Assembly Standing Committee on Education

Good afternoon. I am calling this hearing of the Assembly Education Committee to order. We will start this hearing as a subcommittee. At this time, I would like to welcome committee members and members of the public to today's hearing. We have 24 bills on file today.

12 of those bills are on consent, and they are AB 1626, AB 1636 with amendments, AB 2008 with amendments, AB 2060 with amendments, AB 2120, AB 2241 with amendments, AB 2303 with amendments, AB 2354, AB 2524 with amendments, AB 2640, AB 2660 with amendments, AB 2675, and AB 270 sep o four with amendments.

We had originally planned to begin our hearing on special order, but we don't see one of our authors here. So we're gonna give her a little time to arrive, and we will begin with assembly member Wynne, which is file item 12, AB 2189. Please step forward. And before we begin, as a reminder, for each bill, we will have up to two witnesses in support and 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. When you come up to the microphone, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill only. Members of the public are also welcome to provide comment through the position letter portal on the committee's website. Before we begin, I do 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 the critical issues facing California.

As we proceed with the witnesses and public comment, I wanna 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 this hearing as and hear 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 rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place as permitted by the chair. Public comment must relate to the subject being discussed today, and no engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. And with that, we will now proceed with assembly member assembly member Wynne. It seems like we may have quorum.

Secretary, can you call the roll?

Patel? Here. Patel here. Hoover, Alvarez, Bonta?

Here.

Bonta here. Castillo?

Here.

Castillo here. Garcia?

Garcia here. Lowenthal, Pellerin?

Here.

Here.

Pellerin here, Super.

Here. K.

We have quorum. We do have quorum. You may now proceed, Assemblymember Webb. Wonderful.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Before I begin, I'd like to thank the committee staff for their help in this bill and would like to accept the committee amendments. AB 2189 authorizes the State Council on Developmental Disabilities to award a $800,000 grant over three years to support a statewide effort to train and connect parents of students with disabilities. This effort will provide families with the tools, training, and coordination they need to understand their rights and advocate within California's special education system.

Recent federal federal actions have significantly reduced the capacity of the US Department of Education to oversee the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

As a result, the states are increasingly responsible for ensuring compliance and protecting the rights of students with disabilities. With the Federal Government no longer upholding the IDEA, the responsibility to protect and ensure the rights of California's 800,000 special education students fall on us. AB 2189 provides a practical solution to this gap. Over the span of three years, this bill will lay the groundwork for the creation of a statewide special education parent action network.

The organization receiving the grants will be tasked with conducting outreach, training, and bringing leaders together to inform students in special education and their families about their rights and how they can advocate for themselves.

AB 2189 is an effort to strengthen coordination and uplift the parent voice when it comes to special education. The amend the amendments provided clarify by reinforcing the intent of the bill, providing definitions, establishing a competitive grant process, and incorporating a reporting mechanism into the bill. With me to speak in support of the bill is Cindy Liu and Jane Chen. Both are parents who can speak to the need of this bill.

Thank you. Excuse me. Good afternoon. Thank you, chair and committee, for this opportunity. My name is Cindy Lu.

I'm a parent. I'm on the board of the Arc of California. Most importantly, I have a child with IDD. Learning the language of IDEA and navigating the IT process is often the first rite of passage for parents like me. It's scary and lonely, and the stakes are very, very high.

I've learned that even when you win a settlement or due process, you don't actually win because a ruling in your favor doesn't mend A Bruised spirit or rewind fourth grade. But I'm lucky and privileged to be here today. I can dedicate energy to improving the system, not just surviving it. And that's why I'm here in support of AB 2189 because representative parent voice should not depend on luck or privilege. Here's some incoming tough love.

California has been rated, needs assistance for two more consecutive years. Meaning, we have not fully met our obligation under IDEA, and nearly forty four percent of students with significant disabilities are not graduating. They're not even they drop out and they're not getting anything, not even a certificate. That's devastating for families and our state. But I've also seen what parent voice can do in collaboration.

The Inclusive College Alliance, a collaboration of parents and college educators work together to get AB 447 passed in $2,000,000 for the California Center oops. The California Center for Inclusive College, a first for our state. But it took nearly a decade of volunteer time, and AB 447 is a baby step. And the Center for Inclusive College fifteen years behind other states. It's evidence that parents voice work, but we can't leave the burden exclusively on parents.

A B 2189 fixes that. It sustains and scales coalitions upstream where policies and legislations are crafted in the rooms where it happens for our Hamilton fans. I ask for your aye vote respectfully.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jane Chen, and I have been a pediatrician in California for thirty one years. I served on the board of Special Olympics Northern California and served on the board of the Silicon Valley Down Syndrome Network. I was appointed the district representative for our county wide special education administrative group or SELPA. I also serve on my superintendent's advisory committee.

But most importantly, I am the parent of three, including my daughter who has Down syndrome. Through the decades in my general pediatrics clinic, I have listened to the many struggles of families who have children with disabilities with their school districts. As a volunteer in the special education community, I heard even more problems that families have had with their school districts. For example, as my school district's community advisory committee representative, we parents had concerns of low inclusion rates for students with disabilities in our county.

Research shows better academic outcomes and employment opportunities for students with disabilities who are included in regular classrooms.

California trails behind the nation in inclusion rates of students with disabilities. We are the fourth lowest in the nation. Currently, there is no statewide coalition where we can work together to improve inclusion rates for our students with disabilities. We need to do better. We need a better network, a collective system where local groups like PTAs, family resource centers, and local organizations work together to elevate parent and community voice.

We need a collaborative system of oversight where you, our elected officials, can hear directly from your constituents. AB 2189 is the bridge we need. I respectfully ask for your support of AB 2189. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony today. At this time, we'll take any public comment in support. State your name, your affiliation, and your position only at the microphone. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Many thanks to the author for bringing this bill forward, Jordan Lindsay, with the Arc of California, one of the sponsors of the bill, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other public comment in support, do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, chair and members. Janice Canallon, Family Voices of California. On behalf also of Parents Helping Parents and support for families of children with disabilities, I wanna thank Assemblymember Nguyen and the committee staff for the, extensive work on the amendments. This version represents a big improvement. To be clear, we agree with the intent of this bill.

Families need stronger support, clearer information, and a coordinated voice in special education, but we need to be careful about how we build that. AB 2189 proposes creating a statewide effort to train and connect caregivers and parents and strengthen advocacy. However, California has a network of family led, community based organizations doing exactly this work, supporting families, building leadership, and advocating at both the local and state levels. The issue is not the absence of parent voice.

It's the recognition of it compounded by inconsistent investment in the systems that already elevate and support that voice.

If the goal is to truly strengthen and connect families, then the solution should build on what it exists, not replicate or compete with it. We welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the author's office and build a collaboration across all stakeholders. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any public comment in opposition? Thank you. With that, I will bring it back to the dais. I wanna start by sharing my, deepest thanks to Assemblymember Wynne and working with our staff to make sure there was added specificity and your continued work on this bill, with the opposition to clarify any potential for redundancy or duplication of effort. So thank you for continuing to do that.

Are there any questions from our colleagues here up in the dias? Miss Bill, do we miss Fonta? Assembly member Fonta.

Thank the author for bringing this forward. Certainly, assembly member, you've been the biggest champion in the world for our children, especially our children with disabilities. And and I think I'm most taken by the testimony of one of your witnesses that essentially said that you had to work for over a decade for just a little bit.

And I'm very thankful that with the continued coordination with your, you know, other disability rights advocacy groups and parent groups that you will be able to land this in a very important place for us.

Being in the school at being in school districts and working school districts throughout the state of California and being on school board, I know that all of this falls at the feet of parents who are struggling just to make sure that California meets a better standard of care and educational opportunity for our children with disabilities.

So I wanna thank you for the work, and, I would love to join as a coauthor at the appropriate moment.

Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you for that.

With that, I'd love to hear a motion. Alright. There's a motion and a second. Assembly member, when would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair, and thank you Assembly member Bonta for the words. And she's right. You know, you've got three moms here, three women of color who have children with the developmental disabilities, and we're advocating for this because we don't see it in the schools right now.

We don't see it in the community right now. And I I heard opposition talk about something that already exists. But when you have three women three women of color, one that is in the medical world, one that's been doing this for decades, and we still feel like that's not enough. I feel like there are ways in which we wanna work together and we wanna do this.

But when you hear that we are the fourth lowest and California is supposed to be leading in this area, and we're supposed to be more inclusive.

That doesn't sit well with me. It doesn't sit well with any of us. It shouldn't sit well with any of you at all. Being the fourth lowest is an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment that we should elevate.

It is an embarrassment and an opportunity for us to do better, to be better, and to take the lead in showing everybody that California cares about students, about kids, about adults, about individuals with disabilities. And with that, thank you, madam chair. Thank you, members. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam secretary, will you please call the roll?

File item 12, AB 2189. The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Patel. Aye. Patel, aye.

Hoover, Alvarez, Bonta.

Aye.

Bonta, aye. Castillo.

Aye.

Castillo, aye, Garcia.

Aye.

Garcia, aye. Lowenthal. Pellerin. Aye. Pellerin, aye.

Aye.

Ziburr.

Ziburr, aye.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

The vote is six zero. The bill is out, but we will leave it on call for added votes from members. So at this time, we will take up the consent calendar. Madam secretary.

The consent calendar motions

are we

need a motion on

the consent calendar. Okay.

Okay. I'll go in a second.

Did I read this before? Yeah. Go ahead and read your

At this time, while we're taking up the consent calendar, I'd like to make a special shout out on AB 2241. I wanna take a moment to recognize the civic engagement of a group of students in the fifth and sixth grades and staff team at La Costa Heights Elementary School for their work on AB 2241, assembly member Burner's bill that is on consent today.

Their idea is for California to establish a model standards for inclusive school playgrounds based on universal design, so all students may use the playground and engage in play. I am pleased to join Assemblymember Berner as a principal co author of this bill. Madam secretary, can you call the roll on the consent calendar?

