Senate Standing Committee on Education

Good morning. Welcome to the Senate Education Committee hearing. There are 12 bills on today's agenda. There are seven bills on consent. Those bills are item number two, SB 914.

Item number three, SB 961. Item number four, SB 928. Item number five, SB 1381. Item number six, SB 945, item number nine, SB 1133, and item number 10, SB 1412. Witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to Seeing that we don't have a quorum yet, we'll begin as a subcommittee with the first bill.

And I do see that we have Senator Weber here in the audience. So Senator Weber, if you would oh, Senator Gonzales. So Senator Gonzales, if you would like to begin.

Good morning, Members and Madam Chair. We're here today to present Senate Bill 998, which defines the roles and responsibilities of five discrimination prevention coordinators housed in the newly created Office of Civil Rights at the Government Operations Agency

or GovOps. Last year, the legislature passed SB 48 establishing four discrimination prevention coordinators. SB 998 fulfills our commitment to follow-up legislation, clarifying coordinator roles, adding a new coordinator focused on disability discrimination,

and ensuring these positions have the tools to do their jobs effectively. Each coordinator will work with local education agencies upon request to ensure administrators are equipped to proactively identify and address incidents involving discrimination based on the

protected characteristics outlined in section 220 of the education code covering race and ethnicity, religion, gender, LGBTQ plus identification, and disability.

A school's culture and climate shape everything, student engagement, academic achievement, and whether students feel safe and encouraged to continue their education. And SB 998 will strengthen all of that.

With me to testify in support today, I actually have, Senator and Doctor. Akilah Weber Pierson.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I stand here as a principal coauthor of Senate Bill 998. At its core, Senate Bill 998 is about something very simple, making sure that every student in California feels safe, seen,

and supported as they walk onto a school campus. California strength has always been our diversity. Our classrooms reflect the full spectrum of who we are.

We have classrooms filled with students of different races, cultures, religions, identities, and abilities. That diversity is not something that we just acknowledge. It's something that we celebrate and embrace. It's a source of brilliance that shapes the future of our state.

ut we also have to be honest. Not every student experiences school as a place of belonging. Across this country, we are seeing increasing efforts to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion. We are seeing attempts right now to silence conversation about race,

identity, and lived experience and dismantle programs designed to support vulnerable students. SB 998 makes it clear, California is not going backwards.

This bill strengthens the role of discrimination prevention coordinators within our schools and ensure that they are dedicated, trained individuals focused on addressing discrimination in all forms, including race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, and sexual orientation.

This is exactly why SB 998 is so important. Our students deserve to be in environments where they feel safe, welcome, and supported. SB 998 provides guidance, accountability, and resources to ensure these issues are addressed early, thoughtfully and effectively

before harm escalates and students are left to navigate it alone. Because when students feel unsafe, they cannot learn. When students feel unseen, they disengage.

But when students feel respected and protected, they thrive. I wanna thank the committee for their work. I wanna thank my other principal co authors, Chairs of the diversity caucus, and I respectfully ask for an Aye vote on SB998.

I see we have a quorum, so I'm gonna go ahead and quickly have my assistant call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. Do we have any witnesses here in support of SB998?

Madam Chair, I apologize. We do have one, witness, lead witness who would like to testify in support. John Garcia, Director of Youth and Family Programs from the Sacramento LGBTQ Center.

Excellent. Thank you. Come on. You can begin when you're ready and you'll have two minutes. Yes.

That's great. Oh, okay. Gotcha.

Hello. John Garcia with the Sacramento LGBT Community Center. I'm director of Youth and Family Programs. I was also a teacher for seven years. It is essential to have dedicated staff to prevent discrimination from occurring in schools while also promptly

addressing those issues as they happen. Emotional and physical safety are vital to young people's ability to learn and grow. And I believe Senate Bill 998 is a massive step towards supporting student development.

Our students need more support than ever. As such, all staff at school site should have access to guidance and clear direction on how to prevent and address discrimination on their campus.

When staff are not thoroughly trained, supported, and prepared to address these situations, we see a variety of unfortunate side effects.

Students may skip school to avoid their peers altogether. In the 2024 or '25 school year, while non chronically absentee students missed an average of seven days of school year, non binary students on average missed over nineteen days of school.

Families may determine the school staff at their current site do not intend to support their students. It may simply choose to go else to a different school site or just withdraw from the school system altogether.

And when students are unable to escape that situation, they turn to unhealthy excuse me. When they're unable to remove themselves from harmful situations, students may self medicate with unhealthy substances to cope.

Then we see the most extreme consequences. In 2020, the suicide rate for young people in the black community was nearly twice the rate of their peers.

For LGBTQ plus high school students, 75% of young people reported feeling sad or hopeless almost every day for two or more weeks in a row.

Student school should be a place for students to learn and grow, as well as be a place where they can develop connection and community with their peers.

This can only happen with expectations for what their environment as a school should look like are set, followed by an ongoing and intentional effort to ensure compliance to these policies.

By clearly defining the responsibilities of the religious, race, and ethnicity, gender, LGBTQ plus, and disability discrimination prevention coordinators in Senate Bill 9 and 8,

the state can be proactive in preventing discrimination against students rather than course correcting after the harm has already been done. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. Are there any additional witnesses in support? If so, please speak at the mic. State your name, organization, position on the bill.

Tiffany Mok, CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals in support. Thank you.

Craig Pulsipher from behalf of Equality California in support.

Mandy Yeeke, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center in support.

Anybody else? Alrighty. We will shift now to, those in opposition. Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Madam Chair, Mario Guerrero on behalf of the California Faculty Association. We are not in opposition. I wanted to make sure there was no one in line, but we did want to share our position and the rationale. We are support if amended.

You know, we thank the Senator and her staff, Esme. They've been amazing. And and you've heard the, changes that have made to the bill that we are in line with, from an equity standpoint, the creation of the, deputy API Black Latino discrimination prevention coordinators,

the creation of the, disability discrimination coordinator. All of that is amazing, and we thank the Senator for all of their work. We remain concerned with the appointment of the discrimination prevention coordinators.

We understand that the coordinators were created under SB 48 and further developed in SB 998. But we believe that they were patterned after the prevention the anti Semitism prevention coordinator hate anti Semitism prevention coordinator created under AB 715.

We remain opposed to the appointment of all coordinators, and and we are working to remove the appointment of AB 715 antisemitism coordinator through a bill, that we're working with Assembly Member Garcia, AB 2158.

We really appreciate the conversations, and hope to continue to work to address this issue. Thanks so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Sandra Barrera on behalf of SEIU California. I'll align myself with Mr. Guerrero's comments from CFA. We would love to support the bill.

However, we'd still like to work out, having the coordinators be hired through the regular civil service process. Thank you.

Anybody else? Alrighty. I will bring the comments and questions back here to the committee. Senator Cabaldon?

Yeah. I guess my first question is what does the API legislative caucus have to say about this?

Yes. Go ahead.

Thank you so much, Senator, for that great question. As Chair of the API legislative caucus, I strongly urge and I vote on SB998. And thank you so much to my colleagues, to Senator Gonzales, to Senator Weber Pierson, and to all our diversity caucuses.

This bill not only provides details on the roles and responsibilities of the diversity coordinators established by SB 48 along with other deputy coordinators. SB998 establishes a deputy coordinator on the anti AAPI discrimination.

We know since the Covid 19 pandemic, the AAPI community has been a target of anti Asian hate incidents, including students at schools.

The deputy coordinators established by this bill will help prevent and address incidents targeting our diverse communities, including our AAPI communities, and students cannot learn if they feel unsafe in their classroom environment.

Thank you so much again to Senator Gonzales and team for taking a lead on this bill and to Senator Weber Pierson and to everybody involved. I respectfully urge an Aye vote on this. Thank you.

Thank you for that so much. I'm very much appreciate it. Thanks to the Chair for allowing. And as a Member of the API legislative caucus, I approve this message as well. And I just last year and obviously is one of the one of the most challenging packages of

legislation on this topic. Everyone made commitments that there would be these kinds of follow ups to make sure that we're getting the getting the details right, that we're checking our work.

Also some more fundamental changes as well to be considered, but really appreciate the diversity caucuses and the authors, for their for their work to make that real, and to start to put the meat on the bones of what was really a a concept at the beginning.

So I'm very supportive of that. I do wanna say just I mean, I think I was one of the strongest voices against the gubernatorial appointments. I still believe that. However, you know, there is another bill about that and there's nothing in this bill and that's existing law that's that's there.

So I don't think, you know, we shouldn't be asking authors to carry somebody else's bill, in that regard that that issue will be addressed and it needs to be this bill needs to do what it's doing, which is focusing on, okay, let's can we the all the big politics has to

keep being talked about, but here, we need to, like, build out what is the what what is what is the role? What are the protections? What are the curriculum?

What are the materials? Like, the the hard work of of delivering on the promise of of of protecting student safety, making sure that they're heard, that those appeals that can be can be resolved and for so many of the issues that we're experiencing on campuses.

And so I think this is a very solid step. Obviously, there's more work to be done both here and on the bigger picture, but very grateful for the authors to for following up on that commitment and

making making making, and putting the meat on the bones that we need in order to make the promise real. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. Senator Choi.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning all the legislators. Three authors together in a bill for bill. I haven't seen that. I'm not three Members for one bill. I know the issues are very important, but the last year, I voted no on SB 48 in education committee, which was the precursor of this bill.

I expressed my concerns that creation of multiple discrimination coordinators could result in a never ending cycle of adding coordinators. I understand that state should be focused on protecting all students.

All students may face discrimination, including those that do not fit nearly into a box based on certain characteristics such as race, ethnicity, etcetera. The states should be focused on ensuring that all students are protected regardless of whether they all fall under specific categories.

I know as a member of Asian Pacific Islander myself during the Covid period, there was a lot of anti Asian hatred movement and attacked a lot of people.

So we know already there are plenty of anti discrimination measures. And I feel I've served in the education committee several times, but rarely I see any bill being introduced to enhance academic quality student learning.

Our state student standard test is bottom of the union. And nobody seem to care about these things other than this type of non academic concerns. Protections are already in place to combat discrimination.

Existing law states that the policy, of the state of California is to afford all persons in public schools regardless of their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race, and ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other specified characteristics.

Equal rights, and opportunities in educational institutions of the state. Additionally, the state places to learn, act establishes oversight by the California Department Department of Education to ensure that anti discrimination policies are followed and enforced by LEAs.

So why we continue addressing this kind of non academic concerns even though the anti discrimination measures are already in place? So if we keep on adding these coordinators, just government becomes larger and larger whether we have one more legislator added here.

And, anyway, I wonder if you can explain why the some student populations are getting multiple deputy coordinators and what they will be tasked with from doing.

I ask because the deputy coordinator's role under this bill seems very loosely defined. Why do we need that many deputy coordinators?

Well, thank you so much. And I and as you can see, we have, another Chair of one of our diversity caucuses and another principal co author here. And, you know, you mentioned at the beginning that it's you hadn't seen three, legislators together.

Now you've seen four, and that's because of the significant importance of this bill. You know, I agree with you.

We have issues with our academic achievement of our students. And I think that, one, I have a bill coming up in Senate ED, I think, next week, so I look forward to your support on that dealing with math proficiency.

But as our, witness stated, if children don't feel safe in school because of discrimination, then that is a significant barrier to learning. You heard about the statistics about the number of LGBTQ students that are not attending school.

You heard about the number of, students in other minority groups who are not attending school.

And so there says that there is something there. I am here representing the California Legislative Black Caucus, and black Californians experience hate crimes at a higher rate than any other demographic in our state despite making up just 6% of our population.

According to the report by California's civil rights department, one in seven black Californians experienced at least one act of hate every single year, nearly doubling state average. That is not specific to adults. This happens to our children as well.

And so when you look at suspension rates, when you look at expulsion rates, when you look at rates of children not going to school, you have to open your eyes and recognize that issues of discrimination are a part of those reasons why we're seeing those things.

And so that is why this is extremely important, that we are tackling everything that's happening at schools to ensure that our kids can be successful, to remove things. If stuff is happening, be able to address it early on.

And I will, turn it over to.

Thank you, Senator, and thank you, Senator, for your question. I think, specific, to answer for, the question about why do we need these additional deputy coordinators.

I think it's because we see that across the board on a variety of, areas of demographics, you know, you have, either, sustained or, intermittent issues that come up.

Specifically, I'm remembering back in 2021, issues of, AAPI Hate and that we had to really come together as community because the hate crimes were skyrocketing at the time right now, and that was not, schools were not spared from that as well too.

And so whether these intermittent or sustained, levels of, hate come into our school environment, I think to, my colleague and our senator's, point, you know, it is our responsibility to make sure that these are safe and supportive learning environments for everybody.

These coordinators at the state level can be able to help, develop, consult, and provide education to everybody, teachers, staff associates, the school board body, or Board Members, administrators, other LEA personnel on the best practices to make sure that we are recognizing

and responding to in appropriate ways, the, incidences of hate coming into that school environment and appropriate remedies, hopefully, to prevent these activities from happening,

and really work towards something that is a culture and an environment, that's going to be accommodating and welcoming of all of our community members.

Yeah. What you are describing is all agreeable. No question about that. My question is that my current understanding is that we have plenty mechanisms and on campus measures for anti discrimination activities on campus.

And we if we keep on adding deputy anti discrimination coordinators of all, all kinds of categories of the subjects, anti Semitism deputy coordinator, anti Asian, anti Hispanic, anti Black, anti LGBTQ, anti you can come up with an endless list.

Is that the really resource we need to put on on campus? Is that the real real problem for student learning and achievement at this time? That's my question.

I think so. We absolutely think so. I think what my colleague said were very it was eloquently stated is that this isn't just for a symbolism. We're doing this with, the roles very specified to ensure that there's training for teachers, training for principals, administrators.

There are a lot of unfortunate incidents that have happened to each of these communities plus, and we need to make sure that there's a satisfactory training.

And as mentioned, a safe and supportive learning environment, Many of these students feel bullied in often cases or they are the bullies, and so they need restorative justice practices.

They need additional, academic learnings to understand what they're doing is wrong or what has been done to them is wrong. And ensuring that teachers also and and the supportive staff also have the tools to be able to create that supportive learning environment as well.

We think that's very important to all of this this work that we're doing. And to your point too that every student, even if they're not outlined specifically in here,

every student will benefit from this regardless of where their background is, what their background is, ethnicity, characteristic, every student.

Yeah. I understand and then also agree that it is important we should create a safe environment for learning and not to discriminate based upon certain characteristics.

But I am saying that all this bill is designed to train, educate administrators such as school board and the teachers. Don't they know that this kind of type of discrimination is in law by protected already?

Well, Senator, I agree with you. They should know. Some of us are parents here too. I have my child in Long Beach Public Schools, and you would be surprised at the amount of complaints that I've received from parents and students feeling like this the environment is not

supportive, whether it had been a remark made about someone's religion or their race. And it's you know, again, it takes that extra step in the identification of the problem through these deputy coordinators.

We believe that that would be able to come to the surface level and be remedied in a way that has a process. And a lot of schools now may not have that uniform process that is more explicit. We think that this would help that these situations that are really unfortunate.

And then thank you. As I stated multiple times that I agree upon the importance of this issue. Only thing is that traveling the resources placed upon hiring multiple deputy coordinators for this anti discrimination activities is non focusing on academic issues,

which I feel is important equally important. So I don't believe I can support this bill today. We haven't seen the outcomes of our current discrimination prevention coordinators to review, and there were too many student populations unequally impacted by this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Choi. Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the indulgence of, coming back to me one more time. So I think that the I share Senator Choi's concerns about the the bloat in state governments and if we have a dollar to spend on schools, we should be spending it on education.

So I think that's exactly that's exactly right. But these are not these are not, these are the same exact categories that we use ourselves.

That's why we have the the the co sponsors here of the legislation. We've organized our caucuses that way. All of our state reporting is organized that way as well.

So I'm less worried about it. And in fact, I think even if even if this bill weren't here, this the new discrimination coordinator is going to have to get help.

No one is no one is capable of doing all of this work by themselves. And so administratively, even if we weren't doing this legislatively, there would be additional staffers in the in government or operations agency handling the Latino community and API and what have you.

This so this bill in some sense says that's that that this is the this is the whole field. We're not we're not adding anymore. Please don't add a whole bunch more in the administration either.

This is what we're talking about. I'm very confident that you and I will not be bringing a bill next year to add a deputy deputy coordinator for the Korean and Filipino communities. You know, that's partly on us just to make sure that we keep these these categories, sacred as well.

But I think that the bill is a way to make sure that we're setting what that structure is and not letting it get out of control in the administration, but really holding accountable and keeping the focus on those young those students and staff and faculty, at the campuses

that are the subject of of the of discrimination based on these characteristics. And there's there are very few like generic hate crimes that happen of and generic discrimination that's happening on campus.

It's targeted to exactly these groups. And so it's for me, it's an appropriate it's the appropriate set, but also doing it legislatively will make make sure that it's this set and no one's going to be adding any more without having to come back to us.

All right. Are there any more questions, comments? Okay. So, first of all, I want to thank all of the co authors for being here. I recognize that this is follow-up legislation, SB998, two legislation that was passed last year, AB 715, which was a very lengthy conversation.

I don't need to remind this committee. But part of establishing these rules was creating the Office of Civil Rights so that we would have these different rules housed within that office so that we would make sure that we were covering.

And to your point, Senator Choi, this concern about wanting to create categories that really capture, I think, the majority of the complaints that we see come through the UCP process, right?

Because the UCP process is the process that is used here in California when there is a complaint of discrimination that happens within our K through 12 districts, which is why we worked so closely with the diversity caucuses that you see here today in order to make sure,

that we had coordinators that could better support school staff, and school administrators when they see these things happen on campus.

The fact of the matter is if we are addressing a complaint after the fact, it becomes very hard, right, to then remedy the situation.

You're dealing with somebody who has potentially been hurt in a case of discrimination, and possibly between students, the best thing we can do is educate our students on the front end in order to prevent these things from happening.

That happens through, one, ethnic studies, which is something that we still need to fund here at the state level.

But that also happens through making sure that our campuses have access and they're connecting with nonprofits and other organizations that have this kind of training and this kind of information to better help students understand how to navigate these

situations and how to restore justice when these issues happen on campus. I used to run an after school program at Roosevelt High School, in Boyle Heights and understand how difficult those dynamics can be, when students have conflicts with one another,

and those can be very challenging. There's also cases, as is noted in the analysis, where, you have this happen with teachers, with staff.

Those are also other really challenging situations to navigate. And so, SB998 is intended to address some of that. I wanna speak, very briefly, to commitments because I think that, SB 998 is a part of a set of commitments that were made last year.

And I want to state this very publicly, especially given that we have two of our assembly colleagues here, in the room with us today. SB998 is part of the set of commitments that was made around passing AB 715.

The other set of commitments that were made were around amendments that needed to be made to AB 715. And so this committee will wait to receive those amendments from the assembly.

My understanding is that there are two bills that are coming towards us, but we were very clear about the changes that needed to be made within those bills.

And I have the expectation that the author is going to make good on his commitment, and every single committee Member that serves on the Senate education committee made very clear in a publicly recorded meeting as well as myself as the Chair what needed to be

done with that bill. And so I wanna make very clear to everybody here in this room that I am very serious about making sure that people make good on their commitments.

And so I'm very happy to see that the diversity caucuses are utilizing and building upon SB 84, which was ultimately passed, and we now have this bill that is better built out to create this Office of Civil Rights because we understood that we could not have an Office of Civil

Rights without addressing the other types of hate and discrimination that our students experience in the classroom. But there are also policy issues that still need to be addressed within 715.

And so I just want that to be on record. This has already been stated before. This is not something that I've forgotten.

And so I'm happy to vote on this, but I anticipate that this won't be the last set of commitments that we'll be voting on. So, with that, I urge an Aye vote, and I will turn it over to all of you.

Well, thank you so much, Madam Chair. You, stated that, very, very well. And we just wanna say on behalf of the caucus, the Latino caucus, I'm just very, very proud of the work we've done collaboratively with the LGBTQ caucus, the Black caucus, AAPI caucus.

This is truly a collaborative effort.

And also the teams that are here today, many of them as have been working so very hard over the last year and bringing their lived experiences to this incredible bill, and we look forward to that that work.

And thank you again, Madam Chair and Members. On behalf of the legislative LGBTQ caucus we deeply appreciate consideration of this bill as you mentioned as well.

This is a promise fulfill hope to be fulfilled to be able to respond to the clarifications that we needed under SB 84, which we also were proud joint authors of as well. And so I think we are one step closer to that.

I certainly will take back to, my colleagues in the Jewish caucus that are leading the conversations and efforts around the second half of what you discussed.

I don't want to, right now, try to prematurely suggest or, infer, where those would be going, but I know how important that is to you as well. We are fulfilling or we're going we are moving towards fulfilling, you know, our commitment here between our respective diversity

caucuses for purposes of the clarifications necessary under SB 84. We know that this is deeply important, and I would also add too from some of the conversations around the fiscal element here, which of course we'll have to have conversations as well, in our budget process,

that from a high level point of view of what we are trying to make sure that these principles and this it is incredibly cost effective to make sure that these coordinators are doing what we're asking them to do, to be able to have, the support and the tools and the response

mechanisms necessary and the guidance necessary, to be able to combat hate in all of its forms across our school communities here.

So, from that perspective of having, you know, the additional deputy coordinators here, I just wanted to add that in there as well, too, from a cost effectiveness standpoint.

Notwithstanding, yes, every nickel is important in our education budget, but in the context of the state's education budget here, this is something that's going to be very valuable for the outcomes that we are seeking to have.

And on behalf of our caucus, I also respectfully request your Aye vote on SB998 and thank Senator Lina Gonzalez, for leading this effort.

Thank you. Once again, I wanna thank the committee, I wanna thank my fellow diversity caucus chairs and do want to uplift the staff from the diversity caucuses because they have really done a tremendous job, not only on this bill, but in in trying to navigate everything that we

went through last year with, 715. And just really urge, you know, when I vote on this bill, our kids really need us.

They really need for us to try to help and remove any obstacles that may be in their way so that they can learn and they can fulfill, themselves and become the best version of themselves. This is really about living up to California values and giving our kids a chance.

And with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote on behalf of the California Legislative Black Caucus.

And thank you so much again, Madam Chair and Members. And on behalf of the Asian American Pacific Under Legislative Caucus, we stand in strong solidarity with diversity caucuses here to uplift SB 998.

And thank you so much again to Senator Gonzalez and team and to all the staff involved here as well. This is really a bill that would help continue to lead for student success and to make sure that our students are having any issues addressed.

And so the different communities have been addressed in this bill, and we know that there's many ongoing conversations going forward as well in terms of the work ahead.

But really, today, it's just about an opportunity to continue to affirm our students and success here in our education environments in these very challenging times. So with that, I just have to urge a strong high vote. Thank you.

Thank you. The end the motion for SB 998 is do passes Senate Judiciary Committee. Do we have a motion? Move. A motion by Senator Cabaldon.

Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Great. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much.

And do we wanna vote on consent?

And since, we have a majority of, Members here, we're gonna go ahead and vote on consent. If you can call the roll, please.

[Roll Call]

Great. And we will put that bill on put consent back on call. I see we have Senator Niello here to present SB 1082. Senator Niello, you may begin when you're ready.

Sorry to disappoint, but it's just me. Thank you, Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, and Members of the committee for giving me the opportunity to present SB 1082.

Let me start by saying that we accept the committee amendments and very much appreciate miss Nguyen's work with our staff. And she was very helpful through this effort. Now California law allows families to request inter district transfers when another school district

may be better to meet the students educational needs. While statute establishes timelines for district responses, it does not specify what occurs when districts fail to act within those timelines resulting in some, excuse me, inconsistent practices across the state.

In practice, families often experience lengthy delays, sometimes sixty to ninety days longer before receiving a response from the district of residents. During this time, the districts of desired attendance frequently wait to begin their own review until a release decision from

the resident district is issued. These delays are rarely intentional. They and they often reflect administrative workload and capacity constraints. However, the impact of these delays on families can be significant.

Leaving them unable to make timely educational decisions and increasing the likelihood of appeals to county boards of education.

SB 1082 as proposed to be amended, streamlines the inter district transfer process by creating concurrent review that preserves a parent's appeal right and may prevent two appeal hearings on the same case.

SB 1082 will help reduce the number of appeals because it creates a process for parents to work with its own district. In effect, this bill will help to reduce administrative burden.

The bill continues to be neutral on the inter district transfer request decision. It just helps the process work more smoothly. Together these changes ensure families receive timely decisions while reducing the administrative burden for school districts and county boards

of education. So now I'd like to turn this over to our witnesses. First, I have Bina Lefkovitz who is president of the Association of California County Boards of Education, the sponsor of the measure followed by Paulina Sepulveda on behalf of Families in Action in Public Education.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Bina Lefkovitz, the Association of California County Boards of Education President. We represent the 58 county boards and our sole purpose is to support strong board governance and advocate, advocate for the at promise

students we serve. We are sponsoring SB 1082 to create a more fair, more clear, and more timely inter district transfer process for both families and school districts. To be clear, this bill does not favor parents over districts.

It does not change a district's authority to approve or deny transfers. Districts retain full local control. This bill simply improves how the process works. County boards serve as the appeal body for inter district transfers.

Some hear only a few cases, while others see significant numbers. Los Angeles County, for example, had 1,500 appeals last year. Anecdotally, we know delays occur. Some families can be left waiting for months, sometimes keeping their students unenrolled.

We are concerned for families with language barriers, limited resources, or students with special needs. SB 1082 makes targeted improvements by clarifying timelines, requiring districts to notify families within thirty days if an application is incomplete,

allowing concurrent review by both districts, ensuring lack of response is not treated as a denial. These are modest but meaningful changes that improve transparency and predictability without changing approval criteria.

We respectfully ask for your Aye vote on SB 1082 as a practical first step and we plan to work with stakeholders over this next year to continue to develop additional solutions on this matter. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Paulina Sepulveda and I am a lead organizer at Families in Action for Quality Education. Our organization has supported thousands of underserved low income families of color across Alameda County to advocate for access to high quality,

equitable, and safe education since 2019. Interdistrict transfers are a key issue of access. If a family works in another school district, if their child has been facing unresolved safety or bullying issues, or if the family is seeking an alternative to

attending a school that has been generationally failing its students, Families may choose to apply for an inter district transfer. However, in the last few years, the process has become more fraught as districts face the challenges of declining enrollment.

More families than ever are being shut out of their right to an inter district transfer even though for many who apply, it is the only solution for a safe, accessible, and high quality education.

Families have one chance for their children to receive a quality education and delays and roadblocks to this is unacceptable. Right now, when districts delay or fail to act, families experience that as a denial even when no formal decision has been made.

Districts often, show up to the appeal Districts often fail to show up to the appeal which is held at county offices and hold up the process by failing to even start the diligence process on their end related to their students appeal.

This bill addresses this delay by ensuring districts act expeditiously to undertake the process while the decision is underway. I know my parents would want that for me and that all families across California deserve access to an inter district appeal that is timely and just.

Importantly, this bill does not guarantee approval. It guarantees a fair and timely process. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for your presentation. Do we have anybody else in the room that would like to offer their support? Please use the mic at the railing and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Hi. Ken Barrick, founder of Seneca Family of Agencies and director of Just Advocates and support.

Good morning. Trustee, Placer County, Board of Education in support.

Lance Christensen, Vice President of California Policy Center in support.

In support. Contra Costa County.

Tiffany S. Mok of T, we'd like to thank the author for taking the amendments. We're in the process of removing our opposition.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you all. We'll now move on to any witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris Reefe on behalf of California School Board Association. Not a primary opposition witness, but rather, we had an opposing as amended. We appreciate the work of the committee.

Also note the lack of data and information in terms of the pressing issue around it being a statewide issue. But, again, we appreciate the author taking the amendments, but those will be reevaluating our oppose unless amended position.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? All righty. I'll turn it back to the Committee. Do we have any questions or comments from members of the Committee?

All righty. I just want to say, Senator Niello, thank you so much. I know this has been a bill that you've been working very hard on. You've worked very closely with my staff to address some of the questions and issues.

Happy to hear that opposition will be removing some of their opposition and that this is headed in the right direction.

So I am recommending an Aye vote, and will accept a, motion at the appropriate time. Moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh and Secretary. Oh, let's go ahead and have you close, Senator Niello.

Respectfully, request an Aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Secretary, can you please call the roll? And the motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

Great. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Senator Niello.

Thank you very much.

Great. We are gonna have a presentation from s on SB 960 from Senator Cabaldon next. Senator Cabaldon, you can start when ready.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here to present SB 960 related to community college bachelor baccalaureate degree programs. And, first, I'd like to accept the proposed committee amendments. You're smiling.

Did I get the right bill? Okay. Yes. I'd like to accept the committee amendments. I do wanna observe with respect to the cap issue.

I think we need to we have work to do on what the right denominator is. The current statutory cap is, the number of associate degree programs, and whether it's the programs or the enrollment or something else, but we should continue to work on that issue.

I know that this one is also hotly controversial, but wanna accept the committee Members now. Just turning back to the beginning.

So this bill tries to bring some framework to how we're dealing with the with the increased demand for community college bachelor's degree programs.

Now, the committee knows full well in 1960 when the master plan, for higher education was first created, the the one piece of it, the master plan is this thick.

The one piece that most of our friends who will testify, remember and and swear fealty to is the different what was called the differentiation of function. Everybody stay in their lane.

You see, you do research and batch and graduate education and undergraduate education all the way on down the down the line.

Of course, the master plan was much bigger than just that question, but it is the it is the only surviving element of it.

Tuition free, everything else is gone. One thing that people still think of is the core of the master plan is that no one should get out of their lane no matter what. Now, the situation in 1960 was very different from where where we are today for a couple of reasons.

One is that the percentage of California high school graduating high school seniors who went on to higher education was much lower and much less diverse, incredibly less diverse, because the expectation was that only a small number of Californians would ever graduate

from high school at all. And of those, it was just the folks that we had always graduated. And so, the, even at the time, UC and CSU, accepted a larger proportion of California high school graduates than they did after the master plan. There's a little known fact.

We often celebrate the master plan as a major increase to access, but UC and CSU reduced their admission to bachelor's degree programs as part of the master plan.

And the promise was that everybody can go community college and we don't really know how this is all gonna work, but by magic, then some peep they'll still get bachelor's degrees. Don't worry. Everybody will still get a bachelor's degree.

They'll just go to a different location. That never quite worked out, and that this this legislature has worked for decades to try to improve transfer rates, and to pro improve completion rates at every level of higher education.

But the other reason why the master plan came was that in '19 late nineteen fifties, pretty much every legislator had a bill to open up a new campus somewhere in their district of of CSU or what was what was in the state colleges or UC or something else.

The legislature, because of the baby boom, was on a tear. And everyone said, this this is this makes no sense. We can't just, like, add programs and campuses indiscriminately. We can't afford it. It also doesn't make any sense educationally.

So the main purpose of the master plan in the first place was to put some frameworks on this whole thing.

So I mentioned that because we are kind of in the situation today, where virtually everybody, and their I was gonna say, and their mother, but everybody and their vice chancellor wants to have a bachelor's degree program at a community college.

And, we it's time that we have a a meaningful framework and an update to that differentiation of function, those lanes that creates a rational approach for how to grapple with this rather than one degree program at a time or one place at a time as we're seeing legislatively.

So what SB 960 proposes to do is to make simple changes to the process. So the bachelor's degrees offered by community colleges are a relatively new invention. They did not exist, twenty years ago.

They're relatively new. They were a pilot for a fair, a long time, and then only in this decade have they been, authorized on a statewide basis. But the way the law works today is that it it says that community colleges can only offer a bachelor's degree,

if there CSU doesn't already offer the UC or CSU doesn't already offer that same degree.

And that is intended to say, look, if if you have another alternative and it fits in those lanes, then go to those lanes. And that's the reason for that provision.

What SB 960 says though is that it's not about the institutions. It's not about the lanes. It's about it's about the person. It's about the student or the aspiring student who wants to study.

And under current law, if I'm in Yorba Linda and I want to study a field that is only offered at Humboldt State University or Cal sorry, Cal Poly Humboldt, then under the current law that says the local community college district can't offer a bachelor's degree because Humboldt

already offers it. Well, that's great, but most community college students and call it community colleges largely exist because so many students are more or less place bound.

They're not able to just pick up their lives and say goodbye to their family's small business or their or their childcare obligations or just say, you know what, I'm gonna just screw it. I'm just gonna go to Eureka and live there for four years. They're not able to access.

So it's not a real it's not access to a real program when you say to a student, we know there's a workforce demand in Yorba Linda.

