BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 515
AUTHOR: Brownley
AMENDED: May 27, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 29, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Community College Extension Courses.
SUMMARY
This bill establishes the California Community Colleges
Extension Pilot Program which, until July 1, 2016,
authorizes community colleges that meet specified
requirements to establish and maintain an extension program
offering credit coursework to students at fee levels that
cover the actual cost of maintaining these courses.
BACKGROUND
Current law establishes the California Community Colleges
as a part of public higher education. Current law
establishes and differentiates the goals, missions and
functions of California's public segments of higher
education.
(Education Code § 66010)
Current law provides that the primary missions of the
community colleges are to offer academic and vocational
education at the lower division level for both recent high
school graduates and those returning to school. Another
primary mission is to advance California's economic growth
and global competitiveness through education, training, and
services that contribute to continuous workforce
improvement. In addition current law provides that
essential and important functions of the colleges include:
basic skills instruction, providing English as a second
language, adult noncredit instruction, and providing
support services that help students to succeed at the
postsecondary level. Community colleges are also authorized
to provide community service courses and programs so long
as their provision is compatible with an institution's
AB 515
Page 2
ability to meet its obligations in its primary missions. To
the extent funding is provided the colleges are authorized
to conduct institutional research concerning student
learning and retention as is needed to facilitate their
educational missions. (EC § 66010.4)
Current law requires the governing board of a local
community college district to admit any California
resident, (and authorizes them to admit any nonresident)
possessing a high school diploma or the equivalent and
authorizes the board to admit anyone who is capable of
profiting from the instruction offered, as specified. (EC §
76000)
Current law requires that community college students be
charged a per unit fee and statutorily prescribes the fee
level through the annual Budget process. Current law
exempts the student enrolled in noncredit courses and in
credit contract education courses, as specified, from these
fee requirements. Current law also exempts from these
requirements CSU and UC students enrolled in CCC remedial
classes, as specified, and provides for the waiver of these
fees for students who have financial need or meet other
specified criteria. (EC §76300)
ANALYSIS
This bill establishes, until July 1, 2016, the California
Community Colleges Extension Pilot Program which authorizes
any community college district that meets the outlined
requirements to establish and maintain an extension program
offering course credits.
Program Features
1) Outlines the following requirements to be met by a
community college district in order to maintain the
authorized extension program:
a) Requires the program to be
self-supporting, and that all associated costs
for the program be recovered.
b) Requires that enrollment be open
to the public.
AB 515
Page 3
c) Requires the program be developed
in conformance with Title 5 regulations for
credit courses.
d) Applies the following statutes relative to
faculty and expenditures:
:
i) Requires a goal of
75:25 ratio of full-time to part-time
faculty in extension program credit classes.
ii) Requires conformance with the 50%
law governing program revenues and
expenditures (50% of current expense of
education must be for payment of salaries of
classroom instructors).
iii) Subjects the extension program to
collective bargaining agreements.
e) Prohibits a governing board from
expending any general fund moneys to establish
and maintain these courses.
f) Prohibits these courses from
supplanting state funded courses and prohibits
the reduction of state-funded course sections or
the transfer to extension of course sections for
basic skills, workforce training, or transfer
goals.
g) Prohibits a district that receives
a stability adjustment to their apportionments
from offering an extension program.
h) Prohibits extension courses from
being conducted in district instructional space
in a manner that supplants the use of this space
for state-fund courses.
i) Limits students to applying no
more than 24 semester units to an associate or
transfer degree from a CCC and limits the number
of units per semester to 12 credit units.
j) Requires that degree credit
AB 515
Page 4
courses offered meet all requirements, standards,
and criteria for courses under Title 5 of the
California Code of Regulations, as specified.
Oversight
2) Requires the extension program be subject to annual
review by the Chancellor and requires the Chancellor,
as part of this review, to specifically monitor
compliance with the non-supplanting requirements and
to determine whether a district's extension program
meets the outlined requirements.
3) Requires the district to submit a list of extension
courses to be offered to the Chancellor's Office 30
days in advance of each session.
4) Requires a local governing board to annually certify
compliance through board action at a regular board
meeting.
