Between 1987 and 1994, the "staying in school" rate (the reverse of the dropout rate) rose by 8.8 percent, the department reported. From 1988 to 1994, the number of students taking college-level Advanced Placement courses and examinations rose by 102 percent. And the combined math and verbal scores for the 127,364 public and private high school seniors who took the SAT in 1994-95 were slightly above the national average.
But the percentage of high school graduates who then enroll as freshmen at either UC or Cal State has dropped from 17.2 to 13.6 in the last decade, a statistic that State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin called "chilling."
"More and more are getting ready, but fewer are going," said Pat McCabe, director of research, evaluation and technology for the State Department of Education.
Reasons for the decline presumably include sharp fee increases; deliberate downsizing policies, especially at Cal State; inadequate student financial aid; and concern about large classes, or not being able to get classes at all, as a consequence of state budget cuts.
McCabe said nobody knows where these college-ready students wind up--whether they go to California community colleges, to out-of-state schools, or don't go to college at all--because the state education department does not have the $250,000 needed to finance a follow-up study of high school graduates.
Although SAT scores were up and more high school students were taking college-level work, another important indicator--the percentage of high school graduates who took the so-called "A-to-F" sequence of courses required for admission to either UC or Cal State--remained flat for the third consecutive year, according to the California Postsecondary Education Commission.
To be eligible for either of the state's public university systems, a student must take four years of high school English, three years of math, two years of history (including United States history, world history and geography), two years of a laboratory science, two years of a foreign language, and two years of carefully-prescribed "electives."
Between 1986 and 1992, the percentage of the state's high school graduates who took these college preparatory courses rose sharply, from about 25 percent to about one-third, but the rate has remained at a plateau since then.
CAL STATE ENROLLMENT DECLINE CONTINUE
A four-year enrollment slide at the California State University accounts for much of the decline in the percentage of California high school graduates who attend the state's public universities, as described above.
Since the 1990-91 academic year, enrollment on 20 Cal State campuses has dropped by about 50,000, according to reports published by the system itself and by the state Department of Finance. In the same time period, enrollment on the nine University of California campuses declined by 6,400.
Despite vigorous recruiting efforts on many Cal State campuses, 1994-95 system-wide enrollment fell for the fourth consecutive year, Cal State reported. The 20 campuses enrolled 246,669 full-time equivalent students, about 1,200 fewer than the preceding year and about 3,300 short of the 250,000 target set by the Legislature. The continuing decline disappointed Cal State officials, who had hoped that aggressive recruiting and a system of internal rewards for increased enrollments would reverse the downward trend.
Since peaking at 377,116 individual students (278,902 full-time equivalents) in the 1990-91 academic year, Cal State has lost about 50,000 students.
In 1992-93 and 1993-94, Cal State deliberately cut enrollment, pursuing a policy that the system would accept only as many students as the state budget paid for. Under legislative pressure, however, the Board of Trustees and Chancellor Barry Munitz abandoned downsizing last year, and campuses were urged to recruit students aggressively.
Richard West, vice chancellor for business and finance, said almost half of the 1994-95 shortfall was caused by an enrollment drop at California State University, Northridge, which suffered severe damage from a January 1994 earthquake.
Other factors limiting enrollment include faster graduation rates and the fact that illegal aliens now must pay high out-of-state tuition, West said. Others mentioned stiff fee increases, lack of adequate financial aid and a shortage of available classes as important reasons why enrollments have dropped.
Only five of the 20 campuses in the system last year (two more have been added since then: Monterey Bay and the California Maritime Academy) reached their enrollment targets: Humboldt, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego and San Francisco. The campuses that fell well short of their goals were Cal State Chico, San Jose State and Cal State Sacramento.
West said it was "something of a mystery" why some campuses failed to attract enough students. A few months ago West was hopeful that heavy enrollment for the spring quarters and semesters would enable the system to meet the Legislature's target of 250,000 full-time equivalent students for 1994-95. Since then, the Legislature has increased the goal to 252,000 for the 19955-96 academic year.
"We expect to meet that goal," West said, "but it's a matter of how quickly we do it. It might take us two years, or even three."
STEALTH PLANNERS
Lobbyists for the University of California, the California Teachers Association (CTA), the state prison guards and other special interest groups have been meeting quietly for several months in Sacramento, in an effort to find ways to revamp the state's financial structure.
"Our goal is to craft an agreement on a set of reforms that will solve California's revenue problems and also will have widespread public support," said David Booher, a lobbyist for the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, another of the principal sponsors.
Organizers have obtained a $150,000, one-year grant from the Hewlett Foundation. They have hired the California Center for Public Dispute Resolution, a joint endeavor of California State University, Sacramento, and the McGeorge Law School, to coordinate the effort.
The group has been meeting about once a month, usually in the CTA board room in Sacramento. In addition to UC, CTA and the Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, others who have been attending the meetings include lobbyists for the Building Industry Association, the California Association of Realtors, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (the prison guards' union), the California State University and the state Chamber of Commerce.
Booher said the meetings "reached critical mass" last spring and that more than 30 organizations now attend, covering a "wide range of interests." He added, "we are the organizations that have a stake in the long-term economic health of the state."
But Ruth Holton, executive director of California Common Cause, said her organization has not been invited, nor have other public interest groups like the League of Women Voters or environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club.
"It's fine that such influential organizations are discussing these important issues," she said, "but it would be better if they weren't doing it from such a narrow point of view."
Several participants said the University of California has been one of the prime movers in forming the new consensus-seeking group. "If it hadn't been for UC, this wouldn't have happened," one said.
The university's state appropriation has been shrinking in recent years, and a bond issue for new higher education construction was rejected by voters in 1994, so UC has strong motivation for seeking new revenue sources.
But William B. Baker, a UC vice president, said the university was simply "monitoring" the meetings. "We thought this was something we ought to follow, to see if it's a track we want to be on," Baker said.
The California State University also has sent a representative to the meetings, mainly "to see what UC is up to," a Cal State source said.
Several other organizations said they, too, were going to the meetings mainly to find out what the builders, the realtors, the prison guards and other powerful Sacramento lobbying groups were trying to do to change the state's tax structure or to alter the financial arrangements for state and local government.
"If these people are getting together, we want to know what they are doing and saying," said Carol Ross Evans, lobbyist for the California Taxpayers Association. "We want to make sure no sweeping new tax proposal is in the works."
Fred Main, vice president and general counsel for the California Chamber of Commerce, said members of the coalition were trying to repeat their success of 1990, when initiatives raising the state gasoline tax, as well as the state spending limit, were approved by voters.
Main said the meetings provide "a fairly collegial working atmosphere for people who have been at odds on many public policy spending issues." He said the discussions are at an early stage but the coalition hopes to agree on one or more measures that could be presented to the voters as early as 1998.
Several participants said the recommendations for changes in state government that were made recently by the Constitutional Revision Commission were unlikely to receive the two-thirds vote they need in each house of the Legislature to make the ballot. They view the California Governance Consensus Project as an alternative.
"Some of the Constitutional Revision Commission stuff is good, but it won't fly politically," said Kevin Gordon, lobbyist for the California School Boards Association, a participant in the new coalition.
Critics noted that the Constitutional Revision Commission was created by the Legislature but no one has appointed or elected the lobbyists and others who are involved in the governance consensus project. But Gordon responded, "if you can get enough of the special interest groups involved, then pretty soon you represent the broader community."