Search

This study examines California's prospects for meeting the 1960 Master Plan goal of providing access to public undergraduate education to every Californian who could benefit from it in the context of the state's future demographic and fiscal environment. The study uses a dynamic simulation model to estimate the target level of education envisioned in the Master Plan and the levels likely to be attained under a range of scenarios. It finds that the state will not be able to meet even half of the target level demand overall. The study also finds that the prospects of closing this gap through increased revenues, increased fees, and increased productivity are not feasible. It concludes that the state must take two actions: (1) it must reevaluate the access goals of the Master Plan and focus on ways to maximize the return on its education investment; and (2) the three public systems should focus their resources on restructuring the way in which they deliver the education product to maximize the ability of the state to serve as many citizens as possible. (Contains 58 references.) (DB)

This paper describes the national demographic and economic context of higher education and offers interpretations of what it portends, in order to illuminate the changing environment of higher education. The discussion focuses on: (1) demographic trends, such as the projected annual enrollment growth in the 1990s of 1.2 percent and the increasing heterogeneity of the student body; (2) fiscal trends, such as flat or declining public revenues per full-time equivalent student, widespread tax limitation movements, and growth in private support; and (3) cost trends, such as consistently rising costs for instruction, administration, and research since the early 1960s, which have outstripped prices common to other sectors. Temporizing responses, or even neglect, might be the best answer to problems that stem from short-term, ephemeral perturbations in long-term trends, but substantial changes in institutions and systems may be needed to address problems engendered by fundamental shifts in the underlying demographic and economic forces. Higher education's institutions and systems will need to be substantially restructured to effectively serve society's future needs and expectations with the limited resources likely to be available to them in the future. (JDD)

The California Master Plan of 1960 defined relevant student populations and differentiated the missions of the University of California (UC), the California State Universities and Colleges (CSU), and the community colleges. Modern social forces are now complicating those missions. As the demand for high-quality instruction in the liberal arts and sciences has grown, the ability of UC to meet this demand has fallen behind, and CSU has graduated an increasing share of the baccalaureate students in these areas. The CSU's ability to attract high quality faculty has resulted in a much more research-oriented faculty, blurring the distinction between the CSU's and the UC's research missions. Concurrently, an increase in the pressures on institutions to meet access and equity objectives, coupled with the overall decline in the quality of secondary students entering the CSU and the UC and the increased participation of nontraditional student populations, have led to an increased need for these institutions to provide extensive remediation services, a role which was reserved for the community colleges under the Master Plan. Finally, the declining resource base within the state has caused all three of the public systems to reconsider their roles and missions. (Contains 11 references.) (JDD)

This paper provides the framework and context for a systems approach to planning, detailed descriptions of specific steps in the planning process, conclusions, and questions for consideration when executing strategic planning in higher education. The analysis is based on the work of James T. Ziegenfuss, Jr. in his book "Designing Organizational Futures: A Systems Approach to Strategic Planning with Cases for Public and Non-Profit Organizations." The systems model for strategic planning for public agencies presented includes the following steps: (1) planning to plan; (2) internal assessment--institutional scanning; (3) external assessment, environmental scanning; (4) developing a vision; (5) matching the vision to the present; (6) developing strategies; (7) developing and implementing programs; and (8) updating and maintaining the program. Planning steps for higher education are seen to be essentially the same. The role and leadership of the college or university president to the planning process is stressed as is the need for a concerted effort at the highest levels of the planning effort to make certain that the information provided by the subunits is complete and representative. The report also notes that it is unlikely that the planning process will be able to adequately address all the environmental forces shaping the university, and the university may wish to consult with an outside agency. (MAH)