BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 775
AUTHOR: Liu
AMENDED: April 14, 2009
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 22, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Higher Education Accountability
SUMMARY
This bill requires that the state establish an
accountability framework to assess the ongoing collective
contribution of each of the state's postsecondary education
segments in meeting specified educational and economic
goals, and requires the California Postsecondary Education
Commission (CPEC) to convene a workgroup to develop and
publish a specific set of performance outcomes related to
the goals by January 30, 2011, with the intent that
progress toward these outcomes be a condition of receiving
enrollment growth funding.
BACKGROUND
AB 1417 (Pacheco, Statutes of 2004) required the Board of
Governors (BOG) of the California Community Colleges (CCC)
to provide recommendations regarding the design of a
structure for the annual evaluation of district-level
performance in meeting statewide educational outcomes. The
California Community Colleges System Office is currently
working on implementing the Accountability Reporting for
the Community Colleges (ARCC). According to the
Chancellor's Office because the ARCC indicators have unique
definitions, they cannot be compared to indicators
generated for other states or by other studies of the CCC.
In 2007, the California State University committed to
providing data on student learning, student engagement, and
enrollment and graduation as part of a national initiative
called the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA). The
VSA was initiated by two of the largest higher education
associations, the American Association of State Colleges
SB 775
Page 2
and Universities (AASCU) and the National Association of
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) in an
effort to provide information about students that would be
useful to parents, students, future students, legislatures
and the general public.
In 2008, the University of California initiated its own
accountability framework in an attempt to comprehensively
assess and share the University's progress in meeting key
teaching, research and public service goals across its 10
campuses. According to the UC, the annual report called for
in the framework will help inform the University's
strategic planning, budgeting and performance management,
as well as help focus the Regents on the most important
policy issues facing the University.
Both the CSU and the UC have entered into system-specific
"compacts" with the Governor to ensure stable multi-year
funding in exchange for a commitment to deliver on specific
performance measures. These compacts expire in 2010-11.
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Declares the following educational and economic goals
for California by 2020:
a) That educational pipeline numbers
improve sufficiently so that it is among the top
10 states in the nation in this regard.
b) That per capita income be at the
average of the top 10 new economy states, as
defined.
c) That it be in the top 10 states
nationally for the percentages of its age groups
with degrees and certificates conferred.
2) Requires that the state establish an accountability
framework for the purpose of assessing the collective
contribution of each of the state's segments of
postsecondary education in meeting the goals in #1.
3) Requires the accountability framework be designed as a
tool to hold the postsecondary education system
SB 775
Page 3
accountable for meeting state goals by informing
funding and policy decisions.
4) Requires the state to assess the contribution of the
postsecondary education segment in meeting statewide
goals by measuring progress toward performance
outcomes in the following areas:
a) Improved access to higher education.
b) Enhanced learning and graduation rates.
c) Increased efficiency, as specified.
d) Closure of achievement gaps.
e) Generation of beneficial research.
f) Production of graduates able to meet
critical workforce needs.
5) Requires the California Postsecondary Education
Commission (CPEC) to convene a working group, as
specified, by January 30, 2010, to develop and publish
and make available a specific set of performance
outcomes by January 30, 2011, and requires that the
development of each outcome consider the degree to
which they can reasonably be achieved by the
institutions.
6) Requires the progress of the public segments of higher
education in meeting the performance outcomes be
considered in the allocation of state funding for
enrollment growth beginning 2012-2013 and declares
legislative intent that receipt of enrollment growth
funding be conditioned upon the segments making
measurable progress toward these outcomes.
7) Repeals existing provisions of law that require the
California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC)
to report on significant indicators of performance at
the state's public colleges and universities.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Reinventing the wheel ? Staff notes that extensive
work in the development of a higher education
SB 775
Page 4
accountability framework has already been undertaken.
In 2002, the Senate commissioned a study of national
trends in higher education accountability and produced
a report that provided an initial framework for
developing an integrated system of accountability for
higher education in California. In 2007, the Senate
Education Committee held an informational hearing on
Higher Education Accountability which included
national experts who noted that, while each public
segment of higher education in California participates
in system-specific accountability efforts, there is a
lack of meaningful data and analysis to guide fiscal
and policy decisions and to assess the collective
progress of the state's system of postsecondary
education in meeting the state's educational and
economic needs.
