BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2 (Portantino) - As Amended: March 30, 2011
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:8-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill establishes an accountability framework, including the
biennial collection of specified data and subsequent assessment
of the state postsecondary education system's progress in
meeting specified educational and economic goals. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Requires that the framework be used to measure progress toward
specified goals by collecting and reporting information that
answers 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?
AB 2
Page 2
f) Are California's people, communities, and economy
benefiting?
2)Requires that the questions in (1) be answered by collecting
data for up to 30 progress indicators, which may include any
or all of 25 indicators delineated in this bill.
3)Requires the segments of higher education, as represented by
the governing boards of the University of California (UC), the
California State University (CSU), and the California
Community Colleges (CCC), and the Association of Independent
California Colleges and Universities (AICCU), to provide data
for the framework to the California Postsecondary Education
Commission (CPEC) by May 31 of each even-numbered year. The
segments are to (a) rely on existing data to the extent
possible, and (b) post this data on the Internet.
4)Requires CPEC to make the collected data available on the
Internet and report the data-by August 1, 2012 and by August 1
or each even-numbered year-on an aggregate statewide level, by
segment, by region, and by race and ethnicity, gender, Cal
Grant recipient status, and socioeconomic status to the extent
these data are available, and requires the indicators to be
collected and maintained by each segment longitudinally where
appropriate and possible.
5)Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) and the
Department of Finance (DOF) to convene an advisory committee
to coordinate the technical specifications of the data
collection and indicators.
6)Requires the LAO, in consultation with DOF, to report to the
Legislature and governor by January 30, 2012 on the
recommended indicator data, including any data limitations in
responding to the suggested indicators. The bill expresses
Legislative intent that to the extent the Legislature and
governor with the LAO's recommendations, the indicators be
formally adopted by statute.
AB 2
Page 3
7)Requires the LAO, within 120 days of receiving the CPEC report
per (4), to assess the extent to which the state is making
progress regarding the six questions in (1), and present its
analysis to a joint hearing of the appropriate legislative
policy and budget subcommittee by December 30 of each
even-numbered year.
8)Authorizes the segments to provide reports, including
specified information regarding each segment's efforts toward
meeting the statewide goals, at the joint legislative hearing.
9)Declares legislative intent that the governor (a) appoint and
convene a task force by January 1, 2012 to review the
accountability framework and recommend any modifications, and
(b) establish an advisory body to the task force for technical
expertise and guidance.
10)Declares legislative intent that UC, CSU, CCC, and the
private and independent colleges and universities provide
information, as specified, for students and parents that
improves their understanding and comparison of postsecondary
educational institutions.
11)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.
c) To rank in the top 10 states nationally for the
percentages of its age groups with degrees and certificates
conferred.
12)Repeals existing provisions requiring:
AB 2
Page 4
a) CPEC to annually report on significant indicators of
performance at the state's public colleges and universities
b) UC, CSU, and the CCC to provide annual statistical
reports on transfer patterns, and CPEC to report biennially
on the effectiveness of the segments' transfer programs.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)To the extent the bill does not add new reporting duties on
the segments, costs for UC, CSU, and the CCC will be minor
(less than $50,000) and 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.
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
1)Purpose . 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:
a) Articulating statewide public policy goals for
California's higher education segments.
b) Identifying specific indicators and benchmarks to be
reported by higher education institutions in order to track
progress toward those goals.
c) Establishing a process for collecting, reporting, and
analyzing the collective progress toward the articulated
goals.
2)Background . Nearly all states have some form of mandated
AB 2
Page 5
statewide accountability program for higher education.
California has relied upon segmental accountability,
reflecting the missions and functions outlined in the state's
Master Plan for Higher Education. However, 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.
3)Recent Actions by the Segments . In December 2010, the UC
Regents adopted a report by its Commission on the Future
addressing how the system can best serve the state in the
years ahead and maintain access, quality and affordability in
a time of diminishing resources. In February 2009, CSU
adopted a ten-year strategic plan-Access to
Excellence-identifying priorities for attention for
policy-makers and the broad public in order to meet
California's educational needs. The Community College League
of California (comprised of the district trustees and
executive officers, issued a study in November 2010, outlining
effective policy and practice changes that could be
implemented by 2020 and would enable the system to increase
the number of students who have access to, and are able to
complete, high-quality degrees, certificates and transfer
pathways in our community colleges. The CCC Board of
Governors, pursuant to SB 1143 (Liu)/Chapter 409 of 2010, has
established a task force to examine best practices for
promoting student success and adopt a plan for improving CCC
student success.
4)Prior Legislation . In 2010, an almost identical bill, AB 218
(Portantino), was held on Suspense in Senate Appropriations.
In 2008, another nearly identical bill, SB 325 (Scott), was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who stated:
"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 believe our public education
systems should be held accountable for achieving results,
including our higher education segments, and would consider
AB 2
Page 6
a measure in the future that provides adequate mechanisms
that will effectuate tangible gains in student outcomes and
operational efficiencies."
The author of AB 2 argues it is premature to incorporate
incentives or consequences until the goals are determined
appropriate, the necessary data collection systems are in place,
and funding for the segments has stabilized sufficiently to
evaluate their ability to meet the goals.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081