BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1451
AUTHOR: Holden
AMENDED: June 11, 2014
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 18, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : Concurrent enrollment in high schools and
community colleges.
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes the governing board of a school
district to enter into a formal concurrent enrollment
partnership agreement with a community college district
located within its immediate service area, with the goals
of developing a seamless pathway from high school to
community college for career-technical education or
preparation for transfer, improving high school graduation
rates, or helping high school pupils achieve college and
career readiness.
BACKGROUND
Current 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. Additionally,
current law prohibits a principal from recommending, for
community college summer session attendance of more than 5%
of the total number of students in the same grade level.
Note that as of January 1, 2014, the following courses were
no longer exempted from the 5% cap; the summer course was
(a) a lower division Intersegmental General Education
Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) course that applies to the
General Education breadth requirements of the California
State University (CSU), (b) the course is a college-level
occupational course for credit, and is part of a sequence
of vocational or career technical education courses that
AB 1451
Page 2
leads to a degree or certificate, as specified; or (c) 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. (Education Code § 48800 et
seq.)
Requires the California Community College Chancellor's
Office (CCCCO) 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 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 § 76001 and 76002).
ANALYSIS
This bill authorizes the governing board of a school
district to enter into a formal concurrent enrollment
partnership agreement with a community college district
located within its immediate service area, with the goals
of developing a seamless pathway from high school to
community college for career-technical education or
preparation for transfer, improving high school graduation
rates, or helping high school pupils achieve college and
career readiness. More specifically, this bill:
1) Reinstates the course exemptions outlined above in the
Background from the 5% cap on summer session
concurrent enrollment and, includes an additional
exemption: courses 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. These
AB 1451
Page 3
exemptions are now scheduled to sunset January 1,
2017.
2) Repeals the prohibition against the CCC Board of
Governors from including in its annual budget request
the concurrent enrollment of pupils who are exempted
from the 5% enrollment cap.
3) 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.
4) Authorizes the governing board of a school district to
enter into a concurrent enrollment partnership
agreement (CEPA) with the governing board of a
community college district located within its
immediate service area, with the goal of developing a
pathway from high school to community college for
career-technical education or preparation for
transfer.
5) Requires, as a condition of, and before adopting, a
CEPA, both the community college district and school
district, shall take testimony from the public and
approve or disapprove the proposed CEPA at a regularly
scheduled open meeting of the respective governing
boards.
6) Requires concurrent enrollment partnership agreements
to:
a) Outline the terms of the partnership, and
may include, but not be limited to, the scope,
nature, and schedule of courses offered, and the
criteria to assess the ability of pupils to
benefit from those courses. The partnership
agreement may establish protocols for information
sharing, joint facilities use, and parental
AB 1451
Page 4
consent for pupils.
b) Identify a point of contact for the
participating school district and community
college district.
c) Certify that any community college
instructor teaching a course on a high school
campus has not been convicted of any sex offenses
or any controlled substance offenses, as
specified.
d) Be filed with the State Superintendent of
Public Instruction and the California Community
College Chancellor's Office before the start of a
program authorized by this statute.
e) Prohibit a community college course
offered through a CEPA from supplanting (1) high
school courses meeting A-G course requirements;
and (2) courses listed on the school district's
master schedule.
1) Stipulates that a community college district shall not
provide physical education course opportunities to
secondary school pupils as part of any CEPA.
2) Permits a pupil to receive community college and high
school credit for community college courses that he /
she completes, as determined to be appropriate by the
governing boards of the school district and the
community college district, and in accordance with
other state and federal law.
3) Prohibits a pupil from being assessed any
course-related fees, as specified, for a community
college course offered through a CEPA.
4) 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.
AB 1451
Page 5
5) Requires for each CEPA 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.
6) Specifies a community college district shall not
receive a state allowance or apportionment for an
instructional activity for which a school district has
been, or shall be, paid an allowance or apportionment.
7) Exempts pupils attending an early college high school
and participants of the CEPA program from the
requirement that concurrently enrolled pupils be
assigned lower enrollment priority to ensure they do
not displace regularly admitted students. (Note: this
provision already applies to middle college high
school students.)
