An act to add and repeal Article 1 (commencing with Section 44675) to of Chapter 3.1 of Part 25 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Education Code, relating to school employees.
AB 857 would require the California Department of Education to create an online cultural competency training platform and curriculum for school employees by July 1, 2027. The training is intended to support pupils of color and would be at least one hour long. Beginning with the 2027-28 school year and continuing through the 2031-32 school year, school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools serving K-12 students would have to provide the training annually to all school employees, with some exceptions and credit for prior completion at another local educational agency.
The bill also requires local educational agencies to give employees proof of completion, keep records of compliance, and provide the training on paid time during regular work hours or designated professional development time unless otherwise agreed with the employees’ exclusive representative. Certain teachers and certificated employees would be exempt if they hold a recent English learner authorization, CLAD certificate, or bilingual authorization. The Department of Education would monitor compliance through its existing annual monitoring process and submit a report to the Legislature after the five-year training period, while also posting the report publicly.
In state-law terms, AB 857 adds a new, temporary article to the Education Code and expressly makes it inoperative on July 1, 2033, with repeal on January 1, 2034. It creates a state-mandated local program because it imposes new duties on school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, and it contemplates reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates finds reimbursable costs. The bill affects school employers, school employees, and the Department of Education, and it may have fiscal implications because of training development, compliance monitoring, and paid training time.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears favorable but not unanimous: the bill passed the relevant committee 7-2 on a do-pass-as-amended motion and was sent to Appropriations. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no detailed record of debate, but the vote suggests majority support for the bill’s goals alongside some opposition or concern.
The main points of contention likely involve the mandate on local educational agencies, the cost and time burden of annual training, and the scope of the exemption for certain credentialed teachers. Another possible issue is whether the state should require a specific training focused on supporting pupils of color and how that training should be designed, delivered, and monitored. The bill’s supporters appear to view it as a professional development and equity measure, while opponents may be concerned about implementation costs, workload, and state control over local training requirements.
AB 857 would amend the Education Code by creating a new, temporary statutory requirement for cultural competency training for K-12 school employees. It would impose duties on local educational agencies to provide annual training, track completion, issue proof of completion, and ensure the training occurs on paid time, while directing the Department of Education to develop the curriculum and monitor compliance. Because these requirements apply to school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, the bill would create a state-mandated local program and could trigger state reimbursement obligations if mandated costs are found.
The available legislative history suggests the bill has generally positive support, but with some reservations. It received a 7-2 do-pass-as-amended vote in committee, indicating a clear majority in favor but not consensus. No transcript was provided, so the record does not show detailed arguments, but the vote pattern suggests the bill’s equity and training goals were acceptable to most members while some remained concerned about cost, mandate, or implementation issues.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s unfunded or partially funded mandate on local educational agencies, the administrative burden of annual training and recordkeeping, and the requirement that the training occur on paid time. There may also be disagreement over the bill’s focus on supporting pupils of color and whether the state should prescribe a specific cultural competency curriculum. The exemption for teachers with recent English learner, CLAD, or bilingual credentials may also be a point of discussion, since it narrows who must take the annual training and could be viewed either as a sensible overlap with existing qualifications or as an uneven exemption.