SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 1930 (Medina) - Public postsecondary education: University of California and California State University: student eligibility policy

Bill Summary:

This bill, an urgency measure, requires the California State University (CSU) Trustees and requests the University of California (UC) Regents, to engage in a specified process before adding any undergraduate student eligibility requirements.

Fiscal Impact:

A precise estimate of this measure is unknown since it would depend on the frequency in which the CSU or UC considers adding new student eligibility requirements. However, the CSU indicates that its current quantitative reasoning initiative is estimated to cost approximately $1.5 million.  Additionally, the estimated cost of the related independent study is projected to be between $750,000 and $1 million and the cost to convene and coordinate the steering committee is estimated to be $500,000. Based on these estimates, this bill could result in one-time General Fund costs in the low millions of dollars should CSU consider adding a new eligibility requirement.

The UC estimates General Fund costs of approximately $500,000 each time it would be required to commission a third party research study, as well as convene an implementation committee before adding any new undergraduate eligibility requirements. This estimate includes the cost of the study, as well as staff time and related costs tied to consultation with stakeholders. The estimate also assumes that a third party research study would cost between $100,000 and $300,000, and that the cost of convening an implementation committee from a wide variety of stakeholders would be in a similar range.

Background:

Existing law establishes the UC as a public trust to be administered by the Regents of the UC; and, grants the Regents full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure security of its funds, compliance with the terms of its endowments, statutory requirements around competitive bidding and contracts, sales of property and the purchase of materials, goods and services. (California Constitution Article IX, Section 9(a)).

Existing law establishes the Donahoe Higher Education Act, setting forth the mission of the UC and CSU. (Education Code § 66010, et seq.). Existing law states the Legislature’s intent that in determining the standards and criteria for undergraduate and graduate admission to the UC and the CSU, the governing boards develop processes that strive to be fair and are easily understandable, and consider the use of criteria that allow students to enroll who are otherwise fully eligible and admissible but who have course deficiencies due to circumstances beyond their control and consult broadly with California’s diverse ethnic and cultural communities.

Since the early 2000s, the UC and the CSU have established common high school course requirements for undergraduate admissions to ensure that potential university students are prepared to engage and be successful in university-level coursework. Students who follow the articulated sequence of courses in each of the subject areas listed below, and who meet other specified criteria, are eligible to apply and be considered for admission. The following list is commonly referred to the "a-g" subject area requirements:

• 1. 2 years of history/social science.
  2. 4 years of college preparatory English composition and literature.
  3. 3 years of college preparatory mathematics.
  4. 2 years of college-preparatory science.

• 1. 2 years of the same language other than English.
  2. 1 year visual and performing arts.

g) 1 year college preparatory elective.

Recently, CSU considered a proposal to add a new course requirement to meet minimal eligibility standards for CSU admission by requiring the completion of an additional year of quantitative reasoning. As proposed, the quantitative reasoning requirement could be fulfilled by taking an additional course from subject area “c-mathematics,” “d-science” or a quantitative reasoning course from the “g-college preparatory elective.” It further required course completion prior to a student’s senior year of high school commencing with the entering freshman class of 2027.

The proposal to adopt the new course requirement was scheduled to go before the Board of Trustees in January 2020. However, concerns were raised by numerous advocacy groups around the necessity of an eligibility change, disparate access to higher-level coursework in K-12 and overall impact to students particularly those from historically underrepresented groups. Subsequently, the vote was postponed. Instead, the Trustees adopted a seven-year phased-implementation plan, which includes the establishment of a steering committee, and completion of an independent analysis along with annual reporting.

Proposed Law:

This bill requires the CSU Trustees and requests the UC Regents, before making changes in undergraduate student eligibility policy that adds eligibility requirements that impact students across its segment, to do both of the following:

1. Engage and coordinate with the other educational segments impacted by the policy to understand the impacts of the changes, including the California Department of Education and school districts, in order to try to align their respective student eligibility policies. The bill states that it is the Legislature’s intent that there be a common set of clear state public university eligibility requirements for public school pupils.

1. Commission an independent study that: assesses whether the policy change under consideration would have a disparate impact on the eligibility rates of California public secondary school graduates who are underrepresented students; examines the impact by race, ethnicity, income, and region; examines the capacity of and resources needed by the educational segments affected by the change; and makes it and its findings publicly available.

