AB 731 authorizes community college districts to enter College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) partnerships with school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to expand dual‑enrollment opportunities for pupils who are not college bound or are underrepresented in higher education. The bill sets the elements a CCAP agreement must contain, establishes enrollment priorities and fee exemptions, and attaches conditions intended to protect community college mission and existing faculty positions.
This matters because the bill changes how dual enrollment translates into funding and operational control: agreements must be filed with state authorities, the chancellor can void noncompliant partnerships, and the statute creates both new reporting obligations and specific program controls (course types, instructor certifications, and limits on enrollment and unit allowances) that will affect K–14 administrators, compliance teams, and workforce partners.
At a Glance
What It Does
Permits community college districts to form CCAP partnership agreements with K–12 entities (including charter schools) to offer targeted dual‑enrollment courses. The statute prescribes required agreement elements, filing with the Chancellor and Department, enrollment priorities, fee exemptions, and annual reporting.
Who It Affects
Community college districts, school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, community college and K–12 administrators, faculty and their bargaining units, underrepresented high school students (including foster youth, low‑income students, and students with disabilities), and regional workforce development boards for CTE alignment.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a predictable legal framework for scaling dual enrollment while tying program expansion to funding (FTE/apportionments) and state oversight. That combination could change how districts plan schedules, allocate faculty, and report outcomes for accountability and funding.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 731 builds a structured template for dual‑enrollment CCAP partnerships rather than a one‑off arrangement. Each participating community college district must have a written CCAP partnership agreement approved by the governing boards of both partners; the agreement must list courses, projected high school pupils served, projected community college full‑time equivalent (FTE) students claimed, criteria for student placement, and protocols for information sharing, facilities use, and parental consent.
Crucially, the bill requires filing a copy of each agreement with the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and with the Department, and gives the chancellor authority to void agreements that do not meet the statute’s intent.
The statute draws several programmatic boundaries. Community colleges may not offer physical education or any course that does not advance at least one of the partnership goals (CTE pathways, transfer preparation, or graduation/readiness).
Pretransfer remediation courses delivered on high school campuses are limited to juniors or seniors who do not meet grade‑level standards on interim assessments and must be delivered collaboratively by high school and community college faculty as an intervention. For closed courses on a high school campus that are limited to eligible high school pupils, the community college receives the FTE credit; the law also intends primary delivery to be in‑person and requires the Board of Governors to adopt rules ensuring comprehensive support services for asynchronous online delivery.AB 731 addresses administrative details that affect day‑to‑day operations.
The partnership protocols may require only one parental consent form for the duration of a pupil’s CCAP participation and allow a single special‑part‑time application to cover a pupil’s entire CCAP attendance. A special part‑time student in a CCAP program may enroll in up to 15 units per term only if the units are part of an academic program designed to award both a high school diploma and an associate degree, certificate, or credential.
The bill also requires partner agreements to certify that instructors teaching on a high‑school campus have not been convicted of enumerated sex or controlled‑substance offenses and that community college faculty or high school teachers have not been displaced by the partnership.Finally, AB 731 imposes reporting and accountability requirements: annual site‑level reporting of enrollment totals (aggregated by gender and ethnicity), course completions and outcomes, and FTE generated—including online FTE—must be submitted to the Chancellor, who aggregates and reports to the Legislature, Director of Finance, and Superintendent. The statute includes a remedy for violations (referencing existing penalty authority) and explains how apportionments will be allocated where both partners might otherwise claim funding.
It also allows a school district to seek a CCAP agreement with another community college district if the district in whose territory the school sits declines or fails to act on a request within 60 calendar days.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Each CCAP partnership agreement must be filed with the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the Department; the chancellor may void agreements that do not comply with the statutory intent.
If the primary community college district declines or fails to act within 60 calendar days on a school district’s request to amend or establish courses, the school district may seek a partnership with a community college outside the primary district.
A CCAP participant need only submit one parental consent form for the duration of their participation, and a special part‑time student may use a single special‑part‑time application for the duration of community college attendance.
Community colleges may restrict enrollment in CCAP courses on a high school campus to eligible high school pupils (a closed course) and will receive the corresponding FTE/apportionment for those pupils; the law intends courses to be primarily in‑person and mandates student supports for asynchronous delivery.
Pretransfer‑level community college courses taught on high school campuses are limited to 10th‑ or 11th‑grade pupils who fail grade‑level interim math or English assessments and must be delivered collaboratively as a junior/senior intervention to prepare pupils for college‑level work.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Purpose and targeted students
Defines the purpose of CCAP partnerships: expand dual enrollment for pupils who aren't already college bound or are underrepresented in higher education and to develop seamless CTE or transfer pathways. It also clarifies the statutory definition of 'high school' to include community schools, continuation schools, juvenile court schools, and adult education programs, widening the pool of eligible sites and pupils.
Agreement approval and workforce consultation
Requires CCAP agreements to be approved by the governing boards of both partners and mandates public presentation and comment. For CTE pathways, partners must consult the appropriate local workforce development board and consider its input—while retaining final decisionmaking authority over which CTE pathways to offer—embedding labor market alignment into program design without ceding control.
