Senate Education Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Education Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
If we want to continue to strengthen California's future workforce, expand opportunities, and maintain our position as a global leader in innovation in STEM, we must start by building a strong foundation in math early on. And before I introduce our my lead supporters, I want to reiterate those numbers I said before. Just 37% of all students in California are performing at grade level in math. 26% of low income students are performing at grade level in math. 20% of black students are performing at grade level in math.
And 26% of Latino students are performing at grade level in math. We cannot continue to do what we have been doing. We cannot continue to ignore the needs of our students. And with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote. And with me today, have Marshall Tech, CEO of EdVoice, and Doctor.
Charles E. Wilkes II, Assistant Professor of Mathematics Education at the School of Education at UC Davis. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Good morning, madam chair and members. I'm Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, and on behalf of 38 organizations, including the California State PTA, we support SB ten sixty seven, and we thank Senator Weber Pearson's leadership for making math a priority for California. For too long, there has been a myth that some people are math people and some people are not, and that mindset has lowered expectations and allowed our system to accept outcomes where over 2,000,000 students, mostly from low low income communities, mostly black and Latino, are far below grade level in math in California today. Math ability is not a personality trait. It is a skill that can be developed with the right supports at the right time, and we are entering a data driven AI powered economy where math skills are more important than ever.
Speaker 3
If we do not address these gaps early, we limit opportunity for millions of kids before they even get to middle school. SB ten sixty seven helps students get the support they need when it matters most. This bill will ensure that schools identify students with math difficulties early for universal screening in kindergarten, first, and second grade. And as the senator mentioned, most importantly, it requires schools to provide evidence based support to students that are behind, tutoring, more small group instruction, additional time focused on math. The bill is based on research and best practices.
The US Department of Education, their research arm, recommends early screening and intervention as an essential early step to support students struggling in math, and that recommendation came out during the Obama administration. The National Center on Intensive Intervention has identified valid and reliable tools that schools can use to identify students that are far behind, and 20 other states have already adopted universal screening in math. It is essential that every child gets a chance to build confidence in numbers so they don't start to think that they're not a math person too early in their journey. We gotta give them that chance. This bill will not address all of California's math challenges.
We don't express that it does, but it'll help a lot more students have success in math earlier, and that's why we urge you to support it. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Good morning, madam chair and committee members, and thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Charles Wilkes. I am an assistant professor of math education in the School of Education at UC Davis, and I'm here to share why this bill matters from a research perspective. As has been mentioned, children are not born believing they are or not math people. They come into the world curious about patterns, quantities, and relationships.
They are natural sense makers, and this bill builds on those existing strengths. Research on early mathematics learning is clear. Early math development is a strong predictor of later academic success. Unfortunately, in California, k 12 mathematics achievement has been persistently low, affecting high school graduation rates and college readiness. That makes the early years critical because it is when foundational understandings are formed both in content learning and in identity construction.
These foundations include ideas such as number sense, one to one correspondence, comparing quantities, and spatial reasoning. While they may seem simple, because math learning is both cumulative and interconnected, students who don't master foundational math skills in k two are impacted later when learning algebra and beyond. An example of this pattern is reflected in California's own data. As recently as 2025, forty six percent of all third grades were proficient in math, yet compared with just thirty three percent of eleventh graders. This is where screening plays an important role.
Speaker 24
A math screener is a brief developmentally appropriate check that helps teachers understand how students are developing these foundational skills. It is neither punitive nor diagnostic. It simply provides timely information so educators can respond early before small gaps become larger barriers. Research shows that students who are identified early, typically in grades k two, and given targeted timely evidence based interventions can make significant and sustained gains in mathematics achievement. Identifying using screeners requires screeners that recognize students' cultural, linguistic, and lived experiences as strengths.
Speaker 4
This is especially important given long standing disparities in mathematics outcomes for marginalized students, which are not reflections of ability but of opportunity. Students enter school capable and curious. The question is whether our systems recognize that potential early enough and provide support to nurture it. SB ten sixty seven is not a complete solution, but it is a meaningful step toward earlier and more responsive support. When we invest early, we invest in students' confidence, curiosity and opportunity.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your presentation. We'll now take me to if you're here to support SB ten sixty seven, please use the mic at the railing and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Speaker 5
Good morning, chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Unidos U. S. Unfortunately, we don't have an official position to share at this time, but we're really supportive of the intent, we look forward to working with the author
Speaker 2
My name is Elizabeth Esqueda. I'm a community member. I'm here to support the bill.
Speaker 22
Jessica Marquez. On behalf of state superintendent of public instruction, Toni Thurman in proud support.
Speaker 9
Hello. Amy Parada, former educator and community advocate. I'm in support. Good morning. Daisy Hernandez on behalf of the Partnership for LA Schools, representing schools in East LA, and Bohai, South L.
A. And Watts. In support. In support.
Speaker 1
Hi, everyone. Good morning. Nadia Razzi. I'm the Director of Research and Policy at the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, in support.
Speaker 10
Morning. I'm Prentiss Starkey. I'm a retired professor of Human Development in the Graduate School of Education at UC Berkeley and, Project Director in the Early Childhood Program at WestEd. I'm here in support of the bill.
Speaker 11
Morning. I'm Gilbert Barayo, an educator from San Jose, and I'm here in support of the bill today.
Speaker 4
Good morning. My name is Carl Pinkston with community based organization, Black Parallel School Board, Operation Director, and I'm here in support.
Speaker 12
Good morning. Angelica Salazar from the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools also in support.
Speaker 25
Hi. My name is Catherine Abuelas Montragon, and I'm a student, Math, Science, Technology, Magnet Academy at Roosevelt High School, and
Speaker 1
Anybody else? Alright. Seeing we have no more witnesses in support, we'll now move on to witnesses in opposition. If we have anyone here for opposition testimony, please come forward. You'll have two minutes each to make your presentation.
Thank you.
Speaker 5
My name is Doctor. Scott McDowell. I have a Bachelor's of Science in Applied Mathematics, a Master's in Curriculum and Instruction, and a Doctorate in Educational Leadership, all from UCLA. I was a longtime high school math teacher, UCLA math project instructor, and high school principal, and I'm currently the Director of Curriculum in Torrance Unified, overseeing math instruction and the implementation of the new California Math Framework. I've been a member of the Association of California School Administrators Curriculum, Instruction, and Accountability Council for the past six years, and it is in this capacity that I am testifying today in respectful opposition to SB ten sixty seven.
Speaker 15
California test scores in mathematics have improved year over year since twenty one-twenty two and in many districts have exceeded pre COVID levels. Across the state, students score highest in math in third grade when the test is most focused on numeracy and procedural skills. As higher level thinking, application, and problem solving are introduced in fourth through eighth grade, grade level performance declines annually and does not rebound until eighth or eleventh grade. Our instruction needs to better align with the California Math Framework to keep pace with the higher cognitive demands in upper elementary and middle school math. We need to let the California Framework and textbook adoption process roll out with expectations and support that math instruction fundamentally change from procedural fluency to high quality tasks that integrate conceptual understanding, problem solving, real world application.
At a time when we need to be focusing on developing well written critical thinking mathematical skills, a screener focus on a narrow definition of math procedures would do the opposite. This calculi affects three to seven percent of students. Therapies include interactive games, distributed practice, mastery of smaller number fact groups, emphasis on reverses and turnarounds, student self monitoring of progress, and mathematical thinking strategies, all strategies that should be used with any student having struggles in early mathematics, regardless of identification of a disability. I am concerned that implementation of the math screener would further lead us away from equitable student centered instruction. Deficit based thinking has, for decades, prevented struggling math students from even being exposed to rich mathematics instruction, and the introduction of a math screener focused on deficit skills would significantly work against what we were all fighting for in mathematics instruction.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your presentation. We'll now take additional witnesses in opposition. Please use the mic at the railing.
Speaker 20
Good morning. I'm Kathleen Latimer, speaking on behalf of the California Mathematics Council in opposition to SB ten sixty seven. The council strongly supports improving early mathematics outcomes and ensuring that all students receive timely support when they struggle. While early identification of student needs is important, the bill creates a new mandate without addressing the root causes of mathematics learning challenges. We believe that state resources should prioritize strengthening instruction.
Speaker 17
California has made significant progress by adopting the 2023 California Mathematics Framework, which provides guidance on strengthening instruction and supporting diverse learners. Rather than creating additional mandates, we believe the state should invest in implementation supports that help educators bring this vision to life in classrooms, such as professional learning for teachers, classroom embedded support, such as those provided by instructional coaches and math specialists, and high quality mathematics instruction. These investments bring educator capacity and improved mathematics instruction for all students. SB ten sixty seven does not ensure funding for these priorities. Screening tools typically measure discrete foundational skills, such as counting and basic operations.
While foundational skills are important, early numeracy is not limited to discrete skills but includes a broad set of competencies, such as mathematical reasoning, problem solving, spatial thinking, and mathematical communication. Over reliance on screening measures may unintentionally encourage narrower skill focused instruction rather than the deeper learning experiences students need. And data can be overinterpreted and broadened to make judgments about students and their readiness, which may lead to premature labeling, lower group placement, or skill remediation pathways for students who are only beginning their formal mathematics journey. The council shares your commitment to improving early mathematics outcomes. We urge the prioritization of investments that build educator expertise, support effective teaching, and expand access to high quality mathematics learning experiences for all students.
For these reasons, the California Mathematics Council, which believes in the brilliance of every learner, respectfully opposes SB ten sixty seven. Thank you.
Speaker 1
You for your presentation. We'll now take additional comments in opposition, if you could use the mic at the railing.
Speaker 12
Morning, Madam Chair and members. Ashley Lugo on behalf of the California County Superintendents in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Morning. Christina Salazar, on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, in opposition.
Speaker 19
Good morning, Chair and Committee members. Carlos Rojas, representing the Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office, in respectful opposition.
Speaker 14
Good morning. Doctor. Ma Bernadette Salgareno, on behalf of the California Teachers Association, we oppose this bill.
Speaker 1
Anybody else? Okay. We will turn it now back to committee comments and questions. Do any members of the committee have any comments or questions? Senator Chobogue?
Speaker 14
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm a coauthor of the bill. Thank you for bringing this measure forward. I actually do want to address both the concerns and the support for the opposition, and I want to make sure that we have clarity on what the bill is intending to do. And I know you've done your opening remarks.
I know that we've heard from the opposition, but I think it I think the public deserves to hear as to we have seen some improvements in the past couple of years, but very slight. We're still incredibly far behind. And it's sad that in 2026 in 2026, our test scores are as mentioned by Doctor. Weber, who is quite frankly appalling. Absolutely.
It really is appalling. Absolutely. And so, you know, I've been blessed to be in the Education Committee now for this is my sixth year, also in Budget One for six years. We have, as a state, been prioritizing as much as possible funding that has to do with teacher training, that has to do with additional resources in classes, opportunities for after school, before school programs. We've been doing that.
So obviously, hopefully, unlike we haven't received much of feedback back on those or metrics on those programs, and we're hoping to do that at some point in the future. But we've been doing a lot as a state trying to increase funding for certain programs on helping our teachers get professional training, resources in the classroom and so forth. I completely agree. But I want to share with you an experience that I had with one of my students and why I'm supportive of the bill on firsthand experience when I did teach. I taught first, second, and third graders, English language learners.
And looking back now, I wish I had more training on on various like, what I see now, I wish I had had more experience back then when I when I taught my kids. But fortunately for me, I had an amazing mentor who was really helping and coaching me in my in my experience as a teacher. But I wanna share an experience of a student that I had. She was a female student, English language learner, and I had her first, second, and third. I followed her through.
And it was the best experience that I've had following this this this child because came from a low socioeconomic family. There wasn't a lot of support at home. The mom was very supportive of me, Latina. And mind you, our Latino parents are incredibly pro education. They are behind their kids supporting and they believe in teachers.
They believe in the teachers' ability to teach. And so I had all the support with mom, worked with mom, And she tried very hard and she just could not register the information starting in first grade. Starting in first grade, we saw that she was always just struggling, struggling to learn how to read, to do math, to do everything possible. Right? But there were certain things that she actually was able to master including patterns.
Remember, introduced patterns in first grade and then we continue on. She was able to do patterns in very complex patterns. She could do that. But it wasn't until third grade and we kept you know, we did the, you know, we I I documented the concerns that I had as a teacher. We had conferences with mom, with the principals, aides, and so forth.
But it wasn't until third grade that she was actually they finally gathered all the information and decided she needs an IEP. She's a special needs child. She has learning disabilities. And they were not caught until third grade. In any other classroom, in any other course, I am not sure that she would have received the attention that needed.
Now, I was a very I wanna say a very, passion teacher that I believe that any child could learn. And in that finding, in that assessment, not until third grade did she actually get the attention that she needed outside of my classroom. And it's disheartening to think that there we have so many kids right now that are going without the services that they they need, pulling them out or whatever that may be, what that might look like for that child until third grade. Because especially when it comes to reading, you know, and math is also part of reading. If they haven't mastered reading by the third grade, we know that they will struggle for the rest of their academic years.
And so, this is why I'm supportive of this screening in first and second grade or K. Just to help us understand whether or not there is actually a need, a learning disability, something that this child will be required to have those services that they need early on, early intervention. And I do want to highlight or actually, I would love, through the chair, with her permission, highlight. When we talk about evidence based assessment and the resources that they need to be actually provided to these students. Can you walk us through a little bit what that assessment will allow us to learn and what do what what specific evidence do we know that the research that we will be able to provide at that point that will actually make the difference moving forward?
Because I think that's important for the public and so forth. And I, as a member of the Budget One, I will, in collaboration with I'm sure, our chair here who also sits on Budget One, to continue to make sure that ensure that the funding is there to provide those services. Education is our priority. It's our passion, and we'll make sure that we're advocating for that. We'll continue to advocate for that.
Speaker 3
So, the screening tools themselves, what they're able to do is identify which kids are struggling with math and really with numeracy early. It doesn't distinguish if it's because of a child just had less exposure to math at their home or because they didn't have pre K or whether it's actually some sort of disability. So, for clarity, and I think that's really important because it's a more useful tool in many ways for teachers in that what the screeners are able to do is say, hey, children are struggling with numeracy. They need support. And then the teacher, the principal will then go in and go deeper and say, Is that maybe the child just didn't get a lot of exposure, which is most kids that are far behind in the early grades, they didn't have a lot of exposure at home or they didn't have pre k, which is why you see far more low kids from low income communities, Latino and black students that are further behind early.
So it's for some children, the teachers may say, it's it's about more time or kind of more deeper, more effective tier one instruction or more tutoring. For other students, they might decide to do additional deeper diagnostics to say, as you mentioned, hey, is there actually something even deeper than just less exposure to math that's a disability, and then there's additional subsequent diagnostics that you would do to assess that. So the screeners don't, out of the gates, identify that right away. What they are very effective at and what they've been validated for is identifying which children are struggling with basic operations, with numbers, with early numeracy. And then with that information, it helps schools, principals, teachers say, do we need more actual diagnostics to see if there's a deeper learning disability?
So this is not a dyscalculia screener. It doesn't don't do that. What they do is they help educators know which kids are really far behind, And then I think, as was mentioned earlier, it says you need to do something and then provides a lot of those opportunities to do that. The second thing, as a reminder, is the bill doesn't identify the screeners. It creates a committee of experts.
Let's get the best folks in this state and this country to spend a serious amount of time to identify which screeners make the most sense for California's kids. So there are plenty of reliable and validated screeners out there today, but a committee would take time working to roll that out. This is why this this doesn't get rolled out until 2829 because there's a period of almost a year to identify the screeners themselves.
Speaker 14
Madam Chair, if I may follow-up with with the question. So okay, so not necessarily disabilities, but just understanding whether or not they have admitted
Speaker 3
They're struggling with numeracy. They are good at are they struggling with numeracy? That's what they're really effective at.
