BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 721|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 721
Author: Lowenthal (D)
Amended: 1/4/12
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 8-0, 1/11/12
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Blakeslee, Hancock, Huff, Liu,
Simitian, Vargas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Price, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-0, 1/17/12
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Pavley,
Price, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner
SUBJECT : California postsecondary education: state
goals
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill establishes statewide goals for
guiding budget and policy decisions in higher education,
requires that the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) convene
a working group, as specified, to develop and recommend
specific metrics for measuring progress toward these goals,
and requires the LAO, beginning in 2014 and as part of the
annual budget process, to annually report on and present an
assessment of progress toward the statewide goals and
recommendations for legislative action.
CONTINUED
SB 721
Page
2
ANALYSIS : Existing law establishes the Donahoe Higher
Education Act which outlines the laws under which
postsecondary education institutions operate in California.
Within the Donahoe Act, existing law establishes findings
and declarations based on the periodic review of the Master
Plan for Higher Education by the Legislature. Existing law
declares the intent of the Legislature to outline, in
statute, clear, concise, statewide goals and outcomes for
effective implementation of the Master Plan, attuned to the
public interest of the people and the State of California,
and to expect the system, as a whole, and the higher
education segments to be accountable for attaining those
goals. Consistent with the spirit of the original master
plans and subsequent updates, it is the intent of the
Legislature that the governing boards be given ample
discretion in implementing policies and programs necessary
to attain those goals.
This bill establishes statewide goals for guiding budget
and policy decisions in higher education. Specifically,
this bill:
1.Outlines the following three goals for guiding budget and
policy decisions in higher education:
A. Improved student success, to include, but not be
limited to, greater participation by demographic
groups that have participated at lower rates, greater
completion by all students and improved outcomes for
graduates.
B. Better alignment of degrees and credentials
awarded with the state's workforce and civic needs.
C. Increased efficiency so that desired postsecondary
education outcomes can be achieved within a given
resource level while maintaining high quality.
2.Requires that metrics toward these goals be developed
with the assistance of a working group to be convened by
the LAO. In addition, the bill:
A. Outlines the make-up of the working group to
CONTINUED
SB 721
Page
3
include postsecondary education segment
representatives, the Department of Finance (DOF), one
to three members with expertise in state
accountability who are unaffiliated with any of the
segments of higher education, other relevant state
agency representatives, as identified by the LAO.
B. Requires the working group to develop at least six
and no more than 12 measures derived from publicly
available data sources and requires that these
measures be able to be disaggregated and reported by
gender, race/ethnicity, income, age group, and
full-time/part-time enrollment, where appropriate and
applicable.
C. Requires the LAO, in consultation with DOF, to
submit a report on the recommended metrics to be
collected and reported to legislative policy and
budget committees and the Governor by January 31,
2013.
3.Requires the LAO:
A. Beginning September 30, 2013, to annually and
publicly report statewide performance on each of the
bills adopted by the Legislature.
B. Beginning January 2014, to annually report and
present, as part of the budget hearing process, its
own assessment of progress toward the statewide goals
and recommendations for legislative action.
Specifically, the bill requires the LAO to:
(1) Assess the level of progress and outcomes
achieved.
(2) Identify significant factors that may
explain the level of progress/outcomes.
(3) Identify higher education policy and funding
issues suggested by the bills for consideration
Governor and Legislature.
4.Defines the segments of postsecondary education, for
CONTINUED
SB 721
Page
4
purposes of the bill, to include the California Community
Colleges, the California State University, the University
of California, the independent colleges and universities,
and proprietary postsecondary institutions.
5.Declares the Legislature's intent to:
A. Identify, define and formally adopt appropriate
metrics, based upon the LAO recommendations, to be
used for the purpose of monitoring progress toward
the state goals.
B. Promote progress toward the goals through budget
and policy decisions within higher education.
C. Use the reporting system established per the
bill's provisions to help ensure the effective and
efficient use of whatever funding is provided to
higher education.
Comments
Need for the bill . In 2001, the Senate commissioned a
study of national trends in higher education
accountability. The resulting report, An Accountability
Framework for California Higher Education: Informing
Public Policy and Improving Outcome , provided the initial
framework for developing and integrated system of
accountability for higher education in California and was
the basis for several legislative efforts to implement such
a framework from 2004 to 2011.
