Existing law requires the California Postsecondary Education Commission, on or before November 15 of each year, to submit a higher education report to the Legislature and the Governor that provides information to the citizens of the state on the significant indicators of performance of the public colleges and universities, as specified. Existing law requires the commission to consider including, for community colleges, the proportion of remedial or developmental education courses taught by full-time faculty. The Budget Act of 2011 deleted funding and personnel from the California Postsecondary Education Commission.

Existing law requires the California Postsecondary Education Commission, on or before November 15 of each year, to submit a higher education report to the Legislature and the Governor that provides information to the citizens of the state on the significant indicators of performance of the public colleges and universities, as specified. The Budget Act of 2011 deleted funding and personnel from the California Postsecondary Education Commission.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to that report provision.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Sasha Renée Pérez, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: April 22, 2026

Subject:

SUMMARY

This bill requires the California State Auditor, by September 1, 2027, to report the results of an audit of the California State University (CSU) and the University of California (UC) that evaluates the use of remedial instruction and supports. It further requires a review of admission reviewer proficiency and training, bias, fairness, and proper assessment of student preparedness.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1. Declares that it is the Legislature’s intent that the governing boards of the CSU and UC, in determining the standards and criteria for undergraduate and graduate admissions to their respective systems do all of the following:
   1. Develop processes which strive to be fair and are easily understandable.
   2. Consider the use of criteria and procedures that allow students to enroll who are otherwise fully and admissible but have course deficiencies due to circumstances beyond their control, and, when appropriate, provide that the admission requires the student to make up the deficiency.
   3. Consult broadly with California’s diverse ethnic and cultural communities. (Education Code (EC) § 66205 (a) (1-3))
2. Declares that it is the Legislature’s intent that UC and CSU 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))
3. Prohibits a CSU and UC campus from granting admission by exception to a student unless the student’s admission has been approved by a minimum of three senior campus administrators. Current law defines “admission by exception” to mean the process by which a campus admits applicants who do not meet the eligibility requirements for admission to the segment, or guaranteed admission to a campus of the segment, but who demonstrate high potential for success and leadership in an academic or special talent program at the campus. (EC § 66022.5 et al.)
4. Requires the CSU to provide certain information regarding the academic progress and placement levels of freshmen at each CSU campus with a focus on general education courses in mathematics/quantitative reasoning and written communication and annually report that information to the Legislature. (EC § 66015.12)

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Requires, by September 1, 2027, the California State Auditor to report on the results of the prescribed audit of the CSU and the UC regarding the use of remedial instruction and supports. This bill requires that the audit do all of the following:
   1. Evaluate the number of students that enrolled in remedial English or

mathematics courses or received support in nonremedial English or mathematics courses.

• 1. Evaluate the efforts of the segment pertaining to students needing

remedial instruction or support.

• 1. Evaluate three of the high-demand campuses of the CSU and three of the

high-demand campuses of the UC on all of the following:

• • 1. Any increase in the use of remedial courses or support in

nonremedial courses since the 2019-20 academic year and the factors contributing to that increase.

• • 1. Potential improvements to the admissions process to ensure that

student preparedness is properly assessed.

• • 1. How the admission process ensures the use of fair and unbiased

admissions practices.

• • 1. The level of proficiency and training of those evaluating

applications.

• 1. Review and assess any other issues that are significant to the audit,

including, but not limited to, identifying any changes that might result in improvements in the ability of CSU and the UC to address the number of students who need remedial courses or support in nonremedial courses.

1. Requires the California State Auditor to report the findings of each audit conducted pursuant to this bill to the chairs of the Assembly Committee on Higher Education, the Senate Committee on Education, and the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, consistent with the requirements.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. The author cites a UC, San Diego (UCSD) report examining academic preparation of its entering first-year students as the rationale for the bill. The report showed UCSD has experienced a significant decline in the academic preparation of entering first-year students over the past five years, with the most severe deterioration occurring in mathematics preparation and notable challenges also present in writing and language skills. Between 2020 and 2025, the number of entering students at UCSD whose mathematics skills fell below high school standards increased nearly thirtyfold, with more than seventy percent of those students performing below middle school standards, representing approximately one in twelve members of the entering cohort. A substantial portion of underprepared students also require remedial instruction in writing, and recent data indicates an increasing overlap between deficiencies in mathematics and deficiencies in writing and literacy. The author further notes, “While expanding access to students from under-resourced backgrounds is consistent with the UC’s mission as a public institution and engine of social mobility, admitting large numbers of students who are profoundly underprepared risks undermining student success, increasing course failure rates, lengthening time to degree, and placing unsustainable strain on faculty and instructional resources.”
2. Admissions. The proposed audit calls for a review of the admission process of three high-demand campuses within the CSU and UC systems, respectively. Expectations and guidance on enrollment targets and eligibility standards for admission for the state’s public universities are outlined by state statute and in the Master Plan for Higher Education. CSU and UC internal policies govern and establish admission eligibility criteria and evaluation procedures for undergraduate admissions, which are described below:
   1. UC Admissions: UC Regent policy specifies that admission requirements established by the University follow the guidelines set by the California Master Plan for Higher Education, which requires that the top one-eighth (12.5 percent) of the state’s high school graduates, as well as those transfer students who have successfully completed specific college work, be eligible for admission to the UC. Accordingly, UC’s admission policy deems a student eligible for admission to the system (guaranteed placement, though not necessarily to the first-choice campus) for all California applicants who are in the top 9 percent of California high school graduates (eligibility in the statewide context) or in the top 9 percent of their respective high school class (eligibility in the local context). Eligibility in the local and statewide context is based on a combination of GPA and completed A-G high school coursework. Applicants who are not in the top 9 percent must also meet eligibility requirements—completion of A-G high school courses with a weighted GPA of at least 3.0 for residents (3.4 for nonresidents)—and are considered through a comprehensive review process that evaluates 13 factors on academic and personal achievements.

The Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) is a committee of the UC Academic Senate that oversees all matters relating to UC admissions of undergraduates. BOARS regulates the policies and practices used in the admissions process that directly relate to the educational mission of the University. It also recommends and directs efforts to improve the admissions process. The setting of eligibility standards as well as defining A-G requirements are among its duties.

• 1. CSU admissions. Whereas the UC is to admit the top one-eighth of high school graduates, the CSU is to include the top one-third of each year’s graduates. For California residents, eligibility is determined based on high school graduation and completion of A-G high school coursework with a GPA of 2.5 or greater. CSU programs that are impacted may require use of a higher A-G GPA threshold as well as identify other supplemental criteria. Many CSU campuses use local admission policies for students who graduate or transfer from high schools and community colleges within the CSU’s local admission area. CSU policy also allows for admission by exception for a “disadvantaged applicant,” defined as an individual from a low-income family and who has the potential to perform satisfactorily on the college level but who has been unable to realize that potential without special assistance because of economic or educational background. The number of students admitted by exception is very limited. The CSU Admission Advisory Council provides recommendations related to admission for consideration by the CSU Board of Trustees.

1. A-G course requirements. High school students must complete at least 15 courses across seven subject areas to be eligible for admission directly from high school to either the UC or CSU. CSU has adopted the UC’s A-G course pattern as the foundation for determining eligibility for its first-time freshmen. A CSU applicant must receive a grade of “C” or better in each course for that course to count toward the requirement. A-G course requirements are as follows:

• Two years of history/social science, including one year of world history, cultures, and historical geography and one year of U.S. history, or one-half year of U.S. history and one-half year of American government or civics.
• Four years of college preparatory English that integrates reading of classic and modern literature, frequent and regular writing, and practice in listening and speaking.
• Three years of college-preparatory math, including or integrating the topics covered in elementary and advanced algebra and two- and three-dimensional geometry.
• Two years of laboratory science providing fundamental knowledge in at least two of the three disciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics.
• Two years of the same language other than English or equivalent to the second level of high school instruction.
• One year of visual and performing arts chosen from dance, music, theater, or the visual arts.
• One year of a college-preparatory elective beyond those used to satisfy the requirements above, or courses that have been approved solely in the elective area.

