Opinion

California must revise Master Plan for Higher Education

The SF Achievers program helps some of San Francisco's most neglected students -- low-income African-American boys -- get through college. The SF Achievers program helps some of San Francisco's most neglected students -- low-income African-American boys -- get through college. Photo: Paul Chinn / The Chronicle Photo: Paul Chinn / The Chronicle Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close California must revise Master Plan for Higher Education 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

California has surrendered its national leadership in higher education. The state ranks below national averages in the proportion of high school graduates enrolling in college immediately after high school. Labor market projections show that the state will fall short of the college-educated and trained workforce needed for individual opportunity and competitiveness in the global economy. The most fundamental failure has been the unwillingness on the part of state and higher education leaders to re-examine assumptions that were embodied in the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education.

The underperformance of higher education can be attributed, in no small part, to the failure to re-evaluate the historic blueprint for higher education as California’s population grew fourfold, major demographic shifts occurred, and the economy was transformed. In the meantime, the state reduced its capacity for policy, oversight and public accountability.

The negative trends in California college enrollment and completion are most acute for growing populations, particularly low-income and Latino youths.

Over the last year, a series of reports by policy experts within and outside California has documented these trends and their negative impact on California’s future.

The problems are not the consequence of a single recession, however severe, but a quarter century of passivity while indicators of underperformance accumulated.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of decline, state leaders — governors and legislators, Republicans and Democrats — failed to articulate the educational needs and goals of the state. The educational status quo has led to misplaced priorities, including expanding university research capacity while at the same time reducing opportunities for undergraduate education. This opportunity deficit was exacerbated by precipitous increases in tuition, as the incomes of California families were falling.

The basic and most innovative premise of the master plan was that college would be available to every Californian with the motivation and ability to benefit. To fulfill that promise, higher education was divided into three “segments” — the University of California, the California State University and community colleges — with designated responsibilities for academic programs and eligible students.

Over time, these “mega systems” have become too large, complex, bureaucratic and politicized in ways that prevented effective responses to the 21st century imperatives.

The staying power of the master plan derived from past state leaders’ careful analysis of California’s needs for higher education in the mid-20th century.

It is well past time for state leaders to shake off their passivity and start reshaping a master plan that meets the state’s needs.

Joni E. Finney, a professor of education at the University of Pennsylvania, is the director of the Institute for Research on Higher Education. She is lead author of “From Master Plan to Mediocrity: Higher Education Performance & Policy in California,” a report on the state of higher education in California. Patrick M. Callan is president of the Higher Education Policy Institute. To comment, submit your letter at www.sfgate.com/submissions/#1