Senate Standing Committee on Education

Committee has come to order. Good morning. Welcome to the Senate Education Committee hearing. There are 27 bills on today's agenda. AJR 19 has been pulled from today's hearing at the author's request.

There are six bills on consent. Those bills are item number eight, AB 2120, item number 17, AB 2,071 item number 18, AB 2,158 item number 19, AB 2,189 item number 21, AB 2,417 item number 23, AB 2468. 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. Thing is, we don't have a quorum.

We'll begin as a subcommittee with the first bill, And I believe we have Assemblymember Alanis here to present.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I wanna say that I will be accepting committee amendments and want to thank the Chair and the committee staff. Thank you for taking the time to work with me and my office on this bill. I also wanna thank the education stakeholders who have come to the table. Their willingness to engage has resulted in meaningful improvements to the measure.

AB 387 builds upon the Nevaeh Youth Sports Act Safety Act that continues our efforts to ensure that when children participate in organized sports, lifesaving equipment is available when seconds matter most. Current law already requires youth sports organizations to ensure AD access during practices and games. AB 387 does not change that responsibility. Instead, it clarifies how youth sports organizations and the facilities where they play can work together to improve access to existing ADs and better coordinate emergency preparedness.

Over the past several months, my office has worked extensively with the youth sports organizations, the cities, counties, park districts, and risk management organizations, also to include educational stakeholders.

Those discussions have resulted in meaningful changes to the bill, which further clarifies responsibilities of schools and other facility operators while preserving the bill's core public safety safety objectives. But our work is not finished. I remain committed to continuing these conversations as the bill moves forward to address remaining concerns, and I hope all stakeholders, whether they support or oppose the bill today, will remain engaged so that together we can reach a solution that protects children and provides a practical path to implementation.

Those reasons when the time is right, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

The Chair has to go to another committee and I'm a temporary It's that time of year. Vice Chair. Do we have any witnesses? No? Good. In the audience, anyone supporting?

Good morning, Mister Chair. Chris Micheli here on behalf of AYSO, the American Youth Sports Organization. We are in support, as the Assembly member noted, with this committee, with the Health Committee and counterparts in the Assembly. We continue to work on refining these provisions. We youth organizations, sports organizations are trying to work cooperatively with the public facilities to ensure that AED, devices are available and accessible for youth sporting events.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah Bridges on behalf of the Eric Perez Save a Life Foundation. Sudden cardiac arrest is the number one killer of student athletes. We appreciate that this measure starts the discussion with facilities and sports teams working together to increase the survival of student athletes. So thank you, and we support.

Thank you. Okay. Are there any opposition witnesses? If your major, oppositions, then you will have two minutes each.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair. Dorothy Johnson oh, okay. I'll be quick. Okay. Thank you.

Good morning. Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators. We are opposed, but we have had great, luck, success, great conversations, moving us in the right direction on this measure, really specific to the conditions for school facilities. Security issues with third parties entering school buildings, AEDs that are provided for non supporting purposes, and then also the school calendar, very different than our our cohorts in the cities, counties, and the parks district.

So, we are continuing to work specifically on the liability issue, not just access to, the AED, but also rendering of care and make sure that's all covered.

And we look forward to staying at the table to continue these conversations as this bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair, committees, staff, and committee Members. Michelle Gill on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials representing over 30,000 school business leaders statewide. Our comments and our position is very aligned to, my colleague at AXA. We acknowledge and appreciate the Assembly member's goal of ensuring all youth sports athletes have access to life saving automated external defibrillators.

However, our concerns about the bill have been related to cost, staffing, liability, and AED maintenance requirements. We really do appreciate the author and the committee working closely with us to address most of these issues through committee amendments, which have helped clarify that the bill will not impose cost or staffing responsibilities on local educational agencies and eliminate duplicative AED maintenance requirements.

Just like the author mentioned, we do have some work to do regarding liability issues, but we do, look forward to keep working on that, and we do have commitment from the author's office for that. And once those issues are resolved, we look forward to reevaluating our position. Thank you.

Okay. In the audience, any opposition statements to be made? Identify your name and organization and your position only.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California and the Urban Counties of California, oppose unless amended until the liability issues are taken care of. Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Lohr on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, oppose unless amended. Appreciate efforts by the author and sponsor. Thank you.

Good morning. Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District. We're currently opposed. We have the same concerns that were brought up by our friends at AXA and Caspo and look forward to reviewing the amendments when they're in print. Thank you.

Real Vice Chair showed up.

Oh, that's too funny. Okay. So that was the was that the public speaking in opposition? Okay. So we'll see no other witnesses in opposition.

We'll bring it back to the dias. Questions, comments?

I have a question. I hear the use of I suppose the facilities that would have AED, but I don't know whether every supposed facilities will have any place that can be stored in there. Is it portable? And that's my question. And if not, do they have to carry in every time when the when the field is used for practice purposes.

And the second question will be, I don't know much about the difference, AED versus, CPRs. And the CPRs among the many crowds, I'm sure they are trained, some of them trained or be much quicker than carrying the machine and opening, setting up because we are fighting against the time. So do you have opinions on that, the two differences of why that AED is necessary?

I do. And your first question, an AED, if you haven't seen one, is basically no bigger than a, like, a little bag that you can carry around like a purse. So very portable. So as far as as locating and storing or whatever, that's gonna be up to the facilities as far as when the the the events are taking place and overnight, whatever they wanna do with that. That's that's something they're gonna have to figure out.

As far as the actual procedures itself, I have a lot of experience in that as well. You are gonna start CPR. You're gonna start CPR immediately. You're gonna get the AED as soon as you can bring it over. You're gonna do the AED.

It's gonna have you place the pads on there, and then the AED is gonna do its own assessment of it and tell you whether or not to start CPR or if it's gonna do a pulse that's gonna give it a charge to the body. But that's that's all included in it and that's also part of the training that they would receive as well with it. So very valid questions.

Do do you know the the effectiveness of two different kinds? Method methods?

It's CPR versus AED? Yeah. They work together. They go together.

Side by side?

Side by side. So it'll tell you, don't touch the patient. It's gonna do its thing. And then after a while, if it does anything, it's gonna tell you to continue CPR. It's

I don't wanna say dummy proof, but it's almost dummy proof. It tells you what to do. My old job is a as a in law enforcement, we used them, and they're effective.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. So the amendments were accepted. I wasn't here for the opening, so I'm not sure if you had affirmed that or not. Just wanted to make sure that we had a.

I'll do it again.

That'd be and then the other concern I had, on the liability. I understand you're still working with the opposition with regards to the liability concerns?

Correct. And and and everybody at the table has been great. I mean, the ladies here and those that even came up to the microphone. It's not that every bill is supposed to be the best bill, but this has been a really good bill to be working with with both people on both sides.

Okay. So and then my follow-up question is, do we see possible language to neutralize the opposition moving forward?

1100%. Not only the language here today, but also the commitment from the author, should this bill move forward to continue to work on the liability so we can address, access to care or access to the device and not just rendering of care that's currently protected for Good Samaritan protection. So 100% feel comfortable and and we're committed to the solutions here. Okay.

I guess I do have a couple more. Sorry. On the the cost, that's, you know, one of the biggest concerns that we have on behalf of the the school districts is always the the mandates that we place on them without any funding. Has there been a budget request to help alleviate the cost for this particular

A specific budget request?

Yes. For this.

Like from my office for this?

Yes.

Yeah. No. No. And if it was, I wouldn't I wouldn't think they would. And I haven't had a budget request approved in for anything and everything.

Well, for personal budget request, no. But usually, we can do statewide budget request. And if this is going to impact all of our schools in the district, all our school districts in our state, it wouldn't be, you know, unusual.

It wouldn't hurt.

For a budget request. So, yes, ma'am.

And I we're pleased to see that there is a cost sharing agreement under current education code. Schools do have cost recovery under the Civic Center Act. Okay. So while there could be additional cost incurred, there is a requirement to meet with the YSO to find a cost sharing agreement to, limit the possible impacts to school budgets.

Okay. I don't have no idea what the the the system's cost. Do we have any idea?

You can go on the Internet. You can find for 600. You can find some up to, like, 1,400. And so what fancy one you want or how it looks or what brand it is. It's it just depends on a lot of things on there.

Okay. And how many do we think approximately with is it per sport, per how would you

So I take it you've been to a soccer tournament before with your kids and you probably have like 10 or 15 fields?

Yes.

Well, you probably only have like one snack bar for that entire tournament. Right? There's not like a bunch of them everywhere. So same thing with the AED. There'll be one AED there available for everybody.

Just like as if you had an ambulance that was there on scene, you're not gonna have an ambulance on every field. You're just gonna have one available for the whole tournament.

So probably for per sport then, if a school I'm referring to if a school will be investing in this, I'm assuming it's a school.