Prior legislative efforts have reflected current
national dialogue around higher education
accountability and contained the collaborative product
of California's higher education segments, legislative
representatives, and national experts on higher
education. How does this bill build upon the
extensive work that has already been undertaken?
2) CPEC . This bill directs CPEC to convene a group of
stakeholders, practitioners and experts, including the
higher education segments to develop a specific set of
performance outcomes. The CPEC has undergone
significant reductions in its staff and fiscal
resources in the last several years. In addition,
while CPEC had initiated some higher education
accountability reporting, SB 361 (Scott, Chapter 514,
Statutes of 2008), in combination with SB 325 (Scott,
2008), was proposed in an effort to focus the CPEC's
activity to more clearly reflect and support the
Legislature's vision of an accountability framework
which measures the collective progress of the segments
in meeting the state's postsecondary education needs.
In light of its reduced resources and questionable
direction which prior accountability efforts have
taken, it is unclear whether the California
Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) is the
appropriate entity to convene a group to develop
performance outcomes which would have such a
significant effect on the funding of the public
SB 775
Page 5
segments of higher education. Should the Legislature
defer the responsibility for identifying outcomes that
best serve the state's interests to CPEC and the
segments?
3) Current status of funding . The Governor's 2008-09
budget included a reduction of $65.5 million for the
University of California (UC) and $66.3 million for
the California State University (CSU). The 2009-10
budget contains a reduction of $50 million for UC and
$50 million for CSU. Notwithstanding the "compact"
between the Governor and the UC and CSU, neither the
2008-09 nor 2009-10 budgets included specific
appropriations for enrollment growth. The California
Community Colleges (CCC) received a $185 million
augmentation for 3 percent enrollment growth in
2009-10 and current-year funding for 2 percent growth.
No cost of living allowance was provided to the CCC in
either the 2008-09 or 2009-10 budget year.
4) Cart before the horse ? It appears that the bill
intends that enrollment growth funding be used as a
means of rewarding or penalizing the public segments
of higher education for their progress towards
performance outcomes beginning in 2012-13. Who is to
determine what data informs progress toward those
outcomes? What process will ensure that the
independent accountability efforts currently underway
are comparable across all segments and consistently
reflect State and not institutional goals? Is it
reasonable to assess progress without having
meaningful data collection and reporting systems in
place? Is it reasonable to compel a future
Legislature to reward/punish the segments for their
progress toward performance outcomes which they did
not establish if the state has not stabilized the
segments' budget funding? Is there any link between
the performance outcomes and the funding or de-funding
of enrollment growth? What are the unintended
consequences of tying enrollment funding to
performance outcomes? For example, would funding
enrollment on the basis of completion compromise
access for students who require greater support
services in order to successfully complete their
studies?
5) National trends . In an April 16, 2009 article, the
SB 775
Page 6
Chronicle for Higher Education reported that "Schemes
for tying state support of public colleges to
performance tend to share the same flaw: They are
vulnerable to dying off before they can show how well
they perform." The article reports that, "Of 26
states that have adopted performance-based college
financing systems since 1979, 12 have scrapped them?of
the remaining 14 states, two others, Colorado and New
Mexico, still technically have such systems in place
but no longer use them to allocate funds?.Virginia and
Washington have created and then ditched
performance-based financing systems, only to establish
new ones down the road?" According to the article,
researchers found that the specific systems they
examined had little buy-in from public colleges and
were vulnerable to shifting political winds that
caused the lawmakers or board members who championed
them to lose power. In some states, the systems had
little support from business interests and the systems
went by the wayside when overall state spending on
higher education dropped.
6) Similar legislation . Legislative counsel has noted a
conflict between this bill and AB 218 (Portantino)
which is identical to SB 325 (Scott, 2008). AB 218 is
currently being held on the Assembly Appropriations
Committee suspense file.
7) Prior legislation .
a) SB 325 (Scott, 2008) would have required the
state to establish an accountability framework to
biennially assess the collective progress of the
state's system of postsecondary education in
meeting specified educational and economic goals.
SB 325 was vetoed by the Governor whose 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
SB 775
Page 7
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.
b) SB 1331 (Alpert) passed by the Legislature
and vetoed by the Governor in 2004, would also
have established a California Postsecondary
Education Accountability (CPSEA) structure. 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.
SUPPORT
None received on this version.
OPPOSITION
None received.