|
In the post-World War II era, there
are three key studies that led directly to the 1960
Master Plan and that provide many of the planning
concepts and policies that were then codified in the
1960 Donahoe Act. These include:
State Higher
Education in California: Report of the Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching, Recommendations of
the Commission of Seven (June 24, 1932)
View: [ HTML
]
In the midst of the Depression
and the growing demand for regional public colleges
in California, University of California officials
suggested that the state obtain the services of the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
to review the organization and governance of public
higher education in California. The subsequent report,
referred to as the Suzzallo Report among contemporaries
after the president of the Carnegie Foundation, provided
a long list of recommendations to bring greater coherence
and efficiency to California's tripartite public system
(created by 1920). This included the recommendation
that the University of California Regents absorb the
state teachers colleges (what become CSU) and the
boards members be expanded; ending the election of
the State Superintendent for Public Instruction and
making the position an appointment of the State Board
of Education, have the governor appoint the State
Board of Education, and the establishment of the State
Council for Educational Planning and Coordination.
The first recommendation was ignored
by legislators as unpopular amidst charges that it
was a UC-induced scheme to control the enrollment
and program growth of the colleges. The second and
third recommendation was brought to a vote and rejected
by Californians under a proposed constitutional amendment.
Only the recommendation
for a Council for Education Planning became a
reality. Yet it proved a failure. The growing rivalry
between the University of California and the state
colleges made voluntary coordination unworkable, with
college programs proliferating to meet a great variety
of program needs in local economies beyond teacher
training.
-- JAD
A
Report of a Survey of the Needs of California in Higher
Education, 1948
View: [ HTML
]
In the midst of World War II, California
began a large scale effort to plan to the post-war
economy. This led to series of planning efforts in
higher education in part intended to help absorb the
anticipated surge of new students under the GI Bill.
In 1946, a "Liaison Committee" was established
by University of California and the State Board of
Education to supersede the dysfunctional State Council
to improved relations between the UC system and the
state colleges. The California Legislature then provided
funding for a planning study under the aegis of the
Liaison Committee to chart the future of California's
rapidly growing higher education system. The "Survey
of Needs of California in Higher Education" was
an innovative effort to set the missions of each segment
of the higher education system, project enrollment
trends and to make recommendation on new campuses.
This was California's first real master plan (the
first comprehensive state higher education plan in
the nation) that provided the general pattern for
subsequent plans in California and other states.
Among the recommendation of what
became known by contemporaries as the "Strayer
Report"--named after one of its main authors,
George Strayer--was the expansion of the state colleges
into Masters programs, the limitation of doctoral
degree programs to UC, the creation of new state college
campuses in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Sacramento,
and a proposal to establish a state grant program
for needy students for use at either public or state
approved private colleges and universities. Of these
recommendations, only the student grant program was
not immediately placed into legislation. This did
not occur until 1955--what is today the Cal Grant
program.
-- JAD
A
Restudy of the Needs of California in Higher Education,
1955
View: [ HTML
]
In 1953, a number of policy questions
required a reassessment of the Strayer Report. Enrollment
projections made in 1947 underestimated demand. A
number of local communities and their legislators
wanted new state college campuses not outlined in
the report and opposed by University of California
officials. And the costs of enrollment expansion at
public institutions combined with deficit spending
by state government caused significant consternation.
A number of legislators wanted the political and economic
prize of a new campus in their districts and introduced
bills related to the state's higher education system
with little thought regarding the overall needs of
the California . Other lawmakers wanted an accounting
of costs and a discussion of how best to proceed.
Again, UC and State Board of Education officials proposed
the establishment of a planning study. It would review
the 1948 study, hence its title as a "Restudy."
Under the direction of Thomas R.
McConnell, the former president of the University
of Buffalo and a noted expert on higher education
systems, a research team began work which extended
from 1953 until 1955. The most comprehensive study
up to that time of a state systems of higher education,
the Restudy Report provided a in depth analysis of
costs and made a number of recommendations that influence
today's budgeting and planning process - including
the proposal for a five year cycle of review for capital
projects and space standards to assist in the review
of capital outlay. The report also endorsed the student
grant proposal noted previously.
But two recommendations proved unpopular
among legislators or the State Board of Education
and UC officials. The report suggested that the state
colleges gain their own board (a recommendation made
previously by a cabal of state college presidents)
and indicated poor management of these institutions
by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction
and an inattentive State Board of Education. Neither
the Superintendent or State Board members were pleased.
And more importantly, the report stated that existing
UC and state college campuses should be significantly
increased in enrollment, and that no new campuses
be established until at least 1965. Many leading egislators
who had expected to see their proposed campus on a
list of recommended sites were furious with this recommendation.
Because of its political naiveté, neither the
UC Regents or the State Board of Education endorsed
the report. Its failure unleashed a torrent of new
bills for new campuses and the restructuring of the
state's already famous tripartite system of public
higher education.
-- JAD
A
Study of the Need for Additional Centers of Public
Higher Education in California, 1957
View: [ HTML
]
The
political response to the Restudy Report troubled
the higher education community and raised for the
first time the specter of ad hoc policymaking by legislators
simply overwhelming the authority of the UC Regents
and the State Board to set policy. Bills were introduced
to reconfigure the state higher education system and
collectively would have bankrupted the state. Once
again through the mechanism of the Liaison Committee,
the Regents and the State Board asked for a new study
to quickly update projected enrollment demand within
distinct regions of the state, and the generation
of a priority list of new campus sites. The Study
of the Need for Additional Centers was a direct effort
to capture some control of new campus development.
Based in part on legislation pending
during the 1956 session, the report recommended approval
of state colleges campuses in the areas of Fullerton,
Hayward, Stanislaus, Northridge, Sonoma, San Bernardino,
Dominguez Hills and Bakersfield. The expansion of
existing UC programs and new UC campuses sites were
recommended at Davis, Riverside, Santa Barbara, San
Diego, in the area of Santa Cruz, Irvine and the Central
Valley. The UC and State Board approved listing of
new campus sites met limited immediate success in
Sacramento as legislators become increasing determined
to refashion on their own--and for differing reasons--the
future of the state's higher education system. But
it did offer the primary listing of campuses that
would be built, essentially providing the blueprint
for the 1960 Master Plan's revised recommendation
of new campus sites.
-- JAD
|
