Each of the public segments is responsible for coordinating the activities and services of its own institutions. CSU is credited with doing the best job of such coordination, the community colleges with the worst. UC lies somewhere between the two extremes. Within this scheme of things, CPEC is not so much a coordinating agency as a source of information and a mediator of last resort for disputes that are not resolved elsewhere. The Education Roundtable, with very few formal meetings per year, provides some voluntary coordination, as does the Intersegmental Coordinating Committee on issues related to transfer. Most of the people we talked with recognized problems with this arrangement but preferred it to the constraints of a tighter structure. The absence of a credible coordinating structure for higher education shifts the statewide action on such work processes as budgeting and articulation to state government.
Budget and finance committees in the Senate and Assembly consider
higher education as part of the single central budget that includes
all state expenditures. Very seldom is there a policy debate on
the true policy implications of the budget. No one looks at the
big picture. Discussions in subcommittees are very political and
focus on meeting the individual requests of the various interests.
This process usually does not produce an acceptable budget.
On May 15, the Department of Finance comes back with increases
or decreases to the budget based on estimates of the state of
the economy. The real decisions are then made behind closed doors
among the "big five" (the Governor's representative and the majority
and minority leaders of both chambers of the Legislature). These
leaders introduce the results of the compromises on the floor
of the Legislature late at night and "try to ram the budget through."
There is never a final budget until after the 15th of June. Within
this process, the Legislative Analyst's Office is the nonpartisan
body that has responsibility for looking at budgets and asking
questions about what they contain.
Capital projects are considered through the same budget process
but funded in a different way, largely through revenue bonds or
general obligation bonds that have to be acted upon by the voters.
The projects included in either of these methods of finance are
determined by the Governor's office and the Legislature. Unlike
the operating budget, the capital outlay budget is designated
by campus.
After the Governor's budget has been acted upon by the Assembly
and the Senate, a conference committee consisting of three members
from each chamber issues a supplemental report, which provides
a statement of legislative intentions. Like a joint resolution,
the supplemental report does not have the force of law, though
it does advise the recipients of the appropriations that they
will incur disfavor if the instructions are ignored. The supplemental
report, which is incorporated as a part of the official budget
when it is finally adopted, is one of the primary ways the Legislature
formally sends messages to higher education.
Prior to the election of Governor Wilson, there was often proviso
language in the budget that specifically directed how the funds
should be spent. Democrats generally favor more control language.
Governor Wilson's philosophy is to provide block grants and maximum
flexibility. His policy is to veto regulatory language in the
budget or from the Legislature. In California the Governor can
use line-item vetoes to delete control language without affecting
appropriations. In non-appropriation bills, the Governor must
either veto the entire bill or none of it.
In response to the Governor's use of line-item vetoes for control
language, the Legislature has used "trailer bills" more frequently
as a basis for providing direction. As one example, a trailer
bill established a duplicate degree charge in 1992 providing that
someone who had already earned a bachelor's degree and enrolled
for another undergraduate degree would be charged the full tuition
established for an out-of-state student. Since trailer bills make
long-term changes, most often in response to a short-term problem,
they usually contain a sunset clause. The duplicate degree charge
will expire in 1997.
During the 1990s, appropriations to the four-year institutions
have been provided to the public systems through two different
means. From 1991 to 1994, the state gave block grants to institutions
without any consideration of enrollment changes. For 1995 and
1996, appropriations have been based on the compact the Governor
negotiated with UC and CSU.
Since the process of budgeting in California has always been incremental, it has focused primarily on marginal issues. The difference now, we were told, is that budget analyses provide less information than they used to. The legislative staff member who made this observation added that the magnitude of the budget simply doesn't allow it.
The absence of a single authority with responsibility for articulation
is surprising in a state where so much rides on universal access
to upper division work through transfer. The Legislature has tried
to reduce barriers to transfer by requiring the institution of
transfer centers, course articulation numbering systems, a mandated
general education core, and, most recently, a common course numbering
system.
Transfer works reasonably well between community colleges and
CSU which is very dependent upon transfers to fill upper division
classes. It works less well with the University of California.
Even where it works well, however, there are problems. CPEC tries
to gather data on the successes and failures of transfer through
a special section in its annual report, Student Profiles. CPEC efforts are somewhat inhibited, however, by the absence
of a student information system that permits cohort tracking.
As a result, CPEC must rely upon institutional reports which,
as previously noted, are widely perceived as self-serving.
The results of all of these different efforts fall significantly
short of inspiring. A community college representative told us
that, despite the amount of attention paid to transfer, very little
has been accomplished in terms of true seamless movement. A legislative
staff member said, "Transfer and articulation is a mess in California
because of turf issues. There are transfer agreements but they
are all negotiated and fought out to the extent that they are
not always very effective." A state senator told us of his involvement
in a major bill on transfer primarily because of anecdotal evidence
from individuals who were having great difficulty.
There is general agreement that the systems need to work together more closely to be sure that students are prepared to succeed. Currently, however, the Intersegmental Coordinating Council, a voluntary body, provides the only arrangement for working across segmental boundaries. Whatever is not worked out voluntarily is left to the Legislature, where contending interests have the opportunity to pursue their special points of view.
Information
Beyond the reports provided by CPEC, the Legislative Analyst's
Office raises issues to which systems must respond in front of
the Budget Committee. A senator described their work as helpful
but limited in the sense that analyses don't start with any vision
for higher education or occur within a mission framework. The
credibility of the Department of Finance is limited by its role
as compiler and advocate for the Governor's budget. The Legislative
Analyst focuses primarily on questions of efficiency, including
such issues as deferred maintenance and the weight of faculty
salaries. A representative told us that over the year the Legislative
Analyst's recommendations have been all over the map. There is
need for a longer range focus in analysis and recommendations
particularly on such sensitive issues as student fee increases.
Beyond CPEC, the Department of Finance and the Office of the Legislative
Analyst, the Legislature has also contracted special studies on
faculty workload and other issues. We were told by a legislative
staff member that some analysis occurs in these studies, but not
at a very high level. The reports are primarily anecdotal and
include very little longitudinal data or original research. A
Democratic senator said that the situation would get worse rather
than better as the Legislature increasingly relies on a weaker
and more partisan staff that will bring ideological agendas to
any analysis they do. He added that if Republicans continue to
gain control there will be much more emphasis on student aid and
privatization issues with a voucher system for higher education
as a real possibility.
In the current policy environment, it is not clear that more or better information would necessarily have much impact on decisions. The Governor vetoed a student information system passed by the Legislature. It is much easier to cut deals with system heads on the basis of political philosophy and available resources than to try to make sense out of data pried from reluctant systems. Perhaps Californians prefer this arrangement. Higher education leaders seem to.
[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]
[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]