homeban70.gif
<Master Plan home

<Master Plan for Higher Education in California. The original 1960 plan and subsequent reviews authorized by the Legislature or state agencies.

<Donahoe Education Act and the segmental mission statements

<Other reviews of California higher education

<CSHE's History of the California Master Plan website
< UC Academic Planning, Programs and Coordination
< UC Office of the President

For questions about this site, please contact:
Todd.Greenspan@ucop.edu
(510) 987-9430

Last updated 12/07/09

 

Note: The Joint Committee's final report was released on September 9, 2002 and is
summarized here.
This earlier page is being retained to allow for comparison of the different versions of the report.

New draft Master Plan for Education in California released

Summary of July 30th draft

The Joint Legislative Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education released a second draft of its draft Master Plan for Education [pdf file] on July 30, 2002. See the discussion below under the May 7th draft to see the background on how this report was developed.

Here is a selection of some of the Master Plan recommendations of most interest to UC and higher education (changes from the May draft are shown this color of text):

GOVERNANCE
  • Establish a new gubernatorially-appointed Chief Education Officer to run the California Department of Education and change the role of the elected State Superintendent of Instruction to that of a "State inspector general" with responsibility for accountability in K-12 education. (Recs. 29.1, 29.2)
  • Reconstitute the California Community College Board of Governors as a "public trust" with similar authority and flexibility as the UC or CSU governing boards. (Rec. 37)
  • Reconstitute the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) as the California Education Commission (CEC) with planning (but not coordination) responsibility for K-12 and higher education. The Commission would have program review rather than approval authority. (Rec. 39)
  • The Commission would be composed of nine lay representatives appointed by the Governor with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Speaker of the Assembly, and Executive Director of the Commission serving ex-officio. There would be no segmental representatives (Rec. 39.1)
  • The CEC would have "a divisional structure…to address issues that fall within the scope of its functions that are unique to a specific sector of education"-with one division for preK-12 and the other for postsecondary education. Likewise, it would have two separate standing advisory committees for preK-12 and postsecondary comprised of representatives from respective "stakeholder" groups. (Recs. 39.3, 39.4)
  • The Commission "should develop standards to promote articulation, when appropriate" (Rec. 41.2)
  • Designate an "objective independent entity as the statewide education data repository." (Rec. 40)
  • Augment the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates (ICAS) with K-12 representatives to review and recommend changes on the alignment and coordination of "curricula, assessment, admissions, and placement." (Rec. 24)
ADMISSIONS
  • Require an "academically rigorous standard curriculum" for every high school student. ("Opt out" provisions were eliminated.) (Rec. 12.1)
  • Reaffirm the 1960 Master Plan language that UC and CSU select from among the top 1/8th and 1/3rd of the statewide high school graduating class, respectively. This is a major departure from understandings of the Master Plan subsequent to 1960 that "guaranteed" admission to UC or CSU to any student within the top 1/8th or 1/3rd, respectively.) (Rec. 13)
  • UC and CSU should collaborate with K-12 to increase rigor of K-12 academic courses with the goal of reducing remediation and eliminating the need to award additional weight to honors and AP courses in the admissions process. (Rec. 13.1)
  • Recommend that CSU and UC "consider both objective and qualitative (formerly "subjective") personal characteristics equally" in the process of admitting freshmen. (Rec. 13.2)
TRANSFER
  • UC, CSU, and CCC should devise systemwide articulation policies (not "agreements") to "enable students to transfer units freely between and among public colleges and universities." (Rec. 25.2)
  • Establish a "transfer Associate's degree, within existing Associate degree unit requirements" that will guarantee community college transfer admission to "any CSU or UC campus, though not necessarily the major of choice." (Rec. 25.3)
FACULTY
  • Recommend that the Legislature direct the systems to set policies about and report annually on the balance between "temporary and permanent/tenure track faculty." Segments are to provide "adequate pro rata compensation to temporary faculty who agree to perform functions usually restricted to permanent and tenure-track faculty." (Recs. 10, 10.1, 10.3)
  • Tenure practices should be reviewed by governing boards to ensure that "teaching excellence is given significant weight." (Rec. 11.1)
  • Increase doctoral and master's degree production in areas of high need as a means to ensure preparation of requisite number of faculty in these disciplines. (Rec. 9.3)
HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING
  • Adopt state policies to dampen the "boom and bust" cycles in higher education appropriations. (Rec. 50)
  • Analyze the appropriateness of modifying the current marginal approach for funding additional postsecondary enrollments "to account for current costs of operations and differential student characteristics that affect costs in each sector." (Rec. 50.2) As part of this, the report suggests "funding lower division instruction at "roughly comparable levels in all three public sectors of postsecondary education" and considering "comparable funding between CSU and UC" for "equivalent graduate instruction" and "differential funding for upper-division instruction" (text under Rec. 50, second paragraph)
  • Earmark a percentage of the state-supported research funding at UC and CSU for "applied research in areas of public priority as identified by the Legislature." (Rec. 50.3)
  • Identifies the State Allocation Board as "the appropriate body" to develop and maintain a comprehensive inventory of educational facilities and to coordinate allocation of facility funds for public schools, colleges, and universities. (text under Rec. 49)
FEES AND FINANCIAL AID
  • Adopt a student fee policy aimed at stabilizing fees "such that they increase in a moderate and predictable fashion." (Rec. 51.1) This section notes "a shift from no or low fees to affordable fees." (text after Rec. 51, second paragraph)
  • Continue to emphasize financial need in award of state-supported student grants and fully fund the Cal Grant entitlement program.
  • Every five years, review and adjust the Cal Grant maximum award level for independent institutions to maintain its current proportional relationship with the average mandatory fees charged at UC and CSU. (Rec. 51.2, 51.3)
ACCOUNTABILITY
  • Higher education in California should "develop a means of assessing the learning of students enrolled in public postsecondary education." (Rec. 23)
  • Bring postsecondary education into an "integrated accountability system" with indicators that "would monitor quality and equity in access and achievement of all students in common academic content areas." All institutions-public and private-should be required to report this information as a condition of receiving state funds through financial aid programs or direct appropriation. (Rec. 44)
Summary of May 7th draft

The Joint Legislative Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education released its draft Master Plan for Education in California on May 7, 2002 [pdf version word version].  The draft plan was based, in part, on the work of the seven Master Plan working groups.  All but one of the working groups had senior UC representatives. The Joint Committee held four hearings in Sacramento on the draft Master Plan in June and July.  President Richard Atkinson appeared at the hearing on July 2 and delivered a letter and attachment detailing the University's positions on the various recommendations in the draft plan.  Vice President Larry Hershman and Associate Vice President Dennis Galligani also appeared on behalf of the University at the hearing on June 18.  The Joint Committee held a number of "town hall" meetings around the state and additional UC representatives attended a number of those hearings.  It also conducted a “moderated on-line interactive dialogue” on the draft during the first two weeks of June.

The committee staff will be working on a re-draft of the report during July. We expect further deliberations by the Joint Committee itself in late July or some time in August. The Joint Committee hopes to adopt a final plan before the end of the current legislative session in September.

Here is a selection of some of the Master Plan recommendations of most interest to UC and higher education:

  • establish a new gubernatorially-appointed Chief State Schools Officer to run the California Department of Education and change the role of the elected State Superintendent of Instruction to that of a “State inspector general” with responsibility for accountability in K-12 education.
  • reconstitute the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) as the California Education Commission (CEC) with planning (but not coordinative) responsibility for K-12 and higher education. Eliminates segmental representatives from the commission. Gives the new CEC postsecondary program approval authority.
  • reconstitute the California Community College Board of Governors as a “public trust” with similar authority and flexibility as the UC or CSU governing boards .
  • establish a “transfer Associate's degree, within existing Associate degree unit requirements” that will guarantee community college transfer admission to “any CSU or UC campus.”
  • require an “academically rigorous course pattern” for every high school student. Students would be able to “opt-out” of this “college readiness curriculum.”
  • reaffirm the 1960 Master Plan language that UC and CSU select from the top 1/8th and 1/3rd of the statewide high school graduating class, respectively. However, this is different from understandings of the Master Plan subsequent to 1960 which “guaranteed” admission to UC or CSU to any student who ranked among the top 1/8th or 1/3rd, respectively.
  • UC and CSU should collaborate with K-12 to increase rigor of K-12 academic courses with the goal of reducing remediation and eliminating the need to award additional weight to honors and AP courses in the admissions process.
  • recommend that CSU and UC “consider both objective and subjective personal characteristics equally” in the process of admitting freshmen.
  • augment the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates (ICAS) with K-12 representatives to review and recommend changes on the alignment and coordination of “curricula, assessment, admissions, and placement.”
  • tenure practices should be reviewed by governing boards to ensure that “teaching excellence is given significant weight.”
  • recommend that the Legislature direct the systems to set policies about and report annual on the balance between “temporary and permanent/tenure track faculty.”
  • adopt state policies to dampen the “boom and bust” cycles in higher education appropriations. Review current marginal cost methodology for funding higher education enrollments.
  • the state should adopt a consistent student fee policy aimed at stabilizing fees. Fully fund the Cal Grant entitlement program.
  • examine funding lower division instruction at “roughly comparable levels in all three public sectors of postsecondary education.”
  • earmark a percentage of the state-supported research funding at UC and CSU for “applied research in areas of public priority as identified by the Legislature.”
  • higher education in California should “develop a means of assessing the learning of students enrolled in public postsecondary education.”
  • increase doctoral and master's degree production in areas of high need.

In addition, there are numerous additional recommendations focusing on teacher training and professional development, including professional development of higher education faculty members. There are also a number of recommendations on data collection and accountability including the recommendation to “designate an objective, independent entity as the statewide education data repository” for K-12 and higher education.

A UC Perspective on Developing a New Master Plan

Parallel to the activities of the Legislature's Joint Committee, the University of California convened a Master Plan Advisory Group to examine the proper role for UC in a new Master Plan designed to encompass all levels of education. Chaired by UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef, the group included faculty and administrators from all UC campuses. The group's report, A Perspective on Developing a New Master Plan, has been forwarded to Senator Alpert and members of the Joint Committee by President Atkinson: