LegTrack

clean report

AB 13 (Conway): Nonresident tuition exemption: veterans.
Bill Version: 09/04/14     Analysis Date: 09/15/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. (09/10/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

This bill requires public colleges to waive the requirement that a student be stationed in California for more than one year immediately prior to discharge to be exempt from paying non-resident tuition at public postsecondary institutions, including community colleges.


Arguments For:  Veterans and their families have sacrificed a great deal and likely had no control over their station. It is a small cost for California to serve these students as if they are residents, and will pay dividends as they become civilian workers in the state's economy.


Arguments Against:  Following several years of disinvestment of California's higher education system, the priority should be to restore access to California residents. Meanwhile, the federal government should pay the full cost of providing veterans the skills and knowledge necessary to transition to civilian employment.


Staff Notes:


After amendments, on August 28, 2014, the bill conforms with new federal regulations requiring public colleges to provide in-state tuition to veterans and eligible dependents in order for the school to remain eligible to receive G.I. Bill education payments. 


 

Position:Support
Note:CCCT 01/26/13; CEOCCC 01/27/13

AB 173 (Weber): Postsecondary education: Small Business Procurement and Contract Act.
Bill Version: 09/09/13     Analysis Date: 03/05/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 262, Statutes of 2013. (09/09/13)
Summary:

This bill would extend the provisions of current law affecting state agencies to the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges to allow them to award a contract for goods, service, or information technology to a certified small business (including a micro business or a disabled veteran business enterprise) without complying with competitive bidding requirement if the contract's value is between $5,000 and $250,000.


Arguments For: This bill is permissive, thereby allowing community college districts to have more flexibility in awarding these contracts without excessive paperwork.


Arguments Against: Providing any sort of exemptions in a competitive bidding process may be viewed as unfair and could result in awarding more expensive contracts than would occur with a competitive bidding process.

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 02/22/2013; CCCT 04/20/2013

AB 185 (Roger Hernández): Open and public meetings: televised meetings.
Bill Version: 04/23/13     Analysis Date: 03/26/14 [bill details]
Last Action: From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. (02/03/14)
Location: Asm Local Government (Died)
Summary:

The bill would extend, from 30 days to 2 years, the length of time that a local agency would have to retain a copy of an audio or video recording of an open and public meeting made at the direction of that agency; would require that an agency with PEG channels televise its meetings, including advisory committee meetings unless doing so would result in a financial hardship (i.e., the cost of broadcasting would exceed the amount of franchise fees paid), in which case the local agency would be required to broadcast the meetings via an audio-visual electronic medium or an audio medium; and would allow the agency to use the franchise fees from the PEG channels to fund the cost of televising the meetings.


Arguments for: Increased transparency and community engagement are promoted by making meeting recordings more accessible to the public.


Arguments against: The two-year holding period is too lengthy and will impose additional unfunded costs on local agencies.

Position:Watch

AB 194 (Campos): Open meetings: protections for public criticism: penalties for violations.
Bill Version: 09/03/14     Analysis Date: 03/26/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. (09/08/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

This bill would make it a misdemeanor for the chairperson of a legislative body of a local agency to prohibit public criticism protected under the Brown Act.


Arguments for: There must be some enforcement of protected speech provisions to assure that such protection is real.


Arguments against: Charging a chair with a misdemeanor is too heavy a penalty for this violation.

Position:Oppose
Note:CEOCCC 02/22/2013; CCCT 04/20/2013

AB 255 (Waldron): Public postsecondary education: digital arts pilot program: video games.
Bill Version: 03/19/13     Analysis Date: 09/25/13 [bill details]
Last Action: From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. (02/03/14)
Location: Asm Higher Education (Died)
Summary:

This bill would establish a Digital Arts Degree Pilot Program at the California Community Colleges (CCCs) and up to 8 campuses of the California State University (CSU). The bill would require representatives from the Office of the Chancellor of the CCCs and representatives from CSU to collaborate with representatives of the digital arts design and video game industries to develop a course of study leading to the award of an AA and a BA degree in digital arts by January 1, 2015. The bill would request the UC Regents to establish a digital arts degree pilot program at up to 2 campuses of UC and to include representatives of UC in the development of the digital arts degree course of study. The bill would require the first digital arts degree pilot programs to be established by the start of the 2015-16 academic year and would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2020.

Position:Watch

AB 386 (Levine): Public postsecondary education: cross-enrollment: online education at California State University.
Bill Version: 09/26/13     Analysis Date: 09/25/13 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 363, Statutes of 2013. (09/26/13)
Summary:

This bill would express legislative intent that, by the beginning of the 2015-16 academic year, students enrolled at any California State University (CSU) campus be provided an opportunity to enroll in online courses at other CSU campuses on a space available basis if the student has: 


(a) Attained a grade point average of 2.0 on a 4-point scale for work completed;


(b) Paid appropriate tuition or fees, or both, required by the home campus for for full-time enrollment for the academic term in which the student seeks to cross-enroll; and


(c) No outstanding tuition or fees to be paid at the home campus.


The bill also would require the trustees, by January 1, 2015, to establish an easily accessible online database of online courses available at all CSU campuses to provide CSU students with a streamlined process within the CSU system to allow
them to find and enroll in courses that will earn them credit toward graduation, general education, and major requirements


Staff Notes:


AB 386 requires students enrolled at a California State University campus be provided an opportunity to enroll in online courses. It also Requires the establishment of an easily accessible online database for enrollment. The measure passed and was sent to the Governor on 9/10/13. 


 

Position:Watch

AB 388 (Chesbro): Student Success Act of 2012.
Bill Version: 08/27/14     Analysis Date: 06/20/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. (09/05/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

6/4/14


Bill amended to no longer apply to community colleges.


____________________________________________


This bill would amend the Seymour-Campbell Student Success Act of 2012 to specify that nothing in the measure is intended to preclude colleges from providing courses and programs including, but not limited to, professional development, development of language skills, and job services for individuals with developmental disabilities, to the extent resources are available for those purposes.


 


This bill specifies that career advancement, for purposes of the Seymour-Campbell Student Success Act of 2012, includes professional development, development of job skills, development of language skills, and job services for individual with developmental disabilities. 

Position:Watch

AB 484 (Bonilla): Pupil assessments: Measurement of Academic Performance and Progress (MAPP).
Bill Version: 10/02/13     Analysis Date: 11/06/13 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 489, Statutes of 2013. (10/02/13)
Summary:

Summary:


Establishes the Measurement of Academic Performance and Progress (MAPP), commencing with the 2013–14 school year, as the statewide assessment program for specified pupils and provides direction to the State Board of Education (SBE), the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), and the California Department of Education (CDE) on the transition of California's current assessment system to the MAPP, the administration of the MAPP, and the expansion of the MAPP to include additional assessments beyond those specified in this bill.


This bill would, for the 2013–14 and 2014–15 school years, upon approval of the state board, authorize the Superintendent to not provide an API score to a school or school district due to a determination by the Superintendent that a transition to new standards-based assessments would compromise comparability of results across schools or school districts.


Staff Notes:


This was a gut and amend bill sponsored by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.  The bill offers a one-year transition period to allow resources spent on administering the STAR test to instead be used on assessments of the Common Core State Standards.





It is important to note that this bill will necessitate a request from California to the United States Department of Education for a waiver from the federal requirement that California demonstrate its success in terms of the academic achievement and that such evidence come from testing data from every student’s progress toward state adopted standards. In the absence of this waiver, anywhere from $15 million to $3.5 billion in Title I funds from the US Department of Education would be put in jeopardy. 


The Early Assessment Program (EAP) will be voluntary for grade 11 students in 2013-14 and be included again in the Smarter Balance compuster adaptive assessments. 





  

Position:Watch

AB 548 (Salas): Public postsecondary education: community college registered nursing programs.
Bill Version: 08/15/14     Analysis Date: 02/12/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 203, Statutes of 2014. (08/15/14)
Summary:

Summary: Deletes the sunset provisions that require a community college registered nursing program that elects to use a multiple criteria for screening applicants for admission to the program to include specified criteria, and authorizes a program using such a process to use an approved diagnostic assessment tool before, during, and after the screening process.                                                                                                                                                         


Pros: This bill is consistent with a previous League position. The multiple criteria screening process has become an effective method to increase student retention and success in nursing programs. Removing the sunset leaves these effective screening methods in place.


Cons: None identified. 


 

Position:Support
Note:ACL 2/25, CCCT 2/25, CEOCCC 2/26

AB 646 (Cooley): Public education governance: Regional P-20 councils.
Bill Version: 01/16/14     Analysis Date: 09/25/13 [bill details]
Last Action: From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. (02/03/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (Died)
Summary:

The bill would authorize a school district, community college district, or campus of the California State University or University of California to establish or participate in a regional P-20 council, and authorize a regional P-20 council to include representatives of private sector employers. The bill would require these  regional P-20 councils to identify educational objectives that are consistent with the objectives of council members and with statewide education policies and goals.

Position:Watch

AB 675 (Fong): Faculty Employment
Bill Version: 08/15/14     Analysis Date: 06/04/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 204, Statutes of 2014. (08/15/14)
Summary:

This bill would amend current law to state that a faculty member shall be deemed to have completed the second, third, or fourth contract year of employment if the faculty member provides service for a percentage of the academic year as is required in an agreement between the community college district governing board and the exclusive representative of the faculty member. Time spent on paid leave of absence, including, but not limited to, paid or unpaid maternity leave, shall be included in computing service if the faculty member serves sufficient time during the year to allow for the evaluation of the faculty member as required by any negotiated evaluation procedure.

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 04/19/2013; CCCT 04/20/2013

AB 702 (Ammiano): Sex offenders.
Bill Version: 03/19/13     Analysis Date: 09/25/13 [bill details]
Last Action: From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. (02/03/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (Died)
Summary:

This bill would amend existing law that requires every person convicted of certain criminal offenses to register as a sex offender with the chief of police of the city in which he/she is residing, or the sheriff of the county and, additionally, with the chief of police of a campus of UC, CSU or community college. Specifically, it would replace the lifetime requirement for registration with a three-tier system (life, 10 years, or 20 years) for the length of time that registration is required, depending on the severity of the crime.  

Position:Watch

AB 938 (Weber): Public postsecondary education: fees.
Bill Version: 07/02/14     Analysis Date: 09/05/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. (08/25/14)
Location: Asm Higher Education (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: This bill would prohibit CSU from charging campus based fees unless there was a successful vote by a majority of students voting in election. If the fee passes, an oversight commission on the fee would have to be created.


Background:  The main issue is an attempt to deal with the issue of the CSU “success fees”.  Since we are a part of higher education, community colleges were included in with CSU and UC in this legislation that attempts to preclude higher education institutions from charging these mandatory fees. Community colleges fees are different in that the Legislature sets the fees that we are able to establish, they are set in public by our governing boards, and fees not authorized by the Legislature are optional for students. 


Arguments for: Outside of tuition and course fees, students should not have to pay disguised fees to backbill campus budgets. 


Arguments against: This bill does not consider the differences between CCC bills and CSU and UC fees. The current proposal is not in line with the legislature and governing boards fee authority. 

Position:Watch
Position:Remove community colleges from the bill.
Note:As of 6/10/14, the author\\\\\\\'s office agreed to remove CCCs from the bill.

AB 950 (Chau): Community colleges: full-time instructors
Bill Version: 06/12/13     Analysis Date: 09/25/13 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Held under submission. (08/30/13)
Location: Sen Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

This bill would: prohibit a full-time faculty member of a community college district from being assigned a workload that includes overload or extra assignments if the overload or extra assignments exceed 50% of a full-time workload in a semester or quarter that commences on or after January 1, 2014; exempt summer or intersession terms from this prohibition; and not supersede the pertinent requirements of a collective bargaining agreement containing restrictions regarding limitations on overload or extra assignments that are more stringent than the limitations imposed by this bill.


For a community college district with a collective bargaining agreement that, as of January 1, 2014, prohibits a full-time faculty member from being assigned a workload that includes overload or extra assignments if the overload or extra assignments exceed 50% of a full-time workload, the prohibition in the bill would become operative on January 1, 2015. This prohibition would also apply to the workload of supervisory or managerial personnel of a community college district who are performing faculty work that is allowed under an applicable collective bargaining agreement.


