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 --