BILL NUMBER: AB 1901 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 23, 2010
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2010
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 5, 2010
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Ruskin
( Coauthors: Assembly Members
Block, Carter, Furutani, and
Portantino )
( Coauthors: Senators
Hancock, Negrete McLeod, and Padilla
)
FEBRUARY 16, 2010
An act to add Chapter 3.3 (commencing with Section 66125)
to Part 40 of Division 5 of Title 3 amend Sections
66002 and 66003 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 to outline in statute the broad
policy and programmatic goals of the master plan and to expect the
higher education segments to be accountable for attaining those
goals. The act also expresses legislative intent that the governing
boards be given ample discretion in implementing policies
and programs necessary to attain those goals .
This bill would add reference the
report of the Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education
to in 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 to the act a list of the
Legislature's findings relating to the 21st century needs of the
state's system of higher education. The bill would also add to the
act legislative intent that the master plan review committees be used
to guide higher education policy. The bill would further add to the
act legislative intent to outline in statute clear, concise statewide
goals and outcomes for effective implementation of the master plan,
attuned to the public interest of the people and state .
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 66002 of the
Education Code is amended to read:
66002. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The Master Plan for Higher Education in California, 1960-75,
was originally prepared in 1959, and its recommendations were
approved in principle by the affected governing boards of the higher
education segments. Subsequently, legislation necessary to implement
certain of the master plan's provisions was enacted, including this
part. A need to differentiate the functions of the segments of higher
education and rapidly increasing enrollments were primary factors
that motivated the creation of the master plan.
(b) Pursuant to Resolution Chapter 285 of the Statutes of 1970,
and Resolution Chapter 232 of the Statutes of 1971, a joint committee
of the Legislature issued its report in 1973, entitled "Report of
the Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education," which
reaffirmed the principles of the original master plan and emphasized
a need for the segments of higher education to improve access and
educational equity, coordination and planning, governance, and
diversity within the entire system. As in the 1960's, legislation
necessary to implement certain of the joint committee's
recommendations was enacted, largely through amendments to this part.
(c) (1) Pursuant to Chapter 1507 of the
Statutes of 1984, the Commission for the Review of the Master Plan
for Higher Education conducted public hearings and deliberations; in
1987, it issued its report and recommendations, "The Master Plan
Renewed: Unity, Equity, Quality, and Efficiency in California
Postsecondary Education."
Building
(2) Building on this report and
two more years of public dialogue pursuant to Resolution Chapter 175
of the Statutes of 1984, the Joint Committee for the Review of the
Master Plan for Higher Education adopted a comprehensive report in
1989, entitled "California Faces. . .California's Future: Education
for Citizenship in a Multicultural Democracy," that affirms the
achievements and the basic structure of the 1960 Master Plan for
Higher Education and identifies new challenges for California's
institutions of higher education.
(d) Pursuant to Resolution Chapter 106 of the Statutes of 2009
(A.C.R. 65), the Committee for the Review of the Master Plan for
Higher Education conducted a needs-based assessment comprised of
public hearings and deliberations to understand the needs of our
state and our people and how our system of higher education can best
meet those needs and issued a report titled, "Appreciating Our Past,
Ensuring Our Future: A Public Agenda for Public Higher Education in
California," viewing the master plan as a living document,
reaffirming the essential tenets of the master plan of universal
access, affordability and high quality, and identifying the need for
an overarching policy framework of statewide public policy goals
based upon the outcomes required, increased accountability both
fiscal and programmatic, and more effective coordination and
articulation.
(d)
(e) California faces in the
21st century continues experiencing a period of unprecedented
population growth and extraordinary social and economic changes
as the 21st century approaches and the state's colleges and
universities face tremendous educational challenges while at or near
their enrollment capacities while the ability of our
state's public system of higher education to carry out the master
plan is at risk .
(e)
(f) In the spirit of the original master plan and the
two subsequent reviews conducted in the
1970's and 1980's , the Legislature finds and declares
all of the following:
(1) California is on has now passed
the threshold of becoming a state with a new multicultural majority
as the ethnic composition of the population is changing dramatically.
The Our state's future economic,
social, and cultural development depends upon ensuring that all its
citizens have opportunities to develop themselves so that they
can contribute their best to society.
(2) Current estimates indicate that California will need to
accommodate hundreds of thousands of prepare
more than one million additional students
graduates by the year 2005 2025
in public higher education institutions to meet our
workforce needs . California needs to prepare now for the
projected enrollments in the 21st century. And, if the goals of the
master plan and its subsequent updates are to be fully achieved,
especially if groups that are historically and currently
underrepresented increase their rates of participation in higher
education, enrollments will most likely exceed even these
projections.
(3) California must support an educational system which
that prepares all Californians for responsible
citizenship and meaningful careers in a multicultural society; this
requires a commitment from all to make quality
high-quality education available and affordable for every
Californian.
(4) To make these aspirations attainable, California requires a
system of higher education that meets 21st century needs. These needs
include all of the following:
(A) A system to provide statewide goals for California higher
education attuned to the public interest of the people and State of
California that will enable increased accountability across and
within systems. This increased accountability, with increased
efficiencies, must be both fiscal and programmatic.
(B) Affordability established within a clearly articulated and
agreed upon framework of shared cost, between the student who
benefits directly from a high-quality education and the public, for
whom the student's education is an investment for the public good.
(C) Clear metrics for measuring whether our affordability goals
are achieved by our financial aid policies.
(D) A new focus on completion and results so that our systems lead
our students toward readily completing their courses of study in a
timely manner.
(E) Simultaneous commitment to high-quality higher education, to
maintain California's distinction, and our capacity to keep
California competitive in our now globalized economy; with the
dimension of quality aligned for living and working constructively in
the 21st century.
(F) Coordination and efficiency in our delivery of higher
education, with sufficient authority placed in a coordinating body.
We must create an agreed-upon system of simple, ready articulation
between our segments of higher education, grounded in a transfer
associate degree.
(G) Closing the achievement gap between advantaged and
disadvantaged students and communities without diminishing access.
(H) 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.
(I) Increased transparency as part of an accountability system
focused on meeting statewide goals and attaining the optimum balance
between administrative and teaching costs.
(J) Advancing career technical education, in both K-12 and higher
education, and eliminating the stigma often attached to those not
seeking a four-year degree or graduate study.
(K) Establishing and articulating the nexus 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. The test of our goals, aspirations,
commitment, and of our capacity to ensure the future well-being of
the people and State of California is to be found in the arena of
funding, and whether and how we in the California Legislature,
together with the Governor and the people of California, prove
willing and able to invest the funding essential to meet the needs of
the California system of higher education.
(L) The support of the people of California. It is essential 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.
(4)
(5) To accomplish these goals, California's system of
higher education will need to expand.
(6) It is the intent of the Legislature that the work completed by
the master plan review committees be used to guide higher education
policy.
SEC. 2. Section 66003 of the Education
Code is amended to read:
66003. It is the intent of the Legislature to outline in statute
the broad policy and programmatic goals of the master plan and
clear, concise statewide goals and outcomes for effective
implementation of the master plan, attuned to the public interest of
the people and State of California, and to expect the
system as a whole and the higher education segments to be
accountable for attaining those goals. However, consistent with the
spirit of the original master plan and the subsequent updates, it is
the intent of the Legislature that the governing boards be given
ample discretion in implementing policies and programs necessary to
attain those goals. All matter omitted in this version of the bill
appears in the bill as amended in the Assembly, May 20, 2010. (JR11)