Table Of ContentDOCUMENT RESUME
ED 455 719
HE 034 174
AUTHOR
Nodine, Thad, Ed.
TITLE
Shared Responsibility: Strategies To Enhance Quality and
Opportunity in California Higher Education. A Report to the
Governor, the Legislature, the Higher Education Community,
and the Citizens of California.
INSTITUTION
California Higher Education Policy Center, San Jose.
PUB DATE
1996-00-00
NOTE
18p.; California Higher Education Policy Center became the
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
PUB TYPE
Numerical/Quantitative Data (110)
Reports
Evaluative
(142)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
*Access to Education; Accountability; *Educational Quality;
Equal Education; *Higher Education; Public Policy; State
Colleges; *Strategic Planning
IDENTIFIERS
*California
ABSTRACT
This report suggests actions and policies that will take
California higher education into the 21st century with a renewed commitment
to college opportunity. The report recommends a new compact among the state,
colleges and universities, and students and their families. It calls for
shared responsibility and asks the state and the public to stabilize
budgetary support, target additional funding to undergraduate enrollment
growth, resist the construction of new campuses, and hold existing
institutions accountable for enrolling additional undergraduate students. Two
urgent questions are addressed. The first is whether California should
continue its historic policy of finding a place on campus for all qualified
applicants. This analysis is predicated on the expectation that California
citizens will want to continue this tradition. The second issue is whether
California actually can manage its higher education system in order to afford
both access and quality in the next century. The report suggests 11
strategies to assure that California higher education can accommodate all
eligible undergraduates regardless of their financial resources, and that it
can maintain and enhance the quality of instruction, research, and public
service. These strategies are also aimed at reducing, in the aggregate, the
average cost of education per student. (Contains 18 endnotes.)
(SLD)
THE CALIFORNIA
HIGHER EDUCATION
POLICY CENTER
,vaafzlee'
STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE QUALITY AND
OPPORTUNITY IN CALIFORNIA HIGHER
EDUCATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
CENTER (ERIC)
BEEN GRANTED BY
94.his
document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
0 Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES e Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
official OERI position or policy.
1
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2
THE CALIFORNIA
HIGHER EDUCATION
POLICY CENTER
STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE QUALITY AND
4
47° crc
b
PPOR NITY IN CALIF
IA HIGHER EDUCATION
a
:1P4:
(7.cP
ed-d
A eport to the Governor,
poorly maintained, and libraries and laboratories
4.t71G1'
the Legislature, the Higher
deteriorated.
Education Community,
The first part of the hurricane seems to have passed.
There has been some recovery in the past two years, as
and the Citizens of California
student fees have been frozen and state operating support
has increased, though only slightly above the inflation rate.
alifornia and its colleges and universities are in the
Enrollments have begun to creep upward again, but much of
eye of a hurricane. California higher education
the damage done during the first years of the decade is still
survived the initial storm of the recession in the
unrepaired. Despi e an improved state economy and better
early 1990s, albeit at the cost of reducing enrollments and
budget prospects, this is not the time
for business as usualthis is the
THE EYE OF THE HURRICANE
illusory calm before the next storm. The
next ten years will see almost a half-
million more applicants knocking on
college doors than are now enrolled. At
the same time, state fiscal resources
will be severely constrained, even if
economic growth continues. Neither
the state nor its higher education
450,000 to 500,000
institutions have policies or plans to
New Students by 2005
Large Budget Cuts of Early
A Cost of $5.2 Billion to
Improved State Economy
1990s
meet this challenge, and few in
Pay for New Enrollments
New Construction Bonds for
Sharply Increased Student
leadership positions seem willing to
Increased Competition for
Campus Facilities
Tuition
State Dollars
acknowledge the difficult times ahead.
