ED 331 459

TITLE

INSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 024 524

State Budget Priorities of the Commission, 1991. AReport of the California Postsecondary EducationCommissj.on.

California State Postsecondary Education Commission,Sacramento.CPEC-R-90-28Dec 9013p.; For the 1990 report, secs. ED 330 237.

Publications Office of the Commission, 1020 TwelfthStreet, Third Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814-3985.Reports - General (140)

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.

*Budgeting; Educational Facilities; *EducationalFinance; *Educational Planning; Equal Education;Higher Education; Postsecondary Education; State Aid;State Colleges; State Universities; Student FinancialAid; Undergraduate Study*California

This report from the California State PostsecondaryCommission reviews the difficulties associated with adoption of thecurrent 1990-91 budget and uses this review as a basis for itsrecommended four priorities for the upcoming budget. The fourpriorities discussed are the following: (1) maintain the MasterPlan's commitment to access and quality in postsecondary education;(2) continue intersegmental programs that promote educational equity;(3) make progress in achieving the State's policy goals forincreasing financial assistance to low-income students; and (4)implement new space and utilization standards for California's publicligher education facilities. Contains 8 references. (GLR)

*************************************************t*************K*******Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.*******************************************************************m*

't4

Ti COPY AVAILABLE

STATE BUDGET PRIORITIESOF THE COMMISSION

1991

-PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Calif. Postsecondary

Education Commission

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice ot Educationai Reaeatch and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER tERICI

Pflr'ived from the person or organizationhis document has been reproduced asece

originating itr Minor changes have been made to improve

eproduCtion duality

Points& view or ()potions stated in this dOCument do not necessarsf represent othciaIOERI position or policy

ntifImaginntin

ILL_i

A Ar. WSW avi-11

1111 I! 11 111111115 Le'rar

Z' CALIFORNIA POSTSECONDARY0

EDUCATION I COMMISSION0 eormosaioN

Summary

In recent years, the Commission has annually adopt-ed a set of priorities regarding the State Budget foruse by staff in working with the Legislature and theDepartment of Finance in negotiations over theforthcoming budget. Because of the many problemsassociated with adoption of the current 1990-91 Bud-get, this edition for 1991 reviews these difficulties asa basis for its recommended four priorities for theupcoming budget:

1. Maintain the Master Plan's commitment to ac-cess and quality in postsecondary education;

2. Continue intemegmental programs that promoteeducational equity;

3. Make progress in achieving the Stata's policygoals for increasing financial assistance to low-income students; and

4. Implement new space and utilization standardsfor California's public higher education facilities.

The Commission adopted this report at its meetingof December 10, 1990, on recommendation of its Ad-ministration and Liaison Committee. Additionalcopies of the report may be obtained from the Publi-cations Office of the Commission at (916) 324-4991.Questions about the substance of the report may bedirected to Diana Fuentes-Michel of the Commissionstaff at (916) 322-8025.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

STATE BUDGET PRIORITIESOF THE COMMISSION, 1991

A Report of the CaliforniaPostsecondary Education Commission

POSTSECONDAR Ytri0

0IL

CALIFORNIA POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION COMMISSIONThird Floor 1020 Twelfth Street Sacramento, California 95814-3985 0 COMMISSION 0

COMMISSION REPORT 90-28PUBLISHED DECEMBER 1990

This report, like other publications of the California PostsecondaryEducation Commission, is not copyrighted. Le may be reproduced inthe public interest, but proper attribution to Report 90-28 of the Cal-ifornia Postsecondary Education Commission is requested.

Contents

Possible Decline in State Revenues 2

Impact of the 1990-91 State Budgeton Higher Education 2

1. Maintain the Master Plan's Commitmentto Access and Quality in Postsecondary Education 3

2. Continue Intersegmental Programs That PromoteEducational Equity 3

3. Make Progress in Achieving the State's PolicyGoals for Increasing Financial Assistanceto Low-Income Students

4. Implement New Space and UtilizationStandards for California's Higher EducationFacilities

4

4

References 5

4

O CONW1114110 0

State Budget Priorities of the Commission, 1991

EACH FALL, the California Postsecondary Educa-tion Commission adopts general priorities for the an-nual postsecondary education budget of the State ofCalifornia. The Commission's priorities have beento:

1. Maintain and promote quality in higher educa-tion;

2. Expand access to California's colleges and univer-sities for all individuals who demonstrate theability and desire to attend; and

3. Encourage the funding of effective intersegmen-tal programs designed to assist students to com-plete their educational objectives successfully.

