Colleges Running Out of Space, Money : Education: Enrollments at the state’s public universities may have to be limited, officials say.

The promise for a place in a public college, university or community college for every qualified California student--the linchpin of the state’s Master Plan for Higher Education for the last 30 years--is in jeopardy.

Because of the twin pressures of soaring enrollments and dwindling budgets, the schools may soon have to limit enrollment.

UC President David P. Gardner was the latest to sound that warning when he declared Thursday that the nine-campus system will not be able to meet its mandate to accept the top eighth, academically, of the state’s high school graduates if its budget is not increased next year.

“The analogy is to a hospital. We’re in effect being asked to admit students for whom there are no beds,” Gardner told the University of California Regents, who were meeting at UCLA.

His statement accompanied the unveiling of UC’s proposed 1992-93 budget, which requests $2.4 billion in state general funds, a 9.8% increase over this year. The university still is reeling from a $300-million cut in state funds this year, which led to salary freezes, staff cuts and a 40% student fee hike.

Key officials at the California State University system, at community colleges and in state government echoed Gardner.

“I don’t see how we get out of this and still keep anything like the master plan,” said Carl Rogers, education specialist in the state Department of Finance.

He referred to the cuts that were made to balance this year’s state budget and to the gloomy prospects for 1992-93 because of California’s failure to climb out of the recession.

The results of this year’s budget cuts can be seen on most campuses: reduced course offerings, overcrowded classes, faculty layoffs, sharply increased student fees and fewer places for community college graduates who want to transfer to four-year schools.

Most officials think this fall’s problems are just the beginning and that in the future the state is going to be forced to say no to some deserving students.

Cal State Chancellor Barry Munitz sounded that warning last week at Cal State Fullerton when he said the 20-campus system may no longer be able to live up to its mandate under the master plan to offer low-cost, quality education to the top academic third of California high school graduates.

“If the state of California wants us to maintain our master plan without the necessary resources, we have to call a halt to enrollment (growth),” Munitz said.

Potential enrollment on Cal State campuses is expected to rise from 375,000 to 495,000 by the year 2005, the California Postsecondary Education Commission forecast recently.

At University of California campuses, enrollment demand is expected to jump from 160,000 to 226,000 in the same period, while enrollment on the state’s community college campuses is expected to soar from 1.5 million to 2 million.

Without substantial budget increases in the next few years, officials of all three systems say, they will be unable to handle those hordes of students.

But big funding increases appear unlikely. The California Postsecondary Education Commission report predicts that state spending for health and welfare programs, elementary and secondary education, prisons and debt service will increase at a much higher rate than for higher education.

The Master Plan for Higher Education was drawn up by a team of top officials from the state’s public and private colleges and universities and was enacted into law in 1960.

The plan assigns most of the state’s research, Ph.D. and professional school training to UC, while the Cal State system concentrates on undergraduate instruction.

It stipulates that the top eighth--12.5%--of the state’s high school graduates are eligible for UC and the top one-third for Cal State, while any student who can benefit from additional education can attend a community college. This guarantee of a place in public higher education for all has made California’s approach unique in the nation.

“The structure of the master plan will stay--the difference in functions, the different admissions standards (between UC and the other two systems),” said former UC President Clark Kerr, who was one of the plan’s architects, “but the question is whether the state will be able to fulfill the promise of higher education for all who want it.”

Kerr said the plan was based on a belief that California’s economic productivity would increase by at least 2% a year, on the average, but the rate fell well below that in the 1970s and ‘80s.

Nor did Kerr and other planners of 30 years ago foresee the huge cost increases in elementary and secondary education, health, welfare and prisons.

By raising student fees and easing 4,000 faculty and staff members into early retirement, UC was able to cut its budget and still offer a full set of courses on all campuses this fall.

But Gardner warned that these drastic measures cannot be repeated and that UC needs bigger budgets, as well as a 10th campus in the San Joaquin Valley, if it is to meet master plan requirements.

Work on the new campus, which will cost $250 million to $300 million, should begin soon, the UC president said, because most of the other UC campuses are at or near capacity or cannot grow because of opposition from the communities where they are located.