Increased State Dollars for
Large Enrollment Reduction
No Statewide Plan to
Higher Education
Huge Student Loan Growth
Yet there is real danger that the quality
Tuition Freeze
Accommodate Enrollment
State Policy Vacuum
of this system will deteriorate or that
w Now is the time to act if California's
drastically increasing the cost to students who were access will narro
historic commitment to college opportunitywhich must
admitted. Student fees rose sharply, and enrollments
include both access and
declined by more than 200,000. Alone among the major
qualityis to be preserved.
industrial states, California suffered a decline in the
INSIDE Tms REPORT
This reportwhich
percentage of high school gxaduates moving on to college.
suggests actions and policies
Nearly 2,000 senior faculty members in the University of
The Problem
that will take California into the
California, including many highly productive scholars and
Facing California
teachers, were persuaded to take early retirementa
21st century with a renewed
commitment to college
process that a highly placed university official has called
6 The Concept of
opportunityrecommends that
"random decimation." The California State University laid off
Shared
a new compact be forged
hundreds, if not thousands, of pail-time faculty members,
Responsibility
between the state, the colleges
resulting in larger classes, heavier teaching loads and a
and universities, and students
widely perceived decline in academic quality In the
8 Specific Strategies
and their families. This new
California Community Colleges, several districts came
compact for shared
perilously dose to financial ruin, as both state and local
support dwindled. In all three public systems, buildings were
(continued)
Page 2
SHARED RESPONSIBIR
(from preceding page)
on campus for all qualified applicants? Although
Strategies for Shared
there has been quiet erosion of this tradition, this
responsibilities and benefits asks the state and the
Responsibility
report is premised on the belief that the ultimate
public to stabilize budgetary support, target
answer will be affirmative. Who believes that
additional funding to undergraduate enrollment
STRATEGY ONE
Californians would deliberately deny to the next
growth, resist construction of new campuses, and
Create a public compact of shared
generation the benefits of quality education
hold the institutions accountable for enrolling
responsibility to maintain
beyond high school that they and their parents
additional undergraduate students. The compact
opportunity and quality in higher
enjoyedindividual benefits that have made the
asks colleges and universities to enroll all
education.
state the envy of the nation? All Californians are at
qualified students and reallocate resources to
STRATEGY TWO
risk if access is denied or quality declines. In the
maintaineven enhancequality with fewer
emerging era of rapidly changing work
Expand the use of existing
new dollars for each additional student. It asks
requirements and technology of dramatic
campuses and facilities; do not
students and their families to bear their share
demographic shifts; and of a new and intensely
build new campuses.
through limited fee increases, and it asks students
competitive world economy, the state cannot
to work harder before and during college.
STRATEGY THREE
afford to deny any Californian the chance to
This compact of shared responsibility is
Utilize the capacity of California's
make the most of his or her life.
needed now because California is in danger of
independent colleges and
Second, can California manage its uniquely
revisiting a greater crisis than that of the early
universities through student
large and complex higher education system so
1990s. The impending crisis results from the
financial aid programs.
that students, their families, and the public can
convergence of three factors:
afford both access and quality in the next
STRATEGY FOUR
488,000 more Californians than are now
century? This report asserts that it can, although
Increase student fees modestly to
enrolled will be seeking a college education
only with extraordinary effort. The availability of a
contribute to the support of
ten years from now;
broadly accessible array of education and
additional undergraduate students.
training opportunities beyond high school can no
e assuming business-as-usual practices, an
longer be taken for granted by Californians. In
additional expenditure of $5.2 billion for
STRATEGY FIVE
that spirit, this report offers a comprehensive
programs and buildings over the next ten
Eliminate mediocre quality and low
policy framework for higher education's future.
years will be required to accommodate this
priority programs, and reallocate
Although the heart of this report is found in
increased enrollment demand; and
resources to those of highest
its recommendations for shared responsibility by
quality and priority.
state revenues will be insufficient to support
the state, the public, higher education
higher education at business-as-usual levels.
STRATEGY SIX
institutions, and students, the specific strategies
Accelerate student learning before
that define the shared responsibility approach are
Standing alone, each of these findings would
and during college.
be cause for concern. In
combination, they present
California Higher Education Facts
STRATEGY SEVEN
an unprecedented
Establish an incentive fund to
State Population:
challenge to California, one
encourage cost-effective use of
35.1 million
that approaches crisis
electronic technology for
proportions because of a
Budget (199 5-96):
State General Fund
instruction.
fourth factor:
$44.2 billion
STRATEGY EIGHT
the absence of
State Funds to Higher Education for Operating Expenses:*
$6.5 billion
Base college admissions on
overarching state policy
assessment of achievement.
on higher education to
Higher Education's Share of State General Fund Budget:
provide goals, direction
13%
STRATEGY NINE
and public
Total Number of Students in CA higher Education:
Assess student learning.
accountability
2 million
STRATEGY TEN
In response to this
* of
# of
# Of
Budget from
Assess the knowledge and teaching
predicament, this report
Institutions
Students
State Gen. Fund
Employees
skills of new teachers.
addresses two urgent
463,704 $1.9 billion
131,660
Univ. of California
9
$1.6 billion
35,926
California State Univ.