The bill requires the CSU and requests the UC to present the policy change to the Legislature, as specified, no less than 60 days before the scheduled vote on the change.

Further, the bill requires CSU and requests UC, after a change in the student eligibility policy that adds new eligibility requirements is approved, all of the following: convene an implementation committee to develop a multiyear plan for the change with consideration of individuals for membership including representatives from university faculty, K-12 system, student and other stakeholder organizations; provide an annual progress report, between the period of approval and the effective date of the policy change, to the Governor, the Legislature, and the governing bodies of the two segments; and commission an analysis of the policy after it has been adopted and implemented in order to understand the ongoing impact of the policy.

The bill specifies that if a policy change in student eligibility requirements is approved between January 1, 2020, and the operative date of this bill, the CSU Trustees shall and UC Regents are requested to commission an independent study by a third party research organization to assess the actual impact of the change as well as comply with the requirements outlined in the bill. The bill also requires each segment to use existing resources to implement the bill’s provisions.

The bill specifies that a new eligibility requirement does not include an existing eligibility requirement that has been revised to be more or less stringent.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Connie Leyva, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 1930 Hearing Date: July 29, 2020

Subject: Public postsecondary education: University of California and California State University: student eligibility policy.

SUMMARY

This bill, an urgency measure, requires the California State University (CSU) Trustees and requests the University of California (UC) Regents, to engage in a specified process before adding any undergraduate student eligibility requirements.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1) Establishes the UC as a public trust to be administered by the Regents of the UC; and, grants the Regents full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure security of its funds, compliance with the terms of its endowments, statutory requirements around competitive bidding and contracts, sales of property and the purchase of materials, goods and services. (California Constitution Article IX, Section 9(a)).

2) Establishes the Donahoe Higher Education Act, setting forth the mission of the

UC and CSU. (Education Code § 66010, et seq.).

3) States the Legislature’s intent that in determining the standards and criteria for undergraduate and graduate admission to the UC and the CSU, the governing boards develop processes that strive to be fair and are easily understandable, and consider the use of criteria that allow students to enroll who are otherwise fully eligible and admissible but who have course deficiencies due to circumstances beyond their control and consult broadly with California’s diverse ethnic and cultural communities. (EC § 66205 (a))

4) States that the Legislature’s intent for the UC and CSU to seek to enroll a student body that meets high academic standards and reflects the cultural, racial, geographic, economic, and social diversity of California. (EC § 66205 (b)).

5) Grants CSU Trustees regulatory authority over the CSU. (EC § 89030, et seq.)

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Requires the CSU Trustees and requests the UC Regents, before making changes in undergraduate student eligibility policy that adds eligibility requirements that impact students across its segment, to do both of the following:
   1. Engage and coordinate with the other educational segments impacted by

the policy to understand the impacts of the changes, including the California Department of Education and school districts, in order to try to align their respective student eligibility policies. The bill states that it is the Legislature’s intent that there be a common set of clear state public university eligibility requirements for public school pupils.

• 1. Commission an independent study that:
     1. Assesses whether the policy change under consideration would

have a disparate impact on the eligibility rates of California public secondary school graduates who are underrepresented students.

• • 1. Examines the impact by race, ethnicity, income, and region.
    2. Examines the capacity of and resources needed by the educational

segments affected by the change.

• • 1. Makes it and its findings publicly available. The bill further states

that it is the Legislature’s intent that the segments should not pursue student eligibility policies that would have such a disparate impact.

• 1. Present the policy change to the Legislature, as specified, no less than 60

days before the scheduled vote on the change.

1. Requires, after a change in the student eligibility policy that adds eligibility requirements is approved, all of the following:
   1. The CSU Trustees and requests the UC Regents to convene an

implementation committee to develop a multiyear plan for the change with consideration of individuals for membership including representatives from university faculty, K-12 system, student and other stakeholder organizations.

• 1. The implementation committee to provide an annual progress report,

between the period of approval and the effective date of the policy change, to the Governor, the Legislature, and the governing bodies of the two segments.

• 1. The implementation committee to commission an analysis of the policy

after it has been adopted and implemented in order to understand the ongoing impact of the policy.

1. Specifies that if a policy change in student eligibility requirements is approved between January 1, 2020, and the operative date of this bill, the CSU Trustees shall and UC Regents are requested to commission an independent study by a third party research organization to assess the actual impact of the change as well as comply with the requirements outlined in the bill.
2. Requires each segment to use existing resources to implement the bill’s provisions.

