California Senate passes SB 790 to join interstate higher education reciprocity agreement

The California State Senate's Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee convened on April 21, 2025, to discuss significant legislative proposals, including Senate Bill 351 and Senate Bill 790, both aimed at enhancing the state's regulatory framework for healthcare and higher education.

Senate Bill 351, which aligns with existing guidelines from the California Medical Board, seeks to clarify definitions related to private equity investments in healthcare. Proponents emphasized that the bill does not aim to deter private equity from investing in California's healthcare sector. Instead, it aims to maintain current standards while addressing concerns raised by stakeholders. The committee voted in favor of the bill, moving it to the Senate Judiciary Committee with a vote of 6 to 1.

Senate Bill 790, introduced by Senator Cabaldon, aims to address California's unique position as the only state not participating in an interstate reciprocity agreement for online education. This bill is designed to streamline the process for California institutions to offer online courses to out-of-state students and vice versa. It proposes that the governor join an interstate agreement that would allow California's colleges and universities to compete more effectively in the national market. The bill includes provisions to ensure strong consumer protection standards, which would require out-of-state institutions to meet California's rigorous requirements.

Supporters of SB 790, including representatives from various educational institutions, highlighted the need for California to modernize its approach to online education, especially in light of the increased demand for distance learning. They argued that joining the reciprocity agreement would reduce administrative burdens and enhance access to quality education for California residents.

However, the bill faced opposition from some stakeholders who expressed concerns about potential gaps in consumer protections and the implications for for-profit institutions. Critics argued that the bill could allow for arbitrary denial of participation by out-of-state institutions without due process. They urged for amendments to ensure that all institutions, including for-profits, are treated equitably under the proposed framework.

The committee acknowledged the concerns raised and emphasized the importance of ongoing dialogue with stakeholders to refine the legislation. The discussions underscored the balance between expanding educational access and maintaining robust consumer protections in California's evolving educational landscape. The committee's actions signal a commitment to addressing these critical issues as the legislative process continues.