BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1451
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1451 (Holden)
As Amended May 23, 2014
Majority vote
HIGHER EDUCATION 13-0 EDUCATION 7-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Williams, Chávez, Bloom, |Ayes:|Buchanan, Olsen, Chávez, |
| |Fong, Fox, Jones-Sawyer, | |Gonzalez, Nazarian, |
| |Levine, Linder, Medina, | |Weber, Williams |
| |Olsen, Quirk-Silva, | | |
| |Weber, Wilk | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, | | |
| |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, | | |
| |Holden, Jones, Linder, | | |
| |Pan, Quirk, | | |
| |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, | | |
| |Weber | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Authorizes the governing board of a school district to
enter into a formal concurrent enrollment partnership with a
community college district located within its immediate service
area, with the goals of helping high school pupils achieve
college and career readiness, improve high school graduation
rates, reduce community college remediation rates, and develop
seamless pathways from high school to community college career
technical education (CTE) programs and/or preparation for
transfer and removes certain restrictions on concurrent
enrollment. Specifically, this bill :
1)Generally finds and declares that concurrent enrollment
provides important educational opportunities for high school
pupils, increases college participation rates, improves the
level of preparation of pupils in the area of CTE, saves money
for both the state and the students, and provides for more
AB 1451
Page 2
effective use of facilities; additionally finds that the
existing limits on concurrent enrollment programs inhibit the
ability of school districts and their students to make maximum
use of California Community Colleges (CCC).
2)Specifies that a concurrently enrolled pupil may receive
community college and high school credit for completed
community college courses as determined to be appropriate by
the governing boards of the school district and the community
college district, in accordance with state and federal law.
3) Reinstates until January 1, 2017, the following
provisions that became inoperative on January 1, 2014:
a) Specified exemptions from the 5% cap on concurrent
enrollment; and,
b) An annual reporting requirement required of the CCC
Chancellor.
4) Adds an exemption from the 5% cap on summer session
concurrent enrollment for courses necessary in addressing
deficiencies in English language arts or mathematics for
pupils who have not demonstrated college-readiness on an
Early Assessment Program assessment or a successor common
core aligned assessment.
5) Repeals the prohibition against the CCC Board of
Governors from including in its annual budget request the
concurrent enrollment of pupils who are exempt from the 5%
enrollment cap.
6) Authorizes community college districts and high school
districts to enter into concurrent enrollment partnership
agreements, as specified.
7) Requires the partnership agreement to certify that any
community college instructor teaching a course on a high
school campus has undergone an appropriate background
check.
8) Stipulates that the following types of high school
courses shall not be supplanted by equivalent community
college courses offered through a partnership:
AB 1451
Page 3
a) A course meeting A-G course requirements; and,
b) A course listed on the school's master schedule.
9) Stipulates that a community college district shall not
provide physical education course opportunities to
secondary school pupils as part of a partnership agreement.
10) Prohibits a pupil from being assessed any course-related
fees for a community college course offered through a
partnership.
11) Specifies that a school district participating in a
partnership shall not receive a state allowance or
apportionment for an instructional activity for which a
community college district has been, or shall be, paid an
allowance or apportionment.
12) Specifies a community college district shall not receive
a state allowance or apportionment for a pupil for whom a
school district has been, or shall be, paid an allowance or
apportionment.
13) Requires participating school districts and community
college districts to annually report specified enrollment
and outcome measures to the CCC Chancellor's Office, and to
the Legislature, the Department of Finance, and the
Superintendent of Public Instruction.
14) Exempts pupils attending an early college high school
and participants of the concurrent enrollment partnership
program from the requirement that concurrently enrolled
pupils be assigned lower priority to ensure they do not
displace regularly admitted students. (To note: this
provision already applies to middle college high school
students.)
15) Specifies that a community college district may limit
enrollment in a community college course solely to high
school pupils if the course is offered at a high school
campus, is not otherwise offered at the high school, and
the course is offered by a middle college and/or early
college high school and/or is offered pursuant to a
AB 1451
Page 4
partnership agreement.
16) Specifies that for purposes of allowance and
apportionments of the State School Fund, a community
college district conducting a closed course on a high
school campus shall be credited with additional units of
full-time equivalent students (FTES) attributable to the
attendance of eligible high school pupils, unless the high
school district has been or will be paid an apportionment
for that instructional activity.
17) Allows a community college district to allow a pupil
attending a middle or early college high school or a pupil
participating in a partnership agreement to enroll in up to
a maximum of 15 units if those units are required for the
pupil's partnership program, and are part of an academic
program offered at the middle or early college high school
that is designed to allow students to earn enough credit to
graduate with an associate's degree or CTE certificate, or
are part of a partnership agreement.
EXISTING LAW :
1)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. Additionally, current law prohibited 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 exempted 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 was enrolled met specified criteria. These
exemptions were repealed on January 1, 2014 (Education Code
(EC) Section 48800 et seq.).