1. Defines for the purposes of this bill, “segments,” to mean the CSU and the UC.
2. Makes the bill an urgency measure in order to ensure that students who are currently preparing themselves academically will be eligible for the UC or the CSU and properly informed of proposed changes to student eligibility policies.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “The goal of our higher education system should be to help students cross the finish line, not put up new and unnecessary hurdles.” The author contends that, “AB 1930 creates commonsense oversight of public university admission and eligibility policies to ensure that any new policies have been thoroughly vetted prior to adoption. AB 1930 will allow us to have a larger conversation about admission requirements and potential impact as we strive to build equity within our higher education institutions.”
2. Course requirements for undergraduate admission. Since the early 2000s, the UC and the CSU have established common high school course requirements for undergraduate admissions to ensure that potential university students are prepared to engage and be successful in university-level coursework. Students who follow the articulated sequence of courses in each of the subject areas listed below, and who meet other specified criteria, are eligible to apply and be considered for admission. The following list is commonly referred to the "a-g" subject area requirements:
   1. 2 years of history/social science.
   2. 4 years of college preparatory English composition and literature.
   3. 3 years of college preparatory mathematics.
   4. 2 years of college-preparatory science.

• 1. 2 years of the same language other than English.
  2. 1 year visual and performing arts.

g) 1 year college preparatory elective.

1. Recent effort to change admission requirements. Recently, CSU considered a proposal to add a new course requirement to meet minimal eligibility standards for CSU admission by requiring the completion of an additional year of quantitative reasoning. As proposed, the quantitative reasoning requirement could be fulfilled by taking an additional course from subject area “c-mathematics,” “d-science” or a quantitative reasoning course from the “g-college preparatory elective.” It further required course completion prior to a student’s senior year of high school commencing with the entering freshman class of 2027.

The proposal to adopt the new course requirement was scheduled to go before the Board of Trustees in January 2020. However, concerns were raised by numerous advocacy groups around the necessity of an eligibility change, disparate access to higher-level coursework in K-12 and overall impact to students particularly those from historically underrepresented groups. Subsequently, the vote was postponed. Instead, the Trustees adopted a seven-year phased-implementation plan, which includes the establishment of a steering committee, and completion of an independent analysis along with annual reporting. This bill requires the segments to engage in similarly activities. Committee staff understands that the CSU Board of Trustees are to revisit the adoption of the quantitative reasoning requirement in Spring 2022 to allow time for the independent analysis to conclude.

1. Applicability to current eligibility requirements? The UC and the CSU each have other criteria for undergraduate admission, including meeting grade point average (GPA) and/or standardized test score benchmarks that coincide with completion of the a-g course pattern. This bill creates a statutory process for which the CSU and UC governing boards are to consider new eligibility factors under their respective policies, as well as, a process for monitoring implementation after adoption. It is unclear, however, whether the language currently in the bill is applicable when revisions are made within an existing requirement. For example, proposals that revise the current GPA cut-off needed for admittance. According to the author, the intent is to trigger the bill’s provisions when a new eligibility requirement is added, not when an existing requirement is changed. For purposes of having a clear policy that aligns with the author’s intent staff recommends, author agrees, that the bill be amended to state, “adds new eligibility requirements,” in EC § 66205.4(a), (b)(1), and (b)(2) and additionally specify that “new eligibility requirement,” does not include an existing eligibility requirement that was revised to be more or less stringent.
2. Arguments in support. The Campaign for College Opportunity notes, “while the UC pursued a possible change in their Science course requirements, they commissioned the Public Policy Institute of California to study the effects of its potential adoption. The PPIC study documented a concerning disparate impact on how such a new admission requirement would impact students of color, which contributed to the UC decision to maintain current requirements and avoid inadvertently harming entry for Black, Latinx, and low-income students.” They assert however, “At the CSU, a proposal (2019 proposal) to require an additional year of quantitative reasoning for freshman eligibility was put forth without soliciting input from the K-12 system or conducting an independent study to forecast the intended and unintended impacts from its implementation. “Additionally, it is noted that the bill would provide due diligence is done on behalf of students at schools that are not sufficiently supported to absorb the costs of complying with new, unilaterally established university requirements.”
3. Arguments in opposition. In addition to concerns about the broad application of AB 1930 applying to any proposal that institutes a new requirement to admission policies, the CSU contends that, “The transparency and oversight AB 1930 is seeking has already been established. Since January, the CSU has been working to issue a contract for an independent third-party analysis of their potential impacts of the proposed [quantitative reasoning course] requirement. Additionally, the CSU has constituted the steering committee that will begin work this August. Therefore, a bill that mandates procedural requirements that have already been implemented does not seem warranted at this time.”