Comment: This bill is identical with AB 1826/2012 which was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.  Most community college districts allow full-time faculty the first right of refusal for courses taught beyond the locally-defined full-time course load.  Additional course sections are then offered to adjunct faculty members.  Overload pay for full-time faculty is usually paid at the hourly rate of adjunct faculty members.


Fiscal Impact: Neutral costs at most districts that compensate overload at the same hourly rate as adjunct faculty.


Arguments for: Even during good fiscal times, it is probably not academically sound to allow full-time faculty to work more than 150% of the normal load.  At a time when workload is being reduced, it would be prudcent to share that load with other instructors who have more time to prepare and teach.


Arguments against: The bill would be unfair to full-time tenured faculty who are already on campus with office hours and can meet with students outside of class.  This bill also would be problematic for rural colleges which have a difficult time recruiting faculty and could lead to reduced high-demand course offerings.

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 04/19/2013; CCCT 04/20/2013

AB 1162 (Frazier): Student financial aid: debit cards.
Bill Version: 06/20/13     Analysis Date: 03/28/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted. (07/03/13)
Location: Sen Banking and Financial Institutions (In Committee Process)
Summary:

The Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges and the Trustees of the California State University shall, and the Regents of the University of
California and the governing bodies of accredited private nonprofit and for-profit postsecondary educational institutions are requested to, adopt policies to be used for negotiating contracts between their postsecondary educational institutions and banks and other
financial institutions to disburse a student's financial aid award and other refunds onto a debit card, prepaid card, or preloaded card that best serves the needs of students. Postsecondary educational institutions are encouraged to consider all of the following in adopting their policies:


(a) Whether to provide students with a clear and unbiased choice of where to bank by ensuring that students can elect to receive their financial aid award and other refunds through their own bank account or on a check and that students not be subjected to paperwork that attempts to direct them to banking options favored by the bank or financial institution with which the institution is partnering;
(b) Whether to require fee-free regularly replenished automated teller machines placed on campuses in high enough concentration to avoid students having to use multiple automated machines, with which a student may use his/her debit card, prepaid card, or preloaded card to access his/her financial aid award and other refunds;


(c) Whether to prohibit debit card, prepaid card or preloaded card use from imposing the following fees on students:



  1. Insufficient fund fees at automated teller machines or point of sale.

  2. Account balance inquiry fees.

  3. PIN-based transaction fees.

  4. Inactive account fees.

  5. Replacement card fees.

  6. Transfer or wire fees.

  7. Dispute fees.

  8. Account closure fees.


(d) Whether to require all debit card fees to be prominently displayed on the partnering bank or financial institution's Internet Web site or information mailed to students.


(e) Whether to prohibit the debit cards, prepaid cards and preloaded cards from being cobranded, which means including the logo of the postsecondary educational institution.


(f) Whether to require the debit cards, prepaid cards and preloaded cards to include the same level of consumer protections that are provided to automated teller machine customers under the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act.


(g) Whether to prohibit debit card, prepaid card or preloaded card contracts from including mandatory arbitration clauses.


Arguments for: Public postsecondary institutions have entered into wildly different contracts with these financial institutions and there is  Banks have been engaging in many overdraft, debit fees, and inactivity fees, which, in some cases, make financial aid more expensive or difficult for students to access.  Also, these cards are useful for students who do not have access to checking accounts so would have to go to more expensive check-cashing services if these cards were not available.


Arguments against:  None 

Position:Support
Position:Staff recommendation for May CEO Bd
Note:CEOCCC 03/22/13; CCCT 04/20/2013

AB 1199 (Fong): Community colleges: stabilization funding
Bill Version: 05/24/13     Analysis Date: 03/20/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. (05/29/14)
Location: Sen Education (In Committee Process)
Summary:

This urgency bill would create a stabilization formula for enrollment-related funding losses for any community college with a certified plan to improve its accreditation status when the college is under "Show Cause" or a probation sanction from an accreditation agency. 


The stabilization formula would be required to provide that decreases in full-time equivalent students (FTES) result in adjustments in district revenues as follows:


(1) FTES decreases shall result in revenue reductions beginning in the year following the initial year in which the district qualifies for stabilization funding at the district's marginal funding per FTES. 


(2) Revenue reductions in the second and third year after the district qualifies for stabilization funding  shall include payments by the district of equal installments in each of these years to cover the difference between the revenue the district would have received at the marginal rate and the amount the district did receive in the initial year of qualifying for stabilization. 


Arguments forColleges receiving a severe accreditation sanction often suffer immediate reduction of their enrollment. This leads to a potential funding loss, which then places further pressure on the college's ability to make adjustments and recover its full accreditation.


Arguments against: Districts can have a decline in enrollment for many reasons, including accreditation. The three year stability mechanism should be restored for all districts, including ones notfacing accreditation sanctions. This would allow colleges with dropping enrollment to maintain their current funding levels over the long term and better plan for their changes in enrollment.

Position:Support if Amended
Position:to restore for-cause three-year stability funding eligibility for all districts
Note:CEOCCC 04/19/2013; CCCT 04/20/2013

AB 1241 (Weber): Student financial aid: Cal Grant Program.
Bill Version: 07/02/13     Analysis Date: 03/26/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Held under submission. (08/30/13)
Location: Sen Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

This bill would extend the period of eligibility by one year (from the year after high school graduation up to four years after graduation) as the time period for an applicant for Cal Grant A and B Entitlement Awards to submit a complete financial aid application no later than March 2 for an award for use in the academic year following the application.


Arguments for: For some students, it is better to take a "stop-out" for a couple of years or enter the military before applying for college because they are better-focused in meeting their goals in higher education with this added experience and age.  They should not be penalized for doing so.


Arguments against: Cal Grants are already oversubscribed.  It makes no sense to add an undetermined number of additional applicants for this program.

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 03/22/13; CCCT 04/20/2013

AB 1271 (Bonta): Community colleges: inmate education programs: computation of apportionments.
Bill Version: 08/29/14     Analysis Date: 02/12/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. (09/08/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Summary:  Allows  open course statutory requirements to be waived for a communtiy college district that provides classes for inmates, including those in state correctional facilities.  Authorizes the BOG to include the units of full-time equivalent students generated in those classes for purposes of apportionment.    


Background: Under current law, community colleges are generally precluded from claiming state apportionment for classes not open to the general public. Not withstanding open course provisions, community college districts may provide inmate education funded at the credit apportionment rate at county and federal correctional facilities. However, current law does not permit community colleges to offer classes for credit level apportionment in state correctional facilities.                                                                                                            


Pro: Consistent with prior League position. Enhancing opportunities for inmates to receive a quality education is an important step towards reducing recidivism rates for released prisoners. This bill allows colleges to claim credit level apportionment at the marginal rate for courses provided to inmates incarcerated in a local, state or federal correctional facility. 


Cons: The cost of the program is likely to be a concern.  Opponents argue that the community colleges limited resouces should not be expent on inmates. 

Position:Support
Note:ACL 2/25, CCCT 2/25, CEOCCC 2/26

AB 1285 (Fong): Student financial aid: Cal Grant Program.
Bill Version: 06/25/14     Analysis Date: 09/25/13 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Held under submission. (08/14/14)
Location: Sen Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

This bill would delete the current-law 2% limit on the number of new Cal Grant B entitlement students at an institution of postsecondary education who are eligible to receive the $1,551 access grants during their first year of postsecondary education.  Instead it would gradually increase the amount of recipients that are eligible for the award so that by the 2017-2018 academic year all new Cal Grant B recipients will be eligible for payments for tuition or fees. It retains current law which provides priority to students with the lowest expected family contribution and the highest level of academic merit.


Arguments for: Cal Grants are an important means for low- and middle-income students to attend college; there is no rationale for the 2% limit except to limit the state's finanical commitment to this program.


Arguments against:  Cal Grants are already over-subscribed; it makes no sense to add a large number of newly eligible students since this would likely result in a reduction elsewhere in the program to maintain the current total appropriation.

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 03/22/13; CCCT 04/20/2013

AB 1348 (John A. Pérez): California Higher Education Authority.
Bill Version: 07/02/14     Analysis Date: 06/20/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Held under submission. (08/14/14)
Location: Sen Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: This bill would repeal the provisions relating to the defunct California Postsecondary Education Commission, and would establish, in its place, the California Higher Education Authority, under the administration of a 13-member board of directors. The Authority would be responsible for developing, presenting, and monitoring postsecondary education goals for the state, including monitoring and reporting on the progress of the postsecondary segments toward their long-term goals; measuring, and reporting about, how efficiently and effectively the postsecondary segments are serving the state's needs; making recommendations about how to improve the performance of the postsecondary segments; developing and recommending strategic finance policy to the Governor and the Legislature; developing and presenting basic policy parameters for capacity development or realignment to meet the state's higher education goals; reviewing, and making recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature relating to, major capacity decisions, such as changes in mission or the establishment of new campuses or centers; and acting as a clearinghouse for postsecondary education information and as a primary source of information for the Legislature, the Governor, and other agencies, and succeeding to data management responsibilities of CPEC by developing and maintaining a comprehensive database. 


The bill would:  Appoint 13 member to the California Higher Education Authority, consisting of four students from the four segments of public and private higher education, and nine representatives of the general public - 






  • Three members appointed by the Governor

  • Three members appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.

  • Three members appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules. 





Additionally, the board of directors shall convene a technical working group to advise on data and policy matters. Membership on this working group includes the CEOs of each of the segments of public postsecondary education. 


Arguments for: It is generally acknowledged that there is a need for an overarching policy staff working in support of  intersegmental postsecondary education in California. Some of the elements of CPEC have been subsumed by other agencies, but others, such as review of the need for, or establishment of, new centers (at community colleges) or schools (medical or law) at UC, have not been udnertaken by any other agency.  Similarly, while some of the data elements collected by CPEC are available at other offices, other elements are currently unavailable. 


Arguments against: When Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the CPEC $1.9 million approprriation and 19.1 positions in SB 87/2011, he indicated: "While I appreciate the importance of coordinating and guiding state higher education policy, I believe CPEC has been ineffective. I am requesting that the state's three public higher education segments, along with other higher education stakeholders, explore alternative ways to more effectively improve coordination and development of higher education policy. CPEC would continue to administer a component of the federal Improving Teacher Quality Grants Program in 2011 12. This action is consistent with my actions to reduce the cost of state operations and the size of state government through eliminations, consolidations, reductions, and efficiencies."  There is nothing in AB 1348 which would respond to the Governor's concerns. More importantly, the Authority does not include voting representatives from the four segments of public and private postsecondary education in the state. 

Position:Support if Amended
Position:Include a representative from each higher education segment to the Authority board of directors.
Note:Staff Recommendation

AB 1364 (Ting): Student financial aid: Cal Grant B
Bill Version: 05/24/13     Analysis Date: 02/10/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Held under submission. (08/30/13)
Location: Sen Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

This bill, commencing with the 2014-15 academic
year,
would require that the Cal Grant B access award (which is currently $1,551) be no less than $1,700, unless that amount exceeds the amount of the student'  calculated financial need.   The bill also would require the award for access costs to include the percentage increase, if any, in the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers and, in the
event of a decrease in the CCPI, no adjustment would
be made to the minimum Cal Grant B access award under this bill. 


Arguments for: The current Cal Grant B access award level of $1,551 is not sufficient for its purposes.


Arguments against: None

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 03/22/13; CCCT 04/20/2013

AB 1431 (Gonzalez): School district and community college elections: conflict of interest.
Bill Version: 08/20/14     Analysis Date: 06/19/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 11:30 a.m. (08/25/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Prohibits an CEO or a person who directly reports to a CEO that works for a community college district from soliciting campaign funds for a trustee of the or college district. 


Arguments for:  There is an conflict of interest when a CEO fundraises for his or her trustees.


Arguments against: Supporting elected officials by raising money is an civil right that should not be abridged. 