The consent calendar motions are as follows. AB 1626 do pass to appropriation. AB 1636, do pass as amended to appropriations. AB 2008, do pass as amended to appropriations. AB 2060, do pass as amended to appropriations. AB 2120, do pass to appropriations. AB 2241, do pass as amended to appropriations. AB 2303, do pass as amended to appropriations. AB 2354, do pass to appropriations. AB 2524, do pass as amended to appropriations. AB 2640, do pass to appropriations. AB 2660, do passes amended to appropriations. AB 2675, do pass to appropriations. And twenty seven zero four, do passes amended to appropriations. On the consent calendar, [Roll Call]

The consent calendar has seven zero votes. It is out, and we will leave it open for add on votes. We will now move on to file item one on special order. It is a B2615, with Assemblymember Zbur and Assemblymember Addis. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you so much, Madam chair and members, and wanna say a deep heartfelt thank you to your staff, who have helped work on this bill. I am here as Co-vice Chair of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus and also as joint author with Assembly member Zbur, who's really been a champion of this effort of AB 2615, which is the cleanup bill to important legislation AB 715 that was signed into law in 2025.

And as I have shared many times before, for the first 21 years of my career, I was a public school teacher, a teacher leader, a CTA member, and a San Luis Coastal Teachers Association, Site and Executive Board Member. And during that career I had the honor of fighting for teachers and making vital gains in working conditions and wages.

During that time, I also taught students in special education and in English learner and dual immersion programs across K12 public schools and had the honor of teaching English, math, history, social science, and science, and accompanied special education students into general education classrooms and other curricular areas.

And at the same time, I taught hundreds of students with differing abilities, primary languages, races, ethnicities, religions, economic backgrounds, and more. And I share all of this because of the breadth of differences in California schools. But one thing is common across every single classroom and across every single school in California and that one commonality is that as teachers, we are the people responsible for ensuring that every student leaves our classroom knowing they have learned something, and it's the teacher that is responsible for that.

And what the data says about learning is that it happens best when students have two things, when they have an entrusted adult in the classroom and when they have a classroom and school community that is safe, supportive, welcoming, and affirming. And those are the times when learning is unleashed and that children can become who they're truly meant to be.

So last year, we passed legislation and many of you were supportive of that legislation to ensure that, Jewish children and all children have such an environment, one that's free from unlawful discrimination. And now we are back in front of this committee to make minor but important changes that fulfill promises that we made to bring cleanup language this year, to AB 715.

So I'll turn it over to my colleague, Assemblymember Zbur, joint author and member of the caucus to explain this cleanup language in more detail.

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. I wanna start out by thanking my joint author, Assemblymember Addis. And today, we are here and proud to present AB 2615. I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments, and I wanna thank the chair and the committee staff for working so closely with us on this. Last year, the legislature passed our bill AB 715, which was the sole priority bill of the Jewish Caucus.

With a total of over eight hours of hearings and presentations and over 500 members of the public coming to the capital to register their position on the bill, AB 715 was one of the most debated bills in recent history. We heard from a wide range of perspectives and taking the concerns from education stakeholders to heart. Assemblymember Addis and I committed to coming back and making a good faith effort to work on four specific issues that were highlighted in the hearings.

AB 2615 honors those commitments. Specifically, this bill strikes references to standards of professional responsibility, which stakeholders flag was difficult to define.

Second, the bill clarifies that instruction must be factually accurate within the meaning of Section 60200. Although we didn't believe there was ambiguity, this clarification incorporates the existing education code standards which allow teaching of arts and literature. Third, it clarifies that the superintendent must ensure that local education agencies admit all violating portions of instructional materials that are found to be discriminatory. And finally, it includes a technical amendment requested by the Department of Education.

I'd like to thank the education stakeholders who have worked with me and Assembly Addis and our staffs in weekly meetings over the last few weeks.

Like all bills, AB 2615 is a work in progress, and I look forward to continuing those conversations as this bill continues to move through the legislative process. My my number one priority is and will always be for all students, every student to be feel safe, accepted, supported, and welcomed in their schools. Discrimination of any kind, whether it's antisemitism, racism, Homophobia, Transphobia, or bias against any religion is absolutely unacceptable and has no place in our schools.

I feel confident that everyone here today shares the same goals, and I look forward to continuing the work together on this bill. I ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. At this time, we will take any public comment in support. Step up to the microphone. State your name, your affiliation, and your position on this bill only.

My name is Dena Bloom. I'm a founding and current trustee of the Karsh Family Social Service Center located in Korea Town, but I am here in my personal capacity, and I'm in favor of this bill. Thank you.

Seeing no other witness public comment in support, we'll take witnesses in opposition. Please step up to the table.

Good afternoon, madam chair, members. Usama Muqaddam here with the California chapter on the Council on American Islamic Relations, the nation and state's largest Muslim civil liberties organization. I'd like to register an oppose unless amended position for the record with very specific asks of the authors and the legislature at large.

We along with SEIU California and the California Faculty Association, in addition to over 120 other education, civil rights, and community organizations, unfortunately did not have the opportunity to submit formal opposition as this bill went into print just a day after last week's letter submission deadline. This bill is also one of two assembly bills currently attempting to address the concerns stakeholders highlighted with AB 715 last year.

The other bill is assembly member Garcia's AB 2159, which unfortunately is currently being prevented from having its submitted amended amendments printed. AB 2615 unfortunately falls short of all three core concerns stakeholders have been trying to engage the author in addressing, all of which came up in publicly recorded hearings last year.

First, doctor Kenneth Stern, a Jewish genocide scholar and the lead architect of the definition widely known as the IRA definition, a definition referred to in AB 715, has publicly in the media and in various congressional hearings denounced its use in statute due to the chilling effect it creates on free speech. The issue here is not citing hate, it's defining specific forms of hate in an education code that already provides sufficient definitions and parameters.

We're seeing this in real time and how this definition is being weaponized by our Federal Government to intimidate students in schools, even here in California, attempting to extort the UC for $1,200,000,000 under the guise of protecting Jewish students.

Second, it's been communicated to the author of SB 998, Senator Gonzales, another bill attempting to address components of AB 715, companion bill, SB 48, that we urge all hate prevention coordinators, to be subjected to the standard civil service hiring process and not be political appointees. And to be consistent and equitable, the same should apply to the antisemitism prevention coordinator established by AB 715. We don't know what the political environment will look like in the future.

You are at time. Please reference.

Thank you.

We urge this committee to remember the conversation that unfolded and at the end of last year's session, and we push for these reasonable amendments to ensure that we effectively address all forms of hate. Thank you.

Thank you.

CTA has an opposed and less amended position on Assembly Bill two six one five. My name is Seth Bramble, and I'm Jewish. Some of my closest friends growing up were black Jews, and there are all kinds of Jewish people in this state with very different views about the issues we're discussing this afternoon. Last year, the conversations became painfully personal with personal attacks on the California Teachers Association and on me personally.

As a Jewish person, I do look back and see harmony in the fact that the California Legislative Jewish Caucus defined our approach in law to combat antisemitism.

And so it was written over the objections of every major statewide education organization, groups who take on the role of defending public education and ensure our classrooms provide all students an opportunity to learn. And we now have in statute an office of civil rights and an antisemitism coordinator who's gonna give us resources to identify and prevent antisemitism, keep our schools up to date about relevant laws and regulations, do reporting about antisemitism.

We're seeing in our schools, work with our schools and counties and the CDE explicitly calling out a restorative justice approach to harm that occurs. While we didn't agree to everything that was put into the law last year, I can accept the outcome, that has occurred. But, members, what I cannot accept is what's happening right now, and we can't accept what's happening right now.

Last year in the final days of session, the authors told the members of this committee that they were committed to cleaning up the factually accurate language. They were presented with many, many examples of why the factually accurate language is not workable in our schools, and I'm happy to provide you more of those examples this afternoon.

This provision in the bill is only one issue out of 20 that were enacted, and it is the one issue where they agreed after hearing the examples that the language was not workable and would stop educators from being able to do their job. That's what we do in cleanup legislation. The author's language and accepted amendments today do not meet those commitments.

We've proposed amendments. I passed them out through the sergeant to preserve the phrase factually accurate as it exists elsewhere in the education code. These changes that we were proposing protect Jewish students while.

You are at time, Please wrap it up. Ensuring that the status.

One more sentence, can provide a well rounded education. If left as amended, the bill will have serious consequences for teaching and learning that will hinder education rather than support it. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony today. If there are any public comments in opposition, please step up to the microphone. State your name, your affiliation, and your position on the bill. Thank you.

California Faculty Association, Cal State Northridge, and the California State University Council for Ethnic Studies. Opposed unless amended.

Andrea Terry, California Faculty Association, professor at Sacramento State, opposed unless amended.

Symphony Barbee on behalf of the ACLU Cal Action and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair. Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SEIU California. Respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Hi. Zoe Rivka Penagopoulos. I'm a granddaughter of holocaust survivors and a Jewish parent. I'm also the cofounder of Richmond Jews for Palestine and also Richmond for Palestine, and I live in Assembly District 14. I'm also an SF State alum, home of the school that in 1968 led to the establishment of the first ethnic studies program in our nation, and I oppose this bill.

I'm Ann Wolf, educator from Richmond, California, member of BUSD Jewish Parents for Collective Liberation, and a proud member of SEIU Local ten two one. And I'm here representing not only myself, but the many, many, members and workers, of my local who were not able to get off of work today on such short notice because they have jobs and.

Would Like to. Please state your name, affiliation, and position of thank you.

And I oppose this bill.

Leandra Wells with the California Family Council. Respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals who respectfully oppose unless amended this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Derek Lennox on behalf of the California County Superintendents, and I respectfully oppose unless amended, but do appreciate the author's movement on the issue of instructional material adoption.

Good afternoon. Carlos Machado with California School Board Association. CSBA is respectfully in a oppose a less amended position.

Patricia Doherty, chair of the Palestine Task Force on the California Nevada Conference of the United Methodist Church, also cofounder of Sacramento Bethlehem Sister City, and a member and chair, actually, of the reconciling social justice committee of First United Methodist Church in Sacramento, and I oppose this bill.

Good afternoon. David Mandel with Sacramento chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace. I'm also a retired human rights and civil rights attorney. The two people who testified did a good job of laying out the.

Name, affiliation, and position on the bill only. Thank you.

Right, I urge you to oppose or at least put on hold this bill. I'm appalled that the bill that was also.

Please name affiliation and position on the bill only. We're being equitable, so we have to stick to that. Thank you.

You should hear all proposals regarding this the corrections to this bill. Thank you.

Just a reminder, please state your name, the affiliation you represent, and position on the bill only. Thank you.

My name is Maya Steinhardt. I'm a Jewish teacher here in Sacramento, CTA member, and I'm strong opposition to this bill.

My name is Mariah Cornell. I'm a member of Jewish Voice for Peace Sacramento, and I oppose.

