An act to amend Section 76004 of the Education Code, relating to pupil instruction.
AB 731 would revise California’s College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) dual-enrollment law to make it easier for high school pupils to participate in community college courses. The bill removes the existing requirement that CCAP protocols include a principal recommendation, while preserving the one-time parental consent form and requiring CCAP agreements to allow a student to complete one application for the duration of the student’s participation. It also expands the settings in which CCAP courses may be offered to include community college campuses and online instruction, including synchronous and asynchronous formats, while directing the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to adopt regulations to ensure support services for students in asynchronous courses.
The bill also increases flexibility in how many courses a special part-time CCAP student may take by eliminating the current four-course-per-term cap, so long as the student stays within the 15-unit limit and the courses are part of an academic program designed to lead to a high school diploma plus an associate degree, certificate, or credential. In addition, AB 731 changes the annual reporting requirements for CCAP partnerships: instead of reporting course counts by category and site, districts would report outcome-based measures such as the number of students who complete 12 or more units by graduation, earn a certificate, or complete the coursework needed for an associate degree or associate degree for transfer.
The bill would amend Section 76004 of the Education Code, which governs CCAP partnerships between community college districts and school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools. Its practical effect would be to broaden dual-enrollment access, reduce administrative barriers, and shift oversight toward student completion outcomes and support services, especially for online and asynchronous instruction. It would also require each participating partner to designate a liaison to coordinate communication and issue resolution, and it preserves existing rules on fees, enrollment priority, teacher qualifications, non-displacement, and limits on course offerings that do not support CCAP goals.
Overall, the bill appears to have been received positively in policy committees and on the Assembly floor, with unanimous “do pass” votes at each recorded stage and a 79-0 Assembly third-reading vote. The available history suggests broad support for expanding dual enrollment and simplifying participation. However, the bill was later placed on the Senate Appropriations suspense file and was held under submission, indicating that fiscal or implementation concerns may have emerged even though no recorded opposition appears in the vote history provided.
The main points of contention are likely to center on implementation rather than the bill’s core purpose. Potential concerns include the cost and feasibility of providing comprehensive support services for asynchronous students, the administrative burden of new liaison and reporting requirements, and whether expanding online and asynchronous CCAP options could affect course quality or oversight. The bill also retains a legislative preference for in-person instruction, which suggests some caution about fully online dual-enrollment expansion even as it authorizes it.
AB 731 would amend Education Code Section 76004, the statute governing CCAP dual-enrollment partnerships, by changing eligibility procedures, course delivery options, unit limits, and reporting requirements. It would remove the principal recommendation requirement, require one-time application protocols in CCAP agreements, authorize CCAP courses on community college campuses and in synchronous or asynchronous online formats, and eliminate the four-course-per-term cap for eligible special part-time students taking up to 15 units. It would also require the Board of Governors to adopt regulations for support services for asynchronous dual-enrollment students and shift annual reporting toward completion-based metrics. The bill would affect community college districts, school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, high school pupils in CCAP programs, and the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly favorable. The bill advanced through committee and the Assembly with unanimous or near-unanimous support, including a 79-0 Assembly floor vote, suggesting broad agreement on the goal of expanding and simplifying dual enrollment. At the same time, the later suspense-file action in the Senate Appropriations process indicates that, despite policy support, there may be unresolved concerns about costs, implementation, or oversight.
The most notable areas of concern are likely administrative and fiscal. Removing the principal recommendation requirement may be viewed as reducing a gatekeeping step, but supporters likely see it as lowering barriers for students who are underrepresented in higher education. The expansion of asynchronous and online CCAP courses may raise questions about student support, quality control, and the ability of districts to provide counseling, tutoring, and technical assistance. The new reporting requirements and liaison obligations could also be seen as adding workload for districts, and the bill’s placement on suspense suggests those implementation costs or operational issues may have been the main sticking points.