BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
AB 1451 (Holden) - Concurrent Enrollment
Amended: June 25, 2014 Policy Vote: Education 7-0
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: August 4, 2014
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 1451 authorizes the governing board of a school
district, until July 1, 2020 to enter into a formal concurrent
enrollment partnership agreement with a community college
district (CCD) located within its immediate service area, with
the goals of developing a seamless pathway from high school to
community college, as specified.
Fiscal Impact: Easing restrictions on CCDs enrolling and/or
providing courses to high school students will create
substantial ongoing Prop 98 General Fund cost pressure to
increase community college apportionments. See staff comments.
Reporting: Likely minor costs to a CCD that elects to enter
into a concurrent enrollment partnership agreement (CEPA)
with one or more school districts.
Background: Existing law authorizes the governing board of a
school district, upon recommendation of the principal of a
student's school of attendance, and with parental consent, to
authorize a student who would benefit from advanced scholastic
or vocational work to attend a community college as a special
part-time or full-time student. Existing law also prohibits a
principal from recommending, for community college summer
session attendance, more than 5% of the total number of students
in the same grade level. (Education Code � 48800, et seq.).
Prior to January 1, 2014, the following courses were exempted
from the 5% cap; the summer course was (a) a lower division
Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC)
course that applies to the General Education breadth
requirements of the California State University (CSU), (b) the
course is a college-level occupational course for credit, and is
part of a sequence of vocational or career technical education
courses that leads to a degree or certificate, as specified; or
AB 1451 (Holden)
Page 1
(c) the course is necessary to assist a pupil who has not passed
the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and the student is
in the senior year, as specified. (Education Code � 48800 et
seq.)
Existing law also requires the California Community College
Chancellor's Office (CCCCO) to annually report to the Department
of Finance and the Legislature the number of full-time
equivalent students (FTES) claimed by each CCD for high school
pupils enrolled in non-credit, non-degree applicable, degree
applicable (excluding physical education), and degree applicable
physical education courses. Existing law further provides that,
for purposes of receiving state apportionments, CCDs may only
include high school students within the CCD's report on FTES if
the students are enrolled in courses that are open to the
general public, as specified. (EC �76002)
The CCCCO is also required to annually report the number of
pupils who enroll in community college summer session courses
and receive a passing grade. (EC 48800)
Finally, existing law requires the governing board of a CCD to
assign a low enrollment priority to special part-time or
full-time students in order to ensure that these students do not
displace regularly admitted community college students (EC �
76001)
Proposed Law: This bill authorizes the governing board of a
school district to enter into a formal concurrent enrollment
partnership agreement with a CCD located within its immediate
service area, with stated goals. More specifically, this bill:
1) Reinstates the course exemptions outlined in the Background
from the 5% cap on summer session concurrent enrollment
and, includes an additional exemption. These exemptions are
now scheduled to sunset January 1, 2017.
2) Repeals the prohibition against the CCC Board of Governors
including in its annual budget request the concurrent
enrollment of high school pupils.
3) Specifies that a concurrently enrolled pupil may receive
community college and high school credit for completed
community college courses as determined to be appropriate
AB 1451 (Holden)
Page 2
by the governing boards of the school district and the
community college district, in accordance with state and
federal law.
4) Authorizes a school district to enter into a CEPA with the
governing board of a CCD located within its immediate
service area, with the goal of developing a pathway from
high school to community college for career-technical
education or preparation for transfer.
5) Requires concurrent enrollment partnership agreements to
outline the terms of the partnership, as specified, and to
file the agreement with the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI) and the CCCCO before the start of a
program authorized by this statute.
6) Permits a pupil to receive community college and high
school credit for community college courses that he or she
completes, as determined to be appropriate by the governing
boards of the school district and the CCD, and in
accordance with other state and federal law.
7) Prohibits a pupil from being assessed any course-related
fees, as specified, for a community college course offered
through a CEPA.
8) Specifies that a school district participating in a
partnership shall not receive a state allowance or
apportionment for an instructional activity for which a
community college district has been, or shall be, paid an
allowance or apportionment. Likewise, a CCD shall not
receive a state allowance or apportionment for an
instructional activity for which a school district has
been, or shall be, paid an allowance or apportionment.
9) Requires each CEPA participating school district and CCD to
annually report specified enrollment and outcome measures
to the CCCCO, the Legislature, the Department of Finance,
and the SPI.
10) Exempts pupils attending an early college high school and
participants of the CEPA program from the requirement that
concurrently enrolled pupils be assigned lower enrollment
priority to ensure they do not displace regularly admitted
AB 1451 (Holden)
Page 3
students.
11) Allows a CCD to permit a pupil attending a middle or early
college high school or a pupil participating in a CEPA to
enroll in up to a maximum of 15 units if either: (a) the
units constitute no more than four community college
courses per term, or (b) those units are part of an
academic program offered at the middle or early college
high school that is designed to allow students to earn
enough credit to graduate with an associate's degree or CTE
certificate, or are part of a CEPA.