8) Allows a community college district to allow a pupil
attending a middle or early college high school or a
pupil participating in a CEPA to enroll in up to a
maximum of 15 units if either : (a) the units
constitute no more than four community college courses
per term, or (b) those units 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 CEPA.
9) Requires that attendance of a pupil at a community
college as a special part-time or full-time student is
authorized attendance for which the community college
is credited or reimbursed, provided that no school
district has received reimbursement for the same
instructional activity.
10) 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
AB 1451
Page 6
pursuant to a CEPA. This is for the purpose of
exempting these types of concurrent enrollment courses
from the community college requirement that all its
courses be open to the public.
11) 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.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office,
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.
2) 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 concurrent enrollment to offer instructional
programs for at-risk pupils that focus on college
AB 1451
Page 7
preparatory curricula. These programs are developed
through partnerships between a school district and a
CCC.
3) Current status of Community Colleges . Since 2013, the
State economy has enjoyed a resurgence from our
prolonged economic recession. However, the
Administration continues to be leery of over-extending
any program or enrollment expenditures. Prior to
2013, General Fund reductions combined with increased
student demand had left the CCC unable to provide
course offerings to fully meet student needs.
According to a March 2013 report by the Public Policy
Institute of California (PPIC), course offerings had
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.
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. Since
this study was released the State has enjoyed a
greater economic growth that translates into greater
General Fund revenues. However, as is typically the
case with community colleges, it takes up to three or
more years to recover from any one year of
extraordinary negative economic / budgetary impacts.
Given the failure to effectively serve adults in the
state, should community college districts continue to
be granted an exemption to exceed the 5 percent cap
that allows them to claim full-time equivalent
students (FTES) for serving high school students
(arguably a lower priority mission)?
4) Summer sessions . According to the PPIC report cited in
staff comment #3, past budget cuts had resulted in
reductions in a higher proportion of summer course
sections than in either fall or spring terms. The
largest rates of enrollment decline have occurred
among special-admit students (concurrently enrolled
AB 1451
Page 8
K-12 students). The report noted that this is a
relatively small category of students.
In 2013, the Chancellor's Office reported that
community colleges are beginning to expand summer
course offerings. In an informal survey of the state's
112 colleges, 67 percent of those responding indicated
that they would offer more courses this summer than
they did last year. Twentythree percent of colleges
said they would offer about the same number of
classes, and only 10 percent said they planned to
decrease summer course offerings. According to the
Chancellor of the Community Colleges, while the
increase in summer courses is a positive trend, it
will take years for the community colleges system to
make up for the $1.5 billion in cuts that forced
colleges to turn away 600,000 students over the past
five years.
To the extent that special part-time or full-time
students are required to have a lower enrollment
priority, current law should provide some assurance
that high school students would not displace regularly
admitted community college students who need to enroll
in limited summer session courses in order to meet
their educational objectives.
5) How many ? According to the CCC Chancellor's Office
statutorily required reports on special admit
enrollments: In 2013 summer, 26,604 special admit
students were claimed systemwide, with 22,432 of the
students successfully completing and passing their
courses. In 2013, the numbers have slightly increased
when compared to the previous years; however, the 2013
numbers remain significantly lower when compared to
summer 2007, when of the 68,708 special admit students
claimed systemwide, 53,388 successfully competed and
passed their courses.
--------------------------------------------------------------
| California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office |
| Statewide Total Number of High School Pupils Completing |
| Summer |
| Session Courses with a Passing Grade (Section 48800) |
AB 1451
Page 9
| |
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
| | Number of Special-| |
|Summer | Admit Pupils | Change From Prior Year |
|Session | Passing | |
--------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------+-------------------+------------+--------------|
| 2005 | 51,435 | | |
|--------------+-------------------+------------+--------------|
| 2006 | 48,031 | -3,404| -6.62%|
|--------------+-------------------+------------+--------------|
| 2007 | 53,388 | 5,357| 11.15%|
|--------------+-------------------+------------+--------------|
| 2008 | 59,303 | 5,915| 11.08%|
|--------------+-------------------+------------+--------------|
| 2009 | 48,383 | -10,920| -18.41%|
|--------------+-------------------+------------+--------------|
| 2010 | 27,933 | -20,450| -42.27%|
--------------------------------------------------------------
| 2011 | 21,118 | -6,815| -24.40%|
|--------------+-------------------+------------+--------------|
| 2012 | 16,403 | -4,715|-22.33% |
--------------------------------------------------------------
6) K-12 Local Control Funding Formula and Accountability .