So schools already have to have this even before we even did Nevaeh's. Okay. Schools already had to have one on campus for student activities and and after school activities for the students. So some schools are playing baseball, maybe doing track, and maybe doing soccer at the same time, and they still only just had to have one on the facility. Correct me if I'm wrong, opposition on that for your schools.

The provision is not for YSOs, for youth sport organizations. It's for interscholastic sport. So, different purpose, but yes, they do have to be provided during those matches.

Okay. Alrighty. So someone has them already on campus. So it'd be relatively easy to facilitate. Okay.

So with that, obviously, we don't have a quorum, but we'll place this bill on hold until we establish a quorum. And I look forward to supporting the bill today with the condition that you folks will continue conversations with the opposition and hopefully find language that will neutralize the opposition

on the Hoping for that too. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So much for presenting the bill and bringing this forward.

Thank you.

Okay. We'll continue with file item number two, AB 467 by Member Fong. Good morning. Good morning. Member Fong.

You may proceed when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. Assembly Bill 467 establishes the California Center for Climate Change Education Center at West Los Angeles College. In 2022, the legislature appropriated $5,000,000 to support the creation and development of the center. The center provides professional development training, environmentally focused curriculum, and paid internships for our students interested in climate related fields. But without a permanent service of funding, future operation is vulnerable to potential funding shortfalls.

By codifying the mission and responsibilities of the center, the center will be able to seek multiyear grants, donations, and other external funding opportunities. The center contributes to California's leadership in response to climate change and prepares our community college students for important work in this field. And here to testify and support is Matt Jordan, president of West Los Angeles College.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, Vice Chair, committee Member, and staffers. As mentioned, I'm Matthew Jordan, interim president of West Los Angeles College. I'm here today in support of AB 467 by Assembly member Fong, which seeks to codify the California Center for Climate Change Education at West LA College. Since its creation, the center has trained faculty to contextualize climate change education, provided paid internships and fellowships for students, and hosted climate themed public events for over 2,500 Californians throughout the state.

We believe codification will support the center's long term stability and strengthen our ability to secure grants and philanthropic investments. Our initial state appropriation sunsets next June. Over the last three years, we've been able to bring in an additional 2 point half million dollars in other funds. We're committed to ongoing resource development for the center and we believe that, codification will support us in these efforts of bringing in additional, funds to do this good work.

West LA College is the ideal home for a statewide climate center because environmental responsibility is a key component of our official mission.

This work is a moral imperative for us and we want to serve the entire state. The California Community College Chancellor's Office has recognized West LA as a leader in this space. Last year, they tapped us to run their student climate fellows program and they are currently working on an agreement for the center to provide professional development and resources system wide.

For all of these reasons and on behalf of the Los Angeles Community College District, I respectfully request, your support of AB 4677, and I sincerely thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much for your, your testimony. We'll now continue with any members of the public who would like to express their support for AB 467. Seeing none, do we have any lead opposition? Seeing none, do we have any members of the public who would like to express their opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais.

Any questions, comments?

Thank you for the introduction of the important appears to be very important education program. Is that unique at the West West is the what's the name of that West Los Angeles College, this program? Is there any other universities or colleges offering the same course?

Thank you so much, Senator Choi, for that question. Westlake College is the lead on the climate change programs for the California Community Colleges System. And as mentioned by president Jordan, the California Community College Council's Office has designated as a specific center to focus on climate change issues to really be the leader on these issues. They've also the first community college in the state to implement a climate change and environmental studies associate's degree starting in 2018.

This climate center is next to one of the largest oil fields in the state at the Inglewood Oil Field.

So the work and efforts around West Los Angeles College to be a pioneer and leader in climate change studies.

My question was among the community colleges is West LA College is the unique program. It's the first one

in the state of California.

Yeah. I was wondering whether regardless of whether the campuses offer that education on climate climate change, I wonder what if you can tell me briefly the curriculum makeup of that, what exactly are being taught in the classrooms?

Certainly. It's made up of a variety of environmental science classes. And in addition to contextualized classes and other disciplines, contextualized for climate change. You know, so for example, an economics class with with a climate themed pedagogy and curriculum.

Merci. So this was a setup 2018. That's what you said. Right? The So so so so that means you had a number of graduates of that program?

Yes. Do they get a a degree in climate change?

They do.

I see. What typical area do they get a job after the program?

There are a variety of jobs both in the blue economy, which are related to anything related to water preservation or aquatic systems and also the green economy. So solar, you know, anything to do with decarbonization. Those jobs range from, you know, engineering, planning, project management in those fields.

Okay. Does the four year colleges have the same track if one is interested in and dedicated to pursue their career in that field? Can they continue on to four year, such as Cal State or UC system and the same subject field?

Yeah. And that's one of our goals for this upcoming twenty six, twenty seven years to work on specific articulations with UCs and CSUs. There are programs in both systems and we hope in the next year to be able to articulate

Currently, there's no such a major in

There there are majors. We don't have the specific articulation agreements with the four years yet, but we hope to establish those in the next year. But the majors do exist.

Thank you. Thank you.

So I have a question. According to the budget act of 2022, it required the district to prepare a report on the center by 01/01/2027. And I appreciate the the the amount of information that, you know, that was provided with regards to since 2023, 87 faculty throughout LA LACCD have created new courses. 40 workshops and training opportunities. We had 1,500 students just in 2024-25.

So I'm just Kinda curious. Is it a little premature to be doing to be codifying before? And obviously, there's a lot of success on it. But why so early before the report has been completed? Is there a reason why that was actually why you're pursuing this so early and before that report is is being presented on the success of the other program?

Yeah. Yeah. I'd be happy I'd be happy to speak to that. We're very much looking forward to submitting the report. The initial data is excellent.

We've we're hitting all of our outcomes. The urgency in moving forward with codification is really to support the fundraising efforts for the center. It is a program that by its nature does not generate much revenue and has a significant amount of expense related to the professional development to paying putting students into paid internships and fellowships. So that is the the basis for the urgency is to support our fundraising work.

Okay. I think that's always important just because the precedence that we set for future programs and the impact that they may or may not have on unsuccessful or unsuccessful programs. But obviously, you folks are on the right track. You folks have that. Obviously, you're you're you're hitting your marks.

I was just kinda curious as to why I do I'm hesitant about that component of just coming before, especially with a brand spanking new program without having the formal report. With that, good morning, Senator Cabaldon. We have we're on file item number two. Do you have any comments or questions on that? Nope.

Okay. We don't have quite a quorum yet. So we will place I don't have any other questions. Thank you for bringing this measure forward. And thank you for the explanation for being here.

I appreciate that. Would you like to close? Member Fong.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Senators. Really appreciate the robust dialogue on this, bill. And as mentioned by our president, this, center has accomplished a lot so far, provided over 200 students with climate related workforce development opportunities, paid internships, nonprofit certificates in climate change for climate focused careers, and really building out the articulation agreements going forward. Also at hosting the Climate Action Palooza with industry leaders, students, educators. So this is a win win opportunity and January 1 is just literally around the corner.

And I know the president of West Valley College and the team is ready to present that report soon. And so with that, I really appreciate the context there. And this would really just provide the center an opportunity to secure sustainable funding opportunities without additional state appropriation. We know that we're in challenging budget times now and promotes a blueprint for climate change education for our community college students. And at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Member Fong.

Have a great day.

You too. Thank you.

K. We'll now continue with file item number three, AB 664 by Member Alvarez. Welcome. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you very much. Good morning, committee Members, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you. Excuse me. I'm here, to respectfully ask your support of Assembly Bill 664, which addresses a unique higher education access issue and workforce issue in my district, the needs of South San Diego County.

Southwestern College serves more than half a million residents, yet South County, the area that I represent and that they serve, is the largest population center in California without a nearby public university offering bachelor's degree opportunities for their families, the students that they serve. For too many students, including working adults, parents, veterans, and first generation students, earning a bachelor's degree means leaving having to leave their community, their jobs, oftentimes their families.

That reality has limited educational opportunities while making it more difficult for regional employers to fill critical workforce needs. Southwestern College has spent years working collaboratively with our local UC, UC San Diego, our local CSU, San Diego State University, and even CSU San Marco's in Northern San Diego County, and local partners to and other local partners to expand pathways and educational opportunities. Those partnerships remain essential.

They're a key part of what the the college does, and Assembly Bill 664 builds on that collaborative approach. However, despite those efforts of which I've been a part of and in the middle of in the last few years in particular, significant unmet workforce and educational needs continue to exist in this part of California and this part of San Diego. Extensive workforce analysis conducted through the University Now initiative identified a 147 high demand occupations that require a bachelor's degree.

147 occupations requiring a bachelor's degree in the health care space, in education, in public safety, technology, and in our very unique binational economy. AB 664 responds to those documented needs by authorizing Southwestern College to seek approval for up to four carefully targeted bachelor's degree programs in Allied Health Education and Leadership, in Forensic Sciences, in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, and in Interaction Design.

