Existing law establishes the California Promise, which requires specified minimum numbers of campuses of the California State University to establish a California Promise program by which the campus would enter into a pledge with a student who satisfies specified criteria to support the student in earning a baccalaureate degree within 4 academic years, or if the student is a community college transfer student who earned an associate degree for transfer, within 2 academic years, of the academic year of the students first year of enrollment, as specified.

This bill would establish the Student Success and On-time Completion Fund in the State Treasury, and would authorize the trustees, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to use moneys in the fund to incentivize participation by specified students in a campus California Promise program in one or more specified ways, including the use of grants and tuition freezes, as specified.

Commencing July 1, 2018, 2019, this bill would, if a California Promise student cannot complete a baccalaureate degree program within 4 academic years of the academic year of the students first year of enrollment, or a participating transfer student cannot complete a baccalaureate degree program within 2 academic years of the students first year of enrollment to the campus, as applicable, because a required course for the degree program is not offered or is full at the campus, prohibit systemwide tuition and fees, as applicable, otherwise required to register and enroll in the course, from being charged to the California Promise student once the course becomes available, or in a substitute course that fulfills the graduation requirement.

(1)Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to convene, on or before September 1, 2017, a computer science strategic implementation advisory panel to develop recommendations for a computer science strategic implementation plan. Existing law requires the advisory panel to consist of various members, as provided. Existing law requires, on or before July 1, 2018, the advisory panel to submit recommendations for a computer science strategic implementation plan to the State Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and the Legislature, as provided.

This bill would instead require the Governor Superintendent to convene the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel on or before September 1, 2018, and would require the Governor, unless otherwise specified, to select its membership. The bill would require the advisory panel to submit recommendations for a computer science strategic implementation plan to the Superintendent, the state board, and the Legislature, as provided, on or before July 1, 2019.

(2)Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to appoint a statewide computer science liaison within the State Department of Education to serve the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel, as provided.

This bill would repeal that provision.

(3)Existing law requires the State Department of Education and the State Board of Education to consider the computer science strategic implementation advisory panels recommendations, and requires the department to develop, and the state board to adopt, a computer science strategic implementation plan on or before January 1, 2019.

This bill would instead require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to receive the advisory panels recommendations, and would require the Superintendent to develop, and the state board to consider adopting, a computer science strategic implementation plan on or before January 1, 2019. 2020.

(4)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

(1)Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to convene, on or before September 1, 2017, a computer science strategic implementation advisory panel to develop recommendations for a computer science strategic implementation plan. Existing law requires the advisory panel to consist of various members, as provided.

This bill would instead require the Governor to convene the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel and would require the Governor, unless otherwise specified, to select its membership.

(2)Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to appoint a statewide computer science liaison within the State Department of Education to serve the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel, as provided.

This bill would repeal that provision.

(3)Existing law requires the State Department of Education and the State Board of Education to consider the computer science strategic implementation advisory panels recommendations, and requires the department to develop, and the state board to adopt, a computer science strategic implementation plan on or before January 1, 2019.

This bill would instead require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to receive the advisory panels recommendations, and would require the Superintendent to develop, and the state board to consider adopting, a computer science strategic implementation plan on or before January 1, 2019.

(4)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Date of Hearing: August 8, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 346

Author:(Glazer) – As Amended Ver:June 7, 2018

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill creates the Student Success and On-time Completion Fund in the State Treasury, and authorizes the California State University (CSU) trustees to use money in the fund to incentivize student participation in a California Promise program by offering students grants for timely progress and participation in a summer term or a tuition freeze. It also requires the CSU to waive systemwide tuition or fees for a participating student unable to complete their degree due to limited space or lack of course offerings.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Ongoing General Fund costs in the millions of dollars to offer grants for timely progress to California Promise program students. (The bill provides up to $2,000 per qualified student at the completion of each academic year. Assuming between 200 and 700 students participate at each campus, systemwide costs would range from $5.8 million for 2,900 students to $20.3 million for 10,150 students.)
2. Ongoing General Fund costs in the millions of dollars annually to offer summer term grants to California Promise program students. (CSU estimates that between 200 and 700 students will likely participate at each of the 15 participating campuses and take either three or six credits, with a credit cost of about $388. Assuming this range of students and credit load, systemwide costs would range from $4.6 million for 2,900 students to $16.1 million for 10,150 students.)
3. Potential revenue losses to CSU in the low millions of dollars if tuition was held flat for California Promise program students while it was increased for other students. (Current annual tuition at CSU is $5,742 and increases typically have been about 3%. CSU indicates if tuition were held flat for several years for half of the students at each campus when tuition would have otherwise gone up for those students slightly year-over-year, lost revenue per cohort would be between $1 million to $4 million. If tuition increases were higher, then the gross lost revenue per cohort would be higher.) These costs could be partially offset by lowering the cost of tuition for which CSU awards aid to low-income students through its State University Grant program.
4. Potential General Fund savings in the millions of dollars to the Cal Grant tuition assistance program awarded to low-income students by the California Student Aid Commission if CSU tuition were held flat for California Promise program students while it was increased for other students. Savings would result because the cost of tuition assistance the state awards to low-income students through Cal Grant would decrease. (CSU indicates more than half of students receive a Cal Grant.)
5. Minor and absorbable costs to CSU to waive tuition for California Promise program students unable to complete their degree due to limited space or lack of course offerings.
6. Minor and absorbable costs to the State Treasurer’s Office to create and oversee the Student Success and On-time Completion Fund in the State Treasury.

COMMENTS:

1. California Promise Program. Beginning the 2017-18 academic year, law requires the CSU Trustees to develop and implement a “California Promise” program at a minimum of eight campuses for non-transfer students and a minimum of 15 campuses (20 campuses by 2018-19) for qualifying transfer students. The program requires a participating campus to enter into a pledge with a first-time freshman or with a qualifying transfer student to support the student in obtaining a baccalaureate degree within four academic years and requires campuses to provide certain supports, such as priority registration for courses and additional academic advising. Law sunsets the program in 2026.

Current law also requires the CSU to submit an interim report by March 15, 2017, with recommendations for fiscal incentives for students participating in a promise program and a final report by January 1, 2021, with student outcome information.

1. Tuition Freezes. The CSU’s interim report released in 2017 evaluated each of the approaches proposed in this bill. In the report, the CSU indicates it does not believe tuition freezes are an effective strategy for incentivizing students to participate in the program and would likely not pursue this strategy. (This is because the majority of students already have their full tuition costs covered by the CSU’s State University Grant program or Cal Grant, so a tuition freeze would not benefit them.)
2. Staff Comments. This bill is a gut-and-amend substantially similar to SB 803 (Glazer), which was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file earlier this session.
3. Related Legislation. AB 3153 (Levine) allows certain students to receive a Summer Cal Grant award for two summer terms of up to nine units. The bill is pending a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 803 (Glazer) is substantially similar to this bill. It was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file.

SB 412 (Glazer) Chapter 436, Statues of 2016, requires the CSU trustees to develop and implement the California Promise program.

Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 26, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Jose Medina, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 346

Author:(Glazer) – As Amended Ver:June 7, 2018

SENATE VOTE: Not relevant

SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: the California Promise.

SUMMARY: Establishes the Student Success and On-time Completion Fund in the State Treasury, and authorizes the California State University (CSU) Trustees to use money in the fund to incentivize participation in a California Promise program through the offering of grants or a tuition freeze; and, requires the CSU to waive systemwide tuition or fees for a participating student unable to complete his/her degree due to limited space or no course offerings, as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Establishes the Student Success and On-time Completion Fund in the State Treasury.
2. Authorizes the CSU Trustees, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to use moneys in the fund to incentivize participation in a California Promise program in one or more of the following ways:
   1. Provide a Summer Term Grant to a qualified student who participates in the program to cover the cost to take up to six units or two courses, whichever is greater, during a summer term during his/her academic career;
      1. Authorizes a CSU student enrolled in the program to enroll in one course in two summer sessions, or two courses in one summer session.
   2. Provide an On-Track Progress Grant of up to $2,000 to a qualified student who participates in the program at the completion of each academic year;
      1. Specifies that the purpose of the grant is to provide participating students with additional financial aid to offset their total cost of education including housing, textbooks, and transportation.
   3. Provide a tuition freeze to a qualified student who participates in the program in accordance with the following:
      1. Prohibits a participating student from being charged systemwide tuition in excess of the tuition charged to the student as an entering freshman at the CSU;
      2. Prohibits a participating transfer student who successfully received an associate degree within two academic years at the California Community Colleges (CCC) from being charged systemwide tuition in excess of the tuition that would have been changed to the student at the CSU at the time the student began the two year associate degree program; and,
      3. Prohibits all other participating community college transfer students from being charged systemwide tuition in excess of the tuition charged to the student when admitted to the CSU as a transfer student.
3. Authorizes the CSU Trustees to select any combination of the three financial incentives, as described in (2)(c)(i – iii), for each campus with a program, at their discretion.
4. Requires that in order for a student to be eligible for any of the financial incentive programs, as described in (2)(c)(i – iii), a student shall meet at least one of the following criteria (to note, this criteria is existing law):
   1. Be a low-income student, as defined;
   2. Have graduated from a high school located in a community that is underrepresented in college attendance;
   3. Be a first-generation college student; and,
   4. Be a transfer student.
5. Requires, that the CSU, commencing July 1, 2019, waive systemwide tuition or fees for a student participating in the program who is unable to complete his/her baccalaureate degree within the required time because a required course for the degree program is not offered or is full at the campus.
6. Specifies that once the course or a substitute course becomes available, a student shall resister and enroll in the course or in a substitute course that fulfills the graduation requirement.
7. Makes technical changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes, as of January 1, 2017, with a sunset of January 1, 2026, the California Promise program for the purposes of supporting CSU students in earning baccalaureate degrees within four academic years of their first year of enrollment or for transfer students within two academic years of their first year of enrollment on a CSU campus.
2. Additionally, existing law requires the CSU Trustees to:
   1. Develop and implement a California Promise program, beginning the 2017-18 academic year, at a minimum of eight campuses for non-transfer students and a minimum of 15 campuses (20 campuses by 2019-18) for qualifying transfer students. These campuses enter into a pledge with a first-time freshman or with a qualifying transfer student to support the student in obtaining a baccalaureate degree within four academic years;
   2. Submit a report to Legislative policy and fiscal committees by January 1, 2021 that includes the number of students participating in the program in total, the total number of students who graduated in four academic years for students who entered as first-time freshman and two academic years, for CCC transfer students and a summary description of significant differences in the implementation of the California Promise program at each campus; and,
   3. Submit recommendations to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, by March 15, 2017, regarding potential financial incentives that could benefit students who participate in the California Promise program.
3. Thirdly, existing law requires support provided by a CSU campus for a program student to include, but not necessarily be limited to, both of the following:
   1. Priority registration in coursework provided that a student does not qualify for priority registration under another policy or program, as specified; and,
   2. Academic advisement that includes monitoring academic progress.
4. Further, existing law requires a student, in order to qualify for the program, to:
   1. Be a California resident for purposes of instate tuition eligibility; and,
   2. Commit to completing at least 30 semester units or the quarter equivalent per academic year, including summer term units, as specified.
5. Fifthly, existing law requires a campus to guarantee participation in the program to, at a minimum:
   1. Any student who is a low-income student, as defined;
   2. A student who has graduated from a high school located in a community that is underrepresented in college attendance; and,
   3. A first-generation college student or a transfer student who successfully completes his/her associate degree for transfer at a community college.
6. Lastly, existing law stipulates, in order for students to remain in the program, they must demonstrate both of the following:
   1. Completion of at least 30 semester units, or the quarter equivalent, in each prior academic year; and,
   2. Attainment of a grade point average in excess of a standard established by the campus (Education Code Section 67430, et seq.).

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, based on the April 17, 2017 version of SB 803 (Glazer), of which this bill is substantially similar, the fiscal incentives proposed by this bill are permissive and would create the following General Fund cost pressures according to the CSU, depending on the number of participating students:

1. Summer Term Grant: systemwide costs of between $3.4 million to $11.8 million for students taking 3 units and between $4.6 million to $16.1 million students taking six units in the summer, systemwide costs would range from $4.6 million for 2,900 students to $16.1 million for 10,150 students.
2. On-Track Progress Grant: systemwide costs of between $5.8 million to $20.3 million.
3. Tuition freeze: gross lost revenue per cohort of approximately $1.1 million to $4 million for a small multi-year tuition increase.

COMMENTS: Gut and amend. This bill is virtually identical to SB 803 (Glazer) of 2017, which was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File.

Prior hearing by this Committee. As amended on June 7, 2018, this bill remains similar in nature to the June 26, 2017 version of this bill which failed in this Committee, with a vote of 5-3. To note, reconsideration was granted.

California Promise program. As noted in the "existing law" section of this analysis, the California Promise program, required the CSU Trustees to develop and implement promise programs, commencing in the 2017-18 academic year. The participating campuses have to enter into a pledge with first-time freshmen (or four-year students) or qualifying transfer students in order to support the students' objectives of earning a baccalaureate degree within four or two academic years. Below is the list of campuses implementing the program in 2017-18:

1. Bakersfield (four-year and transfer student program)
2. Channel Islands (transfer student program)
3. Chico (transfer student program)
4. Dominguez Hills (four-year and transfer student program)
5. Fresno (four-year student program)
6. Fullerton (four-year and transfer student program)
7. Humboldt (four-year and transfer student program)
8. Long Beach (four-year and transfer student program)
9. Monterey Bay (transfer student program)
10. Northridge (transfer student program)
11. Pomona (four-year and transfer student program)
12. Sacramento (four-year and transfer student program)
13. San Bernardino (four-year program)
14. San Diego (transfer student program)
15. San Francisco (transfer student program)
16. San José (four-year and transfer student program)
17. San Luis Obispo (transfer student program)
18. San Marcos (transfer student program)
19. Stanislaus (transfer student program)

To note, existing law only required the CSU to offer the program to first-time freshmen (or four-year students) at eight campuses, and 15 campuses for qualifying transfer students; however, as listed above, almost all of the 23 CSU campuses have launched the program. Additionally, prior to the creation of this program, the CSU already had several campuses participating in some form of a four-year promise program.

Need for this measure. According to the author, "The California Promise program aims to increase the CSU’s four-year graduation rate, lower cost and debt obligations of students and their families, and ensure the number of CSU degrees is expanded to meet the needs of California employers." The author contends that, "It is important for this bill to continue to move forward this year in order to: 1) establish the fund and create the framework for the potential incentives ahead of, and separate from, funding negotiations that will take place in next year’s [20]18-19 budget process; and, 2) provide the incentive and benefit of the back-end waivers for the first cohort of students."

CSU's Graduation Initiative 2025. Reviewed and approved by the CSU Trustees in September of 2016, CSU's Graduation Initiative 2025 is the CSU's initiative to increase graduation rates for all CSU students while eliminating opportunity and achievement gaps. Through this initiative, the CSU seeks to ensure that all students have the opportunity to graduate in a timely manner according to their personal goals, being able to then enter into careers in California and across the nation. As of fall of 2016, some of the goals of the initiative include the following:

1. The four-year graduation rate for freshmen is 19 percent and the new goal would increase those rates to 40 percent.
2. For transfer students, the four-year graduation rate is currently 73 percent and the new target goal would be 85 percent.
3. Increasing the two-year graduation rate from 31 percent to 45 percent.
4. Adding 100,000 more people with baccalaureate degrees to the California workforce over the next 10 years, bringing the total number of expected CSU graduates between 2015 and 2025 to more than one million.
5. Eliminating the achievement gap by increasing efforts to reduce course bottlenecks, increasing hands-on advising, boosting the number of online services and resources for students, and hiring more faculty and academic advisors.

CSU Recommendation on student financial incentives to participate in the program. As noted in the "existing law" section of this analysis, the CSU Trustees were required to submit recommendations to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, by March 15, 2017, regarding potential financial incentives that could benefit students who participate in the program.

According to the Trustees March 2017 California State University Report: Recommendations on Student Financial Incentives to Participate in the California Promise Program, many institutions with similar programs offer students a "guarantee" that their degree programs can be completed in four or two-years, with the understanding that tuition will not be assessed if the institution is at fault for students taking longer to graduate.

This measure requires the CSU to grant tuition waivers if students were unable to complete a degree within the required time frame due to the unavailability of necessary courses.

The report finds that the value of the guarantee would be felt by students both as a financial guarantee and in terms of the commitment that each campus would provide to their success. However, the report notes that, one limiting factor of the impact of a tuition waiver incentive would be the limited number of students who might directly financially benefit from this approach. For the 62 percent of CSU undergraduates receiving non-loan financial aid which fully covers tuition, the report contends that the perceived benefit of the guarantee may be limited.

This measure authorizes the use of funds appropriated by the Legislature for tuition freezes for program participants. However, the report states, "The CSU does not believe this [a tuition freeze] is an effective approach for incentivizing the program and therefore does not recommend this proposal." According to the CSU, 62 percent of its undergraduate students have their tuition fully covered by a Cal Grant award, University Grant or waiver; therefore, a tuition freeze would have limited value to the majority of CSU undergraduate students.

The CSU notes that in the absence of routine tuition increases, a tuition freeze approach would not be an effective incentive to increase participation or improve retention and could potentially decrease operating revenues to its campuses.

Opposition. According to the California Faculty Association (CFA), the concern exists that unintended consequences of this bill could disproportionately advantage students already close to graduating in four years at the expense of other students and their needs. Additionally, CFA contends that while CFA appreciates the goals of improving degree to completion time, CFA remains significantly concerned about diverting resources from the CSU system to a subset of the student body.

To note, the Committee did not receive any letters of support regarding this measure.

Committee comments. Tuition freeze? As aforementioned, the CSU has expressed strong concerns about a tuition freeze policy incentive. Additionally, CSU has expressed that a tuition freeze would create a differential impact between students participating in the four-year program compared to those participating in the two-year program. Students who exit the program could suddenly be faced with the responsibility of paying an unexpected increase in tuition.

To note, the Trustees have the authority to set tuition, by authorizing a tuition freeze, the Legislature would essentially be taking away that authority from the Trustees.

Further, the Legislature has historically supported need-based financial aid; but by creating a rather complex and layered tuition freeze only for those in the program, as this measure currently does, it could result in subsidizing tuition costs for students regardless of their financial need.

To note, low-income students should already have their fees covered, by way of the Cal Grant Programs, Pell Grant award, and institutional financial aid. If the author's intent is to ensure low-income students participating in the California Promise Program benefit from a tuition freeze, should this measure pass out of this Committee, the author may wish to delete the tuition freeze incentive.

Potential incentives. As presently drafted, this measure provides a summer term grant to qualified students participating in the California Promise Program; this incentive may not be necessary to all students, and, if AB 3153 (Levine) which seeks to allow Cal Grants to be used during summer terms, as specified, is enacted.

Should this measure pass out of this Committee, the author may wish to either limit the summer term grant to students with demonstrated financial need or delete the summer term grant entirely.

The measure also creates an on-track progress grant to qualified students; this grant would provide up to $2,000 per qualified student at the completion of each academic year, in order to offset the total cost of education. Similar to the summer term grant, as established in this measure, not all students may need to receive the on-track progress grant. Additionally, students eligible to receive the on-track progress grant presumably would benefit from receiving the grant at the beginning of the term.

Should this measure pass out of this Committee, the author may wish to amend the measure to provide the on-track progress grant only to students with demonstrated financial need. Additionally, the author may wish to amend the measure to specify that the on-track progress grant is awarded to all eligible students at the beginning of the term.

Implementation time table? Should the Legislature tell the CSU how to implement a program that they already conduct that may vary slightly from campus to campus? As specified in the "existing law" section of this analysis, the California Promise Program went into effect a year and a half ago.