Ranjit Tate. I'm an educator, parent of children who've been in the Cooper Fremont Union School District, member of JVP, and of Hindus for Human Rights, and I oppose this bill.

Seth Morrison with the Jewish Voice for Peace and Congregation Beitikun, and we hope that 2159 will be heard. Thank you.

Doctor Aloni Castro, I'm a physician, an Oakland member of Indivisible East Bay, and I oppose this bill.

Hi I'm Deborah Duenas. I'm a Jewish mother and grandmother. I worked for ten years in a high school in Marin County. I'm also a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and Baytikun synagogue, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.

My name is Barry Priceler. I'm rich, tired, professor of political science specializing in Middle East politics and history. I oppose this bill.

Anna Rogers, District 12 is my area, San Rafael. And I'm a mother, grandmother, other family members, long history of many, many family people. I have a now well expired credential myself, teaching credential in California. And this is just I'm with.

Name affiliation and.

All the Christian I'm with every organization I can find to have truth care recently too that I can find that will finally bring honesty and justice to to our schools and allow full honesty for our teachers and safety for our teachers to speak the truth.

My name is Haiganoush Preisler. And as a member of Armenian families who have experienced genocide denial in schools, I oppose this bill.

Diana Vu, on behalf of the Association of California Administrators, in respectful oppose unless amended position, I look forward to working with authors to further prime the bill. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm doctor Eleanor Levine, professor American, California State University, East Bay, member of Bayt Cocoon congregation. I am a World War two baby. I know what is at stake here. I am very opposed to this bill and hope you will too.

That brings us to a close on our public comments and witness testimony. I wanna thank the authors for honoring their commitment to work on this policy further, and for their efforts to reach an agreement with the education community, at least partway and to keep working on that, and with me. You worked closely with me.

We spent so many hours trying to work to get to some amendments that could fix some of the issues with the previous bill that were well outlined, the ones in AB 715. We all know that these are highly challenging issues to work with.

I also wanna note that because this bill was referred after our amendment deadline, the analysis shows, no support or opposition as some of the comments made, but there are letters on file which are viewable by the members here, in our internal system. This bill makes some progress on some very, very important issues that need to have progress made on, relating to instructional materials and the standards of professional responsibility. That's important, and we need to move that forward.

It also removes any new proposed requirement that all instruction be fair and balanced and foster critical thinking, which would have raised additional new issues. However, it does not address one critical issue that has been raised time and time again, and that was at the heart of our debate.

The requirement that all instruction be factually accurate in the manner that I'd hoped to have absolute clarity around that. I continue to have some serious concerns about how this requirement could harm teaching in the classroom and learning in the classroom for our students, and it could possibly be weaponized against the very communities that it's trying to protect.

But this is where we are, and it's very, very important in my view to keep this vehicle moving because of the important fixes that it makes in sections related to CDE implementation and the handling of offending materials. So I sincerely hope that you as the authors will continue to work with our education coalition stakeholders. It's important that we clarify that this will not be used to target or weaponize against teaching and learning in the classroom.

Our teachers have enough on their plates already with all the challenges that they're facing in the classroom. We don't want this to be weaponized against them. And with that commitment from the authors, because I know their hearts are in the right place, I will be supporting this bill today because of the important fixes it makes and the reassurances from our authors that will continue to work on making sure it's not weaponized against teaching and learning.

And with that, I will leave it to our members to put in any comments. Who wants to go first or questions?

Assembly member Garcia, you may be in.

Thank you, madam chair. I I just wanna start off that by by saying that, you know, I know this is a difficult bill. I know it's difficult last year, but sometimes that's what's needed. Being uncomfortable to see the truth about what's happening. And it should be okay to say it.

So my concern with this bill is that it doesn't address as the three things that my fix it bill attempted to do that is not being heard. As as we can see with the opposition here today, there's no consensus that this is a fix. Specifically, my bill 2159 dealt with the free speech concerns that this has a chilling effect on teachers and on the education community which came here in opposition. Secondly, that the antisemitism coordinator is a political position.

I'm concerned about in June what that might mean. And lastly, as was pointed out by our madam chair, the issue with factual information. So the bill that was put forth, 715, which last year was put forth, I think took on a very myopic view of what education is, that is just a teaching of facts. And I I wanna commend the analysis that was done by the committee, and I'd like to to read from the analysis if that's okay.

Educators have always been expected to provide accurate information, their instruction, and follow state adopted curriculum. Establishing these expectations as a matter of law.

However, raises a number of important concerns. Is it reasonable to require teachers to ensure that everything they say during the school day is actually accurate and free of opinion? Beyond practical and political concerns, an emphasis on factual accuracy reflects a narrow view of teaching and learning. And I I would just say that the standards start third fourth grade where students learn the difference between fact and opinion. And they continue on to high school where they learn different types of writing.

They make arguments, and those arguments are based on facts. So the four types of writing are narrative, descriptive, expository, and persuasive. The only one that just deals with facts alone is expository. But they move on to persuasive where they make an argument. They take a personal opinion and they support it with facts.

And I've had conversations with the author and the co author. And I wanna posit this question because, you know, we learn about history. Our social studies teachers do a fantastic job. They have to cover a lot of standards. And so they cover World War two and the genocide.

The mass murder of Jews. And between 1939 and 1945, approximately 6,000,000 Jews were murdered. Now that's a fact.

I would like to know if saying that the actions of the German government under the Nazi regime were horrible and should never be repeated, is that a fact? There is mass murder taking place right now. And what was frustrating about this process last year is that it was wrapped around protecting Jewish students.

When the real intent, I'm stating the elephant in the room right here. The real intent was to silence folks. And that was the frustrating part. And I know my colleagues go along to get along, but that's not what I'm here for. This does need to be amended, and I urge a true fix. Thank you.

Assembly Member Zbur, would you like to address any of the statements or concerns raised by our colleague, Assembly Member Garcia?

I mean, the thing I'll say is that we agreed last year to address four very specific issues. I mean, this is not a do over of the bill. Last year, we had more debate on this than any other bill in the legislature, and we agreed to address four specific things. With respect to factually accurate, what we agreed to address was the issue related to whether or not this would prevent appropriate teaching of art and literature in the schools.

I don't actually think that that is actually a real concern, but I know that that is a a legitimate concern that's being raised by the opponents. And so what we did in this and what we when we said that we would address factually accurate, it was related to that set of issues.

What is before the committee today after the back and forth that we had with the Chair and the staff is an amendment to the factually accurate language, which basically says that factually accurate is within the meaning of paragraph 3 of subdivision C of section 60200.

Factually accurate is already a standard that applies in our education system. It applies to the adoption of to the adoption of materials, and factually accurate has never been interpreted in that section of the code to basically prevent the teaching the appropriate teaching of art and literature.

So what our bill does is that we believe it does address the issue that we agreed to focus on by making sure that it is clear that when that the standard of factually accurate is interpreted in the same way that it is when instructional materials are being approved.

And I just wanna say that there's sections with respect to instructional materials apply to all instructional materials, not just a subset of them. And so, you know, when it is a common principle of statutory interpretation, you apply the rule of reason and you don't actually interpret statutes in a way that achieve absurd results.

So I actually don't think, even though I know this was a legitimate issue that was raised in the hearings last year. And we, at that time, heard it and we decided we agreed to come back and try to address it. I don't actually think it's a real it's a real issue in the way that this would be interpreted.

But we have, given the commitment we made, actually come back with language that makes it clear that factually accurate is interpreted in the same way that it is in other parts of the education code.

Assembly Member Bonta.

Can I respond? Thank you. Madam Chair, I just wanted to respond briefly. I'm not sure the arts and literature conversation. But I do wanna, as the author did, take a look at the language that's being agreed to an amendment. So when I'm looking here, it says instructional materials.

Including but not limited to materials adopted by the State Board or any governing board shall be factually accurate and. And means in addition to. So you have to stop there and say they're saying instructional materials shall be factually accurate, shall be factually accurate.

Instructional materials are broadly defined by the education code and encompass, as the author said, all materials used by teachers and students as learning resources. Not just textbooks, state approved curriculum, but also teacher created handouts, posters, visual aids, formative assessments, and even spontaneous representations drawn on a whiteboard.

So when we say all materials, all instructional materials must be factually accurate and. Like, I walked my granddaughter to school today. I think it should be legal for her teacher to read her Green Eggs and Ham when she gets to third grade. I'm being serious.

Like, there's a conversation here saying, well, we kinda understood it last year, but now, you know, we don't think that that's... Like, the commitment was made for a reason because we walked through a number of different examples of problems. When she gets to third grade, I think we can all agree animals don't talk. But when she gets to third grade, her teacher should be able to read her Charlotte's Web and should not be accused of advocacy for animal rights.

So we can say, like, we're presenting you very specific examples of how this could be very disruptive to the core work that our educators do, and it feels very dismissive to be like, well, now we don't think... Like, the commitment was made for a reason.

So to say now we don't think we have to do that, like, you know, we got a problem. It's unacceptable. Like, the Members of this Committee heard those commitments, and I think we need to make this change or see, like, really huge significant negative consequences in our schools across the state.

Assembly Member Bonta.

I wanna thank you for certainly giving us an opportunity to review the cleanup of AB 715. I think I remember full well the intensity of feeling I had about the, in our hearing about the bill, the inability for us to be able to review that. So I'm glad that at least with 715... Sorry. This cleanup 2615, we have an opportunity to at least have a discussion.

I will just kind of note that it's a bit frustrating that we aren't able to hear the full compliment of people who are both supportive and opposed to this bill because of the kind of lateness of the ability to review the language, understand the analysis, and have the public really speak to that.

So just it's a note about our process. We are where we are. But I did wanna make comment about that. I have a couple of specific questions about the language as it stands now with the amendments. The first is around the requirements of the SPI when instructional materials are found to be discriminatory to ensure that local, the LEAs omits all violating portions of the instructional materials.

I wanted to just flag that as an area of concern given that a couple things are happening. One is that the SPI typically that we rely on the State Board of Education to review and approve all instructional materials. We also know that there's a proposal on the table that we will hear in this hearing later on that changes the role of the SPI.

And I'm wondering if there's any consideration about how that process would work given the fact that, A, those kind of instructional reviews happen more in under the purview of the State Board of Education. And two, the role of the SPI, should that budget proposal or this proposal that we are hearing now be changed, would make this particular amendments difficult or moot in terms of being able to carry out with the role of the SPI?