But Patrick Callan, former director of the Postsecondary Education Commission, said it was “folly” for UC to plan an expensive, research-oriented university in the Fresno area. “The state can’t afford that and it shouldn’t (build one),” he said.

Gardner said he intends to ask state leaders if they want to build the 10th campus. “If they (the governor and the Legislature) say: ‘No, we don’t want you to grow, we don’t want a 10th campus,’ then I will say all right, under those circumstances, we will not be able to offer a place to all the eligible students seeking admission.

“Now you tell us what you are willing to pay for. Should we take just the top 10% of high school graduates? Or 8% or 7% or what? This is a public policy question that the state of California must answer.”

Any such cut could result in heightened ethnic tensions, Gardner suggested Thursday. Asian-Americans and whites qualify for UC at much higher rates than Latinos and African-Americans. But some Asian and white students with straight A’s are turned away from UC Berkeley and UCLA and instead offered spots at other campuses, while some Latinos and blacks who are eligible for UC but have somewhat lower grades are admitted to Berkeley or UCLA for the sake of ethnic diversity, Gardner said. Enrollment limits could stir more resentment over such practices, “bearing directly on social cohesion,” he said.

Awaiting signals from Sacramento, Gardner’s preliminary budget proposal made no mention of funds for planning the 10th campus and did not advocate any hike in student fees. The Legislature has said it will try to roll back part of this year’s 40% fee increase. Most officials, however, now consider that unlikely and are speculating that UC fees will increase again. Meanwhile, after a year of no pay raises, Gardner proposed salary hikes of 6% for faculty and 4% for other staff next year.

The Cal State system is far more dependent on state funds than UC, which receives only about 30% of its total budget from the state. Cal State was hit hard by a $70-million cut in this year’s systemwide budget. As a result, it honors the master plan in theory but not in practice.

Almost 4,000 class sections have been cut, most of them taught by part-time instructors who were laid off. As a result, many qualified students have not been able to get classes they need and have dropped out of Cal State.

Some fall classes that should have 20 or 25 students have 100 or more. More than 800 administrative jobs were eliminated on the various campuses and at the system’s Long Beach headquarters.

“We can’t do that again,” said Munitz, the new Cal State chancellor. “We can squeeze more students into the classroom, provide less academic counseling (and) shorten library hours, but if we do that, we’re not offering the quality education the master plan promises.”

The community colleges, where the biggest enrollment increases are expected in the next decade, are in the worst shape of all.

The two-year colleges, protected by the funding guarantee that state voters provided by approving Proposition 98 in 1988, received a slight increase in state financial support this year.

Nevertheless, many students who enroll at one of the state’s 107 community colleges cannot get into classes they want or need because most of the schools have laid off part-time instructors and have canceled many class sections.

It is also becoming more difficult for qualified community college graduates to transfer to four-year public institutions. Several UC campuses have limited transfers this year and some Cal State campuses are on the verge of doing so.

Statewide Community Colleges Chancellor David Mertes called on UC and Cal State to state in advance how many transfer students they plan to accept in a given quarter or semester “so we don’t waste our time and our students’ time.”

At a recent meeting of community college presidents, Mertes also proposed that the two-year schools agree to accept only students who intend to transfer to four-year schools or who seek vocational training. Others who now attend community colleges under various state and federal programs to learn basic skills should be turned away, he said.

“That would be a disaster,” in a district like Los Angeles, said Donald G. Phelps, chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District. “About 70% of our students are minority and many of them lack the basic skills needed for success in four-year colleges. That’s why they come to us.”

If California no longer can afford the master plan, with its promise of access to public higher education for all eligible students, then what will take its place? That discussion is just beginning and many believe it should be speeded up.

Mertes called for a “summit conference” of business, education and political leaders “to look at this as a policy issue.”

“I don’t think we can afford to just sit back and watch this happen and not devise a strategy to deal with it,” he said. “This is at the core of what California is likely to become.”

Times education writer Larry Gordon contributed to this story.