An act to add Section 37224 to, and to add Article 12 (commencing with Section 66095) to Chapter 2 of Part 40 of Division 5 of Title 3 of, the Education Code, and to amend Sections 11131 and 54961 of the Government Code, relating to holidays.
AB 395 would direct California school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to consider avoiding the first day of class and, where applicable, high school graduation on dates that conflict with religious, cultural, or ancestral holidays. It also requires those entities to seek input from affected communities when making those scheduling decisions. The bill applies beginning with the 2026-27 school year.
The measure further extends similar scheduling guidance to public higher education. Community colleges and the California State University would be required to make every reasonable effort to avoid calendaring mandatory institutional events—such as orientations, move-in days, exams, term start or end dates, and commencements—on dates that conflict with observances of religious, cultural, or ancestral holidays. The University of California is not directly mandated, but is requested to follow the same approach and to consult student and faculty organizations when setting calendars.
AB 395 would add new Education Code provisions governing school and higher education calendar-setting practices, and would amend Government Code sections governing state and local public meetings. For state agencies, the bill requires every reasonable effort to avoid meetings, conferences, or other functions on dates that conflict with specified holidays; for local legislative bodies, it encourages similar efforts. The bill also identifies examples of holidays including Eid al-Adha, Eid al-Fitr, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Diwali, Dussehra, Passover, Feast of the Nativity, and Maha Shivaratri. Because it imposes new duties on school districts and community college districts, the bill is treated as a state-mandated local program, with reimbursement available if the Commission on State Mandates so determines.
The bill appears to have broad support in committee and on the floor, with unanimous or near-unanimous votes at each recorded stage and no recorded opposition in the provided voting history. The overall tone of the measure is inclusive and access-oriented, emphasizing participation by communities affected by religious, cultural, and ancestral observances. The bill’s findings also frame the measure as furthering public access and civil rights principles.
The main policy distinction in the bill is between mandatory and advisory language. School districts, county offices of education, charter schools, CSU, and state agencies are directed to take action or make every reasonable effort, while the University of California and local legislative bodies are only requested or encouraged to do so. Potential contention may also arise over implementation burdens, since calendar-setting bodies would need to identify relevant observances, consult communities or campus organizations, and balance those considerations against other scheduling constraints. The bill’s mandate/reimbursement structure suggests possible concern about local costs, though no opposition is reflected in the available votes.