324,950
22
questions.
.
$2.7 billion*
72,000
1,344,000
Community Colleges
106
STRATEGY ELEVEN
First, should California
40,000
Private Coll. & Univ.t
182,$69
72
Deregulate colleges and
revitalize its historic
"* Through student aid only.
universities.
t Accredited only.
" Includes state and local taxes.
tradition of finding a place
Page 3
SNARED RESPONSIBILITY
.40.1114,.."M''VrAMQMI,
Their intellectual power and inventive capacity
enhance the quality of instruction, research, and
options, not prescriptions, for California. While
are the most important resources for reshaping
public service.
many of these options have been tested by
higher education to meet future demands; faculty
Second, the state and its colleges and
quantitative analyses and by experience in
members are the ultimate guardians of academic
universities must accommodate all qualified
California and elsewhere,1 others have not.
quality California's public and private colleges
undergraduates, regardless of their financial
None of the strateges is offered as a "silver
and universitiesthe result of investments made
resources.
bullet" that can resolve the thorny issues of
over more than one hundred yearsconstitute
Third, while quality is improved and
quality and access; nor should every strategy be
another asset. If appropriately utilized and
accessibility is maintained, the average
maintained, they can meet many of state's future
cost of education per student must be
Access
00 colleg
needs. The potentials of modern electronic
reduced, and more extensive use must
mocc elan abstrac
technology of new insights into the organization
be made of public and private
and delivery of learning opportunities, and of
ream
farawa7
issue
facilities.
v
strengthened ties to public schools hold promise
The state successfully met similar
for
anost
@mans.
A M.
of greater accessibility quality and productivity
challenges when faced with veterans
the
Can the state meet the enrollment and fiscal
returning from World War II, and with
gonadial
Pond.
challenges of the next ten years? The Center
their children, the baby boomers.
aro ad
wkiaa raw
believes that it can. This report clarifies what is at
During the 1960s, California's four-
*he
kves
stake for California and proposes, within a
year colleges and universities
on -41
a
I
framework of shared responsibility specific
accommodated enrollment growth
their
raise
RIAey
strategies to revitalize California's commitment to
without a commensurate increase in
children.
college opportunity. It also seeks to shift the
financial support, and those days are
9 9
burden of proof to the doomsayers who predict
often recalled as a "golden age" in
Nisholas
Lehman
the inevitable decline of educational opportunity
higher education. But today's
Month y
Washington
and quality in higher education. California can
conditions are far less favorable than
§mg ITIO2
meet the challenges it facesif the leadership
they were in earlier years, and
and collective will of the public, the colleges, and
tomorrow's are uncertain at best. The demands
applied in the same way to every campus or
the state can be marshaled. As this report reveals,
of other public services are far greater than in the
system of higher education. At the same time, the
the capacity exists in California to provide the
past. The state's population is larger and will
strategies presented in this report are feasible,
next generation of Californians with access to
become more heterogeneous. And its economic
interdependent elements of policy options. It is
high quality education after high school. The core
gowth is more problematic.
in their combination that the proposed policy of
issues that remain, however, concern public
Present conditions, however, are not entirely
shared responsibility achieves the three
priorities and valuesand the willingness of
adverse. Over the past three decades California
conditions that any such plan must meet:
Californians to accept and share responsibilities
has attracted talented and creative faculty and
First, the state and its colleges and
as well as benefits.
administrators to its colleges and universities.
universities must continue to maintain and
The Proble
ll
nnift
everalizeo, and Pell
Unclad Numlberms,
Gro
iblertraatic
CGID5t55, 1192°
J.
policy issues raised by the coming enrollment
vital to the state's future. Failure to resolve this
Ltkevery few years from now, a new surge of
demand. California's colleges and universities are
policy issue will lead to either of two equally
nrollments will reach California's
not ivory towers isolated from the state's
unsatisfactory consequences: If access is
colleges and universities, a surge that will not
economic and civic life. It is not just that the
maintained, coming generations of students will
plateau until the second decade of the next
University of California is a magnet for the
be shoehorned into crowded classroom and
century. These potential college studentssome
nation's most talented individuals. The California
laboratories to contain costs; as a result, the
488,000 more by 2005are not a problem;
State University prepares thousands of managers
quality of their education will suffer. Alternatively,
they are an opportunity. What is a problem is
if qualityas defined by high costis
and high-level specialists who play a vital role in
that California may not be able to take advantage
the state's economy, to say nothing of training
maintained, eligble applicants will be denied
of the opportunity because the high costs of
over 12,000 public school teachers annually.
admission, and as a result, access will suffer.
education will collide with increasing pressures
California's Community Colleges are the broad
Resolving the public policy issue requires
on the revenues available to pay for them. This
foundation for the entire higher education
recognizing that California's commitment to
problem is compounded by policy driftthe
system, and they are integral to the economy and
college opportunity emphasizes both access and
failure to recognize that an essentially fiscal
culture of the regions they serve. California's
quality.
challenge has critical educational dimensions
(continued)
The state cannot afford to ignore the public
involving both access and quality. Addressing it is
Page 4
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY,
FIGURE TWO
FIGURE ONE
Tidal Wave II: 488,000 Additional Students
Enrollment Projections for California Public
Sector of Higher Education
2,300,000
2,250,000
2,100,000
RAND,
2,000,000,
1,900,000
CPEa:,
1,750,000
1,700,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
CV
1994/95
2005/06
1999/00
CO
F,
as
CS
CV
Note: Projections are based on student head counts. RAND and CPEC figures represent their "baseline" projections.
Sources: California Postsecondary Education Commission, California Public College and University Enrollment Demand,
Source: CPEC, California Public College and University Enrollment Demand, 1994-2005.
1994-2005; Department of Finance, 1994 Projection Series, by Segment; and RAND, Master Plan Revisited.
Figure One reveals the substantial agreement concerning future enrollment among the major
Figure Two shows estimated enrollment growth during the next decade.
projectionsCPEC, the Department of Finance, and RANDthat assume continued access to
colleges and universities for all qualified high school graduates.
(from preceding page)
increases over the next decade. Figure Two
that current enrollment levels are artificially
represents the projection that most nearly meets
depressed by high tuition and restricted
independent colleges and universities offer a
the Center's explicit assumption of continuing
broad range of undergraduate opportunities and
enrollments, and that future policies will
commitment to broad access in California.2
make up for the impact of artificially
award more than half of California's advanced
Three critical assumptions undergird these
depressed enrollment levels.
degrees. The problems of the next decade will
enrollment projections:
not just happen within the cozy confines of
These projections are not abstractions; the
campus boundaries. Unless addressed now, they
These projections are of eligible applicants,
Californians who will seek college admission are
will inflict irreparable damage to all Californians
and, for the University of California and
now actually in school, and Figure Three shows
and to the state itself.
the sharp increases in high school graduates
California State Univers4 of high school and
expected during the next decade. As the
codununity college graduates who have
'Mal Wave II: 488,000 More Potential
earned the privilege of further
enrollment projections show, about 488,000
Students in 2005
undergraduate education.
new students must be accommodated on
Predicting student enrollments is a
campus under historical policiesor a new
hazardous task. Predictions require assumptions
In California, projections of undergraduate
policy of denying them opportunity must be
about the future, some of which are necessarily
enrollments are based largely on
created and justified. No one has come forward
subjective and often unstated. Nevertheless, as
demographic factors, public school
with such a new policy, although policy drift and
Figure One shows, demographers in California
enrollments, college acceptance rates and
inattention could achieve similar and unhappy
are in substantial agreement about enrollment
public policyas opposed to fiscal and
results.
political considerations.
The next few yearsthe calm at the eye of
Although the commitment
the stormare critical. Although enrollment
FIGURE THREE
eroded during the recent
pressures will have their major impact in the
Projections of California High School Graduates
recession, California's
(1994-2004)
first decade of the next century, these pressures
public policydating
will intensify in the late 1990s. From 1999 to
back to the 1960 Master
320,000
2000, for example, head-count enrollment in the
Plan for Higher
310,000
community colleges is expected to increase by
Educationstill requires
300,000
some 72,000 students. In short, the state does
acceptance of all qualified
290,000
not have time to waste. The next five years must
applicants for
280,000
be used to plan and phase in essential changes
undergraduate admission.
