, representing V is for Vaccine and thousands of parents of medically fragile children in California. I oppose.

Thank you. Bringing it back to the committee now. Committee members, do we have any questions or comments for the author?

Move the bill.

There's a motion from Assemblymember Pellerin. Is there a second? Second from Assemblymember Garcia. We will turn it back to the author to close.

Thank you. And I wanna thank and recognize my technical witness, Natalie Pita from the California Association of Family Physicians, who has been steeped in this policy for quite a while as well. I just wanted to just, in closing in my closing, address some of the concerns raised by the opposition.

The first is I believe that the medical community will stand by the need to have evidence the the existence of evidence essentially saying that it's very important to be able to ensure that we have people immunized and meeting these herd immunity thresholds within our school environments. I shared some of that in my opening statements around the the costs of not doing so.

I also just wanted to address the fact that tetanus is included in the Tdap, which will get a threshold because of vaccine to prevent Tdap, which is also the same vaccine that prevents diphtheria and pertussis, which require thresholds as well. So that is bounded within the context of that particular vaccination received. And, more importantly, the opposition's comments around student privacy.

This bill has been structured to ensure that we have utmost student privacy protected as a parent of a child who had an IEP or an f five zero four. I know the importance and sensitivity of making sure that students have the ability to be in their schools protected.

IEPs are confidential, and and there is no reason for any individual in the school community to essentially say to make any specific claim or have any particular knowledge about whether an individual child is immunized or not. This bill is incredibly important because I believe that it protects the individuals who are vulnerable, community members who don't have the ability ability to, receive vaccinations, and who, are in our communities and need to be protected.

It's very important for us to be able to ensure that we have this herd immunity in place, and it this bill is structured, has done so in a very thoughtful and smart way that ensures we have the maximum protection of privacy. Just last year, my home county of Alameda suffered a case of measles as did two thousand and sixty five other people.

A B 2651 helps address declining childhood vaccination rates by requiring CDPH to notify schools when vaccination rates fall below herd immunity levels.

Schools must then notify parents giving families timely school specific information to make informed decisions and helping public health officials respond more quickly to reduce the risk of vaccine preventable disease outbreaks. Parents deserve information to keep their kids healthy in a time when we have will have less access to primary health care and preventative care. It is more important that we do this now within our school communities because children deserve to be safe from preventable deadly disease. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you for bringing this important bill forward at this time. I want to express gratitude for you as author working closely with our committee and making sure that this bill made the amendments that were necessary for for us to hear it today. So thank you very much. Thank you. And continuing to champion protection of the vulnerable in our community.

Thank you very much for that. With that, we have a motion and a second. Secretary, will you please call the roll?

File item one, AB 2651. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Patel? Aye. Patel, aye.

Hoover Alvarez? Alvarez, aye. Bonta? Bonta, aye. Castillo?

Castillo, no. Garcia? Garcia, I Lowenthal. Hellerin? Aye.

Hellerin, aye. Zibur.

The vote is five to one. That bill is out. Thank you, chair. And we will leave the roll open for add ons. We are now, going to hear file item number 11.

That is AB 2509 with Assemblymember Schultz. And you may proceed when ready.

Well, thank you very much, madam chair and members, and good afternoon. I would like to begin by thanking the committee and your staff for their hard work, and I am hereby accepting the committee's proposed amendments. In discussing 20 AB 2509, it's important to recall that California allocates funding to local education agencies based on average daily attendance and has historically allowed school districts to use whichever is higher, the current year or the prior year's average daily attendance.

In 2022, in response to the COVID nineteen pandemic, the state incorporated a three year rolling average into the LCF formula, offering school districts the stability needed to navigate an unpredictable recovery. The three year rolling average has proven very helpful for school districts.

And I'll note that a recent LAO report found that in 2024, about half of all districts relied on the rolling average. It's clear that local education agencies are depending on these protections to ensure steady, predictable funding for their students. However, school attendance throughout the state continues to be below below pre pandemic levels. California continues to grapple with school attendance challenges, including but not limited to mental health challenges, declining enrollment, natural disasters, and the presence of federal immigration enforcement in our communities.

A recent report found that immigration raids in 2025 led to a 22% spike in absences over just two months in communities in the Central Valley.

As such, exploring innovative solutions to stabilize funding and offer more flexibilities, more flexibility for our local education agencies is critical to support student success and our district's long term planning. AB 2509 as amended is simple and builds on this approach by adding a five year rolling average as an option for districts to calculate funded ADA. And ultimately, AB 2509 is about limiting the impact of short term attendance dips on district funding for the stability and well-being of our kids.

With that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any witnesses in support? Sorry. Any public comments in support?

Sorry about that, madam chair, members of the committee. Kat Brackmann again, with the California School Employees Association in proud support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brian Ricks with the Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

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

Thank you. At this time, if there are any witnesses in opposition, please step forward. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Are there any sorry.

Where where did I leave it? Any public comment in opposition? Seeing none, that will bring it back for committee member discussion. We'd like to start off with saying to the author, thank you for working with our committee staff on amendments. Appreciate that.

But I do want to share that although I'm supporting it, the bill today, I do have some hesitations around covering for or or glazing over substantial declining enrollment that some districts are facing. At some point, we will have to come to terms and address declining enrollment with real long term solutions. But current climate is such that I understand the need to make sure that schools have a steady stream of of revenue to cover what their budgets are asking for.

As you know, you know well that I know, when school districts form their budgets, they base it base it on enrollment numbers and not on attendance numbers. However, they are funded based on attendance.

And there are many reasons why right now we're seeing challenges for, restoring attendance. That being said, I will be supporting your bill today, and I reserve the the the right to possibly not support it on the floor depending on how things go. So with that, I will bring it back to committee. We have a motion and a second. If there are no further comments, secretary oh, Assemblymember, if you would like to close.

I'll be very brief. I really appreciate your comments, madam chair. As you know, this isn't the bill that I wanted to bring this year, but it's something. I think the way that we fund our schools is antiquated and outdated and not compatible with the realities that so many districts are facing. We are facing declining enrollment.

There's no one cause for it. But But I will say this, the reason I did decide to run this bill this year is because a three year rolling average will not protect California adequately against this administration and their efforts to terrorize our communities. I wish I could do more, but I think this is a good first step.

I appreciate your leadership and the work of your staff, and respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of all of all kids in my district in the 44th District.

Thank you. Madam secretary, can you call the roll?

Aye.

Patel, Aye.

File item 11, AB 2509. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Patel.

Hoover, Alvarez.

Aye.

Aye.

Alvarez, Aye. Bonta.

Bonta, Aye. Castillo.

No.

Aye.

Aye.

Castillo, no. Garcia.

Garcia, aye. Lowenthal. Pellerin?

Pellerin, Aye.

Zbur.

The vote is five to one. It is out, and we'll leave the role open for add ons. At this time, we will take up the consent calendar. Madam secretary, will you please call the role on consent?

Aye.

The consent items are as follows. Item four, AB 2324, the motion's do pass as amended to appropriations. Item eight, AB 2429, the motion is do pass to appropriations. On the consent calendar, Patel.

Alvarez, aye. Bonta.

Aye.

Bonta, Aye. Castillo.

Aye.

Patel, aye. Hoover, Alvarez.

Aye.

Aye.

Garcia, Aye. Lowenthal.

