Yesterday we began our week-long exploration of California’s Master Plan with a post by Donald E. Heller (Director, Center for the Study of Higher Education and Professor of Education and Senior Scientist, College of Education, The Pennsylvania State University). Today, Barry Munitz, chancellor, California State University (1991–1998), continues the conversation below.
A New Master Plan
by Barry Munitz
Chancellor, California State University (1991–1998)
President and CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust (1998-2006)
Let us assume for a moment that California is going to consider a new Master Plan. Are we going to have an operative new master plan or a document which calls itself by that name, but has no actionable reality? To me, the single most important question is whether a revision of the Master Plan approaches higher education from a base of pragmatic reality.
When I went to work for Clark Kerr in the 1960s, the original Master Plan really said nothing about resources. Basically Kerr’s assumption was that all public policy individuals of influence would find sufficient resources if the content was sensible and the priorities clearly urgent. In the first subsequent review of that document, there was simply a short page related to finances: a little paragraph, which said fundamentally “Someone should look at this new Proposition 13, it could have some impact on the ability to support these objectives”. That was the only comment made, during the first Master Plan review, that was directly related to money. Then, with each passing year, resources obviously became more and more important. The next tenure review, and well as the Joint Committee for Review of the Master Plan for Higher Education (that led to a restructuring of the community colleges) focused more and more on the limited ability to deliver on the original goals.
A master planning process should stipulate what the basic objectives are for higher education in the state, and a range of likely resources required for accomplishing each of those standards. A master planning team, thinking about new contractual relationships between constituencies, would have to consider these questions:
- What are the performance standards reasonable for California in the 21st century and what are the linked outcomes?
- How do you move away from a system that has been basically input driven for many, many years, to one that focuses far more on expected output for education and for employment?
- How do we consider each of the educational components/segments? There are four now, if we include the large number of private colleges and universities, but looking forward we probably have to add a fifth category which considers the online and for-profit institutions.
- What does the public have a right to expect for each relative level of their investment?
Most of all, we do not need a 150 page telephone book to answer these questions. No one would read it or pay attention to it, and if we cannot present our basic ideas in a crisp and concise form, easy to understand and refine, then we do not deserve consideration.
From a political, governance process perspective, the systems probably have to retain the same legal status. It is too dramatic a change to assume otherwise; but the state cannot survive economically unless it addresses some fundamental political issues, including the referendum process, term limits, redistricting, and open primaries. If we start with those political hurdles, and then proceed to basic economic challenges such as Proposition 13, Proposition 98, and the governor’s new suggestion regarding a rebalance between higher education and corrections, then we have some opportunity—although enormously challenging—to redesign the playing field—while still maintaining the original Master Plan core values.
Finally, I would specifically suggest a voluntary, regional, intersegmental cooperative configuration to reshape the Master Plan. Such a configuration would address the issue of automatic transfer, and even improve articulation, but would require the standardization issues ranging from common course numbering to the sequence of curricular patterns and mutually respected content. How might one undertake such a redesign? If you start with a map of the state of California, and identify the essential base of higher education regional structures for the two senior public systems, and then lay over them the community colleges and the private institutions, and even add K-12 districts, then one can quickly ascertain relative density, sparse areas of service, and be a sign of relative responsibilities. There is a chance, if the heads of those institutions were able to work together, and everyone contributed to the effort, that we could reach a new agreement on these very critical issues, and move forward with courage, with conviction, and with consistent economic support.
About the author: Barry Munitz has been a senior administrator at the University of Illinois and the University of Houston, a business executive at Maxxam, Inc., chancellor of the California State University system, and president and chief executive officer of the J. Paul Getty Trust.
Almost 20 years after attending the CSU during a prior budget crisis and having multiple occasions to speak w/ (then) Chancellor Munitz, I found him to be an insightful and complex individual. As one w/ the highest respect for Clark Kerr & the original Master Plan for Higher Education in California, I’m glad to see Chancellor Munitz advocating for balanced & nuanced reform that respects both fiscal reality and the intent of the original Master Plan.
That having been said, I’d want to read the fine print before signing onto any specific plan for which he might advocate–I still have my “Texas Chainsaw Chancellor” t-shirt, commemorating his tenure at Maxxam and the whole nasty tale of the savings & loan collapse, clearcutting of redwoods and the other fallout from Maxxam’s junk-bond financed take over of various firms.