Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Teacher Paid Pregnancy Leave topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances bill to create paid pregnancy leave for educators amid fiscal concerns
Summary
AB 65, which would provide paid pregnancy leave for California educators and is cosponsored by the California Teachers Association, passed out of the Assembly Education Committee and will go to Higher Education. Supporters described recruitment and retention benefits; school finance groups urged caution without a dedicated funding source.
The Assembly Education Committee voted to pass AB 65 to the Assemblys Higher Education Committee, advancing a proposal to create paid pregnancy leave for California public school educators.
Majority Leader Aguirre Curry, the bills sponsor, said the current practice forces pregnant educators to exhaust accumulated sick leave and, in some cases, to pay for substitutes or accept differential pay that leaves them financially strained. She cited CalSTRS data presented in testimony showing women educators on average receive significantly less retirement service credit because they exhaust sick leave after childbearing and related medical leave.
State Treasurer Fiona Ma urged the committee to support the measure, saying her mothers experience as a teacher illustrated how the existing system penalizes educators with family caregiving responsibilities and long-term retirement consequences. "Women should not have to choose between having a family or going to work," she said.
Supporters, including the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers, the state superintendents office and numerous local educator and labor groups, said paid pregnancy leave is a necessary step to recruit and retain teachers. Speakers described cases where teachers returned with no sick leave remaining, limiting their ability to care for children or address later health needs.
Opposition testimony from school finance and management groups stressed the bills fiscal impact. Dorothy Johnson of the Association of California School Administrators and Michelle Gill of the California Association of School Business Officials said the measure would impose an ongoing, costly mandate on districts unless the Legislature identifies a funding source. They urged that, until funding is provided, any change remain a local collective-bargaining issue.
Committee members acknowledged the staffing and equity concerns raised by supporters and the fiscal questions raised by opponents. Several members said they would press for a fiscal plan in appropriations or budget hearings. The committee voted to advance AB 65 to Higher Education.
Additional details: - Supporters: California Teachers Association and many local and statewide education and labor groups cosponsored or testified in favor. - Opposition: Association of California School Administrators, California Association of School Business Officials, Small School Districts Association and some county offices of education cited fiscal concerns.
AB 65 will now be scheduled for further review; committee members signaled they expect fiscal follow-up in budget-related hearings.