I'm not... So what provision are you referring to, Assembly Member?

The requirement that the SPI, when instructional materials are found to be discriminatory, ensure that LEAs omit all violating portions of the instructional materials. So we're making our requirements of that function that...

I understand that.

By the individual to go back and basically move into an enforcement's role in order to be able to review educational materials and make decision about that and then also ensure that those materials are removed.

I understand the question. I'm sorry. I just wasn't following before. I think that's a fair point. Obviously, this is drafted from the perspective of the existing framework that we operate under, and it was, that language was added in part because there was some ambiguity about who made decisions. And so that was in response to some of the education stakeholders. But as the other reform provisions move forward, that may be something we might have to look at. So.

I do believe in the current framework, should that proposal not be, the new governance proposal not be considered, there's still ambiguity about whether or not the SPI individually would be the appropriate enforcement agent around that. So if we didn't change anything, I think I would still have a challenge with that particular, the structure of that.

We're happy to look at that. I mean, I don't think we have agreement from all the stakeholders, but there was that was in response to some of the stake stakeholder discussions, and we'll be happy to continue looking at that. The purpose of that was really to try to have...

The concern that was raised last year during the hearings was what happens when you have offending materials, and are we gonna end up with school districts not having materials available to kids in the classroom if they're found to be offend, if they're found to be offending? We've been trying to work through that, and, obviously, the current amendments allow for only the portions to be removed. Right?

And so part of the discussions with the education stakeholders is sort of who makes the, who is effectively making those decisions, and that was sort of the best place we could land at this point, but happy to continue working with you and others about that issue.

Right. I appreciate that. And that kind of speaks to a very specific point within the actual, our actual ability around implementation of this. And I will move to the second area of concern that I have, which is around the with even with the amendment, the amendment that instruction shall be factually accurate within the meaning of paragraph 3 or subdivision C of section 60200 and blah blah blah.

Is I would love to be able to have a conversation around the intent of that, the intent of that amendment and language as it is drafted right now. Because I could imagine a world if there if the intention includes that that factually accurate piece happens bell to bell.

I could imagine a world where, I'm in a 9th grade history class and I am a student in a class. And the teacher is doing a unit, and in one, on one day, you know, for one period, on a Monday, we're focused on a particular subject matter that presents an opinion with the adjoining underlying fact or position, I should say, of that exists. And then on the next day, not within the bell to bell, the alternate fact pattern position would also be shared.

So that is happening across two days or across a unit. And so I'm wondering just from an implementation standpoint, how legitimate is it for us to be able to think that a teacher is going to be able to meet the requirements of this as it is drafted and then also, I believe, as it's intended?

I think that all of these provisions are read with a rule of reason as basically the backdrop to interpreting all laws that we pass. And the fact scenarios that have been that have been raised, I don't think are ones that this would prohibit. I think this language, the entire provision is consistent with current California education code policy.

And it consolidates this in this place so that, parents and students have an ability to go to a to a principal and basically, in one place, basically show that that California education policy is not being followed when it's actually harming kids.

But and I'll just take that scenario of the parents having a, take the example that I offered. And the parents calling the principal after a student comes home on the Monday, and then the additional unit information is shared on the Tuesday. And the challenge or just spread it over a week. Right? Or a month, like, because units take six to eight weeks to happen. And I think, quite frankly, this is more expansive than what is currently in statute.

So I'm asking questions more on the, like, the very practical pragmatic process of teaching and learning and wanting us to continue to be able to support the process of teaching and learning while also protecting our Jewish community from being discriminated against or any community from being discriminated against for that matter. And the insertion of this seemingly impractical standard within that process.

So and I appreciate that you don't believe that there is a concern, but I am also appreciative of the fact that I am a legislator and I, in all instances, have to understand the impact from the people who will be participating in that process. And what I thought I heard from obviously the opposition that's here and the long line of people who were in opposition that they as teachers believe that there is going to be a challenge around the teaching and learning process.

So I would like to hear just perhaps from the teachers around whether you believe that there is a, if it's possible to implement the idea of factually accurate within this time, you know, given the example that I offered. And then also would love to have, obviously, Ms. Addis who I, Assembly Member Addis who I respect, who is a teacher to be able to or has been a teacher to be able to explain that for me.

Thank you so much for the question, Assembly Member. And I think that I think all of us would agree. We don't want anything in this bill to be weaponized against teachers. First and foremost, this is about making sure that we have welcoming affirming environments for all children and that the instruction itself is part of that. I would say, you know, one, we wanted to get a clean up in front of all of you.

Right? That was the commitment we made. We're trying to carry through on that promise on an issue that had a lot of discussion last year. It's continuing to have a lot of discussion, but certainly didn't wanna miss the opportunity to get this in front of you.

On the question around, you know, units go over time and you may get certain information on one day and you may get a little bit of different information on the next day. I think this is, I'm trying to interpret what you're saying about, you know, you may learn something on Monday and build on that on Tuesday and Wednesday, and that may change things.

I think that would absolutely be a situation that would be allowed under this bill. As a teacher, the way I would interpret this is that I'm an impartial, not arbiter, but impartial deliverer of information in a classroom. So if I'm teaching an opinion piece, I'm teaching all about that opinion piece, but it doesn't stop me from teaching that opinion piece, if that makes sense.

Some of our curriculum, you know, the arts and the literature is really based on opinion and it's based on interpretation, but it's not my interpretation as the teacher. It's me delivering the information and teaching students the critical thinking skills so that they can interpret that.

Other parts of our curriculum are very much based on fact, and there is a fact and there's not a fact. And so, you know, the teacher is delivering that part of the instruction without inserting their personal opinion and bias.

The one other thing that I know you wanted to ask our witnesses as well. You have the same sort of set of issues with the approval of materials. You can actually the instructional materials may actually have in one portion of a lesson one part of a of a lesson, and the instructional materials that were approved might have the other portion of a lesson and another lesson.

And that has never been viewed to be violative of of section 60200, which is why we've actually included that qualifier in this bill so that it clarifies that the way you treat factually accurate is the same way that it's treated when you're dealing with instructional materials.

I just wanna also just hold my scenario in your response. I also wanna get at the kind of fair and balanced piece, which I think is tripping me up a little bit. Is fair and balanced to be interpreted, like, 50/50? Like, how does that...

So the fair and balanced came out of the bill.

Okay. Right. Thank you. Alright. So lose that. Just stick with it.

Thank you for the question. You had mentioned also that it's not the same...

Please address the Member through the Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh, I got lost. Okay. So there was a question about whether this applies, you know, the same code section. Like, that code section that's being applied here is about the state adopting instructional materials, and we are greatly expanding it when we adopt it to when we apply it to all instructional materials that are used in a school setting. That's not the same.

It's not even similar. It's a very big expansive change, and I just wanna provide a couple of examples of why factually accurate is not workable. So who won the election in 2020? If you, if you ask that president, you know, if you ask our president right now, who gets to decide what the facts are?

Or who will we spend the precious, like, are we gonna be spending the precious resources that we are provided for counselors, for hands on science, or we're gonna spend that money instead on litigation? The factually accurate line includes a phrase that it's gonna be illegal to bring in bias, personal opinion, partisanship, or advocacy into our teaching and instructional materials.

Teachers won't wanna mention anything that's being debated on Capitol Hill, whether that will be climate change, vaccines, LGBTQ identity for fear of accusation or legal consequences. It's the job, it's our job as educators to discuss these things.

As, you know, my granddaughter grows up, I wanna live in a state where it's not illegal for her to be taught about other works of fiction, novels and plays that explore themes and spark creativity. I'd like her to celebrate Black History Month. I know that was mentioned in the analysis.

Perhaps most relevant to the issues we're discussing, current events require presenting multiple viewpoints to encourage analysis and independent thought. The language that was enacted last year was heard for the first time in the Senate Education Committee after the amendment deadline when no changes could be made to the bill.

During that committee, some common sense implementation problems surfaced, especially surrounding this phrase that all instruction and instructional materials shall be factually accurate. I know it was just mentioned that the language here incorporates 60200.

When you look at that second amendment, there is a separation there between that code section and the line that says instructional materials adopted by State Board or any governing body, and it says including but not limited to, that means all, shall be factually accurate. It stops right there. It doesn't reference the code section, and then it says and, and there's another provision.

But that does not pull in 60200 to that very clear statement. So during that Senate Education Committee, some examples that came up. Senator Cabaldon had pointed out that he used the Broadway musical Hamilton to get students excited about government.

The authors agreed and said they would clean up the factually accurate language this year, and still this language that I'm referencing remains in what's supposed to be a cleanup bill. The bill then went to Senate Judiciary Committee where, again, the authors made a public commitment to clean up the factually accurate language.

The authors made commitments to the legislature every step of the way to clean up the factually accurate language, and this language does not clean up that factually accurate language. The California Teachers Association is committed to working together to combat antisemitism and foster inclusive schools.

However, AB 2615 must reflect the commitments made during AB 715's passage. Without adjustments, the factually accurate language creates significant barriers to education, and we urge you to adopt the proposed amendments that were circulated.

Are there any other questions from the dais at this time? I do have one clarifying... Oh, Assembly Member Garcia.

Yeah. To stress the point on the factually accurate, you know, I think even on this dias, we would we would have different answers for those questions. Is climate change caused by human activity? Is it factually accurate that there are only two genders? So it's very problematic language that is still on this. And regarding the issue of commitment.

When I spoke with the co-author, Ms. Addis, last summer, her commitment was that this bill would be done right and it would have the support of the education community. That is not what we have today. That commitment has not been fulfilled.

And so I'm gonna insert my personal opinion here. I do feel that AB 715 has been inflicted upon us and it hurts, it hurts educators and students, and is a very Trumpian bill. It restricts free speech, and there has not been a good faith effort to remedy it. And I don't expect there to be, sadly.

I have a clarifying question for the author or either author at this time. You cited the rule of reason as a counter to some of the examples that were cited around factually accurate.

As someone who's not an attorney and doesn't understand how that's applied in ed code, can you explain how that would protect against some of the examples that are being presented today that, animals don't talk, that climate change, human impacted climate change is happening, that there's genetic variance in gender and how it presents, etcetera, etcetera?

I mean, you know, basically and it's not just in the ed code. It's in all all statutes. There are, there's bodies of laws that apply on how you interpret statutory provisions, which oftentimes use language that doesn't have, you know, specific detailed definitions.