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 02/28/2014; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/04/14

AB 1433 (Gatto): Student safety.
Bill Version: 08/26/14     Analysis Date: 04/21/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. (09/05/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Requires college campuses to report to local law enforcement any report of a violent or hate crime made to the campus law enforcement agency.


Arguments for: Colleges need to report serious crimes to their local law enforcement agencies.


Arguments against: Colleges generally already do this and therefore this law is duplicative.

Position:Support
Position:CEOCCC 02/28/2014; CCCT 01/25/2014; ACL 04/04/14

AB 1451 (Holden): Concurrent enrollment in secondary schools and community colleges.
Bill Version: 06/25/14     Analysis Date: 09/15/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Held under submission. (08/14/14)
Location: Sen Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary:  Authorizes a governing board of a community college district to enter into a partnership with a school district with the goal of developing seamless pathways from high school to community college for CTE, transfer preparation, improving high school graduation, or helping students achieve college and career readiness. 


This bill would:



  1. Allow concurrent enrollment partnerships between community colleges and K-12 districts, and establish clear parameters for implementation and oversight. 

  2. Authorize a student to receive both community college and high school credit for completed community college courses in accordance with state and federal law.

  3. Add to the exemption from the 5% cap on summer school courses that are necessary to prevent remediation in math or English language arts.

  4. Add early college high school and partnership program students to provisions that exempt them from the requirement that a community college assign a concurrently enrolled student low enrollment priority.

  5. Prohibits the offering of physical education courses as a part of the newly-created partnership programs.

  6. Under strict parameters, authorize a community college district to offer college courses that are closed to the public on a high school campus if the course is not otherwise offered at that high school.

  7. Allow community college districts to waive other fees that would apply to students participating in a partnership program. 

  8. Prohibit supplanting master schedule high school courses with community college courses. 

  9. Require that pathways be created for CTE and transfer.


Background: Dual/concurrent enrollment programs can benefit underachieving students and those underrepresented in higher education. Students can accumulated more college credits and are less likely to take remedial classes.  


Currently, several restrictions are placed on dual/concurrent enrollment which limit their access and availability to students.  These restrictions include a 5% summer enrollment cap, open course requirements, and an 11-unit cap on course credits.                                                                                          


Arguments for: Students who participate in dual enrollment as part of their high school career pathway are more likely than similar students in their districts to graduate from high school, enroll in college, and persist in college. Dual/concurrent enrollment continues to be a priority for the Board, and is part of the CCC System legislative package. 


Arguments against: CTA is opposed to this bill with concerns of supplanting high school courses. Additionally, the Department of Finance (DOF) does not support paying full apportionment for college courses taught at a high school. 


Sponsor: California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office


Outcome: AB 1451 remained on suspense in Senate Appropriations.  It is likley that a 50% apportionment would be needed for final passage. 

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 3/21/14, ACL 4/4/14, CCCT 4/18/14

AB 1456 (Jones-Sawyer): Higher education: tuition and fees: pilot program.
Bill Version: 04/08/14     Analysis Date: 05/05/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Referred to Com. on RLS. (06/05/14)
Location: Sen Rules (In Committee Process)
Summary:

This is a study bill on the "pay it forward, pay it back" concept requiring participation of the Student Aid Commission, CSU, CCC and requests participation of UC.  The bill outlines a framework for a future pilot program.  Instead of paying fees, tuition or the total cost of attending a college, a student would sign a contract stipulating that a percentage of their income after graduating from college would pay back their obligation to the state. 


Arguments forIn the past 10 years, the cost of attending a public university skyrocketed. This program would permit students to not pay fees, in return for paying for them later when they are better able to do so.


Arguments against: By not charging upfront costs, this will increase the cost to the state, with no guarantee that it will re-coup the money later.


 

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 02/28/14; CCCT 01/25/2014; ACL 04/04/14

AB 1538 (Eggman): Student financial aid: Cal Grant Program.
Bill Version: 03/26/14     Analysis Date: 06/11/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission. (05/23/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Currently if an institution has a 3-year cohort loan default rate that exceeds 15.5% or if an institution has a low graduation rate, the college is longer eligible for Cal Grants. Due to the very small number of community college students who take out loans, no California community college have been affected by the above rule. This bill would provide an exemption to that rule if two thirds of the students are eligible for federal Pell grants or if the 3-year cohort loan default rate is less than 20 percent.                                                                                                                 


Arguments for: Colleges with a significant number of economically disadvantaged students will naturally have a higher cohort default rate than others.  They should not be deemed ineligible for Cal Grants because they serve a more needy population.


Arguments against: The restrictions on Cal Grants were put into place to stop colleges from taking advantage of students who will not be able to pay back their student loans.  Loosening the eligibility rules goes against the original intent of this rule.

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/04/14

AB 1540 (Hagman): Concurrent enrollment in secondary school and community college.
Bill Version: 04/22/14     Analysis Date: 05/01/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission. (05/23/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary:  Would permit a college to partner with a school district to permit high school students to take computer science classes at a community college.


Background:  High school students are currently allowed to concurrently enroll in courses at California community college campuses, provided that they receive parental consent, a recommendation from their principal, and approval from the school board. However, summer session concurrent enrollment is limited at each grade level to 5 percent of the total number of students who completed that grade immediately before the time of recommendation, with a few exceptions. While the tech industry is growing rapidly; a 2009 study by the National Center for Educational Statistics showed that computer science was the only course in the STEM fields with a decrease in enrollment over the previous 20 years. 


Pros:  AB 1540 would open up more opportunities for high school students to take computer science courses by exempting the courses from being subject to the 5-percent limitation of students allowed to concurrently enroll. The author emphasizes that California lags in educating our students in the field of computer science. 


Cons: While concurrent enrollment is an important avenue for student success, this bill remains narrow and does not address the broader policy reforms needed in dual/concurrent education.          


Sponsor: None identified.                                                                                                      


Staff Notes: Watch. Concurrent enrollment continues to be a priority for the board however this version of concurrent enrollment is too narrow. 

Position:Watch
Position:Seek further amendments.
Note:ACL 1/25, CCCT 1/25, CEOCCC 1/26

AB 1544 (Allen): Student financial aid.
Bill Version: 04/01/14     Analysis Date: 02/10/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. (04/02/14)
Location: Asm Higher Education (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Spot bill related to financial aid. 

Position:

AB 1549 (Rendon): Postsecondary education: Equity in Higher Education Act.
Bill Version: 08/07/14     Analysis Date: 05/05/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(c). (08/11/14)
Location: Sen Rules (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Would mandate that community colleges, CSUs and requests the UC to post their sexual harassment policies on their websites. 


Arguments for: Sexual harassment policies should be readily available for employees and the public alike.


Arguments against: Because colleges are already required to post sexual harassment policies in a public location, this bill is duplicative and unnecessary.

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 02/28/2014; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/04/14

AB 1550 (Rendon): School employees: collective bargaining.
Bill Version: 08/27/14     Analysis Date: 09/15/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. (09/05/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

This bill would prohibit community college and school districts from unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment that are inconsistent with the employees' already-bargained contract.


Arguments for: Schools and colleges should not unilaterally change items that have been agreed to at the bargaining table.


Arguments against: Prolonged impasse necessitates changes to contracts and imposed terms can help resolve ongoing bargaining conflicts.

Position:Oppose
Note:CEOCCC 02/28/14; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/04/14

AB 1557 (Holden): Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges: student member.
Bill Version: 09/20/14     Analysis Date: 05/05/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 496, Statutes of 2014. (09/20/14)
Summary:

Would add one student member to the Board of Governors (BOG) that must be a veteran. Additionally it would mandate that the next appointment of a public member to the Board of Governors to be a veteran.


Arguments for: Veterans are a large and growing population of community college students.  Additionally, they are served by numerous specific programs and it is important that a position on the board be dedicated to represent them.


Arguments against: It is important to ensure that members of the Board of Governors have a wide perspective when considering matters, which means the number of board members from constituent groups needs to be limited.  Additionally, the Board has a clearly demonstrated a commitment to helping veterans. 


 

Position:Oppose
Note:CEOCCC 02/28/2014; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/04/14

AB 1568 (Grove): Public contracts: direct quotes.
Bill Version: 05/23/14     Analysis Date: 05/05/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Held under submission. (08/14/14)
Location: Sen Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Would clarify that California's public colleges and universities must obtain at least two quotes directly from vendors before awarding a contract.


Arguments for: It is sound financial policy for colleges to obtain at least two quotes when awarding a contract.


Arguments against: Colleges already do this and this is an unnecessary clarification of law.

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014 ; ACL 04/04/14

AB 1584 (Buchanan): Community colleges: privacy of student records.
Bill Version: 08/29/14     Analysis Date: 04/03/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. (09/08/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Spot bill related to student records.


Staff Recommendation: Watch

Position:

AB 1590 (Wieckowski): Student financial aid: Cal Grant Program.
Bill Version: 08/22/14     Analysis Date: 05/05/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. (09/03/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

When calculating a school’s eligibility to receive Cal Grants, the California Student Aid Commission takes into account the school’s 3-year cohort default and graduation rates. This bill would change the definition of graduation rate from the US Department of Education definition to the percentage of full-time students who graduate in 150 percent or less of their expected time to complete the degree.


Arguments for: Defining the definition of graduation rates into statute will give colleges a specific goal to reach for.


Arguments against: If the Department of Education changes its definition of graduation rates, then California colleges will be judged to a different standard than the rest of the nation.

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/04/14

AB 1606 (Chávez): Community college employee: leaves of absence.
Bill Version: 06/25/14     Analysis Date: 04/23/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 56, Statutes of 2014. (06/25/14)
Summary:

This bill would increase the amount of time a classified employee may take for bonding time from the current 7 earned leave of absence days to 30 days.


Arguments forThis measure is a cost neutral way to permit classified employees to have the same maternity or paternity leave as the faculty.


Arguments againstBenefits like bonding time with a newborn should be bargained for at the district level, not mandated by the state.  

Position:Oppose
Note:CEOCCC 02/28/2014; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/04/14

AB 1638 (Bocanegra): Unemployment insurance: classified employees.
Bill Version: 04/21/14     Analysis Date: 06/11/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission. (05/23/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Would permit classified employees at school and community college districts to receive unemployment compensation if they do not work during summer break.


Arguments for: Low-income classified employees that do not work during the summer need this measure to make ends meet.  This bill will provide them with much needed economic security. 


Arguments against: Unemployment insurance is intended for people who lose their jobs, not classified employees who have the summer off.  This bill will increase costs to colleges by permitting employees to claim unemployment payments due to a situation caused by the terms of their employment.


Sponsor: Classified School Employees Association

Position:Oppose

AB 1677 (Gomez): Nursing education: service in public hospitals and veterans' facilities.
Bill Version: 03/17/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission. (05/23/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: AB 1677 would create a loan assumption program for licensed vocational nurses and registered nurses who commit to working for four years in a state hospital operated by the State Department of State Hospitals, a state operated veterans’ home, or a facility operated by the federal Veterans Health Administration. The bill would appropriate $48 million from the General Fund to the California Student Aid Commission to be expended for purposes of the commission issuing loan assumption awards beginning with the 2015–16 fiscal year to the 2021–22 fiscal year, inclusive, as specified.


Arguments for: This bill could target nursing shortages in rural areas of the state while also providing a financial incentive to low-income students.


Arguments against: Since community colleges students don’t typically take out loans for nursing, this bill is not likely to benefit them. 

Position:Watch
Note:ACL 4/4/14, CEOCCC 4/18/14, CCCT 4/18/14

AB 1762 (Quirk-Silva): Community colleges: Seymour-Campbell Student Success Act of 2012.
Bill Version: 02/14/14     Analysis Date: 03/27/14 [bill details]
Last Action: From printer. May be heard in committee March 20. (02/18/14)
Location: (Pending Referral)
Summary:

Spot Bill. 

Position:

AB 1781 (Linder): California National Guard Education Assistance Award Program.
Bill Version: 08/15/14     Analysis Date: 06/20/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 207, Statutes of 2014. (08/15/14)
Summary:

Summary: AB 1781 would authorize the California National Guard Education Assistance Award Program to be utilized during summer school.


