BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2364|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2364
Author: Holden (D) and Gipson (D)
Amended: 4/7/16 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 8-0, 6/29/16
AYES: Block, Hancock, Huff, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan,
Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Liu
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-8, 6/1/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: community colleges:
exemption from nonresident tuition
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires a community college district to
exempt all special part-time students, as specified, from
nonresident fees and allows these students to be reported as
resident full-time equivalent students (FTES) to receive
associated state apportionments.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
AB 2364
Page 2
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. A community college
district governing board is authorized to admit these students
and requires that they be assigned a low enrollment priority
in order to ensure that they do not displace regularly
admitted community college students. An exemption to this
requirement is extended to Middle College High School (MCHS)
students. (Education Code § 48800, et seq.) (EC § 76001)
2)Requires a community college to charge a tuition fee to
nonresident students and also authorizes a community college
district to exempt a special admit student from all or part of
a nonresident student tuition fee. A district is prohibited
from reporting nonresident students as FTES for state
apportionment purposes except as provided by statute in which
case a nonresident tuition fee may not be charged. (EC §
76140)
3)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. Districts that participate in the program
are required to exempt participating special part-time
students from various fee requirements including student
representation fees, nonresident fees, enrollment fees,
apprenticeship course fees, and child development center fees.
(EC § 76004)
4)Establishes the College Promise Partnership Act until June 30,
2017, and provides for the crediting of additional units of
AB 2364
Page 3
FTES attributable to the attendance of partnership students at
the community college, as specified. These special part-time
and special full-time students may be admitted in any session
or term of the partnership and the Long Beach Community
College District is authorized to include these students for
purposes of receiving state apportionment provided that no
school district has received reimbursement for the same
instructional activity. An evaluation of the program is due
to the Legislature, by December 30, 2016. These provisions
sunset in June 2017. (EC § 48810 - 48814, § 76003)
This bill:
1) Requires a community college district to exempt all special
part-time students from nonresident fees (other than a
nonimmigrant alien, as defined by federal law).
2) Allows these students to be reported as resident FTES to
receive associated state apportionments.
3) Makes reference to three options for admitting special
part-time students, with regard to waiving nonresident
fees: by a school principal recommendation, under a CCAP
partnership, or under the Long Beach Promise Program.
Comments
Need for the bill. According to the author, this bill was
prompted by the efforts of the Compton Unified School District
to enter into a partnership agreement with the El Camino College
Compton Center under the newly established dual enrollment
option implemented by AB 288 (Holden, Chapter 618, Statutes of
2015), the CCAP partnership. Current law specifically requires
the waiver of nonresident fees for part-time special students as
a condition of the CCAP partnerships. However, according to the
Chancellor's Office, these provisions do not provide explicit
authority for the CCC to claim FTES for these students.
Reportedly, an element of the proposed agreement in Compton was
that the school district agrees to pay the average daily
attendance it receives for these students to the community
college. While this appears to be a provision in other similar
AB 2364
Page 4
partnership agreements (the Long Beach Promise program, for
example), the large number of nonresident students within the
Compton School District appears to create a barrier to a
partnership agreement that is fiscally viable for the partnering
districts, jeopardizing the ability of this student community to
benefit from the new CCAP provisions.
This bill responds to this situation by requiring the waiver of
nonresident fees of any nonresident special part-time student
that enrolls at any community college.
Current policy. In 2013, SB 150 (Lara, Chapter 575, Statutes of
2013) was enacted to authorize a California Community College
(CCC) to exempt special part-time students from any nonresident
tuition fees. The bill was enacted in response to varying
district interpretations of their authority to serve California
high school students who are nonresidents in concurrent
enrollment programs. Some districts had been advised by their
legal counsel that because current law allows a district to
waive fees for special part-time students that they may also
waive nonresident fees, while others had been advised that they
have no authority to waive a nonresident fee for special
part-time students. Still other districts had made the decision
not to waive any fees for special part-time students, given the
economic climate and severe budget cuts at the time. SB 150
clarified that CCC districts have the authority to waive these
fees if they so choose.
In February 2014, the Chancellor's Office issued guidance on the
implementation of these provisions. The guidance clarifies that
CCC districts are permitted to exempt nonresident special
part-time students from nonresident tuition, the exemption does
not apply to special full-time students, and the exemption is
not intended to apply to students who would be precluded from
qualifying for the AB 540 exemption (distance education
enrollees or students on nonimmigrant visas). In addition the
exemption does not authorize districts to claim apportionment
for these students.
The Chancellor's Office reports that the authorization granted
by SB 150 and their statutory guidance appear to have addressed
this issue and that districts are generally waiving these fees
for nonresident special part-time students. The outstanding
issue appears to be districts' ability to claim FTES for these
AB 2364
Page 5
students, not whether these fees are being waived.
