California Assembly Bill AB1119

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/25
• Refer: 3/10/25
• Report Pass: 3/27/25
• Refer: 4/1/25
• Refer: 4/30/25
• Report Pass: 5/23/25
• Engrossed: 6/4/25
• Refer: 6/5/25
• Refer: 6/18/25
• Report Pass: 6/27/25
• Refer: 6/27/25
• Report Pass: 7/9/25
• Refer: 7/9/25
• Enrolled: 8/29/25

Caption

Teacher credentialing: dual credentialing.

Impact

The bill is designed to address the long-standing shortage of education specialists in California and promote a more inclusive educational environment for all students, including those with disabilities. The effectiveness of co-taught classrooms and inclusive practices is recognized as vital for the success of students with diverse needs. By enabling dual credentialing, AB 1119 intends to equip teachers with broader competencies, thereby responding effectively to varying educational demands across the state.

Summary

Assembly Bill 1119, introduced by Assembly Member Patel, focuses on establishing efficient pathways for teacher credentialing in California. Specifically, it mandates the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to develop routes for dual credentialing by March 1, 2027. This includes facilitating teacher candidates in acquiring multiple subject and education specialist credentials, while also creating opportunities for existing teachers to obtain additional credentials. Such a framework aims to unify credentialing standards and support teachers in instructing diverse groups of learners, enhancing educational equity and inclusion in classrooms.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding AB 1119 appears to be positive, as it reflects a commitment to improving teacher preparation and addressing gaps in the educational workforce. Supporters believe that the bill will lead to a more comprehensive educational system that meets the needs of all students, while critics may voice concerns about the implementation logistics and the adequacy of the teacher preparation processes involved.

Contention

Despite the general support for the objectives of dual credentialing, there might be points of contention regarding the adequacy of current programs to support such initiatives. Questions may arise about the effectiveness of the proposed pathways for existing educators and how these changes will impact their workloads and preparation. Additionally, discussions may occur about ensuring that stakeholder input, especially from educators on the ground, plays a critical role in the development of these new credentialing routes.