ABSTRACT
In the social progressive period after World War II, California became a national and international model for planning and fi nancing higher education. The legacy of the California Master Plan for higher education is well known among scholars of higher education globally. The 1960 plan for the three-segment system-a state system of community colleges providing local access for all, state universities as comprehensive colleges for mass higher education serving the top third of all high school graduates, and research universities as the engine of economic development, accepting only the top 12.5%—became a model for planning in other states and nations. The agreement between President Clark Kerr of the University of California and Chancellor Glenn Dumke of California State Colleges resulted in a coordinated approach to the growth of the systems and provided a framework for the state to become a national leader in access to and quality of public higher education (Smelser & Almond, 1974; Kerr, 1963). This is a frequently told story of systemic educational transformation through political cooperation. But the landscape has changed, radically, as portrayed in a 2009 press release: “The state’s fi nancial crisis is battering its world-renowned system of higher education, reducing college opportunities for residents and threatening California’s economic recovery” (Chea, 2009, p. 1). In November 2011 the California crisis became national news when students protesting tuition increases at the University of California-Davis (UC Davis) were pepper-sprayed by campus police. A call for the resignation of the chancellor followed (L.A. Now, 2011).
