BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 288
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Holden |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 22, 2015 |
| |Hearing Date: July 1, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: | Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Kathleen Chavira |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Public schools: College and Career Access Pathways
partnerships
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes the governing board of a community college
district to enter into a College and Career Access Pathways
(CCAP) partnership with the governing board of a school district
within its immediate service area, as specified, to offer or
expand dual enrollment opportunities with the goal of developing
seamless pathways 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 and outlines the
conditions which must be met prior to the adoption of such an
agreement.
BACKGROUND
Existing law:
1)Authorizes the governing board of a school district, upon
recommendation of the principal of a pupil's school and with
parental consent, to authorize a student to concurrently
enroll in a community college during any session or term to
undertake one or more courses of instruction. Existing law
prohibits a principal from recommending, more than 5% of the
total number of students in the same grade level for community
college summer session attendance.
(Education Code § 48800 et seq.)
AB 288 (Holden) Page 2
of ?
2)Authorizes a community college district governing board to
admit as a special part-time or full-time student any student
eligible pursuant to EC 48800 and requires the governing board
of a California Community College (CCC) district to assign
these students a low enrollment priority in order to ensure
that these students do not displace regularly admitted
community college students. An exemption to this requirement
is extended to Middle College High School (MCHS) students.
(EC § 76001)
3)Requires the California Community College Chancellor's Office
(CCCCO) to report to the Department of Finance and Legislature
annually on the amount of full-time equivalent students (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 California Community College
(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)
4)Restricts the proportion of a community college physical
education class that may be comprised of special part-time or
full-time students to 10% and caps the amount of state
apportionment that may be claimed for these students at no
more than 5% of the district's total reported full-time
equivalent enrollment of special part-time and full-time
students. (EC § 76002)
ANALYSIS
This bill authorizes the governing board of a community college
district to enter into a College and Career Access Pathways
(CCAP) partnership with the governing board of a school district
within its immediate service area, as specified, to offer or
expand dual enrollment opportunities with the goal of developing
seamless pathways from high school to community college for
AB 288 (Holden) Page 3
of ?
career technical education or preparation for transfer,
improving high school graduation rates, or helping high school
pupils achieve college and career readiness, and outlines the
conditions which must be met prior to the adoption of such an
agreement. It:
1)Authorizes the governing board of a community college district to
enter into a CCAP partnership with the governing board of a
school district that is governed by a CCAP agreement approved
by the governing boards of both districts.
2)Requires, as a condition of and prior to adopting a CCAP
partnership agreement, that both districts present and take
public comment on the proposed agreement at public meetings of
their respective boards, first as an informational item, and
then, at a subsequent meeting, approve or disapprove the
proposed agreement.
3)Authorizes a participating community college district to:
a) Assign priority enrollment and registration to
high school students enrolling in community college courses
required for the partnership program equivalent to that
which exists for Middle College High School participants
under current law.
b) Limit enrollment in a course solely to eligible
high school students if the course is offered at a high
school campus during the regular school day pursuant to a
CCAP agreement.
c) Allow special part-time students to enroll in up
to a maximum of 15 units per term if the units constitute
no more than 4 community classes and are part of a CCAP
academic program designed to award students both a high
school diploma and an associate's degree.
4)Outlines various requirements and authorities for districts that
adopt a CCAP.
a) Requires the following in regards to the
agreement.
i) An outline of the terms of the partnership, and
AB 288 (Holden) Page 4
of ?
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, and requires the agreement to establish
protocols for information sharing, joint facilities use,
and parental consent for pupils.
ii) Identification of a point of contact for the
participating school and community college districts.
iii) Filing of the agreement with the Office of the
Chancellor of the California Community College (CCC) and
the California Department of Education prior to the start
of the partnership.
b) Establishes the following prohibitions:
i) Prohibits a community college district from
entering into a College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP)
partnership with a school district within the service
area of another community college district, unless an
agreement exists or is established between the community
college districts authorizing the partnership.
ii) Prohibits a community college district from
providing physical education course opportunities to high
school pupils, or any other course opportunities that do
not assist in the attainment of the goals of a CCPA, as
specified.
iii) Prohibits any high school pupil from being
assessed any course-related fees, as specified, for a
community college course offered through a CCPA and
specifically authorizes a community college district to
exempt students enrolled in CCPA courses, in whole or in
part, from student representation, non-resident,
transcript, apprentice course, per unit, and child care
fees.
c) Establishes requirements relative to instructors.
