BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1889
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Marty Block, Chair
AB 1889 (Portantino) - As Amended: March 17, 2010
SUBJECT : Private postsecondary education: Private
Postsecondary Education Act of 2009.
SUMMARY : Enacts several changes to the Private Postsecondary
Education Act of 2009 (Act). Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits an unaccredited institution from offering doctoral
degrees.
2)Allows the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (Bureau)
to publish a list of eligible examinations for
ability-to-benefit (ATB) students, if the United States
Department of Education (USDE) does not have an approved
examination relevant to the specific occupational training
program.
3)Ensures students are provided until the first class day or the
seventh day after enrollment, whichever is later, to cancel a
program and receive a refund.
4)Alters the definition of "graduates employed in the field" to
require that graduates be gainfully employed within six months
of graduation in a position for which the skills obtained
through the education and training provided by the institution
are required.
5)Clarifies that the education specialist and senior specialist
positions established within the Bureau are full-time,
permanent positions based in the Sacramento office of the
Bureau.
EXISTING LAW establishes the Bureau within the Department of
Consumer Affairs (DCA) and provides for Bureau oversight and
regulation of California private postsecondary institutions.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Background : AB 48 (Portantino), Chapter 310,
Statutes of 2009, established the Act and created the Bureau
AB 1889
Page 2
within DCA for the purpose of regulating private postsecondary
educational institutions that provide educational services in
California. This bill would enact the following changes to the
Act:
1)Requires institutions offering doctoral degrees to be
accredited.
Background : Accreditation is a voluntary, non-governmental
peer review process utilized for the purpose of determining
academic quality of higher education institutions and
programs. Under federal law, USDE is required to publish a
list of recognized accrediting agencies deemed reliable
authorities on the quality of education or training provided
by their accredited institutions. Only those institutions
accredited by a USDE-recognized accrediting organization are
eligible to participate in the federal student financial
assistance programs. This bill would prohibit an unaccredited
institution from offering doctoral level degrees.
Arguments in Support : The author notes that, while often
cheaper for the student, unaccredited degrees can limit a
student's career options. Some career fields and employers
require degrees from accredited colleges; this is especially
true in professions like education and health care, where
certification or licensure is a pre-requisite for employment.
While California licensure requirements in the health care
field vary, physicians, dentists, clinical social workers,
optometrists, and chiropractors must obtain their required
degrees from accredited institutions or institutions approved
by their respective licensing boards. Even in cases where
California allows a non-accredited-institution degree holder
to practice, the degree limits the student's career options.
The author believes that requiring doctoral degree programs to
be accredited will ensure an adequate level of educational
quality of doctoral degrees issued by private postsecondary
institutions operating in California.
Arguments in Opposition : The California Association of
Private Postsecondary Schools (CAPPS) argues that prohibiting
unaccredited schools from offering doctoral level degrees
would negatively impact California unaccredited schools and
their students. CAPPS believes this provision will put a
number of schools out of business and destroy many students'
education efforts to graduate and practice in their chosen
AB 1889
Page 3
profession. CAPPS argues that, while accreditation is an
excellent option for schools, there are a number of areas of
study such as oriental medicine, energy medicine, psychology
and other areas where the only available accreditation option
would not allow for accreditation of smaller schools.
Issues to Consider :
a) As currently drafted, this provision would apply to all
doctoral degree programs. However, if the primary concern
surrounds the potential limitations on students' future
career options, the committee may wish to consider limiting
the scope of the provision to programs that prepare
students for careers that require licensure or
certification.
b) As currently drafted, this provision would take effect
January 1, 2011. This would severely impact students who
are in the process of obtaining doctoral degrees at
unaccredited institutions. The committee may wish to
consider allowing current students to finish their program
and allowing existing institutions offering doctoral
degrees a specified amount of time to obtain accreditation
for their doctoral degree programs.
c) The Act, which took effect on January 1, 2010,
establishes a number of reviews and reporting requirements,
including a requirement that the Legislative Analyst's
Office (LAO) examine the degree to which accreditation
provides adequate oversight of institutions and protection
of student interests and report findings by October 1,
2013. The committee may wish to consider, with the LAO
reporting requirement and the recent implementation date of
the Act, if this provision is premature.
2)Allows the Bureau to authorize ATB tests if a USDE test is not
available.
Background : Under Federal law, students without a high school
diploma or GED can qualify for federal Title IV loans, grants,
and campus-based aid if they pass an independently
administered text of their basic math and English skills,
called an ATB test. The intent of the test is to measure
whether students have the basic skills needed to benefit from
higher education and succeed in the institution. Tests are
AB 1889
Page 4
approved by the USDE and administered by an independent party.
Under Title IV, students must pass an ATB before receiving
any federal funds.
The Act : The Act requires all institutions covered by the Act
to administer ATB tests to students who have not obtained
secondary education. Students must pass a USDE-approved ATB
test before enrolling in the institution.
Purpose of this provision : It has recently come to the
attention of the author that certain training programs may not
have relevant USDE-approved tests. This bill would allow the
Bureau to publish a list of eligible examinations for ATB
students if the USDE does not have an approved examination
relevant to specific occupational training programs.
3)Alters the definition of "graduates employed in the field."
Background : The Act requires institutions to report the
number of graduates who are gainfully employed in the field
within six months of graduation and allows for the inclusion
of graduates who are employed in positions where the training
they received from the institution provided a "significant
advantage" to the graduate in obtaining the position.
Purpose of this provision : According to the author, concerns
were raised by Legislative colleagues on the last night of the
2009 Session, during the vote to Concur in Senate Amendments
on AB 48, that allowing positions where the institutional
education provided a "significant advantage" to the graduate
in obtaining the position to be counted toward the
institution's placement rate may allow institutions to
inappropriately inflate job placements. The author agreed to
include this change in clean up legislation this year. This
provision would require that the skills obtained through the
education or training provided be required for the position in
order for the job to be counted as a graduate placement.
Arguments in opposition : Kaplan Inc. argues that the
provision breeches the agreement made last year in AB 48 and
is unduly restrictive as it does not allow institutions to
include graduates that start in entry-level positions. Kaplan
Inc. believes the provision sets an unrealistic standard that
does not accurately reflect the nature of employment in the
private sector.
AB 1889
Page 5
4)Corrects a technical error regarding refund calculations.
Purpose of this provision : There is a conflict in the Act
regarding cancellations and refunds. The intent of AB 48 was
to allow students to cancel a program and receive a 100%
refund, less a deposit not to exceed $250, until the first
class day or the seventh day after enrollment, whichever is
later. However, one section referencing this refund policy
inadvertently reads that students shall have until the first
class day or the seventh class day after enrollment to cancel
a program. This bill corrects this error and conflict.
5)Revises language regarding Bureau Education Specialists
positions.
Background : The Act appropriated $580,000 to the Bureau for
the purpose of funding five postsecondary education specialist
and senior specialist positions and required that those
specialist positions be included in the annual budget for the
Bureau.
Purpose of this provision : The author contends that the
intent of this language was to ensure that employees of the
former Bureau, with expertise in regulation and oversight of
private institutions, would have the opportunity to be placed
within the new Bureau. However, the author notes that the
Administration has established these positions as limited-term
positions located outside of the Sacramento area. This bill
would clarify that the education specialist and senior
specialist positions described in the Act are to be full-time,
permanent positions housed in the Sacramento office of the
Bureau.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
Opposition
California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools
Kaplan Inc.
AB 1889
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by : Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960