BILL ANALYSIS
AB 78
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 15, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 78 (Portantino) - As Introduced: December 18, 2008
[This bill was referred to and heard by the Assembly Higher
Education Committee as it relates to the issues under its
jurisdiction]
SUBJECT : Pupils: concurrent enrollment in community college and
secondary or elementary school
SUMMARY : Removes certain restrictions on concurrent enrollment
and authorizes school districts to enter into partnerships with
community college districts to provide high school pupils
opportunities for advanced scholastic work, career technical or
other coursework at a community college campus. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Deletes existing authority for a school district to determine
which secondary pupils may participate in concurrent
enrollment and instead authorizes school districts to enter
into partnerships with community college districts to provide
concurrent enrollment opportunities that may include, in
addition to currently authorized advanced-scholastic
opportunities, career-technical, or other coursework at a
campus of a California Community College (CCC).
2)Replaces references to "advanced scholastic or vocational
work" with "instruction" throughout the provisions related to
the courses for which secondary school pupils would benefit
from and thus be allowed to concurrently enroll in.
3)Deletes current legislative intent stating that concurrent
enrollment is to provide educational enrichment opportunities
for a limited number of eligible pupils, rather than to reduce
current course requirements of elementary and secondary
schools and states that the intent of concurrent enrollment is
to provide a smoother transition from high school to college
for pupils by providing them with greater exposure to the
collegiate atmosphere and to maximize educational
opportunities available to pupils, as specified.
4)Removes the requirement that a secondary school pupil be
AB 78
Page 2
recommended by the principal of the pupil's school of
attendance to attend a CCC during any session or term as a
special part-time or full-time student, and instead allows a
pupil, upon notification of the principal and with parental
consent, attend a CCC during any session or term.
5)Deletes provisions prohibiting a principal from recommending a
pupil for CCC summer session unless the pupil has demonstrated
adequate preparation in the discipline to be studied and has
exhausted all opportunities to enroll in an equivalent course
at his or her school of attendance and provisions prohibiting
a principal from recommending for summer session CCC
attendance more than 5% of the total number of pupils who
completed a particular grade immediately prior to the time of
recommendation, and deletes the statutory exceptions to that
rule.
6)Deletes the requirement that the Chancellor of the CCCs report
to the Department of Finance on the number of pupils enrolled
per the statutory exceptions to the 5% enrollment rule.
7)Deletes the prohibition against the CCC including enrollment
growth attributable to these statutory exceptions in its
annual budget request.
8)Prohibits a community college district from receiving an
allowance or apportionment for an instructional activity for
which a school district has been, or shall be, paid an
allowance or apportionment.
9)Deletes provisions requiring a governing board that denies a
request for a special part-time or full-time enrollment at a
CCC for a pupil who is identified as highly gifted, to record
its findings and reasons for denial within 60 days.
10)Removes the requirement that a community college district
assign a low priority for registration or enrollment for
special part-time or full-time student and instead prohibits a
community college district from assigning a high priority for
registration or enrollment of special part-time or full-time
students in order to ensure that these students do not
displace regularly admitted students.
EXISTING LAW:
AB 78
Page 3
1)Authorizes the governing board of a school district, upon
recommendation of the principal of a pupil's school of
attendance, and with parental consent, to authorize a pupil
who would benefit from advanced scholastic or vocational work
to attend community college as a special part-time or
full-time student.
2)Prohibits a principal from recommending, for any particular
grade level, or community college summer session attendance,
more than 5% of the total number of pupils who completed that
grade immediately prior to the time of recommendation.
3)Exempts from the 5% cap a pupil recommended by his or her
principal for enrollment in a college-level summer session
course if the course in which the pupil is enrolled meets
specified criteria and repeals these provisions on January 1,
2014.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Concurrent enrollment provides pupils the opportunity
to enroll in college courses and earn college credit while still
enrolled in high school.
Currently, a pupil is allowed to concurrently enroll in a CCC as
a "special admit" while still attending high school, if the
pupil's school district determines that the pupil would benefit
from "advanced scholastic or vocational work."
