BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 955
AUTHOR: Williams
AMENDED: May 16, 2013
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 12, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Intersession Extension Programs.
SUMMARY
This bill, until January 1, 2020, authorizes any community
college district governing board to establish and maintain
an extension program offering credit courses during summer
and winter intersessions and to charge students a fee that
covers the actual cost of the course, without the approval
of the Board of Governors of the California Community
Colleges.
BACKGROUND
Current law establishes the California Community Colleges
(CCC) 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 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
AB 955
Page 2
requirements California State University (CSU) and
University of California (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)
Current law authorizes a community college district to
admit nonresident students and requires that these students
be charged a tuition fee, with certain specified
exemptions. Current law requires that the tuition fee be
set by the governing board of each community college
district by February 1 of each year for the succeeding
fiscal year that specified notice of these fee changes be
provided, and that any increase in these fees be gradual,
moderate, and predictable.
Current law prescribes a formula for the calculation of the
nonresident fee which, generally, is based upon the amount
expended by the district for the "expense of education",
adjusted by the Consumer Price Index, and divided by the
total full-time equivalent students (FTES) (including
nonresident students) that attend the district in the
preceding fiscal year. Current law also authorizes a
tuition fee amount not to exceed that established by any
contiguous district, and prohibits the fee from being less
than the statewide average fee for students. Special
provision is made for the calculation of the fee by
districts that have greater than 10 percent FTES from
non-credit courses. (Education Code � 76140)
ANALYSIS
This bill authorizes the governing board of a community
college district, without the approval of the Board of
Governors, to establish and maintain an extension program
during summer and winter intercessions until January 2020
and establishes the following parameters for this
authority:
Program Features
1) Requires that an extension program established under
this authority have the following characteristics:
a) Be self-supporting with all
associated costs being recovered.
AB 955
Page 3
b) Be open to the public.
c) Be developed in conformance with
existing regulations governing the development of
credit course within the community colleges.
d) Be subject to district collective
bargaining agreements.
e) Apply to all courses leading to
certificates, degrees, or transfer preparation.
2) Requires that a district, in order to participate,
have served a number of students equal to or beyond
its cap for the prior two academic years, as reported
by the Office of the Chancellor of the California
Community Colleges.
3) Requires that a degree credit course offered through
extension meet specified regulatory requirements.
4) Restricts the offering of extension programs to summer
and winter intercessions.
Oversight
5) Establishes the following requirements and
prohibitions to ensure that these courses do not
supplant state funded courses:
a) Prohibits an extension credit
courses from supplanting any course funded with
state apportionments.
b) Prohibits a community college
district from reducing a state funded course
section needed by students to achieve basic
skills, workforce training, or transfer goals
with the intent of reestablishing those course
sections through extension.
c) Requires the local governing board
to annually certify compliance with these
conditions through board action taken at a
regular board session.
6) Establishes the following reporting requirements:
AB 955
Page 4
a) Requires a district that maintains
an extension program to:
i) Collect and keep
records that measure student participation,
demographics, and outcomes in a manner
consistent with information collected for
credit courses in the state-supported
program.
ii) Include an analysis of any
program effects on district workload and
financial status for each participating
college in a district.
b) Requires the submission of the
information outlined in (a) to the Chancellor's
office by October 1 annually and requires the
Chancellor to submit the information to the
Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) by November 1
annually.
c) Requires the LAO to submit a
summary of information provided, an assessment of
the extent to which the programs are operated
consistent with legislative intent, and
suggestions for statutory improvements, by
January 1, 2017.
Fees
7) Prohibits the governing board of a community college
district from expending general fund moneys to
establish and maintain the program.
8) Authorizes the governing board of a community college
district to charge students enrolling in these courses
a fee, and establishes the following parameters for
the fee:
a) Requires that the fee be based
upon the district's non-resident fee rate, that
covers the "actual cost" of course in the year it
is offered.