Is it prudent for the Legislature to enact additional changes to a program that has only been operational for a relatively short period of time?

Related legislation. AB 3153 (Levine), which is awaiting a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee, in part, expands the total period of eligibility for a student to receive Cal Grant A or Cal Grant B awards – currently the equivalent of four years of full-time enrollment – by allowing the student to receive an additional Summer Cal Grant award for two summer terms of up to nine units, if the student enrolled in a four-year qualifying institution as a freshmen; and, expands the total period of eligibility for a student who has transferred to a four-year qualifying institution from a community college to receive Cal Grant A or Cal Grant B by allowing the student to receive an additional Summer Cal Grant award for one summer term of up to nine units for purposes of timely completion of a baccalaureate degree program at a public postsecondary institution.

Previous legislation. AB 393 (Quirk-Silva) of 2017, which was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File, would have, in part, prohibited, until after the 2019-20 academic year, any increases in California resident tuition charged to students at the CSU and the CCC above the amounts charged as of December 31, 2016.

SB 803 (Glazer) of 2017, which was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File, is substantially similar to this measure.

SB 412 (Glazer), Chapter 436, Statues of 2016, which, in part, required the CSU Trustees to develop and implement the California Promise, which authorized a campus to enter into a pledge with qualifying students, as defined, to support the completion of a baccalaureate degree within four years or, for transfer students, within two years. SB 412 also required the CSU Trustees to submit recommendations to the Legislature regarding potential financial incentives that could benefit students who participate in the program.

SB 1450 (Glazer) of 2016, which died in the Senate Education Committee, was nearly identical to SB 412, except that SB 1450 established various requirements regarding systemwide fees for California Promise students at CSU, including freezing tuition and granting tuition waivers if students were unable to complete a degree within the required timeframe due to unavailability of courses. To note, SB 1450 also imposed these same requirements on the CCC and required the CCC Board of Governors to establish the Promise program as well; however, the CCC was removed from the scope of the bill and instead required CSU to ensure entry into a Promise program for any CCC student who transfers with an Associate Degree for Transfer.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file.

Opposition

California Faculty Association

Analysis Prepared by: Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960

Date of Hearing: July 11, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Jose Medina, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 346

Author:(Glazer) – As Amended Ver:June 26, 2017

SENATE VOTE: Not relevant

SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: the California Promise.

SUMMARY: Establishes the Student Success and On-time Completion Fund in the State Treasury, and authorizes the California State University (CSU) Trustees to use money in the fund to incentivize participation in a California Promise program through the offering of grants or a tuition freeze; and, requires the CSU to waive systemwide tuition or fees for a participating student unable to complete his/her degree due to limited space or no course offerings, as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Establishes the Student Success and On-time Completion Fund in the State Treasury.
2. Authorizes the CSU Trustees, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to use moneys in the fund to incentivize participation in a California Promise program in one or more of the following ways:
   1. Provide a Summer Term Grant to a qualified student who participates in the program to cover the cost to take up six units or two courses, whichever is greater, during a summer term during his/her academic career;
      1. Authorizes CSU student enrolled in the program to enroll in one course in two summer sessions, or two courses in one summer session.
   2. Provide an On-Track Progress Grant of up to $2,000 to a qualified student who participates in the program at the completion of each academic year;
      1. Specifies that the purpose of the grant is to provide participating students with additional financial aid to offset their total cost of education including housing, textbooks, and transportation.
   3. Provide a tuition freeze to a qualified student who participates in the program in accordance with the following:
      1. Prohibits a participating student from being charged systemwide tuition in excess of the tuition charged to the student as an entering freshman at the CSU;
      2. Prohibits a participating transfer student who successfully received an associate degree within two academic years at the California Community Colleges (CCC) from being charged systemwide tuition in excess of the tuition that would have been changed to the student at the CSU at the time the student began the two year associate degree program; and,
      3. Prohibits all other participating community college transfer students from being charged systemwide tuition in excess of the tuition charged to the student when admitted to the CSU as a transfer student.
3. Authorizes the CSU Trustees to select any combination of the three financial incentives, as described in (2)(c)(i – iii), for each campus with a program, at their discretion.
4. Requires, that the CSU, commencing July 1, 2018, waive systemwide tuition or fees for a student participating in the program who is unable to complete his/her baccalaureate degree within the required time because a required course for the degree program is not offered or is full at the campus.
5. Specifies that once the course or a substitute course becomes available, a student shall be resister and enroll in the course or in a substitute course that fulfills the graduation requirement.
6. Makes technical changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes, as of January 1, 2017, with a sunset of January 1, 2026, the California Promise program for the purposes of supporting CSU students in earning baccalaureate degrees within four academic years of their first year of enrollment or for transfer students within two academic years of their first year of enrollment on a CSU campus.
2. Additionally, existing law requires the CSU Trustees to:
   1. Develop and implement a California Promise program, beginning the 2017-18 academic year, at a minimum of eight campuses for non-transfer students and a minimum of 15 campuses (20 campuses by 2019-18) for qualifying transfer students. These campuses enter into a pledge with a first-time freshman or with a qualifying transfer student to support the student in obtaining a baccalaureate degree within four academic years;
   2. Submit a report to Legislative policy and fiscal committees by January 1, 2021 that includes the number of students participating in the program in total, the total number of students who graduated in four academic years for students who entered as first-time freshman and two academic years, for CCC transfer students and a summary description of significant differences in the implementation of the California Promise program at each campus; and,
   3. Submit recommendations to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, by March 15, 2017, regarding potential financial incentives that could benefit students who participate in the California Promise program.
3. Thirdly, existing law requires support provided by a CSU campus for a program student to include, but not necessarily be limited to, both of the following:
   1. Priority registration in coursework provided that a student does not qualify for priority registration under another policy or program, as specified; and,
   2. Academic advisement that includes monitoring academic progress.
4. Further, existing law requires a student, in order to qualify for the program, to:
   1. Be a California resident for purposes of instate tuition eligibility; and,
   2. Commit to completing at least 30 semester units or the quarter equivalent per academic year, including summer term units, as specified.
5. Fifthly, existing law requires a campus to guarantee participation in the program to, at a minimum:
   1. Any student who is a low-income student, as defined;
   2. A student who has graduated from a high school located in a community that is underrepresented in college attendance; and,
   3. A first-generation college student or a transfer student who successfully completes his/her associate degree for transfer at a community college.
6. Lastly, existing law stipulates, in order for students to remain in the program, they must demonstrate both of the following:
   1. Completion of at least 30 semester units, or the quarter equivalent, in each prior academic year; and,
   2. Attainment of a grade point average in excess of a standard established by the campus (Education Code Section 67430 et seq.).

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, based on the April 17, 2017 version of SB 803 (Glazer), of which this bill is virtually identical, the fiscal incentives proposed by this bill are permissive and would create the following General Fund cost pressures according to the CSU, depending on the number of participating students:

1. Summer Term Grant: systemwide costs of between $3.4 million to $11.8 million for students taking 3 units and between $4.6 million to $16.1 million students taking six units in the summer, systemwide costs would range from $4.6 million for 2,900 students to $16.1 million for 10,150 students.
2. On-Track Progress Grant: systemwide costs of between $5.8 million to $20.3 million.
3. Tuition freeze: gross lost revenue per cohort of approximately $1.1 million to $4 million for a small multi-year tuition increase.

COMMENTS: Gut and amend. This bill is virtually identical to SB 803 (Glazer) of 2017, which was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File.

California Promise program. As noted in the "existing law" section of this analysis, the California Promise program, required the CSU Trustees to develop and implement promise programs, commencing in the 2017-18 academic year. The participating campuses have to enter into a pledge with first-time freshmen (or four-year students) or qualifying transfer students in order to support the students' objectives of earning a baccalaureate degree within four or two academic years. Below is the list of campuses implementing the program in 2017-18:

1. Bakersfield (four-year and transfer student program)
2. Channel Islands (transfer student program)
3. Chico (transfer student program)
4. Dominguez Hills (four-year and transfer student program)
5. Fresno (four-year student program)
6. Fullerton (four-year and transfer student program)
7. Humboldt (four-year and transfer student program)
8. Long Beach (four-year and transfer student program)
9. Monterey Bay (transfer student program)
10. Northridge (transfer student program)
11. Pomona (four-year and transfer student program)
12. Sacramento (four-year and transfer student program)
13. San Bernardino (four-year program)
14. San Diego (transfer student program)
15. San Francisco (transfer student program)
16. San José (four-year and transfer student program)
17. San Luis Obispo (transfer student program)
18. San Marcos (transfer student program)
19. Stanislaus (transfer student program)

To note, existing law only required the CSU to offer the program to first-time freshmen (or four-year students) at eight campuses, and 15 campuses for qualifying transfer students; however, as listed above, almost all of the 23 CSU campuses have launched the program. Additionally, prior to the creation of this program, the CSU already had several campuses participating in some form of a four-year promise program.

Need for this measure. According to the author, "The California Promise program aims to increase the CSU’s four-year graduation rate, lower cost and debt obligations of students and their families, and ensure the number of CSU degrees is expanded to meet the needs of California employers." The author contends that, "It is important for this bill to continue to move forward this year in order to: 1) establish the fund and create the framework for the potential incentives ahead of, and separate from, funding negotiations that will take place in next year’s [20]18-19 budget process; and, 2) provide the incentive and benefit of the back-end waivers for the first cohort of students."

CSU's Graduation Initiative 2025. Reviewed and approved by the CSU Trustees in September of 2016, CSU's Graduation Initiative 2025 is the CSU's initiative to increase graduation rates for all CSU students while eliminating opportunity and achievement gaps. Through this initiative, the CSU seeks to ensure that all students have the opportunity to graduate in a timely manner according to their personal goals, being able to then enter into careers in California and across the nation. As of fall of 2016, some of the goals of the initiative include the following:

1. The four-year graduation rate for freshmen is 19 percent and the new goal would increase those rates to 40 percent.
2. For transfer students, the four-year graduation rate is currently 73 percent and the new target goal would be 85 percent.
3. Increasing the two-year graduation rate from 31 percent to 45 percent.
4. Adding 100,000 more people with baccalaureate degrees to the California workforce over the next 10 years, bringing the total number of expected CSU graduates between 2015 and 2025 to more than one million.
5. Eliminating the achievement gap by increasing efforts to reduce course bottlenecks, increasing hands-on advising, boosting the number of online services and resources for students, and hiring more faculty and academic advisors.

CSU Recommendation on student financial incentives to participate in the program. As noted in the "existing law" section of this analysis, the CSU Trustees were required to submit recommendations to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, by March 15, 2017, regarding potential financial incentives that could benefit students who participate in the program.

According to the Trustees March 2017 California State University Report: Recommendations on Student Financial Incentives to Participate in the California Promise Program, many institutions with similar programs offer students a "guarantee" that their degree programs can be completed in four or two year with the understanding that tuition will not be assessed if the institution is at fault of students taking longer to graduate.

This measure requires the CSU to grant tuition waivers if students were unable to complete a degree within the required time frame due to the unavailability of necessary courses.

The report finds that the value of the guarantee would be felt by students both as a financial guarantee and in terms of the commitment that each campus would provide to their success. However, the report notes that, one limiting factor of the impact of a tuition waiver incentive would be the limited number of students who might directly financially benefit from this approach. For the 62 percent of CSU undergraduates receiving non-loan financial aid which fully covers tuition, the report contends that the perceived benefit of the guarantee may be limited.

This measure authorizes the use of funds appropriated by the Legislature for tuition freezes for program participants. However, the report states, "The CSU does not believe this [a tuition freeze] is an effective approach for incentivizing the program and therefore does not recommend this proposal." According to the CSU, 62 percent of its undergraduate students have their tuition fully covered by a Cal Grant award, University Grant or waiver; therefore, a tuition freeze would have limited value to the majority of CSU undergraduate students.

The CSU notes that in the absence of routine tuition increases, a tuition freeze approach would not be an effective incentive to increase participation or improve retention and could potentially decrease operating revenues to its campuses.

Opposition. According to the California Faculty Association (CFA) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the concern exists that unintended consequences of this bill could disproportionately advantage students already close to graduating in four years at the expense of other students and their needs. Additionally, CFA and SEIU contend that while CFA and SEIU appreciate the goals of improving degree to completion time, CFA and SEIU remain significantly concerned about diverting resources from the CSU system to a subset of the student body.

To note, the Committee did not receive any letters of support regarding this measure.

Committee considerations. Tuition freeze? As aforementioned, the CSU has expressed strong concerns about a tuition freeze policy incentive. Additionally, CSU has expressed that a tuition freeze would create a differential impact between students participating in the four-year program compared to those participating in the two-year program. Students who exit the program could suddenly be faced with the responsibility of paying an unexpected increase in tuition.

To note, the Trustees have the authority to set tuition, by authorizing a tuition freeze, the Legislature would essentially be taking away that authority from the Trustees.

Further, the Legislature has historically supported need-based financial aid; but by creating a rather complex and layered tuition freeze only for those in the program, as this measure currently does, it could result in subsidizing tuition costs for students regardless of their financial need.

Though the bill is permissive, does it set a bad precedent, create funding pressures, and usurp the authority of the Trustees, by including a tuition freeze? The Committee may wish to determine if it is prudent, equitable, and sound policy to create a tuition freeze incentive, thus taking the authority away from the Trustees, and only benefiting students in the program.

Should this measure pass of this Committee, the author may wish to delete the authorization of a tuition freeze.

Implementation time table? Should the Legislature tell the CSU how to implement a program that they already conduct that may vary slightly from campus to campus? As specified in the "existing law" section of this analysis, the California Promise Program went into effect seven months ago. Is it prudent for the Legislature to enact additional changes to a program before it has even reached a year of being operational?

Previous vote history? As noted in the "gut and amend" section of this analysis, this measure is virtually identical to the April 17, 2017 version of SB 803 (Glazer), which was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File. Though a vote on this measure does not technically break any Joint Legislative Rules, the Committee may wish to consider if it is prudent to vote on a bill that their colleagues previously held in the House of Origin.

Previous and related legislation. AB 393 (Quirk-Silva) of 2017, which was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File, would have, in part, prohibited, until after the 2019-20 academic year, any increases in California resident tuition charged to students at the CSU and the CCC above the amounts charged as of December 31, 2016.

SB 803 (Glazer) of 2017, which was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File, is virtually identical to this measure.

SB 412 (Glazer), Chapter 436, Statues of 2016, which, in part, required the CSU Trustees to develop and implement the California Promise, which authorized a campus to enter into a pledge with qualifying students, as defined, to support the completion of a baccalaureate degree within four years or, for transfer students, within two years. SB 412 also required the CSU Trustees to submit recommendations to the Legislature regarding potential financial incentives that could benefit students who participate in the program.

SB 1450 (Glazer) of 2016, which died in the Senate Education Committee, was nearly identical to SB 412, except that SB 1450 established various requirements regarding systemwide fees for California Promise students at CSU, including freezing tuition and granting tuition waivers if students were unable to complete a degree within the required timeframe due to unavailability of courses. To note, SB 1450 also imposed these same requirements on the CCC and required the CCC Board of Governors to establish the Promise program as well; however, the CCC was removed from the scope of the bill and instead required CSU to ensure entry into a Promise program for any CCC student who transfers with an Associate Degree for Transfer.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

California Faculty Association

Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

Analysis Prepared by: Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 346

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-0, 3/22/17

AYES: Allen, Wilk, Galgiani, Leyva, Mendoza, Pan, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom

TechNet

DIGEST: This bill, an urgency measure, requires the Governor, unless otherwise specified, to select the membership of the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel, and specifies a list of persons that the advisory may, but is not required to, consist of. This bill also revises the timeline and process for the development and adoption of the advisory panel’s recommendations for a computer science implementation plan and repeals the requirement that the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) appoint a statewide computer science liaison.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the Instructional Quality Commission to consider developing and recommending to the State Board of Education (SBE), by July 31, 2019, computer science content standards based on recommendations developed by a group of computer science experts. (Education Code § 60605.4)
2. Requires the SPI, in consultation with the SBE, to consider convening the group of experts to develop recommendations for computer science content standards. (EC § 60605.4)
3. Authorizes a school district to award a student up to one mathematics course credit for successfully completing an “a-g” approved computer science course, if the district requires more than two courses in mathematics for graduation from high school. (EC § 51225.3 and § 51225.35)
4. Requires the California State University (CSU), and requests the University of California (UC), to develop guidelines for high school computer science courses to be approved for admission, and encourages the UC to ensure that computer science courses that satisfy the math subject area requirements for admission build upon fundamental math content in courses that align with the academic content standards. (EC § 66205.5)
5. Requires the SPI to convene, on or before September 1, 2017, a computer science strategic implementation advisory panel to develop recommendations for a computer science strategic implementation plan. (EC § 53310(a))
6. Requires the advisory panel to hold public meetings, to post the location and time of the meetings, and to post agendas online, and requires members of the advisory panel to possess expertise in computer science. (EC § 53310(a))
7. Requires the advisory panel to consist of, but not necessarily be limited to, all of the following members:
8. The SPI or his or her designee, who is required to serve as cochair of the advisory panel.
9. A representative of the Governor, who is also required to serve as cochair of the advisory panel
10. A representative designated by the Senate Committee on Rules.
11. A representative designated by the Speaker of the Assembly.
12. Six K–12 teacher representatives, designated by the SPI.
13. A representative representing the Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
14. A credentialed teacher representing the Computer Science Teachers Association.
15. A representative of the private sector technology industry, designated by the SPI.
16. A faculty member from the UC.
17. A faculty member from the CSU.
18. A faculty member from the California Community Colleges (CCC).
19. A faculty member from a private postsecondary educational institution, designated by the SPI.
20. A credentialed teacher from the Instructional Quality Commission.
21. A representative from an equity-focused organization knowledgeable of computer science/STEM education programs, designated by the SPI.
22. A representative from a parent organization, designated by the SPI.
23. A representative representing school administrators and superintendents, designated by the SPI.
24. A pupil enrolled in a public school, designated by the SPI.
25. A representative from a county office of education, designated by the SPI. (EC § 53310(b))
26. States the intent of the Legislature that the six K-12 representatives include two elementary school teachers, two middle school teachers, and two high school teachers who are all currently teaching, and that these representatives include one teacher from a large urban school district and one from a rural school district. (EC § 53310(b)(5))
27. Authorizes administrators from the UC, the CSU, and the CCC to serve as advisers to the advisory panel to provide input on the computer science strategic implementation plan. (EC § 53310(c))
28. Requires the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel to submit recommendations for a computer science strategic implementation plan, on or before July 1, 2018, to the California Department of Education (CDE), the SBE, and the Legislature. (EC § 53311(a))
29. Requires the advisory panel to include, among other things, recommendations on ensuring that all pupils have access to quality computer science courses, which may provide for, among other things, scaling up computer science education coursework so that all high schools teach at least one computer science course. (EC § 53311(a)(3)(A))
30. Requires the SPI to appoint a statewide computer science liaison within the CDE to serve the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel in at least the following actions:
31. Coordinating the efforts of the advisory panel by writing up the recommendations of the advisory panel members and disseminating them to all stakeholders.
32. Soliciting input and public comments.
33. Preparing the necessary legislative reports to share the advisory panel’s recommendations.
34. Ensuring that the advisory panel recommendations adopted by the SBE are implemented. (EC § 53312)
35. Requires CDE and the SBE to consider the recommendations submitted by the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel. (EC § 53313)
36. Requires CDE to develop, and the SBE adopt, a computer science strategic implementation plan on or before January 1, 2019, and requires CDE to submit the plan adopted by the SBE to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2019.
37. Sunsets these provisions on July 31, 2020.

