BILL ANALYSIS
AB 218
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 17, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Anthony Portantino, Chair
AB 218 (Portantino) - As Introduced: February 3, 2009
SUBJECT : Postsecondary education: Educational and Economic
Goals for California Higher Education.
SUMMARY : Establishes a state accountability framework for the
purpose of biennially assessing the collective progress of the
state's system of postsecondary education in meeting specified
educational and economic goals. Specifically, this bill :
1)Establishes principles to guide the development of the
framework.
2)Requires the framework be used to measure progress towards
specified goals by collecting and reporting information that
answers the following six statewide policy questions:
a) Are enough Californians prepared for postsecondary
education?
b) Are enough Californians going to college?
c) Is the state's postsecondary education system affordable
to all Californians?
d) Are enough Californians successfully completing
certificates and degrees?
e) Are college graduates prepared for life and work in
California?
f) Are California's people, communities, and economy
benefiting?
3)Requires that the questions delineated in (2) be answered by
collecting a select number of indicators of progress, not to
exceed 30, and authorizes the collection of information to
respond to the 25 indicators delineated in this bill, which
can be modified in any year through provisional budget
language in the annual Budget Act.
AB 218
Page 2
4)Establishes the California Postsecondary Education Commission
(CPEC) as the central repository for collecting and
maintaining all data for the framework, as follows:
a) Requires the segments of higher education in California
to provide CPEC data, as specified;
b) Requires the segments, to the extent possible, to rely
upon existing data, information systems, reports, and
processes in providing the required data;
c) Requires the collection of the indicators of progress by
race, ethnicity, gender, Cal Grant recipient status, and
socioeconomic status to the extent available and to be
collected and maintained longitudinally where appropriate;
and,
d) Requires CPEC to make data available in a statewide
aggregate format by higher education segment and geographic
region.
5)Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to convene and
chair a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to coordinate the
technical specifications of the indicator data, as follows:
a) Specifies the representation on TAC to include
representatives from each segment, LAO, the Department of
Finance (DOF), up to three individuals with expertise in
similar state accountability efforts, and representatives
from any state agency that maintains data helpful in
responding to the statewide policy questions delineated in
this bill;
b) Requires TAC to report its written findings and
recommendations to the Governor, Legislature, and DOF
Director by January 30, 2010; and,
c) Authorizes LAO to convene TAC, as necessary and make
recommendations, as needed, regarding modifications to the
indicators and goals set forth in this bill.
6)Establishes a reporting process for the information collected
under the framework, as follows:
a) Requires CPEC, beginning August 1, 2010, and biennially
AB 218
Page 3
thereafter, to provide the Legislature and DOF with a
summary report of information collected under the framework
and requires a copy of the report be made available to the
segments of higher education;
b) Requires LAO to provide, within 120 days, an analysis of
the data in the report by assessing progress on the six
questions, identifying factors explaining the level of
progress, and identifying policy and funding issues for
legislative consideration; and,
c) Requires LAO to present its analysis at a joint hearing
of the legislative education policy committees and the
appropriate budget subcommittees, to be convened by
December 30, 2010, and each odd-numbered year thereafter.
7)Authorizes the governing boards of the public segments of
higher education and the association representing private and
independent universities [the Association of Independent
California Colleges and Universities (AICCU)] to provide
biennial reports as part of the accountability record and
requires the reports to include:
a) Each segment's priorities for the state's goal areas;
b) Major activities underway to address each priority;
c) Performance indicators used to track progress toward
each goal;
d) Major highlights or issues from the data that have
state-level significance;
e) Each segment's institutional goals for student learning
outcomes and their assessment and use of assessments to
improve learning; and,
f) A summary of activities undertaken to address: special
state needs, programs to assist elementary and secondary
students to meet placement and admission standards at each
segment, remediation efforts and outcomes, and efforts to
expand capacity to effectively and efficiently serve
students.
8)Declares legislative intent that the University of California
AB 218
Page 4
(UC), the California State University (CSU), the California
Community Colleges (CCC), and the private and independent
colleges and universities provide information, as specified,
for students and parents that improve their understanding and
comparison of postsecondary educational institutions.
9)Declares the following educational and economic goals for
California by 2020:
a) Improve the educational pipeline numbers so that
California is among the top 10 states in the nation in this
regard;
b) Increase California's per capita income to the average
of the top 10 new economy states, as defined; and,
c) Rank in the top 10 states nationally for the percentages
of its age groups with degrees and certificates conferred.
EXISTING LAW :
1)CCC is required to provide an annual evaluation of
district-level performance in meeting statewide educational
outcomes, known as the Accountability Reporting for the
Community Colleges (ARCC). The ARCC currently contains data
for a variety of indicators.