These programs were selected because they addressed documented regional workforce needs while complementing and not competing with existing other university offerings. The bill also includes strong accountability measures including the chancellor's review, documented workforce demand, continued collaboration with regional university partners, independent legislative analyst office evaluations and this also with sunset this authority with sunset. I also want to thank the committee and stakeholders for their continued engagement of this measure.

Moving forward, we are proposing amendments to clarify that AB 664 is intended as a bridge to a broader statewide solution. If the statewide framework established by other bills that this committee has heard and will hear.

If those are enacted, then this district specific authorization will not be necessary for our community. In the meantime, this pilot will provide valuable information about how regional partnerships are carefully targeted in each one of our communities and in our community college colleges themselves. Community college bachelor's degree programs can work together to expand opportunity for place bound students.

Ultimately, six six four is about ensuring that South County students, the families and the communities that I represent, have opportunities to earn an affordable bachelor's degree close to home while helping employers, our employers, build the skilled workforce that they need for our region's economy. Respectfully ask for I vote, and we'll turn it over to doctor Mark Sanchez, superintendent and president of Southwestern College to testify, and then also we'll hear from student Orlando Vicente Laso.

Thank you, Assemblymember Alvarez, and good morning to the committee. Thank you for having us this morning. My name is Mark Sanchez, and I'm the superintendent president at Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California. While state systems negotiate how to collaborate, students in the South County Of San Diego, our college's service area, and many in your districts wait. Some of our students relocate, many stop out, and in that process, their communities lose their talent.

I invite you to visit us at Southwestern College and see regional collaboration and practice. The University of California, San Diego, San Diego State University, and the California State University at San Marcos are co located on our campus and will begin delivering bachelor degree pathway programs beginning this fall. Assembly Bill 664 authorizes four additional programs not available regionally today. A narrow, accountable, research based pilot that tests what works before scaling policy. I'd like to provide clarity on what this bill does and does not do.

It does prioritize collaboration built on existing partnerships, removing regional duplication, and evaluating whether this model improves student success outcomes. It does not bypass accountability. It is grounded in years of regional workforce and academic research, identifying unmet need. It does meet prop 98 mandates. Prop 98 funds a segment, not a degree level.

And community colleges earning outcomes under the student centered funding formula which prioritizes prioritizes student completion, equity, and workforce goals, and we are squarely operating within that mission. Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California is the right place for this pilot. It builds on three decades of regional work, Both Assembly Bill 664 and Assembly Bill 662, which was signed by the governor, which is the task force for the South County University initiative, are grounded in the same research foundation.

You're just over two minutes.

Okay. Making this a part of a larger regional strategy. So I'd just like to ask the committee for your support, please. Our students wanna have these access to these degree programs in their home communities. Thank you.

Thank you. And just as a reminder for our witnesses here, we do have a a time limit for for testimony, and it's two minutes.

Got it. Thank you.

Hi. My name is

I should have refested.

No worries. I'm used to having a timer, but no problem. No problem.

My name is Orlando Vicente Lasso, student trustee at Southwestern College. And I grew up in Irvine, and there were universities everywhere, so I never had to worry about commute time and travel cost. So that is something I did take for granted. After high school, I moved to Tijuana, and now I cross the border every single day to come to Southwestern College, where I'm majoring in economics, accounting, and business administration.

My plan is to transfer to UC San Diego, but this comes at an incredible time cost that will be difficult for me and impossible for many others.

In fact, one of my classmates was supposed to be here today, a single mom studying forensic science, but the

only program in California is 400 miles away from us. For students like her, those programs don't exist in a way they can actually access. She have challenges with childcare so she couldn't be here today. How can she be expected to leave her kids or her support system to finish her degree? Students in my region and yours shouldn't have to choose between their education and support systems that hold their lives together.

These are the everyday experiences of so many community college students and we are not statistics. We are real people making impossible decisions. Students in rural areas without universities, single parents who can't relocate, people who work full time and can't commute. Assembly Bill 664 tests whether the collaboration with UCSD, SDSU, and Cal State San Marcos on our campus, and a limited number of regionally non duplicated workforce aligned bachelor programs, help more students complete degrees that lead to family sustaining wage jobs.

This isn't about expanding bachelor's degrees everywhere at community colleges, everywhere.

It's about evaluating what works before the state makes bigger decisions. Students shouldn't need to wait for state level solutions when local communities like mine are already working together to help their students. Please support Assembly Bill 664 so what we learn from the pilot can benefit all students and all communities. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any witnesses, in, in from the public. Please come to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your support for the bill.

Thank you. Mark McDonald on behalf of the San Diego Community College District and on behalf of National University, part of the University Now project, in support.

Hello. My name is, Gian Marco Zuno, and I am the, ASO president of Southwestern College student government, and I fully support, AB 664. It is, something students have been waiting, for thirty years plus, and it is a partnership, a collaboration. It is not competition, everything we've done

Thank you.

For for this bill. Yes.

Thank you. Just as a reminder, name, organization, and your position on the bill at this time.

Yeah. Hi. Annette Garcia, student first generation student at Southwestern College, also A Bi national student in full support of AB 664. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Fancie Moreno, student government vice president, and I came here to support AB 664.

Good morning. Jeff Neal representing the city of Chula Vista, also in support.

Good morning. Patty Moreno Gonzalez on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges. In support.

Don Dumas, San Diego County Teacher of the Year and Southwestern College trustee in support.

Congratulations.

Good morning. Imran Majed on behalf of the California Community College Chancellor's Office in support. Thank you.

This is Anita Encarnacion, chief of staff at Southwestern College overseeing all of our university partnerships in support.

Michael Speier, professor at Southwestern College for criminal justice, also retired law enforcement, and we just wanna support.

Good morning. Doctor Jason Humms, director of EMT and paramedic programs at Southwestern College in full support. Thank you.

Alright. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 664.

That must have been a hard walk for you.

Welcome. This there we are. Alright. Good morning, Chair members. Chris Morales with the CSU Office of the Chancellor in respectful opposition.

I know we'll be hearing two other bills in on this similar subject, so I will try not to jump ahead in that discussion. But the CSU has heard loud and clear from the author and members of the committee on this issue. The problem of students wanting to take a program that is not offered in their area or is offered in their area, but is realistically inaccessible to students in that region.

As we've heard in previous hearings, existing law does not allow for that kind of flexibility, especially for rural and place bound students. And as you'll hear later, in the last few months, we've spoken with the author, the Chair of the Committee, and members of this committee and have worked on amendments to address this issue, to address existing law.

We have since presented our proposal to the author to allow for that flexibility while prioritizing the partnerships and pathways that already work so well and ensuring that we are being accountable to our objectives on transfer and efficiently using state resources. It is our hope that this statewide proposal will accomplish the intent and spirit of both AB 664 and the following bill we'll hear, AB 2301 as it pertains to nursing.

We believe that a statewide solution between all parties will provide the best benefit to the state and its students. However, we however, we feel that this the district specific and program specific exception to the statewide process would hinder those efforts because of the differing requirements on accountability, reporting, and meeting workforce need among other among other parameters. For that reason, we remain opposed to AB 664, but we remain committed to working with the author and this committee on finding a statewide solution to this issue.

Thank you.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Jessica John, the University of California also here in respectful opposition to AB 664. This year, the legislature has engaged in an important and necessary conversation about the future of California's higher education system and whether the state's master plan continues to meet the needs of today's students, workforce, and economy.

Our state's demographics, labor market, demands, student population, and educational pathways have evolved in profound ways since the master plan was adopted more than six decades ago, raising legitimate questions about how California's higher education systems can best serve future generations. At the same time, while the legislature has enacted several targeted measures that effectively carve out exceptions to the master plan, California has not undertaken the comprehensive collaborative review that transformation of this magnitude deserves.

Making incremental changes to one component of the system without evaluating the broader implications for all four higher ed four higher education segments, risks creating unintended consequences, shifting responsibilities without adequate planning, and undermining the coordinated framework that has long guided California's investment in higher education. UC believes that if California is prepared to reconsider the master plan, it should do so through a deliberate, data driven, and inclusive process that examines the system as a whole.

UC stands ready to be a constructive partner on a thoughtful modernization of the master plan that strengthens student success, preserves institutional excellence, and ensures California public higher education system remains the nation's model for generations to come. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any witnesses from the public who would like to express our opposition to AB

six sixty four. Please approach the microphone. Mario Guerrero with the California Faculty Association, in line our comments actually with the UC rep.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other comments from the public, we'll come back to the dais. Senator Cabaldon?

You know what? Sorry. You know you want

What what I'm chairing, so courtesy first.

Alright. Well, thank you, madam. Thank you, madam Chair. And we do have several several bills on this topic today, and I wanna thank the folks coming up from from the community to to lay out the the rationale, the the the profound need that that students and employers in the community is facing in terms of the lack of access to the kinds of programs that will lead to high road great great jobs and careers and to a community full of civic life and opportunity.

That's exactly what higher education has meant for places in it all throughout California, and for the state as a whole.