Castillo, Aye. Garcia.

Pellerin.

Aye.

Pellerin, Aye. Zbur. That is six zero. The consent calendar is out.

The vote is six zero. The consent calendar is out. We will hold the roll open for add ons. We'll now proceed to file item number nine, AB 2430. Assembly member Muratsuchi, you may step up and proceed when ready, and we'll follow that with your second bill.

Alright. Thank you very much. I'd like to present assembly bill twenty four thirty. And first, thank your excellent staff's work for working with us on this bill. I accept the committee analysis committee amendments as noted on page ten and eleven of the analysis.

I am pleased to present AB 2430, the Bridge and Boost Act sponsored by the California After School Advocacy Alliance. AB 2430 strengthens California's after school system in three key ways. One, expanding access for adolescents, particularly high school students. Two, developing recommendations to improve funding rates and program quality and three, increasing transparency so families and policymakers can better understand how we're spending, billions of dollars that we have made in expanded learning.

California has made historic investments in expanded learning opportunities, over 4,600,000,000 annually through the expanded learning opportunity program, and nearly 5,500,000,000 when combined with, the ACES and other programs.

This investment has improved attendance, supported working families, and created safe, enriching opportunities for students. However, significant gaps remain, especially for high school students. Today, less than 2% of expanded learning funding reaches high school students who make up nearly one third of California student population, with many high school districts receiving no ELOP funding at all. At the same time, support for high school programs relies heavily on uncertain federal funding from the Trump administration, putting access for hundreds of thousands of our students at risk.

AB 2430 takes a practical step forward by reallocating a small portion of underutilized funds to better serve high school students with the greatest needs.

The bill also addresses program quality by establishing a work group to evaluate funding rates and support long term sustainability. Finally, it improves transparency by making existing data more accessible, helping identify gaps and strengthen accountability. I know this is an issue that, our chair of the budget subcommittee has, focused on. More importantly most importantly, AB 2430, does not create a new entitlement or require ongoing new spending. It simply strengthens the state's existing investment.

After school programs are essential for working families and critical for keeping students engaged, supported, and on track. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me to testify in support of this measure, first, a a former student, Oliver Quintana Bravo, a recent graduate from Creative Connections Academy, and a former student of the expanded learning opportunity program at the Sacramento Chinese Community Center. And second, Marissa Ramirez, chief administrative officer of Bay Area Community Resources and Expanded Learning program in the Bay Area serving nearly 20,000 students.

We also have Laura Beebe, policy consultant for the Partnership for Children and Youth to address any technical questions that committee members may have.

You have two minutes, and you may proceed when ready. Thank you. There's a button in front of you on the

Yeah. Go ahead. Okay.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Oliver, and I'm 18 years old. And I recently graduated from Creative Connections Arts Academy here in Sacramento. Before I joined the youth workforce program, I wouldn't say I was completely lost, but I didn't feel seen. I didn't feel like people really recognized my value.

That changed when I got the opportunity to enter the after school program at Creative Connections Arts Academy at elementary. What just started as an internship became something bigger. It felt like a second home. My environment changed. Instead of getting into bad habits or being around the wrong things after school, I was going to work, spending time with kids who looked up to me.

And honestly, they changed me. They taught me how powerful something as a simple smile can be. They trust me with things going on in their life, and just being there for them, listening, made them feel seen and cared for. And at the same time, it made me realize something in myself. I wasn't lost.

I just needed someone to see the value in me I didn't see yet. This program helped me change my habits, my mindset, and the people I surround myself. It gave me direction and something to work towards too. By passing AB 2340, California can make sure more high school students can have access to the same kinds of programs that helped me. Programs that provide mentorship, purpose, and real opportunities to grow.

I'm still figuring out my path, but I know I'm not the same person I was before this program. And I know there are students out there just like me who don't need everything figured out. They just need the right environment and someone who believes in them. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Marissa Ramirez. I'm with Bay Area Community Resources. I'm here as a working mother with three students, one of them being a high school student. And I'm also here as a member of the California After School Advocacy Alliance, our statewide voice for publicly funded after school and summer programs.

BACR serves 15,000 students across 91 school size across the Greater Bay Area. We are proud to support AB 2430. Because of this bill addresses three of the most persistent implementation talent as we've have experienced since ELOP launch, access for adolescents, program quality, and transparency. First, the overwhelming majority of our adolescents still do not have access to publicly funded after school opportunities. BACR is able to provide high school opportunities to approximately 1,300 students.

If we had more funding, BACR would be able to not only provide program to more students and expand services in providing robust programming, but a couple of three different things I'm gonna explain is, one, is provide a variety of of opportunities that is very much needed that would are very costly and that would be able to provide us expert staff.

We would also be able to offer opportunities outside of a student's traditional high school, pathway. And we would also be able to provide exploratory opportunities that are connected with real life experiences. In particular, excuse me. Secondly, program quality depends on funding that reflects real costs. In particular, for younger students, we need to follow a 10 to one ratio.

And year to year rate fluctuations and variations between six districts that we work with make long term staff and program sustainability difficult. AB 2430 addresses this

You are at time. Let's wrap it up.

It goes faster than you think.

Oh, yes. Thank you.

Goodness.

Thank you so much for that. We will now take public comment in support. If you are here to support, step up to the microphone. State your name, your affiliation, and your position only, please.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sara Bachez with children now in support.

Madam chair and members, Tristan Brown, CFT in support.

Thank you for those. If there are any, witnesses in opposition, now is your time to step forward. Seeing no witnesses in opposition. Are there any public comments in opposition? Again, seeing none, we will bring it back to the dais.

Are there any questions for the author at this time? Yes. Assembly member Alvarez.

Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, mister Muratsuchi, for bringing this forward. You know, your commitment to public education is know, evident in the work that you do here in the legislature, and this is another example of that. And you are getting to a problem that that does exist, and we need to figure out how to rectify. And that's the fact that we have made universal access to after school programs a reality for elementary schools, but there's work to be done at the upper grades.

And and I know that you're focused here on high schools. This year, particularly in the last couple of subcommittees that I chair, I have been trying to draw attention to middle schools as well because they too are missing from this approach. And so I think the only question I'd ask is, what are the conversations like? I I believe this only applies your your goal here, at least your language, applies to high schools only. Is that correct?

The current system allows for middle schools. The biggest challenge is is expanding it to high schools. I'm gonna turn it over to miss Beebe for the specifics as to how middle school students are, addressed.

Yeah. Thank you so much for lifting this up, Assemblymember. On behalf of our coalition, you know, we agree that there is a huge unmet need for middle school students. In AB 2430, we are starting with high school students, specifically because they received the smallest amount of funding on only 70,000,000 compared to a little bit more for middle school students. But we agree that this is a challenge and something that absolutely needs to be addressed.

I I appreciate you, lifting that up as well. I wanna collaborate and partner with you as we've done before. And if this is a moment to to really acknowledge and try to address this issue, I'd like to to collaborate and work on on the middle schools as well. I think I I appreciate the the approach, which is, you know, incremental and and certainly see the disparity at the high school level, but it's it's the needs exist at the middle school.

And I don't, it always seems I've now said this a couple times.

We we all like to focus on the, you know, TK-6, and we love the high school programs and all the things that happen in high school and the experiential learning and internships. And I have yet and I acknowledge this at my own subcommittee just yesterday. We very, very seldom have middle school advocates, administrators, teachers, or students talking about their needs. And so I appreciate you for doing this.

