Senate Standing Committee on Education

[Background]

Senate Committee of Education will come to order. Good morning, everybody. There are 21 bills on today's Committee agenda. However, item number eight, AB 2254 by Assemblymember Rubio, has been pulled by the author. Eight bills are on consent. Let me list them.

They are as follows. Item number two, AB 2500. Item number three, AB 2931. Item number four, AB 2080. Item number five, AB 2096. Item number 10, AB 2320. 317. Item number 11, AB 2350. Item number 17, AB 2821. Item number 20, AB 3067. Today's hearing.

Witnesses will be asked to limit the testimony to two minutes, two minutes apiece to ensure the Committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. .., we're going to begin as a Subcommitee with the first Bill. But before I do that, let me salute the shadow chair, Senator Wilk.

This is actually Senator Wilk's last regular hearing of this Committee. I don't know if that snuck up on you, but we owe you a debt. Makes us sad, too. We owe you a great debt. You've been a wonderful Member for longer than I've been a Member. So if you'd like to say a few words. You do not.

He will save those words for extemporaneous speech during every single bill as we have come to know it. So, nothing to add? At least not. Okay. Appreciate it. But actually, I do. A round of applause for this fine Senator right here. I understand he's a man of few words, so first in order, we have AB 1142. Assemblymember, welcome. You may begin when ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. Assembly Bill 1142 will extend the sunset date for the Civic Center Act at community colleges from January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2030. The Civic Center Act was enacted in 2014 to ensure that structures and facilities built with public funds are accessible to the public for uses beyond schooling.

Community colleges are currently authorized to offer the use of facilities and grounds to a variety of organizations using a fair market, fair rental value methodology. However, the authorization is set to expire on January 1, 2025. Assembly Bill 1142 extends the sunset date by five years.

This will ensure that nonprofit organizations and clubs and organizations that have activities for athletics, for youth, for charitable purposes, or the civic wellbeing of our community can continue to use the college facilities and grounds at minimal to no cost until January 1 of 2030.

With me to testify in support of this measure is Linda Vasquez, assistant vice chancellor for state and federal relations at the Community College Chancellor's Office.

Ms. Vasquez, welcome. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Newman and Members of the Committee. I'm pleased to be here today to testify in support of AB 1142. Local governing boards are authorized to allow nonprofit organizations, clubs, and other associations to use their facilities at no cost.

In 2014, then Assemblymember Scott Wilk championed AB 1906, the Civic Center Act, to enable community colleges to charge a fee to community organizations to use their campus facilities. AB 1906 prohibits those fees from exceeding the direct cost of use or the fair rental value for the facilities. This is a good thing.

Colleges have welcomed the flexibility which has made it possible to open their doors to community organizations while also allowing them to cover the cost of maintenance, repairs, and janitorial staff time. Our Board of Governors adopted regulations that specify proportional costs that a district can include in their fees.

The Civic Center Act helped more community colleges use their community college facilities without facing deep financial challenges, especially under-resourced organizations. But without the extension of the Civic Center Act, that flexibility goes away.

Colleges will no longer be able to charge a maintenance fee for use of facilities, which means that they will have to absorb staff and maintenance costs. Additionally, our board will likely need to revise its regulations and guidance on allowable costs associated with loaning those facilities, as shared by Assemblymember Fong.

This bill requests approval from the Legislature to extend current implementation of law by extending it for another five years. If you're asking why five years? It's fairly common for there to put a sunset date on legislation.

In fact, several of our programs expire every five years, and when it is time to renew them, we respectfully come to the Legislature to request an extension. And so today, we're grateful to have Assemblymember Fong request an extension for this effort. With that, I respectfully request your support of AB 1142.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in support of this measure? If so, please come forward. Any witnesses in opposition of this controversial measure? Seeing none, let's come back to the dais. I'd be surprised if the original author has something to say here. I understand you're very shy.

Well, I appreciate the shout out, but the full title of the legislation is the Scott Wilk's Civic Center Act.

Yes, the Scott Wilk's Civic Center Act. There you go.

Anyway, yeah, we did this because of all the controversy before, and it was unfair to put on the taxpayers deferred maintenance costs for organizations that use it. So it's probably my stellar piece of legislation in my 12 years here.

Nobody laughed. Everybody took that totally at face value.

Maybe like the first time ever. But anyway, so, yeah, thank you for doing this and keeping my legacy alive. I really appreciate that.

Appreciate you.

Hopefully you're here long enough, you can reauthorize in five years.

And erase the specter.

I'm happy to make the motion when we have a quorum.

And I'm happy to support the measure when we have a quorum. If you'd like to close.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Senators. Respectively ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. So in the absence of a quorum, we will take that up when we do have one. Thank you, Ms. Vasquez. Thank you, Assemblymember Fong. Welcome to my Vice Chair, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Assemblymember Chen, welcome.

Thank you so much for your time, Mr. Chair. It's always a privilege and a pleasure to be here.

It is our privilege.

And also, I want to thank Senator Wilk for all that you've done throughout the years. You are the walking buddha of all things good.

When I look in the mirror, I ask myself, what would Scott Wilk do? And then I act accordingly.

Don't we all?

Even better. So again, thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to present AB 3167. Under current law, many nonprofit universities fall in the same regulatory category as vocational schools.

This important law established protects students from predatory institutions now has an outsized effect on institutions that merge with California schools such as Northeastern University and Mills College.

While this important law protects against fraud that could lead to loss of students' tuition and fees, it no longer serves students attending certain highly qualified institutions that remain committed to educating California students.

As more colleges and universities merge, highly qualified nonprofit institutions with approval to operate in California should not be required to submit students to a burdensome regulations and restrictions based on bureau rules that were established for more risky institutions.

Currently, students attending nonprofit universities regulated by the private post secondary bureau must declare a course of study before beginning courses. Students must also pay a fee known as the Student Tuition Recovery Fund. Students attending private universities are exempt from bureau regulation and are not required to declare a major or pay what we call the STRF.

AB 3167 offers highly qualified institutions an alternative approval pathway when maintaining bureau oversight and safeguard for students. This bill ensures important safeguards are in place.

To be considered highly qualified, institution must be nonprofit, not have operated for profit in the last 20 years, awarded at least 500 degrees per year, be accredited for at least 10 years, and the board of directors must not have equity interest in the accrediting agencies.

Here to testify, we have Renée Jadushlever of Northeastern University, Alex Graves of AICCU. We also have Mike Ferrari of Northeastern University for any technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Newman and Committee Members. My name is Renée Jadushlever. I am Vice President for Campus Administration and Strategic Initiatives at Northeastern University, Oakland.

Prior to joining Northeastern for 31 years, I served in a variety of leadership roles at Mills College, an historic private liberal arts college and leaders on issues of equity, social justice, and women's leadership. Founded in 1898, Northeastern University is a comprehensive, nonprofit, global research university and the recognized leader in experiential learning.

In July of 2022, Mills College merged with Northeastern, joining Northeastern's network of 13 campuses across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, including a campus offering graduate programs in San Jose, which opened in 2015.

Under current law, high quality nonprofit institutions that maintain a physical presence in California but which are headquartered outside the state, such as Northeastern, fall into the same regulatory category as private, for-profit institutions and vocational schools offering short term training programs.

The intent of AB 3167 is simple, to streamline the process for oversight from the Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education for high quality nonprofits like Northeastern, but only when those institutions meet rigorous quality standards, protect students, and maintain consumer safeguards. Importantly, the bill would eliminate requirements under current law that impede student academic progress for California students.

For example, at comprehensive nonprofit research universities, academic exploration and discovery are the hallmark of an undergraduate education, particularly during the first year. The bill would correct the practice of requiring students at such institutions to enroll in a degree program before they have decided on a major and career pathway.

Additionally, the bill would ease administrative burdens and reduce delays for new program approval so that highly qualified nonprofits can respond quickly to market demands and meet the needs of California employers for skilled talent. Thank you for your consideration. I respectfully request your aye vote.

And thank you. Good morning, Mr. Graves.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Apologies for coming running. I have the privilege of getting to be in two places at once this morning. Alex Graves here on behalf of AICCU and our 89 member institutions, all of which are private, nonprofit, accredited colleges here in the state California.

While our members are exempt from BPPE, we do appreciate and value the important role they play in providing strong consumer protections and safeguards for students here in the state. With the changing higher education landscape, we believe this bill makes some modest but important changes to address some unique issues that Northeastern has highlighted.

And we believe that even with this legislation that's put forward, there are still again those strong consumer protections for students in place through the bureau's role. So with that, I would just say thank you and ask for your support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support here in the hearing room? If so, come forward. Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition? Welcome.

Mr. Chair and Members. Barrett Snider, on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success. Raise some issues with the bill in BNP earlier in the week. My colleague David Nevin, we've communicated with staff. You have our letter, we've talked to the author. Have a commitment to work on that over the summer. Just wondered. We're kind of opposed unless amended position. We're going to work on it over the summer. And thanks for your willingness to do that. Thank you.

I appreciate that. Any other witnesses in opposition? Any tweeners? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Snider. Back to the dais. Questions? Comments from my colleagues? Okay, you're good. We still don't have a quorum. If you'd like to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank our witnesses and also our opposition. We are working closely on alleviating some of the concerns that they have. And I believe that we can come to a consensus before summer recess.

Thank you, Senator. Before or during? Thank you. I'm glad to support it. We'll take a motion when we do have a quorum. Thank you to the witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Graves. Well done. You can run from here. Next up I see Assemblymember Ramos, welcome. You are presenting AB 2711. You are welcome to proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Senators, I want to thank you. And I would start off by accepting Committee amendments which ensure that students who seek out help for their substance use are not punished. AB 20711 brings up brings us a step closer to supporting our youth who may be struggling with substance use.

It aims to be proactive rather than reactive when addressing these issues. It makes the crucial move of ensuring students are offered supportive services, providing a much needed lifeline for those who may be struggling.

The numbers show that the status quo of resorting straight to suspension is negatively affecting our youth, especially boys social economically disadvantaged students and youth of color. In order to better protect our youth, we must look at addressing the health needs of students in these situations to reduce the likelihood of future substance abuse and addiction.

With me today to testify is Lucian Mordecai with the Sacramento Youth Action board and Danny Theracial. With the California Youth Empowerment Network.

Welcome to the witnesses. You each have two minutes. Please proceed.

Good morning, chair and Committee Members. My name is Danny Thirakol, public policy coordinator for the California Youth Empowerment Network, also known as Cayenne, and we are proud co-sponsors of AB 20711.

Kyan is a transitional age, youth led, or tay led organization dedicated to empowering youth ages 15 to 26 across the state to influence and create mental health and behavioral health policy that directly affects them.

We have a program called the IAM Collaborative that empowers LGBTQIA and BIPOC Tay to advocate for substance use prevention through social change campaigns and advocacy through art.

In Sacramento and Los Angeles, we have talked directly with youth with lived experience of substance use challenges in all corners of our state about how we can better support them, and the consensus is clear. Our youth want help and support.

They want to be able to confide in their community or school and receive support and services, but fear punishment for disclosing their substance use. Under current law, youth are subjected to discretionary disciplinary policies in schools that disproportionately impact youth of color.

The California Department of Education reported that 83% of drug related suspensions are of socioeconomically disadvantaged students and 83% of those suspended are youth of color. These punitive policies do not provide a safe and supportive environment for youth to step forward and ask for help. In fact, they do the opposite.

They cloak us in fear and push youth away, further stigmatizing the issue and making matters much, much worse. The current use of suspensions and expulsions to address substance use has lifelong implications. Suspending our youth isolates them from school resources, instructional time, and their support system.

This often leads to continued substance use and can result in justice system involvement well into their adult lives, perpetuating the school to prison pipeline. AB 20711 empowers our youth to be able to ask for help without those repercussions, ensuring our schools can connect our youth with the support and services they are asking for.

We ask for your support today on AB 20711 which will support youth in California struggling with substance use.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next witness good morning.

My name is Lucian Mordecai and I'm part of the Sacramento Youth Action Board. I'm a queer young person in recovery. At the age of 14, I sought refuge in sepsis during an era of profound personal struggle. High school. Reflecting on the past decade, I recognize a pattern that I see too often, a failed system.

Sadly, the interventions to address my actions were intimidating, devoid of nurturing support and furthered my reliance on substances. The consequences I faced cause shame, guilt, and isolation. The system's failure to recognize the true issue, that of its own flood, responds to the plight of young people like me. It was glaringly apparent.

It's undeniable a reality that youth who are people of color, LGBTQIA, unhoused, or within the foster system, bear the brunt of punitive measures related to substance use. These intersectionalities amplify their suffering.

Yet this critical lens is frequently ignored or silenced when in discussion navigating through multiple layers of systematic oppression, they face the challenges associated with substance abuse as well as disproportionately severe disciplinary actions. Our advocacy must be infused with empathy and commitment to equity, ensuring that our youth are met where they are at with care rather than condemnation.

Together, we can dismantle the barrier to healing only by truly listening to the youth that are our futures. Too many of my friends, peers, and loved ones have been lost to a system that masqueraded punitive measures of support, leaving behind so many dreams that should have flourished into beautiful futures.

I refuse to stand by and watch as more youth are pushed into jails, institutions, or deaths because of a flawed system. Substance use is a reality that cannot be ignored, a persistent challenge that demands our attention and compassion. It isn't something that will disappear, and our youth will continue to face it.

They need our unwavering support and our willingness to trust, truly listen, and understand the depth of how they feel. Through Bill 20711 I believe we may start to provide the kind of support that empowers our youth to thrive into the futures they so rightfully deserve. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? If so, please come forward with your name, organization, your position. Good morning.

Kelly Brooks, on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California here in support.

Thank you. Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists and Support. Thank you. Thank you.

Rachel Bhagwat with ACLU California Action in support.

Thank you.

Ana Iokimevi's on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister chair and Senators Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education and we support the Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Proud co-sponsor thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Adrienne Shilton with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services. Proud Cosponsor thank you. Nora Lynn with Children Now, proud co-sponsor thank you.

Gia Chen, on behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction programs, and professionals and strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ella Conley, on behalf of San Diego and Oakland Unified aid support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Paige Clark with the National Center for Youth Law and strong support.

Thank you.

Janine Cohen, parent to high school students and part of Berkeley families for collective liberation, in support.

Thank you.

Candice Youngblood, I'm in support. Public school teacher thank you. Harris Taylor, Berkeley Unified School District public education teacher, in support.

I'm sure I couldn't hear you.

Caris Taylor, Berkeley Unified special education teacher, in support. Thank you.

Ann Wolf, educator and Berkeley parents for Collective Liberation, in support.

Thank you.

Berkeley parent and part of the Berkeley families for Collective Liberation, in support of that.

Thank you.

Nicole Wortleman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support, thank you.

Miss Wordleman. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Any opposition here? Seeing none. Let's come back to the dais. Questions, comments, colleagues on the measure. Senator Ochoa Bogh, thank you.

Thank you for bringing this measure forward. I do have a question with regards to, I absolutely sympathize with the idea that if a student is seeking help that I don't know of any school, I don't know, maybe you have the data.

I don't have the data of schools actually suspending students or expelling students for having these substances on hand. Do we have data that shows that we have school districts that if a student is seeking help, that they are being expelled or suspended?

This Bill would put forward that stipulation that if a student is asking for help, that they can't be then suspended or expelled for seeking that treatment. Early on in the Bill on the Assembly side, we got into different debates and we took some Committee amendments to clarify some of those changes.

Okay. Because I just, I was just kind of curious. We're very data driven in the Legislature, so I was just wondering whether or not we actually had record of school districts actually suspending students for seeking help, admitting that they have an issue or themselves, and seeking help and being expelled. I don't know if we have the data.

Do we have. I'm not sure if the Committee knows or not, but, so that was my question. And number two, the concern that I would have is if a student is doing something wrong, I mean, pretty heavy at school.

I can't think of an example right now, but if they're doing something, say illicit or something that is dangerous at the school campus, can a student use this as a measure to avoid getting in trouble and being redirected to get help and resources, which ultimately is what we want them to do.

But will this be used basically as a, quote, unquote, cop out from getting in trouble?

So part of the data does show that over 70% of adults that are addicted to some type of form of substance abuse, alcoholism and other things, started off at an early age in k through 12.

This is a proactive measure to start to seek those resources and get them the resources they need if they so choose to come forward and say they have an issue with some substance abuse.

As far as the component in the Bill that now is amended out, we'll be working with that next year that dealt with different liabilities and different areas in there. What can be suspended and what couldn't be with different substance like fentanyl and those things.

This is purely trying to be proactive to somebody that's seeking support from the school system to be able to be afforded that resource in front of them. It's not meant to be a preventive measure for someone to not be able to be expelled, but they can't be expelled for purely asking for that help.

And I absolutely, I absolutely understand that point.

I'm just, you know, kids are very smart, people are very smart, and I just want to make sure that we understand that there could be a potential that if a student does something wrong, they could say, well, you know, I have a problem with alcohol or drugs, I need help and therefore not be accountable to their actions.

That's the concern that I want to express because I know a lot of teachers, especially in high school, are very frustrated that they don't have a lot of tools in order to exercise discipline and acknowledge some of the behaviors that are happening in the classrooms.

High schools are very different from when you and I went to school, and teachers are challenged with a lot of behaviors that really are very disruptive.

So I just want to make sure that we all understand that this well intended could also have consequences in which people could, or students in this case, could use it to get away with behaviors that are not, that are disruptive. I'll just put it that way.

Well, thank you for that and for your question. This is meant to be proactive, even if it saves one youth from going down that track of addiction as an adult. We're doing our part as a State of California. It's time that we start to be more proactive.

And on the other side of the coin, if someone is using it for that sense to move forward, isn't it worth it here in the State of California for our youth to be able to have a voice to say I need help, and get them the services they need early on, rather than dealing with the 70% that's out there that's addicted to substance abuse, alcoholism that started off at a young age.

I think this Bill starts to bring that balance back into play.

I absolutely agree with you on that end. I just want to make sure that we understand what that. And that's why I was asking.

My first question was with regards to the data as to whether or not we actually have school districts that were known to expel students or suspend students for seeking help, with regards to disclosing whether or not they're addicted. That's why my first question and then my follow up question to that, this.

Bill would make it so that someone that is seeking help cannot be expelled or suspended for purely seeking that help.

Appreciate that. Any other questions, Senator Wilk, anything? Let me add. I mean, I think it's a testament to the Bill that there were so many school related entities here, PTA's, school districts, etcetera, which speaks, I think, to the validity of the objective here. So I appreciate that. I'm glad to support the Bill when we have a quorum.

We do not yet, but we'll take up a motion when we do. If you'd like to close the.

Thank you. Thank you for the questions from the dias. Truly look forward to your support and I ask for you aye vote on this Bill when it comes forward.

Thank you. Thank you to the witnesses. And we'll take that up when we have a quorum. Next, I see Assemblymember Soria. Welcome. Good morning. I understand you had some traffic issues. You have made it through and welcome. You'll be presenting AB 2104 at your ready. And welcome to your witnesses.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'd like to start by thanking the Chair and your staff for the hard work on this bill and helping facilitate also conversations between our office and Senator Roth's office.

I would also just upfront want to state my commitment to continue working with Senator Roth's office to reach an agreement on how both of our bills will move forward that preserves the amendments made by this Committee to SB 895.

AB 2104, which is a Latino Caucus and Women's Caucus priority, will help address our healthcare workforce shortage and improve the access and affordability of a nursing degree by establishing a pilot program allowing community college districts to establish nursing bachelor degrees. One of the most significant consequences of Covid-19 pandemic in California has been an unprecedented nursing shortage.

California is projected to be short over 44,000 registered nurses by 2030. This shortage is felt the hardest in rural areas like the Central Valley, which I represent, where we've already seen Madera Community Hospital close, in part due to its lack of available local medical personnel.

While our exceptional community college system has provided many students with an associate's degree in nursing, our healthcare system more frequently demands a bachelor's degree. While our rural students would love to complete their education at a CSU campus, they don't always have the transportation to reach these schools. And when they do, there may not be any slots left.

In particular, in my district, many in the rural communities have to travel more than an hour plus to be able to reach a state university. With housing costs and transportation costs increasing every year, this is becoming a greater burden for our students in these small rural communities.

And so what happens is that, too common, our most promising students have to uproot their lives to go to schools in other parts of the state, even out of state, and never coming back or attending closer.

When they go and attend a private university, they never come back, or they are settled with a lot of debt, because how expensive these programs are when they go to private universities. So we also know that data shows that students who are likelier to stay where they essentially get educated and trained.

And so our community colleges are the most affordable. I think the Legislature has done a tremendous job to ensure that, and they're the most accessible when it comes to higher education options for our California students.

And I will say for rural students predominantly. They are the solution, part of the solution to our healthcare workforce shortage that has been staring us in the face this whole time. The community colleges are ready to meet this challenge. All we have to do is allow them to.

So AB 2104 does this by directing the Community College Chancellor's Office to select up to 15 community college districts to participate in a pilot program or project to offer a bachelor's degree in nursing.

With me here to testify in support, I have Dr. Carol Goldsmith, the Chancellor of State Center Community College, which is in my district, and then also Vanessa Gonzalez, representing the California Hospital Association.

Good morning. Who's first? Dr. Goldsmith. Please proceed.

Yes. Good morning, and thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. We really appreciate your time. My name is Carol Goldsmith, and I'm the chancellor of the four colleges in the Central Valley. As Assemblywoman Soria shared, Central Valley is really facing a significant nursing shortage, as is the state. But it's really been exasperated in the Central Valley. This is in an area where the population is medically underserved and has continuing growing healthcare needs.

The crisis is critically evident in my region, where a number of limited nursing programs have been impacted, leaving many of our young talented no other choice but to seek outside options outside our state, outside our region, or perhaps enroll in very expensive private programs, some charging up to upwards of $150,000 per year.

The shortage has also created a reliance on traveling nurses, which has contributed to increased costs of providing healthcare and was in part due to the closure of Madera Community Hospital.

We also know that the increased demand for bachelor prepared nurses at our hospitals are forcing our hospitals to not be able to meet that need, and many of our hospitals in our region are on a watch list because of that.

Thankfully, Assembly Bill 2104, authored by Assemblywoman Soria, aims to help alleviate these issues by establishing a pilot program that would allow community colleges to offer bachelor's in science and nursing. Community college degree programs are extremely affordable. New nurses we know that leave the private postsecondary enter into just a world of debt.

We know that students in our area often are first generation, often coming from impoverished homes. This just seems like an unbearable debt, a burden for these students. Allowing community colleges to offer this degree serves as an important social need. Not only will it expand educational opportunities for a broader range of potential applicants, particularly in the rural area.

I'm going to ask you to finish up.

Sure. But it will also establish a healthcare system better to serve disadvantaged communities by enhancing the diversity of our profession. We know that California community colleges at Hallmark is serving diverse students. We know that being able to do this, we would be able to have a more diverse workforce, a more diverse population to serve. We ask that you support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Gonzalez, welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association, representing over 400 hospitals and health systems in California, here in support of AB 2104, and would like to thank Assemblymember Soria for her work on this important bill. As you know, California is in a healthcare workforce crisis.

According to a study by UC San Francisco, California had a shortage of 40,000 registered nurses in 2021, and our members continue to report challenges finding and retaining nurses with nursing positions being open for months at a time. The challenges are even greater in underserved communities and rural parts of the state.

This critical issue highlights the importance of innovative solutions. One such solution is to address the nursing shortage is by utilizing California's community colleges. Community colleges play a vital role in providing affordable, accessible, and quality post secondary education, particularly for students facing financial and logistical challenges.

By expanding baccalaureate degrees in nursing to community college colleges, AB 2104 would empower more students to pursue higher education in nursing, which will help meet the demand for highly qualified nurses and hospitals and other healthcare settings.

Additionally, because community colleges are affordable and serve a diverse student population, the nursing workforce will become more reflective of the communities it serves, leading to better patient care and outcomes. Finally, while the majority of hospitals do not require BSN degrees, many hospitals prefer nurses to hold baccalaureate degrees to meet accreditation and quality standards.

AB 2104 will help provide graduates with more job opportunities and avenues for career advancement. For these reasons, CHA respectfully requests your aye vote on AB 2104. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in support, please come forward.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Justin Fanslau, on behalf of President Chris Vitelli of Merced College. Also in support, on behalf of the California Association of Nurse Anesthesiology and Davita. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Chair and Members, Anna Matthews, on behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Lorraine Smith, Dean of Nursing at Fresno City College, in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Anna Ioakimedes, on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ella Connolly, on behalf of San Diego Unified, in support.

Thank you.

Kelly Brooks, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, the Rural County Representatives of California, and the County Health Executives Association of California, all here in support.

Thank you.

Kristy Foy with Arnold and Associates, here on behalf of Fresenius Medical Care and California Kidney Care Alliance, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Nuna Garapein, on behalf of the Community College League of California, representing the state's 116 community colleges, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, good morning. Carol Gonzalez, on behalf of Long Beach City College, in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Kasia Hunt with Nosman here, on behalf of Citrus College, North Orange County Community College, and Mount San Antonio College, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Jeanine Cohen, parent and constituent of California, in support.

Thank you.

Charis Taylor, public educator at Berkeley High School, in support. Thank you.

Okay. Opposition? Do we have opposition witnesses? We do. Please come forward to the table. Welcome. Each of you will have two minutes as well.

Good morning chair and members of the committee, I am Rehman Attar, the director of healthcare workforce development at the California State University Office of the Chancellor. We believe that AB 2104 won't achieve its goals and it won't add more notices into California's workforce.

To be clear, ADN to BSN programs throughout the CSU have no waiting list and accept all eligible applicants. There are numerous online programs to serve rural students. Therefore, AB 2104 will only serve to siphon off students from community college ADM programs coming into the CSU.

Additionally, AB 2104 will not create any additional nurses since it doesn't overcome core nursing educational barriers such as clinical placements and strict regulations by the states BRN, which affects all nursing programs.

Despite this, the CSU has invested in effective solutions to address these challenges through online programs, which can serve rural and non traditional students as well as partnership programs. Partnership programs increase accessibility and reduces the time of completion of both an ADN and BSN degree program from four to six years to three to five.

Partnership programs are cost effective and provide streamlined curriculums, national accreditation for community colleges, clinical placement coordination, faster pathways to graduation and built in financial support for students. 13 CSUs have partnership programs with over 35 community colleges with more upcoming and unfortunately, Fresno City College has chosen not to participate in these partnership programs.

The CSU is renowned for its excellent quality nursing education, on time completion rate, graduation rate, licensure, pass rates as well. Every CSU nursing school has NCLEX passage rates of at least 92% and above compared to community colleges 86%. Bachelor degree nursing programs are not easy to establish.

There are resource intensive initiatives that require additional faculty Administration, clinical placements, and accreditation expenses. I also urge the committee to look into the cost of community college bachelor degree programs and consider that education code currently authorizes community colleges offering bachelor degree programs to charge fees up to what the CSU charges, therefore providing no financial incentives to students.

Can I have to ask you to finish up?

In sum, AB 2104 is not necessary. It is costly. It creates a precedent of duplication, which will be harmful for inter segmental effectiveness and collaborations. For these reasons, the CSU requests a no vote on AB 2104 thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair and members Nick Romo with Career Strategies on behalf of AICCU pinch hitting today on behalf of Alex Graves, I'm AICCU, representing 89 independent nonprofit colleges and universities in the state, including over two dozen that offer nursing programs.

Our colleges and universities are a leader in the state's production of the nursing workforce. In 21-22 our programs produce 46% of the new baccalaureate degrees in nursing in the state. And if you include advanced degrees, we're looking at over 50% of the four year and advanced degree nursing students in the state.

We want to be clear that we welcome discussions on how the state can work to improve and expand the nursing workforce and how to meet rural healthcare needs. Our opposition is rooted in three key issues.

The major impediments to increasing enrollments in nursing programs are really a lack of clinical placements and a lack of qualified faculty to teaching programs.

Neither of those issues are addressed in this bill, and therefore, we do not believe that this legislation will add a single additional nursing student into the pipeline to address workforce shortages, according to that research from UCSF.

In fact, the nursing shortage in the state is expected to be resolved in the next few years, looking at 27-28, which brings into question why we are in such a rush to expand the degree authority in this case.

We believe this bill disincentivizes intersegmental collaboration, which have been demonstrated to provide collaborative, effective and expedited ADM, or BSN pathways for students. These programs and pipelines are already equipped with the resources, such as adequate clinical placements, distance learning modalities and faculty to teach at this level.

Additionally, to note that the state budget includes $60 million that, among other things, supports further expansion of these models between community colleges and the four year institutions. It has been suggested that private colleges are unaffordable. On that, I would note that National University offers ADN, the BSN online program that costs $17,000.

I have to ask you to finish up.

Sure. In some in short, we believe that this bill does not address the nursing shortage. We believe the bill is a jailbreak of last sessions agreement that community colleges should have expanded baccalaureate authority.

Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition please come forward.

Ron Norby, Director of the School of Nursing, California State University, Dominguez Hills, in opposition thank you.

Penny Weismuller, director of the School of Nursing at Cal State Fullerton, in opposition thank you.

Good morning. Mechelle Best, dean for the College of Health and Human Development at Cal State Northridge. Nursing is in our college. We oppose, thank you.

I'm Dave Hassenzahl. I'm the dean of the College of Natural Sciences at California State University, Chico, which includes the school of Nursing. Opposed thank you.

Celestina Barbosa-Leiker, dean of the College of Health and Human Development, which includes the school of Nursing at Cal State Fullerton. Opposed thank you.

Christine Isaacson, faculty member, senator, Academic Senate for the California State University System, representing all 23 CSU campuses. We're in strong opposition of this bill. Thank you.

Doctor Marla Seacrest, Director of the School of Nursing at Stan State, and we oppose.

Thank you.

Phyllis Salopek, Assistant Director at CSU Chico, in opposition. Thank you.

Hi. Elaine Musselman, director of school of nursing at San Francisco State University opposed.

Thank you.

Hi. Lisa Rauch, director of the Valley Foundation School of Nursing at San Jose State opposed.

Thank you.

Hello. Rebekah Child, program director at Cal State University Northridge. We have unlimited enrollments online fall. Just putting a plug out there for all of you, even in your district.

Thank you.

Tanya Altmann, chair of the Sacramento State School of Nursing, in opposition. Thank you.

Fay Mitchell-Brown, director of School of Nursing, CSU Chico, a rural area. We oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Good morning. Steven Filling, on behalf of the California Faculty Association, speaking in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister chair and members Jason Murphy, on behalf of the University of California, we do not have a position on this bill at this time. However, the University does offer BSN programs at both Irvine and UCLA. We are concerned about the duplication presented here. Appreciate that.

Thank you. Come back to the dais, colleagues question. Comments. Senator Ochoa Bogh, go ahead.

Thank you, sir or Chairman? Sir?

Sir is fine. Go ahead.

Welcome. Glad to hear this bill, and I know we've heard similar words from Senator Roth. So a couple of questions that I've been asked to put on record here. So we've heard about the challenges that occur in securing clinical placement sites for nursing students.