12) Specifies that a CCD may limit enrollment in a community
college course solely to high school pupils if the course
is offered at a high school campus, is not otherwise
offered at the high school, and the course is offered by a
middle college and/or early college high school and/or is
offered pursuant to a CEPA.
Related Legislation: AB 1540 (Hagman, 2014) would have
authorized the creation of concurrent enrollment partnerships
for computer science courses. That bill was held on the Suspense
File in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 1146 (Morrell, 2013) would have extended, from January 1,
2014 to January 1, 2019, the exemption from the 5% cap on
concurrent enrollment for pupils who enroll in community college
summer session courses that meet specified criteria. That bill
was held on the Suspense File in this Committee.
AB 160 (Portantino, 2011) would have removed certain
restrictions on concurrent enrollment and authorized school
districts to enter into partnerships with CCDs to provide high
school pupils opportunities for advanced scholastic work, career
technical or other coursework. That bill was held on the
suspense file in this Committee.
Staff Comments: This bill is a variation on the several
concurrent enrollment bills introduced in the past few years.
Its requirements relative to CEPAs and to reporting are more
extensive than recent versions; its reinstatement of exceptions
to the 5% cap and allowance of closed courses taught on high
school campuses are broader.
AB 1451 (Holden)
Page 4
The intent of this bill is to make it easier for CCDs to elect
to provide community college course instruction to high school
students, with community college apportionment funds. While the
cost is unknown, because it depends on how the changes affect
enrollment, every apportionment increase of 1% statewide would
cost an additional $57 million in Prop 98 General Fund. The
2013-14 for-credit rate was $4,636 per FTES. With a 2014-15 COLA
of 0.85%, the rate will be $4,675 per FTES going forward.
CEPAs could also apply to summer school courses, which are
likely to be more popular, especially since many high schools
have not fully reinstated summer school courses since budget
reductions beginning in 2008-09 limited or eliminated summer
school offerings at high schools. Every 10% increase in
participation in summer courses would result in costs of $14.7
million (assuming the CCC for credit rates of $4,675 per FTES).
Actual costs would depend on participation, and the courses
taken.
In order to avoid issues of double funding, this bill would
prohibit a CCC from receiving an allowance or an apportionment
for summer session instruction for which a school district is
also paid. It allows, however, for apportionments that are not
also given to school districts; summer session would be one such
apportionment, and represent a unique cost to this bill.
Placing a 5% cap on the number of high school students in each
grade, at each high school, who may concurrently enroll in
community college summer courses, limits the total number of
high school students who can take community college classes and
be counted toward FTES for the purposes of state reimbursement.
When the exemptions sunset on January 1, 2014, the 5% cap began
to apply to all concurrent enrollment students, irrespective of
their coursework. Fully exempting from the 5% cap any student
who takes a course that meets any of the following criteria, on
the other hand, effectively removes the cap: (a) a lower
division IGETC course that applies to the General Education
breadth requirements of the CSU; (b) a college-level
occupational course for credit, that is part of a sequence of
vocational or career technical education courses that leads to a
degree or certificate, as specified; or, (c) a course that is
necessary to assist a pupil who has not passed the CAHSEE, and
who is in the senior year, as specified. There can be an
unlimited number of enrollments in those categories of classes.
AB 1451 (Holden)
Page 5
There would only be a 5% cap on enrollment in courses that do
not meet the exemption criteria.
While the theoretical costs of this bill could be substantial,
it is unclear what the practical costs would be. When the
exemptions were in place previously, neither the CCCCO nor the
California Department of Education (CDE) tracked the
disaggregated number of concurrently enrolled students from each
high school, in each grade level. No state agency enforced the
5% cap on course enrollments that did not meet the exemption
criteria, nor collected schoolsite level data to determine if
any school (that is not an early college or middle college high
school) actually allowed more than 5% of students in any grade
level to concurrently enroll in community college summer
courses. Furthermore, no state agency collected data on which,
if any, high school students concurrently enrolled pursuant to
the exemption rather than within the blanket 5% cap. The CCCCO
collects data on the number of high school students statewide
who successfully complete community college summer session
courses -16,403 in 2012, significantly fewer than the 59,303 in
2008 - but does not track the data at a level that would allow
any cap to be enforced. 16,403 is far fewer than 5% of the
number of high school students in the state, but it is unlikely
that the students matriculate equally from all high schools.
Existing law places responsibility for not approving enrollments
above the cap on the school principal, but it is unclear whether
or how that requirement was ever enforced. To the extent that
the cap and its exemptions were unenforced, this bill is not
likely to result in any change to behavior or to state FTES
reimbursement costs.
To the extent that this bill results in more students earning
college credits that will allow them to move through a public
postsecondary institution more quickly in the future, there may
be future cost savings from reduced time in college (which may
also mean reduced time receiving state-funded financial aid).