SUPPORT

Campaign for College Opportunity

Los Angeles Unified School District

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

Nextgen California

The Education Trust - West

OPPOSITION

California State University

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1930

Author:(Medina, et al.)

As Amended Ver:May 18, 2020

2/3 vote. Urgency

SUMMARY:

Requires the California State University (CSU) Trustees, and requests the University of California (UC) Regents, to engage in a specified process before adding any new undergraduate student eligibility requirements.

EXISTING LAW.

1. Establishes the UC as a public trust to be administered by the Regents of the UC; and, grants the Regents full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure security of its funds, compliance with the terms of its endowments, statutory requirements around competitive bidding and contracts, sales of property and the purchase of materials, goods and services (California Constitution Article IX, Section 9(a)).
2. Establishes the Donahoe Higher Education Act, setting forth the mission of the UC and CSU (Education Code (EC) Section 66010, et seq.).
3. States that the Legislature intends for the UC and CSU to seek to enroll a student body that meets high academic standards and reflects the cultural, racial, geographic, economic, and social diversity of California (EC Section 66205).
4. Grants CSU Trustees regulatory authority over the CSU (EC Section 89030, et seq.).

Major Provisions

1. Requires the CSU Trustees, and requests the UC Regents, before making any change in undergraduate student eligibility policy that adds eligibility requirements, to engage in a multi-step process.
2. Requires the institution considering a policy change to:
   1. Engage with other educational systems, including the K-12 system, impacted by the policy change;
   2. Make efforts to align any changes with the eligibility requirements of other education segments; and,
   3. Commission an independent study by a third-party research organization to assess the impact of the proposed change on the eligibility rates of underrepresented student groups.
3. Requires the CSU Trustees, and requests the UC Regents, upon determining to make a change in undergraduate student eligibility policy that adds eligibility requirements, convene an implementation committee to develop a multiyear plan for the change with annual progress reports to the Governor, the Legislature and the other university system.
4. Specifies that if any such change in student eligibility requirements is approved between January 1, 2020, and the operative date of this bill, the CSU Trustees shall, and UC Regents are requested to, commission an independent study by a third-party research organization to assess the impact of the change.

COMMENTS:

Urgency clause. This measure contains an urgency clause in order to ensure that pupils who are currently preparing themselves academically to be eligible for acceptance into the UC or CSU, are properly informed of proposed changes to the UC or CSU student eligibility policies.

Background. The UC Regents and the CSU Trustees, in the late 1980's adopted a 15-unit high school preparatory course pattern requirement for first-time, first-year students. Additionally, since the early 2000's, the UC and CSU have maintained the same minimum course requirements for admissions eligibility; these courses are known as the "A-G Requirements."

Recent segment efforts to change the A-G Requirements. The Academic Senate of the UC approved a proposal in 2018 to increase the high school science admission eligibility requirement from two years to three years. To note, Committee Staff understands that while the Academic Senate voted for the change, the UC, after vetting the proposal, has determined that the UC will not move forward in the near feature with changing the current minimum science admission eligibility criteria.

The CSU, in 2019 proposed an additional year of quantitative reasoning (QR) to the minimum admission eligibility criteria; CSU defined QR as any course that would qualify in the following A-G Requirements:

1. Mathematics (C);
2. Science (D); or,
3. An elective with an embedded QR component (G).

After the CSU Trustees heard the initial proposal to change the eligibility requirements, many stakeholders expressed concerns over the potential disparate impact that change could have on underrepresented student groups. This Committee convened an oversight hearing on the proposal on October 21, 2019. Based on expressed concerns by the Legislature and other stakeholder groups, the CSU Trustees re-examined the proposal and voted in January 2020, in part, to create specific changes to the proposal, incorporate an external review of the proposal, and delay implementation of the proposal.

