Senate Standing Committee on Education

Good morning. Welcome to the Senate Education Committee hearing. There are 31 bills on today's agenda. AB745 has been pulled from today's agenda at the request of the author. There are eight bills on consent.

Those bills are item number eight, AB 2526. Item number nine, AB 2580. Item number 19, AB 2242. Item number two, number 22, AB 2332. Item number 23, AB 2354.

Item number 26, AB 2794. Item number 27, AB 2422. And item number 28, AB 2429. 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. Seeing as we do not have a quorum, we'll begin as a subcommittee with the first bill, and I see that we have Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan here to present both AB 302 and AB 2504.

Assemblywoman, you can begin whenever you're ready.

Good morning madam Chair. You made it into the building. That was feet in and of itself today.

Good morning chairs and senators. I wanna thank the committee staff

for their work on this bill and I'll be accepting the committee amendments which, I'm grateful for it I think make the bill stronger. I'm proud to present AB 302 which protects minors from addictive feeds in two ways. It prohibits a school from excluding a student from participating in any extracurricular activities, including sports and clubs, due to the student not having or using addictive feeds.

It also prohibits the schools from using addictive feeds as the only means or contact with students or the parents or guardians of students. This bill came to me honestly as the mother of an incoming high schooler.

So I have decided that social media isn't something I need my children on because of the much research I've read. And as my daughter started to approach high school, I learned that in order for her to be an athlete at our local high school, she would have to join Instagram. I was shocked that in order to participate in sports at our local school district, you had to be on social media.

I then started asking questions of parents with older children and learned that a friend of mine's daughter was excluded from the leadership program at her high school because she had made the choice that being on social media was not a healthy choice for her.

And so this struck me as shocking given the research that shows that our teens on social media, that it's addictive for them, that it may cause them to experience self harm content and other content that we may not want them to have access to at such a young age.

And so the idea that our schools would force them onto these addictive feeds seems shocking. When we started to discuss this with a broader audience just last week, I was on a call with Mothers Against Media Addiction and a mother from Southern California was telling me about her district where they have to be on Snapchat participate in the water polo and swimming program. And so I thought, okay.

We talk a lot about whether we should ban kids 16 from social media, but at the very least, our public institutions should not be taking that choice away from California's families and children. And so the bill is very simple.

It merely says that they can't make it a prerequisite to participation and that there has to be at least a secondary means of communication. So if they want to communicate on these channels, that's fine, but the kids have to have another option to receive the information about where the sports activities are or the club activities are. With that, I will turn it over to my witness, one of our local high schoolers.

Good morning, members and Chair of the Committee. My name is Aden. I'm a student in Oakland going into junior year. And every day, students like me are handed an ultimatum, join social media or miss out on clubs, teams, and activities that define their high school life, but that's not a choice many are up to making. AB 302 helps to fight for the independence of teens to fight addiction.

The evidence is overwhelming. We know that addictive social media feeds are fueling a mental health crisis among young people, anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and social isolation. We've even seen the courts weigh in. A California jury recently held Meta liable for the psychological harm its platforms inflicted on children, awarding millions in damages and finding the company acted in malice.

And yet the institutions and yet the very institutions we trust to protect kids' schools are still requiring students to maintain accounts on these same platforms just to join clubs, sports teams, or student organizations.

Some use social media as the only way to communicate with students and parents, forcing families and children onto platforms that are designed to exploit them. AB 302, like Rebecca said, draws a simple line. Schools cannot make participation in addictive feeds, in addictive feeds, a prerequisite for joining extracurricular activities. And they cannot use them as the sole channel of communication, between students and families. It doesn't prohibit the use of these platforms.

It just makes it so students and families have the choice to not participate in behavior that they're aware could harm their and their peers' well-being. The legislature has already shown the will to act. Phone bans in schools are working, and this is the logical next step. We shouldn't let California schools become a funnel into platforms that we've already decided are harming our children. For this reason, I urge your support for AB 302.

Our students students deserve to participate fully in school life without surrendering their mental health to do it. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll see if you have any other support, Me Too's in the audience. If so, please use the mic at the railing. Anybody else? Seeing no and rising, we'll move to opposition.

Is there any opposition? Seeing no and rising, we will turn it back to the committee. Senators, do we have any Senator Chappell? So just grateful

that you are bringing this bill forward. I'm actually surprised on, you know, I can understand. I think we're discussing with my with my team as to the ones that we were, you know, required to add which was banned or something, you know, that that type of an app.

But even that I was I was thinking like, okay, I have to download this app and, you know, it was just such a I didn't care for it, but I'm grateful and I am very very grateful that this young man understands the impact of of these addictive feeds and the impact that it has on the on the mind. So for our youth, so thank you for bringing it forward.

I'll be happy to move the the bill when it's appropriate.

Thank you, madam vice Chair.

So we have multiple committees going on this morning as you probably can imagine. So many of our members are not here because they're either presenting bills or they're in other committees at the time. Senator Troy, did you have a comment?

Yeah. I would support this bill this morning in that there will be a lot of issues with the requirement of a particular social media platform. Sometimes the sports club captain or coach may have intent to communicate with the members very quickly, efficiently, or exclusively if we prohibit this kind of exclusive use of certain special media. What kind of, methods do you suggest, for him to communicate with the students or members or parents?

Yeah. Can I turn it over to my witness who participates in many school clubs, and they do not communicate at his school through social media? So how do they communicate?

Yeah. Obviously, like, built in messaging apps like Imessage, WhatsApp aren't considered addictive under the definition used in the bill, which is that it's randomly gen or randomly picked user content that you scroll through. So they could use that. They could use email. And once again, they are still allowed to use social media as a way to communicate.

It just can't be the only way. So students have the choice to use that or something else.

Yeah. It's a little bit confusing to me. If you prefer to have a different options from another another social media sources, then I'm I'm trying to think more positively, but at the same time from the point of the coach, then I have to deal with so many different ones when I'm so busy in informing from this channel, this channel, channel b, channel three, etcetera, etcetera. And what will be the most sound way of efficiently communicating with the members or parents?

Yeah. So I think that there's this would allow them to choose one means. The one means just can't be addictive feeds. So if they were to use, as the witness said, either email or direct messaging, then they wouldn't need social media. Again, we're not blocking that, but they could use just one means.

It just can't be an addictive feed. And, I'll say that every school in my area has dedicated email systems, actually internal email systems they use within the school, which I think is the most direct way. Although, I do know a lot of teams use messaging, so they have a group thread on either WhatsApp or instant message.

If the culture chooses email particular let's communicate with the email instead of a social platform, will it be okay?

Yes. That's not considered an addictive feat under the law.

Okay. So simply, you are trying to prohibit a certain channel that may expose young people to more dangerous, leading to undesirable sites.

Yes. That's right, Senator.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. Do are there Senator Cortese, are are you okay? Do you have any comments, questions? No. We have.

Okay. So when it when the time is we're gonna place the bill on call Okay. For our absent members and wait to have a quorum. But thank you so much for presenting the bill.

Thank you.

You have a second one, AB 2504? I'm sorry. I'd like to close. What's that? Oh, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for aye vote when the time is right. Thank you, madam vice Chair. Sorry. That's okay. Okay. We have a second bill, file item number two, AB 2504 by Assemblywoman, Bauer Kehan. Thank you, madam vice Chair and senators. I wanna thank

the committee staff for their work on this bill as well, and we'll be accepting the committee amendments. With that, I'm proud to present AB 2504,

which creates the Future of Creative Industries pilot program to support and upscale professional staff within the creative entertainment industries. This bill, I think, is really exciting because as the Chair of privacy in the Assembly, people are often coming to talk to me about how we're upskilling workers. What are we doing in our higher education institutions to support workers for the future of work here in California as the AI Revolution continues to accelerate?

And until this year, every time that conversation had come to me, it had never come to me with the idea of jobs, specific jobs at the end of the upskilling.

And so I had seen these programs in many regards as programs that would, you know, cost the state our precious fiscal dollars and and not clearly lead to work on the other end of these upscaling until, our sponsor reached out and discussed with me this conversation that was happening within the creative arts in Los Angeles where the ecosystem is one where they have been incredibly focused on the AI revolution.

SAG AFTRA and the Writers Guild were the first to strike and really demand protections in the AI generation, started that conversation in a really meaningful way. And they were looking at not just on the production side but the entire ecosystem and how the ecosystem could be included in the future of work as AI becomes a part of it.

And they wanted to start talking about what jobs do they need, what training do they need, and would we as the state partner in creating the education programs for those specific jobs? And that was a different conversation and one I was really excited to have, and this bill was born out of that. And so this bill is really simple.

It would bring together the players who are most in the know about those jobs, so folks in industry who will put those people to work, the workers themselves and the guilds, the folks at our community colleges who will be fighting this education, and the tech companies who understand this the best. And it would allow our community colleges to train people for those jobs and give them the skills they need to face the future and be ready for the work ahead.

We don't it is really viewed as a pilot program. I think we're taking what is a small but not very small industry in California and saying, will this work in this one industry?

And if this works and they do have to report back to the legislature, could we take this to other industries and bring together a table of people who can help us understand how to educate for the future and really create a model in California for how our workers can face this technology and use it to supplement their work and not replace them.

And with that, I wanna turn it over to my witness, Hannah Lincoln Hooker from William Morris Endeavor.