AB 955
Page 5
b) Defines "actual cost" to include
the actual cost of instruction, necessary
equipment and supplies, student services and
institutional support, and other costs of the
community college district used in calculating
the costs of education for nonresident students.
Financial Aid
9) Requires that one third of the revenue collected for
these courses be used by the district to provide
financial assistance in order to ensure access to
these courses for students eligible for the Board of
Governors fee waiver program.
10) Requires a California Community Colleges (CCC)
district maintaining such a program to encourage
participation and access of students eligible for
Board of Governors fee waivers and requires that the
district:
a) Provide students with information
about financial aid programs, the American
Opportunity Tax Credit, military benefits,
scholarships, and other available student
financial assistance.
b) Work with campus foundations to
provide financial assistance to students to
attend extension programs.
11) Sunsets the bill's provisions on January 1, 2020.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, numerous
researchers have raised concerns about California's
ability to meet its workforce needs to sustain its
economy. Experts estimate that California will need
3.5 million additional degrees in the next decade just
to keep pace. The CCC is the key to meeting this need
and providing opportunity for most Californians to
achieve their educational and professional goals.
Yet, recent budget shortfalls have resulted in the
worst cuts to the system in recent memory-reductions
that are unlikely to be completely restored in the
AB 955
Page 6
near future. This bill would allow colleges to offer
courses leading to transfer or a degree or certificate
during intersessions. According to the author, since
most campuses have eliminated programs, extension
offerings give students an opportunity to take the
courses they are not able to get during the
state-supported regular session to accelerate the
completion of their goals. And by providing
additional opportunities for students to complete
high-demand courses, this should free up space in the
companion state-supported courses offered during the
regular session, increasing all students' ability to
complete their education in a timely manner.
2) Related budget impacts on the California Community
Colleges (CCC) . Funding for the 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), The Impact of Budget Cuts on
California's Community Colleges, course offerings have
declined from 420,000 to 334,000 since 2008-86,000 or
21% of course offerings-and most were credit courses
necessary to transfer or obtain a degree or
certificate. 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.
In addition, budget cuts have 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. PPIC notes that reductions in summer offerings
may slow the completion rates for some students.
According to the CCC, from 2008-09 to 2011-12, the
system reduce summer and winter sections by nearly 50%
and in 2012-13, 82% of colleges responding to a CCC
survey did not offer winter classes for
2012-13.
Staff notes that the Chancellor's Office recently
reported that community colleges are beginning to
expand summer course offerings. It is unclear the
extent to which these increased offerings will relieve
the backlog of demand for community college courses
AB 955
Page 7
which has occurred as a result of the pattern of
funding/reduced course offerings experienced since
2008.
3) Paradigm shift ? Notwithstanding the effect of recent
funding cuts, this bill proposes a departure from the
open access mission established for the community
colleges by the Master Plan and by state statute.
Although the University of California and the
California State University 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 access to the
ability to pay?
4) Other options ? In its March 2013 report, the PPIC
notes that while the state's fiscal outlook has
improved, the additional funding is unlikely to make
up for years of significant cuts. The report
concludes that if community colleges are to fulfill
their multiple missions, the state must consider
alternatives, including the following:
1) Pursue more local parcel taxes, although
Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC)
notes that only two of the four measures on the
November 2012 ballot were approved by voters.
2) Increase student fees to bring more
revenue into the system.
3) Reduce the income thresholds to qualify
for a Board of Governors (BOG) fee waiver to
bring more fee revenue into the system.
4) Require students to apply for federal
financial aid in order to get a BOG fee waiver.
AB 955
Page 8
5) Consider alternative fee models, including
charging more to those who can afford to pay
more accompanied by aid to hold low-income
students harmless.
