BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 160
AUTHOR: Portantino
AMENDED: June 20, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 29, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : Concurrent enrollment in secondary school and
community colleges.
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes the governing board of a community
college district (CCD) to enter into a concurrent
enrollment partnership with a school district or school
districts within its immediate service area in order to
provide secondary school pupils who have exhausted all
opportunities to enroll in an equivalent course at the high
school of attendance, adult education program, continuation
school, regional occupational center or program, or any
other programs offered by the school district.
In addition, the bill permits a school district to
authorize a pupil, upon the recommendation from a community
college administrator, as specified, to attend a community
college and take career technical education courses.
BACKGROUND
Current law:
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 a community
college as a special part-time or full-time student.
Prohibits a principal from recommending, for community
college summer session attendance, more than five
percent of the total number of students in the same
grade level and exempts from the five percent cap a
student recommended by his or her principal for
AB 160
Page 2
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. (Education Code § 48800, et. seq.)
Provides that, for purposes of receiving state
apportionments, California Community College (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.
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.
Requires the California Community College Chancellor's
Office (CCCCO) to report to the Department of Finance
and Legislature 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. (EC § 76001 and § 76002)
ANALYSIS
This bill authorizes the governing board of a community
college district (CCD) to enter into a concurrent
enrollment partnership with a school district or school
districts within its immediate service area in order to
provide secondary school pupils who have exhausted all
opportunities to enroll in an equivalent course at the high
school of attendance, adult education program, continuation
school, regional occupational center or program, or any
other programs offered by the school district.
Specifically, this bill, as it relates to a concurrent
enrollment partnership:
1) Requires participating CCDs to adopt a partnership
agreement with each school district partner.
Partnership agreements must be approved by the
governing boards of both the community college and
school district.
AB 160
Page 3
2) Requires partnership agreements to outline the terms
of the partnership, and may include, but not be
limited to, the scope, nature, and schedule of courses
offered. The partnership agreement may establish
protocols for information sharing and joint facilities
use.
3) Requires a copy of the partnership agreement be filed
with the department and the Office of the Chancellor
of the California Community Colleges before the start
of a program offered under a partnership agreement.
4) Prohibits a community college district, under a
partnership agreement, from providing physical
education courses to secondary school students.
5) Specifies that a pupil in the partnership receive
credit for the community college course completed at
the level determined appropriate pursuant to a
partnership agreement.
6) Stipulates that a CCD shall not receive state
apportionment for an instructional activity for which
a school district has received an apportionment.
7) Allows a concurrent enrollment student to enroll in up
to 11 units per semester at a CCD.
8) Allows a CCD to assign an enrollment priority to
concurrent enrollment students.
9) Specifies that CCDs and school districts that enter
into a partnership are exempt from (a) the requirement
that a pupil receive the authorization from the school
district governing board to become eligible for
concurrent enrollment, and (b) the 5 percent limit on
summer session concurrent enrollment.
10) Requires participating CCDs and school districts to
annually report specified data on concurrent
enrollment to the Chancellor's Office.
In addition, the bill permits a school district to
authorize a pupil, upon the recommendation from a community
college administrator, as specified, to attend a community
AB 160
Page 4
college and take career technical education courses.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, while
concurrent enrollment programs have expanded,
California's laws governing concurrent enrollment have
not. By permitting districts to form a
school / community college partnership to draft their
own plans for concurrent enrollment without the
current restrictions, this measure will allow regions
to use this tool to meet educational challenges or
tailor concurrent enrollment programs to meet regional
needs with less administrative costs. 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.
2) Envisioned partnership should not limit remedial
opportunity . The bill permits the creation of a
concurrent enrollment partnership for secondary
students who have exhausted all options to enroll in
equivalent courses at their high school. However, as
currently drafted the bill indicates that pupils are
afforded "?with the opportunity to benefit from
advanced scholastic, career-technical, or vocational
coursework."
Upon further review, a partnership can also create an
opportunity to the benefit for pupils not considered
"advanced" such as pupils needing greater academic
assistance. Therefore staff recommends an amendment
to include on page 6, line 22, after "coursework"
insert: "and basic skills remediation, preparation for
the high school exit examination, English as a second
language, and dropout prevention."
3) Minimum elements of a partnership . The bill specifies
that a partnership agreement shall outline the terms
of the partnership and "may include, but not be
limited to, the scope, nature, and schedule of courses
offered." However, the outline of the terms is silent
on the academic readiness and ability of pupils to
benefit, would it make sense for both CCDs and school
districts as they develop terms of a partnership at a
AB 160
Page 5
minimum to include this also? Staff recommends on
page 6, line 38 after "nature," insert: "academic
readiness and ability of pupils to benefit."
4) Budget shortfalls create pressure on fundamental
mission of CCCs. Ongoing budget shortfalls and
resulting General Fund reductions combined with
increased student demand in part due to 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. This bill
would allow CCDs to assign an enrollment priority for
high school pupils in a concurrent enrollment
partnership.
Given the current fiscal condition of both K-12 and
CCC districts, should there be a requirement that both
K-12 and CCC districts make decisions about
undertaking a partnership in an open process to ensure
that parents, staff, and the community are involved
and that sufficient opportunity for comments is
provided in a public meeting? Staff recommends an
amendment on page 6, line 35 after the period, "Prior
to adoption of a partnership agreement, a
participating community college district and
participating school district shall separately, as a
condition of entering into a partnership, at a
regularly scheduled open public hearing of their
respective governing boards shall take testimony from
the public to discuss, approve or disapprove the
proposed partnership agreement."
5) Related legislation . SB 650 (Lowenthal) would enact
the College Promise Partnership Act, and authorize the
Long Beach Community College District (LBCCD) and the
Long Beach Unified School District to enter into a
partnership, as specified, to provide participating
pupils with an aligned sequence of rigorous high
school coursework leading to capstone college courses,
as defined, with consistent and jointly established
AB 160
Page 6
eligibility for college courses. The bill would
authorize the governing board of the LBCCD community
college to admit specified students, with parental
permission, to any community college under its
jurisdiction as a special part-time or full-time
student pursuant to the act, and to assign priority
for enrollment and course registration to certain
students.
6) Prior legislation . 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.
SUPPORT
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office
California School Boards Association
Kern Community College District
Los Angeles Community College District
Peralta Community College District
Regional Council of Rural Counties
San Jose-Evergreen Community College District
OPPOSITION
None on file.