2)UC and CSU have entered into system-specific "compacts" and
then "partnerships" with several Governors to ensure stable
multi-year funding in exchange for a commitment to deliver on
specific performance measures.
3)CPEC is required to prepare an annual report on performance
indicators for California higher education on a segmental
basis, focusing on demographics, fiscal context, student
preparation, student access, and student outcomes.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Background : There is a growing trend toward state
accountability systems for higher education, using different
approaches and indicators. Nearly all states have some form of
mandated statewide accountability program for higher education.
AB 218
Page 5
California has relied upon segmental accountability, reflecting
the missions and functions outlined in the California Master
Plan for Higher Education. None of these efforts combine to
measure how California's students perform as a whole nor does
California engage in a statewide approach to higher education
policy planning.
Purpose of this bill : According to the author, when it comes to
higher education policy, "California is data rich and
information poor." This bill establishes a framework for
measuring the collective performance of California's system of
higher education in achieving state goals of access and
workforce preparation by:
1)Articulating statewide public policy goals for California's
higher education segments;
2)Identifying specific indicators and benchmarks to be reported
by higher education institutions in order to track progress
toward those goals; and,
3)Establishing a process for collecting, reporting, and
analyzing the collective progress toward the articulated
goals.
How were the indicators determined ? In 2002, the Senate Office
of Research commissioned a study of higher education
accountability models in other states in order to develop a
framework that could function well in California. The
indicators included in this bill are the result of that study,
along with the input of a workgroup that included the higher
education segments, LAO, and other stakeholders. It is
anticipated that much of the data are presently available. Once
it is centralized and analyzed, it will provide the basis for
higher education policy decisions and priorities.
Indicators that will be used to measure progress toward state
goals :
1)Are enough Californians prepared for postsecondary education?
a) High school graduates who have completed the "A-G"
college preparatory curriculum;
b) High school juniors who are proficient in English and
AB 218
Page 6
mathematics;
c) Adults with a high school diploma or the equivalent;
and,
d) Adult basic skills proficiency levels.
2)Are enough Californians going to college?
a) High school graduates enrolling in college anywhere in
the United States within one year;
b) Adult population enrolled in postsecondary education;
c) Proportion of postsecondary enrollment served by
segment, including private institutions; and,
d) General Equivalency Diploma recipients enrolling in
postsecondary education.
3)Is the state's postsecondary education system affordable to
all Californians?
a) Proportion of income needed to pay for college, by
segment, before and after financial aid;
b) Family income distribution of enrolled students; and,
c) Student loan burden.
4)Are enough Californians successfully completing certificates
and degrees?
a) Certificates and degrees awarded;
b) Graduation rates;
c) Baccalaureate degree graduation rates for students
beginning at a CCC with transfer intent;
d) Number of units completed prior to earning a degree or
certificate or transferring; and,
e) Remedial students successfully earning degrees or
certificates.
AB 218
Page 7
5)Are college graduates prepared for life and work in
California?
a) Performance of college graduates on existing statewide
learning assessments;
b) Performance of college graduates on licensure and
graduate school entrance examinations; and,
c) Student and employer satisfaction with college
education.
6)Are California's people, communities, and economy benefiting?
a) Median personal income by educational attainment;
b) Increase in total per capita personal income;
c) Degrees and certificates awarded in selected high demand
fields;
d) Federal research and development funding per capita;
e) Educational attainment levels of state population; and,
f) Public participation in community service and civic
affairs.
What happens if the segments do or don't meet their goals ? The
author believes it is premature to include incentives or
consequences until it is determined that these are the
appropriate goals, that the necessary data collection systems
are in place, and funding for the segments has stabilized enough
to fairly evaluate their ability to meet the specified goals.
Last year, the Governor vetoed a nearly identical bill, SB 325
(Scott) of 2008, because it did not contain penalties as
articulated in the veto message below:
"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
AB 218
Page 8
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."
Previous legislation : SB 325, mentioned above, was crafted to
respond to the Governor's concerns about a previous attempt to
create a statewide higher education accountability framework, SB
1331 (Alpert) of 2004, by authorizing specific outcome
indicators and convening TAC to coordinate the technical
specifications of the necessary data. SB 1331, 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 accountability systems."
Related legislation : AB 1182 (Brownley), pending referral from
Assembly Rules Committee, would delete several reporting
requirements that can be subsumed by this bill or are no longer
necessary in order to allow the segments to use their resources
to comply with this bill. SB 361 (Scott), Chapter 514, Statutes
of 2008, deleted several of CPEC's review and reporting
requirements that are obsolete or have not been recently
produced, in order to focus CPEC's resources on higher education
accountability and other priority functions.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Community Colleges, Chancellor's Office
California Postsecondary Education Commission
Opposition
AB 218
Page 9
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandra Fried / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960