The Commission's efforts 'a achieve these goals havebeen demonstrated by its consistent support of effortsto:

1. Expand the enrollment capacity of Californiapublic colleges and universities in order to main-tain California's historic policy of access;

2. Expand financial assistance for low-income stu-dents who would be unable to afford college with-out financial assistance; and

3. Fund effective programs to increase the numberand academic achievement of students from his-torically underrepresented backgrounds in high-er education.

This coining year, the State budget deliberations willbe more uncertain and unpredictable than in recentyears. The 1991-92 Budget will be the first submit-ted by the new Governor, Pete Wilson. That expendi-ture plan will be gut together largely by a transitionteam of advisors who will establish the new Adminis-tration's policy priorities for each area of State gov-ernment. However, the ' iget will continue to beconstrained by existing spending limitations and arevenue base unable to meet the growing needs ofthe State's population.

7 ,.ent ballot initiatives, court decisions and changesin State law have prescribed where approximately 70percent of the State's General Fund budget will be al-

located. For example, Proposition 98 provided statu-tory authority for priority funding for K-14 educa-tion by guaranteeing at least 40 percent of theState's General Fund to K-12 and community collegeeducation. Although Proposition 98 guarantees thisbase level of funding, it has effectively become afunding "ceiling" for K-14 education, providing noadditional funding for new or expanded programs.

While this "ballot budgeting' measure and other ini-tiatives have limited State government's ability toprioritize State program expenditures, other ballotinitiatives have imposed a cap on State expenditures.Proposition 4 (the "Gann" initiative) established aState appropriations limit that was amended by thevoters in June 1990. That ballot initiative -- Proposi-tion 111 -- expanded the amount of expenditures thatare allowed under the State appropriations limit andprovided more funding for highway, road and masstransportation construction, but it did not provideadditional revenues for higher education and otherhuman services.

Nowhere else in the State budget are the structuralbudget problems more clearly demonstrated than inthe non-Proposition 98 General Fund areas of thebudget. During the recent budget deliberations, theLegislative Analyst reported that State revenueshave grown an average of 8.6 percent over the Iasi,five fiscal years. During that same period, expendi-ture grew 8.2 percent. However, the Analyst notedthat if the budget had funded all workload requestsby State departments, expenditures would havegrown by at least 11.0 percent. State program work-load requests -- particularly for programs driven bypopulation growth and State mandates directingtheir program service levels -- continue to demandsignificant resources to fund their continuing growth.

Without significant budget reform, the budget proc-ess will continue to be beset with problems:

California's population is growing at an unprec-edented rate and is expected to almost double fromits 20 million in 1970 to an estimated 39.6 millionin 2020.

1

California's colleges and universities will face con-tinuing pressures to meet the demands of thisgrowth on higher education. In the Commission'sJanuary 1990 report, Higher Education at theCrossroads: Planning for the Twenty-First Cen-tury, the Commission estimated that an additional700,000 new students will seek to enroll betweennow and the year 2005.

To meet the demands of this growing populationand to maintain the quality of the State services itpresently provides, California will need to reviseits existing revenue and expenditure policies andpriorities.

Recognizing that the existing budget developmentprocess severely limits the State's ability to adjust itsrevenue and expenditure levels, the Legislature re-cently passed Assembly Concurrent Resolution 188,which proposes the establishment of a constitutionalreview commission to examine the structural con-straints now built into the State budgeting process.Whether that resolution will result in the Legisla-ture and the next Governor agreeing on a revisedbudget process is unknown. In September, the Com-mission directed its staff to keep apprised of the sta-tus of efforts related to ACR 188 and other such dis-cussions about budgetary reform that may occur.

Possible decline in State revenues

Revenue estimates for 1991-92 do not hold promisefor increased State funding. Early forecasts suggestthat the revenue picture will be as bad or worse thanthe current year, with the State facing a shortfall inrevenues of between $550 million and $1.5 billion.The Legislative Analyst estimates that GeneralFund revenues will increase by $3.3 billion, or 7.2percent, over the current year, but this projection isbased on the assumption that the economy will con-tinue to grow at its current pace and inflation will re-main at 5 percent or below throughout fiscal year1992. These projections may change significantly ifthe economy falls into a recession as a result of inter-national and national events or oil vices rise sharp-ly, thereby triggering a higher inflation rate.

Given these revenue estimates and the knowledgethat a new administration will establish its ownfunding priorities, serious deliberations on the 1991-

2

92 budget are not likely to begin until after the newadministration is inaugurated in January.

Impact of the 1990-91 State budgeton higher education

The 1990-91 State budget for California's four-yearcolleges and universities provided the University ofCalifornia and the California State University Gen-eral Fund increases of 1.9 percent and 3.8 percent,respectively, over the previous year. However, whenadjustments are made for inflation and enrollmentgrowth, the University's and State University's bud-gets were reduced by 3.0 percent and 1.8 percent, re-spectively. In real terms, these reductions lessenedthe ability of California's public colleges and univer-sities to maintain their existing level of student in-struction and services.

The immediate impact of the 1990-91 budget will dif-fer by segment and by campus. The governing boardsof both the University and the State University aretaking actions to prevent the budget reductions fromdirectly hurting their systems' instructional pro-grams. The University is proposing to amelioratemost of its budget reductions through proposals thatwill reduce its employer contribution to its retire-ment fund and provide for the early retirement offaculty and staff. However, it is also planning signif-icant cuts in its research and public service budgets,which were reduced by $9.5 million and $2.2 million,respectively. These reductions will reduce faculty in-volvement in research and instructional related proj-ects.

For the California State University, the impact ofthe budget reductions will be even more immediatelyfelt by students. The State University will balanceits budget through redirecting $36 million in StateLottery funds that in previous years have supportedprograms to enhance instruction, such as visitingscholars, special lectures, and other events. In addi-tion, the State University is reducing each campusbudget by a prorated amount and providing eachcampus president with the authority to reduce ex-penditures. Already, the campuses have cut budgetsby reducing the number of part-time faculty, studentassistants, and support staff, and by leaving staff po-sitions vacant.

These budget reductions come on top of base budgetitems that were not funded in the 1990-91 budget.Both the University and the State University havenot been provided with funding for cost increases inthe purchase of commodities and services since 1983-84. The absence of funding for these adjustments hasresulted in additional reductions of some $60 millionin the institutional support budgets of each of thetwo systems.

While funding under the provisions of Proposition 98provided the California Community Colleges with a7.3 percent General Fund increase over their 1989-90 budget, community college appropriations actual-ly grew by only 1.8 percent when adjusted for enroll-ment growth and inflation. This funding level leftcommunity college districts with approximately30,000 average daily attendance (ADA) not fundet: inthe current year. The estimated cost of providingthat funding for 1990-91 ADA growth is $67.4 mil-lion. The continued underfunding of enrollmentgrowth will demand that local community collegedistricts balance their need tc grow against theirneed to maintain the quality of their existing in-structional programs.

Within the context of this budget picture and theprobability that funds will not be available for newprogrammatic efforts, the Commission presents thefollowing proposals as its proposed priorities duringthe upcoming deliberations on the 1991-92 Statebudget.

1. Maintain the Master Plan's commitmentto access and quality in postsecondaryeducation

The issue: Historically, California has supported ahigher education system that provides the opportuni-ty for all academically eligible high school graduatesand community college transfer students to gain ad-mission to the University of California or the Califor-nia State University. The California CommunityColleges have also provided a low-cost, quality alter-native for students seeking a two-year degree pro-gram in their local communities.

