Effectiveness of California Higher Education Legislation (Senate Bill 1644) and National Implications of Higher Education as a Right or Privilege - Education and Program Development Volume 25 - March 2014

Oct 15, 2026

Examines the effectiveness of California Senate Bill (SB) 1644 (2000), which shifted the Cal Grant Programs toward entitlement rather than merit-based grants. The study evaluates whether SB 1644 meets its legislative goals of expanding higher education opportunities and reducing student loan debt, while analyzing demographic differences over a 20-year period. It also develops the national political question: whether higher education should be treated as a right or a privilege, drawing on education, policy, and social mobility research.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages14

Reading Time35 min

AccessFree to download

Effectiveness of SB 1644 and program objectives

National implications: right vs privilege

Policy background and shift toward merit and federalism

Evidence on student outcomes and demographic patterns

Effectiveness of California Higher Education Legislation (Senate Bill 1644) and National Implications of Higher Education as a Right or Privilege John E. Quinto Linda Hauser California State University, Fresno California legislature made a policy change with Senate Bill (SB) 1644 (2000), shifting Cal Grant Programs to focus on entitlement; counter to the national trend of merit based grant programs. This article describes a study examining effectiveness and extent to which SB 1644 is meeting its legislative objectives: increase in higher education opportunities and lower student loan debt. Additionally, demographic characteristic differences of student populations seeking higher education opportunities (20-year period) and factors influencing California policy to embrace entitlement grants are presented. The national implication and political (value) question derived from this study was: Is higher education a right or a privilege? Education, beyond all other devices of human origin, is a great equalizer of the conditions of men. Horace Mann, Father of American Education, 1848 Education, especially public education, fulfills many of the nation’s basic goals and has done so since the country’s founding. According to the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, it provides an avenue to ensure the continuation of U.S. Democracy. Bernard Mayo, 1942 There is no more senseless waste than the waste of the brainpower and skill of those who are kept from college by economic circumstance. Lyndon Johnson, Special Message to Congress, March 16, 1964 Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development Volume 25, March 2014 ISSN 1532-0723 © 2014 California Association of Professors of Educational Administration Democratic citizenry need to be educated in order to be active and engaged participants in a democratic process (Mayo, 1942 ; Gaus, 1947; Gawthrop, 1998; Kraft & Furlong, 2004) . Kraft and Furlong (2004) contended that education has helped to assimilate large numbers of immigrants and is the primary mechanism for social mobility in the United States; arguing that educated people are better able to gain employment, which brings about social and economic status. A review of research revealed that poverty and education levels are correlated, and the national and state policies enacted since the 1980s have promoted economic segregation causing polarization; rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, resulting in the loss of a middle class that was growing before WWII (Moffet, 1989 ; Kraft & Furlong, 2004; Harrigan & Nice, 2008) . During the years of 1975 through 2002 for workers over the age of 18, the average income for high school graduates and some college increased from an income of $10,000 to approximately $30,000 (overall increase of approximately $20,000); however, the average income for education attainment of a bachelor’s and advanced degree increased from an income of $10,000 and $15,000 to approximately $50,000 and $70,000 respectively, an increase of $40,000 and $55,000 respectively (U. S. Census Bureau, 2008) . This article describes the mixed methods study conducted to examine the effectiveness of California’s Higher Education Entitlement Grant Program enacted by passing SB 1644 and presents impact results with national implications. The 1980 national policy shift from cooperative to new federalism increased states’authority over education funds and allowed states the autonomy to enact their own system for providing education grants, with merit grants the predominant type over entitlement (Harrigan & Nice, 2008) . Heller (2000) asserted that since the 1980s, the practice of awarding financial aid based on financial need was decreasing and merit aid was increasing. Heller (2003) contended,“The rise of merit aid with its resulting implications for college access is part of a broader trend nationally that has placed more emphasis of meeting the college affordability needs of s

FAQs

What policy change does SB 1644 make, and why is it significant?

SB 1644 (2000) shifts Cal Grant Programs to focus on entitlement grants, counter to a national trend toward merit-based grant programs.

What does the study evaluate regarding SB 1644?

It examines the effectiveness and the extent to which SB 1644 meets legislative objectives, including increasing higher education opportunities and lowering student loan debt.

What national question is derived from the study’s findings?

The study frames a political/value question: whether higher education is a right or a privilege.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by pixelkiddo