1. Remediation. This bill calls for an audit to evaluate how many students need remediation, questions why they need it, and probes whether admissions practices are aligned with student readiness. In general, remedial education is intended to help students who are assessed as underprepared in English or math to succeed in college-level coursework after being admitted. In recent years practices for delivering remedial education instruction have changed from the offering noncredit stand-alone courses toward more integrated co-requisite support. Under CSU’s current policy, students who need additional preparation are placed into credit-bearing college-level math/quantitative reasoning courses with support, which may include co-requisite support (students enroll directly in college-level courses with support), supplemental instruction, or stretch formats (the course material is extended over two terms instead of one). The CSU policy allows students to take a maximum of two units or pre-baccalaureate coursework offered concurrently with a college-level, baccalaureate credit-bearing course in the summer prior to their first term through the campus supportive Pathways for First-Year Student program. Campuses also offer this content in a student’s freshman year. It's important to note that existing law already requires CSU to annually report on the effectiveness of their remedial education policy and student outcomes for students needing additional preparation. The committee may wish to consider whether the bill’s provisions related to remediation are duplicative of existing CSU reporting.

There seems to be some variation across the UC in how they approach remediation. According to the UCSD report, the campus enrolls students in prerequisite sequences commencing with Math 2 (Algebra I-II and Geometry), which is a departure from successful integrated support practices. No other UC campus offers a course equivalent to Math 2, which remediates elementary and middle school math. It’s unclear if credit is awarded for Math 2. Two other UC campuses (UC Riverside and UC Davis) now offer partial remediation for high school math, and a third (UC Irvine) offers a self-study, partial high school remediation course. It’s not clear to committee staff whether these or any UC campuses have adopted co-requisite support similar to CSU over standalone noncredit courses. Research from the Public Policy Institute of California has found that co-requisite support models to be effective for delivering remedial education, over traditional remediation education courses. Staff also notes that UCSD is unique as it is the only campus within the system that requires all majors (even those not math related) to take calculus, and as such, it may not serve as the most instructive example for shaping policy.

1. Things to consider. This bill is informed by concerns raised in the UCSD admissions review about student preparedness and admissions. The report examines students enrolled between 2020 and 2025, and it notes that the number of students deemed to need remedial math courses before taking calculus rose from 32 in 2020 to more than 900 in the fall of 2025. It points to several contributing factors consisting of learning loss associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, including disruptions to in-person instruction, reduced opportunities to complete advanced coursework, and uneven access to academic support. The report also notes that the elimination of standardized testing, grade inflation, and the expansion of admissions from under-resourced high schools are coinciding factors. Committee staff notes that in an effort to increase enrollment of students in under-resourced schools (LCFF+ schools), the Budget Act of 2016 appropriated one-time funds for academic and other support services for these students, and again through the 2019 Budget Act.

This bill directs the auditor to evaluate whether the admission processes are fair and unbiased, the training and proficiency of those evaluating applications, and improvements to the admission process to ensure that student preparedness is properly assessed. The issue of remediation as framed in the bill seems solely focused on admission practices, which may raise concerns with how student preparedness and access are treated within the scope of the audit. Seemingly, there is a broad range of circumstances that impact student readiness, including many experienced within K-12 education rather than admissions decisions alone.

