BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 515
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 515 (Brownley) - As Amended: April 27, 2011
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:6-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill, until January 1, 2019, authorizes California
Community College (CCC) districts to implement extension
programs. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes the governing board of any CCC district to
establish an extension program offering credit courses without
the approval of the CCC Board of Governors (BOG).
2)Requires an extension program to meet several requirements,
including being self-supporting, with all costs recovered;
conforming with the "50% law" regarding minimum expenses
allocated for instruction and the 75/25 split for
full-time/part-time faculty instruction; and being subject to
collective bargaining agreements.
3)Prohibits districts from expending moneys to establish and
maintain extension courses.
4)Prohibits credit extension courses from supplanting courses
funded with state apportionments, and requires districts to
annually certify compliance with this requirement.
5)Authorizes districts to charge students enrolled in extension
classes a fee not to exceed the cost of maintaining those
courses.
6)Requires any district maintaining an extension program to
collect and keep records measuring student participation,
demographics, and outcomes consistent with measures collected
for regular credit programs supported through state
AB 515
Page 2
apportionment, including an analysis of program effects, if
any, on district workload and district financial status.
Districts are to submit this information to the CCC
Chancellor's Office by October 1 of each year for each
participating college.
7)Requires the Chancellor's Office to submit all the information
per (6) to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) by November
1 of each year, and requires the LAO submit a report to the
Legislature by January 1, 2015, summarizing this information,
assessing the extent to which extension programs are operated
in a manner consistent with the provisions of this bill, and
suggesting and needed statutory improvements.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor absorbable costs to the Chancellor's Office and the LAO
for the reporting requirements.
2)Any costs to districts would be the result of districts
electing to offer extension courses and would be covered by
fees and other non-state funds.
3)Potential minor increase in GF Cal Grant costs for those
likely limited instances where an otherwise qualifying CCC
student, by adding an extension course, is able to meet the
part-time or full-time minimum unit-load requirement for Cal
Grant eligibility and thus receives an award.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, through extension programs,
the CCC could expand course offerings to meet local workforce
needs at no additional cost to the state, provide additional
credit courses to meet student demand, more fully utilize
facilities, and provide greater access to CCC courses because
they could be offered closer to home and work.
According to the sponsors, Santa Clarita Community College
District and Santa Monica Community College District, CCC
extension programs would typically operate in tandem with
AB 515
Page 3
state-funded programs, either as separate sections offered
during the spring or fall semester or quarter, or possibly as
separate sessions during winter or summer. The sponsors also
indicate they would offer workforce training and degree
programs that are currently available primarily at for-profit
institutions at a higher cost than CCCs would charge.
2)Suggested Amendment . In addition to prohibiting extension
courses from supplanting courses funded through state
apportionments, the bill should also stipulate that extension
courses shall not supplant the use of district facilities that
would otherwise be used for apportionment-funded courses.
3)Opposition . The Faculty Association of the CCC is concerned
the bill will lead districts to offer the same courses through
extension, but at a higher cost, thus setting up "a confusing
two-tier structure that does not follow the colleges'
mission." The other faculty organizations have expressed
similar concerns.
The California Labor Federation (Cal-Fed) argues that the bill
is "a step towards the privatization of public education" and
"would trade real access to courses for all students for
access for those students who can afford to pay." In
addition, Cal-Fed argues that, "Since this bill sets no limit
whatsoever on the fees for enrollment in extension classes,
students would be subject to the decisions of the school where
they want to enroll."
It should be noted that UC and CSU already offer extension
programs and that community college extension programs are
likely to be rather limited, particularly when compared to a
state-supported enrollment exceeding two million students.
Moreover, the bill's provisions prohibiting the supplanting of
state-supported courses and limiting student charges to the
cost of providing the courses would seem to address some of
Cal-Fed's concerns.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081