According to the Author:

According to the author, "The goal of our higher education system should be to help students cross the finish line, not put up new and unnecessary hurdles." The author contends that, "AB 1930 creates commonsense oversight of public university admission and eligibility policies to ensure that any new policies have been thoroughly vetted prior to adoption. AB 1930 will allow us to have a larger conversation about admission requirements and potential impact as we strive to build equity within out higher education institutions."

Arguments in Support:

According to the California Faculty Association, "AB 1930 would ensure that the CSU's admissions eligibly policy decisions are transparent, have proper oversight and impact assessments, and have coordinated implementation plans with public elementary and secondary education systems."

Arguments in Opposition:

According to the CSU, "While many of the provisions of AB 1930 align with the actions taken by the Board, the CSU is concerned the language of AB 1930 is overly broad and would apply to other eligibility policies. While well intentioned, the prescriptive nature of AB 1930 would not necessarily be applicable in all circumstances."

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, unknown General Fund costs to the UC and CSU systems depending on the frequency with which either system considers adding new undergraduate student eligibility requirements, and its ultimate decision to do so. Should either system consider adding a requirement, one-time costs for a third-party study likely would be in the low-to-mid hundreds of thousands of dollars. Should a system decide to move forward with adding a requirement, one-time costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, to convene an implementation committee to produce a multiyear plan and ongoing costs, likely in the tens of thousands of dollars, to produce an annual progress report. Staffing costs at either system to oversee these activities would depend on the path the system takes.

VOTES:

ASM HIGHER EDUCATION: 9-1-2

YES: Medina, Arambula, Bloom, Voepel, Gabriel, Irwin, Low, Santiago, Weber

NO: Levine

ABS, ABST OR NV: Kiley, Patterson

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-4

YES: Gonzalez, Bauer-Kahan, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Diep, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Petrie-Norris, McCarty, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bigelow, Megan Dahle, Fong, Voepel

UPDATED:

VERSION: May 18, 2020

CONSULTANT: Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0002893

Date of Hearing: June 2, 2020

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1930

Author:(Medina) – As Amended Ver:May 18, 2020

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires California’s public universities to engage in a specified process before adding any new undergraduate student eligibility requirements.

Specifically, this bill requires the California State University (CSU) Trustees, and requests the University of California (UC) Regents, before making any change in undergraduate student eligibility policy that adds eligibility requirements, to engage in a multi-step process. The process requires the institution considering a policy change to (a) engage with other educational systems, including the K-12 system, impacted by the policy change; (b) make efforts to align any changes with the eligibility requirements of other education segments; and (c) commission an independent study by a third-party research organization to assess the impact of the proposed change on the eligibility rates of underrepresented student groups.

The bill also requires the CSU Trustees, and requests the UC Regents, upon determining to make a change in undergraduate student eligibility policy that adds eligibility requirements, convene an implementation committee to develop a multiyear plan for the change with annual progress reports to the Governor, the Legislature and the other university system. The bill specifies that if any such change in student eligibility requirements is approved between January 1, 2020, and the operative date of this bill, the CSU Trustees shall, and UC Regents are requested to, commission an independent study by a third-party research organization to assess the impact of the change.

This bill has an urgency clause, meaning it requires a 2/3 vote and will be enacted immediately upon passage.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown General Fund costs to the UC and CSU systems depending on the frequency with which either system considers adding new undergraduate student eligibility requirements, and its ultimate decision to do so. Should either system consider adding a requirement, one-time costs for a third-party study likely would be in the low-to-mid hundreds of thousands of dollars. Should a system decide to move forward with adding a requirement, one-time costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, to convene an implementation committee to produce a multiyear plan and ongoing costs, likely in the tens of thousands of dollars, to produce an annual progress report. Staffing costs at either system to oversee these activities would depend on the path the system takes.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

AB 1930 creates commonsense oversight of public university admission and eligibility policies to ensure that any new policies have been thoroughly vetted prior to adoption. AB 1930 will allow us to have a larger conversation about admission requirements and potential impact as we strive to build equity within out higher education institutions.

1. Background. In the late 1980s, the UC Regents and the CSU Trustees each adopted a 15-unit high school preparatory course pattern required for admission to institutions within their respective systems. Since the early 2000s, the systems have maintained the same minimum course requirements for admissions eligibility.