270,000
in educational practices and priorities. The need
260,000
These projections
for action is urgent
250,000
assume, as some do not,
a
The Additional Cost of Thlal Wave 11
CO
Z;
0)
31
that historically under-
-
0
The expenditures required over the next ten
CS
OS OS
CO CO
represented ethnic groups
CV CV
CNI
years to accommodate the 488,000 new students
will gradually increase
Source: California State Department of Finance, 1996.
would be about $5.2 billion in new programs
their college attendance,
Page 5
SNARED RESPONSIBILITY
who will comprise Tidal Wave II
and buildings under the "business-as-usual
Comparison of State Costs For Accommodating
are even now working their way
approach." This estimated cost is only for the
Additional Enrollments
through the public schools. At
additional state costs of educating the
Estimates of Operating and Capital Costs
the same time, the legitimate,
additional undergraduates. Although it does
(1996-97 to 2005-061
budgetary needs of other social
provide for repair, maintenance, and renovation
servicesthe public schools,
of buildings, it does not include the operational
corrections, and health and
$6.0 -7
costs of continuing current enrollment levels,
$5.2
welfarewill continue to
which is currently at $6.5 billion for 1995-96.3
.;Pf dr
grow. According to one
The additional dollars, based on estimated
doomsday prediction, they will
current state costs of educating undergraduate
grow to the extent that, "There
students, will be required if existing educational
$4.0
will be no money left for higher
practices continue and the proportion of these
170".
educationor any other
new students enrolled in all three public higher
TB.
$1.9
governmental function."7 One
education segments roughly parallels existing
need not accept this prediction,
$2.0
student distributions.
however, to realize that it is
Constrained and Finite State
highly improbable that the state
Resources
will be able to nearly double its
$0.0
expenditures for higher
Belief that $5.2 billion for programs and
Business
educationthe cost of
Responsibility
as Usual
buildings will be available over the next ten years
continuing to operate on
if current fiscal and educational practices
traditional, business-as-usual
continue requires optimisticindeed,
premises over the next ten
Source: Williarn Pickens, "Financing Tidal Wave II," In Supplement to Shared Responsibility (San lose:
unrealisticassumptions about state revenue
California Higher Education Policy Center, 19961.
years.
growth or higher education's share of these
both.4 At the national level, Robert
revenues or
The Policy Vacuum in California
necessary change.
H. Atwell, President of the American Council on
Higher Education
In 1995, the Governor proposed, and the
Education warns that higher education should
Legislature confirmed, a four-year plan to
The predictions of enrollment demand over
not expect to increase its current share of state or
stabilize higher education budgets, and they are
ten yearsof its costs and of the capacity of the
federal funding until sometime beyond the year
to be commended for it. But the plan is a short-
state to pay these costsare ventures into an
2010.5 California is not an exception to this view.
term solution to repair the immediate damage
uncertain future. But no matter how subject to
RAND recently concluded that if current trends
caused by the recession. It does not address the
their practitioners' varying assumptions and
continue until 2005, over 300,000 potential
long-term implications of business-as-usual
values, demography and economics are sciences.
students will be denied hieler education because
costs, of dramatically increased enrollment
Public policy analysis, however, is not a science.
state support will decline.°
Whether particular policiesor their lack
demand, and of increasing constraints on state
California is unique, however, in having
funds. The earlier response of state and higher
serve the public interest is always a matter of
more to lose than other states. Its conmdtment
education leaders to the recession was
opinion.
to broad college opportunity has benefited
fragmented, and, insofar as the impending long-
The very success of higher education in
generations of Californians, and it has drawn
term crisis is concerned, this fragmentation
California contributes to the crisis, for it has
thousands of talented individuals from other
continues. Long-range plans and policies are still
created expectations for a future as rosy as the
states and nations. California's higher education
lacking. There are no indications that decisions
past, a future that includes: easy governmental
system has been the foundation of the state's
will be other than ad hoc and unrelated to
acceptance of academic and professional
economya national, as well as a state, asset.
statewide policy in the future.
interests as surrogates of the public interest;
But the reality is that California is at risk
courses scheduled for the convenience of faculty
because it will not be able to continue sup-
Recommendations for
Summing up:
A
and students, rather than for cost-effective use of
porting its colleges and universities at historical
Preserving College Opportunity
facilities and of faculty and student time; and
levels.