I'm of of I'm I'm of many minds on this issue. You know, the the the the both the UC and CSU have referenced, I think, repeatedly in this conversation both about this bill and the others are the, you know, the importance of, you know, our fidelity to the master plan and and all and and all of that. But I'm just I'm reminded that in in 1955, there was a bill to establish a new a new campus of, I think, UC, maybe it was CSU. No.

It had to be UC.

There was no UCSU at the time to establish a a new UC campus. And there were many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many other bills to do something similar. And, at the time, the, it was it was described as a a almost uncontrolled aspirations and proposals of local communities for new higher ed campuses.

That 1955 Senate bill that initially proposed one new university, By the time it got to the end of the legislative process, so right around this month of 1955, it had grown to include 19 new campuses in communities throughout the state. Because everyone said, well, what about what about my area?

What about this area that's also, dramatically lacking in higher education? And that is why the master plan was created in the first place. And it wasn't created by us. No. Definitely not by any of us, but not us as an institution.

The mastermind was created because UC, and the and the rest of high of higher ed, which was entirely in the superintendent public instruction at the time, knew that that was an untenable and sustainable course. That if if they didn't do something about it, then we would continue to have 19 new four year universities proposed every legislative session. That everybody knew this was not going to work.

And so, you know, to their credit and the reason why we still celebrate the master plan today or at least some folks do repeatedly is that they didn't say, you know, what we need is more collaboration. We don't we need more partnerships.

We need to think about this a little longer. They took bold action, very bold action, and rewrote, the world model for higher education in the entire country. That's what the president of UC and the and the emerging chancellor of what was what would become CSU did at that time. And that CSU itself was created from from from that process. The community colleges, which are just grade thirteen and fourteen of adult ed before that, became the community colleges as a result of that.

And so I think we're called upon to do more than just encourage people to do partnerships. We're called upon to do more than just to encourage, people to, pay attention to what the impacts are in the institutions. It's the student has to be at the center and as all the witnesses testified, you know, the opportunities that students need to have need to be real. And so I'm I'm skeptical about this bill because it fits to me in that 1955 bill that was 19 campuses.

But at the same time, if we don't do anything, and by we, I mostly mean the institutions, don't step and say, hey, we're going to solve this problem meaningfully, boldly, for real at the scale that it demands.

We're gonna be here every year doing this. And so, I've I've concerns about, like, just picking this one. I have several in my own in my own district that that could that they have similar stories to tell and the the the issue is there are stories like this all over California. So, I'm looking forward to the discussion and the debate on the upcoming bills.

We need a, master plan level commitment to solving this this opportunity, not the challenge, the opportunity to make a demonstrable difference in the lives of students, but also the local communities that are just trying to take advantage of opportunities for economic development, for workforce development and for growth in the University of California, the California State University, and of course, the California Community Colleges have always been at the center of that.

We need a new compact. We need a new master plan level approach to accomplish this. Otherwise, we're gonna drown in these kind of proposals every single year.

So I I I thank the author for bringing this forward to give voice to one example in the state where this is absolutely essential and we continue to and appreciate the the partnership and the collaboration with UC and TSU, but really this is the time for us to to to take effective action that's really gonna deliver on this commitment, putting students and communities at the center with the institutions as the support for that, not as the center of the conversation. Thanks, madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Caball. Then, I too, we we've even seen it's not a unique scenario where we have I have the same issues in my district with regards to proposals on meeting the bachelor's degree challenges in areas that are not currently offered in in my rural area. So I represent the Inland Empire, San Bernardino, Riverside County. 55% of that community those communities are in the desert. They're rural.

And so it's very very difficult for them to be able to have access to four year degree, especially in the High Desert. So I completely understand on that end. I I I I'm always very cognizant and very eager to hear Senator Kabaland's perspective on many of these issues, especially when it comes to higher ed because of his background and his experience. And I really respect his feedback.

And I listen intently to what he has to say on on on many of these issues because he does have the history and and not many of us do.

So thank you for sharing that, Senator Cabaldon. With that, would you like to close? Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you, madam vice Chair, Senator. Appreciate the the comments and the thoughts. I I do think this is a, an issue that is not going away, first and foremost. And it certainly won't go away if we don't figure out how to meet the needs of Californians and students.

And in my case, I think just like you would do, we have been desperately seeking solutions to a very real problem in our district, in our community, which is a lack of access to higher education. We have the two segments as we refer to, the University of California and the CSU.

We have two of the top in each of their segments, the top schools in terms of demand, applications, CSU, San Diego, San Diego State, in this case, almost a 100,000 applicants per year, which means a large number of Californians just get rejected. And that includes people who live in our own community in San Diego, who are looking to transfer from from Southwestern College or San Diego City College or other college district.

And in the case of UCSD, again, a top institution, they I think we're over a 130,000 applicants.

I think it's the most applied to UC. Those are our two nearest institutions that could serve our students. As you might imagine, as a result of those numbers, it's very difficult to serve students at those two campuses and to get into those two campuses. We just had an audit hearing on Monday, and I know some of you may have made it after I left.

But we heard some pretty what I thought were really important admissions or testimony from UC and CSU, and that's the fact that they agree that our community college students are place bound students.

They're not students that get up, uproot, and move somewhere else. In fact, I'll probably say this now a couple times today in my other presentation. I was very fascinated to learn from CSU that we have this 1% problem. We have a 1% problem where I think from Southwestern College, I believe their number is only 1% of their students who ever transfer leave San Diego County. That correct, president?

The other 1% problem we learned about on Monday at the audit is that CSU attempts to redirect students who don't get into their local institution to go somewhere else in the state. They are at the end of day, there's 20 other campuses where our students can go. And yet, only 1% of those students who they proactively seek to go somewhere else end up doing so. That the both of those 1% statistics should tell you, what are the needs of these students?

The needs of these students are to stay close to home.

And if our local institutions aren't offering the degrees that are focused on getting them the jobs after they graduate from college in, workforce, industries that are prepared to receive them in their own communities, then why do we have a system of higher education if that's not the intent? And so I'm here asking your support of Assembly Bill 664 because I am seeking and working collaboratively.

Thank you to Senator Cabaldon, to the Chair of this Committee, to Chair of our Assembly committee, to try to figure out if there's another way to do this. And I am a 100% devoted to that and committed to that. But if that doesn't get resolved, I cannot continue another year and another year of not allowing access to my students into at this in this bill for very specific degrees that will offer them jobs the minute they finish in a way that is measured, that is evaluated.

We don't ask that of the same of our UCs and CSUs. They are also statistics there where our students are not graduating and entering the workforce. We're expecting more of this community college access degree that we're offering, and it's okay to do that. We probably should do that everywhere. But this is really about the community that I represent, which has been waiting for a long, long time.

We are working on many fronts to get higher education. I have personally worked to create these partnerships with UC and with CSU, which were not there before just a few years ago. It has been hard, hard work. The collaboration is not easy to do. I'm committed to continuing to do that.

So is Southwestern College. This is just asking us asking you for an opportunity of just four new doors being opened for many students who today cannot graduate from Southwestern College and go to a local university to pursue pursue that career in just four fields. That's all we're asking for, but you would be changing a lot of lives in South South San Diego County. For that reason, I respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much, member Alvarez, for your testimony and your passion, your dedication to your district. Thank you. It's commendable. Thank you to the witnesses for being here and sharing your life stories. We don't have a quorum yet, so we can't, take a vote.

So we'll place this on until we are able to we'll pay place it on call until we're able to, yeah, get a quorum. We'll now continue with file item number four, a B29 2694 by member Alvarez. You may proceed when you're ready, sir.

Thank you very much. That could not have been a more appropriate way to lead into this conversation. This is the statewide conversation that we've been referencing. You heard testimony from, I think, mainly the opposition. I think Senator Kabaldin spoke to this conversation, and I am I will tell you, I got to this bill as a result of that previous bill because I heard everything that you just heard in testimony primarily from opposition about how we could do this better.

And I do think that my bill for my district helped really inform me of what could be a good approach, a good approach to solving this issue of ensuring that kids all over California, not just the ones that I represent, but all over the state, may have an opportunity of access to higher education at times when those opportunities are not available in our current, four year institutions of which we are tremendously, I wanna make sure we say this, proud of.

And and and we we are the California that we are thanks to our segments and the UC and CSU. So twenty six ninety four is a statewide policy now, a bill that would modernize how California approves community college bachelor's degree programs to better respond specifically to regional workforce needs. California continues to face significant shortages in professions that require bachelor's degrees. The data is, very well published on that.

I don't don't need to get into it. But current law applies a rigid application standard that can prevent community colleges from responding to those demonstrated workforce needs in a timely fashion, even though employers are asking for this workforce. And, we have seen evidence of that as well in the last couple of years as community college districts have attempted to bring online community, bachelor's degrees and have faced significant delays in approval process as a result of other segments saying that it was unnecessary.

So I do intend to pursue language as part of this requiring that community college districts demonstrate that existing CSU partnerships avenues are not viable. That's a really important point.