5) Requires each district to annually collect student
information, as specified, and conduct an analysis of
the program effects on district workload and financial
status, and to submit this information to the
Chancellor's Office by October 1 annually.
6) Requires each district to submit a schedule of course
fees to the Chancellor's Office by October 1 annually.
7) Requires the Chancellor to submit all district
information to the LAO and the LAO to submit a report
on the pilot program by January 1, 2015 that:
a) Summarizes the information received from
districts.
b) Assesses the extent of compliance with
legislative intent.
c) Makes suggestions for statutory
improvements.
Fees
8) Authorizes a governing board to establish fees that do
AB 515
Page 5
not exceed the actual cost of maintaining these
courses.
9) Defines actual costs to include cost of instruction,
cost of equipment and supplies, student services and
institutional support and other costs.
10) Requires districts to minimize the costs of
administration to the greatest extent possible.
11) Authorizes the Chancellor to establish a fee limit
subsequent to the first annual review of programs
conducted.
12) Declares legislative intent that surplus seats not
filled by extension students be made available to all
community college students at a cost no higher than
state fees.
13) Authorizes campuses to set higher levels of fees for
nonresident students participating in extension
programs.
Financial Aid
14) Declares legislative intent to maximize access to
these courses regardless of ability to pay through use
of financial aid and enrollment fee waivers.
15) Requires each participating campus to ensure that
state and federal financial aid is available to
eligible students.
16) Require that financial aid students receive same
priority for enrollment as all other students.
17) Requires policies to be developed to waive fees.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, we are
at a time of unprecedented cuts and budget shortfalls.
Access to the community colleges exists for any person
as long as there is state funding. Permitting
community colleges to offer extension courses would
enable local boards to expand course offerings beyond
the limitations of state funding. Authorizing CCCs to
AB 515
Page 6
offer extension credit courses would allow students to
complete coursework and degrees faster and enter the
workforce sooner, at no additional cost to the State.
2) Related Budget activity . The Governor's proposed
budget for 2011-12, among other things, implements
$500 million in General Fund budget reductions to the
UC and CSU budgets and a net reduction of $290 million
for the CCC (after being offset by increased fee
revenue). In addition, the Budget proposes fee
increases from $26 to $36 per unit beginning in the
fall 2011 semester. According to the Chancellor's
Office, the $520 million in budget cuts sustained by
the CCC in 2009-10 resulted in 38,000 fewer course
sections and 140,000 fewer students compared to the
prior academic year. The Chancellor's Office estimates
that the 2011-12 budget will result in at least
140,000 additional students losing access due to
further course reductions and the elimination of some
career training programs, and, absent tax extensions
or another source of funding, an "all-cuts" budget
would result in denying access to more than 400,000
students. The Chancellor's Office has also noted that
a statewide unemployment rate of 11.9%, as well as
budget reductions at UC and CSU, have created even
greater demand for the CCC as individuals turn to the
community colleges to access the training they need to
return to work or to begin their higher education.
3) Paradigm shift . This bill proposes a significant
departure from the open access mission established for
the community colleges by the Master Plan and by state
statute. Although the UC and the CSU offer
self-support extension programs, these segments serve
a defined population whereas the community colleges
have traditionally served as California's way of
ensuring that affordable access to education is
provided for all others who can benefit. Has the state
reached a point where it can no longer meet the Master
Plan's promise of low-cost, open access for all
Californian's at the community colleges? Can the state
maintain its commitment to open access at the
community colleges and at the same time, endorse a
parallel private-pay model for the system? Is this the
first step toward privatizing educational opportunity
at California's community colleges and to linking
AB 515
Page 7
access to the ability to pay?
4) Other options ? This bill, in order to expand access
to community college courses, proposes the creation of
a statewide, parallel, self-supported extension
program. Are there other ways to expand access and
course offerings?
a) Statewide fee increases ? In its April review
of higher education budget options for the Senate
Budget and Fiscal Review Committee the
Legislative Analyst's Office suggested, among
other things, a fee increase of $66 per unit in
the event of an all-cuts budget. The LAO 2011-12
Budget Policy Brief: California Community College
Fees reports that, at $36 a unit, fees at the CCC
continue to be the lowest in the nation.