How would the community colleges address these challenges differently from what our universities already do?

So the bulk of the clinical sites at the hospital sites happens during the first two years of education, which community colleges already provide for the bachelor's portion. That community health requirement or practicum work is nothing at the hospital sites. A one on one practicum, it can be done in a number of community health settings.

It can be done with their supervisor. It's done post licensure. It does not take away any clinical sites in the traditional method of meaning clinical. Being at the hospital site, it's more of a practicum. It's a one on one.

Many of our adjuncts could also serve in that role to be able to be the practicum advisor during that bachelor higher ed component. So it's not the clinical sites that we often think about when we think about the juggernaut of a wit to expand.

Okay, so it's on the first two years, not the second year. And it could be done in alternative other than the clinical sites. So we got that addressed.

Does the current infrastructure of ADN to BSN and partnership programs in the state adequately support the expansion of nursing programs to meet the workforce demands for BSN graduates who graduate in a timely fashion?

Yeah, I would argue it doesn't. And I would think this is not a zero sum game. This is a health crisis. I think we're going to need all of our institutions working together. And it's been mentioned here that Fresno State and Fresno City is not working together. Fresno City and Fresno State is working together.

In fact, they're helping us with our ACN licensure. We have a number of grants together. We know that they turn away students. We turn away students. We cannot, as a state, turn away any student, the privates, the four year or the two year.

So it's interesting because I heard from one of the witnesses that there are currently no wait list for nursing.

There are. In the Central Valley. I can't speak to what the woman spoke to in Southern California or the other part, but in the Central Valley, they're not only waitlists, but we're turning away hundreds of students.

Okay, well, send us a data and we can look at that if you disagree. In regard to the faculty shortages, which is a huge component that we've heard in the past, not just in this committee, but in other formats of discussion, what strategies are in place to ensure that there are enough qualified faculty members to teach in both your University's and community college nursing programs?

Sure. So in order to be able to teach, the requirement to teach for a bachelor's program is a master's degree. Every community college faculty member also has to meet minimum quals, which is a master's degree. Our faculty are prepared to be able to meet that.

In addition to that, we know that it's also beneficial to have doctorate prepared nurses. We partner again with the CSU who offer doctorate degrees in nursing, which also kind of went out of the lane of the higher ed plan written back in the fifties.

They're putting out fantastic doctor prepared nurses, many of whom are employed at the community colleges. But again, California community college faculty must have a master's. That is the minimum requirement in order to teach at a bachelor's program.

So they would continue, basically, you're stating that they would continue from teaching from the associate's degree into the bachelor's degree. Correct. The same staff would do the full time. Okay. And then, so we got that covered.

And the last question that I have for you has to do with the accreditation with community college it's my understanding that not all community colleges are accredited. And in order to move forward with these pilot programs, will you be taking that into consideration when assigning them to certain community colleges?

Would our requirement be that they are accredited?

Sure. So all of our community college programs are accredited through ACCJC. All of our programs go through accreditation through the BRN. In order to have a bachelor's prepared program, you must have those as a minimum. The Roth Bill and I believe the Soria Bill put in an additional accreditation requirement, which is the ACN. It's a national accreditation.

It is not a must have, but it is a good accreditation. Many of the colleges are seeking that. My college is one of them. We also know there are community colleges now that already have that national accreditation. Again, another example of us working with our local CSU.

They've helped us with that accreditation and we're in candidacy right now.

Okay. And how long does it take for the candidacy to be completed?

Our last visit will be held this spring.

Okay. So you will be, they will be fully accredited before the pilot programs begin?

Correct, and there are community colleges now that have that accreditation. Delta College is one of them, and that's in the Central Valley. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Welcome. Any questions? Comments? No. Let me ask a couple of questions, but let me note before I do that this bill overlaps substantially with Senator Ross, SB 895. And that bill has moved. And so, you know, we're talking about parallel paths.

Even if this bill fails today much, the policy will proceed certainly to the appropriate step in the next house. So what we're trying to do, to the extent possible, and we've had conversations, is match these bills up so that they don't conflict. But I do want to. I want to ask a question. So it's.

The assertion's been made that there's a nursing shortage. The assertions made that there is not. And so is there or isn't there? And I guess the larger point is, would this bill, if there were? My understanding is it won't. Will that meaningfully address the nursing shortage?

This is about access, as I understand it, not necessarily about an increase in the number of candidates. So to the author first.

Thank you for that question, Chairman. I do believe that in the valley we are facing a much dire crisis when it comes to our healthcare work workforce. We saw this really impact the Madera community hospital when we were looking at some of the factors.

One of the issues in the closure was that 40% of the nurses hired by the hospital were traveler nurses. Not local nurses from our community. And so we want to make sure that we're tackling that issue. That's why my specific legislation was much more targeted.

I understand that Senator Roth obviously has a parallel legislation, but for me, it was very important to prioritize Central Valley.

I don't want any of my colleagues in this, you know, building to be able to experience what my community is facing right now, where we have a desert hospital because a result of the workforce shortage in our region.

And so that's why, for me, this bill has been very important in really highlighting the disparate need that exists in the valley, and that we do believe that folks that live in Huron, that it takes them well over an hour and 20 minutes to drive to Fresno State.

Students aren't moving to live in the City of Fresno because it's more expensive. They're staying at home. So their closest community college is only 20 minutes away. And so that's what this is about for me.

It's about access and equity to rural students and to make sure that we keep them in those communities so that they not only get educated and trained in those community health clinics, but actually stay and service, provide the quality care that those folks in the rural communities deserve.

Appreciate that. Let me ask a question to Doctor Goldsmith. You've made the assertion I've heard before that community colleges are better suited to provide nursing instruction at a reduced cost. I've heard the opposite from the opposition, that at the end of the day, once you factor in all the various inputs, that it's not that different.

So can you please elaborate there?

Sure. I want to hit on the diversity piece as well. If you go into the BRN website and you search for your public schools in the Central Valley and you look at the diversity, you'll find that the last year's cohort had no African American students in it.

However, if you look at the two year public Central Valley, you'll see that there were 45. So there's issues of diversity, there's issues of access, there's issues of cost. And I respectfully disagree with my colleague and friend sitting next to me about the cost.

We know that the California Community College bachelor programs that are being offered now are offered at a great reduced rate. Again, I don't think this should be a zero sum game.

We need all of our CSUs, we need the community colleges, and we need our privates in this very short period of time to be able to meet the need before we see more hospital closes.

Okay. Appreciate that. And last. Well, let me finish. You know, I think the very valid point has been raised about the precedent as it relates to duplication across segments, which is a larger problem. And, you know, this is something that we have discussed, that we've examined.

I think the legislation needs to dig into it and actually resolve to greater clarity because it is problematic. Over time, the master plan assumed a fairly sort of clear divisional labor, if you will, between the segments. And largely because of geographical and workforce needs, we're seeing that erode. I believe that is problematic. I don't.

It's nobody's fault here, but I think in the future we're going to need to resolve that to some greater level of clarity. But that does play in here. Senator Ochoa Bogh, if you have a question.

Senator, I think I just want to make sure that everybody understands that this particular bill is limited to 10 community colleges that will be exercise this and that it will also sunset in 2031. So it's not ongoing.

I think at that time we can reevaluate as a state whether or not their workforce demand is still there or the shortage. I should say the shortage is still there. And whether or not this can continue, because there is a concern for some areas throughout the state that it will siphon off students from the CSU system.

And that's one of the concerns that I have as well, is the fact that it would create a shortage of students in the CSU, which we need as well. We need, I think we. The beauty about our CSUs, our UCs and CCs, is that they cater to different students for different needs. They're very, very distinct systems.

I know the state has been very. A lack, for a better word, aggressive in combining and making them all kind of similar to each other, but they do have different roles for specific students at different levels of where students are.

So I just wanted to make sure that we had that on record, that this does have a sunset for 2031, and the state can then reevaluate whether or not there is actually a continued need for this program.

I'm sorry. Let's actually hear from the CSU in response.

I appreciate that, chair. I wanted to address first in regards to whether there's a shortage or there's not a shortage, because I think that's really important for us to address. The BRN partners with UCSF that does an annual workforce report on our nursing workforce at all levels, particularly at the BSN level.

The report has stated by 2027 that if we don't change anything and the status quo is what it is today, we will have met that need. So that's where we're getting our data from. The second aspect I wanted to address is in regards to the community health placement.

Yes, they do not occur in the hospital or a clinical setting, but even within our own universities, they are a challenge for us to receive these spots. Even if we have faculty that are able to percept them, the spots are not available.

So it's going to be a challenge that's going to equally affect the community colleges as well. And then lastly, I do want to emphasize that I did mention that none of our programs, our ADN to BSN programs, are impacted or have wait lists that is pervasive throughout our system.

And additionally, I understand that Fresno City College has partnered a lot with UC, I mean, with our Fresno state, on a variety of initiatives. Unfortunately, partnership programs aren't one of those. I believe partnership programs are very effective.

But let me ask you, Fresno State actually was a witness in support, correct?

Fresno City. Fresno City. Okay. Misunderstood. Please proceed.

Yeah, absolutely. We believe that partnership programs are very cost effective and efficient. I think the results that you'll see in producing more bsns will be much quicker than waiting for these BSN programs at the community colleges to be established. In essence, we need both ADN and BSN degree professionals, especially in these medically underserved areas.

Unfortunately, if we're going to take away capacities for ADN students, then produce more ADN's, then we're just not doing anything for the nursing workforce, essentially. And I think that's something that's key. And then lastly, in regards to the duplication aspect of the.

I do want to remind the committee that for our doctoral degrees, where we were pursuing that, we worked that in coordination with the UCs, and we had a strict process in regards to duplication. We think that having this sort of intersegmental collaboration as well as coordination is very important.

I think as educational institutions, we need to do a better job to leverage the resources that we already have instead of investing more resources on that to see where we can partner so we can leverage each other's unique aspects and also see which ways we can take to support students and make it more equitable for all.

Thank you. But I guess, let me let the author respond. So I think one of the operative issues here is placebound challenges. Right. And that's my understanding that's what you're trying to do. And my understanding is that's what Senator. Roth was trying to.

For me, it's the access piece.

And, you know, I invite my CSU partners to come and actually listen to the stories from students in my region, one who have not been able to get into Fresno State or even up north to Stan State because of the issues of waiting list and waiting over two, sometimes even four years to get into these bachelor programs in my region.

I welcome you to come and see what Madera hospital looks like closed because we do have a significant shortage. And it's not because, you know, we don't have the nurses. The nurses are not there locally that are qualified and trained to serve in the capacity.

And so I invite them to really see what is happening in my area. Yes, our area is different than maybe some other areas that are not experiencing the shortages, you know, like we are. I will also say that the data by UCSF only tells one part of the story.

I've heard countless stories directly from the people that I serve that have been trying to get to these programs that end up having to leave out of state, also to be able to go get a bachelor's in nursing, or that end up going to a private institution and end up coming with a lot of debt.

And yes, CSU may be not as expensive, but when we are factoring costs of living and students having from rural communities, farm worker communities, just like the one that I grew up having to move to the City of Fresno to go to a bachelor's program from either a small, like fireball or Huron, the cost of living is outrageous.

And I think that for these students, I think we have to look at, think outside the box. And again, this is not a program that is a permanent program. It is a program that is specific, that I believe that in the short term will help us, especially in the Central Valley, address the needs that we have.

And my goal is that this workforce that we will have in our region that is educated and trained can actually help us reopen that Madera Hospital. And that is my number one priority, Chairman.

And so I would respectfully ask for your guys support so that in my region, we have access, we have equity to higher access of education for these students that want to pursue these health careers, to ultimately ensure that also the quality of care is provided to the communities that I represent. Thank you.

Can I take that as your close? That was an awesome close. Just a few comments before we move on. Thank you to the witnesses. I'm going to support the bill today, but with misgivings for some of the reasons I think we've touched on, not least of which is this question of precedent, and it truly is problematic.

I mean, you know, we've seen this in many other spheres as well. And at some point that becomes sort of the de facto policy, and it shouldn't be, but there should be greater clarity.

And I appreciate each of the segments jealously protects its turf for really admirable reasons, and we often interfere with that by way of these bills. And so that's an issue. But I want to point out the reason I'm doing this. I guess there's two, as noted, there's a parallel bill. That bill is moving forward.

So if I were to, if this bill were to fail today, that policy continues to move. What we're endeavoring to do is make sure that Assemblymember Sawyer's bill aligns properly as it moves forward with Senator Roth's.

And so you have agreed to work, you know, both of you, deliberately to work on sort of the chaptering and enrollment questions that will arise if and when both of these bills get to the government's.

Yes, Mister Chair, I addressed that initially in my statement, and so my commitment is to work on that.

Appreciate it. The other reason I'm willing to support it is this is a pilot, and quite often we use pilots as kind of COVID for instituting policies that go on.

But I think in this case this pilot will be useful and it will be important, and I think clarifying to look at the data as we get 2-3-4 years into it.

Accommodations have also been made kind of across both bills for accreditation, for schools that are not yet for that allowance, but not yet accredited so they can participate at some point if and when they are.

So with that, again, willing to support it, but grateful for the testimony and mindful of some of the friction that this necessarily entails, my colleague pointed out, and I think it's worth noting that as part of this pilot, participants were limited to 25% of the CCD's associate degree in nursing class size, and then there's an allowance for impoverished communities.

So again with the pilot, we will see if this makes a meaningful impact, especially on that question of access and place boundedness. And if not, I think the legislature will have to take a different approach.

But as we do, I think we have to look deliberately at how all of these programs intersect across the segments and to the fight and as well as to the independents and to, you know, to your constituents. You know, I'd like to point out that is noted, and that is a necessary conversation.

So do not yet have a quorum. Important note that three members of my committee actually constitute a quorum on another committee that meets simultaneously, which is not a good idea if you ask me, but it's not my choice. But when we do have a quorum, we'll take a motion and we'll move the bill. So thank you.

Assemblymember Holden, I see you've been waiting patiently. Welcome. You will be presenting AB 2193 and you may proceed whenever you are ready. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee for the opportunity to present today on Assembly Bill 2193, dealing with hazing accountability. I would like to start off by thanking the Committee staff for working with our office on these amendments. And I'm prepared to accept them. Please the Chair, I'd like to, if I could, read into the record what those amendments are. Yep. Let's see.

Specifically, staff recommends, and we accept the amendment to specify that institutions may be liable only for hazing incidents that occurred on or after the implementation date of the Bill, thereby prohibiting retroactive liability, which was, for the record, always our intention. So I appreciate all the clarity.

And the second is an amendment to use a definition of hazing that is currently in the Bill relative to civil actions, which is aligned with the existing definition of the penal code. Those are the amendments that the staff is recommending and we are accepting.

Thank you. I appreciate you noting this at the outset.

As many of you know, California already codified laws in 2006 that make engaging in hazing unlawful. Despite this, we continue to see hazing incidents occur around educational institutions, oftentimes proving to be fatal. It is clear that our laws are overlooking a key player when outlining responsible parties, the educational institutions themselves.

This Bill allows for civil action to be brought against an educational institution that knew or should have known of the dangerous hazing practices of an affiliate organization. Additionally, this Bill establishes a rebuttable presumption that an educational institution took reasonable steps to address hazing if the educational institution had taken specified anti hazing measures.

It is time to hold all parties involved responsible for these tragedies and hope that we can come together to prevent them in the future. Here with me to testify in support of AB 2193 attorney of law Krista Ramey, and the family Members whose son Tyler was a victim of hazing.

Myesha Kimball and William Hilliard, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, Ms. Kimball, welcome.

We'll start with the Kimballs.

Thank you and welcome. So, Miss Ramey are you first?

Okay, thank you. Good morning. Our son Tyler was born March 26,1998. He would have turned 26 this year. Tyler loved spending time with family and friends. He loved dancing and baseball, which he started playing at the age of seven. Our son had a passion for learning. We sent our son to UC Riverside to get an education.

But two years into his college education, who would have predicted we would have to lay our son to rest? One of Tyler's goals and aspirations was to become an alpha, because one of his role models, Doctor Martin Luther King, was also an alpha. The thought of losing a child is just heart wrenching.

The treatment that he received from an organization that he held so dear to his heart is sometimes unbearable. We are forced to relive the nightmare of losing Tyler every time we see a young man dancing, playing baseball, every holiday, like Christmas and Thanksgiving, Mother's Day, Father's Day, his birthday.

Even looking at our youngest son, it is a gut wrenching pain of a nightmare that I cannot wake up from. The pain is that much more unbearable, because this could have all been prevented, and this Bill would help accomplish that.

The regents say they did not have a duty of care towards my son, but the fraternity won't take responsibility either. Who is looking out for our children?

Imagine sitting at the side of your child's hospital bed while he or she is attached to a ventilator, unresponsive, feeling helpless, begging God to save your child and to take you instead, because you know you would trade places without a second thought.

And now you have to make the decision to remove your child from life support, because there is nothing else that could be done. We beg you today, in the name of Tyler and others before him, to pass this Bill so that no other parent has to experience the loss of a child as a result of hazing.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'm so sorry for your loss. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Miss Ramey.

I have a strict policy never to let anyone cry alone in my presence. Apparently.

You should waive that today.

Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairman Newman and Members of the Committee. My name is Krista Ramey. I am here on behalf of Consumer Attorneys Association of California to testify on behalf of AB 2193. I am an attorney who represents children who have been the victims of bullying, sex abuse, hazing.

And I am the person that parents call when the schools fail our children. Children have a duty, or schools, rather, have a duty, not just to educate our children, but to keep them safe. And my heart breaks when I hear stories like the one that was suffered by Myesha Kimball and William Hillard.

Their case, the regents has said they did not owe a duty to Tyler for his off campus activities. While fraternities might exist off campus, they recruit their Members on campus, and they receive the benefits of having those fraternities affiliated with their universities, schools.

We believe that 2193 made the necessary changes to the Bill that was introduced last year that the Governor vetoed to address the governor's concerns. This Bill now uses the more common known or should have known standard that we see in all government entity liability claims or actions. There is also a rebuttable presumption in this Bill.

To be clear, the CAOC has never supported a Bill with a rebuttable presumption in it. We have always believed that it's best to have the trier of fact, the judges and juries, to look at those issues. However, we have decided that we would look at these issues on a case by case basis.

When they come up and this legislation and proposed legislation, this Bill fit within what we thought was necessary to look at and to support, because in this instance, it addresses the current inability to hold universities accountable when they are responsible for harm. To be clear, lawsuits are an example of the free market working.

They help make sure that products and institutions are safer. The idea that if a law would pass, it would open some sort of floodgates of litigation does not bear out. In reality, they become safer.

I have to ask you to finish up.

Thank you. Subsection C of the proposed legislation addresses how to avoid liability for universities. They now have would have a rebuttable presumption that they are not negligent. We recognize that lawsuits only make up for harm caused and do not undo the wrong.

But when there is a threat of litigation, conduct does change, and this will help keep our schools safer for children. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you. Other witnesses in support welcome.

Stephanie Mock in support of the Bill. On behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals. And thank you to the witness for her courage and testimony.

Thank you.

Anna Matthews with the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, also in strong support. Sorry for the witnesses loss.

Tony Harmia, California resident and mother, in strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Welcome. We have two, and I have to find you a chair. Do you mind? Alex? Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Bakke with the California State University. Before I begin my testimony, I just want to express our deepest sympathies and I appreciate you bringing your testimony forward. I'm father of two boys, and I. I can't even imagine what you're going through. To begin, I do want to thank the author and the Committee for the Amendments.

We appreciate the time you've spent working with us. This is not the first time we've talked about this. We've discussed this last year as well, so this has been a long conversation. So I appreciate your efforts. Addressing the two issues in today's Committee amendments are important.

They're significant, and I think they provide the necessary clarity and guidance needed to implement the Bill. However, we do feel like additional clarity is necessary. We've shared our proposed amendments with the author in hopes that we can continue to work on that. And I'll just touch on one particular example.

Section 66308 B requires that an institution implement a comprehensive prevention program that includes a range of prevention strategies, including but not limited to. In our experience the courts have cited against institutions when ranges are required, with jury citing that not enough was done to prevent the incident.

As an example, the CSU may have instituted 10 prevention strategies, but the jury would have found that 11 would have been most appropriate. It's difficult to gauge what our obligation is in that scenario. We're just simply asking for clarity and specificity about what those obligations are.

We are committed to following through with those obligations, but we do need to have that clarity so that we can ensure that we're doing everything possible. So we want to still continue to have that conversation we shared.

As I said earlier, we shared these amendments with the author and as well as some other provisions that we hope to continue to dialogue as the Bill moves forward. For the time being, we still remain in a positive, amended position.

Thank you, Mister Graves.

Good morning again, chair and Members Alex Graves with the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities and our 89 Member institutions. I'd also like to thank the family for sharing their testimony throughout this process and turning that pain into action.

Also, like my colleague would like to thank the author's office and staff for the ongoing discussions and a number of amendments that have been taken through this process. As my colleague mentioned, there are still a handful of issues that we would like to work through.

I had our councils work with CSU's councils to present what we think kind of provided those additional clarifications that would resolve our remaining kind of technical concerns for implementation purposes. For example, we have requested consistent use of affiliated student organizations. Instead of just referencing student organizations. We've also asked for minor amendments to Section 66308, subsection B.

When it talks about maintaining rules, regulations, procedures regarding hazing reporting, it talks about updating and maintaining.

And for example, we would just like to make that minor changes to say that we're maintaining those, because our councils interpret, when you're saying update, maintain that it could put forward the assumption that our schools have to update policies every year, even if there's no change in best practices or whatnot that would warrant those changes.

And so, again, it's in our view, minor things like that that we'd like to just work out in the remaining time we have here with the author's office and supporters to get us to a place where we all feel comfortable with the goals of the Bill, which we absolutely support.

Again, at the end of the day, our institutions want to prevent as many instances of hazing as possible. We believe that hazing endangers students, is detrimental to their educational pursuit, and so I think we share the goals of the authors and supporters and hope that we can resolve these remaining issues in the time we have. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses? In opposition?

Good morning. Kyle Hyland, on behalf of the Association of California Community college administrators, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. On behalf of the community college at legal California, and respectful opposition through the inclusion of chemicologies in the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else seeing? None. Let's go back to the dais. Colleagues. Questions? Comments? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So with regards to the technical clarity and specificity of actions, are you considering moving forward in trying to narrow what that would look like for this particular Bill as it moves forward?

We're always, and I think we have demonstrated that we're prepared to continue to have conversations and figure out how, if and how we might be able to get there. I'll just as an example, updating. I think we have that in the language of the Bill because things change.

It's not prescriptive to say you have to do it every year or every six months. It's just that it's there to remind those who are in policy decision making that we need to come back and take a look and see if we need to update. So maybe we can have some conversations of how to better define updating.

But I think the idea is to recognize, as this institution does, that things are static, and there may be appropriately an opportunity to come back and say that, wow, here's a real life situation. We can maybe do a little bit more to meet that. So you would update.

So we're happy to have conversations, continue conversations around how to better thread that needle if we need to.

And the reason I have concerns with ensuring that we have literally clarity on in specifics as to what the expectations are for by the universities is that ultimately, our colleges are home to adults, young adults or older adults. Depends on the age and so forth.

And so, you know, as parents, you know, I have a 24,22 and an 18 year old son. I can't imagine, cannot imagine your loss. I cannot. And you hope that students would be very cautious in what they do.

But, you know, when it comes, even with my 18 year old right now, I don't have control over his actions once he leaves the home and what he sometimes I'm going, what are you thinking? And we have conversations.

But ultimately, you know, it's really tough to have an institution in a college and think that you're going to have absolute control over the behavior of young adults, especially when they're under the age of 26, as we know, with the frontal lobe.

So I do want to make sure that if we move forward or when we move forward, as we move forward, that we do have specific guidelines as to what the expectations are, clarity and the specificity of those technical adjustments that we need to do in order to ensure that, you know, universities, it's my opinion, not my opinion.

It's my understanding that colleges are already doing their part in training every student as they enter the Greek system, that they have to have training as to what is permissible and not permissible.

And so what the additional responsibilities are, we have to ensure that we have clarity on that end and ensure that they're protected to a certain degree against the actions of students who may not be acting within.

We know we as a society, we don't have control over anybody else's actions, but we have consequences for their own personal actions. So we want to make sure that we have those clarities.

I will be supporting the Bill today, but I do Reserve the right to change my vote once it comes back to the Senate or when it comes to the Senate. Or, wait, does it change? We don't have time to change how appropriations.

So I will Reserve my right to change my vote once I review it when it comes back to the Senate. But I do hope that the conversations continue, because we do. We hope to have a system that really does protect our students, because when we send them to school, my senior right now is heading to college.

I understand those fears, but by the same token, they're young adults in a system, you know, as long as they're doing their due diligence and what that looks like, you know, it's hard to say, hey, you're responsible for young adult actions within the school. So there's a balance that we need to ensure that we have.

So I'll be supporting your Bill today, and I look forward to seeing more specific languages with the expectations.

Well, I appreciate that, Senator. And let me, let me just say that this has been a long journey. Right. This is a two year or more process of just trying to get this action moving forward. So you can imagine that we've done a lot of engaging and refining to now just be down to technical.

So we certainly are not going to ignore what is reasonable and appropriate to try to continue to make the right kind of strides that strike the balance. But azing has been going on for a really long time.

Any Member of this body who has pledged to a fraternity of sorority or even some athletic, not me, even though I played sports, I wasn't crossing those kind of lines. But I will tell you that my contemporaries will tell you some stories.

And when the institution that has a responsibility, a partnership with the affiliate, can't just take that in a casual way.

And I'm not saying that that is the case, but when it comes down to enforcement and liability and was spoken out, that in life as a parent, we have to have a hammer over our kids head in order for them to listen to us and follow us, guidance, discipline.

And in this society, sometimes we have to establish it through the law because it's clear that there needs to be some parameters that can be set that in this case protect these young people who as parents were releasing them. This is that release stage.

And we want to make sure that if they choose, whether it's because a parent joined or a historical idol, that they do not have to be put in a situation where their life could be on the line.

And so all that to say, yes, we'll continue to have conversations, but we've come a long way and it's been respectful to the opposition's implementation concerns. So it's not like we have not paid attention to what that represents. And that's why you have the amendments that have already been taken to the Bill.

And I appreciate the Committee's a time and continued effort to help make the Bill better.

Good.

One more question, please. Go ahead.

So I'm curious. Is there, I understand you said in your testimony, ma'am, that the Greek system was or the fraternity could not be held liable. They don't want to hold any kind of responsibility.

But again, it's not the fraternity, it's the institution.

What we're talking about, it's both the institution.

The bill is focusing on the institution. Appreciate that.

So has there been any. So my question lies into we're holding the universities, we're addressing the University's expectation. Is there anything in the works to address the expectations on the Greek system? Is that.

I'm not sure what, I don't know what that would look like, but is there anything in place that holds the Greek system accountable for what happens in there? I don't know what the culture is. I'm sorry. No, that's fine.

And yes, they can be held for ordinary negligence. And so when they're, and they all are insured, and then the nationals are insured, sometimes getting to the national is difficult. And most of the time the chapters do not are woefully underinsured to be held accountable for the kinds of loss that they are inflicting on their members.

And what this bill is trying to do is to make sure that every party that's responsible in some manner is held accountable. So it doesn't. Leaving someone off that verdict form at the end of the day means that there is someone that did something wrong that wasn't held responsible.

And what this is trying to do in this particular instance with AB 2193 is to look at, you know, what did the University do that was a contributing factor, and in order for it to be held accountable for that, there has to be a substantial factor in the connection to what the University did or did not do and the harm that was caused.

So assuming that a plaintiff that has lost someone gets past that rebuttable presumption, you still have to show that causal connection between the action or inaction of the University and the harm that was caused to the student. So it's not a strict liability. If you don't do these things, you're accountable. There still has to be that connection.

Let me add, I mean, the goal here, I think I speak for the author, isn't simply accountability. It's prevention, right? It's prevention through the imposition of a level accountability that incentivize the institution to exert greater control in Greek life and prevent tragedies like the Hilliards. And so. Anything else?

Well, just for clarity. I understand the purpose of the bill with regards to the schools. I was just kind of curious as to the responsibility of prevention by the Greek system and what we currently have in place, we do through ordinary negligence.

If they are doing something that causes that harm, then they are and can be held accountable for that harm. Currently, under current law, there's nothing preventing, there's not a roadblock to liability there in terms of prevention and holding the policy changes that you're seeing in AB 2193 to help make fraternity safer.

That's not specifically being addressed in that bill, but I think, or in this bill, but I think it actually does by way of having the universities do these things. If the school, you know, if the fraternity, sorority, athletic, you know, team, whatever it is, doesn't do it, then the school has, you know, can disaffiliate with it.

The school has a hammer too, in order to protect itself. They can, you know, step away from it, but they're trying to, you know, the goal is to have them educated and make sure that the policies are there and that the fraternities, the athletic institutions, any other affiliated organization is following those policies.

Okay, is that a better.

I think so by better clarity for you, but to rearticulate this bill is really about institutional responsibility. Thank you for, I think, the insight as it relates to the individual fraternities.

And let me say, I mean, you know, so to that point, there's nobody in a fraternity after one of these tragic events that doesn't think, wow, that was awful. What we're trying to do here is to create a regime that actually prevents these tragedies and the kinds of loss that the Hilliards experienced. And so I appreciate that.

I also want to say this will be the last time I probably see Assembly Member before this Committee. This is. I'll see you in the hallway as we're going. That's what I'm afraid of. That's exactly what I'm afraid of. But I want to commend you right first for your work on this bill.

You know, not just two years, but many years, but this year is about addressing those issues that led to the veto of the bill last year. And I appreciate you doing that. And I do have one question, and I'll get to it.

But that sort of pursuit of justice is a hallmark of your legislative career, and I commend you for it, especially in this case. A quick question to Mr. Bakke's point about the problematic prospect of this notion of a range, and a range not being sufficient. So for Ms. Ramey, how to think about that?

Is that a solvable problem from your perspective?

Well, practicing in courts every day as a trial lawyer, I can tell you that when there are including but not Limited Too's placed in things, those are meant to be examples. That's how judges view them. That's how juries view them. And yes, they could say, well, you could have done something else.

I think that that would only arise if that something else could have been the cause of the harm, that was the cause that harm to the student. So I don't, I appreciate what you're saying, and you know, I think that in reality, it just doesn't, it doesn't come up that frequently in terms of that.

And when you're dealing with a rebuttal presumption, as you do have here, judges will look at what the University does in a different way than a late jury member will. And I will tell you from experience, summary judgments get granted on those rebuttable presumptions when there are including not Limited Too's.

And I've tried to argue something further that the school could have done, because the school has already done so much. And so when you have a strict adherence and you're doing all of the things, in reality, a judge just doesn't go that extra well.

You could have done this much more because the Legislature has already set forth what they expect and you followed it. And so I think that they're not looking to reinterpret or rewrite what this body has already gone through and done. So that's just kind of my reality.

Quick response.

I appreciate that. I appreciate the answer. I just obviously not attorney, but talking with our general counsel, our experience has not been generally as simple as that. We have found quite the opposite, which is why we're asking for the clarification, the specificity. So we look forward to the dialogue.

We are really close, and I think to Sullivan Holbein's earlier point, we have come a long way, and we will certainly be the first to admit that. And so I think we're really close.

We just want to put some of the finishing touches that would provide the necessary instructions for the courts in the event we actually get to that stage. And that's all we're seeking. But we do not want to undermine any of the prior agreements that have been made at this point. But our experience would suggest otherwise.

And I appreciate that. And I know, I know that Assemblymember Holden is endeavoring to get this bill in a form to the government that doesn't get vetoed. Right. So you have sort of a national center to continue this conversation. I appreciate your commitment to doing that.

Let me just say, you know, sort of before I allow you to close, there's nothing more tragic than these deaths precisely because they are so preventable, they should never happen.

And so what you're doing here, I think, is really important to increase the chances that institutions will exercise that control, which conveys to fraternities and the young people within them the common sense not to do these things. Right.

And it's really important to sort of align everybody's interest to do that, knowing that that has always been a problem. And I think this is a good and useful step toward hopefully solving this problem. And I'm glad to support the bill. Holden, you'd like to close.

I think all of you have made my close for me. I just like to thank the family because doing this once is hard. Doing it five or six times, that was asking a lot for you.

So I apologize that it has taken us to this point to get you closer and other families who experienced what you have had to experience to start to see the light at the end of the tunnel. And Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your willingness to work with us.

And I appreciate the universities in the system coming forward and being willing to move off of what was a point, a tough place for them to move from. And so what I see is a process working. I will never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

But at the same time, we want to make sure that we don't compromise in getting what we're designed to do is be advocates for those who need them to make systems that sometimes are very dysfunctional work more favorably for those who are victims for that dysfunction. So again, thank you for your support.

And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And so again, in the absence of the quorum, we'll take up a motion and vote on the bill. I have every assurance you will get seven votes on this. So thank you. And to the Hilliards, again, thank you for your courageous. Next, thank you, Assemblymember Holden. Sincerely, Assemblymember Bonta.

You were blocked by the large form of Assemblymember Holden, and so appreciate your indulgence. Assemblymember Bonta is in the chair, so it'll be fast. Welcome. And again out of order, but I'm sure it'll work out. AB 2381. Please proceed when you're ready.

Good morning, Chair and Members, and thank you. Today I am proud to present AB 2381 which would allow our state preschool programs to continue to be funded based on enrollment rather than attendance. The California State Preschool Program provides educational experiences to low income, disadvantaged children ages three to five.

During the COVID pandemic, these programs were reimbursed based on enrollment rather than attendance using a formula that ensured they had the ability to take care of themselves. However, this provision is set to expire on June 30, 2025. Unfortunately, payments based on attendance are unpredictable.

If providers are unable to anticipate which children will be present on any given day, they cannot anticipate how many staff they will need. This can lead to costs that exceed the state's reimbursement amount.

Continued funding based on enrollment will provide our state preschool programs with a stable funding source, enabling them to focus more on the sustainability and quality of their programs. Now I'll turn it over to Virginia Early from the California Department of Education and Amanda Dickey from the Santa Clara Office of Education to speak more on this subject.

Ms. Early, welcome.

Thank you so much. Happy to be with you all. On behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond, a proud sponsor of 2381, my name is Virginia Early, and I'm a policy administrator at the Early Education Division at CDE.

So as the Member mentioned, since April 2020, California State preschool programs have benefited from a Covid era policy that funds programs at the lesser of their costs or their contract amount, regardless of the number of children attending or enrolled. When these protections expire on July 1, 2025, programs will go back to being funded on attendance.

A few months later, in Fall 2025, we'll reach a really exciting milestone in the universal pre kindergarten expansion, the first year of universal transitional kindergarten, which presents a historic opportunity for state preschool to serve more three year old children from families who need it most. And we know we have a long way to go there. In 2023, California was serving 13% of the nearly 300,000 three year olds eligible for the program.

AB 2831 will strengthen, sorry 2381, will strengthen the early education system by allowing state preschool programs to better utilize their existing contract funds without increasing costs in a way that acknowledges their fixed costs for serving all children enrolled, aligns with federal Head Start and the private pay market, and provides an important protection for contractors as they recover from the pandemic's impacts on attendance, and re examine a business model that has historically relied heavily on four year olds while they transition to serving more three year olds.

The bill is also in alignment with the August 2022 rate and quality workgroup recommendations, reflecting the critical need to stabilize programs by acknowledging fixed costs and addressing the true cost of care. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Ms. Dickey, welcome.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Amanda Dickey, and I am the Executive Director of Government Relations for the Santa Clara County Office of Education.

We are very proud to co sponsor this bill and want to thank Assemblymember Weber and Superintendent Thurmond for moving forward this important cost neutral legislation which would do so much to help the preschool providers who spend eight or more hours a day caring for our children, but are living on the margins, barely making ends meet.

As you may know, 40% of child care providers receive food assistance from Calfresh and about a third live under the federal poverty line. As one of the largest early learning providers in our region, the Santa Clara County Office of Education has the benefit of an economy of scale which helps to insulate our programs from unforeseen contingencies.

But even we operate in the red some years due to unpredictable attendance rates, dropouts, and family emergencies. Although our infrastructure and scale put us in the best possible position as a provider, there is not much that we can do to mitigate lost attendance revenues.

The cost to operate a preschool program is largely static, so there's rent, salaries, and overhead costs like electricity, garbage, water, sewage, janitorial services, and those change whether or not students show up for the program.

If the state hadn't provided a hold harmless reimbursement during the pandemic, our programs would have operated at such a deficit that the County Office of Education may have been forced to terminate our contracts, which would have effectively eliminated 4,000 high quality early learning slots in Santa Clara County.

AB 2381 will help create greater fiscal stability for preschool providers, which means more high quality early learning options and opportunities for children and families. Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support, please come forward.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Malik Bynum with UDW ASME Local 3930 on behalf of Child Care Providers United, CCPU in support.

Thank you. Ms. Gibbs.

Mr. Chair and Members, Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, and we support the bill.

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium, also in support.

Thank you. Next please.

Good morning. Ashley Lugo, on behalf of the California County Superintendents, in support.

Thank you.

Melissa Moreno, trustee of Yolo County Office of Education, in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Any in opposition? Seeing none, come back to the dais. Questions, comments?

Great bill and I will support it whenever we get a quorum.

I see what you're trying to do here, so I'm glad to support it as well. And not only I think is this useful, but it gets at one of the unintentional consequences of expanding universal TK. And we need to address that if we're serious about ensuring that we don't crowd out funding for preschool. So thank you for the bill. Glad to support it as well when we have a quorum and when we can take a motion. Would you like to close?

Just quickly, I couldn't agree with you more, Chair, about the need to be able to address some of the mitigating concerns or unintended consequences that we've created with universal TK. And this bill certainly does that by ensuring that we have an opportunity to provide some stability for our preschool providers. With that, I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, witnesses. We'll take a motion, and I dare say pass this bill when we have a quorum. Let us now move on to Mr. Wallis. I am so sorry not to have seen you. And you'll be presenting AB 2277. You may proceed when ready, sir.

Well, good morning, Chair and Committee Members. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 2277 sponsored by the California Part Time Faculty Association, who serve our community colleges. AB 2277 raises the cap that part time faculty are allowed to teach from 67% to 85% of a full time faculty assignment per term.

I'm proud to say this bill is also supported by the Faculty Association of the California community colleges, whose members are full time faculty.

This bill will increase the maximum number of instructional hours by two units that a part time community college faculty member may teach at any one community college district, allowing faculty to better participate in their respective district and better support their students. AB 2277 still requires an agreement between the local community college district and their part time faculty.

We have language in the bill to avoid inadvertently converting part time faculty to full. Full time community colleges serve a critical role in educating Californians, and AB 2277 provides a tool to support our students. I have here to testify and support John Martin, chair of the California Part Time Faculty Association.

Mr. Martin, welcome. You have two minutes. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning and thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. My name is John Martin. I teach at two different rural community college districts, Butte College and Shasta College, collectively for over 25 years. I'm also chair of the California Part-Time Faculty Association, or otherwise known as CPFA.

We are leader for the majority of the faculty who teach across the state community college system, which is the largest in the world. AB 2277 is an attempt to bring incremental steps to improve the livelihood for part time faculty and quality of education for students.

If passed, part time faculty may have a chance to teach up to 80-85% of the full time load. Because this is not a mandate, each district will retain their right of assignment and part time faculty will retain their right of refusal, first refusal.

This is true when AB 591 passed in 2008 and when the cap was raised to 67%, which is the current law. This bill requires districts and their exclusive bargaining units to negotiate how determine how this would work and this bill will still maintain its local control, which is the foundation for every district I know.

The opposition is concerned that increasing the cap to 80-85% would negatively impact diversity. It is up to the district to create a diverse back faculty to meet their community standards and this bill will not hamper their efforts to be more inclusive in the hiring of new employees.

Districts are empowered to hire who they want and they should not blame any new caps.

This bill will offer more sections for students to be taught by existing part time faculty so the district will not have to go out to advertise, recruit, hire, evaluate new faculty, new part time faculty by keeping the existing faculty and maintain their local control. Both full time and part time faculty are critical in creating an environment that fosters students success.

Increasing the modest workload for part time professors will help ensure students will have a better access to their professors and improve quality of life for part time faculty. It is a win win sit proposition for everyone involved. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Other support Ms. Mock, welcome.

Thank you. Tiffany mock on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anna Matthews on behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, representing both full time and part time faculty. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses support? Any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California I want to thank the author and the sponsor for meeting with me and John Martin for meeting with me to discuss the bill and the intent of it. Regretfully, we must be opposed. We are concerned about the impact on local control.

We realize that it requires us to negotiate it, but it will put pressure on our boards at the local level. To negotiate up to 85% is a significant concern for us. We also wanted to note that we are appreciative of the fact that there is a language on there, capping it to 30 hours.

But we would like to see if there could be some amendment to clarify that it includes office hours as well, because we know that some of the contracts where they're crafted include office hours, some don't. And so having that clarity would be greatly appreciative to us as we move forward.

Looking forward to having engaging in conversations with just sponsor in the coming month. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, Kyle Highland, on behalf of the Association of California Community College Administrators, like to align my comments with my colleague from the league in respectful opposition to AP 2277. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other opposition? Seeing none. We'll come back to the dais. Sorry. I'm not giving you nearly enough time. Welcome. It's okay.

