BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Gloria Romero, Chair 2009-2010 Regular Session BILL NO: AB 1901 AUTHOR: Ruskin AMENDED: June 23, 2010 FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: June 30, 2010 URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Kathleen Chavira SUBJECT : California Master Plan for Higher Education KEY POLICY ISSUE Do the findings in the report of the Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education reflect the Legislature's intent regarding the needs of the state and its people from the public system of higher education? SUMMARY This bill codifies the findings and principles that emerged from the 2010 Review of the Master Plan for Higher Education and declares the Legislature's intent to outline in statute the clear, concise statewide goals and outcomes for effective implementation of the Master Plan for Higher Education, the expectation of the higher education system as a whole to be accountable for attaining those goals. BACKGROUND Current law establishes the Donahoe Higher Education Act which outlines the laws under which postsecondary educational institutions operate in California. (Education Code Title 3, Division 5, Part 40) Within the Donahoe Act, current law establishes findings and declarations based on the periodic review of the Master Plan by the Legislature and declares the intent of the Legislature to statutorily outline broad policy and programmatic goals of the Master Plan which the higher education segments are responsible for attaining. Current AB 1901 Page 2 law also declares the intent that the governing boards be given ample discretion in implementing policies and programs to attain those goals. (EC 66002, 66003) ANALYSIS This bill : 1) Acknowledges the findings of the 2010 Committee for the Review of the Master Plan that the Master Plan is a living document, reaffirms the essential tenets of universal access, affordability and high quality, and identifies the need for an overarching policy framework of statewide public policy goals based upon outcomes, increased fiscal and programmatic accountability and more effective coordination and articulation. 2) Makes a number of related findings including: a) That as we continue to experience unprecedented growth and extraordinary social and economic changes in the 21st century the ability of the state's public higher education system to carry out the master plan is at risk. b) That California requires a higher education system that meets 21st century needs which include: i) A system to provide statewide goals for higher education attuned to the public interest of the people and State that will enable increased fiscal and programmatic accountability, across and within systems. ii) Affordability, with shared cost between the students who benefit directly and the public, for whom the student's education is an investment for the public good. iii) Clear metrics for measuring AB 1901 Page 3 whether affordability is achieved by financial aid policies. iv) A new focus on completion and results. v) Simultaneous commitment to high-quality higher education. vi) Coordination and efficiency in the delivery of higher education with a coordinating board that has sufficient authority, and creation of a system of articulation across segments grounded in a transfer associate degree. vii) Closure of the achievement gap without diminishing access. viii) Utilization of technology to meet fiscal and programmatic changes. ix) Increased transparency as part of an accountability system focused upon meeting statewide goals. x) The advancement of career technical education in both K-12 and higher education. xi) Establishing and articulating the nexus between public financing and the economic benefit to the state. xii) The support of the people of California. 3) Declares the Legislature's intent: a) That the work completed by Master Plan review committees be used to guide higher education policy. b) To outline in statute the clear, concise AB 1901 Page 4 statewide goals and outcomes for effective implementation of the master plan for higher education, and the expectation that the higher education system as a whole be accountable for attaining those goals STAFF COMMENTS 1) Origin of the bill . ACR 65 (Ruskin, Resolution Chapter 106, Statutes of 2009) created a joint committee to review the Master Plan for Higher Education. The Committee held several informational hearings and convened working groups to identify potential legislative solutions to issues raised in these hearings. This bill updates the Legislature's findings and intent for the Donahoe Higher Education Act to reflect the work of the 2010 Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education. 2) Less is more . Notwithstanding the thoughtful deliberation of the Joint Committee, unlike prior reviews of the Master Plan that have been acknowledged in statute, this bill much more extensively codifies the findings contained in the final report of the 2010 Committee. The work of prior committee reviews have been summarized in a single paragraph. Staff recommends the bill be amended to delete lines 28-39 on page 4, to delete page 5, and to delete lines 1-4 on page 6, to ensure that the work of the Master Plan review committee is acknowledged in a manner consistent with prior Master Plan reviews. 3) Master Plan for Higher Education . The original Master Plan was approved in principle by the Regents and the State Board of Education (which at that time governed the CSU and the Community Colleges) on December 18, 1959 and was submitted to the Legislature in February 1960. A special session of the 1960 Legislature passed the Donahoe Higher Education Act, which included many of the Master Plan recommendations. For various reasons, many of the key aspects of the Master Plan were never enacted into law although agreed to by the public higher education AB 1901 Page 5 segments and the State. Key elements of the original Master Plan included the differentiation of mission and functions of the State's three public postsecondary education segments, its differentiation of their admissions pools, its affirmation of California's commitment to the principle of tuition-free education to residents of the State and the need for a statutory coordinating body for the public segments of higher education. Reviews of the Master Plan have been conducted by the Legislature (and occasionally by blue-ribbon commissions) about once a decade since the 1970s. Major legislative reviews of the Master Plan were conducted in the early 1970s and the late 1980s. A more recent legislative review of the Master Plan, encompassing both K-12 and higher education (as well as Pre-K education), began in 1999 and recommendations were adopted in 2002. SUPPORT California Postsecondary Education Commission OPPOSITION None received.