BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                              Senator Carol Liu, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:             SB 42            
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Liu                                                  |
          |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
          |Version:   |December 2, 2014                       Hearing Date: |
          |           | March 25, 2015                                      |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:    |Yes              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|Kathleen Chavira                                     |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          
          Subject:  Postsecondary education:  California Commission on  
          Higher Education ????..Performance and Accountability

            SUMMARY
          
          This bill recasts the California Postsecondary Education  
          Commission as the California Commission on Higher Education  
          Performance and Accountability, modifies the make-up of the  
          prior commission, reduces and clarifies the Commission's  
          functions and responsibilities, deletes a number of obsolete  
          reporting requirements, and makes a number of conforming and  
          technical changes.

            BACKGROUND
          
          Existing law establishes the California Postsecondary Education  
          Commission (CPEC) to be responsible for coordinating public,  
          independent, and private postsecondary education in California  
          and to provide independent policy analysis and recommendations  
          to the Legislature and the Governor on postsecondary education 
          policy.  (Education Code § 66900 et. seq.)

          Existing law prescribes the Commission composition to include  
          the following 17 members:

             1.   One representative from each of the following bodies; 

                  A.        The University of California Regents. 
                  B.        The California State University Trustees. 
                  C.        The California Community College Board of  







          SB 42 (Liu)                                             Page 2  
          of ?
          
          
                    Governors. 
                  D.        The Association of Independent Colleges and  
                    Universities.

             2.   The chair or designee of the Council for Private  
               Postsecondary and Vocational Education.

             3.   The President or designee of the State Board of  
               Education.
           
             4.   Nine representatives of the general public, with three  
               appointed by the Governor, three by the Senate Rules  
               Committee, and three by the speaker of the Assembly. 

             5.   Two student representatives.  (EC § 66901)



            ANALYSIS
          
          This bill: 

          1.   Recasts the California Postsecondary Education Commission  
               as the California Commission on Higher Education  
               Performance and Accountability (CCHEPA).

          2.   Modifies the make-up of the prior commission.  More  
               specifically it provides for 17 members of the general  
               public appointed as follows:

               A.        Requires that four members be appointed by the  
                    Speaker of the Assembly.

               B.        Requires that four members be appointed by the  
                    Senate Committee on Rules.

               C.        Requires that nine members, including the  
                    chairperson, be appointed by the Governor subject to  
                    Senate confirmation. 

               D.        Requires that the CCHEPA be a representative of  
                    civic, business, and public school leaders. 

               E.        Requires that CCHEPA members serve staggered six  








          SB 42 (Liu)                                             Page 3  
          of ?
          
          
                    year terms.

          3.   Modifies the make-up of the advisory committee to the  
               CCHEPA to include one student representative enrolled  
               during their time of service and an executive officer from  
               among the independent California colleges and universities,  
               as specified. 

          4.   Makes the Director of the CCHEPA subject to Senate  
               confirmation.

          5.   Reduces and clarifies the CCHEPA's functions and  
               responsibilities as follows:

               A.        Deletes a number of functions previously assigned  
                    to the California Postsecondary Education Commission  
                    (CPEC).

               B.        Requires that it articulate and monitor state  
                    performance objectives for higher education.

               C.        Requires that it advise the Legislature and the  
                    Governor regarding the need for, and location of, new  
                    institutions and campuses of 
                    public higher education.

               D.        Requires that it review proposals by the public  
                    segments for new programs, as specified, and make  
                    recommendations regarding those proposals to the  
                    Legislature and the Governor. 




               E.        Requires that it act as a clearinghouse for  
                    postsecondary education information and as a primary  
                    source of information for the Legislature, the  
                    Governor, and other agencies. 

               F.        Requires that it develop and maintain a  
                    comprehensive database that ensures data  
                    compatibility, supports longitudinal studies, is  
                    compatible with K-12 data systems, provides internet  
                    access to data for the sectors of higher education in  








          SB 42 (Liu)                                             Page 4  
          of ?
          
          
                    order to support statewide, segmental and individual  
                    campus educational research needs. 

               G.        Requires that it review all proposals for changes  
                    in eligibility pools for admission to public  
                    institutions and segments of postsecondary education  
                    and that it periodically conduct eligibility studies. 

               H.        Requires, through its use of information and its  
                    analytic capacity, that it inform the identification  
                    and periodic revision of state goals and priorities  
                    for higher education and evaluate both statewide and  
                    institutional performance in relation to these goals  
                    and priorities.

               I.        Requires that it manage data systems and maintain  
                    programmatic, policy, and fiscal expertise to receive  
                    and aggregate information reported by the institutions  
                    of higher education in this state.

               J.        Requires that it perform all other duties  
                    assigned by the Legislature.

          6.   Deletes a number of obsolete reporting requirements.

          7.   Makes a number of conforming and technical changes.

          STAFF COMMENTS
          
             1.   Need for the bill.  California's education and workforce  
               needs cannot be addressed by any single segment.  According  
               to the author, the state's approach to higher education  
               must become more comprehensive if it is to ensure  
               state-level workforce needs and priorities are being met.   
               Numerous reports, including legislative reviews of the  
               Master Plan for Higher Education and more recent reports  
               from higher education experts, have called for California  
               to establish a central higher education body.  This central  
               body is an important element of the state's ability to  
               honor its promise of affordable, high quality postsecondary  
               education for all high school graduates and adults who  
               could benefit from instruction offered at California's  
               colleges and universities. Without such an entity,  
               California cannot systematically plan to address the  








          SB 42 (Liu)                                             Page 5  
          of ?
          
          
               current and future needs of all its students and the  
               overall economy. 

          This bill represents the next necessary step in establishing  
          greater clarity and accountability for our higher education  
          system's performance in meeting the statewide goals for  
          postsecondary education (SB 195, Liu, Chapter 367, Statutes of  
          2013) of equity, access, and success; alignment with workforce  
          needs, and the effective and efficient use of resources.  The  
          bill reflects national trends, 

          recommendations from several recent reports, and recommendations  
          by the Legislative Analyst.

             2.   History of CPEC.   The 1960 Master Plan for Higher  
               Education in California articulated basic state policies on  
               higher education, such as assigning missions to the  
               different higher education segments, specifying eligibility  
               targets and expressing the state's intent that higher  
               education remain accessible, affordable, high-quality and  
               accountable. In addition, the Master Plan created an  
               oversight body, the California Postsecondary Education  
               Commission (CPEC) tasked with providing fiscal and policy  
               recommendations to the Governor and Legislature; monitoring  
               and coordinating public institutions; and ensuring  
               comprehensive statewide planning for higher education and  
               effective use of resources.  

          In the 2011-12 budget, the Governor vetoed funding for CPEC  
          citing the agency's ineffectiveness in higher education  
          oversight.  In his veto message, the Governor acknowledged the  
          well-established need for coordinating and guiding state higher  
          education policy and requested that stakeholders explore  
          alternative ways these functions could be fulfilled. 

          Although, the Governor eliminated all general fund support for  
          CPEC, its statutory authority remains intact.  This bill makes a  
          number of changes to these existing provisions. 

             3.   Related reports/recommendations.  A number of recent  
               reports have cited the need for an independent body to  
               steward a public agenda for higher education.  These  
               include the following:









          SB 42 (Liu)                                             Page 6  
          of ?
          
          
               A.        Improving Higher Education Oversight (LAO January  
                    2012) - In this report the Legislative Analyst's  
                    Office (LAO) raised concerns that in the wake of  
                    CPEC's closure, the future of higher education  
                    oversight was unclear and noted that while the public  
                    segments had stepped in to assume some roles  
                    previously performed by CPEC, expressed concerns about  
                    how institutional and public interests would be  
                    balanced.  The LAO also noted that while CPEC's  
                    performance had been problematic, several important  
                    functions performed by the commission had been lost.  
                    Among other things, the LAO recommended the  
                    Legislature re-establish an independent oversight body  
                    and increase the body's independence from the public  
                    higher education segments, assign the body with  
                    limited and clear responsibilities, and develop a more  
                    unified governing board appointment process.