Background: The California National Guard Education Assistance Award Program (CNG EAAP) is a State-funded grant for up to 1,000 service members in the California National Guard or the California State Military Reserve or as many participants as the annual budget will allow. This program authorizes the California Student Aid Commission to make payments to eligible students. Participants can receive up to the Cal Grant B award for attending a community college. Existing law does not include summer or winter intersessions as a qualifying term to receive this important aid.


Arguments for: Student financial aid is a key mechanism to enable students to attend college full-time in a schedule that leads to on-time graduation. AB 1781 allows students to utilize the EAAP during intersessions so that financial concerns are not a barrier towards a timely transfer or graduation.


Arguments against: Since these funds would be used during two additional sessions, there is a potential of less awards being available. 

Position:Support
Note:ACL 1/25, CEOCCC 3/21, CCCT 4/18/14

AB 1797 (Rodriguez): Apprenticeship programs.
Bill Version: 07/21/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 157, Statutes of 2014. (07/21/14)
Summary:

Summary: This bill requires the Division of Apprenticeship Standards to establish and coordinate a stakeholders group that includes representatives of health care providers, employers, hospital systems, the California Workforce Investment Board, Department of Education, and community colleges. AB 1797 requires the stakeholders group to identify opportunities for apprenticeships, identify and develop specific requirements and qualifications for entry into apprenticeships. The bill requires a report to the legislature by December 1, 2015. 


Background: This bill is attempting to address the significant shortages of healthcare workers in certain occupations and geographic areas, while there is an oversupply in other areas. 


Arguments for: Apprenticeship training has been recognized as a strategy for increasing productivity and for aligning employer demands with the supply of workers for critical industries.  


Arguments against: This requires an extensive process to identify all potential stakeholders in allied health-field apprenticeships with no assurance that funding will be provided for the recommendations provided in the report.  

Position:Watch
Position:CEOCCC 3/21/14, ACL 4/4/14, CCCT 4/18/14

AB 1834 (Williams): Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act: employees.
Bill Version: 04/24/14     Analysis Date: 06/20/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Held under submission. (08/14/14)
Location: Sen Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

The bill does not apply to CCC.

Position:

AB 1906 (Wilk): Community college property: direct costs for use.
Bill Version: 08/21/14     Analysis Date: 06/04/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 233, Statutes of 2014. (08/21/14)
Summary:

Currently community colleges are permitted to rent out their facilities to non-profit groups at direct cost.  In 2012, K-12 schools were able to expand the definition of direct costs to include the share of maintenance and operational costs proportional to the group’s use of facilities. This bill would update the education code to permit community colleges to charge the same direct costs as K-12.


Arguments for:   The current definition of direct cost does not take into account the true costs of operating facilities.  This bill will help colleges charge an amount of money that is more accurate.


Arguments against: This bill may increase the costs of renting a facility to non-profit groups who may not be able to afford it.


Sponsor: Santa Clarita Community College District

Position:Support
Position:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/04/14

AB 1910 (Gray): Unemployment insurance: education and workforce investment systems.
Bill Version: 08/26/14     Analysis Date: 04/03/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Vetoed by Governor. (09/17/14)
Location: (Vetoed)
Summary:
Position:

AB 1924 (Logue): Public postsecondary education: Baccalaureate Degree Pilot Program.
Bill Version: 02/19/14     Analysis Date: 04/08/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. (03/03/14)
Location: Asm Higher Education (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: This bill would  express legislative intent to establish a pilot program with the goal of creating a model of articulation and coordination among K-12 schools, community colleges, and California State Universities that will allow students to earn a baccalaureate degree in a STEM field for a cost as close as possible to $12,000. It would authorize participating high school students  in up to seven regions to earn an unlimited number of Advanced Placement course credits and would provide those students with priority enrollment at both community colleges and CSU campuses.


Background: AB 1924 is similar in concept to AB 51 which was introduced in 2013, except that AB 1924 focuses on workforce needs in STEM fields. The author seeks to decrease the financial burden placed on students and families by establishing a set cost for a degree. 


Arguments for: This bill creates a voluntary pilot program. It focuses on creating pathways for students to enter the high-rigor and high-demand Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math fields by maximizing concurrent enrollment and associate degrees for transfer to reduce costs and time to degree. 


Arguments against: This bill pressumes all high school students have the same level of access to Advanced Placement courses.  The 5 percent cap on concurrent enrollment would limit the number and terms of student participation.  In addition, the priority enrollment requirements conflict with Title 5 regulations recommendations. 

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 3/21, ACL 4/4

AB 1925 (Logue): Public postsecondary education: Baccalaureate Degree Pilot Program: University of California.
Bill Version: 02/19/14     Analysis Date: 04/08/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. (03/03/14)
Location: Asm Higher Education (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: Establish a pilot program with the goal of creating a model of articulation and coordination among K-12 schools, community colleges, and the University of California that will allow students to earn a baccalaureate degree in a STEM field for a cost as close as possible to $25,000. Authorizes participating high school students to earn an unlimited number of Advanced Placement course credits and enroll concurrently at community colleges. Provides those students with priority enrollment at community colleges.


Background: AB 1925 is similar in concept to AB 181 which was introduced in 2013. AB 1925 focuses instead on workforce needs in STEM fields. The author seeks to decrease the financial burden placed on students and families by establishing a set cost for a degree. 


Arguments for: This bill creates a voluntary pilot program. It focuses on creating pathways for students to enter the high-rigor and high-demand Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math fields by maximizing articulation to reduce costs and time to degree. 


Arguments against: This bill pressumes all high school students have the same level of access to Advanced Placement courses.  The 5 percent cap on concurrent enrollment would limit the number and term of student participation. Additionally, the pilot requires students to complete the associate degree for transfer in which the University of California does not participate. As well, the priority enrollment requirements conflict with the Student Success Task Force recommendations.  

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 3/21, ACL 4/4

AB 1927 (Frazier): Student financial aid: debit cards.
Bill Version: 09/04/14     Analysis Date: 04/21/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. (09/10/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Requests the governing boards of California’s higher education systems to adopt policies regarding contracts and financial aid disbursement.  The policies would prohibit the below items:



  • Revenue sharing between the institution and the card issuer.

  • The card from imposing any kind of fee.

  • Cobranding of the card and the schools colors, mascot or logo.

  • Charging a student for opening the account.  


Arguments for: Financial aid disbursement companies have taken advantage of students and charge unnecessary fees.  Students need protections to ensure that they will be able to fully utilize their financial aid.  


Arguments against: Due to the state’s dis-investment in higher education, many colleges have turned to private companies to help maintain orderly distribution of student financial aid. This bill would make it more difficult for colleges to provide this service by adopting a one size fits all policy.

Position:Watch
Position:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/04/14

AB 1930 (Skinner): CalFresh: student eligibility.
Bill Version: 08/22/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. (09/04/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Summary: The bill requires county welfare departments to screen for potential exemptions to the student work requirement of the program.  The bill also exempts EOPS students from the work requirement of this program, unless prohibited by federal law. 


Background: The SAPEP programs seek to raise student achievement levels and close achievement gaps among groups of students throughout the K-20 pipeline. SAPEP aims to prepare a higher proportion of students who are first-generation, socioeconomically disadvantaged and English-language learners for postsecondary education, transfer, and/ or success in the workplace. 


Arguments for: This program aims to increase college graduation rates of low-income Californians and to reduce the incidence of economic hardship. Proponents argue that without the work requirement, students would be able to attend full-time and graduate in a timelier manner.


Arguments against: The student work requirement is considered an opportunity to develop soft skills while attending school.  

Position:Support
Note:ACL 4/4/14, CEOCCC 4/18/14, CCCT 4/18/14

AB 1942 (Bonta): Community colleges: accreditation.
Bill Version: 09/17/14     Analysis Date: 09/10/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 382, Statutes of 2014. (09/17/14)
Summary:

Would mandate that the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges report to the legislature any policy changes on a decision that affects the accreditation status of a community college.  

Position:Watch

AB 1950 (Campos): Career education: Career Education Incentive Program.
Bill Version: 05/01/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission. (05/23/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: This bill provides intent language to create a regional career education consortia matching grant program for school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and community college districts for the purpose of coordinating, delivering, and implementing high-quality and cost-efficient career and college preparation programs in kindergarten and grades 1 to 14. The bill would authorize these consortia to be organized as joint powers agencies.


Arguments for: Inadequate support of CTE programs has led to a ten-year decline in enrollment. While we know these programs are successful, they are also very costly and delivered through various models and organizations.  This bill would provide the structure to increase regional collaboration and infuse money into CTE programs.


Arguments against: Since this bill provides intent language, it does not currently allocate resources for the matching grant program. Additionally, CTE practitioners have emphasized that these programs need a stable funding source; this bill intends to create yet another grant program with no long-term solution.  As well, it is unknown what the cost would be to establish regional joint powers authorities to oversee these consortia. 

Position:Support
Note:Watch CEOCCC 4/18/14, Support CCCT 4/18/14

AB 1969 (Levine): Postsecondary education: Career Pathways Internship Program.
Bill Version: 08/18/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Vetoed by Governor. (09/19/14)
Location: (Vetoed)
Summary:
Position:

AB 1976 (Quirk-Silva): Student financial aid: Competitive Cal Grant A and B awards.
Bill Version: 08/25/14     Analysis Date: 09/15/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. (09/05/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

This bill would provide more flexibility to the California Student Aid Commission when it to awards grants to ensure that more grants are utilized. Currently only about 19,000 of the 22,500 awards are used by students who receive these awards. This bill would effectively increase the number of awards by 3,000. 


Arguments for: Currently it is significantly harder to obtain a competitive Cal Grant then it is to gain admission to UC Berkeley.  Increasing the number of competitive awards will help students who desperately need resources to attend school.


Arguments against: The state cannot afford to give out these additional awards.

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/04/14

AB 1977 (Roger Hernández): Public postsecondary education: Student Academic Preparation and Educational Partnerships.
Bill Version: 03/24/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission. (05/23/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: AB 1977 restores funding to the Student Academic Preparation and Educational Partnerships (SAPEP).  SAPEP funds provide money to programs that aid underrepresented students. These programs include: the Puente Project, Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement Program (MESA) and the Early Academic Outreach Program (EAOP). 


Background: The SAPEP programs seek to raise student achievement levels and close achievement gaps among groups of students throughout the K-20 pipeline. SAPEP aims to prepare a higher proportion of students who are first-generation, socioeconomically disadvantaged and English-language learners for postsecondary education, transfer, and/ or success in the workplace. 


Arguments for: During the economic downturn, several cuts to educational programs were made. The Puente program saw cuts that eliminated approximately half of the operating budget.  MESA and EAOP also faced severe budget cuts over the last six years. This bill would utilize general fund resources to help partially restore the programs.


Arguments against: These programs serve a limited number or students and are costly to take to scale. 

Position:Support
Note:3/21/14 CEOCCC, ACL 4/14/14, CCCT 4/18/14

AB 1989 (Chesbro): Underage drinkers: students in winemaking and brewery science programs.
Bill Version: 07/21/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 162, Statutes of 2014. (07/21/14)
Summary:

Summary:  This bill would allow a qualified student to taste an alcoholic beverage and exempt the student and the qualified academic institution in which the student is enrolled from criminal prosecution. The bill would define the terms “qualified academic institution,” “qualified student,” and “taste”.


Background: Viticulture and brew-sciences is offered at four community colleges as a comprehensive scientific education. Several four-year public institutions combine both hands-on and industrial experience, along with exposure to marketing, tourism and wine appreciation. The program encompasses the scientific disciplines pertaining to the grape and wine industry such as sensory science, biochemistry, biotechnology, chemistry, microbiology, genetics, cell and molecular biology, plant physiology and environmental biology. 


Arguments for: Proponents argue that in order to obtain a well-rounded education in viticulture and brew sciences; the ability to taste is essential.


Arguments against: This poses potential liability for the college with younger students tasting. 

