BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 288
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 7, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Jose Medina, Chair
AB 288
(Holden) - As Amended March 23, 2015
[Note: This bill is doubled referred to the Assembly Education
Committee and will be heard as it relates to issues under its
jurisdiction.]
SUBJECT: Public schools: College and Career Access Pathways
partnerships
SUMMARY: Authorizes the governing board of a community college
district (CCD) to enter into a College and Career Access
Pathways (CCAP) partnership with the governing board of a school
district with the goal of developing seamless pathways from high
school to California Community Colleges (CCC) for career
technical education (CTE) or preparation for transfer, improving
high school graduation rates, or helping high school pupils
achieve college and career readiness; requires the CCAP
partnership agreement to outline the terms of the partnership,
as specified; and requires each participating CCD and school
district to provide an annual report to the to the CCC
Chancellor's Office (CCCCO). Specifically, this bill:
1)Declares the following findings of the Legislature:
a) Research has shown that dual enrollment can be an
AB 288
Page 2
effective means of improving the educational outcomes for a
broad range of students;
b) Dual enrollment has historically targeted high-achieving
students; however, increasingly, educators and policymakers
are looking toward dual enrollment as a strategy to help
students who struggle academically or who are at risk of
dropping out;
c) Allowing a greater and more varied segment of high
school pupils to take community college courses could
provide numerous benefits to both the pupils and the state,
such as reducing the number of high school dropouts,
increasing the number of community college students who
transfer and complete a degree, shortening the time to
completion of educational goals, and improving the level of
preparation of students to successfully complete
for-credit, college-level, courses;
d) California should rethink its policies governing dual
enrollment, and establish a policy framework under which
CCDs and school districts could create dual enrollment
partnerships as one strategy to provide critical support
for underachieving students, those from groups
underrepresented in postsecondary education, those who are
seeking advanced studies while in high school, and those
seeking a CTE credential or certificate;
e) Through dual enrollment partnerships, CCDs and school
districts could create clear pathways of aligned, sequenced
coursework that would allow students to more easily and
successfully transition to for-credit, college-level
coursework leading to an associate degree, transfer to the
AB 288
Page 3
University of California or the California State
University, or to a program leading to a CTE credential or
certificate; and,
f) To facilitate the establishment of dual enrollment
partnerships, the state should remove fiscal penalties and
policy barriers that discourage dual enrollment
opportunities; reducing some of these restrictions, will
lead to the expansion of dual enrollment opportunities,
thereby saving both students and the state valuable time,
money, and scarce educational resources.
2)Authorizes a CCD governing board to enter into a CCAP
partnership with a school district governing board for the
purpose of offering or expanding dual enrollment opportunities
with the goal of developing seamless pathways from high school
to community college for CTE or preparation for transfer,
improving high school graduation rates, or helping high school
pupils achieve college and career readiness.
3)Stipulates that as a condition of, and before adopting, a CCAP
partnership agreement, the governing board of each district,
at an open public meeting of that board, must present the dual
enrollment partnership agreement as an informational item;
and, at a subsequent open public meeting of that board, must
take comments from the public and approve or disapprove the
proposed agreement.
4)Specifies that the CCAP partnership agreement must:
a) Outline the terms of the CCAP partnership and shall
AB 288
Page 4
include, but not necessarily be limited to, the scope,
nature, time, location, and listing of the ability of
pupils to benefit from those courses;
b) Establish protocols for information sharing, joint
facilities use, and parental consent for high school pupils
to enroll in community college courses; and,
c) Identify a point of contact for the participating CCD
and school district partner.
5)Stipulates that the CCAP partnership agreement shall certify
all of the following:
a) Any community college instructor teaching a course on a
high school campus has not been convicted of any sex
offense, as defined, or any controlled substance, as
defined;
b) Any community college instructor teaching a course at
the partnering high school campus has not displaced or
resulted in the termination of an existing high school
teacher teaching the same course on that high school
campus;
c) A qualified high school teacher teaching a course
offered for college credit at a high school campus has not
displaced or resulted in the termination of an existing
community college faculty member teaching the same course
at the partnering community college campus;
d) Both the CCD and the school district partners comply
with local collective bargaining agreements and all state
AB 288
Page 5
and federal reporting requirements regarding the
qualifications of the faculty member or teacher teaching a
CCAP partnership course offered for high school credit;
and,
e) Remedial courses taught by community college faculty at
a partnering high school campus shall be offered only to
high school students who test as non-proficient in
mathematics, English or both on a formative assessment in
grade 10 or 11, as determined by the partnering school
district.
6)Specifies that a copy of the CCAP partnership agreement must
be filed with the CCCCO and the California Department of
Education before the start of the CCAP partnership.
7)Specifies that a CCD participating in a CCAP partnership shall
not provide physical education course opportunities to high
school pupils, as specified.
