BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 2364


                                                                    Page  1





          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING


          AB  
          2364 (Holden and Gipson)


          As Amended  April 7, 2016


          Majority vote


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Higher          |12-0 |Medina, Bloom,        |                    |
          |Education       |     |Chávez, Irwin,        |                    |
          |                |     |Jones-Sawyer, Levine, |                    |
          |                |     |Linder, Low, Olsen,   |                    |
          |                |     |Santiago, Weber,      |                    |
          |                |     |Williams              |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |15-1 |Gonzalez, Bloom,      |Bigelow             |
          |                |     |Bonilla, Bonta,       |                    |
          |                |     |Calderon, Chang,      |                    |
          |                |     |Daly, Eggman, Eduardo |                    |
          |                |     |Garcia, Roger         |                    |
          |                |     |Hernández, Holden,    |                    |
          |                |     |Quirk, Santiago,      |                    |
          |                |     |Weber, Wood           |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 









                                                                    AB 2364


                                                                    Page  2






          SUMMARY:  Requires California Community Colleges (CCCs) to  
          exempt from nonresident CCC student fees undocumented high  
          school students concurrently enrolled at CCCs, and allows  
          districts to claim state apportionment funding for such  
          students.   


          EXISTING LAW:  


          1)Authorizes the governing board of a school district, upon  
            recommendation of the principal of a student's school of  
            attendance, and with parental consent, to authorize a student  
            who would benefit from advanced scholastic or vocational work  
            to attend a community college as a special part-time or  
            full-time student.  Additionally, current law prohibited a  
            principal from recommending, for community college summer  
            session attendance, more than 5% of the total number of  
            students in the same grade level and exempted from the 5% cap  
            a student recommended by his or her principal for enrollment  
            in a college-level summer session course if the course in  
            which the pupil was enrolled met specified criteria.  These  
            exemptions were repealed on January 1, 2014 (Education Code  
            (EC) Section 48800, et seq.). 
          2)Prohibits a pupil enrolled in a public school from being  
            required to pay a pupil fee for participation in an  
            educational activity; and, specifies that all of the following  
            requirements apply to the prohibition:  


             a)   All supplies, materials, and equipment needed to  
               participate in educational activities shall be provided to  
               pupils free of charge; 
             b)   A fee waiver policy shall not make a pupil fee  
               permissible; 


             c)   School districts and schools shall not establish a  








                                                                    AB 2364


                                                                    Page  3





               two-tier educational system by requiring a minimal  
               educational standard and also offering a second, higher  
               educational standard that pupils may only obtain via  
               payment of a fee or purchase of additional supplies that  
               the school district does not provide; and, 


             d)   A school district or school shall not offer course  
               credit or privileges related to educational activities in  
               exchange for money or donations of goods or services from a  
               pupil or a pupil's parents or guardians, and a school  
               district or school shall not remove course credit or  
               privileges related to educational activities, or otherwise  
               discriminate against a pupil, because the pupil or the  
               pupil's parents or guardians did not or will not provide  
               money or donations of goods or services to the school  
               district or school (EC Section 49011). 


          3)Specifies that a student exempt from nonresident tuition may  
            be reported by a community college district as a Full-Time  
            Equivalent Student (FTES) for apportionment purposes; and,  
            exempts, as specified, California nonresidents from paying  
            nonresident tuition at the University of California (UC),  
            California State University (CSU), and the CCCs if they meet  
            all of the following:
             a)   Attended a California high school for three or more  
               years;
             b)   Graduated from a California high school or attained an  
               equivalent degree;


             c)   Registered or attended an accredited California higher  
               education institution not before fall of the 2001-02  
               academic year; and,


             d)   In the case of a person without lawful immigration  
               status, the filing of an affidavit with the institution of  








                                                                    AB 2364


                                                                    Page  4





               higher education stating that the student has filed an  
               application to legalize his or her immigration status, or  
               will file an application as soon as he or she is eligible  
               to do so (EC Sections 68130 and 68130.5).


          4)Requires the CCC Chancellor's Office to report to the  
            Department of Finance and Legislature annually on the amount  
            of FTES claimed by each CCC district for high school pupils  
            enrolled in non-credit, non-degree applicable, and degree  
            applicable 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 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 Sections  
            76001 and 76002). 
          5)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 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; and authorizes the governing board of a  
            community college district participating in a CCAP partnership  
            agreement to exempt special part-time students, as specified,  
            from various fee requirements, as specified (EC Section  
            76004).