And basically, those principles basically say that you use a rule of reason, you look at what was intended, and you use a rule of reason to, interpret those statutes, and you don't interpret statutes in a way that basically results in absurd results. And I think when you apply those to this law that the issues that are being raised are just not, you know, are not the outcome of this of this provision.

You know, I think we agreed to address four specific issues last year. One of them was the issue with factual accuracy related to literature and art, and I do think we've made a good faith effort to do that. And we've explained how that is done with this language. Not everyone may agree with it. I mean, we never agreed to come back.

We agreed to come back in good faith and work with all of the all of the stakeholders and do our very best to come to some kind of consensus. We're still committed to doing that. This isn't the last stop for this bill. But we can never commit to to come up with something that, we can't commit for someone else to agree to something. We can just commit to work in good faith to try to address concerns.

And one comment that opposition witness had mentioned was the separation of the factually accurate section with an and. Are you open to clarifying that to ensure that that section, what was it, 6200 applies?

Yes. I mean, I think we're always happy to look at that as well. I mean, I think the the concept the witness here, it is accurate that the provision we're citing deals with the adoption of instructional materials by the State Board. And this the goal of this bill was really to make sure that this instruction materials that are actually potentially harming students are also picked up in the bill.

And so we're applying the same standards that apply to State Board approval to all those, but we will look at that provision. We've been more focused, frankly, on the instruction provision because I think that was the part where it was not sort of embedded in existing code provisions, but we're happy to come back and continue dialogue on that provision.

Thank you for that. There continues to be concern around this, and I wanna make sure that we are able to address it as we move the other very, very necessary fixes along in this process. Thank you. There is a motion and a second. Assembly Member Bonta.

Thank you. And I wanna appreciate the work that you all have put in, and I do believe that everyone has been operating in good faith in moving forward with the clarification around the amendments to the prior legislation, which I was able to be supportive of.

I still maintain some have some concerns particularly around the and clause here effectively around the, you know, personal opinion on controversial issues, you know. Why different opinions related to what could be controversial and what could be not. This is now beyond the scope of just ensuring that our teaching and instruction and learning environments are not antisemitic.

It's now we are talking about application of law that would apply to every subject matter in every teaching and learning process. And given the concerns that I have in this committee right now with the language and the amendments as they stand right now, I don't have the luxury of having an a support unless amended or oppose unless amended position.

I only have the ability to vote within the confines of what I am available to do. So I'm very much hoping that this bill, and I'm sure it will get out of this committee. As it moves through the process that some of these clauses can be clarified and strengthened. But at this point, because I have only my vote in this moment in time right now, I'm not gonna be able to support this.

And I very much hope that you all will be able to continue to work, as I know you have, in good faith with the best intention to be able to ensure that we have some of the, from my perspective, kind of implementation challenges, the process of teaching and learning not interrupted in the way that I believe that this current language is listed, respectfully.

You wanted to be recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to add a little bit of context around your question. I think you posed a very pointed question around the reasonable piece. And I think I can speak on behalf of our civil rights attorneys when I say that that is the very concern around the factually accurate piece coming from us as well as other civil rights partners.

Because the factually accurate piece operationalizes the different interpretations of what is deemed as hate or discrimination. And that is enough to preclude, and that doesn't preclude a party from filing a lawsuit against a particular school district, you know, based on that interpretation.

And that is the very thing that we are saying is creating the chilling effect in classrooms. And we've seen it at the higher ed level, you know, where students are being picked up by ICE because of their political activism due to the operationalization of these definitions.

And we're afraid that it'll enter our k through 12 classrooms, and we don't know, you know, to what extent, you know, that will damage a teacher's ability to be confident in the material and the instruction that they're engaged in. So I just wanted to add that point as a practical component.

Because I know that the Assemblywoman was concerned with how this is implemented in the classroom, and that is what we are seeing, you know, based on what our civil rights teams are hearing from teachers and parents alike. Thank you.

Thank you for that input. With that, Assembly Member Zbur.

Yeah. I just I just wanna say that the issues related to factually accurate were the subject of litigation that were briefed in significant detail, and the federal court with a Biden appointed judge basically found that there was nothing unconstitutional.

There was nothing problematic. There was nothing that lacks enough specificity with respect to how factually accurate was contained in the law. So that was a ruling and a preliminary injunction, but the ruling was very strong. And so I just wanna say that I don't believe that there's constitutional or legal infirmity with respect to the law as it currently exists.

And so but we are nonetheless we made the commitment to come back to try to address some of these issues because I know that there are concerns that were raised and we agreed to come back. And so this is what where we are at this point. We also are, you know, we will continue to work with the education stakeholders as the bill moves forward.

Thank you. And with that, you if you would like to close or respond.

I'll just say thank you to the Chair. Deeply grateful to everyone on this committee for your collaboration, your partnership. We've had a lot of discussions. I think my colleague talked about the numerous hours last year that was spent on this, and I'll remind all of us of the, you know, the overwhelming support, the governor's signature, the litigation where this was upheld.

And reiterate that nonetheless, even with all of that, we're committed to keeping our word, of course. And should the committee pass this out, then we will continue to work on this. This is what it looks like for us to keep a promise that we made, and we would be honored to have your support in that.

Yes. Please close.

And I wanna thank the Chair, the Committee Members, and actually the witnesses today. You know, this topic challenges us to have difficult conversations that we need to have in order to do what's best for the students of California. And this is an opportunity for us to try to come together around goals we share and decide what the future path will look like.

We all want students to receive a robust public education that prepares them to think critically, treat others with dignity and respect, and live their lives authentically. AB 2615 is an opportunity to make progress towards those goals, and I look forward to continue to have meaningful conversations with stakeholders and with all of you as the bill moves forward. And with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item one, AB 2615. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

The vote is five zero.

The vote is five zero. The bill is out, and we will hold the roll open for add on votes.

Thank you.

And we will now call assembly member Solace on file item sixteen and eighteen. First, we'll hear AB 2365, and then AB 2496. And you may you may proceed when ready.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair members, for the opportunity to present AB 2496. I appreciate the committee's partnership and would like to accept the committee amendments.

Thank you.

I look forward, to continue the work, together to refine the bill. California school accountability system is long overdue for modern modernization. AB 2496 takes a common sense step by consolidating duplicate reporting requirements and screening tools for families and educators. Currently, our schools are required to maintain two overlapping accountability systems, the California school dashboard and the school accountability report card, known as SARC. AB 2496 seeks to prioritize and streaming California school dashboard as the state's primary transparency and accountability tool.

The bill would establish a process to review SARC's data requirement to ensure they are publicly available and easily available to other places like dashboard. With the intention of ultimately pa phasing out SARC. The bill would also provide a local control and accountability plan, LCAP mid year reporting requirement is optional. Importantly, this would allow us to maximize our educational resources to ensure that they are focused on what matters most, our students.

With me today, testifying support is, Doyle Martin, principal at Sandra Gallardo Elementary School, and doctor Corey Grenlaw, assistant superintendent of the education innovation and supported division for the Fresno County superintendent schools.

Your witnesses each have two minutes. Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam chair and committee members. My name is Doyle Martin, and I am proud to serve as principal of Sandra J Gallardo Elementary School in the Folsom Cordova Unified School District. I'm here today on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators in support of AB 2496. I have served as a principal for nearly fifteen years across a wide range of school communities, including schools that were a 100% title one and others that were more fluent and well resourced.

I also serve as a principal coach for aspiring administrators to the Sacramento County of Education.

Throughout my career, I've worked with historically underserved and underrepresented communities where families have faced poverty, trauma, housing instability, and limited access to resources, including foster youth and undocumented families. I've also worked in communities where families have an abundant of resources and high levels of education. These experiences have reinforced the importance of clear, accessible communication with all families. In my role, the California School Dashboard is the primary tool I use to communicate school performance.

It guides our school plan for student for school plan for student achievement, informs our school site council, and provides families with a clear visual understanding of how our students are doing.

It is accessible, easy to understand, and for many families, it is the main source of information about their school. For families deciding where to move and send their children to school, the dashboard is a primary source of information. In contrast, the school accountability report card or SARC, while well intentioned, does not serve that same purpose. Even before the dashboard existed, the SARC was difficult for families to navigate. It is often lengthy, text heavy, and can exceed 20 pages.

For many families, especially those who may face barriers related to literacy or access, it is simply not an accessible or practical tool. As a result, it does not effectively support transparency or meaningful family engagement. Principals have a lot on their plates. Time spent on updating the SARC could be spent in classrooms supporting instruction and valuable time with with students.

The California school dashboard already provides a comprehensive and user friendly view of school performance, eliminating eliminating duplicative reporting like the SARC allows us to focus on what matters most, students, instruction, meaningful family engagement.

Your time is up. Please wrap up.

I respectfully ask for your aye on AB 2496. Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam chair, members. My name is doctor Corey Greenlaw. I'm the assistant superintendent at the Fresno County Superintendent of Schools. I'm here in support of AB 2496. At its core, this bill sets in motion a process to modernize how we deliver transparency and accountability to families, educators, and the public.

For years, California has operated with two parallel systems, the school accountability report card or the SARC, and the California school dashboard. What AB 2496 does is not eliminate transparency, it strengthens it. By designing the dashboard as the state's primary accountability tool, this bill ensures that families continue to have access to the same critical information, student achievement, school conditions, and performance data, but in a format that is more current, more user friendly, and easier to understand.

Dashboard provides timely actionable data rather than static reports that are often outdated by the time they are published. Importantly, the bill also safeguards access to historical information.

It calls on California Department of Education to preserve the SARC data and create a clear crosswalk so that any information previously found in the SARC remains accessible and easy to locate. This is a thoughtful approach that maintains transparency while improving usability. From a county office perspective, we see we see firsthand how duplicative reporting requirements impact our districts, especially small and rural LEAs. Maintaining both SARC and dashboard systems require significant time and resources without adding meaningful value to students or families.

AB 2496 allows us to redirect that time and effort where it matters most supporting student outcomes.

Additionally, the bill provides flexibility for separate midyear LCAP update requirement, which has become another layer of reporting that often duplicates information already captured in the annual LCAP process. In closing, AB 2496 strikes the right balance, preserves transparency, improves accessibility, and reduces unnecessary administrative burden. On behalf of the office of the Fresno County Superintendent of Schools, I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your presentations. At this time, we will take public comment in support. Please step up to the microphone and state your name, your affiliation, and position only. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Dan Rowan on behalf of the California School Boards Association. Proud to cosponsor this bill and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon. Sarah Petrovski on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials, also a proud cosponsor. Request your aye vote.