The UC Regents and CSU Trustees have broad latitude to modify eligibility requirements to their respective systems, and recently have taken some preliminary actions to do so. In 2018, the UC Regents considered adding an additional year of science to the UC system’s minimum eligibility criteria. After examination of the proposal by a third-party, the UC Regents decided not to move forward with the proposal. In 2019, the CSU Trustees considered requiring an additional year of “quantitative reasoning” to the system’s minimum admission eligibility criteria. (The proposal defined quantitative reasoning as a course in mathematics, science or an elective meeting certain requirements.) The CSU Trustees ultimately voted in January 2020 to make several changes to the proposal, incorporate an external review of the proposal and delay implementation of the proposal. CSU Trustees moved to this position following significant backlash from equity-focused groups expressing concerns over the potential disparate impact the change could have on underrepresented student groups; K-12 concerns about lack of communication about the proposal, costs associated with providing the classes required by the new requirement; and an oversight hearing in the Assembly Committee on Higher Education in October 2019 showcasing various concerns.

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

Date of Hearing: May 13, 2020

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Jose Medina, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1930 (

Author:Medina) – As Introduced Ver:January 15, 2020

SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: University of California and California State University: student eligibility policy.

SUMMARY: Requires the California State University (CSU) Trustees, and requests the University of California (UC) Regents, before making any change in student eligibility policy that adds eligibility requirements that affect students across the perspective segment, to engage in a multi-step process prior to enacting said policy. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the CSU Trustees, and requests the UC Regents, prior to making any change in student eligibility policy that adds eligibility requirements that impact students across the perspective segment, do both of the following:
   1. Coordinate with the other segment to try to align their respective student eligibility policies. It is the intent of the Legislature that there be a common set of clear state public university eligibility requirements for public school pupils; and,
   2. Commission an independent study by a third-party research organization to assess whether the change in student eligibility policy under consideration would have a disparate impact on the eligibility rates of the graduates of public secondary schools who are members of underrepresented student groups. It is the intent of the Legislature that the segments should not pursue student eligibility policies that would have such a disparate impact.
2. Specifies that if, on or after the operative date of this measure, either the CSU Trustees or the UC Regents approve a change in student eligibility policy that adds eligibility requirements that impact students across the perspective segment, the CSU Trustees shall, and the UC Regents are requested to, do both of the following:
   1. Convene an implementation committee that shall develop a multiyear plan for that segment to work in partnership with the public elementary and secondary school system, the California Community Colleges, and the governing body of the other segment to implement the change; and,
   2. Each academic year between the approval of the change in student eligibility policy by the CSU Trustees or UC Regents and the effective date of that policy change, the implementation committee shall provide annual progress reports to the Governor, the Legislature, and the governing bodies of the two segments.
      1. The report to the Legislature shall comply with Section 9795 of the Government Code.
3. Specifies that if, between January 1, 2020, and the operative date of this measure, either the CSU Trustees or the UC Regents approve a change in student eligibility policy that adds eligibility requirements that impact students across the perspective segment, the CSU Trustees shall, and the UC Regents are requested to, do both of the following:
   1. Commission an independent study by a third-party research organization to make an assessment as enumerated in (1)(b) above, except that the assessment shall be required to analyze the actual, as well as the projected, impact of the change in student eligibility policy that was approved; and,
   2. Comply with the requirements as enumerated in (2), inclusive, above.
4. Requires the CSU and UC, when implementing this measure, to use existing resources.
5. Defines the term “segment” as the CSU or the UC.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the UC as a public trust to be administered by the Regents of the UC; and, grants the Regents full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure security of its funds, compliance with the terms of its endowments, statutory requirements around competitive bidding and contracts, sales of property and the purchase of materials, goods and services (Article IX, Section (9)(a) of the California Constitution).
2. Establishes the Donahoe Higher Education Act, setting forth the mission of the UC and CSU (Education Code (EC) Section 66010, et seq.).
3. States that the Legislature intends for the UC and CSU to seek to enroll a student body that meets high academic standards and reflects the cultural, racial, geographic, economic, and social diversity of California (EC Section 66205).
4. Grants CSU Trustees regulatory authority over the CSU (EC Section 89030, et seq.).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Urgency clause. This measure contains an urgency clause in order to ensure that pupils who are currently preparing themselves academically to be eligible for acceptance into the UC or CSU, are properly informed of proposed changes to the UC or CSU student eligibility policies.

