Senate Standing Committee on Education

Good morning. Welcome to the Senate Education Committee hearing. There are 11 bills on today's agenda. There are two bills on consent. Those bills are item number nine, SB 1126, and item number 11, SB 1443.

Witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to two minutes to ensure the Committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. Saying that we do not have a quorum, we're, going to begin as a subcommittee with our first bill, and I see that we have Senator Akilah Weber here. Senator, you may begin whenever you're ready.

Well, good morning, Chair. Today, I will be presenting SB 1067, which would require students in kindergarten through second grade to be screened for math difficulties to help identify the students who are struggling and provide them with evidence-based intervention. This bill is about ensuring that more students develop the foundational math skills they need for long-term success. We must act with urgency. Far too many of California's students are already behind in math.

Today in California, just thirty-seven percent of all students are performing at grade level in math. For many students, particularly students of low-income communities and students of color, that number is even lower. Only 26% of low-income students, 20% of black students, and 26% of Latino students are performing at grade level in math. Those are numbers that we should all be extremely disappointed in.

Despite being the epicenter of global innovation, California ranks forty-third in the nation in fourth-grade math achievement and has one of the country's widest math achievement gaps between low-income students and their more affluent peers.

These trends are reflected in the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, data. California fourth-grade students scored lower in 2024 than in 2013 on NAEP math, with black students scoring nearly a full grade level worse. We all know that math is cumulative. It builds upon itself. And when a student falls behind early, catching up later becomes significantly harder.

These challenges were underscored by a recent 2025 report from the University of California, San Diego, in my area, that showed that one out of eight incoming freshmen needed remedial math. SB 1067 ensures California takes a proactive approach to identifying math learning gaps early by requiring annual early math screeners for kindergarten, first, and second grade students beginning in the 2028-29 school year.

This will help identify students who are having challenges in math early and connect students with timely, evidence-based support before they fall behind. This bill is also aligned with California's mathematics framework, ensuring implementation reflects state-adopted instructional priorities and current best practices in math instruction. There is strong evidence supporting early identification and intervention in math.

Federal guidance issued during the Obama administration emphasized early screening and targeted supports, as well as validated screening tools recognized by the National Center on Intensive Intervention. Early identification is widely recognized as a best practice for preventing long-term achievement gaps. These screeners are quick and efficient tools that typically take twenty minutes or less to administer and fit within existing instructional time. Currently, the only statewide assessment requirement for all students in K through 12 is early screening for reading difficulties.

I do want to acknowledge the concerns raised by the opposition, many of which are addressed in the bill, as it ensures the screeners are evidence-based, developmentally appropriate, and used as a supportive tool rather than a high-stakes measure.

And we remain committed to continuing conversations to ensure thoughtful implementation that works well for both the students and the teachers. That said, I do want to address a few additional points about this bill. SB 1067 does not add high-stakes testing. Instead, it introduces a simple early math screener to help educators identify learning gaps earlier and provide support before those challenges grow. And to be clear, this bill does not mandate curriculum, change instructional practice, or replace educator judgment.

Districts retain full flexibility in how they respond to screening results. This is just a first-step identification tool, not a tracking mechanism nor an instructional mandate, and it is designed to ensure educators receive early data to identify students who may need additional support. Concerns about statewide mandates and limiting local control over instruction do not accurately reflect how the bill operates.

And because California's public school system is a state-funded program, there is a shared responsibility to ensure that all students have access to early identification tools and appropriate support, to ensure their academic success. California should not be catching up with other parts of the country.

We should be leading the country on academic intervention. Other states have already implemented statewide early screening and intervention policies and have seen stronger performance and some of the fastest gains in fourth-grade math on the NAEP over the past decade. Early identification allows educators to intervene sooner with targeted, evidence-based support and prevent small gaps from becoming long-term barriers. Additional investments are important, but screening should not be delayed. Early identification is foundational and can move forward alongside continued investment, as we did with literacy.

If we want to continue to strengthen California's future workforce, expand opportunities, and maintain our position as a global leader in innovation and STEM, we must start by building a strong foundation in math early on. And before I introduce our lead supporters, I want to reiterate those numbers I said before. Just 37% of all students in California are performing at grade level in math. 26% of low-income students are performing at grade level in math.

20% of black students are performing at grade level in math, and 26% of Latino students are performing at grade level in math.

We cannot continue to do what we have been doing. We cannot continue to ignore the needs of our students, and with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today I have Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, and Doctor Charles E. Wilkes II, assistant professor of mathematics education at the School of Education at UC Davis. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'm Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice. And on behalf of 38 organizations, including the California State PTA, we support SB 1067, and we thank Senator Weber Pierson for her leadership in making math a priority for California. For too long, there has been a myth that some people are math people and some people are not.

And that mindset has lowered expectations and allowed our system to accept outcomes where over 2,000,000 students, mostly from low-income communities, mostly black and Latino, are far below grade level in math in California today.

Math ability is not a personality trait. It is a skill that can be developed with the right supports at the right time. And we are entering a data-driven, AI-powered economy where math skills are more important than ever. If we do not address these gaps early, we limit opportunity for millions of kids before they even get to middle school. SB 1067 helps students get the support they need when it matters most.

This bill will ensure that schools identify students with math difficulties early through universal screening in kindergarten, first, and second grade. And as the Senator mentioned, most importantly, it requires schools to provide evidence-based supports to students that are behind: tutoring, more small-group instruction, additional time focused on math. The bill is based on research and best practices.

The US Department of Education, through their research arm, recommends early screening and intervention as an essential early step to support students struggling in math, and that recommendation came out during the Obama administration. The National Center on Intensive Intervention has identified valid and reliable tools that schools can use to identify students that are far behind.

And 20 other states have already adopted universal screening in math. It is essential that every child gets a chance to build confidence in numbers, so they don't start to think that they're not a math person too early in their journey. We've got to give them that chance. This bill will not address all of California's math challenges. We don't suggest that it does, but it'll help a lot more students have success in math earlier, and that's why we urge you to support it.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members, and thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

My name is Charles Wilkes. I am

an assistant professor of math education in the School of Education at UC Davis, and I'm here to share why this bill matters from a research perspective. As has been mentioned, children are not born believing they are or are not math people. They come into the world curious about patterns, quantities, and relationships. They are natural sense makers, and this bill builds on those existing strengths. Research on early mathematics learning is clear.

Early math development is a strong predictor of later academic success. Unfortunately, in California, K-12 math achievement has been persistently low, affecting high school graduation rates and college readiness. That makes the early years critical because it is when foundational understandings are formed, both in content learning and in identity construction. These foundations include ideas such as number sense, one-to-one correspondence, comparing quantities, and spatial reasoning.

While they may seem simple, because math learning is both cumulative and interconnected, students who don't master foundational math skills in K-2 are impacted later when learning algebra and beyond.

An example of this pattern is reflected in California's own data. As recently as 2025, forty-six percent of all third graders were proficient in math, compared with just thirty-three percent of eleventh graders. This is where screening plays an important role. A math screener is a brief, developmentally appropriate check that helps teachers understand how students are developing these foundational skills. It is neither punitive nor diagnostic.

It simply provides timely information so educators can respond early before small gaps become larger barriers. Research shows that students who are identified early, typically in grades K-2, and given targeted, timely, evidence-based interventions can make significant and sustained gains in mathematics achievement. Identification using screeners requires screeners that recognize students' cultural, linguistic, and lived experiences as strengths. This is especially important given the longstanding disparities in mathematics outcomes for marginalized students, which are not reflections of ability, but of opportunity. Students enter school capable and curious.

The question is whether our systems recognize that potential early enough and provide support to nurture it. SB 1067 is not a complete solution, but it is a meaningful step toward earlier and more responsive support. When we invest early, we invest in students' confidence, curiosity, and opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now take me-toos. If you're here to support SB 1067, please use the mic at the railing and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Unidos US. Unfortunately, we don't have an official position to share at this time, but we're really supportive of the intent, and we look forward to working with the author and the sponsors. Thank you.

My name is Elizabeth Geda. I'm a community member. I'm here to support the bill.

Hi, Jessica Marquez on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, in proud support.

Hello. Amy Parada, former educator and community advocate. I'm in support.

Good morning. Daisy Hernandez on behalf of the Partnership for LA Schools, representing schools in East LA, Boyle Heights, South LA, and Watts. In support.

Hi, everyone. Good morning. Nadia Razi.

I'm the Director of Research and Policy at the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, in support.

Good morning. I'm Prentice Starkey. I'm a retired professor of human development in the Graduate School of Education at UC Berkeley and project director in the early childhood program at WestEd. I'm here in support of the bill.

Good morning. I'm Gilbert Barayo, an educator from San Jose, and I'm here in support of the bill today.

Good morning. My name is Carl Pinkston with the community-based organization Black Parallel School Board, operations director, and I'm here in support.

Good morning. Angelica Salazar from the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, also in support.

Hi. My name is Catherine Avila Mondragon, and I'm a student at the Math, Science, Technology Magnet Academy at Roosevelt High School, and I am in support.

Anybody else? Alright. Seeing we have no more witnesses in support, we'll now move on to witnesses in opposition. If we have anyone here for opposition testimony, please come forward. You'll have two minutes each to make your presentation.

Thank you.

My name is Doctor Scott McDowell. I have a bachelor's of science in applied mathematics, a master's in curriculum and instruction, and a doctorate in educational leadership, all from UCLA. I was a longtime high school math teacher, UCLA Math Project instructor, and high school principal. And I'm currently the Director of Curriculum in Torrance Unified, overseeing math instruction and the implementation of the new California math framework.

I've been a member of the Association of California School Administrators Curriculum, Instruction and Accountability Council for the past six years, and it is in this capacity that I'm testifying today in respectful opposition to SB 1067.

California test scores in mathematics have improved year over year since 21-22 and in many districts have exceeded pre-COVID levels. Across the state, students score highest in math in third grade, when the test is most focused on numeracy and procedural skills. As higher-level thinking, application, and problem solving are introduced in fourth through eighth grade, grade-level performance declines annually and does not rebound until eighth or eleventh grade.

Our instruction needs to better align with the California math framework to keep pace with the higher cognitive demands in upper elementary and middle school math. We need to let the California framework and textbook adoption process roll out with expectations and support that math instruction fundamentally change from procedural fluency to high-quality tasks that integrate conceptual understanding, problem solving, and real-world application.

At a time when we need to be focusing on developing well-rounded critical thinking mathematical skills, a screener focused on a narrow definition of math procedures would do the opposite.

Dyscalculia affects three percent to seven percent of students. Therapies include interactive games, distributed practice, mastery of smaller numbers of fact groups, emphasis on reverses and turnarounds, student self-monitoring of progress, and mathematical thinking strategies. All strategies that should be used with any student having struggles in early mathematics, regardless of identification of a disability. I am concerned that implementation of a math screener would further lead us away from equitable, student-centered instruction.

Deficit-based thinking has for decades prevented struggling math students from even being exposed to rich mathematics instruction, and the introduction of a math screener focused on deficit skills would significantly work against what we are all fighting for in mathematics instruction.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now take additional witnesses in opposition. Please use the mic at the railing.

May I?

Give a presentation? Yes. Okay. If you'd like to come here at the front, you're able to use this mic.

Good morning. I'm Kathleen Latimer, speaking on behalf of the California Mathematics Council in opposition to SB 1067. The council strongly supports improving early mathematics outcomes and ensuring that all students receive timely support when they struggle. While early identification of student needs is important, the bill creates a new mandate without addressing the root causes of mathematics learning challenges. We believe that state resources should prioritize strengthening instruction.