I think it was brought up, thanks again to your committee consultant. It was brought up in your analysis. Mister Ramirez talks about how we should, may wanna consider that we ask our districts to try to create those partnerships. I think we should. You heard what we've done at, Southwestern College with the earlier earlier bill.

We work with our locals, UC, our local CSU. They are both now on the community college campus. They are offering degrees starting this fall. That all takes resources. It takes collaboration.

It takes, I have found, a lot of pulling in the direction of doing this. And I think we should incentivize, UC, CSU, and community college districts to do so. And I think that this bill can can lead to that. I already talked about redirection earlier with the 1% problem is very real.

Those who are going through our community college system, I am assuming up and down the state, the the the the problem is similar to Southwestern College, whether it's they don't leave their county or in the case of when you attempt to move them from one campus to another once they get accepted into the CSU system.

A student may say, no, thank you for the offer, but I can't go live in San Francisco. I'm staying in, you know, San Bernardino or I'm staying in anywhere else part of the state. That is a very real problem. The current incentives to move students from one place to another is not working. So this really requires us to think about what it costs a student to relocate or to commute long distances.

And those are real impossible barriers, I would say. Impossible barriers for place bound students that this bill is designed to serve. We have seen some models that do work, and we should incentivize those and encourage those.

Under the new under this bill, new bachelor's degree programs may be approved only when, and I think this is important for me to highlight, only when there is documented unmet regional workforce needs and when programs are not substantially similar to existing CSU or UC offerings within their geographic region, unless, there are statutory conditions that are met to do so. The bill strengthens, not weakens the review process by requiring object objective labor market analysis, which is, in the analysis by this committee.

It's an amendment that's, being requested, which we are accepting. But, the review process of requiring objective labor market analysis, employer consultation, workforce board input, and continued coordination is really how we should be focused on developing new degrees in this state. This bill also preserves, guardrails. Participating districts must demonstrate success in serving students through their existing associate degrees and certificated programs or adopt board approved improvement plans.

So if you're not doing your job as a community college district, then you have to demonstrate how you're gonna do that job better to be able to have access and opportunity to offer bachelor's degree.

So that we're not adding a new workload or just a brand new program without having accountability for our local community college districts. The bill also reduces the percentage of bachelor's degree programs that may offer. So today, in state law and statute, 25%. This reduces it to 15% of the offerings at our community college district.

When concerns are raised about substantial similarity, the Chancellor's Office must bring, when concerns are raised, excuse me, through the process, about substantial similarity, the Chancellor's Office must bring the parties together so that we can talk and resolve those concerns before a program can move forward.

And that has to be documented. It has to be proven that those conversations and that that consultation actually occurred. This is about coordination, not about competition. We're not creating many universities in California. I want to thank again the committee Chair and staff and the many stakeholders who have worked collaboratively on this measure.

I appreciate the thoughtful amendments, reflecting the committee analysis, which, further strengthen accountability, reinforce workforce based decision making, and preserve appropriate safeguards. I am pleased to accept, like I said, those committee amendments and remain open to work that I think needs to continue as I work with our colleagues, Senator Cabaldon, with the CSU system, with the UC system, which I think we still, to this day, have not heard any specific feedback on. But CSU, we have up until yesterday.

I know I was reviewing some of their amendments that they're suggesting. I think there's something there that could be worked that but that work probably will require more time throughout the summer, which we are committed to doing.

So with that, I'd like to turn it over now to doctor Larry Galizia, who's president and CEO of the Community College League California.

So before we just for clarification purposes, are you accepting all of the committee amendments?

The yes.

All of them.

Yes.

Okay.

There's one Just one. Amendment. Yes. Okay. Yes.

Sorry. One. Sorry. They had amends. So I was like Okay.

Like, the multiple amends. So I just wanted to make sure. Thank you.

Vice Chair Ochoa Bogue, members, Larry Galizio. I'm the president and CEO of the Community College League of California. We represent the leadership of all 73 districts and a 116 community colleges, and we're here in support of the bill. We wanna thank Assemblymember Alvarez for his commitment to economic and social mobility, not just for its constituents but for all Californians. You know, it's clear that the status quo is not adequately meeting employer demands for a skilled and educated work force.

It's also clear the urgent needs of individuals and families seeking accessible, affordable, quality workforce aligned baccalaureate degrees are also not being met. As policymakers, you know this is true. It's just an empirical fact. The state auditor's report that was recently discussed at JLAC and the 2025 PPIC report confirm this truth and analysis. So pardon the pun, but, this is not merely an academic exercise or debate.

Skilled and educated workforce is essential for the economic vitality of California. Students and families and especially low income and underrepresented students and place bound students and Californians deserve opportunities for advancement. The league believes that AB 2 thousand six hundred and ninety four responds directly and effectively and elegantly to these challenges. It strengthens our ability to respond. It to acts by expanding access to in demand workforce baccalaureate degree programs, and it helps ensure students are not pushed toward higher cost, predatory for profit institutions.

I think everybody here probably remembers the disaster of Corinthian where over 500,000 Californians were defrauded. The public the public university and and community colleges should be supporting and working to enhance this opportunity. It addresses structural barriers. It has guardrails, and it's about expanding capacity. It's not about competition.

So Californians also strongly, support this. FM three did a, research survey and they found that eight in 10 Californians of all political stripes support the expansion of community college and, workforce degree, baccalaureates. So with that, we're in strong support and we urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, vice Chair and members. Mark McDonald. On behalf of a number of, local community college districts including, the Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego, Foothill De Anza, and and Southwestern Community College districts, as well as the California Community College Baccalaureate Association. And I wanna echo Larry's sentiments to Assembly member Alvarez on carrying this bill, also to you, Senator Cabaldon, for your leadership on this issue. But just wanna highlight that AB 2694 would establish two important exceptions to the current process.

Number one, it would change the definition of prohibited duplication from statewide to a community college district's service area. This is an important distinction to current law, particularly because a community college student living in San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside or another Southern California community college, may be precluded from accessing a baccalaureate degree program simply because it's offered only in Northern California.

Community colleges serve a large number of parent students that and and other low income students that are place bound and simply cannot move to access those four year degree programs. Further, this bill would authorize community college districts to offer baccalaureate degree that duplicates if it meets a regional workforce need. And I think there are very specific provisions of the bill that a community college district would need to demonstrate in order to do that within this bill.

These are two very important student center workforce demand amendments that will ensure access to affordable community college. So with that, appreciate your support and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. We're limited to two witnesses.

Oh, I know. Imran Lejid on behalf of the California Community College Chats Office. Just here to answer any technical questions regarding the bill and the proposed amendments that the settlement member referenced. Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you. Alright. We'll now continue with any witnesses, from the public who would like to express their support. Please state your name, your organization, and your position on the bill.

Morning. Patty Moreno Gonzalez on behalf

of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges in support.

Anna Matthews on behalf of the California Community College Independence Union in strong support. Thank you.

Mario Jimenez on behalf of California Community Colleges in support.

Chair members, Austin Webster with w strategies on behalf of the academic senate for California Community Colleges and the California Community College Association for Occupational Education in support.

Jack Werson from NOSMEN on behalf of the North Orange County Community College District, Mount San Antonio College, and Citrus College. Thank you.

Good morning. Sabrina Means on behalf of Pasadena City College in support. Thank you.

Carlos Uno, Southwestern College in strong support.

Harold Tollerup on behalf of El Camino Community College District in support.

Hi, Annette. It's in Garcia, Western College student, also in support of this bill.

Hi, Francine Moreno and from Southwestern College also in support of this bill.

Orlando Vicente Lasso, Southwestern College student trustee in support.

Hi. Chris Galicia Brown, Southwestern College governing board president, in addition to our pilot AB 664. I'm also in support

of this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm doctor Annette Morton, vice president of the board of trustees for Long Beach City College district, and then I'm here in support of the bill.

Group here on behalf of Gavilan Community College District in support.

Sunita Encarnacion from Southwestern College. In addition to the pilot and the learning, we're in support of the full access now as well.

Jason Humms, director of the EMT and Harabedian programs at Southwestern College, in full support of both of these bills.

Michael Speier, professor of Southwestern College, criminal justice, and we also support this. Good morning. Kyle Heil on behalf of the Association of California Community College Administrators in support. Thank you.

Good morning. David Nevin on behalf of Santa Monica College and Cerritos College in support. Jason Henderson on behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll continue with any lead. Witnesses in opposition to AB 2694.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair and

members, I'm doctor Junius Gonzales, the vice chancellor for academic affairs for the CSU office of the chancellor. And we have respectfully taken an oppose unless amended position on AB 2694. The CSU recognizes that access, affordability, and workforce needs are real issues that must be solved, And that our institutions must be nimble enough to meet these needs, especially for students who are place bound, working adults, and others looking to continue their education.

