BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 526
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
526 (Holden)
As Amended August 17, 2016
2/3 vote. Urgency
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(April 30, |SENATE: |39-0 |(August 25, |
| | |2015) | | |2016) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |6-0 |(August 30, |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
| | |2016) | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Ed.)
Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.
SUMMARY: Clarifies that the 5% cap on the number of high school
pupils in a school district that may enroll in a community
AB 526
Page 2
college summer session does not apply to pupils who are
concurrently enrolled as part of a College and Career Access
Pathways (CCAP) program in which a majority of the pupils served
are either low income, English learners, or foster youths.
The Senate amendments
1)Strike the prior contents of the bill and add the current
provisions.
2)Add an urgency clause
3)Make clarifying, nonsubstantive changes to existing law.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes the CCAP partnership for the purpose of offering
or expanding 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.
2)Caps the number of high school pupils who may enroll in a
community college summer session at 5% of the total number of
a school's pupils for any grade level.
3)Provides that the number of full time equivalent CCAP students
(FTES) enrolled in a community colleges statewide shall not
exceed 10% of the total statewide FTES.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee:
AB 526
Page 3
1)To the extent that this bill results in additional CCAP
students enrolled in summer session community college, it
could result in a potentially significant Proposition 98 cost
pressure due to community college districts claiming
additional FTES. The exact cost pressure attributed to this
bill is unknown. Every additional 100 FTES would result in a
cost pressure of about $500,000 Proposition 98 at a rate of
$5,004 per-FTES for the 2016-17 fiscal year. This bill
prohibits the CCC Board of Governors from including enrollment
growth from these students as part of its annual budget
request.
2)Minor costs to the California Community Colleges Chancellor's
Office (CCCCO) to reinstate the reporting requirement.
COMMENTS:
Background. The CCAP partnership was established by AB 288
((Holden), Chapter 618, Statutes of 2015), which passed both
houses of the Legislature with unanimous votes. By expanding
dual enrollment opportunities, the partnerships are intended to
increase the college-going rates among students who are
historically underrepresented in higher education. Prior to
entering into a partnership, a school and community college
district must each present the partnership as an information
item at a board meeting and approve the partnership at a
subsequent meeting. In addition, existing law requires the
partnership districts to do the following:
1)Establish protocols for information sharing, in compliance
with all applicable state and federal privacy laws, joint
facilities use, and parental consent for high school pupils to
enroll in community college courses
2)Establish the terms of the CCAP partnership, including, but
not necessarily 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;
AB 526
Page 4
3)Plan the scope, nature, time, location, and listing of
community college courses to be offered; and
4)Develop criteria to assess the ability of pupils to benefit
from those courses.
The number of FTES that may be enrolled in community colleges
pursuant to the CCAP partnership may not exceed 10% of the
statewide FTES.
Need for the bill. Existing law establishes several concurrent
enrollment programs. One such program offers opportunities for
high school pupils to enroll in community college summer
sessions. Summer session attendance is limited to 5% of the
high school's enrollment for any particular grade. The intent
of AB 288 was to exempt CCAP students from this 5% cap and
instead subject them to a statewide FTES cap of 10%.
Legislative Council has opined that this intent has been
achieved, stating "it is our opinion that the cap on dual
enrollment in a community college summer session contained in
section 48800, subdivision (d)(2) does not apply to dual
enrollment in a community college summer session under a CCAP
partnership."
Nevertheless, council for the community college chancellor's
office has opined that the 5% cap does apply to the CCAP program
and is requiring districts to comply with that interpretation.
According to the author's office, this has resulted in some
pupils being denied access to the program.
This bill may be more restrictive than existing law. While the
purpose of this bill is to clarify existing law as interpreted
by Legislative Council, the actual effect may be a little
different. Specifically, Council interprets current law to
exempt all CCAP enrollment from the 5% cap. This bill, however,
exempts only those programs in which a majority of participants
are either low income, English learners, or foster youths. By
AB 526
Page 5
specifically providing an exemption for only these programs, the
language implies that programs in which a minority of
participants fall into any of those categories are subject to
the 5% cap, which is not how Council interprets existing law.
This is almost certainly will be the interpretation of the
chancellor's office, which already interprets the cap as
applying to all CCAP programs. This would make the bill more
restrictive than existing law.
According to the author's office, most, if not all, CCAP
programs enroll a majority of low income, English learners, and
foster youth, so this issue may have little or no impact. The
author's office indicates it will monitor the impact to
determine if additional clarification will be needed.
Analysis Prepared by:
Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0005015