               B.        Charting A Course For California's Colleges:  
                    State Leadership in Higher Education (California  
                    Competes, February 2014) - The report noted that  
                    California is one of only two states nationwide (the  
                    other being Michigan) without comprehensive oversight  
                    or coordination of higher education.  The report  
                    opined that the state needs an independent agency to  
                    develop a public agenda for higher education that  
                    links the needs of the state's economy to the degree  
                    attainment outputs of the state's institutions.  
                    Further, that independence means that the entity would  
                    not have 

                    representatives of the segments on its decision-making  
                    body to allow it to maintain its impartiality.   
                    Finally, the report recommended that the state's  
                    priorities be focused on the goals of access to  
                    quality programs and outcomes from those programs that  
                    the entity should be a coordinating agency and the  
                    segments should remain autonomous, that its primary  
                    functions should be planning and policy development,  
                    data collection, analysis and monitoring, and  
                    administration of state financial aid programs.

               C.        A New Vision for California Higher Education: A  
                    Model Public Agenda (Institute for Higher Education  








          SB 42 (Liu)                                             Page 7  
          of ?
          
          
                    Leadership and Policy, March 2014) - The report  
                    highlights the challenges faced by California and  
                    offers a model public agenda centered on these goals:  
                    addressing access and attainment; equity,  
                    affordability and efficiency; and state policy  
                    leadership. As regards policy leadership the report  
                    opines that this function is best filled by an  
                    executive branch entity, such as a California Office  
                    of Higher Education, that reports to the governor.   
                    The responsibilities of this office would be to, among  
                    other things, provide policy leadership and advise the  
                    Governor on higher education budget and policy  
                    development, administer financial aid programs, manage  
                    a coordinated higher education data system that allows  
                    for analysis of enrollments, progression, and  
                    completion across all public segments, manage a higher  
                    education accountability process and conduct analysis  
                    of goals and targets to assess how well regional  
                    efforts aggregate to meet statewide goals.
      
          1.   How is the new commission different?  This bill amends  
               existing statute to reflect many of the report  
               recommendations outlined in staff comment #3.  It narrows  
               and focuses the Commission's functions to monitoring  
               performance and accountability, program and new campus  
               review, data management, and independent policy analysis  
               and advising.  The commission make-up is restructured to  
               focus on a public agenda with public members appointed by  
               the Legislature and Governor, and the postsecondary  
               education segments participate in the Commission activities  
               in an advisory capacity.

               Notwithstanding the need for a commission that is  
               independent of the postsecondary education segments and the  
               need to focus on a public agenda, the higher education  
               segments do play a critical role in informing and advising  
               on the development of policy around performance,  
               accountability, and data.  Can the role of the segments as  
               an advisory body be strengthened without compromising the  
               Commission's independence?

          2.   Since the closure of California Postsecondary Education  
               Commission (CPEC)?  









          SB 42 (Liu)                                             Page 8  
          of ?
          
          
               A.        Performance and Accountability.  In the absence  
                    of a coordinating body, the Legislature and Governor  
                    have taken some steps toward developing, supporting  
                    and refining greater accountability for higher  
                    education.  These efforts include the passage and  
                    development of agreed upon goals for higher education  
                    through the passage of SB 195 (Liu, Chaptered 2014). 

                    SB 195 established statewide goals of improved student  
                    access, equity ad success, degree/credential alignment  
                    with workforce needs, and the 

                    efficient/effective use of resources.  The 2013-14 and  
                    2014-15 Budget Acts added reporting requirements  
                    around specified performance metrics and required the  
                    UC, CSU, and community colleges to set targets around  
                    these metrics consistent with the statewide goals  
                    outlined by SB 195 (Liu, 2014).  However, there has  
                    been no clear articulation around specific state goals  
                    and no specific entity charged with stewarding a  
                    public agenda to guide budget and policy  
                    deliberations. 

