BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 160
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 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. This Committee should consider
whether this might create additional enrollment pressure on
community colleges and whether current law should be changed as
proposed by this bill relative to enrollment priorities.
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),
AB 160
Page 7
Chapter 786, Statutes of 2003, placed tight controls on PE
enrollment by special-admit students. This bill does not remove
those caps.
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 delete the existing contents of the bill and instead
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.
The author has accepted the amendment to delete the existing
contents of the bill and instead create partnerships that would
have flexibility relative to concurrent enrollment limitations,
pursuant to a partnership, however the author would like to
delete from current law, the requirement that a principal
recommends high school pupils to enroll in community colleges as
special part time or full time students.
This bill was heard in and passed by the Assembly Higher
Education Committee on March 15, 2011 with a vote of 8-0.
Arguments in support : The Regional Council of Rural Counties
writes, "AB 160 would eliminate some of the more draconian
restrictions on allowing high-school students to be concurrently
enrolled in courses at their local junior colleges. Often in
rural areas it is impossible for high schools to offer higher
level classes, especially mathematics, sciences, and languages
as well as different elective-type classes due to low student
enrollment and low funding levels."
Arguments in opposition : The Board of Governors of the
California Community Colleges writes, "We support the author's
goal of increasing the academic preparation of high school
AB 160
Page 8
students, however we cannot support a measure that increases the
priority of high school concurrent enrollment students when we
are turning away hundreds of thousands college students because
of recent budget cuts and course section reductions."
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
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
Kern Community College District
Los Angeles Community College District
Los Rios Community College District
Peralta Community College District
Regional Council of Rural Counties
AB 160
Page 9
San Jose-Evergreen Community College District
Opposition
Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Aviña / ED. / (916) 319-2087