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 4/18/14, CCCT 4/18/14. ACL Watch 4/4/14

AB 2000 (Gomez): Public postsecondary education: exemption from nonresident tuition.
Bill Version: 08/27/14     Analysis Date: 06/20/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. (09/05/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Summary: This bill would allow a student to qualify for nonresident tuition exemption either by attending a California high school for a minumum of three years, or by earning an equivalent of three years, or more, of full-time high school credits. 


Background: Current law allows students to be exempt from nonresident tuition if they 1) attended a California high school for three or more years, 2) graduated from a California high school, 3) registered at an accredited California higher education institution, 4) have filed an affidavit stating they have filed an application to legalize his or her immigration status. 


Arguments for: The addition of this provision would broaden the AB 540 definition to include earned high school credits and not just years of attendance. This could potential allow for student who complete early or untilize dual enrollment to qualify for a nonresident tuition waiver. 


Arguments against: Minor fiscal impact as more students could qualify for resident tuition.  

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 4/18/14, CCCT 4/18/14, Watch ACL 4/4/14

AB 2070 (Campos): Community college employees: apprenticeship instructors: qualifications.
Bill Version: 03/26/14     Analysis Date: 04/25/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. (04/30/14)
Location: Asm Higher Education (In Committee Process)
Summary:
Position:

AB 2087 (Ammiano): Community colleges: Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.
Bill Version: 09/19/14     Analysis Date: 08/27/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 466, Statutes of 2014. (09/19/14)
Summary:

When appointing a special trustee that usurps the power of a locally elected board, this bill require the Board of Governors to cite specific benchmarks on when local control can be restored and provide for meaningful consultation with local stakeholders.


Arguments for: The people living in their service area elect community college district board members.  If the BOG takes away the locally elected boards ability to act, then they need to be as transparent as possible.


Arguments against: Current regulations are enough to protect the voting public of a community college district from their rights being abridged. This bill is therefore redundant and not necessary. 

Position:Watch
Position:CEOCCC 02/28/2014; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/04/14

AB 2153 (Gray): Postsecondary education: course offerings.
Bill Version: 05/23/14     Analysis Date: 06/19/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. (06/25/14)
Location: Sen Education (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: This bill would require that special session program course offerings not supplant or limit the number of regular course offerings that receive state funding at a campus, and would require, to the extent possible, that each campus ensure that a course required as a condition of degree completion be offered as a state-supported course.


Background: AB 955 allowed a set of eligible college campuses to offer self-supporting special session courses. Existing law requires that self-supporting special sessions not supplant regular course offerings during the regular academic year. 


Arguments for: This bill works to ensure that to the extent possible courses required for graduation are funded through their state apportionment and not 


Arguments against: Limits the local flexibility colleges have in offering special session courses. 

Position:Support if Amended
Position:Clarify that this would only apply to eligible colleges in Ed Code Section 78230.
Note:Staff Recommendation

AB 2168 (Campos): Public postsecondary education: California College Campus Discrimination and Violence Prevention Task Force.
Bill Version: 06/16/14     Analysis Date: 04/21/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. (06/17/14)
Location: Sen Education (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: Establishes a thirteen member California College Campus Discrimination and Violence Prevention Task Force to examine and make recommendations by January 16, 2016 on steps that can be taken to reduce incidents of discrimination, hate crime, and campus violence on the campuses of the University of California, the California State University, the California Community Colleges, and independent institution of higher education.


Background: Over the past few years several incidents of violence and discrimination have occurred at college and university campuses.  Responses to these incidents have varied across the state with some handles more effectively than others.


Arguments for: This bill offers an opportunity to review through a statewide perspective the policies and procedures for handling incidents of harassment, sexual misconduct, hate crime or discrimination. The focus on prevention provides a prospect to protect the civil right and safety of the diverse student populations at community colleges.


Arguments against: Resources are not identified for participation in the task force or to support its recommendations.

Position:Support
Position:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014

AB 2235 (Buchanan and Hagman): Education facilities: Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2014.
Bill Version: 08/18/14     Analysis Date: 09/15/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Re-referred to Com. on RLS. (08/26/14)
Location: Sen Rules (In Committee Process)
Summary:

This bill would have authorized a state-wide bond to be placed on the  November 2014 ballot to raise money for educational facilities.  


Arguments for: California's schools and colleges have significant facilities needs since the last state bond was approved by the voters in 2006. In its 2013-14 capital outlay update for the BOG, the Chancellor's Office indicated that the total facilities need for commmunity colleges over the next ten years is close to $40 billion.

Arguments against: The state already has significant outstanding debt, which requires annual debt service payments that currently absorb a significant part of the state's General Fund revenues.

Position:Support
Position:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/04/14
Note:Community colleges have a large need for updated and new facilities.

AB 2247 (Williams): Postsecondary education: accreditation documents.
Bill Version: 09/17/14     Analysis Date: 04/21/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 388, Statutes of 2014. (09/17/14)
Summary:

Would require colleges to post their institutions accreditation self-study report, the accreditation visiting team report and the final action letter on their websites.


Arguments for: The public needs to know the results of an accreditation report and posting it online is a transparent way of informing them.


Arguments against: This bill is a state mandate on local colleges and districts.

Position:Watch
Position:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014;

AB 2295 (Ridley-Thomas): Community colleges: substitute and short-term employees.
Bill Version: 08/22/14     Analysis Date: 07/22/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. (09/03/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Summary: Would permit unused sick leave accrued by part-time faculty who work in multiple districts to be subject to coverage by the CalSTRS Defined Benefit program.


Arguments for: Part-time faculty have the right to have all of their unused sick leave counted upon retirement, even if it is scattered among multiple districts.


Arguments against: This law may be duplicative of current statute. 

Position:

AB 2350 (Bonilla): Postsecondary education: Equity in Higher Education Act: prevention of pregnancy discrimination.
Bill Version: 08/22/14     Analysis Date: 04/04/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. (09/04/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Summary:This bill would prohibit postsecondary educational institutions from requiring a graduate student to take a leave of absence, withdraw from the graduate program, or limit his or her graduate studies solely due to pregnancy or pregnancy-related issues. The bill would require postsecondary educational institutions to reasonably accommodate pregnant graduate students, as specified, so that they may complete their graduate courses of study and research.


Note: Currently does not affect community colleges. 

Position:Watch

AB 2352 (Chesbro): Community colleges: early and middle college high schools.
Bill Version: 02/21/14     Analysis Date: 05/05/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Held under submission. (08/14/14)
Location: Sen Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: This bill would exempt from the low enrollment priority requirement in statute a student attending an early college high school if the student is seeking to enroll in a community college course that is required for the student's early college high school program. It would provide apportionment only if the course on the high school campus were open to the general public.  


Arguments for: Many districts have early college programs and this would help address some of the issues around successful programs and expand some exemptions offered to middle college programs to early college programs.


Arguments against: This bill currently does not include a broader solution to dual/concurrent enrollment, such as a waiver for the open campus requirment for community college courses taught at a high school. 

Position:Support if Amended
Position:Amend bill to waive the open campus requirement for classes on a high school campus
Note:CEOCCC 4/18/14, CCCT 4/18/14, ACL 4/4/14

AB 2431 (Dababneh): Postsecondary education: animal research.
Bill Version: 02/21/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. (05/07/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Would require colleges that confine dogs or cats for research purposes to offer them up for adoption before killing them. 


Argument for: Ensures that colleges attempt to keep cats or dogs that they use for research alive when they are finished with the animals.  


Argument against: None.

Position:Watch
Position:CEOCCC 03/21/14; ACL 04/04/14, CCCT 04/18/14

AB 2445 (Chau): Community colleges: transportation fees.
Bill Version: 06/25/14     Analysis Date: 06/20/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 63, Statutes of 2014. (06/25/14)
Summary:

Summary: AB 2445 provides flexibility for community college districts to adopt transportation fees, with student voter approval, at a campus or district level.


Background: Existing law authorizes all local community college districts to charge a fee to students and employees in order to fund transportation services if the following requirements are met: it applies to only those who are using the service; there is a favorable vote of students; part-time students are charged a pro-rata fee; there is an optional exemption for low-income students; and there is a contract limitation of no more than 10 years.  Existing law allows a transportation fee program to be established for a “campus” but the Education Code states that any election to implement such a program must be approved in an election by a “majority of the students of that district.”


Arguments for: The requirement that a majority of students in a district must approve a transportation fee for a campuses presents a barrier to community college districts that want to contract with a transportation service provider to service an individual campus.  This bill allows the student election to be only for students at the selected campus or campuses at which the fee will be charged. 


Arguments against: None. 

Position:Support
Position:CEOCCC 3/21/14, ACL 4/4/14, CCCT 4/18/14
Note:The flexibility allowed by this bill provides opportunities for more campuses to provide public transportation for their students.

AB 2471 (Frazier): Public contracts: change orders.
Bill Version: 08/04/14     Analysis Date: 06/19/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. (08/05/14)
Location: Sen Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

This bill would require community college districts, among other public entities, to issue a change order for public works projects within 60 days for the extra work performed.  If community colleges fail to meet this deadline the contractor may bill for the work already performed, with 7% interest.


Arguments for: Contractors need to ensure that they are paid fairly and timely for the work they’ve already performed.  This bill formalizes a process to ensure contractors are paid the money they are owed.


Arguments against: To obtain a change order, a college must first get it approved by the governing board, then the Division of the State Architect. If a contractor believes a change order should be issued, a college may be forced to stop or slow down construction or pay the contractor.  Additionally there are serious doubts that the Department of State Architect has the capacity to respond to every change order request within 60 days.


Staff Recommendation: Oppose

Position:Oppose

AB 2519 (Patterson): Personal income taxes: credit: education expenses.
Bill Version: 05/15/14     Analysis Date: 04/21/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission. (05/23/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Would provide a tax credit of 50% of a tuition at a vocational school.


Arguments for: There is a growing shortage of workers in skilled trades, such as welding or plumbing.  This bill will help Californians go to school to learn skills that will help them be productive taxpayers in the future.


Arguments against: CA historically has utilized financial aid policy to address overall cost of instruction.  This bill does not include any allowance for means testing.  In addition while vocational instruction is important, it is not clear why the state should promote this instructional area over others.  


 

Position:Watch
Position:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014

AB 2527 (Bonta): Postsecondary education: legislative intent: women in science, technology, engineering, and math.
Bill Version: 02/21/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Read first time. (02/24/14)
Location: (Pending Referral)
Summary:

Summary: This bill would declare that it is the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation that would provide incentives to encourage women to pursue postsecondary education in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math. 


Arguments for: Research indicates that across the state there is a disproportionally low number of women in STEM fields, despite the fact that the fastest growing industries are in STEM. Efforts to increase the number of students, particularly women in STEM are essential.


Arguments against: The bill only provides intent language and does not outline a specific effort to increase the number of women in STEM fields. 

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 4/18/14, CCCT 4/18/14, ACL 4/4/14

AB 2555 (Bocanegra): Cradle-to-career initiatives: report.
Bill Version: 04/23/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission. (05/23/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to  work in collaboration with many entities, including the Chancellor of the CCCs, to "develop a report exploring the feasibility of establishing and expanding cradle-to-career initiatives that are collective-impact strategies containing specified tenets" and to provide the Legislature with an interim status report in July 2016 with a final report in December 2016. The concept is based on the collective-imapct model highlighted in the Stanford Social Innovation Review.


Arguments for: Many colleges throughout the state participate in local partnerships to maximize resouces, facilities, and social capital to improve student outcomes. This bill would bring attention to those partnerships and highlight local best practices and ways they can either be replicated or taken to scale. 


Arguments against: Dedicated resources for a community college representative(s) to participate in the development of the report have not be identified. A plan for utilizing the report has not been identified.

Position:Support
Note:CCCT 4/18/14. Watch: 3/21/14 CEOCCC, ACL 4/4/14

AB 2557 (Pan): Community colleges: intersession extension programs.
Bill Version: 09/04/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. (09/10/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Summary: This is a "clean-up" bill for AB 955, the community college intersession extension programs, and would delete Pasadena City College from the community college campuses authorized to participate in this program.


