BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2542
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Marty Block, Chair
AB 2542 (Conway) - As Introduced: February 19, 2010
SUBJECT : Community colleges: Accelerating Student Success
College Initiative of 2010.
SUMMARY : Creates a pilot program, the Accelerating Student
Success College (ASSC) Initiative of 2010, authorizing the
Chancellor of the California Community Colleges (CCC) to select
up to five CCCs for this designation, which would provide relief
from specified statutes, regulations, and funding methods in
return for meeting specified student success goals.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Codifies legislative intent that the statutory and regulatory
relief provided in this bill provide an opportunity to
accomplish the following:
a) Improve student success;
b) Encourage flexibility for college leaders and faculty to
accomplish existing state objectives in statutes and
regulation from which relief is being sought;
c) Hold ASSCs accountable for meeting measurable student
outcomes and to provide ASSCs with a method to change from
a rule-based to a performance-based accountability system;
and,
d) Provide for funding based on student completion of
educational courses and programs rather than class
attendance at the third week of enrollment.
2)Authorizes the CCC Chancellor to select up to five CCCs from
different CCC districts for designation as an ASSC for an
initial five year term, provided the petitioners have met the
following requirements:
a) Consulted with their academic senates;
b) Held at least one public, publicly noticed hearing, as
specified; and,
AB 2542
Page 2
c) Included a strategic plan, as specified, which:
i) The CCC Chancellor shall use as the primary basis
for determining whether to grant the petition for
designation as an ASSC;
ii) May include relief from state statutes and
regulations, as specified;
iii) Must identify how the ASSC will attain the state's
specified objective or objectives for the statute or
regulation form which relief is being sought, as well as
measurable objectives, metrics to be reported, and
benchmark levels of results to be obtained;
iv) Must include a written statement as to whether the
exclusive representative, as specified, participated in
the development of the strategic plan and the exclusive
representative's position regarding the strategic plan;
and,
v) Must have the concurrence of the exclusive
representative if any relief requested in the strategic
plan reasonably or directly relates to any provision of
an existing labor agreement.
3)Requires the CCC Chancellor to approve any and all requests
for relief included in the strategic plans, except when the
CCC Chancellor finds any of the following:
a) The educational needs of students are not adequately
addressed;
b) The request would substantially increase state costs;
or,
c) The exclusive representative, as specified, was not a
participant in the development of the strategic plan.
4)Provides that any strategic plan requesting relief is deemed
to have been approved if the Chancellor has not taken action
on the request for relief within 60 days following receipt of
the petition, as specified.
AB 2542
Page 3
5)Changes how ASSCs receive their apportionments, as follows:
a) Allows an ASSC to receive funding based on the number of
students who complete the academic term rather than based
on the number of full-time equivalent students (FTES)
enrolled during the third week of the academic term.
b) Allows an ASSC to receive an additional $1,000 per
student who has completed an associate degree or
certification in an occupational program, as specified, so
long as the amount does not exceed the FTES base funding as
reported to the CCC Chancellor during the previous full
academic year preceding designation as an ASSC.
c) Allows an ASSC to choose, during the first three years
of the ASSC pilot, to receive its funding based on third
week FTES enrollment or based on student completion.
6)Provides that designation as an ASSC shall not be deemed to
within the scope of collective bargaining, as specified, and
requires the Public Employment Relations Board to take into
account the intent of the ASSC Initiative of 2010 when
deciding cases brought before it related to an ASSC.
7)Requires the governing board of the ASSC to annually submit a
report to the Governor, the Legislature, the CCC Board of
Governors (BOG), and the CCC Chancellor that includes a
description of the progress made toward fulfilling the goals
outlined in existing law that are included in the CCC's annual
Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges (ARCC)
report.
8)Requires the ASSC to submit a report to the CCC Chancellor
that evaluates whether the relief provided as part of the
strategic plan, in whole or in part, has contributed to
achieving the intent of the Legislature as set forth in this
article and whether the article should be amended to authorize
relief from additional provisions of law.
9)Requires reimbursement to state and local agencies be provided
if so determined by the Commission on State Mandates.
EXISTING LAW establishes CCC districts, administered by a
governing board, and requires CCC districts to adhere to
numerous statutes and regulations (Title 5 of the California
AB 2542
Page 4
Code of Regulations).
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Background : The Institute for Higher Education
Leadership & Policy (IHELP) has issued several reports in the
last few years calling on California to make CCC student
completion, as well as access, a state priority, particularly in
light of the need for a more highly skilled workforce.
According to IHELP, less than one-fourth of the students who
enroll in CCC intending to complete a college program do so, and
much of the reason lies with the state's policies.
IHELP identifies the current financing system, which funds CCC
based on the number of FTES it reports at a date set early in
the term, as a policy that disproportionately emphasizes the
front end of the student's college pathway and does not
encourage support or reward for the student's success. Thus,
IHELP recommends funding completions along with enrollments,
with bonus funding for completions by disadvantaged and
under-prepared students.
In addition to funding changes, IHELP recommends the following
policy changes, among others:
1)Increase flexibility in hiring in order to meet student
demand;
2)Provide CCC more flexibility in the use of its funds;
3)Allow CCC to keep fee revenues;
4)Remove restrictions on campus-based fees;
5)Develop an affordability policy based on the total cost of
college attendance;
6)Revise assessment and placement policies; and,
7)Revise campus matriculation policies to provide clear guidance
that students can follow to progress quickly toward completion
of their selected programs.
Process for development of this proposal : Several years ago,
four CCC presidents, including the late Chris McCarthy of Napa
Valley College, Steven Kinsella of Gavilan College, John Nixon
of Mt. San Antonio College, and Bill Scroggins of the College of
the Sequoias, began collaborating with the Campaign for College
Opportunity (Campaign), the sponsor of this bill, on ways in
which they could increase student success. After researching
the many statutory and regulatory provisions governing the CCC,
AB 2542
Page 5
including those identified by IHELP, the four presidents decided
the first changes should include the way they receive funding
for students and flexibility in student services and
articulation. Thus, they decided not to pursue potentially
contentious policy changes such as changing hiring practices and
expenditure requirements.
How would the funding work ? As mentioned previously, CCCs are
funded based on the number of FTES they report during the third
week of instruction, which serves as an incentive to enroll
students without addressing completion. This bill would
partially implement the recommendation of IHELP and fund ASSCs
based on the number of students who successfully complete the
semester. If this amount is less than the FTES apportionment
the ASSC would have received based on the third week FTES
census, the ASSC can receive an additional $1,000 per student
who completes an associate degree or certificate in an
occupational field, up to the amount of FTES the ASSC received
during the prior full academic term (prior to determination as
an ASSC). ASSC could also choose to receive their funding based
on the current system for the first three years of the five year
pilot in order to give the ASSC time to implement the statutory
flexibilities and "ramp up" to demonstrate success. Since the
ASSC cannot receive more FTES under this bill than current law,
does this bill provide enough incentive for CCCs to trade in the
certainty of the current system for the uncertainty of funding
based on student completion?
Specific relief measures in this bill : ASSC colleges would have
the following flexibility from statutes and regulations in the
following areas:
Pre-requisites and Matriculation: This bill would exempt ASSCs
from the regulatory requirements, described below, that must be
met to establish prerequisites, which IHELP has found to limit
the ability of CCCs to help students succeed. IHELP has
recommended increased flexibility for CCCs to require
orientation, assessment, and counseling in order to ensure that
students are appropriately supported to succeed as they begin
college, as well as the ability to establish prerequisites that
will help guarantee that students are prepared to successfully
complete their courses.
CCC policies on assessment and placement are part of a larger
set of activities called "matriculation services" that were
AB 2542
Page 6
first codified in the Seymour-Campbell Matriculation Act of 1987
(Education Code sections 78210-78218). It is the CCC BOG
regulations for implementing the above statutes (Title 5) that
provide the framework in which assessment and placement operate.
These regulations were first adopted in 1990 but were revised in
1991 following a legal challenge by the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, which was concerned that the
approach to assessing and placing students in courses was
disproportionately directing Latino students into remedial
courses. The revised regulations made several clarifications
that have shaped the process since then. With these changes,
Title 5 regulations:
1)Specify that a basic skills course prerequisite can only be
established if districts validate through "sound research
practices" that a student is "highly unlikely to succeed in
the course" unless the student has completed the prerequisite
course;
2)Require that prerequisites must be established on a
course-by-course basis and not across the curriculum (e.g., a
college's history department faculty may not set a requirement
that students attain proficiency in reading before taking any
history courses offered by the department that require reading
college-level history texts; prerequisites must instead be
validated for each prerequisite in relation to each history
course); and,
3)Require districts to use "multiple measures" to place students
into courses, i.e., districts cannot use any single assessment
instrument for placement purposes.
It is common procedure across academia for colleges to designate
certain courses as prerequisites for entry into another course
or set of courses. The regulations adopted by the CCC BOG place
strict constraints on colleges' ability to establish
prerequisites. First, while prerequisites may readily be set
for sequences within a discipline (e.g., Economics 101A as a
prerequisite for Economics 101B), prerequisites cannot be set
across disciplines (e.g., English as a prerequisite for History
or Algebra as a prerequisite for Chemistry) without firm
documentation that students who do not take the prerequisite
course are unlikely to succeed in the course which has set the
prerequisite. Second, "blanket prerequisites" may not be set,
as noted earlier. These requirements can be prohibitive to
AB 2542
Page 7
meet, particularly for smaller colleges that lack sufficient
institutional researchers to provide the necessary
documentation.
