Exploring Funding Options for the University of California (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Challenges Facing California Higher Education: A Memorandum to the Next Governor of California
This paper reviews four majcr policy proposals for higher education in California. It discusses four reports that have addressed California higher education's problematic future: "Shared Responsibility" (California Higher Education Policy Center, 1998); "Breaking the Social Contract" (RAND, 1997); "A State of Learning" (California Citizens Commission on Higher Education, 1998); and "California at the Crossroads" (California Education Roundtable, 1998). All four reports focus on five strategies for the future: budgetary stability, rational student charges, productivity increases, governance changes, and improved linkages to K-12 education. Interviews with 30 California higher education policy leaders found that these reports had considerable impact on their thinking. It is concluded that the time appears ripe for a new Master Plan for California higher education, one that would replace emphasis on the distinguishing characteristics of the three public segments (the University of California, California State University, and California Community College systems) with concern for regional cooperation and organization, and include K-12 education within its scope as a full partner. A list of individuals interviewed is appended. (Contains 36 references.) (MDM)
Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2018
Despite massive cuts in state funding over the past thirty years, the University of California has managed to keep enrollment on pace with growth in population. With California's population projected to grow 22.5 percent (from 40 to 49 million by 2040), that will no longer be the case, unless UC is able to find a new funding model. Informed by the historical analysis in the report Approaching a Tipping Point: A History and Prospectus of Funding for the University of California, this essay revisits the options for funding UC from that report, including: reinvestment by California lawmakers and a proposed general bond measure for capital construction; increasing research funding to help subsidize teaching and public service programs; revising the indirect-cost agreement with the State of California; raising undergraduate tuition and fees for upper income students and establishing tuition pricing model tiered by student family income; explore differential fees by major; and reducing the percentage of UC undergraduate tuition income that is "returned-to-aid" in favor of increased fundraising for financial aid. All relate to two central questions: a) can UC afford to grow in its enrollment and academic programs with the state's population and needs? and b) how to identify new sources of revenue and pursue management efficiencies to reduce operating and capital costs? Without a substantial boost in income from the state or other sources, UC may be approaching a crossroads, where it continues to grow in enrollment without adequate funding, or where it instead chooses to halt or limit growth to focus on maintaining quality and productivity, but with serious consequences for California. Any significant state reinvestment will depend on the new California governor. Governors in the past have been key players in creating and building California's pioneering higher education system. A new governor should have ambitions for higher education that match those of Californians.
Center For Studies in Higher Education, 2010
In 1960, California developed a "master plan" for its already famed public higher education system. It was and continues to be arguably the single most influential effort to plan the future of a system of higher education in the annals of American higher education. Despite popular belief, however, the California Master Plan for Higher Education is more important for what it preserved than what it created. There is much confusion regarding exactly how the Master Plan came about, what it said and did not say, and what portions of it are still relevant today. This essay provides a brief historical tour on how California developed its pioneering higher education system, what the 1960 Master Plan accomplished, and a discussion on the current problems facing this system in the midst of the Great Recession. The immense success of California's network of public colleges and universities has been its historic accomplishment of what I have called in a previous book, The California Idea: the goal of broad access combined with the development of high quality, mission differentiated, and affordable higher education institutions first articulated by California Progressives. Historically, this system has been a great success, with an ability to grow with the state's population and effectively meet rising demand for access to higher education. However, the fiscal health and productivity of California's higher education system has eroded over the past three or so decades. The Great Recession has greatly accelerated this trajectory. Over the past two years, public funding for higher education has been reduced by some $1 billion. Tuition and fees have climbed, but have not produced sufficient revenue to mitigate large budget cuts. The University of California and the California State University have limited enrollment for the first time, and in the midst of growing enrollment demand. This has pushed more students toward the California's community colleges, but they too are unable to meet demand as they cut academic staff and reduce course offerings. There is the prospect of a new round of large budget cuts in the 2010-11 fiscal year as federal stimulus funds for state governments are exhausted. California is projected to grow from its current 37 million people to some 60 million in 2050. In addition, President Obama has set a national goal for the US to once again have among the highest educational attainment rates in the world. This would require the nation to produce over 8 million additional degrees; California's "fair share" would be approximately 1 million additional degrees-a number made larger, because of the state's current rank among the bottom ten states in degree production relative to the size of its population. This raises a number of big questions: Can California sustain the system as outlined by the 1960 Master Plan? Even if it can, is it, as the British say, "fit for purpose?" Or is it outdated for producing robust levels of socioeconomic mobility and the trained labor needed for tomorrow's economy? How can California retain the California Idea of broad access and quality academic programs? While adequate funding is a major variable, this essay identifies a number of serious problems with the structure of California's higher education system that make meeting Obama's goal extremely difficult, if not impossible to achieve. These include macro effects of too many part-time students, an imbalance in 2-year and 4-year college enrollment, inadequate financial aid, and the need for a new public college and university funding model. A failure to pursue "smart growth" in the public higher education system will lead to a "Brazilian Effect," in which for-profits expand dramatically to help partially fill growing demand for higher education probably at possibly even greater cost to students and government, and with often low-quality academic degree programs. The year 2010 marks the 50 th anniversary of the California's Master Plan for Higher Education. In April 1960, Governor Pat Brown signed legislation that placed portions of that plan into statute, what is arguably the single most influential effort to chart the future of a system of higher education in the annals of American higher education. Generated in only a short 6-month period by a negotiating team made up of representatives from both public and private higher education in California, and using the nomenclature of architects and with some 60 recommendations, fame came quickly for California's Master Plan. Six months after the passage of the legislative act that put some of the recommendations into statute,
