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