BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 160
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 160 (Portantino)
As Amended May 27, 2011
Majority vote
HIGHER EDUCATION 8-0 EDUCATION 10-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Block, Achadjian, |Ayes:|Brownley, Norby, Ammiano, |
| |Brownley, Fong, Galgiani, | |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, |
| |Lara, Miller, Portantino | |Eng, Halderman, Wagner, |
| | | |Williams |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, | | |
| |Blumenfield, Bradford, | | |
| |Charles Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, | | |
| |Hall, Hill, Lara, | | |
| |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, | | |
| |Solorio, Wagner | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes the following provisions for concurrent
enrollment students attending 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 5% 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)Prohibits a CCD under a partnership agreement from providing
physical education courses to secondary school students as
part of removing the concurrent enrollment limits.
AB 160
Page 2
3)Stipulates that a CCD shall not receive state apportionment
for an instructional activity in which a school district has
received an apportionment.
4)Allows a concurrent enrollment student to enroll in up to 11
units per semester at a CCD.
5)Allows a CCD to assign an enrollment priority to concurrent
enrollment students.
6)Requires participating CCDs and school districts to annually
report specified data on concurrent enrollment to the
Chancellor's Office.
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.
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
AB 160
Page 3
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 CCC Chancellor's Office to report to the
Department of Finance 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 : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, in 2009-10, the CCC served about 31,000 FTES in
concurrent enrollment. General Fund (Proposition 98) cost
pressure of around $14 million annually assuming a 10% increase
in concurrent enrollment. To the extent K-12 students taking
classes at CCC 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 :
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 60 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
AB 160
Page 4
closer to fulfilling its potential as an important tool in
meeting the State's educational challenges.
Previous legislation : Since the existing concurrent enrollment
restrictions were put into place in 2004 ÝSB 338 (Scott),
Chapter 786, Statutes of 2003] there have been at least nine
measures attempting to expand concurrent enrollment. Most
recent efforts include AB 78 (Portantino) of 2009, which was
substantially similar to this bill, and AB 555 (Furutani) of
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960
FN: 0000861