Recent State budgets have negatively impacted theuniversities' ability to maintain California's MasterPlan commitment to providing all eligible students

access to a quality undergraduate eciucation. Pre-liminary discussions with representatives of the Uni-versity indicate that their 1991-92 budget proposalswill seek to restore full funding of its base budgetand provide new funding to meet the demands of stu-dent enrollment growth. The State University willalso seek new funding to meet the demands of enroll-ment growth, but it will seek to restore only theacross-the-board reductions issued at the Governor'sdiscretion under Section 3.8 of the Budget Act, whileaccepting other reductions in its 1991-92 base budgetproposals. The community colleges will also seek tomaintain and improve their existing level of educa-tional services while requesting additional fundingto support enrollment growth beyond the statutorycap in order to meet the growing demands on them.

Given the current structure of the State budgetingprocess and the forecast of a worsening revenue pic-ture, the Commission will actively inform State poli-cy makers of the long-term negative effects that con-tinued budget reductions will have on the qualityand accessibility of higher education programs andservices.

Recommendation: Commission staff shouldplace a high priority on working with the De-partment of Finance, the Office of the Legisla-tive Analyst, and the legislative budget commit-tees to restore the base bu'ggets of the Universi-ty of California and the California State Univer-sity and to support full funding of student en-rollment growth in all three public higher edu-cation systems the University, the State Uni-versity, and the California Community Colleges.

2. Continue intersegmental programsthat promote educational equity

The issue: The Commission has evaluated and rec-ommended expanding two intersegmental programs,Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement(MESA), and the California Student Opportunity andAccess Program (Cal-s0AP), both of which have dem-onstrated their success in increasing the participa-tion of underrepresented and low-income studentswho enroll and graduate from California's collegesand universities. However, given these programs'

93

success, they operate in only limited regions of theState and remain essentially ;n a pilot phase. Dur-ing the last legislative session, the Legislaturepassed and the Governor signed Assembly Bill 3937(Chacon), which directs these programs to develop afive-year implementation plan. The Commission be-lieves that these programs should be given a highpriority for expanded funding to provide a largernumber of students with the services they provide.

Mathematics, Engineering and Science Achieve-ment (MESA) was established as a State-fundedprogram in 1979 after nine years as a campus ini-tiative. In January, 1989, the Commission evalu-ated MESA and concluded that it "continues tofunction effectively as a cooperative effort involv-ing secondary and postsecondery educators in con-junction with private industry.. . ." (198k, p. 11).In October 1989, the Commission evaluated thejunior high school component of MESA and recom-mended that this successful effort be expanded toall junior high schools that send students into se-nior high school MESA programs.

The California Student Opportunity and AccessProgram (Cal-s0AP) was established in 1979 as apilot intersegmental program to provide expandedinformational services to secondary school studentsthrough a consortium of schoolti, colleges, and uni-versities, with the objective of increasing the num-ber of Hispanic, Black, and American Indian stu-dents who enroll in postsecondary institutions.The Commission has evaluated this programtwice in 1983 and again in 1987 and concludedboth times that it is an effective, efficient methodto increase the college-going rates of students whohave historically been underrepresented in highereducation.

Recommendation: Commission staff shouldplace a high priority on working with the De-partment of Finance, the Office of the Legisla-tive Analyst, and the legislative budget commit-tees to secure funding to expand intersegmentalefforts, particularly those with a demonstratedrecord of success over a period of years.

4

3. Make progress in achieving the State'spolicy goals for increasing financialassistance to low-income students

The issue: Two fundamental problems are erodingthe State's ability to maintain its policy goals of ac-cess and choice for California student* seeking to at-tend postsecondary education: (1) the insufficientsize of the Cal Grant awards for students attendingpublic se well as independent institutions, and (2)the inadequate number of awards, particularly in theCal Grant B program.

