Introduction
 
Executive Summary
 
Background
 
California: The Changing Context
 
Tidal Wave II Revisited
 
The Original Projections
 
The 1994 Projections vs.Today's Reality
 
Accounting for the Growth
 
Updated Projections
 
How the Cohorts Have Changed
 
Is This a Tidal Wave?
 
Conclusion
 
Improving Projections
 
Endnotes
 
About the National Center

home   about us   news   reports   crosstalk   search   links  



Page 14 of 15

Endnotes

1 David W. Breneman, Leobardo F. Estrada and Gerald C. Hayward, Tidal Wave II: An Evaluation of Enrollment Projections for California Higher Education (San Jose: California Higher Education Policy Center, 1995), p. 4.
2 Department of Finance and RAND projections over the same period were very close to CPEC's.
3 Department of Finance, California Public Postsecondary Enrollment Projections, 1997 Series, Undergraduate Enrollments.
4 Community colleges, as a part of their Proposition 98 guarantee were already protected by the constitutional amendment that guarantees K-12 and community colleges a percentage of the state general fund. Dividing the funds between the colleges and K-12 is a legislative decision; the guarantee applies to the combined funding. In simple terms, Proposition 98 guarantees that when the economy is doing poorly and cuts in state expenditures are required, there is a floor below which K-12 and community colleges will not be forced to fall. It also insures that when times are opulent, K-12 and community colleges receive not only current revenue growth, but also a large portion of their prior losses. The net result is that community colleges, the hardest hit of the segments during the early 1990s, have received huge infusions of new dollars, arguably the largest percentage increases for any segment in the state's history.
5 The highly respected, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst issued a provocative report in early 1998 which asserted that the projected enrollment growth was not of tidal wave proportions and that whatever the extent of the growth, it could be managed by policy changes. The Analyst's projections are quite similar to the CPEC low alternative projections, and vary significantly from the Department of Finance and CPEC in their assumptions regarding participation rates. In a later section, we will discuss the Analyst's report in further detail.
6 CPEC, Student Profiles: 1997, 3-2.
7 CPEC, Student Profiles: 1997, 3-13.
8 CPEC, Student Profiles: 1997, 4-6
9 CPEC, Student Profiles: 1997, 5-11.
10 California Community Colleges Chancellor Tom Nussbaum and University of California President Richard Atkinson have entered into an historic memorandum of understanding committing these two segments to dramatically increase the community college transfer rate to UC over the next decade. The segments are jointly examining policies to improve articulation.
11 Department of Finance, 1997 Series.
12 CPEC, Student Profiles: 1997, 5-4.
13 CPEC, Student Profiles: 1997, 4-17.
14 While improving at a faster rate, AP examination-taking patterns for blacks and Latinos still lag far behind their Asian-American and white counterparts.
15 For a full discussion of the planning options, see the California Higher Education Policy Center, Shared Responsibility: Strategies for Quality and Opportunity in California Higher Education (San Jose: 1996).
16 For a full discussion of these findings, see Tidal Wave II, pp. 19-21.

DOWNLOAD | PREVIOUS | NEXT

National Center logo
© 1998 The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education

HOME | about us | center news | reports & papers | national crosstalk | search | links | contact

site managed by NETView Communications