This bill:

1. Requires the Governor, unless otherwise specified, to select the membership of the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel.
2. Replaces the list of persons required to be on the advisory panel with a nearly identical list of persons suggested to be on the advisory panel, but specifies that the advisory panel is not necessarily limited to that list.
3. Replaces the required representative of the Governor with a suggested representative of the president of the SBE or his or her designee.
4. Removes any reference to a member of the advisory panel being designated by the SPI, except for the SPI’s designee.
5. Authorizes representatives, rather than administrators, from the UC, the CSU, and the CCC to be consulted by, rather than serving as advisers to, the advisory panel to provide input on the computer science strategic implementation plan.
6. Extends the deadline for the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel to submit recommendations for a computer science strategic implementation plan by one year to July 1, 2019, and requires recommendations to be submitted to SPI instead of the CDE, and to the SBE and the Legislature.
7. Specifies that the advisory panel’s recommendations on ensuring that all pupils have access to quality computer science courses may provide for scaling up computer science education coursework so that all high schools offer at least one computer science course.
8. Deletes the requirement that the SPI appoint a statewide computer science liaison within CDE to serve the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel in its actions.
9. Revises the timeline and process relating to the adoption the advisory panel’s recommendations by requiring the SPI to receive the recommendations submitted by the advisory panel; requiring the SPI to develop, and the SBE to consider adopting, a computer science implementation plan on or before January 1, 2020; and requiring the SPI to submit a plan adopted by the SBE to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2020.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “Although AB 2329 addresses gaps in computer science education, it inadvertently limits discretion of the SBE and has technical issues related to the appointments to and staffing of the advisory panel. In response to Governor Brown’s signing message, this bill expands the discretion of the SBE, while resolving the technical issues relating to appointments to and staffing of the advisory panel.”
2. Governor’s signing message. The Governor issued the following signing message upon signing AB 2329:

“I am signing Assembly Bill 2329 to ensure that California develops a computer science strategic plan that will drive innovative teaching and learning and prepares out students for computer science jobs in an ever changing digital age.

As drafted, this bill inadvertently limits the discretion of the State Board of Education and has technical issues related to the appointments to and staffing of the advisory panel. The sponsors have committed to addressing these issues when the legislature returns.”

1. Budget trailer bill. According to the author, “this is a cleanup bill.” Similar but not identical language is also included in the Department of Finance’s proposed Omnibus Education Trailer Bill for the Governor’s 2017-18 Proposed Budget. The budget trailer bill differs from this bill in that it requires the Governor, not the SPI to convene the advisory panel, it species that three of the six suggested K-12 representatives shall be designated by the SPI, and in other minor but substantively-the-same organization.
2. Further clarification needed? The committee staff is informed by the author’s office that the intent of this bill is to give the Governor complete discretion in determining the composition of the advisory committee. However, the committee staff is concerned that language in the bill as drafted, specifically the “unless otherwise specified in this subdivision” qualification preceding the Governor’s stated authority to select the membership of the advisory panel, could undermine the intended authority, as described by the author’s office. As the bill moves forward, the committee staff encourages the author to work with the Department of Finance to ensure that their combined intent is effectively reflected in the bill.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 2329 (Bonilla, Chapter 693, Statutes of 2016) required the SPI to convene a computer science strategic implementation advisory panel to develop recommendations for a computer science strategic implementation plan.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 4/4/17)

Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom (co-source)

TechNet (co-source)

Access Smart

Adeptek Consulting Inc

AIMS360

Bond Consulting Services

California Chamber of Commerce

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

High Street Consultants

INFINITI Consulting, Inc.

International Software Systems

Kumo Technology

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Microsoft Corporation

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

The Silicon Valley Organization

Thundrr

Twist!Cloud Web Services

Unbuttoned Innovation

US Licensing Group

Valley Industry & Commerce Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/4/17)

None received

Prepared by:

4/5/17 14:49:06

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Benjamin Allen, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 346 Hearing Date: March 22, 2017

Subject: Computer science strategic implementation plan

SUMMARY

This bill, an urgency measure, requires the Governor, unless otherwise specified, to select the membership of the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel, and specifies a list of persons that the advisory may, but is not required to, consist of. This bill also revises the timeline and process for the development and adoption of the advisory panel’s recommendations for a computer science implementation plan and repeals the requirement that the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) appoint a statewide computer science liaison.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1. Requires the Instructional Quality Commission to consider developing and recommending to the State Board of Education (SBE), by July 31, 2019, computer science content standards based on recommendations developed by a group of computer science experts. (Education Code § 60605.4)
2. Requires the SPI, in consultation with the SBE, to consider convening the group of experts to develop recommendations for computer science content standards. (EC § 60605.4)
3. Authorizes a school district to award a student up to one mathematics course credit for successfully completing an “a-g” approved computer science course, if the district requires more than two courses in mathematics for graduation from high school. (EC § 51225.3 and § 51225.35)
4. Requires the California State University, and requests the University of California (UC), to develop guidelines for high school computer science courses to be approved for admission, and encourages the UC to ensure that computer science courses that satisfy the math subject area requirements for admission build upon fundamental math content in courses that align with the academic content standards. (EC § 66205.5)
5. Requires the SPI to convene, on or before September 1, 2017, a computer science strategic implementation advisory panel to develop recommendations for a computer science strategic implementation plan. (EC § 53310(a))
6. Requires the advisory panel to hold public meetings, to post the location and time of the meetings, and to post agendas online, and requires members of the advisory panel to possess expertise in computer science. (EC § 53310(a))
7. Requires the advisory panel to consist of, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following members:
   1. The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) or his or her designee, who is required to serve as cochair of the advisory panel.
   2. A representative of the Governor, who is also required to serve as cochair of the advisory panel.
   3. A representative designated by the Senate Committee on Rules.
   4. A representative designated by the Speaker of the Assembly.
   5. Six K–12 teacher representatives, designated by the SPI.
   6. A representative representing the Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
   7. A credentialed teacher representing the Computer Science Teachers Association.
   8. A representative of the private sector technology industry, designated by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI).
   9. A faculty member from the University of California.
   10. A faculty member from the California State University.
   11. A faculty member from the California Community Colleges.
   12. A faculty member from a private postsecondary educational institution, designated by the SPI.
   13. A credentialed teacher from the Instructional Quality Commission.
   14. A representative from an equity-focused organization knowledgeable of computer science/STEM education programs, designated by the SPI.
   15. A representative from a parent organization, designated by the SPI.
   16. A representative representing school administrators and superintendents, designated by the SPI.
   17. A pupil enrolled in a public school, designated by the SPI.
   18. A representative from a county office of education, designated by the SPI. (EC § 53310(b))
8. States the intent of the Legislature that the six K-12 representatives include two elementary school teachers, two middle school teachers, and two high school teachers who are all currently teaching, and that these representatives include one teacher from a large urban school district and one from a rural school district. (EC § 53310(b)(5))
9. Authorizes administrators from the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges to serve as advisers to the advisory panel to provide input on the computer science strategic implementation plan. (EC § 53310(c))
10. Requires the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel to submit recommendations for a computer science strategic implementation plan, on or before July 1, 2018, to the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and the Legislature. (EC § 53311(a))
11. Requires the advisory panel to include, among other things, recommendations on ensuring that all pupils have access to quality computer science courses, which may provide for, among other things, scaling up computer science education coursework so that all high schools teach at least one computer science course. (EC § 53311(a)(3)(A))
12. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to appoint a statewide computer science liaison within the California Department of Education (CDE) to serve the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel in at least the following actions:
    1. Coordinating the efforts of the advisory panel by writing up the recommendations of the advisory panel members and disseminating them to all stakeholders.
    2. Soliciting input and public comments.
    3. Preparing the necessary legislative reports to share the advisory panel’s recommendations.
    4. Ensuring that the advisory panel recommendations adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE) are implemented. (EC § 53312)
13. Requires CDE and the SBE to consider the recommendations submitted by the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel. (EC § 53313)
14. Requires CDE to develop, and the SBE adopt, a computer science strategic implementation plan on or before January 1, 2019, and required CDE to submit the plan adopted by the SBE to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2019.
15. Sunsets these provisions on July 31, 2020.

