BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1143
AUTHOR: Liu
AMENDED: April 5, 2010
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 21, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Community College Funding
KEY POLICY ISSUE
Will changing the calculation of FTES for purposes of
community college funding result in improved completion
rates by students?
SUMMARY
This bill changes the calculation of full-time equivalent
student (FTES) enrollment for purposes of revenue
apportionment within the California Community Colleges to
the average enrollment in a course at the one-fifth point
and at course completion, as specified, and prohibits any
reduction in revenues as a result of the changed
calculation until the 2012-13 fiscal year.
BACKGROUND
Current law requires that attendance at a California
Community College be recorded and kept according to rules
and regulations prescribed by the Board of Governors (BOG).
Current law also provides that attendance means "full-time
equivalent student" or FTES, as that term is defined by
regulations adopted by the BOG. (Education Code Section
84500, 84501)
Funding for California community colleges is based, in
part, on a calculation using the FTES. Regulations adopted
by the BOG specify the method of computing FTES for
apportionment purposes and, generally, require its
computation using the enrollment as of the Monday of the
week nearest to one-fifth of the length of the term.
SB 1143
Page 2
(California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Division 6,
Section 58003.1)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Changes the calculation of full-time equivalent
student enrollment for purposes of revenue
apportionment within the California Community Colleges
to the average active enrollment in a course as of the
one-fifth point and at course completion.
2) Authorizes the Board of Governors (BOG) to adopt an
alternative equivalent calculation for short term and
irregularly scheduled credit courses, open entry/exit
courses, in-service training courses, non-credit
courses (except for distance courses), apprenticeship
classes, and tutoring courses.
3) Requires the BOG to adopt one or more weighting
factors for the FTES calculation to ensure that
districts do not have disincentives to enroll students
from demographic groups with historically lower rates
of course completion.
4) Prohibits any reduction in revenues as a result of the
changed FTES calculation until the 2012-13 fiscal
year.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author,
increasing the rate of community college degree and
certificate completion will help build a skilled and
economically productive labor force. The author notes
that, of those entering the community colleges seeking
a degree (as opposed to remediation or enrichment);
only 29% complete a certificate or degree or transfer
to a university within seven years of enrolling. SB
1143 seeks to establish a funding formula that rewards
increased completion rates. Using a student census
that averages the count of those enrolled one-fifth of
the way into a course with the count of students who
complete the course, creates an incentive for
community colleges to assist students to enroll in
SB 1143
Page 3
appropriate courses, and complete their courses,
certificates, and degrees.
2) Is there a link ? This bill is premised on the belief
that there is a link between existing community
college policies and the reasons that students do not
complete their education. Additionally, that creation
of a completion funding incentive will lead to the
adoption of policies that will result in increased
student completion rates. Community college students
may fail to complete their programs for a variety of
reasons, including, their socioeconomic background,
high school preparation, and competing life
challenges. Arguably, addressing these factors is a
responsibility which should be shared across several
state entities. Is it reasonable to place
responsibility and consequences for failure to address
these challenges on the community colleges? How much
can a community college affect the underlying
challenges which interfere with student completion of
programs? Does funding on the basis of course
completion distinguish between those factors under a
community college's control and those that are not?
3) Silver bullet ? This bill changes one component of
existing finance policy for the community colleges. A
2007 report by the Institute for Higher Education
Leadership & Policy, Rules of the Game: How State
Policy Creates Barriers to Degree Completion and
Impedes Student Success in the California Community
Colleges identified changes to state policy in five
areas that could reduce barriers to completion,
including; 1) the reform of finance policy to
incorporate incentives for completion, 2) granting the
colleges more flexibility to use funds to enhance
completion 3) granting the colleges more flexibility
to hire the faculty/staff best able to help students
meet their academic goals, 4) modification of fee and
financial aid policies to meet students costs beyond
fees, encourage full-time attendance, and give
colleges more access to fee revenues, and 5) revision
of college policies to achieve clearer
standards/assessments of college readiness matched
with better counseling and support of students. Is it
reasonable to change the funding formula without also
providing the flexibility and funding necessary to
SB 1143
Page 4
enable the colleges to effect other policy changes
necessary to realize the goal of improved completion
rates?
4) Unintended consequences . This bill requires the BOG
to adopt weighting factors in the calculation of FTES
to eliminate disincentives to enroll students from
demographic groups who have historically demonstrated
lower rates of completion. According to the Education
Commission of the States, students of color,
low-income and first-generation students are the least
likely to complete a degree, with persistence and
completion rates for African-Americans and Hispanics
being considerably lower than their white or
Asian-American counterparts - 18% and 8%,
respectively, compared to 32% and 55%. Can this goal
be accomplished within the restrictions established
under Proposition 209, enacted by California voters in
1996, which prohibits the state from giving
preferential treatment to groups or individuals on the
basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national
origin?
5) Fiscal realities . The last budget year to include
funding for enrollment growth and cost-of-living
increases for all three public higher education
segments was 2007-08. The 2008-09 and 2009-10 budgets
were complicated with retroactive reductions,
backfills with federal stimulus revenue, future
deferrals, unallocated reductions, mid-year funding
cuts, and other budget solutions. Between 2007-08 and
2009-10, the Proposition 98 funding level for the
community colleges was reduced by $438 million ($97
million of which was due to lower than anticipated
local property tax revenue), which was offset to a
small degree by increased student fee revenue and
deferrals.
The 2009-10 Budget imposed a reduction of $140 million
for apportionments (which were further reduced by a
local property tax shortfall that was only partially
backfilled) and a reduction of $263 million (37
percent of 2008-09 levels) to categorical programs
which include programs like matriculation, extended
opportunity programs and services and general
counseling, arguably, some of the very policy
SB 1143
Page 5
interventions this bill is trying to incentivize. Is
this the right time to test a new funding formula?
Although the bill delays implementation until 2012-13,
should there be a commitment to these changes now
without a guarantee that the state's fiscal condition
will have improved by then?
6) Policy arguments .
Proponents argue that in order to reach the education
levels of the most competitive economies, we must
dramatically increase the number of students earning
college degrees each year. Funding course completion
in addition to course enrollment creates an incentive
for colleges to ensure that students get the academic,
student, and/or financial support services they need
to remain enrolled in their classes.
Opponents argue that this bill would lead to a
decrease in funding for community colleges due to
circumstances that are, many times, beyond the
college's control, without recognizing that community
colleges are currently underfunded, and would only
serve to reduce the resources that students need in
order to insure success.
SUPPORT
Business Council of San Joaquin County
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach City College
REAL Coalition
Campaign for College Opportunity
OPPOSITION
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
Kern Community College District
Los Angeles Community College District
Los Rios Community College District
Mt. San Jacinto Community College District
Yosemite Community College District
SB 1143
Page 6