California has made significant progress by adopting the 2023 California Mathematics Framework, which provides guidance on strengthening instruction and supporting diverse learners. Rather than creating additional mandates, we believe the state should invest in implementation supports that help educators bring this vision to life in classrooms, such as professional learning for teachers, classroom-embedded support such as those provided by instructional coaches and math specialists, and high-quality mathematics instruction. These investments build educator capacity and improve mathematics instruction for all students.

SB 1067 does not ensure funding for these priorities. Screening tools typically measure discrete foundational skills such as counting and basic operations.

While foundational skills are important, early numeracy is not limited to discrete skills, but includes a broad set of competencies such as mathematical reasoning, problem solving, spatial thinking, and mathematical communication.

Overreliance on screening measures may unintentionally encourage narrower, skill-focused instruction rather than the deeper learning experiences students need. And data can be overinterpreted and broadened to make judgments about students and their readiness, which may lead to premature labeling, lower group placement, or skill remediation pathways for students who are only beginning their formal mathematics journey. The council shares your commitment to improving early mathematics outcomes.

We urge the prioritization of investments that build educator expertise, support effective teaching, and expand access to high-quality mathematics learning experiences for all students. For these reasons, the California Mathematics Council, which believes in the brilliance of every learner, respectfully opposes SB 1067.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now take additional comments in opposition. If you could use the mic at the railing.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Ashley Lugo on behalf of the California County Superintendents in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Christina Delazar on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools in opposition.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. Carlos Rojas, representing the Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office, in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Doctor Salgarino on behalf of the California Teachers Association. We oppose this bill.

Anybody else? Okay. We will turn it now back to committee comments and questions. Do any members of the committee have any comments or questions? Senator Ochoa Bogh?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm a co-author of the bill. Thank you for bringing this measure forward. I actually do want to address both the concerns and the support for the opposition. And I want to make sure that we have clarity on what the bill is intending to do.

And I know you've done your opening remarks. I know that we've heard from the opposition. But I think the public deserves to hear that we have seen some improvements in the past couple of years, but very slight. We're still incredibly far behind. And it's sad that in 2026, our test scores are, as mentioned by Doctor Weber, quite frankly appalling.

Absolutely. It really is appalling. Absolutely. And so, you know, I've been blessed to be in the Education Committee now for, this is my sixth year, also in Budget One for six years. We have, as a state, been prioritizing as much as possible funding that has to do with teacher training, that has to do with additional resources in classes, opportunities for after-school and before-school programs.

We've been doing that. So obviously, hopefully, although we haven't received much feedback or metrics on those programs, and we're hoping to do that at some point in the future. But we've been doing a lot as a state, trying to increase funding for certain programs to help our teachers get professional training, resources in the classroom, and so forth. I completely agree.

But I want to share with you an experience that I had with one of my students and why I'm supportive of the bill, based on first-hand experience when I did teach.

I taught first, second, and third graders, English language learners. And looking back now, I wish I had had more training on, like, what I've seen now. I wish I had had more experience back then when I taught my kids. But fortunately for me, I had an amazing mentor who was really helping and coaching me in my experience as a teacher. But I want to share an experience of a student that I had.

She was a female student, English language learner. And I had her first, second, and third. I followed her through. And it was the best experience that I've had, following this child, because she came from a low socioeconomic family. There wasn't a lot of support at home.

The mom was very supportive of me, a Latina. And mind you, our Latino parents are incredibly pro-education. They are behind their kids, supporting, and they believe in teachers. They believe in the teachers' ability to teach. And so I had all the support with mom, worked with mom, and she tried very hard, and she just could not register the information.

Starting in first grade, we saw that she was always just struggling. Struggling to learn how to read, to do math, to do everything possible. Right? But there were certain things that she actually was able to master, including patterns.

Remember, we introduce patterns in first grade and then we continue on. She was able to do patterns and very complex patterns. She could do that. But it wasn't until third grade, and we kept, you know, I documented the concerns that I had as a teacher. We had conferences with mom, with the principals, aides, and so forth.

But it wasn't until third grade that they finally gathered all the information and decided she needs an IEP. She's a special needs child, she has learning disabilities. And they were not caught until third grade. In any other classroom, in any other grade, I am not sure that she would have received the attention that she needed. Now, I was a very, I want to say, very passionate teacher. And I believe that any child could learn.

And in that finding, in that assessment, not until third grade did she actually get the attention that she needed outside of my classroom. And it's disheartening to think that we have so many kids right now that are going without the services that they need, pulling them out or whatever that may be, what that might look like for that child until third grade. Because, especially when it comes to reading, you know, and math is also part of reading.

If they haven't mastered reading by the third grade, we know that they will struggle for the rest of their academic years.

And so, this is why I'm supportive of this screening in first and second grade, or K. Just to help us understand whether or not there's actually a need. A learning disability. Something that this child will be required to have those services that they need early on, early intervention.

And I do want to highlight, or actually would love it through the chair, with her permission, to highlight when we talk about evidence-based assessment and the resources that need to be actually provided to these students.

Can you walk us through a little bit what that assessment will allow us to learn, and what specific evidence do we have that the resources that we will be able to provide at that point will actually make the difference moving forward? Because I think that's important for the public and so forth.

And I, as a member of Budget One, will, in collaboration with, I'm sure, our Chair here who also sits on Budget One, continue to make sure that we ensure that the funding is there to provide those services. Education is our priority. It's our passion, and we'll make sure that we're advocating for that.

We'll continue to advocate for that.

So the screening tools themselves, what they're able to do is identify which kids are struggling with math, and really with numeracy, early. It doesn't distinguish if it's because the child just had less exposure to math at their home or because they didn't have pre-K or whether it's actually some sort of disability.

So for clarity, I think that's really important, because it's a more useful tool in many ways for teachers. What the screeners are able to do is say, hey, these children are struggling with numeracy. They need supports.

And then the teacher and the principal will then go in and go deeper and say, okay, is that maybe the child just didn't get a lot of exposure, which is most kids that are far behind in early grades? They didn't have a lot of exposure at home or they didn't have pre-K, which is why you see far more low-income kids, Latino and black students, that are further behind early.

So for some children, the teachers may say, it's about more time or more deeper, more effective tier one instruction, or more tutoring. For other students, they might decide to do additional deeper diagnostics to say, as you mentioned, hey, is there actually something even deeper than just less exposure to math, like a disability? And then there's additional subsequent diagnostics that you would do to assess that. So the screeners don't, out of the gates, identify that right away.

What they are very effective at, and what they've been validated for, is identifying which children are struggling with basic operations, with numbers, with early numeracy. And then with that information, it helps schools, principals, and teachers say, do we need more actual diagnostics to see if there's a deeper learning disability?

So this is not a dyscalculia screener. They don't do that. What they do is they help educators know which kids are really far behind. And then, I think as was mentioned earlier, it says you need to do something and then provides a lot of those opportunities to do that. The second thing, as a reminder, is the bill doesn't identify the screeners.

It creates a committee of experts. Let's get the best folks in this state and this country to spend a serious amount of time to identify which screeners make the most sense for California's kids. So there are plenty of reliable and validated screeners out there today, but a committee would take time, working to roll that out. This is why this doesn't get rolled out until 28-29, because there's a period of almost a year to identify the screeners themselves.

Madam Chair, if I may follow up with the question. So, okay. So not necessarily disabilities, but just understanding whether or not they have been.

They're struggling with numeracy. Yeah. They're good at it, or they struggle with numeracy. That's what they're really effective at.

Okay.

So if you kind of think about it in the medical world, you have various types of screening tests. As females, we get pap smears, a screening test. And if that comes back abnormal, then we do a deeper dive to diagnose what the issue is. Right? So that's similar in this situation, where they would be screening kindergarten, first, and second graders to see if there is a potential issue there, and if that flags, okay, well, what is this? Then they do a deeper diagnostic evaluation.

Is there a learning difficulty? Is there a problem with the fact that they just haven't been exposed, or coming directly from, you know, spending time at, you know, being raised by grandma and they haven't been in an educational environment? So it would be able to potentially pick up, like, your student earlier, because they would screen her and realize that more diagnostic evaluation was needed earlier on.

Okay. And then last question, Madam Chair. Do we have any real-life examples of where this is already being practiced?

Absolutely. There are a lot of districts in California today that are doing early screening, or some might call it early diagnostics, to identify which kids are really struggling and then are providing more support. So it's happening. What's nice about California, we have a thousand school districts, and there's a lot of great practices in the field. What this law is saying is

But with this particular bill, with this particular screening, do we have this in practice already in any of our school districts in California or out of the state, where we actually have data that says this has actually been effective?

Well, if you look at other states, so Alabama, which has had the greatest improvement on the NAEP test since COVID in the country, they, this is one part of a broader strategy, and we're clear, this doesn't solve all the issues, but it's a key part of a broader strategy, and they've had the most success in terms of improving student success as a state in the country.

And then there are districts in California, a lot of them that are doing early screening and diagnosis and assessment in order to identify kids that are struggling and having success there. The exact screeners themselves, Senator, because the panel of experts will develop the screeners, that's where I can't say this district is using this exact screener, because the screeners that are identified have not been identified by the panel yet.

Do you have any names of the school districts that actually have the screening test as a kind of

Yes. So I live in Los Angeles. Los Angeles Unified School District, they use an assessment called iReady. The National Center on Intensive Intervention has identified iReady, which is more of an assessment, but they've identified that as a validated screener. They use that.

They had their highest results in math last year. Again, that's not the only reason. As was mentioned clearly, and we all agree, we need investment in professional development. We need investment in coaching, but we think this is an essential part of the overall strategy. So that's a district that's making real progress in math right now.

It's been doing a lot of early identification.

And just to that point, as far as early math screening, over 20 states have adopted early math screening in the country. So we're not the first. We would be following other states which have already shown significant improvement in their students' math scores.

Thank you. And I appreciate your presentation and, you know, Senator Weber Pierson for bringing this bill forward, SB 1067. I think at the end of the day, you know, what your bill is focused on trying to resolve is really commendable, bringing up math scores for kids. As somebody that's worked in the education space for a very long time, I can tell you that the numbers in terms of performance for our black and brown students have been incredibly low for decades. It's really unacceptable.

And California has not made much improvement over the last ten years. Now, we haven't declined dramatically either, but we've kind of just coasted. That goes for reading as well, and that's part of the reason why the state has made such a large investment in trying to improve literacy for students. But I think that this bill is part of a larger puzzle of pieces that we need to work on here in the state in resolving this issue.

You know, it was mentioned before, whether it's professional development and investing in our teachers, making sure that we are attracting teachers that have a math background to come back to the teaching profession is so critical, so we're getting students excited about STEM and future STEM opportunities.

So I think it's a great piece of legislation. I look forward to seeing it continue to move forward, and my recommendation is an aye vote. So I will turn it over to you to close.

Thank you. I want to thank the committee staff and the Chair and the committee members for reviewing and all of your help with this bill. I want to definitely thank my sponsors, EdVoice. They have been true champions for equity amongst our children in education up and down the state of California, and I really appreciate them. I want to thank Doctor Wilkes, who came.

He was at the press conference and I was just so impressed by everything that he said. And it just kind of clicked. You know, no one is born automatically good or bad at math. And it is a skill. It is a skill that we have to ensure that we are giving to our children.

And, you know, I completely agree with providing support for our teachers and continuing to provide support. And in this, we have requested a budget ask to help with the implementation of this. But at the end of the day, if we can give all the support to our teachers, but if it's not trickling down to our students by screening them early, then I don't know what we have done. The numbers don't lie.