Background. The UC Regents and the CSU Trustees, in the late 1980’s adopted a 15-unit high school preparatory course pattern requirement for first-time, first-year students. Additionally, since the early 2000’s, the UC and CSU have maintained the same minimum course requirements for admissions eligibility; these courses are known as the “A-G Requirements.”

Recent segment efforts to change the A-G Requirements. The Academic Senate of the UC approved a proposal in 2018 to increase the high school science admission eligibility requirement from two years to three years. To note, Committee Staff understands that while the Academic Senate voted for the change, the UC, after vetting the proposal, has determined that the UC will not move forward in the near feature with changing the current minimum science admission eligibility criteria.

The CSU, in 2019 proposed an additional year of quantitative reasoning (QR) to the minimum admission eligibility criteria; CSU defined QR as any course that would qualify in the following A-G Requirements:

1. Mathematics (C);
2. Science (D); or,
3. An elective with an embedded QR component (G).

After the CSU Trustees heard the initial proposal to change the eligibility requirements, many stakeholders expressed concerns over the potential disparate impact that change could have on underrepresented student groups. This Committee convened an oversight hearing on the proposal on October 21, 2019. Based on expressed concerns by the Legislature and other stakeholder groups, the CSU Trustees re-examined the proposal and voted in January 2020, in part, to create specific changes to the proposal, incorporate an external review of the proposal, and delay implementation of the proposal.

Need for the measure. According to the author, “The goal of our higher education system should be to help students cross the finish line, not put up new and unnecessary hurdles”. The author contends that, “AB 1930 creates commonsense oversight of public university admission and eligibility policies to ensure that any new policies have been thoroughly vetted prior to adoption. AB 1930 will allow us to have a larger conversation about admission requirements and potential impact as we strive to build equity within out higher education institutions.”

Committee comments and amendments. Committee Staff understands the author has the following intent with this measure:

1. That the provision applies only to undergraduate students;
2. Ensure that collaboration and transparency take place between the segment and affected stakeholder groups;
3. The third-party research organization assess key metrics;
4. That the Legislature be provided with potential policy changes with ample time;
5. That the composition of the implementation committee is a representation of a variety of stakeholder groups; and,
6. That should a policy be adopted, the implementation committee conduct an analysis of the policy.

With this in mind, Committee Staff recommends, and the author has agreed to accept, the following amendments:

66205.4. (a) Before making any change in undergraduate student eligibility policy

(1) Engage in discussions with and Coordinate coordinate with the other educational segment segments that will be impacted by the policy to understand the impacts of the policy, including but not limited to, the California Department of Education, K-12 and high school districts and

(2) Commission an independent study by a third-party research organization to assess whether the change in student eligibility policy under consideration would have a disparate impact on the eligibility rates of the California graduates of public secondary schools who are members of underrepresented student groups. Specifically, the study shall examine the impact by race, ethnicity, income, and region; and examine the capacity of and resources needed by the educational segments affected to make the necessary changes and investments to deliver on the policy change. This study and its findings should be made publicly available. It is the intent of the Legislature that the segments should not pursue student eligibility policies that would have such a disparate impact.

(3) Present the policy change to the Legislature by way of the Chairs of the appropriate policy committees with jurisdiction no less than sixty days prior to the scheduled vote on the policy change.

(A) … Composition of this implementation committee should consider, but is not limited to, representatives from the following:

(1)  A faculty representative from any relevant postsecondary segment;

(2)  A teacher from an elementary or high school system;

(3)  An administrator from an elementary or high school system;

(4)  A superintendent from California’s public elementary or high school system;

(5)  A school board member from a local education agency;

(6)  A student representative from the high school system and postsecondary segment;

(7)  A non-partisan research organization;

(8) Two representatives from an external stakeholder organization with expertise in racial equity in education and/or higher education.

When putting the implementation committee together, careful consideration shall be used in order to ensure that at least one-third of the implementation committee is comprised of individuals from a Title I school; and from a rural region.

(B) … Additionally, the implementation committee shall plan to commission an analysis of the policy post adoption and full implementation to understand ongoing impact of the policy.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Faculty Association
California Mathematics Council
California Teachers Association
California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP
Campaign for College Opportunity
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
Public Advocates, Inc.
The Education Trust - West

Opposition

California State University, Office of the Chancellor

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