BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2523
Page A
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2523 (Eng)
As Amended April 14, 2010
Majority vote
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Swanson, Bill Berryhill, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Ammiano, |
| |Furutani, Gaines, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Monning, Yamada, Ma | |Calderon, Coto, Davis, De |
| | | |Leon, Hall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Torrico |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes various changes related to the certification of
electricians. Specifically, this bill :
1 Deletes the requirement that the curriculum of classroom
instruction for trainees be provided under the jurisdiction of
the California Department of Education (CDE), the Board of
Governors of the California Community Colleges, or the Bureau
for Private Postsecondary Education.
2)Specifies that the curriculum of classroom instruction must be
provided by one of the following:
a) A community college;
b) A state or federal apprenticeship program approved to
provide electrical training;
c) A public school district or public educational
institution; or,
d) A state-licensed private postsecondary institution that
is either under contract with a public educational
institution or approved and registered with the Bureau for
Private Postsecondary Education.
3)Provides that continuing education instruction by an entity
that is not approved by Chief of the Division of
AB 2523
Page B
Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) shall be provided under the
jurisdiction of the CDE or the Board of Governors of the
California Community Colleges.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, minor and absorbable costs to DAS to promulgate
regulations.
COMMENTS : This bill is sponsored by the Western Electrical
Contractors Association (WECA-IEC) and seeks to make several
changes related to the certification of electricians under
current law. The sponsor argues that the additional supervision
in current law of the state-approved apprenticeship training
programs is unnecessary and increases the costs of operation as
the programs have already been reviewed and approved as
providing quality training.
Moreover, representatives of state-approved apprenticeship
programs indicate that due to budget cuts and other fiscal
constraints, some community colleges have eliminated their
electrician certification programs altogether or don't offer
courses on a year-round basis. Therefore, in certain geographic
areas an individual's only option may be to take certification
training with a state-approved apprenticeship program. They
argue that state-approved apprenticeship programs already offer
high-quality classroom instruction (or contract with an approved
entity to do so) and that therefore the supervision required by
current law is duplicative and unnecessary.
The sponsor also points out that two important quality assurance
measures are kept intact. First, the apprenticeship curriculum
must still be submitted to the state certification curriculum
committee, as required under current law. Second, education
providers who do not operate a state-approved apprenticeship
program are required to offer their training through or under
the jurisdiction of a community college, a public school
district or public educational institution, or the Bureau for
Private Postsecondary Education.
Opponents argue that current law creates two pathways to
electrician certification, one through apprenticeship training
offered through approved apprenticeship programs and the other
through trainee training offered through educational entities
under the CDE, Board of Governors of the California Community
AB 2523
Page C
Colleges, or the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education.
Each path provides for oversight and accountability of the
programs as well as for protections to the apprentices or
trainees seeking certification.
Opponents contend that this bill would provide an alternative
path void of any oversight other than curricular approval
through a state committee. They argue that the bill would
circumvent important institutional mechanisms that provide for
accountability and state oversight. The oversight provided by
the state and accrediting bodies that monitor institutions such
as local community colleges ensures that the instruction and
training maintains its quality, that student outcomes are
measured, and that the institution maintains eligibility
requirements and standards. Opponents argue that these
requirements differ from the prescribed curriculum approval
process and provide a level of protection to students ensuring
they receive credit for the work they have completed and that
the training provided meets a certain level of quality. They
state that while the curriculum committee approval provides one
level of oversight in this area, removing provisions that
certification training take place either under apprenticeship
training or the jurisdiction of the CDE, community colleges, or
the Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education removes important
protections for trainees.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0004135