BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 195
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 14, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Das Williams, Chair
SB 195 (Liu) - As Amended: May 24, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 30-8
SUBJECT : California postsecondary education: state goals.
SUMMARY : Requires the Governor to appoint an appropriate
educational administrative body to convene a working group to
identify outcome, progress and effectiveness metrics for
California's higher education segments, by January 31, 2014, and
declares Legislative intent that the metrics be periodically
reported and considered in order to inform policy and budgetary
decisions in California. Specifically, this bill :
1)Declares Legislative intent that budget and policy decisions
regarding postsecondary education generally adhere to goals of
improving access and success, better aligning degrees and
certificates with workforce and societal needs, and ensuring
effective and efficient use of resources.
2)Declares Legislative intent that metrics be identified,
defined and formally adopted, based upon the recommendations
of the working group established pursuant to this bill and
that:
a) The metrics take into account the distinct missions of
each of the postsecondary segments;
b) At least six and no more than 12 metrics be developed
that can be derived from publicly available data sources
for periodically assessing progress;
c) The metrics be disaggregated and reported by gender,
race or ethnicity, income, age group, and full-time or
part-time enrollment status, where appropriate and
applicable; and
d) The metrics be used for purposes of Cal Grant reporting
by participating institutions.
3)Declares Legislative intent to promote progress on statewide
SB 195
Page 2
educational and economic policy goals through budget and
policy decisions regarding postsecondary education and that
the metrics be reported and considered as part of the annual
State Budget process.
4)Requires the Governor to appoint an appropriate educational
administrative body to convene a working group to assist with
the development of the aforementioned metrics, and requires
the working group to include:
a) One representative from each of the postsecondary
education segments and a representative of the State
Department of Education. Specifies that the representative
of the independent institutions of higher education shall
be from the organization representing the largest number of
independent institutions. Specifies that the
representative of the private postsecondary educational
institutions shall be the Chief of the Bureau for Private
Postsecondary Education, or the chief's designee.
b) One representative of the Department of Finance.
c) At least one member, but no more than three members,
with expertise in similar state accountability efforts, who
is not a regular employee of a postsecondary education
segment.
d) A representative of the Legislative Analyst's Office.
5)Requires the working group to develop and identify outcome
metrics, progress metrics, and efficiency and effectiveness
metrics. At a minimum, the working group must ensure that the
metrics provide a means of measuring performance and
improvement in the following areas:
a) Graduation rates.
b) Transfer rates.
c) The number of graduates.
d) The number of transfers.
e) Degree completion of all students.
SB 195
Page 3
f) Degree completion of low income students.
g) Enrollment and success in, and beyond, remedial
instruction.
h) Retention rates.
i) Course completions.
j) Total funding per degree or certificate.
aa) Degree production relative to the state's workforce and
economic needs.
6)Authorizes the appropriate educational administrative body, as
determined by the Governor, to request input from any agency
that maintains data that would be helpful in developing the
metrics and assessing progress toward achieving the
aforementioned goals.
7)Requires the appropriate educational administrative body, as
determined by the Governor, in consultation with the
Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst's Office, to
submit recommended metrics to the appropriate policy
committees of the Legislature, the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee, and the Governor on or before January 31, 2014.
EXISTING LAW pursuant to the 2013-14 Budget Act trailer bill
language contained in AB 94 (Chapter 50, Statutes of 2013)
requires, commencing with the 2013-14 academic year, the
California State University (CSU) and the University of
California (UC) to report by March 1 of each year, on the
following performance measures, for the purpose of informing
budget and policy decisions and promoting the effective and
efficient use of available resources:
1)The number of transfer students enrolled annually from the
California Community Colleges (CCC), and the percentage of
transfer students as a proportion of the total undergraduate
student population.
2)The number of low-income students enrolled annually and the
percentage of low-income students as a proportion of the total
student population.
3)The systemwide four-year and six-year graduation rates for
SB 195
Page 4
each cohort of students and, separately, for low-income
students.
4)The systemwide two-year and three-year transfer graduation
rates for each cohort of students and, separately, for each
cohort of low-income students.
5)The number of degree completions annually, in total and
separately for freshman entrants, transfer students, graduate
students, and low-income students.
6)The percentage of first-year undergraduates who have earned
sufficient course credits by the end of their first year of
enrollment to indicate they will complete a degree in four
years.
7)For all students, the total amount of funds received from
State General Fund, systemwide tuition and fees, and
nonresident tuition and fees and other student fees for the
year, divided by the number of degrees awarded that same year.
8)For undergraduate students, the total amount of funds received
from State General Fund, systemwide tuition and fees, and
nonresident tuition and fees and other student fees for the
year expended for undergraduate education, divided by the
number of undergraduate degrees awarded that same year.
9)The average number of course credits accumulated by students
at the time they complete their degrees, disaggregated by
freshman entrants and transfers.
10)The number of degree completions in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, disaggregated by
undergraduate students, graduate students, and low-income
students.
FISCAL EFFECT : 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. Participation by various entities in the
working group will likely result in minor workload increases.
Potentially substantial cost pressure, to the extent the metrics
change funding priorities.