I like to to continue the conversation with you about how do we bring in others, whether it's through your this vehicle or other ways that we can address that issue.

Thank you for always looking out for our kids. Thank you.

Thank you. I I I just wanna acknowledge. I I know that you're always championing and making sure that we don't forget the middle school kids. And I think all of us, you know, who are parents, know that that can be some of the most challenging years, for for kids. And so I I appreciate your comments.

Assembly member Bonta.

Yeah. I wanna, just also thank you forward bringing for this bill, and I just wanted to thank you for testifying, so beautifully. I think it points to what why we need to make sure that we have these expanded learning opportunities. I had an opportunity probably, like, twenty five years ago to working in philanthropy to be able to fund BACR.

So I just wanted to say thank you so much for the work that you all have done to really make sure that we have as many learning opportunities as possible for our young people.

And I think it's a very smart thing for us to start expanding the way in which we provide resources and additional learning opportunities for our our our youth. Totally agree, 100, you know, 50% double down on the middle school comment that assembly member Alvarez made.

And we'll also say that in our high schools right now, it is the case that if you, you know, aren't in a band, don't play a sport, and, and have limited means to be able to support the other kinds of things that you do, it's it's and have limited resources to be able to invest in other kinds of after school activities. It's really hard to be able to envision what your future might be.

So I wanna thank you for bringing this forward, and if you will accept it, I would love to be a co author.

Thank you. Thank you.

Alright. I will also add some comments at this time. Assembly member, really appreciate you working with committee on this bill. I know that we are taking some small steps here today, but it sets the groundwork for really opening the door to really substantial conversation on how can we help our students as they transition from adolescence into adulthood. These are very critical years, as you said so eloquently as assembly member Bonta said.

It's so important that we make sure our young people are seen and heard and valued, and that's how we secure bright futures for everyone. So I appreciate you bringing this forward and working with our committee on those amendments. And at this time, is there a motion? Do we have a motion? It's a motion from Assemblymember Alvarez, second from Castilla.

Secretary, can you please call the roll? Oh, sorry. Assemblymember Muratsuchi, would you please close.

Ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. File item nine, a B2430. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Patel.

Aye.

Patel, Aye, Hoover. Alvarez.

Alvarez, Aye, Bonta.

Aye.

Aye.

Castillo, aye. Garcia.

Bonta, Aye. Castillo.

Aye.

Aye.

Garcia, aye. Lowenthal. Pellerin?

Aye.

Pellerin, aye. Zbur.

The vote is 6-0. The bill is out. We'll hold the roll open for add-ons. At this time, Assemblymember Muratsuchi, would you like to present at file item number 12? That's AB 2526.

And you may proceed when ready.

Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 2526. Let me let me first start by acknowledging what we all know. Throughout the state of California, there are many parts of the state that are witnessing declining enrollment, and yet we hear over and over again that, special education, costs are, escalating.

To try to come up with a a solution, for this increasing, Liersion challenge that school districts throughout the state are facing, you know, I first looked at, the local control funding formula. You know, I in my first year here in 2013, I I was a member of the the budget subcommittee, where we spent a lot of time, developing and and adopting the local control funding formula.

And and and while that's considered the LCFF is considered to be one of the the biggest education equity reforms in recent decades, I I always felt like there there was a a a big gap in in in terms of the LCFF, you know, based on its the the founding principle of the LCFF that students with the greatest needs deserve greater resources. I I always ask the question, why not our special education students?

You know, we we we have we recognize that our low income students, our English learner students, our foster students, and with Mr. Alvarez's recent legislation, homeless students, you know, it all makes sense.

Right? Students with the greatest needs deserve greatest greater resources. Why not one of our our biggest populations of of students that have these pressing needs are special education students? That's why, you know, I I've been focusing on this issue ever since. I I think it was in 2018.

I I first introduced a a bill to propose that we create a new low LCFF funding category for special education students. Again, based on that that fundamental principle, the LCFF, at that time, we we were in the process of, you know, stabilizing and and achieving, you know, funding equalization as it related to special education funding. I I was advised that this is not the right time to do it, and and and so I did not pursue that effort in 2018.

But since then, you know, in my last year, I I I thought that, this was always something, that I felt was unfinished business to try to to recognize our special education students as, you know, a deserving group of students that that deserve the funding necessary to to provide the the the the support that they absolutely need and deserve. I I want to, you know, thank, you know, your chief consultant for always being patient with me with, you know, my stubborn persistence.

You know, when I latch onto an idea, I have a hard time of of letting go.

But, you know, I I I just wanna say that, that, this committee and the legislature is so fortunate to have, you know, the the the experience and the wisdom of of your your committee staff, where ultimately, she convinced me that that, you know, while I I think everyone agrees with with the basic principle, you know, that we need to get, you know, greater resources to our special education students, more funding for our special education students, but that, you know, because of the concern of incentivizing over identification, among other concerns raised in the, the committee analysis, Aye, grudgingly have recognized, as I've often done, the the the wisdom of your committee staff.

And and so I would like to thank your chief consultant's work on this bill, and I fully accept the committee amendments. So the bill in its current form, achieves, the the goal of, of bringing additional funding for especially for our high needs special education students by expanding the low incidence fund, a fund that currently serves blind, heart of, you know, hearing and orthopedically impaired students to include those who qualify for the California Alternate Assessment.

These students have significant cognitive impairments representing no more than one percent of our students statewide, but they count for about ten percent of California's students with disabilities. By, modernizing and expanding this fund, we can better align our policies with, today's, you know, educational as well as budget realities. This change will help move California away from a funding model based solely on disability category and toward one that is responsive to, more responsive to individual student need.

At the same time, it'll help address the growing fiscal pressures that local school districts are facing and providing appropriate support for students with the most significant needs. With me to testify in support of the the measure, representing the Los Angeles Unified School District, Brian Ricks, and, representing the California Federation of Teachers, Tristan Brown.

You each have two minutes minutes. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Patel and members of the committee. My name is Brian Ricks, and I'm here on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District, to testify in support of Assembly Bill 2526 by Summit Member Muratsuchi. With the proposed committee amendments, AB 2526 has the opportunity to strengthen the existing low incidence disability funding mechanism by expanding the definition of students with disabilities eligible for this funding and focusing on students' needs rather than the type of disability that they have.

Due to the California alternative assessment's narrow selection process, including students who qualify for this program into the low incidence funding ensures that the formula benefits those with the greatest needs. Despite the Federal Government's promise to provide 40% of extra costs associated with educating students with disabilities, the Federal Government only spends approximately 7% of Los Angeles Unified's expenditures for special education.

Los Angeles Unified spends more than 2,300,000,000 year a year on special education, but receives just a 152,000,000 from the federal IDEA. We understand that there are concerns that increasing funding or reimbursements for serving these students will incentivize school districts across the state to over identify students with disabilities. However, there is no financial incentive for school districts to over identify as the extra cost of providing services to students with disabilities far exceeds any expected financial investment from the federal or state governments.

And a significant portion of the cost associated with student serving students with disabilities already falls within the school's general fund. We greatly appreciate if the remediation to finding ways to provide assistance for students with disabilities, and we'll continue to work with the author to fine tune this bill to appropriately reimburse school districts for the mandated services we're already providing to these students.

