[Original on letterhead]

September 28, 2000

Dr. Warren H. Fox
Executive Director
California Postsecondary Education Commission
1303 J. Street, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95814-2938

Dear Warren:

I am writing to provide you with the University of California's comments on the draft CPEC report that is being prepared in response to AB 1279 and is entitled "The Production and Utilization of Education Doctorates in California." Given the short-time frame and data limitations, we believe that Bill Furry and the CPEC staff have provided an excellent analysis of the issue that has exceeded expectations in terms of both quality and quantity of information obtained.

Most importantly, we strongly support the first point in the draft conclusions that were handed out by your staff at the advisory committee meeting on September 14:

"Production of doctorates is sufficient to meet current and future demand whether expressed in absolute numbers or as a percentage of administrators. No new State policies are needed to promote increased production to maintain the current demand for doctorates."

The University agrees that "no new State policies are needed to promote increased production of doctorates." This is different than stating no growth at all in education doctorates is needed. Rather, growth is needed in certain kinds of education doctorates for many of the reasons identified by the participants at the advisory committee meeting, but such growth is either planned or can be accommodated under the existing Master Plan framework.

With regard to the supply and demand conclusions, we believe the analysis is an accurate reflection of the market in California. We have identified areas (see Attachment) where the report underestimates need (primarily by not taking into account future demand due to growth and replacement of California higher education faculty) and areas where the report overestimates need (by not accounting for the proportion of doctorates in other fields in the K-12 data, by underestimating supply from out-of-state, by not making any estimate of a "reserve pool" of existing education doctorates, and by not including the supply from new programs coming on-line). Thus, we believe that even with refinements, additional analysis of the data will show similar supply and demand results. That is, current and future supply is sufficient, in aggregate, to meet current and future demand. Future supply includes expected growth in programs at UC, the independents, and in CSU/UC joint programs.

Growth in high-quality and state-supported programs focused in areas of need is occurring under current state polices, both in the independent sector and at the UC. UC has plans to expand its production of education doctorates in areas of state need in both stand-alone UC programs and in joint programs with CSU. For example, UC Riverside is developing a joint doctoral program with a number of Southern California CSU campuses that may produce as many as 90 more doctorates in educational leadership each year.

While the report does a good job of showing the aggregate supply and demand for educational leadership positions in California, it does not address the issue of the relative quality of the different programs producing the doctoral degrees. Future analysis of the issue should focus on the differences in quality of the kinds of programs being offered and whether or not qualitative differences in doctoral programs make a difference in terms of K-12 and community college improvement.

In addition, the University continues to be interested in new approaches to training in Educational Leadership, including new programs such as the Governor's Principal Leadership Institutes. Future analysis of how well such programs can meet some of the needs identified in the report is also warranted.

I hope these comments are useful to you and your staff. We would appreciate being notified in advance if the conclusions that are to be presented to the Commission on October 16 differ substantively from what was presented to the intersegmental advisory group on September 14, 2000.

Thank you for considering our views.



Julius Zelmanowitz
Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives



Regent Montoya
President Atkinson
Chancellor Greenwood
Chancellor Orbach
Provost King
Assistant Vice President Arditti


Areas where the CPEC draft report entitled "The Production and Utilization of Education Doctorates" may not accurately estimate supply and demand for the education doctorate.

Areas where report may underestimate need:

1. Does not assume the that changes in K-12 may result in the need for a larger percentage of K-12 administrators to have a doctorate.

2. Does not make estimates for growth in the need for education doctorates for future education faculty at higher educational institutions (community colleges, CSU, UC, and independent colleges).

Areas where report may overestimate need:

1. Some proportion of current doctorates in K-12 have doctorates in fields outside of education but the K-12 database makes no distinction so all are assumed to have education doctorates, inflating the number of education doctorates needed to maintain current proportions.

2. Supply from outside California is based on a proportion of those getting doctorates in other states who went to high school in California. California also attracts some portion of those from out of state who did not go to high school in California.

3. No estimate is made of the size and proportion of education doctorates in the existing labor force who are not working in education but may be available for K-12 positions.

4. Not all administrative categories included in the study are necessarily positions that need a doctorate, yet the study assumes the current proportion of doctorates in all administrative positions.

5. New programs just starting and other new programs about to ramp up are not included in the supply projections (Mills and St. Mary's have new programs; UC projects growth at Riverside, UCLA, Berkeley and Davis both in joint programs with CSU and in stand-alone programs).