HB 62: College Credit Plus Program

I. Executive Summary:

Ohio House Bill No. 62 proposes several amendments to the state’s College Credit Plus (CCP) program, which allows students in grades 7-12 to earn college credit while still in high school. The bill focuses on refining the responsibilities of participating colleges, particularly regarding student support, teacher professional development, and cost-sharing for textbooks. A key new provision introduces requirements for colleges to prioritize the use of open source materials and outlines a framework for textbook cost allocation between colleges and secondary schools.

II. Main Themes and Important Ideas:

This bill primarily addresses the following key themes:

• Enhanced College Responsibilities: The bill outlines more specific duties for colleges participating in CCP, aiming to improve the student experience and program quality.
• Focus on Open Educational Resources (OER): A significant addition is the explicit encouragement and, in some cases, requirement for colleges to utilize open source materials as textbooks to reduce costs.
• Revised Textbook Cost Allocation: The bill introduces a new section detailing how textbook costs will be shared between colleges and secondary schools, depending on the availability of OER.
• Clarification and Updates to Existing Program Requirements: The bill amends existing sections to provide further clarity on admission processes, communication protocols, and financial aspects of the CCP program.

III. Detailed Analysis of Proposed Changes:

A. Amendments to Section 3365.05 (College Responsibilities):

This section details the obligations of public and participating private colleges within the CCP program. Key amendments include:

• Admission and Course Placement: Colleges are required to consider “all available student data that may be an indicator of college readiness, including grade point average and end-of-course examination scores, if applicable” (lines 12-16). They must still prioritize their current students for course enrollment but cannot displace an accepted CCP participant (lines 17-20).
• Communication: The timeline for notifying participants, parents, and secondary schools of admission to the college and specific courses is set at “not later than fourteen calendar days prior to the first day of classes” (lines 21-25). Colleges must also provide course enrollment details and the student’s funding election within “twenty-one calendar days after the first day of classes” (lines 26-33).
• Informational Sessions: Colleges within a 30-mile radius of a partnering secondary school must coordinate to present at least one informational session per year, covering benefits, consequences, and program changes (lines 38-46).
• Academic Advising: Colleges are mandated to assign an academic advisor to each CCP participant. Crucially, the advisor and participant must meet at least once before the deadline for withdrawal that negatively impacts the transcripted grade to discuss the program and enrolled courses (lines 47-53). This emphasizes proactive academic support.
• High School Teacher Professional Development and Observation: For college courses taught by high school teachers at the secondary school, colleges must provide at least one professional development session and conduct at least one classroom observation per year to ensure college-level quality (lines 54-61).
• Orientation: Colleges must require participants to complete an orientation that meets guidelines issued by the chancellor of higher education and the department of education and workforce (lines 67-71).
• Withdrawal Notification: Colleges are required to notify the secondary school if a participant withdraws from a course (lines 72-73).

B. Amendments to Section 3365.07 (State Funding):

This section outlines the calculation and payment of state funds to colleges for CCP participants. Key amendments and clarifications include:

• Funding Mechanism: The CCP program is affirmed as the “sole mechanism by which state funds are paid to colleges for students to earn transcripted credit for college courses while enrolled in both a secondary school and a college” (lines 90-96), with a specific exception for certain agreements.
• Public College Funding: The bill details the payment structure for public secondary school participants in public colleges, differentiating based on course delivery method and instructor (college faculty vs. qualified high school teacher). It reiterates the concept of “default ceiling amount” and “default floor amount” for payments (lines 102-118). Notably, if a college course is also offered at the high school by a credentialed teacher, the payment reverts to the “default floor amount” even if the CCP student takes it on campus or online through the college (lines 108-111).
• Alternative Payment Agreements: The possibility for secondary schools and colleges to enter into agreements for alternative payment structures for tuition, textbooks, and fees is maintained (lines 121-131, 155-160). Such agreements may include payments below the default floor amount with chancellor approval, as long as program quality is ensured.
• No Cost to Public College Participants: The bill explicitly states that “No participant that is enrolled in a public college shall be charged for any tuition, textbooks, or other fees related to participation in the program” (lines 144-147), reinforcing the “no cost to student” principle for public CCP.
• Private College Funding: The funding mechanism for public secondary school participants in private colleges mirrors the public college structure unless an alternative agreement is in place (lines 148-160). If an agreement exists, the department pays at least the default floor amount (unless chancellor-approved for less), and remaining costs are negotiated, potentially involving charges to the participant, subject to specific limitations (lines 160-197). Economically disadvantaged students in this scenario cannot be charged for tuition, textbooks, or other fees.
• Nonpublic and Home-Educated Participant Funding: The funding for nonpublic, nonchartered nonpublic, and home-educated participants remains the lesser of the default ceiling amount or the college’s standard rate for courses delivered on campus, at a college-operated location, or online (lines 202-232). Specific provisions exist to prevent charging low-income scholarship recipients for tuition, textbooks, or other fees (lines 218-227).
• Payment Procedures: Colleges must notify the department of enrolled credit hours within 30 days after the term ends (lines 233-236). Payments are scheduled for the end of January (fall term) and July (spring term) for properly notified enrollments (lines 242-251). No payments will be made for courses withdrawn before the grade-impacting withdrawal deadline (lines 251-255).
• Deduction of Payments: The bill specifies how state funds paid for CCP participants will be deducted from various funding streams allocated to the student’s secondary education setting (public school districts, community schools, STEM schools, etc.) (lines 256-283).
• Inclusion in State Share of Instruction: Public colleges enrolling CCP students can include them in the calculation for their state share of instruction funds (lines 296-300).