On January 31, 2007, the Senate Education Committee held an
information hearing on Higher Education Accountability.
National experts testified on trends in higher education
accountability, as well as California's specific challenges
in meeting the educational and economic needs of its
citizenry. It was 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.
CONTINUED
SB 721
Page
5
In its 2010 publication, The Master Plan at 50: Greater
Than the Sum of Its Parts - Coordinating Higher Education
in California , the LAO recommended, among other things,
that the Legislature work with the administration and
others to adopt a clear public agenda for higher education,
with specific and focused statewide goals that could serve
as the framework for an accountability system designed to
align higher education performance with the state's needs.
According to the LAO, California, which set the gold
standard for higher education planning in 1960, now stands
alone among sizeable states in its lack of established
goals, a statewide plan, and an accountability system for
higher education.
Consistent With Most Recent LAO Recommendations. On
January 6, 2012, the LAO issued a report, Improving Higher
Education Oversight , in response to budget supplemental
report language requested by the Legislature as a result of
the Governor's proposal, and subsequent action, to
eliminate funding for the California Postsecondary
Education Commission (CPEC). In its report, the LAO notes
the need to protect the public interest, as insufficient
oversight could allow state priorities to be subordinated
to those of the institutions and other interests, and
cites, as its foremost recommendation, that the Legislature
articulate the state's postsecondary education needs
through the setting of specific goals or identification of
key areas or outcomes of interest to the state. In
addition, the report recommends that the Legislature
delegate technical decisions about specific measures and
reporting protocols to a technical working group with
representatives from the administration, legislative staff,
the segments, and independent researchers with experience
in higher education performance measurements. The
provisions of this bill are consistent with these
recommendations.
Related Budget Proposal . Previously, the University of
California and the California State University have entered
into system-specific "compacts" and then "partnerships"
with California's Governors in an effort to ensure stable
multi-year funding in exchange for a commitment to deliver
on specific performance measures. While the budget process
CONTINUED
SB 721
Page
6
allows for legislative input into thee
"compacts/partnerships," these agreements were developed
independent of the Legislature.
The Governor's proposed 2012 Budget notes that one
significant component of the Administration's long-term
plan for higher education involves annual General Fund
augmentations contingent upon each institution achieving
the Administration's priorities including improvements in
specific accountability metrics, such as graduation rates,
time to completion, transfer students enrolled, faculty
workload, and, for community colleges, successful credit
and basic skills course completion. Consistent with this
objective, this bill proposes statewide goals, to be
adopted by the Legislature and endorsed by the Governor,
and creates a process whereby the Legislature and the
Administration can collaboratively identify the specific
metrics to assess progress towards priorities for higher
education.
Parallel National Efforts . There has been a growing trend
toward state accountability systems for higher education
using different approaches and indicators. Nearly all
states (including Tennessee, Texas, Illinois, Ohio,
Florida, and Washington) have some form of mandated
statewide accountability program for higher education that
includes goals, performance measures, and various degrees
of performance funding.
In addition, the National Governors Association (NGA), a
bipartisan organization of the nation's governors that
identifies priority issues and deals collectively with
matters of public policy and governance at the state and
national levels recently adopted its Complete to Compete
Initiative under which the NGA proposes to:
1.Raise national awareness of the need to increase college
completion and productivity.
2.Create a set of common higher education completion and
productivity measures for governors to use to monitor
state progress.
3.Develop a series of best practices and a list of policy
CONTINUED
SB 721
Page
7
actions governors can take to achieve increased college
completion.
4.Provide grants to states to design policies and programs
that increase college completion and improve higher
education productivity.
Related Master Plan Review Findings . The original Master
Plan for Higher Education was approved in principle by the
Regents of the University of California and the State Board
of Education (which at that time governed the CSU and the
California Community Colleges �CCC]) on December 18, 1959,
and was submitted to the Legislature in February 1960. A
special session of the 1960 Legislature passed the Donahoe
Higher Education Act, which included many of the Master
Plan recommendations. For various reasons, many of the key
aspects of the Master Plan were never enacted into law
although agreed to by the public higher education segments
and the State.