Special-admit students have typically been advanced pupils
wanting to take more challenging coursework or those who come
from high schools where Advanced Placement or honors courses are
not widely available. According to the CCC Chancellor's Office
for 2006-07 a total of 127,173 special admit students enrolled
in a CCC.
This bill redefines concurrent enrollment as it would now expand
enrollment options to coursework including career technical
education, basic skills remediation, high school exit exam
preparation, English as a second language (ESL) and dropout
intervention, whereas the original intent of concurrent
enrollment was to provide advanced scholastic or vocational
enrichment opportunities for a limited number of students.
Programs such as middle college high schools and early college
AB 78
Page 4
high schools use concurrent enrollment to offer instructional
programs for at-risk pupils that focus on college preparatory
curricula. These programs are developed through partnerships
between a school district and a CCC or in few cases with a
California State University (CSU) or University of California
(UC) campus. Pupils that participate in these programs often
graduate with a high school diploma and an Associate's degree.
Current law allows principals to recommend up to 5% of the total
number of high school pupils who completed a grade immediately
prior to the time of recommendation, to enroll in courses at a
CCC during summer session and provides for some exemptions to
this rule for certain courses.
The courses that currently do not count towards the 5% summer
enrollment cap are:
1. Courses that are designated as part of the
Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum or
courses that apply toward the general education breadth
requirements of the CSU. In recent years, the Legislature
has passed a number of bills adding exemptions to this
restriction;
2. College-level occupational courses for credit that are
part of a sequence of vocational or career technical
education courses leading to a degree or certificate in the
subject area covered by the sequence; and
3. Non-college credit courses necessary to assist a pupil
who has not passed the high school exit exam.
This bill deletes the enrollment cap and the exemptions. The
author suggests that the exemptions would no longer be necessary
if the 5% cap is removed.
For small and rural communities, these enrollment caps may
represent an obstacle. In some cases, the 5% could equal one
pupil and thus would prevent other pupils from participating in
concurrent enrollment programs. Hence, an argument could be
made that in such situations, existing law is restrictive and
limits concurrent enrollment opportunities to pupils in small
and rural communities.
Previous controversy on concurrent enrollment : In December
AB 78
Page 5
2002, the Orange County Register published a story regarding
abuses of concurrent enrollment in the CCCs and reported that
some community college districts were inappropriately enrolling
special admit students in physical education (PE) courses. That
story, and several follow-up articles, alleged pupils were
enrolled in courses without their knowledge, instructors were
paid twice for the same courses, state apportionments were paid
to both K-12 and the CCC for the same courses, and CCC districts
were using summer sports camps to inflate their enrollments for
significant monetary gain. Some districts eventually admitted
their illegal actions and repaid funds.
In the months following the scandal, the Legislature responded
with budget reductions and legislative reform. SB 338 (Scott),
Chapter 786, Statutes of 2003, placed tight controls on PE
enrollment by special-admit students. This bill does not remove
those caps.
This bill provides safeguards to avoid potential abuses by
adding language strictly prohibiting payment of apportionments
to a CCC related to instructional activities for which a K-12
school district receives an allowance or apportionment.
Suggested amendments : The bill includes a section allowing a
pupil who has not attained secondary school level to receive
approval from the governing board of the school district for the
pupil to enroll at a CCC, and it allows parents to petition both
the school district governing board and the president of a CCC
to authorize attendance of the pupil at the CCC. This includes
pupils in elementary school. While the author suggests that the
intent is to put in place a mechanism or process by which these
pupils can attend CCC, it is unclear whether this is necessary
considering that existing provisions in the Education Code allow
a parent or guardian of a pupil, regardless of the pupil's age,
to petition the governing board to authorize the attendance of
that pupil at a CCC. This section appears to be duplicative of
existing law and therefore staff recommends the bill be amended
to delete the duplicative provisions from the bill by deleting
lines 21-35, inclusive on page 6.
Under the existing provisions relative to a high school pupil's
CCC summer session attendance, there is a requirement for the
pupil to exhaust all opportunities to enroll in an equivalent
course at his or her school of attendance before enrolling in
CCC. This bill removes the provisions relative to summer
AB 78
Page 6
session attendance including the requirement for pupils to
exhaust all opportunities to enroll in an equivalent course at
their high school before enrolling in a CCC course.