2)Requires the CCC Chancellor's Office to report to the
Department of Finance and Legislature annually on the amount
of FTES claimed by each CCC district for high school pupils
enrolled in non-credit, non-degree applicable, degree
applicable (excluding physical education), and degree
applicable physical education courses; and provides that, for
AB 1451
Page 5
purposes of receiving state apportionments, CCC districts may
only include high school students within the CCC district's
report on FTES if the students are enrolled in courses that
are open to the general public, as specified. Additionally,
current law requires the governing board of a CCC district 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
Sections 76001 and 76002).
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)To the extent districts can claim apportionment funding for
additional concurrently enrolled students, there will be
increased General Fund (Proposition 98 of 1988) costs. The
equivalent of only 33 FTES statewide, at the current funding
rate of $4,636 per FTES would exceed $150,000. To the extent,
however, that community colleges as a whole are already using
all state funds apportioned for enrollment, the bill will
result in additional unknown Proposition 98 cost pressure.
2)To the extent the bill results in more students accelerating
their postsecondary education - by reducing their need for
post-high school remediation and/or by reducing their time to
degree - the state and students will benefit from these
efficiencies. To the extent more students obtain needed
remediation through community college courses, rather than
upon entering the California State University, the state will
realize savings equal to the difference in state support per
student between the two segments.
COMMENTS : Concurrent enrollment background. Concurrent
enrollment provides pupils the opportunity to enroll in college
courses and earn college credit while still enrolled in high
school. Currently, a pupil is allowed to concurrently enroll in
a CCC as a "special admit" while still attending high school, if
the pupil's school district determines that the pupil would
benefit from "advanced scholastic or vocational work."
Special-admit students have typically been advanced pupils
wanting to take more challenging coursework or pupils who come
from high schools where Advanced Placement or honors courses are
not widely available. Additionally, programs such as middle
college high schools and early college high schools use
AB 1451
Page 6
concurrent enrollment to offer instructional programs for
at-risk pupils that focus on college preparatory curricula.
These programs are developed through partnerships between a
school district and a CCC. During summer session at a CCC,
principals are limited to recommending no more than 5% of their
pupils in each grade level to enroll at a CCC during a summer
session. Existing law provides certain exemptions to this
process (as aforementioned in current law above). These
exemptions expired on January 1, 2014.
This bill reinstates the exemptions and calls for them now to
sunset on January 1, 2017.
According to a February 2014 report by the Education Commission
of the States (ECS), the number of United States public high
schools offering concurrent enrollment programs is growing, with
82% providing such opportunities in 2011-12, the most recent
national data available. Academic research and state experience
highlight the benefits of concurrent enrollment programs for
improving college rates, particularly for minority and/or
low-income students. Additionally, ECS finds that with the
possible exception of the State of Massachusetts, minority
and/or low-income students tend to be underrepresented in
statewide concurrent enrollment programs.
Purpose of this bill. The author states, "AB 1451 will [help]
prepare secondary pupils integrate into collegial environments,
provide gifted students more rigorous academic opportunities,
provide assistance to students studying for the California High
School Exit Exam, provide exposure to college as a drop-out
prevention tool for high school administrators, generate
interest in higher education for students without college
aspirations, and expand opportunities for the development of job
training programs that prepare students for vocational careers."
What is exempted? Current law exempts a high school student
recommended by the principal for enrollment in a community
college summer session course from the 5% cap if:
1)The course is a lower division Intersegmental General
Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) course that applies to
the General Education breadth requirements of the California
State University (CSU).
AB 1451
Page 7
2)The course is a 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.
3)The course is necessary to assist a pupil who has not passed
the California High School Exit Exam, and the student is in
the senior year, as specified.
This bill adds courses that are necessary to address the
deficiencies in English language arts or mathematics of a pupil
who has not demonstrated college-readiness on an Early
Assessment Program assessment or a successor common core aligned
assessment to the exemption list of the 5% cap.
How many? According to the CCC Chancellor's Office statutorily
required report on special admit enrollments: 26,604 special
admit students were claimed systemwide, in summer 2013, with
22,432 of the students successfully completing and passing their
courses. The summer 2013 numbers have slightly increased when
compared to the previous last couple of years; however, the 2013
numbers remain significantly lower when compared to summer 2007,
when of the 68,708 special admit students claimed systemwide,
53,387 successfully competed and passed their courses.
Double-dipping? There is a common perception that concurrent
enrollment courses require a state to "pay twice" for a student
to take a single course. However, according to ECS, "If the
dual enrollment opportunity is strong, rather than paying twice,
states are paying earlier." ECS concludes that the state is
consolidating two payments into one if the community college
course that the high school pupil takes is transferable to the
postsecondary institution where he or she later enrolls.
Impact of budget cuts on CCC. General Fund reductions combined
with increased student demand has left the CCC unable to provide
course offerings to fully meet student needs. 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), 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,
AB 1451
Page 8
and another 500,000 students were on waiting lists for Fall 2012
courses. When there is greater demand than there are course
offerings, course registration priorities play an important role
in managing enrollment by determining which groups of students
are enrolled in needed courses and which students get turned
away.
Analysis Prepared by : Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960
FN: 0003653