BILL NUMBER: AB 1901 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2010
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 5, 2010
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Ruskin
FEBRUARY 16, 2010
An act to amend Section 66012 add Chapter
3.3 (com mencing with Section 66125) to Part 40 of
Division 5 of Title 3 of the Education Code, relating to
postsecondary education.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1901, as amended, Ruskin. Postsecondary education: Master Plan
for Higher Education.
Existing law, known as the Donahoe Higher Education Act, sets
forth, among other things, the missions and functions of California's
public and independent segments of higher education, and their
respective institutions of higher education, in the context of the
goals of the Master Plan for Higher Education in California. Among
other things, the act expresses legislative intent that the fixed
master plan approach in the development of public postsecondary
education be replaced by a continuous planning process that includes
prescribed elements.
This bill would add a needs-based assessment conducted by
the Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education to the
list of prescribed elements the report of the Joint
Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education to the
Donahoe Higher Education Act. The bill would add the findings and
recommendations of the joint committee with respect to a higher
education policy framework, universal access to higher education,
affordability of higher education, fiscal and programmatic
accountability of higher education, coordination and articulation of
higher education, and financing of higher education .
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes
no . State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares
that, in its report entitled "Appreciating Our Past, Ensuring Our
Future: A Public Agenda for Public Higher Education in California,"
the Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education made all
of the following findings:
(a) Our review marks the 50th anniversary of California's Master
Plan for Higher Education. We convened in large measure because of
the widespread concern that our system of public higher education is
now at risk.
(b) The Master Plan was, and remains, a comprehensive policy
framework. Upon its advent and in the decades following, it signaled
an unparalleled commitment to higher education of unrivaled size and
scale. Through planned and coordinated growth, it mandated the
pioneering principles of universal opportunity and universal access.
(c) In our estimation, nothing has been more responsible over the
past several decades for the quality of life in California and for
California's economic prosperity than our system of higher education.
(d) During our comprehensive hearings, there have been no experts
to argue that California's economy and social fabric can now benefit
from a contraction of either educational opportunities or educated
people. Indeed, our systematic review of higher education, with broad
public and stakeholder testimony, confirms that California's future
depends on an even more effectively educated people. Private
investment and growth are dependent upon an ever expanding number of
women and men ably prepared to contribute and compete in the global
marketplace, adding value through their superior knowledge,
imagination, and skill.
(e) In light of this challenge, this committee now reaffirms the
essential tenets of the Master Plan: universal access, affordability
and high quality.
(f) However, we also believe that the Master Plan must be regarded
as a living document. In many ways, California has transformed since
the inception of the Master Plan. Therefore, in order for our state
and people to meet the challenges of the twenty first century, we
will need the vision and courage to ensure our system of higher
education adapts when necessary to meet the demands of the new
century and the needs of the society that sustains it.
(g) Our hearings have demonstrated that, after five decades of
success, our system of higher education is now threatened. The system
will not continue to be effective automatically. It requires our
attention and support.
(h) After objective and close scrutiny, we assert that the
findings set forth in Chapter 3.3 (commencing with Section 66125) of
Part 40 of Division 5 of Title 3 of the Education Code, accurately
describe what our people and state require from our public system of
higher education to ensure California's success in the coming
decades.
SEC. 2. Chapter 3.3 (commencing with Section
66125) is added to Part 40 of Division 5 of Title 3 of the
Education Code , to read:
CHAPTER 3.3. JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE MASTER PLAN FOR HIGHER
EDUCATION
Article 1. An Overarching Policy Framework
66125. A system to provide clear, concise statewide goals or
outcomes for California higher education attuned to the public
interest of the people and State of California:
(a) The State of California has no articulated, comprehensive
statement of goals for California's system of higher education. The
Master Plan articulates values but not a set of public policy goals
based upon the outcomes required to meet the needs of our state and
our people. The lack of such goals makes it difficult to develop
systems of criteria for advancement or systems of accountability.
(b) Statewide goals, including the workforce needs of the state,
are essential for the effective functioning of our system of public
higher education, to adequately complement the work of institutions
comprising the fourth segment which includes private colleges and
universities.
Article 2. Universal Access
66128. Our need for higher education that is accessible to all
eligible California students:
(a) In order for California to compete in a global marketplace,
replace the baby boomer generation, and ensure a cohesive and
democratic multicultural society, the state must continue to support
the unique genius of California's original 1960 Master Plan for
Higher Education, namely its commitment to universal access for every
qualified student. This access provided our state and people the
distinction that enabled us to become the world leader in higher
education.
(b) Given the economic needs of our state and the labor-market
needs of our economy, open access gives us the greatest possibility
of meeting those long-term needs. In addition, in a state as diverse
as California, the maintenance of this promise gives hope to all
Californians who wish to attain a higher education. This hope is
essential to our success and cohesion as a people.
Article 3. Affordability
66130. Our need for higher education that is affordable to our
California students:
(a) Affordability must be established within a clearly articulated
and agreed upon framework of shared cost, between the student who
benefits directly from a quality education and the public, for whom
the student's education is an investment for the public good. As a
practical matter in the real world, the absence of affordability
makes the achievement of universal access an impossible dream.
(b) Our need is to take into consideration the entirety of the
costs accruing to students and their families with regard to
participating in higher education, the manner in which we recognize
and balance the individual private and the overall social benefits of
higher education, and the extent to which we are willing to subject
our students to a future burdened by large loan debt.
66131. Our need for a financial aid strategy that meets our
goals:
California should adopt clear metrics for measuring whether our
goals are achieved by our financial aid policies. In designing those
financial aid policies, we should evaluate the use of incentives that
can help us reach our desired outcomes.