Since this bill was last heard in the Assembly, the CSU along with leadership from the California Community Colleges and the University of California, together met with legislators here and staff, including the author and Chair of this Committee on this important issue.

It's clear that we share a common objective of expanding opportunity for students, responding to critical workforce needs, and preserving our commitment to the transfer process, including the associate degree for transfer and transfer success pathway programs, which remain the most effective and affordable way to attain a bachelor's degree in California.

Ninety one percent of transfer applicants are currently admitted to the CSU, and we expect that number to grow next year. We have the third highest rates of transfer completion followed following the University of California and the University of Washington, but exceeding them by tens of thousands of degrees completed, including to thousands of students from under resourced backgrounds.

I wanna reiterate from that meeting, Chancellor Garcia's desire to get to yes on this issue, and to find a path forward that allows these programs to grow in reasonable and responsible ways. To that end, we recently shared our proposed amendments with the author and committee staff that we believe provide a constructive path to a shared agenda and moving forward. The amendments that we have suggested prioritize CSU community college partnerships while allowing for flexibility when regional needs require it.

We're willing to consider the duplication of programs that are not realistically available or accessible in a community colleges region and that supports students where they are and ensure that regional workforce needs are met. Our proposal also allows for proper consideration of the existing programs, academic infrastructure, and partnerships at CSU that can serve students throughout the state and maximize our state's resources to best serve our students rather than operate in silos.

It addresses critical issues of transparency and accountability with particular focus on completion outcomes and time to degree including a clear demonstration of workforce need, limitations on the use of prop 98 funding, and a commitment to pursue partnerships from the outset. What we have suggested are reasonable limitations that will help ensure that the CSU, UC, and community colleges are effectively serving students, meeting workforce needs, and preserving the core missions of each segment.

I am so sorry. We're gonna I just realized Got it. In talking Oh. To the consultant, you're at three minutes, fourteen minutes, and we're maxed out at two. So I have So

I am done. Thank you.

Good. Thank you. And I I apologize. I just wanted some clarification, and I I lost track of time. Please proceed.

Very briefly, madam Chair. Chris Morales again with the CSU office of the chancellor here for any technical questions. As as mentioned earlier in the previous bill, the CSU, we have a shared interest in increasing access to our institutions, addressing these these gaps in existing law to allow for access to these programs that are not available in the region. But I think the spirit that we approach this conversation and in this bill is how do we strengthen what we know already works.

We talked about the partnerships and of course, partnerships won't be possible for every situation.

That's it won't be simply tenable. But we know that these partnerships works and they allow for timely and and and frankly, an affordable bachelor's degree pathway as we see at Southwestern, as we see throughout the state. And at the same time is how do we allow for this expansion of state law without diminishing the transfer process that is working. We talked a little bit briefly earlier about Southwestern College and the transfer to San Diego State and UCSD.

And the reality is that for sound Southwestern College to San Diego State, nearly 80% of all applicants from Southwestern College are accepted to San Diego State, and that has been increasing year over year over year.

And in fact, at San Diego State, more students are accepted from Southwestern College than any other community college in the state that applies to San Diego. And so, it's how do we ensure that we, of course, provide the flexibility to offer these programs that are not available in the region while ensuring that we are committed to the transfer process and our core objectives of meeting students where they are and providing the the greatest accessibility.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any members of the public who would like to express our opposition. Please purchase the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your position, please.

Mario Herrera with the California Faculty Association, also opposed. Look forward to future amendments to reevaluate. Thank you.

Jessica Duong, the University of California for, in opposition for the recent stated previously in my, testimony. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we will bring it back to the dias. Comments, questions? Senator Rios?

Thank you, madam Chair. These bills that we're hearing on getting bachelor's degrees from community colleges are extremely important. I sincerely appreciate the comments from the, from chancellor Garcia's office. Partnerships are important, and in the end we want the success of the students. The transfer program as was mentioned, it's it's a right of passage for many students.

You go to community college, you get your a a, and then you go on to a four year university to get your bachelor's degree. But we also recognize that there, we do have to have some flexibility. There are some bachelor's degrees that aren't available and we need to be able to make them available to the students, especially in those areas where there is a vacuum. Where it isn't being offered.

There has been mention here on prior case prior bills, and in discussions how we need to revisit the master plan.

It's it's long overdue. We need to figure out where our community colleges are, where our CSUs are, where our UCs are, our private universities, our our our native American universities now, which are become becoming an another part of the big picture for us that we need to take into account. But as we do this piecemeal, I am a little concerned.

I am a little concerned that we're doing a piecemeal rather than looking at the big picture and figuring out where do we need those bachelorette or bachelor's degrees at the community college level. Where should they be remain at the CSU or the UC?

So that so that we do have a master plan that works. Right now, it's it's it is, it's it's been a long time since anything has been done. Fifty years, fifty years since anything has been done with that master plan. But I I I think our students deserve to have this flexibility also. They need they deserve to to know that if it's not being offered anywhere nearby, they can they can go stay at their community college and avail themselves of a bachelor's degree.

We know that income often depends on whether or not you have a high school diploma of associates, bachelor's, master's, and many of our students don't get access to that. So this this is very important and finding that balance, I think is it it it for this and for for every every proposal for a bachelor's degree at a community college. I I I've supported many of these.

I I just feel that this partnership is extremely important and finding that balance, access to education, which you've talked about, supporting our students, and making sure that our students succeed. That's what we want more than anything else.

But this balance, very important. And I know, Assemblymember, you have been a leader in in this area, trying to find that balance. And, I appreciate that very much. I don't have any questions for any of you because your statements have been very thorough about your positions. But I think that taking what you have all just what you have said about finding this partnership and finding this balance is extremely important as we move forward through this.

Thank you. Thank you, madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Reyes. Senator Cabaldon?

Yeah. Thank you, madam Chair. It just happens to be at the moment that all the members of this committee also serve on the Senate Committee that over that is responsible for digital technologies and artificial intelligence. And one of the greatest challenges that we're facing as a as a state, as a society, as as a globe, as a rate as a species is the potential the the very real potential.

I I I don't know how to put it even say that that it's the very likely impacts on our bill on the or on the work itself and what we do as human beings and as Californians.

And we're all committed to trying to figure out how to do to marshal all the resources of that California can can do in order to meet that imperative. And the speed that that is occurring, the universality of where that's that can affect jobs and and communities in the smallest, most rural parts of my district just as it can in Chula Vista or San Diego or anywhere else. And it's coming without any without warning, and we don't have the frameworks.

And, of course, none of this existed in 1966, when the in 1960, sorry, sixty six years ago when the master plan was done. And the last time we went through anything like this was the industrial revolution at which this whole system of higher education emerged to to in in part as a response to grapple with that challenge, and which is why I continue to to to be skeptical that collaboration alone and the thinking of this as a battle between institutions is at all useful.

It really is about meeting that and so many other economic challenges. Now in addition to being a former professor and vice chancellor, I was a mayor for twenty years, And, I actually think the law is too restrictive already that when, the time Genentech opened up its its its headquarters facility, production facility in in in Vacaville, in my district, and then a cluster of other companies came. There was no five years of workforce data that was being held by the labor and workforce development agency.

There was no long run plans. Either they're gonna come or they're not gonna come.

And you have to act at the moment. Right? The as a mayor, you're, like, immediately calling up the chancellor of the three community college districts that are within within spitting distance of Vacaville to say, hey, what can we do? Hey, Saks State president, what can we do? Because these these are this this is not a forecast.

If we win this if we win this battle to to bring real economic opportunity to our community, it will only work if you're committed to, like, as ASAP to launch the programs that are necessary to make our local workforce, which has zero biotechnology background, none, before this, that you're gonna make it work. And so these notions that, well, you know, it should take five years and people should be able to think about it for a while and let's wait till the state has identified it.

There's no biotech workforce needs in Solano County until there is until there is. And then there's a lot all at once unless we don't meet it and then there will be zero because those those opportunities will not arrive. So 2030 implementation dates, an opportunity for two years of partnership conversations, like, these don't work, when you're talking about actually delivering economic opportunity on the ground.

So I'm my my I I really appreciate the the bill because we do need an overarching system that seeks to achieve balance, but that ultimately places the center of this conversation is in in what are we doing for real people who who see a who see a, you know, a career path opening up at Genentech and wanna pursue a bachelor's degree in in bioengineering and Sac State's not ready to offer it or doesn't want to, but Solano College will.

How do we say to that person that, well, you know, let's let's let's how about three years from now? How about four years from now? Have you thought about doing a two plus two plus two program, which will require you to go to Cal State East Bay, which is anywhere nearby you. I mean, like, how about that?

That does not work. We have to put the student at the center. We have to put the community at the center. We have to put our economy and our and our commitment to meeting the really intense workforce demands that we cannot forecast that we're gonna have from artificial intelligence and other technologies.

The one thing I'm absolutely certain of as the Chair of that AI and technology committee is that the timeframes that we are used to in the master plan and in higher education coordination and planning will absolutely not work.

