BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 2 (Portantino)
Hearing Date: 08/25/2011 Amended: 08/16/2011
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Education 8-1
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 2 requires the state to establish an
accountability framework for achieving prescribed educational
and economic goals. This bill would require the Governor to
convene a task force by July 1, 2012, to review the framework
and recommend a set of overarching goals for the state's higher
education institutions, as specified. This bill would urge the
task force to consider issues that include 6 statewide policy
questions, and require the task force to report to the
Legislature and Governor on the recommended goals and progress
indicators for higher education, as specified. This bill
codifies legislative findings and declarations regarding higher
education.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Accountability framework Potentially substantial
cost pressure General
Task force Likely minor,
potentially significant costs General
Report / Recommendations Potentially substantial
future cost pressure General
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.
This bill requires the state to establish an accountability
framework that provides the basis for a biennial assessment of
the collective contribution of the state's system of
AB 2 (Portantino)
Page 1
postsecondary education toward meeting the clear and measurable
educational and economic goals, as specified. This bill provides
that the purpose of the new accountability framework is "to help
policymakers develop, maintain, and fund a postsecondary
education system that meets the state's goals, recognizes the
differentiated missions of each segment of postsecondary
education, and guides the segments toward maintaining effective
institutions consistent with state goals and institutional
missions." The bill further provides that the framework contain
data intended to drive "appropriate policy and funding
decisions."
The framework will play a role in assessing future needs, and
determining future funding decisions for higher education
statewide. To the extent that the biennial assessment, for which
the framework is the basis, determines a need for additional
resources or new programming, there will be substantial cost
pressure to provide those additional resources in the future, to
an unknown extent.
This bill requires the Governor to convene a task force by July
1, 2012, composed of: A) a representative of the President of
the University of California (UC), of the Chancellor of the
California State University (CSU), of the Chancellor of the
California Community Colleges (CCC), and from the Association of
Independent California Colleges and Universities, respectively;
B) a representative of the Superintendent of Public Instruction;
C) a representative of the Legislative Analyst's Office; D) a
representative of the Department of Finance; E) legislative
staff representatives, specified; and, F) up to 6 representative
appointed by the Governor, as specified.
This task force is required to, by August 1, 2012 (one month
after the required convening date) recommend a set of
overarching goals for the state's higher education institutions
as a whole, including goals for the number of overall college
graduates by the year 2025, and to recommend a select number of
indicators that measure progress toward the specified goals in a
AB 2 (Portantino)
Page 2
report to the Legislature and the Governor. In developing
recommendations for state higher education goals and objectives,
the task force is "urged" to consider the following questions:
1) Are enough Californians prepared for postsecondary education?
2) Are enough Californians going to college?
3) Is the state's postsecondary education system affordable to
all Californians?
4) Are enough Californians successfully completing certificates
and degrees?
5) Are college graduates prepared for life and work in
California?
6) Are California's people, communities, and economy benefiting?
Convening the required task force for one month is unlikely to
result in significant new state costs. The UC, CSU, and CCC
Chancellor's Office have all indicated that they would not incur
additional costs to participate in the task force, and it is
unlikely that other participating entities would incur
significant costs. It is, however, unclear who is ultimately
responsible for the work of the task force, and how it will be
staffed, if at all. It is also unclear what entity or entities
will be providing data to help inform the task force's
recommendations.
Earlier versions of this bill assigned responsibility to the
California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) to collect
higher education segment data, to provide that data to the task
force (in a useful form), and to complete the required report.
CPEC's funding was eliminated in the Budget Act, and
subsequently the CPEC provisions of this bill were deleted. They
have not, however, been replaced with a successor to the work
that was thought to be required in order to make the task force
successful. It is unclear how the task force will complete its
work without at least some of the activities being completed
which had been delegated to the CPEC.
Once the task force has given its recommendations, this bill
provides that, to the extent the Governor and the Legislature
concur with those recommendations, "it is the intent of the
Legislature that these goals be formally adopted by statute, and
may be modified in any year, as part of the annual budget
process." The task force's recommendations will create cost
pressure in future years to adopt the recommendations and
AB 2 (Portantino)
Page 3
undertake activities to improve the outcomes identified. The
cost pressure will be driven by the extent to which the task
force recommends new or expanded programs and services.