BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 160 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 13, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Julia Brownley, Chair AB 160 (Portantino) - As Amended: February 28, 2011 ÝThis bill was referred to and heard by the Assembly Higher Education Committee as it relates to the issues under its jurisdiction] SUBJECT : Concurrent enrollment in secondary school and community college SUMMARY : Removes certain restrictions on concurrent enrollment and authorizes school districts to enter into partnerships with community college districts to provide high school pupils opportunities for advanced scholastic work, career technical or other coursework at a community college campus. Specifically, this bill : 1)Deletes existing authority for a school district to determine which secondary pupils may participate in concurrent enrollment and authorizes school districts to enter into partnerships with community college districts to provide concurrent enrollment opportunities including, but not limited to, advanced-scholastic, college-level, and career-technical coursework, summer school opportunities, high school exit exam preparation, English as a second language, basic skills remediation, and dropout prevention, at a campus of the California Community Colleges (CCC). 2)Deletes current legislative intent stating that concurrent enrollment is to provide educational enrichment opportunities for a limited number of eligible pupils, rather than reduce current course requirements of elementary and secondary schools, and states that the intent of concurrent enrollment is to provide a smoother transition from high school to college for pupils by providing them with greater exposure to the collegiate atmosphere and to maximize educational opportunities available to pupils, as specified. 3)Removes the requirement that a secondary school pupil be recommended by the principal of the pupil's school of attendance to attend a CCC as a special part-time or full-time student; and instead allows a pupil to attend a CCC during any AB 160 Page 2 session or term as a special part-time or full-time student, upon notifying the school principal that the pupils has exhausted all opportunities to enroll in an equivalent course at the high school of attendance or other district program. Requires parental consent if the pupil is under 18 years of age. 4)Deletes the existing prohibition that, for any particular grade level, a principal may not recommend for CCC attendance during summer sessions more than 5% of the total number of pupils 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. 5)Prohibits a community college 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)Deletes provisions requiring a governing board that denies a request for a special part-time or full-time enrollment at a CCC for a pupil who is identified as highly gifted, to record its findings and reasons for denial within 60 days. 7)Removes the requirement that a community college district assign a low priority for registration or enrollment for special part-time or full-time student and instead prohibits a community college district from assigning an enrollment priority to special part-time or full-time students in order to ensure that these students do not displace continuing students. 8)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, and specifies that this information may be submitted with a specified existing report. 9)Makes findings and declarations relative to concurrent enrollment stating that current restrictions inhibit the AB 160 Page 3 ability of school districts and pupils to make maximum use of CCC facilities and opportunities and that the these programs should be encouraged but with appropriate statutory prohibitions to guard against a repeat of prior abuses. EXISTING LAW : 1)Authorizes the governing board of a school district, upon recommendation of the principal of a pupil's school of attendance, and with parental consent, to authorize a pupil who would benefit from advanced scholastic or vocational work to attend community college as a special part-time or full-time student. 2)Prohibits a principal from recommending, for any particular grade level, or community college summer session attendance, more than 5% of the total number of pupils who completed that grade immediately prior to the time of recommendation. 3)Exempts from the 5% cap a pupil 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 provisions on January 1, 2014. 4)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. 5)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. 6)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. FISCAL EFFECT : On a substantially similar measure, AB 78 (Portantino) of 2009, the Assembly Appropriations Committee estimated General Fund/Proposition 98 cost pressure, likely AB 160 Page 4 between $16 million and $24 million, to enroll high schools pupils in a CCC for the purpose of taking advanced scholastic, career technical education (CTE), or other coursework. This assumes a 10% to 15% increase in high school pupils concurrently at CCCs. There were about 125,000 such students at CCCs in the 2006-07 fiscal year. COMMENTS : Concurrent enrollment provides pupils the opportunity to enroll in college courses and earn college credit while still enrolled in high school. Currently, a pupil is allowed to concurrently enroll in a CCC as a "special admit" while still attending high school, if the pupil's school district determines that the pupil would benefit from "advanced scholastic or vocational work." Special-admit students have typically been advanced pupils wanting to take more challenging coursework or pupils who come from high schools where Advanced Placement or honors courses are not widely available. Additionally, programs such as middle college high schools and early college high schools use concurrent enrollment to offer instructional programs for at-risk pupils that focus on college preparatory curricula. These programs are developed through partnerships between a school district and a CCC or in few cases with a California State University (CSU) or University of California (UC) campus. Pupils that participate in these programs often graduate with a high school diploma and an Associate's degree. This bill redefines concurrent enrollment as it expands enrollment options to coursework including basic skills remediation, high school exit exam preparation, English as a second language (ESL) and dropout intervention, whereas the original intent of concurrent enrollment, as specified in current law, is to provide advanced scholastic or vocational enrichment opportunities for a limited number of students. According to the author, "AB 160 seeks to provide a statutory framework that moves concurrent enrollment closer to fulfilling its potential as an important tool in meeting the State's educational challenges by removing the existing statutory barriers." Exiting restrictions : Current law allows principals to recommend up to 5% of the total number of high school pupils who completed a grade immediately prior to the time of recommendation, to enroll