Thursday, May 21, 1998
Legislature considers cutting student fees
FINANCES: Surplus could decrease, end tuition for higher
education in state
By Patrick Kerkstra
Daily Bruin Senior Staff
Calling for a return to the days when higher education in
California was essentially free, a group of Democratic legislators
this week said the state should eliminate student fees in the UC,
Cal State and community college systems.
Although the plan faces significant opposition from Gov. Pete
Wilson and other lawmakers, a massive $4.4 billion state budget
surplus makes it likely that students will enjoy at least a
reduction, if not an elimination, of fees next year.
"We need to make our higher education system accessible again,"
said Rand Martin, chief of staff for State Senator John
Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara), who proposed eliminating the fees.
"The future of the California economy is dependent on educating our
future work force."
Historically, attendance at California’s colleges and
universities was free. During Ronald Reagan’s tenure as governor in
the 1960s, fees were instituted, and the cost of public higher
education rose slowly but steadily until 1990, when tuition
suddenly exploded. Fees have soared 97 percent at the UCs since
1990, and more then 200 percent at community colleges in the same
time.
In recent years, those soaring costs have prompted some
lawmakers to worry that California had forsaken its stated goal of
affordable access to higher education for all socio-economic
groups.
"According to the state’s Master Plan on education, higher
education is supposed to be free and going back as much as possible
to that is critically important," said Stacy Lee, USAC
president-elect.
Lee and others involved in the University of California Students
Association (UCSA), have pressured legislators for years to focus
on fees, and those efforts are finally paying off.
"Higher education has been a poor stepchild during the years we
faced budget deficits. The students at all three levels of higher
education were the losers," Martin said, echoing statements made by
student leaders for half a decade.
The difference now, of course, is money. College students can
thank the state’s booming economy for their potential windfall. But
the state’s newfound wealth has spawned dozens of spending plans –
cutting tuition is only the latest one.
Indeed, given the state’s many needs, even staunch fee opponents
take pause at a total rollback.
"We can’t be myopic," Lee said. "Students need to look out not
only for the interests of students but look out for social and
economic justice as well."
Other ideas for the surplus include investment in K-12 education
and a massive reduction or outright elimination of the car
registration tax.
Wilson has proposed a mix of uses for the surplus, including a
75 percent reduction in the car tax and a smaller investment –
about $270 million – in higher education. None of those funds are
currently slated for fee cuts.
"While we agree with Sen. Vasconcellos that investing in higher
education is important, his proposal would eliminate other
investments we need to make to keep California strong and
competitive into the 21st century," said Ron Low, a spokesman for
Wilson.
But Low noted that Wilson has not ruled out a fee cut, and said
"If someone were to bring a smaller proposal to us, we would take a
look at it."
The Vasconcellos camp is willing to compromise.
"Let’s face it, we’re not going to eliminate tuition," conceded
UC Regent William Bagley, who supports Vasconcellos’ plan. "It’s
always an arm-wrestle for monies, but we should be able to get an
extra $500 million and maybe reduce tuition by half."
However slim the chances of a complete fee elimination,
Vasconcellos believes there is substantial support for a fee
reduction and said getting the issue on the table is important in
itself.
"Conceptually there is probably very, very broad support for
cutting student fees," Martin said. "The devil will be in the
details and the negotiations."
Currently, the state gives the UC system about $2 billion
annually. If Vasconcellos successfully gets the state to abolish
tuition, California would have to kick in an additional $1 billion
a year to recover the lost funds – a 60 percent annual jump in
funding.
That state lawmakers are even discussing such a massive increase
in higher education spending marks a major departure from the
policies of the last eight years. State funds, for example, now
account for only 25 percent of the UC system’s annual budget – far
lower then in previous decades.
At the UCs, privatization – an increased reliance on non-public
money – is now the norm, not the exception.
"We’re no longer a state university, we’re a state-subsidized
university," Bagley said.
But now that the state is once again flush, Vasconcellos and
company say it is time to reassert the state’s role in higher
education.
"This was not a conscious effort to buck any trend towards
privatization. The legislature never expected the UCs to go
private," Martin said.
"While we were having financial problems, the state asked the
collective student bodies to pitch in, and now that times are
better, that should change."
For Bagley and other university leaders, the current debate over
fees is encouraging. But he would prefer a solution that is not so
dependent on the state’s fluctuating financial fortunes.
"One of the questions with relying on the surplus is ‘how long
will that last?’" Bagley said.
"It’s better to ask ‘Can we somehow ratchet up the percentage
the state gives us permanently?’"
With reports from Daily Bruin wire services.