SB 195
Page 5
COMMENTS : Purpose of this bill . According to the Author, the
goals established by this legislation will be the basis for
establishing metrics and targets and for assessing progress in
meeting California's educational and workforce needs. The
Author notes that the current fiscal climate makes it especially
important that California be clear about priorities for the use
of the public funding provided to our institutions. According
to the Author, "If we are clear about the goals and the
measures, we can then be clearer about the budget and policy
decisions necessary to support our higher education system in
meeting our goals."
Background . The Legislature has been considering statewide
higher education goals for over a decade; beginning with a study
commissioned by the Senate in 2002 that served as the basis for
several legislative efforts (see Previous Legislation below).
As part of its recent reports on higher education oversight, the
LAO has recommended that the Legislature and the Administration
establish a clear public agenda for higher education, including
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. The most recent
Master Plan review, as reflected in ACR 184 (Ruskin), Chapter
163, Statues of 2010, noted the lack of public policy goals
based upon the outcomes required to meet California's needs and
found the establishment of statewide goals will enable increased
accountability across the entire higher education system and
within segments. Most recently, the 2013-14 Budget Act
education trailer bill requires CSU and UC to report annually on
specified performance measures, in order to inform budget and
policy decisions and promote effective and efficient use of
resources.
This bill expands upon the Budget Act requirements by
establishing a forum to review and improve upon these reported
elements, to include recommendations for CCC and private college
reporting and outcome measures, and to make recommendations for
ongoing evaluation of progress toward achieving outlined goals.
Appropriate educational administrative body . With the 2011
closure of the California Postsecondary Education Commission
(CPEC), California lacks a statewide higher education oversight
and coordination entity. The duties formerly carried out by
CPEC are either no longer being performed or have been
SB 195
Page 6
transferred to another agency; the federal Teacher Quality
Improvement grant program was transferred to the California
Department of Education (CDE) and data resources were
transferred to the California Community Colleges (CCC)
Chancellor's Office.
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has recommended the state
establish higher education oversight that enables policymakers
and others to monitor how efficiently and effectively the
postsecondary system is serving the state's needs.
Specifically, the LAO recommended the creation of a coordinating
body that would, among other responsibilities, define statewide
goals and establish a framework for accountability. AB 1348
(Pérez), which is pending in the Senate Education Committee,
would establish the California Higher Education Authority and
assign responsibility for higher education oversight and
coordination, including the establishment and monitoring of
higher education goals and outcomes.
This bill requires the Governor to appoint an appropriate
educational administrative body to convene the working group to
assist with the development of metrics.
In the absence of a clear appropriate educational administrative
body to convene the working group, as required under this
legislation, should this bill be amended to require the governor
to select a designee to convene the working group?
Outlined areas for measuring performance . This bill requires
the working group to establish between six and twelve metrics
that measure performance in, at least, eleven outlined areas
that cover various aspects of enrollment, retention, graduation,
transfer, course and degree completion, funding, and degree
production relative to workforce needs. Many of these outlined
areas are similar, but not identical, to the performance
measures required to be reported by CSU and UC pursuant to the
2013-14 Budget Act trailer bill language. Additionally, these
outlined areas do not include data elements currently required
to be reported by private postsecondary educational institutions
and some Cal Grant participating institutions, including
placement and salary of graduates.
Should this bill be amended to incorporate a review of the
performance measures required to be reported by CSU and UC
pursuant to the 2013-14 Budget Act trailer bill language?
SB 195
Page 7
Should this bill be amended to provide the working group
additional flexibility in determining metrics, and to include
the potential for discussions surrounding graduate outcome
performance measures such as placement and salaries?
Report date . This bill requires the working group to identify
metrics by January 31, 2014. If this bill is signed into law,
the bill would provide one month for (1) the Governor to appoint
an appropriate educational entity, (2) the educational entity to
convene the working group, and (3) the working group to complete
its research and provide its recommendations. Committee staff
understands that this date is a drafting error; the author
intended to provide the working group additional time to conduct
the required duties.
Should this bill be amended to provide the working group until
December 1, 2014 to complete its work?
Private postsecondary education segment . This bill establishes
the Chief of the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education
(Bureau) or the Chief's designee as the representative of the
private postsecondary educational institutions. It is important
to note that the Bureau is responsible for the oversight of
private postsecondary educational institutions; the Bureau chief
is the regulator, not a representative voice of the
institutional perspective. The Bureau's Advisory Committee,
however, is comprised of institutional representatives and
student advocates.
Should this bill be amended to require the Bureau Advisory
Committee to select an institutional representative of the
sector to serve on the working group?
Previous legislation . There have been numerous prior efforts to
establish a higher education accountability structure,
including:
SB 721 (Lowenthal, 2012), which was vetoed by the Governor,
established statewide goals for guiding budget and policy
decisions in higher education, required the Legislative
Analyst's Office to convene a working group to develop and
recommend specific metrics, and outlined an ongoing reporting
process on the progress toward statewide goals. The Governor's
veto message read, in part:
SB 195
Page 8
Questions about who should measure, what to measure and how
to measure what is learned in college are way too important
to be delegated to the Legislative Analyst.
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 held under submission in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
SB 325 (Scott, 2008), also nearly identical to AB 2 and AB 218,
was passed by the Legislature and vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger. 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, would have established a California
Postsecondary Education Accountability (CPSEA) structure to
provide an annual assessment of how the state is meeting
identified statewide public policy goals in higher education.
SB 195
Page 9
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities
Long Beach Community College District
Opposition
None on File
Analysis Prepared by : Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960