California State University is the largest four-year higher education
system in the nation and for much of its history has operated
as a state-regulated bureaucracy. It is primarily a system for
commuting students. At CSU San Bernardino, for example, only about
400 out of 12,000 students reside in campus dormitories. In addition
to being very large, CSU is also diverse. Campuses like CSU Los
Angeles and CSU Dominguez Hills are at the cutting edge of the
demographic changes taking place in California. CSU Los Angeles
has a student body that is approximately 30 percent white, 30
percent Asian-American, 20 percent Latino, and 20 percent African-American,
which represents a major change from the early 1970s when the
campus was more than 70 percent white. Enrollment changes have
been accompanied by more than a one-third decrease in enrollment
from the early 1980s, when the campus was at its peak. Partly
because of the experience at CSU Los Angeles, faculty members
in the CSU system have some doubts about whether "Tidal Wave II"
will materialize.
The state university has given considerable managerial discretion
to its campus executives. A faculty leader said, "There has been
much discussion of decentralization and the central office has
been downsized by 30 percent." Lead campuses are being used to
perform work that was previously done in the central office. An
administrator told us that centralization versus decentralization
was the wrong way to think about what is happening at CSU. He
suggested "networking" as a better metaphor for system efforts
to create greater management capability on campuses while concurrently
consolidating data centers and the telephone system to achieve
economies of scale. The intent is to do things differently. Those
who use internally generated services are, for example, being
treated as "customers." However described, there is strong support
among system participants for the managerial ideas that are reshaping
the state university. A CSU faculty member, for example, praised
the effectiveness of current leadership noting the positive impact
on Cal State's public and internal image.
While the state university does not have constitutional status,
the practical differences between Cal State's-versus UC's-relationships
with state government are currently less significant than they
have been in the past. This is partly because the CSU chancellor
has, in the words of a UC chancellor, "been successful in fuzzing
the line-item budget and UC has given up prerogatives upon which
it might otherwise have insisted." A CSU executive used similar
language to note that UC, with constitutional autonomy, has been
less willing than CSU to test the legitimacy of policy decisions
by state government. The executive added, when UC compromises
about policy issues involving budget language, it makes it more
difficult for CSU to speak out.
Although Cal State may be subject to less state regulation than in the past, its lack of constitutional status leads to greater control by state government than UC has to tolerate. A senior system executive described a "tendency in Sacramento to micro-manage." Cal State's efforts to achieve greater managerial flexibility at the campus level have been supported by the director of the Department of Finance and by the Department of General Services under the direction of the Governor. These efforts, however, were opposed by the state comptroller (an elected office), and by some middle-management staff in the Departments of Finance and General Services. The comptroller, who was described as "never having seen a regulation he didn't like" imposed penalties and time losses on campuses and vendors. The opposition of the comptroller to greater flexibility on vendor payment issues led to a legislative compromise in the form of a pilot study. Even when the study demonstrated advantages to allowing greater flexibility, the comptroller found other reasons to object, which returned the issue to the Legislature.
The most publicized decision made by the board during our case
study involved ending remedial education over a seven-year period.
The initial board proposal was criticized by some opponents as
elitist and irrational. CSU trustees and others praised the approach
the system took to revising the original proposal: the board instituted
a series of discussions throughout the state about the merits
of the change. A campus president described this process with
some pride: "At CSU we had extensive discussions at the board
level about remedial education and affirmative action. When the
political train began to approach, our board chose to act much
differently than the UC board. Our board did not cave into pressure
from the Governor the way that UC did." He added, "And they may
not have had the same kind of pressure."
The hiring of a campus president involves a search committee that
includes at least three trustees as well as faculty, staff, alumni,
students, and often campus advisory board members. The search
committee is always chaired by a trustee. A board member told
us that the screening process moves forward by consensus noting,
"Consensus means consensus among Trustees because they are the
ones that have the votes." Ultimately three or four individuals
are interviewed by the full board.
According to one trustee, candidates until recently were "brought
through the public gauntlet" on a campus before being brought
to the board. CSU changed this policy during a search for a San
Diego State University president, creating instead a panel representative
of people from the campus. Interviews did not take place on the
campus in a public forum as in the past. The same trustee told
us, "It would be a real mistake to have a group of faculty, staff,
or students hire the presidents."