We know the community college has the capability, but, sorry, you have to go to Humboldt instead. It's not a real commitment. The second part challenge is that, at virtually every CSU campus, some programs are impacted.

So even though, yes, the the local university offers the program, you can't get into it, as a local resident.

And so, the point that what SB 960 says is that no longer would it be a statewide, bar against bachelor's degree programs based on a a the statewide CSU offerings, but the ban would instead be if I am at if I'm in LA and Cal State LA offers that program and it's not impacted,

then I can't offer the bachelor's degree program without their without their consent and coordination because it the student already has full access to that program.

But if I'm in LA and the only campus that offers it is in San Bernardino or in in Eureka, and the, or the program in LA is offered, but it's impacted and I can't get effective access to it, then the community college has the right to propose a program.

It doesn't mean it's automatically approved, but they have the right to propose a program. That's the simple notion of the bill in in in order to try to put a framework on this rather than only saying each year it's nursing, which is the most common, to be sure, but other

programs as well. So the the we this is although this is no longer a pilot project, this is happening statewide, it is still a bit of a pilot project in terms of understanding what the actual impacts are in terms of student success and workforce development and what have you.

And so, this is an SB 960 is an attempt to, move the ball forward in our in our in our in our expand the the accessibility of these programs statewide.

The committee amendments make sure that that doesn't get out of hand because we're also committed to assure that community colleges don't convert themselves into bachelor's degree institutions and forget the that that core original mission of associate

degrees workforce development and transfer. So we're attempting to achieve, through SB 960, a balance that takes advantage of the possibilities of community colleges meeting local workforce needs and providing meaningful access for students to workforce opportunities,

while also assuring that we're doing so in a way that is responsible and that we continue to learn, and put students at the center of those of those, decisions.

So I wanna, thank the committee for their for their for their hard work on this issue, and I'd like to introduce as the witness on the bill, Joshua Hagen, who's the vice president for policy and advocacy with the Campaign for College Opportunity.

Great. Thank you, Senator. And good morning, Chair Perez and members. Again, Joshua Hagen, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy with the Campaign for College Opportunity. I will keep my remarks brief.

That's a hard act to follow, Senator Cabaldon. But I think the two pieces that I would hope that we can have a discussion about today. I think the first is we have kind of a basic fundamental equation that we need to talk about here.

In 2023, governor Newsom laid out an ambitious 70% college attainment goal by 2030. That is intended to meet the state's evolving workforce needs.

Increasingly, jobs in California will require some form of higher education degree or credential. We released recently released a playbook with Complete College America outlining some strategies on how to get there.

The spark notes are, we have to really have all options be on the table if that is a goal we intend to make meaningful progress towards. At the same time, the state has a projected decline of over half a million TK through 12 students. So we have this fundamental equation.

We need more adults with a higher education degree or credential. We have fewer TK through 12 students coming into our systems. So now more than ever, we need to look at the needs of students who have typically been left out.

Adult learners, students who have stopped out, and students who are place bound. The second piece I just wanna elevate for the committee is, our recent report at the Campaign for College Opportunity.

The declining impact of impaction at the California State University, perhaps given away by the title, but we're finding that the impact of impaction is declining at the CSU.

But because of that look that we did from 2022 to 2025, we're able to kind of see with laser precision where some of the persistent access gaps are within the CSU system. So in that report, we found that five CSU campuses are still fully impacted.

Four of those campuses have been fully impacted since 2012. So that is well over a decade of students trying to get in, perhaps place bound students finding themselves up against that access barrier.

And all campuses program that is impacted. And so we we're able to see there are specific regions where capacity is a challenge and across the board, there's majors where students are trying to get in to meet workforce demands and struggling to do that.

And so kind of tying it together here, impaction as the framework to assess what these programs could look like and what these offerings would be.

I think we see this as a common sense solution to make sure that these programs are targeted in a way that addresses persistent misalignment between student interest, higher education enrollment capacity, and the state's workforce demands.

So I will end there, respectfully asking an Aye vote and happy to answer any questions on our impaction report.

Thank you for your presentation, Josh. I will turn it over now to anyone that has May to offer.

Thank you. Mark Mac Donald on behalf of the California Community College Baccalaureate Association. Thank the author, appreciate the comments on the cap in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

Crystal Padilla with the Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges in support of the bill in print will review the statutory CAP amendment, reducing the CAP.

Good morning. Kyle Heil on behalf of the Association of California Community College Administrators in support, also going to review the cap language in the amendments. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of Power California Advocates, the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges,

the California Community College Association for Occupational Education and the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, all in strong support.

Good morning. Jesse Hernandez Reyes on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity in support.

Jason Henderson on behalf of the Faculty Association for California Community Colleges in support.

Jack Werson on behalf of Citrus College in support.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses here to speak in opposition? You'll each have two minutes and feel free to use mics up here. You can begin whenever you're ready.

Junius Gonzalez, the new Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at the CSU Office of the Chancellor in respectful opposition to SB 960. The CSU recognizes that access affordability and workforce needs are real issues that must be solved and that our institutions must be

nimble enough to meet those needs especially for students who are place bound, working adults or looking to continue their education. SB 960 will allow a community college to offer dozens of bachelor degree programs currently offered by the CSU without consideration

for duplication standards, fiscal implications, quality, outcomes and accreditation or long term capacity planning to understand the state's overall needs. Under the current version of the bill, community colleges would be authorized to offer dozens of academic programs

as varied as business administration, electrical engineering, and social work as these programs are often impacted at a number of CSU universities. Additionally, as you've heard five universities, Fullerton, Long Beach, San Diego, San Jose, and

San Luis Obispo are impacted for all undergraduate programs. This bill would allow community colleges to offer any of their bachelor's degrees. Across all of our universities, more than 193,000 undergraduate students were enrolled in impacted programs for fall 25 semester.

About 36% of these students, nearly 70,000 in total, transferred from a California community college. I share these data to emphasize how the programs are taking thousands and thousands of students.

We appreciate the author's desire to address these issues and focus on access. In fact, over the last three years, we've moved more than 6,000 FTE slots and $52,000,000 from under enrolled campuses to our five impacted campuses.

They have also benefited from state enrollment growth funding. However, this bill in its current form raises several concerns and while expanding baccalaureate programs at community colleges may seem like a practical way to increase access, it could have

unintended consequences. For example, potentially unintentionally worsening the enrollment challenges already facing some CSU universities.

While the CSU continues to address this critical issue through efforts such as our direct admissions program, improve K through 12 and community college collaborations, enhance recruitment in rural communities, and leveraging more than 300 online offerings.

The shift proposed by this legislation could distract from the state's successful transfer pipeline and cause additional pressure.

Vice chancellor, if you wouldn't mind wrapping up your comments. We're over time.

We are committed to working with the author on identifying the best ways to strengthen the AB 927 review process, provide better outcomes to CSU and community college students. And any proposal that shifts institutional roles should also include a full fiscal analysis

across higher education segments. The CSU remains committed to engaging and leading on this efforts. We respectfully ask for your no vote on SB 960. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. Chris Morales of the CSU office of the chancellor. Here very briefly answer any technical questions that might come up. We'd like to thank the committee for the recommended amendments and the analysis, and we look forward

to reviewing the language when in print and continuing to work with the author on this issue. There's just two things that I'd like to raise, from the supporting testimony that we'd like to address in terms of the campaign for college opportunities report on improving access.

We very much agree and have reviewed that report. We do feel that it moves in the right direction. We've, in fact, done various of the initiatives that have been outlined in the report currently, but we do will want want to acknowledge that the report does not call for an

expansion of either community college bachelor degrees, CSU doctoral degrees, or move in that direction of trying to change the differentiation of function severely as as the bill would do.

Then the other thing I would like to mention as the the author had raised on nursing, and I know this has been come by the committee for several years now on expanding access to nursing, in particular, bachelor of science in nursing programs as they are impacted at all

of our campuses. But the impaction is largely driven as the committee is well aware, not by our, of course, lack of opportunity here at the system, but, of course, a lack of clinical placements at the state level.

This is something that all of our institutions contend with both the UC, the CSU, and, of course, the community colleges, and that'll be all.

Thank you for your presentation. Is there anybody else, here in opposition? Please use the mic at the railing.

Good morning, chair and members. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in respectful opposition, for many of the reasons outlined by the CSU. We share the author's priority in expanding access to higher education.

It's something that our union has long advocated for. However, we don't believe that that this bill takes into account, the potential impact on faculty jobs as outlined in our letter of opposition.

