BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 288|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 288
Author: Holden (D) and Olsen (R), et al.
Amended: 9/4/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/1/15
AYES: Liu, Runner, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Block, Hancock
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/27/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 6/1/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Public schools: College and Career Access Pathways
partnerships
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill, until January 1, 2022, 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 for students who may not already be college bound
or who are underrepresented in higher education 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.
AB 288
Page 2
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/4/15 conform assessment language to
terminology applicable to the new California Common Core state
standards adopted assessments and expand the allowable program
objectives for students to include programs designed to award a
certificate or credential.
ANALYSIS:
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.)
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
AB 288
Page 3
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)
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 for students who may not
already be college bound or who are underrepresented in higher
education, 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. Specifically, this bill:
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 the Chancellor to void any partnership agreement
it determines has not complied with the intent of the
requirements of the bill.
4) Authorizes a participating community college district to:
a) Assign priority enrollment and registration to high
AB 288
Page 4
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, certificate or
credential.
5) 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, to
include, but not be limited to, the total number of
high school students to be served and the total number
of full-time equivalent students projected to be
claimed by the community college district for those
students, 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,
AB 288
Page 5
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
requires a community college district to exempt
students enrolled in CCPA courses 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
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:
(1) 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.
(2) A community college course that is
oversubscribed or has a waiting list is not offered
in the partnership.
(3) Participation in a partnership is
consistent with the core mission of the community
colleges and that participating pupils will not lead
to displacement of otherwise eligible adults in the
community college.
iv) Certify that both the CCC and school district
AB 288
Page 6
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 any remedial course taught by
community college faculty at the high school campus
will only be offered to students who do not meet their
grade level standard in math, English, or both, on a
10th or 11th grade interim assessment, as determined by
the school district, and requires that these courses
involve a collaborative effort between faculty and
teachers to deliver innovative remediation as an
intervention to ensure students are prepared for
college-level work upon graduation.
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 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.
6) Requires for each CCAP partnership agreement entered into,
that the affected school district and community college
AB 288
Page 7
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
(aggregated by gender and ethnicity and in compliance
with state and federal privacy laws) the 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.
7) Requires the Chancellor to:
a) Prepare a summary report by January 1, 2021that
includes an evaluation of the partnerships and an
assessment of trends in the growth of special admits
systemwide and by campus, and to make recommendations for
program improvements, including changes to the statewide
cap to ensure adults are not being displaced and changes
to ensure the overall success of the partnerships.
b) Ensure that the number of full-time equivalent
students generated by the partnerships is reported.
8) 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.
9) Caps the total number of FTES for special admits at 10
percent of total FTES statewide.
10)Clarifies that these provisions do not affect existing dual
enrollment partnerships , but prohibits these from operating
as a CCAP Partnership unless they comply with the bill's
provisions
AB 288
Page 8
11)Sunsets the CCAP Partnership authority on January 1, 2022.
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
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
AB 288
Page 9
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.
.
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
AB 288
Page 10
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
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
AB 288
Page 11
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 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.
5)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.
This bill caps the statewide full-time equivalent students
(FTES) which may be claimed for special admits at 10% of total
FTES, in order to allow for the growth of these programs, yet
AB 288
Page 12
ensure that the vast majority of community college funding
continues to be used for its core mission of serving adults.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the bill
results in unknown cost pressures to fund increased California
Community Colleges apportionments. A one percent increase in
special full-time equivalent students (FTES), or 172 FTES, would
create a cost pressure of about $806,000 using a rate of $4,684
per-FTES.
SUPPORT: (Verified9/4/15)
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
OPPOSITION: (Verified9/2/15)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 6/1/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder,
Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
AB 288
Page 13
Prepared by:Kathleen Chavira / ED. / (916) 651-4105
9/8/15 17:24:00
**** END ****