Reviews of the Master Plan have been conducted by the
Legislature (and occasionally by blue-ribbon commissions)
about once a decade since the 1970s. Major legislative
reviews of the Master Plan were conducted in the early
1970s and the late 1980s. A more expansive legislative
review of the Master Plan, encompassing K-12 and higher
education (as well as Pre-K education), began in 1999 and
recommendations were adopted in 2002. Most recently, ACR
65 (Ruskin), Resolution Chapter 106, Statutes of 2009,
created a joint committee to review the Master Plan for
Higher Education. The committee held several informational
hearings and convened working groups to identify potential
legislation solutions to issues raised in these hearings.
As reflects in ACR 184 (Ruskin), Resolution Chapter 163,
Statutes of 2010, the review resulted in the following
related findings:
1.There is no articulated, comprehensive statement of goals
for California's system of higher education.
2.The Master Plan articulates values but not a set of
public policy goals based upon the outcomes required to
meet the needs of our state and our people.
CONTINUED
SB 721
Page
8
3.The lack of goals makes it difficult to develop sound
systems of criteria for advancement or clear systems of
accountability.
4.The establishment of statewide goals for California
higher education attuned to the public interest of the
people and the State of California will enable increased
accountability across the entire system and within
segments.
System Level Activity/Efforts. Each of the segments has
undertaken efforts to ensure its ability to meet future
student and state needs:
1.In 2010, the Regents of the UC adopted a report by its
Commission on the Future to address how UC can maintain
access, quality and affordability in a time of
diminishing resources.
2.In 2009, the CSU adopted a ten-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.
3.The Commission on the Future of the Community College
League of California issued its 2020 Vision for Student
Success in 2010 . The Board of Governors (BOG) of the
CCC, pursuant to SB 1143 (Liu), Chapter 409, Statutes of
2010, is currently reviewing the recommendations of the
Task Force for Student Success for potential adoption by
the BOG. Both of these efforts to identify policy,
statutory, and regulatory changes that can promote the
success of California's community college students.
While consistent with the segmental accountability approach
which California has traditionally relied upon, these
efforts do not combine to measure how California's students
perform as a whole nor do they reflect a statewide approach
to higher education policy planning.
Prior Legislation . This bill reflects the most recent
evolution of several legislative efforts to highlight the
need for and develop an integrated system of accountability
for higher education in California. Related legislative
CONTINUED
SB 721
Page
9
efforts include:
AB 1901 (Ruskin), Chapter 201, Statutes of 2010, codified
the findings and principles that emerged from the 2010
Review of the Master Plan for Higher Education and declared
the Legislature's intent to statutorily outline clear,
concise, statewide goals and outcomes for effective
implementation of the Master Plan for Higher Education and
the expectation of the higher education system as a whole
to be accountable for attaining those goals.
AB 2 (Portantino), 2011-12 Session, and AB 218
(Portantino), 2009-10 Session, essentially identical bills,
required that the state establish an accountability
framework to biennially assess and report on the collective
progress of the state's system of postsecondary education
in meeting specified educational and economic goals. Both
bills were heard and passed by the Senate Education
Committee and were subsequently held under submission in
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 325 (Scott), also nearly identical to AB 2 and AB 218,
was passed by the Legislature and vetoed by the Governor in
2008. The Governor's 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
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."
SB 1331 (Alpert), 2003-04 Session, would have established a
California Postsecondary Education Accountability (CPSEA)
structure to provide an annual assessment of how the state
is meeting identified statewide public policy goals in
CONTINUED
SB 721
Page
10
higher education. The bill was passed by both houses of
the Legislature, but was ultimately vetoed by the Governor.
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."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2012-13 2013-14
2014-15 Fund
LAO working group -- Minor and absorbable --
General
Metrics Potential cost pressure
to the extent the General
metrics change
funding priorities
SUPPORT : (Verified 1/18/12)
California Community Colleges
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support, the California
Community Colleges states, "We believe this measure will
bring focus and clarity to key state priorities in higher
education and will ensure that all segments of
postsecondary education are working toward common goals."
CPM:cm 1/18/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
SB 721
Page
11
CONTINUED