It requires the agreement to:
i) Certify that any community college instructor
teaching a course on a high school campus has not been
AB 288 (Holden) Page 5
of ?
convicted of any sex offenses or any controlled substance
offenses, as specified.
ii) Certify that no community college instructor or
qualified high school teacher has been displaced or
terminated as the result of the same course being offered
by their counterpart at a partnering high school or
community college campus.
iii) Certify that community college courses offered
for college credit at the high school do not reduce
access to the same course offered at the partnering
community college campus.
iv) Certify that both the CCC and school district
comply with local bargaining agreements and all
state/federal reporting requirements regarding the
qualifications of the instructors teaching partnership
courses for high school credit.
v) Specify which district will be the employer of
record for purposes of assignment monitoring and
reporting to the county office of education, and will
assume reporting responsibility pursuant to federal
teacher quality mandates.
vi) Certify that remedial courses taught by
community college faculty at the high school campus will
only be offered to students testing as nonproficient in
math, English, or both, on a 10th or 11th grade formative
assessment, as determined by the school district.
d) Establishes the following funding provisions:
i) Requires 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 be credited with additional units of
full-time equivalent students (FTES) attributable to the
attendance of eligible high school pupils.
ii) Prohibits a district participating in a
partnership from receiving a state allowance or
apportionment for an instructional activity for which the
AB 288 (Holden) Page 6
of ?
partnering district has been, or shall be, paid an
allowance or apportionment.
iii) Provides that attendance of a College and Career
Access Pathways (CCAP) high school student 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 under existing statutory
authority, provided that no school district has received
reimbursement for the same instructional activity.
5)Requires for each CCAP partnership agreement entered into, that
the affected school district and community college district
annually report as specified to the California Community
College (CCC) Chancellor's Office, and to the Legislature, the
Department of Finance, and the Superintendent of Public
Instruction and requires that these reports include:
a) An evaluation of the CCAP partnerships and
recommendations regarding program improvements, including
the need for additional student assistance or academic
resources to ensure the CCAP partnerships' overall success.
b) Total number of students enrolled at each
schoolsite by gender and ethnicity, total number of CCC
courses and course completions, as well as percentage of
course completions by category, type, and schoolsite, and
the total number of full-time equivalent students (FTES)
generated by participants.
6)Provides that violation of these provisions by a community
college district makes the district subject to the imposition
of restrictions on interdistrict attendance and a penalty of
retention of up to 5% of its appropriation under community
college apportionment provisions.
STAFF COMMENTS
1)Need for the bill. According to the author, the overall goal of
this bill is to increase the accessibility of concurrent
enrollment programs to a broader range of students, including
AB 288 (Holden) Page 7
of ?
lower achieving students in order to integrate them into a
college environment, reduce the need for college remediation
in math and English, 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.
2)Related History. In December 2002, the Orange County Register
ran the first in a series of highly critical articles
regarding concurrent enrollment practices in the community
colleges. The articles specifically focused on high school
physical education (PE) classes and various suspected abuses.
These anecdotal allegations resulted in a Chancellor's Office
investigation which revealed that full-time equivalent
students (FTES) generated by concurrent enrollment in both
credit and noncredit courses grew from approximately 16,000 in
1992-93 to over 52,000 in 2000-01, outpacing the overall
enrollment growth of the community college system. While
concurrent enrollment included courses in a variety of
curricular areas, there had been significant growth in
concurrent enrollment in PE courses. The proportion of FTES
for concurrent enrollment in PE courses was approximately 15%
in 1992-93, but these courses comprised 34% of FTES for
concurrent enrollment in 2000-01, the equivalent of 1.7% of
all the FTES generated by the community colleges as a system.
The expansion of concurrent enrollment in PE courses was more
pronounced in about one-fifth (20%) of the system's 72
districts and was especially evident with respect to PE
programs. By 2001-02, six districts within the system
produced 53% of the PE concurrent enrollment FTES generated by
the entire system for that year. These districts included Los
Angeles, Butte, North Orange, Contra Costa, Santa Clarita, and
Mt. San Antonio.