State policy leadership is needed to guide all
generous state support with little in the way of
California is recovering from the recession of
three public segments of higher education in
substantive accountability for educational results
the early 1990s, and support for higher
their preparations and planning for a future of
asked in return from institutions, faculty, or
education has increased over two good budget
more students and more constrained resources.
students. None of these was "bal" in the context
years. These years, however, are poor predictors
Without such direction, the univers4 the state
of California's past economic growth. But as
of prospects for continuing support at business-
university, and the community colleges will
expectations of a business-as-usual future, they
as-usual levels. Rather, they are the deceptive
(continued)
create habits that are hard to alter and that inhibit
calm at the eye of the hurricane. The students
Page 6
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
(from preceding page)
which the benefits and burdens of
Policy Renewal. This option would require
maintaining college opportunity would be
state reaffirmation of its historic commitment
pursueprobably should pursuetheir
fairly shared among all parties.
to opportunity for all Californians.
separate interests. Such fragmented pursuit,
however, has little likelihood of meeting public
The third optionwhich involves renewal of
Because everyone in California shares the
needs that do not match the interests of
long-term, comprehensive policies that are sup-
benefits of maintaining educational quality and
individual institutions.
portive of historic public valuesis the choice
access to it, everyone should share the
What public policies should guide higher
that the Center unhesitatingly recommends.
responsibility for themand be accountable
education? There are only three options:
for fulfilling that share. Shared responsibility is
Recommendation I. The Governor and
essential. The state must continue to invest in
Policy Vacuum. The continuation of a policy
Legislature should assure to eligible and
higher education, but it alone cannot foot the
vacuum will have long-term results
motivated students access to colleges and
bill to meet this responsibility Short of
comparable to, but with far gieater
universities of high quality at a price they
dramatic tax increases or a savage reduction in
destructive consequences than, those of the
can afford.
expenditures for other social services (each
early 1990s, which include almost arbitrary
However necessary the effort and laudable
most unlikely in the Center's view), higher
denial of college opportunity soaring student
the goal, mere statement of public policy will be
education will have to make do with a lower
charges and institutional paralysis born of
empty unless accompanied by concrete actions to
rate of increased support for each additional
uncertainty. Lack of policy is
implement it. Selecting appropriate actions will
student than in the past. Nor is it reasonable to
"comprehensive" only in the breadth of its
be not be easy The actions must be economically
expect students and families alone to bear the
inadequacy
feasible, they must be consistent withand
burden. Beyond a threshold that may already
preferably enhanceeducational quality, and
Policy Retreat. As yet, few, if any, Californians
have been reached, steeply raising tuition is
openly advocate a deliberate retreat from the
they must be supported by the public. As an
not only politically problematic but counter-
historic policies of opportunity established in
appropriate action that meets these conditions,
productive in its impact on access. Nor can
the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education.
the Center recommends a new social compact
colleges and universities alone resolve the
Such a comprehensive policy would mean
based on the concept of reciprocity, a compact
problem. Institutions can only go so far in
for shared responsibility.
explicitly denying college opportunity to
cutting costs before institutional quality begins
those otherwise ekible, and reversing over
to feel the razor's edge. An explicit
three decades of inclusive policies. It would
ReCommendation II. The people of
commitment to shared responsibility,
also require an equitable, rational basis for
California, through their state officials,
however, can maintain quality and preserve the
should form a new social compact with
restricting admissions that the public would
benefits of higher education for all
colleges, universities, and students, under
find difficult to accept.
Californians.
II. Shared Responsibility: A Policy Framework for the Future
comprehensive, state policy for maintaining
somewhere, or it will never take place. The
you do not know or do not care where you
higher education's critical role in the civic and
Center suggests a sharing of responsibility that is
./..,,are going, any road will get you there.
economic life of California. It is a plan for
fair, one that, to the extent possible, relies on
Californians do know and care; they want quality
assuring that the next generation of students will
incentives, not mandates. It is one that holds all
and opportunity maintained.8 Nonetheless, old
have access to high quality colleges and
partiesthe state, the colleges and universities,
road maps no longer serve. A new map is
universities at a cost they can afford. Its goals do
and the studentsaccountable. And it has
needed, one that can be relied on by the
not differ from those of the 1960 Master Plan.
reciprocal benefits for the burdens imposed.