AB 2526 puts into practice higher investment levels to enhance special education funding to help students with the greatest needs step into adulthood better prepared for the world. For these reasons, Los Angeles Unified is pleased to support AB 2526 by some of them were Rorsitchi and urges your aye vote.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Tristan Brown with CFT. Local after local after local has come to report from the frontline where our American Federation and teacher locals have had to deal with immense cost pressures due to the unforeseen and incredible challenges that we must face when we have students with these high level of needs come to our districts. We wish there was a superhero that could come in flying through and be able to provide all the funding we require to meet the moment.

Maybe one day that they will come.

And we know it's hard to plan for this. I don't think we'd be in a a supportive position if we were asking for districts to reserve funds for an unknown event like this. But we know we can't also plan on knowing when folks will be born with certain impairments and some won't. So we're in a bit of a catch 22 in knowing when these issues will come before us. So it's a hardship that districts will always have.

We see that this bill is a step in the right direction to provide some more foundational funding to help meet that moment. Being an educator with students with these exceptional needs is some of the most challenging yet some of the most rewarding work ever. And it's imperative that we move forward in this way. Our members are truly excited when they saw these policies.

I will too jump on the bandwagon at the amazing work that your staff does to make sure that we are shepherding policy that will actually get the results that we need.

So we're very thankful that this bill will do that and that our districts and our educators will have some relief, hopefully, in making sure that these students who deserve more will get more, and this is a great way to do that. So with that, we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for your testimony here today. We will now take public comments and support. Step up to the microphone, name, affiliation, and position on the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Kordell Hampton with the Association of Conference School Administrators. We've we have a supportive amended position. We appreciate the amendments outlined in the analysis as we could get moves to go in a better direction. Once those amendments are in print, we look forward to reviewing them and continue to work with the author's office and figure out how we can better serve our students with most. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Michelle Underwood with the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education. Greatly appreciate the author's dedication to this issue. Like, AXA, we believe this bill is moving in the right direction and away from over identification. So look forward to seeing those amendments and continuing to work with the author. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now take any witnesses in opposition. We have any public comments in opposition.

Alright. We'll bring up the conversation back to the to the members. Members, are there any questions or comments you'd like to put forward at this time? Assemblymember Alvarez.

Thank you. As all fiscal matters, I have that you know, the ability to see some of these things from a different perspective, and and this is a fiscal matter that really that really is important to schools. First of all, acknowledging that you have you are identifying a real need for schools. That that is, first and foremost, I think, something we have to acknowledge. It is not my belief.

And and look, I I come from a family of siblings who were identified as special education students because they were English learners. And that happened truly happened to too many people, and it was unfortunate history in California school systems. I I I don't I think we have to be careful about that still and not forget about that history. But I also believe as someone who has a lot of family who are educators that the need is truly greater. It has grown.

It is not the the funding has not kept pace to the need, and so I appreciate that. This is not just about giving schools more money. It's about giving students the resources that they need in order to be successful, and that does come at the we need the personnel. We need the support systems, and that all costs there's resources needed for that. And right now, the funding to schools is is is filling that that hole that exists that you're trying to help fill adequately.

So certainly supportive of of trying to do this. I think the conversation needs to be you know, and there is something in the budget to provide some growth, which is the right thing to do in the proposed budget anyway. But I think it it appears to still also not fully fulfill the need. And so I think that's the spirit of your your proposal here today.

I am interested I I'd like to hear because there was no opposition, but there was some, you know, comment because I don't wanna disregard the the issue of over identification.

Can you share with me how you think this is going to be addressing that or you're getting to potentially addressing that with amendments or with work that you're still doing in that in that regard?

Yes. Thank you. You know, I I wanna first acknowledge AXA and the and the SELPA's. You know, I I focused on their their letters and their concerns. And that that combined with the chief consultant's persuasive arguments that that, you know, the the over identification I I think the committee analysis actually does an excellent job of of of highlighting the history of overidentification that it's not just a hypothetical exercise, but that, you know, there there actually has been.

And and so to to answer your question, this approach, the the low incidence fund is is limited to that 1% of the statewide enrollment population. And and so by limiting the by capping, basically, the percentage of students that would be eligible for the the low incidence fund. That that is how this proposal is avoiding the over identification.

And and I understand why you're doing that. Certainly understand the the analysis and the history there. It feels a little bit like and given that, you know, you've been here and as you said earlier in your testimony, this is something you don't wanna leave without trying to address. It still feels, with all with all respect to all of us, that this is still not meeting the mark Yeah. When it comes to and so I'm all for, you know, incrementalism to get us to the right place.

And if in the spirit of that, I think this is the right approach. But where do you think this is perhaps one of the last opportunities in this committee where you'll get a chance to have a of a voice, in this committee again on on this issue. What work remains to be done, and would you, like to see in this space given given your experience here? And and how can this particularly particular policy with your bill get us closer to that?

Again, I I appreciate your your question, and and I'm I'm hoping that, you know, this is the process of my passing the baton to to to to all of you on the on the committee to to come up with the the the real solution or the or, you know, a better solution always.

You know, originally, I I I was trying to limit or or address the issue of over overidentification while pursuing the LCFF category for, special education students with severe needs, by by limiting it to I I propose to limit it, to, the t k through three grades, you know, so that, you know, one, it would it it it would limit the pool of, the additional funding for the LCFF.

Two, it it would incentivize early intervention, by by giving the, you know, the the possibility you know, additional funding in the early years. And and three, trying to disincentivize school districts kind of like what LA Unified alluded to that that even if, you know, there

there may be an incentive financial incentive to over identify in the early years if they knew that that funding was gonna cut off after grade three, that perhaps that would be an additional incentive not to over over identify. So, I mean, I that that's the best that I that I can think of.

In in the work that you've done in this space, and I'm asking this question because I don't have the information, and it's certainly questions I'll continue to ask. What is the incidence of overidentification? Are there any is there any any research that's been presented recent on on that? And, just wanna know again, I'm I'm acknowledging that it's happened because I personally have witnessed it happened. But where where do we stand now when it as it relates to over identification of students?

Is there anyone that's doing any research in this space? Uh-huh.

Well, you know, I mean, I I want to I I'm I'm sure you I I know you always read your committee analyses. On on page seven, there's the discussion about the about the PPIC 2009 study that that, you know you know, shares, reminds

us That's why I said it was a recent one because that's now Yeah. 15 years old.

That is true. You know, I I think it's noteworthy. I I had a lot of conversations with stakeholders on on the issue, especially of of the significant increase in students on the autism spectrum the autism spectrum. Again, as the committee analysis points out, students with autism on the autism spectrum increased from two percent to twenty percent.

And I I think, you know, that was one one perfect example of how it's it's hard to I I I I I think and and, you know, the the the folks from the SELPAs probably can testify to this better than I can, but, it's it's my understanding that this goes to the issue one of the issues that both ACSA and the SELPAs highlighted, you know, trying to tie additional funding to categories rather than to, to to specific student needs.

You know, that that even within the, autism, category, there there's a wide range of needs, and there's a wide range of costs that that are imposed on on school districts. And so, you know, how do we get more funding to the students with the greatest needs, with the, you know, most expensive support needs. Yeah.

You know, I mean, definitely, number one, we need to make sure that the funding follows the student, which, you know, is is, you know, a part of this proposal in the amended version of of this bill.

But to do that on a on a broad scale, I I think is is one of the the fundamental challenges, you know, especially where the the identification of many of these special education students, you know, that that there's, you know, a lot of subjective judgment that that that, you know, goes into

the identification. In some instances, yes. But in others, you know, medical providers and professionally trained medical decisions are making determinations. And and so that data is Brio, you mentioned the autism data. Right?

It's it's not a a number that comes from diagnosis from school officials. It's a numbers that have come forward from from medical numbers. And so I just the reason I say all this is, like, then I wanna make sure that your advocacy for this, that no one feels like even if this is successful that we we can, you know, claim victory or mission accomplished here. There's there's we need to continue to do work in this space because those needs are real.

They are growing, and our schools need to support to be able to, help families in ways that families deserve to be helped.

So, I'll end it with that, and thank you again for your work on this as well, and certainly commit to continuing the work well into the future as long as needed to serve these students well.

Thank you. I I definitely look forward to continue this conversation.

Thank you for bringing this very important bill forward and for working with our committee to accept committee amendments, just making sure that that's, on on record. I I believe you said it, but I just wanna make sure. And for doing this important work, what we know is these low incidence disabilities are not necessarily ones that are low resource requiring or low support requiring, or might even require, special instructional delivery methodology, and making sure that those students get the adequate resources that they need.

We're now on the fiftieth anniversary of the introduction of IDEA. And as the witness stated, we still don't have that level of commitment from the Federal Government as promised to fund at 40%.

I think an average California, we get 10% if that in who knows what now currently. So making sure that we inch towards and move towards, adequately funding our students with disabilities and the resources and supports required is absolutely critical. It has been a priority of mine ever since I was on the school board in Poway Unified. So really happy to see you bringing this bill forward and working with our committee to make sure we can start making progress.

We also know that we are trying to move away from labels and look at specifically what are what are the supports required for each individual student as they move forward in their education rather than funding based on a certain label, whether it's low incidence, high incidence, whether it's autism, and what kind of supports on the spectrum.

It's more about what level what is the cost and what is the level of support that child actually needs to succeed. And I appreciate you bringing this forward to make sure we continue that conversation and stay focused on these issues. And with that, I'm definitely supporting your bill today. So thank you for bringing it forward. At this point, I'll bring it back to committee.

Are is there a motion or a second? We're looking for both. We have a we have a motion from Melinda and a second from Zibur. Secretary, Assembly member Marucci, will you please close?

Thank you. I really appreciate the the discussion and would appreciate your vote.

Thank you. Secretary, will you please call the roll?

File item 12, AB 2526. The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Patel. Aye. Patel, aye.

Hoover. Alvarez? Aye. Alvarez, I Bonta. Aye.

Bonta, Aye. Castillo. Garcia? Garcia, aye Lowenthal? Aye.

Lowenthal, aye. Pellerin. Seber? Aye. Seber, aye.

The vote is 6-0. The bill is out. We are now moving on to file item number seven. That is AB 2404. We have assembly member Tangipa presenting today.

Is he here? Oh, he is not here. We will move on to AB 23 sorry. File item number five, a B2325. Assembly member Alvarez.

And you may proceed when ready.

Thank you, madam chair. Yeah. We gotta keep this meeting going. We got a lot of business to handle. So thank you very much for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 2325.

This is a Pathways to Bilingual Teaching Act. If it sounds familiar for those in the committee from last year, it's because we are making some corrections to the bill from last year in a way that facilitates the use of this program. So, I'd like to thank the chair, and, the committee staff for their work on on this issue related to, bilingual education. And I'd like to accept the amendments that are proposed by the committee, which, definitely make this bill, the right bill.

So thank you for that work.

Assembly Bill 2770, as proposed to be amended, would direct the commission on teacher credentialing to administer a competitive grant program awarding opportunities for school districts, community colleges, and universities. The bill establishes a structured pipeline that guides bilingual students from high school recruitment through dual enrollment for an associate degree into an integrated credential program at a four year university, culminating at the end with what you want, which is more teachers, in this case, bilingual teachers to be employed at our LEAs.

California is one of the most linguistically diverse states. More than approximately 200 languages are spoken in homes in California. This is not a barrier to come.

In my in my opinion, it's a defining asset of our state. It's a strength for all of us. It's a competitive advantage for the future workforce. Yet, our education system has not fully embraced this strength. We face a persistent shortage of teachers qualified to lead bilingual classrooms, leaving many of our multilingual students without the proper instruction that values and develops their home language.

AB 2325 offers a strategic evidence based solution. Research and lived experience confirm that multilingual education supports academic achievement. It enhances cognitive skills, and it prepares students for a global economy. I wanna make that point one more time. My multilingual brain is one that performs better on all achievement tests and certainly in the workforce.

The evidence is unequivocal about that. Importantly, this bill empowers local partnerships. The work gets done at the local level, as you all know, who have served at the local level. These partnerships will design pathways that best fit their communities while ensuring that statewide accountability for producing more qualified bilingual teachers is adhered to. To provide testimony here today is Maria Guillen.

She is a high school math teacher at Twin Rivers Unified working to get her bilingual authorization. And we have doctor Adam Sawyer, who's an associate professor in the department of teacher education at CSU Bakersfield and president of the California Association of Bilingual Education. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Maria Guillen, a high school math teacher for Twin Rivers Unified School District. I am also a member of Ellie and teach plus teacher leader. I am here today to support AB 2325, which helps to address the chronic bilingual teacher shortage across the state. I began my journey in the district as an academic intervention specialist supporting English learners one on one.

During that time, I began to notice a consistent pattern. Many of my students were developing their language skills, but continue to struggle in core classes such as math. It became clear to me that with my skills in math and bilingualism, I could help bridge the gap between content and language in meaningful ways. That experience led me to pursue a career in education.

I completed my teaching credential through the Sacramento County Office of Education teacher internship program, which provided a valuable and accessible pathway for me as a single parent.

However, I learned that a bilingual authorization was not included within the teaching credential I was pursuing. Now after completing five years of teaching, my students continue to show me the need to bridge math and con math content and language. This summer, I will be taking additional coursework to earn my bilingual authorization. AB 2325 is critical for our future teachers. I often think about how impactful it would have been to have had a more streamlined and supportive pathway available when I began this journey.

When I look at some of my newcomer and bilingual students, I see potential in them to become future educators, like Hillary, a newcomer student who is still working to master her English language. She has cracked the code in math. Hillary can often be found helping bilingual students who are struggling with math. If we had clear guidance, financial support, and aligned coursework, this would allow students like Hillary to pursue a career as as a bilingual educator.

AB 2325 is a clear pathway to do just that.

It is not just about filling positions. AB 2325 establishes a direct bilingual teacher pipeline that will help build a qualified and multilingual workforce that our students need to try strive. I stand here today not only as a teacher, but as someone who has seen the impact of this gap firsthand and who is

If you would please wrap up you are at time.

your head. Thank you for your time and consideration. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Thank you for having me today. My name is doctor Adam Sawyer, associate professor in the department of teacher education at CSU Bakersfield and current president-elect of the California Association for Bilingual Teacher Education. I am here today in strong support of AB 2325, which creates a competitive grant program to support partnerships between LEAs, community colleges, and four year institutions of higher education to establish or expand pathways that prepare bilingual students to become bilingual teachers.

I began my career as a second grade bilingual teacher in East Palo Alto in 1996, and I've worked in the field ever since.

Since 2019, I have served as founding bilingual authorization coordinator at CSU Bakersfield, and have concurrently served in several leadership capacities statewide. Within Kern County, as is the case in context throughout the state, we have made great progress in diversifying our bilingual authorization offerings, and growing our dual language bilingual education programs through a range of partnerships between Cal State Bakersfield and our local LEAs. There has been important progress, but there's so much more left to do.

The state continues to face a persistent shortage of qualified bilingual teachers. According to a 2023 report from the California budget and policy center, the student to bilingual teacher ratio in Spanish was 240 to one with significant gaps, greater gaps in all other languages.

The funding provided by AB 2325 would allow us and others throughout the state to streamline pathways, develop new partnerships, and ultimately develop more bilingual teachers, significantly strengthening our bilingual teacher workforce. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much for your testimony today. At this time, we will take public comments and support, name, affiliation, and position only. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Natalie Shin here on behalf of Californians Together as proud co sponsors of AB 2325 and happy to help answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Hello. Megan Baer on behalf of Early Edge California.

Proud to co sponsor this bill. Thank you.

Hi. Sarah Lillis with Teach Plus California in support.

Madam chair and members, Adam Cavelan on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support.

Good afternoon. Carol Gonzales on behalf of Hispanas organized for political equality in support. Thank you.

Tristan Brown with CFT in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Any public comment in opposition? That brings us back to the members. I would like to open with chair Alvarez.

Thank you so much for being so or sorry. Assembly member Alvarez. I see still see you as my budget chair always. Thank you for bringing this very important bill forward. Years ago, we had passed initiatives to bring forward bilingual education with the bilingual credential process, and we haven't seen it take off in leaps and bounds like we had hoped at the local level.

And I think what you're doing with this bill is helping us fill some of those gaps by allowing our local communities to develop those plans and programs and pathways and providing purpose for our students who are pursuing a bilingual degree as they as they exit high school. So it's I I love what you're doing here. I'm very excited to support it. And if you would have me, I would love to be your co author on this bill. It's very important work.

And clearly, I am supporting the bill today. Bring it back to our members assembly members Zbur.

Which she said, and I'd love to be added as a co author as well. Thank you for bringing this bill.

Alright. It looks like we all wanna unlock potential here if you would like to close.

That's exactly what this is about. You know, we did have a a period of history in California. You all might remember when we banned bilingual education. And I think what's happened to the chair's point is it was it's been tough to recover. It was very tough, especially for for those who are were leading in this work and who saw the research.

The c, the research is unequivocal. Those who are receive instruction in two or more languages perform better, yet, unfortunately, politics got in the way. We then corrected that. Unfortunately, as the chair just mentioned, did not return to what we had hoped. I wanna thank the work of the committee, your team, your staff.

This is this is not the last time you hear from me on work on bilingual education. I'm a true believer as an English learner, now bilingual individual, as someone who taught my children to speak and to write and read in Spanish first, and they've learned since to be bilingual themselves. I I really believe that this unlocks the opportunity to so many things.

And I've seen the research, and I've seen the schools that have really in in areas like the ones that I represent that should not be showing the performance that they are, but they are because they're bilingual, biliteracy programs that are so effective. I wanna thank, the educators who do the work and those who prepare our educators.

And with that, respectfully ask for a vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We need a motion and a second. I see a motion from Assemblymember Lowenthal. I think I saw a second from Assemblymember Bonta. Secretary, will you please call the roll?

File item five, AB 2325. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Patel.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Alvarez, aye, Bonta.

Bonta, aye. Castillo.

Patel, aye. Hoover, Alvarez.

Castillo, aye. Garcia, Lowenthal?

Aye.

Aye.

Lowenthal, aye, Pellerin. Zbur.

Zbur, aye.

Aye.

The vote is six zero. Your bill is out, and we will hold the roll open for add ons. We are now on file item number seven, which is AB 2404, assembly member Tangipa. And when you are ready, you have you you may proceed. And each witness has two minutes.

Thank you.

Alright. Well, thank you. Thank you, madam chair and members. Today, I am here to present AB 2404, which is a bill focused on supporting the San Joaquin Valley by ensuring they have a voice in statewide decision making. AB 2404 simply requires that at least one member on a five different governor appointed governor appointed bodies includes at least one person from the eight counties in the Central Valley.

The state board of education is one of the most crucial boards for Central Valley representation. This 11 member board makes decisions that impact standards, curriculum, and the overall direction of K through 12 education. For the Central Valley, those decisions are drastically impactful, and they affect our students, our families, our schools, and the educator pipeline that supports them. Yet, despite the size and importance of our region, Valley representation on the State Board of Education has been very limited.

Since 2005, there have been fewer than five members on this from the Central Valley on that board.

Two out of those five members were student representatives. So really, three. That limited representation matters deeply for our community. Fresno Unified is one of the largest school districts in the state, specifically, the third. Fresno State has historically helped prepare more teachers than any other public institution in the state of California.

The broader Central Valley continues to grow as families move into the region, including many coming from the Bay Area. That growth means the valley is educating a substantial share of California students and facing real demographic and enrollment pressures, making representation on the State Board of Education especially important. On an 11 member board, this bill requires just one from the Central Valley to sit on the State Board of Education. That is not special treatment, and it is not disproportionate representation.

It ensures that one of the most significant regions in our area is not left out when statewide education policy is shaped.

That same principle applies to the other bodies included in this bill. Whether the issue is education, veteran services, workforce development, financial oversight, or public accountability, the Central Valley deserves to have its perspective represented when statewide decisions are being made. Today, I have with me doctor Michelle Cantwell-Copher, who is Fresno County superintendent of schools, here to testify in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Patel and members. Again, as mentioned, I am doctor Michelle Cantwell-Copher, the Fresno County superintendent of schools, and I am here today in support of AB 2404. At its core, this bill is about something very simple, making sure the Central Valley has a voice at the table when statewide K12 policy is being made. The state board of education makes decisions that shape the direction of public education in California.

Those decisions affect curriculum, accountability, standards, and the overall experience of students and families across the state.

For a region like the Central Valley, those decisions are deeply important. The Central Valley is home to large and growing student populations. We serve communities that are diverse, hardworking, and deeply invested in public education. Our region includes both urban and rural schools, fast growing communities, and families facing unique economic and geographic challenges. Those realities deserve to be part of the conversation when statewide education policy is set.

This bill does not ask for special treatment. It does it it does not create multiple seats or give the Central Valley outsized influence. It simply guarantees that one member of the State Board of Education comes from one of the eight Central Valley counties. That is a modest and reasonable step to ensure that one of the most significant education regions in California is not left without representation. Too often, the Central Valley is expected to adapt to decisions made without our perspective in the room.

This bill helps correct that in a thoughtful and limited way. Our students matter. Our families matter. And our region deserves to be heard. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2404.

Thank you.

At this time, do we have any witnesses in support? Please step forward. Name, affiliation, and position only. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the board of supervisors for the counties of Fresno, Merced, San Joaquin, and Madera, all in support. And just wanna take a second to say thank you to the author for giving the value of voice and also looking out for the best interest of his district overall. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Andrea Ball on behalf of the Central Valley Education Coalition. We haven't had the chance to take a formal position, but always appreciate raising the profile and awareness of the Central Valley and thank the author for bringing this forward.

Thank you. At this time, we'll take any witnesses in opposition. See no witnesses in opposition. Any public comment in opposition? Alright.

Seeing none there, we'll bring it back to the committee now. Before we proceed proceed with other member comments, I I want to confirm once again whether you are accepting committee amendments.

I am not, madam chair.

Alright. And with that, we do have an opposed position on this bill. I want to highlight that what we had requested in the amendments were for the author to request recommend that this this bill shift to requesting or recommending that the governor take into account geographic distribution or geographic representation when making appointments.

However, what we do see is when we single out one kind of area and name one area, and in this case, somewhat confusingly, interchanging San Joaquin Valley and the Central Valley, that can also be confusing when we have different definitions of what is San Joaquin Valley, specifically in Central Valley.

When we call out one specific area in a limited number of board seats that begins the process of of establishing that as a standard for all of our boards and commissions, especially on on boards and commissions that have limited seats, including task forces, working groups, etcetera.

And that will likely lead to an increasing number of legislative proposals that seek to do the same thing, which in itself may not seem problematic. I'm I'm looking at your facial expressions, and I'm and I'm trying to work with you here. However, what it can lead to is a system where the makeup of the board can actually over represent or under represent other regions.

And and when we are looking at legislation that looks to tackle one kind of discrepancy or issue in representation, we don't want to then, in turn, create others in that process. We wanna do it in a way that's not pulling resources away from one community and putting it into another community.

So appreciate your intent in this, in seeking representation and fair and adequate representation, but I don't think we quite meet the mark with this. With that, I will bring it to other committee members for comments.

Can can I respond?

Yeah. So, you know, I I thank the chair, and I thank not only that, the committee analysis on it. And it's just from a general understanding of the entire purpose of the bill was to make sure somebody from the San Joaquin Valley had proper representation. And and while the amendment was pretty much specifically removing that requirement on the Board of Education, we were in favor of all the other amendments that were proposed. And for but

Sure.

for me, when it comes to the board of education, education is the greatest equalizer. It is what changes people's life. It is the reason why I am sitting here today. When I grew up going to one of the poorest school districts in the entire state during the Great Recession. I went to Twin Rivers Unified, not too far from here.

I had the chance to go and play football at a at Fresno State. I met all of the connections there. I was the first person in my family to graduate from college. I I used that education to pull my family out of abject poverty, and I am sitting in this chair today because of education.

So for us, when it comes to that type of representation of people who grow up here in the San Joaquin Valley, I believe it's just as vitally important to make sure that there is a voice.

Because when we look at the population of the Central Valley in itself, you think about a county like Fresno. Fresno County has 1,100,000 people that is larger than the state of Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. You then add that to the greater region in the San Joaquin Valley. We would be one of the the top 25 states in general population if we just included that area. But often, they are not included on most regional boards.

That is just a fact, and that is a reality. That is a very that is a reality on the board of education as well. If since 2005, only five representatives have been from the San Joaquin Valley as designated in the analysis, and two of those have been student representatives that really means only three. So over a twenty year period, an area that would be considered one of the top 25 states in the nation in population, They've had a voice of three.

So while I completely understand, on the recommendation on that, it would have specifically went against what the entire intention of the bill was, based off of that.

And and I do appreciate at least working together on it.

Thank you for that. There was a question at the end of the day. Assemblymember Zbur.

So I just wanna thank thank the author. I I've I've gotta sort agree with our committee chair. I don't think that the school board is something that is like the state legislature or the United States Congress where the composition should be based on sort of only geographic representation. I mean, we need to have a range of expertise. We need different kinds of skills on the board.

And many of these boards are not something where you're basically looking at the board and saying, okay. Is there one representative for every, you know, for every geographic area? If we did that, I think it would not serve the state well. We do have an obligation to make sure that the board is serving the interest of all kids in the state of California, including kids in your area.

And I I think that the committee amendments would have taken into account in a better way, having the governor as, he's making appointments to the to the board to think about things like geographic representation overall with at least some of his appointments.

So but moving towards a some policy where we actually are gonna have next another region saying, I've gotta have my member in another region. I think that that will, in the long run, not serve the students of the state of California well and won't serve the students of your area well, even though I understand what the intention of the bill is. So because of that and because you haven't taken the amendments, I'm gonna have to vote no today. So thank you. Thank you.

Assembly member Bonta.

Thank you, chair. I just wanted to make comment and ask a question about your continued I think you've said it two, maybe three times in your presentation about the the fact that the student voice isn't actually worth anything. You've you've said that

I did not say that.

Well, you discounted them and said, basically, they're there, but we that only means that we have three, not five. Did you actually talk to the student members?

Over the twenty year period of the two people?

More recently. Yeah. Alright. Or the existing student members?

Well, I just wanna make sure that my words aren't misgroude. I did not say that they don't matter. I simply stated when it comes to the regional boards that there have been five, and two of them are student seats.

And then you said so, basically, three.

So, essentially, three on the professional end.

Which implies that their value and their contribution and their voice doesn't count.

If you take it that way.

I do. And I'm sure the students who are sitting on those boards would also take it that way. I certainly will not be supporting this bill. My understanding is that the one of the amendments that the chair asked you to take included encouraging the governor who appointed members of the SB, SBE SBE to consider the geographic and demographic diversity diversity diversity of public schools in the state.

And and because you are refusing to take that amendment, I am not gonna be able to support this bill.

Thank you.

Seeing no further comment oh.

Just briefly, madam chair, I I just wanna say as someone who's from San Joaquin Valley, from the Central Valley, do appreciate the intent, so we'd like to second the bill today. Thank you. Or move the bill today. Second the bill.

You would be our motion, and we would be looking for a second. There's a motion and a second. Assemblymember Tangipa, would you like to close?

Yes. And, again, I thank you. And I thank all of the comments because I believe that a robust, healthy debate, on our what we're moving forward is actually beneficial. So that way, you can hear everybody else's perspective as well. I do wanna make it clear.

I don't think anybody who sits on in these boards, any of their positions are diminished at all. I just wanted to make sure that I was reflecting the reality in which is happening. And, you know, I think often when people see the state of California, they forget that this is a state that has just about 40,000,000 people that is larger than the entire country of Canada. I want people to remember that this is a state that is larger than the entire country of Australia.

And maybe we should look at potentially creating geographic geographical regions because I represent a district that is larger than most states on the East Coast, where it takes me six hours to get from one area of my district to the other, and we could just be about 60 miles apart.

But we have fundamentally different viewpoints and fundamentally different problems. So it actually may be healthy to open up the robust conversation of what we've learned in our general areas and apply that. Because when you have a state of 40,000,000 people, you would never think that Alberta and Ontario or Toronto should be in the same position at all times. But sometimes, some voices have been left out.

So I respectfully ask for an aye vote to make sure that we're prioritizing the people in the Central Valley because they're Californians too.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Madam secretary, will you close please call the roll.

No.

File item seven, AB 2404. The motion is do passed to health committee. Patel?

Patel, no.

Hoover?

No.

Aye.

Bonta, no. Castillo?

Hoover, Aye, Alvarez. Bonta?

Castillo, Aye. Garcia? Lowenthal?

Lowenthal not voting.

Aye.