Thank you. Good morning, committee members. My name is Hannah Lincoln Hooker, and I'm here on behalf of WME, global talent agency with over a hundred and twenty five years of experience representing clients across film, television, music, sports, and more. We're the largest agency in the world, and we have a front row seat to what's happening in our industry right now. California's creative economy employs more than 760,000 workers, roughly 5% of the state's workforce, with an average salary of a $191,000 But those numbers are shrinking.

We are facing major media consolidation, a global content market actively outcompeting California for production, and a technological revolution that is reshaping every job in this ecosystem. The history of media is a history of realignment, from radio to television and silent films to talkies. But unlike previous transitions, this one is happening at lightning speed, and we need public policy to respond in kind. Thank you for your continued support of the California Film and TV Tax Credit.

That matters and is instrumental in bringing production back to our state, but we are at an inflection point that requires a broader response.

AB 2504 is part of that response. The Future of Creative Industries pilot program will establish a forward thinking workforce training partnership between the entertainment industry, Tuck, and California community colleges designed by, with, and for employers. It is an early investment in skills and infrastructure that will allow California to adapt more effectively and to focus on augmenting human work rather than replacing it.

This pilot program will be built by the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office in partnership with unions including SAG AFTRA, employers including WME, and tech leaders including Adobe and will deliver industry connected training that helps workers adapt, embraces human creativity and economic inclusion, teaches new tools, and ensures employers have a pipeline of skilled human talent. We love the California Community Colleges and are excited to partner with the chancellor and her team to develop this exciting program.

It is a powerful opportunity to support the entertainment industry's transition to the AI economy while continuing our commitment to hiring from a diverse pipeline of talent. I ask for your support in building what we hope is the first of many programs designed to build the road to tomorrow and keep California's creative workforce and industry right here where it belongs. A huge thank you to Assemblymember Bara Kahane for her leadership on this and many other issues relating to AI.

Just you've been an incredible partner and we're extremely grateful. I love working with you. So thank you and I ask for your support.

Thank you very much. We're gonna pause for a minute and You have a quorum. Make Yeah. We're gonna create our our quorum right now. So, madam secretary, please call the roll.

Senators Perez, Ochoa Bogue. Here. Ochoa Bogue here. Cabaldon here. Choi?

Choi here. Cortese?

Here.

Here.

Cortese here. Gonzales Reyes.

Okay. We'll now continue with any witnesses in support of AB 2504 here in Room 222200. Right? 2200. 21.

2100. Sorry. 2100. Sorry. I do have another committee going on.

1200 is supposed to be Please come up to the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your support for the bill. Yes.

Good morning, Myra Jimenez on behalf of California Community Colleges, Chancellor's Office in support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we're gonna continue with any lead witnesses in opposition. See no, witnesses in lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have any other, members of the public who would like to express their opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the diocese.

Comments question. Senator, Kovalvan.

Yeah. Thank you so much, madam Chair. I I am very excited about this this proposal. It it and and I hope this will be, also a a lesson for others about how we start to approach these issues for real, In part because I'm I'm hoping nobody introduces a bill next year requiring every eleventh grader to take a course on preparing for the AI jobs transition, which won't be helpful.

What is needed is is exactly these kinds of tailored approaches that bring together within within a sector, within an industry, within an area where people can actually talk and invent and create and innovate together, as opposed to just a kind of abstract how do we deal with AI, but really in the context of real people, real unions, real employers that are gonna work these through issues through together.

And doing so very smartly, having chosen the community colleges for this work, where both the the chancellor has been a very thoughtful innovator from her time at Bakersfield College and now at the chancellor's office that that in the system is is is everything that the witness described in terms of we're talking about higher ed, so it's not super fast moving, but it's among the fact it's one of the most adaptive and innovative of the of our institutions.

And so I'm I'm very hopeful and optimistic and and and and Lord knows how much we need this effort. So you know, for anybody that's thinking why just the creative industry shouldn't be all, you know, all industries know it should not. We need we need to get some we need to get some wins here. We need to get some successes.

We need some models that can work, and we need to really involve the folks who are who are involved with and whose livelihoods, whose jobs, whose passion are at stake. And so big kudos to the author for this legislation. We're going to need a lot more in this area but this is a very strong first step in terms of a particular industry that is one of California along with the wine industry, one of California's most important signature industries.

And so at the appropriate time, I'd love to move the bill.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. So we have a motion by Senator Kewalden. Senator Choi?

Okay. Thank you. I think that this measure is very forward thinking plan for rapidly changing technology era we are living in. And the many people ask adults for the future job prospect for young people where what kind of a major do I have to recommend or what do I have to major in, Etcetera, Etcetera.

And not to speak of our grandchildren who will be, you know, going heading to colleges in ten years, you know, fifteen years that that's too far away because things are changing so rapidly.

We cannot predict what the job prospect will be with the advent of artificial intelligence ability and taking over our jobs and impacting our jobs. So this is preparation workforces, future workforces that are predicting what the area, what kind of a major skills we need to train them. I think in that this program is in preparation for that. Your proposal is to implement only 10 selected community colleges as a pilot program.

So can you explain how and who's going to select the 10 colleges and then pilot program, how long that will be?

That will be first set of questions. The second will be how would you determine after the pilot program whether this, program is working effective, that we should implement for the rest of the colleges?

Yeah. So, those are wonderful questions. Thank you, Senator. And just to build on what the Senator from West Sacramento said, when William Morris Endeavors called me about this, my first thought was the community college chancellor because she has really done incredible work, I think, to get these types of programs up and running quickly and effectively. And one of the things that was critical to us here was making sure it was accessible to diverse communities and to current workers.

We didn't want it to just be for workers of the future, but if you're being displaced currently, we needed an access point for you as part of the current workforce, which I really believe our community colleges are a part of. We limited it to 10 at this point but required geographic diversity. We didn't want this to just benefit Los Angeles, even though many of the jobs may be there.

And so it does require that we do this at community colleges across the state, but we know we want to tailor it to the jobs that are being created. So this is, you know, not a sector that can employ all Californians.

And so we want to make sure that we are tailoring it in size to what is needed and we are not giving false promise to students that if they do this, there will be jobs. And so 10 it is up to 10. If we decide that that isn't what if four is what meets the needs of the community of the Hollywood community, then I think that's what will happen.

It one of the amendments taken today does sunset the program in 2033, and so it gives us a runway of seven years, I think. Or no, six years, because it'll go into effect in 2027.

So six years to get this running to do this and then sunset it unless the legislature takes action. But we will get a report from the opinion colleges by 2032, which will allow us to both decide whether to continue to reinvest here, or to also, as, Senator Keldin said, take this to other industries and use this as a model for the future. And so the where, there is a mandate for geographic diversity, but that will be up to the community college system.

I see. To me, if a census and an evaluation will be done to either whether that was a successful program or not to expand toward the college or not is kind of too far away, six years. Maybe you should shorten consider shortening it to two or three years. That should be enough time to evaluate how the program is going. That's my suggestion.

Okay. We

will discuss that with the Chair when we have an opportunity. Thank you, Mister Senator.

Thank you very much. Senator Senator Ortiz?

Thank you. I think it's a good bill and I'll be supporting it today. I think if you anyone wants to respond to what I'm gonna say next, that's that's great. If not, that's fine. Take it as a comment or a question.

But the last concern that Senator Choi expressed, I I shared to some extent only because, you know, sadly, tragically, the workforce in this area has been shrinking so dramatically that, you know, kids that got out of their undergrad post pandemic are basically unemployed today if what they're seeking is writing jobs, production assistant jobs, and so forth because of AI, the digitalization of of everything.

And and I think the tragedy there is, you know, folks who put four years, two years, four years into a college effort, you know, thinking there's an actual pipeline. And then face planning not through any fault of their own, but because we have the shrinking industry. So I just assume that the pilot would, you know, sort of continue to measure whether or not folks are actually landing somewhere.

But I just wanna say the sooner the better so that we're not, you know, so so we're not I don't wanna say over promising under delivering because there's no promise here but, you know, so we're not creating sort of false expectations in this regard.

I hope things change and hope, you know, they reverse. They are in a lot of other industries. I think this model would be really really significant in some industries like transportation where there's just nobody trained to do AI work. I because I spend so much of time on the transportation side, we see that. We see a pipeline with tens of thousands of jobs in some areas, that basically we have nobody trained for right now.

So, so so I I really like the model and, you know, in my heart of hearts, I have, four adult children and I have one who's would be in, you know, full time in this industry, you know, if things hadn't changed so much in the last couple of years. So I I kind of know firsthand, anecdotally, but firsthand, what he and and his peers, you know, are experiencing.

You know, not to mention is all you have to do is talk to the Writers Guild, for example, and and and, you know, hear, you know, how desperate their concerns are. So that said, great to try to use this tool to to help reverse that and prepare people young or old. But but I do think we need to

get the assessment, you know, in sooner rather than later. And again, I'll be supporting the bill. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Yes. Senator oh, sorry.

That's up

to the Chair and the author. I Yeah.

Madam Vice Chair, do you mind? Okay.

Please. The

witness wants to say something.

I was

just gonna say, like, your concerns are not wrong. I think the jobs in the industry are changing and the other, like, major factors, you know, the runaway production. And so I mentioned the tax credit and, again, just wanna emphasize our gratitude for the legislature's support of that. I think bringing production back to California is gonna be the way that we expand the jobs that are available, and they will change, but we hope that, you know, that's work worth doing.

So thank you for your comments on that.

Thank you. Yeah.

Okay. We'll have a follow-up question by Senator Cabaldon.

