The 1960
master plan for higher education in California identified the following
distinct roles for its three-tier system:
- University of California (UC) is to be the state’s primary public research university, with authority to grant bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral, and other professional degrees.
- California State University (CSU) is to focus on liberal arts and sciences and grant bachelor’s and master’s degrees.
- California Community College (CCC) is to offer lower-division instruction transferable to 4-year colleges, provide remedial and vocational training, and grant two-year associate’s degree.
According to the plan, the top 12.5 percent of all graduating public high school students are eligible for admission to UC, the top 33.3 percent for admission to CSU, and all persons 18 years or older who can “benefit from instruction” are eligible to attend CCC.
- University of California (UC) is to be the state’s primary public research university, with authority to grant bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral, and other professional degrees.
- California State University (CSU) is to focus on liberal arts and sciences and grant bachelor’s and master’s degrees.
- California Community College (CCC) is to offer lower-division instruction transferable to 4-year colleges, provide remedial and vocational training, and grant two-year associate’s degree.
According to the plan, the top 12.5 percent of all graduating public high school students are eligible for admission to UC, the top 33.3 percent for admission to CSU, and all persons 18 years or older who can “benefit from instruction” are eligible to attend CCC.
Fifty plus
years later, it is clear that dramatic shifts in California’s demography, mode
of education, jobs and “facts on ground” require a thorough review of the
master plan and quick enactment of core recommendations from educators,
legislators, teachers, unions and students.
Although the
plan had gone through several official reviews in 50 years, resulting in
hundreds of recommendations, only a few, and that too at the most superficial
level, had seen the light of day.
It is clear
to anyone but the most jaded and reactive segment of the population that the master
plan, designed when baby boomers were reaching college age, fails to serve the
needs of Californians in the 21st Century. A high school diploma
that back then would have sufficed for a managerial position is more likely to
elicit scorn for even a door-to-door sales position now.
Nowhere has
the master plan’s inadequacy become more apparent than in the objectives it set
for California’s community colleges half-a-century ago.
It is
imperative that the role and scope of the CCC system be expanded as soon as
possible not only to increase graduation rates but also to meet the Golden State’s
growing workforce needs.
There are two
areas in which immediate intervention is required.
First, the increasing
complexity in transferring credits to CSUs and UCs force many community college
students to repeat courses, which not only delay their progress but sometimes
force them to drop out. Students who take prescribed courses and do well are,
in theory, guaranteed admission to CSU or UC systems. That’s the problem: the
plan works mostly in theory and not often enough in practice. This has to
change immediately if the CSU and UC systems are serious about educating all
eligible Californians for purposeful employment and self-fulfillment.
Second, and
more importantly, community colleges should have the right to grant bachelor’s
degrees in selected vocational fields, such as nursing, automotive and
biotechnology, to meet workforce demand and boost employment.
Demand for
nursing, for instance, is consistently strong. But CSUs cannot graduate nearly enough
nurses for the healthcare system. Many community colleges, on the other hand, have
been training nurses for decades. (Evergreen Valley College in San Jose, to
name only one, has had a top flight nursing program for several years).
What can be
more logical than the right to confer bachelor’s degree in a field that
community colleges are eminently qualified to do?
Nothing,
except that officials from universities and private colleges, fearing
competition, are vigorously lobbying against the idea, claiming that granting
four-year degrees would undermine the original mission of the two-year system.
This is, of
course, a red herring. Universities and private colleges are trying to protect their
turf at the expense of justice and economic well-being of Californians,
particularly those from poor families and rural areas.
Despite their
resistance, Brice Harris, Chancellor of California’s 112 community colleges
with its 2.4 million students, has appointed a 16-member panel to consider the
plan. The group includes faculty, administrators, a student, a college trustee
and representatives of UC and CSU systems. (In all fairness, the panel should
include more student representatives since it is their future that is at
stake.)
Californians must throw their support behind the plan to allow
community colleges the right to grant four-year degrees, at least in selected
vocational fields. While cost and accreditation issues will certainly pose
challenges, they are expected to be more than compensated by employment and
economic benefits.
Besides, California would merely be following a growing trend: As
many as 21 states have already approved baccalaureate programs at community
colleges, most recently Michigan, which last year granted junior colleges
authority to offer four-year degrees in a limited number of fields such as
maritime technology and culinary arts.
Proposed in
1960, California’s master plan for higher education no longer fits the bill.
The time has come for its significant overhaul, one of which would be to
enlarge the scope and power of community colleges in granting four-year degrees
in selected fields. After all, if public colleges cannot meet the aspirational
and professional needs of their communities in the 21st century, how
can they continue to be called “community” colleges?
No comments:
Post a Comment