Transfer Functions and Lower Division Transfer Patterns: This
bill would allow CCC faculty to self-certify courses for
transferability to ensure that University of California (UC) and
California State University (CSU) faculty cannot refuse to
accept a previously accepted course for transfer, changing the
rules on students in the middle of their transfer preparation.
Existing law (Education Code section 66730-66744) requires the
segments of higher education to develop transfer agreements that
specify the requirements a CCC student must meet to transfer to
the public four-year segments of higher education. Currently,
CCC articulation officers submit course information to the UC
and CSU system offices via the On-Line Service for Curriculum
and Articulation Review in order to have those courses to be
transferable. UC and CSU faculty, staff and administrators
evaluate the information, and the UC and CSU system offices
forward decisions to CCC articulation officers. Approved
outlines from previous years are carried forward unless a CCC
reports that a course has changed substantially since its
review.
Minimum Qualifications for Tutoring Coordinators: This bill
would allow, among other things, students to directly access
student learning centers, rather than requiring a referral from
a faculty member or counselor.
Current regulation (Title 5, section 58170) requires individual
student tutoring to be provided through a designated learning
center that is supervised by a person with a master's degree and
requires students seeking tutoring services to be referred by a
counselor or instructor on the basis of an identified learning
need. The Campaign argues that the current referral process
restricts student access to necessary services, since many
students come from first generation college and low income
backgrounds, accounting for their lack of finesse at accessing
services.
Concurrent Enrollment: This bill would lift the restrictions on
the number of high school students who can concurrently enroll
at an ASSC.
AB 2542
Page 8
Current law (Education Code section 48800) provides for limited
concurrent enrollment of elementary and secondary school pupils
in CCC coursework. CCCs are allowed to admit a limited number
of K-12 students as "special admits," primarily in order to give
these students advanced education at the college level. The
Campaign argues that these limitations, particularly the 5% high
school pupil limit to attend summer session, impedes student
preparation and early participation in college. The Campaign
cites a statement by W. David Pelham, former President of the
College of the Sequoias, who conducted a longitudinal study of
students who participated in concurrent enrollment programs,
finding that these students completed CCC programs at a higher
rate that students who did not participate in concurrent
enrollment programs.
Collective bargaining provisions : It is unclear why ASSCs would
not be subject to collective bargaining laws, and staff is
unaware of research that has identified collective bargaining as
a negative factor in student success. The Committee may wish to
remove this language unless information can be provided to
demonstrate the need for this change.
Arguments in support of this bill : The Campaign argues that
during this time of scarce resources and budget cuts, and in
light of the significant national research calling for
outcomes-based funding and CCC's low student completion rates,
this is the time to experiment with innovative solution that
could improve student outcomes. According to the Californians
for Justice Education Fund, this bill will test a new innovative
opportunity to improve student retention and completion rates,
creating an opportunity to develop best practices to serve
under-served student populations, including first-generation
college students, students of color, and low-income students.
Arguments in opposition to this bill : The California Federation
of Teachers (CFT) expresses concern that this bill will endanger
quality control by withholding funds from classes until the
student completes the class, which could result in grade
inflation and coerce faculty to "coerce students who are not
successfully matriculating in a given class." CFT also believes
the faculty should have a more central role in the development
of the strategic plan than outlined in this bill, since the
faculty must address and approve any changes regarding
prerequisites, matriculation, and self-certification for
transfer. Finally, CFT and the Faculty Association of
AB 2542
Page 9
California Community Colleges express concern that designation
as an ASSC shall not be deemed to within the scope of collective
bargaining.
Reporting requirement : This bill requires the ASSC to issue two
reports: the first is an annual report to the Governor,
Legislature, CCC BOG and CCC Chancellor on the ASSC's progress
toward meeting the goals articulated in existing law and
reported in the CCC's annual ARCC report, and the second is a
report to the Chancellor on the success of the ASSC pilot. Does
the annual ARCC data report need to be submitted to the Governor
and Legislature, or should it continue to be submitted to the
Chancellor who would then compile a report to the Governor and
Legislature? Should the CCC Chancellor be required to compile
and analyze the final ASSC reports and issue a report to the
Governor and Legislature?
Previous legislation : AB 78 (Portantino) of 2009, which was
held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and AB 1409
(Portantino) of 2008, which was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee, would have removed some of the
restrictions on concurrent enrollment.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Bill Scroggins, President, College of the Sequoias
Californians for Justice Education Fund
Campaign for College Opportunity (sponsor)
College Options
College Summit
David Wolf, Executive Director Emeritus for the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges
Families in Schools
John Nixon, President, Mt. San Antonio College
Justice Matters
Long Beach City College
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Morris and Garritano Insurance
Parent Institute for Quality Education
PolicyLink
Progressive Christians Uniting
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
AB 2542
Page 10
Stanislaus County Office of Education
Steven Kinsella, Superintendent/President, Gavilan College
Opposition
California Federation of Teachers
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
Analysis Prepared by : Sandra Fried / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960