Speaker 2
Okay. So if you kind of think about it in the medical world, you have various types of screening tests to see as females, we get pap smears, screening tests. And if that comes back abnormal, then we do a deeper dive to diagnose what the issue is, right? So that's similar in this situation where they would be screening kindergarten, first, second graders to see if there is a potential issue there and if that flags, okay, well, what is this, then they do a deeper diagnostic evaluation. Is there a learning difficulty?
Is there a problem with the fact that they just haven't been exposed or coming directly from, you know, spending time at, you know, being raised by grandma and they haven't been in an educational environment anymore? So it would be able to potentially pick up, like your student earlier, because they would screen her and realize that there were more diagnostic evaluation needed earlier on. Early on. Okay. And then last question, Madam Chair.
Is there do we have any
Speaker 3
Absolutely. There's a lot of districts in California today that are doing early screening or some might call early diagnostics to identify which kids are really struggling and then are providing more support. So it's happening. What's nice about California, have a thousand school districts, there's a lot of great practices in the field. What this law is saying is
Speaker 14
But with this particular bill, do we have with this particular screening, do we have this in practice already in any of our school districts in California or out of the state where we actually have data that says this has actually been effective.
Speaker 3
Well, if you look at other states, so Alabama, which has had the greatest improvement on the NAEP test, since COVID in the country, they this is one part of a broader strategy, and we're clear. This doesn't solve all the issues, but it's a key part of a broader strategy, and they've had the most success in terms of improving student success as a state in the country. And then there are districts in California, a lot of them, that are doing early screening and diagnose and assessment in order to identify kids that are struggling and having success there. The exact screeners themselves, Senator, because the committee will develop the screeners sorry, the panel of experts will develop the screeners, that's where I can say this district's using this exact screener because the screen the screeners that are identified have not been identified by the panel yet.
Speaker 14
Do you have any names of the school districts that actually have the screening test as kind of
Speaker 3
Yes. So I live in Los Angeles. Los Angeles Unified School District, they use an assessment called I Ready. The National Center on Intensive Intervention has identified I Ready, which is more of an assessment, they've identified that as a validated screener. They used that.
They had their highest results in math last year. Again, that's not the only reason. As was mentioned clearly, we all agree, we need investment in professional development, we need investment in coaching, but we think this is an essential part of the overall strategy. So that's a district that's making real progress in math right now that's been doing a lot of early identification.
Speaker 2
And just to that point, as far as early math screening, over 20 states have adopted in the country early math screening. So we're not the first. We would be following other states which have already shown significant improvement in their students' math scores.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And I appreciate your presentation, and, you know, Senator Pearson, for bringing this bill forward, SB ten sixty seven. I think at the end of the day, you know, what your bill is focused on trying to resolve is really commendable, bringing up math scores for kids. As somebody that's worked in the education space for a very long time, I can tell you that the numbers in terms of performance for our black and brown students have been incredibly low for decades. It's really unacceptable.
And California has not made much improvement over the last ten years. Now, we haven't declined dramatically either, but we've kind of just coasted. That goes for reading as well, and that's part of the reason why the state's made such a large investment in trying to improve literacy for students. But I think that this bill is part of a larger puzzle of pieces that we need to work on here in the state in resolving this issue. You know, was mentioned before whether it's professional development and investing in our teachers, making sure that we are attracting teachers that have a math background to come back to the teaching profession is so critical.
So we're getting students excited about STEM and future STEM opportunities. So I think it's a great piece of legislation. I look forward to seeing it continue to move forward. And my recommendation is an I vote. So I will turn it over to you to close.
Speaker 2
Thank you. I want to thank the committee staff and the chair and the committee members for reviewing and all of your help with this bill. I wanna definitely thank my my sponsors, Ed Voice. They have been true, true champions for equity amongst our children in education up and down the state of California and really appreciate them. I wanna thank doctor Wilkes who came.
He was at the press conference, I was just so impressed by everything that he said, and it just kind of clicked. You know, no one is born automatically good or bad at math. And it is a skill. It is a skill that we have to ensure that we are giving to our children. And, you know, I completely agree with providing support for our teachers and continue to provide support.
And in this, we have requested a budget ask to help with the implementation of this. But at the end of the day, if we can give all the support to our teachers, but if we're not seeing if it's trickling down to our students by screening them early, then I don't know what we have done. The numbers don't lie. It was interesting because, you know, my mother was in the assembly before I was, and and she and I were talking. And one of the things that she is most disappointed about is the fact that we have not moved the needle for the achievement of our students here in California in areas in reading and math, and especially when we're dealing with our black and our Latino students and our low income students.
We can talk and talk and put money here and there, but we really aren't moving the needle. And that's really what frustrates me. As someone who is a product of public school system, as someone who has two black students in California public school system right now, that we are not moving the needle. And status quo, we cannot continue to do that. We must be bold.
We must think of our children first. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for an I vote on this bill because every student needs an opportunity to achieve in this great state. And if they are having difficulties, then we need to screen for that early and get them the intervention that they need. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much, senator. So, I will entertain a motion now on SB ten sixty five. Oh, we we haven't established, quorum yet. I apologize. Thank you for your presentation.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you so much, Senator Chubob. Great. I see we have Senator Becker present. Senator Becker, we haven't established quorum, but we're continuing to have folks present.
So if you would like to get started on 11:10, whenever you're ready.
Speaker 20
Okay. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Please present SB eleventen. I would like to thank the committee and staff for working on this bill.
Nearly 1,800,000 children in California eligible for affordable childcare but not enrolled. The families behind that number, working parents navigating complex systems, children who would benefit from quality early learning are the reasons that this bill exists. As California transitions to enrollment based funding on July 1, we need to ensure the anticipated transition strengthens the child care system. This bill boils to a more stable and robust child care system based on a solid infrastructure and resource for consistent services to child care providers. Currently, alternative payment programs do the hands on work of enrolling families, managing cases, and connecting parents to providers.
But current law lumps that work together with back office overhead under a single cap that just has not kept pace with reality. This bill creates a transparent funding structure that recognizes the difference between administrative overhead and direct family services and ensures that even the smallest community based agencies have the resources to keep serving families. There we go. Always loud in transition time here. Okay.
Speaker 37
The approach that this bill takes, we think, focuses on necessary administrative fixes in a timely and reasonable manner. Author amendments ensure that the bill is aligned with the 2025 budget agreements. With me to testify, I have Donna Stringer from the California Child Care Resource Center and Alicia Hatfield with Every Child California.
Speaker 1
Donna Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Donna Snaringer. I'm president of the Child Care Resource Center and a cosponsor of SB eleven ten.
Speaker 21
For more than fifty years, CCRC has partnered with the state of California to deliver subsidized child care to families in Northern Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. Today, we serve more than 60,000 children, support families through enrollment, case management, and ongoing engagement throughout their time in care. These contracts have long provided the state with a cost effective, efficient system to deliver child care services at scale. However, reimbursement reductions made over a decade ago based on a limited view of our services have never been restored. Despite significant changes in responsibilities and operating conditions, since that time, labor costs, compliance requirements, audit activity, technology and data security mandates, additional payments and reporting responsibilities have all increased substantially.
These pressures have destabilized contracts and, in some cases, affected timeliness and consistency of service to families and providers, which we do not like. SB eleven ten offers a practical, carefully developed solution by consolidating existing funding into core contracts. This bill stabilizes the delivery system and allows agencies to appropriately staff programs, improve payment timelines, strengthen fiscal oversight, and deliver higher quality, more reliable services statewide. On behalf of contractors across California and the families we serve, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 6
Good morning, chair and members. Alicia Hatfield, senior legislative and government relations adviser for Every Child California. We're a nonprofit representing 2,500 publicly funding early care and education programs across California, and we are proud cosponsors of SB eleven ten. This bill reflects the critical fact that programs must maintain staffing, licensing, compliance, and quality standards regardless of short term fluctuations in attendance or enrollment. Pre pandemic, the state reimbursement structure for our field was attendance driven and deeply unstable.
Small disruptions caused by family wellness issues, work schedule modifications, or eligibility changes resulted in revenue loss, while costs remained the same. Programs were forced to absorb that instability through wage suppression, deferred maintenance, and reduced program flexibility. During the COVID pandemic, Hold Harmless created stability, keeping programs open for families and staff employed. Now, as the state exits Hold Harmless, new conditions facing providers have introduced more volatility. Today, programs are managing changes brought on by the universal transitional kindergarten expansion, operating at material costs rising wildly in ways that programs can't keep up with and family mobility issues, including disruptions tied to broader enforcement and community conditions.
Speaker 30
These are new and ongoing structural conditions now part of the operating environment, which is why stabilization has become a priority. This bill is a protection mechanism that safeguards continuity for children, preserves access for families, and helps prevent further erosion of California's center based childcare infrastructure. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you both for your presentation. Do we have any other witnesses here in support? Please use the mic at the railing and state your name, organization, position on the bill.
Speaker 22
Stephanie Jimenez, on behalf of Children's Paradise, we have a support unless amended position. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Sarabaches with Children now in support. Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing no one else, we will turn it over now to any witnesses in opposition. If anyone is here to speak in opposition, please rise.
Seeing no one rising, we'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any committee comments or questions? Okay. I do not have any questions for you, Senator Becker, and my recommendation's an I vote if you'd like to close.
Speaker 20
Yeah. I want to thank you. I to thank the witnesses for their work. We're trying to get a better child care subsidy system that makes it better for the providers and makes sense for parents and families. Respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. And do we have a motion? Oh, we don't. I keep forgetting we do not have a quorum.
We will take a vote on that bill once we do have a quorum, Senator Becker. But thank you so much for your presentation.
Speaker 1
And Leiper, is anybody else here? Well, I can't have her present because, like, I'm gonna be stepping out. So should I reassess? So we are going to recess for a few minutes. I'm passing the gavel to Senator Ochoa Bogh in case we have any authors that do arrive.
Thank you.
Speaker 14
Author in the room, we have senator Neela who will be presenting two bills this morning. File item number six, s B would you like to do three thirteen twenty one? I know we're doing one.
Speaker 14
Yes. File item number 7SB1374. And senator Nino, you may proceed when you're ready.
Speaker 23
Thank you. For the sake of any kids that are in the room, my agenda items are 67. That means something to some people. I don't quite get it, but if there were kids here, they'd be yelling and screaming and jumping up and down. Right?
Is that the way that works? So, yes, first I'll present SB 1374, which authorizes a public higher education institution to seek a temporary restraining order on its own behalf when it faces unlawful violence or credible threat of violence. Currently, universities may seek a restraining order on behalf of a student or an employee who has suffered a credit a credible threat of violence. However, when threats are made toward an institution without targeting an individual, an institution is unable to seek a restraining order. Last year, SB 19 made it a crime for threats made toward higher education universities, among other institutions.
But when threats are made toward an institution without targeting an individual, the institution is unable to seek a restraining order. This limits the legal ability for long term restraining orders against those who threaten to cause harm on a campus. SB thirteen seventy four closes that gap by permitting higher education institution to seek a temporary restraining order when a credible threat is made toward the campus. I have with me today Annabelle Urbina with the CSU office of the chancellor and Gregory Murphy, Chief of Police at San Diego State University.
Speaker 7
Thank you. Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Annabel Urbina representing the California State University Office of the Chancellor in support and as sponsor of SB thirteen seventy four. I would like to begin by thanking Senator Nilo and his team for authoring this measure, which would permit postsecondary higher education institutions to seek a temporary restraining order when a credible threat is made towards a university. While current law allows postsecondary institutions to seek restraining orders on behalf of a student or an employee who receives the threat, it does not clearly authorize institutions to seek similar protections when threats are directed at the institution more generally, thus leaving a gap.
Speaker 24
Across the CSU, threats of harm have been made that do not target a specific individual or group, causing fear among students, faculty, staff, and in some cases resulting in canceled classes. At San Diego State, an incident prompted a multi agency investigation after a student made repeated threats towards the campus however, the university was unable to seek a temporary restraining order because the threats were directed at the campus broadly rather than a specific individual. All threats received or reported to the CSU are investigated and reviewed through the appropriate internal channels, and this bill would apply only to threats deemed credible. SB thirteen seventy four serves as a critical preemptive measure by allowing institutions to intervene at a point of credible threats before conduct turns into physical violence, unlawful acts, or irreversible harm to students, staff, or campus operations. The CSU and its 22 universities remain committed to ensuring safe communities for our students, faculty, and staff.
For these reasons, we respectfully request your I vote on s b thirteen seventy four. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Good morning, Terrence Perez and members of the committee. My name is Gregory Murphy, I serve as the chief of police at San Diego State University. I want to briefly explain what this gap looks like from an operational standpoint. At SDSU, we recently managed a case involving an individual targeting our campus community with violent and concerning behavior. Importantly, the threats were not always directed at a specific student or employee, they were directed at the campus more broadly.
We investigated and coordinated with law enforcement and federal partners. Ultimately, the individual was removed from the university through the student conduct process and expelled. But here's the issue. Under current law, because there was no specific individual victim, the university had no standing to seek a temporary restraining order, even in the face of credible threats. While a student is enrolled, campuses can issue administrative directives, but those are not legally enforceable.
And once someone is no longer a student, those tools end. And in some cases, the individual is not a student at all, meaning the university has no authority from the outset. So we had no legal mechanism to prevent that individual from returning to campus. This is not an isolated issue. We have faced the same challenge in other cases where threats were directed at the campus broadly.
Speaker 21
The gap leaves universities relying on heightened security and operational disruption rather than a clear legal remedy. Senate Bill thirteen seventy four allows institutions to go to court and obtain a restraining order that creates an enforceable boundary and gives law enforcement a clear legal basis to act if it is violated. From a public safety perspective, this is about prevention, acting before violence occurs, and protecting the campus community. I respectfully ask for your support.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much. We'll continue with any witnesses in support of SB 1374 here in Room 2221 Hundred, sorry. 2100.
Speaker 26
Good morning. Tyler Aguilar on behalf of the University of California in support.
Speaker 19
Good morning. Alex Graves, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities in support.
Speaker 14
Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to SB thirteen seventy four. Seeing none, do we have any other witnesses in opposition to SB thirteen seventy four? Seeing no, we'll bring it back to their eyes. Seeing no other member here, myself.
Speaker 14
Many of our members are actually presenting bills or in other committees, so which is why you see an empty dais here today, which is kind of a bummer that they can't hear your testimony. But I'm grateful for the opportunity to hear bill. Thank you for bringing it forward. Would you like to close Senator Elo?
Speaker 23
Yes. I respectfully request an aye vote. The bill has no opposition, so hopefully, I'll have some more here.
Speaker 14
Wonderful. Thank you. And when the we'll leave it on call. When we have been able to establish a quorum, we'll be I'll be happy to move the the bill forward if when the time comes.
Speaker 14
I think we're in a pickle right now because I I we're supposed to co present a bill, but I'm the only one here. So what I can do is you can present the bill and I can just share my comments from the dais Sure. As as the acting chair. Right.
Speaker 23
Okay. And I hope that the rest of the committee will be briefed on what we both say because I think this is a very important issue and a very important bill.
Speaker 14
So Well, then maybe I should give you an opportunity to I'm okay. You can present the bill now or you can come back and present the bill when we have more members here.
Speaker 23
Today, that's going to be hard to tell, number one. And number two, I have another committee meeting this afternoon. So the way this committee seems to be moving, think there's no way of telling when that might happen. This is a very busy time of year, and people have multiple committees. They're presenting bills, and we're just running all over the place.