College and Career Access Pathways Act. Community college
districts have several statutorily authorized means by which
apportionment can be claimed for minors enrolled by the
district. However, a variety of conditions must be met by CCC
districts that admit special part-time students either through
principal recommendation or via Early College and Middle College
high school programs.
In an effort to expand the availability of dual enrollment
programs to a broader range of students, AB 288 (Holden, Chapter
618, Statutes of 2015) created another category of special admit
options, the College and Career Access Pathways Act. The intent
of this new pathway was to serve lower achieving students in an
effort to reduce remediation, increase degree completion,
decrease time to degree, and stimulate interest in higher
education among high school students for students who may not
already be college bound or who are underrepresented in higher
education. According to the sponsors of AB 288, the program was
structured 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 provide greater
flexibility in the delivery of courses at the high school
campus. Unlike other concurrent enrollment options, AB 288
authorized 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. In exchange for the greater
flexibility, CCAP program districts must meet a variety of
requirements relative to instructors, job displacement,
preserving access for adult students, and allowances and
apportionments.
While districts may operate a dual enrollment partnership
through an early college high school or middle college high
school, they are prohibited from operating as a CCAP partnership
unless they comply with the provisions established by AB 288.
ADA/ FTES within the CCAP program. The CCAP program established
various requirements relative to state allowances and
apportionments. Among these, it required the crediting of FTES
AB 2364
Page 6
for eligible high school students attributable to a CCC district
conducting a closed course on a high school campus. It also
authorized the crediting of FTES for high school students
attending courses at the CCC. In both instances, however,
districts are prohibited from receiving FTES or average daily
attendance for the same instructional activity. This was, in
part, to limit "double-dipping", i.e. paying both the community
colleges and the K-12 districts for educating the same high
school student, an ongoing concern regarding dual enrollment
programs generally.
In order to ensure that CCAP programs would serve a broad range
of students, AB 288 required that a participating CCC district
exempt special part-time students from the nonresident fee.
However, the statute does not explicitly authorize the CCC
district to report these students for state apportionment. As a
result, it appears that, for a few CCC districts that want to
partner with K-12 districts with large numbers of nonresident
students, it may be economically unfeasible to do so.
Long Beach Promise Program. The Long Beach Promise Program was
established in 2008 as a collaborative partnership between the
Long Beach Unified School District, the Long Beach City College
and the California State University at Long Beach with the
general goals of increasing college preparation, college access,
and ultimately college success. In 2011, SB 650 (Lowenthal,
Chapter 633, Statutes of 2011) statutorily authorized the
partnership and granted greater flexibility in the program's
implementation than normally allowed for dual enrollment
programs as well as authorizing the crediting of FTES for these
students. The statutory authority for this partnership sunsets
on January 1, 2018. As previously noted, the CCAP program was
based upon the Long Beach Promise Program.
Reportedly, the partnership agreement between the K-12 and
community college district ensures access for all students of
the K-12 district that choose to participate. In addition,
given that the elements of the CCAP were based upon the Long
Beach Promise Program, it is unclear whether any specific
statute is necessary as it appears that the Promise Program
could continue to operate as a CCAP program once its statutory
authorization sunsets, if it so chooses.
AB 2364
Page 7
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the CCC
estimates the cost of allowing community colleges to claim
apportionment for specified students is $2.6 million. This
would constitute a cost pressure as CCC enrollment funding is
capped each year. The CCC estimates that 2,362 undocumented
high school students living in California are enrolled in
community college courses and took six units over the academic
year.
It is not anticipated that CCC will experience any revenue loss
due to the nonresident fee exemption as these students are
unlikely to have chosen to participate in concurrent enrollment
at the CCC if they would have had to pay a nonresident tuition
fee of $200 per unit. (Proposition 98)
SUPPORT: (Verified8/12/16)
Adelante Youth Alliance
Association of California Community College Administrators
California Coalition of Early and Middle Colleges
California Immigrant Policy Center
California State Conference of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People
Chaffey Community College District
Children's Defense Fund - CA
Compton Community College District
Compton Unified School District
Dream Outreach Center, CSU Fresno
El Camino Community College District
Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified School District
Foothill-DeAnza Community College District
Gateway to College, Contra Costa College
High School at Moorpark College
Los Angeles Community College District
Los Rios Community College District
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Middle College High School at San Bernardino Valley College
Movement Strategy Center
North Orange County Community College District
AB 2364
Page 8
Peralta Community College District
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
San Diego Community College District
San Francisco Community College District
San Jose Evergreen Community College District
West Sacramento Early College Prep
Yuba Community College District
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/12/16)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-8, 6/1/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau,
Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd,
Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto,
Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Roger
Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine,
Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin,
Nazarian, O'Donnell, Olsen, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Travis Allen, Brough, Grove, Harper, Mathis, Melendez,
Obernolte, Patterson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bigelow, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher,
Jones, Mayes, Wagner, Waldron
Prepared by:Lenin DelCastillo / ED. / (916) 651-4105
8/15/16 20:22:21
**** END ****