BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 160
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 160 (Portantino) - As Amended: May 9, 2011
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote: 8-0
Education 10-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill removes the current limits on concurrent enrollment
during summer session at the California Community Colleges (CCC)
if a community college district (CCD) enters into a partnership
agreement with a school district(s) within its immediate service
area. Specifically, this bill:
1)Exempts school districts from the five percent limit on summer
session concurrent enrollment and related provisions, subject
to a partnership agreement, as specified, between a
participating CCD and one or more school districts, approved
by both districts' boards and filed with the Chancellor of the
CCC and the State Department of Education.
2)Applies the above opportunity for concurrent enrollment only
to those secondary school students who first notify their
principal that they have exhausted all opportunities to enroll
in an equivalent course in their high school or any other
program offered by the school board.
3)Prohibits a CCD under a partnership agreement from providing
physical education courses to secondary school students as
part of removing the concurrent enrollment limits.
4)Stipulates that a CCD shall not receive state apportionment
for an instructional activity in which a school district has
received an apportionment.
5)Allows a concurrent enrollment student to enroll in up to 11
units per semester at a CCD.
AB 160
Page 2
6)Prohibits a CCD from assigning an enrollment priority to
concurrent enrollment students.
7)Requires participating CCDs and school districts to annually
report specified data on concurrent enrollment to the
Chancellor's Office.
8)Modifies existing concurrent enrollment provisions to:
a) Delete the requirement that a principal recommend
students for community college enrollment for summer
session and instead authorize students to enroll, with
notification to their principal that they have exhausted
their option in the school district.
b) Require the school principal to notify the CCD upon
receiving notification per (a) from five percent of the
students in any grade level.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)In 2009-10, the CCC served about 31,000 FTES in concurrent
enrollment. The bill would create General Fund (Prop. 98) cost
pressure of around $14 million annually assuming a 10%
increase in concurrent enrollment.
2)To the extent K-12 students taking classes at community
college are eventually able to complete their educational
goals in less time, the CCC, as well as University of
California and the California State University would benefit
from these efficiencies.
COMMENTS
1)Background . 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
AB 160
Page 3
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.
2)Purpose . According to the author, this bill 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. The bill's most significant action is to
remove the restriction that high school principals may not
approve summer concurrent enrollment for more than 5% of the
students who just completed any year in that high school. This
provision, which dates from the 1970s, has no apparent current
policy foundation and serves as a significant barrier for
joint use of K-12 and CCC resources and facilities.
3)Prior Legislation . AB 78 (Portantino) of 2009, a similar bill,
was held on this committee's Suspense file.
AB 1409 (Portantino) of 2007, which raised and ultimately
lifted 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, was held on Suspense in Senate
Appropriations.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081