The Commission has actively supported the imple-mentation of the State's policy goals proposed by theLegislature's Joint Committee on Review of the Mas-ter Plan for Higher Education: (1) increasing theamount of Cal Grant awards for students attendingthe public four-year universities to the full cost offees at those institutions; (2) increasinz the numberof Cal Grant awards to one-quarter of the public highschool graduating class; and (3) increasing theamount of Cal Grant awards for students attendingindependent institutions to the average cost of edu-cating a student at the California State University.Through the enactment of AB 4270 (Bader), thesepolicy goals have been incorporated into the DonahoeHigher Education Act. While full-fee funding forthose students attending California's public four-year institutions has bzen achieved, the Commissionplaces a high priority in expanding the existing fi-nancial assistance programs to achieve these goals.

Recommendation: Commission staff shouldplace a high priority on working with the De-partment of Finance, the Office of the Legisla-tive Analyst, and the legislative budget commit-tees to secure additional funding for student fi-nancial assistance through a balanced ap-proach that expands both the number and sizeof the Cal Grant awards.

4. Impleme..t new space andutilization standards for California'shigher education facilities

The issue: Supplemental Budget Language adopted

I ()

by the Legislature in 1985 directed the Commissionto conduct a preliminary study of space and utiliza-tion standards for classrooms, laboratories and facul-ty offices. In February and April of 1986, the Coin-

« mission published two exploratory reports that iden-tified the need for a more comprehensive analysis ofthe issues related to the design and size of highereducation facilities. The 1987-88 State Budget Actappropriated $300,000 to the Commission for thepurpose of conducting this analysis. The Commis-sion retained MGT Consultants, Inc., to conduct a sur-vey of space and utilization standards in other statesand to examine what information was available fromexisting inventories and utilization studies of Cali-fornia's public higher education facilities. The 3GTreport also included an analysis on how various aca-demic disciplines had changed over the past two dec-ades (since the last comprehensive study was done)to determine what changes should be made to the ex-isting space and utilization standards.

The work of MGT was assisted by a Commission advi-sory committee whose memb, 'is, were made up of rep-resentatives of the University %,alifornia, the Cali-fornia State University, and the California Commu-nity Colleges as well as staff from the Office of theLegislative Analyst, the Department of Finance, thelegislative budget committees, and tbe Commission.

In January 1990, the Commission adopted it own re-port, A Capacity for Learning: Revising Space andUtilization Standards for Higher Education, whichincluded the conclusions and recommendations of theMGT study and the technical advisory committee. InMay 1989, the Commission staff made presentationsto both the Assembly and Senate fiscal subcommit-tees recommending adoption of the space and utiliza-tion standards proposed in the Commission's report.The subcommittee delayed action on the report pend-ing comment from the Legislative Analyst and theDepartment of Finance. Due to the delay in receiptof the Legislative Analyst's report, the legislativesubcommittees delayed further discussion and voteon the matter until a later legislative hearing date.

Recommendation: Commission staff shouldplace a high priority on working with the De-partment of Finance, the Office of the Legisla-tive Analyst, and the legislative budget commit-tees to secure approval and implementation ofthe revised space and utilization standards inthe 1991-82 budget.

References

California Postsecondary Education Commission.Evaluation of the California Student Opportunity andAccess Program (Cal-SOAP): A Report to the Legisla-ture and Governor in Response to Senate Bill 800(Chapter 1199, Statutes of 1983). Commission Report87-43. Sacramento: The Commission, December1987.

--. Higher Education at the Crossroads: Planning forthe Twenty-First Century. Commission Report 90-1.Sacramento: The Commission, January 1990.

--. A Capacity for Learning: Revising Space andUtilization Standards for California Public HigherEducation. Commission Report 90-3. Sacramento:The Commission, January 1990.

--. State Budget Priorities of the Commission, 1990:A Report of the California Postsecondary EducationCommission. Commission Report 90-8. Sacramento:The Commission, January 1990.

--. Evaluation of the Junior MESA Program: A Re-port to the Legislature in Response to Assembly Bill610 (Hughes) of 1985. Commission Report 89-30.Sacramento: The Commission, October 1989.

MGT Consultants, Inc. Survey of Space and Utiliza-tion Standards and Guidelines in the Fifty States: AReport of MGT Consultants, Inc., Prepared for andPublished by the California Postsecondary EducationCommission. Commission Report 90-4. Sacramento:The Commission, January 1990.