5) Inconsistent with prior efforts . This committee has
considered similar legislation in the past (See staff
comment # 11). In both cases, the committee's
willingness to support the extension program concept
focused upon a pilot program only. Consistent with
prior actions of this committee staff recommends the
bill be amended to:
a) Require the Chancellor's Office of the
California Community Colleges to establish a
voluntary pilot program for purposes of allowing
a community college district that meets the
criteria outlined in the bill to establish and
maintain an extension program offering credit
courses during winter and summer intersession.
b) Limit participation to 15 campuses from 15
different districts.
c) Require the Chancellor, in selecting the
campuses to consider, geographic, socio-economic
and demographic diversity, labor-market demand,
and the district's program and planning capacity.
d) Require the Chancellor, in selecting
campuses, to extend priority for selection to a
campus with at least 50% of students currently
utilizing the board of governor's fee waiver, a
campus with a successful core career technology
education program, and a campus that serves
communities where the unemployment rate is higher
than the state average.
e) Declare the intent of the Legislature that
at least one participating campus should begin
implementation of the pilot program by January 1,
2014 and that an additional 5 participating
campuses shall implement the program by July 1,
2014.
AB 955
Page 9
f) Delete the language that authorizes any
district to establish and maintain an extension
program without the approval of the Board of
Governors.
Additionally, in order to ensure sufficient oversight
of the pilot program, staff recommends the bill be
amended to:
a) Require the Chancellor to review pilot
programs, monitor compliance with the
requirements of the bill's provisions, and have
the authority to rescind the authority to
participate in the pilot program if the
Chancellor determines that the campus or its
district is out of compliance with the bill's
provisions.
b) Authorize fees sufficient to cover the
administrative costs incurred by the Chancellor's
Office for providing oversight of the pilot
program.
6) Conditions to be met for participation . Arguably, the
intent of this bill is to give districts that have
clear and ongoing demand for their credit courses and
programs that cannot be met with limited state support
an alternative source of funding to meet that demand.
The bill establishes some conditions to be met by
districts in order to participate, but these
provisions should be clarified and strengthened to
ensure that participating colleges; 1) have clear and
ongoing demand for credit courses and programs that
cannot be met with limited state support and 2) are
maximizing the use of state funds to meet the state's
objectives.
Questions which should be addressed before the
granting of the authority to increase fees include the
following:
a) Has the district restricted the enrollment
of students in classes for purposes of personal
enrichment under the state funded program?
AB 955
Page 10
b) Is it reasonable to authorize the shifting
of any student to a higher cost program if the
state-funded program continues to enroll students
in "activity" courses?
c) Does the district prioritize the enrollment
of students who are eligible for "in-state"
tuition (California residents, military
dependents, AB 540 students) to ensure that
California's taxpayers, rather than foreign
students, or non-residents are being served in
the state-supported program?
Consistent with prior action of this committee, staff
recommends the bill be amended establish the following
requirements in order to be eligible to participate in
the program:
a) A district must not have received a
stability adjustment to state apportionment
funding in the prior two academic years.
b) All courses offered for credit that
receive state apportionment funding must meet
basic skills, transfer or workforce development
objectives.
c) A district must prioritize enrollment of
students in courses that receive state
apportionment funding in conformance with the
legal authority of the community college district
governing board, Section 66025.8, and Section
58108 of Title 5 of the California Code of
Regulations, by promoting policies that
prioritize enrollment of students in courses that
receive state apportionment funding who are fully
matriculated, as defined in Section 78212, and
making satisfactory progress toward a basic
skills, transfer, or workforce development goal.
d) The applicant district must have adopted
policies that prioritize enrollment of students
who are eligible for resident tuition.
e) A district must limit the state-supported
enrollment of students in "activity" courses, as
AB 955
Page 11
defined in Title 5, California Code of
Regulations Section 55041. The applicant shall
not claim state apportionment for students who
repeat either credit or non-credit physical
education or visual/performing arts course that
are part of the same sequence of courses, unless
the district is doing so to meet degree or other
local community college district requirements.
However, this condition should not apply to
disabled students taking adaptive activity
courses, students participating in
intercollegiate athletics, or students with an
approved educational plan majoring in physical
education or the visual/performing arts."