Governor and the legislators, by college and
Shared responsibility, however, will impose
The State's Share. The state should protect
university leaders, by students and their parents,
burdens on all who benefit from that system
its present capital investment in existing facilities
and by all Californians.
and all Californians benefit.
and campuses and stabilize the level of
The road map to higher education's future
The burden of responsibility for higher
operational funding for higher education. The
not the destinationis out of date. The
education's future has always been shared to
statethe general public acting through its state
recommended new social compact, in exploring
some extent; indeed, the Master Plan assigned
leadersshould maintain the continuing
a new route, is designed to breathe new life into
different functions to the university the state
capacity to assure college opportunity, including
California's traditional values of access and
university, the community colleges, and the
additional student financial aid. Additional
quality. It is intended to ensure that the historic
independent colleges and universities. This
funding for colleges and universities should be
commitment to college opportunity continues to
remains a prime example of shared
contingent upon enrolling eligthle students, and
guide California well into the next century.
responsibility. Consensus is unlikely, however, on
the state should hold institutions accountable,
Fair Shares: Opening the Discussion
how much responsibility each party should bear
annually assuring that its priorities are
Shared responsibility is a long-term,
in the future. But the discussion must begin
implemented. As part of the compact, colleges
Page 7
MINED RESPONSIBIUN
Enroll All Qualified Students
Maintain Current Funding for Higher Education
Year-Round, Extended Week and Weekend
Share Funding of Additional Students
Operation
Fund Student Financial Aid
Use Technology Effectively
Use Spaces in Private Institutions
Assess Student Learning for Admissions
Create Technology Innovation Program
/Awarding Degrees
Hold Institutions Accountable for
Better Prepare Teachers
Opportunity and Quality
College-Level Learning in High School
Moderate Increases in Tuition
Faster Progress Toward Degree
Courses Taken During Summers, Weekends, etc.
students will face less convenient course
practices to protect access and quality9 They
and universities would be freed of much of
scheduling. Students, however, would be the
must find space for every qualified applicant,
unnecessarily burdensome regulatory and
most direct beneficiaries of shared
and be accountable to the state for doing so.
financial controls in return for greater
responsibilityof continued access to high
With assurance of a stable budget, redistribution
accountability for increasing access and
quality affordable higher education.
of resources to programs of the highest quality
educational quality. All Californians would
should be less threatening. California's colleges
benefit from assurances of continued quality and
In the past, responsibility for higher
and universities should maintain competitive
educational opportunity
education was shared, but the sharing was largely
faculty salaries. Over time, the institutions will
The College and University Share. The
implicit. Under the formal, statutory structure of
benefit from budgetary stability, greater flexibility
range of options for institutions of higher
the 1960 Master Plan, the public colleges and
and lower operating costs.
education to meet their share of responsibility is
universities were only loosely coordinated, and,
The Student Share. Expectations of students
extensive. Although the Center recommends
until the 1990s, enrollment growth was regularly
should increase, as should the opportunity and
specific actions in the following section, not all
funded by the state under negotiated and
support for them to meet higher expectations.
are applicable to all institutions. Moreover, the
relatively stable formulas.19 With few exceptions,
Student charges will increase with personal
colleges and universities should manage their
state and higher education leaders have focused
income, and with an additional, but annually
own implementation of shared responsibility
primarily on revenues.11 What would change
limited, charge to contribute to the cost of
Whatever their actions, the institutional response
under the new social compact would be the
increased enrollments. Students must expect to
should be expected to reflect the needs and
explicit consideration of the responsibilities the
work harder to qualify for college, and then to
circumstances of the state over the next decade,
parties bear The state, the colleges and
move through the undergaduate curriculum
the imperatives of cost-effectiveness and greater
(continued)
more purposefully than in the past. Many
productivity and the adoption of innovative
9
Page 8
SHARED RESPDHSIBILITY,
1
44'
,
(from preceding page)
the policies proposed here will require
does California have much chance of retaining
something in the nature of a cultural change to
its place as America's premiere state.
universities, and the students and their families
separate what is central to educational quality
Shared responsibility is a feasible,
must each do more than they have in the past.