They will not work. And the community colleges have proven themselves, over the last two decades through contract ed and a lot more a lot that they've used the flexibility in order to meet the needs of their communities and the state. And and remember, we're not talking about siting a new nuclear power plant, in the Delta. Right?

The harm of getting this slightly wrong, you know, the harm that maybe Woodland Community Colleges offers a bachelor's degree that, is slightly off or maybe, you know, would cause Sac State not to offer, but like that's not the end of the world.

Like we should be encouraging our colleges and CSU to be stepping forward and taking some chances and doing things in order to try to meet these demands and not and and unleash them. And just one last thing to just to note on this, we did not do this and and and we collectively, CSU, Arizona faculty, did not do this and and we we we said, you know, we're just gonna do our thing.

And then suddenly, we're shocked when Arizona State University opens an actual campus in our state, where we have another state's public university opening shop here because we weren't meeting the needs. Let's not do that again. And let's certainly not do that, with the threat of AI disrupting our entire economy and our and our workforce opportunities.

So I'm I'm very glad to see the bill. Obviously, I have a companion, bill that's pending in the Assembly as well. We have lots to work out, and we've had very good, discussions and conversations. I know both authors with, with both chancellors, as well and appreciate their continued work in in that regard. But I just wanna urge us to continue to put the student and the communities absolutely front and center and institutions like anxieties and structural and competition and other stuff.

It's it's real because we have to implement, but that's not the point. That's the instrument to accomplish what we're trying to do for for economic opportunity, for workforce development, for meeting the challenge of AI and for opening up opportunities that PlaceFound and other students ought to have a right to access. So with that, thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Senator Caballon. I just wanna add, I will be supporting the bill. Thank you for bringing it forward. I think we do need to have some novelty. I do hear the concerns, and I have expressed the concerns about having bachelor's degrees at community colleges with which is a it's a double edged sword because on one hand we're helping and putting the students first.

But on the second time on the second, on the other side of the of the sword I guess, We have my fear is that when we have many bachelor's degrees at the community colleges, it will dissuade students from attending a state university because why would they attend a school that is more costly than a community college.

And so the financial factor on there, especially if you have competing bachelor's degrees, one that is much at a fraction of a cost versus one that costs a little bit more, you have to consider that and and the impact that it will have on our CSU system as a whole moving forward. That's my biggest concern. But by the same token, in addition to, stated very eloquently by Senator Kamaldin with regards to Arizona State coming into our our our state and providing programs.

We also have online programs that are also being available to our students from out of state.

And so this is where I also wanna just challenge our our our systems to ensure that we have competitive online programs for our students so that they can have access to more programs available. And hopefully, helping the integrity of of all three systems in our in our in our state. So with that, would you like to close?

Thank you. I wanna say thank you to all of all of you for for speaking and sharing your thoughts on this. I would say this is sort of a we've created this problem, but it's not really a problem. There's enough to go around. There are the demand is so high.

Look at the applications into our CSUs and UCs. Students want to go to higher education. Look at the rebounding that's happened at our community college now serving our over 2,000,000 students, not yet at historic levels, but getting really, really close to pre definitely pre pandemic levels. Our students are looking for those opportunities. And when we don't provide those opportunities to both of your points, senators, students are looking elsewhere.

They're finding online programs that are being offered by institutions in other states, or there are institutions from other states coming into California. And as someone who represents a college desert, which I do, how can any one of us go back to our communities and our constituents and say, well, we're not gonna try to figure out how to offer what you need as a family, what your students need. I'm gonna start to seek for other options. I'm gonna start to seek for other online options.

I'm gonna start to seek the ASUs of the world if we cannot find a different way to meet the needs of our students through our existing, exemplary and incredibly talented and world leading, I would say, UC and CSU segments when it comes to bachelor's degrees.

And, there there is there is plenty for everybody to do everything. And we should have high expectations for everybody. The community college, which is much more nimble as was alluded to, if not stated directly by Senator Cabaldon, they know how to be nimble and reflect to workforce needs. That happens every time that we have a recession and we have unemployment rates. They adapt.

They create programs that can reskill workers and and make sure that they have an opportunity to have a job and and not continue to be unemployed and impacted by the economy.

We should have the same expectations of anybody who offers a bachelor's degree, that they reflect the needs of the workforce and that, the degree is being offered by anyone who wants to offer a bachelor's degree in the state of California are degrees that could put someone to work right afterwards in the fields that California's economy and industries need because there is a workforce shortage in California of people who need bachelor's degrees to fill those jobs. So we're clearly not doing enough to fill those needs.

This is one possible solution that addresses that problem, but more importantly addresses, as I think we always should remember, first and foremost, the students who are the customers of of this line of business that we are in government, which is, public education. There's a demand.

There are place bound students. All these things have come together. We just have laws that are barriers to actually address this very real problem that can be addressed if it weren't for things that are currently, I think, in inhibitors or barriers to to people accomplishing that. So, I'm looking forward. I I actually have really enjoyed the this discussion today, but also leading up to with with opposition and with people who are proponents who have ideas because we have to do things differently.

I think you all said that. We need to address the demands of today and be prepared to demands address the demands of tomorrow. And we can do that by giving opportunities for community colleges who are closest to serving every one of our constituents much closer than a UC or CSU in a way that, that could work. And if absolutely partnerships sign me up, don't and I don't need to just say it. I've actually demonstrated in doing it, locally.

We have those partnerships. They are time consuming. They are expensive. They are challenging to figure out between two very different segments and academic senates and all sorts of things which we wanna respect, but they are challenging. And we we wanna be able to be more nimble to respond to the needs of Californians and the needs of industry in our economy.

We have to find a different way. And this is, a part of that conversation that I am, pleased to be a part of. It is student centered, but it's also workforce centered as well, which is what higher education should be about. And we should have every hold everybody accountable to those standards, no matter what the segment is, to make sure that they are producing students who are prepared to enter our workforce. That is what this bill intends to do.

We look forward to the continued conversations along with the great work that's Being done in a SB 960 by Senator Cabaldon, which is essentially trying to get to the same, the same problem here. We'll continue to work with anyone who's interested in really actually resolving. I will say this. Prior to these bills, there wasn't a lot of interest in having a conversation about the master plan for higher education. That is a new phenomenon from, our segments.

I welcome it, and I'm glad it exists. But it was really hard over the last three years that I've been here, to get UC and CSU to talk about doing things differently. It wasn't until Bill started to come forward more and more that now this conversation is is a welcome conversation, and I'm glad it is. I welcome it as well. And I'm a willing participant to help address it, and I'm looking forward to those conversations with leaders in our institutions.

And thank all of you for your leadership, and respectfully ask for a I vote.

Thank you very much. We do not have a quorum, so we cannot take a vote but, we will as soon as we have a quorum. Thank you very much

participation. And thank you to our witnesses. We'll now continue with file item number five, AB 917 by member Avila Farias. Welcome, member Avila Fares. You may proceed when ready.

for your

Okay. Thank you, madam Chair and members. AB 917 is back for reconsideration and conversations with committee members. I'd like to start by accepting the committee's proposed amendments and thank the Chair and the staff for their work on this bill. AB 917 will ensure that deserving educators and school employees in all school districts and county offices of education have an opportunity to achieve permanent employment status.

This bill will require local education agencies to grant permanent status to certified employees in school districts and counties with an average daily attendance of less than 250 or a regional occupational centers and programs operated by County Office of Education or Joint Powers of Authority. This is already a requirement

for schools with an average daily attendance of more than two fifty.

Due to a process for Due to process for teachers play in critical roles in protecting against racial discriminating by requiring fair and impartial procedures for employment decisions. AB 917, AB 117, will help attract and retain potential educators, provide them with career stability, and diversity in California's education workforce. Testifying with me today on AB 9117 is Brian Miramontes, legislative advocate with the California Teachers Association.

Good morning and welcome.

Good morning. Brian Miramontes, the California Teachers Association. We're here speaking as sponsors of AB 917. Consider a teacher who has spent three years in the same classroom, reelected each year, meeting every expectation placed on her, and who still has no job security. Not because of her performance, but because of her district's enrollment.

That is the reality for educators in many of California's smallest school districts today. Teachers in districts of two fifty students or more are in permanent status after two years of service. Teachers in smaller, often rural districts can wait three years or never reach permanent status at all. If the district simply declines to classify them. Although they have the same credential, same classroom, and same commitment to students, they live by different rules and weaker due process protections to go with them.

AB 917 establishes one standard for every certificated employee in California regardless of district size. It also ensures that years spent teaching at a regional occupational center or program operated by a JPA or county office of education count toward permanent status just as classroom service does anywhere else. We have heard this bill described as removing flexibility that small districts are and ROCPs need. That said, California law already gives districts a process to manage staffing levels.

Permanent employees can be laid off for legitimate budget and enrollment reasons under existing seniority rules.

