BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 611
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 26, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION
Mary Hayashi, Chair
AB 611 (Gordon) - As Amended: March 22, 2011
SUBJECT : Private postsecondary education: unaccredited
doctoral degree program.
SUMMARY : Prohibits a private postsecondary institution from
offering an unaccredited doctoral degree program without
disclosing to prospective students prior to enrollment that the
degree program is unaccredited, whether the degree issued is in
a field that requires licensure in California, and any known
limitation of the degree, including, but not limited to, whether
the degree is recognized for licensure or certification in
California and other states.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Private Postsecondary Education Act (Act)
which, among its numerous provisions, prohibits private
postsecondary education institutions from certain conduct,
including conduct related to false advertising and
inappropriate student recruitment activities. The Act
establishes the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education
(Bureau) within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) to
oversee and regulate specified private postsecondary
institutions and to enforce the provisions of the Act.
2)Provides for the regulation of numerous businesses and
professions by numerous boards and bureaus within DCA,
including educational requirements for licensure or
certification.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Purpose of this bill . According to the author's office, "Recent
reports and hearings on the abuses and pitfalls in the
for-profit postsecondary education industry reflects a need for
greater transparency in order to protect the consumer and the
public investment made with state and federal student financial
AB 611
Page 2
aid programs. From 1998 to 2008, enrollment in for-profit
schools jumped 236%, far outpacing growth in public and
nonprofit private schools which grew by around 20%. On average,
only 22% of students at for-profit schools will earn degrees
from those institutions within six years, compared to 55% and
65% at public and private nonprofit colleges and universities,
respectively. Lastly, a quarter of borrowers who attended
for-profit colleges and entered repayment on their loans in 2008
defaulted within three years - a higher rate than any other
sector in postsecondary education."
Background . In the late 1980s, California developed a
reputation as the "diploma mill capital of the world." In
response, the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Act
(Former Act) was adopted to overhaul the state's regulatory
program. Concurrently, the Maxine Waters School Reform and
Student Protection Act (Waters Act) was passed. The regulatory
framework established by the merging of the Waters Act and the
Former Act led to duplicative and conflicting statutory
provisions, plaguing California's oversight of these
institutions with problems that continued through the sunset of
the laws on January 1, 2007. After several years of negotiation
on a new regulatory structure, AB 48 (Portantino), Chapter 310,
Statutes of 2009, established the Act and the Bureau within DCA
to regulate private postsecondary institutions.
According to information from DCA, approximately 1,500 private
postsecondary institutions had been approved under the Former
Act to operate in California. This included approximately 1,200
vocational training schools and 300 branch satellites, as well
as approximately 300 degree-granting institutions with an
estimated student enrollment of approximately 400,000. There
were also approximately 700 registered private institutions
providing short-term career/seminar training, continuing
education, intensive English language programs, and license exam
preparation courses.
The Act includes numerous provisions that establish a regulatory
structure for private postsecondary institutions. Not all
private institutions are covered by the Act; full and partial
exemptions are provided for low-cost programs, recreational
schools, schools accredited by regional accrediting agencies,
and other types of institutions.
Institutions that are covered by the Act must follow a Bureau
AB 611
Page 3
evaluation and approval process, abide by numerous "fair
business practices" aimed at protecting students, disclose
information to students in enrollment agreements and catalogs,
participate in a Student Tuition Recovery Fund, and pay initial
application and annual renewal fees to the Bureau to support the
oversight structure. The Act also establishes processes for
penalties for non-compliance, providing the Bureau authority to
perform site visits and investigations, order fines and student
tuition refunds, and suspend or revoke an institution's approval
to operate. The Act requires evaluation and reporting from the
Legislative Analyst's Office and the Bureau of State Audits.
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, the United States Department of Education (USDE) must
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 federal student
financial assistance programs.
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.
AB 1889 (Portantino) of 2010 proposed several changes to the Act
and related oversight by the Bureau, including a provision
similar to the one contained in this bill. In addition, AB 1889
made changes to the calculation of placement rates and Bureau
employment requirements. The Governor vetoed AB 1889, stating,
"Among many other provisions, this bill would require an
Executive Branch agency to follow specific staffing requirements
prescribed by the Legislature. This is both an inappropriate
and unacceptable action to micro-manage and burden the
implementation of regulatory policy. If the author or interest
groups wish to make staffing decisions for the Bureau for
AB 611
Page 4
Private Postsecondary Education, I suggest they look into
applying for the position of Bureau Chief. Applications can be
obtained at: www.gov.ca.gov/appointments . For these reasons, I
refuse to sign this bill."
Related legislation . AB 1013 (Committee on Higher Education) of
2011 makes non-controversial, technical changes to the Act.
This bill is pending on the Assembly Floor.
Previous legislation .
AB 1889 (Portantino) of 2010 makes several changes to the Act
and the related oversight provided by the Bureau. This bill was
vetoed.
AB 48 (Portantino), Chapter 310, Statutes of 2009, establishes
the Act and the Bureau within DCA to regulate private
postsecondary institutions.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Psychological Association
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Mapp / B.,P. & C.P. / (916)
319-3301