Not a question, but because this bill will assuming it passes out of this committee will go onto my my my second favorite committee, I mean, this one. But I but in this committee, I I I just want also wanted to salute the author that this is bill is only two pages long. It's only a two page statute.

And I I just, you know, we don't see a lot of those, and I I just very, very much appreciate that the bill doesn't, like, pretend to know all the answers. It doesn't tell everybody, every campus they have to do it this way.

It doesn't have a thousand different rules in it. It really is, you know, opening the door to the creativity and just that's that it's hard to get this far in the process and not have it loaded up with a million things. And so just to appreciate the the humility of the bill and the and the and the trust that that that others will invent and create as they always have. Like, you mentioned the the Adobe partnership.

I mean, this is As as has been said, this is a sector in which both workers and employers and creators have all adapted and embraced and led the way on technology technological change over and over and over again.

And obviously, the challenge here is no one in the history of of human civilization has dealt with this much change all at once With the threats to the institutions that are involved as well. So there this industry is capable of it and I just release really really thank the author for not over over specifying the the solutions here and really unleashing the creativity that of the creative sector to be able to help solve to solve this problem on their own. So thank you for that.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir. So I think we had a motion by Senator Cabaldon prior to you. Oh, thank you.

You had a second motion by Senator Troy. Member, Bauer Cowen, would you like to close?

Thank you. I just wanna thank all the comments and as noted by Senator Cowell, this will be going to, the privacy committee after this and, happy to have a continued conversation around what would be most helpful to come back to the legislature to allow us to, continue to use this as a model in the future. And with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item two, AB 2504, Bauer Kehan. Motion is do passed to the Senate Privacy Digital Technologies and Consumer protection committee. Senators Perez, Ochoa Bogue. Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye.

Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi? Aye.

Choi, aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzales Reyes.

Thank you, senators.

And we'll place that bill on call for our absent members. Well, now I see we have Assembly member Erwin. Would you like to present a file item number 4 AB 7445?

It's item number 5. The previous item was pulled. I'm sorry. One more time? 7445 was pulled.

Oh, sorry. Sorry.

1530.

So we're gonna do 1534. File item number five.

Yes.

I am proud today to present AB 1534 which supports California's implementation of the newly created federal workforce Pell Grants by providing enhanced guardrails for the approval of short term programs. Last year, HR 1 expanded the types of educational programs that are eligible for Pell Grants to include short term workforce training

programs lasting between eight and fifteen weeks. As California prepares to implement eight and fifteen weeks. As California prepares to implement an approval process that ensures programs meet minimum federal standards, this bill adds additional standards to protect students from financially risky or low quality programs. To prevent students from taking on unnecessary student debt, AB 1534 requires that programs limit tuition and fees to the maximum Pell grant award and prohibits program from programs from offering risky income share agreements or other loan products that charge an interest rate above 0%.

Additionally, AB 1534 requires programs partnering with unaccredited entities to be publicly transparent about the partnership, insurance set ensuring that students understand exactly what the program offers.

Lastly, AB 1534 makes clear that unaccredited entities may not exercise control over course design or curriculum development that provides unaccredited entities, and it provides that unaccredited entities may not be compensated by a tuition sharing model, which has been shown to encourage inappropriate incentives. With me to testify today is, Manny Rodriguez, senior California policy director for the Institute, for College Access and Success, or TICAS

Good morning, members. My name is Manny Rodriguez here from TICAS. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee staff for their analysis and your time today. Expanding federal aid to short term programs has real potential to meet workforce needs by helping working adults, career changers, and students to move into jobs faster. But these programs have a mixed track record.

While some lead to strong outcomes, other leave students with little economic benefit. Research shows many certificate holders earn $30,000 or less per year with worse outcomes for black and Latino students. Since pending Trailer Bill Language will establish the broader workforce Pell approval process, this bill adds key components we believe are necessary and were covered by the Assembly member.

Because federal law gives states discretion over the approval process, we believe California should take a more proactive role in establishing safeguards which direct students to high quality and affordable programs. First, we allow programs to partner with outside entities to provide instructions within federal limits and clarify the rules when they do.

Outside of apprenticeship programs and community college contract education agreements, partnerships must be transparent, disclose this to students, cannot involve revenue sharing, and cannot give an outside entity control over key decisions. Second, it protects students from being pushed into burdensome private debt or predatory financing options because these programs do not have access to federal student loans, which have stronger consumer protections. The bill encourages safer options like employer sponsorship, institutional aid, no interest loans, or payment plans.

Third, it sets a reasonable cost cap, so programs are priced in line with the Max Pell Grant award. During federal debate, there were real concerns about price inflation and uneven outcomes.

So it makes sense to pair the federal back end accountability measure with front end protections to ensure affordability. At the same time, this bill does have flexibility to allow programs to charge more if employers or other third parties cover additional costs.

You're right about just over two minutes.

Taken together, these guardrails reflect a simple principle. While the outcomes for these new programs are uncertain, the burden should be on institutions to demonstrate value and keep programs affordable. The burden should not be placed on students to take financial risk in anticipation of future benefit. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mister Rodriguez. We'll now continue with any witnesses in support of AB 1534. Please come up to the microphone, state your name, your position your organization, and your position on the bill.

Sara Bachez with Children Now in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses. Oh, we do have one more.

Melissa Bardo on behalf of EdTrust-West in support.

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

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll continue with any lead witness in opposition. Seeing no witnesses in opposition, we'll bring it back to the dias. Any questions or comments by our members? Okay.

We have a motion. Senator Choi?

I have a question if you can clarify. This measure deals with establishing state oversight framework for the federal workforce power grant program. This is being the federal grant program. Can we set the additional regulations?

This, this allow that?

Yes. The states are able to set additional regulations especially for consumer protection and student protection.

I see. Okay. Second question is that why you measure exclusive private, post secondary, and technical training institutions from this?

Happy to take that one. The bill, as we mentioned, is supplementing the pending trailer bill language. So our bill doesn't explicitly carve them out or bring them in. That is kind of being defined in trailer bill language. Ours is adding kind of additional guardrails to what is being discussed and negotiated over there.

And I believe that should.

From the beginning, if you can specify, that will be more inclusive in the field for the private the post secondary education and the tech education programs.

If I remember correctly, the original version of our bill did include those. But as those discussions have continued, that broader approval process was kind of removed from this bill, and we were shrunk in size to do these four additional pieces.

So we're doing the consumer protection, and the rest of the bill is being done in budget trailer language, we presume. If if it ends if it doesn't end up in budget trailer language, then we will pull it back into our bill.

Okay. Thank you.

Senator Cabaldon. Oh, sorry.

Oh, it's all good. If you want to continue chairing, Senator,.

Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you Madam Chair and Madam Vice Chair for the for the dual time.

So I really appreciate the work that's being done on this and the and the author's attention to all the critical details for this program to be successful and the challenges of this trailer bill approach which I think that's for the record that all of this should have been done in this bill and these are important policy issues in a novel policy area that we should not have been done in the budget process at all.

We can probably mostly all agree to agree with that because there are there this is an important initiative from the Federal Government and we wanna make sure that we get it right, but there's a lot of policy questions around it.

And and it also raises the the program does open up issues that we don't like to talk about here around what are the roles of private and public institutions and if we have if the if is the is it is should we be deciding a priori which which whether public or private is in or not or should it be based on the consumer protections and importantly what's already in the federal program itself which are the requirements for verified completion rate, for value added earnings.

Those, my own view, is that those should largely be institutionally agnostic if if we are if if if a program is delivering, students are finishing it and they're getting good paying jobs, and they are satisfying the the important consumer protections that are in this bill, then we should be celebrating that. We need an all hands on deck approach to workforce development and to uplifting folks live and that will only get more important with the advent of and the explosion of artificial intelligence.

So I appreciate I you know, I'm not asking for the trailer bill to explode, but I really appreciate the author's work in this. We is it this is the beginning. I think we will they won't there'll be need to be quite a bit of follow-up legislation, but the protections that are in this bill really are important in order to assure that that those institutions are there.

The one flag I wanna I wanna put out there and and with this committee, is familiar from this, with is familiar with this from last year is that, depending so much on accreditation is a risky endeavor, because the Department of Education is has, through several initiatives and through several policy choices over the last fourteen months, really threatened the integrity of the accreditation process.

We have a couple Californians that are on the national body for accreditation and both accrediting agencies that probably shouldn't have the ability to accredit and then pressure on legitimate accrediting agencies not to consider things that are very important to us here in California has made accreditation not what it was twenty four months ago, something that you could we could universally depend on as a as a at least part of the system, the the triad of guaranteeing quality, equity, safety and success for students.

And so it's not it's not that reliable. It's the best we have at the moment. So I'm gonna, I support the bill and it ends reliance on that in that space.

But if if if the if the erosion of the accreditation system continues, we're going to need a different we're going to need a different solution that would what's proposed in the bill today. But this is the best we got, the only tool that we have and so appreciate the author's continued efforts to try to get this right and and look forward to supporting the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments by committee members.

Oh, oh, sorry. Senator Ochoa Bogh. Sorry.

Just kind of curious. Just a little more clarification for me because I I have the same concerns that Senator Choi had, which was the the exclusion from the private institutions and and the tech schools from the oversight. So curious because you said it was taken out and I'm assuming through committee amendments.

No, it was put in trailer bill language That it is meant to be put in trailer bill language. And then this is putting the guardrails on what would be in trailer bill language. But since we haven't seen it yet it's supposed to be put in trailer bill language. But since we haven't seen it yet and we're not positive it is going to end up there, we might pull it all back into the bill if if that's what the three party agreement decides on. Okay.

