BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 230
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Marty Block, Chair
AB 230 (Carter) - As Amended: March 29, 2011
SUBJECT : Joint educational programs: middle college high
school students.
SUMMARY : Exempts students attending middle college high schools
(MCHS) from the requirement that California Community College
(CCC) governing boards assign low enrollment priority to
concurrent enrollment students.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a CCC governing board to assign concurrent enrollment
students a low enrollment priority to ensure that these
students do not displace regularly admitted students.
2)Establishes MCHS as broad-based instructional programs that
select at-risk high school students performing below their
academic potential and place them in alternative high schools
located on CCC campuses that are focused on college
preparatory and school-to-work curricula, a reduced
adult-student ratio, and flexible scheduling and opportunities
to allow for internship and service experiences.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Double-referral : This bill has been double-referred
to the Assembly Education Committee.
Background : The term "concurrent enrollment" generally refers
to the practice of allowing students to take college courses and
earn college credit while still in high school. Historically,
concurrent enrollment has been used by academically advanced
high school students who need an additional challenge, students
who were likely to attend college anyway. While concurrent
enrollment still serves this purpose, more recently programs
have been developed to target underserved student populations
less likely to attend college.
Purpose of this bill : According to the author, MCHS and Early
College High Schools (ECHS) programs are experiencing a drop in
AB 230
Page 2
the number of new student applications and a rise in the number
of students not completing their dual degree program, opting
only to get their high school diploma, largely due to the
inability of students to get needed CCC classes. This bill will
assist students in these programs by recognizing that their
specialized program requires access to CCC courses and they
should therefore be exempt from the low enrollment priority
requirement.
Enrollment priorities at CCC : General Fund reductions combined
with increased student demand has left CCCs unable to provide
course offerings to fully meet student needs. According to
Chancellor Scott over 95% of all classes are at capacity and
estimated 10,000-15,000 students are on wait lists for courses.
The CCC reductions in the 2011-12 Budget will mean an
anticipated 350,000 students will be turned away next year.
When there is greater demand than there are course offerings,
course registration priorities play an important role in
managing enrollment by determining which groups of students are
enrolled in needed courses and which students get turned away.
Existing law provides that concurrent enrollment students
receive a low enrollment priority in order to ensure they do not
displace regular CCC students. This bill would exempt students
attending MCHS from the low enrollment priority requirement,
providing CCCs flexibility in the priority assignment for MCHS
students.
MCHS : The first MCHS was developed in 1974 at LaGuardia High
School in New York City and was designed to reduce dropout rates
among high-ability, at-risk youth through integration into the
community college environment. California's MCHS program began
in 1988, when startup funding was provided by the Legislature
for two initial sites at Los Angeles Southwest and Contra Costa
community colleges. Currently, California provides funding for
11 MCHS programs across California. These programs are located
on CCC campuses and blend high school and college coursework to
allow students to simultaneously earn a high school diploma and
credit towards a college degree. According to the CCC
Chancellor's Office, CCCs receive MCHS state grant funds on a
dollar-for-dollar match: grant amounts are $127,000, and
district matching amounts must come from district Proposition 98
funds. As the grants pay for a relatively limited number of high
school personnel, high school and CCC partners frequently
contribute considerably more than the required matching amount.
AB 230
Page 3
Early College High School (ECHS) Programs : From 2003-2010 the
CCC Foundation received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation and other foundation partners for the ECHS
Initiative. According to their website, with this funding, the
CCC Foundation participated in the design or conversion of 23
ECHS programs. According to the Middle College National
Consortium, 37 ECHS programs are recognized at the national
level and receive funding from a variety of Foundations. ECHS
programs are small, autonomous schools that blend high school
and college into a single educational program. Similar to MCHS
programs, ECHS programs are designed for young people who are
underrepresented in postsecondary education and are designed to
remove major barriers to postsecondary access and success.
Students are provided the opportunity to earn two years of
college credit while still in high school and without charge.
Unlike MCHS programs, ECHS programs are not defined in statute.
This bill would apply to students in programs that fall into
the MCHS definition outlined in statute.
Proposed amendment : Committee staff recommends an amendment to
clarify that the enrollment priority benefit is limited to MCHS
students seeking to enroll in CCC courses that are required for
the MCHS program.
Related legislation : AB 160 (Portantino) was approved by this
Committee on March 15, 2011, and would remove several concurrent
enrollment restrictions, including the requirement that
concurrent enrollment students be assigned low enrollment
priority.
Previous legislation : Since the existing concurrent enrollment
restrictions were put into place in 2004 (SB 338, Scott, Chapter
786, Statutes of 2003) there have been at least nine measures
attempting to expand concurrent enrollment. Most recent efforts
include AB 78 (Portantino, 2009), which was substantially
similar to AB 160, and AB 555 (Furutani, 2009), which contained
similar provisions to AB 160, but was limited to only five
specified CCC districts. Both AB 78 and AB 555 were held in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee. AB 1409 (Portantino) of
2008, which was also substantially similar to AB 160, was held
in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 230
Page 4
Support
None on File
Opposition
None on File
Analysis Prepared by : Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960