It was interesting because, you know, my mother was in the Assembly before I was, and she and I were talking.

And one of the things that she is most disappointed about is the fact that we have not moved the needle for the achievement of our students here in California in areas in reading and math. And especially when we're dealing with our black and our Latino students and our low-income students. We can talk and talk and put money here and there, but we really aren't moving the needle. And that's really what frustrates me.

As someone who is a product of public school system, as someone who has two black students in California public school system right now, that we are not moving the needle.

And status quo, we cannot continue to do that. We must be bold. We must think of our children first. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this bill, because every student needs an opportunity to achieve in this great state. And if they are having difficulties, then we need to screen for that early and get them the intervention that they need.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Senator. So, I will entertain a motion now on SB 1069. Oh, we we haven't established, quorum yet. I apologize. Thank you for your presentation.

I'll be happy to move the the motion when the time is ready.

Okay. Thank you so much, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Great. I see we have Senator Becker present. Senator Becker, we have an established quorum, but we're continuing to have folks present.

So if you would like to get started on 11:10, whenever you're ready.

Okay. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. Please present SB, 1110. I would like to thank the committee and staff for working on this bill.

Nearly 1,800,000 children in California eligible for affordable childcare, but not enrolled. The families behind that number, working parents navigating complex systems, children who would benefit from quality early learning are the reasons that this bill exists. As California transitions to enrollment based funding on July 1, we need to ensure the anticipated transition strengthens the childcare system. This bill brings more stable and robust childcare system, based on a solid infrastructure and resource for consistent services to childcare providers.

Currently, alternative payment programs do the hands on work of enrolling families, managing cases, and connecting parents to providers.

But current law lumps that work together with back office overhead under a single cap that just has not kept pace with reality. This bill creates a transparent funding structure that recognizes the difference between administrative overhead and direct family services and ensures that even the smallest community based agencies have the resources to keep serving families. There we go. Let's always loud in transition time here. Okay.

The approach to this bill takes, we think, focuses on necessary administrative fixes in a timely and reasonable manner. Author amendments ensure that the bill is aligned with the 2025 budget agreements. With me to testify, I have Donna Steinger from the California Child Care Resource Center and Alicia Hatfield with Every Child California.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Donna Snaringer. I'm the president of the Child Care Resource Center and a cosponsor of SB 1110.

For more than fifty years, CCRC has partnered with the state of California to deliver subsidized childcare to families in Northern Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. Today, we serve more than 60,000 children, support families through enrollment, case management, and ongoing engagement throughout their time in care. These contracts have long provided the state with a cost effective, efficient system to deliver childcare services at scale. However, reimbursement reductions made over a decade ago based on a limited view of our services have never been restored.

Despite significant changes in responsibilities and operating conditions, since that time, labor costs, compliance requirements, audit activity, technology, and data security mandates, additional payments, and reporting responsibilities have all increased substantially.

These pressures have destabilized contracts and, in some cases, affected timeliness and consistency of service to families and providers, which we do not like. SB 1110 offers a practical, carefully developed solution by consolidating existing funding into core contracts. This bill stabilizes the delivery system and allows agencies a to appropriately staff programs, improve payment timelines, strengthen fiscal oversight, and deliver higher quality, more reliable services statewide. On behalf of contractors across California and the families we serve, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Alicia Hatfield, senior legislative and government relations advisor for Every Child California. We're a nonprofit representing 2,500 publicly funding early care and education programs across California and we are proud co sponsors of SB 1110. This bill reflects the critical fact that programs must maintain staffing, licensing, compliance and quality standards regardless of short term fluctuations in attendance or enrollment. Pre pandemic, the state reimbursement structure for our field was attendance driven and deeply unstable.

Small disruptions caused by family wellness issues, work schedule modifications, or eligibility changes resulted in revenue loss, while costs remained the same. Programs were forced to absorb that instability through wage suppression, deferred maintenance, and reduced program flexibility. During the COVID pandemic, Hold Harmless created stability, keeping programs open for families and staff employed. Now, as the state exits hold harmless, new conditions facing providers have introduced more volatility.

Today, programs are managing changes brought on by the universal transitional kindergarten expansion, operating in material costs rising wildly in ways that programs can't keep up with, and family mobility issues including disruptions tied to broader enforcement and community conditions.

These are new and ongoing structural conditions now part of the operating environment, which is why stabilization has become a priority. This bill is a protection mechanism that safeguards continuity for children, preserves access for families, and helps prevent further erosion of California's center based child care infrastructure. Thank you.

Thank you both for your presentation. Do we have any other witnesses here in support? Please use the mic at the railing and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

MacLean Rozanski with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Blake Johnson, Bedford's Child Action for our cosponsor in support.

Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of the Children's Paradise. We have a support unless amended position. Thank you.

Sada Baches with Children Now in support.

Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing no one else, we will turn it over now to any witnesses in opposition. If anyone is here to speak in opposition, please rise.

Seeing no one rising, we'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any committee comments or questions? Okay. I do not have any questions for you, Senator Becker, and my recommendation's an aye vote if you'd like to close.

Yeah. I wanna thank you. I wanna thank the witnesses for their work. We're trying to get a better childcare subsidy system that makes it better for the providers and makes sense for parents and families. Respectfully ask for an I vote.

Great. Thank you. So and do we have a motion? Oh, we don't.

I for keep forgetting. We do not have a quorum. We will take a vote on that bill once we do have a quorum, Senator Becker. But thank you so much for your presentation.

Great. Thank you.

And, Leiper, is anybody else here? Well, I can't have her present because, like, I'm gonna be stepping out. So should I recess? So we are going to recess for a few minutes. I'm passing the gavel to Senator Ochoa Bogh in case we have any authors that do arrive.

Thank you.

Author in the room. We have Senator Niello who will be presenting two bills this morning. File item number six, SB, would you like to do 1321? I know we're doing one

I will do

Or would you like to do three seventy four. Three seventy four first.

Okay. That's number seven?

Yes. File item number seven, SB 1374. And Senator Niello, you may proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. For the sake of any kids that are in the room, my agenda items are 67. That means something to some people. I don't quite get it, but if there were kids here, they'd be yelling and screaming and jumping up and down. Right?

Is that the way that works? So, yes. First, I'll present s p thirteen seventy four, which authorizes a public higher education institution to seek a temporary restraining order on its own behalf when it faces unlawful violence or credible threat of violence. Currently, universities may seek a restraining order on behalf of a student or an employee who has suffered a credi a credible threat of violence. However, when threats are made toward an institution without targeting an individual, an institution is unable to seek a restraining order.

Last year, SB 19 made it a crime for threats made toward higher education universities amongst among other institutions. But when threats are made toward an institution without targeting an individual, the institution is unable to seek a restraining order. This limits the legal ability for long term restraining orders against those who threaten to cause harm on a campus.

SB 1374 closes that gap by permitting higher education institution to higher education institution to seek a temporary restraining order when a credible threat is made toward the campus. I have with me today Annabelle Urbina with, the CSU Office of the of the Chancellor and Gregory Murphy, Chief of Police at San Diego State University.

Good morning and welcome. You are proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Annabelle Urbina representing the California State University Office of the Chancellor in support and as sponsor of SB 1374. I would like to begin by thanking Senator Nilo and his team for authoring this measure, which would permit post secondary higher education institutions to seek a temporary restraining order when a credible threat is made towards a university.

While current law allows post secondary institutions to seek restraining orders on behalf of a student or an employee who receives a threat, it does not clearly authorize institutions to seek similar protections when threats are directed at the institution more generally, thus leaving a gap.

Across the CSU, threats of harm have been made that do not target a specific individual or group, causing fear amongst students, faculty, staff, and in some cases, resulting in canceled classes. At San Diego State, an incident prompted a multi agency investigation after a student made repeated threats towards the campus. However, the university was unable to seek a temporary restraining order because the threats were directed at the campus broadly rather than a specific individual.

All threats received or reported to the CSU are investigated and reviewed through the appropriate internal channels and this bill would apply only to threats deemed credible. SB 1374 serves as a critical preemptive measure by allowing institutions to intervene at a point of credible threats before a conduct turns into physical violence, unlawful acts, or reversible harm to students, staff, or campus operations.

The CSU and its 22 universities remain committed to ensuring safe communities for our students, faculty, and staff. For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote on SB 1374. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Perez and members of the committee. My name is Gregory Murphy, and I serve as the chief of police at San Diego State University. I want to briefly explain this gap what this gap looks like from an operational standpoint. At SDSU, we recently managed a case involving an individual targeting our campus community with violent and concerning behavior. Importantly, the threats were not always directed at a specific student or employee.

They were directed at the campus more broadly. We investigated and coordinated with law enforcement and federal partners. Ultimately, the individual was removed from the university through the student conduct process and expelled. But here's the issue, Under current law, because there was no specific individual victim, the university had no standing to seek a temporary restraining order even in the face of credible threats. While a student is enrolled, campuses can issue administrative directives, but those are not legally enforceable.

And once someone is no longer a student, those tools end. And in some cases, the individual is not a student at all, meaning the university has no authority from the outset. So we had no legal mechanism to prevent that individual from returning to campus. This is not an isolated issue. We have faced the same challenge in other cases where threats were directed at the campus broadly.

The gap leaves universities relying on heightened security and operational disruption rather than clear legal a clear legal remedy. Senate bill thirteen seventy four allows institutions to go to court and obtain a restraining order that creates an enforceable boundary and gives law enforcement a clear legal basis to act if it is violated. From a public safety perspective, this is about prevention, acting before violence occurs, and protecting the campus community. I respectfully ask for your

support. Thank you very much. And we'll continue with any witnesses in support of SB 1374 here in Room 2200 2100. Sorry. 2100.

Good morning. Tyler Aguilar on behalf of the University of California in support.

Good morning. Alex Graves, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities in support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to SB 1374. Seeing none, do we have any other witnesses in opposition to SB 1374? Seeing no, we'll bring it back to their eyes. Seeing no other member here except myself.

That happened to me yesterday in the Judiciary Committee.

Many of our members are actually presenting bills or in other committees. So which is why you see an empty dais here today, which is kind of a a bummer that they can't hear your your testimony. But I'm grateful for the opportunity to hear the the bill. Thank you for bringing it forward. Would you like to close Senator Niello?

Yes. I respectfully request an aye vote. The bill has no opposition. So, hopefully, I'll have support here.

Wonderful. Thank you. And when the I will leave it on call when we have it been able to establish a quorum, we'll be I'll be happy to move the the bill forward if when the time comes. Thank you. Thank you.

I think we're in a pickle right next. I I we're supposed to co present a bill, but I'm the only one here. So what I can do is you can present the bill and I can just share my comments from the dais Sure. As as the acting chair. Right?

Okay.

And I I hope that the rest of their committee will be briefed on what we both say because I think this is a very important issue and a very important bill. So Well,

then maybe I should give you an opportunity to I'm I'm okay. You can present the bill now or you can come back and present the bill when we have more members here.

Today that's gonna be hard to tell, number one. And number two, I have another committee meeting, this afternoon. So the way this, committee seems to be moving, I think there's no way of telling when that might happen. This is a very busy time of year and people have multiple committees. They're presenting bills and we're just running all over the place.

So I'll go ahead and present now. So this is SB 1321, and this bill is to task the California state auditor with reviewing three high demand campuses of the University of California, the California State University, relating to the use of remedial classes and a review of admission practices. In the 2025, UC San Diego Senate, Administration Work Group on Admissions issued a report. A rather surprising report I would emphasize examining academic preparation of its first year students.