Speaker 18
So I'll go ahead and present now. This is SB thirteen twenty one, and this bill is to task the California state auditor with reviewing three high demand campuses of the University of California, the California State University, relating to the use of remedial classes and a review of admission practices. In the 2025, UC San Diego Senate Administration Workgroup on Admissions issued a report, a rather surprising report, I would emphasize, examining academic preparation of its first year students. The report showed that UC San Diego has experienced a significant decline in the academic preparation of entering first year students over the past five years, with the most severe deterioration occurring in mathematics preparation and notable challenges also in writing and language skills. Between 2025, the number of entering students at UCSD whose mathematics skills fell below high school standards increased nearly 30 fold.
Speaker 23
30 times. With more than 70% of those students performing below middle school standards, representing approximately one in 12 members of the entering cohort. That's remarkable. It's possible the decline in academic preparation coincidences coincides with multiple systemic factors, including, for sure, the COVID-nineteen pandemic, caused significant challenges in teaching kids with a lot of remote instruction that they were not used to. But there's also elevated risks of chronic absenteeism, changes in math curriculum, the elimination of remedial courses and moving to co requisite grade inflation in secondary education and the elimination of standardized testing from the UC admissions process.
We need a deeper dive into this. I'd point out that these are students that are graduating high school with very high, in the case of these high demand campuses, four point grade point averages or above, and yet many of them in math, not even at the eighth grade level. Let that sink in. Now I'd like to turn it over to my joint author, Chair, Ochoa Bogue, who will speak from behind the dais.
Speaker 14
Yes, absolutely. So thank you, Senator Nilo, for bringing this forward. Think you and I have shared many, many conversations about academic performances for our students here in California. You have the same passion that I do. In 2024, I carried an education bill package on math reform, which was partly focused on bridging the gap between high school and higher education.
The standards established in high school have a direct impact on college student success. To foster improvement, we must gather data to pinpoint specific educational gaps in both middle and high schools. Math placement data at UC San Diego demonstrates a correlation between high school math grades and actual student preparedness, including cases in which students earning high grades in advanced high school math courses nonetheless require remediation courses once they got to college. Admitting large numbers of students who are profoundly underprepared risks the undermining student success, increasing course failure rates and lengthening the time cost to degree attainment. It also places an unsustainable strain on faculty and instructional resources.
And I've heard firsthand from our professors at many of our higher ed institutions about the concerns that they have about student preparedness in their academic, in the rigor of their coursework. The UCSD report also demonstrates that current admissions and placement practices are insufficiently aligned with student readiness, institutional capacity, and long term educational outcomes. This is not fair or right to do to the students or faculty, and I know that with data provided by the state auditor, we could begin the process of preparing our students for the challenges of college and can hopefully cut back a number of remediation courses and supports. Thank you so much for bringing this measure forward, and I'm hoping that once my colleagues come, we will have the unanimous support, I'm hoping, for this particular bill.
Speaker 23
Thank you for that. And, continuing on with, my testimony. And to that point, I'm sure that all of the members of this committee have staff that are watching, this presentation, and I urge them to make sure to inform their member of the very important points that you and I both are making. So, in 2019, the California State Auditor issued an audit after reviewing practices of three universities: UC Berkeley, Cal, go Bears, the University of California, Los Angeles, go Bruins. I went to both those institutions.
The admission standards back then were actually easier. That's how I got in. But it has changed quite a bit since. And the University of California San Diego. Now that it's 2026, we believe that the auditor is in a unique position to investigate this on a deeper level due to their previous work on the matter.
Given these findings that have been brought to light at one UC, and we gave you by the way, we need to give UCSD great credit for coming out with this study because if we don't recognize a problem, we will never cure the problem and they're helping us to recognize it. But more needs to be understood on how wide this remedial issue is and how it's impacting admissions decisions. And with me today is Anna Matthews here to testify support and on behalf of the California Community College Independence Union.
Speaker 22
Good morning, Chair. My name is Anna Matthews, and I'm the representative of the California Community College Independence Union. I'm here to support SB thirteen twenty one, Nilo and Achobug. On the surface, this bill pertains to CSUs and UCs, but the California Community Colleges are strong partners with these institutions, transferring many students to them annually. And more importantly, we show significant overlap regarding student basic skills preparedness across all segments.
To reiterate what the senator mentioned, the report out of UC San Diego showed that over the last five years, the number of entering students at UC San Diego whose math proficiencies fell below high school standards increased almost 30 fold with 70% of these students performing below middle school standards. I think this also stems from the gaps that senator Weber Pearson was mentioning earlier. Many students also struggle with their basic writing skills, but this problem isn't limited to UC San Diego students. The reality is between the California Community Colleges, CSUs, and UCs, we have a student basic skills crisis. SB thirteen twenty one would investigate this crisis and give our systems the research basis they need to take decisive action and support students in strengthening their basic skills.
Speaker 16
There are many perspectives on why students are struggling with learning loss and what to do about it. But between students facing skill gaps after COVID, the disruptions that AI has posed to math and English education, and transfer students lacking access to standalone preparatory coursework, we must do something. At a time when basic skills preparation is more necessary than ever, our systems are removing access to stand alone foundational courses. The rollback of these classes has and will continue to leave first generation and nontraditional learners without the academic support that they need to succeed in higher level coursework. Student preparedness in basic math and English is at an all time low.
Speaker 22
In order to address this crisis, we must first acknowledge that it exists. SB thirteen twenty one takes this first step. With that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much, Anna, for presenting today. We'll now continue with any other witnesses in support of SB thirteen twenty one here in Room 2100? 22? 21. 21.
Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now continue with any witnesses in opposition, lead witnesses in opposition to SP thirteen twenty one. Seeing none. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the dais.
Just grateful that you brought this measure forward, Senator Nilo. Very proud to be a coauthor with you on this measure, and I hope that when the time comes, we'll have full support. Would you like to close?
Speaker 23
Yes. There was one other witness who wasn't able to meet to be here today, and I thought I'd read what he had to say. This is a CSU Long Beach professor, and he says, from my own experience in the classroom, I see a wider range of student preparedness than in the past. While many students succeed, others struggle to meet the demands of college level coursework even with support. They start classes without basic middle school levels level of skills in math and writing.
Many of them demoralized, drop classes, some drop out altogether. A standardized admissions test would signal in advance that they need extra preparation to succeed in college classes. SB thirteen twenty one takes a prudent, evidence based approach. It does not prescribe a solution but instead asks critical questions about student readiness, the effective support systems, and the effectiveness of admissions practices in signaling the university and the student readiness for college work. So, this is an issue on so many different levels.
The lack of preparedness obviously is a reflection of our k through 12 system that I'm not addressing in my statements, but we are failing our young people. Our achievement here in California, especially in disadvantaged areas, leaves to say that it leaves a lot to be desired is probably the understatement of this legislative session. Arguably, this committee is the most important committee in the entire senate and the facing one in the assembly also because that's our future. To say that children are our future is an overused statement, but to say that we are failing our youth relative to education is a question that cannot be denied. The and and as this professor emphasizes, when we admit kids that are not prepared, and it's not their fault, that are not prepared for higher education and get so demoralized that not only that inadequate education in K through 12, but then topped on top of it, the demoralization of the initial failure almost predicts failure for them in their whatever professional lives that they might have.
One other point with regard to the JLAC process that we are circumventing
Speaker 23
I want to emphasize we did request an audit, and it was not given a hearing. And, typically, follow-up hearings are not held. I'm told that they do have a hearing scheduled, but I still don't know if this request is going to be considered. And it is not at all unusual for a policy bill to be put forth to request or actually mandate that the auditor look into a particular issue. And I have several examples here.
SB 47, Hamburg State regarding the State Bar in 2025, AB twenty four zero seven by Hart in 2024 regarding sexual harassment title nine, a b one twenty nine in 2021, which was a budget bill, and then s b one sixty four in 2024, again, budget trailer bill. This has been done before, and I emphasize I really emphasize the importance of this issue. And to be concerned about circumventing JLAC, given the height of importance, think, is misguided. So, again, stress that those staff of members that aren't here, please convey to your member the significant importance of this issue, as I said, on so many different levels. I respectfully request an I vote.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Senator Niello. And we'll place that on hold for our absent members to that was first a quorum and then hopefully support the bill.
Speaker 14
We have an author here. That's exciting. Senator Dalley. Senator Dalley will be presenting file item number two, SB ten eighty six. Good morning.
Morning and welcome Senator Dalley. I see familiar witnesses as your witnesses. I'm super, super excited. We'd love to see some familiar faces here.
Speaker 16
Good morning, vice chair and members. A day I briefed urgent x B106010. I'm sorry. 86, which will allow which will direct office of land use to develop origin model origins, which will provide cities and counties clear standardized frameworks for micro schools. Micro schools emerged from parents and teachers working together to support their children who needed more individualized attention.
They offer a safe, tailored environment for the students with special needs or learning disabilities. Local land use regulations create unnecessary barriers, extra costs, and confusion of the Maestro School operators. Many of them quietly raise their hand to share this issue. SB ten eighty six gives teachers a clear pathway to offer with transparency without exposing them to regular overreach. With me today are Lance Christensen for California Policy Center, zoosette Zoos Valids and the California Maestro Schools Collective.
Welcome.
Speaker 26
Thanks, Senator. Vice Chair and committee staff, really good staff, by the way. I appreciate the time. Lance Christensen, Vice President of Education Policy at the California Policy Center and the sponsors of this bill. I'm going be here more for technical support as we talk about microschools.
I want to introduce two founders, Lizette Valles and Mellie Fowler, who are both incredible microschool geniuses in the Northern State and in L. A, and let them share their stories. So I'll turn it over to Lizette. Good
Speaker 28
morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Lizette Valles. I'm a mother and an educator of over twenty years. I'm also the founder of El Mercita Learning Community, a micro school in Southern California, and I support more than 35 micro school founders across the state through the California micro school collective. I'm here today because I've sat across from families in tears.
Not because they don't care about education, but because their child is not thriving in the options available to them. These are children who are bright, curious, and capable, but they need something different. They need smaller environments, more connection, more flexibility, and a place where they feel safe enough to actually learn. That's what micro schools provide. They are small relationship based learning communities designed to meet children where they are and they are growing because families are actively seeking them out.
But right now in California, there's no clear or consistent path to open or operate a micro school. Founders are left navigating a patchwork of zoning rules that were never designed for small community based learning environments. They are often treated like large institutions and face costly, confusing requirements just to serve a small group of children who need them. Through my work supporting more than 35 founders across California, I see this again and again. This is not isolated.
Speaker 2
It is happening across communities throughout our state. SB ten eighty six offers a practical solution. It creates a clear predictable pathway while still maintaining local health and safety oversight. This bill does not create something new. It responds to something that is already happening because the truth is families and educators are not waiting for policy to catch up to their courage.
Speaker 28
They are already building. SB ten eighty six helps policy catch up. I respectfully urge your support. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Morning, committee. I am Melody Fowler. I'm from Reading, California, and founder of Roots Farm Education. We have been in operation for five years. I was a public school teacher prior.
We were going to become a public charter, but the governor had put a moratorium. So we were we've con we've been operating in this gray area where we are supporting home educated families. But what makes us unique is we are a farm school, and we are passionate about teaching children how to grow their own food and where food comes from, and to value everything that they eat, from eggs to dairy to meat. We have a very active four H club at our school. And it's just it's been a struggle and a dream at the same time.
Speaker 13
And I call it joyful industry because it's you have to choose your hard. But when we when I came across the microschool bill, the Senate Bill ten eighty six, I was astonished to read that it described exactly what we're doing. And we support 94 families at the moment. And like I said, this is our fifth year of operation. And we would love to be more transparent about everything that we're doing, and just offer the diversity of opportunity for all children to fit their learning styles, and to meet them where they are, and to, again, tailor it for the parents to decide what they want for their children.
Speaker 5
And, in my experience, we've had all children from all kinds of all walks of life, and many small family small business families, and children that probably, you know, a lot of kids have come to us who were bullied in at their other schools. And they're allowed in this small setting to be who they are, and we really value that. So, I, again, thank you for your time, and I encourage you to vote this through. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any other witnesses in support of SB ten eighty six. Seeing no other witnesses, we will Witness? Oh.
Speaker 14
Oh, it's a board. Okay. And we'll transfer the chairmanship back to our chair. Do I oh.
Speaker 15
Thank you. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of all of you today. My name is Crystal Williams. My two kids currently go to Roots Farm.
Speaker 1
Oh, excuse me? We're doing Me Toos right now. And so the Me Toos mean that you state your name, your organization, and your position on the bill. So this is in a public comment period. So if you could state your name and organization and position on the bill, that would be excellent.
Speaker 29
So my name's Crystal Williams. And, the organization is with Roots Farm, and I support this bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Do we have anybody else that would like to offer their support for the bill? Alrighty. We'll now entertain, speakers in opposition. Do we have anybody here in opposition to the bill?
Seeing no one rising, we'll now turn it back, to our committee. Do we have any committee comments or questions? Senator Chobog?
Speaker 14
Yes. Yes. Madam Chair, we do have a couple of questions, for the record. So our first question, Senator Dali, The bill was amended in local government committee to remove the preemption and ministerial approval provisions. Can you explain what the bill still does accomplish and why establishing statutory definitions and directing model ordinances development is itself a meaningful and necessary first step.
Speaker 26
Offering. So thank you, Chair. I appreciate having you here. This bill basically puts a name to a practice that's been going on for a long time. So microschooling is kind of ambiguous.
Speaker 33
A lot of cities don't understand what this is or counties. So when you go to a planning department and you have a microschool that might have a dozen kids and maybe in a small, you know, commercial space or at a home, to try to say what that looks like is different in every place. So we're just trying standardize that, definition one. And then two, we pulled out the mandatory or the mandate that would require cities to do this. We would like to just see a definition put together and then some model regulations that will allow for some again, a process that is noble and understandable amongst all parties as they go throughout the state.
Speaker 26
And microschools is growing pretty fast as an alternative opportunity, but this is a land use bill, and so we're just trying to focus on the land use issues.
Speaker 14
Okay. Thank you. The committee analysis notes that it hasn't received data on how many micro schools are operating in California. Can you speak to why the absence of the data is itself evidence of the problem, that these schools operate informally precisely because they have no clear regulatory pathway, and how this bill would actually help the state learn more about the sector.
Speaker 26
Yeah, and through the chair, of course, in response. We feel like the number is probably understated. There's probably hundreds, if not thousands, of these kinds of schools within the state. Most of them operate as PSA or private school affidavits, home schools. So the family may gather with another family or two families or three families, and that may exist.
They don't know that they're a microschool, or they may call themselves a co op or a one room schoolhouse. This just gives a chance for those that really want to be more intentional with their building up of a microschool community, they would have the opportunity to do that through common local regulations. And so I would say probably you're going to see hundreds pop up if something like this becomes law.
Speaker 14
Okay. Some have raised oversight concerns about micro schools. Can you walk the committee through what accountability obligations already apply to any schools operating under a private school affidavit, including background checks, curriculum coverage, and annual filing under penalty of perjury, so that the committee understands what floor already exists before this bill even comes into play?
Speaker 26
Yeah. So through the chair, of course. This bill does not create a new model. The private school affidavit already exists. They are already mandated to report every year to file in October for their private school affidavit.
They already have different requirements on safety of kids and teachers and to make sure they're teaching the K-twelve curriculum at some level. The micro schools out there are already doing this, and they're often doing this just in partnership with several homeschool families that operate with that PSA.
Speaker 14
Thank you. So we understand the committee analysis suggests that the legislature should wait until better understands micro schools before defining them in statute. But isn't the problem precisely that local zoning officials are already making ad hoc decisions about entities right now without any statutory framework or statewide consistency. Doesn't the absence of a definition produce worse outcomes than a careful definition?
Speaker 26
Yeah, Senator Suhed Chair. These ladies could tell you story after story after story of going to maybe one city planner in an area and asking for permission and having them say, Yes, you can do this, and then going to another one at the same city, same jurisdiction, having those city planners say something completely different. That often is because there's not an understanding of what these microschools are trying to accomplish. We're not building big private schools. These are not schools with hundreds of kids.
