The Perils of Success: Clark Kerr and the Master Plan for Higher Education

And the sky is grey: The ambivalent outcomes of the California Master Plan for Higher Education

“…On the UC campuses the white proportion was 38 per cent (compared to a 40% population share), the Asian‐Pacific a high 33 per cent (13% population share) and the African‐American share 4 per cent (7%). The ethnic distribution in the CSU and community colleges was closer to the population averages (Callan, , pp. 74–75).…”

“…Now, in the later 2010s, at least 200,000 potential students each year miss out on a place. CSU enrolment was first reduced by 50,000 in the early 1990s, and after the 2008–2010 recession the CSUs were again unable to accept all eligible students (Callan, , p. 71; Douglass, , p. 10). Worldwide a growing number of national systems provide near universal access to Higher Education.…”

The Master Plan and the Future of California Higher Education: Assessing the Impact of State Policy on Minority-Serving Institutions

“…Other states and nations sought inspiration from California’s master plan when seeking to better coordinate their higher education systems, including Illinois and New York (Leveille, 2012). Though the master plan incorporated the tripartite organization already in place for decades, the master plan’s framers imbued the system with a purpose previously missing, with an eye toward fulfilling the statewide needs of the near future (Callan, 2009; Douglass, 2000). The master plan succeeded in reconciling the political infighting among public higher education institutions in the state, absorbing an influx of residents interested in pursuing higher education, and maintaining the UC’s prestige as a preeminent research institution (Richardson, Reeves Bracco, Callan, & Finney, 1998).…”

“…These include courses that contribute to an associate’s degree or transfer to a 4-year institution, vocational and technical training, basic academic skills development, and enrichment programs (Moore & Shulock, 2014). The architects of the master plan believed that one of the CCC’s most important functions is the transfer of students to 4-year institutions (Callan, 2009; Douglass, 2010; Richardson et al, 1998). According to a recent survey (Bohn, Reyes, & Johnson, 2013), this belief continues to hold true for 94% of CCC administrators.…”

“…The governor has veto power over legislation; proposes the state budget, including allocations from the General Fund to each segment; and has the authority to line-item veto budgetary items (Douglass, 2010). As described in more detail below, the governor engages in “compacts” with UC and CSU leaders to establish state appropriations as part of the annual budget (Callan, 2009; Richardson & Martinez, 2009).…”