According to the LAO the full tuition charge at
the CCC represents 15 percent of the average
educational costs at the CCC. Before authorizing
an extension program, should the Legislature
consider increasing fees beyond that proposed in
the current budget?
b) Enrollment management ? In its 2011-12 Budget
Policy Brief: Prioritizing Course Enrollment at
the Community Colleges, the LAO recommends
several changes to CCC enrollment management
policies in order to ensure that state funds are
targeted to meet the state's highest priorities
for the CCC. These include assignment of highest
priority for enrollment to continuing students
who are fully matriculated, participate in
assessment, orientation and counseling and who
have an educational plan, as well as capping the
number of taxpayer-subsidized units that a
student can earn, and eliminating the ability of
students to retake academic or vocational
classes. These recommendations were also
presented as options for the Senate Budget and
Fiscal Review Committee in April 2011. Should an
extension program be authorized before these
options have been fully considered/implemented
through the budget process?
While it is reported that discussions around
AB 515
Page 8
these options for expanding/prioritizing
enrollment within the state-funded program are
occurring within the CCC and on individual
campuses, no statewide policies in this regard
have been adopted by the system.
5) Is this the right model ? As drafted, this bill,
essentially, mirrors the state-funded program, with
the exception that it costs more. Arguably, a pilot
program could offer an opportunity to explore a number
of policy questions raised by national researchers as
well as the Student Success Task Force established by
SB 1143 (Liu, Chapter 409,Statutes of 2010). Is this
model the best one for informing state public policy
deliberations?
In addition, its current form, the bill raises a
number of questions:
a) Can it work ? How workable is the structure
created by this bill? How can programs limit fees
charged to some students to the actual costs of
maintaining the program, yet generate enough
funding to waive or cap fees for other students?
Does application of existing statutes regarding
staffing, expenditures, and collective bargaining
limit the flexibility of a private pay program to
respond to the needs of those who are paying for
the full cost of the program?
b) Unintended consequences ? The ability of a
district to successfully participate in an
extension program will at least partly depend
upon whether it has unmet demand from by
individuals who, through personal means or
financial aid programs, can afford to pay the
higher fees. What would be the effect of a more
well-funded neighboring campus/district
implementing an extension program? Would a
district with a high Board of Governor's waiver
population be at a disadvantage? Would
redirection of potential students to extension
programs offered by other districts result in a
reduction of resources/services at the less
well-funded district? Would the resources/quality
of what can be offered at campuses that only
AB 515
Page 9
offer a state-funded program be undermined? Does
this benefit, or harm, the overall community
college system?
c) Sufficient oversight ? This bill creates a
number of oversight responsibilities for the
Chancellor's Office. Given the generous
parameters for participation in the "pilot" the
number of districts that participate could be
extensive. Does the Chancellor's Office have the
staff and fiscal resources to engage in
meaningful review and oversight of all these
programs? Districts are required to
"self-certify" compliance with the bills'
provisions. Is this a meaningful oversight?
Although the bill calls for an LAO report, this
report is to summarize self-reported information
and self-analyses submitted by participating
districts. Can an independent, substantive
analysis be assured?
d) Supplanting . This bill prohibits the
supplanting of basic skills, workforce training
or transfer courses in the state funded program.
How enforceable are these provisions? Could
districts shift high cost workforce development
programs to extension while still maintaining and
expanding lower cost basic skills or transfer
courses in the state funded program without
technically "supplanting" existing courses? Could
the bill result in a "maintenance-of-effort" in
the state funded program while encouraging new or
expanded programs for students who pay more in
the extension program?
6) A step at a time ? Traditionally, pilot programs
endorsed by this Committee have involved smaller scale
preliminary implementations designed to evaluate the
feasibility of a concept and to adjust and improve a
program prior to its statewide implementation. While
this bill purports to establish a pilot program, it
authorizes extensive participation by community
colleges throughout the state since any community
college that certifies that it meets its requirements
would be eligible to participate. The "pilot" nature
appears to be based solely upon the sunset of the
AB 515
Page 10
authority granted by the bill. Given the significance
of the changes proposed, and the questions and
concerns outlined in #5, if the Committee wishes to
explore the concept of extension programs within the
community colleges, would a much smaller "pilot
program" be more prudent?
