Assessing the performance of higher education in California is
no easy task. Apart from the four or five priorities defined by
the Governor as part of his funding guarantee, there are no explicit
goals, expectations or standards of performance. There is no information
system that would permit evaluations based on other information
than the segments furnish about themselves.
In response to Assembly Bill 1808 passed in 1991, CPEC began in
1994 to publish an annual report on higher education performance
indicators. The most recent report devotes most of its space to
population characteristics, fiscal support and student preparation.
There is a fairly extensive section on student enrollments by
system, including data on race and ethnicity. Analysis of the
information in this and other sections is very limited. The report
concludes with a section on student experiences and outcomes which
are identified as the "core of the AB 1808 reporting." The only
outcome measures available to CPEC with uniform definitions across
systems were: overall persistence rates for first-time freshmen
and for community college transfers, degree production, and faculty
diversity.
CPEC has made an effort through its most recent Performance Indicators report and its 1995 planning document, The Challenge of the Century, to define accountability as an issue and to shift agency emphasis
to developing an accountability system and associated measures.
While many of those we interviewed see the absence of accountability
as a problem in California, few other than CPEC staff identified
this agency's initiative as the appropriate way of dealing with
the problem. A community college representative told us he thinks
a good accountability mechanism could be developed on a voluntary
basis. Even the CPEC spokesman who described the accountability
initiative acknowledged that performance measures would be controversial
and that institutions would resist providing information that
could be used to measure them.
Given these circumstances, we asked our respondents, "Who looks
after the public interest and how?" The most common answer was,
"professionals within the system whose values lead them to act
in ways that are responsive to the public interest." This answer
came most commonly from representatives of the three systems,
including some, but not all, of the members of their respective
governing boards. A former CPEC official said that the public
interest is best addressed through the budgeting process. He gave
as an example the use of categorical programs and other legislative
actions in the late 1960s and 1970s to encourage institutions
to recruit faculty members and students who more closely resembled
the changing demographics of the state. A legislative staff member
described the state's record on finding the appropriate balance
between public and professional interests as "mixed," noting the
"Gardner incident and other scandals." He added, "This has been
less an issue in CSU and the community colleges."
Given the absence of priorities and the means for measuring their
attainment, it is not surprising that general assessments of performance
vary. A Senate aide said, "Higher education needs to be grabbed
hold of and shaken hard"; by contrast, a CPEC official told us,
"There is no significant dissatisfaction with higher education,
the basic condition is contentment." Variations of the latter
perspective were more common than the former. An ex-CPEC official
described higher education as "non-contentious because it has
been done well."
One of the more balanced views was provided by a senior senator. He told us that California has a good system in terms of quality, access, and affordability and that people perceive the system as something to which they are entitled and so they provide support. He added, "No one wants to privatize it or outsource it." At the same time, there is need for continuing improvement in such areas as the influx of new students, the number of drop-outs, escalating fees, and downsizing mentalities. A second senator, after describing what he called "spotty and uneven improvements" in most areas, added, "It would help if they talked more with one another, particularly on the access and efficiency issues."
Those who worried about access in the UC system after the Regents'
decision to end affirmative action had similar concerns for CSU.
A private college president told us that most people of color
were educated at CSU campuses. He added, "You cannot eliminate
remedial education there without fixing it somewhere else." He
was also concerned about the stigmatizing effects of attendance
at CSU, an issue that concerned other respondents in California's
tiered system as well. Finally, as previously noted, the decision
by CSU to reduce admissions of first-time freshmen in response
to reduced state appropriations raised widespread concerns.
There were no corresponding criticisms of community colleges concerning
access. Such institutions were widely perceived as providing outstanding
access without adequate resources. A state senator did argue that
the high level of access could be seen as a weakness for the system
since it sends the message to students that they do not have to
perform in high school because they can always go to a community
college.
There is some evidence this "hands-off" approach may change. A
legislative staff member described two approaches among current
legislators: "Old-timers are concerned that the University of
California didn't get enough money. Newer members are more focused
on teaching loads and the multifaceted missions of the institutions."
Most respondents said they consider efficiency to be a matter
of inadequate funding rather than good leadership. A member of
the community college Board of Governors said, "Community colleges
are known for providing education cheaply. In some ways they have
brought their current situation on themselves."
While those we interviewed had difficulty identifying efficiencies other than those created by inadequate funding, they had few problems identifying what they regarded as inefficient practices. At the head of the list were the number of research universities supported by the state and the duplication of expensive graduate programs. The decision to develop a tenth research campus for the University of California also came in for its share of criticism. Incompetent management-as evidenced by UC administration of health-related programs and actions of local community college governing boards, such as the purchase of the administration building in Los Angeles-also were raised as efficiency issues. Many respondents also expressed concerns about the degree to which systems were using or were likely to use new technologies in cost-effective ways.
Once you get beyond the UC rankings and research contributions
to economic development, issues related to quality quickly become
complex and confusing. A CPEC representative described California
as no further along than other states in tracking performance
standards that might help to determine quality. A legislative
staff member identified quality as a priority but quickly added,
"It is tough to know how to assess it. Typically the Legislature
has deferred to Regents and Trustees in terms of how quality should
be measured." UC Regents told us that at least in the past they
accepted "whatever the central administration told them."
The answer then to the question of how California is doing with respect to quality and other valued outcomes seems to be, "We don't really know," as we were told by a legislative staff member. In the past this has not been a problem because of public confidence regarding access and the reputation of the University of California. However, public trust regarding higher education has become increasingly problematic. This loss of public trust, along with a changing political philosophy in Sacramento, has higher education leaders worried. Their concerns seem justified.
[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]
[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]