BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 2
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 2 (Portantino)
          As Amended  May 27, 2011
          Majority vote 

           HIGHER EDUCATION    8-1         APPROPRIATIONS      12-5        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Block, Donnelly,          |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield,     |
          |     |Achadjian, Brownley,      |     |Bradford, Charles         |
          |     |Fong, Galgiani, Lara,     |     |Calderon, Campos, Davis,  |
          |     |Portantino                |     |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara,  |
          |     |                          |     |Mitchell, Solorio         |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Miller                    |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly,         |
          |     |                          |     |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner    |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

           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)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?

             f)   Are California's people, communities, and economy 
               benefiting? 








                                                                  AB 2
                                                                  Page  2



          2)Requires that the questions in 1) above 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, to provide data for the 
            framework to the California Postsecondary Education Commission 
            (CPEC) by May 31 of each odd-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 of 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, and expresses 
            legislative intent that to the extent the Legislature and 
            Governor with the LAO's recommendations, the indicators be 
            formally adopted by statute.

          7)Requires the LAO, within 120 days of receiving the CPEC report 
            per 4) above to assess the extent to which the state is making 
            progress regarding the six questions in 1) above, 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 








                                                                  AB 2
                                                                  Page  3


            specified information regarding each segment's efforts toward 
            meeting the statewide goals, at the joint legislative hearing.

          9)Declares legislative intent that the Governor do the 
            following:

             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; and,

             c)   To rank in the top 10 states nationally for the 
               percentages of its age groups with degrees and certificates 
               conferred.

          12)Repeals the following existing provisions, which will be 
            included in the accountability framework: 

             a)   CPEC to annually report on significant indicators of 
               performance at the state's public colleges and 
               universities; and,

             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.
           








                                                                  AB 2
                                                                  Page  4


           EXISTING LAW  : 

          1)Requires CCC 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)States that 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)Requires CPEC 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  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations 
          Committee: 

          1)To the extent the bill does not add new reporting duties on 
            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.

          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  :  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.  








                                                                  AB 2
                                                                  Page  5



          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.

          Each of the segments has undertaken planning efforts to ensure 
          its ability to meet future student and state needs.  In December 
          2010, the UC Regents adopted a report by its Commission on the 
          Future that addressed how UC 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 
          10-year strategic plan-Access to Excellence-that identifies 
          priorities for attention for policy-makers and the broad public 
          in order to meet California's educational needs.  The Community 
          College League of California, which is comprised of the trustees 
          and executive officers of the CCC districts, issued a study in 
          November 2010, outlining effective policy and practice changes 
          that, if incorporated, could be reasonably 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, Statutes of 2010, has established a task 
          force to examine best practices for promoting student success 
          and adopt a plan for improving CCC student success.   

           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Sandra Fried / HIGHER ED. / (916) 
          319-3960 


                                                                FN: 0000897