So did you. When the bill was originally written, was it in there or?

Originally, we were dealing with all of it. Yes.

Yes. So you were there with the original. And then when was it taken out? Was it through discussions or through committee? I'm assuming through.

It was just, you know, there was just a mention that part of the bill would be done through implemented through trailer bill language.

Okay. So I'm gonna I'm gonna abstain. I'm very supportive, incredibly supportive of of the measure. I'm going to wait to see what that language looks like and what it will potentially like when it comes back to the Senate floor. So we're gonna probably do you think it's gonna happen before it comes to the Senate floor? No?

These are all decisions that are not under my table.

Okay. Alright. So I'm gonna I'm gonna abstain. I'm gonna wait to see what it looks like. We'll have some time before it gets to us in the on the Senate floor. So I'm gonna wait to support the bill, hopefully, with the right language once we see that, hopefully, on the on the budget trailer bill.

So I think it I'm just nervous to exclude these particular entities, but I look forward to actually supporting the bill. And so I am grateful for the work that you've done.

Yes. Senator Cabalton.

Yeah. I just I just wanted to just add because I happen to agree with both both of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. But I do also think that that supporting this bill and this author and the set of sponsors they're doing, they are trying to cover the full landscape including the legit private and tech schools that that should be in the mix.

And I think it would be a a good message for the for the administration to to for us to, you know, back up this issue. So I'm hopeful that that that moving this bill forward will continue to elevate the importance of this and also to make sure that the legislature's voices on these issues are heard.

So I know I've just.

Okay, I'll change my vote. I'll give you an aye and then look at the final language when it comes to the Senate floor. Okay Senator Cabaldon, you've got my aye.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you. I'm just enthralled by the robust discussion here. Assemblymember Irwin, I'm very supportive of this bill. I appreciate you bringing this forward. My recommendation is an aye vote.

I think both myself and Senator Cabaldon and Senator Ochoa Bogh all have very strong feelings about doing policy work through the budget. And if it was our preference, we wouldn't we would not do that again in the foreseeable future. I hope that the governor's office is listening and the future governor is listening, but appreciate you putting all of this into a bill because it's such an important measure and I appreciate your sponsors being here as well.

So I will turn it over to you to close and we'll be voting aye.

Alright. Well, just respectfully ask for your aye vote. I don't know if you have a quorum already, but if you do, I would appreciate an aye vote.

Excellent. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Irwin. And the motion, we have a motion from Senator Cortese. And the motion for that is do pass to the Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Alrighty. I see that we have, a couple of authors in the audience. We will start with Assemblymember Muratsuchi, who's presenting AB 1381 and AB 2202. Assemblymember, you can get started whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Senators. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 1381. A gun and amend bill with the goal of protecting students from teachers committing sexual and other egregious misconduct while also protecting the due process and privacy rights of teachers. First, I wanna thank the Chair and the committee staff for your leadership on this issue and for giving me an opportunity to work with you on this bill.

I will commit to continue to work with this committee to get the policy right should this bill move forward today.

In 2024, the fiscal crisis and management assistance team, or FCMAT, issued a report on the devastating fiscal impact of child sexual assault claims on school districts under AB 218. The report calls for stronger employee screening, stronger work history verification, and creation of an electronic database of school employee egregious misconduct that is accessible to school employers.

In response, last year, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 848, under the leadership of Chair Perez, which strengthened employee screening requirements, and established a statewide misconduct database for classified employees. This bill seeks to strengthen employee screening for school teachers. To help identify teachers with a history of complaints, substantiated investigations, or discipline for egregious misconduct.

A recent May 2026 KQED and ProPublica article about teacher misconduct in California highlights ongoing serious gaps in our current system of screening and identifying those applying for teaching jobs with a history of sexual and other egregious misconduct. The article focuses on a California teacher who was fired by Northern California School District after at least 11 individual students submitted written complaints of inappropriate touching, and at least two warnings from school administrators to stop.

After being fired, this teacher unfortunately went on to teach at a second and then a third school within three years. Meanwhile, the commission on teacher credentialing issued a one week suspension of his teaching license for his behavior at his first school, with no public notice of the circumstances of his discipline. The state of California, through the CTC, has allowed him to continue to teach.

This bill before the committee today seeks to strengthen employee screening for school teachers with a history of egregious misconduct. It is a work in progress. I have been meeting with stakeholders, and I want to acknowledge concerns raised about employee due process and the potential consequences of unproven allegations. Again, I will commit to working with this committee and all stakeholders to develop a workable solution that strikes the proper balance between protecting students and upholding the due process and privacy rights of teachers.

I have draft amendments ready for consideration in Senate Privacy Committee.

Should this bill move out of this committee, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. At this point, the this bill is, author sponsored and so, I do not have any witnesses at this point.

Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any me too's in support?

Bella Kern on behalf of the School Employers Association of California in support.

Great. Anybody else? Alrighty. Seeing no one arising, we'll now turn to, witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Tristan Brown of CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals, here in respectful opposition about the language in print today. And hearing the author's intent to move forward in a different direction gives us some light at the end of the tunnel. We know that this committee did take historic action last year in this realm of ensuring that student safety is priority number one and the CFT could not agree more.

That is our first and primary focus of folks that are in local Prentice to make sure students are safe at all times.

We hope that we can concentrate on where some of the gaps exist right now and how districts can make the best decisions possible. We are currently working on similar systems in other parts of the education workforce right now to establish databases that allow hiring committees to know exactly what has happened. We know that you already have to ask for prior employers. Individuals will provide these lists, and it's up to districts to talk to one another. This can be a bottleneck at times, unfortunately.

In the state where we house, the Silicon Valley, we think we should be able to find out technologically how we can make sure that data can be shared so that we can track individuals who have been proven to have committed egregious misconduct. We also are heartened to hear that the author is taking serious our due process, request seriously. This is a system where we wanna make sure that we do track those who have been found culpable to have committed this egregious misconduct.

It is a reality in our world that sometimes there are mistakes, sometimes there are allegations that are unfounded, and sometimes there are admissions by folks who said, well, I was angry and I made something up and I where I embellished and folks are are exonerated. And we wanna make sure that process is pristine so that individuals can exonerate themselves and continue the precious work that they love to do here in education.

So we look forward to working further with the author's office in crafting a system where districts do have the latest and greatest information so they know what they're getting into and that those lists are founded upon the principles of due process, and we make sure that we just are tracking those who deserve to be tracked. So with that, we are in respectful opposition and hope that this bill continues in the direction that the author is intending. So we thank you for the time.

Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any other, additional me too's in opposition? Anyone else? Seeing no one else, we will turn it back to the committee. Do we have any questions?

Yes, Senator Cortese.

I actually got my questions answered ahead of time, but I wanted to acknowledge the opposition and also acknowledge that I spoke to the author and he assured me that he was gonna continue to work on what he acknowledged or or some unfinished issues with with opposition. So I'm gonna be supporting the bill and I'm happy to move it at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Cortese. Do we have any other questions or comments? Yes, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you and welcome. Assemblymember Mercer, chief So it's my understanding that this bill is very similar right now currently as Assemblymember Sanchez AB 2365, which was held in appropriations. Is that correct?

That is correct. Okay. In its current language.

In its current language. And it's coming in there. So that that's why I wanted to to just kind of figure out how did this happen that the bill was held in appropriations, but you're able to bring it to to us here with the the current language.

Yes. Aye, thank you for giving a a due acknowledgement to, Assemblymember Sanchez and and her bill.

And so, the language that I, currently, amended and put into my bill, AB 1381, was the language was a portion of, Assemblymember Sanchez's, bill that, proposed, I believe it was the Assembly Education Committee's amendments to her bill that proposed this statewide database similar to what Chair Perez accomplished through SB 848 last year for classified employees, but with a narrower focus than Assemblymember Sanchez's bill to focus specifically on this database.

At the same time, I want to acknowledge that, I had, great conversations with, the Chair, with, Mister Johnson, with the committee, staff, as well as with, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, on the, California Federation of Teachers and other stakeholders. And, you know, fully recognize the the concerns about, you know, unproven allegations ending up in this school database, about the many laws and regulations that create a lot of complications in terms of proposing a new database, for teachers.

And so those are parts of part of the ongoing, discussions that we're having to, again, achieve the goal of of strengthening our current system of vetting, school teacher, applicants, to protect students, while at the same time, making sure that we, don't undermine the due process and the privacy rights of teachers.

Okay. So, that's what I was trying to figure out is, you know, how does the bill move forward with that language if it mimics the one that Assembly member Sanchez carried and it was killed in appropriations. How do we how do you move that forward? And that that that was my biggest question is

Okay.

How what's the plan on that end? Because if it's already been killed, then what are we looking to modify which I'm assuming it's it's the collaboration and the protections moving forward. Is that is that correct?

This would not be the first time that language that was held in one bill can be amended and, you know, placed in similar fashion in in a subsequent bill. But

I'm incredibly intrigued on how this happened and how it's gonna move forward on there. So I'm gonna be watching. I am it's interesting because we we were voting on on a language and on bills. We're supposed to look at what's before us.

We support bills that, you know, in hopes that it's gonna be changed. But it looks like it's gonna be amended quite drastically in in some ways. Hopefully, not taking out the essence of trying to contain that protection for our students. I actually was very very supportive of Assembly member, a Senator I'm sorry, not Assembly member, Senator, Perez's bill last year in protecting our our students. So I was very excited to see that.

But I, you know, I feel for Assembly member of Sanchez whose bill was, you know, killed in appropriations and wasn't able to move forward Uh-huh. That language. So Sure. Maybe you folks could work collaboratively and coauthor each each other's bill if it gets to be moved forward. I'm gonna abstain today on the bill, but I look forward to seeing the language on what you're going to come out.

And I hopefully, the strength and the teeth will be there in order to protect our students moving forward. But I know that there's great teamwork and I know that Senator Perez is an advocate, a fervent advocate for the protection of our students. And watching this bill very closely. And hopefully, we'll be able to support it when it comes before me. I'm assuming at the Senate at the Senate floor will probably be the next time I see it.

Yes. I just want to acknowledge, vice Chair, your your your comments. If Assemblymember Sanchez is watching this hearing, I intended to, to reach out to her to, you know, inform her of of what we're working on. This this really came, together. I did have a chance to talk with, Assembly member Flora yesterday that had another, approach that we're considering, dealing with the same subject matter of strengthening, school employee vetting.

But, yes, I do wanna give due acknowledgment to Assemblymember Sanchez in terms of of the the language that she had proposed in her bill.

Sorry. Just one final. It's and it's not just the acknowledgment part of it. It's just that I wanna just publicly note that, you know, the work that she worked really hard on it and that it was it was killed in appropriations. And and you are absolutely blessed to be able to carry the bill now with very similar language, if not the same as of right now and be be before us.

So that's that's the point that I wanted to to just acknowledge publicly is that I feel for our authors when they get killed and then the languages is taken over and they get to move forward on on, you know, in committees. And so that's the one thing that I just wanted to acknowledge and I know you, so I just wanted to make sure that we had a fair disclosure and transparency in what was happening. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Senator Cabaldon?

Yeah. Thank you, madam Chair. I appreciate the author's work on this. I do I mean, this is an extraordinary procedure to undertake and so the standard is high. I think there as the authors noted there at the end of this session, there are emergencies that arise and we have to make changes to bills as they happen.

But it is an exceptional standard as well. And I just want to level set because this bill will Senator Ochoa Bogh and I will see this bill next week if it passes out of committee today in the privacy committee that the privacy committee will be focused on the privacy and the data sharing related issues.

So if the bill is amended to to address other, you know, other topics in education or in this in this field that don't relate to that, won't we won't be taking, additional amendments in that in that space without the without the full consent of the of this committee as well, this committee's Chair as well. So I just wanna let level set that there weren't is there there won't be time for another education committee hearing the privacy committee is not a substitute for the education committee.

And so today I'm planning to vote for the bill if the Chair recommends it.

And but and there is work to be done and I'm encouraged by the opposition's optimism that the decision can be can be worked through.

But just to make sure that we're that we're clear that we're gonna focus in the privacy committee on, you know, issues of data sharing and that sort of thing as opposed to any additional new issues that are about the education system that aren't related to the jurisdiction of that committee, at least not without the concurrence of the Chair of this Committee as well. So thanks, madam Chair.

Senator, if I may through the Chair, as I indicated, I have draft amendment language in print ready to be reviewed by the Senate Education Committee, as well as with the privacy committee. And so I again, I'm very appreciative to the Chair for giving me this opportunity to continue to work with this committee. If the draft amendment is not acceptable to the Senate and committee, then I will not move the bill forward.

Any other comments? Aye, Assemblymember Maratsuchi, first of all, want to thank and acknowledge you, bringing this bill forward and your interest in doing work in this space. I think as you and many of the other members, of this committee, as well as the other house know, this is an issue that is especially important to me given SB 848 last year and what a priority it was that was an author sponsored bill as well. And we were very happy to see it pass.

And as I've shared with folks, you know, I myself was a victim of child grooming when I was a high school student, and so understand just how frequently these issues can happen on campus, and how important it is that we address, issues in this space.

I am aware of the ProPublica article and, have even had conversations with ProPublica as well as they've continued to explore this issue. And this is part of the reason why when we passed eight SB 848 last year, it made very clear to all of the members that I would likely be doing more in that space. Right? There's so much work to do in this space.

And this this particular policy area brings up various concerns not just around student safety and how do we do our best to protect our students, but also, respecting due process rights and privacy rights.

And, you know, frankly, it's a space that we've been needing to do more work in for a very long time as a legislature. So, I understand what you're trying to do here. I know we've had conversations. And because this is a gut and amend, you are quite limited on your time in order to be able to get a policy like this together.

And so I know you're looking at how you can create something very strong with the last several weeks that we have left, which I think is very smart on your part.

And I think what you've heard from the other senators who have spoken today is really a desire to make sure that we get something done, that is, impactful and can be implemented correctly on the ground and is gonna have its intended effect which is protecting our students, and and making sure that we get this policy right given we only have about six more weeks, before we get to the end of session.

So I'm certainly committed to working, you know, with you to make sure that that happens, and, you know, have like I said, appreciate you just taking an interest in this space because it is really going to be one that requires investment from a lot of different folks.

The AB 218 report that was produced by FCMAT, I think it didn't just assign a dollar amount to the amount of harm that have been committed against our students, but also help to uncover how frequently that this has been happening all across the state. And this is not just a California issue, this is a national issue. You know, the United States Department of Ed has looked into this issue, so, it it is one that is going to require, work on all ends.

So, we will continue to have conversations, appreciate the thoughtfulness that you've put into this, and, and we'll, you know, continue moving that forward. So I know it's heading to privacy next and and, you know, look forward to continuing those discussions. My recommendation is an aye vote so that we can continue to move these discussions forward and we can help to to get this right and continue to build on that good work. So I'll turn it over to you to close.

Thank you. Thank you, madam Chair. Again, you know, I appreciate your leadership. We know that this is a politically fraught policy area to wait into, and and you're taking it on straight on with your bill last year, SB 848 and your your bill this year. The follow-up to, to your, achievement last year.

I truly appreciate, your leadership in this difficult policy area. I, you know, again, wanna acknowledge, that, you know, I have limited time. I recognize that, but in, you know, some ways, because of my limited time, I felt that it was important for me to bring this bill forward.

But, again, I appreciate this opportunity to work on the amendments, you know, to get your approval, to get the Center Privacy Committee's approval, hopefully, to continue to move the ball forward to protect our kids. So I am very appreciative and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. And do we have a motion on this bill? We'll have a motion by Senator Cortese. And the motion for, AB 1381 is do passed to the Senate Privacy Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Committee.

Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We will put that bill on call. Did you wanna move on to your next bill?

Yes, please. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to, now present, Assembly Bill 2202, a bill, that would establish a commission to close the achievement gap as an advisory body of the State Board of Education. Currently, state programs aimed at closing the achievement gap are often fragmented and siloed across agencies without a unified strategy or consistent evaluation.

This, CTAG commission, the close achievement gap commission would directly address this fragmentation by, one, developing and informing a coherent statewide approach to closing the achievement gap, two, evaluating how existing programs work together and where they do not, and three, recommend ways to align policy funding and support with the ultimate objective of closing the achievement gap in the state of California. This is part of, a priority package for the California School Boards Association.

And, with me, to testify in support of this is a sponsor of the measure of the California School Boards Association represented by Carlos Machado, and the California Federation of Teachers represented by Tristan Brown.

Good Good morning. My name is Carlos Machado. I'm with California School Board Association, the proud sponsor of AB 2202. CSB represents nearly a thousand school district and county boards of education tasked with the local stewardship of our state's nearly 6,000,000 students. While our locally elected trustees are held to a high standard of public accountability through elections and the California School Dashboard, they often find themselves operating within an uncoordinated state level structure.

For too long, local leaders have had to navigate a series of disconnected mandates and ad hoc reforms that, while well intentioned, often conflict with one another at the local level. AB 2202 provides the State Board of Education with a vital mechanism to bridge this system system systemic gap by establishing the Closing Achievement Gap Commission. The bill creates a structured feedback loop between local leaders, educators, and state policy makers.

Commission will provide an important local perspective, for the State Board, including a ground level experience necessary to refine and update state programs, so they act as a strategic partner in local success rather than a source of regulatory friction. AB 2202 will help us move toward a system that is organized for results on behalf of California schools and county trustees, CSB, or just deny vote on AB 2202.

Good morning again, madam Chair and members. Tristan Brown of CFT. We're happy to be, in support of this bill. Oftentimes, I think it's a cliche, but it's worth repeating that you can't see the forest through the trees. And as CSBA eloquently said, that you do have, certain viewpoints and lenses at which school board may only look through.

We're happy that this is a focused work group on closing achievement gaps, but I think we also know that oftentimes those are not just achievement gaps, those are also opportunity gaps. And what is to be done by a school district or a single school board in challenges that face outside of curriculum adoption and everything else that's before a board on a day to day management of a school district.

We're talking about things like housing and security, food and security, things that really impact the ability for students to have the same opportunities as others and really hit that achievement. These are things that are beyond, I think, traditional school board reach.

But if we have a statewide plan and a 30,000 foot overview of what we're doing and seeing how we can have better coherence among the different parts of the education system, but also working as we are now with community schools and other programs, working with social services, etcetera.

There is more ability to take a more holistic view of how we can ensure that students do achieve. So we're happy that there is movement forward now to have that 30,000 foot view of what we're doing for students and to help them achieve and that's why we're here in support today. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any me too's in support in the audience? If so, please use the mic at the railing.

Good morning. My name is Denise Morgan. I am an education commissioner for the California State PTA, and we're in support of this bill.