Investment Patterns in California Higher Education and Policy Options for a Possible Future
Center For Studies in Higher Education, 2002
What has been the level of public investment in the California higher education system, and how has it performed over the past century? What are the challenges that this system faces in the future and what level of investment is necessary? This paper attempts to provide an historical context to these questions in order to assist Californians as they once again consider how to expand educational opportunity. California now faces a dramatic new period of potential enrollment and program growth that will have a significant impact on socioeconomic mobility, and on the state's economic competitiveness. How might the state rise to the occasion? The rapid rise of American higher education represents one of the most significant socioeconomic phenomena of the 20 th century. California was and remains a leader in what was a revolutionary idea. Beginning in 1920, California was the first state to develop a coherent public higher education system, establishing a tripartite structure consisting of the nation's first network of public community colleges, a set of regional state colleges (what became California State University, CSU), and the nation's first multicampus state university, the University of California (UC). All three systems were linked by matriculation agreements and by a process of accreditation. * This is a summary version of a larger paper on past investment patterns and future challenges facing California higher education that will be published as part of a larger monograph on California's
California's Fiscal Returns on Investments in Higher Education*
2012
Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.15.12 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY http://cshe.berkeley.edu/ CALIFORNIA'S FISCAL RETURNS ON INVESTMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION * October 2012 Jon Stiles, Michael Hout and Henry Brady UC Berkeley ABSTRACT Copyright 2012 Jon Stiles, Michael Hout & Henry Brady, all rights reserved. The ongoing budget crisis in California raises many questions about the most effective ways to allocate resources in ways which sustain future investments. In this paper, we consider two questions: What are the benefits to the state for investing in higher education? And, how do current educational investments create an environment which supports future needs? Drawing on current and historic data on returns to education for individuals, income tax regimes, state investments in higher education, progress and completion patterns, and mechanisms which translate individual impacts into date revenues and expenditures, we conclude that the benefits of higher educatio...
A State of Emergency? Higher Education in California. Report 95-2
1995
This report presents a course of action that California and its higher education campuses could pursue in response to economic conditions that have undercut the quality and equality of the system. California's higher education system is described as being in a state of emergency due to unique features: the staggering increase in its college-age population in the next decade, recent budgetary and enrollment history, state budgetary prospects, and leadership response. Three policy approaches are presented, along with assessments of the social costs and benefits and the political feasibility of each. These include: (1) continuation of incremental decision-making and resource allocation, unguided by any long-run strategic plan; (2) phased-in privatization, with resulting budgetary savings earmarked as financial aid for low-income students; and (3) declaration of a state of emergency and appointment of a blue ribbon commission which will work to open as many spaces as possible for California undergraduates while maintaining necessary strength and capacity for research and graduate/professional education. Twelve actions are offered to increase undergraduate educational opportunities for California residents, such as the following: exclude all out-of-state undergraduates from public colleges; suspend new admissions to master's degree programs in arts and science; and allow California students to use state aid out of state. (Contains 14 references.) (JDD)
The Class of 2014: Preserving Access to California Higher Education
This study used exploratory modeling, a methodology that combines traditional quantitative forecasting techniques with the insights from scenario-planning, to analyze the conditions under which California can preserve access to its system of public higher education. The study identified two trends currently dominating the issue of future access-future state funding and feasible improvements in productivity. Three major conclusions were drawn: (1) if the fraction of state funds allocated to higher education remains at current levels or increases and if productivity increases at faster than historic rates, California will avoid serious access deficits; (2) if the fraction of state funds allocated remains at the current level, California can maintain access only by achieving productivity increases that are very large relative to historical rates of improvement; and (3) the above conclusions are largely insensitive to any plausible decisions about changes in student fees or trends in future demand for higher education. Four appendices provide additional detail and documentation on modeling enrollment and degrees, admission criteria, revenues, and productivity. (Contains 20 references.) (DB)
California Journal of Politics and Policy, 2015
After three decades of state disinvestment and "doing more with less," the University of California (UC) is attempting to forge a new funding model that no longer includes substantial funding by taxpayers and support by politicians in Sacramento. The pattern of disinvestment began well before the Great Recession, but accelerated significantly with the dramatic downturn in the economy. Through this period, UC enrolled more and more Californians without any additional funding from the state. Once the bulwark of funding for public higher education in California, the state has become an important yet minor and unreliable partner, often altering an initial commitment with budget cuts in midyear. More importantly, reduced funding has essentially severed the historic link between state funding and enrollment workload, ending the incentive and ability for UC to expand academic programs and enrollment to keep pace with California's growing population and its labor needs-an important component of its historic social contract. If there is any one theme that describes California's history, it has been constant population growth. "To grow or not to grow," is now a major challenge facing the University of California. With a high level of institutional autonomy guaranteed in the state constitution, the university community has the ability to make choices regarding who and how many it enrolls. 2 Without an adequate new funding model UC may now seek to maintain the quality of its academic programs and no longer or only modestly increase enrollment. 3 "UC reaches long-term agreement with governor for more funding, tuition predictability," University of California Office of the President, Press Release, May 14, 2015: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-press-release-governors-revised-budget. 4 Ibid. 5 Many aspects of this budget deal will have long-term implications for UC. It was struck under time constraints between Governor Brown and President Napolitano, causing consternation among some UC campus leaders. Consensus building in universities, particularly one as large at UC, is always difficult, with always a significant number of detractors when dealing with resource decisions; yet, there are indicators that campus academic leaders are often not provided opportunities to consider and discuss key aspects of the budget deal and their implications.