They're usually in the dozens, if that. And so we've set some standards or some frameworks for how big they can be to declare themselves as a microschool. We also ask these microschools if they want to be regulated underneath these potentially these new model regulations that they incorporate. So they're a legitimate sort of institution as opposed to an ad hoc gathering of multiple private school affidavit families.
Speaker 14
Sounds sensible. And my last question. Critics sometimes suggest that less regulated educational settings produce inferior outcomes. What does the research literature actually show about academic performance in private school affidavit settings and home education models compared to traditional public schools? And what does it show specifically about the relationship between the degree of state regulation and those outcomes?
Speaker 26
Through the chair, we are working on a model. It's kind of like every family is different. Have five kids. None of my five kids are exactly the same. And so a microschool might be helpful in some academic areas.
These ladies talked about different places. She's in the inner city L. A. We've got some up in rural Northern California. Many of these schools are students that go to homeschool or private school affidavits.
They score 15% to 25% above public school students. They are usually and 78 of peer reviewed studies show that homeschool children perform statistically significantly better than those in institutional schools.
Speaker 26
a child who's really struggling in class, finding an opportunity to go and take kids to these microschools can be very powerful. And in some of the different head to head national tests, The PSA models and homeschools can score upwards of 20 points amongst their peers in public schools. We're not saying get rid of public schools. Public schools are wonderful. My wife's a fourth grade public school teacher.
We support them. All my kids are in public school. We just want to have the opportunity for other kids to get out there if they really need that individualized education opportunity.
Speaker 14
Okay. I think I'm going to allow my colleagues, if they have any comments and questions, to move forward. I had one last but I think I'm going to wait too.
Speaker 30
Well, thanks, Madam Chair, and thanks, Senator, as well. Education has been my professional field since I was 18. I've never heard of this before. So I guess I'm not comfortable with putting the concept in statute that I don't think we understand, that we have agreement on, that we've researched and what have you. This feels to me like an issue that's real, but that deserves more extensive informational hearing or something more than we can consider in a in in legislation that sort of presumes that we have a, you know, common definitions, expectations, what we're doing here, and then puts it into the law.
So I'm you know, I I appreciate the the points. I'm not I'm not I don't quite understand the lines here between homeschooling, microschools, private schools. There's as the analysis points out, we have a lot of different distinctions that have always made the same kind of the same case. It's, you know, we're different. I'm gonna try this thing, and I'm not opposed to that conceptually, but I do think it deserves state policy attention more than simply asking the Department of Education start developing guidance when when when we've never even had a policy conversation at any length or with the other stakeholders or educators or about about what this looks like.
So I'm not opposed to the idea, but I do feel like it's premature without having done more extensive in you know, investigation policy development and making not just here in the senate, although here in the senate too, but but more generally within within k twelve education. So I'm I'm not prepared to support us today, but I do appreciate the author opening up the topic. I'm I'm glad to learn something new that I didn't know last week. And but I feel like we're it's it's just we're not ready yet to start putting this into law and giving guidance that we that we don't know what should be what that should be yet.
Speaker 14
So following up on that concern, I'm gonna, ask the following question, which states that this bill draws on Utah's SB 13 from 2024. Can you describe how that law has functioned in practice, whether it produced the regulatory overreach that critics feared or whether it simply gave families and founders the clarity they needed to operate lawfully?
Speaker 26
Yeah. So and thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. The State of Utah passed a bill very similar to this that made some definitions on microschools. And what they found is a burgeoning growth of micro schools out there where parents didn't have to worry about what one city to the next city thought about those particular micro schools.
They could go and get them approved pretty quickly. And frankly, the public schools are still doing fine. There's been not like a huge drive out of public schools, but for parents that needed that extra umph, the homeschool parents, it's been a big blessing. And we're seeing it in the state, hundreds of microschools that have developed out through the entire microcosm. They, of course, only have 600,000 students in their K-twelve system, whereas that's probably LUSD ish.
So it's a different population, for sure, but it's a model that I think if California could do, it could be a model for the rest of the country, too.
Speaker 14
Okay. And then one last question in addressing my colleagues' concerns. The committee analysis suggests that the literature should wait until better did I ask this one? I don't think I did until it better understands micro schools before defining them in statute. But isn't that the problem precisely that local zoning officials are already making ad hoc decisions about these entities right now without any statutory framework or statewide consistency?
Doesn't the absence of a definition produce worse outcomes than a careful definition?
Speaker 26
Yeah, and through the Chair, it's already happening. Micro schools already exist. They're doing what they can to comply with law as much as they can. But we would like to just make that easier for them so they don't feel like they're jumping through hoops or trying to beg city planners and others to allow them to exist. So they exist now, and we're going to invite them over the next several months to come to your offices and your districts and to share what they're doing.
Speaker 30
Yeah. So I'm just my other hat on. So as a as a as a mayor, it's it's not clear to me if I were working at the office of land use and climate innovation, how the heck I would develop a model ordinance in this space anyway. We don't we I mean, with just the information that the that the that the bill provides, like, having, you know, having been a city council member adopting things like this before, like, what are the fire safety requirements when all you know is that it's it's more than 16 but fewer than a 100 chill children, and that they're learning something and it's a house or an AD. There's no there's no basis for a model ordinance because we have no experience about the thing, and the thing itself is not defined.
So there's just no like, there's no way as a mayor I would say, hey. I trust the state of California to tell me how I should adopt parking and management traffic standards, fire and life safety standards, and all of that for something that it doesn't it can't even really define. And so the bill does not it does not sort it doesn't allow micro schools to say, hey. We don't now I don't have to deal with the city planners or whatever. It it doesn't say that at all.
Says the city planners will get a guidance doc based on nothing from from the state. So the the we're we're definite I I mean, what I said about the education stuff, I still believe we're not ready. But on the on fire and life safety stuff like that, we're definitely not ready. Like, we have no there's no there's nothing in here that would give any guidance to to a state planner giving guidance to to city planners about how you would actually adjust your your safety standards for a microschool. So I I continue to believe that the that the bill that it needs additional review of study potentially interim.
So thanks.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator Gabaldon. Senator Gomez Reyes? Okay. And we have a quorum now, so I'm going to go ahead and have the secretary call the roll.
Speaker 12
Senators Perez? Here. Perez here. Ochobog? Here.
Ochobog here. Cabaldon?
Speaker 1
Great. So we have now established quorum, so we may begin taking votes finally. I I wanted to go ahead and make a couple of comments before I had you close, Senator Dali. One, I appreciate you bringing this bill forward and elevating this conversation around alternative education models. And I think it's an important and evolving space, and I want to underscore that.
And I know families are clearly seeking a range of options outside of traditional systems. The thing I'm struggling with here is that the bill's asking us to define these entities in statute and direct the state to develop model ordinances to help facilitate their expansion, and I'm not sure that we have enough clarity about what these entities are in practice to take that step. I also think about when it's appropriate for the state to step in and develop model ordinances. In my view, that typically happens when either local governments are asking for that kind of guidance or when the state has a clear policy goal that it's trying to advance. And I'm not sure that we've fully established either one of those items yet and those conditions here.
At the same time, the sponsors have described these models pretty broadly, from small home based settings to larger operations serving up to 100 students, and it's not entirely clear what those lines are drawn or what is ultimately being contemplated. As a committee, we've tried to be very deliberate when defining education models in statute. We've spent years working through what does and does not constitute independent study, what counts as CTE coursework, how to define non classroom based charter schools or flex based charter schools, which is always a hot topic, And we only recently established clear definitions around charter management organizations. In some cases, like homeschooling, we still don't even have a formal statutory definition. Those experiences have shown us that definitions carry real policy implications.
It's something that we're very mindful here, we have a lot of discussions about that. And they're usually most effective when they follow a clearer understanding of how a model is operating in practice. So I think we we need some more information. So for me, I'm not quite there yet in terms of supporting the bill, not because I'm opposed to these models necessarily, but because I'm not sure we have enough clarity to define them in statute and direct state action to facilitate them at this time. Now Senator Cabaldin mentioned something I think is important and might help with driving this conversation.
Senator Dali, if you would like to continue working on this issue, maybe convening
Speaker 1
sort of conversation or discussion around this so that we can gain more information in order to drive a piece of legislation like this, I think, would be really helpful and powerful to this effort. And so I do not have a recommendation on this bill, and instead will be allowing my colleagues to vote their conscience. I won't be voting on this bill at this time, and wanted to, inform you of that. So I will turn it over now to you, senator Dolly, for you to close.
Speaker 1
Thank you, senator Dolly. And do we have a motion on that bill? And that bill is s b ten eighty six.
Speaker 1
So we have a motion by senator Chua Boga, and that motion is due passed to the senate appropriations committee. Secretary, can you call the
Speaker 1
will put that bill on call. Thank you so much. Senator Hurtado. Right? So next up on the agenda, we have senator Hurtado presenting SB eleven eighty one.
Senator Hurtado, you may present when you're ready. I understand, you'd like to have a visual aid, so, we have something here to assist you as well.
Speaker 9
Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the Senate Education Committee. At the start, I want to thank the chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill. I will be accepting all of the committee's proposed amendments as outlined in the analysis. I'd like to begin, my bill presentation today by honoring the youth in my district who were tragically taken from us
Speaker 9
soon. Mikaela Ryan Osorno, 11 years old. Elena Sadid Doric, 12 years old, two girls from Delano taken in 2020 Tristan Rudy Alexander Aguilar Rodriguez, 12 years old from Lamont, murdered in October 2024 Prince Michael Banner, Bakersfield, 2024 Lorenzo Sanchez, 17 years old Corcoran, 2025 Aidan Wyatt Hanford, just murdered earlier this year. In most of these cases, at least one juvenile has been charged. And in just a few years, many of them will walk free.
Just think about what that means for all of us as a state, as a community. Our kids are not just growing up online. They are growing up in a cognitive warfare era where influence itself has become a weapon. Developing brains, constant digital exposure and identity formation make young people especially vulnerable to manipulation that shapes how they think, what they believe, and how they act. And we're seeing the consequences play out in real time across our valley.
We see it in the most tragic way, young lives lost, families shattered, and other young people pulled into violence that will define the rest of their lives. But it doesn't always start there. Sometimes it looks like a game. In Delano, just this past week, law enforcement had to warn families about a viral senior assassin trend, students tracking and targeting each other with realistic looking water guns. What may seem harmless can quickly turn into a real world danger when no one can tell the difference in the moment.
These situations can escalate in seconds. And sometimes it shows up in how students treat one another. In Visalia, a group of students spelled out a homophobic slur at a school event. The harm was real. Students spoke out.
Communities responded. But what follows also matters. Backlash, harassment, doxing, families pulled into it, students on all sides impacted in ways that will follow them long after this moment passes. There are no winners in any of these situations, not the student being targeted, not the student making the decision, not the families, not the community. Because these moments are not happening in isolation.
They are being shaped, amplified and accelerated by the environments our kids are living in every day through social media, algorithms, constant exposure to content that rewards escalation, division and attention. If we only respond to the outcome but don't understand what is driving it, we will keep reacting instead of preventing. And we've seen what happens when we move too late. When fentanyl first hit our communities back in 2020, people on the ground raised alarm early. Parents knew, educators knew, district attorneys were reaching out, but our system was slow to react.
By the time the data caught up, we had already lost too many individuals and too many youth. We're in that same kind of moment again. The warning signs are there. Teachers see behavior changes. Counselors hear concerning comments.
Parents know something isn't right. Law enforcement may have another piece to it all, but those pieces are not coming together. The signal is there. The system of communication is not. These kids are not disengaging because they don't care.
Often, it's because something is happening, and we're not catching it early enough. And that's what SB eleven eighty one is all about. SB eleven eighty one creates a voluntary limited pilot program that allows Central Valley schools to communicate with regional threat assessment centers when there is a real credible safety concern. It is not bulk monitoring. It is not surveillance.
That is explicitly prohibited. This is about connecting the dots early, lawfully, and with strong privacy protections. But let's be honest, there is data that is being collected on our children by predators as we speak. We know that coordination works. Former Attorney General Eric Holder observed a fusion center prevent a school shooting in real time because there was clear communication between schools and law enforcement.
And that is exactly what this bill builds for Kings, Kern, Tulare, and Fresno Counties. The bill is careful. It is limited. It is account accountable. But most importantly, it gives us a chance to act in a modernized way.
We should not need more funerals to prove that something is wrong because something is wrong. And with me today is missus Q, Misha Banner, who will share the story of her son, prince Michael Banner, and I also have here students with me from Corcoran High School who are also living through this reality.
Speaker 1
And I do just want to note, we only have two presenters present in support of the bill, so whichever two you'd like to present, and then you'll each have two minutes to make your presentation. So just want to note that. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Senate Education Committee. My name is Kumisha Banner. I'm the mother of Prince Michael Banner, my only child, a sophomore at Stockdale High School in Bakersfield, California, who was tragically shot and killed by another student on 11/10/2024. Prince Michael was a bright young man with a contagious sense of humor and a good heart. He was an excellent drummer, a bike lover, an athlete, a dedicated student who was preparing to get his driver's permit, and he is still deeply loved and missed by his family and peers.
And his presence is truly missed. I am here today because my son's story is not just about loss. It's about the warning signs that were there and the opportunities that our educational communities had to act before it was too late. Before his life was taken, prince Michael endured over a year of targeted harassment and threats. Those signs were not hidden, they were visible, and they were not addressed with urgency, coordination, or follow through that could have made a difference.
After his passing, other parents came forward and shared that this same individual had exhibited concerning behavior toward my toward their children as well. This was not an isolated incident. It was a pattern that was missed. While my son's death did not occur on a school campus, it deeply impacted his school community. And like many families, we were left navigating unimaginable grief, having to see my child for the last time, planning his funeral, and signing a death certificate that no parent should ever have to sign.
Youth violence does not happen overnight. It follows patterns and warning signs. And when these signs are missed or ignored, the consequences can be devastating. This is why s b eleven eighty one is so important. It ensures that when students show signs of distress, potential harm, concerns are not dismissed, delayed, or lost between systems.
Speaker 38
It strengthens communication, accountability, and early intervention before situations escalate into tragedy. But I think I can't help but think that if stronger interventions and clear coordination have been in place, maybe my son would still be here today. No family should have to bury their child when there were clear signs that something was wrong. My son's life cannot be brought back, but this bill has the power to save someone else's. So please support s b eleven eighty one to protect our students, respond to warning signs, and prevent future tragedies.
Speaker 1
I'll allow it, but if you all could then present to one minute each. Is that okay?
Speaker 13
Good morning, chair and members of the Senate Education Committee. Our names are Ashley Cornell, Jason Leppen, and Jade Palafox, and we are students from Corcoran High School in Corcoran, California. We are here today to speak in support of senate bill eleven eighty one. Students like us often notice when something is not right. We hear the comments, see the post, and recognize when classmates are struggling or acting differently.
As students, we sometimes see things online or hear things at school that make us uncomfortable, but we don't always know what will happen after we report it. Most violence does not happen without warning. There are signs, but too often, those signs don't lead to action.
Speaker 31
And today, many of those warning signs start online and spread quickly. By the time adults become aware, fear has already reached our classrooms. I have seen how quickly rumors or threats can spread among students and how scared people feel even when they don't know what is true. When students don't feel safe, it affects everything: our focus, our learning, and our mental health.
Speaker 33
-Senate Bill eleven eighty one helps us make sure that those warning signs are taken seriously and responded to early. As a student, I want to know that when someone speaks up about a concern, adults, have the tools to respond before something tragic might happen. It creates systems so concerns don't get ignored or lost. Warning signs already exist, and SB, eleven eighty one makes sure that they lead to action. When we feel safe, we can focus on learning and planning for our futures.
We respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
-Thank you for your presentation. We'll now take additional witnesses in support. If there's anybody else here in support, please use the mic at the railing. Seeing nobody standing up, we'll now turn to witnesses in opposition. If there are any opposition witnesses, you can rise now.
Seeing no one standing up, we'll turn it back to committee comments or questions. Senator Gomez Reyes?
Speaker 31
Thank you. First to Prince Michael's mother, so sorry for your loss. Thank you for coming to testify. Whenever we hear testimony from someone who has lost a loved one, those are the hardest ones for us to hear, but we know it's the hardest ones to give in testimony. So thank you for starting the conversation.
And for the students, thank you for seeing this as a big issue and for bringing it to the attention of the senator who's been a great champion here in the legislature. I'm glad that it has been brought forward. I will tell you that my concern had been a concern that is noted in the summary, and that is that it's homeland security. These fusion centers are connected to homeland security. Information that's provided to them is shared with the federal government, and oftentimes things that should be kept locally do not stay local.
And they aren't always used for the best reasons. However, there are some guardrail guardrails that have been put in and it's set up as a pilot project. And I think that we could learn a whole lot for other fusion centers throughout the state of California if this is something that is successful, because if we are able to stop such a tragedy, then it's worth it. And I think that having, as was noted in the amendments that I assume the good senator accepted, it's having these guardrails and not just taking the information but providing resources. And that's really important.
And then having a centralized place where everybody knows this is where you go to provide information about real threats or perceived threats. Not throwing somebody under the bus just because you don't like them and say, oh, you know, so and so is saying things, but the the the threats will be assessed and determined whether or not they are real threats to avoid a tragedy just as was experienced here. So at the appropriate time, madam chair, I will move the bill. Thank
Speaker 1
you, Senator Gomez Reyes. Do we have any other committee members with comments or questions? Senator Chobogue?
Speaker 14
Thank you. So we've had several bills that I've seen these past six years with regards to concerns about school districts not being responsive to bullying threats or just threats in general towards our students. And there's been a lot of attempts to trying to figure out whether or not things that are transmitted or declared online after school should be a responsibility of the school officials or not. We just kind of mix comes back with the notion of how much do we collaborate with folks, with public safety officials outside of the schools or within schools during school hours. There's a lot that goes on in there.
We've also had a lot of conversations and also funding in trying to ensure that schools have access to behavioral health and mental health resources, as well as concerns about whether or not, you know, how do we report children who have behavioral behavioral and physical aggressive tendencies in schools? What do we do with these students? I want to understand the system so that we know how to proceed more effectively moving forward. I know that there are some concerns about this the bill moving forward. But I wanted to, first of all, understand how this came to be.
Right? As a parent, you feel there was a whole year of threats happening and it wasn't addressed. Do you have any information? And I know it's only been a year, and I'm so in I cannot imagine your pain. Cannot cannot walk in your shoes.
As a mother of three children, I just cannot imagine. And to be so poised and so strong to be here advocating for your child just barely recently a year is commendable. Commendable, ma'am. Having said that, I'm I think it's important for us to understand the systems that we currently have so that we can better improve them, both legislatively and locally. So with regards to your son's, can I say killer?
Can I say is that I'm not sure if that is the correct term? But was it a fellow student? And do you know if that student had received any support, behavioral health, access, any of that any help at all within the school system? So this was a fellow student,
Speaker 32
but I am not aware of the system or any resources or services that he received because they cannot provide information for other students that are not your own. So I don't I wouldn't know that information.
Speaker 14
Okay. Has your case been or has this student gone through the legal system as far as the court system? In regards to my son?
Speaker 32
Mhmm. Yeah. So he was arrested a year and seven days after my son after he killed my son. And within that time, he committed other crimes, including threats to me. So he made a song and released it all over social media in regards to details of what he did to my son, on 11/10/2024, and he also made threats towards me as well.
So he is currently being tried as a juvenile because of the law because he was 15 when he when he committed the crime, but because he was 16 when he committed other crimes, while being I mean, not even on bail because he wasn't out on release or anything like that. He was just free, and he was committing other crimes, like I said, in in addition to him threatening me as well. So right now, he is in custody for my son's, death for on first degree murder charges.
Speaker 32
he was charged? Yes. But we're still going to court. So he hasn't been sentenced yet.
Speaker 14
Okay. And I and I'm asking because we need to ensure that we have systems in place in schools to address issues, these these type of mental issues that are not appropriate. And so, you know, I'm going to be supporting the bill. We'll be happy to move the bill at the appropriate time. But I think it does beg even further conversations as to how do we get here because we as a state, there's been a huge focus on ensuring that we have resources that basically aid in the behavioral health of our students.
And if these students are not receiving that assistance, then we end up with situations of this forward. But it also goes to beg on the importance that we we create healthy environments for our students and both our families ensuring that our families have the support systems so that they can also our parents can can be here and here be well enough to ensure that you know, they can meet the emotional, physical and even spiritual needs of these children. And what are we doing in order to ensure that we're carrying that on, which is why I'm very mindful as a as a legislator to be cautious in how I speak, what I speak so that we don't have so much toxicity and animosity and, violence in our community. So thank you for being here, ma'am, and, and know that you have the immense support around you. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for being here. A this is the annual anniversary of me losing my mom when I was 12, we've had a you and several other witnesses this week have brought forward. We were in committee earlier this weekend.
The breaking of the bond between a child and their mother is incredibly personal. But I can't imagine having come to the senate at that point to make meaning and to assure that it doesn't happen to others. So just thank you so much for being
Speaker 30
For being here and to continue to fight while your fight is still fighting the case as well. And thanks to the author for for for their work and also to the students for speaking up for yourself about what you're seeing in terms of safety and how to assure that your community. I also intend to support the bill today and thank author for her continued steadfast leadership on these issues. This is a pilot program just for the Valley. As the senator said, challenge, this problem, but also the potential for solutions that that's what the Valley is best at.
Sometimes the San Joaquin Valley sometimes has the some of the worst challenges, but also the most hope, the most possibility to get something done. So very much appreciate that. I I did wanna also encourage the author as the bill moves forward, there's other legislation in the space around fusion centers in particular. And I think we'll, in addition to the committee amendments that it's been that the other legislation is carried by the chair of the committee, that will also provide additional safeguards to assure that if both bills were to pass, that I think there that this bill is is a good start on the safeguards with the with the committee amendments, but the combination of the two, I think, will be will be helpful in ensuring that that we're maximizing safety and the coordination between agencies while also protecting privacy and these days, you know, abuse as well. So wanted to note that.
And then one just one technical issue because we heard a bill in the same area yesterday, not this same topic, but this will be a little nerdy, it does it has real world consequences. So this bill amends the California Emergency Services Act to add these add these provisions, is appropriate because that's where the fusion centers are. But the history of the act creates a little unique problem here. So the Emergency Services Act, go with me for a second just a moment, madam chair, you would, was passed in 1983 and it was intended it's the fundamental brings all the different agencies together and other players. And so it directs in its original form and said, look, in the event of an emergency, you know, your water district must do this and you have to do that.
And private parties have to do this. And so at the very end of the emergency services act, it has a provision that says any violation of this act is a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment. What's happened since 1983 is the legislature has added more and more things that are related to emergency services, but that would we would never contemplate as being crimes. And so your bill doesn't doesn't I I'm I'm sure it does not intend to make not, you know, missing a deadline for a report or something else in the bill to be a crime. That's it but but it it act it accidentally does that as do every other bill that amends the emergency services act.
So so maybe a note more for the for the committee staff. This came up in another bill in natural resources yesterday that it's a pure accident of drafting because that act is now so long. Nobody ever leads all the way till the end to article whatever 87. But this there is language that says any violation of this entire chapter of the law, include which would include this bill is a crime. And, of course, that's not what's intended here.
We're trying to promote collaboration and information sharing not under the penalty of of imprisonment or or or fine. Just to encourage the the as the bill moves forward to to to at some point, we should correct that because we are adding more and more crimes that we don't intend to, in the effort to try to, and we need to be focused on the the actual crimes that that people are committing and not on on reporting on on on on on criminalizing the reports themselves. But thank you for your for your for your careful attention to getting to getting this right, but also being bold and having having the Southern San Joaquin Valley lead the way on this issue. I very much appreciate it. Look forward to supporting the bill.
Thanks, madam chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank you, senator Cavaldin. I a couple of things. First and foremost, I I wanna thank the witnesses just for speaking and sharing your story, you know, for prince Michael's mother for you being here and just you know, just speaking and sharing your story. And after experiencing something so devastating and losing your son, I can't even begin to imagine. And just what you've described and just the ongoing harassment that you've experienced, I'm so incredibly sorry.
You know, I think as, you know, we're here in the legislature and we hear issues like this and, you know, we have individuals come forward that, you know, share this kind of powerful testimony, you know, we want to respond and figure out what we can do to prevent these things from happening. And it's so heartbreaking to hear that this was another student. I mean, more than anything, it's terrifying and it's awful to hear. You know, grateful to the author for accepting the committee amendments to further tighten the spill. As someone that used to run an after school program in Boyle Heights at a high school that has had somewhat of a history of some challenges.
Speaker 29
I have seen, unfortunately, a lot of really difficult things go on, even in my own classroom. And have also worked directly with students that have shared with me some of the real challenges that they're facing at home that have really led to them acting out in a way that's inappropriate. And it is oftentimes really devastating to hear their stories as well, and to hear how that's leading to their actions, whether it be violence towards other students, harassing other people on campus, then recognizing that that behavior is a result, oftentimes, of experiencing violence at home themselves and not having better examples in their lives as to how we treat others and treat one another. And it's devastating. I mean, have many memories of working directly with students like this, you know, that have shared with me and told me that they just didn't think that there was any other possibilities for themselves.
Speaker 1
And I think in the education system, right, and you have many folks here that have worked in education, We want for our young people to, you know, come into our public school systems to really realize who not just they want to be, but who they can be. And that's the whole purpose of public education, right? And so it's the education we're providing in the classrooms. But it's also that kind of like personal development and guidance that you all experience in interacting with one another and making sure that we're providing you all the tools, especially when you're not receiving them at home. You'll notice, like the amendments mention, restorative justice.
This is one of the things that I learned about when I first started working in the education system, because it was a part of the framework that we were introducing at the high school that I was working at. And so I had to understand it to be able to implement it. And it was a really interesting model that caused me to really rethink even my relationships and interactions in my life, that really focused on centering the victim and the person that had been harmed and figuring out how you restore that situation, right, that goes beyond just apologizing, but really taking ownership of
Speaker 1
actions. And I think it's a really powerful way, especially for young people that are struggling at home, that are struggling with past trauma, to really begin that learning process and that healing. And so, you know, that's part of the reason why it's included here. I think it's a really important framework. In addition to the other pieces, right, we know law enforcement sometimes needs to get involved in these situations, especially when you have something as serious as criminal activity, as serious as someone being murdered.
And so I just want to thank the author for the work here and for working with us on this issue and the students for being here as well. These are very important topics, and they require a lot of investment. But it's so, so critical that we make sure that we're giving you all the tools to succeed. And that doesn't just mean good grades. That means that you're personally growing as well.
So, my recommendation is an I vote, and I'll let the author close.
Speaker 36
Thank you, Madam Chair, and, members of the committee for your questions and your comments. This bill was kind of the idea came forward, in working with the superintendent, from Corcoran, Unified School District, who happens to be my high school teacher. And, they also lost, you know, a fellow student there, tragically lost due to violent crime committed by another youth. And we were trying to figure out what is you know, when you're when you're hearing from from from parents, from others, from students, from superintendents, from district attorneys say more needs to be done. Right?
Speaker 9
What are you doing? You begin to ask yourself and try to figure out as much as possible what's the best solution here. And in a time when students are it's not just behavioral health that we're dealing with, I think it's more cognitive science that we're now dealing with, plus technology, we we have to really think in a in a modern way. And and there's I I understand that there's a lot of, mystery around fusion centers. Personally, I think that there's probably I personally I believe there's a lot more they can do when it comes to protecting our youth.
But, you know, my my understanding is that the fusion centers also got started right after 09:11. Right? And that their success is based on information that they receive. So if they're not receiving information, it's it's I almost feel like it's almost impossible to prevent or see a trend, as it's happening and and a crime or a threat or preventing a threat from happening. They I think that they gotta have that information.
So I, respectfully, you know, ask for a NIVO on this measure.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you so much, senator Furtado. Do we have oh, we do have a motion by senator Gomez Reyes. And the motion, for SB eleven eighty one is due passed as amended to the senate appropriations committee. Secretary, can you call the roll?
Speaker 12
Perez, aye. Ochobog? Aye. Ochobog, aye. Cabaldin?
Aye. Cabaldin, aye. Choi? Cortezin? Gonzales?
Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Excellent.
Speaker 1
So we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, senator Hurtado. Senator Stern. So I see that we have senator Stern here to present, s b eleven twenty eight. Senator Stern, you may begin when you're ready.
Speaker 35
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. SB eleven twenty eight recognizes growing body of health and scientific research about cognition when it comes to kids and how they learn and also what sets them back. I think when I was growing up in school, it was the land of paper and that was it. You know, you write with pencil or pen and things changed.
I remember there was a a sort of shift in recent years where the value of your education or if you're going to a good school meant you get you get to have a a Chromebook, you get to have a screen. And that there was this great digital divide, I think, that a lot of us have been trying to solve for a long time to try to how to figure out how to get kids who parents don't have money, access to technology. And that that that was inhibiting learning. And that was inhibiting their ability to be socially mobile as our education system is designed to do. I think that is still true in many respects, and I think that being on a screen does have really important educational value, especially at older ages, whether it's around learning creative production, like video editing, computer science instruction, research and review of artifacts.
We used to just go look up the encyclopedia. This bill is not designed to reimpose Encyclopedia Britannica on young people. This is really about pre k, kindergarteners, and first graders initially as a very vulnerable population of screen addiction. And we've seen in recent years, and even as recently as yesterday from LAUSD, as you just got an article before you, a shift in policy where the precondition for a kindergartner entering school like my daughter's about to in LAUSD is not that you have to receive a Chromebook and do your work there, or that you have to expend, say, minimum amount of time on their platform to do your work, or that your instruction in kindergarten is done, at least in part, and in some cases, over ninety minutes a day on YouTube. Watching educational videos perhaps, but never less on a screen.
We're not trying to also limit parent choice here, and parents are perfectly free to to give their children a screen. We see it happen a lot, it's hard. Parenting is hard. I know my wife's maybe at home right now trying to figure how to juggle things while I hear I'm here presenting this bill. So I'm trying to do my part too for all those working families out there.
Speaker 12
So this bill is really designed to to give parents the option to opt out of a screen based education for their kindergartner or their first grader. In addition, it tries to without being too heavy handed or micromanaging of school boards throughout the state, to try to push them to consider, at least, more age appropriate uses of technology, and especially to take a look at screen time, and how much they're pushing kids both in the classroom, during recess, and after school to be on those screens to get their education. The American Academy of Pediatrics just put out a pretty landmark policy statement based on a growing body of peer reviewed scientific evidence that excessive screen exposure, and I think they put that for a a kindergartner over forty five minutes a day, reduced attention span, increased anxiety and depression, addictive behavior, lower academic performance, weaker cognitive development. Recent neuroscience article published and presented before the US Senate Committee on Education, laid out that for the first time in modern history history children may not be cognitively outperforming the generation before them. Declines in memory, executive function, overall reasoning ability, screens can fragment attention, they encourage constant task switching.
Speaker 35
I know we all have this, especially those of us like me who live on their devices. You want to prioritize fast, do surface level processing over deep learning. At a later age, I think you're still able to lie on rely on that early early cognitive development and get yourself back on track. But, at a biological level, when children get high hardwired this way at four years old, five years old, they can't go back. Opening up that book and reading, thinking more deeply, their brains have developed differently.