Good morning. Deborah Shade, trustee, Solana Beach School District in support.

Good morning. Lourdes Perez, trustee for Ceres Unified School District in support.

Good morning. Ronan Conley, student in the Mountain View Whisman School District in strong support.

Good morning. Devon Conley, trustee for the Mountain View Whisman School District in support.

Good morning, Marina Ramos, John Swett Unified School District in strong support.

Good morning, madam Chair and senators. Adam Keigwin on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support.

Bella Kern on behalf of San Francisco Unified School District in support.

Harold Hollerup on behalf of the Santa Clara County Office of Education in support.

Doctor Stephanie Lewis, Rialto Unified School District, strong support.

Annette Lewis, trustee for the Contra Costa County Board of Education, strong support.

Shelby Moeller, trustee for the Rincon Valley Union School District in Sonoma County, strong support.

Jessica Speiser, vice president, Santa Clara County Board of Education, strong support.

Sylvia Leong, trustee, Cupertino Union School District, strong support.

Jessica Rogers, trustee at the El Dorado Union High School District, in strong support.

Florencio Briones, El Monte Union High School District in strong support.

Doctor Daniel Sandoval, Board President, Santa Paula Unified School District in strong support.

Sarah Butler, Contra Costa County Board of Education in strong support.

Zachary Ramos, Gustine Unified School District in strong support.

Misty diVittorio, Placerville Union School District, fervent support.

Alida Fisher, San Francisco Unified School District and County Office of Ed in support, along with my Board, including Vice President Jaime Huling and Andy Lie from Jefferson Union High School District.

Good morning. Nancy Smith from Palmdale School District, and I'm in complete support of this bill.

Hi, Yesenia Cuarenta on the Paramount Unified School District in support of this bill. Thank you.

Tara Jeane, Board President of the Sacramento City Unified School District, strong support.

Seeing no one else, we will turn it over to witnesses in opposition. Do you have any witnesses in opposition?

Hi, good afternoon, madam Chair and members. Melissa Bardo on behalf of Ed Trust West. While we don't have a formal opposition position, we do have some significant concerns regarding the logistics. We share the author's goal of trying to close achievement gaps, and look forward to working with the author and sponsors to resolve those concerns, but we did submit a letter of concern to the committee and members. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sara Bachez with Children Now also in concern.

Ben Murphy, Public Advocates, also in concern. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else, thank you all for your presentations. We will turn it back to the committee. Senator Choi.

Thank you, Chair, and also thank you Assemblymember Muratsuchi. Your bill is one of the few rare bill dealing with relating to student achievement aspect. Many other bills we deal with in education committee has been more of a non curriculum, non learning, more of a social issues. I would be supporting the measure. However, I have some technical questions.

Closing your bill is to create a newly established the commission's name will be the Closing the Achievement Gap Commission. So sounds like that the commission is in charge of how to find the methodology to close the gap. So does that mean that we know the reasons of why students have different achievement gaps that the the causes have been identified and now this commission will be finding the ways of how to close the gap.

What will this commission also try to determine why such achievement gap among students for whatever's ability or social background etcetera etcetera. Can you clarify that?

Well, thank you, Doctor Choi. I I I know as an educator, you you understand that, you know, the achievement gap, one, as Mister Brown indicated earlier, you know, is largely a reflection of opportunity gaps, largely along the lines of of of income and and and wealth. And and so we know that communities in Irvine and Torrance have educational opportunities available to families that, are not available to many communities and and lower income, disadvantaged neighborhoods.

And so, you know, bottom line, there's no silver bullet in terms of closing the achievement gap.

But we we know that there's, you know, so many of the programs that come before this committee, whether it's the local control funding formula to get more funding to to school districts with the largest numbers of disadvantaged students, you know, or whether it's community schools or whether it's expanded learning opportunities. That means all of our efforts are all trying to close those opportunity and achievement gaps.

And and and so I I just wanna emphasize that while there is no silver bullet that this commission or any anybody for that matter can propose to close achievement gap, It will at least help coordinate, and and then bring all those efforts together, in a cohesive strategy, to to to align our efforts, align our funding, you know, the the billions of dollars that we spend on education to help close the opportunity and achievement gaps.

Thank you. But let me clarify my question, okay? And my essence of the question is that this new commission sounds like to me the cause of the achievement gap has been identified. What causes that? Is that true or and this commission will be charged you to find the answers to close the gaps.

Yes.

Which one is that? Is both trying to find the causes of the achievement gaps and finding the methodology to close the gap and identify the causation of the achievement gap. Which one is it?

Yeah. So I think there's a general consensus that the achievement gap is largely a reflection of of, you know, the the the gaps in in socioeconomic status of of students and families.

So with that general understanding of the cause of the overall achievement gap, the the, goal of this commission is to focus on coordinating the the the the many efforts of the state of California, the ongoing efforts to to to coordinate those those efforts to help close the the the achievement gap that is largely understood to be a reflection of the differences in the socioeconomic circumstances of our students and families. I I don't know if the School Board Association, you know, also wants to add to that.

And thank you for the question. It's a good one. It is why, CSBA is sponsoring this bill is that the progress to close these achievement gaps has been slow. We'd like to see that, you know, that that work continue, so that these gaps are closed more quickly. That's going to require a comprehensive look.

This bill is looking at that relationship between what's happening at the local level and the policies that the state has adopted. So, local school districts and county boards of education are working directly with students. You we have local priorities that are established by these boards. We're looking with this measure, especially at the State Board of Education, to create a way that better around the decisions that are made at the State Board to align those state efforts with what's happening at the local level.

So, teachers, administrators, and board members can better serve students, and those state programs complement what's happening at the local level.

And through this commission, we can make sure that that coherence happens at a a more refined level than it's currently happening now. So, it's it is one effort, as the Assemblymember, Muratsuchi mentioned. It's not a silver bullet, but it is something that needs to happen.

There's been studies, over, the years that have identified the need for these efforts at the state level, and then new studies under getting out the facts three that have also highlighted the need for these types of changes through AB 2202 and and the other bills in the package.

Thank you. This is a very important issue that we face all the educators, the teachers, school Board Members face. This party, new commission, that will be created is at least another effort. But this kind of task or mission has been had to be already the mission of the superintendent of public instruction who is in charge of entire learning school school systems.

I wonder why that kind of effort has not been studied and then also even many support school board representatives, a while ago, came out to express the support of this bill.

That is also locally each school district will have the same question, how do we close the learning gap? And then now with this age old education history, now at this particular moment, another layer, top layer state level, new commission has to be created as advisory commission. And I wonder that is my overall question, but more specifically, there was an interesting bill proposed into this committee a week ago, Assemblymember Cory Jackson.

His bill was to create special resources program based upon race or he called black culture identified the race base, but he kept on emphasizing black culture. The people with the black community culture, we have different ways of learning.

So therefore, special resources will have to be devoted for that culture, for that race. So that means Asians will learn differently.

Senator Senator Choi. Senator Choi, just to just to interrupt for just a moment. It is improper under the rules of the Senate to be addressing other pieces of legislation.

No. No. I'm I'm trying to ask whether that was a achievement gap is widening. And under this umbrella, that's achieving trying to say achieve the same goal. Regardless of who they are, his bill was focusing upon racial reason to close the gap.

This commission will deal with that, the racial basis learning gap learning gap is there because of the so that means that this is a very complicated issue, how to solve finding the methodology. So have you ever talked to him?

I I have talked to him in general about, you know, these issues. I I I think it's clear that, you know, the just like the causes of the achievement gap are are are complicated. We ultimately, much of it boils down to opportunity gaps.

Many of those, if not, you know, all of the opportunity gaps are, you know, for historical or social reasons, you know, often tied you know to different racial and ethnic communities and and so you know it certainly would be my intent that the commission to close an achievement gap would not only have to recognize the the huge gaps in opportunity educational opportunities, not only along income levels, but but also along racial and ethnic communities.

Yeah. So so continuous conversation. Yeah. Okay.

Senator, I think I have like as as an example in our local community, there was a significant achievement gap for a Hmong population, in South Sacramento. And not seeing opportunities, they went the charter route and were able to facilitate a school that was much more adapt to meeting the needs of those students. And virtually overnight, you saw huge achievement, successes in that population. So they were having to be out of the box thinking and using the charter model to address those concerns.

And I think that that is something that not as necessarily race based, but how are we making sure the programs that we're doing in literacy, in training for our staff from district to district can learn from best practices from one another and use these examples as ways to meet students where they are, in a various many different ways, in whatever their the cause of their gaps may be to learn from best practices from throughout the state and have that state viewpoint enable to connect those dots and and be able to meet those students.

So I think that's that was a very micro example of how a one single district and one population was able to overcome their challenges. If we can learn from that and mirror that and have a statewide commission that can also look through that, that would be a great benefit to many others. And I think also to echo comments from say our state board chair, you know, Doctor

Linda Darling-Hammond, who's always said that if you have well trained veteran educators that are able to be in the classroom, you're able to see, and with lower class sizes, you're able to see these achievement gaps lower as well. Are there districts that are doing this in a way that is more impactful than others?

How can we again connect those dots and look at this holistically from the state level so we know how to support and move one lever over another. Is it more support with the Golden State teacher grant program? Is it moving faster in our apprenticeship model that we're trying to get off the ground? Are there other things we can do to make sure that we're meeting those students? I think that's the approach.

It's a little bit different in what this bill is trying to bring to the overall dialogue. It's that's I think where we can make some great achievement strides.

