BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                            



           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                        SB 195|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           
                                           
                                    THIRD READING


          Bill No:  SB 195
          Author:   Liu (D)
          Amended:  5/24/13
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE  :  8-1, 4/17/13
          AYES:  Liu, Wyland, Block, Correa, Hancock, Hueso, Jackson,  
            Monning
          NOES:  Huff

          SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  6-1, 5/23/13
          AYES:  De León, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
          NOES:  Walters


           SUBJECT :    Postsecondary Education Statewide Goals

           SOURCE  :     Author


           DIGEST  :    This bill establishes statewide goals for guiding  
          budget and policy decisions in higher education, requires an  
          appropriate educational administrative body, determined by the  
          Governor, to convene a working group, as specified, to develop  
          and recommend specific metrics for measuring progress toward  
          these goals, and requires the administrative body to report its  
          recommendations for statewide metrics to the appropriate  
          legislative policy and fiscal committees, and the Governor, by  
          January 31, 2014.

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law establishes the Donahoe Higher  
          Education Act which outlines the laws under which postsecondary  
                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     SB 195
                                                                     Page  
          2

          educational institutions operate in California. 

          Within the Donahoe Act, existing law establishes findings and  
          declarations based on the periodic review of the Master Plan for  
          Higher Education (Master Plan) by the Legislature.  Existing 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.  Additionally, consistent  
          with the spirit of the original master plan and subsequent  
          updates, existing law declares the intent of the Legislature  
          that the governing boards be given ample discretion in  
          implementing policies and programs necessary to attain those  
          goals. 

          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 economic, workforce and civic needs.

             C.    Effective and efficient use of resources in order to  
                increase high-quality postsecondary educational outcomes  
                and maintain affordability.  

          2. Requires that metrics to measure progress toward these goals  
             be developed with the assistance of a working group to be  
             convened by the administrative body determined by the  
             Governor as follows: 

             A.    Outlines the make-up of the working group to include  
                postsecondary education segment representatives, the  
                Department of Finance (DOF), one to three members with  
                expertise in state accountability who are unaffiliated  

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     SB 195
                                                                     Page  
          3

                with any of the segments of higher education, a  
                representative of the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO)  
                and other relevant state agency representatives. 

             B.    Requires the working group to develop at least six and  
                no more than 12 measures derived from publicly available  
                data sources that these measures be able to be  
                disaggregated and reported by gender, race/ethnicity,  
                income, age group, and full-time/part-time enrollment,  
                where appropriate and applicable, and that metrics take  
                into account the distinct missions of each postsecondary  
                segment.

             C.    Requires the metrics to be used for the purposes of the  
                annual reporting requirements for institutions that  
                participate in the Cal Grant program.

             D.    Requires the administrative body, in consultation with  
                DOF and the LAO, to submit the recommended metrics  
                developed by the working group to the appropriate  
                legislative policy and budget committees and the Governor  
                by January 31, 2014.

          3. 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. 

          4. Declares the Legislature's intent to:

             A.    Identify, define and formally adopt appropriate metrics  
                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 this bill's  
                provisions to help ensure the effective and efficient use  
                of state resources available to higher education.

           Comments
           

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     SB 195
                                                                     Page  
          4

          According to the Senate Education Committee:

           History/need for this bill  .   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 includes goals, performance  
          measures, and various degrees of performance funding.  

          In the past decade, the Senate has engaged in the following  
          activities relative to higher education accountability:

          1. 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.

          2. 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. 

          3. On March 20, 2013, the Senate Education Committee held an  
             informational hearing on Higher Education Accountability:   
             Statewide Goals and Metrics.  National experts testified  
             about various state efforts to implement goals and metrics;  
             using progress outcome, efficiency and effectiveness metrics  
             to measure performance; potential data sources, models for  
             implementation and oversight, and the roles of both the  
             Governor and Legislature in developing goals and metrics. 

          According to a 2010 LAO publication, "The Master Plan at 50:   
          Greater than the Sum of its Parts," 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.


                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     SB 195
                                                                     Page  
          5

           Prior Legislation
           
          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 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, would have 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 held under submission in the  
          Senate Appropriations Committee. 

          SB 325 (Scott, 2007), also nearly identical to AB 2 and AB 218,  
          was passed by the Legislature and vetoed by Governor  
          Schwarzenegger 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, 2004), passed by the Legislature and vetoed by  
          Governor Schwarzenegger in 2004, would have established a  
          California Postsecondary Education Accountability 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  

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     SB 195
                                                                     Page  
          6

          accountability systems."

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  No

          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the direct  
          fiscal impact of this bill is unknown, because this bill assigns  
          primary responsibility for its requirements to an appropriate  
          administrative body of the Governor's choosing. 

             Working group:  Participation by various entities will  
             likely result in minor workload increases.  Without knowing  
             what entity is ultimately responsible for the requirements of  
             this bill, convening the working group and reporting the  
             recommendations, it is impossible to determine direct costs  
             for the lead agency/entity. 

             Cost pressure:  Potentially substantial cost pressure, to  
             the extent the metrics change funding priorities.

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  5/24/13)

          Campaign for College Opportunity
          Valley Industry and Commerce Association

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  5/24/13)

          Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the Campaign for College  
          Opportunity, this bill establishes statewide goals for guiding  
          budget and policy decisions in higher education in California,  
          to be developed by a working group of state postsecondary  
          experts led by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research.   
          This bill tasks the workgroup to define and identify goals that  
          improve student access and success, better align degrees and  
          credentials with the state's needs, and ensure the effective and  
          efficient use of resources in order to increase high-quality  
          outcomes and maintain affordability.  As part of these goals,  
          the workgroup of the state's progress toward meeting each goal.   
          These metrics would be further disaggregated and reported by  
          gender, race or ethnicity, income, age group, and full-time or  
          part-time enrollment status in order to properly assess if  
          California is meeting the needs of the state.

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     SB 195
                                                                     Page  
          7


           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    Opponents argue regarding the  
          structure of the working group, which would be represented by  
          each of the four higher education institutions, and dedicates a  
          space for up to three representatives from outside of the field,  
          but does not include representatives from the faculty or student  
          organizations.  Leaving out the critical voice of the faculty  
          and students is akin to creating a working group on health care  
          reform that does not include patients or doctors; it completely  
          ignores the role of those who are teaching and those who are  
          learning yet would set goals and metrics without their  
          considerations.  
           

          PQ:k  5/25/13   Senate Floor Analyses 

                           SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                   ****  END  ****


























                                                                CONTINUED