Includes all politicians who were in office at any point during the 2011-2012 Legislature.

SB 675 - An Act to Add Article 22 (Commencing with Section 94951) to Chapter 8 of Part 59 of Division 10 of Title 3 of the Education Code, Relating to Private Postsecondary Education.

Private postsecondary education: non-English speaking students. 2011-2012 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
Existing law, the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 (act) provides, among other things, for student protections and regulatory oversight of private postsecondary schools (institutions) in the state. The act is enforced by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education within the Department of Consumer Affairs.

This bill would provide that an institution is… More
Existing law, the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 (act) provides, among other things, for student protections and regulatory oversight of private postsecondary schools (institutions) in the state. The act is enforced by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education within the Department of Consumer Affairs.

This bill would provide that an institution is prohibited from entering into an agreement for a program or course of instruction given in English with a nonnative speaker of English, as defined, unless the prospective student first takes and passes an English proficiency test, as specified. The bill would require that English proficiency tests be given to prospective students at a place off campus by an independent test administrator without charge to the student and in accordance with all procedures and requirements specified by the test publisher. The bill would require that the tests be paid for by the institution and graded off campus by an independent test administrator. The bill would prohibit employees or representatives of the school from influencing the giving, monitoring, or scoring of the tests. The bill would provide, if a prospective student is unable to pass the tests, that it may be readministered only as specified.

The bill would prohibit a student from waiving any requirement of the act, and provides that if an institution violates any provision of the act, the enrollment agreement and any other contract with the institution is unenforceable. The bill would specify further remedies and damage provisions. The bill would specify the bureau’s authority and powers to enforce the act.

This bill would require any written contract or agreement for educational services signed by a nonnative speaker of English with an institution to include an enrollment agreement containing specified information. The bill would require that the test and the score be placed in the student’s file after enrollment.

The bill would declare that its provisions are severable, and make legislative declarations and findings. Hide
 
Status:
The bill was voted on by a Senate committee on May 2, 2011. 
There have been no votes on passage on this bill.
Other Votes:

An Act to Add Article 22 (Commencing with Section 94951) to Chapter 8 of Part 59 of Division 10 of Title 3 of the Education Code, Relating to Private Postsecondary Education.

SB 675 — 2011-2012 Legislature

Summary
Existing law, the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 (act) provides, among other things, for student protections and regulatory oversight of private postsecondary schools (institutions) in the state. The act is enforced by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education within the Department of Consumer Affairs.

This bill would provide that an institution is prohibited from entering into an agreement for a program or course of instruction given in English with a nonnative speaker of English, as defined, unless the prospective student first takes and passes an English proficiency test, as specified. The bill would require that English proficiency tests be given to prospective students at a place off campus by an independent test administrator without charge to the student and in accordance with all procedures and requirements specified by the test publisher. The bill would require that the tests be paid for by the institution and graded off campus by an independent test administrator. The bill would prohibit employees or representatives of the school from influencing the giving, monitoring, or scoring of the tests. The bill would provide, if a… More
Existing law, the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 (act) provides, among other things, for student protections and regulatory oversight of private postsecondary schools (institutions) in the state. The act is enforced by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education within the Department of Consumer Affairs.

This bill would provide that an institution is prohibited from entering into an agreement for a program or course of instruction given in English with a nonnative speaker of English, as defined, unless the prospective student first takes and passes an English proficiency test, as specified. The bill would require that English proficiency tests be given to prospective students at a place off campus by an independent test administrator without charge to the student and in accordance with all procedures and requirements specified by the test publisher. The bill would require that the tests be paid for by the institution and graded off campus by an independent test administrator. The bill would prohibit employees or representatives of the school from influencing the giving, monitoring, or scoring of the tests. The bill would provide, if a prospective student is unable to pass the tests, that it may be readministered only as specified.

The bill would prohibit a student from waiving any requirement of the act, and provides that if an institution violates any provision of the act, the enrollment agreement and any other contract with the institution is unenforceable. The bill would specify further remedies and damage provisions. The bill would specify the bureau’s authority and powers to enforce the act.

This bill would require any written contract or agreement for educational services signed by a nonnative speaker of English with an institution to include an enrollment agreement containing specified information. The bill would require that the test and the score be placed in the student’s file after enrollment.

The bill would declare that its provisions are severable, and make legislative declarations and findings. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Add Article 22 (Commencing with Section 94951) to Chapter 8 of Part 59 of Division 10 of Title 3 of the Education Code, Relating to Private Postsecondary Education.
Author(s)
Rod Wright
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • Private postsecondary education: non-English speaking students
    Major Actions
    Introduced2/18/2011
    Referred to Committee
    Passed Senate Committee on Education3/30/2011
    Failed passage in Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development4/25/2011
    Passed Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development4/25/2011
    Failed passage in Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development5/02/2011
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    select this voteSenate Committee on EducationDo pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development.3/30/2011This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Education
    6 voted YES 2 voted NO 3 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic DevelopmentDo pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.4/25/2011This motion DID NOT PASS the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development
    2 voted YES 3 voted NO 4 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic DevelopmentReconsideration granted.4/25/2011This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development
    9 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic DevelopmentDo pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.5/02/2011This motion DID NOT PASS the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development
    3 voted YES 3 voted NO 3 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced2/18/2011
    2/18/2011Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
    2/20/2011From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 22.
    3/03/2011Referred to Coms. on ED. and B., P. & E.D.
    3/09/2011Set for hearing March 23.
    3/14/2011Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
    3/16/2011Set for hearing March 30.
    select this voteVote3/30/2011Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development.
    4/04/2011From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on B., P. & E.D. (Ayes 6. Noes 2. Page 494.) (March 30).
    4/05/2011Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.
    4/07/2011Set for hearing April 25.
    select this voteVote4/25/2011Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
    select this voteVote4/25/2011Reconsideration granted.
    4/25/2011Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 2. Noes 3. Page 736.) Reconsideration granted.
    4/27/2011From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D. Set for hearing May 2.
    5/02/2011Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 3. Noes 3. Page 848.)
    select this voteVote5/02/2011Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
    5/05/2011Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).

    Total contributions given to Senators from interest groups that…

    14 times as much
    $707,723
    $0
    $44,950
    $34,500
    $787,173
    $58,278
    $58,278

    opposed this bill

    5 Organizations Supported and 2 Opposed; See Which Ones

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Add Article 22 (Commencing with Section 94951) to Chapter 8 of Part 59 of Division 10 of Title 3 of the Education Code, Relating to Private Postsecondary Education.

    5 organizations supported this bill

    California School Employees Association
    Senate Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development (2011, April 28). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Consumer Federation of California
    Senate Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development (2011, April 28). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Consumers Union
    Senate Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development (2011, April 28). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Golden State Chapter Of The Association Of Certified Fraud Examiners
    Senate Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development (2011, April 28). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
    Senate Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development (2011, April 28). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Leg. Info.

    2 organizations opposed this bill

    California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools
    Senate Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development (2011, April 28). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Corinthian Colleges
    Senate Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development (2011, April 28). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Leg. Info.

    Need proof?

    View citations of support and opposition

    Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Senators in office during the 2011-2012 California State Legislature, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2012.
    Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

    Contributions by Legislator

    Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Elaine AlquistDCA-13$750$0
    Joel AndersonRCA-36$15,625$3,000
    Tom BerryhillRCA-14$0$0
    Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
    Ron CalderonDCA-30$12,900$1,000
    Anthony CannellaRCA-12$0$1,000
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$19,700$1,000
    Lou CorreaDCA-34$27,800$2,000
    Kevin De LeonDCA-22$44,399$3,250
    Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$24,380$100
    Bob DuttonRCA-31$9,600$5,000
    Bill EmmersonRCA-37$2,850$0
    Noreen EvansDCA-2$24,220$100
    Jean FullerRCA-18$1,000$0
    Ted GainesRCA-1$6,500$0
    Loni HancockDCA-9$58,200$2,200
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$17,200$200
    Ed HernandezDCA-24$29,249$1,614
    Bob HuffRCA-29$1,750$2,000
    Christine KehoeDCA-39$9,300$0
    Doug La MalfaRCA-4$0$150
    Mark LenoDCA-3$35,250$2,950
    Ted LieuDCA-28$54,200$4,900
    Carol LiuDCA-21$7,400$600
    Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
    Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$11,900$1,750
    Alex PadillaDCA-20$16,700$2,500
    Fran PavleyDCA-23$74,500$6,825
    Curren PriceDCA-26$16,500$300
    Michael RubioDCA-16$17,600$1,639
    Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$0
    Joe SimitianDCA-11$5,500$0
    Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$104,100$5,500
    Tony StricklandRCA-19$6,500$1,000
    Juan VargasDCA-40$53,300$1,250
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$1,000$1,000
    Lois WolkDCA-5$16,800$1,450
    Rod WrightDCA-25$18,500$2,000
    Mark WylandRCA-38$2,000$1,000
    Leland YeeDCA-8$40,000$1,000

    Add Data Filters:

    Legislator Filters
    Legislator Filters
    Show All
    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Elaine AlquistDCA-13$750$0
    Joel AndersonRCA-36$15,625$3,000
    Tom BerryhillRCA-14$0$0
    Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
    Ron CalderonDCA-30$12,900$1,000
    Anthony CannellaRCA-12$0$1,000
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$19,700$1,000
    Lou CorreaDCA-34$27,800$2,000
    Kevin De LeonDCA-22$44,399$3,250
    Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$24,380$100
    Bob DuttonRCA-31$9,600$5,000
    Bill EmmersonRCA-37$2,850$0
    Noreen EvansDCA-2$24,220$100
    Jean FullerRCA-18$1,000$0
    Ted GainesRCA-1$6,500$0
    Loni HancockDCA-9$58,200$2,200
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$17,200$200
    Ed HernandezDCA-24$29,249$1,614
    Bob HuffRCA-29$1,750$2,000
    Christine KehoeDCA-39$9,300$0
    Doug La MalfaRCA-4$0$150
    Mark LenoDCA-3$35,250$2,950
    Ted LieuDCA-28$54,200$4,900
    Carol LiuDCA-21$7,400$600
    Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
    Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$11,900$1,750
    Alex PadillaDCA-20$16,700$2,500
    Fran PavleyDCA-23$74,500$6,825
    Curren PriceDCA-26$16,500$300
    Michael RubioDCA-16$17,600$1,639
    Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$0
    Joe SimitianDCA-11$5,500$0
    Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$104,100$5,500
    Tony StricklandRCA-19$6,500$1,000
    Juan VargasDCA-40$53,300$1,250
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$1,000$1,000
    Lois WolkDCA-5$16,800$1,450
    Rod WrightDCA-25$18,500$2,000
    Mark WylandRCA-38$2,000$1,000
    Leland YeeDCA-8$40,000$1,000

    Interest Groups that supported this bill

    $ Donated
    State & local government employee unions$707,723
    Security services$44,950
    Welfare & social work$34,500
    Consumer groups$0

    Interest Groups that opposed this bill

    $ Donated
    Schools & colleges$58,278
    Loading…
    Date Range of Contributions
    Enter a custom date range