from what is mainly convenient. Redistribution
comprehensive plan, and the strategies
The time has come to shift from emphasis on
more revenues to what these revenues buyto
of programs and people will be difficult. suggested in ffie next section are policies and
how money is spentand to ask how
California's elected leaders also face a challenge, actions that, in the aggregate, would implement
for they alone can offer the policy direction and
opportunity and quality can be preserved with
it. Without an explicit policy framework, one
supported and ordered by realistic measures for
set the terms of shared responsibility for at least
fewer resources behind each student.
the next decade. The Governor and the
implementation, California and its colleges and
Doing more in the future will be difficult for
universities will wander in a wilderness of
Legislature must take the initiative. Without
everyone. Students will probably respond to
fragmented, ad hoc, short-term reactions. With
change, for they are not encumbered with higher
effective state leadership and policy guidance,
California's public colleges and universities have
education's business-as-usual habits and
such a framework, however, California can keep
little chance of keeping their envied place
expectations. But institutional administrators and its promise of educational opportunity and high
among the finest institutions in the nation, nor
quality for the next generation.
faculty do carry this burden, and implementing
tegies for Shared
Responsibility
I I
should preserve the state's investment
higher education, particularly for undergraduate
'7' he new social compactshared responsi-
in higher education and target
education, are those that it already has in the
bilityprovides a means to reach the goal
additional support to campuses that
over six billion dollar operating budget that
of college opportunity for all qualified and
accept additional undergraduate
represents the state's current, annual investment
motivated students. It is a comprehensive policy
students.
(in the 1995-96 fiscal year, $6.5 billion in state
for the future that recognizes the complexity of
general funds and property taxes). California
California and its higher education system. The
The state should hold colleges and
must maintain the purchasing power of this level
strategiestaken collectivelyshow that shared
universities accountable for the
of basic support as a precondition for
responsibility can be a feasible resolution of
enrollment of eliffible undergraduate
accommodating current and projected
extremely serious, long-term problems. Others
students, and for cost-effective
enrollments. If, for instance, the state should
may accept "shared responsibility" as a feasible
operations, including the establislunent
disinvest in higher education, as it did in the early
approach, but may rely on other specific
of priorities and the reallocation of
1990s, it is unlikely that any plan for
strategies. If so, such strategieshke those in
resources.
accommodating the enrollment increases
this reportmust:
O The state should expect students to be
projected for the next decade could succeed. If
0 Accommodate all eligible undergraduates,
better prepared for college, and to
the RAND prediction is correctif entitlements,
regardless of their financial resources.
share in the cost of increased
federal and constitutional mandates and the cost
undergraduate enrollment.
0 Maintain and enhance the quali01 of
of corrections force the state to reduce support
instruction, research, and public service.
Stabilization of Future State Support. Most
of higher education below current levelsthe
0 Reduce, in the aggregate, the average cost
of the state financial resources available to public
shared responsibility approach will fail. There
of education per student.
are, in the Center's estimation, no
wrning
productivky
circumstances under which California can
The era of continuing pressure on state
reduce its investment in higher education
what
financial resources will require something
access
addresses
and expect enrollment increases that will
more of all who benefit from higher
mode,
alifornia
coin fie.
preserve educational opportunity
education; the "something more" is described
\geo
only
pro-
some
Support for Undergraduates. Beyond the
under each strategy Also, ffie Supplement to
current level of support for current
ductivky
seme-
somewhere,
Shared Responsibili0i, which is available
enrollment levels, the state should also
from the Center, provides data, examples from
and
state
wffll dok
provide additional funds for each additional
across the United States and summaries of
other
and
Fleria a,
undergraduate student. However, this
publications that will provide a context for the
main
states
fast-growing
support should be based on the actual cost
strategies described below.
0 0 0
of educating each additional undergraduate
that
fiT
-fain
istoric
access
STRATEGY ONE: CREATE A PUBLIC
student, which is significantly less expensive
had.
COMPACT OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
q11527
than including graduate students in the
TO MAINTAIN OPPORTUNITY AND
calculation. Further, the state share should
Youagr
Jo Inston
Bruoe
QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION.
be reduced due to the expectation of
Slat
gHsa rogo3
Univ.
Olhanoollor
increased productivity at colleges and
The Governor and Legislature
1 0