Article 4. Accountability--Both Fiscal and Programmatic
66133. The establishment of statewide goals for California higher
education attuned to the public interest of the people and State of
California will enable increased accountability across and within
systems. Such increased accountability, with increased efficiencies,
must be both fiscal and programmatic.
66134. Our need for a new focus on completion and results:
It is no longer sufficient for our primary focus to be upon
getting our students into our system of higher education. Our systems
must lead our students systematically and readily to complete their
courses of study in a timely manner. Best estimates show that, unless
we improve our outcomes, by 2025 we will fall over one million
postsecondary degrees short of the number needed for a robust economy
in a global marketplace.
66135. Our need for simultaneous commitment to quality higher
education, to maintain California's distinction and our capacity to
keep California competitive in our now globalized economy:
(a) The pledge of California's original Master Plan for Higher
Education included, along with universal access and affordability,
the assurance of quality.
(b) Quality will be required in order for California to provide
higher education that will serve to keep California competitive in
our global economy, especially because of the tripling now by both
our global competitors, India and the People's Republic of China, of
the annual number of Ph.D.s in science and technology above those
produced by the entire United States.
(c) In this regard, it is essential that the dimension of "quality"
be examined and articulated, especially according to the definition
of quality as "those capacities and skills that are essential for
preparing Californians to live and work constructively in this 21st
century."
66136. Our need to close the achievement gap between advantaged
and disadvantaged students and communities:
Our need for an educated populace capable of filling the necessary
jobs to maintain a globally competitive economy requires education
of disadvantaged communities traditionally underserved. The system
must be accountable for closing the achievement gap in ways that do
not require or allow restricting access to disadvantaged communities.
66137. Our need for utilizing technology to meet our fiscal and
programmatic challenges:
As new technologies arise we must be flexible and open to new
methods of higher education delivery and to the use of data systems
that both provide information about outcomes and create efficiency in
operations.
66138. Our need for increased transparency:
Transparency must be increased as part of an accountability system
focused on meeting statewide goals. Transparency will help us find
the optimum balance between administrative costs, teaching costs, and
other expenses.
Article 5. Effective Coordination and Articulation
66140. Our need for coordination and efficiency in our delivery
of higher education with sufficient authority placed in a
coordinating body:
The State and people of California do not have unlimited resources
to fund our system of higher education. Hence, it is essential that
we have some designated agency with the role, responsibility, and
capacity for advising the Legislature and Governor, the segments of
higher education, and the California public with regard to essential
coordination and needed efficiency in our delivery of higher
education.
66141. Our need for an agreed-upon system of simple, ready
articulation, between our segments of higher education, grounded in a
transfer associate degree:
(a) The original California Master Plan for Higher Education
expected that our three public segments of California's higher
education would operate as a system, with prescribed differentiation
of functions, yet all collaborating to facilitate and ensure the
steady progress of each and every student from preparation through
accessibility onto completion.
(b) The State and people of California do not have the luxury of
expending resources and time in an unnecessarily complex system of
articulation among our segments of higher education. We need instead
for all stakeholders in our respective segments to come together and
adopt an agreed-upon, readily understood, and effective system of
articulation, namely a transfer associate degree.
(c) This student-centered approach will help students move more
quickly toward their goals.
66142. Our need for adequately preparing our students to
undertake higher education:
(a) While this dimension is primarily the responsibility of our
California K-12 schools, their well-being and success are
interdependent with our system of higher education, both in what
higher education demands in the way of preparation by our K-12
systems, and because our system of higher education prepares almost
all of the educators who will operate our systems of K-12 education.
(b) Hence, it is essential that our system of higher education pay
explicit attention to its roles and responsibilities as an effective
partner in adequate preparation of students for admission to, and
success in, higher education, and in the effective preparation of
teachers for our K-12 system.
66143. Our need for advancing career technical education, in both
K-12 and higher education:
The partnership between K-12 and higher education should include
advancement of rigorous career technical education in both K-12 and
community colleges, so that students who do not choose to seek a
four-year degree may have the benefits of productive careers, helping
eliminate the stigma often attached to those not seeking a four-year
degree or graduate study.
Article 6. Sufficient Financing
66145. The test of our goals, aspirations, commitment, and of our
capacity to ensure the future well-being of the State and people of
California is to be found in the arena of funding, and whether and
how we in the Legislature, together with the Governor and the people
of California, prove willing and able to provide the funding
essential to meeting the needs of the California system of higher
education.
66146. Our need to establish and articulate the nexus between
public investment and public benefit:
California needs a sound financing mechanism aligned with
statewide goals to ensure that our state's needs are met. In
determining the funding commitment, a clear nexus must be established
between public financing and the economic benefits to the state, so
that both the level of public investment and the return on that
investment are articulated and verifiable.
Article 7. Moving Forward
66150. Our need for the support of the people of California for
our committee's Public Agenda for Public Higher Education:
It is essential, as we complete our work and file our report with
its findings and recommendations with respect to the future of
California higher education, and do our very best to shepherd our
recommendations into enactment and successful implementation, that we
recognize the importance of a comprehensive strategic action plan
for enlisting the active and ardent commitment and support of the
people of California. Toward that end, our public agenda for higher
education must clearly articulate the correlation between public
investment and public benefit.
SECTION 1. Section 66012 of the Education Code
is amended to read:
66012. It is the intent of the Legislature that the fixed master
plan approach in the development of public postsecondary education be
replaced by a continuous planning process that includes:
(a) A legislative study of California postsecondary education at
10-year intervals to reevaluate the planning process and provide
guidelines regarding goals, societal needs, and general missions of
public higher education and its components.
(b) Continuous planning by a state commission including a
five-year plan that is to be updated annually.
(c) A needs-based assessment conducted by the Joint Committee on
the Master Plan for Higher Education.