Kasia Hunt with Nosman on behalf of Citrus College and North Orange County Community College are in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no one else back to the Committee. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Welcome, Member Wallis. So with regards to the concerns, I think it's. I actually am very appreciative of the bill as I'm reading the language.

I think it's, it's a great idea, especially considering the fact that we have a cost of living issues here in the state and anything we can do to help our professors be able to extend those hours, make a little more money, especially as part time with an option I think is commendable.

So thank you for bringing this measure forward. I do have a question with regards to the opposition, with regards to clarity in the office hours, is what I heard one of the concerns that they had? Are you still continuing conversations with the opposition in order to kind of mitigate those concerns?

Yeah, absolutely. We're going to continue to work with them on that, and hopefully we can get to something that's acceptable there.

I'll be happy to support the bill and look forward to seeing those clarifications wherever they may be, hopefully finding that compromise with the opposition and hopefully getting their support.

Thank you, Senator.

Okay. I'm, for my part, glad to support the bill, but, you know, with respect to office hours, in sympathy with part time instructors, we often, which is to say the community causes, let you do that for free, and we should not.

And isn't that bargain? Don't some.

Some do, some don't. But many part time instructors, because of their commitment to their students, actually wind up doing it on their own time, which I think is regrettable. So I'm, for my part, glad to support the bill. We do have a quorum, so let us establish a quorum. I'm sorry. And then you can close.

[Roll Call]

All right. A quorum having now been established. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

I respectfully request an aye vote.

All right. Looking for a motion? No. Moved. Moved by Senator Wilk. Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

File item nine, AB 2277, Willis. Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure has four votes. Four votes and we'll hold it open. Thank you, Assemblymember. Thank you, Mr. Martin. All right, moving on. With a quorum in place, I see. Assemblymember Schiavo, I think your colleague is going to grant you that courtesy.

Welcome, Mr. Chair. While she's coming up, can we do the consent calendar?

I don't see why not. Shadow Chair. Let us now call the consent.

I like shadow Chair.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

All right, consent calendar has four votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members. And now we will take up measure AB 2999 from assemblymember Schiavo. Welcome. Homework?

Thank you. Homework, yes. So thank you, Mister chair. And Senators, very happy to present AB 2999 today, which I'm hoping is really going to start what could be a greatly impactful conversation about homework and its impacts on students, and really want to thank the Committee staff for working with us on amendments. Happy to accept them all.

The AB 2999 the Healthy Homework act is really brought forward with the intention of starting this new conversation around homework. The Bill was actually spurred by my daughter Sophia, who's here to testify today.

When I started running for office, she was in the backseat of the car after I picked her up from school, and she was asking what would I be able to do if I got elected? And I said, well, I get to make laws. And she said, oh, can you ban homework?

And, you know, every fourth grader's dream, probably. But while this Bill definitely does not ban homework, I think that, you know, it started me thinking, and it was not the first time that I started thinking about homework.

When she was in kindergarten, I was really shocked to have her come home on Mondays with a really thick packet of homework that was due on Fridays. And my first job out of college was actually working in early childhood education for a trial Head Start program.

And at that time I learned a lot about early childhood brain development and how play and free time is such an important part of child's development.

As you'll hear from Doctor Pope who's a Professor at Stanford, there's not a lot of research that shows that it's actually beneficial to have homework or impacts students grades, especially in lower grades.

So, you know, this really sparked kind of a research on my part, looking at other countries and what they were doing and really thinking about how could we do things differently here in California.

And then as she progressed through the years and grade levels and as a single mom, a working mom with a very demanding job all the time, I've had tons of conversations with parents about the struggles and stress that this puts on parents.

I think everyone has a story about new mathematic and has experienced that if you have kids and, you know, and when kids are coming home with things that they're confused by, we know that the in person instruction in classes is really what makes such a big difference in terms of student learning.

You know, my experience in early childhood education really led me to do my own research and find Doctor Pope and actually talk to as many teachers as I possibly could. I wanted to do this Bill last year, but I knew that it was going to take time and a lot of conversations.

And so over the past year and a half, every teacher I've talked to, every educator union and organization that we could meet with, we talked to and had these conversations. And I've been really hard pressed to find people who love homework, who work in education. And it surprised me.

And one of the things that I found in talking to teachers is that they're not actually taught about homework in their certificate programs, in their teaching certificate programs. It seems like it's actually kind of an afterthought.

So, you know what, a lot of times happens is teachers will adopt whatever their mentor is doing, whatever they experienced growing up, whatever is assigned in the end of the teaching manual that they're reading. And it says assign this homework. And so I think it's time that we really get intentional about homework.

We look at the current research on homework, we look at the impacts to mental health. We know that we have a student mental health crisis. We know that homework is one of the top stressors in kids lives.

This is a way that we could overnight reduce stress in kids lives and impact their mental health in a positive way. And we are doing so much work as a state to send money and set up programs and train therapists and do all of these things.

And this is actually one of the biggest stressors in kids lives that we can easily impact. And so, you know, this Bill simply asks for school boards to develop a policy. So it preserves local control, it preserves local input.

It requires input from parents, from teachers and special education teachers as well from school counselors and therapists, from students who are experiencing this all the time and really making sure that we're finding homework policies that make sense, that truly impact education in a positive way and make a difference in kids education and are not undue burdens and extra stress.

And, you know, and I think there's a lot of conversations about how important it is to have connection right now with our mental health crisis. And you know, my daughter comes home, she goes into her room and closes the door and is doing homework all night.

A lot of times we don't even have family meal times together anymore because of her stress around homework and she doesn't want to, you know, she doesn't want to miss it and she needs to get to bed at a reasonable time. It's impacting kids sleep because they're staying up.

I've been talking to 6th and 7th graders who are up until midnight doing homework. So I feel like we really need to take a minute to do a reevaluation of, of how we're doing homework, how it's really impacting people and is it really helping.

And so that's what AB 2999 really intends to do and would love to turn it over to my daughter to testify. Sophia and also Doctor Pope.

Hello Mister chair Members. My name is Sophia and I just finished 6th grade. I'm here to support our Healthy Homework Act, AB 2999. I hope it means that school boards will really look at the impact homework is having on students like me and my friends.

I love to read and learn but when it comes to homework I absolutely dread it. It causes so much stress and worry and it takes up all of my time.

After school I don't have time to have dinner with my mom and family, to play with my little cousin or just have time to relax and recover from the stress of the day. I don't have time. I have after school programs four days a week. That means I don't get home until around 06:00 p.m.

or later most days. As a 6th grader I usually have about one and a half hours of homework or more each night. I often eat dinner while I do homework in my room alone.

I hardly have any time to connect with friends because I have too much homework and need to shower or get ready for bed as soon as I'm done. Homework causes a lot of stress in my life.

I've had a lot of nights where I end up crying because I just can't finish the homework before bedtime and I'm scared that I will be kept in from recess, get in trouble or it'll hurt my grades.

I don't want my teacher to be disappointed in me, so sometimes I just stay up very late so that I can finish. And it's not just me. I've heard this from all of my friends, even the smartest kid in my class. Homework is exhausting.

It's overwhelming and it's depressing that my whole day, from when I wake up until when I go to bed early is nearly all taken up with schoolwork with almost all of my time scheduled for me. It's making me not like school at all.

I know the work we do in school is important, but I think that that support but I think that things that support mental and physical health, like connecting with friends, having downtime to recharge, and time to do the things that make me happy like art and learning languages are also really important and that should be also considered.

That's why I ask you to support our healthy homework at thank you, thank you and well presented.

Doctor Pompa thank you for having me. My name is Doctor Denise Pope. I'm a senior lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and co-founder of Challenge Success, a nonprofit that partners with K 12 schools nationwide to improve student well-being, engagement, and belonging.

I'm pleased to be here today to share insights from data collected through the Challenge Success Stanford survey of school experiences, which has been completed by over 300,000 middle and high school students. We believe it's important to bring student voices into conversations about policies that affect their wellbeing. Thank you, Sophia.

And today's data reflects the voices of more than 13,000 California high school students during the 2223 school year. When asked about major sources of stress in their lives, 45% of students reported overall workload and homework as a top source of stress. This was selected over several other stressors, including future plans, college, and relationships.

California has already championed student well being by recognizing the need for students to get more sleep, and we commend the recent implementation of a later school start time. Now we ask you to consider the rest of the student's day in our sample.

After students spend seven to 8 hours at school, then complete an average of two to two and a half hours of homework, plus extracurricular activities, paid work, and family commitments.

There's simply not enough hours in the day for teens to get the 9 hours of sleep they need per night, and younger students need even more, up to 10 hours. In fact, 57% of students reported that homework often or always prevented them from getting enough sleep.

We also know that more than half of students surveyed reported that homework has prevented them from having time for family, friends, and other important activities. We know from extensive research that playtime, downtime, and family time are considered protective factors and are fundamental to healthy child and adolescent development.

Importantly, reviews of research on homework at the younger grade levels show almost no correlation between time spent on homework and academic achievement, with the notable exception of reading for pleasure. Finally, we're concerned about the inherent inequities presented by homework.

We know that at the national level, one in five students do not have adequate technology, resources or support at home to complete the homework they've been assigned. The healthy homework Bill will ensure that educators use evidence based homework practices for consistency, clarity, and equity.

Thank you for considering the well being of California children and the critical need for sleep, play, and family time as you review this Bill today.

Thank you for your testimony. Other witnesses in support? I'm seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition? Opposition? Witnesses to this Bill? Also seeing none. Let's come back to the dais before we start to Sophia again. Well done. But good news.

We passed a Bill, it was my Bill last year about recess that prohibits the denial of recess for anything other than major disciplinary reasons. So if any teacher tries to deny you recess, send them my way.

I did see that Bill, actually.

Okay, good to hear you're waiting for that. You are following legislation better than my colleagues, so thank you for your good work. Can you name names? We will not. We will not name names. Question or comments from my colleagues. Senator Welk. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Come on. It's a shadow chair. Great Bill. I think it's long overdue. Fantastic testimony. And I'm so glad that you mentioned that you want to have time for your art because you are fantastic artists. So impressed with all the work I've seen from you. I just remember my son. He wasn't young.

He was junior in high school, AP history. And he's up like every night till one. And I finally go, what's going on? And it's all rote stuff that is just wasting the kid's time. And I said, we're going to get you out of that class. I want you to be a kid. And he's done.