--. Calculation of Base Factors for Comparison Insti-tutions and Study Survey Instruments: TechnicalAppendix to Survey of Space and Utilization Stan-dards and Guidelines in the Fifty States. A SecondReport of MGT Consultants, Inc., Prepared for andPublished by the California Postsecondary EducationCommission. Commission Report 90-4. Sacramento:The Commission, January 1990.

--. Final Report, Study of Higher Education Spaceand Utilization Standards/Guidelines in California:A Third Report of MGT Consultants, Inc., Preparedfor and Published by the California PostsecondaryEducation Commission. Commission Report 90-6.Sacramento: The Commission, January 1990.

1 15

CALiFORNIA POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION COMMISSION

THE California Postsecondary Education Commis-sion is a citizen board established In 1974 by theLegislature and Governor to coordinate the effortsof California's colleges and universities and to pro-vide independent, non-partisan policy analysis andrecommendations to the Governor and Legislature.

Members of the Commission

The Commission consists of 15 members. Nine rep-resent the general public, with three each appointedfor six-year terms by the Governor, the SfnateRules Committee, and the Speaker of the Assembly.The other six represent the major segments of post-secondary education in California.

As of February 1990, the Commissioners represent-ing the general public are:

Mim Andelson, Los Angeles;C. Thomas Dean, Long Beach;}Wry Der, San Francisco;Seymour M. Farber, M.D., San Francisco;Rosalind K. Goddard, Los Angeles;Helen Z. Hansen, Long Beach;Lowell J. Paige, El Macero; Vice Chair;Cruz Reynoso, Los Angeles; Chair; andStephen P. Teals, M.D., Modesto.

Representatives of the segments are:

Meredith J. Khachigian, San Clemente; appointedby the Regents of the University of California;

Theodore J. Saenger, San Francisco; appointed bythe Trustees of the California State University;

John F. Parkhurst, Folsom; appointed by the Boardof Governors of the California Community Colleges;

Harry Wugalter, Thousand Oaks; appointed by theCouncil for Private Postsecondary Educational In-stitutions;

Joseph U. Carrabino, Orarase; appointed by theCalifornia State Board of Education; and

James B. Jamieson, San Luis Obispo; appointed bythe Governor from nominees proposed by Califor-nia's independent colleges and universities.

Functions of the Commission

The Commission is charged by the Legislature andGovernor to "assure the effective utilization of pub-lic postsecondary education resources, thereby elimi-nating waste and unnecessary duplication, and topromote diversity, innovation, and responsivenessto student and societal needs."

To this end. the Commission conducts independentreviews of matters affecting the 2,600 institutions ofpostsecondary education in California, includingcoinmunity colleges, four-year colleges, universi-ties, and professional and occupational schools.

As an advisory planning and coordinating body, theCommission does not administer or govern any in-stitutions, nor does it approve, authorize, or accreditany of them. Instead, it cooperates with other Stateagencies and non-governmental groups that per-form these functions, while operating as an indepen-dent board with its own staff and it n specific du-ties of evaluation, coordination, and tanning,

Operation of the Commission

The Commission holds regular meetings throughoutthe year at which it debates and takes action onstaff studies and takes positions on proposed legisla-tion affecting education beyond the high school inCalifornia. By law, its meetings are open to thepublic. Requests to speak at a meeting may be madeby writing the Commission in advance or by submit-ting a request before the start of the meeting.

The Commission's day-to-day work is carried out byits staff in Sacramento, under the guidance of its ex-ecutive director, Kenneth B. O'Brien, who is ap-pointed by the Commission.

The Commission publishes and distributes withoutcharge some 30 to 40 reports each year on major is-sues confronting California postsecondary educa-tion. Recent reports are listed on the back cover.

Further information about the Commission, itsmeetings, its staff, and its publications may be ob-tained from the Commission offices at 1020 TwelfthStreet, Third Floor, Sacramento, CA 98514-3985;telephone (916) 445-7933.

