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.