1) Supplanting . The bill contains provisions that
prohibit an extension credit course from supplanting
courses funded with state apportionments, and
prohibits the reduction of state-funded courses with
the intent of reestablishing them as part of the
extension program.
In addition, consistent with provisions in prior
versions of similar bills as well as the current
policies governing extension programs offered at other
public segments, staff recommends the bill be amended
to prohibit extension courses from being offered at
times or in locations that supplant or limit offerings
of state-supported programs or in conjunction with
courses funded with state apportionments.
2) Increased financial aid costs to the state ? The bill
currently requires that one-third of fee revenue be
collected and used to provide financial assistance to
students and also requires that the participant
district encourage broad participation in existing
financial aid programs. Shouldn't the district also be
required to ensure that students supported by state
financial aid programs be served primarily via the
lower cost state-funded program where possible in
order to ensure that costs to already strained state
financial aid programs are minimized?
Staff recommends the bill be amended to require that
an applicant district promote enrollment priority and
student support policies that ensure that students
AB 955
Page 12
eligible for state financial aid programs are not
disproportionately shifted from the state-funded
program to courses offered under the pilot program.
3) Strengthened reporting requirements . Although the
bill calls for a Legislative Analyst Office report, it
appears that the report will merely summarize
self-reported information and self-analyses submitted
by participating districts. Shouldn't a more
independent, substantive, and informative analysis be
required?
Staff recommends the bill be amended to require the
Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) to report:
a) Summary statistics on course offerings,
enrollment, financing, and student utilization of
financial aid, funding, and course completions
and overall completion rates.
b) A determination of the extent of the pilot
program's compliance with statutory requirements
and the extent to which it expanded access for
students.
c) An assessment of the program's effect on the
availability of, and enrollment in
state-supported courses, with particular
attention to the demographic make-up and
financial aid status of students enrolled in the
state-supported courses.
d) Recommendations regarding the extension,
expansion or modification of the program and
consideration of alternative approaches that
could achieve expanded access without increased
state funding.
Additionally, given that districts are granted the
discretion to independently determine actual costs and
set fee levels for extension program courses, staff
recommends the bill be amended to require that pilot
program districts report and submit a schedule of fees
established pursuant to subdivisions (g) to the
Chancellor by August 1 annually, and that the
Chancellor provide this information to the LAO as
AB 955
Page 13
well.
4) Prior Legislation These have included:
a) SB 1550 (Wright, 2012) heard and passed by
this committee in April 2012 by a vote of 8-0,
would have required the Chancellor's Office of
the California Community Colleges to establish a
voluntary pilot program and select up to 8
campuses from 8 different districts to establish
and maintain an extension program offering career
and workforce training courses for credit at fee
levels covering the actual cost of these courses.
SB 1550 subsequently failed passage in the
Assembly Higher Education Committee by a vote of
3-2.
b) AB 515 (Brownley, 2011), heard by this
committee on June 29, 2011, would have
established a California Community Colleges
Extension Pilot Program. That bill, like this
one, authorized extensive participation by
community colleges throughout the state since any
community college that certified that it met the
requirements of the program would be eligible to
participate. Although the bill was heard by this
committee, no vote was taken, and a subsequent
hearing on the bill was cancelled at the request
of the author.
SUPPORT
American Federation of State County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
American Legion - Department of California
AMVETS - Department of California
Associated Student Council, Lake Tahoe Community College
Associated Student Government of College of the Canyons
California Competes
California State Commanders Veterans Council
Campaign for College Opportunity
Chancellor, College of the Canyons
Superintendent-President, Solano Community College
VFW - Department of California
Vietnam Veterans of America - California State Council
AB 955
Page 14
OPPOSITION
California Community College Chancellor's Office
California Community College Independents
California Federation of Teachers
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
Coast Community College District Student Council
Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges
Los Angeles College Faculty
Los Angeles Community College District
Los Rios Community College District
Peralta Community College District
San Diego Community College District
Student Senate for California Community Colleges
Ventura County Federation of College Teachers
Yosemite Community College District