So we're we're committed to working with the author and all of you to finding a different solution, and finding ways to better serve all of California students. Thank you.

Thank you, Singh. As there is no one else, I'll turn it back to the committee for comments or questions. Senator Cortese?

Yeah. I appreciate the author bringing this forward and and moreover, your overall work in this area. I'm almost distraught that you have to make such a vigorous case for something which is so obviously needed.

I in fact, I would just say if I know or at least don't assume it's it's even possible in the imagination, but I actually think the impaction issue itself should be gone.

I mean, to make the argument that the opposition just made with all due respect to the chancellor's office that if San Jose State, which I know is impacted right in the heart of my district, I work very closely with them and the chancellor's office on a number of things, support

the university in every way shape and form, but they can't get people out any longer even in many cases even in on a five year program. And we've got community colleges, outstanding community colleges all over the valley that are precluded from stepping in and helping

with those issues. So I would just basically throw that right back at people and say, why why would we not let that kind of impaction divert students rather than redlining them? And we are redlining them. We're redlining kids. We're redlining young adults.

We're redlining single moms. My half of my district is known not only for its ethnic diversity, but for the poverty and the the fact that people have to work multiple jobs to support their families, often immigrant families.

I don't understand why anyone in higher education would make the argument that it's okay after sixty six years to to stand by a policy of baccalaureate programs and other issues, in the master plan for higher education that that were drawn up at a time when my

community was 85,000 people, not 2,000,000, and mostly the diversity was coming from migrant farm workers because the entire community was an orchard farming community.

How we can possibly base any higher education decision on a master plan that was drawn up then for Silicon Valley is I don't think you can make the case if you worked on it every day for the next three hundred and sixty five days and came back again next year.

I just don't think you could come up with a justification for redlining those folks by default, by saying that everybody but the 85,000 folks that we base this master plan on that were here sixty six years ago is out.

You're just you're just out. Everybody's fighting with each other. It's not something that I put on the doorstep of CSU when we go to the community colleges and ask us to support things that CSU wants to do, that aren't directly in compliance with the master plan, but UC

steps in and says you can't do that, then the community college system itself comes back, say that's straight up to the support witness here and says, we're not gonna weigh in on that.

We're we have the the the master plan for higher education. It's something we're gonna honor in this case.

Well, you can't honor it when it's convenient and not honor it, you know, when it's convenient. It it that's that's not okay. So I would say it what it says that the opposition arguments are in our analysis or is the primary argument is is that this isn't the solution today, this bill,

but the solution is to meaningfully update meaningfully update the the master plan on higher education for the first time in sixty six years.

I would say if you wanna stop bills like this from coming forward, then sponsor a bill or work with authors that are bringing forward bills to do just that because I just feel like California higher education institutions are trying to have it both ways come in and say that's the

right thing to do, but we're not saying we're gonna support that. That's the right thing to do, so don't do these bills like Senator Kibaldin is bringing forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to state my position, and I'll be I'll be an Aye vote on the bill. And I'm happy to move the bill if we if we've established a quorum. I'm I'm not sure where we're at on that.

Senator Cho Boke.

So so let me let me I need some clarification, Madam Chair. So I'm gonna ask a couple of questions just to reiterate or have reiterate the both the opposition and the support comments.

Just so that I understand correctly, the bill would allow community colleges with surrounding UC, CSUs with impacted programs to provide a baccalaureate option, on their campuses?

Thank you, Madam Chair, if I may, through the Chair. So, and thank you for the question. So the bill does not apply to UC, programs at all because UC is defined as a statewide institution.

The campuses don't have local service areas, so it only applies to CSU. And you are correct, except that the only thing I would I would point I would add is that it doesn't the bill does not allow community colleges to simply, willingly start adding bachelor's degrees.

The criteria in the statute are very restrictive because this is supposed to be for a particular purpose. So it must be in an area with unmet workforce needs that have to be, documented by the data, that have to have been consulted with the workforce boards and with

relevant employers. You have to have the evidence. And even under the under the bill, you must consult. You do have to consult with CSU. CSU is is is authorized in the existing statute. They would continue to be to file their own point of view about it as well.

So it isn't as though a a community college could just offer, you know, 15 new new associate degree bachelor's degrees on their own even if they were impacted at the local CSU campus.

Okay. Now, madam chair, if I may, I do have a question for the for the opposition. What is the primary reasons for the impacted majors at your at your universities? What are the major factors?

So I'll take a crack at that because I know a little bit about the history of the impaction. Most of the impaction in my opinion is structural. There are capacity issues either fiscal or facilities wise etcetera. So that's one kind of piece of it in offering majors.

It was alluded to earlier that there also are external factors that are quite frankly structural like accreditation etcetera. So it's not like you can just overnight say, oh, we're gonna increase our nursing program from admitting a 100 students a year to 200.

There are a number of steps and hurdles regarding the accreditations which occur not only at a state but a national level. There are tight, tight, tight faculty student ratio requirements in nursing, and there is a dearth of nursing faculty. So I just use that example.

Many of the professional degrees face that, you know, like engineering and otherwise.

The other reason as I understand historically, and perhaps Chris can comment from a technical perspective, is the way sort of the funding goes and the historical funding has led to limitations and being able to expand in the ways that that one would want.

Right. And to the Vice Chancellor's point, you know, we do feel as our letter has noted that impaction is largely the result of a lack in increase in state investment for the CSU.

Whereas the community colleges can often benefit from not only proposition 90 eight's guaranteed funding, but local tax revenue, access to bonding revenues to create more capacity, to create more, facility and address their facility needs.

The state's investment to the CSU has been largely lagging. I don't have to talk at length about our infrastructure needs, but it obviously constrains our ability to fully meet that student demand where the impaction is largely driven by we have more applicants for

these programs than the number of available literal physical available spaces at those campuses.

Okay. So it's what I understand. I just wanted to make sure that we had clarity on record about what the issues, are. And that's where I'm really struggling with this bill.

The reason be being is that in my six years, I know that we have had a hard time fulfilling the financial needs for capacity for our universities at Cal State.

So thereby, you know, as you mentioned, earlier, it has an impact on your ability to, one, have faculty, have the actual facilities, to be able to meet the need of the local community. And on the and there is an advantage for the community colleges because they are

guaranteed, you know, certain funding. Right? With prop 98, they're guaranteed that they're going to receive that funding. So they are at an advantage over the CSUs.

So we're we're the attempt to create more baccalaureate opportunities at the community college when they have a, an advantage financially to create that creates a a problem, I think, for moving forward on the Cal State system because, one, say they do

have the ability to create the baccalaureate programs. Right? They'll have the funding. Right? They'll be able to expand as needed on that end, and they provide a baccalaureate program at a much less cost to the student, which is a good thing.

But I'm just afraid that it will, at some point, unintentionally in the future, hurt the CSUs because, quite frankly, as as seen by many of my friends and my neighbors with college, we all have we've all have college kids at this stage in our lives.

They're opting for a community college because of the pretty much free of charge cost of going to school and and getting your associates or your undergrads covered. I'm afraid that it will inadvertently long term dissuade people from attending Cal State.

Now the other question I have, which I'm struggling with, I'm trying to figure out is that and correct me or enlighten me, I should say, about the rules. UCs have primarily been research based universities.

What has been the role for Cal State for CSUs, and what's the difference between the the community colleges?

So I was one year old when the master plan was done. So I appreciate Senator Caballon's reference to really quite frankly needing a new design framework for for higher ed. And so this issue of lanes, the community colleges are open access.

They are to focus on associate degrees, career and technical training and credentials, etcetera is one piece. The UCs and Chris can comment more on this.

I know them. From afar are big research, highly competitive universities across the nation in their standing, etcetera, and highly restricted in who, you know, who they admit. In between the CSU was tasked with providing baccalaureate degrees and master

degrees and recently needed professional and applied doctorates that do not duplicate what's in the UC system. I'll give you a couple of facts which are impressive. One is that 91 of students who apply for transfer do get into a CSU.

The rates of completion are very high, nearly 77% at four years, 48% at two years. Within the national landscape, it's the third highest best transfer completion rate in the nation about 82%, superseded only by the UC at 90% and the University of Washington at 83.5%.

But the vast numbers of CSU students far eclipsed just tens of thousands more than those two units combined.

So those are some important facts about what the CSU is doing and its commitment and transfer. In fact, in the new entering undergraduates, it was 41, 42% of new undergraduates recently come from the California Community College System.

There's a lot to do there in my short time and observation. Lots of great stuff going on, lots of room for improvement. But those are sort of the lane sectors that have been described previously and historically.

And there now is blending one of the interesting pieces of what students do is they're swirling in and out and the concern in continuing to work together, we can make sure that that swirl doesn't result in having too many credits and that sort of thing, but not

coming out with a credential, either a certificate or degree from either the community college or the CSU.

I'll be honest, I hope that have that has already been happening and that we're not at that that's not something that we should be doing in the future, but that we are already doing in, in it. Because it it is sad when you take all these units and you get to a certain point and you

can't graduate because you don't have the right units to be able to graduate. So I hope I highly encourage that we are actually currently already working on that on that front. So, my question now back to, Senator Cabaldon would be, what are your thoughts on the

potential siphoning of students? I mean, why would why would any student attend a CSU to get their, their bachelor's degree when they can get it at fraction of cost of the community college.

To me, it's a cost benefit. Right? But it is also going to impact it would potentially have an impact on the CSUs moving forward. And I I am concerned that, especially the CSUs, that we're as a state having fully funding them. I mean, they have deferred costs.

They have facilities that they need, but they can't get or built. And they can't even get a lot of faculty, you know, to be paid fully as what they they should be paying.

So how do you I mean, to me, the the financial implications of creating this, without fully attending to the needs of the of the State University, which is our responsibility as as a state, I'm struggling with that because I think that's just gonna put another it's gonna be the

last bat at the pinata that is just gonna make it fall and and and break. So that's my concern. I would love to hear your thoughts on on that, you know, that forward vision.

If I may, Madam Chair. This is this is worth struggling about. In fact, that's I think that's really, the purpose of the bill is for us to start to develop the choice. There I think there are no fewer than a half a dozen bills pending in the other house on the same topic, but

all a slice of this, a slice of here. So whether this bill is the only one attempting to try to put the put an overall framework on it and ask exactly these questions.

What does the big picture look like for the future? I really appreciated your question to the opposition because in some sense, they made the strongest case for the bill that there is.

Because the the way you frame up, I think, is how we've traditionally thought about it as well. If I could go to to Cal State San Bernardino or to College of the Desert for the same bachelor's degree, then why would I go to the Cal State San Bernardino?

If both if College of the Desert is both closer or sorry, Copper Mountain. Let me I'm trying to make sure I get the districts right. Copper Mountain.

You studied all of us.

Well, yeah. Why would you do that? Well, the the point of this bill is that that still is cut unless that program is impacted and you it's almost impossible for you to get in at Cal State San Bernardino, which is impacted only in pre nursing and in pre social work.

So Cal State this bill has very little impact on Cal State San Bernardino except in the same disciplines that all of the assembly bills deal with. But so there wouldn't be that situation under this legislation where that's the same program that's existing at both

Yeah.

because exist the existing, limitations on community colleges offering that bachelor's degree would continue to apply.

If there is a program that you as a student can go to that's at the local at your local area CSU as defined by CSU, and it's not impacted, then the community college cannot offer the degree program. So it's designed to it's baked in to to get there.

But I think, for me, part of the part of the reason for the struggle is the is the c CSU's statement in opposition, which really is the case for the bill.

Alright? Which is if you're a student right now or you want to be a student, you wanna go study advanced manufacturing or or or some workforce related subject in your region that where there's a desperate workforce need and you want to meet it.

But currently, CSU's response, and it's this is no moral judgment about them. I'm the only CSU tenure faculty member in this in the in the legislature. CSU's response is, we probably can't help you because we we have limitations on accreditation.

Our funding mechanism isn't you know, we're not getting the funding that we need. We don't have enough clinical placements. I mean, all of those reasons are correct, but the but the summary of those reasons is that we're not likely to create a slot for you.

And so it's although it may it seems weird now that community colleges are the ones that have money, sort of, in proposition 98.

This is this bill is about how do we make sure that the student gets access to a bachelor's degree in a in a desperately needed workforce field, and they can't get it at CSU right now if they can't, and CSU doesn't have a plan for doing it.

And in fact, the amendments that the committee drafted up specifically say there's a four year grace period, which is CSU of like, if you have a way out to to actually open up spaces, you can take four years to do it in order to

open up spaces in your impacted program. But if you even at some point, we need to meet the needs of the regional economy and open up access to students to be able to pursue those degrees.

So I agree with you a 100%. If it's just a straight competition and both institutions are fully capable of offering the degree, that's not what this bill is about though.

This bill is in those situations where you cannot enroll at Cal State San Bernardino because either they don't offer the degree, it's offered at Humboldt instead, or they do, but you can't get in, then Copper Mountain or College of the Desert should have the ability to

propose a program that meets the strict state criteria for it for for an unmet workforce need.

Okay. And I just I understand. And here's the Once again, it's about So, okay. So let me let me ask a follow-up question. So what happens when, at some point in the near future, we have a bachelor's program created at the local community college, that is impacted at Cal State?

The students are then, able to attend the community college. They are no longer impacted. Then what happens?

If the CSU program ultimately is not impacted Yes. It it does the under the bill, it's the initiation of the of the program and it's also why the where there's this period for CSU to to to make plans. But it doesn't it once the the community college has hired its faculty

and students are enrolling and they have all the workforce partnerships with local companies, the bill doesn't doesn't require the community college to say, hey, you know, guess what?

We've gotta shut everything down because CSU is about to start a program under this framework, just not as under existing law. CSU basically has the first right of refusal and years to to to get it right.

So that's where I'm going is that at some point, you the community colleges will have enough spaces for students to be able to attend, the opportunities to be there. And then the the students, in my opinion, as far as financially considerations go,

I would not attend a CSU if I can get a bachelor's degree of the same degree on there, which I think might actually hurt the CSU system moving forward. And at the core of it, at the root of it is because the state is not actually providing the full funding that the state that the

CSUs need in order to continue and really, educate the students, in in the state, which is on us. Not on you folks, but on us as a state because we're not fully funding them.

If I may, Madam Chair, I understand. It's just the until then, what do we do when companies in Yucaipa need need folks who can do these jobs and when young people are or or not so young people want to pursue them, what how do we say to both of them, hey, we get it.

We under there's a documented need here and a documented opportunity for a better life and a career, but we're holding off.

No. No. No. And I

Until we can figure out how to how to fund CSU better, that just doesn't feel like that doesn't feel like it's the right No.

And I'm with you 100%. I just think that this is a call on the state to ensure that we're funding our institutions, that we're prioritizing funding our institutions. This is really hard on me right now because I absolutely get it.

But I'm I'm afraid I'm really, really concerned that we're doing it at the detriment of the future of our state universities because I I don't see and I'm all about competition. I think competition is good.

I think, on the flip side, if we have community colleges opening their bachelor's degrees, this is where also, I'm thinking everything big. If we have community colleges offering bachelor's degrees, we have the CSUs offering degrees or bachelor's.

And our UC systems also offering to me, it's a competition which brings the cost of education down. And potentially, you know, who benefits the most is our students. So I think it that is that in itself is a good thing.

But by the same token on the other side, I'm truly truly afraid that we're starting to opening up to having less students attend the CSUs. And this is where I'm going, what is the best thing to do? And right now, as I said, I'm blessed to have the Chair who also sits now as a

Chair of of budget in education here for the state. So those are the conversations that we're gonna be continuously having, but this is very I mean and I'm I when I look at policy, when I look at legislation, because I've seen so much thus far in our state as unintended consequences

adding to many of the issues that we that everyday Californians are facing. I'm trying to be forward thinking about, okay, what is the impact going what is it it's great now, but what is the unintended consequence of moving forward?

And we have to be prepared to do that or have a conversation right now as to, okay, what do we do about prioritizing, ensuring that our state universities have what they need to fully educate and have the capacity to meet the needs of our students.

So I need more time to to deliberate this in my head because at this point, I'm I really wanna do what's right and measuring, putting everything together.

I don't think I'm ready yet to to make, but I and this is hard too because Senator Cabaldon of any legislator has the capacity to literally sway me one way. If I'm on the fence, this man can can literally changed me from one end to the other.

But on this end, I am I'm really struggling, Senator Caballon, on on the future for the CSUs and the you know, especially because it's not their fault, it's our fault.