Districts don't need to hold people in extended probationary status to manage their workforce. They already have a lawful tool for that. What AB 917 removes is the ability to withhold core job protections from educators based on nothing more than where they happen to teach. CTA believes that every educator who shows up for students year after year deserves the same basic fairness under the law. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Any witnesses in in support of AB 917, please approach the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position on the bill.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Tristan Brown with CFT, unit of educators and classified professionals here in support.

Thank you, madam Chair. Sandra Burrero on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Good morning. Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Charlie Jones from the Hayward Education Association and the Pleasanton Unified School District School Board standing in support as an individual.

Hello. Andy Schrock, US history and ethnic studies teacher at Simi Valley High School here in support.

Hello. Bandel Chansey from Teachers Association of Long Beach here in support.

Alex Orozco, teacher at LAUSD, member of CTA and, UTLA, here in support.

Jean Paul Whittle, a physics teacher in Davis, here in support.

Hi. Vicky Montes, college advisor, Bravo Medical Magnet, LAUSD, also board of director for DTLA, and CTA, in support of the bill.

Good morning. Melinda Dailey, middle school teacher in San Ramon Valley, here in support.

Good morning. Jacqueline Gardner, middle school science teacher in San Jacinto, here in support.

Amy Louie, LUSD music teacher and, also a member of CTA and UTLA, in support.

Doctor Melissa Urban, middle school teacher in San Jose, California, and parent here in support.

Hello. Victoria Casas, twenty nine year third grade teacher from LAUSD, also on UTLA's executive support board in support. Thank you.

Devin Jackson, middle school science teacher from San Francisco Bay Area, Moraga, California, in support.

Sorry. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we're not continue oh, sorry, in support, we'll now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition.

Sorry. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we're not continue oh, sorry, in support, we'll now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition.

Good morning and welcome.

Good morning. Madam Chair and members, I am Rich Duvarnie. I'm the state appointed administrator for the Plumas Unified School District, and I'm here on behalf of the Small School Districts Association, respectfully in opposition to Assembly Bill 917. Our current law regarding school districts and county offices with an ADA of two fifty or less was negotiated between education management and labor in 1983 as part of the Hughes Heart Educational Reform Act of 1983.

This flexibility has been allowed since the to address the changing needs of a student population that creates unique staffing challenges.

The legislature has repeatedly recognized that super small districts and county offices of education need flexibility to appropriately address the needs of their students within their limited capacity and resources. We have districts in California with as few as five students. AB 917 will force small LEAs to not only pink slip every teacher every year, not so good for morale, but it will limit the courses and programs available for students.

Given budget restraints and limited resources, a small LEA can't risk hiring a teacher who may not be serving any students in three years due to the changes in the population or needs. With respect to small COEs, AB 917 would drastically limit their ability to adjust staffing for the unique special needs, transitory, and high risk population that they serve.

There is precedent through education code to treat small LEAs differently. Small LEAs are exempt from the budget reserve cap. Rural districts are exempt from the late start time and necessary small school districts receive additional state funding to support their operations. This is an this is an appropriate acknowledgment of the operational personnel and budgetary circumstances that small LEAs face

in our You're right. Right at two minutes. At

okay. So AB 917 will force small LEAs to limit options and services for students and families and break an agreement that has stood for several years. So, we ask that you oppose the measure and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. And just as a reminder, we it's a two minute, time limit on on our witnesses.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Suzanne Smith. I'm president of KROP and the director of college and career readiness for Tri Valley ROP, serving Dublin Livermore Valley Joint and Pleasanton Unified School Districts. While I believe this in bill's intent is to solve a real and understandable problem, a perceived stress of lack of job security felt by ROP or RCP instructors. I believe that AB 917 as written

will do the opposite of

what it intends. Students enroll in ROP courses because they wanna learn from people who bring current firsthand expertise from industry, not only credential, but relevance. That relevance is what makes a lesson land. It's what makes a student believe a career is within their reach. If a JPA like TVROP must extend permanent status to instructors across multi district region, we lose the flexibility to match instructor expertise to where student interest in labor market demand actually are in any given year.

AB 917 puts that flexibility and relevance risk. Excuse me. ROP instructors made a deliberate choice to step out of industry, often leaving higher paying jobs because they're passionate about their field and genuinely invested in inspiring the next generation of workers. They actively collaborate with us, the administration, as we build a master schedule, which has to balance student interest with multiple bell schedules and instructor availability, since many of our instructors work across regional traveling from site to site on any given day.

Leveraging resources and instructor expertise regionally provides pathway options for students and instructors that individual districts could not afford on their own.

Our regional structure is exactly what makes the statutory deadlines and current layoff law incompatible with how ROPs actually operate. We don't have reliable enrollment numbers by March 15, and in most years, not even by May 15, because registration data from outside districts come in well after those dates. This challenge is compounded by the uncertain ROP funding streams we operate under annually, like Steve's taken Strong Workforce.

Without the ability to adjust staffing to match year to year funding and enrollment, JPA's take on a level of financial and operational risk that single district programs simply do not face in the same way. The existing ed code flexibility for regional programs was designed with good reason.

I ask this committee to consider the full picture for our students and our ROP instructors and to vote to oppose AB 917. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for your testimony. And now we'll continue with any witnesses, from the public who would like to express their, opposition. Please, approach the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position.

Good morning. Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Michelle Du on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Kyle Hi on behalf of the Career Technical Education Joint Powers Authority Coalition and the California County Superintendents in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Dan Merwin on behalf

of the California School Boards Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

On behalf of the California Association Suburban School Districts Association in opposition.

Christina Seracer with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools in opposition.

Xavier Brochu on behalf of the School Employers Association of California in respectful opposition.

Good morning. LeAngela Reed on behalf of the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools and strong opposition.

Okay. So having had all witnesses in opposition speak, we're allowed to bring it back to the dais. Questions and comments?

Thank you. I I appreciate the comments from our small COEs. You're right. Nobody wants to get a pink slip. But they also don't want the instability of not knowing that they have permanent status.

I think finding the best way to do that. And I I will tell you that having both CTA and CSCA, CFT, having them all come in, talking about classified, saying this is good for it's not just for for the teachers, it's for everybody. And I appreciate that solidarity trying to uplift all employees. Very important. I I I think this lack of stability is something that without a doubt needs to be addressed, and I think your bill does just that.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Reyes. So Aye, I have concerns about the bill, the implications, especially when we need the flexibility in many of our programs, especially ROP programs.

I have visited the campuses, met with the teachers, throughout my district, and realized it's a very unique niche that has to be, you know, in our previous bill we're talking about community colleges being flexible and be able to change pretty quickly on the offer of of, degrees that match the workforce and they need to be really really quick. I think, with regards to the ROV, it's the same it's the same premise.

They have to be quick. They have to be relevant and there's high turnover and I think many of these teachers that come in or industry experts that come in to teach as I've met with them in these programs, they're coming in knowing that it's it's relevant, it's now and they know coming in that that is not necessarily going to be a guaranteed ongoing for ten, fifteen years because of the industry and what it may call.

So Aye, I haven't been supported of the bill, in the past. I won't be able to support it again, this time around because of that nature. We need to have that flexibility for school districts to be able to to change really quickly.

And I and I think that is a difference between someone who is working in ROP and something technical coming in from the industry directly versus someone who this is their life. This is this is a subject matter that they're going to be teaching for a very long time. And and and our rural communities where our, you know, there's barely any students, you know, I say barely compared to other areas. Not in that demeaning way, but just, you know, under 250. That's not a lot of students.

Four or five students, not a lot. In an ongoing changing environment, it's very difficult to to guarantee. And I think many of our professors are are aware of of that. And my biggest concern is that we won't have a need that we'll we'll get rid of the program rather than keeping it. Especially in consideration where many of these school districts do not have direct funding for that.

Many of the school districts are combining. In my district for instance, in in Senate District 19, we have three different cities coming in providing money towards one pot of or one program for the region. So it's very very difficult to get funding for it. It's not guaranteed and the flexibility of the industry are the reasons why I can't support the bill today. But I appreciate the efforts and your tenacity in you know working it and bringing it up now in your second year.

With that would you like to close?

Yes. And I I just leave if you may may, just respond to your your comments of, in regards to this. I think a different perspective on this, as someone who has a formal education in information and technology in the science field. It's an ever evolving industry. And we're really looking at these rural areas.

You're not gonna have the workforce, as my colleague in a previous presentation said. So the likelihood that these individuals who are in a temporary status, they they are continually being rehired. And so they are not being afforded the opportunity and equitability that other colleagues have. And so we're simply trying to tighten up that loophole. The state law already protects, you know, in the event that there isn't funding for it, that they are able to issue pink, slips.

But if we actually analyze the data throughout the state of California, we are going to see that it is the consistent same workforce being reemployed to do these programs because they're not importing the workforce from other areas, especially I mean, we see it in all segments from the medical profession. We have trouble recruiting people into rural California. And so we're simply advocating that they deserve to have the permanent status, because if we look at the data, I'm sure it will tell us that they are there.