12 RFRT mum/

STATE BUDGET PRIORITIES OF THE COMMISSION, 1991California Postsecondary Education Commission Report 90-28

ONE of a series of reports published by the Commis-sion as part of its planning and coordinating respon-sibilities. Additional copies may be obtained withoutcharge from the Publications Office, California Post-secondary Education Commission, Third Floor, 1020Twelfth Street, Sacramento, California 95814-3985.

:scent reports of the Commission include:

90-13 Analysis of the 1990-91 Governor's Budget:k Staff Report to the California Postsecondary Edu-cation Commission (March 1990)

9044 Comments on the California Community Col-lops' 1989 Study of Students with Learning Disabil-ities: A Second Report to the Legislature in Responseto Supplemental Report Language to the 1988 StateaUdget Act (April 1990)

90-15 Services for Students with Disabilities inCalifornia Public Higher Education, 1990: The Firstin a Series of Biennial Reports to the Governor andLegislature in Response to Assembly Bill 746 (Chap-ter 829, Statutes of 1987) (April 1990)

90-16 Standardized Tests Used for Higher Educa-tion Admission and Placement in California During1989: The First in a Series of Biennial Reports Pub-lished in Accordance with Senate Bill 1416 (Chapter446, Statutes of 1989) (April 1990)

9047 Academic Program Evaluation in California,1988-89: The Commission's Fourteenth Annual Re-port on Program Planning, Approval, and Review Ac-tivities (June 1990)

90-18 Expanding Information and Outreach Effortsto Increase College Preparation: A Report to the Leg-islature and Governor in Response to Assembly Con-current Resolution 133 (Chapter 72, Statutes of 1988)(June 1990)

90-19 Toward an Understanding of Campus Cli-mate: A Report to the Legislature in Response to As-sembly Bill 4011 (Chapter 690, Statutes of 1988)(June 1990)

9040 Planning for a New Faculty: Issues for theTwenty-First Century. California's Projected Supilyof New Graduate Students in Light of Its Need forNew Faculty Members (September 1990)

90-21 Supplemental Report on Academic Salaries,1989-90: A Report to the Governor and Legislature inResponse to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 51

(1965) end Subsequent Postsecondary Salary Legis-lation (September 1990)

90-22 Second Progress Report on the Effectivenessof Intersegrnental Student Preparation Programs:The Second of Three Reports to the Legislature in Re-sponse to Item 6420-0011-001 of the 1988-89 BudgetAct (October 1990)

90.23 Student Profiles, 1990: The First in a Seriesof Annual Factbooks About Student Participation inCalifornia Higher Education (October 1990)

90-24. Fiscal Profiles, 1990: The First in a Series ofFactbooks About the Financing of California HigherEducatkin (October 1990)

90-25 Public Testimony Regarding PreliminaryDraft Regulations to Implement the Private Postsec-ondary and Vocational Education Reform Act of 1989:A Report in Response to Assembly Bill 1993 (Chapter1324, Statutes of 1989) (October 1990)

90-26 Legislation Affecting Higher Education Dur-ing the Second Year of the 1989-90 Session: A StaffReport of the California Postsecondary EducationCommission (October 1990)

90-27 Legislative Priorities of the Commission,1991: A Report of the California Postsecondary Edu-cation Commission (December 1990)

90-28 State Budget Priorities of the Commission,1991: A Report of the California Postsecondary Edu-cation Commission (December 1990)

90-29 Shortening Time to the Doctoral Degree: AReport to the Legislature and the University of Cali-fornia in Response to Senate Concurrent Resolution66 (Resolution Chapter 174, Statutes of 1989) (De-cember 1990)

90.30 Transfer and Articulation in the 1990s: Cali-fornia in the Larger Picture (December 1990)

90-31 Preliminary Draft Regulations for Chapter 3of Part 59 of the Education Code, Prepared by theCalifornia Postsecondary Education Commission forConsideration by the Council for Private Postsecon-dary and Vocational Education. (December 1990)

90-32 Statement of Reasons for Preliminary DraftRegulations for Chapter 3 of Part 59 of the EducationCode, Prepared by the California Postsecondary Edu-cation Commission for the Council for Private Postse-condary and Vocational Education. (December 1990)

3

BEST COPY AVAILABLE