Okay. Thank you. Let's continue finding the solution.

Thank you. Alright. Thank you. I I I wanna for the folks from Ed Trust West, Children Now, and Public Advocates, if you're still in the room or within sound of my voice. I know that the Chair when she returns momentarily, has some some questions as well that she'd like to ask.

I I'm struggling with this bill, in part because I've seen this movie many many many times, And and I've been in it. I've been I've been on several of these these these state board, governor's office, legislative created, sort of Noah Noah's Ark's committees and commissions with big with big promise about what would be emerging from there. And it's I'm struggling to see the outcome here, particularly because we have another bill later that adds another working group on closing the gap operations as well.

And it's just it's not adding up for me in terms of the process. So we've heard in the testimony in the presentation today that we can all pretty much agree that the cause of the achievement gap is unequal opportunity that folks have based on principally on where they live and their family income and what have you.

But we actually can't all agree on that. I don't agree that that's kind of the end of the story. It's part of the story. It's an important part of the story to be sure and it's why we have to tackle redlining and housing affordability and everything else. But it cannot be the main part.

We can't simply say that's the case and therefore you know, let's let's cope. And you can see that in in the composition of the of the proposed commission in that out of 18 people, there's one from an educational equity organization. You know, those annoying organizations that kinda call us all to account and say, hey, you know, hey, system people, folks, employees, Board Members, senators, and what have you.

Hey, there's a real problem here that's real and that we can do and we must do something about it. We have an urgent imperative to deal with the achievement gap regardless of its origins.

And so the the the Noah's Ark inside the inside the school the schoolhouse doors approach to this seems to me unlikely given given that prediction that everybody has to say that to produce breakthrough results that would change what we're hearing. And so it feels to me like I can already predict what the report is going to say in the end.

It's gonna it's gonna say we have some ideas that, you know, the state should give us more flexibility, stop mandating so many things, but then there'll be a minority report from six of the members of the commission saying, but don't touch these labor standards or these curriculum standards or whatever. That's eminently predictable. Recommendation two will be we need more money and that money should be in the local control funding formula and there should be fewer categoricals.

And then recommendation three will be let's keep in mind that the real cause of the achievement gap is is, you know, some rich communities provide better opportunities. And that will be the end. That will be the end. I've we've received many of these reports over and over again.

And the challenge is not just that that is a waste of time because we it's it's eminently foreseeable, but also that between now and then between now and the time that the reports do, every time someone else has a breakthrough idea, whether it's a group of faculty teachers or one of the educational equity groups or a member of the legislature, we will say that's a fantastic idea.

You know what we should do? Let's send that to this commission to study and think about for the next year or two and we will do nothing. And so as we're as we're considering the governor's proposal which I think it's no secret I have significant current concerns about but it is intended to to to to to tighten up the way we're making decisions so that we can actually take action on things that will close the achievement gap and the opportunity gap.

That is the analysis points out, like, the the value add of of this is at least a question. And then we have another bill later today that's creates another working group and we're not we're not serving students especially those that that are on the losing end of the achievement gap simply by creating more more meetings and more commissions.

We need we need we need we need breakthrough action and I know everybody in the room believes that too. But so I I you know, I'm I'm not I'm not sure I can vote for for this one. I'm trying to understand this whole package, but I really I've I've been a performer, a supporting character on the stage of this of this movie over of this play over and over and over and over again.

And I just think at some point, we have to say enough and let's really let's hold to account the State Board of Education if if there are policies that they can do.

Let's hold ourselves to account through the budget process, through the confirmation process for state Board Members, but simply inviting 18 people from 17 people from within the system plus one person from an educational equity organization doesn't seem to be designed to produce the the kind of uncomfortable conversations and policy solutions that we're gonna need in order to tackle this.

And so I look forward to the chair's comments, but it's given me some enduring heartburn about both this and the other bill that proposed to create these new structures without the promise that they're going to be any different from the commissions and the committees and the working groups that we have already been deploying for the last two generations.

Madam Chair, I think Mister with your permission Mister Machado I I think might have a response.

Madam Chair, I I didn't have a question though. Thank you.

Okay. Alrighty. I've, appreciate Senator Cabaldon's comments. I actually is the Education Trust West still here? If you could just I know that you submitted a letter, but I think just speak a little bit more particularly to the coalition's concerns and and and whatnot around this bill.

Yeah. Absolutely. Melissa Bardo on behalf of Ed Trust West and a coalition of education equity advocates including Children Now, Public Advocates, Californians Together, and the Alliance for Children's Rights. We greatly appreciate the intent of improving student outcomes and closing opportunity gaps. Many of our missions have been dedicated towards that very goal for decades, but we are concerned that this legislative package places too much emphasis on reducing compliance burdens rather than advancing a cohesive system wide strategy.

Our main concern with AB 2202 is, you know, raised in the analysis as the likely duplication of work that can and should be owned at the highest levels of state government, including the State Board of Education or existing advisory groups that, you know, advise

on a lot of these matters. I mean ultimately, the closing student achievement gap is a a goal that should be owned at every level of our state and local government. At the highest levels of state government-State Board of Education, Superintendent of Public Instruction, but also acknowledging the the shared role and accountability of local school boards as well.

So, you know, all in all, we did submit a letter of concern kind of speaking to some of the logistical concerns of the whole package, but greatly appreciate the author's commitment to this issue.

Thank you. So a couple of things. One, I recognize that this is part of kind of a a larger packet, and I know I've talked with the the School Boards Association as well about this, these ideas and and the intent here of of these various pieces of legislation, which I think is a good one. Right?

I mean, part of the reason why I ran for office, why I I requested to be the Chair of this Committee is because I think it's incredibly important that we improve upon outcomes for students.

The fact that we have we've not seen reading scores and math scores terribly decline, but we've also not made any sort of tremendous improvements. We've kind of just coasted as a state. And that's really not acceptable. We should do more to try to improve on outcomes. And there's all sorts of strategies out there.

Right? There's been plenty of research done. I used to work for one of, you know, the money equity organizations that does work in this space. I was at the Campaign for College Opportunity for five and a half years, and know that there's been national, you know, work to assess what kind of programs actually lead to real results for students. But that kind of policy change, it requires real change, and those things always make folks uncomfortable.

I can appreciate with what you're doing here with the CTAG Commission. I do wanna highlight, I think, what both Senator Cabaldon and as well as Education Trust West mentioned, which is that the State Board of Education should really be taking on many of the priorities that have been laid out in this bill. And this is the kind of work that they should be doing already. As the State Board of of Education, they should be, you know, having these conversations.

Everything that we do should be should be centered on improving student outcomes.

And it it I think it actually points to a larger problem that we even have to consider creating an entirely separate commission to work with them to you you know what I mean? It's like adding this additional layer of of bureaucracy.

So I appreciate though what both you as well as your sponsors are doing and trying to think creatively about these issues and think about how we come up how we finally get to this point of of not just coming up with solutions, but getting to the point of implementations who are making real changes that lead to results. Because I think that these are the kind of larger level and thoughtful discussions we need to be having and and reflecting upon. And so I I appreciate that your bill is doing that.

And so my recommendation today is an Aye, but I I do wanna see you as well as the sponsors continue to work with the other authors that have bills in the space to think about some of those things. How do we how do we move beyond these kinds of discussions, adding additional layers of bureaucracy, and get to this point of real implementation?

And is there a way, especially when we have existing boards and existing bodies, is it do we need to create another commission, or is there a way to create more accountability there that is going to tighten up the system that we currently have? And what I see in the education space is that we're beginning to have those conversations at all levels. It's this bill.

You know, I know Assemblymember Patel has a bill. The governor's office is making this proposal to change oversight of CDE, moving that from the SPI under the all of this is kind of referring to the same thing. There's this desire for change and to improve the current system that we have. And I'm not going to tell you that I have all the answers or the solutions right now, but I think it's really important that we really think through and ponder on some of these issues.

So, I look forward to continuing to work with you and other authors as well as the sponsors, around these efforts, and I will turn it over to you to close.

Alright. Well, thank you very much, madam Chair, for your comments and and Senator Cabaldon.

And, if you could also accept the amendments, Assembly member.

Yes. We, we accept all amendments. Thank you for the committee's work on this this bill. I I just like to close. We all agree that we don't wanna create a commission just for the sake of creating a commission, and and to create more meetings.

And as Senator Senator Cabaldon correctly points out, I mean, this is not anything new in terms of, you know, for decades, educators across the country have been talking about about closing the achievement gap.

I would just emphasize that my many conversations with the School Boards Association and and with the members, leaders of the School Board Association from throughout the state that the the focus of this commission is not just, you know, to create a another layer of bureaucracy, another, body for the for the sake of, creating the body, but it's to coordinate and to evaluate, the the state efforts that are all in one way or another designed to to help close the achievement gap and and to help close the opportunity gaps that exist in in the state of California.

And so to that end, it it is the the emphasis. I I I know the the at the the press conferences and and the and the public meetings and discussions on this bill, as well as the package. The emphasis has been on state accountability.

You know, that that is not just, you know, again, it's it's not just creating a body to to highlight the the urgency of the issue, although that, you know, always has some value to to to highlight it, spotlight it, and and to to focus on it. But more importantly, to create this coherent statewide strategy, as well as evaluating the effectiveness of state efforts. That is at the heart of the the mission, the purpose of this commission.

And so with with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. And we have a motion by Senator Choi and that motion is to pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee secretary. Can you call the roll?