in courses at a CCC during summer session only if the pupil demonstrates adequate preparation in AB 160 Page 5 the discipline to be studied and exhausts all opportunities to enroll in an equivalent course at his or her school of attendance. Existing law provides for exemptions to this 5% cap for pupils participating in the following courses: 1. Courses that are designated as part of the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum or courses that apply toward the general education breadth requirements of the California State University (CSU); 2. College-level occupational courses for credit that are part of a sequence of vocational or career technical education courses leading to a degree or certificate in the subject area covered by the sequence; and, 3. Non-college credit courses necessary to assist a pupil who has not passed the high school exit exam for a pupil that is in his or her senior year of high school and has completed all other graduation requirements, as specified. This bill deletes the 5% summer enrollment cap and all the exemptions, thus potentially considerably expanding concurrent enrollment. The author suggests that the exemptions would no longer be necessary if the 5% cap is removed. For small and rural communities, these enrollment caps may represent an obstacle. In some cases, the 5% could equal one pupil and thus would prevent other pupils from participating in concurrent enrollment programs. Hence, an argument could be made that in such situations, existing law is restrictive and limits concurrent enrollment opportunities to pupils in small and rural communities. Currently, for a pupil to attend a CCC during any session or term as a special part-time or full-time student, the principal of the pupil's school of attendance has to make a recommendation to the governing board of the school district, and the governing board may authorize or deny the recommendation. This bill removes these restrictions and allows secondary students to attend a CCC during any session or term upon notification of the school principal that the pupil has exhausted all opportunities to enroll in an equivalent course at the school district. Removing these restrictions could perhaps provide additional opportunities for high school pupils to enroll in concurrent enrollment courses. On the other hand, due to the fiscal crisis in the state, CCC have had to turn away many first year students AB 160 Page 6 in recent years, thus raising the question of whether it is timely and prudent to lift these concurrent enrollment caps as proposed by this bill. According to the CCC Chancellor's Office, last year, an estimated 140,000 students who attempted to enroll at a community college were turned away without courses. In a time when CCCs are having difficulty serving their target population, it is questionable whether in fact CCCs can serve high school pupils at the currently allowed levels and much more questionable whether they can serve an expanded number of concurrently enrolled students. Priorities for enrollment : This bill prohibits CCCs from providing any level of priority to pupils admitted as special part-time or full-time students, so as to ensure that 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. As CCCs are implementing budget cuts, course sections are being cut by over 9%, whereas demand is at an all-time high, according to the CCC Chancellor's Office. 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. Previous controversy on concurrent enrollment : In December 2002, the Orange County Register published a story regarding abuses of concurrent enrollment in the CCCs and reported that some community college districts were inappropriately enrolling special admit students in physical education (PE) courses. That story, and several follow-up articles, alleged pupils were enrolled in courses without their knowledge, instructors were paid twice for the same courses, state apportionments were paid to both K-12 and the CCC for the same courses, and CCC districts were using summer sports camps to inflate their enrollments for significant monetary gain. Some districts eventually admitted their illegal actions and repaid funds. In the months following the scandal, the Legislature responded with budget reductions and legislative reform. SB 338 (Scott), Chapter 786, Statutes of 2003, placed tight controls on PE enrollment by special-admit students. This bill does not remove those caps. AB 160 Page 7 This bill seeks to provide safeguards to avoid potential abuses by prohibiting payment of apportionments to a CCC related to instructional activities for which a K-12 school district receives an allowance or apportionment. Suggested amendment : Prior similar legislative efforts have faced fiscal obstacles. The author and this Committee may wish to consider narrowing the scope of the bill by amending the bill to authorize only those districts that enter into a partnership agreement to be exempt from the existing limitations on concurrent enrollment. Districts that do not enter into a partnership should continue to abide by the existing concurrent enrollment limitations. This would allow such partnerships to have the flexibility from the caps and other restrictions, but the bill would not expand concurrent enrollment as significantly as currently proposed in this bill. This bill was heard in and passed by the Assembly Higher Education Committee on March 15, 2011 with a vote of 8-0. Related legislation : AB 230 (Carter) provides that existing provisions assigning a low enrollment priority in CCCs to special admit high school students do not apply to students attending a middle college high school. AB 230 is pending in the Higher Education Committee. Prior legislation : AB 78 (Portantino) of 2009 removes certain restrictions on concurrent enrollment and authorizes school districts to enter into partnerships with community college districts to provide high school pupils opportunities for advanced scholastic work, career technical or other coursework at a community college campus. AB 78 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file. AB 555 (Portantino & Furutani) of 2009 authorizes the Kern, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Los Rios, and San Jose-Evergreen community college districts to enter into partnerships with school districts to provide elementary and secondary school pupils with the opportunity to benefit from advanced scholastic, career-technical, or vocational coursework. AB 555 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file. AB 1409 (Portantino) of 2007, expands the use of concurrent enrollment between high schools and the CCCs by raising and AB 160 Page 8 ultimately lifting the cap on the percentage of high school pupils that principals may recommend for CCC summer sessions and by easing restrictions on the types of CCC courses that may be offered to high school pupils, pursuant to a partnership between the school district and the CCC. AB 1409 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support None on file. Opposition None on file. Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Aviña / ED. / (916) 319-2087