The California Master Plan for Higher Education of 1960 guaranteed enrollment for a tuition-free education to every academically qualified student; however, this has changed over the years.

Winston Lancaster, secretary of the Capitol chapter of the California Faculty Association, said he doubts the students from 50 years ago could afford fees for a 2010 education.

“There is a huge, huge difference between the tuition today and 50 years ago,” Lancaster said. “This Master Plan gave everyone a route to the middle class. That’s what we’re losing now.”

When Gov. Edmund G. “Pat” Brown signed the Donahoe Act on April 26, 1960, he introduced the Master Plan’s three key features for higher education in California: availability, affordability and differentiation of function among the three public segments of higher education.

The University of California, focused on doctorates, was to admit the top eighth percentile of high school graduates. The California State University, offering bachelor’s and master’s degrees, was to select the top third. And the California Community College, awarding associate’s degrees, was to select “… any student capable of benefiting from instruction,” according to the act.

One shortcoming of the Master Plan was that it assumed California would always provide for higher education at the level in which it provided in 1960, said Don Gerth, former Sacramento State president.

“The actual title of the Master Plan is, “A Master Plan for Higher Education in California: 1960-1975,'” Gerth said. “Nobody ever argued that it would be the Master Plan for the year 2010. The Master Plan was very clear that it was providing for access and affordability, but the current financial crisis is impinging on it. Students are having trouble getting classes and gaining admission, so there are serious issues out there on the table.”

Lancaster said the affordability aspect of the Master Plan allowed people from his parents’ generation to attend universities.

But according to the CSU Budget Office, the average system-wide fee for full-time undergraduate students went from $780 in 1990 to $4,230 today.

Steve Boilard, director of higher education at the Legislative Analyst’s Office, said tuition is technically not charged in higher education.

“The Master Plan permitted the universities to charge “fees’ for non-instructional costs,” Boilard said in an e-mail to The State Hornet. “And as you know, those fees have grown from a few hundred dollars to many thousands. So over time the spirit of the Master Plan was left in the dust.”

Lancaster said along with affordability, availability is also a slipping feature of the Master Plan, using Sac State’s biology department as an example.

“Last year for the first time we cut off admissions for people who were academically qualified,” Lancaster said. “Our department is under huge stress to cut courses. We’re doing things like taking courses that used to be taught annually and making them every other year. This is going to make it very unavailable.”

Lancaster said the California Faculty Association meets with the Legislature at least once a year to express the faculty’s and students’ unhappiness with the financial state of higher education.

“One of the responses I would get from legislators is, “Well, I’m glad that you came to tell us about this, but where’s your chancellor?'” Lancaster said. “”If the leader of your institutions is not telling us that he needs more funding, what are we supposed to think?'”

This year, Lancaster said, Sac State President Alexander Gonzalez and CSU Chancellor Charles Reed are starting to request more funding for the CSU.

“Where were they seven years ago when they were agreeing to these budget cuts?” Lancaster said.

Boilard agrees that college access has been slipping over the past few years.

“…but generally we still do a good job of accepting all eligible applicants somewhere in the system,” Boilard said.

Gerth said there is an economic urgency for the higher education systems in California to expand their enrollment.

“California’s population, by the year 2020, will be short over 1 million for people who have backgrounds from universities. This state is setting itself up for an economic fall in terms of not paying enough attention to higher education.”

As for solutions to restore the Master Plan, Lancaster said California needs to acknowledge the dire importance of higher education to the economy.

“We have to think in the long term,” Lancaster said. “Higher education is an enormous expense, but every cent of it is an investment for our future’s workforce. The reason we have had this fantastic economic success in California in the “60s, “70s, and “80s is because we had a highly educated workforce.”

The Master Plan is more of a set of ideals, values and guidelines rather than a strict blueprint for how higher education should operate on a micro level, Boilard said. However, he said its core values are still relatively strong.

“Affordability remains good as a result of financial aid and the low fees at CCC,” Boilard said. “And even with the doctorates at CSU, there remains a pretty strong differentiation of function among the three public segments.”

Gerth said although he did not know the exact solution to revive the Master Plan’s goal for an affordable college education, rethinking the state’s financing toward higher education was where to start.

“I don’t have a handy-dandy answer,” Gerth said. “To say that the state needs to provide more money is an oversimplification of the issue. It’s just not that easy. It’s going to require some very careful thought, not only in California, but for the entire country as well.”

Micah Stevenson can be reached at [email protected].