Cristina Salazar with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools in strong support.

Nick Romley on behalf of the Small School Districts Association in support.

Thank you. At this time, are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses in opposition, any public comment in opposition? Step up to the mic. Name, affiliation, position only.

Unless you're a tweener.

I am a tweener. May I?

You had that look on your face. Yes. Yeah.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Rachel Murphy with Public Advocates. We appreciate the effort to modernize and streamline any reporting mechanisms, and we also appreciate the committee amendments, which we understand that the author is accepting. Our concerns really revolve around just the practicality and the accessibility for parents.

The SARC is currently a simple PDF where parents can get comprehensive information about their child's school and then compare that to other SARCs for other schools. That is the stated purpose of the SARC, and we just wanna make sure that we're not losing that in our efforts to make things more efficient and reduce duplication.

We're also we're hoping to have further conversations with the author's office and with the sponsors to discuss how the crosswalk will work and the dashboard updates to ensure that it remains as accessible as a simple PDF is for parents to scroll through rather than clicking through multiple web pages and navigating and filtering. And our other concern is the potential removal of the midyear update for the LCAP and LCFF budget overview for parents.

That is something that we hear about from our community partners who are parents who are engaging in that LCAP process and having that midyear update provides information which then helps them address how the funds will be spent for the remainder of the year as well as preparing for the next year's LCAP.

And so we're hoping to continue to have conversations and just wanted to share those concerns.

Thank you. We will now bring it back to the dais. I do wanna confirm that the author is accepting our committee amendments.

Yes. Correct.

And I wanna say that as a former school board trustee, which I often draw from my own experience, read many SARCs over my time, and do understand the history and context of those reports. And wanna state that some of the amendments we talked about were ensuring that all the elements that are reflected in the SARC could get housed somewhere before eliminating it completely just to ensure that our community members continue to have that transparency that they need. And appreciate the author's continued work.

I know you're a very committed author to policy. I know that you will continue to work with opposition to make sure we don't have any blind spots as we move forward.

I will be supporting your bill today. Are there any questions or comments from our assembly members here at the dais? Do we have a motion? So with a motion and a second, would you please close on your bill?

Thank you, madam chair, and happy to present this bill today with the committee. I appreciate the engagement, of course, of your team and your staff and committee members. Definitely committed to continue working with our folks with any additional concerns or feedback. And again, thank our friends and family at Accesswell as well for the Wednesday statements today. And with that, I ask for a second for an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam secretary, we have a motion and a second. Will you please call the roll?

Aye.

Patel, aye.

File item 18, AB 2496. The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Patel.

Hoover, Alvarez, Bonta.

Aye.

Aye.

Bonta, aye. Castillo.

Castillo, aye. Garcia, Blumenthal, Pellerin, Zbur. So, yeah, three to zero.

The vote is three to zero. The bill is on call.

I'll be back.

Thank you. Thank you.

He's not here. So it's Johnson. Do we have Johnson? No. No.

Next, we'll hear file item five, AB 1750. Assembly member Closa, you are up. You may proceed when ready.

Awesome. Can't say good morning anymore. Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1750. Thank you to the committee consultants and staff for all of your hard work on this bill.

AB 1750 is built on a principle that we must all stand for, that teachers, the people who show up for our kids, our young people, our children every single day should not have to pay the price for things outside of their control. This bill ensures that when a certified or classified school employee exhausts all available sick leave and must remain absent due to illness or accident, that they will be able to continue to receive their full salary for an additional five months.

It's a policy grounded in dignity, stability, and respect for the essential workforce that keeps our schools running every single day. Our teachers, paraeducators, bus drivers, custodians, and school staff are more than just employees. They are the backbone of our education system.

They show up for students in moments big and small, often going above and beyond their job descriptions. But when life takes an unexpected turn; when a serious illness, surgery, or injury occurs, too many of these dedicated professionals are forced to choose between their health and their financial security. This legislation says clearly that in California, we take care of people who tirelessly take care and educate our kids. It's also important to recognize the financial reality many educators already face. Even before a medical crisis, too many teachers and school employees are stretched thin, working in one of the most demanding professions while earning salaries that often do not reflect the value of their work or the cost of living in our state.

In many communities, educators take on second jobs and still struggle to keep up with the rising cost of living, including housing and health care cost.

On top of that, teachers routinely spend their own money on classroom supplies covering everything from the most basic necessities to books and learning resources just to make sure their students have a fair shot at success. Providing a full salary for up to five additional months offers a critical bridge during some of life's most challenging circumstances. When teachers and staff can fully heal, they return to the classroom and the workplace stronger, more focused, and better able to serve.

By providing the safety net, we not only improve retention, reduce turnover, and preserve institutional knowledge that directly benefits students. With that, I am proud to welcome Raul Gonzalez, a TK teacher with Visalia Unified.

You have two minutes to proceed.

My comments by saying this is a very emotional topic. So if I break up a little bit, just bear with me. Good morning, chair, committee members. My name is Raul Gonzalez, and I'm a transitional kindergarten teacher at Visilla Unified School District and Visilla Unified Teachers Association, a member, speaking on behalf of California Teachers Association in support of AB 1750.

CTA believes that all educator employees should have access to paid short term disability benefits. Currently, differential pay systems focus school employees to bear the the uncapped cost, and my eyes are getting buried because my ears here, of our substitutes after exhausting their sick leave. When we exhaust their sick leave and are still too sick or too injured to work, the bills don't change. They keep coming. Having to pay the cost of a sub for five months can be financially ruining, particularly for newer employees.

In extreme cases like heart attack, severe injury, or cancer- there are those emotions- the bill would deliver stability for those workers. I want to share a story about my sister, who's a special ed educator and also is at one of our local high schools as a teacher educator, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and had to fight through a breast mastectomy. Later, a reconstruction surgery and also go through the battle of cancer.

As a single mother of a severely handicapped adult, she's a sole provider of her daughter.

When she exhausted her sick leave after two years or more of the fight she had to go through, she once told me, "I can't die because who'll take care of my daughter?" She barely survived her cancer and is well now, but she almost was ruined financially. The cancer relapse is always in the back of her mind. No person should have to be penalized for being too sick or too injured to work.

I think AB 1750 allows employees like my sister the focus to recover and not the threat of having to pay those bills. And for those reasons, I'm in support of AB 750. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony today. At this time, we will take any public comment in support. State your name, your affiliation, position on the bill only. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair, committee members. Brian Miramontes, California Teachers Association in support as well. Thanks.

Good afternoon. Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Any others? Alright. This time, we will take any witnesses in opposition. Please step forward. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators respectfully opposed, for two main issues, the staffing challenges and, of course, the increased cost. The changes by AB 1750, we believe also need to include the full perspective of other existing leave time allowances, return rights, and the thirty nine month rehire practices for those who have exhausted their sick leave, and other considerations to support students during prolonged absences.

At the end of the day, regrettably, this bill would create longer windows for staff to be on leave to the detriment of students and their other employees. And for some, certainly not all, but for some, it could create a paid off ramp to another job.

Regarding the staffing challenges, the demand for substitutes would be increased, and recently, schools lost the ability to retain substitutes for sixty days. We're now on a thirty day revolving door. And for special education, who, students need the most security and consistency, that's a twenty day revolving door. So we're particularly concerned about the challenges there. Costs, of course, cannot be ignored.

So these dollars would come from the same Prop. 98 dollars used to support students, other staff salaries. A similar bill that would have provided roughly three months of leave was estimated to cost $500 million annually. So for these reasons, we remain respectfully opposed, and appreciate your "no" vote today. Thank you.

Any public comment in opposition? Step up to the microphone. State your name, your affiliation, and your position on the bill only. Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam chair. Michelle Gill on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in opposition and also on behalf of my colleagues at Kern County Superintendents of Education. Thank you.

Cristina Salazar said on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools in respectful opposition.

Jaylen Woodard on behalf of the Alameda County Office of Education, Dublin Unified School District, Hayward Unified School District, Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, Newark Unified School District, and Precision Unified School District in respectful opposition.

Nick Romley on behalf of the Small School Districts Association, technically opposed unless amended, and our concerns were outlined in our letter. Thank you.

Rachel Scicluna on behalf of the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools and the School Employers Association of California in respectful opposition.

That concludes testimony on or for public comments. I wanna bring it back to the dais. I completely agree with the author and applaud her for bringing this bill forward. It is unacceptable for teachers to shoulder the absolute burden of covering costs for their substitute teachers while they're on leave.

The policy of making teachers pay for the cost of their substitutes further exacerbates the the pay gap in a very female dominated profession, And we really need to address that at some point in time, and this makes meaningful progress towards that end.

Policy also makes it, untenable, or yeah. Untenable for teachers who need to take leave of absence without this policy. So thank you for bringing this bill forward. Yes. I understand that there isn't a a cost responsibility that'll come along with this, and that is a conversation I'm sure you are continuing to have in other rooms.

But in this space, this is definitely something we I'm excited to support today, making meaningful progress. I'll turn it over to the dais. I'm assuming assembly member Bonta is next.

Thank you. I just have a couple questions for the opposition and also want to thank the author for bringing forward this bill when I first had an opportunity to review it. I said, is is this really possible? Is this really still happening? So I guess my first question is to the opposition.

Are you able to identify any other industries or places of work where the individual who is out on extended leave has to pay for their replacement?

Not that I'm aware of, but I think another way to think about this is instead of paying for the replacement, the individual who's out on leave is getting half pay or reduced pay or their extended leave once they've exhausted their sick leave and other leaves that are afforded to those employees either based on state law or their collectively bargained agreements at the local level.

Okay. And then are you aware of any instances where you indicated that one of the challenges is that you believe that people may use this as is the existing law as a means to be able to have an extended off ramp to another position? Do you have any evidence or data to support that?

I have anecdotal data from our

Do do you have any actual HR data from your counties or school districts?

I I don't have statistical data. This is not yet in place, so it'd be hard to predict how many would potentially take advantage of this as opposed to those that, you know, genuinely need the additional time. So because it's not yet law, I'm not able to provide that that data.

Yeah. I just I think that we have to understand instances where and I just wanna also just stop and and thank you for representing your sister so beautifully with such grace and passion and bringing her story to life.

And if I may, the second reason my sister fought was for those kids that she taught.

Yeah. Exactly.

And getting back to work.

