BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2153
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 14, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 2153 (Gray) - As Amended: April 29, 2014
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:11-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill places conditions on the offering of self-supporting
instructional programs and courses (extended education) at the
California State University (CSU) so as not to conflict with or
supplant state-supported course offerings. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Prohibits CSU's self-supporting instructional programs
(extended education) from supplanting regular, state-supported
course offerings available during the academic year. For these
purposes, supplanting would occur when an undergraduate
matriculated student is required to take a more expensive
extension course to graduate because a state-supported course
is unavailable due to not being offered that term or all
state-supported sections are full during the academic year.
2)Requires CSU campuses, to the extent possible, to ensure
courses required to complete undergraduate degrees for
matriculated students are offered as state-supported courses.
3)Stipulates that a matriculated student required to take an
extension course to complete their undergraduate degree due to
the unavailability of a state-supported course shall pay the
lesser course fee, and requires that campuses, to the extent
possible, ensure that general fund money is not used to
support the student's enrollment in an extension course.
4)Prohibits campuses from:
a) Reducing state-supported undergraduate offerings of a
course while increasing extended education offerings of
AB 2153
Page 2
that course.
b) Offering extension programs on campus at times or
locations that limit the number of state-supported courses.
5)Stipulates that the number of self-supporting sections of any
individual course, including online courses, shall not exceed
the number of state-supported sections of that course.
6)Allows a campus, notwithstanding (4) and (5), to add a
self-supporting section of a state-supported degree program or
increase the number of self-supporting sections of
state-supported course offerings, with approval from the CSU
Chancellor's Office, if:
a) The campus determines that state resources are
inadequate to provide additional state-supported sections.
b) There is no reduction in the aggregate number of
state-supported course offerings on the campus, provided
that CSU's budget has not been reduced from the prior
year's level.
7)Requires the CSU Board of Trustees to annually certify
compliance with all of the above.
8)States legislative intent that CSU be provided with sufficient
funding to provide core curriculum through state-supported
academic programs, that matriculated students are entitled to
receive their education within the bounds of a state-supported
tuition structure, and that a campus can ensure a student is
not required to enroll in an extension program, section, or
course in order to receive their postsecondary education in a
timely manner.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Annual GF costs of up to several million dollars to the extent
CSU must offer additional state-supported courses in lieu of
undergraduates taking self-supporting courses. According to
CSU, in the most recent academic year (fall/spring only),
undergraduate matriculating full-time equivalent students
(FTES) in self-supported courses totaled 1,143. Converting
this FTES to state support would cost $8.1 million. There
would be additional costs to the extent the unavailability of
AB 2153
Page 3
extended education courses results extending undergraduates
time to degree.
2)CSU would also incur one-time programming costs and ongoing
costs to be able to count and compare the number of
state-supported and extended education courses by course.
One-time costs would exceed $1 million, and ongoing costs
would be several hundred thousand dollars systemwide.
3)Costs to gather data and prepare an agenda item for CSU
Trustees to certify compliance would cost be about $200,000,
though much of these costs at the campus level would likely be
absorbed.
4)There should be no additional state costs for matriculating
undergraduate students in self-supported courses to pay lower
fees equivalent to those for a state-supported course, as
self-supported course fees could be increased commensurately
for non-matriculating students.
5)Fulfilling legislative intent to provide sufficient funding to
avoid matriculating students having to take extension courses
could create significant GF cost pressure during years when
state budgets overall are under stress.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Pursuant to CSU Executive Order 1047, special
sessions are offered as part of CSU's Extended Education to
support and extend the mission of the CSU. Under this program,
campuses offer baccalaureate and graduate degrees,
certificates, and many forms of specialized education and
training for business, industry, and government. While the
composition of these campus programs varies considerably, most
maintain the following common instructional elements:
a) Special session degree, certificate, and credential
programs.
b) Open University, (permits nonmatriculated students to
enroll in regular university courses on a space available
basis, pay self-support fees and earn university academic
credit).
c) Contract and extension credit.
AB 2153
Page 4
d) Non-credit certificates, courses, and programs.
e) Continuing education units.
Many campus self-support units conduct programs during times
when regular academic operations are recessed (early January
and May).
2)Audit of CSU Extended Education . A December 2013 report by
the Bureau of State Audits (BSA) examined extended education
at CSU and the supplanting of state-supported courses. BSA
found it difficult to determine the extent to which
"supplanting" occurred due to lack of clarity in the term. The
BSA audit considered two interpretations of supplanting: (1) a
campus could not require a student to enroll in a
self-supported course as the only path to their degree; and,
(2) the plain meaning definition of replacing a
state-supported section with an extension section. In
analyzing campus course data for fiscal years 2007-08 through
2011-12, BSA found potential instances of supplanting under
both definitions. BSA recommended that the Legislature
provide direction regarding the interpretation of supplanting,
hence AB 2153, and provided several recommendations to the
Chancellor's Office regarding oversight and compliance of
campus extension program activities.
In response to the audit, the Chancellor's Office established
a task force to develop a definition of supplanting and make a
recommendation to the Chancellor. The task force includes five
campus presidents, four faculty members, two provosts, two
extended education representatives, and two Office of the
Chancellor representatives. The task force solicited feedback
from the CSU community, and has held open meetings to discuss
definition options. Final recommendations are to be presented
to the Chancellor in June.
3)Purpose . According to the author, CCC and CSU extension
programs have increased costs for students who can ill afford
the additional fees but cannot afford to delay their
graduation. Almost half of the students who enroll
exclusively in self-supported classes have an income of less
than $25,000. This bill responds to the State Auditor's
recommendations by clarifying the definition of the term
supplant and requiring annual measures to ensure
AB 2153
Page 5
state-sponsored course offerings are not supplanted or
replaced by these added-cost courses.
This bill is supported by several labor groups and opposed by
the CSU.
4)Related Legislation . AB 2610 (Williams), pending in the
Assembly, requires CSU to develop a definition of supplanting.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081