Legal Opinion O 97-14
ISSUE:
You have asked whether community college districts can claim state apportionment for the attendance of students who repeat courses where technological innovations result in changes in the course content.
ANALYSIS:
Title 5, Section 58161, controls the circumstances under which districts may receive state apportionment for course repetition. Subsection (c) of Section 58161 provides that districts may claim apportionment for repetition of courses for 3 semesters or five quarters in cases where the district certifies that the course "is one in which the course content differs each time the course is offered and that the student who repeats it is gaining an expanded educational experience for one of the two following reasons: (A) skills or proficiencies are enhanced by supervised repetition and practice within class periods; or (B) active participatory experience in individual study or group assignments is the basic means by which learning objectives are attained." Your question is whether this provision is broad enough to encompass repetition of courses where technological changes (e.g. the availability of new computer software) results in modification in the instruction students receive. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that this is not authorized under the current regulation.
First, repetition is only permitted under Section 58161(c) where the course content differs "each time it is offered." It is true that change is occurring at a rapid pace in computer technology and other similar fields, but it seems unlikely that this would cause course content to change each time the course is offered, presuming the course is offered each term. This issue might not arise for courses which are only offered every few years, but even then the other problems discussed below would seem to preclude repetition of such courses.
Second, repetition of courses under Subsection (c) is only authorized for one of two reasons and neither seems to apply here. It seems clear that we are not talking about situations covered in Section 58161(c)(2)(B) where participatory experiences are involved. This leaves the possibility that such repetition could be justified under Section 58161(c)(2)(A) on the grounds that "skills or proficiencies are enhanced by supervised repetition and practice within class periods." However, we do not think this provision was intended to address the problem of technological change. There has not been much change in the way students learn to swim, play the flute, or mold clay, but all of these are skills which might be improved by practice and repetition. Conversely, when technological change does occur, students need to learn new skills. For example, if students repeat a word processing course because new software is available, they are not just practicing what was learned last time, they are learning new skills.
Finally, we believe it would be difficult to define any rational basis for limiting this type of course repetition because change occurs in every field. Should a student who takes Music Appreciation be allowed to repeat the course because a great deal of music has been re-released on compact disk? Could a student repeat American History several times on the theory that new events occur each year so history has changed? Interpretation of the current regulation does not permit us to adequately address these issues. Thus, if it is desirable to allow course repetition due to technological change, we recommend that consideration be given to revising the regulation to clearly delineate the parameters of the authorization.
CONCLUSION:
Thus, we conclude that, under existing law, community college districts cannot claim state apportionment for course repetition where the course content changes in response to technological change.