C. Enactment of Section 3365.072 (Textbook Provisions):

This entirely new section introduces specific requirements related to textbook costs for participants under division (B) of section 3365.06 (likely referring to students whose participation generates state funding, although this could benefit all CCP students).

• Definitions: “Open source materials” are defined as “free and publicly available educational materials,” including free textbooks (lines 307-309). “Program course” refers to a course in which a CCP participant is enrolled (lines 310-311), and “purchase-only textbook” means a non-free textbook that must be bought (lines 312-313).
• Prioritizing Open Source Materials: Colleges are required to “endeavor to use open source materials, in lieu of purchase-only textbooks, in a program course” (lines 314-316). This strongly encourages the adoption of OER.
• College Responsibility for Textbooks (with Available OER): If a college uses a purchase-only textbook in a program course when “there are open source materials that may be used in lieu of that textbook,” the college is responsible for paying for the participant’s textbook (lines 317-320). This incentivizes the use of available OER.
• Shared Responsibility for Textbooks (No Available OER): If a college uses a purchase-only textbook because “there are no open source materials that may be used in lieu of that textbook,” the college and the participant’s secondary school each pay fifty per cent of the textbook’s cost (lines 321-325). This establishes a cost-sharing mechanism when OER is not a viable option.
• Applicability to Out-of-State Colleges: Eligible out-of-state colleges participating in CCP are also subject to these textbook provisions (lines 326-328).

IV. Potential Impacts and Considerations:

• Increased Emphasis on OER: The new section 3365.072 is likely to drive colleges to explore and adopt open source materials more extensively, potentially leading to cost savings for students and secondary schools in the long run.
• Financial Implications for Colleges and Secondary Schools: The revised textbook cost-sharing model could shift financial responsibilities between colleges and secondary schools. Colleges may face increased textbook costs if suitable OER exists but is not utilized. Secondary schools may see increased textbook costs when purchase-only materials are necessary.
• Administrative Burden: Colleges may face an increased administrative burden in identifying suitable OER, tracking textbook usage, and managing the new cost-sharing arrangements.
• Enhanced Student Support: The mandatory advisor meeting aims to provide more proactive support for CCP students, potentially improving their success and persistence in college coursework.
• Focus on Program Quality: The requirements for professional development and classroom observations for high school teachers teaching college courses underscore the importance of maintaining college-level rigor in dual enrollment settings.
• Clarity in Funding and Procedures: The amendments to section 3365.07 provide further clarity on funding mechanisms and payment procedures, which could help streamline the administrative processes for both colleges and the state.

V. Notable Quotes:

• Regarding admission, colleges must “[c]onsider all available student data that may be an indicator of college readiness, including grade point average and end-of-course examination scores, if applicable” (lines 12-16).
• Colleges must “ensure that the academic advisor and the participant meet at least once to discuss the program and the courses in which the participant is enrolled” before the grade-impacting withdrawal date (lines 50-53).
• The bill states that “The program shall be the sole mechanism by which state funds are paid to colleges for students to earn transcripted credit for college courses while enrolled in both a secondary school and a college…” (lines 88-94).
• Regarding OER, colleges must “endeavor to use open source materials, in lieu of purchase-only textbooks, in a program course” (lines 314-316).
• If a college uses a purchase-only textbook when OER is available, “the college shall pay for the participant’s textbook” (lines 318-320).

VI. Next Steps and Further Considerations:

• Analyze the potential fiscal impact of the proposed changes on colleges, secondary schools, and the state.
• Gather feedback from stakeholders, including colleges, secondary school administrators, teachers, students, and parents, regarding the proposed amendments.
• Examine the definitions of “default ceiling amount” and “default floor amount” referenced in the bill to fully understand the financial implications.
• Consider the practical implications of implementing the new textbook provisions, particularly regarding the availability and suitability of open source materials across different disciplines.

This briefing document provides an overview of the key aspects of Ohio House Bill No. 62. Further analysis and stakeholder input will be crucial in understanding the full implications of these proposed changes to the College Credit Plus program.