The re the report showed that, UC San Diego has experienced a significant decline in the academic preparation of entering first year students over the past five years.

With the most severe deterioration occurring in mathematics preparation and notable challenges also in writing and language skills. Between 2025 the number of entering students at, UCSD whose mathematics skills fell below high school standards increased nearly 30 fold. 30 times. With more than 70% of those students performing below middle school standards representing approximately one in 12 members of the entering cohort. That's remarkable.

It's possible the decline in academic preparation coincidences coincides with multiple systemic factors including for sure COVID the COVID nineteen pandemic which caused significant challenges in in teaching kids with a lot of remote instruction that they were not used to. But there's also elevated risks of chronic absenteeism, changes in math curriculum, the elimination of remedial courses and moving to co requisite grade inflation in secondary education, and the elimination of standardized testing from the UC admissions process. We need a deeper dive into this.

I'd, I'd point out that these are students that are graduating high school with very high, in the case of these high demand campuses, four point grade point averages or above. And yet many of them in math, not even at the eighth grade level.

Let that sink in. Now I'd like to turn it over to my joint author, chair, Chowa Bogue, who will speak from behind the dais.

Yes. Absolutely. So thank you Senator Nilo for bringing this forward. I think you and I have shared many, many conversations about, academic performances for students here in in California. You have the same passion that I do.

In 2024, I carried an education bill package on math reform, which was partly focused on bridging the gap between high school and higher education. The standards established in high school have a direct impact on college student success. To foster improvement, we must gather data to to pinpoint specific educational gaps in both middle and high schools.

Math placement data at UC San Diego demonstrates a correlation between high school math grades and actual student preparedness, including cases in which students earning high grades in advanced high school math courses nonetheless require remediation courses once they got to college. Admitting large numbers of students who are profoundly underprepared risks the undermining student success, increasing course failure rates and lengthening the time cost to degree attainment.

It also places an unsustainable strain on faculty and instructional resources. And I've heard firsthand from our professors at, many of our higher ed, institutions about the concerns that they have about student preparedness in their academic, in the rigor of their coursework. The UCSD report also demonstrates that current admissions and placement practices are insufficiently aligned with student readiness, institutional capacity, and long term educational outcomes.

This is not fair or right to do to the students or faculty and I know that with data provided by the state auditor, we could begin the process of preparing our students for the challenges of college and can hopefully cut back a number of remediation courses and supports. Thank you so much for bringing this measure forward and I'm I'm hoping that once my colleagues come that we will have the unanimous support, I'm hoping, for this particular bill.

Thank you for that. And, continuing on with, my testimony. And to that point, I'm sure that all of the members of this committee have staff that are watching, this presentation. And I urge them, to make sure to inform their member of the very important points that you and I both are making. So in 2019, the California State Auditor issued an audit after reviewing the general admissions practices of three universities.

UC Berkeley, Cal, go Bears. The University of California Los Angeles, go Bruins. I went to both those institutions. The admission standards back then were actually easier. That's how I got in.

But it has changed quite a bit since. And the University of California San Diego. Now that it's 2026, we believe that the auditor is in a unique position to investigate this on a deeper level due to their previous work on the matter. Given these findings that have been brought to light at one UC and we gave you, by the way we need to give UCSD great credit for coming out with this study. Because if we don't recognize a problem we will never cure the problem.

And they're helping us to recognize it. But more needs to be understood on how wide this remedial issue is, and how it's impacting admissions decisions. And with me today is Anna Matthews here to testify in support and on behalf of the California Community College Independence Union.

Welcome, Anna. You may proceed.

Good morning, chair. My name is Anna Matthews, and I'm the representative of the California Community College Independence Union. I'm here to support SB 1321, Nilo and Atobug. On the surface, this bill pertains to CSUs and UCs, but the California Community Colleges are strong partners with these institutions, transferring many students to them annually. And more importantly, we share significant overlap regarding student basic skills preparedness across all segments.

To reiterate what the Senator mentioned, the report out of UC San Diego showed that over the last five years, the number of entering students at UC San Diego whose math proficiency is fell below high school standards increased almost 30 fold with seventy percent of these students performing below middle school standards. I think this also stems from the gaps that Senator Weber Pearson was mentioning earlier. Many students also struggle with their basic writing skills, but this problem isn't limited to UC San Diego students.

The reality is between the California community colleges, CSUs and UCs, we have a student basic skills crisis. SB 1321 would investigate this crisis and give our systems the research basis they need to take decisive action and support students in strengthening their basic skills.

There are many perspectives on why students are struggling with learning loss and what to do about it. But between students facing skill gaps after COVID, the disruptions that AI has posed to math and English education and transfer students lacking access to stand alone preparatory coursework, we must do something. At a time when basic skills preparation is more necessary than ever, our systems are removing access to stand alone foundational courses.

The rollback of these classes has and will continue to leave first generation and non traditional learners without the academic support that they need to succeed in higher level coursework. Student preparedness in basic math and English is at an all time low.

In order to address this crisis, we must first acknowledge that it exists. SB 1321 takes this first step. With that, I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you very much, Anna, for presenting today. We'll now continue with any other witnesses' support of s p thirteen twenty one here in Room 2100. 22. 21. 21.

Seeing no other witnesses report, we'll now continue with any, witnesses in opposition lead witnesses in opposition to s p thirteen twenty one. See none. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition? Seenam, bring it back to Dais. Just grateful that you brought this measure forward, Senator Nilo.

Very proud to be a co author with you, on this measure. And I hope that, when the time comes, we'll have full support. Would you like to close?

Yes. There was one other witness who wasn't able to meet to be here today, and I thought I'd read what he had to say. This is a CSU Long Beach professor. And he says, from my own experience in the classroom, I see a wider range of student preparedness than in the past. While many students succeed, others struggle to meet the demands of college level coursework even with support.

They start classes without basic middle school levels, of, level of skills in math and writing. Many of them demoralized drop classes, some drop out altogether. A standardized admissions test would signal in advance that they need extra preparation to succeed in college classes. SB 1321 takes a prudent evidence based approach. It does not prescribe a solution but instead asks critical questions about student readiness, the effective support systems, and the effectiveness of admissions practices in signaling the university and the student readiness for college work.

So this is an issue on so many different levels. The lack of preparedness obviously is a reflection of our k through 12 system. That I'm not addressing in my statements, but we are failing our young people. Our achievement here in California, especially in disadvantaged areas leaves to say that it leaves a lot to be desired is probably the understatement of this legislative session.

Arguably this committee is the most important committee in the entire Senate and the facing one in the assembly also because that's our future.

To say that children are our future is an overused statement, but to say that we are Yeah. That we are failing our youth relative to education is a question that cannot be denied.

The and and as this professor emphasizes, when we admit kids that are not prepared, and it's not their fault, that are not prepared for higher education and get so demoralized that not only that inadequate education in k through 12, but then topped on on on top of it, the demoralization of the initial failure almost predicts failure for them in their whatever professional life that they might have. One other point with regard to the JLAC process that we are circumventing that.

I want to emphasize we did request an audit and it was not given a hearing.

And typically follow-up hearings are not held. I'm told that they do have a hearing scheduled, but I still don't know if this request is going to be considered. And it is not at all unusual for a policy bill, to be put forth to request or actually mandate that the auditor look into a particular issue. And I have several examples here. SB 47, Humbergh state regarding the State Bar in 2025.

A B 2407 by Hart, in 2024 regarding sexual harassment, title nine, AB 129 in 2021, which was a budget bill, And then SB 164 in 2024, again a budget trailer bill. This has been done before and I emphasize I really emphasize the importance of this issue and to be concerned about circumventing JLAC given the height of importance I think is is is misguided.

So again, stress that those staff of members that aren't here, please convey to your member the significant importance of this issue. As I said, on so many different levels, I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Niello. And we'll place it on the hold, for our absent members to because that was first a quorum and then, hopefully support the bill. Thank you. Thank you so much for being here today.

Thanks a lot.

Okay. We have an author here. That's exciting. Senator Dahle. Senator Dahle will be presenting file item number two, SB1086.

Good morning.

Good morning and welcome Senator Dahle. I see familiar witnesses as your witnesses. I'm super super excited. We'd love to see some familiar faces here.

Good morning, Vice Chair and Members. A day Ivory of Cajun x b, October 10? I'm sorry. '86, which will allow, which will direct, Office of Land Use to develop, origin model ordinances, which will provide cities and counties clear, sanergeized rate work for micro schools. Micro schools emerge from parents and teachers working together to support their children who have who needed more individualized attention.

They offer safe, tailored environment for the students with special needs or learning disabilities. Local land use regulation create unnecessary barriers, extra costs, and confusion of the Meister School operators. Many of them quietly raise their hand to share this issue. SB 1086 give teachers a clear pathway to, pathway to offer age offer, operate, with transparency without exposing them to regular overreach. With me today are Lance Christensen, for, California Policy Center, the zoosette zoo, Dallas, and the, California Maestro Schools Collective.

Welcome.

Thanks, Senator, Vice Chair, and, committee staff. Really good staff. Appreciate the time. Lance Christensen, Vice President of Education Policy at the California Policy Center, the sponsors of this bill. I'm gonna be here more for technical support as we talk about micro microschools.

I wanna introduce two founders, Lizette Vias and Meli Fowler, who are both incredible, microschool geniuses in the Northern state in LA and let them share their story. So I'll turn it over to Lizette. Okay.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Lizette Vaez. I'm a mother and an educator of over twenty years. I'm also the founder of Almercita Learning Community, a micro school in Southern California, and I support more than 35 micro school founders across the state through the California Micro School Collective. I'm here today because I've sat across from families in tears.

Not because they don't care about education, but because their child is not thriving in the options available to them. These are children who are bright, curious, and capable, but they need something different. They need smaller environments, more connection, more flexibility, and a place where they feel safe enough to actually learn. That's what micro schools provide. They are small relationship based learning communities designed to meet children where they are, and they are growing because families are actively seeking them out.

But right now in California, there's no clear or consistent path to open or operate a micro school. Founders are left navigating a patchwork of zoning rules that were never designed for small community based learning environments. They are often treated like large institutions and face costly confusing requirements just to serve a small group of children who need them. Through my work supporting more than 35 founders across California, I see this again and again. This is not isolated.

It is happening across communities throughout our state. SB 1086 offers a practical solution. It creates a clear, predictable pathway while still maintaining local health and safety oversight. This bill does not create something new. It responds to something that is already happening.

Because the truth is, families and educators are not waiting for policy to catch up to their courage. They are already building. SB 1086 helps policy catch up. I respectfully urge your support. Thank you.

We have about two minutes for, for testimony.

Good morning, Committee. I am Melody Fowler. I'm from Redding, California and founder of Roots Farm Education. We have been in operation for five years. I was a public school teacher prior.

We, were gonna become a public charter, but the governor had put a moratorium, so we've been con we've been operating in this gray area where we are supporting home educated families. But what makes us unique is we are a farm school, and we are passionate about teaching children how to grow their own food and where food comes from and to value, everything that they eat from eggs to dairy to meat. We have a very active four H club at our school.

And, it's just it's been it's been a struggle and a dream at the same time. And I call it joyful industry because it's you have to choose your hard.

But when we when I came across the micro school bill, the Senate bill ten eighty six, I was astonished to to read that it described exactly what we're doing. And we support 94 families at the moment.

Like I said, this is our fifth year of operation and we would love to be more transparent about everything that we're doing and, and just offer, the diversity of, opportunity for all children, to fit their learning styles and to meet them where they are and to, again, tailor it for the parents to decide, what they want for their children.