There's a story of a parent in in our district, or in LA, who recently testified on the LAUSD resolution describing her kindergartner coming home from school and talking about her friend Gigi. And she wanted to who is who is Gigi. Well, Gigi's not a person. Gigi's a penguin character from her math app. And she spends her afternoons with Gigi, and not with her friends, and not talking to her teachers.
And Gigi had really become the central character in that that child's day for learning math. That particular parent now is trying to find some other district to go to where they don't force you to be on a screen. So that's really what this bill is about, is just not forcing you to have to be on that screen. I I would love to work with this committee if it's the will of the chair and and this this the committee to to keep developing this bill. We know we're in the early stages here of how do we make sure the best available science is in there without burdening our districts with any new mandates, and really how not to set the bar also too low.
It's hard often to be that parent to opt out. Right? To be the one to be like, okay, well, everyone else is on the screen, but my kid's that weird one who is not. How do you build the collective buy in? And it may be that, especially in kindergarten, it makes sense to say as a general sort of default that the school ought not require the screen time for those kindergarteners, and that they could maybe justify that in some other, you know, if if it proves absolutely necessary or it's their will to sort of opt out of that, that maybe the district could opt out.
But at this point, it's on the parents to make that decision in the in the in the bill. So I I did want to sort of lay out that potential path. LUSD has taken a harder path, a firmer ban before second grade to be on those screens. General limits of those screen time, measurement of those screen time, and between classes also, not allowing that screen time for the kids at recess. You you know, it's so funny to think that you have to tell kids they have to play, but like you have to play.
You can't sit there in the corner on YouTube. Screen devices also, where they're talking about limiting the use, for example, of YouTube with auto you know, where they where it sort of automatically brings up I forget what they call it again. They automatically sending you down another video and it auto plays and you watch something and then the algorithm feeds you something else and something else and suddenly your child is watching something that they really should not be seeing on a school issued device. But I don't presume that, you know, there's just total wisdom in just one school district, even though it is one of the biggest in the country. I think they've done a great job of doing homework here.
We want to give some of that flexibility, but it's a problem. So I I hope you'll I hope I can earn your eye vote today and give us some space to work on this. Look, big tech is is a big problem and, yes, they are designing their algorithms to to make our children more addictive and they are causing harm and there ought to be accountability in that space. But I think it's a mistake to solely put the burden there when our schools have built curriculum around screen time and we are inherently feeding that addiction in how we built this. So I think there's a better way.
San Marcos has done some really exciting work. Fresno's focusing on the younger grades. There's a number of other districts here in this state, and I think there's 16 other states in this country that have pending limits on classroom mandatory screen time in classrooms for these younger ages. And so, California's got to catch up in my view. Would humbly ask for your high vote.
I don't think we have a lead witness here today. I think LAUSD may be here to just provide any background, but also BME too. But I'm pretty sure it's just just me for the moment.
Speaker 1
Okay. Yeah. Alrighty. Well, do we have any witnesses here in support? If you'd like to offer testimony or use the mic at the railing, please do.
On ayahu kamidis with Los Angeles Unified in support. Great. Anybody else? Alrighty. We'll do, witnesses now in opposition.
Any witnesses on opposition? Seeing none rising, I'll turn it back to committee. Do we have committee comments or questions? Senator Cabaldon?
Speaker 30
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm supportive of the first part of the bill on kindergarten bar, because I think the case there is indisputable. The guidance I think we need to keep working on. It's very hard in the research to disentangle the screen from what's behind the screen.
And that's why in the privacy digital technologies and consumer protection committee, week we passed legislation on chatbot companion chatbots in kids. The other house is moving forward legislation on social media in kids. So when a device that you have access to as a child with the screen gives you access to these companion chatbots and social media and unrestricted access to regular YouTube. Mean, these things are happening. It's very difficult to to to know it's is it the screen itself?
Mhmm. You know, if and so, you know, technically, if a school district can issue a device that can only be used, you know, within the walled garden of, you know, of of its own thing in a particular instructional and pedagogy, and you can't use it for anything else, it's not so clear to me that the evidence is is definitive that doing that for forty five minutes a day is is gonna wreck your cognitive development. So I just I think we, you know, we need to we we we've gotta attack both sides of the screen, but I think continue to work on what what we're really as we're gonna provide guidance to assure that we're not that we're not temporarily there's not temporal hubris. Like, we know what the answer is today when all of this is changing, and there are other approaches. And California's market power in the ed tech space is substantial if we deploy it properly.
So if we, you know, if we had more nuanced policies that did stuff like that and said, you know, you issue a device and it can't have access, it can't leave then, it can't there's no network egress to go, you know, do any of these other sites or what have you that we could help to shape the way that some of these things move forward. So I think working in that space is I'd be committed and love to work to try to solve some of that as well. I also definition of electronic device, I hope you'll take a look at, because we keep talking about screens, but the definition, Lisa, I read it, applies to screen devices. Initial list of examples, laptops and tablets and smartphones, those are all obviously electronic devices we're concerned about. But there are electronic devices that have software capabilities that are part of science projects that have no screen.
And they may be they may be and should be a mandatory part of an engineering class or what have you. So just, you know, I I get the I I I think we we share the same interest in the screen time challenge, but we're not it's not the electricity that's the problem here, it's the content and the lack of moderation and that sort of thing. So I think you're onto the right topic. I think the reason why LA is a leader in this space is we do allow districts to innovate and to experiment and to learn. So to me, it's premature to reach broad conclusions across all of education at every grade level in every community, but the notion of guidelines is important.
Speaker 11
The only other thing I'll say about that, the bill specifically references early literacy and some other elements, this is an issue we're also grappling with in the other committees, just, you know, is and you do that in the language about developmentally appropriate, but sort of the we we need to we need to get better at figuring out what state policy is that distinguishes between seven year olds and 17 year olds. We've And been writing a lot of stuff that kind of just treats kids as kids. Yes. And the challenge is, you know, if we if if you're in a in a a in a program in high school where you're dual enrolled in college at the same time, or you and you're 16, or you're doing apprenticeship or pre apprenticeship program and your workplace has that we've got to figure out that we don't want we want teens in particular to start to become adults, hopefully while they're still living at home, if they are, and hopefully while they still have teachers and counselors and others in their in their universe. And sometimes I worry that we're we're creating a world like we're gonna completely protect children, and then when they turn 18, when they've left home and they no longer have a teacher any longer, then now you're on your own.
Speaker 30
Just go live on YouTube shorts for the rest of your life. So your bill doesn't implicate that, but I think so you're in the right direction. I look forward to working with you to try to send the right signals while also giving districts the chance to deploy things that are in the best interest of kids and that we can keep learning and use the power of California's immense school system to be able to push the technology providers also to be more responsible in the tech world to be more responsible in ways that promote both learning and safety. But I will definitely support the bill in this forum.
Speaker 31
Thank you. Years ago, I remember that as parents, we thought our children were at a disadvantage if they didn't have that screen time, if they weren't exposed to that. And I I love the fact that now it's based on studies. We now know that anxiety is it's it just as was mentioned in the article that you gave to us on LA Unified School District, the anxiety, the depression, attention problems from excessive screen time. You're the right author.
I mean you have a child coming in. Fix it. And you want to do the right thing for your child and children at that age. And making sure that we do protect them. Letting kids be kids is so important.
If they're spending all their time on the screen, then they're not going out to play. Yeah, you're right, you have to push them, know, go talk to the kids. That social interaction is so important. You talked about making it age appropriate, as was commented on by my colleague. To use technology, but making it age appropriate.
And that is extremely important. You're the the right person for that. And the the the what is the correct and and the the the right amount of screen time, and something that you are addressing. But I love the fact that we need to let kids be kids and push them out and take them away from that screen time and no more chat boxes or chat these are things that that we're we're dealing with and privacy. But I I I really like your bill, making sure that we're doing something right for the kids, especially based on on studies that have already been done that tell us what we're doing wrong so that we can start making the adjustments and correcting.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Senator Reyes. So I think we're done. I just want to thank you for bringing this measure forward. I think there's a lot of research now that we can actually look to to ensure that we are doing what's best practices legislatively for our students in K-twelve. And of course, as mentioned earlier, you are a young dad with young children.
And so you're seeing this firsthand. Just personal observation. You know, when I see so many babies and toddlers with a smartphone in front of them at, you know, anywhere I go, whether it's a store, the doctor's office, or even at the airports, just and not in a critical, you know, perspective or anything. But I just just from an observational knowing that what the science is coming out and how that's rewiring the brain of our children. I just I shrug.
I just, you know, it it it it gives me anxiety to watch that, but it's not my place to tell, you know, these parents like, you wanna rethink this? And I think this is why it's incredibly important for our educational institutions to kind of start modeling that practice because most parents don't want to be told, you know, this is right, this is wrong. They become very defensive in that mindset. And so I'm very mindful. I have two young daughters who just got married, and I'm sure they'll start their family soon enough.
And knowing my place as to when to give feedback and when not to so that it's well received, I think when we have systems in place that model what is appropriate, I think we can lead the way in changing the culture that has been fostered that says, hey, it's okay to have technology, babysit our children full time instead of having that human connection. So with that, I thank you for bringing this measure forward. I'll be happy to support the bill today. Would you like to close, Senator? Sure.
Speaker 35
I appreciate this committee, the range of expertise here. I I would eagerly accept your assistance with this. I think your point about I don't know how you you always say it so articulately, the temporal letting the you know, right? The the sort of the the moment not not become a sort of catch all, a knee jerk approach to say, if we just limit screen time, then it'll fix it. Right?
That this somehow the both sides of the screen point, I think, is brilliant. And what I'm hearing from from you and I think from the rest of the committee is, in some ways, we may not be prescriptive enough in the kindergarten section, where we are putting the pressure back on the parent to make the decision, we're not having the district model the behavior. So, that's one note to think about going forward, is whether we should be a little more prescriptive, say, on kindergarten, first grade. I think that separating high school, or even thinking about a tiered structure here of how we look at age appropriateness, it might be wise. There's a lot of of work being done on sort of cognitive development at different stages and how the brain develops, you know, at three to five versus five to seven.
Once you're a teenager, it's a lot different. And so, trying to either come up with model model policy or giving those right signals to our districts of how to, you know, sort of how to think about tiering age appropriateness, and maybe not only focus just on the screen time itself, but what happens on the screen. So, you know, should school issued devices be able to should be able to play Roblox on it? Should you be able to have YouTube autoplay? Maybe you do need it to learn about new math or science games, and it it can be valuable as you go on later into elementary school and into junior high.
So, it might be a little overly simplistic in terms of the direction in section b of the bill right now, where it just says developmentally appropriate screen exposure time, and and then balancing people's use of school issued devices with direct teacher interactions. This bill is going to need work. But I just appreciate a little bit disgrace from the committee and the sort of underlying will to say, let's not kick this can down the road. Let's try to tackle this problem. Let's let districts keep experimenting and let's let's let, you know, let our our our system sort of not be so top down, but at the same time, I think they're gonna need direction too.
And I think a lot of folks have built their technology platforms, and frankly, the whole educational experience, especially after COVID, to be screen based. And we want to say that you're going to have the freedom to do this a different way. So, with all that said, the last point was other electronic product or device in the definition of electronic device may be too open ended. We might need to clarify there that we're not talking about, you know, if you're in your electronics lab, that is not the same thing as an electronic device. It's devices not just with a platform to download, install, or run software programs, but an actual screen.
So, I thought that was a very helpful note. So, just appreciate the the depth of the the the committee's thoughts on this at the end of a long hearing. What do we say, work in progress? I don't want to say that, but I think directionally, I hope you are all bought in, but I am fully committed to working with you, Madam Chair, the rest of this committee to keep fleshing this out and and try to build an educational system that's not going to set this generation back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you, Senator Stern. We do have a motion by Senator Cobalt. I do just want to note, Senator Stern, I have a I have an eye recommendation for this, so apologies. I'm getting over being sick.
I am very supportive of this measure, just so you know. And although my personal policy would be that we would not have any sort of digital type devices in our classrooms beyond the computers, kind of like desktop computers, I've I've recognized that technology is moving forward and we need need more data and probably more nuanced policy than that. But I as someone that worked in a high school, LAUSD school, when they first did the iPad program, saw all of the issues that came along with that, especially because I was 22 at the time and working with a number of folks who did not understand how iPads worked. And it was very challenging for the administrators to catch up with the students. So very supportive of the policy.
Happy to work with you on this moving forward as you continue to develop it. With that, Secretary, if you could call the roll. And, the motion is due passed to appropriations.
Speaker 12
Senator Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochobog? Aye.
Ochobog, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi Cortese Gonzales Reyes?
Aye. Reyes aye.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Great. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, senator Stern. We now have senator Cervantes here to present SB thirteen twenty eight.
Senator Cervantes, you may begin when you're ready.
Speaker 36
Thank you so much, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm here to present Senate Bill thirteen twenty eight, a targeted but critical fix to ensure equity in higher education for LGBTQ plus students, faculty, and staff. This bill builds directly on the success of SB fourteen ninety one by former senator Aigman, which ensured every main campus has a confidential LGBTQ plus point of contact. However, that bill left a clear gap. Satellite and branch campuses were not included.
Today, there are about 100 satellite campuses across the CSU and community college systems where students lack access to culturally competent confidential support. Students at these sites are often forced to travel for hours, sometimes across an entire many counties or even international borders to find help. The LGBTQ Caucus has been doing these rural tours, and we went out to Imperial County to meet with local LGBTQ plus students. Part of that tour was a visit to San Diego State satellite campus in Calexico. The campus is just a few blocks from the border with Mexico.
We asked campus administrators if they had an LGBTQ liaison on campus from the main campus, if they ever came out, the answer was no. That means if a student is living and going to school in Calexico where were to experience harassment, discrimination, or even sexual assault, the closest confidential support system is a four hour round trip journey. That is, of course, if the student has a vehicle that does not use public transportation. They have two options, either a nine hour greyhound trip, or a crossing the border trip for a six hour multi transfer journey. So geography should not determine whether a student has access to safety, support, and dignity.
Speaker 34
This bill provides a clear fix to this problem by requiring CSU and community colleges to provide a LGBTQ plus point of contact at satellite branch campuses, either by assigning a dedicated staff member or providing regular in person or virtual office hours. This bill also provides greater clarity regarding the roles and responsibilities of these liaisons to ensure consistency across within both educational systems. This bill also aligns with state laws with current federal Title IX realities after recent regulatory changes coming from D. C. Today, we have the sponsors of the bill here to testify in support, Craig Pulsar with Equality California.
Speaker 23
Good morning, madam chair and members. Craig Pulsar, on behalf of Equality California, a proud cosponsor of this bill. And just wanna thank, the senator for her work on this issue. In 2024, Equality California was a proud cosponsor of SP 14 by then Senator Eggman. That bill, as was mentioned, required CSU and community college campuses to designate confidential points of contact for LGBTQ students and staff.
Speaker 37
These points of contact are critical resources for those experiencing discrimination, harassment, or sexual assault. They provide access to trusted individuals who understand their experiences and allow students to identify additional resources and explore their options without automatically triggering a formal report. Since that bill was signed into law, we've seen widespread adoption across the state. As noted in the analysis, all UC campuses, CSU campuses, and over 90 of community colleges now have a designated point of contact for LGBTQ students and staff. However, a critical gap remains.
Students at branch campuses, satellite locations, and other sites may have to travel hours to access this important resource. For students, balancing work, school, and other responsibilities, that effectively puts these supports out of reach. SB thirteen twenty eight is a narrow but important measure that builds on existing law by ensuring access to these points of contact no matter where someone attends school. The bill ensures access to every campus location while giving institutions flexibility to meet the requirement, either by designating additional staff or by providing regular accessible office hours. It also clarifies confidentiality protections to avoid confusion and ensure alignment with federal law.