Considering that this bill could indeed expand concurrent
enrollment educational opportunities to coursework that one
could argue should be the responsibility of school districts to
provide such as basic skills remediation, high school exit exam
preparation, English as a second language and dropout
intervention courses, this Committee may want to consider
whether this bill should require that pupils exhaust all options
for enrolling in such coursework through K-12 district programs
before enrolling in CCC courses. An argument can also be made
that expanding concurrent enrollment may have the effect of
reduced course offerings at secondary schools. The California
Association of Regional Occupational Centers and Programs
writes, "AB 78 may have the unintended effect of significantly
reducing or eliminating career technical education at the
secondary level. First because community colleges are paid a
higher reimbursement rate for courses than ROPs or High Schools
and second, because career technical education courses are
generally more costly to operate than classroom based academic
courses, school districts are incentivized to drop career
technical education offerings on their campuses in favor
allowing community colleges to operate those programs. In so
doing, they limit the access of many students to participate in
the very CTE courses they need to stay in school and prepare for
the world of work."
In an effort to address some of these concerns, staff recommends
the bill be amended to add the following language on page 3 line
20 after "pupils"
that have exhausted all opportunities to enroll in an
equivalent course at the high school of attendance,
adult education program, continuation school, regional
occupational center or program, or any other programs
offered by the local governing board
Additionally, on page 3 line 38 after "attendance," the bill
should be amended to add:
that the pupil has exhausted all opportunities to
enroll in an equivalent course at the high school of
attendance, adult education program, continuation
AB 78
Page 7
school, regional occupational center or program, or
any other programs offered by the local governing
board
The issue relative to the fiscal incentives for school districts
to drop CTE courses as a result of removing some of the
restrictions on concurrent enrollment and the different
reimbursement rates for CCCs and school districts is a policy
question that should be considered in the context of funding. A
bill pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, AB 552
(Furutani), seeks to study and make recommendations regarding
financing alternatives for career technical education,
vocational education, and high-cost laboratory programs at the
CCCs.
Existing law, which this bill would delete, requires the
Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to report to the
Department of Finance the number of pupils recommended to enroll
in community college summer session and not included in the 5%
cap. This bill in its current form does not provide for any
reporting requirements. Staff recommends the bill be amended to
require, similar to current law, the Chancellor of the CCC to
report to the Legislature and the Department of Finance the
number of high school pupils that enroll at a CCC pursuant to
this bill, the courses they take, and the number of pupils
receiving a passing grade.
The author states: "Concurrent enrollment could be much more
valuable to students and California if statutory barriers were
removed. Current efforts are tightly focused on college-level,
advanced-education opportunities."
The author further states, "This bill seeks to provide a
statutory framework that will allow concurrent enrollment to
fulfill its potential as an important tool in meeting the
State's educational challenges."
This bill passed out of the Assembly Higher Education Committee
on March 3, 2009 with a vote of 9-0.
Arguments in support : The California Postsecondary Education
Commission writes, "The Commission has supported improving
opportunities for qualified high school students to attend
community colleges. Community colleges offer advanced courses,
career-technical courses, and other educational opportunities
AB 78
Page 8
that many high school students can benefit from. Allowing
qualified high school students to enroll in college courses also
eases their transition into college life and improves their
chances of completing a college education."
Arguments in opposition : The California Council for Adult
Education (CCAE) has an "oppose unless amended" position on
the bill and writes, "CCAE believes that partnerships between
K-12 schools and community colleges are important because they
provide the broadest range of opportunities for students.
This is particularly true in instances when the classes being
provided are in advanced areas of the curriculum. However, we
are seriously concerned that AB 78, as it is currently
drafted, is an effort to eliminate the valuable role of adult
education programs in providing courses for high school
students that are at-risk of falling behind their peers, who
are having difficulty with the CAHSEE or who are not native
English language speakers."
The CCAE further writes, "CCAE opposes the removal of language
from the code that eliminates the role of the high school
principal in determining the best possible placement for the
high school student and that eliminated the requirement that
the student must have exhausted all opportunities to enroll in
equivalent courses."
Related legislation : AB 555 (Furutani), a substantially similar
measure, authorizes unspecified community college districts to
enter into partnerships with school districts to provide
secondary school pupils with the opportunity to benefit from
advanced scholastic, career-technical, or vocational work, or
other coursework at a campus of the CCC and requires the
reporting of specified data. AB 555 is pending in the Assembly
Higher Education Committee.
AB 552 (Furutani) establishes the Commission on Adequate Funding
for Career Technical and Vocational Education at the California
Community Colleges, which would be required to conduct a study
and make recommendations regarding financing alternatives for
career technical education, vocational education, and high-cost
laboratory programs at the California Community Colleges.
AB 1182 (Brownley) Integrates two existing concurrent enrollment
reporting requirements and requires the combined reports
distinguish between the 2 separate student populations of the
AB 78
Page 9
original reports and be submitted on or before March 1 of each
year. Repeals provisions related to exemptions to the 5% summer
session concurrent enrollment cap on January 1, 2010. AB 1182
is pending in the Assembly Higher Education Committee.
Previous legislation : SB 1437 (Padilla), Chapter 718 Statutes
of 2008, extends the sunset for the exemptions to the summer
session enrollment 5% cap to 2014.
AB 1409 (Portantino), of 2007 expands the use of concurrent
enrollment between high schools and the CCCs by raising and
ultimately lifting the cap on the percentage of high school
pupils that principals may recommend for CCC summer sessions and
by easing restrictions on the types of CCC courses that may be
offered to high school pupils, pursuant to a partnership between
the school district and the CCC. AB 1409 was held in Senate
Appropriations.
SB 1303 (Runner), Chapter 648, Statutes of 2006, exempts from
the specified 5% cap on community college summer session
enrollment, a pupil recommended by his or her principal if the
pupil meets one of the specified criteria and if the high school
principal who recommends the pupil provides the Chancellor of
the CCCs, upon request of that office, with the data it requires
to report to the Department of Finance.
AB 2050 (Canciamilla) of 2006, provides full apportionment to
school districts for pupils enrolled in minimum day and
attending a community college for vocational courses that
satisfy high school graduation requirements and makes numerous
reporting requirements. AB 2050 was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
AB 967 (Canciamilla), Chapter 399, Statutes of 2005, exempts
from an enrollment cap on concurrent enrollment at the CCC a
student recommended by his/her principal for enrollment in a
college level advanced scholastic summer session course, or in a
vocational CCC summer session course, if specified criteria are
met, and requires the governing board of a CCC district to
assign a low enrollment priority to the above student in order
to ensure these students do not displace regularly admitted
students.
SB 905 (Chesbro) of 2004 eliminates the cap and associated
conditions on summer session concurrent enrollment by K-12
AB 78
Page 10
students at community colleges, and prohibits these K12 students
from displacing regular community college students. SB 905 was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger with the following veto
message:
"This bill would eliminate a number of important reforms to
concurrent enrollment practices implemented last year. Those
reforms were enacted to address concerns that concurrent
enrollment practices were deviating from their original intent
established in law. Furthermore, the California Performance
Review has raised significant issues concerning concurrent
enrollment. Until the CPR has completed its review, this bill
is premature."
SB 338 (Scott), Chapter 786, Statutes of 2003, makes several
changes to existing law governing community college concurrent
enrollment, including the specification of eligible courses, the
determination of academic credit for course completed,
appropriate claiming of per student funding for courses offered
and the disclosure of course availability.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Postsecondary Education Commission
California School Boards Association
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
Gavilan, Glendale, Kern, Los Angeles, Los Rios, Peralta, San
Jose-Evergreen, and West Kern Community College Districts
Regional Council of Rural Counties
San Francisco Unified School District
State Building and Construction Trades Council
Opposition
Association of California School Administrators (Unless amended)
California Association of Regional Occupational Centers and
Programs (unless amended)
California Council for Adult Education (Unless amended)
San Mateo County Community College
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi?a / ED. / (916) 319-2087
AB 78
Page 11