California’s continuing fiscal woes have yielded yet another unacceptable budgetary conundrum that threatens to severely undermine the state’s higher education system.
Proposition 92, which will appear on California’s Feb. 5 ballot, has the correct intention of aiming to increase monetary support for community colleges. But the method it seeks to use is fundamentally flawed.
It promises money to these institutions but proffers no viable source of funding other than the already scarce general fund.
Community colleges undoubtedly play a role in providing affordable access to higher education. Three million diverse students enrolled in California community colleges last year, likely with equally diverse goals ““ whether to transfer to a four-year university, to receive college credit while in high school or to gain practical job skills.
A full quarter of community college students, the neediest, do not pay any student fees, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Still, fees per unit have been on a dramatic upward trend that has been continuing for years now, and action must be taken immediately to preserve accessibility for all income levels.
However, Proposition 92 is the wrong way to do it. Approval of the measure would direct money away from more essential services ““ such as health care, emergency and social services, and even funding for K-12 education ““ in a strapped budget already plagued by compromise.
Because the measure requires an increase in funding proportional to the population of state residents ages 17-21, regardless of their enrollment status, an increase in this demographic (as predicted by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office) will result in a skewed allocation of funds concentrated in the hands of community colleges, most likely at the expense of K-12 education.
The measure is also unnecessarily rigid, mandating a minimum level of annual funding for community colleges that goes beyond existing mandates in Proposition 98, despite the perennially precarious nature of the state’s budget. And if passed, any amendments to the measure would require a four-fifths vote from the legislature in addition to the governor’s approval.
While we do implore state legislators to devote more money to higher education ““ as Proposition 92 would do ““ the initiative would most likely jeopardize funding for public four-year universities as well.
The proposition thus presents somewhat of an ethical dilemma, forcing voters to decide which aspect of higher education should take priority. Each plays an inexplicably important role in serving the state, and while we endorse preserving the affordability of community colleges, we cannot condone doing so at the detriment of the University of California and the California State University.
The UC Regents recently voted to oppose the proposition, wary of this possibility. With the UC campuses situated as some of the top research institutions in the country, making such concessions threatens more than just our student fees.
A less-contentious objection we have to the measure is that it would expand costly bureaucracy by effecting a governance board, complete with administrative expenses and lack of oversight.
We would all appreciate some clemency from state legislators and we vehemently endorse a stronger show of support for higher education, but promising nonexistent money and harming the integrity of other state institutions is an irresponsible action.