Background: Legislation authorizing an intersession extension pilot program at six community colleges included Pasadena City College.  The college has requested to be removed from the list of mplementing colleges.


Arguments for: This issue is clean-up requested by Pasadena City College.


Arguments against: None.

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 3/21/14, ACL 4/4/14, CCCT 4/18/14

AB 2558 (Williams): Community colleges: faculty and staff development.
Bill Version: 09/19/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 473, Statutes of 2014. (09/19/14)
Summary:

Summary: AB 2558 would eliminate the Community College Faculty and Staff Development Fund and establish the Community College Professional Development Program (CCPDP) in its place. The bill would require any available funding to be allocated, in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the board of governors, to community college districts that provide professional development opportunities for both faculty and staff. The bill would require community college districts receiving this funding to include the employee's time used participating in the CCPDP in the employee's contractually-obligated hours.


Background: The Community College Faculty and Staff Development Fund was created in 1988 but budget cuts shifted money away from that fund after 2002. Since then, few resouces for professional development opportunities have existed.   Implementation of the SSTF has specific professional development recommendations which were included in a subsequent report, "The California Community Colleges Student Success Initiative Professional Development Committee Recommendations." AB 2558 addresses some of the recommendations in that report. 


Arguments for: This bill reinforces the importance of professional development and will ensure these activities are made a priority. Inclusion of all staff in the professional development program will suppport the implementation of the Student Success Initiative at all levels. 


Arguments against: At this moment there are no dedicated resouces to this fund. 


Sponsor: California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office  

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 3/21/14, ACL 4/14/14, CCCT 4/18/14

AB 2559 (Eggman): Community college employees: suspension.
Bill Version: 02/21/14     Analysis Date: 05/05/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. (05/06/14)
Location: Asm Higher Education (In Committee Process)
Summary:

There are certain rules and proceedings that colleges must follow when suspending employees.  This bill would state that involuntary leave with partial or full compensation would count as a suspension.


Arguments for: This bill will protect the due process rights of employees and require colleges to state why an employee has been involuntary suspended. 


Arguments against: This rule provides due process during the investigation process where an employee is suspended with pay before the College can investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the discipline.  It places the employer in the catch 22 of having to go through the full due process process before it can gather the evidence that would support or refute the need for discipline.  There are situations in which permitting employees to continue working on a college campus while being investigated for professional misconduct is dangerous either to students or staff.  Colleges need a tool to be able to remove an employee from the campus with full pay immediately to protect campus safety and the integrity of the human resources process.

Position:Oppose
Position:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014

AB 2566 (Weber): Student financial aid: Cal Grant Program.
Bill Version: 02/21/14     Analysis Date: 05/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission. (05/23/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

This bill would extend the window of eligibility of when a person can qualify for the Cal Grant A and B Entitlement Awards.  Currently a person must apply within a year of graduating from high school, this would extend the window to two years.


Arguments for: For some students, it is better to take a \"stop-out\" for a couple of years or enter the military before applying for college because they are better-focused in meeting their goals in higher education with this added experience and age.  They should not be penalized for doing so.  Additionally it relieves pressure on the competitive Cal Grant programs by increasing the number of people eligible for the entitlement award.


Arguments against: Cal Grants are already oversubscribed.  It makes no sense to add an undetermined number of additional applicants for this program. 

Position:Support
Position:This bill is identical to a bill supported by CCLC last year.
Note:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/4/14

ACR 95 (Gomez): California Community Colleges: part-time faculty.
Bill Version: 06/24/14     Analysis Date: 04/21/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Res. Chapter 71, Statutes of 2014. (06/24/14)
Summary:

Expresses the intent of the legislature that community college districts not reduce the hours of part-time faculty to avoid implementing the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.


Arguments for: Would direct colleges to preserve the ability of part time faculty to teach classes and receive health insurance.


Arguments against: The legislature should not dictate to colleges how they plan to meet the guidelines laid out in the Affordable Care Act.

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/4/14

ACR 119 (Muratsuchi): Community colleges: career technical education.
Bill Version: 09/09/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Res. Chapter 156, Statutes of 2014. (09/09/14)
Summary:

Summary: ACR 119 would encourage the CCCCO, in consultation with affected stakeholders, to develop options to address the long-term funding needs of career technical education and other workforce and training programs at the campuses of the California Community Colleges, and to submit those options to the Legislature before June 1, 2015 so it may address these funding concerns during its 2015–16 regular session. 


Arguments for: CTE is a critical component of CCC education. Over the years is lacks stable funding that can allow these programs to keep up with industry standards.  This proposal focuses soley on the funding aspect of CTE and encourages a collaborative approach to finding a funding solution. 


Arguments against: Several workgroups have gathered to reveiw CTE.  Currently, the CCCCO is committed to the initiative Doing What Matters. 

Position:Support
Note:ACL 4/4/14, CEOCCC 4/18/14, CCCT 4/18/14

SB 141 (Correa): Postsecondary education benefits: children of deported parents.
Bill Version: 10/05/13     Analysis Date: 11/06/13 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 576, Statutes of 2013. (10/05/13)
Summary:

This bill would exempt from nonresident tuition at a California Community College or a campus of the California State University any student who is a United States citizen who resides in a foreign country and who meets all of the following requirements: (A) demonstrates financialneed forthe exemption; (B) has a parent who has been deported or was permitted to depart voluntarily; (C) moved abroad as a result of that deportation or voluntary departure; (D) lived in California immediately before moving abroad; (E)
attended a secondary school in the state for 3 or more
years; and (F) is in his/her first academic year as a matriculated student in California public higher education.


 


The bill would also request the UC Regents to enact regulations and procedures to exempt similarly-situated UC students from nonresident tuition. 


Comment: Deportations of undocumented adults have risen in recent years. This bill would give citizen-students who are deported with their parents access to resident tuition when they return for one year, at which time they can establish residency.


Arguments For: This bill is about fairness -- it provides in-state tuition for students who are American citizens and were deported only because of their parents' undocumented situation.


Arguments Against: None


Staff Notes: 


SB 141 was amended on 9/3/13 to inlcude eligibility criteria.  The measure passed on 9/11/13 and was signed by the Governor on 10/5/13. 

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 02/22/2013; CCCT 04/20/2013

SB 173 (Liu): Adult/Noncredit Education funding
Bill Version: 09/02/14     Analysis Date: 09/16/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m. (09/04/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Summary:


This bill would require the Department of Education, in conjunction with the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, to have a joint accountability system and common assessment model for purposes of placement in adult education courses offered by those districts.  


This bill:



  • Removes language which would delete existing authority to offer parenting, home economics, health and safety, and programs for older adults. 

  • Requires CCCCO and CDE to coordinate and issue assessment policy guidelines for placement in adult education courses offered as part of a consortia.

  • Requires joint development of recommendations for a comprehensive accountability system for adult education courses offered as part of consortia.

  • Requires CCCCO and CDE to discuss the need for fees, and if need is identified, to coordinate and issue recommendations for fee policy guidelines for courses offered in agreement with the adult education consortia.

  • Requires annual reporting of the number and type of courses being taught, and the number of students being served.

  • Requires community colleges to report on the number and types of noncredit courses being taught and number of students served with consortia funding.


Arguments in support: Amendments taken to SB 173 on May 12 align the bill to the work of the AB 86 Adult Education Regional Consortia.  In addition, the bill outlines areas where specific collaboration and alignment will be essential to ensure the K-12 and CCC systems coordinate local course offerings. The bill allows CDE and the Chancellors Office to issue joint recommendations in the areas where increased alignment is required.  


Arguments against: The bill provides intent language to increase outcome accountability in all nine areas of noncredit instruction. Clarification is needed on language asking for additional reporting of credit and noncredit courses offered since significant reporting currently exists.

Position:Support if Amended
Position:Ensure credit and noncredit reporting is consistent with existing policies. Clarify outcome measures intent language.
Note:Staff Recommendation

SB 174 (De León): Student Financial Aid: Cal Grant Program
Bill Version: 09/16/14     Analysis Date: 09/15/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 363, Statutes of 2014. (09/16/14)
Summary:

This bill would appropriate voluntary tax contributions which have been provided to the College Access Tax Credit Fund for distribution to students to supplement Cal Grant B access cost awards to bring those students total annual awards for access costs from the current $1551 up to a maximum of $5,000.  A portion of these funds could also be used to defray the administrative costs incurred by the Student Aid Commission in implementing this measure. This bill also is double-joined to SB 798 which would provide the funding for the College Access Tax Credit Fund and would take effect only if both measures are enacted by January 1, 2015.


Arguments for: This bill would raise much needed money towards increasing the Cal Grant Access B award.  This will help students purchase school supplies necessary for their success.


Arguments against: Because this bill depends on tax payers making voluntary contributions, this fund could fluctuate.  This, in turn, would make it more difficult for students to depend on having a steady and dependable amount of money for their access grants.  Additionally, because these funds are designated as non-Proposition 98, this could have a small negative impact on the overall budget for community colleges. 

Position:Support
Note:CCCT 01/25/2014; ACL 01/25/2014; CEOCCC 01/26/2014

SB 240 (Yee): Polling places: higher education campuses.
Bill Version: 01/27/14     Analysis Date: 05/27/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. (01/30/14)
Location: (Pending Referral)
Summary:

This bill would, for statewide general and primary elections conducted by a county or city and county, require the county or city and county elections official to establish polling places within each campus of the California State University and the University of California, and would require the elections official to establish polling places within each community college if convenient for voters. The bill would not apply to counties or cities and counties that have a population of fewer than 150,000 people. The bill would require the California State University and the California Community Colleges, and request the University of California, to provide access for the use of their campuses as polling places.


Arguments For: Colleges and universities should consider it part of their responsibilities to encourage students to vote by having polling places on campus whenever possible. In addition, the requirement to establish polling places in community colleges "if convenient for voters" is vague and can be subjective.


Arguments Against: This bill would create another unnecessary mandate at a time when colleges and universities already are subject to too many mandates.   

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 02/22/2013; CCCT 04/20/2013

SB 361 (Padilla): Elections: voter registration.
Bill Version: 08/26/13     Analysis Date: 09/25/13 [bill details]
Last Action: Hearing postponed by committee. (08/30/13)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:
Position:Watch

SB 520 (Steinberg): California Virtual Campus: leadership stakeholder meetings: representatives.
Bill Version: 05/28/13     Analysis Date: 09/25/13 [bill details]
Last Action: Referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. (06/17/13)
Location: Asm Higher Education (In Committee Process)
Summary:

This bill would create an incentive grant program to assist faculty and individual campuses of UC, CSU, and CCC, to provide increased opportunities for students to take online courses, as specified.


It established the California Online Student Access Incentive Grant Program as three (3) separate programs under the administration of the President of the University of California, the Chancellor of the California State University, and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, jointly, with the academic senates of the respective segments. The bill would require the platform to provide an efficient statewide mechanism for online course providers to offer transferable courses for credit and to create a pool of these online courses. The bill would require the UC President, the CSU Chancellor, and the CCC Chancellor jointly, with their respective academic senates, to develop a list of the 20 most impacted lower division courses at UC, CSU, and the CCCs that are deemed necessary for program completion, or satisfactory for meeting general education requirements in areas defined as high-demand transferable lower division courses under the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum. 


The bill also would require that online courses through the platform be placed in the California Virtual Campus, and would require that matriculated students enrolled at campuses of UC, CSU, CCCs and California high schools, who complete online courses developed through the platform and achieve a passing score on corresponding course examinations, be awarded full academic credit for an equivalent course at UC, CSU, or a community college.  


The bill would provide that funding for the implementation of this measure would be provided in the annual Budget Act, and express legislative intent that the receipt of funding by UC for the implementation of this provision be contingent on its compliance with these requirements.  


It further would prohibit public funds from being used to fund any private aspect of a partnership developed under the bill between faculty of UC, CSU, or the CCCs and an online course technology provider. This bill would provide that the state would retain all appropriate rights to intellectual property it creates or develops in the implementation of the bill.