Not voting.

No.

Pellerin, no. Zbur?

Zbur, no.

Pellerin?

No.

The bill has four to two. It is on call. Thank you. Sorry. The vote is two to four, and it is on call.

That brings us to file item 10. We have AB 2460, and we will have, AB 2460, Celestia Rodriguez, presented by Assembly member Pellerin. And you may proceed when ready. While Assemblymember Pellerin is settling in, I'd like to make an announcement AB 2197 by Assembly member Valencia has been pulled from this hearing by the author. And you may proceed when ready.

Good afternoon, chair and members. AB 246060 is about making sure schools are ready to support students when fear, trauma, and family instability caused by immigration enforcement show up in the classroom. California already knows students' mental health needs are urgent. One in five school students experience mental health issues that interfere with learning, and more than half of young people with mental health needs remain untreated or undertreated.

A 2025 Stanford study showing that student absences rose twenty two percent in Central Valley school districts affected by immigration rates and notes how immigration rates were straining the mental health of children and school communities across California.

AB 2460 responds in a practical way. It does not create a brand new school mental health system. Instead, it updates the existing model referral protocols for pupil behavioral health concerns so they include guidance on providing equity centered mental health support in a local emergency related to immigration enforcement activities or deportation of pupils or their family members. This bill requires the Department of Education to post the updated model referral protocols by 07/01/2027.

It also requires local educational agencies to update their own referral policies by 07/01/2028 at a regularly scheduled public meeting.

Local schools would not be left on their own. Their updated policies must either be based on the state's updated model or developed in consultation with school and community stakeholders. In short, AB 2460 helps schools respond with care, clarity, and consistency when students are affected by immigration related trauma. And we don't have any witnesses here today, but I have support in case you have any questions I can't answer.

We have a motion and a second. Right. I'm getting back on track. If we have any, witnesses in support, please step forward. Any public comment in support?

Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Any public comment in opposition? Alright. Let's bring it back to our members. Members, do we have any comments today?

Assemblymember Castillo.

I wanna thank the author for this bill. I'm gonna speak as my previous work that I did as a therapist and working in clinics and working with children. I'm gonna tell you a story of a little boy. A little boy whose parents had came to The United States from El Salvador. They started a whole new family here and he was left behind in El Salvador.

He always thought that his parents didn't love him. And he attempted twice to come across the border. As a little kid, he was about nine years old when I worked with him. And his uncle was the one who helped him. The trauma that the boy had from his journey to getting into The United States.

He thought he was gonna drown crossing the Rio Grande. They were kidnapped and held for ransom until their families paid. His story to get here was very traumatizing. And I'm also a trauma therapist, so I worked with him through the stages of trauma to help him move forward from his experience. And so, I have come across a lot of kids that have these types of traumas.

This little boy in particular with the okay from his attorney, his family, his parents, and getting, of course, a release of information. I wrote a letter to the judge, and I was able to get this little boy asylum in this country so he can join his family again and stay here with them. You know, when I did his story of what he wanted to do, he wanted to go to college and he wanted to become a doctor.

You know, so just his trauma, not even just from crossing, but his trauma from El Salvador, you know, would probably have people just, you know, not even able to function. But I think the author for this bill, because when kids do come through the school system and they do need that help, those referrals are then sent to therapists like me who handle severe persistent mental health that's, you know, the school counselors or therapists at the school can't handle.

So I am thankful for this bill, and I will be supporting it today.

Thank you. Are there any other comments? I'm gonna make one for the author. So Assemblymember Pellerin, it's just a comment. What I would like to share is that while Aye, agree wholeheartedly with the concerns around mental health impacts to current immigration enforcement activities in our communities, our schools just in January went through a full process for updating their referral processes for grades seven through 12.

And so I do have some concerns around very quickly turning around and asking our districts to do this again. But I understand the context of it today. So I am supporting today. And at this point, do we have a motion and a second? And then now, Assemblymember Pellerin, would you like to close?

Sir, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on behalf of Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam secretary, will you call the roll?

File item 10, AB 2460. The motion is do passed to appropriations. Patel. Aye. Patel, aye.

Hoover.

Aye.

Hoover, aye. Alvarez. Fanta. Aye. Fanta, aye.

Castillo. Aye. Castillo, aye. Garcia. Garcia, aye Lowenthal.

Aye. Lowenthal, aye. Pellerin. Pellerin, aye. Zbur.

Zbur, aye.

The vote is 8-0, and the bill is out. And we'll leave the rule open for add-ons. At this point, we have heard all of our bills on file, and we will now lift calls. We're going to lift the calls on all bills that that require it. Secretary, please call the roll.

We'll start with consent calendar. K.

For add ons on the consent calendar, Hoover. Aye. Hoover, Aye. Lowenthal? Aye.

Lowenthal, Aye. Zipper. Zipper, Aye. So that is what is that? Nine zero.

The consent calendar is out.

The vote is nine zero. The consent calendar is out.

File item one, AB 2651. The motion to pass as amended to appropriations. Hoover.

No vote.

Hoover not voting. Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. Zbur.

Zbur, aye. 7-1. The vote is 7-1.

The vote is 7-1. That bill is out.

File item five. AB 2325. The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Hoover? Aye.

Hoover, aye. Garcia? Garcia, aye. Pellerin? Aye.

Pellerin, aye. That is nine zero. The vote is nine zero.

The bill is out.

File item seven, AB 2404. Out of the vote is due or the motion is do passed to health. Alvarez? Garcia?

No.

Garcia, no. It's 2-5. That will fail. One of them will be.

The vote is 2-5. And we'll leave it open for add-ons.

File item nine, AB 2430. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye.

Lowenthal? File item nine?

Aye.

Lowenthal, aye. Zipper? Aye. Zipper, aye. The vote is nine zero.

The bill is out.

The vote is nine zero. The bill is out. Oh.

Hold on. Let's do the

We'll go back through.

Well, let's just do this one right now. So so can you say on the mic, just like you do on the floor, vote change, file item five? Yeah. You you do it. So Vote.

Garcia vote change on file item five.

From?

AB 2325 from no to yes.

K. Wait. I didn't have okay. So it's

with the vote change, the vote is 9-0. The bill is out. Okay. So let's go back to file item seven, AB 2404, Mr. Alvarez.

No. Maybe not. Do I wanna

twenty four zero four. Okay. So file item seven twenty

four voting.

Alvaro is not voting. So that's yeah. So the final vote is two to five. That measure fails.

The final vote is two to five. That measure fails.

File item 10, AB 2460. Mister Alvarez? Aye. Alvarez, aye. Nine to zero.

The vote is nine zero.

The vote is nine zero. The bill is out.

File item 11, AB 2509. The motion's do passed as amended to appropriations. Hoover?

11.

11. No.

Hoover, no. Lowenthal? Aye. Aye. Lowenthal, aye.

Okay.

Zbur? Aye. Zbur, aye. Seven to two. The vote is seven to two.

The bill is out.

The vote is seven to two. The bill is out.

File item 12, AB 2526. The motion's do passes amended to appropriations. Hoover?

Aye.

Hoover, Aye. Castillo? Aye. Castillo, Aye. Pellerin?

Aye. Pellerin, Aye. Nine. The vote is nine zero. That bill is out.

The vote is nine zero. That bill is out. And we'll go back

Go back. For a couple add ons.