And that's true. That I think our our educators are in this for the reason of making sure to be able to be there for their children. And I I can't imagine a world in which we require our educators who give their lives. They're not in it for a year, you know, give their lives to educating our children where they have to be put into a situation of financial distress in order to be able to support their replacements. No other industry works in that way.

Very thankful to you for bringing for this bill. And of course, I will be supportive of it and I offer a motion.

There's a motion in the second. Any further discussion from the dais? Assembly member Coloza, would you like to close?

Thank you to the committee for your support. Thank you to the chair, and so great to see you as chair of this committee. So excited for you. Just to add to what you already heard from our wonderful witness, we know that 70% of teachers hold another job just to make ends meet. This is this policy is is certainly not helping.

We also know that there's a, you know, teacher shortage across the country. So having policies in place like this to attract people to the workforce, to make this a profession that they wanna have, that they can sustain themselves, especially when they're in their most vulnerable moments is is so important. So respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We do have a motion and a second. Sec madam secretary, will you call the roll?

Aye.

File item five, AB 1750. The motion is do passed to appropriations. Patel.

Patel, Aye. Hoover, Alvarez, Bonta.

Bonta, aye. Castillo.

Aye.

No voting.

Castillo not voting. Garcia.

Lowenthal, aye. Pellerin, Zbur.

Aye.

Garcia, aye. Lowenthal.

Aye.

The vote is four zero. We will place it on call.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next up, we have file item four, AB1644, assembly member Marisucci, followed by file item 17, AB2440, also Marisucci. And you may proceed when ready. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I would like to present assembly Bill 1644, the Bell to Bell smartphone ban. First, I'd like to accept the committee amendments reluctantly, and I let I'd like to explain why I'm reluctant. AB 1644, first of all, is a bipartisan bill to enact a school bell to bell smartphone ban for all California schools. I wanna share my my, personal history on this issue.

As a parent of a teenager, I I remember in 2016, I I first saw a article written by professor Jean Twenge from San Diego State University in the Atlantic magazine article. It was entitled, have smartphones destroyed an entire generation.

And that was one of the first articles that highlighted, you know, the the impacts on the social emotional well-being of our students, not only of the excessive time being spent by our youth on smartphones, but also, you know, of course, the the related issue of, you know, the excessive time spent on social media with all of the the social emotional impacts on our youth.

That led me to introduce the the first bill, I I believe, in in the state legislature to to ban or restrict smartphones in California schools. And as the the staff of this committee know knows, that bill was amended down to authorizing school districts to ban or restrict smartphones.

I recognize that that change comes slowly, but, you know, it was it was five years later that members of this committee and myself, we introduced the follow-up legislation to adopt a a requirement for all school districts to ban or restrict smartphone uses in in in school districts.

You know, given that there has been, you know, just overwhelming evidence showing the impacts of, you know, not only on the social, emotional well-being of our youth, but growing evidence of of smartphones in classrooms and at schools being a distraction undermining, you know, the education of of our California students and and especially, you know, having an impact on socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.

So that is what has been the well, an ongoing development of of this nationwide movement to enact statewide bell to bell bans on smartphones at schools. We know as the committee analysis indicates that there are at least 10 states that have adopted bell to bell bans, including the the states of New York and Texas.

I believe that the state of California should follow the the the leads of of those states, But I understand, and I respect, madam chair, your respect for for local control as well as the timing of this bill that, you know, school districts, you know, have been engaged in the process of developing policies over the last year and a half.

And that it's my understanding that you did not want to, you know, interfere with that process, especially with the high school students, which, you know, I I know we had many conversations about how high school students, they they may have employment after school, they may have extracurricular activities, and that there those that feel that there should be an exception for for high school students.

And so with the committee's amendments, we will be proposing together with mister Lowenthal, mister Hoover, and miss Wicks, our colleagues, this bill to enact a bell to bell smartphone ban on school grounds during school hours for the t k through eight years and to recommend a ban for the high school years, but to allow common sense exceptions. I had a a conversation with mister Garcia, a career educator.

You know, I wanted to make sure that we made exceptions for teacher administrator approved educational purposes as well as for for any health and safety needs that may be necessary to have access to smartphones on school grounds. So with that, I I would like to thank and and welcome Rishan Marawa, who is a representative of GENUP, as well as Jose Torres, representing TechNet.

You may proceed. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, honorable chair and committee members. My name is Rishan Marwaha, and I'm a freshman from Orange County. And I urge your support for AB 1644 on behalf of students across California. Right now, learning is not just being interrupted. It's being completely corroded.

The average teen spends over eight hours a day on their cellular devices, much of it doomscrolling, and that does not stop when we walk into the classroom. Half of the room is trying to learn while the other half is trapped chasing notifications, videos, and fake dopamine hits. And even the students who want to focus cannot because this is not a fair fight.

We're expected to learn while surrounded by devices built by multibillion dollar companies and the top psychologists of the world, working with the best, to keep us addicted. That is not a fair fight, and we're losing it right now.

The system we have now is not working. Students say they need the bathroom. They don't. They go on their phones, sit there scrolling completely disengaged for minutes at a time. Minutes turn into learning that we never recover permanent damage.

That is not education. And unlike the 2024 bill, this bill sets a clear, enforceable bell to bell standard across all classrooms. No loopholes, no ambiguity, and no confusion because this is about equity. Right now, your ability to focus depends on your school, your teacher, your ZIP code. That is unacceptable.

Students in under resourced schools already face more barriers. This only widens the gap. And, yes, emergencies matter, but schools handled them before smartphones even existed. We still can right now. This bill this bill gives us something back that we lost a long time ago, a real chance to focus and a real chance to learn.

I urge you to pass eighty one six four four. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Two minutes.

Good afternoon, chair members. Jose Torres on behalf of TechNet in support of in strong support, actually, of AB 1644. As a technology trade association, we strongly believe in the power of technology to expand opportunity and enhance learning in meaningful ways. Many of the tools students use today and digital use today such as digital platforms, educational Apps, and connected devices are opening doors that didn't exist a generation ago.

But with that opportunity comes the need to be intentional about how and when technology is used, especially in the classroom.

School is one of the few environments designed for focused in person learning, collaboration, and skill building. Creating more structured time during the school day helps to ensure students can fully engage with their teachers, their and their peers while still benefiting from technology in appropriate guided ways. For students, that structure is particularly important. It helps build strong learning habits, supports attention and engagement, and reinforces the social skills that are foundation under long term success. This approach is not about limiting technology.

It's about using it thoughtfully, and that is where TechNet and our member companies believe that technology, when used thoughtfully, should expand opportunity and improve lives. That also means understanding when it doesn't belong in the classroom. The bill strikes the a balance by giving districts a clear practical path to create more focused learning environments. This bill ensures that technology remains a tool to support education rather than compete with it.

I do wanna note that while we we do agree with the author's comments on the amendments to this bill, that being said, we respectfully do ask for your aye vote on this bill.

Thank you. Thank

you. At this time, are there any public comments in support, your name, affiliation, and position on the bill? Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Tristan Brown with CFT. In support of the bill in print, likely to remain in support as amended. So thank you.

Hi. Jordan Curley on behalf of Common Sense Media support, also here for Mothers Against Media Addiction in support.

Good afternoon. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics California in support.

Thank you. At this time, we'll take any witnesses in opposition. Please step up to the table. You have two minutes. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Dorothy Johnson, again with the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully opposed. And I would say our concern is maybe less about what the bill is trying to get to, but the approach it takes. I wish I had a time machine. I could go back two years when 1316 was under consideration, and we were talking about Bell to Bell and the the impacts of phone use, on students.

But, unfortunately, that's not where we're at today. We have been heavily engaged on this issue, and student well-being has been at the forefront and continues to be as we're looking at these different, bills for the legislature or as we're defending existing laws, in our courts. But and we've heard from our members who have seen firsthand the smartphones, what they do, the the damage, the distraction, for health and mental health and academic success.

However, we have LEAs that have just adopted their policies under AB 1316, or they are sending their policies to their board this month or next month for enactment in the new school year. So it's making them do a double take of what did their outreach to stakeholders, their surveys to parents and students, the cost analysis, the academic research they've done, the pilot programs they ran.

What is that saying? Sort of a just kidding. This is not what you need to do just twelve months later. And so it's it again, it's making them do that that double take. But we've very much appreciated the opportunity to meet with the author, talk about these amendments, appreciate the committee's work on this bill, tough lift our concerns.

But we would want potentially to go further with a delayed implementation. The last go round, we had eighteen months to carry out 1316. This we see is shorter. We would wanna clarify that community engagement is not required for K-8, there's only one option, Bell to Bell ban.

So why are we going to ask our stakeholders to engage and give feedback when there is only one choice? They will receive notice, of course, when that board policy is adopted through the student handbook and other parental notifications. So we know we are at one step in a much longer conversation and look forward to having an ongoing dialogue about this.

Thank you.

We will now take public comment in opposition. Step up to the mic. Name, affiliation, and position only. Thank you.

Nicole Young, Placer County resident in opposition.

Marissa Vismara, on behalf of the California School Boards Association, respectfully in opposition. Please note we submitted our letter a little late. This contrast to the local autonomy and flexibility of school board districts and county office education. They're the ones at the local level.

Name, position and affiliation only.

Thank you.

Alright. We will bring it back. I do have some comments to make before we proceed with discussion. I wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. We spent a lot of time discussing this bill.

He is well aware that I come from my the last eight years I spent on a school board in Poway Unified School District. So I have contacts throughout the region in San Diego. I made several contacts and had conversations with superintendents in the area and learned of the extensive work our school communities were doing with their local communities to engage. For example, you know, in in Poway Unified School District, we interviewed or got responses from 12,000 individuals.

In San Diego Unified, they did focus groups with 60 students throughout the district with policy groups, PTA, and staff.

So there has been an extensive amount of communication. I understand that there's tension between students feeling distracted in the classrooms, the pressure to get badges and likes, and to to doom scroll as you as you said. But also balance that with some genuine instructional purposes that our higher education or our, high schools have in place.

Not just for students after school or to communicate with their parents about who's gonna drop them off or grandma may be sick, But specifically around instruction in our VAPA classes, in our CTA classes. For example, in journalism where you may be interviewing students and you need your voice memo.

And not just for students on IEPs and 504's, but those students who are trying to learn executive functioning skills through class, through programs like AVID, where they might instruct their students, a teacher might instruct their student to take a picture of the board to help you remember what the assignments are. There are many legitimate uses of this smartphone that have nothing to do with social media.