As a result, SB 338 (Scott, Chapter 786, Statutes of 2003) was
enacted to specify the conditions whereby concurrent
enrollment of pupils between a school and community college
district is permitted, establish restrictions on the amount of
FTES that could be claimed for PE courses, and require annual
reporting by the Chancellor of the amount of FTES claimed by
each district for special full-time and special part-time
students overall and for PE courses specifically.
.
AB 288 (Holden) Page 8
of ?
3)Existing concurrent enrollment options. Community college
districts have several statutorily authorized means by which
apportionment can be claimed for minors enrolled by the
district. These include:
a) Special part-time full time students. Current law
authorizes a school district governing board to recommend
students who would benefit from advanced scholastic or
vocational work for attendance at a community college upon
recommendation of the principal, and limits the number of
students who can be recommended for summer session
enrollments to 5% of the students in each grade. Community
colleges are authorized to claim FTES reimbursement for
these students only if the course is open and advertised to
the general public. The proportion of a community college
physical education (PE) class that may be comprised of
special part-time or full-time students cannot exceed 10%
and apportionment for these students cannot exceed 5% of
the district's total reported full-time equivalent students
(FTES) for special part-time and full-time students.
Students are limited to enrolling in a maximum of 11 units
per semester, and must be assigned low enrollment priority
by the college to avoid displacement of adults.
b) Early College High Schools (ECHS) and Middle College High
Schools (MCHS). ECHS are designed for young people who
are underrepresented in postsecondary education, including
students who have not had access to the academic
preparation needed to meet college readiness standards,
students for whom the cost of college is prohibitive,
students of color, first generation college-goers, and
English language learners. MCHS is a collaborative program
that enables high-potential, "at-risk" students to obtain a
high school education while concurrently receiving direct
access to college courses and services. High school
students attend classes at a community college and earn
credit toward a high school diploma while having the
opportunity to concurrently take college courses and to
receive more intensive counseling and administrative
attention. According to Job for the Future, which launched
ECHS in 2002, there are currently 40 ECHS in California, of
which 92% are partnered with a community college.
According to the Chancellor's Office 9 community colleges
offer recognized middle college programs. These programs
AB 288 (Holden) Page 9
of ?
are subject to the same conditions that exist for special
admit students, with the exception that MCHS students are
exempt from the low enrollment priority provisions for
classes necessary for completion of their programs.
c) College Promise Partnership Act. SB 650 (Lowenthal,
Chapter 633, Statutes of 2011) authorized a partnership
between the Long Beach community college and school
district to provide a seamless bridge to college for
students who were not already college bound and to reduce
the time needed for advanced students to complete programs.
These students are exempted from the requirements
applicable to special admit students that they must be
recommended by the school principal. The community college
is eligible to receive FTES for these students but is
prohibited from receiving apportionment for instructional
activity for which the school district received
apportionment. The community college is required to
provide for an independent evaluation, as specified, to be
presented to the Chancellor and the Legislature by December
30, 2016. The authority for this partnership sunsets on
January 1, 2018.
This bill would create yet another category of special admit
options, the College and Career Access Pathways Act. According
to the sponsor, this bill is intended to authorize a model more
like the Long Beach Promise that offers dual enrollment as a
pathway, rather than a series of disconnected individual
courses, and, unlike ECHS and MCHS, provides greater flexibility
in the delivery of courses at the high school campus. Unlike
existing concurrent enrollment options, this bill would
authorize community colleges to offer courses that are closed to
the general public if offered on a high school campus, to grant
special admit students higher enrollment priority than currently
possible, and to exceed the current 11 unit cap per semester if
the student is receiving both a high school diploma and an
associate's degree.
4)Why expand dual enrollment options? 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
AB 288 (Holden) Page 10
of ?
college going 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.
Similarly, in a 2012 report on its Concurrent Courses
Initiative, the Irvine Foundation found that participants in
dual enrollment programs that focused on underrepresented
students had better academic outcomes relative to comparison
students in the same districts. They were:
a) More likely to graduate from high school.
b) More likely to transition to a four-year college (rather
than a two-year college).
c) Less likely to take basic skills courses in college.
d) More likely to persist in postsecondary education.
e) Accumulating more college credits than comparison
students.
The stated intent of this bill is to provide dual enrollment
to a broader range of students, including lower achieving
students, and to reduce remediation, increase degree
completion, decrease time to degree, and stimulate interest in
higher education among high school students. To ensure that
CCAP partnerships accomplish this goal, staff recommends the
bill be amended on page 3 line 31 to insert "for students who
may not already be college bound or who are underrepresented
in higher education."
1)What proportion is reasonable? The chart below summarizes the
trends around special admits in relation to total full-time
equivalent students for the community colleges for the last
decade.
As noted in staff comment #2, the current restrictions on
special admits were the result of perceived abuses in the
AB 288 (Holden) Page 11
of ?
past. What is the potential for abuse of this new authority?
How much of community college apportionments should be used
for educating high school students? How do we ensure that the
expansion of special admits does not come at the expense of
the core mission of the community colleges to serve adults?
Staff recommends the bill be amended to cap the statewide
full-time equivalent students (FTES) which may be claimed for
special admits at 7% of total FTES, in order to allow for the
growth of these programs, yet ensure that the vast majority of
community college funding continues to be used for its core
mission of serving adults.
Staff further recommends, consistent with prior actions on a
similar bill, that the bill be amended to sunset this
authority in 2022, pending a review of the reports required
under the bill's provisions.
2)Chancellor's Office oversight? This bill establishes a fairly
open ended authority for all districts to implement dual
enrollment programs with much greater flexibility than
possible under current law. In light of the past issues
around concurrent enrollment, is "certification" of compliance
with the bill's requirements sufficient? How will the
Chancellor's Office ensure that the statewide cap on special
admit full-time equivalent students (FTES) is not exceeded?
Staff recommends the bill be amended on page 4 in subdivision
(c)(1) to additionally require that the partnership agreement
specify the total number of high school students to be served
and the total FTES projected to be claimed by the community
college district for these students.
Staff also recommends the bill be amended on page 5
subdivision (k) to additionally require that the agreement
must include certification by the participating community
college district that participation in the partnership is
consistent with the core mission of the colleges pursuant to
section 66010.4 and that instruction of high school
partnership students does not result in the displacement of
otherwise eligible adults in the community college.
Staff further recommends the bill be amended on page 4 line 19
to insert, "The Chancellor's Office shall have the authority
AB 288 (Holden) Page 12
of ?
to disallow any agreement it determines has not complied with
the intent of the requirements of this section."
3)Fees. This bill appropriately prohibits assessment of course
fees on any high school student participating in a College and
Career Access Pathways (CCAP) partnership. However,
subdivision (q) on page 6 authorizes a community college
governing board to exempt these students from various other
fees, suggesting that the board could also choose not to
exempt these students from those fees. Staff recommends the
bill be amended on page 6 line 38 to strike "may, in whole or
in part" and insert "shall."
4)Remedial courses. This measure creates an unprecedented policy
shift by authorizing community college faculty to teach
remedial courses to high school pupils whose grade 10 or 11
formative assessment indicates that they are not proficient in
math, English, or both, on a high school campus. According to
the sponsor, the intent is to facilitate collaboration between
high school and community college faculty to deliver
innovative remediation courses as an intervention in the
student's senior year to ensure the student is prepared for
college level work upon graduation. Staff recommends the bill
be amended to clarify that the agreement shall certify that
any remedial courses taught by community college faculty shall
only be offered to high school students who test as
non-proficient in grade 10 or 11, and shall involve a
collaborative effort between high school and community college
faculty to deliver an innovative remediation course as an
intervention in the student's senior year to ensure the
student is prepared for college level work upon graduation.
5)Clarify reporting requirements. According to the sponsor, it is
the intent that districts report data to the Chancellor's
Office, and that the Chancellor be responsible for a summary
report evaluating the CCAP partnerships. In addition to the
existing recommendations required in this report, it would be
use for the Legislature to be provided with a summary of
trends in the growth of special admits systemwide and by
campus and for the Chancellor to include recommendations for
any changes to the statewide cap on special admits FTES to
ensure that adults are not being displaced. Staff recommends
the bill be amended on page 7 line 32 to make these additions
and clarifications, and recommends that the report be required
AB 288 (Holden) Page 13
of ?
no later than January 1, 2021.
Staff further recommends that the bill be amended to clarify
that the Chancellor shall also report on the full-time
equivalent students (FTES) generated by CCAP partnerships in
the report required under Education Code section 76002.
6)Clarification of applicability. According to the sponsor, this
bill is not intended to replace or affect existing partnership
agreements. However, to the extent an existing partnership
wants to exercise the new authorities established by this
bill, it would be required to comply with the bill's
provisions. Staff recommends the bill be amended to clarify
that, " Nothing in this section is intended to affect existing
dual enrollment partnership agreements under which an existing
early college high school, middle college high school or
California Career Pathways Trust is operated. An existing
early college high school, middle college high school or
California Career Pathways Trust partnership agreement is
prohibited from operating as a CCAP partnership unless it
complies with the provisions of this section."
7)K-12 Local Control Funding Formula and Accountability. The K-12
school financing system was significantly reformed as part of
the 2013 State budget. Among other things, the new system
provides enhanced funding based on the premise that greater
resources be directed to serve those student populations with
the greatest educational needs, and gives K-12 districts
increased spending flexibility to improve student outcomes.
Under this new funding model, each LEA develops a local
control and accountability plan (LCAP) that identifies locally
determined goals, actions, services, and expenditures 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. This bill requires several
certifications as part of a CCAP agreement. Should these be
expanded to require that K-12 partners certify that
participation is consistent with their LCAPs and demonstrate
how LCCF funds generated under its concentration and
supplemental grants are being used within the partnership to
serve these students?
8)Technical privacy protection amendments. In order to ensure that
the privacy rights of minor students are fully protected staff
AB 288 (Holden) Page 14
of ?
recommends the following amendments:
a) On page 4, line 11, after "information sharing" insert
"in full compliance with all applicable state and federal
privacy data laws."
b) On page 7, line 20, after "partnership" replace the rest
of the sentence with "aggregated by gender and ethnicity,
and reported in full compliance with all applicable state
and federal privacy data laws."
1)Related and Prior legislation.
RELATED LEGISLATION
AB 542 (Wilk), also on the Committee's agenda today, relaxes
the restrictions on community college enrollment of special
part-time and full-time students enrolled in middle college
and early college high schools.
PRIOR LEGISLATION
AB 1451 (Holden), until January 1, 2020, 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 a community college campus. AB 1451 was passed by this
Committee on a 7-0 vote, but was subsequently held in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
SUPPORT
Alameda Science and Technology Institute
Alhambra Unified School District
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFL-CIO)
Association for California School Administrators
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
California Chamber of Commerce
California Community College Association for Occupational
Education
California Community Colleges, The Chancellor's Office
California EDGE Coalition
AB 288 (Holden) Page 15
of ?
California Equity Leaders Network
California School Boards Association
California State PTA
California Teachers Association
Castro Valley Unified School District
Chaffey Community College District
Children Now
Claremont Unified School District
Community College League of California
Compton Unified School District Board of Trustees
Ed Voice
Feather River Community College District
Kern Community College District
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
Kings Canyon Unified School District
Long Beach Community College District
Los Angeles College Faculty Guild
Los Angeles Community College District
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Los Angeles Unified School District
Los Rios Community College District
Los Rios Community College District Board of Trustees
Madera County Board of Supervisors
Moreno Valley Unified School District
Mt. San Antonio College
Nevada Joint Union High School District
North Orange County Community College District
Orange County Business Council
Pasadena City College
Pasadena Community College District
Peralta Community College District
Placer Union High School District
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Rocklin Unified School District
Roseville Joint Union High School District
Rural County Representatives of California
Saddleback College
San Bernardino Community College District
San Diego Community College District
San Diego Community College District Board of Trustees
San Diego Unified School District
San Francisco Community College District
San Jose Evergreen Valley College District
Santa Monica College
AB 288 (Holden) Page 16
of ?
Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District
Sierra Community College District
Siskiyous Joint Community College District
South Orange County Community College District
Tahoe Truckee Unified School District
Ventura County Community College District
West Contra Costa Unified School District
West Kern Community College District
Western Placer Unified School District
Yuba Community College District
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --