Hello Everyone, The purpose of this email is to obtain your input on AB 160 (Portantino) regarding costs. The Chancellor's Office was recently asked to respond to inquiries from Senate Appropriations Committee staff regarding implementation costs for AB 160. The bill is set for hearing on August 15. The Senate Committee consultants will begin preparing their analyses by the first week of August at the latest. A major provision of AB 160 relaxes concurrent enrollment restrictions by authorizing a community college to enter into a formal partnership with a school district for purposes of setting local concurrent enrollment policies. If enacted, AB 160 would waive restrictions in existing law and permit the community college district in tandem with the school district to determine concurrent enrollment policies and practices that work best for the local area. The bill specifies requirements of a formal partnership, see link below. As an example of the affect, AB 160 would have on current policies/practices, a high school student attending a partnership school district would be required to notify the principal of his/her intent to enroll in community college courses. Under current law a student is required to secure a recommendation from his/her principal. Another major provision of the bill permits high school students, attending partnership and non-partnership school districts, to secure the approval of a CTE Dean or other appropriate community college administrator if they plan to enroll in community college CTE courses. Again, under current law the community colleges are not permitted to weigh in on the number of high school students admitted to campuses each semester. This provision would allow key administrators at each college to determine what works best for the campus. If you would like to research this further, below is a link to the most current version of the bill and a link to an analysis of AB 160. We would appreciate your feedback on the fiscal impact of this bill regarding the implementation of the provision calling for CTE deans or other appropriate administrators to recommend high school students for concurrent enrollment in CTE courses. Do you believe there will be additional costs due to this provision in the bill at your campus, or can we say local costs are minor and absorbable? We're hoping the costs are minor so the bill continues to move through the legislative process, but we need feedback on this issue to develop an accurate response. If there are significant costs associated with the bill it may not be voted out of the Senate Appropriation Committee, or the CTE language could be dropped from the bill. The Chancellor's Office realizes the colleges are severely limited in their ability to accommodate unprecedented student demand, and worse yet, staffing levels have decreased due to budget cuts. However, we need to consider the future - a better budget and overall economy and a time when capacity limitations are no longer the norm for the colleges. We believe this bill is an opportunity to change and improve concurrent enrollment policy. We have a small window of opportunity to provide input to the Governmental Relations Division because they need to provide this information to the Senate Committee by the end of the month; therefore, please provide your input to me by Monday, July 25, 2011. This link is the AB 160 Amended Bill, which was last amended on July 6, 2011: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0151-0200/ab_160_bill_20110706_amended_sen_v94.pdf This link is the bill analysis of AB 160: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0151-0200/ab_160_cfa_20110628_095645_sen_comm.html If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you, Jackie Escajeda, Specialist California Community Colleges, Chancellor's Office Career Technical Education Unit 916-327-2066 | 