At its core, this bill is about equity and access and ensuring that LGBTQ students and staff can access the confidential support they need to stay safe and succeed academically, and I respectfully urge your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your presentation. Do we have anyone else? Any other witnesses in support?
Speaker 9
Tiffany Mock, on behalf of CFTA, a Union of Educators and Classified Professionals honored and thank the author for authoring this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anybody else? Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none rising, we'll turn it back to the committee. Do the committee members have any comments or questions?
All right. Do we have a motion?
Speaker 1
Okay. We have a motion by Senator Gomez Reyes. I'll let you close, Senator Cervantes.
Speaker 36
Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, this bill is about closing a gap and ensuring that all students, regardless of where they attend class, can access support when they need it most, I respectfully ask for an I vote. Excellent.
Speaker 1
Great. And that motion is due passed to appropriations. Secretary, if you can call the roll.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. And we'll put that bill on call. Thank you so much, senator Cervantes.
Speaker 1
Oh, yeah. Let's go ahead and do consent since we have folks here right now. Secretary, if you can call can we get a motion on consent? Moved. Moved by senator Gomez Reyes.
Secretary, if you can call the roll.
Speaker 12
On the consent calendar, senator Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bug on consent.
Speaker 12
Ochoa Bug aye. Cabaldon? Cabaldon, I. Choi Cortese? Gonzalez?
Reyes? Aye.
Speaker 1
Reyes, I. Great. And we will put consent back on call. Alrighty. So we've gotten through all the bills.
And we I know senator Chawabog is the only one we have left. So we have SB eleven forty seven by senator Ochoa Bogh. So you may begin when you're ready, senator.
Speaker 14
Good morning, madam chair and members. I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thanking committee staff for working with my team. SB eleven forty seven will allow a local education agency to offer a one year personal finance course that could be combined with another subject to meet the personal finance graduation requirement that begins with the 2728 school year. Right now, thanks to AB twenty nine twenty seven, high school students will have the opportunity to complete a one semester personal finance course. I just realized.
Speaker 27
Give me one second. Right now, thanks to AB 2,927, high school students will have the opportunity to complete a one semester personal finance course. SB eleven forty seven will embed course content from other subjects in conjunction with the year long personal finance course. Students will receive additional background in business, mathematics and economics that will bring better real world preparedness. Additionally, SB eleven forty seven gives students the opportunity to learn practical life skills and will help with financial stability and career readiness as well as earning them an advanced placement credit.
Speaker 14
Financial literacy education will be a great asset to our young adults. All students will face many financial decisions and having access to this education in high school will ensure that they are better prepared to take on future financial commitments. A year long course will build knowledge over time and give students the necessary foundation going into adulthood. With me is Doctor. Martin Casas, assistant superintendent of educational services at Escondido Union High School District and Kara Bartel from College Board.
Megan Baer from College Board is also here to answer any technical questions about the bill.
Speaker 1
Whichever one of you would like to go first, you'll have two minutes each to present, and we'll have a timer. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Thank you. Good morning, Chair Perez and members. My name is Doctor. Martin Casas, and I serve as Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services for the Escondido Union High School District. I'm here in support of SB eleven forty seven.
Speaker 26
From a district implementation standpoint, this bill is a simple amendment that's valuable for students and school districts. It does not remove the personal finance graduation requirement. Instead, it keeps the full curriculum and the rigor but gives districts flexibility in delivering the course over a full year and integrating it with related subjects such as economics, business, or mathematics. That matters in schools where every new graduation requirement must fit within a master schedule and within the broader set of opportunities and learning experiences we want students to have. In Escondido, we have a long standing commitment to college, career, and technical education.
Speaker 11
Our pathways are built to give students a range of course choices to best prepare them for what comes next in their adult lives. This includes access to business and finance offerings, economics, and advanced coursework coursework along CTE. Schedule flexibility matters if we want students to gain strong financial literacy without losing access to other important options. With this bill, districts can offer a year long integrated course when that model makes the most sense. Students benefit from deeper learning, stronger reinforcement, and more opportunities to connect classroom instruction to real life financial decisions.
Districts benefit from added flexibility while preserving the required curriculum and rigor. SB eleven forty seven is a practical measure that supports students' choice, improves implementation, and strengthens financial literacy. I respectfully ask for your high vote. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Good afternoon, Chair Perez and members. My name is Kara Bartell, Senior Director of K-twelve State and District Partnerships, and I am here on behalf of College Board in support of SB eleven forty seven. At College Board, our mission is to give students the knowledge, skills, and opportunities they need to succeed after high school. For some students, that path is higher education. For others, it is direct entry into the workforce.
In either case, financial literacy is a critical life skill. That is why SB eleven forty seven is important. This bill keeps the personal financial requirement in place while giving schools another way to deliver that instruction through a year long integrated course. It maintains the full personal finance curriculum and the stand alone course requirement while giving districts another pathway that may better fit student schedules and local course offerings. For students, that flexibility can make a real difference.
Speaker 6
Schools are working to ensure access to A to G courses, CTE pathways, dual enrollment, and other academic opportunities while also working to implement this new graduation requirement. A year long integrated course gives students more time to build, reinforce, and apply personal finance skills in ways that connect to their lives and futures. Financial literacy is not just about graduation. It is about helping students make informed decisions as they begin earning, borrowing, saving, and planning for adulthood. SB eleven forty seven is a practical measure that gives students more ways to gain essential financial skills they will use throughout their lives.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? If so, please use the mic at the railing.
Speaker 12
McClain Merzanski with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.
Speaker 26
Matt Patton with the California Agricultural Teachers Association in support.
Speaker 1
Great. Anybody else? Alright. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now move on to witnesses in opposition. Would any witnesses in opposition please come forward?
And you'll have two minutes each for your testimony.
Speaker 19
Chair Perez, Vice Chair Joe Abogue, members of the committee, thank you. I'm Tim Ranzetta, co founder of a nonprofit, NextGen Personal Finance. We deliver personal finance curriculum and teacher professional development to 140,000 teachers and 5,000,000 students nationwide. Our advocacy efforts have led to 20 states guaranteeing a high school personal finance course. I'm here to ask you to oppose SB eleven forty seven and protect the gold standard that California has built.
Just a few weeks ago, Governor Newsom stood at San Lorenzo High School and said of AB twenty nine twenty seven, we've locked this stuff in. It's happening at a scale that no other state in America can claim. The evidence backs him up. When a state requires a stand alone course, almost every student gets it. When a state allows embedding personal finance, only 39% do.
The research is clear. Stand alone works, embedded doesn't. In fact, California has already tried embedding. Personal finance was written into the 2016 history social science framework. Nearly a decade later, it hadn't worked, and that's why AB 2,927 happened.
The sponsors say this gives districts flexibility. AB 2,927 already does. Districts can substitute the standalone personal finance course for the economics requirement. No additional time in the master schedule. We negotiated in 2024 with every major stakeholder, including CTA.
What they wanted was consistency and quality. The Instructional Quality Commission delivered on that. They spent eighteen months producing a two seventeen page framework the government called a national model. SB eleven forty seven replaces that standard with nearly a thousand district level judgments. California voters demanded a stand alone course.
Speaker 14
Districts are already building it. In fact, five schools in Pasadena Unified earned a grant from our organization by moving a year ahead of the state requirement. SB eleven forty seven undermines what the governor said was locked. It breaks a deal negotiated in 2024 and replaces a proven model with one the evidence shows does not work. We respect respectfully urge you to vote no.
Speaker 27
Good afternoon, and thank you for this opportunity today. My name is Jeff Allen, and I served as the primary author of the personal finance curriculum guide approved by the State Board of Education last month. I'm here today to express concerns regarding Senate Bill eleven forty seven. The bill analysis states that SB eleven forty seven was brought about, excuse me, based on concerns raised by entities like the College Board, that California's personal finance graduation requirement is too restrictive. You may not know that College Board submitted their AP personal, sorry, their AP business with personal finance course for inclusion in the state's personal finance guide, but it was not selected.
The content was structured primarily as a business course, with some personal finance added in. And, the year long course curriculum did not cover all of the 13 required California topics. I later met with college board representatives and outlined a potential path forward, add the missing content, and reorganize the course into two distinct semesters, one fulfilling California's graduation requirement. I also provided a curriculum alignment tool, excuse me, the same used by every comprehensive provider in the guide. The College Board did not complete that process or pursue further conversations.
Speaker 8
SB eleven forty seven is framed as increasingly flexible for LEAs, but the story behind the story shows a strategic move to introduce alternative, lesser requirements. It also sows confusion by undercutting a curriculum guide that was approved just a month ago, and based on my understanding, if passed, would require new funding and a restart of the curriculum guide process that, again, was just completed. Current law already allows flexibility through a standalone semester of a, sorry, through having a standalone semester or a full year long personal finance course. The intent of the original legislation was clear. California students deserve to be taught all topics outlined in personal finance.
Speaker 27
Integrating that content within other subjects may help some vendors advance their existing products without adjustment, but it doesn't serve California students. For those reasons, I respectfully urge you to vote no on SB eleven forty seven. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your presentations. Do we have any other, folks in opposition that would like to share their testimony? Please use the mic at the railing. Thank you, committee. My name is Tina Florence.
I'm the advocacy director for the California Financial Planning Association, and we oppose the bill. It's clear that the research has shown A name, organization, position on the bill only. Thank you. Sorry. Tina Florence.
Opposed. Senate Bill eleven forty seven. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Jessica Jessica Marquez, on behalf of, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurman. We don't have a formal position, but we do have some concerns and look forward to connecting with the author's office. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, seeing no one else, I will turn it now back to committee comments and questions. And since we have a representative here from the SPI's office, if you could just come up, please, and just explain a little bit more about your tweener position, I'd appreciate it.
Speaker 17
Hello. Thank you, Chair Perez. Hello, committee. I am Doctor. Mike Torres.
Speaker 38
I am the Director of the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division the Department of Education. So we have concerns about eleven forty seven. And currently, it's written into statute that it should be a standalone one semester course. Anyone who knows anything about math or sciences, if you add anything else to it, you're diluting it out. And so the intention mentioned multiple times in AB 2,927 was to be a standalone course to focus solely on those 13 topics identified within the bill.
Introducing anything else, may, you know, may not produce the same results that was intended, for consistent, financial literacy, personal finance learning throughout the state.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you for providing that context. I appreciate it. Do we have any other questions or comments? Senator Gomez Reyes?
Speaker 31
Thank you. Additionally, when I saw this, I thought, okay. Personal finance is great. And I thought, sitting on the, education committee of the assembly at that time, I remembered that, then assembly members, Kevin McCarty, had a bill. And as we know, it's a b twenty twenty nine twenty seven.
Speaker 4
And I remember all of the work that he put into the bill, meeting with the stakeholders, meeting as was mentioned with CTA and the legislature and organizations like NextGen, that was and he went through lots of amendments during that time because although we all agreed personal finance should be taught, it was how it was going to be taught. And when it was put together as a once semester program. It was found because of 13 areas that needed to be covered. It was the best way to do it. I am very concerned about confusing our school districts saying this is what you're required to do, and the study the curriculum, rather, was finally approved 03/11/2026.
Speaker 31
So it hasn't even been a year since it was approved, and it's now going to be for those graduating in 3,031, I believe. It's all set to be implemented, and now to tell the school districts, this is what you have to do. However, you do have an option. And the confusion that I feel that that would cause, I am concerned about that. I'm concerned about comment that was made that I was unaware of that there had been conversation with the sponsor of this bill about having their program also be part of the semester program and that the curriculum or the program was not approved.
I'm just concerned about going around something that we just approved two years ago, but just had the curriculum set up. Now we're going to implement it and now we're going to add a year long program which sounds like it's more about business than it is about personal finance. And for for those reasons, I'll be laying off today. But if it moves forward, then I I hope that you will most especially have the conversation with the stakeholders, specifically CTA, the teachers that are going to be implementing this year long program. We ask so much of our teachers and now on top of that to say you have the personal finance that's one semester but hey school districts now you have this other option.
I'm concerned about that confusion that could be caused by this. We have something that took a long time to get approved and I think it deserves an opportunity to have that implemented, especially with the curriculum just having been approved just over a year
Speaker 14
ago. Thank you. So I want to be absolutely clear. This bill, s b eleven forty seven, does not change whatsoever what has already been in place with a b twenty nine twenty seven at all. It doesn't change it.
That is still being offered by the schools in our district. What this bill allows us to do or allows the school districts to it to do is add an additional ability to combine financial literacy while having AB twenty nine twenty seven in place. It allows the school districts to, in addition, provide a year long, class that combines other financial, topics in there that will then be allowed to, expand such as an AP course. It has financial literacy in there that students can and will want to take if they want to take an AP one year long class. So this is what the flexibility allows the school districts to be able to do.
Speaker 31
I I I didn't hear I didn't read in it that it was an AP course, and I got the impression that it would include include that semester of personal finance in it. And there is the confusion that I think is being caused by this.
Speaker 14
And we'll be more than happy to work on language that will clarify that for folks, but this does not at all over override or remove that one semester requirement by the schools offered in that class. So just absolutely clear. It continues to be stated on there, but that is not at all. And if we need more clarity in language, I'll be more than happy to work with our with our chair and the consultants to ensure that we have that clarity in language, but that is not. That the one year or the one semester course through 2927 still is the standard.
Does not remove it whatsoever. This just allows the flexibility to allow for a one year course, which some students may want to take a one year course that includes financial literacy that can also then, by the school districts be able to, if they want to, not mandate, it's it's if they wish to provide a one year, AP course, that allows them to also have that financial literacy component in their ma'am.
Speaker 31
And I I would also suggest that that should the bill move forward, that the state superintendent of instruction also be included in those discussions. We I just I I want to be sure that this confusion, we have to make sure that that doesn't happen. If and if I may, there was a comment made about the fact that the the sponsor had been offered or had submitted their their curriculum. Could you respond? Could I ask yeah.
Speaker 18
Your witnesses to respond to that? I will I'm from the College Board. I we have met with, and we did submit our Advanced Placement Business with Personal Finance course to be included in the state framework. And we will continue to work with the Department of Education and the Instructional Quality Commission to move forward.
Speaker 30
Yeah. First, I remember a time when we developed courses. I mean, this kind of battle between providers of classes and instructional materials, I know it's not this is not the first one, but it continues to make me uncomfortable that we're sort of arbitrators between nonprofits and companies that produce these curriculums in the first place. Just that said. I do have a first, I had a question about the status of the course that's been now approved, the standalone course.
What is its a to g status? Does it does it have one? Do we know yet?
Speaker 27
So it'll be very excuse me. It should be very similar to economics. A g course, but has the potential of living inside of an of a department, if that makes sense.
Speaker 30
I see. Okay. Yeah. I I mean, the this is not this this is an ongoing debate, but it's this this this idea is not at all impressive. I and I and I and I and very I have very, very strongly disagree with the department's characterization that any sort of integration or embedding is a dilution by definition.
It can be, but it is not by definition. There it was, I know, fifteen years ago that this entire senate went to Long Beach Unified to explore the exciting new frontier of colleges and universities and high schools collaborating to build integrated sequences that were simultaneously career technical education and also met the A to G requirements. And at the time, there were folks saying, well, you you teach the way you teach Spanish is like this. Like, week one is hola, week two is abuela, week three is parts of the body, week four is parts of the things in the kitchen. And a couple of the health academies in the state in high school said, we're we're trying to teach health for Spanish for health professions.
So for us, week one is still hola. Week two is starting to navigate health insurance forms. Week three is is dealing, you know, with questions for a doctor or whatever. And UC and CSU would not accept this class because because they said, no. No.
No. The way that the curriculum is supposed to work, it's it's a standalone Spanish class. It can't do anything else, and therefore, you have to use our framework. Same thing. Project Lead the Way, you know, the one of the nation's premier engineering programs.