Background: The California Virtual Campus (CVC) provides online resources and support services to enable students to navigate distance education in California. The project is funded by the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office with a grant to the Butte Community College District.

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 04/19/2013

SB 524 (Lara and Steinberg): Pupil instruction: Pathways Curriculum Task Force.
Bill Version: 08/08/13     Analysis Date: 09/25/13 [bill details]
Last Action: Set, second hearing. Held in committee and under submission. (08/30/13)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary:


The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to appoint, and provide staff for, a 12-member Pathways Curriculum Task Force, which would be charged with creating specified learning goals for pupils at elementary, middle, and high school levels and help pupils to achieve these goals. The task force would further be required to develop a pathways curriculum that, among other things, would provide materials, resources, and information for K-12 pupils and their families to gain a comprehensive understanding of available opportunities in postsecondary educational institutions.


Staff Notes:


SB 524 was held in Senate Appropriations. The League requested amendements to specifically name a member of the taskforce from the community colleges. 

Position:Support if Amended
Position:to require that at least one of the higher education members of the task force be from the California Community Colleges

SB 798 (De León): Income taxes: credits: contributions to education funds.
Bill Version: 09/16/14     Analysis Date: 09/15/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 367, Statutes of 2014. (09/16/14)
Summary:

This bill, for taxable years beginning between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2017, would allow a credit equal to 60%, 55% or 50%, in the tax years 2014, 2015, or 2016, respectively, for a contribution to the College Access Tax Credit Funds established by this bill for distribution as Cal Grant funds pursuant to SB 174.  The maximum allowable in total contributions would be $500 million for each of these calendar years.  The bill is also double-joined with SB 174.  Additionally this fund is designated specifically as General Fund monies and will not affect the Proposition 98 guarantee.  


Arguments for: This bill would raise much-needed money towards increasing the Cal Grant Access B award.  This will help students purchase school supplies necessary for their success.


Arguments against: Because this bill depends on tax payers making voluntary contributions, this fund could fluctuate.  This in turn would make it more difficult for students to depend on having a steady and dependable amount of money for their access grants.  Additionally, because these funds are designated as non-Proposition 98, this could have a small negative impact on the overall budget for community colleges. 

Position:Support
Note:CCCT 01/25/2014, CEOCCC 01/26/2014

SB 837 (Steinberg): Schools: transitional kindergarten.
Bill Version: 08/04/14     Analysis Date: 06/20/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Held under submission. (08/14/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary:  California state preschool programs are to give first priority to 3- or 4-year-old neglected or abused children, and 2nd priority required to go to eligible 4-year-old children before enrolling eligible 3-year-old children.  This bill would instead give 2nd priority to 4-year-old children who are not enrolled in a state-funded prekindergarten program. It would also require schools offering kindergarten to offer prekindergarten.


This bill:  Commencing with the 2015–16 school year, each school district or charter school that offers kindergarten would be required to provide prekindergarten.  The bill would provide that a child who is eligible for free or reduced-price meals and who will have his or her 4th birthday on or before September 1 of the applicable school year is authorized to attend prekindergarten. The bill would provide for a per-child base grant for prekindergarten.  The bill would require prekindergarten to be taught by prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals who meet certain requirements, and would require prekindergarten to include specified preschool elements.                                       


Background: Studies show that early learning programs like preschool and transitional kindergarten have improved outcomes for students in areas such as: 1) student achievement as measured by statewide assessments, and 2) student engagement, as measured by high school graduation and dropout rates. 


Pros: Too few California children are on track to read well by the important 3rd-grade milestone; just 48%  test proficient or better in English-language arts. The costs of attempted remediation, in the form of repeated grade-levels, special education placements and other interventions, are high. In addition, community colleges play a key role in the workforce training and professional development of early childhood educators.  


Cons: This bill has the potential of adding an additional grade to the K-12 system.  In addition, there may be an impact on community college child development centers as 4-year olds move out of the child development centers to school transitional kindergarten programs. Consideration of the role of community colleges in the workforce training and preparation of early childhood educators will be an important inclusion in this bill. 

Position:Watch
Note:ACL 1/25, CCCT 1/25, CEOCCC 1/26

SB 845 (Correa): Postsecondary education: electronic disbursement of student financial aid.
Bill Version: 07/10/14     Analysis Date: 05/27/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 120, Statutes of 2014. (07/10/14)
Summary:

Requires the Board of Governors, along with the CSU Trustees, other academic institutions and requests the UC Regents, to create a model contract for the disbursement of financial aid.


Arguments for: Provides an example of best practices for district offices to consider when negotiating these contracts. 


Arguments against: Because the provisions adopted in the model contract are not prescriptive, students may still be taken advantage of via too high fees, low numbers of ATMs, etc.

Position:Support
Position:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/14/2014

SB 850 (Block): Community College Districts: Baccalaureate Degree Pilot Program
Bill Version: 08/25/14     Analysis Date: 09/15/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 10 a.m. (08/28/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Summary: Authorizes the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to authorize the establishment of a baccalaureate degree pilot program.  Requires a baccalaureate degree pilot program to expire 8 years after the establishment of the program. Specifically, the bill: 1) excludes degrees already offered by public postsecondary institutions, 2) limits participation in the pilot program to 15 campuses from 15 different districts that meet certain criteria, 3) authorize the pilot for 8 years beginning January 1, 2015, and sunsetting on July 1, 2023, 4) prohibit fees for lower division coursework in a baccalaureate degree program from exceeding the fees for other lower division coursework, and 5) requires the Board of Governors to develop a funding model by March 2015.  


Background: Numerous reports have illustrated the growing demand for education beyond the associate degree level in specific academic disciplines. Much of this demand is not being met by California’s four-year public institutions. Twenty-one other states, from Florida to Hawaii, already allow their community colleges to offer baccalaureate degrees. The California State University system went through a similar process as they sought legislative authority to offer EDDs. 


Arguments For: Advancing workforce skills is one of community colleges' primary missions. The Applied Baccalaureate Degrees would allow the exploration of innovative efforts that ensure that community colleges continue to meet the workforce needs of their local communities.  It would allow colleges to evolve their educational programs to meet workforce needs.  


Arguments Against: Additional resources for colleges to offer applied baccalaureates are not identifed in this bill.                                                            

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 2/28/2014; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/04/2014

SB 897 (Steinberg): Educational programs: competitive grant programs and adult education.
Bill Version: 09/19/14     Analysis Date: 06/20/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 480, Statutes of 2014. (09/19/14)
Summary:

Summary: Requires for any competitive grant program administered by CDE, the Superintendent to consider whether the grant recipient shall be required to include specified social studies standards in the program funded by the grant.  For adult education, requires courses related to elementary and secondary basic skills and the courses for immigrants to include basic instruction in American government and civics.

Position:Watch
Note:ACL 2/25, CCCT 2/25, CEOCCC 2/26

SB 923 (Pavley): Educational apprenticeships: Educational Apprenticeship Innovation Act.
Bill Version: 09/02/14     Analysis Date: 04/02/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m. (09/04/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Summary: SB 923 would establish the Educational Apprenticeship Innovation Prize, or EdPrize, to incentivize the development of apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships, and other forms of work- based learning in the high school curriculum. These programs would be required to lead into either career placement or a pathway to an Associate’s Degree or certificate. The EdPrize will focus on the following:


1) Provide at least two years of apprenticeship or other forms of workforce training to high school students in grades 11 and 12 in partnership with local businesses, or the ability to provide participating students with a career pathway to a community college.


2) Develop work-based learning programs through data-driven analysis of local workforce and economic needs.


3) Provide participating high school students with the opportunity to find employment.


4) Requires recipients to report and meet programs goals set in grant application. 


Background: The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that one in five Californians age 16-24 were neither working nor in school.  The author emphasizes that one of the best ways to equip young people with professional skills is to incorporate apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships, and other forms of work-based learning into the school curriculum.  States like Massachusetts and South Carolina, and countries like Switzerland have adopted comprehensive and successful work-based learning policies that include economic sectors other than those traditionally associated with apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships. 


Arguments For: This bill would provide opportunities to enhance resources to career pathway programs between high schools and community colleges. 


Arguments Against: The cost, scalability, and sustainability of programs established by the grant are unknown. 


 

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 2/28. Watch: ACL 2/25, CCCT 2/25,

SB 965 (Leno): Community colleges: funding: San Francisco Community College District.
Bill Version: 05/01/14     Analysis Date: 06/19/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Held in committee and under submission. (05/23/14)
Location: Sen Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

This bill would require the Board of Governors to provide up to four years of stabilization funding to San Francisco Community College District if the following two conditions are satisfied:


1) district/or a campus of the district faces the loss of accreditation;


2) the Board of Governors has exercised its oversight responsibilities to ensure funds are properly administered.  This may include a range of actions, up to and including a special trustee with powers that supersede the locally elected governing board.  


The BOG would be directed to provide stabilization funding if the number of FTES declines below the 2013-14 level.  Essentially the 2013-14 revenues and FTES would be the starting point.  In 2014-15, if FTES declines below the 2013-14 level, the district would receive the same level of funding as was received in 2013-14.  In 2015-16, if FTES decline occurred below the 2013-14 FTES level, the district would receive 95 percent of the 2013-14 revenues.  In 2016-17, if FTES decline occurred below the 2013-14 FTES level, the district would receive 90 percent of the 2013-14 revenues.  In 2017-18, if FTES decline occurred below the 2013-14 FTES level, the district would receive 85 percent of the 2013-14 revenues.  


Arguments for: Due to its potential loss of accreditation, the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled in the San Francisco Community College District has drastically dropped. This will result in loss of funding will make it significantly more difficult to maintain accreditation and recover.  By establishing the base year as 2013-14, the funds provided are "built in" to the apportionment, and thus don't impact other districts. While special treatment is indeed being given to CCSF, it recognizes that the magnitude of the services provided by the college and quantity of employees potentially affected, and that no other district is prepared to "step in" to maintain services in the City and County of San Francisco.


Arguments against: The bill selectively provides stability funding for one district for accreditation issues, while many other districts are facing declining enrollment and thus lost funds. Previously, other districts had a similar decline in enrollment because of a "show cause" accreditation status, but were not provided the same support proposed by this bill. When Compton Community College faced a similar situation as CCSF, the Legislature provided a loan with repayment requirements and required the special trustee to remain in place during the term of repayment.

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 03/26/2014; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/14/2014

SB 967 (De León and Jackson): Student safety: sexual assault.
Bill Version: 09/02/14     Analysis Date: 09/05/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m. (09/04/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

In order to recieve state funds for student financial aid,  California colleges and universities would need to update their policies to incorporate the following:



  • To use an affirmative consent standard when considering prosecuting sexual assault.  Affirmative consent means that a person must verbally consent to perform a sexual act, and that non-verbal or non-responsiveness is not a sign of consent.

  • Prohibition of an accused perpetrator claiming that the victim was either self-intoxicated or reckless as a defense.

  • An explicit provision that if an individual is unconscious, asleep or incapacitated and is unable to speak, then they are not able to give consent.

  • Adopt policies that protect the confidentiality of victims.

  • Require colleges to enter into partnerships with campus or community based groups to provide assistance to victims.

  • Implementation of sexual violence prevention programs.


Arguments forThere is a wide variance among all systems of higher education when it comes to sexual violence policies.  While many colleges have well thought out sexual violence prevention plans, others may not.  This provides a statewide uniform standard that every campus will need to meet. Additionally it is bad policy when the state makes any mandate on colleges a condition to recieve state financial aid.


Arguments against Community colleges have already adopted policies regarding sexual violence that reflect their community’s needs.  Provisions in this bill may either be duplicative or not match the communities’ needs.


 

Position:Watch

SB 999 (Liu): CalFresh: student eligibility.
Bill Version: 05/07/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Held in committee and under submission. (05/23/14)
Location: Sen Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: This bill would require the CCCCO and the Department of Social Services to interpret current exemptions to the CalFresh program and establish clear guidelines identifying the categories of students that may qualify for an exemption and the college program which may qualify a student for an exemption. The bill would also require a community college to provide documentation to a student who is enrolled in a program potentially qualifying him or her for an exemption.  