7) Under what conditions ? Arguably, the intent of this
bill is to give districts that have clear and ongoing
demand for credit courses and programs that cannot be
met with limited state support an alternative source
of funding to meet that demand. In addition, the
Legislature, through budget action, has declared its
intent that community colleges implement workload
reductions in courses and programs outside of those
needed by students to achieve their basic skills,
workforce training, or transfer goals. The Committee
may wish to consider whether it is reasonable to
authorize a college's participation in an extension
programs unless certain conditions are met:
Has the district eliminated the use of state
funding to offer courses or support students in
programs or courses outside of transfer, basic
skills, or career technical education?
Has the district restricted the enrollment
of students in classes for purposes of personal
enrichment under the state funded program?
Has the district implemented policies to
ensure that enrollment is prioritized for
continuing students who are making satisfactory
progress toward their educational goals?
Should districts considering an extension
program first prioritize enrollment of students
who receive financial aid in the state funded
program?
Should a district demonstrate that it has
been serving students "over cap" for an extended
period of time in order to participate (this bill
only prohibits participation by a district if it
receives a stability adjustment, which "holds
harmless" for one year a district that
AB 515
Page 11
experiences a drop in enrollment)?
Should extension be an option if these or
other enrollment management strategies for
expanding and targeting access have not been
adopted locally?
1) How does extension in other sectors work ? According to
the CSU, their extended and continuing education
programs offer baccalaureate and graduate degree
programs, certificates, and many forms of specialized
education and training for business, industry, and
government. While the composition of these campus
programs vary considerably, most maintain the
following common instructional elements:
Special session degree, certificate, and
credential programs.
Open university (permits nonmatriculated
students to enroll in regular university courses
on a space available basis, pay self-support fees
and earn university academic credit).
Contract and extension credit.
Non-credit certificates, courses, and
programs.
Continuing education units.
Many campus self-support units conduct programs during
times when regular academic operations are recessed
(early January and May). Current law authorizes the
CSU to require and collect tuition fees for special
sessions adequate to meet the cost of maintaining
them, and declares legislative intent that these
programs not supplant regular course offerings
available on a state-supported basis during the
regular academic year. (EC § 89708) By Executive Order
these courses may only be offered to matriculated
students on a self-support basis at times and in
locations not supported by state general fund
appropriations. The CSU reports that it enrolled over
266,000 students (over 16,000 FTES) in over 46,000
course sections through extended and continuing
AB 515
Page 12
education programs in 2008-09.
According to the UC, its extension programs provide
continuing education for adults who have already
obtained an undergraduate degree and are looking for
additional credentials. All extension programs offered
by the UC are self-supporting and receive no state
funding. According to the UC, University Extension
offers about 17,000 courses annually and enrolls some
500,000 Californians in its programs each year.
Current law prohibits summer session fees at UC and
CSU from exceeding the fees charged per credit unit
for any other academic term, contingent upon the
state's provision of funding to offset any revenue
losses that may occur given the difference between
state fees and self-support fees. (EC § 66057)
SUPPORT
Associated Student Government at College of the Canyons
Board of Directors, Association of California Community
College Administrators
California Community College League
Chancellor, College of the Canyons
Chancellor, Contra Costa Community College District
Chancellor, North Orange County Community College District
College of the Desert
Foothill-De Anza Community College District
Glendale Community College
Long Beach City College
Peralta Community College District
President, Cerritos Community College District
President, MiraCosta Community College District
President, Mt. San Antonio College
San Bernardino Community College District
Santa Monica College
Superintendent/President, Copper Mountain College
OPPOSITION
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
AFT Guild, San Diego & Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community
Colleges
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California Nurses Association
AB 515
Page 13
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
Council of Faculty Organizations
Executive Board of the Merced College Faculty Association
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
Imperial Valley College CCA/CTA/NEA Faculty Association
Kern Community College District Board of Trustees
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO
Los Rios Community College District
Peralta Federation of Teachers
San Francisco Community College Federation of Teachers
San Jose-Evergreen Community College District Board of
Trustees