The recent UC fee hikes have been met with dismay by many
students who fear these increases will make attaining an education
impossible due to financial constraints.
As it is, a substantial portion of the student body is already
forced to work long hours to pay for their education, and under the
added financial strain ““ even with limited financial aid
““ many may not be able to make tuition payments. However, the
cuts in student services and fee hikes raise a larger question: Why
is the university experiencing such a large financial shortage, and
how can these deficits be alleviated?
Many of the problems concerning education can be traced to the
passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. “Prop. 13,” as the
initiative was affectionately referred to by leading tax rights
advocate Howard Jarvis, provided for cuts in property taxes.
Specifically, the measure cut property tax rates by up to 30
percent, while also restricting the scope of future tax increases,
especially on more expensive properties. Proposition 13 established
a fixed property tax rate that would be paid when a home was
acquired, and limited the extent to which the assessed home value
could be hiked after this initial assessment. The tax cuts
Proposition 13 facilitated have largely been seen as the catalyst
of tax revolutions across the nation, including President
Reagan’s 1981 tax cut.
However, while many economic conservatives have seen Proposition
13 as a boon that would bring lower taxes and increased economic
growth, this law appears to have had a number of significant
negative effects on California’s education budget. During
times of economic recession, as in the early 1990s, the effects of
Proposition 13 became much more clear. Less money from other tax
revenues was available, and the responsibility for resolving many
fiscal crises was shifted to local jurisdictions. These shortfalls
led to substantial cuts in education, including rising class sizes
and UC fee increases.
As California slumps into another economic crisis, the same
trends that occurred in the early 1990s appear to be cropping up
again. Specifically, there have been proposals to force many
kindergarten-age children to enter school a year later, while as
many as 30,000 teachers could lose their jobs, depending on the
items of the next budget. And, yet again, UC fee hikes have
occurred.
It is clear that Proposition 13 can have a negative impact on
educational funding. When the economy is successful, tax revenues
are much greater, and educational funding is not an issue. However,
as tax revenues plummet, Proposition 13 has deprived schools of
valuable funding, and can clearly be blamed for much of the slide
in the state’s educational standing.
Since Proposition 13 was passed in 1978, California has gone
from being fifth in educational spending to consistently ranking in
the bottom 10 states. Thus, efforts must be made to mitigate the
effects of Proposition 13, either by repealing it or otherwise
altering its effects.
In spite of these drastic drops, approximately 44 percent of
California’s state budget is spent on education. With such a
high percentage of the state budget utilized in such a way, the
question is surely raised: Why doesn’t the UC system have
enough money? Apparently, although education is a huge part of the
state budget, the state budget is not large enough due to reduced
tax revenues. I believe the only way this can be resolved is
through a tax increase.
Such an increase is not desirable, but is a better option than
disrupting and harming students’ education ““ an action
that will harm the state’s long-term economy. Certainly tax
increases deter businesses, but an uneducated work force and
schools that do not provide students with basic skills will scare
these businesses off even more.
Everyone in the state ““ not just students ““ should
be asked to bear the benefits for increased educational costs. Why?
Because a strong system of elementary and higher education benefits
all California residents. In the long run, having an educated work
force attracts business investment, which certainly brings jobs.
Also, having strong schools and universities will increase
productivity in the future, which of course will lead to higher
incomes and benefit the state’s overall prosperity. Thus, the
funding burden should be distributed fairly.
It is clear that over the next several years, many students will
be substantially affected by the recent fee hikes. Tragically, some
will no longer be able to attend this university due to financial
burdens, while others will force themselves to graduate early to
save money. This is completely unacceptable, and for this reason,
the need for student fee hikes should be met by the entire state.
After all, everyone in California accrues the benefits of our
education.