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