          6)Authorizes a community college district to admit and charge a  
            tuition fee to nonresident students, except that a community  








                                                                    AB 2364


                                                                    Page  5





            college district may exempt from all or parts of the fee any  
            person, as specified (EC 76140).


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, the CCC Chancellor's Office indicates that  
          undocumented AB 540 students constitute about 3 percent of total  
          CCC enrollment. A similar proportion of total concurrent  
          enrollment would be about 2,350 students, and assuming each  
          student takes one course per semester yields 560 full-time  
          equivalent student (FTES), the additional apportionment claim  
          would total about $2.6 million annually from the General  
          Fund-Prop. 98. 


          There should be no measurable loss of tuition revenue to the  
          districts, as it is assumed that most students who would benefit  
          from this bill would otherwise not attend a community college  
          and pay nonresident student fees of around $200 per unit.


          COMMENTS:  Concurrent and dual enrollment background.  According  
          to New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 169, Spring 2015,  
          the practice of offering college courses to high school students  
          stems from local practice in many states and was initiated  
          between community college districts and local school districts,  
          but the practice proceeded without clear state policy  
          guidelines, regulations, or direction; resulting in variation in  
          local practice.  Some states, such as Minnesota, as far back as  
          the 1980s, were early adopters of state dual credit policies,  
          whereby their state policies provided a framework for offering  
          college courses to high school students and the students  
          receiving both college and high school credit for some of their  
          courses. 


          College and Career Access Pathways partnership (CCAP).   
          Community college districts may claim FTES and state  
          apportionment for courses given through CCAP provided that  








                                                                    AB 2364


                                                                    Page  6





          specified requirements are met.  The CCAP must make reference to  
          the following student fee prohibitions and exemptions:


          1)High school pupils enrolled in courses offered through a CCAP  
            agreement shall not be assessed or charged a fee prohibited by  
            EC Section 49011, including a fee charged to a pupil, or a  
            pupil's parent or guardian, as a condition for course  
            registration or for textbooks, supplies, materials, and  
            equipment needed to participate in the course; and, 
          2)High school pupils enrolled in courses offered through a CCAP  
            agreement and that are properly classified as having "special  
            part-time student" status, shall be exempt from the following  
            community college fee requirements:


             a)   Student representation fee;
             b)   Nonresident tuition fee;


             c)   Transcript fees;


             d)   Course enrollment fees;


             e)   Apprenticeship course fees; and, 


             f)   Child development center fees.


          This measure seeks to correct a conflict in existing law whereby  
          a community college district does not have express authority to  
          claim state apportionment for nonresident high school students  
          participating in a CCAP partnership.


          Purpose of this measure.  According to the author, this measure  








                                                                    AB 2364


                                                                    Page  7





          ensures that undocumented students are able to access concurrent  
          enrollment programs by granting them resident tuition  
          eligibility and that community colleges are able to claim  
          apportionment for said students.


          Two tracks?  While this measure does not seek to bring clarity  
          as to the existing two tracks for community college districts  
          offering dual or concurrent enrollment for high school pupils,  
          moving forward, the Legislature may wish to consider eliminating  
          the non-CCAP track in statute.


          Apportionment.  Nothing in current law prohibits community  
          college districts from choosing to admit special part-time high  
          school students and waiving any associated tuition and fees for  
          their enrollment.  However, should community college districts  
          be allowed to claim apportionment dollars for high school  
          students when they have been tasked with enrollment growth,  
          presumably of adults?


          This measure may have the unintended consequence of creating an  
          incentive for community college districts to earn more  
          apportionment dollars by enrolling more high school students,  
          instead of the adults it has been tasked to serve. 


          Related legislation.  AB 2681 (O'Donnell) of the current  
          legislative session, which was held on the Assembly  
          Appropriations Suspense File, would have, among others,  
          establish an incentive for districts to enter into CCAP  
          partnerships by providing grants that may be used to offset the  
          costs of associated activities.


          AB 2758 (Gipson) of the current legislative session, which was  
          held in the Assembly Higher Education Committee, per the request  
          of the author, is very similar in nature to this measure.








                                                                    AB 2364


                                                                    Page  8







          AB 288 (Holden), Chapter 618, Statues of 2015, created, among  
          others, the CCAP. 




          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960   
          FN: 0003242