And in my experience, we've had all children from all kinds of all walks of life and, many small family small business families and children that probably, you know, a lot of kids have come to us who were bullied in, at their other schools and they're allowed in this small setting to be who they are and we we really value that. So I, again, thank you for your time and I encourage you to vote this through.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any other witnesses in support of SB 1086. Seeing no other witnesses, we will oh. There might be. Oh, in support.

Okay. And we'll transfer the chairmanship back to our Chair.

Thank you. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of all of you today. My name is Crystal Williams. My two kids currently go to Roots Farm.

Oh, excuse me? We're doing Me Too's right now. And so the Me Too's mean that you state your name Oh. Your organization, and your position on the bill. So this is in a public comment period.

So if you could state your name and organization and position on the bill, that would be excellent.

So my name's Crystal Williams, and, the organization is with Roots Farm, and I support this bill.

Thank you so much. Do we have anybody else that would like to offer their support for the bill? Alrighty. We'll now entertain, speakers in opposition. Do we have anybody here in opposition to the bill?

Seeing no one rising, we'll now turn it back, to our Committee. Do we have any Committee comments or questions? Senator Ochoa Bogh?

Yes. Yes. Madam Chair, we do have a couple of questions, for the record. So our first question, Senator Dalhe, the bill was amended in local government committee to remove the preemption and ministerial approval provisions. Can you explain what the bill still does accomplish and why establishing statutory definitions and directing model ordinances development is itself a meaningful and necessary first step?

Chair, 1I enter Christian Chen, all Spain for the technical question?

To the Chair as a technical

Yes. Please go ahead.

Offering. So thank you, Chair. Appreciate having you here. This bill basically puts a name to a practice that's been going on for a long time. So micro schooling is kind of ambiguous.

A lot of cities don't understand what this is or counties. So when you go to a planning department and you have a micro school that might have a dozen kids and maybe in a a a small, you know, commercial space or at a home to try to say what that looks like is different in every place. So we're just trying to standardize that definition, one. And then, two, we pulled out the mandatory or the the mandate that would require cities to do this.

We would like to just see a a definition, put together and then some model regulations that will allow for, some, again, a a process that is noble and understandable amongst all parties as they go throughout the state.

And micro schools is growing pretty fast, as an alternative opportunity, but this is a land use bill and so we're just trying to focus on the land use issues.

Okay. Thank you. The committee analysis notes that it hasn't received data on how many micro schools are operating in California. Can you speak to, why the absence of the data is itself evidence of the problem? That these schools operates informally precisely because they have no clear regulatory pathway And how this bill would actually help the state learn more about the sector?

Yeah. And through the Chair, of course, in response. We we feel like, the number is probably understated. There's probably hundreds, if not thousands, of these kinds of schools within the state. Most of them operate as PSA or, private school affidavits, home schools.

So the family may gather with another family or two families or three families, and that may exist. They don't know that they're a micro school. They may call themselves a co op or a one room schoolhouse. This this just gives a chance for those that really want to be more, intentional with their with their building up of, micro school community. They would have the opportunity to do that through common, local regulations.

And so, I would say probably you're gonna see hundreds pop up if something like this becomes law.

Okay. Some have raised oversight concerns about micro schools. Can you walk the committee through the what accountability obligations already applied to any schools operating under a private school affidavit including background checks, curriculum coverage, and annual filing under penalty or perjury so that the committee understands what floor already exists before this bill even comes into play?

Yeah. So through the Chair, of course. This bill does not, create a new model. The private school affidavit already exists. They are already mandated to report every year to file in October for their, private school affidavit.

They already have different requirements on, safety of kids and and teachers, and to make sure they're teaching the k through 12 curriculum at some at some level. The micro schools out there are already doing this, and they're often doing this just in partnership with several homeschool families that operate with that PSA.

Thank you. So, we understand the committee analysis suggests that the legislature should wait until Better Understands Micro Schools before defining them in statute. But isn't the problem precisely that local zoning officials are already making ad hoc decisions about entities right now without any statutory framework or statewide consistency? Doesn't the absence of a definition produce worse outcomes than a careful definition?

Yeah. Senator, so the chair, these ladies could tell you story after story after story of going to maybe one, city planner in an area and asking for permission and having them say, yes, you can do this. And then going to another one at the same city, same jurisdiction, to have another city planner say something completely different. That often is because there's not an understanding of what these micro schools are trying to accomplish. We're not building big private schools.

These are not schools with hundreds of kids. They're usually in the dozens, if that. And so we've set some some standards or some frameworks for how big they can be to declare themselves as a micro school. We also ask these micro schools if they wanna be regulated underneath these, potentially these new model regulations that they, incorporate. So they're a legitimate sort of, institution as opposed to an ad hoc gathering of multiple private school affidavit families.

Sounds sensible. And my last question, Critics sometimes suggest that less regulated educational settings produce inferior outcomes. What does the research literature actually show about academic performance in affidavit settings and home education models compared to traditional public schools? And what does it show specifically about the relationship between the degree of state regulation and those outcomes?

Through the Chair, we are working on a model. It's kinda like, every family is different. I have five kids. None of my five kids are exactly the same. And so a micro school might be helpful in some academic areas.

These ladies talked about different places. She's in inner city LA. We've got some up in rural Northern California. And many of these schools are students that go to homeschool or private school affidavits. They score 15 to 25% above public school students.

They are usually in 78% of peer reviewed studies show that homeschool children perform statistically significantly better than those in institutional schools. So if you have a child who's really struggling in class, finding an opportunity to go and take, kids these these micro schools can be very powerful. And in some of the different head to head national tests, the PSA models and home schools can score reports of 20 points, amongst their peers at public schools. We're not saying get rid of public schools. Public schools are wonderful.

My wife's a fourth grade public school teacher. We support them. All my kids are in public school. We just wanna have the opportunity for other kids to to get out there if they really need that individualized education opportunity. Okay.

I think I'm gonna allow my colleagues, if they have any comments and questions, to move forward. I had one last, but I think I'm gonna wait two.

Senator Cabaldon, did you have any questions or comments?

Well, thanks, Madam Chair, and thanks, Senator, as well. I the education has been my professional field for my since I was 18. I've never heard of this before.

And the so I guess I'm not comfortable with the with putting the concept in statute that I don't I I don't think we have we understand that we have agreement on, that we've researched and what have this feels to me like an issue that's real, but that deserves, you know, more extensive informational hearing or something more than we can consider in a in in legislation that sort of presumes that we have a, you know, common definitions, expectations, what we're doing here, and then puts it into the law.

So I'm, you know, I appreciate the the points.

I'm not I I'm not I don't quite understand the lines here between homeschooling, micro schools, private schools, or that there's as the analysis points out, we have a lot of different distinctions that have always made this kind of the same case as well, you know, we're different.

I'm gonna try this thing, and I'm not opposed to that conceptually, but it I do think it deserves say, policy attention more than simply asking the Department of Education start developing guidance when when when we've never even had a policy conversation at any length or with the other stakeholders or educators or about about what this looks like.

So I'm not opposed to the idea, but I do feel like it's premature without having done more extensive, you know, investigation policy development and making not just here in the Senate, although here in the Senate too, but but more generally within k12 education. So I'm not prepared to support us today, but I do appreciate the author opening up the topic. I'm I'm glad to learn something new that I didn't know last week.

And and but I feel like we're it's it's just we're not ready yet to start putting this into law and giving guidance that we that we don't know what should be what that should be yet.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh?

So following up on that concern, I'm gonna ask the following question, which states that this bill draws on Utah's SB 13 from 2024. Can you describe how that law has functioned in practice, whether it produced the regulatory overreach that critics feared or whether it simply gave families and founders the clarity they needed to operate lawfully?

Yeah. So and thank you for the question. It's to the Chair. The state of Utah passed a bill very similar to this that made some definitions on micro schools. And what they found is a burgeoning growth of micro schools out there where parents didn't have to worry about what one city to the next city thought about those particular micro schools.

They could go and get them approved pretty quickly. And frankly, the public schools are still doing fine. There's been not, like, a huge drive out of public schools. But for parents that need that extra the the homeschool parents, it's been a a big blessing. And we're seeing it in in the state, hundreds of micro schools that have developed out through the entire microcosm.

They, of course, only have 600,000 students in their in their k through 12 system, whereas that's probably LUSD ish. So, it's a different population for sure, but it's a model that I think if California could do, it could be a model for the rest of the country too.

Okay. And then one last question in addressing my colleague's concerns. The committee the committee analysis suggests that the literature should wait until better better I don't think I did. Until it better understands micro schools before defining them in statute. But isn't that the problem precisely that local zoning officials are already making ad hoc decisions about these entities right now without any statutory framework or statewide consistency?

Doesn't the absence of a definition produce worse outcomes and a careful definition?

Yeah. And through the Chair, it's already happening. Microscores already exist. They're doing what they can to comply with law as much as they can. But we would like to just make that easier for them so they don't feel like they're jumping through hoops or trying to beg city planners and others to allow them to to exist.

So they exist now, and we're going to invite them over this next several months to come to your offices and your districts and to share what they're doing.

Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. I think Senator Cabaldon has, more questions.

Yeah. So, I'm just putting my other hat on. So as a mayor, it's not clear to me if I were working at the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, how the heck I would develop a model ordinance in the space anyway?

We don't we I mean, with just the information that the that the that the bill provides, like, having, you know, having been on a city council member adopting things like this before, like, what are the fire safety requirements when all you know is that it's it's more than 16 but fewer than a 100 chill children, and that they're learning something and it's a house or an ADU.

There's no there's no basis for a model ordinance because we have no experience about the thing and the thing itself is not defined.

So there's just no like, there's no way as a mayor I would say, hey, I trust the state of California to tell me how I should adopt parking and management traffic standards, fire and life safety standards, and all of that for something that it doesn't it can't even really define. And so the bill does not it does not so it doesn't allow micro schools to say, hey, we don't now I don't have to deal with the city planners or whatever.

It doesn't say that at all. It says the city planners will get a guidance doc based on nothing from from the state. So the the we're we're definite I mean, what I said about the education stuff, I still believe we're not ready.

But on the on fire and life safety stuff like that, we're definitely not ready. Like, we have no there's no there's nothing in here that would give any guidance to a to a state planner giving guidance to to city planners about how you would actually adjust your your safety standards for a micro school. So I I continue to believe that the that the bill, that it needs additional review of study potentially interim. So thanks.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. Senator Gomez Reyes? Okay. And we have a quorum now, so I'm going to go ahead and have the secretary call the roll.

Senators Perez? Here. Perez, here. Ochoa Bogh? Here.

Ochoa Bogh, here. Cabaldon? Here.

Cabaldon, here. Choi? Cortese? Gonzalez? Reyes? Here. Reyes, here. Okay. We have a quorm.

Great. So we have now established quorm, so we may begin taking votes finally. Aye, I wanted to go ahead and make a couple of comments before I had you close, Senator Dahle. One, I appreciate you bringing this bill forward and elevating this conversation around alternative education models. And I think it's an important and evolving space, and I wanna underscore that.

And I know families are clearly seeking a range of options outside of traditional systems. The thing I'm struggling with here is that the bill is asking us to define these entities in statute and direct the state to develop model ordinances to help facilitate their expansion, and I'm not sure that we have enough clarity about what these entities are in practice to take that step. I also think about when it's appropriate for the state to step in and develop model ordinances.

In my view, they that typically happens when either local governments are asking for that kind of guidance or when the state has a clear policy goal that it's trying to advance. And I'm not sure that we've fully established either one of those items yet, in those conditions here.

At the same time, the sponsors have described these models pretty broadly from small home based settings to larger operations serving up to a 100 students, and it's not entirely clear what those lines are drawn or what is ultimately being contemplated. As a committee, we've tried to be very deliberate when defining education models in statute.

We've spent years working through what does and does not constitute independent study, what counts as CTE coursework, how to define non classroom based charter schools or flex based charter schools, which is always a hot topic, and we only recently established clear definitions around charter management organizations. In some cases, like homeschooling, we still don't even have a formal statutory definition. Those experiences have shown us that definitions carry real policy implications.

It's something that we're very mindful here, and we have a lot of discussions about that. And they're usually most effective when they follow a clearer understanding of how a model is operating in practice. So I think we we need some more information. So, for me, I'm not quite there yet in terms of supporting the bill, not because I'm opposed to these models necessarily, but because I'm not sure we have enough clarity to define them in statute and direct state action to facilitate them at this time.

Now, Senator Cabaldon mentioned something I think is important and and might help with driving this conversation.

Senator Dahle, if you would like to continue working on this issue, maybe, convening some sort of conversation or or discussion around this so that we can gain more information in order to drive a piece of legislation like this, I think, would be, really helpful and and powerful to this effort. And so I do not have a recommendation on this bill and, instead will be allowing my colleagues to vote their conscience.

I won't be voting on this bill at this time, and wanted to, inform you of that. So I will turn it over now to you, Senator Dahle, for you to close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Dahle. And, do we have a motion on, that bill? And that bill is SB 1086.

So moved.

So we have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh, and that motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Or I'm sorry.

Nope. I'm playing off. I'm not voting.

Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Cabaldon, Choi, Cortese, Gonzales, Reyes?

Great, and we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much. Senator Hurtado. Right? So next up on the agenda, we have Senator Hurtado presenting SB 1181. Senator Hurtado, you may present when you're ready. I understand, you'd like to have a visual aid, so, we have something here to assist you as well.

Good good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Senate Education Committee. At the start, I want to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for their work on this bill. I will be accepting all of the Committee's proposed amendments as outlined in the analysis. I'd like to begin, my bill presentation today by honoring the youth in my district who were tragically taken from us far too soon.

Michaela Ryan Osorno, 11 years old. Elena Sadeed Doric, 12 years old. Two girls from Delano taken in 2020. Tristan Rudy Alexander Aguilar Rodriguez, 12 years old from Lamont, murdered in October 2024. Prince Michael Banner, Bakersfield 2024.

Lorenzo Sanchez, 17 years old, Corcoran, 2025. Aiden Wyatt Hanford just murdered earlier this year. In most of these cases, at least one juvenile has been charged and in just a few years, many of them will walk free. Just think about what that means for all of us as a state, as a community. Our kids are not just growing up online.

They are growing up in a cognitive warfare era where influence itself has become a weapon. Developing brains, constant digital exposure, and identity formation make young people especially vulnerable to manipulation that shapes how they think, what they believe, and how they act. We're seeing the consequences play out in real time across our valley.

We see it in the most tragic way, young lives lost, families shattered, and other young people pulled into violence that will define the rest of their lives, but it doesn't always start there. Sometimes it looks like a game.

In delaying just this past week, law enforcement had to warn families about a viral senior assassin trend, students tracking and targeting each other with realistic looking water guns. What may seem harmless can quickly turn into a real world danger when no one can tell the difference in the moment. These situations can escalate in seconds and sometimes it shows up in how students treat one another. In Visalia, a group of students spelled out a homophobic slur at a school event. The harm was real.

Students spoke out. Communities responded. But what follows also matters. Backlash, harassment, doxing, families pulled into it. Students on all sides impacted in ways that will follow them long after this moment passes.

There are no winners in any of these situations, not the student being targeted, not the student making the decision, not the families, not the community because these moments are not happening in isolation. They are being shaped, amplified, and accelerated by the environments our kids are living in every day through social media, algorithms, constant exposure to content that rewards escalation, division, and attention.

If we only respond to the outcome but don't understand what is driving it, we will keep reacting instead of preventing, and we've seen what happens when we move too late. When fentanyl first hit our communities back in 2020, people on the ground raised alarm early. Parents knew, educators knew, district attorneys were reaching out, but our system was slow to react.

By the time the data caught up, we had already lost too many individuals and too many youth. We're in that same kinda moment again. The warning signs are there. Teachers see behavior, counselors hear concerning comments.

Parents know something isn't right. Law enforcement may have another piece to it all, but those pieces are not coming together. The signal is there. The system of communication is not. These kids are not disengaging because they don't care.

Often, it's because something is happening and we're not catching it early enough and that's what SB 1181 is all about. SB 1181 creates a voluntary limited pilot program that allows Central Valley Schools to communicate with regional threat assessment centers when there is a real credible safety concern. It is not bulk monitoring. It is not surveillance that, that is explicitly prohibited. This is about connecting the dots early, lawfully, and with strong privacy protections.

But let's be honest, there is data that is being collected on our children by predator by predators as we speak. We know that coordination works. Former Attorney General Eric Holder observed a fusion center, prevent a school shooting in real time because there was clear communication between schools and law enforcement, and that is exactly what this bill builds for Kings, Kern, Tulare, and Fresno Counties. The bill is careful. It is limited.

It is accountable, but most importantly, it gives us a chance to act in a modernized way. We should not need more funerals to prove that something is wrong, because something is wrong. And with me today is Misses Qiu Misha Banner who will share the story of her son, Prince Michael Banner, and I also have here students with me from Corcoran High School who are also living through this reality.

And I do just wanna note, we, only have two presenters present in support of the bill. So whoever whichever two you'd like to present, and then you'll each have two minutes to make your presentation. So just wanna note that. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members of the Senate Education Committee. My name is Kimisha Banner. I'm the mother of Prince Michael Banner, my only child, a sophomore at Stockdale High School in Bakersfield, California, who was tragically shot and killed by another student on 11/10/2024. Prince Michael was a bright young man with a contagious sense of humor and a good heart.

He was an excellent drummer, a bike lover, an athlete, a dedicated student who was preparing to get his driver's permit, and he is still deeply loved and missed by his family and peers.

And his presence is truly missed. I am here today because my son's story is not just about loss. It's about the warning signs that were there and the opportunities that our educational communities had to act before it was too late. Before his life was taken, Prince Michael endured over a year of targeted harassment and threats. Those signs were not hidden.

They were visible, and they were not addressed with urgency, coordination, or follow through that could have made a difference. After his passing, other parents came forward and shared that this same individual had exhibited concerning behavior toward their children as well. This was not an isolated incident. It was a pattern that was missed. While my son's death did not occur on a school campus, it deeply impacted his school community.

And like many families, we were left navigating unimaginable grief, having to see my child for the last time, planning his funeral, and signing a death certificate that no parent should ever have to sign. Youth violence does not happen overnight. It follows patterns and warning signs. And when these signs are missed or ignored, the consequences can be devastating. This is why SB 1181 one is so important.

It ensures that when students show signs of distress, potential harm, concerns are not dismissed, delayed, or lost between systems. It strengthens communication, accountability, and early intervention before situations escalate into tragedy. I can't help but think that if stronger interventions and clear coordination have been in place, maybe my son would still be here today. No family should have to bury their child when there were clear signs that something was wrong.

My son's life cannot be brought back, but this bill has the power to save someone else's.

So please support SB 1181 to protect our students, respond to warning signs, and prevent future tragedies. Thank you.

I'll allow it, but if you all could then present one minute each. Is that okay?

We could do like thirty seconds each.

Okay. Let's do that then. Okay?

Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Good morning, chair and members of the Senate Education Committee. Our names are Ashley Coronel, Jason Lepe, and Jade Palafox and we are students from Corcoran High School in Corcoran, California. We are here today to speak in support of Senate Bill 1181. Students like us often notice when something is not right. We hear the comments, see the post, and recognize when classmates are struggling or acting differently.

As students, we sometimes see things online or hear things at school that make us uncomfortable, but we don't always know what will happen after we report it. Most violence does not happen without warning. There are signs, but too often those signs don't lead to action.

And today, many of those warning signs start online and spread quickly. By the time adults become aware, fear has already reached our classrooms. I have seen how quickly rumors or threats can spread among students and how scared people feel even when they don't know what is true. When students don't feel safe, it affects everything. Our focus, our learning, and our mental health.

Senate bill 1181 helps us make sure that those warning signs are taken seriously and responded to early. As a student, I want to know that when someone speaks up about a concern, adults, have the tools to respond before something tragic might happen. It creates systems so concerns don't get ignored or lost. Warning signs already exist and SB, 1181 make sure that they lead to action.

When we feel safe, we can focus on learning and planning for our futures. We respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now take additional witnesses in support. If there's anybody else here in support, please use the mic at the railing. Seeing nobody standing up, we'll now turn to witnesses in opposition. If there are any opposition witnesses, you can rise now.

Seeing no one standing up, we'll turn it back to committee comments or questions. Senator Gomez Reyes?

Thank you. First to Prince Michael's mother, so sorry for your loss. Thank you for coming to to testify. Whenever we hear testimony from someone who's lost a loved one, those are the hardest ones for us to hear. But we know it's the hardest ones to give in testimony.

So thank you for starting starting the conversation. And for the students, thank you for saying this is a is a big issue and for bringing it to the attention of the Senator who's been a great champion here in the legislature. I'm glad that it has been brought forward. I will tell you that my my concern had been a concern that is noted in the summary and that is that it's homeland security. These fusion centers are connected to homeland security.

Information that's provided to them is shared with the Federal Government and oftentimes things that should be kept locally do not stay local. And they aren't always used for the best reasons. However, there are some guardrail are have been put in and it's set up as a pilot project. And I think that we could learn a whole lot for other fusion centers throughout the state of California if this is something that is successful.

Because if we are able to stop such a tragedy, then it's worth it.

And I think that having as was noted in the amendments that I assume the good Senator accepted. It's having these guardrails and not just taking the information but providing resources. And that's really important. And then having a centralized place where everybody knows this is where you go to provide information about real threats or perceived threats. Not throwing somebody under the bus just because you don't like them and say oh you know so and so is saying things.

But the the the threats will be assessed and determined whether or not they are real threats to avoid a tragedy justice was experienced here. So at the appropriate time, madam chair, I will move the bill.

Thank you, Senator Gomez Reyes. Do we have any other committee members with comments or questions? Senator Ochoa Bogh?

Thank you. So we've had several bills that I've seen these past six years with regards to concerns about school districts not being responsive to bullying threats or just threats in general towards our students. And there's been a lot of attempts to trying to figure out whether or not things that are transmitted or declared online after school should be a responsibility of the school officials or not.

Which comes back with the notion of how much do we collaborate with folks with public safety officials outside of the schools or within schools during school hours. There's a lot that goes on in there.

We've also had a lot of conversations and also funding in trying to ensure that schools have access to behavioral health and mental health resources, as well as concerns about whether or not, you know, how do we report children who have behavioral and physical aggressive tendencies in schools? What do we do with these students? I wanna understand the system so that we know how to proceed more effectively moving forward. I know that there are some concerns about this the the bill moving forward.

But I wanted to first of all, understand how this came to be.

Right? As a parent, do you feel there was a whole year of threats happening and it wasn't addressed? Do you have any information in it? It's only been a year. I cannot imagine your pain. Cannot cannot walk in your shoes.

As a mother of three children, I just cannot imagine. And to be so poised and so strong to be here advocating for your child just barely recently a year, is commendable. Commendable, ma'am. Having said that, I'm I think it's important for us to understand the systems that we currently have so that we can better improve them both legislatively and locally. So with regards to your son's, can I say killer?

Can I say is that I'm not sure if if that is the correct term, but was it a fellow student and do you know if that student had received any support behavioral health, access, any of that any help at all within the school system?

So this was a fellow student, but I am not aware of the system or any resources or services that he received because they cannot provide information for other students that are not your own. So I don't, I wouldn't know that information.

Okay. Has has your case been or has the student gone through the legal system as far as the court system?

In regards to my son? Yeah. So he was arrested a year and seven days after my son after he killed my son. And within that time, he committed other crimes, including threats to me. So he made a song and released it all over social media in regards to details of what he did to my son, on 11/10/2024, and he also made threats towards me as well.

So he is currently being tried as a juvenile because of the law, because he was 15 when he when he committed the crime, but because he was 16 when he committed other crimes, while being not even on bail because he wasn't out on release or anything like that. He was just free, and he was committing other crimes, like I said, in addition to him threatening me as well.

So right now, he is in custody for my son's death for on first degree murder charges.

Okay. So he has been filed and he was charged?

Yes. But we're still going to court. So he hasn't been sentenced yet.

Okay. And I'm asking because we need to ensure that we have systems in place in schools to address issues. These these type of mental issues that are not appropriate. And so, you know, I'm gonna be supporting the bill. We'll be happy to move the the the bill at the appropriate time.

But I think it does begs even further conversations as to how do we get here? Because we as a state, there's been a huge focus on ensuring that we have resources that basically aid in the behavioral health of our students. And if these students are not receiving that assistance, then we end up with situations of this forward. But it also goes to beg on the importance that we that we create healthy environments for our students.

And both our families ensuring that our families have the support systems so that they can also our parents can can be here and here.

Be well enough to ensure that you know, they can meet the emotional, physical, and even spiritual needs of these children and what are we doing in order to ensure that we're carrying that on. Which is why I'm very mindful as a as a legislator to be cautious in how I speak, what I speak, so that we don't have so much toxicity, animosity, and, violence in our community. So thank you for being here, ma'am. And know that you have the immense support around you. Thank you.

Do you have any other committee comments or questions? Senator Cabaldon?

Yeah. Thank you, madam chair. And thank you for thank you for being here. It's this is the annual anniversary of me losing my mom when I was 12 and we've had a you and several other witnesses this week have brought forward. We were in committee earlier this week and the breaking of the bond between a child and their mother is incredibly personal, but I can't imagine having come to the Senate at that point to make meaning and to assure that it doesn't happen to others.

And so just thank you so much for being

Thank you.

For being here and to continue to fight while your still fighting the case as well. And thanks to the author for their work and also to the students for speaking up for yourself about what you're seeing in terms of safety and how to assure that in your in your community.

I also intend to support the bill today and thank the the author for her her continued, kind of steadfast leadership on these issues and and this is a pilot program just for the valley, but, and as the Senator said that this is, you know, it's this challenge is problem, but also the potential for solutions that's what the valley is best at.

Sometimes having something the San Joaquin Valley sometimes has the some of the worst challenges, but also the most hope, the most possibility to get something done. So very much appreciate that.

I I did wanna, also encourage the author as the bill moves moves forward. There is a there's other legislation in the space around the fusion centers in particular, and I think will will in addition to the committee amendments that it's been that the other legislation is carried by the chair of the committee, that will also provide additional safeguards to assure that if both bills were to pass, I think there that this bill is is a good start on the safeguards with the with the committee amendments.

But the combination of the two, I think, will be will be helpful in ensuring that we're maximizing safety and the coordination between agencies, while also protecting privacy and these days, you know, abuse as well. So I wanted to note that. And then one just one technical issue because we heard a bill in the same area yesterday, not this same topic, but this will be a little nerdy, but it does it has real world consequences.

So this bill amends the California Emergency Services Act to add these add these provisions, which is appropriate because that's where the fusion centers are. But the the history of the act creates a a little unique problem here. So the Emergency Services Act go with me for a second just to mind Yes. Madam chair, if you would, was passed in 1983. And it was intended it it's the fundamental law that that brings all the different agencies together and other players.

And so it directs in its original form, it said, look, in the event of an emergency, you know, your water district must do this, and you have to do that. And private parties have to do this. And so at the very end of the Emergency Services Act, it has a provision that says any violation of this act is a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment.

What's happened since 1983 is the legislature has added more and more things that are related to emergency services but that would we would never contemplate as being crimes. And so, your bill doesn't I'm sure does not intend to make not, you know, missing a deadline for a report or something else in the bill to be a crime.

That's it, but but it it it accidentally does that as do every other bill that amends the Emergency Services Act. So maybe a note more for the for the committee staff. This came up in another bill in natural resources yesterday that, it's a pure accident of drafting because that act is now so long. Nobody ever leads all the way till the end to article whatever 87.

But this there is language that says, any violation of this entire chapter of the law, which include which would include this bill, is a crime.

And, of course, that's not what's intended here. We're trying to promote collaboration and information sharing, not under the penalty of of imprisonment or fines.

So just encourage the the as the bill moves forward to to to at some point, we should correct that because we are adding more and more crimes that we don't intend to in the effort to try to and we need to be focused on the the actual crimes that that people are committing and not on on reporting on criminalizing the reports themselves.

But thank you for your careful attention to getting to getting this right, but also being bold and having the Southern San Joaquin Valley lead the way on this issue. And I very much appreciate it.

Look forward to supporting the bill. Thanks, madam chair.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. A couple of things. First and foremost, I wanna thank the witnesses just for speaking and sharing your story, you know, for Prince Michael's mother, for you being here and just, you know, just speaking and and sharing your story. And after experiencing something so devastating and losing your son, I can't even begin to imagine. And just what you've described and just the ongoing harassment that you've experienced, I'm so incredibly sorry.

You know, I think as, you know, we're here in the legislature and we hear issues like this and, you know, we have individuals come forward that, you know, share this kind of powerful testimony. You know, we wanna respond and figure out what we can do to prevent these things from happening. And it's so heartbreaking to hear that this was another student. I mean, more than anything, like, that's it's it's it's terrifying and it's awful to hear.

You know, I'm grateful to the author for accepting the committee amendments to further tighten this bill.

As someone that used to run an after school program in Boyle Heights at a high school that has, you know, had somewhat of a history of of some challenges, I've seen, unfortunately, a lot of really difficult things go on even in my own classroom, and have also worked directly with students that have shared with me some of the real challenges that they're facing at home that have really led to them acting out in a way that's inappropriate.

And it is oftentimes really devastating to hear their stories as well and to hear how that's leading to their actions, whether it be violence towards other students, harassing other people in campus, then recognizing that that behavior is a result oftentimes of experiencing violence at home themselves and not having better examples in their lives as to how we treat others and treat one another. And it's it's devastating.

I mean, I have many memories of working directly with students like this, you know, that, have shared with me and, told me that they just didn't think that there was any other possibilities for themselves. And I think in the education system, right, and you have many folks here that have worked in education, we want for our young people to, you know, come into our public school systems to really realize who not just they want to be, but who they can be.

And that's the whole purpose of public education. Right? And so it's the education we're providing in the classrooms, but it's also that kind of, like, personal development and guidance that you all experience in interacting with one another, and making sure that we're providing you all the tools, especially when you're not receiving them at home. You'll notice, like, the amendments mention restorative justice.

This is one of the things that I've learned about when I first started, working in the education system because it was a part of the framework that, we were introducing at the high school that I was working at.

And so I had to understand it to be able to implement it. And it was a really interesting model that caused me to really rethink even my relationships and interactions in my life that really focused on centering the victim and the person that had been harmed and figuring out how you restore that situation, right, that goes beyond just apologizing, but really taking ownership of your actions.

And I I think it's a really, powerful way, especially for young people, that are struggling at home, that are struggling with past trauma, to really begin that learning process and that healing. And so, you know, that's part of the reason why it's included here. I think it's a really important framework, in addition to the other pieces.

Right? We know law enforcement sometimes needs to get involved in these situations, especially when you have something as serious as criminal activity, as serious as someone being murdered. And so, I just wanna thank the author for the work here and, for working with us on this issue and the students for being here as well. These are very important topics, and they require a lot of investment, but it's so, so critical that we make sure that we're giving you all the tools to succeed.

And that doesn't just mean good grades.

That means that you're personally growing as well. So, my recommendation is an aye vote, and I'll let the author close.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and, members of the committee for your your questions and your comments. This bill was kind of the idea came forward in working with the superintendent from Corcoran Unified School District, who happens to be my high school teacher. And they also lost, you know, a fellow student there, tragically lost, due to, violent, crime committed by another, youth.

And we were trying to figure out what is, you know, when you're when you're hearing from parents, from mothers, from students, from superintendents, from district attorneys, more needs to be done. Right?

What are you doing? You begin to ask yourself and try to figure out as much as possible how what's the best solution here. And in a time when students are it's not just, you know, behavioral health, that we're dealing with it. I think it's more cognitive, science that we're now dealing with, plus technology. We we have to really think in a in a modern way and there's I understand that there's a lot of, mystery around fusion centers.

Personally, I think that there's probably a lot more they can do when it comes to protecting our youth. But, you know, my understanding is that fusion centers also got started right after 9/11. Right? And that their success is based on information that they receive.

So if they're not receiving information, it almost feel like it's almost impossible to prevent or see a trend, as it's happening and and a crime or a threat they're preventing a threat from happening.

I think that they gotta have that information. So I, respectfully, you know, ask for an aye vote on this measure.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Senator Hurtado. We do have a motion by Senator Gomez Reyes, and the motion, for SB 1181 is do passed as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. SB 1128 recognizes a growing body of health and scientific research about cognition when it comes to kids and how they learn and also what sets them back. I think when I was growing up in school, it was the land of paper and that was it. You know, you write with pencil or pen and things changed.

I remember there was a sort of shift in recent years where the value of your education or if you're going to a good school meant you get to have a Chromebook, you get to have a screen.

And that there was this great digital divide I think that a lot of us have been trying to solve for a long time, to try to figure out how to get kids whose parents don't have money access to technology and that that was inhibiting learning. And that was inhibiting their ability to be socially mobile as our education system is designed to do. I think that is still true in many respects.

And I think that, being on a screen, does have, really important educational value, especially at older ages, whether it's around learning creative production like video editing, computer science instruction, research and review of artifacts.

We used to just go look up the encyclopedia. This bill is not designed to reimpose Encyclopedia Britannica on young people. This is really about pre k, kindergartners, and first graders, initially as a very vulnerable population of screen addiction.

And we've seen in recent years, and even as recently as yesterday, from LAUSD as you just got an article before you, a shift in policy where the precondition for a kindergartner entering school like my daughter's about to in LAUSD is not that you have to receive a Chromebook and do your work there or that you have to expend, say, a minimum amount of time on their platform to do your work, or that your instruction in kindergarten is done at least in part and in some cases over ninety minutes a day on YouTube.

Watching educational videos perhaps but nevertheless on a screen.

We're not trying to also limit parent choice here, and parents are perfectly free to give their children a screen. And we see it happen a lot, and it's hard. Parenting is hard. I know my wife's maybe at home right now trying to figure out how to juggle things while I'm here presenting this bill. So I'm trying to do my part too, for all those working families out there.

So this bill is really designed to to give parents the option to screen based education for their kindergartner or their first grader. In addition, it tries to without being too heavy handed or micromanaging of school boards throughout the state to try to push them to consider at least more age appropriate uses of technology and especially to take a look at screen time and how much they're pushing kids both in the classroom, during recess, and after school to be on those screens to get their education.