ANALYSIS

This bill requires the Governor, unless otherwise specified, to select the membership of the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel, and specifies a list of persons that the advisory may, but is not required to, consist of. This bill also revises the timeline and process for the development and adoption of the advisory panel’s recommendations for a computer science implementation plan and repeals the requirement that the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) appoint a statewide computer science liaison. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the Governor, unless otherwise specified, to select the membership of the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel.
2. Replaces the list of persons required to be on the advisory panel with a nearly identical list of persons suggested to be on the advisory panel, but specifies that the advisory panel is not necessarily limited to that list.
3. Replaces the required representative of the Governor with a suggested representative of the president of the State Board of Education (SBE) or his or her designee.
4. Removes any reference to a member of the advisory panel being designated by the SPI, except for the SPI’s designee.
5. Authorizes representatives, rather than administrators, from the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges to be consulted by, rather than serving as advisers to, the advisory panel to provide input on the computer science strategic implementation plan.
6. Extends the deadline for the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel to submit recommendations for a computer science strategic implementation plan by one year to July 1, 2019, and requires recommendations to be submitted to SPI instead of the California Department of Education (CDE), and to the SBE and the Legislature.
7. Specifies that the advisory panel’s recommendations on ensuring that all pupils have access to quality computer science courses may provide for scaling up computer science education coursework so that all high schools offer at least one computer science course.
8. Deletes the requirement that the SPI appoint a statewide computer science liaison within CDE to serve the computer science strategic implementation advisory panel in its actions.
9. Revises the timeline and process relating to the adoption the advisory panel’s recommendations by requiring the SPI to receive the recommendations submitted by the advisory panel; requiring the SPI to develop, and the SBE to consider adopting, a computer science implementation plan on or before January 1, 2020; and requiring the SPI to submit a plan adopted by the SBE to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2020.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “Although AB 2329 addresses gaps in computer science education, it inadvertently limits discretion of the State Board of Education (SBE) and has technical issues related to the appointments to and staffing of the advisory panel. In response to Governor Brown’s signing message, this bill expands the discretion of the SBE, while resolving the technical issues relating to appointments to and staffing of the advisory panel.”
2. Governor’s signing message. The Governor issued the following signing message upon signing AB 2329:

I am signing Assembly Bill 2329 to ensure that California develops a computer science strategic plan that will drive innovative teaching and learning and prepares out students for computer science jobs in an ever changing digital age.

As drafted, this bill inadvertently limits the discretion of the State Board of Education and has technical issues related to the appointments to and staffing of the advisory panel. The sponsors have committed to addressing these issues when the legislature returns.

1. Budget trailer bill. According to the author, “this is a cleanup bill.” Similar but not identical language is also included in the Department of Finance’s proposed Omnibus Education Trailer Bill for the Governor’s 2017-18 Proposed Budget (http://www.dof.ca.gov/Budget/Trailer_Bill_Language/documents/300EducationOmnibus.pdf). This budget trailer bill differs from this bill in that it requires the Governor, not the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to convene the advisory panel, it species that three of the 6 suggested K-12 representatives shall be designated by the SPI, and in other minor but substantively-the-same organization.
2. Further clarification needed? The committee staff is informed by the author’s office that the intent of this bill is to give the Governor complete discretion in determining the composition of the advisory committee. However, the committee staff is concerned that language in the bill as drafted, specifically the “unless otherwise specified in this subdivision” qualification preceding the Governor’s stated authority to select the membership of the advisory panel, could undermine the intended authority, as described by the author’s office. As the bill moves forward, the committee staff encourages the author to work with the Department of Finance to ensure that their combined intent is effectively reflected in the bill.
3. Previous legislation. AB 2329 (Bonilla, Ch. 693, Stats. 2016) requires the SPI to convene a computer science strategic implementation advisory panel to develop recommendations for a computer science strategic implementation plan.

AB 2275 (Dababneh, 2016) authorizes a person who possesses a single subject teaching credential in business, industrial and technology education, mathematics, or science or a designated subjects career technical education teaching credential to teach computer science to all students, including students enrolled in a general education or college preparatory course or a career technical education pathway. AB 2275 was never heard.

AB 1258 (Chau, 2015) required the Superintendent of Public Instruction to establish a computer science education grant pilot program for local educational agencies to establish, expand and maintain computer science courses and provide professional development in computer science. AB 1258 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1530 (Chau, 2014) required the SPI to consider identifying, developing or revising model curriculum on computer science for kindergarten - 6th grade. AB 1530 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2110 (Ting, 2014) required the Instructional Quality Commission to consider incorporating computer science curriculum content into the mathematics, science, history-social science, and English language arts/English language development frameworks. AB 2110 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SUPPORT

Access Smart

Adeptek Consulting Inc

AIMS360

Bond Consulting Services

California Chamber of Commerce

INFINITI Consulting, Inc.

International Software Systems

Microsoft Corporation

TechNet

The Silicon Valley Organization (The SVO)

Thundrr

Twist!Cloud Web Services

US Licensing Group

Valley Industry & Commerce Association

OPPOSITION

None received.

-- END --