[Roll call]

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

And we have Assemblymember Bains in the audience to present AB 1547.

Assemblywoman, you can get started whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Chair and senators. Kern County has faced a persistent and longstanding physician shortage since the 1970s. While this issue has been discussed and its adverse impacts highlighted, there are currently no state or federal strategies being implemented that are expected to solve the crisis.

In fact, the number of medical students from rural backgrounds who are the doctors most likely to serve rural patients is in a historic decline. Students of color with rural backgrounds represent just one half of 1% of medical students nationwide.

While the reasons for this are numerous, one of the primary drivers is cost in geography. The average medical school in California is less than 30 miles from the beach and high cost areas where most of these students cannot afford to live. To address this crisis. AB 1547 requires the University of California by 01/01/2028 to complete a feasibility study for establishing a branch campus of an existing UC medical school in the epicenter of the physician's shortage.

This comprehensive analysis will include identifying the potential sites and assessing construction infrastructure needs, recommending strategies to recruit qualified faculty and staff, conducting a financial analysis of projected costs and funding sources, and reviewing local GME opportunities to ensure graduates have access to residences in local communities.

The state has already established an endowment fund to support a UC current medical school. Now we must identify the practical steps needed to turn this idea into a reality. The investment is essential to build a healthier future for California's most medically underserved communities. Thank you for your time, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you for your presentation. Do we have anyone that would like to offer support Me too? Please use the mic at the railing.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Dylan Elliot on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors in support.

Great. Anybody else?

Seeing no and rising. We'll hear from any witnesses in opposition. Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Seeing no one rising, I'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any questions or comments from committee members? Senator Choi?

Yeah. I don't know. Just to make it very quick, Doctor Bains, this is a very important issue for the future, doctor supply of the state. And then obviously, UC system is leading that effort.

But the usage system region of regions, they should have their long term plans and then also doctor shortages should be one of them. Why do we have to let's through the legislature, we have to tell them to do the feasibility study? Have you had the conversation whether they had such a plan?

Yes. So after the endowment fund was established, it was assumed that there would have been work on it. That hasn't happened yet. So we move forward in the legislature with active solutions to make sure that we move forward on this project.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Choi. Senator Cabaldon?

Just briefly, without regard to the the actual policy objectives for the bill, this is outside of our constitutional authority. The constitution does establishes the regents as a public trust as essentially another branch of government and are and specifically restricts the legislature and the governor from interfering in its internal business.

That doesn't mean we can't legislate anything, but when it comes to specific educational programs inside the university, we are constitutionally forbidden from requiring them to do the to take these actions and I think in today's world it's more important than ever that we abide by the constitution. So I can't I can't support the bill today. This is not an appropriate role for the legislature.

Chairperson, can I have a follow-up discussion?

Yeah. Yes. Senator.

Senator Cabaldon raises a very important question. That reminds me that the UC is not the following our legislature's directions and the board of regents, they set their own policies more independently. So maybe you may have to amend your bill rather than requires, recommends. I think that will comply with our regulation. Right?

Yeah. So would you, would you consider that making the amendment for yours, the the bills of survivability, not against going against the constitution? That's an important issue.

We can look into that. However, this bill has passed the Assembly as well and their judiciary review.

Maybe somebody did not you know?

It's passed

Think about it.

Judicial review in the Senate as well. So I'm not really sure. This is the first time this has been brought up and this bill has gone through the Assembly and the Senate judicial review. So this I understand the concerns. I do. But, you know, there are a lot of experts that have looked at this and have not

By voting, yes. So we are violating the California constitution.

I don't believe the judicial committee of the Senate would allow that or a bill like this to come through if it was violating a constitutional right.

Yes. And I've a couple of things and I think we we can certainly go back and forth here, but I do wanna highlight that we have 16 bills left. So, the state constitution certainly limits our ability to, to regulate the the UC system. It's very different than the CSU or the community colleges.

My understanding is if there is funds available through an endowment in order for a study like this one to be done that it can that it is absolutely possible to do so. Now, I don't believe that there are funds certainly set aside to do this study. That does not mean that there won't be studies like this to be done in the future and so, it is something worth exploring.

We know and very well aware even before I came to this building because there's been a lot of research done into this area about the need, to build out the healthcare workforce in the Central Valley and in the Inland Empire. And so those are certainly worthy conversations, but I think that's where the nuance is here.

And, you know, should there be funding and and dollars set aside to explore particularly this issue about, the feasibility of creating a UC system out in that region, that is something that could be done. So we can make recommendations as a state legislature to the UC system. They ultimately have the authority as to what they would like to do.

So, I hope that helps to answer your question a little bit, Senator Choi, and understand Senator Cabaldon's point, the point that he's raised. My recommendation is an aye vote. Would you like to close, Assemblywoman?

No. I hear all of the concerns. That doesn't mean our work as legislators end. I do not believe that this is in violation of any constitution as if it was. This bill would not have been brought forward.

However, always looking to work across any aisle that I need to bring solutions for my community. As a previous Chair of the California Healthcare Workforce Policy Commission in many, many moons ago, having a strong hold on health care workforce, especially in the valley where, as we have seen, it's declining more. We've been a health care shortage area since the 1970s, and nothing's been done about that.

So I do believe it is in our authority and power as legislators to bring, awareness to an issue that's happening. And I do believe that this bill will do that, and I appreciate all the support.

I appreciate the comments, and I will definitely continue working to make sure that everything is addressed.

And do we have a motion for AB 1547?

Alrighty. We will wait until we get more members, Assemblymember Bains. And for now, we'll, well, I can't quite say put it on call, but we will come back to that item.

Okay.

Thank you so much. Alrighty. We will now have now moved on to I believe I saw Assembly Member Pacheco here just a second ago for AB 1669. Okay. Alrighty.

I thought we've done consent. We haven't done that. Okay. Let's go ahead and if we can do our vote on consent. Secretary, if you can call the oh, if we have a motion on consent. I'd like the motion. We have a motion by Senator Choi. Secretary, can you call the roll?

Senators Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogue Cabaldon. Aye.

Cabaldon, aye. Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese Gonzalez Reyes.

Yeah. Right. And we will put consent on call. Alrighty. And then we also have Assemblymember Bauer K Hans bill AB 302.

Can we get a motion on that? No. Okay. Okay. Okay.

We have a motion from Senator Choi. Secretary, can you call the roll? And the motion is do passed to the Senate privacy, Digital Technologies, and consumer protection committee.

Senators Perez?

Aye.

Perez, Aye. Ochoa Bogue, Cabaldon, Choi?

Aye.

Choi, Aye. Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes. Great.

And we will put that bill on call. Let's also lift the call for AB 2504 just so I can vote.

Okay. File item two, AB 2,504, Bauer Kehan. Motion is do passed to the Senate privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee. Current vote is four ayes and no nos. Senator Perez?

Aye. Perez, aye. Gonzales Reyes?

Great. And we will put that bill back on the call.

Okay.

We are going to recess for a brief moment while we wait for Assembly members to come to Room 2100. If we have any authors for Senate education, please head to Room 2100.

We are going to recess for a brief moment while we wait for Assembly members to come to Room 2100. If we have any authors for Senate education, please head to Room 2100.

Alrighty. And we are coming back as a committee. Assembly member Alanis is here to present AB 1728 and AB 1831.

Assembly member, you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, madam Chair. So AB 1728, which improves education pathways for students pursuing careers in law enforcement and firefighting. In 2021, the legislature passed AB 1111 by Assembly member Berman, creating the common course number system at the California Community Colleges, so general education courses share the same numbers across campuses, making transfers easier for students. While the system has helped streamline general education courses, it currently does not include CTE programs, including those that train future first responders.

AB 1728 expands the existing system by requiring including law enforcement and firefighting education courses in the common course numbering system.

This will improve transparency for students, simplifying course transfers between colleges, and help streamline pathways into critical first responder careers. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for your presentation. Seeing as you have no witnesses here in support, do we have any me too's in support? Seeing no one rising, we'll see if we have any witnesses in opposition. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no one rising, I'll turn it back to the committee.

Any questions or comments from committee members? Seeing none. Oh, and also Assembly, member well, my recommendation on this bill, is an Aye, and I will be voting Aye. If you could also accept the amendments near closing, I'd appreciate it.

Yes, madam Chair. I will accept them and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Do we have a motion on AB 1728? We have a motion by Senator Choi. Secretary, can you call the roll?

The motion is?

The motion is do passes amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

Right. And we will put that bill on call. Do you wanna move on to your next bill?

Do I have another bill in here?

No. Did you pull it?

If I do, I will.

Oh, sorry.

Assemblymember Pacheco, would you like to get started on AB 1669?

Thank you, and good morning, Madam Chair and Senator. I am here to present AB 1669, which ensures that college students may take a leave of absence for medical or mental health reasons and return to their studies through a clear, protected process. We have been in conversation with the higher education segments and have made amendments to address their implementation concerns. College students are facing a mental health crisis. The data is bleak.

Thirty seven percent of college students struggle with depression. Nearly one third experience anxiety. And tragically, one in five students contemplate suicide. Poor mental health has drastic consequences for student success, disrupting both day to day functioning and academic performance. On campus, students don't always have access to the support they need to manage these challenges.

Temporary leave allows a student to stabilize and return ready to complete their education. However, not all California colleges and universities offer a clear leave of absence framework. While some schools allow a student to take a leave of absence, others require a student facing a mental health crisis to withdraw entirely. That can mean reapplying with no guarantee of readmission, risking the progress they've made toward their degree.