Most campuses seek to have Trustees visit for a day and a half. On these visits, Trustees typically attend classes and meet with students and faculty. The visits are seen as a way to get feedback from people within the system about policy decisions under consideration. A trustee told us, for example, that the "pay-for-performance" policy change in the California Faculty Association contract negotiated during our case study was preceded by many Trustee discussions with faculty. Ultimately, "Faculty and Trustees agreed to disagree." Trustees believed that pay for performance was absolutely necessary while faculty members were not interested.
The positive view that central staff have of their performance
was widely shared among others we interviewed. The president of
a private university described the state university as "much better
managed than other public segments," as well as "wiser in decision-making
and in sticking to mission." A CSU campus president told us that
the system structure works well for the campuses: "I am surprised
at the extent to which I am really left alone to run the campus."
A colleague who had recently joined CSU from a well-regarded system
in a different state said that the state university is doing a
better job of considering work-force development and the implications
of technology for teaching than any other public university in
the country.
Part of the strong campus support for system leadership stems
from the opportunities presidents have to influence the decision-making
process. The CSU Executive Council, which is composed of campus
presidents and the chancellor, meets ten times a year. In such
meetings, participants create agendas for board meetings and discuss
major issues of collaboration. The council typically convenes
for two days. On the evening of the first day, presidents meet
after the formal discussion has concluded to exchange ideas, lobby
one another and discuss problems. This is understood by all to
be part of the way the Executive Council works with the chancellor.
All decisions within the system are on paper. There are no secrets.
The current CSU chancellor receives high marks for leadership.
A trustee told us the system has provided support for its "branch
offices," freeing them to make decisions but setting parameters
for accountability. A senior executive described the chancellor
as "much more consultative than his predecessor," adding, "One
of the first things the chancellor said to the presidents is that
you are part of system decision-making. You have dual responsibilities
both as a campus executive and as a system official." A different
system officer said, "The CSU board with essentially the same
membership works very differently under the current chancellor
because he encourages staff to air differences and expects the
board to engage policy issues."
When the Trustees engage in protracted discussions concerning
policies, the chancellor convenes a task force of presidents to
work with them. The board policy on remedial education, far different
from the one they set out to consider, developed from this approach.
Because Executive Council discussions are probing, the Trustees
have confidence in the chancellor's reports on presidential views.
The work of the council is augmented by a long-standing academic
vice presidents' council, as well as a newer group involving business
vice presidents. There is also a presidential task force on synergy
as well as many ad hoc groups in areas such as technology.
Within the state university, campus presidents are informally
evaluated every three years. Every six years presidents are formally
evaluated against written standards by at least one trustee as
well as two or three additional people who conduct a series of
interviews on the campus. A trustee, after describing the quality
of CSU presidents as excellent, noted that if there were problems
with a president, the evaluation process would be a way in which
a person could be asked to leave the position.
Relationships among faculty, presidents, and Trustees have a troubled
history in CSU. When unions were considered by each segment, CSU
needed one to provide appropriate faculty influence in the governance
process; UC did not. While relationships are better now, there
are still tensions. A president described the union as the major
barrier to change and added, "Campus senates run the union a close
second. They are still in the mode of, 'We should run everything
and who the hell are the presidents?'" He then qualified his comment:
"The senate isn't all wrong. They correctly perceive that new
presidents are very different from previous ones." In contrast,
the system Academic Senate was described as a "pretty constructive
force partly because of the time the chancellor spends working
with them."
Negotiations for collective bargaining are done centrally by a
team that includes employee relations' staff and one campus president.
A support team made up of senior systems' staff and a handful
of presidents set major directions for the negotiations. The involvement
of presidents in the negotiating process is new.
During the last set of negotiations, a determined and successful
effort by Cal State produced the agreement that one component
of any salary increase would be determined by merit. This approach
had never been used previously. In return the union received:
no take-back in contractual provisions; improvements in conditions
for lecturers; and service steps for faculty in the intermediate
ranks. A faculty member said:
The merit component was rammed down the throats of the union. They have since spent a great deal of time going around campuses and explaining to senates, who have responsibility for implementing merit, the union's lack of choice in the matter. Even with this explanation, campus senates have had a difficult time distributing the small amount of money available and have not been happy in having the job.
Internally, the budget process begins when the chancellor articulates
the priorities that have previously been discussed with the Executive
Council. The allocation process is heavily enrollment driven with
a base for each campus to which incremental changes are made based
on changes in enrollment. Most of the budget is in the form of
salaries. If campuses have enrollment gains or losses, changes
can be made. However, the system can also decide to preserve an
institution's budget in the face of enrollment losses as in the
case of CSU Northridge, which lost ten percent of its enrollment
following serious earthquake damage in 1995. Apart from special
circumstances, institutions can gain or lose two percent in enrollment
without affecting their base levels of funding. Campuses negotiate
with the chancellor for additional monies that may be available
based on increases or decreases in enrollment, enrollment targets,
and system initiatives.
The budget process for 1996-97 produced a 56-page document that
covers everything from enrollment to maintenance. Typically there
are no individual campus requests posed to the state, although
earthquake recovery at CSU Northridge, the development of a new
campus at Monterey Bay, and the unique character of the recently
acquired Maritime Academy receive specific attention. The only
other fiscal information on a campus-by-campus basis has to do
with parking and housing spaces. The budget document describes
the process of developing the budget as "consultative" and refers
to Cal State as "a single university with 22 front doors."
There is no standard campus budget process. At CSU Northridge,
the budget process was described as "protracted, elaborate, and
evolving." A recently created University Budget Advisory Board
includes faculty, staff, and students. The process begins with
a budget message from the president providing general parameters
within which budget discussions will occur. The president's statement
is reviewed by the Budget Advisory Board and distributed to vice
presidents who are required to solicit input from their staff.
In fiscal year 1996-97 for the first time, the campus is initiating
a bench-marking process for two or three departments in each support
area. Ultimately, all departments will be subject to bench-marking
and the results will become the basis for reallocating funds.
The campus budget process ends with a list of items that will
be funded by the "teeny weenie amount of money" available.
The open budget process at CSU Northridge represents a relatively recent-but apparently widespread-innovation within the CSU system. When we asked if presidents on other campuses could make decisions without consultation, we were told "not easily." Faculty members talk to each other across the system. There may still be some institutional cultures that are sufficiently isolated and where the president is held in sufficient esteem that the old system may work, but most campuses have had to open up their budget processes.
A routine review of existing academic programs happens on each
campus every five or six years. Campuses report the outcomes of
these reviews but the central office does not tell them what to
do. The process is much less centralized and directive than in
the past. Not all presidents believe such campus reviews have
much to offer. One told us that the process had been captured
by the faculty and did not produce reports with any value for
decision makers.
System initiatives related to the curriculum tend to be broadly
strategic rather than focused on specific programs or majors.
Project 2001 is an example. This study builds on collaborative
relationships with the Department of Finance and asks four questions:
(1) From the state's perspective, why do people need to be in
college in the year 2001? (2) Who is likely to be in college and
what are their needs? (3) What curricula will be required to match
state needs to student characteristics and needs? (4) What modes
of instruction will be most effective?
Work on Project 2001 began with "an environmental scan." Part
of the purpose of the scan was to identify data needs for the
project. Once these needs were decided, a decision was made to
contract the work out to a campus through a request for proposal
process. Not only was this approach judged to be less expensive
than using central office staff but, in addition, the approach
involved campuses directly in the work. CSU will add data from
the Department of Finance to the data being generated through
the campus project. The state university will also provide input
from a committee composed of campus and central office staff.
Concurrently with all of this activity, a separate but related
project to reconceptualize the baccalaureate degree has been initiated
by the statewide Academic Senate. The hope for Project 2001 and
related initiatives is that they will lay out the strategic directions
CSU intends to follow. Strategic directions will not be a mandate
for campuses to do anything specific but will define priorities
that will be reflected in such other processes as presidential
evaluation and budgeting.
The state university is also studying approaches to providing additional services in the Ventura area. The current idea is to design a new four-year university where educational delivery systems would be drawn from existing CSU units and perhaps elsewhere as an alternative to building a complete campus. In planning for these services, links have been developed with community colleges since they would be sites for the delivery of some of the instruction.
The state university educates the majority of the state's classroom
teachers. The proposal to alter system policies towards remedial
education makes very little mention of teacher education, even
though some trustees note that the system shares responsibility
for the problems in K-12 education. Improving the quality of teacher
education programs may be the highest priority in terms of strengthening
the link between K-12 and Cal State.
A number of articulation initiatives, both internal and external,
turned up during our interviews. A trustee told us about the CSU
"passport," which permits a student to take courses at any of
the CSU institutions in the Los Angeles area without reapplying
to a new institution. Less than 50 students used the passport
program in 1994-95. The trustee added that he would like to see
this kind of activity across segments. A senior executive at CSU
told us about the involvement of local community colleges in the
design of the Monterey Bay facility as well as in the development
of the Ventura campus. A different executive mentioned Senate
Bill 121, which was passed by the Legislature in 1991 and which
established a general education core (of 34 units) that would
be acceptable at every public campus within California. He said
this legislation was aimed mainly at the UC system and was not
as good as arrangements already existing between Cal State and
community colleges. A community college president praised CSU
Northridge for offering baccalaureate credit courses on her campus
so that employed students do not have to travel to get at least
some of the courses they require.
The state university is also involved with UC and several private
institutions in offering joint doctoral programs. However, a UC
president said that cooperation between CSU and UC as intended
by the Master Plan has never really occurred. Restraints on CSU
doctoral and professional programs remain a source of irritation
to those at CSU.
A trustee described the information he received as a board member as "very good." He added, "The chancellor knows how to work with the board; his approach is full disclosure. When you ask him for things they are there." A campus president told us that information is available within the CSU system, but it is not collected systematically so budget people have to make a special effort to get it. The president added that since the system's student payroll and personnel data are separate, there is no easy way they can be combined to provide information to policy makers.
The principle criticism of CSU performance has to do with access
and the enrollment declines during the fiscal crisis of the 1990s.
According to a CPEC report, the number of first-time freshmen
enrolling at CSU declined by about 8,500 students between 1989
and 1993, while the number of high school graduates statewide
increased by 4,000. During this same period, the number of community
college transfers showed very little fluctuation. According to
the Department of Finance, overall enrollments in CSU declined
from 377,116 in 1990 to 324,386 in 1994. The college-going rate
of high school students continuing on to the state university
declined from 10.4 percent in 1990 to 8.5 percent in 1994, an
18 percent decline.
CSU officials argue that their first priority after continuing
students is, according to law, upper division transfers and that
most of the people turned away were first-time freshmen or lower
division transfers. CSU officials believe that all qualified upper
division transfers from community colleges were accommodated.
CSU staff members defend their decision to reduce enrollments
by noting that in the past campuses always assumed, with some
degree of confidence, that resources would be sufficient to allow
the campuses to take students who applied and that shortfalls
in funding either would be offset by funds from within the system
or would be made up within a year. During the early 1990s, the
state provided a new set of conditions, leading to the CSU decision
that "If the money isn't there we have to reduce enrollment."
Through this decision, the state university hoped to send a signal
to state elected officials that the parameters had changed. Cal
State remains committed to the strategic position that when state
funding is reduced, it is better are to take fewer students than
to lower quality.
While overall state funding was reduced in the early part of the
1990s, the combination of increased tuition and declining enrollment
led to an actual increase in the total revenues per student at
Cal State. From 1990-91 to 1993-94, general revenues per student
(state general funds plus student fees) at CSU increased by 2.5
percent, after adjusting for inflation.
The national rankings on which UC bases its claims concerning quality are not available for CSU. From the data that are available, Cal State's performance is at least constant or improving. The five-year persistence rates for native freshmen were virtually unchanged at 54.9 percent for those entering in fall 1988 (compared to those entering in fall 1983), while the three-year persistence rates for community college transfers improved somewhat (to 63.8 percent) for those entering in fall 1990 (compared to those entering in fall 1985). The total bachelor's degrees awarded increased by 17 percent from 1989 to 1994. During the same period, the total master's degrees awarded increased by 35 percent.
[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]
[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]