BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 721
AUTHOR: Lowenthal
AMENDED: January 4, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: January 11,
2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Postsecondary Education Statewide Goals.
SUMMARY
This bill establishes statewide goals for guiding budget
and policy decisions in higher education, requires that the
Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) convene a working group,
as specified, to develop and recommend specific metrics for
measuring progress toward these goals, and requires the
LAO, beginning in 2014 and as part of the annual budget
process, to annually report on and present an assessment of
progress toward the statewide goals and recommendations for
Legislative action.
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 for Higher Education by the Legislature. Current law
declares the intent of the Legislature 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 of California, and
to expect the system as a whole and the higher education
segments to be accountable for attaining those goals.
Consistent with the spirit of the original master plan and
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
SB 721
Page 2
those goals. (Education Code § 66003)
ANALYSIS
This bill establishes statewide goals for guiding budget
and policy decisions in higher education. More
specifically it:
1) Outlines the following three goals for guiding budget
and policy decisions in higher education:
a) Improved student success, to
include, but not be limited to, greater
participation by demographic groups that have
participated at lower rates, greater completion
by all students and improved outcomes for
graduates.
b) Better alignment of degrees and
credentials awarded with the state's workforce
and civic needs.
c) Increased efficiency so that
desired postsecondary education outcomes can be
achieved within a given resource level while
maintaining high quality.
2) Requires that metrics toward these goals be developed
with the assistance of a working group to be convened
by the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO). In addition
it:
a) Outlines the make-up of the
working group to include postsecondary education
segment representatives, the Department of
Finance (DOF), 1-3 members with expertise in
state accountability who are unaffiliated with
any of the segments of higher education, other
relevant state agency representatives, as
identified by the LAO.
b) Requires the working group to
develop at least 6 and no more than 12 measures
derived from publicly available data sources and
requires that these measures be able to be
disaggregated and reported by gender,
SB 721
Page 3
race/ethnicity, income, age group, and
full-time/part-time enrollment, where appropriate
and applicable.
c) Requires the LAO, in consultation
with DOF, to submit a report on the recommended
metrics to be collected and reported to
legislative policy and budget committees and the
Governor by January 31, 2013.
3) Requires the LAO:
a) Beginning September 30, 2013, to
annually and publicly report statewide
performance on each of the measures adopted by
the Legislature.
b) Beginning January 2014, to
annually report and present, as part of the
budget hearing process, its own assessment of
progress toward the statewide goals and
recommendations for legislative action.
Specifically, it requires the LAO to:
i) Assess the level of
progress and outcomes achieved.
ii) Identify significant factors that
may explain the level of progress/outcomes.
iii) Identify higher education policy
and funding issues suggested by the measures
for consideration by the Governor and
Legislature.
4) Defines the segments of postsecondary education, for
purposes of the bill, to include the California
Community Colleges, the California State University,
the University of California, the independent colleges
and universities, and proprietary postsecondary
institutions.
5) Declares the Legislature's intent to:
a) Identify, define and formally
adopt appropriate metrics, based upon the LAO
SB 721
Page 4
recommendations, to be used for the purpose of
monitoring progress toward the state goals.
b) Promote progress toward the goals
through budget and policy decisions within higher
education.
c) Use the reporting system
established per the bill's provisions to help
ensure the effective and efficient use of
whatever funding is provided to higher education.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) History/Need for the bill . In 2002, the Senate
commissioned a study of national trends in higher
education accountability. The resulting report, An
Accountability Framework for California Higher
Education: Informing Public Policy and Improving
Outcome, provided the initial framework for developing
an integrated system of accountability for higher
education in California and was the basis for several
legislative efforts to implement such a framework from
2004 to 2011 (See staff comment # 7).
On January 31, 2007, the Senate Education Committee
held an informational hearing on Higher Education
Accountability. National experts testified on trends
in higher education accountability as well as
California's specific challenges in meeting the
educational and economic needs of its citizenry. It
was noted that while each public segment of higher
education in California participates in
system-specific accountability efforts, there is a
lack of meaningful data and analysis to guide fiscal
and policy decisions and to assess the collective
progress of the state's system of postsecondary
education in meeting the state's educational and
economic needs.
In its 2010 publication, The Master Plan at 50:
Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts-Coordinating Higher
Education in California, the LAO recommended, among
other things, that the Legislature work with the
administration and others to adopt a clear public
SB 721
Page 5
agenda for higher education, with specific and focused
statewide goals that could serve as the framework for
an accountability system designed to align higher
education performance with the state's needs.
According to the LAO, California, which set the gold
standard for higher education planning in 1960, now
stands alone among sizeable states in its lack of
established goals, a statewide plan, and an
accountability system for higher education.
2) Consistent with most recent LAO recommendations . On
January 6, 2012, the LAO issued a report, Improving
Higher Education Oversight, in response to budget
supplemental report language requested by the
Legislature as a result of the Governor's proposal,
and subsequent action, to eliminate funding for the
California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC).
In its report, the LAO notes the need to protect the
public interest, as insufficient oversight could allow
state priorities to be subordinated to those of the
institutions and other interests, and cites as its
foremost recommendation, that the Legislature
articulate the state's postsecondary education needs
through the setting of specific goals or
identification of key areas or outcomes of interest to
the state. In addition, the report recommends that
the Legislature delegate technical decisions about
specific measures and reporting protocols to a
technical working group with representatives from the
administration, legislative staff, the segments, and
independent researchers with experience in higher
education performance measurements. The provisions of
this bill are consistent with these recommendations.
3) Related budget proposal . Previously, the UC and CSU
have entered into system-specific "compacts" and then
"partnerships" with California's Governors in an
effort to ensure stable multi-year funding in exchange
for a commitment to deliver on specific performance
measures. While the budget process, arguably, allows
for legislative input into these
"compacts/partnerships", staff notes that these
agreements were developed independent of the
Legislature.
The Governor's proposed 2012 Budget notes that one
SB 721
Page 6
significant component of the administration's
long-term plan for higher education involves annual
General Fund augmentations contingent upon each
institution achieving the administration's priorities,
including improvements in specific accountability
metrics, such as graduation rates, time to completion,
transfer students enrolled, faculty workload, and, for
community colleges, successful credit and basic skills
course completion. Consistent with this objective,
this bill proposes statewide goals, to be adopted by
the Legislature and endorsed by the Governor, and
creates a process whereby the Legislature and the
administration can collaboratively identify the
specific metrics to assess progress towards priorities
for higher education.
4) Parallel national efforts . There has been a growing
trend toward state accountability systems for higher
education using different approaches and indicators.
Nearly all states (including Tennessee, Texas,
Illinois, Ohio, Florida and Washington) have some form
of mandated statewide accountability program for
higher education that include goals, performance
measures, and various degrees of performance funding.
In addition, the National Governors Association (NGA),
a bipartisan organization of the nation's governors
that identifies priority issues and deals collectively
with matters of public policy and governance at the
state and national levels recently adopted its
Complete to Compete Initiative under which the NGA
proposes to:
Raise national awareness of the need to
increase college completion and productivity.
Create a set of common higher education
completion and productivity measures for
governors to use to monitor state progress.
Develop a series of best practices and a
list of policy actions governors can take to
achieve increased college completion.
Provide grants to states to design
SB 721
Page 7
policies and programs that increase college
completion and improve higher education
productivity.
1) Related Master Plan review findings . The original
Master Plan for Higher Education 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 segments and the State.
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 expansive legislative review of the Master Plan,
encompassing K-12 and higher education (as well as
Pre-K education), began in 1999 and recommendations
were adopted in 2002. Most recently, 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. As reflected in ACR 184 (Ruskin,
Chapter 163, Statutes of 2010) the review resulted in
the following related findings:
o There is no articulated, comprehensive
statement of goals for California's system of
higher education.
o 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.
o The lack of goals makes it difficult to
develop sound systems of criteria for advancement
SB 721
Page 8
or clear systems of accountability.
o 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 the
entire system and within segments.
1) System level activity/efforts . Each of the segments
has undertaken efforts to ensure its ability to meet
future student and state needs.
In 2010, the UC Regents adopted a report
by its Commission on the Future to address how UC
can maintain access, quality and affordability in
a time of diminishing resources.
In 2009, CSU adopted a ten-year strategic
plan, Access to Excellence, that identifies
priorities for attention for policy-makers and
the broad public in order to meet California's
educational needs.
The Commission on the Future of the
Community College League of California issued its
2020 Vision for Student Success in 2010. The CCC
Board of Governors, pursuant to SB 1143 (Liu,
Chapter 409, Statutes of 2010), is currently
reviewing the recommendations of the Task Force
for Student Success for potential adoption by the
Board. Both of these are efforts to identify
policy, statutory, and regulatory changes that
can promote the success of California's community
college students.
While consistent with the segmental accountability
approach which California has traditionally relied
upon, these efforts do not combine to measure how
California's students perform as a whole nor do they
reflect a statewide approach to higher education
policy planning.
1) Prior legislation . As noted in staff comment #1, this
bill reflects the most recent evolution of several
legislative efforts to highlight the need for and
develop an integrated system of accountability for
SB 721
Page 9
higher education in California. Related legislative
efforts include the following:
AB 1901 (Ruskin, Chapter 201, Statutes of 2010)
codified the findings and principles that emerged from
the 2010 Review of the Master Plan for Higher
Education and declared the Legislature's intent to
statutorily outline clear, concise, statewide goals
and outcomes for effective implementation of the
Master Plan for Higher Education and the expectation
of the higher education system as a whole to be
accountable for attaining those goals.
AB 2 (Portantino, 2011) and AB 218 (Portantino, 2009),
essentially identical bills, required that the state
establish an accountability framework to biennially
assess and report on the collective progress of the
state's system of postsecondary education in meeting
specified educational and economic goals. Both bills
were heard and passed by this committee and were
subsequently held under submission in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
SB 325 (Scott), also nearly identical to AB 2 and AB
218, was passed by the Legislature and vetoed by the
Governor in 2008. The Governor's veto message read:
While I respect the author's intent to establish
a statewide system of accountability for
postsecondary education and a framework to assess
the collective contribution of California's
institutions of higher education toward meeting
statewide economic and educational goals, this
bill falls short in providing any framework for
incentives or consequences that would modify
behavior to meet any policy objectives. I
believe our public education systems should be
held accountable for achieving results, including
our higher education segments, and would consider
a measure in the future that provides adequate
mechanisms that will effectuate tangible gains in
student outcomes and operational efficiencies.
SB 1331 (Alpert) passed by the Legislature and vetoed
by the Governor in 2004, would have established a
California Postsecondary Education Accountability
SB 721
Page 10
(CPSEA) structure to provide an annual assessment of
how the state is meeting identified statewide public
policy goals in higher education. The Governor's veto
message read in pertinent part:
While I favor accountability for all levels of
education, this bill mainly establishes only a
reporting structure for four broad policy goals
rather than providing for outcomes, such as
performance based measures, historically
associated with accountability systems.
SUPPORT
None received on this version.
OPPOSITION
None received.