Same exact thing. If if for the engineering programs, leading leading national program. So So you have a course on the a sequence of courses that are where you're building robots, you're doing other engineering, and you're covering you're covering geometry, algebra two, trigonometry, and calculus, but not in that order. If you've ever tried building a robot with only algebra two, good luck. That's not possible.
Instead, the application of our curriculum frameworks to actual projects requires a different sequence, a different integration over a different period. Thankfully, we won, and there are now 14,000 career technical courses that are A to G certified that were not before, because we broke through and said, no, it's
Speaker 30
specific timing or sequence. It's the content. And in fact, if the content if students in that health profession Spanish for health professions, they're in that program because they're really excited about health professions. It comes alive. The students in Project Lead the Way never ask what do I need geometry for because they're using it.
And so the concept of embedding and integrating curriculum in sequences that are fully integrated and bring these things together is not some sort of untested private company trying to do something. It is where education should be happening. And so I I wanna encourage the the author to to not go only in an AP route because that's that's that to me, that's not the main use case here. The use case is that if if you build a really effective, you know, accounting career pathway program at your high school, and that accounting pathway covers every single thing in the personal finance curriculum, but it takes a you do it over a year in embed embedded in other courses. That's a good thing.
That doesn't mean you don't also offer a standalone personal finance class for every other student, but the the school should have the flexibility to be able to to to to offer either modality. And we've been so over the last decade, we've been trying to encourage schools to do more and more integrated college and career courses sequences that accomplish this, and I've and I felt this last year when we took out the other bill, mandating that every single school of every single type and every single program and every single student can only learn this in a standalone basis is not helpful. And so I think there's definitely more work to be done on this because there should be some more standards about assuring that this is happening properly. But I can see districts in my own district school districts in my own district that populate a lot of the support list of every possible shape and size that they're looking for this flexibility. I think it is appropriate and we should be encouraging more of it.
So thanks to the author for bringing this approach forward. We need to make education relevant to students and schools need the tools to be able to do that. And sometimes relevancy embedding, not embedding just in economics class, but embedding in sequences that really bring the curriculum to life. The research in this field is very mixed. I've read the link didn't work to the so called study, but it doesn't sort of takes states that have standalone versus states that don't have standalone and considers all the states that don't have standalone as the same.
But reading the actual study, there's no conclusive evidence that standalone courses are more effective than certainly than integrated curriculum. And so I think districts should have the opportunity. We have the mechanisms in the bill that the thanks to the committee members to evaluate this, but we should allow them to innovate in this space in ways that are going to make the curriculum relevant to students while delivering the quality that they need. And also for schools then to be given that a one more g requirement is a problem. Right?
The everybody's trying to define a to g, but no student ever has a trouble getting a g. They have trouble getting the rest. And so the extent to which the rest of the curriculum gets crowded out by g electives, it's harmful to the student but also harmful to the school trying to put a meaningful schedule together. So I look forward to working on it, but certainly intend to vote for it today. Thanks madam chair.
Speaker 14
Thank you. I had so I just wanna I wanna really, thanks, senator Kobolden for his remarks because I think you got it right. And I am sorry if I miss misspoke, or wasn't clear in my comments. The AP, possibility is just an option of what can be done with the flexibility. This is why we're giving the the the, local education agencies the flexibility to be able to do that.
We've heard from over 75 school districts that are in support of this particular bill that actually want that fix flexibility. But I also wanna be more practical in what this also offers. So with, a b twenty nine twenty seven also, it's it's important to note that with that particular bill, with financial literacy being a standalone course, students have to either choose financial literacy or economics. Right? They have to choose one or the other.
That was one of my concerns that I originally had with a b twenty nine twenty seven is that students wouldn't be able to take both economics and financial literacy. It had to be one or the other. Say a student really enjoys financial literacy. They really appreciate and wanna be an economics major in college. This would also allow these students to be able to take say economics or take a one year course that includes the financial literacy.
Or they can just take the financial literacy course, in it and maybe the student the the one year course allows for some economic principles to be studied in that in that in that one year stand alone course or one year course. So what we want is flexibility so that school districts can actually provide opportunity for students so that they can have a more well rounded educational system that literally provides for a variety of of, financial, understanding. So that's one of the other reasons why I think this is so important to ensure that we have it is that it allows for students to have more access to, what be may be of interest to them. And it allows the flexibility, not a mandate, but a flexibility for school districts. So, yes.
Speaker 1
I I know senator Choi has comments. Senator Choi, I'm gonna ask you to keep your comment or question brief. And then I'm going to make some comments, and then we're gonna wrap up this conversation. Okay? Senator Choi, thank you.
Speaker 3
Okay. I want to clarify a few points that I know financial literacy and some other name is personal finance courses, very important topic in this age and the students need to learn early phase of their life for them to appreciate and the importance of that and then how the money works for the rest of their life and developing saving account and the responsible spender when they become the workforce. I know it has been discussed several times in this legislature, but your bill is making optional for school districts if they choose since you emphasized the flexibility from one year one semester course to make one year and this is not mandating, right?
Speaker 14
Not mandated, sir. But just for clarity, it's you still have the one year I'm sorry, the one semester course that you can take financial literacy or personal finance course.
Speaker 7
Okay. So above and beyond one semester, one year option is up to the school district if they choose to.
Speaker 7
Yes. Okay. This is simply enough. My next question is that if this financial literacy course meets UC A to Z requirements, can they be replacing something else in an optional course?
Speaker 7
Whether this course, financial literacy, will meet the UC requirement courses.
Speaker 14
Well, this is what we're trying to allow. The flexibility is for for the schools to be able to integrate it into whatever may be necessary to create an AP course so that they could actually transfer out if they choose to do so. When The we
Speaker 18
Thank you. Answer the question. Thank you. So to to confirm and reiterate, this bill does not require any specific course by any specific entity, program, company, organization. It is simply allowing districts to choose to offer a yearlong course that contains the 13 required Yeah,
Speaker 7
question was whether this financial literacy course, if I take it, does it suffice to use the admission requirements.
Speaker 18
I only have knowledge of AP business with personal finance. And yes, AP business with personal finance is A to G not AP. Pardon me?
Speaker 18
Correct. This course this bill is about any personal finance course combined with another like subject. I only have knowledge of whether or not AP Business with personal finance is
Speaker 19
Yes. So my organization, Next Gen Personal Finance, our courses are A to G approved, both our semester long course as well as our full year personal finance course.
Speaker 19
It's uniform. I mean, districts can go in and select our course on I'm forgetting the name
Speaker 7
of Okay. That's the case, I think that's really good that the students would not waste their time choosing so many courses because their focus is getting into good college.
Speaker 11
If I can add, at our district, we actually are currently offering it through mathematics and we also have AP business principles, and there's a variety of vendors, junior achievement, NextGen, AP, all of those. At our district, we might choose to write our own curriculum, but it'd be nice to have a flexibility to do it in a year long or in a semester without any vendor. That might be an option we explore, and it could still get UC A through G approval. So it's a hypothetical. It doesn't exist yet for us as an option to do that.
But if there is the option to do it a year long, then we would write it to be A through G.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you for, the questions and, the responses. So a couple of things. One, I wanna, you know, appreciate, I think, Senator Ochoa Bogey bringing forward this bill. I understand your intent to want to do something, I think, in the personal finance space and making sure that students have access to financial planning education and that they're able to take courses like that as they're getting prepared within this kind of elective requirement as, like, a to fulfill their g requirement.
I as I have already communicated to you in your office, my recommendation for this bill is an I vote. Now, I wanna underscore, I've also heard from the folks that are here as well as from the SPI office around their concerns with the bill, particularly given that we are currently in the implementation of a previous piece of legislation that set forth some requirements for creating this exact type of curriculum. And so I understand that as well, and also hear the concerns about, you know, moving forward legislation around, you know, a particular vendor. So, you know, I'd ask senator Ochoa Bogg for me to vote aye if you would be willing to work with and sit down with the opposition, hear their concerns, and figure out if we have some resolution here, and particularly with the state superintendent's office as well.
Speaker 14
Absolutely. And senator Perez, just for for transparency, we've only heard about the opposition as of last night.
Speaker 14
I heard from superintendent, Thurman literally last night or this I think it was either last night or this morning. So we haven't had an opportunity to address the concerns, but we definitely look forward to working with, with the opposition and yourself, and the consultant of the committee, but literally last night. Yes. And so as we're moving forward, it would have been nice to have known that there were concerns prior to in order to address it, but I I do commit. Yes.
Speaker 1
Yes. Thank you so much, senator Ochoa Boghen. I I actually wanna build on your comment. So for the opposition, both NextGen, very familiar with your organization, as well as for the state superintendent's office, your concerns needed to be communicated earlier. Your opposition arrived after the deadline.
In addition to that, committee staff did not receive much of the commentary that you made today, and this is our first time hearing it, and the letter is the first time that it's being reflected. I understand that there are numerous bills moving through legislative cycle that you all are probably monitoring. Our office has to do the same thing. That goes for the state superintendent's office as well. But you all communicating that to us in a timely fashion is important so that we are then coordinating with authors because we try to approach everything with timelines that lead to fairness in the process.
So, you know, I appreciate your commitment, Senator Ochoa Bogg. I understand there were some timeline issues. Hoping that you all can discuss this and have some resolution before this gets to the floor. And we'll revisit this bill and where it's at once it does come to the floor to see what the resolution is if we've come to one. So with that, I will turn it over to the author to close.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the concerns from the opposition. I'd like to reiterate that the points made by my technical witnesses, LEAs have not adopted courses that have dissatisfied any section of the education code. The quality and rigor clause mentioned in the language of SB eleven forty seven is found in several other sections of the Education Code and have served in making sure that the courses are acceptable for students. This is not a mandate on any LEA to get rid of the one semester or one stand alone semester course.
This simply offers more flexibility for the districts and especially for the over 75 districts that we heard from that would like to have this flexibility. With that, I respectfully ask for an I vote. Great.
Speaker 1
So we have a motion by senator Cabaldon, and that motion is due pass as amended to the senate appropriations committee secretary, if you can call the roll.
Speaker 12
Senator Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochobog? Aye.
Ochobog, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi?
Aye. Choi, a Cortese Gonzales Reyes?
Speaker 1
Great. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much for your presentation. I'm gonna go ahead and lift the calls for some of the other bills. And after that, I'll be turning over the gavel to another member because I'll have to leave.
We can lift the calls. On
Speaker 1
Can we get a motion for SB ten sixty seven? We have a motion by senator Gomez Reyes.
Speaker 12
Senator Perez? Aye. Press aye. Ochobog? SB ten sixty seven?
Aye. Ochobog? Cabaldin? Aye. Cabaldin?
Choi? Aye. Choi? Cortezi? Gonzalez?
Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Is it back on call? I mean, on call.
Speaker 12
Okay. File item two s b ten eighty six. Senator Dolly, motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is one nay and no nosed. Perez, Cabaldin, Troy
Speaker 1
And we need a motion for SB eleven ten by Senator Becker. We have a motion by Senator Gomez Reyes. And the motion is to pass the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Speaker 12
Senator Perez? Aye. Reyes, aye. Ochobog? Aye.
Ochobog, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi?
Aye. Choi, aye. Cortezi Gonzalez? Reyes? Aye.
Reyes, aye. Okay. File item four, s b eleven twenty eight, Stern. Motions do pass to senate appropriations committee. Current vote is four ayes, no nos, with the chair and vice chair voting aye.
Choi? Choi I. Cortez Gonzalez. K. It's back on call.
Speaker 12
File item five, s b eleven eighty one. Hurtado motions do pass as amended to the senate appropriations committee. Current vote is four ayes, no nos, with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Choi? Aye.
Choi aye. Cortez Gonzalez.
Speaker 1
Can we get a motion on 1321? We have a motion by senator Choi, and the motion is to pass the senate appropriations committee. Senator Perez?
Speaker 12
Ochobog? Aye. Ochobog, aye. Kabalden? No.
Cabaldon, no. Troy? Aye. Troy, aye. Cortezi, Gonzalez, Reyes?
Okay. It's on call.
Speaker 1
need a motion on SB thirteen seventy four. We have a motion by senator Gomez Reyes.
Speaker 12
Senator Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoebog? Aye.
Ochoebog, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi?
Aye. Choi, aye. Cortezi, Gonzalez, Reyes?
Speaker 12
Okay. Senator Reyes, aye, on SB thirteen seventy four. Okay. File item eight, SB thirteen twenty eight, Cervantes. Motion is due to pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Current vote is three ayes, no nos, with the chair voting aye. Ochobog? Choi
Speaker 12
Choi, no. Cortezi, Gonzalez. And that bill's back on call. Yes. The rest are on call.
Speaker 1
Okay. And the rest of the bills are on call? So we're gonna go ahead and recess committee, and I'm passing the gavel to senator Chobo. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Item number one, SB ten sixty seven by Senator Weber Pearson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 14
And we'll place that back on call for our absent members. We'll continue with file item number two, SB ten eighty six by Senator Dalley. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 14
That will go back on call for our absent members. We'll continue with file item number three, SB one one one zero by Senator Becker. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 14
We'll place that on call for absent members. We'll continue with file item number four, s b eleven twenty eight by senator Sturm. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 14
Who's back on call? Place that back on call for our absent members. We'll continue with file item number five, s b eleven eight eighty one by senator Hurtado. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 19
Senator on SB eleven eighty one, senator Ortado, motions do pass as amended to the senate appropriations committee. Senators Cortezi. Courtesy aye. Gonzalez? Aye.
Speaker 14
That bill is out, seven zero. We'll continue with file item number six, s b thirteen twenty one by senator Nilo. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 12
Motion is due passed to the senate appropriations committee. Senator Perez, senator Cortezi, Gonzalez, Reyes. Okay. That bill fails. I'm sorry?
The bill fails.
Speaker 14
That bill is has failed two to one. We will now continue with file item number six, right? Six? Okay. We'll grant reconsideration to SB thirteen twenty one.
Okay. We'll continue with file item number seven, s b thirteen seventy four by senator Nilo.
Speaker 12
Motion is to pass to senate appropriations committee. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese? Aye.
Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Bill's out seven zero.
Speaker 14
And that bill is out seven to zero. We'll continue with file item number eight, SB thirteen twenty eight by Senator Cervantes. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 12
Motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Ochoa Bogg. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye.
Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Five to one.
Speaker 14
And that is out five to one. We'll continue to number 9SB1126 by senator Choi. I'm sorry. Nope. That was in consent.
So, file item number 10 SB eleven forty seven by Senator Choi Vogue, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 12
Motion is due, pass as amended to Senate appropriations. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Reyes. Okay. K.
Out six zero.
Speaker 14
So that bill is out six zero. We'll continue with file item number 11. I'm so nope.
Speaker 12
you. Senator Gonzales. Okay. Oh, wait. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. On the consent calendar, senators Cortese. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Okay. Consent's out to That. Consent is out.
Speaker 14
zero. Okay. Is out. Seven to zero. We'll continue.
We'll start up again with file item number one SB ten sixty seven by Senator Weber Pearson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 14
And that is out seven to zero. We'll continue with file item number two, SB ten eighty six by Senator Dalley. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 12
Senators Perez, Cabaldon, Cortese, Gonzalez Reyes. Okay. That bill fails two to zero.
Speaker 14
And that bill has failed two to zero. I will continue I'm sorry? Oh, we're gonna grant reconsideration on that bill.
Speaker 12
item three s b eleven ten by Becker. Bush's do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye.
Speaker 14
That bill is out seven to zero. We'll continue with file item number four, SB eleven twenty eight by Senator Stern. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 14
That bill is out seven to zero. We'll continue with file item number five.
Speaker 14
We are now adjourning this committee hearing. Thank you. Alright. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.