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 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 195
Author: Liu (D)
Amended: 9/6/13
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
SENATE FLOOR : 30-8, 5/28/13
AYES: Beall, Block, Calderon, Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De
León, DeSaulnier, Evans, Gaines, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez,
Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Monning, Pavley,
Price, Roth, Steinberg, Torres, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee
NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Emmerson, Fuller, Huff, Knight,
Nielsen, Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Padilla, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Postsecondary Education Statewide Goals
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill establishes legislative intent that budget
CONTINUED
SB 195
Page
2
and policy decisions regarding postsecondary education generally
adhere to the goals of: (1) improving student access and
success; (2) better aligning degrees and credentials with the
state's economic, workforce, and civic needs; and (3) ensuring
the effective and efficient use of resources. This bill
establishes legislative intent that performance metrics be
developed for the purpose of monitoring progress toward meeting
the aforementioned goals and informing the annual state budget
process.
Assembly Amendments eliminate a working group established by the
bill to develop metrics and targets, and make technical and
clarifying changes.
ANALYSIS : Existing law establishes the Donahoe Higher
Education Act (Donahoe Act) which outlines the laws under which
postsecondary 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 legislative intent that budget and policy
decisions regarding postsecondary education generally adhere to
the goals of: (1) improving student access and success; (2)
better aligning degrees and credentials with the state's
economic, workforce, and civic needs; and (3) ensuring the
effective and efficient use of resources. This bill establishes
legislative intent that performance metrics be developed for the
purpose of monitoring progress toward meeting the aforementioned
goals and informing the annual state budget process.
Comments
CONTINUED
SB 195
Page
3
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 Legislative Analyst's Office (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
4
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
CONTINUED
SB 195
Page
5
performance based measures, historically associated with
accountability systems."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
Unknown
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/10/13)
Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities
Campaign for College Opportunity
Long Beach Community College District
University of California
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, the
goals established by this bill will be the basis for
establishing metrics and targets and for assessing progress in
meeting California's educational and workforce needs. The
author's office 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."
PQ:k 9/10/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED