BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
AB 1146 (Morrell) - Concurrent Enrollment
Amended: April 8, 2013 Policy Vote: Education 9-0
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: August 30, 2013
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez
SUSPENSE FILE.
Bill Summary: AB 1146 extends, from January 1, 2014 to January
1, 2019, the exemption from the 5% cap on concurrent enrollment
for pupils who enroll in community college summer session
courses that meet specified criteria.
Fiscal Impact: To the extent that this bill allows more high
school students to concurrently enroll in community college
summer courses, there will be increased state costs. The
for-credit community college rate is $4,636 per full-time
equivalent students (FTES); a 10% increase in the number of
concurrently enrolled high school students would result in
approximately $7.6 million in Proposition 98 General Fund costs.
Background: Existing law authorizes the governing board of a
school district, upon recommendation of the principal of a
student's school of attendance, and with parental consent, to
authorize a student who would benefit from advanced scholastic
or vocational work to attend a community college as a special
part-time or full-time student. Existing law also prohibits a
principal from recommending, for community college summer
session attendance, more than 5% of the total number of students
in the same grade level and exempts from the 5% cap a student
recommended by his or her principal for enrollment in a
college-level summer session course if the course in which the
pupil is enrolled meets specified criteria. This exemption is
repealed on January 1, 2014. (Education Code � 48800, et seq.).
Existing law also requires the California Community College
Chancellor's Office (CCCCO) to annually report to the Department
of Finance and the Legislature the amount of FTES claimed by
each community college district (CCD) for high school pupils
enrolled in non-credit, non-degree applicable, degree applicable
AB 1146 (Morrell)
Page 1
(excluding physical education), and degree applicable physical
education courses. Existing law further provides that, for
purposes of receiving state apportionments, CCDs may only
include high school students within the CCD's report on FTES if
the students are enrolled in courses that are open to the
general public, as specified. (EC �76002)
The CCCCO is also required to annually report the number of
pupils who enroll in community college summer session courses
and receive a passing grade. (EC 48800)
Finally, existing law requires the governing board of a CCD to
assign a low enrollment priority to special part-time or
full-time students in order to ensure that these students do not
displace regularly admitted community college students (EC �
76001)
Proposed Law: AB 1146 extends by 5 years, an existing exemption
from the 5% cap on concurrent enrollment for high school pupils
who enroll in community college summer session courses that meet
specified criteria.
Related Legislation: SB 1437 (Padilla) Ch. 718/2008 extended the
previous sunset of the concurrent enrollment provisions from
January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2014.
SB 1303 (Runner) Ch. 648/2006 exempted from the 5% cap on the
number of high school students allowed to concurrently enroll in
community college coursework, a student recommended by his or
her principal for enrollment in a college-level advanced summer
session course, or in a vocational community college summer
session course, if specified criteria were met.
Staff Comments: Placing a 5% cap on the number of high school
students in each grade, at each high school, who may
concurrently enroll in community college summer courses, limits
the total number of high school students who can take community
college classes and be counted toward FTES for the purposes of
state reimbursement. Fully exempting from the 5% cap any student
who takes a course that meets any of the following criteria, on
the other hand, effectively removes the cap: (a) a lower
division Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum
course that applies to the General Education breadth
requirements of the California State University; (b) a
AB 1146 (Morrell)
Page 2
college-level occupational course for credit, and is part of a
sequence of vocational or career technical education courses
that leads to a degree or certificate, as specified; or, (c) a
course is necessary to assist a pupil who has not passed the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), and the student is in
the senior year, as specified. There can be an unlimited number
of enrollments in those categories of classes. There would only
be a 5% cap on enrollment in courses that do not meet the
exemption criteria.
While the theoretical costs of this bill could be substantial,
it is unclear what the practical costs would be; neither the
CCCCO nor the California Department of Education (CDE) track the
disaggregated number of concurrently enrolled students from each
high school, in each grade level. No state agency enforces the
existing 5% cap on course enrollments that do not meet the
exemption criteria, nor collects schoolsite level data to
determine if any school (that is not an early college or middle
college high school) actually allows more than 5% of student in
any grade level to concurrently enroll in community college
summer courses. Furthermore, no state agency collects data on
which, if any, high school students are concurrently enrolling
pursuant to the exemption (provided in current law, and extended
by this bill) rather than within the blanket 5% cap. The CCCCO
collects data on the number of high school students statewide
who successfully complete community college summer session
courses -16,403 in 2012, significantly fewer than the 59,303 in
2008 - but does not track the data at a level that would allow
any cap to be enforced. 16,403 is far fewer than 5% of the
number of high school students in the state, but it is unlikely
that the students matriculate equally from all high schools.
Existing law places the prohibition against enrolling above the
cap on the school principal, but it is unclear whether or how
that requirement is enforced. To the extent that the cap and its
exemptions are unenforced now, this bill is not likely to result
in any change to behavior or to state FTES reimbursement costs.
AB 1146 (Morrell)
Page 3