BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 955
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 1, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 955 (Williams) - As Amended: April 22, 2013
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:10-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes California Community College (CCC)
districts to offer self-supporting extension programs during
summer and winter intersessions. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes the governing board of any district, without
approval of the CCC Board of Governors, to offer the extension
programs, subject to the following requirements:
a) For the two immediately prior academic years, a district
must have served student enrollment equal to or greater
than its funding limit.
b) The program must be self-supporting and subject to
collective bargaining agreements.
c) Enrollment must be open to the public, and only courses
leading to certificates, degrees, or transfer preparation
shall be offered.
d) Extension courses cannot supplant state-funded courses;
compliance of which must be certified annually by board
action.
2)Authorizes the board to charge extension fees sufficient to
cover actual costs, as defined, based on the district's
nonresident fee rate.
3)Requires participating districts to encourage broad
participation and support access for student eligibility for
CCC Board of Governors (BOG) fee waivers, including providing
AB 955
Page 2
information about all available forms of financial assistance.
4)Requires that one-third of the revenue collected from
extension course fees be used to provide financial assistance
to students eligible for BOG fee waivers.
5)Requires participating districts to collect and keep records
measuring student participation, demographics, and outcomes
consistent with measures collected for regular credit programs
supported through state 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.
6)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, 2017, summarizing this information,
assessing the extent to which extension programs are operated
in a manner consistent with the provisions of this bill, and
suggesting any 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.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Funding for CCC has been cut $809 million, or 12%,
over the past three years. According to a March 2013 report by
the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), since 2008,
course offerings statewide have declined from 420,000 to
334,000 (21%), and most were credit courses necessary to
AB 955
Page 3
transfer or to obtain a degree or certificate. The PPIC
estimates that since 2008, 600,000 students have not been able
to enroll in classes, and another 500,000 students were on
waiting lists for Fall 2012 courses. The budget cuts resulted
in reductions in a higher proportion of summer course sections
than in either Fall or Spring terms, suggesting that many
colleges tackled budget cuts by prioritizing course offerings
in the primary Fall and Spring academic terms.
2)Purpose . AB 955 allows colleges to offer courses leading to
transfer or a degree or certificate during intersessions. With
the significant reduction in state-supported courses,
extension offerings are intended to give students an
opportunity to take the courses they are not able to get
during the regular academic session in order to accelerate
completion of their educational goals. Providing additional
opportunities for students to complete high-demand courses
should also free up space in companion state-supported
courses, thus increasing all students' ability to complete
their education in a timely manner.
The community colleges are intended to provide open access to
all Californians, offering low fees and generous aid. While
this bill allows extension courses only during intersessions,
when they will not compete with state-supported programs, it
does create a precedent at CCC of providing courses for those
willing to pay higher fees. These fees will be based on
nonresident tuition, which varies by district but averages
around $200 per unit (state-funded courses are $46 per unit).
In order to broaden access to the extension courses, the
author's most recent amendments require that one-third of fee
revenue from the extension program be used to provide access
to extension course for those students whose income makes them
eligible for BOG fee waivers for state-supported courses. This
approach is analogous to longstanding practice of the
University of California and the California State University
in setting aside a like portion of revenues derived from state
tuition increases to provide institutional financial aid.
3)Opposition . Several community college districts argue that
this bill will create a differential fee for community college
AB 955
Page 4
students opening a pathway for certain students who can afford
to take those courses while disenfranchising students who do
not have the means to access these high cost courses. The
California Teachers Association argues the bill goes against
the philosophy that the community colleges exist to serve
everyone.
It should be noted that state-supported summer and
intersession courses serve only a relatively small portion of
CCC enrollment. In 2007-08, the year prior to the CCC
experiencing several years of budget challenges, statewide
enrollment in summer and intersession was about 170,000 FTES ,
or 13.7% of total enrollment for that year. By 2011-12,
enrollment during summer and intersession had declined to
about 80,000 FTES, or 6.9% of total enrollment. The extension
courses offered through this bill would probably constitute a
minute fraction of CCC enrollment, and are unlikely to change
the character of the community colleges.
4)Prior Legislation . SB 1550 (Wright) of 2012, which authorized
a narrow extension pilot program for career technical
education courses, failed passage in the Assembly Higher
Education Committee.
AB 515 (Brownley) of 2011, which authorized an extension
program similar to this bill, but one that could be offered
concurrently with state-supported programs, died in the Senate
Education Committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081