So with that, I will be abstaining on this bill at this point. And immediate the next time when I see it again, I'll have more time to deliberate and more conversations with Senator Cabaldon than in in the lounge. But at this point, I'm gonna I'm gonna lay off.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Seeing as we don't have any other committee Members here, right now, I'll just make some comments. First of all, Senator Cabaldon and I appreciate all of the hard work that you've put into this bill for working so closely with committee

staff around the amendments. I do wanna highlight, I think, too, the concerns that Senator Ochoa Bogh raised and, just the purpose of our community college institutions, as well as to our CSU institutions is that we did reduce the statutory cap from 25% to 15% in the bill.

And so that is and I know that's also a part of the discussion that we've continued to have. You made that point at the beginning of your comments. In addition to that I completely agree in terms of having this broader discussion about the master plan and updating

the master plan as a visionary document. The master plan is also not a binding document. It's not something that we inserted into education code. It was kind of this aspirational document.

But it deserves updating, and I know that I've been having conversations about that since I've worked with

Josh at the Campaign for College Opportunity. So, Opportunity. So, I think that this is very much a necessary conversation. What I appreciate about your bill, Senator Cabaldon, is this is taking a statewide approach to resolving this issue.

I think what's really concerned me is as I've seen over the last several years in the legislature, both before I was here and now while being here as a Senator, is that many members have been passing bills that have been taking a regional approach, either focusing on their district

or focusing on a community college district, and that presents concerns when we have different policies operating in different parts of the state.

I think what would make better sense is for us to have one unified policy for the entire state, and I know that I've shared that with the CSU system as well. There are certainly issues to be worked out here.

The community colleges, right, we want to ensure that if they are going to be offering four year degree programs, that they're actually graduating students in four years. I want to make sure that the CSU is doing that as well.

And so making sure that we're delivering on that process of timely completion, I think, is something that's really important, and key to that. But our systems do have to do a better job of of working together.

It's frankly unacceptable that, as someone that used to do work with students out in parts of the Inland Empire, in the High Desert or out in the Central Valley, that there are some places in the state where a student would have to drive upwards of two, three hours to get to a

four year institution and to simply say, well, because that's just what you're going to have to do if you want a a four year degree.

Or if not, your only option is going to be to go to an online for profit school. That's simply unacceptable. I also think, you know, unfortunately, and I have even had to get myself out of this thinking by working at places like the campaign, that we've almost celebrated

programs being impacted as a good thing. Low enrollment rates as a good thing. I remember when I was a student at Cal State LA, and one of the points of pride that Cal State LA. Used to discuss is the fact that the nursing program had become more competitive than

admission to Harvard, because we were accepting something like, I don't know, like, in the single digits, like, 7% of students that were applying.

And being a student at the time, I thought, wow our program is so competitive that, therefore, means that we are better than everybody else. And after beginning my work in the higher ed space and looking at data, I began to see the issue very differently

that it was actually an indicator that we were turning away 93% of potentially very qualified students who should have been able to have access to a program like that.

And so, this issue of impaction, while I do think it does point to us needing to invest certainly in the CSU system, I do think in many ways that we kind of need to change the way that we talk about those impaction issues and kind of move away from celebrating turning

away students, qualified students. And if we want to be really serious about trying to not just increase admission but also increase the number of students that we're bringing into our institutions and graduating them in a timely manner, then let's do that. I'm happy to do that.

But I don't think that we've been having that conversation. So, again, appreciate that Senator Cabaldon has brought forward such a thoughtful piece of legislation. I recognize there's about five other bills in the Assembly that are speaking to this issue.

And I know that this will be a topic that we continue to discuss both at committee hearings as well, as with within meetings, in this upcoming year. So my recommendation is an Aye vote, and I will turn it over to Senator Cabaldon to close.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members of the committee. And to every and and the supporters and the opponents, this is hard because we are taking on essentially a a small, small sliver of kind of issues that they did take on in 1960.

It's how do we design this and what are the what are the consequences and the unexpected things that might might occur and how are we making sure that we're putting students, at the center.

If you're still thinking, Vice Chair, you know, we I'm hopeful that, you know, that with the coherent strong Senate support that going into these two house conversations about these issues, we will be in a better position to be able to bring that long term thinking

and the and the comprehensive thinking about these issues, to the fore. I think the the other thing I wanted to say to the supporters just about the cap amendment because it came up in a lot of the support testimony.

And and the point of that is really to address exactly the issues that the Vice Chair and other Members of the committee have raised, which is we want to we want a rational policy that will make sense and will allow this to move forward. We also wanna make sure we're

keeping a a handle on it. So we we don't wanna see Crafton Hills College offering 27 bachelor's degrees next year after the bill passes, even if they meet all the other criteria.

We want to meter it and make sure that what we're doing is working, it's making sense, and we're able to look at what the consequences are.

That said, I do want as I said at the outset, like, with the way that the committee amendments work off the existing statute, which are about the number of associate degree programs, which is a little that law was a little you know, it was the same intent, but a little janky

because most colleges have basically the same number of degree programs. And we don't want people creating associate degree programs just to move the fraction up from two or three.

But if you look at it, typical community colleges associate degree programs are like 30 of them, you know, plus or minus 10. So that's not that many, really. 15% is four. Or if you round up, it's five.

It's not like it's gonna be a million programs even if all the other criteria could be matched. So we need to keep looking at that issue, but really that's the point, is to make sure that we are we're continuing to authorize this to happen to meet the needs of

students and and local economies, but we're doing in a way that is thoughtful and we can catch it before things if they get if they start to get out of hand.

But I think Senator Cortese also made a a really important point when he when he used the word redlining. That today, if you happen by an accident or maybe it's a benefit of birth, you're born in Barrio Logan, you're born in San Jose, You're born in one of the

campuses where every single program is impacted. Every single program. And that's not uncommon in the urban areas of the state, because we can only we only build so many universities. The same thing is true at at Berkeley and UCLA.

We will sometimes say, hey, well, you you see all the students in UCLA in LA have UCLA. Well, not really because hardly any of them can get in. So it's not real access and the same thing is true.

So if you're in Barrio Logan or in San Jose and and you want to go to San Diego State or San Jose State because those are your local campuses, they're not effectively open to you.

I mean, you have or you're you have to win the lottery, basically, in order to as well as being an excellent student in order to attend those programs.

And so it is incumbent on us to make sure that there are real opportunities in areas where there's strong demonstrated workforce demand that's unmet by the CSU programs, and that we allow community colleges to to work with local

employers and workforce providers in order to make that real. I No one is a stronger CSU advocate than me in the house, although I was also community college vice chancellor and the student lobbyist for the UC students as well.

I know these systems and their and the and the these lanes that we all get stuck in. I think I'm one of the only people alive that's been involved in every single master plan review since except for the 1973 one.

So I'm fully committed to addressing these big picture questions and wanna make sure that we are are creating healthy institutions and supporting them with the resources that they need.

And we're we do that because at the end of the day, we're putting students at the center of this and making sure that that young and adult folks, in throughout California have access to programs that will help California's economy be strong, help our regional economies be

strong, and give them the career opportunities that they are absolutely ready for and can succeed. And with that, Madam Chair, thank you to the committee and would ask for an Aye vote.

Great. So we now have do we have a motion on this bill?

We'll get a courtesy motion. Okay.

So Senator Ochoa Bog has motion, and a motion for SB 960 is do passed as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Assistant, can you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

And we will put that bill on call. I see we have Senator Blakespear here to present SB 965. Senator Blakespear, you can begin when you're ready.

Well, thank you, Chair Pérez and Committee Members. I'm not sure if the microphone is quite working yet. Is it? Yes? Okay. That was an interesting conversation from Senator Cabaldon and the committee. I appreciated listening to that.

So I'm here today to present SB 965, which will make it easier for 16 and 17 year olds to get library cards. I gladly accept the committee's amendments. Thank you for working with me on this bill. I wanna start with a quick story for my own family. My son, Oliver Blakespear, who is here with me today, is a high school junior.

And his US history teacher recently assigned a six week long research project that required students to use physical books from the public library. I know that may seem like an anachronism, using physical books, but learning how to research and read through actual books is still part of the curriculum at The Grauer School that he attends.

When he tried to get a library card, we learned that a parent or guardian had to be physically present with him. Between his busy schedule and mine, it was unreasonably burdensome to coordinate a time that we could be at the library together in the near term for this project.