The Great Divide: California’s Legislative Battle Over Community College Baccalaureates

As the California state legislative session draws to a close, a quiet but profound transformation of the state’s higher education landscape hangs in the balance. Two pivotal bills—AB 2694 and SB 960—are currently winding their way through the Assembly, poised for final votes that could fundamentally reshape the mandate of the state’s massive community college system.

At the heart of this debate is a question of identity: Should community colleges remain the traditional "two-year" gateway to four-year universities, or should they evolve into four-year institutions themselves, capable of granting bachelor’s degrees to meet the shifting demands of the modern workforce? While proponents argue that the move is an essential step toward equity and economic mobility, critics warn that it risks fragmenting the state’s well-defined higher education hierarchy.

The Legislative Landscape: Understanding AB 2694 and SB 960

The California Community College system, long lauded as the "great equalizer" of American public education, has been granting bachelor’s degrees under strict, limited parameters for over a decade. However, the current legislative push aims to loosen those constraints.

AB 2694 and SB 960 represent the most significant attempts yet to scale this model. AB 2694 seeks to broaden the scope of permissible degree programs, even in instances where a nearby public four-year university offers a similar curriculum. To maintain quality, the bill imposes rigorous performance standards that colleges must meet before they are authorized to grant baccalaureate degrees.

SB 960, meanwhile, addresses concerns regarding institutional mission creep. The bill proposes a cap: community colleges would be limited to granting bachelor’s degrees at a rate no higher than 15 percent of the total number of associate degrees they confer annually. By creating this threshold, legislators hope to ensure that community colleges do not lose sight of their core mission—providing affordable, accessible two-year education—while still offering a path to higher-level credentials.

A History of Higher Ed Evolution

For over 100 years, the California Master Plan for Higher Education—established in 1960—created a clear, tripartite structure: the University of California (UC) system focused on research and doctoral education; the California State University (CSU) system handled undergraduate and master’s level instruction; and the community colleges provided vocational training and general education transfer pathways.

This rigid structure began to soften roughly a decade ago as workforce gaps widened in specialized fields. Dental hygiene, nursing, and certain technical trades began to require higher levels of education than an associate degree could provide. When regional shortages became acute, lawmakers began granting pilot programs to community colleges.

However, this evolution has not been without friction. In both 2024 and 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation that would have authorized community colleges to grant nursing degrees. These vetoes signaled a deep-seated caution within the executive branch regarding the expansion of the community college mandate, suggesting that the path forward for AB 2694 and SB 960 remains fraught with political peril, even if they clear the Assembly floor.

The Argument for Accessibility and Workforce Alignment

Assemblymember David Alvarez, the primary sponsor of AB 2694, frames the issue as a pragmatic response to a changing society. In a recent statement, he emphasized that the traditional model of "four-year college" is becoming increasingly inaccessible for the modern student.

"Our economy has changed, our workforce needs have changed and our students have changed," Alvarez stated. "Many are working adults, parents, caregivers and first-generation students who are rooted in their communities and cannot relocate or commute long distances to earn a degree."

Alvarez argues that the "transfer pathway" model—where students spend two years at a local college before moving to a university—is not a universal solution. For a parent working a full-time job in a community that is hours away from the nearest CSU campus, the ability to finish a bachelor’s degree locally is not just a convenience; it is a necessity for survival.

Cerritos College, located in Norwalk, California, serves as a living laboratory for this philosophy. Having already successfully implemented a Bachelor of Science in Dental Hygiene, the college is now preparing to launch a Bachelor of Science in Field Ironworker Supervision in spring 2027. According to Jose L. Fierro, president and superintendent of Cerritos College, this program is designed specifically for individuals already embedded in the construction industry.

"It’s very unlikely that someone with a family, with a good-paying job, is going to quit their job and move 300 miles away to take a program and come back," Fierro noted. He maintains that his goal is not to compete with the CSU system, but to provide a specific, high-demand credential that would otherwise remain out of reach for his students.

The Counter-Argument: Mission Creep and Resource Allocation

Not everyone in the higher education community is convinced that expanding baccalaureate offerings is the right strategy. Eloy Ortiz Oakley, who served as chancellor of the California Community College system from 2016 to 2022, is among the most vocal skeptics.

Oakley, currently the president and CEO of the College Futures Foundation, argues that the focus on bachelor’s degrees is a diversion of energy and resources that could be better spent on shorter-term, high-impact credentials. "Community colleges continue to twist themselves into pretzels trying to find an angle that allows them to offer more baccalaureate degrees, and I think that’s a mistake," Oakley said. "We’re missing the point in California."

Oakley’s critique is rooted in the shifting nature of the modern labor market. He points to declining national interest in traditional four-year degrees and a growing demand for alternative credentials, such as micro-certificates and industry-recognized certifications. For Oakley, the future of the community college lies in its agility—its ability to respond to workforce trends in weeks or months, rather than the years it takes to build and gain accreditation for a full bachelor’s degree program.

Supporting Data: The National Context

California is far from a pioneer in this regard. According to the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at Teachers College, Columbia University, at least 24 other states have already established laws permitting community colleges to offer select bachelor’s degrees.

Yet, the data suggests that these programs remain a small fraction of the overall educational ecosystem. As of last spring, only about 2 percent of all community college students nationwide were enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program.

Thomas Brock, director of the CCRC, views these programs as a net positive for students, provided there is synergy rather than conflict with four-year institutions. "These arrangements are in the best interest of students and communities," Brock noted. "The more community colleges work with public four-year colleges, the better."

However, the "working together" aspect is precisely what is currently missing in the California debate. While a spokesperson for the California State University system declined to comment, industry insiders report significant tension behind closed doors. Four-year institutions often fear that the expansion of community college degrees will siphon off enrollment, particularly in professional fields where tuition revenue is stable.

Implications: The Blurring of Traditional Boundaries

Carlo Salerno, managing director of education insights at the Burning Glass Institute, believes that this legislative battle is merely a symptom of a much larger, unavoidable shift in higher education. The historic divide between the two-year and four-year model is becoming increasingly porous.

"There are only so many students out there that can be trained," Salerno observed. "So I think both school structures are trying to make the case that, ‘Hey, look, if you want us to abide by our traditional roles, then let us abide by our traditional roles, but stay out of my student pool.’"

Salerno argues that the rigid adherence to the 1960s model is becoming a liability. As universities begin to offer short-term professional certificates—traditionally the domain of community colleges—and community colleges begin to offer bachelor’s degrees—the domain of universities—the two systems are effectively converging.

"Maybe we don’t have to adhere to two-year programs providing vocational training and four-year programs offering traditional bachelor’s degrees just because we’ve always done it that way," Salerno said.

Looking Ahead: The Final Verdict

As the legislative session concludes on Monday, the fate of AB 2694 and SB 960 will serve as a bellwether for California’s education policy. If they pass, they will open the door to a new, more decentralized model of higher education. If they fail, or if they meet the same veto pen that halted the nursing degree bills, the state will essentially double down on the traditional, siloed approach to higher education.

For students like those at Cerritos College, the stakes are deeply personal. The ability to attain a bachelor’s degree while maintaining a career and family is the difference between stagnation and upward mobility. Whether the state chooses to empower its community colleges to bridge that gap or insists on preserving the legacy structures of the 20th century remains to be seen. One thing is certain: the conversation about the future of the California degree is only just beginning.