Required agreement elements, filing, and chancellor oversight
Specifies the content of CCAP agreements (course lists, projected pupils and FTE, placement criteria, information‑sharing protocols, facilities use, parental consent procedures, and a point of contact). Requires filing with the Chancellor and Department before program start and gives the chancellor express authority to void agreements that fail to meet statutory requirements, creating an administrative compliance checkpoint before operations commence.
Course limits, remediation rules, and delivery formats
Prohibits physical education and any course not tied to the statute’s goals. Pretransfer remediation on high school campuses is limited to juniors or seniors who fail interim grade‑level assessments and must be collaborative. The law permits closed courses for eligible high school pupils and states an intent that offerings be primarily in‑person, while requiring the Board of Governors to adopt regulations ensuring comprehensive supports for asynchronous online delivery.
Fees, enrollment priority, unit limits, and fee exemptions
Reiterates that pupils may not be charged fees prohibited by existing law and requires participating governing boards to exempt CCAP pupils from specified community college fees. The bill assigns enrollment and registration priority to CCAP pupils equivalent to middle college high school pupils and allows CCAP‑earned units to contribute toward future registration priority. It also caps special part‑time CCAP students at 15 units per term—but only where those units are part of a combined high‑school/associate degree or certificate program.
Instructor certifications, nondisplacement, and reporting responsibilities
Requires certification in the agreement that any community college instructor on a high school campus has not been convicted of specified sex or controlled‑substance offenses, and that instructors have not displaced existing teachers or college faculty. The agreement must also specify which partner is employer of record for assignment monitoring and which partner handles federal teacher‑quality reporting, clarifying operational responsibilities and compliance chains.
Annual reporting and aggregation
Mandates annual, site‑level reporting to the Chancellor of enrollment by gender and ethnicity, course completions (including 12+ college units completed by graduation), successful completion rates by course type and modality, and FTE generated (including online FTE). The chancellor aggregates these data and reports them to the Legislature, Director of Finance, and Superintendent—creating a statewide dataset for accountability and policy review.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Underrepresented high school students (low‑income, foster youth, students with disabilities, homeless students): The bill creates targeted dual‑enrollment access and remediation pathways designed to increase college readiness and credential attainment.
- School districts and charter schools seeking expanded curriculum: The statute allows districts to partner with community colleges (and to seek outside colleges if a local district declines), enabling them to offer college credit and CTE courses without building local capacity.
- Employers and regional workforce development boards: By requiring CTE pathway consultation and alignment with regional employment needs, the bill creates better pipelines of job‑ready graduates.
- Community college administrators pursuing pipeline growth: CCAP provides a mechanism to generate additional FTE from high school pupils and to build enrollment pathways that can translate into persistent college participation.
- Students pursuing dual credentials: Pupils in programs designed to award both a high school diploma and an associate degree or certificate can enroll up to 15 units per term under defined conditions, accelerating credential attainment.
Who Bears the Cost
- Community college districts (administration and compliance teams): Districts must draft and file agreements, track projected vs. actual FTE, provide required student supports (especially for asynchronous courses), and certify nondisplacement and instructor background—adding administrative workload and potential costs.
- Chancellor’s Office and Department (oversight burden): The chancellor must review filings, aggregate substantial data annually, and has authority to void agreements, which increases oversight responsibilities and may require additional resources.
- Community college and K–12 faculty and bargaining units: Although the bill requires nondisplacement certifications, partnerships will require negotiation over employer‑of‑record, assignment monitoring, and federal reporting—creating potential labor disputes and compliance costs.
- Primary community college districts that lose exclusivity: Districts that decline or fail to act within 60 days may see other districts enter partnerships with local schools, shifting potential FTE and program demand elsewhere.
- School districts and charter schools (coordination and liaison duties): Partners must designate liaisons, manage student application/consent processes, and contribute to reporting—requiring staff time and coordination capacity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
AB 731’s central dilemma is expanding college access for underrepresented high school pupils while preventing the diversion of community college resources, FTE funding, and faculty positions away from adult and existing college students; the bill offers procedural and certification guards but relies heavily on administrative review rather than operational guarantees.
The bill attempts to thread two difficult policy needles: expanding access for underrepresented pupils while protecting community college mission, enrollment of adults, and faculty jobs. The statute inserts multiple certification and nondisplacement requirements and requires colleges to demonstrate that high‑school offerings will not reduce access to the same course on campus; but those protections are largely self‑certifying and rely on the chancellor’s oversight power.
That creates a gap between paper safeguards and on‑the‑ground enforcement: the chancellor can void agreements, but the statute leaves room for dispute over when an agreement truly displaces existing students or faculty.
Implementation also raises operational challenges. The reporting regime collects granular, site‑level demographic and FTE data that will be useful for accountability, yet it creates privacy and data‑management burdens for districts and colleges, particularly around small cohort disclosure rules.
The 60‑day remedy that allows schools to seek outside colleges accelerates partnership formation but risks fragmenting regional coordination and complicates local workforce alignment. Finally, several key terms—like ‘underrepresented in higher education’—are defined in broad, illustrative terms, leaving room for divergent eligibility practices across partnerships and inconsistent targeting of resources.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.