This bill also states that a county that elects to participate in the CalFresh program may enter into an agreement with a community college or a California State University in order to establish subsidized employment opportunities for students.


Arguments for: Lack of clarity around student Calfresh eligibility contributes to the low-utilization rate by low-income students in federally funded assistance. 


Arguments against: This added an additional set of responsibilities to student support services staff and establishes a mandate.

Position:Support if Amended
Position:Eliminate documentation mandate
Note:ACL 4/4/14, CEOCCC 4/18/14, CCCT 4/18/14

SB 1017 (Evans): Taxation: Oil Severance Tax Law.
Bill Version: 05/14/14     Analysis Date: 06/11/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Held in committee and under submission. (05/23/14)
Location: Sen Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

This bill would impose an oil and gas severance tax of 9.5% of the gross value of each barrel of oil and an 3.5% of the gross value of the price-per-unit of gas. It would distribute 50% of the funds from these taxes in equal shares to the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University, and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges for the general support of those institutions and provide 25% each to the Department of Parks and Recreation and the California Health and Human Services Agency.


California remains the only major oil producing state that does not impose an oil severance tax.  Other states, such as Alaska and Texas, charge anywhere from a 2 to 25 percent tax on the extraction of oil. 


Arguments for: This measure is simply asking that oil companies pay their fair share of taxes, especially in light of the fact that California is the only major oil producing state without an oil severance tax during a time when oil companies continue to reap record profits.  


Arguments against: The continued health of our colleges and universities is a statewide responsibility that all Californians should shoulder, not a single industry or region.   State budget solutions should be borne by as broad a population as possible, yet the impact of the proposed oil severance tax would fall almost entirely on the livelihoods  and public welfare of a relatively small geographic area.  Additionally, the bill distributes money among the higher education systems on an equal basis, which creates a disparity on funding on a per pupil basis.


 

Position:Support

SB 1023 (Liu): Community colleges: foster youth.
Bill Version: 08/21/14     Analysis Date: 04/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. (08/25/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Summary:  Authorizes the Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges (CCC) to enter into agreements with community college districts to provide additional funds for services in support of postsecondary education for foster youth. Asks CCC to cooperate with the State Department of Social Services and county child welfare agencies to provide additional resources to foster youth, such as childcare and transportation allowances, books and supplies, counseling and mental health services, career counseling and housing assistance.


Background: Currently there are 57,000 foster youth in the state. This bill authorizes community college districts to apply for funding to establish a supplemental component of the existing Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS) program to provide support services to meet the unique needs of foster youth.


Arguments for: California Community Colleges recognize that there is a significant deficit regarding youth from foster care attending higher education.  The CCCCO has identified goals for improving access, retention and completion by foster youth through the Foster Youth Success Initiatives (FYSI). This bill can potentially provide attention to the strategies identified in that initiative.


Arguments against: Without identifying additional funds, it is uncertain that the CCCCO could provide additional resources to colleges to increase support programs for foster youth.  Additionally, it is unclear whether this would draw down resources from existing EOPS programs.


Sponsor: John Burton Foundation

Position:Watch
Position:CEOCCC 3/21/14, ACL 4/4/14, CCCT 4/18/14
Note:Unclear whether additional funds will be available or if they will come from general fund resources to cooperating agencies serving foster youth.

SB 1028 (Jackson): Student financial aid: Cal Grant C awards.
Bill Version: 08/29/14     Analysis Date: 09/05/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 11 a.m. (09/04/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

This bill would provideould provide that any portion of the Cal Grant C award not utilized may go towards living expenses and target these awards to the long-term unemployed. 


Arguments for:  Increasing the tuition portion of this award and permitting it to be used on living expenses will help community college students and others with college access costs.


Arguments against: Currently there are about 9,000 awards annually. Targeting these awards towards long-term unemployed could be discriminatory against other needy students. 

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 03/21/14; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/14/2014

SB 1068 (Beall): Community colleges: accreditation.
Bill Version: 05/07/14     Analysis Date: 05/29/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Held in committee and under submission. (05/23/14)
Location: Sen Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Would require the Chancellor’s office to study the feasibility of a the state to establish a commission to accredit California community colleges.  

Position:Oppose

SB 1105 (Liu): Voter registration: Cal Grant Program application.
Bill Version: 02/19/14     Analysis Date: 04/08/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. (03/25/14)
Location: Sen Education (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Would require that students who apply for Cal Grants online also be given the opportunity to register to vote via the Secretary of State’s website.


Arguments for: Providing an opportunity for college students to register to vote online may encourage higher voter turnout. 


Arguments against: Any links required in statute may clutter up a website and make it more confusing for the students who are applying for Cal Grants.

Position:Watch
Note:CEOCCC 03/21/2014; ACL 04/14/2014

SB 1196 (Liu): Public postsecondary education: state goals.
Bill Version: 06/30/14     Analysis Date: 06/11/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Held under submission. (08/14/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: This bill would require the CSU trustees, the board of governors, and, as a condition to receiving a General Fund appropriation from the state, the UC regents to each develop and adopt a 5-year plan for making progress toward statewide goals. The five-year plan of the California Community Colleges shall include specific objectives for each community college district to satisfy statewide outcome priorities. 


Background: In 2013, SB 195 was signed establishing three statewide goals for the state’s three higher education systems: 1) improve access and success; 2) align credentials with state needs; and 3) improve efficient use of resource. This bill looks to add pressure to ensure that colleges and universities have a plan for meeting those goals. 


Arguments for: CCC is already one of the most transparent and accountable systems of higher education in the nation. Annual, in depth data is provided to the legislature indicating progress towards meeting the goals set by the Student Success Act.


Arguments against: CCC currently have adopted the Student Success Initiative and the Student Success Scorecard as mechanisms for setting priorities to meet state goals and increase student outcomes.  This would create yet another plan.   This could cause deviation from the goals established by the legislature in the Student Success Act.  In addition to creating an unfunded state mandate, the condition of apportionment poses concerns, particularly in years where severe budget cuts may have a negative impact on the operations of a college and its ability to meet goals. There are concerns with provisions in the bill that would require a working group by the Governor, or designee, in consultation with private industry and policy research entities, to “establish specific educational attainment goals for the segments of postsecondary education and a target date for these segments to achieve these goals.” 

Position:Oppose unless Amended
Position:Align required plan to existing CCC goals, remove condition for apportionment language, and eliminate the establishment of a working group to develop
Note:CEOCCC 4/18/14, CCCT 4/18/14

SB 1369 (Block): Community colleges: Disability Services Program.
Bill Version: 08/04/14     Analysis Date: 06/20/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Held under submission. (08/14/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: Amends the Disability Services Program to use the term, students with disabilities, instead of disabled students. Requires the regulations adopted by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to provide the apportionment of funds to each community college district to offset the direct excess costs ensuring that students with disabilities enrolled in state supported programs or courses receive academic adjustments, auxiliary aids and services.


Background: The DSPS program provides support services, specialized instruction, and educational accommodations to students with disabilities so that they can participate as fully and benefit as equitably from the college experience as their non-disabled peers. A Student Educational Contract (SEC) is developed for each student which links student´s goals, curriculum program, and academic accommodations to his/her specific disability related educational limitation. To eligible, the specific disability must be verified, and there must be an educational limitation that precludes the student from fully participating in general education without additional specialized services.


Arguments For: SB 1369 ensures that state and federal nondiscrimation laws are met in serving students with disabilities. 


Arguments Against: Mandates that a district shall transfer from its Student Success and Support Program to its Disability Services Program funds sufficient to cover the costs of services provided so that students with disabilities can participate in or receive the full benefit of the SSSP. 

Position:Watch
Note:ACL 4/4/14, CEOCCC 4/18/14, CCCT 4/18/14

SB 1391 (Hancock and Wyland): Community colleges: inmate education programs: computation of apportionments.
Bill Version: 09/02/14     Analysis Date: 09/05/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m. (09/04/14)
Location: (Enrolled)
Summary:

Summary: Requires the open course provisions in statute for community college classes to be waived for any governing board of a community college district that provides those classes for inmates, including inmates of state correctional facilities and authorizes the local board to receive apportionment for these students unless the district has received other compensation for these classes. This bill also would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to enter into an interagency agreement with the CCCCO to provide courses to inmates in state correctional facilities. 


Background: Under current law, community colleges are generally precluded from claiming state apportionment for classes not open to the general public. Notwithstanding open course provisions, community college districts may provide inmate education funded at the credit apportionment rate at county and federal correctional facilities but not state correctional facilities.  The disparity between funding levels is a disincentive for community colleges to provide courses in state correctional facilities.


Arguments for: California has one of the nation’s highest recidivism rates among people convicted of crimes. Enhancing opportunities for inmates to receive a quality education can reduce recidivism rates for released prisoners. This bill may remove apportionment inequities and provide resources so colleges can serve inmates incarcerated in a local, state or federal correctional facility.


Arguments against: Opponents question the value of providing educational opportunities to persons who are incarcerated. 

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 3/21/14, ACL 4/4/14, CCCT 4/18/14

SB 1400 (Hancock): Community colleges: expulsions.
Bill Version: 08/25/14     Analysis Date: 06/20/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 278, Statutes of 2014. (08/25/14)
Summary:

Would permit community colleges to expel a student if a restraining order is assessed against the student.  The expulsion shall focuses on protecting the campus or a person regularly on campus, without extra proceedings.


Arguments for: Once a court finds that a person is a potential danger to either a college campus or a person that goes to or work there, additionally proceedings are not necessary.


Arguments against: Before taking drastic action like expelling a student, he or she should have the chance to present his or her case to the college.  

Position:Support
Position:CEOCCC 03/21/2014; CCCT 04/18/2014; ACL 04/04/2014

SB 1425 (Block): Community colleges: retroactive awarding of degrees.
Bill Version: 08/04/14     Analysis Date: 06/20/14 [bill details]
Last Action: Held under submission. (08/14/14)
Location: Asm Appropriations (In Committee Process)
Summary:

Summary: Each community college district shall perform a one-time inquiry to identify the students who have completed the units required to receive a degree, degree or certificate, or who have completed the California State University (CSU) or the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) transfer requirements in up to 12 of the highest demand majors, as determined by each community college district, during the previous five two academic years. 


This bill would - Designate the Chancellor's Office to oversee implementation and implement the following timeline:


(1) At least 28 campuses shall have the automatic degree audit system in place by December 31, 2015.(2) At least 56 campuses shall have the automatic degree audit system in place by December 31, 2016.(3) All campuses have the automatic degree audit system in place by December 31, 2017. 


Arguments for: This has the potential to advance employment opportunities for students who are very close to completing a degree or certificate. Completing a degree audit could help increase degree completion numbers and rates. Continuously monitoring progress towards degrees or transfer can help students remain on track.


Arguments against:  Significant unidentified costs would be incurred to complete the degree audit and to contact students about degrees awarded retroactively. It is unknown whether software exist that can conduct a degree audit. This bill adds numerous reporting requirements that conflict with existing reporting requirements and add significant costs to individual colleges. In addition, this bill does not compliment investments the states has already made in the Education Planning Initiative. 

Position:Support if Amended
Position:Reduce reporting requirements, delay implementation timeline until funding is identified, and evaluate system before implemented at all campuses.
Note:CEOCCC 3/21/14, ACL 4/4/14, CCCT 4/18/14

SCA 5 (Hernandez): Public postsecondary education: student recruitment and selection.
Bill Version: 05/30/13     Analysis Date: 03/15/14 [bill details]
Last Action: In Senate. Held at Desk. (03/17/14)
Location: (In Desk Process)
Summary:

This constitutional amendment would eliminate provisions in Proposition 209 prohibiting public education institutions from discriminating on behalf of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. 


Arguments For: This bill provides colleges with tools to ensure that all students are given an equal opportunity and that student bodies reflect California's growingly diverse demographic.


Arguments Against: As opposed to using race-based preferences, higher education institutions should continue to strategize race-neutral strategies to attain diversity on campuses.

Position:Support
Note:CEOCCC 02/22/2013; CCCT 04/20/2013