8)Specifies that a high school pupil enrolled in a course
offered through the CCAP partnership cannot be charged any fee
that is prohibited, as specified.
9)Specifies that a CCD participating in a CCAP partnership may
assign priority for enrollment and course registration to a
pupil seeking to enroll in a community college course that is
required for the pupil's CCAP partnership program that is
equivalent to the priority assigned to a pupil attending a
middle college high school, as specified.
AB 288
Page 6
10)Specifies that a CCD may limit enrollment in a community
college course solely to eligible high school students if the
course is offered at a high school campus during the regular
school day and the community college course is offered
pursuant to a CCAP agreement.
11)Specifies that a CCD conducting a closed course on a high
school campus, as specified, shall be credited with those
units of full-time equivalent students (FTES) attributable to
the attendance of eligible high school pupils.
12)Specifies that a CCD may allow a special part-time student
participating in a CCAP partnership agreement to enroll in up
to a maximum of 15 units per term if all of the following
circumstances are satisfied:
a) The units constitute no more than four community college
courses per term;
b) The units are part of an academic program that is part
of a CCAP; and,
c) The units are part of an academic program that is
designed to award students both a high school diploma and
an associate's degree.
13)Stipulates that the governing board of a CCD participating in
a CCAP partnership agreement may, in whole or part, exempt
special part-time students, as specified, from fee
AB 288
Page 7
requirements, as specified.
14)Stipulates that a district shall not receive a state
allowance or apportionment for an instructional activity for
which the partnering district has been, or shall be, paid an
allowance or apportionment.
15)Stipulates that attendance of a high school pupil at a
community college as a special part-time or full-time student,
as specified, is authorized attendance for which the community
college shall be credited or reimbursed, provided that no
school district has received reimbursement for the same
instructional activity.
16)Stipulates that for each CCAP partnership agreement entered
into, the affected CCD and the school district shall annually
report to the CCCCO all of the following information:
a) Total number of high school pupils by school site
enrolled in each CCAP partnership;
b) Total number of community college courses by course
category and type and by school site enrolled in by CCAP
partnership participants;
c) Total number and percentage of successful course
completions, by course category and type and by school
site, of CCAP partnership participants; and,
AB 288
Page 8
d) Total number of FTES generated by CCAP partnership CCD
participants.
17)Requires the CCAP partnership report to the CCCCO shall also
be transmitted to the Legislature, Director of Finance (DOF),
and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI).
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
Section 48800, et seq.).
2)Prohibits a pupil enrolled in a public school from being
required to pay a pupil fee for participation in an
educational activity; and, specifies that all of the following
requirements apply to the prohibition:
a) All supplies, materials, and equipment needed to
participate in educational activities shall be provided to
pupils free of charge;
AB 288
Page 9
b) A fee waiver policy shall not make a pupil fee
permissible;
c) School districts and schools shall not establish a
two-tier educational system by requiring a minimal
educational standard and also offering a second, higher
educational standard that pupils may only obtain via
payment of a fee or purchase of additional supplies that
the school district does not provide; and,
d) A school district or school shall not offer course
credit or privileges related to educational activities in
exchange for money or donations of goods or services from a
pupil or a pupil's parents or guardians, and a school
district or school shall not remove course credit or
privileges related to educational activities, or otherwise
discriminate against a pupil, because the pupil or the
pupil's parents or guardians did not or will not provide
money or donations of goods or services to the school
district or school (EC Section 49011).
3)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, and degree
applicable 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 Sections
76001 and 76002).
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
AB 288
Page 10
COMMENTS: Concurrent and dual enrollment background. According
to New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 169, Spring 2015,
the practice for offering college courses to high school
students stems from local practice in many states and was
initiated between CCDs and local school districts, but the
practice proceeded without clear state policy guidelines,
regulations, or direction; resulting in variation in local
practice. Some states, such as Minnesota, as far back as the
1980s, were early adopters of state dual credit policies,
whereby their state policies provided a framework for offering
college courses to high school students and the students
receiving both college and high school credit for some of their
courses.
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 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.
AB 288
Page 11
According to a February 2014 report by Education Commission of
the States (ECS), the number of U. S. public high schools
offering concurrent enrollment programs is growing, with 82%
providing such opportunities in 2011-12. 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, "Gradually more
students are entering community colleges and some CSUs
[California State University] assessing below college-level.
Consequently, more courses are being offered on their respective
campuses to prepare students for college level coursework." The
author contends that, "This measure will increase the
accessibility of concurrent enrollment programs in order to
continue to achieve the goal of helping low achieving students
integrate into a college environment, increase the likelihood a
degree program will be completed, decrease the length of time to
complete a degree program, and stimulate interest in higher
education among high school students."
How many? According to the CCCCO's statutorily required report
on special admit enrollments: 26,604 (the most recent data
available to date) 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 completed 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
AB 288
Page 12
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.
To address this issue, this measure specifies that a district
shall not receive a state allowance or apportionment for an
instructional activity for which the partnering district has
been, or shall be, paid an allowance or apportionment.