               B.        Data management.  The California Postsecondary  
                    Education Commission (CPEC) was able to obtain and  
                    maintain individual student records from the public  
                    higher education systems, link this data across the  
                    three segments using unique student identifiers, and  
                    used this information, as well as other publicly  
                    available datasets, to create useful data for the  
                    public and to respond to policymaker and legislative  
                    inquiries.  Additionally, the CPEC provided each of  
                    the segments access to the data to support statewide,  
                    segmental and individual campus educational research  
                    needs.  The CPEC functioned as a data management  
                    entity independent of the public segments, enabling  
                    the CPEC to perform analyses and provide information  
                    on behalf of and in response to requests from the  
                    Legislature or others, without relying on the  
                    "approval" or framing of information by the entity  
                    whose performance was being studied, analyzed, or  
                    evaluated.  

                    Prior to its closure, the CPEC transferred its data  








          SB 42 (Liu)                                             Page 9  
          of ?
          
          
                    warehouse to the CCC Chancellor's Office where the  
                    existing data is being housed and stored under an  
                    interagency agreement between the UC, CSU, and the  
                    CCC.  According to the Chancellor's office, the  
                    existing database is being maintained, and the CPEC  
                    website is available to the public for purposes of  
                    access existing reports posted on the website.   
                    However, under the current arrangement, access to the  
                    data is limited, since each segment has control over  
                    access to its own student records and outside entities  
                    wishing to use the database information must secure  
                    the approval of each of the affected segments. 

               C.        Program and campus review.  The CPEC's role in  
                    program and campus review was to coordinate the  
                    long-range planning of the state's public higher  
                    education systems as a means to ensure that they were  
                    working together to carry out their individual  
                    missions while serving the state's long-range  
                    workforce and economic needs.  In its oversight  
                    report, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) noted  
                    that no office or committee has the resources to  
                    devote to review of programs to identify long-term  
                    costs, alignment with state needs and institutional  
                    missions, duplication and priority relative to other  
                    demands. 
               
          3.   Author's amendment.  It is the intent of the author to  
               clarify that the work of the Commission in regards to state  
               goals and priorities for higher education is to 
               complement and advise on the existing goals and targets  
               established by SB 195 and the Budget Acts, not establish  
               yet a new set of goals and targets.  
          
          Staff recommends the bill be amended on page 27, to delete  
          subdivision (f) and on page 27, line 25 after education insert  
          "consistent with the goals outlined in section 66010.91 and the  
          metrics outlined in sections 89295 and 92675."

          4.   Related and prior legislation.  Several bills have been  
               introduced in an effort to improve higher education  
               performance and accountability, and to re-establish CPEC's  
               most important functions.  These include the following:









          SB 42 (Liu)                                             Page 10  
          of ?
          
          
               SB 1196 (Liu, 2014) would have established a process for  
               setting specific educational attainment goals for the  
               State.  SB 1196 was held in the Assembly Appropriations  
               Committee.

               AB 1348 (John A. Pérez, 2014) which would have established  
               the California Higher Education Authority, its governing  
               board and its responsibilities, as specified, phased-in  
               over a three-year period. AB 1348 was held in the Senate  
               Appropriations Committee.

               SB 1022 (Huff, Chaptered 394, Statutes of 2014) requires  
               the CSU and requests the UC to provide labor market outcome  
               data on their graduates.

               AB 2190 (John A. Pérez, 2012) would have established a new  
               state oversight and coordinating body for higher education.  
                AB 2190 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

               SB 721 (Lowenthal, 2012) would have established statewide  
               goals for guiding budget and policy decisions. SB 721 was  
               ultimately vetoed. 

               SB 1138 (Liu, 2011-12) would have established a central  
               data management system for the higher education segments.   
               SB 1138 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
                 
               AB 2 (Portantino, 2011) and AB 218 (Portantino, 2009)  
               essentially identical bills, required that the state to  
               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 in the Senate  
               Appropriations Committee.

            SUPPORT
          
          None received.

            OPPOSITION
           
           None received.









          SB 42 (Liu)                                             Page 11  
          of ?
          
          
                                      -- END --