More Control by State Favored for 2-Year Colleges

A state higher education review panel, in a final report issued Tuesday, urged that the balance of power in California’s community colleges tilt toward Sacramento and away from local control.

The 15-member panel also recommended that the community colleges be more closely patterned after the state universities rather than the high schools from which they emerged.

The community college report, the first phase of a broad review of the state’s 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, was designed to break a political deadlock between Gov. George Deukmejian and the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Fees vs. Open-Door Policy

Since 1983, the governor and legislative leaders have repeatedly clashed over the two-year colleges. Deukmejian has insisted on clearer standards and the $50-per-semester fee for students, while the Democratic leaders have fought to keep the state’s traditional policy of an “open door” and no tuition in the local colleges.

Although panel members described their final report as a series of compromises, its chairman and executive director stressed their call for higher standards and more rigid state controls.

“We wanted to say these colleges are post-secondary in nature and we want to give more clout to the (state) Board of Governors,” said commission chairman J. Gary Shansby, former president of Shaklee Corp.

In its opening recommendations, the commission said it wanted to reaffirm “open access to the California community colleges . . . to provide equal opportunity to all high school graduates.”

But it also urged the establishment of “minimum academic skill levels appropriate to different types of courses.” Each college would be required to have “a mandatory assessment, counseling, placement and follow-up program” for all students, the report said.

“A student could be admitted to a college, but not be permitted to enroll in certain courses until he could reach collegiate levels” on the placement tests, said Lee Kerschner, executive director of the commission at a Los Angeles press conference. A student could take no more than 30 hours of remedial work in a community college, Kerschner added.

“This remedial work should be seen as a means to an end, not an end in itself,” he said.

But in reaction, Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica) criticized the commission for proposing a “remedial ghetto” for disadvantaged students trying to get a college degree.

“They seem to be saying, if you don’t cut it, you’re out,” said Hayden, chairman of the Assembly subcomittee on post-secondary education.

He said the two-year colleges need to do more, not less, for the least-prepared students.

“I think we will have to carefully explore in the Legislature what they are recommending . . . whether it is really an exclusive system that would just retain the lip service to open admissions,” he said.

State Sen. Gary K. Hart (D-Santa Barbara), chairman of the Senate Education Committee, said he generally supports the commission’s report, but he questioned whether its members would lobby the governor for the additional $70 million that the commission said would be needed to put their reforms into effect.

“The question is, will they go to bat for these reforms in Sacramento?” said Hart. Last year, Deukmejian vetoed a bill that would have set up a state-funded testing and counseling program nearly identical to what the commission recommended.

Hart also said he was disappointed that the commission decided to “take a walk” on the issue of who should govern the colleges: a state board or the local elected trustees. The commission said last month it would not decide on that issue until the fall.

It also postponed a decision on the controversial “free flow” issue. The Los Angeles college district has restricted its residents from enrolling in suburban colleges, and the state has been under pressure to declare that college students can enroll wherever they choose.

In other matters, the commission recommended:

- That the community colleges develop a “general education core curriculum” that is parallel to the first two years at the California State University or the University of California,

- That the faculty evaluate their peers and decide who gets tenure, as is done in the universities. Currently, community college instructors are licensed and given tenure after two years--the same system used in the public schools.

- That funding for the colleges be less tied to current enrollment levels so that the schools’ financing would be more stable.

- That financially troubled college districts be given a fiscal and management audit and that a “special trustee” be assigned to those that cannot straighten out their problems.

- That the governor, lieutenant governor and Assembly Speaker be added to the state Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.