BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 977
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 23, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 977 (Salas) - As Amended: January 7, 2014
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:13-0 (Consent)
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires the California Community Colleges (CCC)
Chancellor to convene a group of experts in career technical
education (CTE), business, or industry to research ways to
address issues related to implementing differential funding for
credit-bearing high-cost, high-demand courses and programs at
the community colleges, and to report its recommendations to the
Legislature by January 1, 2016.
FISCAL EFFECT
Since the subject matter is already under discussion by a
community college advisory group (see below) any additional
costs for the report to the Legislature should be minor and
absorbable.
COMMENTS
1)Background . For the community colleges, credit courses are
currently funded at $4,636 per full-time equivalent student
(FTES), non-credit courses are funded at $2,788 FTES, and
"enhanced" non-credit courses, which include college
development and career preparation courses, are funded at
$3,283. A recent report by the Institute for Higher Education
Leadership Policy (IHELP) found that California's current
funding structure creates a fiscal disincentive to support
high-cost programs. IHELP studied the career technical
education (CTE) funding practices of 20 states, and identified
differential funding as a potential strategy for California,
noting that 13 of these states have some form of differential
funding formulas that take into account differential costs
AB 977
Page 2
among academic programs.
2)Purpose . According to the author, California's failure to
adequately support CTE has led to a 10-year decline in CTE's
share of overall system enrollment. The author notes CTE is
disadvantaged in the competition for resources due to higher
per-student costs compared to often larger, traditional
classes and the need for specialized equipment and facilities.
The author argues that a funding formula that takes
differential program costs into account in determining
allocations is a promising approach to increasing investments
in CTE.
3)Current Efforts . The CCC's Economic and Workforce Development
(EWD) program seeks to bridge the gap between workforce needs
and the skills training provided by CCC. The Economic
Development Program Advisory Committee (EDPAC) and Workforce &
Economic Performance Advisory Committee (WEDPAC) are advisory
bodies to the EWD. It is staff's understanding that these
committees are currently reviewing all of the options outlined
in the IHELP report and will be making recommendations
regarding CTE program funding. The need for this bill is thus
unclear.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081