BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 634
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 16, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION
Richard S. Gordon, Chair
AB 634 (Gomez) - As Amended: April 1, 2013
SUBJECT : Private postsecondary education: avocational
education.
SUMMARY : Requires the Bureau for Private Postsecondary
Education (BPPE) to promulgate regulations to clarify the
definition of avocational education, as used in the California
Private Postsecondary Act of 2009 (Act).
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Act, and provides for the oversight and
regulation of California's private postsecondary educational
institutions by the BPPE under the Department of Consumer
Affairs. (Education Code [EDC] Section 94820)
2)Provides for numerous exemptions from BPPE oversight,
including an institution that offers solely avocational or
recreational educational programs. (EDC 94874)
3)Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), by October 1,
2013, to report to the Legislature and the Governor on the
appropriateness of the exemptions contained in the Act. (EDC
94949)
4)Defines "avocational education" to mean education offered for
the purpose of personal entertainment, pleasure, or enjoyment.
(EDC 94818)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of this bill . This bill requires the BPPE to
promulgate regulations to clarify the definition of
'avocational' (or non-professional) education. The author and
sponsor have been working with the BPPE to clarify that
English training programs used by international tourists for
recreational purposes are considered avocational and therefore
AB 634
Page 2
exempt from the Act and BPPE oversight. This bill is
sponsored by a coalition of institutions that provide
non-academic, recreational English language services.
2)Author's statement . According to the author, "There is
confusion as to whether non-vocational English language
training programs for non-immigrant students in the United
States (U.S.) on a [non-work] F-1 student visa [are]
'avocational education' for the purposes of the Act.
Avocational schools are exempt from BPPE oversight, but
currently, as a result of confusing regulatory language, some
of these schools believe they are regulated by the BPPE, while
others do not. These schools do not provide degrees, do not
promise employment, and do not receive any [federal student
aid] funding, and thus, none of the traditional consumer
protection issues apply to these schools. This bill would
clarify that such schools fall within the definition of
'avocational education.'"
3)BPPE . The BPPE is responsible for the implementation of the
Act and provides oversight of California's private
postsecondary educational institutions. Currently, BPPE
regulates approximately 1,876 institutions that provide
education beyond high school and are not public institutions.
Many of the institutions governed by the Act are vocational
institutions offering skills training or entry-level positions
in a variety of industries and trades, and others offer degree
programs that are academic in nature, such as psychology,
computer science, and business.
4)Confusion over BPPE regulations defining "avocational
education" . Existing law under the EDC defines "avocational
education" as "education offered for the purpose of personal
entertainment, pleasure, or enjoyment" that is not subject to
BPPE oversight.
However, BPPE regulations define "education offered for
purpose of personal entertainment, pleasure or enjoyment" to
mean education offered for the purposes of play, amusement or
relaxation, including education offered for the purpose of
teaching the fundamentals, skills or techniques of a hobby or
activity." That definition does not include education that
facilitates the development of learning skills or language
proficiency to assist a student to learn English as a second
language unless the institution exclusively enrolls students
AB 634
Page 3
for an intensive English program that is touristic in nature,
and provides for transportation, housing, and cultural and
recreational activities.
The author contends that this has created confusion among
institutions offering non-vocational English language
instruction over whether they are subject to BPPE oversight.
5)Regulations . The Administrative Procedure Act establishes
rulemaking procedures for state agencies, including the BPPE.
While BPPE can already promulgate regulations and legislation
is not needed to change regulations, it is the understanding
of Committee staff that the author and sponsor have been
working with the BPPE through the regulatory process to
clarify the definition of "avocational education" and that
this bill is a vehicle in the event a statutory solution is
necessary.
6)Report on existing exemptions . The LAO will issue a report
this October on the appropriateness of the exemptions included
in the Act. For the most part, the Legislature has refrained
from approving additional exemptions before considering the
LAO's recommendations.
7)Arguments in support . According to the sponsors, a coalition
of organizations providing English language services, "In
California, there are educational entities that provide
non-vocational English language training programs to
non-immigrant students in the U.S. under federal law?
"It is doubtful that BPPE regulation is appropriate for these
entities as they do not promise or provide degrees or
diplomas. They do provide students [with] certificates of
attendance to enable students to verify to the federal
government that they were enrolled in an English language
training program for purposes of visa eligibility, but the
certificates themselves do not otherwise represent the
completion of an educational program typically associated with
a degree or diploma. The objective of these entities is to
provide an opportunity for foreign students to lawfully enter
the U.S. as students, experience American culture, and enjoy
tourist destinations near their school location, while
improving their English skills for personal benefit.
"These entities do not offer courses designed to lead to
AB 634
Page 4
employment and with the limited exception of being allowed to
work on campus, the students are generally prohibited by the
terms of their visa from working in the U.S. and must return
to their home country within 60 days [following] the
conclusion of their studies."
8)Double-referred . This bill was heard by the Assembly Higher
Education Committee on April 9, 2013 and approved by a 11-0
vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Brandon College (sponsor)
Converse International School of Languages LLC (sponsor)
EC Language Centres (sponsor)
EF International Language Schools, Inc. (sponsor)
ELC, ELS Educational Services, Inc. (sponsor)
Embassy CES (sponsor)
English Studies Institute (sponsor)
FLS (sponsor)
The ILSC Education Group, Inc. (sponsor)
Language Studies International (sponsor)
St. Giles International (sponsor)
The Language Company (sponsor)
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Joanna Gin / B.,P. & C.P. / (916)
319-3301