The American Academy of Pediatrics just put out a pretty landmark policy statement based on a growing body of peer reviewed scientific evidence that excessive screen exposure, and I think they put that for a kindergartner over forty five minutes a day. Reduced attention span, increased anxiety and depression, addictive behavior, lower academic performance, weaker cognitive development.

Recent neuroscience article published and presented before the US Senate Committee on Education, laid out that for the first time in modern history, children may not be cognitively outperforming the generation before them.

Declines in memory, executive function, overall reasoning ability. Screens can fragment attention. They encourage constant task switching. I know we all have this, especially those of us, like me, who live on their devices. You want to prioritize fast, surface level processing over deep learning. At a later age, I think you're still able to rely on that early cognitive development and get yourself back on track.

But at a biological level, when children get hardwired this way at four years old, five years old, they can't go back. Opening up that book and reading, thinking more deeply, their brains have developed differently. There's a story of a parent in our district, or in LA, who recently testified on the LAUSD resolution describing her kindergartner coming home from school and talking about her friend Gigi. And she wanted to know who Gigi is. Well, Gigi is not a person.

Gigi is a penguin character from her math app. And she spends her afternoons with Gigi and not with her friends and not talking to her teachers. And Gigi had really become the central character in that child's day for learning math. That particular parent now is trying to find some other district to go to where they don't force you to be on a screen. So that's really what this bill is about, is just not forcing you to have to be on that screen.

I would love to work with this committee, if it's the will of the chair and the committee, to keep developing this bill. We know we're in the early stages here of how do we make sure the best available science is in there without burdening our districts with any new mandates, and really how not to set the bar also too low. It's hard often to be that parent to opt out. Right?

To be the one to be like, okay, well, everyone else is on the screen, but my kid's that weird one who is not.

How do you build the collective buy in? And it may be that, especially in kindergarten, it makes sense to say as a general sort of default that the school ought not require the screen time for those kindergartners, and that they could maybe justify that in some other way. You know, if it proves absolutely necessary or it's their will to sort of opt out of that, that maybe the district could opt out.

But at this point, it's on the parents to make that decision in the bill. So I did want to sort of lay out that potential path. LAUSD has taken a harder path, a firmer ban, before second grade, to be on those screens.

General limits of those screen time, measurement of those screen time in between classes also, not allowing that screen time for the kids at recess. You you know, it's so funny to think that you have to tell kids they have to play. But, like, you have to play. You can't sit there in the corner on YouTube.

Screen devices also, or they're talking about limiting the use, for example, of YouTube with auto that, you know, where they where it sort of automatically brings up I forget what they call it again.

They automatically send you down another video and it autoplays and you watch something, and then the algorithm feeds you something else and something else. And suddenly, your child is watching something that they really should not be seeing on a school issued device. But I don't presume that, you know, there's just a total wisdom in just one school district, even though it is one of the biggest in the country. I think they've done a great job of doing homework here.

We want to give some of that flexibility, but it's a problem.

So I hope I can earn your aye vote today and give us some space to work on this. Look, big tech is a big problem. And, yes, they are designing their algorithms to make our children more addictive and they are causing harm and there ought to be accountability in that space.

But I think it's a mistake, to solely put the burden there when our schools have built curriculum around screen time and we are inherently feeding that addiction, in how we built this. So I think there's a better way.

San Marcos has done some really exciting work. Fresno's focusing on the younger grades. There's a number of other districts here in this state. I think there's 16 other states in this country that have pending limits on classroom mandatory screen time in classrooms for these younger ages. And so California's got to catch up in my view.

Would humbly ask for your aye vote. I think I don't think we have a lead witness here today. I think LAUSD may be here to just provide any background, but also be me too, but I'm pretty sure it's just me for the moment.

Okay. Yeah. Alrighty. Well, do we have any witnesses here in support? If you'd like to offer testimony or use the mic at the railing, please do.

Anayo, who can meet us with Los Angeles Unified in support.

Great. Anybody else? Alrighty. We'll do, witnesses now in opposition.

Any witnesses on opposition? Seeing none rising, I'll turn it back to committee. Do we have committee comments or questions? Senator Cabaldon?

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm supportive of the first part of the bill on the on the the kindergarten bar because I think the the case there is is indisputable. The kind of the guidance, I think we need to keep working on.

The I mean, it's very hard in the research to disentangle the screen from what's behind the screen. And that's why, you know, in in the privacy digital technologies and and consumer protection committee where, you know, this week we passed legislation on chatbot companion chatbots in kids, the the other houses moving forward legislation on social media in kids.

So when when your device when a device that you have access to as a child with a screen with a with a screen has gives you access to these companion chat bots and social media and unrestricted access to regular YouTube. I mean, all these things are happening. So it's very difficult just to to know it's is it the screen itself?

You know, if and so, you know, technically, if a school district can issue a device that can only be used, you know, within the walled garden of, you know, of of its own thing in a particular instructional and pedagogy and you can't use it for anything else, it's not so clear to me that the evidence is definitive that doing that for forty five minutes a day is going to wreck your cognitive development.

So I just I think we, you know, we need to we've got to attack both sides of the screen, but I think continue to work on what what we're really as we're gonna provide guidance to assure that we're not that we're not temporarily there's not temporal hubris. Like, we know what the answer is today when all of this is changing, and there are other approaches. And California's market power in the ed tech space is substantial if we deploy it properly.

So if we, you know, if we had more nuanced policies that did stuff like that and said, you know, you issue a device and it can't have access, it can't leave, then it can't there's no network egress to go, you know, do any of these other sites or what have you that we could help to shape the way that some of these things move forward.

So I think working in that space is is I'm I'm I'm I'd be committed and and love to to work to try to to to solve some of that as well. I also the, you know, the definition of electronic device, I hope you'll take a look at Because we keep talking about screens, but the definition, Lisa, as I read it. Yes. It, you know, applies to screen devices.

You know, the the list of it the initial list of examples, laptops and tablets and smartphones, those are all those are all obviously electronic devices we're we're we're concerned about.

But there are electronic devices that have software capabilities that are part of science projects that have no screen. And and they may be they may be and should be a mandatory part of an engineering class or what have you. And so just, you know, that I I get the I I I think we we we share the same interest in the screen time challenge, but we're not it's it's not the elect it's not the electricity that's the problem here.

It's the content and the lack of of moderation and that sort of thing. So I think you're you're you're on to the right the right topic.

I think we're the reason why LA is is a good is a leader in the space is we do allow districts to to innovate and to experiment and to learn. So I think to me, it's a look it's premature to con to reach broad conclusions across all of education at every grade level, in every community, but the the notion of guidelines is important.

The only other thing I'll say about that and the because the the bill specifically references early literacy and some other elements and this is an issue we're also grappling with in the other committees just, you know, is and you do that in the language about developmentally appropriate, but sort of the we we need to we need to get better at figuring out what state policy is that distinguishes between seven year olds and 17 year olds.

And we've been writing a lot of stuff that kinda just treats kids as kids. Yes.

And the challenge is, you know, if we if if you're in a in a in a in a program in high school where you're dual enrolled in college at the same time or you and you're 16 or you're doing apprenticeship or pre apprenticeship program and your workplace has, you know, that that we've got to figure out that that that we don't want we want teens in particular to start to become adults hopefully, while they're still living at home, if they are, and hopefully, while they still have teachers and counselors and others in their in their universe.

And sometimes I worry that we're we're creating a world like we're we're gonna completely protect children. And then when they're turning 18, when they've left home and they no longer have a teacher any longer and then now you're on your own. Just go Right. Just to go live on YouTube shorts for the rest of your life.

So we your bill doesn't implicate that, but I think so you're in the right direction.

I I look forward to to to working with you to to try to send the right signals while also, you know, giving districts the chance to to deploy things that are in the best interest of kids, and that we can keep learning, and use the power of California's immense school system to be able to push push the technology providers also to be more responsible, in the tech world to be more responsible in ways that are promote both learning, and safety.

So but I'm but I will definitely support the bill in this form. So

Very thoughtful. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Years ago, I remember that these parents, we thought our children were at a disadvantage if they didn't have that screen time, if they if they weren't exposed to that. And I I love the fact that now it's based on studies. We now know that's anxiety. It's it's it just as was mentioned in the article that you gave to us on LA Unified School District.

The anxiety, the depression, attention problems from excessive screen time. You're the right author. I mean, you have a child coming in.

Fix it.

And you want to do the right thing for for your child and children at that age. And to making sure that we do protect them. Letting kids be kids is so important. If they're spending all their time on the screen, then they're not going out to play. Yeah.

You're right. You got sometimes you have to push them, you know, go talk to the kids. That social interaction is so important. It you you talked about making it age appropriate as as was commented on by my colleague. To use technology but making it age appropriate and that is extremely important.

You're the right person for that and and the the the what is the correct and and the the the right amount of screen time and something that you are addressing. But I love the fact that we need to let kids be kids and push them out and take them away from that screen time and and no more chat boxes or chat these are things that that we're we're dealing with and privacy and but I I I I really like your bill.

Making sure that we're doing something right for the kids, especially based on on studies that have already been done that tell us what we're doing wrong so that we can start making the adjustments and correcting.

Thank you. Senator Reyes. So I think we're done. I just want to thank you for bringing this measure forward. I think there's a lot of research now that we can actually look to to ensure that we are doing what's best practices legislatively for our students, and of course as mentioned earlier you are a young dad with young children and so you're seeing this firsthand.

Just personal observation, you know, when I see so many babies and toddlers with a smartphone in front of them at, you know, anywhere I go, whether it's a store, the doctor's office, or even at the airports. Just and not in a critical, you know, perspective or anything, but I just just from an observational knowing that what the science is coming out and how that's rewiring the brain of our children. I just I I shrug.

I just, you know, it gives me anxiety to watch that but it's not my place to tell, you know, these parents like, you want to rethink this? And I think this is why it's incredibly important for our educational institutions to kind of start modeling that practice because most parents don't want to be told, you know, this is right, this is wrong.

They become very defensive in that mindset. And so, I'm very mindful. I have two, young daughters who just got married and I'm sure they'll start their family soon enough. And knowing my place as to when to give feedback and when not to so that it's well received.

I think when we have systems in place that model what is appropriate, I think we we can lead the way in changing the culture that has been fostered that says, hey, it's okay to have technology babysit our children, you know, full time instead of having that human connection.

So with that, I thank you for bringing this measure forward. I'll be happy to support the bill today. And would you like to close, Senator? Sure.

I appreciate this committee. The range of expertise here, I would eagerly accept your assistance with this. I think your point about, I don't know, how you always say it so articulately, the temporal letting the, you know, right? The sort of the moment not become a sort of catch all, a knee jerk approach to say, if we just limit screen time, then it'll fix it. Right?

That this somehow the both sides of the screen point, I think, is brilliant. And what I'm hearing from from you and I think from the rest of the committee is, in some ways, the we may not be prescriptive enough in the kindergarten section where we are putting the pressure back on the parent to make the decision. We're not having the district model the behavior.

So that's one note to to think about going forward is whether we, we should be a little more prescriptive, say, on kindergarten, first grade. I think that separating high school or even thinking about a tiered structure here of how we look at age appropriateness, it might be wise.

There's a lot of of work being done on sort of cognitive development at different stages and how the brain develops, you know, at three to five versus five to seven. Once you're a teenager, it's a lot different. And so, trying to either come up with model model policy or giving those right signals to our districts of how to, you know, sort of how to think about tiering age appropriateness. And maybe not only focus just on the screen time itself, but what happens on the screen.

So, you know, should school issue devices be able to should be able to play Roblox on it?