BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 160
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 15, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Marty Block, Chair
AB 160 (Portantino) - As Amended: February 28, 2011
SUBJECT : Concurrent enrollment in secondary school and
community college.
SUMMARY : Removes certain restrictions on concurrent
enrollment. Specifically, this bill :
1)Generally finds and declares that concurrent enrollment
provides important educational opportunities for high school
students, increases college participation rates, saves money
for both the state and the students, and provides for more
effective use of facilities; additionally finds that the
existing limits on concurrent enrollment programs inhibit the
ability of school districts and their students to make maximum
use of California Community Colleges (CCC).
2)Deletes the existing authority for a school district to
determine which high school students may participate in
concurrent enrollment and deletes the requirement that high
school students be recommended by their principals, and
instead:
a) Authorizes school districts to enter into partnerships
with CCC districts to provide concurrent enrollment
opportunities that include, in addition to currently
authorized advanced-scholastic opportunities,
career-technical coursework, summer school opportunities,
high school exit examination preparation, English as a
second language instruction, basic skills remediation, and
dropout intervention.
b) Authorizes a high school student to attend a CCC as a
special part-time or special full-time student upon
notification of their principal that the student has
exhausted all opportunities to enroll in an equivalent
course at the high school or any other program offered by
the school district governing board. Requires students
younger than 18 years of age to obtain parental consent.
3)Deletes the existing prohibition that, for any particular
AB 160
Page 2
grade level, a principal may not recommend for CCC attendance
during summer sessions for more than 5% of the total number of
students in a given grade; deletes the statutory exceptions to
that rule; deletes the requirement that the CCC Chancellor's
Office (CCCCO) report to the Department of Finance (DOF) on
the number of students enrolled per these statutory exceptions
to the 5% rule; and deletes the prohibition against CCC
including enrollment growth attributable to these statutory
exceptions in its annual budget request.
4)Requires the CCCCO to report to the DOF by March 1, 2012, and
on or before January 1 each year thereafter, the number of
students who enrolled in a CCC course pursuant to the
provisions of this bill and the number of students who
received a passing grade.
5)Prohibits a CCC district from receiving an allowance or
apportionment for an instructional activity for which a school
district has been, or shall be, paid an allowance or
apportionment.
6)Removes the requirement that a CCC district assign a low
enrollment priority for registration for concurrently enrolled
students and instead prohibits a CCC district from assigning
any enrollment priority for registration to ensure that these
pupils do not displace continuing students.
EXISTING LAW
1)Authorizes the governing board of a school district, upon
recommendation of the principal of a student's school of
attendance, and with parental consent, to authorize a student
who would benefit from advanced scholastic or vocational work
to attend CCC as a special part-time or full-time student.
2)Prohibits a principal from recommending, for CCC summer
session attendance, more than 5% of the total number of
students in the same grade level.
3)Exempts from the 5% cap a student recommended by his or her
principal for enrollment in a college-level summer session
course if the course in which the pupil is enrolled meets
specified criteria and repeals these exemptions on January 1,
2014.
AB 160
Page 3
4)Provides that, for purposes of receiving state apportionments,
CCC districts may only include high school students within the
CCC district's report on full-time equivalent students (FTES)
if the students are enrolled in courses that are open to the
general public, as specified.
5)Prohibits any physical education course at a CCC from having
more than 10% of its enrollment comprised of high school
students, and provides that a CCC may not receive state
apportionments for high school students enrolled in physical
education courses in excess of 5% of the CCC district's total
reported enrolled number of high school students.
6)Allows the governing board of a CCC to restrict enrollment of
K-12 school district students based on age, completion of a
specified grade level, and demonstrated eligibility.
7)Requires the CCCCO to report to DOF annually on the amount of
FTES claimed by each CCC district for high school students
enrolled in non-credit, non-degree-applicable,
degree-applicable (excluding physical education), and
degree-applicable physical education, pursuant to the
aforementioned provisions.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. However, the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis of AB 78 (Portantino, 2009), which was
substantially similar to this proposal, identified a General
Fund cost pressure of $16 million to $24 million, to enroll high
schools students in a CCC for the purposes outlined in this
bill. This assumes a 10% to 15% increase in high school
students at CCCs. The author argues that this cost estimate
does not take into account that CCCs receive less state money
for instruction than high schools so the state saves money when
a student takes a course at a CCC instead of a high school.
Additionally, the author argues that the state will save the
higher UC and CSU funding rate when a student who eventually
enrolls in one of those systems completes a college requirement
while still in high school. Finally, the author notes an
economic benefit when a student who takes a career technical
education CTE course at a CCC also fulfills a college
certificate requirement and moves into the job market earlier
and with better skills.
COMMENTS : Double-Referral : This bill has been double-referred
to the Assembly Education Committee.
AB 160
Page 4
Purpose of this bill : The term "concurrent enrollment"
generally refers to the practice of allowing students to take
college courses and earn college credit while still in high
school. Historically, concurrent enrollment has been used by
academically advanced high school students who need an
additional challenge, students who were likely to attend college
anyway. Certainly, concurrent enrollment still serves this
purpose. However, more recently broader programs have been
developed to target underserved student populations less likely
to attend college. Over sixty Early and Middle College High
Schools operate throughout California and offer comprehensive
concurrent enrollment programs. These programs blend high school
and college coursework to allow students to simultaneously earn
a high school diploma and an Associate's degree or up to two
years of credit toward a Bachelor's degree. According to the
author, while concurrent enrollment programs have expanded and
enhanced, California's laws governing concurrent enrollment have
not. This bill seeks to update California's statutory framework
and move concurrent enrollment closer to fulfilling its
potential as an important tool in meeting the State's
educational challenges.
Background : As noted above, California's existing laws do not
outline a comprehensive strategy for concurrent enrollment.
Additionally, the state has erected specific barriers that might
inhibit the creation and growth of more comprehensive practices.
These barriers exist, at least partially, because of a history
of improper concurrent enrollment practices at some locations.
For example, in 2002, the state took action to reduce concurrent
enrollment levels after concerns were raised about a number of
CCC districts claiming state funding for high school students
taking physical education courses. While this bill would remove
several barriers to concurrent enrollment, this bill does not
change the limitations regarding physical education (PE)
courses. In addition to concerns about PE abuses, in the past
concerns have been expressed, most notably by DOF, that
expanding concurrent enrollment will allow for increased "double
dipping" on the part of K-12 and CCC districts. The concern is
generally that concurrent enrollment allows both the K-12 school
district and the CCC district to claim apportionments for the
same student (double dip). This bill addresses this concern by
explicitly prohibiting a CCC district from receiving an
apportionment for instructional activity for which the school
district was already paid.
AB 160
Page 5
Summer concurrent enrollment restrictions : One of the major
provisions of this bill is to remove the restriction that high
school principals may not approve summer concurrent enrollment
for more than 5% of the students in any given grade level. It
is important to note that in recent years the Legislature has
approved exemptions to this limitation for college-level
transferable courses, college-level occupational credit courses
that are part of a degree or certificate program requirement
(numerous CTE courses), and courses to assist high school
seniors who have not yet passed the California High School Exit
Examination. These exemptions appear to cover the vast majority
of courses that would likely be included in a comprehensive
concurrent enrollment strategy. Falling under the 5% limitation
would likely be students seeking enrollment in basic skills
courses, physical education courses, non-transferable courses,
personal enrichment courses, and non-credit/non-degree technical
courses. The CCCCO is required to report specified data on
summer concurrent enrollment students, including the categories
of courses in which students are enrolling as well as whether
students received a passing grade. Unfortunately, due to
workload issues at the CCCCO, the required reports have not yet
been released, and data that might help the legislature
determine if it is necessary to remove the 5% limitation is not
available. The CCCCO was able to provide some information that
may be helpful to the committee in evaluating this proposal. In
the summer of 2010, statewide CCCs enrolled concurrent
enrollment students in 27,398 courses; students received passing
grades in approximately 82% of those courses. In the summer
session of 2010 the most popular courses included foreign
language courses, college preparation and success courses,
college-level transferable courses (liberal arts courses,
sciences, mathematics), and physical education, and to a lesser
degree students enrolled in dance, theater and arts courses.
The Committee may wish to consider if removing the 5% limitation
is premature considering the lack of available data.
Enrollment priorities : This bill would prohibit CCCs from
providing any level of priority to concurrent enrollment
students, with the stated intent of ensuring concurrent
enrollment students do not displace continuing CCC students.
This change would likely mean that concurrent enrollment
students would be authorized to enroll alongside first-time CCC
students. Ongoing budget shortfalls and resulting General Fund
reductions combined with increased student demand in part due to
AB 160
Page 6
unemployment and the overall economic slowdown has left CCCs
unable to provide course offerings to fully meet student needs.
According to CCC Chancellor Jack Scott, approximately 140,000
students have been turned away from CCCs, over 95% of all
classes are at capacity, and estimated 10,000-15,000 students
are on wait lists for courses. The CCC reductions proposed in
the 2011-12 Budget will mean an anticipated 350,000 students
will be turned away next year. When there is greater demand
than there are course offerings, course registration priorities
play a role in managing enrollment, determining which groups of
students are enrolled in needed courses and which students get
turned away. The Committee may wish to consider if allowing
concurrent enrollment students to enroll alongside new
(traditional) CCC students is the appropriate enrollment
placement for concurrent enrollment students.
Previous legislation : Since the existing concurrent enrollment
restrictions were put into place in 2004 (SB 338, Scott, Chapter
786, Statutes of 2003) there have been at least 9 measures
attempting to expand concurrent enrollment. Most recent efforts
include AB 78 (Portantino, 2009), which was substantially
similar to this bill, and AB 555 (Furutani, 2009), which
contained similar provisions to this bill, but was limited to
only five specified CCC districts. Both AB 78 and AB 555 were
held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. AB 1409
(Portantino) of 2008, which was also substantially similar to
this bill, was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
Community College League of California
Kern Community College District
Los Angeles Community College District
Peralta Community College District
San Jose-Evergreen Community College District
Opposition
None on File
Analysis Prepared by : Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916)
AB 160
Page 7
319-3960