BILL ANALYSIS
AB 218
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 218 (Portantino)
As Introduced February 3, 2009
Majority vote
HIGHER EDUCATION 9-0 APPROPRIATIONS 13-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Portantino, Conway, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Block, Cook, Fong, | |Calderon, Davis, Fuentes, |
| |Galgiani, Huber, Ma, | |Hall, John A. Perez, |
| |Ruskin | |Price, Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Audra Strickland, |
| | | |Torlakson, Krekorian |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
AB 218
Page 2
California?
f) Are California's people, communities, and economy
benefiting?
3)Requires that the questions delineated in 2) above 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.
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;
AB 218
Page 3
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
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) 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
AB 218
Page 4
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
(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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)To the extent this bill does not add new reporting duties on
the segments, UC, CSU, and CCC costs will be absorbable.
2)Data collection costs for CPEC will be absorbable as they
generally replace current commission data collection and
assessment activities being repealed by this bill.
AB 218
Page 5
3)LAO costs to convene the advisory committee and analyze the
CPEC data biennially will be absorbable.
4)Any costs for the Governor's task force and advisory body will
be absorbable.
COMMENTS : This bill is a reintroduction of SB 325 (Scott) of
2008, which was vetoed by the Governor, establishing 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.
3)Establishing a process for collecting, reporting, and
analyzing the collective progress toward the articulated
goals.
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. 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.
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.
AB 218
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by : Sandra Fried / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960
FN: 0001116