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)

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 handbook summarizes the probable effects of California's school-voucher initiative on public spending for K-12 education. The Parental Choice in Education Initiative (Proposition 174) was rejected by voters in the November 2, 1993, election. It sought to establish a system of annual vouchers, funded by public tax dollars, that elementary and secondary students could use to pay tuition at private schools. The book's findings are based on a complex simulation model of enrollment, tax revenues, and other trends over the next decade. It takes a neutral position and attempts to provide an analytic framework for evaluating the claims of opponents and advocates. Specifically, the analysis examines the likely effects of Proposition 174 on total state spending for K-12 education, and on spending per pupil in the public schools. In general, findings indicate that the fiscal effects of Proposition 174 are highly uncertain. Voting for the proposition may help to avoid a fiscal crisis. However, if relatively few students shift to private schools, or if certain provisions of the initiative are interpreted in certain ways, the proposition could actually worsen California's fiscal situation and simultaneously reduce the resources available to each public school pupil. Voting against the measure, however, may court the serious risk that there is no better option for heading off the state's looming fiscal crisis. Until all four players in the debate--voters, courts, parents, and the state--have exercised their influence, the initiative's fiscal impact is unknown. Twenty-one figures and 13 tables are included. Appendices contain projection models and a copy of Proposition 174. (LMI)