Committee considerations. This measure creates an unprecedented
policy shift; allowing high school pupils whose grade 10 or 11
formative assessment show that they are not college proficient,
to take remediation courses while in high school, as taught by
community college faculty on a high school campus, and receive
credit.
While the measure calls for data around the CCAP partnership
participants to be gathered and reported to the CCCO,
Legislature, DOF, and the SPI, there is no present requirement
to assess the success of the remediation courses taught on the
high school campuses. The author and Committee may wish to
consider adding an accountability framework and evaluation
mechanism to the measure in order to determine the success of
the remediation courses taught by community college faculty to
high school pupils on a high school campus.
Additionally, the author and Committee may wish to address who
is responsible for additional support to pupils, faculty,
teachers, and staff if the CCAP partnership does not aid in
ensuring high school pupils are fully prepared for college level
courses upon graduation.
Lastly, there is an inconsistency with the spelling of the word
"school site" throughout the language of the measure; the author
may wish to work with Legislative Counsel in order to be
consistent throughout the entire measure with the spelling.
AB 288
Page 13
Conflicting legislation. AB 542 (Wilk) and AB 889 (Chang),
which will both be heard today by this Committee, seek to amend
and address some of the same code sections as this measure,
addressing special part-time or full-time students and early and
middle college high school students.
Staff recommends, should all the measures pass out of this
Committee, that they eventually be amended to address potential
chaptering out issues.
Related Legislation. There have been many bills introduced in
the last several years that attempt to address concurrent
enrollment and the 5% cap, including, but not limited to the
following bills: AB 1451 (Holden), of 2014, which was held on
the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense file, was similar
in nature to this measure. AB 1540 (Hagman), of 2014, which was
held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense file,
would, among other things, specify that the governing board of a
school district may authorize a pupil, at the recommendation of
a community college dean of a computer science department or
another appropriate community college computer science
administrator, and with parental consent, to attend a community
college during any session or term as a special part-time or
full-time student and to undertake one or more computer science
courses offered at the community college. AB 2352 (Chesbro), of
2014, which was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee
Suspense file would, among other things, remove early and middle
college high school students concurrently enrolled at a CCC from
receiving low priority admission status. AB 160 (Portantino),
of 2011, which was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee
Suspense file, removed certain restrictions on concurrent
enrollment and authorized school districts to enter into
partnerships with CCC districts to provide high school pupils
opportunities for advanced scholastic work, career technical or
other coursework at CCC campuses. AB 230 (Carter), Chapter 50,
Statutes of 2011, exempted a pupil attending a middle college
high school from the requirement that CCC governing boards
assign a low enrollment priority to concurrent enrollment
students if that pupil is seeking to enroll in a CCC course that
AB 288
Page 14
is required for the pupil's middle college high school program.
SB 1437 (Padilla), Chapter 718, Statutes of 2008, extended the
sunset date from January 1, 2009 until January 1, 2014 for which
this bill seeks to further extend the sunset. 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.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Alameda Science and Technology Institute
Alameda Unified School District
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Banning High School
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
California Community Colleges (Sponsor)
Castro Valley Unified School District
AB 288
Page 15
Cerritos Community College District
Chaffey Joint Union High School District
Coast Community College District
College of the Sequoias
College of the Siskiyous
City of Temecula
Community College League of California
Compton Unified School District
Design Science Early College High School Boosters Club
Ed Voice
Feather River Community College District
Fremont Union High School District
Foothill De Anza Community College District
AB 288
Page 16
Gateway to College at Laney College
Gentrain Society of Monterey Peninsula College
Grossmont Union High School District
Hemet High School
Hemet Unified School District
Irvine Valley College
Kern Community College District
Kings Canyon Unified
Long Beach Community College District
Los Angeles College Faculty Guild
Los Angeles Community College District
Los Rios Community College District
Moreno Valley Unified School District
AB 288
Page 17
Mountain View Los Altos High School District
Mt. San Jacinto Community College District
Murrieta Valley Unified School District
North Orange County Community College District
North Valley Military Institute College Preparatory Academy
Oakland Unified School District
Paloma Valley High School
Pasadena Community College District
Peralta Community College District
Porterville College
Porterville Unified School District
Riverside Community College District
Sacramento City College, Davis Center
AB 288
Page 18
Saddleback College
San Bernardino Community College District
San Diego Community College District
San Diego Metropolitan Regional Career & Technical High School
San Diego Unified School District
San Francisco Community College District
San Jacinto Valley Academy
Santa Monica College
Santa Rosa Academy
Santa Rosa Junior College
Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District
South Orange County Community College District
Tri-Valley Regional Occupational Program
AB 288
Page 19
Valley Regional Occupational Program
West Kern Community College District
William S. Hart Union High School District
Yuba Community College District
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960
AB 288
Page 20