1. California Community colleges Chancellor's Office
Dual Enrollment Overview
CCIA Spring Conference
May 4, 2017
Natalie Wagner, College Finance and Facilities Planning Division
Rosa de Anda, Governmental Relations Division
Natalie Wagner, college finance and facilities planning, handle issues related to attendance accounting and residency
Rosa de Anda, works in the governmental relations division, was very involved with the bill AB 288
Debbie Velasquez, works in the academic affairs division, handles the program side of dual enrollment
Handouts: Legal opinion 16-02: this is the most current guidance from the chancellors office related to dual enrollment. The legal office is working to update and revise this legal opinion, will be released in the next couple of months. Most of this information is current, one of the things that is not current is the information related to nonresident tuition and claiming apportionment for nonresident students which was changes with the passage of AB The other handout provided includes up to date guidance on this bill.
Residency overview document: includes information on the admission of nonresident students and proper claiming of apportionment for these students. Includes guidance on AB 2364 which is a recent bill related to dual enrollment, will be covered in this presentation page 23
We will provide some historical context on dual enrollment, discuss related legislation, talk about the new dual enrollment option available with the passage of AB 288, and compare the two programs including some of the rules around funding.

2. Overview
Historical context on issues related to special-admit students
Legislation aimed to create dual enrollment, concurrent enrollment, change the status of special-admit students
Then and now… Moving from SB 338 to AB 288
In 2003, SB 338 (Scott) was a game changer in terms of reigning in improper campus practices regarding dual enrollment. Fourteen years later, AB 288 was also a game changer in that it broadened the scope of dual enrollment programs to students not traditionally bound for a college education.

3. Historical context
Late 1990’s rapid expansion of special-admit students
December 12, 2002 Orange County Register – a series of articles highlighting concurrent enrollment abuse – phantom courses, physical education, missing parental approval, etc.
Formal complaints filed with the Chancellor’s Office
Governor and legislature respond with an initial $80M budget reduction; settle on $25 million reduction to “send the community colleges a strong message” against the abuse.
State Chancellor’s Office Report to the Legislature

4. 2003 State Chancellor’s Officer report
Chief complaints & findings:
1. No actual course work offered to special-admit students.
2. “Double dipping” whereby the state paid both the school district and the
community college for the same activity.
3. Evidence of coercion of high students to enroll in college courses.
4. Courses not open to the public – violation of the Title 5, Open Course regulation
5. Parental permission slips not on file.
6. Permission of high school principal not obtained.
7. Proliferation of physical education courses whereby entire high school teams enrolled in the PE courses.

5. Legislation regarding dual enrollment
2003 SB 338, Scott. Concurrent enrollment of pupils in high school and community college (Chaptered).
2006 SB 1303, Runner. Pupils: concurrent enrollment: high school: community college (Chaptered).
2005 AB 2050, Canciamilla. Pupils: concurrent enrollment in high school and community college.
2005 AB 2434, Coto. Pupils: concurrent enrollment of pupils in high school and community college.
2007 AB 1409, Portantino. Pupils: concurrent enrollment in community college and secondary or elementary school.
2013 AB 1146, Morrell. Pupils: concurrent enrollment in secondary school and community college.
2014 AB 1540, Hagman. Concurrent enrollment in secondary school and community college.
2014 AB 1451, Holden. Public schools: concurrent enrollment in secondary school and community college.
2015 AB 288, Holden. Public schools: College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) partnerships (Chaptered).
2015 AB 889, Chang. Concurrent enrollment in secondary school and community college STEM.
2015 AB 482, Harper. Concurrent enrollment in secondary school and community college Computer Science.
2016 AB 526, Holden. Pupils: summer attendance at community college (Chaptered).
2016 AB 2364, Holden. Tuition Exemption Concurrently Enrolled Students (Chaptered).

6. linked learning alliance
“We essentially treat dual enrollment in California almost like a felony,”
said Christopher Cabaldon, executive director of the Linked Learning Alliance.
From 1997 to 2003, Mr. Cabaldon was vice chancellor of the California Community Colleges System.

7. Research driven

8. AB 288 College and Career Access pathways (CCAP)
Establishes the College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) partnerships whereby governing boards of a community college district and school district can enter into an agreement to expand the enrollment of special-admit students for preparation to transfer or career technical education.
Highlights: Redefined student eligibility, expands participation, increases the maximum unit load, allows for teachers and professors to engage in teaching special-admit students and more…

9. Then and now… SB 338 (Scott) AB 288, Holden (CCAP)
Reformed special-admit, concurrent enrollment programs and FTES funding.
Student eligibility – restricted to those students who could benefit from “advanced scholastic or vocational work…” Target: high achieving students
Unit load – up to units per semester
Title 5, Open Course requirement
5% summer session
Physical education restrictions apply
Establishes the College and Career Access Pathways partnership and codifies the term dual enrollment.
Expands student eligibility to include: underachieving students from groups underrepresented in postsecondary education and those seeking career technical education.
Waives enrollment fees up to 15 units per term – a maximum of 4 courses.
Allows closed courses on a high school campus during the regular school day and enrollment limited to eligible high school students.
Allows CCCs to claim apportionment for students enrolled in closed courses.
10% annual statewide cap on FTES in dual enrollment coursework.
Permits P.E. courses to be offered if they are necessary to complete program, major, or graduation requirements

10. CCAP Partnership requirements
Legislation is explicit on the requirements of the CCAP partnership and stipulates the terms and conditions of the agreement.
Requires Board approval with two mandated open public meetings.
Annual reporting by participating community college district and school district – total number of FTE students, student demographic data, course offerings by school site,
Allows for priority registration consistent with legal provisions assigned to middle college high school students.

11. Key Subsequent Legislation Motivated by or directly Related to AB 288
AB 2364 (Holden) requires a community college district to exempt all special part-time students, as specified, from nonresident fees and allows these students to be reported as resident full-time equivalent students (FTES) to receive associated state apportionments. AB 526 (Holden) clarifies that the 5% cap on the number of high school pupils in a school district that may enroll in a community college summer session does not apply to pupils who are concurrently enrolled as part of a College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) program in which a majority of the pupils served are either low income, English learners, or foster youths.

12. Available Resources Dual Enrollment Toolkit Partnership between the RP
Group, Career Ladders Project,
and The Chancellors Office.
Created the DE Toolkit with links
to available references.
After the passage of AB 288, a group was formed that included the RP group, Career ladders project and the chancellors office.
The group created a Dual Enrollment toolkit which is a collection of documents and information on Dual Enrollment
Announcement and Advisory Committee
Legal Opinion – this is the legal guidance released by the chancellor’s office on CCAP and nonCCAP dual enrollment requirements
AB 288 Apportionment- Guidelines for claiming apportionment for CCAP courses
Frequently Asked Questions – includes definitions, information on Policies, Regulations, and Legislation, Strategies and Approaches, Budgeting and Funding
CCAP vs Non-CCAP – table comparing CCAP and nonCCAP dual enrollment
Agreement Framework CCAP - provides a framework to assist community college districts in crafting CCAP Partnership Agreements.
CCAP vs Non-CCAP Agreements Table comparing CCAP and NonCCAP agreements includes more detail than the first table (CCAP vs Non-CCAP) includes information on the requirements related to the agreement between the CCC district and high school district, requirements of the instructors, courses, student eligibility, etc.
Legal Table Summary of education code sections and legislative bills related to dual enrollment
Instructional Minutes – Provides information on instructional minute and minimum day requirements
RESOURCES
DUAL ENROLLMENT TOOLKIT WEBINAR

13. CCAP Dual Enrollment vs. Non-CCAP Dual Enrollment
Comparison
CCAP Dual Enrollment vs. Non-CCAP Dual Enrollment
The original dual enrollment was previously referred to as concurrent enrollment. These terms refer to the same thing. The CCCCO now uses the term dual enrollment to refer to all attendance by special part time students.
Differentiate between the types of dual enrollment using CCAP and nonCCAP dual enrollment. CCAP dual enrollment refers to dual enrollment offered pursuant to AB288, NonCCAP dual enrollment refers to dual enrollment offered under the original dual enrollment rules.
Some individuals at the districts refer to the original dual enrollment as concurrent enrollment and CCAP dual enrollment as dual enrollment.
Also these are two different options for dual enrollment, colleges may still offer dual enrollment under the original dual enrollment rules and create new programs under those rules or may offer CCAP dual enrollment programs. One thing to remember: if using any of the benefits offered under CCAP must comply with all the requirements, cant mix and match.

14. Purpose of Dual Enrollment
Non-CCAP
Providing advanced scholastic and vocational training to students who are determined to be ready to undertake college credit coursework.
CCAP
Expanding dual enrollment for students who may not already be college bound or who are underrepresented in higher education.

15. Goals of Dual Enrollment
Non-CCAP
Providing opportunities for eligible K12 students to benefit from advanced scholastic or vocational course work.
CCAP
Must address at least one of the following goals:
Developing seamless pathways from high school to community college:
for Career Technical Education (CTE) or transfer preparation,
to improve high school graduation rates, or
to help high school students achieve college and career readiness.
CCAP: the goal should be to make it easier for a student to go from high school to CCCC fir CTE/transfer. Remember these are not the college ready/ college bound kids, they need a clear pathway.
Improve HS grad rates: the thought is that enrolling in a CCAP program may help these students to see college as an option, may motivate them to take high school more seriously.
College and career readiness: get them thinking about the future. Perhaps they were not initially identified as being ready for college level course work but participating in CCAP dual enrollment could assist them in being more prepared.

16. Apportionment Non-CCAP
Districts may claim apportionment for FTES generated by resident students and nonresident special part-time students exempted from nonresident tuition pursuant to AB 2364 for courses that are open to the general public. If the course is offered on a high school campus, it shall not be held during the time the campus is closed to the general public. (ECS 76002(a))
CCAP
Districts may claim apportionment for FTES generated by CCAP resident students and CCAP nonresident special part-time students exempted from nonresident tuition pursuant to AB 2364 for courses offered on the college campus and on a high school campus. Courses held on a high school campus during the regular school day may be closed to the general public, otherwise must be open to the general public. (ECS 76004(o))
Both CCAP and Non-CCAP
The course and FTES generated must comply with all other applicable statutory or regulatory requirements related to claiming the attendance of Special Admit students.
References: ECS 76001, 76002, 76003, 76004, Legal Opinion 16-02
The rules around admission and claiming apportionment for special admit students are very complex. Districts should be familiar with the relevant education code sections, legal opinion and the additional guidance provided by the RP group in the dual enrollment toolkit and other materials available online.
Documentation needs to be retained by the district to support the proper admission of special admit students, including parental permission verification and principal’s recommendation where necessary.
PE related Limits on special admit students: 1. A PE course section cannot be comprised of more than 10% of special part time enrollments. Example: 30 students, max special admit is 3. Intent relates to claiming FTES. can enroll more than 10% but can only claim FTES up to 10%
2. 5% limitation on the amount of FTES that can be claimed for special admit students in PE courses. District generates 100 special admit FTES, may only claim 5 in PE. If there are 10 special admit FTES in PE they may only claim 5 of them.

17. Non-CCAP CCAP Enrollment Fees
Special part-time students (up to units) District may establish policy to exempt special part-time students from paying enrollment fees pursuant to ECS 76300(f)
CCAP
Special part-time students (up to 15 units/4 courses): District must exempt students from enrollment fee and other fees specified in ECS 76004(q)
These exemptions from enrollment fees apply to special part time students only. Special full time students would be subject to all fees.
Districts must monitor all special admit students and properly classify as part-time or full-time.

18. Both CCAP and Non-CCAP Nonresident Tuition
Pursuant to AB 2364 (Holden, Chapter 299, Statutes of 2016; Ed. Code, § 76140) and effective January 1, 2017, Districts must exempt all qualifying nonresident special part- time students (other than those with a non-immigrant status) from the nonresident tuition fee.
Basically, special part time students participating in dual enrollment are exempt from the nonresident tuition fee under both CCAP and Non CCAP unless they have a non immigrant status (meaning they entered the US under a visa category that precludes them from establishing residency in the US, example: B visitor visa, in the us for a temporary purpose)

19. Effective January 1, 2017, modified provisions of SB 150
AB 2364: Nonresident Tuition Fee Waiver for Special Part-Time Students (Holden EC §76004 and 76140)
Effective January 1, 2017, modified provisions of SB 150
Requires community college districts to exempt all qualifying nonresident special “part-time” students (other than those with a non-immigrant status, such as those present in the United States on a B visitor Visa) from the nonresident tuition fee (ECS 76140(a)(4))
Note: As it relates to the exclusion of nonimmigrant students from the exemption, as an interpretation of AB 2364, the CCCCO has determined nonresident special part-time students that hold a T or U non-immigrant visa would NOT be excluded from this required nonresident tuition fee exemption and qualifying special part-time students must reside in California during the period of attendance

20. AB 2364: Nonresident Tuition Fee Waiver for Special Part-Time Students (Holden EC §76004 and 76140)
Expressly allows districts to report the attendance of nonresident students who are exempted from the nonresident tuition fee pursuant to this section as resident FTES for apportionment purposes. (ECS (j))
New nonresident tuition fee provisions are applicable to both CCAP and Non-CCAP tracks
Basically the population that is excluded from nonresident tuition under AB2364 is the same as the population that qualifies for AB 540 nonresident tuition exemption. They are future AB540 students.

21. Contracted District audit manual (CDAM) Compliance Item 427 Dual Enrollment
Compliance Item 427 Dual Enrollment (CCAP and Non-CCAP) was updated in the CDAM for the fiscal year primarily to incorporate the new provisions of AB 288 CCAP dual enrollment.
Compliance Item 427 includes background, criteria, compliance requirements, and suggested audit procedures for both CCAP and non- CCAP dual enrollment.

22. Thank You!