It has now become a handheld computer that has very powerful purposes to help us organize our very busy lives. I do wanna say that these locally developed plans took into account community specific needs and interests. And I'm happy that the author was able to work with us on those amendments to ensure at least some local control remains.

I was a school board trustee when late start was enacted, and that was done as state level policy that was well intended, but did not take any local control into account. And it created a lot of havoc for our local communities. And in many communities, it ended up having the unintended consequence of eliminating home to school transportation because we could not implement a multi tiered bell schedule. So to think that we as legislators, we know everything that's going on, we don't.

And it's very important to listen to the voices of our local compute community.

And I'm happy that you accepted our amendments with that regard in mind. And we do need to protect our children from social media. And I was hopeful that the TK-8 bell to bell ban would help us ensure that. With the author's amendments inserted, there may be some more wiggle room in there. And I hope that we can continue to pursue policies in parallel that look at supporting our youngest learners against, predatory behaviors of social media.

And with that, I will turn it over to my colleagues, Assemblymember Lowenthal.

Madam Chair, if if I could just quickly respond. Just for clarification, I mean, this bill as well as the the 2024 law as well as the 2019 law always made exceptions for teacher or administrator approved uses. And so your examples about the interviews, you know, would not apply to would not be banned.

Thank you. Yes.

Thank you. Clarify that. Thank you.

Yeah. I think we've immediately honed in on sort of differences of perspectives, but I I wanna take a moment to step out for a second and celebrate these two different perspectives because there are times in life and in legislation where all things can be true. So first, Assemblymember Muratsuchi, you deserve tremendous kudos for what started off as a quixotic quest that that that didn't receive adequate support universally. And my how the world has changed since that time.

And it continues to change and it continues to move very rapidly.

And we're going to address so many things here that this touches like EdTech, cell phones, social media. Of course, phones in schools is not only about social media. It's also about messaging. It's also about other distracting, things that that that can take kids off the ball.

And so I want to acknowledge, all the work that you have done over the years, and I commend you for wanting to be as aggressive as possible because it comes from a place of goodness, of care, and concern for our children.

And it also acknowledges the deep hole that we're in right now. The awful place that youth mental health is in 2026, where we can, acknowledge empirically that this generation is not achieving academically, intellectually, and otherwise as the generation before, which I think is the first time recorded history that we have that phenomena taking place.

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the chair and the the the tremendous concern that the chair is putting in to make sure that, all of the stakeholders throughout the state of California remain engaged and and playing catch up on a constant basis for such, you know, monumental policy that affects families, that affects, as the chair noted, you know, kids' after school life. I I'm in my conversations with the chair pointed out that I have Catalina Island.

I have children who go to school while their parents are out in boats and need to be able to monitor them in a GPS way for safety measures, and different communities have different needs.

And I think the chair is trying to look at these things holistically. And the chair in our conversations, because taking a step back, I fundamentally believe in a bell to bell school ban up through K-12. Those are my feelings about about the topic, and I support the chair in her very measured approach in making sure that there is adequate time, that there is adequate study, that we are adequately providing the requisite room, and we're we're treating collegially, the folks, on the local level.

I do also wanna point out something to everybody, as to why an anecdotal story as to why I am so supportive of a a bell to bell ban through the twelfth grade. I just before this hearing today, I was on a Zoom, with Mothers Against Media Addiction.

There were over 50 people involved, where I was able to get them up to speed not only on this bill, but on, the other efforts that we're making to, you know, to address digital life for children in the state of California.

And there was a a gentleman, his name is Dallas Lawrence, his school board member from the Los Virgenes Unified School District, that's an assembly member, Irwin's district, Calabasas region, who was effusive about the impacts the positive impacts bell to bell has been in his school district. So I just with your permission, madam chair, if I could read this note. You know, they they passed a K-12 ban in 2024, but they did delayed implementation for high school.

So they did K-8 the first year, and in year two, they added on to to make it through K-12.

And here is the results using Agora High School actually as a case study. Incidents of reported discipline and bullying dropped by two thirds. Average daily attendance for Agora is up. District wide is up, since they are one of the few districts in the region seeing increase in enrollment in the past eighteen months. Student performance is up.

Anecdotally, for example, they nearly doubled their number of national merit semi finalists in the college board. Every metric that counts, every metric that's measurable in banning cell phones has been a net positive. And even within that community, the naysayers are now believers.

So I feel very heartened that we have a chair who has been very open to expanding this as we give the requisite amount of time to our districts and we give them the room, and we get their feedback along the way just as I've received this feedback here with the encouragement that they are more than welcome and and should adopt a bell to bell ban if that is something that they are able to do at this time.

And I look forward to working with the chair and with key stakeholders in the year ahead to follow the data and to do the right thing at the right time.

With that, I'll be supporting the bill today.

Assembly member Lowenthal, I'd like to point out that in our amendments, we do include a study so that we can be adequately informed when we make future policies. So we are of the same mind on that regard and needing to be data informed and see those outcomes. So thank you. Assemblymember Bonta.

I wanna thank the author and then also the chair for integrating the amendments that that I think are very thoughtful, particularly on the study and around the the distinction between 9, 12 and and and TK-8. I share a lot of the thoughts that Assemblymember Lowenthal does and that you Assemblymember, have expressed as author of this bill.

I just wanted to share that I basically did a live poll and a little bit of a debate with a group of students who came up to visit in the capital from a youth of justice coalition. This says about 50 students, and I live polled them around this legislation, kind of laid out the the pluses and minuses and and had them do so. Some of the concerns that they had with the a band that went straight to twelfth grade were issues related to safety.

And then also a deeper conversation around the ways in which they had, particularly at high school level, integrated the use of their smartphones into their learning process. The collaboration that happened across students, the need to be able to make sure that they had an opportunity to use those devices during that time and and

and were very thoughtful about how they wanted to be able to recognize that we they, at this point, because of how we have evolved, need their smartphones for some of the activities related to learning, teaching and learning that are outside of the scope of what a teacher or the administration might ask of them. And I thought that was very important. So I am thankful that the that the amendments have been incorporated as it stands now.

And I also just wanna be very mindful of the opposition's comments around from AXA around the the impact of policy adoption And would ask you as author to kind of think about whether either delayed implementation, the phasing in for districts that have recently adopted policies, the ensuring that we have an ability to, provide adequate kind of community engagement and noticing where it makes sense that all of those things can be taken into consideration.

The chair brought a you know, flashed me back to a very tough time around the change in the bell schedule.

I was like, oh my gosh. That was a really, really tough one. As a as a board member and I just and I think that we stand to kind of air into that space again or make an air into that space again should we move without really understanding the the local impacts when we adopt policy at the state level. But to the faith and justice advocates who came to the capital.

I asked you to tune in, if you're there, to this hearing to see if I might be able to represent you.

I hope I did represent your positions well. With these amendments, I will be supporting the bill, and I hope you understand my position on that driven mostly from student voice in that regard. And, with that, I will certainly make a motion to support.

Assemblymember Hoover.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And, you know, I likewise sort of want to, thank the author, like my colleague from Long Beach did as well. You know, it's it was your bill in 2019 that actually inspired my school board to pass a a policy restricting smartphone use during the school day. That's actually where this journey started for me.

When you were in the legislature in 2019, I was on my local school board, and we were having conversations actually as a board and sort of had thoughts individually of wanting to pursue these policies.

But it was really that bill in 2019 that gave us the cover to do that. And even though that bill simply encouraged policies like this, it provided us with the cover that we needed to really go to our community and say, we need to seriously take a look at this. And so that's sort of where this whole thing started for me.

And so I I do really appreciate, you know, your your ongoing work on this, on the 2019 law as well as our bill in 2024 as well. I I will also echo my colleague's comments about the opposition.

I I will say that, you know, one of the things that makes these policies successful is our administrators, you know, carrying out these policies successfully. And these policies can't be successful without the buy in of our administrators. And so, you know, I would certainly be open to moving forward, discussions about a delayed implementation. I do think that's fair.

In fact, when we brought forward the bill a couple years ago, we had administrators, you know, come from my school district to support that bill because they saw the benefits to their students.

I would love to to see that sort of partnership happen on this one as well. But, you know, just wanted to make that comment. But I think, the last thing I wanted to really highlight, because I think a lot has already been said, is sort of the the transformation of opinions among parents on this issue over the last few years.

When we pursued this policy locally at my school board in 2020, there was a lot of concern expressed by parents because they really weren't sure how this is going to play out, how it was gonna be carried out. But even at that time, you know, when we surveyed our parents in in in my community, still 70% supported the policy conceptually, the idea of moving forward with reducing smartphone use during the school day specifically.

A PPIC poll that came out just this month, it's it's literally hot off the presses, was very grateful to the PPIC for including phone free schools in their polling in their education survey this year. And I was just absolutely blown away at the increase in support among parents. Among school age parents in the PPIC poll that came out just this month, only 7% of parents in the entire state no longer support some type of ban.

92% of parents support either a partial or a full prohibition of smartphones during the school day. I think that is an incredible increase in support amongst, what I would say are the, you know, the some of the most important stakeholders, in this discussion is our parents.

And and even many of our students are coming around to the idea that this really is what's best for them and and it's something that they wanna buy into as well. So I just wanna, again, say thank you for your continued efforts. I look forward to continuing to to work on this bill with you and I'm proud to be a joint author and look forward to supporting today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any further questions? Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. You know, I I should have started by thanking you, Madam Chair, for, you know, the numerous conversations we had around this, and and and I know that, you know, I I recognize as as the new chair, it it may have been difficult to be talking to the old chair about about, you know, differences of of opinions as to what what the right balance is to strike on this.

I you know, I I've always respected your very thoughtful, conscientious approach to trying to get the policy right. We both come from a a former school board perspectives. Definitely want to acknowledge and appreciate AXA and and and all the local school districts perspective.

I wanna thank the the joint authors on this bill, Mister Lowenthal and Mister Hoover, and and especially, you know, Mister Hoover, I I I think, you know, we talked before you decided to take on the 2024 bill that that was signed into law. And and so this is truly a bipartisan tag team effort.

And and I'm hoping that, again, as as our story as, you know, my story and your story that that we shared is is it's it's part of an ongoing evolution of of of policy, and and I'm hoping that with the chair's support, we can start with the TK-8 and and maybe one of you will will extend it to to to 12 at a later point. But with that, accept all amendments and respectfully ask for an aye vote.