BILL ANALYSIS
SB 361
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 13, 1999
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Ted Lempert, Chair
SB 361 (Dunn) - As Amended: April 14, 1999
SENATE VOTE : 39-0
SUBJECT : Postsecondary Education: Cross Enrollment
SUMMARY :
This measure extends by five years (from January 1, 2000 to
January 1, 2005) the statutory authorization for University of
California (UC), California State University (CSU) and
California Community College (CCC) students to "cross enroll",
without formal admission or payment of additional fees as
specified, at another public college or university campus. This
measure also extends the deadline for evaluating the program by
five years (from June 30, 1998 to June 30, 2003).
EXISTING LAW :
Current law (Chapter 758, Statutes of 1995) authorizes any
student enrolled at any UC, CSU, or CCC campus, as specified, to
enroll without formal admission or payment of additional fees in
a maximum of one course per academic term at a campus of any of
the other systems; enrollment is at the discretion of the
appropriate authorities on both campuses and is contingent upon
space being available. Students may "cross enroll" pursuant to
current law only if they have (1) completed at least one term at
their home campus, (2) earned a grade point average of 2.0 or
better, (3) paid all appropriate fees on their home campus, and
(4) completed the appropriate academic preparation.
Furthermore, current law requires the UC, CSU and the CCC to
report, by June 20, 1998, to the California Postsecondary
Education Commission (CPEC) regarding the efficacy of the
program. CPEC is then required to reports its finding to the
Governor and the Legislature by December 1, 1998. Current law
sunsets on January 1, 2000.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS :
1.Under current law, CPEC is required to report to the
Legislature by December 1, 1998 regarding the efficacy of the
SB 361
Page 2
cross enrollment program. To date, CPEC has not completed
it's evaluation of the program, and CPEC representatives
indicate that due to the lack of "evaluative" information they
received from the UC, CSU and CCC regarding the program, the
report required by current law will be delayed indefinitely.
2.According to the UC, even though participation in the
cross-enrollment program is voluntary, all UC campuses elected
to participate. In a survey conducted of its campuses in
1996, UC found that student participation in the cross
enrollment program was low, and at that time, only 135
community college students had enrolled in a course at UC; of
those students enrolled, approximately 25 percent of had
enrolled in ROTC.
SB 361
Page 3
3.According to the CSU, it initially supported the
cross-enrollment legislation in 1994 because the program would
encourage community college students to transfer by providing
them with the opportunity to enroll in one course per term at
the UC and CSU, at virtually no cost. In September of 1995,
CSU confirmed that all its campuses were actively publicizing
the cross enrollment program; however, CSU campuses reported
that the community colleges were not participating in the
program. Consequently, the CSU did not formally survey its
campuses about student's participating in the program since it
was reported by campus officials that they were unable to
document any instance in which a community college student
took advantage of the opportunity to cross enroll in a CSU
course.
4.The community colleges have been reluctant to participate in
the cross enrollment program because of the costs involved.
According to the community colleges, UC and CSU students have
been enrolling in courses on community college campuses for
years, and given the difference in fee costs between the UC,
CSU and the community colleges, many UC and CSU students have
been willing to pay the regular enrollment cost for a
community college course (approximately $33 for a 3 unit
course). Those UC and CSU students that enroll at a community
college, through the regular enrollment process, generate both
state apportionment revenue and student fee revenue for the
college, while those students enrolled at community colleges
through the cross enrollment program cannot be claimed for
apportionment purposes and are not generating any fee revenue.
According to many community colleges, the lack of funding
associated with the cross enrollment program creates an
economic "disincentive" for community college campuses to
participate.
5.Staff notes that while it is clear the cross enrollment
program has been underutilized, this measure will allow both
CPEC and the segments the additional time necessary to sort
out the barriers and problems associated with the successful
implementation of a cross enrollment program. Furthermore,
given the recent direction of the Legislature to conduct a
review of the Master Plan for Higher Education, staff notes
that the extension of the cross enrollment program's sunset
date will ensure that the program is in effect during the
Legislature's Master Plan Review which may allow the program
SB 361
Page 4
to serve as a catalyst for promoting a seamless transfer
process between all segments of postsecondary education.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California State University
California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC)
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Amy Supinger / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960