The state's K-12 public school financing system was
significantly reformed as part of the 2013 State
budget. The purposes of reform were to simplify the
funding scheme and make it more transparent to the
public, to direct greater resources to the student
populations with the greatest educational needs, to
give local educational agencies (LEAs) increased
spending flexibility to improve student outcomes , and
to broaden the accountability system with a new
accountability process focused at the local level
where parents, students, and the public could have
meaningful input into spending decisions.
For accountability purposes, the state also mandated
that each LEA develop a local control and
accountability plan (LCAP) that identifies locally
determined goals, actions, services, and expenditures
AB 1451
Page 10
of LCFF funds for each school year in support of the
state educational priorities that are specified in
statute, as well as any additional local priorities.
LEAs must adopt their first LCAP by July 1, 2014.
The eight state priorities that must be addressed in
the LCAP, for all students and significant student
subgroups in a school district and at each school,
are:
a) Williams settlement issues (adequacy of
credentialed teachers, instructional materials,
and school facilities).
b) Implementation of academic content
standards.
c) Parental involvement.
d) Pupil achievement (in part measured by
statewide assessments, API, and progress of
English-language learners toward English
proficiency).
e) Pupil engagement (as measured by
attendance, graduation, and dropout data).
f) School climate (in part measured by
suspension and expulsion rates).
g) The extent to which students have access
to a broad course of study.
h) Pupil outcomes for non-state-assessed
courses of study.
Arguably local educational agencies will now have both
greater resources and flexibility, while being held
accountable for significant outcomes.
While concurrent enrollment summer school can
positively affect a pupil's academic success; it is
unclear why courses necessary to address deficiencies
identified in an Early Assessment Program (EAP)
AB 1451
Page 11
assessment should be exempted from the 5 percent cap
of pupils that can attend a concurrent enrollment
summer session The EAP is generally administered to
high school students in their junior year, ostensibly
to allow students the opportunity to take coursework
to address any deficits in their senior year and to
provide school districts and teachers with feedback
and professional development opportunities to ensure
that high school curriculum is actually preparing
students for college level coursework. As drafted,
this bill would increase costs to the state to fund
community colleges to conduct this activity.
Arguably, the EAP exists to ensure that high schools
can address remediation needs before the student
enrolls in a postsecondary institution, either in the
summer of their junior year, or as an adult the summer
prior to enrolling in college. In light of the fact
that current law already authorizes a waiver from the
5 percent cap for pupils needing to pass the
California High School Exit exam, should this
committee authorize that community colleges receive
funding for fulfilling yet another function which
arguably should be occurring at the high school?
1) Concurrent enrollment still holds promise . 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.
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.
A preponderance of academic research and state data
underscore the benefits of concurrent enrollment
programs, particularly for students traditionally
underrepresented in higher education in the United
States. Data suggest that concurrently enrolled
students share the following characteristics:
AB 1451
Page 12
a) More likely to meet college-readiness
benchmarks.
b) More likely to enter college, and enter
shortly after high school graduation.
c) Lower likelihood of placement into
remedial English or math.
d) Higher first-year grade point average
(GPA).
e) Higher second-year retention rates.
f) Higher four- and six-year college
completion rates.
g) Shorter average time to bachelor's degree
completion for those completing in six years or
less.
With these positive benefits in mind, and in
consideration and sensitivity to California's recent
changes in K-12 education funding and accountability,
past economic woes, and former problems with our
concurrent enrollment programs, staff recommends a
number of amendments both technical and substantive
(to be assisted by Legislative Counsel) as follows:
a) On page 6, strike lines 18 to 21. This
amendment eliminates the ability of concurrent
courses based on EAP results to be exempt from
the 5 percent cap on summer session enrollment;
it in no way prohibits these types of courses to
be part of a concurrent enrollment partnership
agreement.
b) On page 7, between lines 3 and 11(and
associated paragraphs on pages 10 and 11),
insert: the requirement that each governing body
have two separate public meetings. One open
public meeting to provide the concurrent
enrollment partnership agreement as an
AB 1451
Page 13
informational item, and a subsequent open public
meeting to approve or disapprove an agreement.
c) On page 7, strike line 13 and 14 (and
associated paragraph on page 11), and insert:
outline the terms of the partnership, and shall
include, but not be limited to, the scope,
nature, and schedule of courses
d) On page 7, line 23 (and associated paragraph
on page 11), strike "certify" and insert: must
include a certification by the participating
community college district
e) On page 7, line 30 (and associated paragraph
on page 11), before "authorized" insert: or
course
f) On page 8, between lines 3 and 4 (and
associated paragraph on page 11), insert: (5) A
community college district must include a
self-certification that participation in a
concurrent enrollment partnership program is
consistent with the core mission of community
colleges pursuant to Education Code Section
66010.4 and that pupils participating in a
concurrent enrollment partnership program will
not lead to enrollment displacement of otherwise
eligible adults in the community college.
g) On page 9, between lines 6 and 7, this
section sunsets as of January 1, 2020. This will
provide ample time to plan, implement, and
analyze the results of at least two cohorts of
high school students going through this process.
1) According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee to
the extent districts can claim apportionment funding
for additional concurrently enrolled students, there
will be increased General Fund (Proposition 98) 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
AB 1451
Page 14
apportioned for enrollment, the bill will result in
additional unknown Proposition 98 cost pressure.
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.
2) Related legislation . There have been many bills
introduced in the last several years that address
concurrent enrollment and the 5% cap, including the
following:
a) AB 1540 (Hagman, 2014), which was held under
submission by the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, authorizes the creation of concurrent
enrollment partnerships for computer science
courses.
b) AB 1146 (Morrill, 2013), which was held on
the Senate Appropriations suspense file, would
have extended, 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.
c) AB 160 (Portantino, 2011), which was held on
the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense
file, would have removed certain restrictions on
concurrent enrollment and authorized school
districts to enter into partnerships with
community college districts to provide high
school pupils opportunities for advanced
scholastic work, career technical or other
coursework at CCC campuses.
d) AB 230 (Carter), Chapter 50, Statutes of
AB 1451
Page 15
2011, exempted a pupil attending a middle college
high school from the requirement that community
college governing boards assign a low enrollment
priority to concurrent enrollment students if
that pupil is seeking to enroll in a community
college course that is required for the pupil's
middle college high school program.
e) SB 1303 (Runner), Chapter 648, Statutes of
2006, exempted from the specified 5% cap on CCC
summer session enrollment, a pupil recommended by
his or her principal if the pupil met specified
criteria.
SUPPORT
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
Bonita Unified School District
California Chamber of Commerce
California Communities United Institute
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office
California Federation of Teachers
California State Conference of the NAACP
California State University
California Urban Partnership
Carpinteria Unified School District
Chaffey Community College District
Citrus College
Claremont Unified School District
Community college League of California
EDGE Coalition
EdVoice
Foothill-De Anza Community College District
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities
Kern Community College District
Kern Community College District
La Verne Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Community College District
Los Rios Community College District
Newport-Mesa Unified School District
Pasadena City College
Pasadena Community College District
Peralta Community College District
PolicyLink
AB 1451
Page 16
Public Advocates
Rancho Santiago Community College District
Rural County Representatives of California
San Bernardo Community College District
San Diego Community College District
San Diego Unified School District
Santa Barbara City College District
Santa Barbara Unified School District Board of Trustees
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
South Orange County
StudentsFirst
West Kern Community College District
Yosemite Community College District
Yuba County Community College District
OPPOSITION
California Teachers Association