• The committee may wish to consider, to the extent that student preparedness reflects broader K-12 disruptions and the need for institutional support, whether focusing on admissions practices related to remediation overlooks the fundamental causes of student preparedness, particularly for COVID-impacted cohorts.
• The committee may wish to also consider, given that the state’s public universities are called upon to provide access and support student success, as well as prior state investments to serve students from under-resourced schools and legislative intent recognizing the admission of students with course deficiencies beyond their control, whether focusing on admissions practices could undermine the UC and CSU’s charge in preparing and supporting these students once enrolled.
• The committee may further wish to consider whether focusing on admissions practices raises concerns about potential unintended consequences for students who are otherwise able to gain admission and succeed with appropriate support.
• The committee may wish to consider whether broader research evaluating college preparedness within the K-12 pipeline and institutional support, particularly for COIVD-impacted students, is merited.

1. Bypasses JLAC. The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) is charged with evaluating and approving which audits the California State Auditor will do each year. Its members are tasked with weighing each proposal and deciding which ones are the highest priority. This bill instead directs the California State Auditor in statute and bypasses JLAC, which raises questions about audit prioritization and use of limited audit resources. The committee may wish to consider whether it is appropriate for audit requests to be considered through the legislative process or whether they are more appropriately vetted through JLAC process.
2. Related and prior legislation.

AB 500 (Quirk-Silva, 2025) would have requested the UC to undertake certain actions before a proposal to change the conditions for undergraduate admissions is adopted by the UC Regents, including providing the proposal to the official UC student organization, the State Board of Education (SBE), the CSU Trustees and each UC Regent. It further would have required, upon receiving the proposal from UC, the SBE and the CSU Trustees, to identify as an item for discussion and discuss the proposal at an open meeting of each of these boards, respectively. AB 500 died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 684 (Patel, 2025) would expand the definition of “Regent of the University of California” to also include the Academic Senate of the University of California, Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools for purposes of the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act. AB 684 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 1217 (Fong, 2025) would request the UC to align the admission criteria used in the review and certification of high school courses with the content standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the SBE for the applicable subject area. AB 1217 further updates the existing local educational agency course certification process for CSU and UC admissions, including a requirement that the approving entity provide a reason for a denial and suggest ways for the local educational agency to obtain future approval. AB 1217 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 309 (Leyva, 2023) would have established the A-G Completion Improvement Grant Program, contingent upon an appropriation, for the purpose of providing additional supports to LEAs to help increase the number of California high school pupils, particularly unduplicated pupils, who graduate from high school eligible to attend a UC or CSU; (2) increases notification requirements regarding high school graduation requirements and UC/CSU admission requirements; and (3) commencing with the 2026-27 school year, would have required charter schools and county offices of education to meet the same requirement as school districts to offer to all otherwise qualified pupils a course of study fulfilling the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the UC/CSU in a timely manner. SB 309 died in the Assembly Education Committee its contents were subsequently included in the 2021 Budget.

AB 233 (Boerner Horvath, 2021) would have requested the UC Regents to adopt a policy directing the UC Office of the President implement other various California State Auditor recommendations related to the general student admission process to be effective for the UC’s 2023 admissions cycle. AB 233 died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1215 (Boerner Horvath, 2021) would have requested the UC Board of Regents to adopt policies directing the UC Office of the President to establish various systemwide protocols pertaining to undergraduate admissions. AB 1215 was vetoed by Governor Newsom whose veto message read in part:

“I am committed to ensuring the fairness of admissions processes at all California colleges and universities, which is why I signed previous legislation with that goal in mind. However, I believe that the system-wide requirements stipulated in this bill could constrain the UC's ability to effectively use its holistic admissions process in admitting diverse cohorts of new students.

“Moreover, I believe that the UC has addressed the majority of issues identified by the State Auditor with the seriousness they deserve and has already implemented many of the safeguards required by this bill. In light of the UC's ongoing implementation of audit recommendations, this bill is premature.

“I will continue to monitor this issue and expect that the UC follows through on these new procedures.”

SUPPORT

California Community College Independents

One individual

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --