California Government and Higher Education

Josh Franco

Toulmin

Professor Mueller

English 103

24 March 2004

California Government and Higher Education

On February 19, 2004, the Board Room filled with an eerie and disturbing silence during the Planning and Budget Committee of Cerritos College. I looked across the “U” shaped setup, dotted with individuals from all areas of administration and became consumed with a flood of emotions: confusion, fear, depression, and amazement. Time seemed to halt, as if the universe was telling me to never to forget this moment. Gazing across the panel, each individual appeared to be experiencing the same radical state of emotions. Potential cuts and reallocation faced the group, but this was not the first time. I exited the Board Room and stared at the floor in limbo and the overwhelming sentiments afforded me a greater understanding of the impacts of government on higher education.

I believe the California government is an inhibitor of higher education. I do understand there would not be an educational construct without government implementing policies, building institutions, allocating funds, or buffering from externalities. The tools the government uses to promote higher education, in turn, are used to inhibit higher education. Do not grant the government total domination. A government endures for the purpose of amassing and distributing the public good. Higher education, in our case, is the public good.

Yet, I see the government willing to catapult the public good at the expense of individuals. The same individuals permit the government to exist because the individuals, the people, are the sole reason for its existence. This means that the people must demand the government stop its constant catapulting of the public good. From its launch, to the realization that it needs to be retrieved, and then retrieving it, the public good is inhibited. Total loss or dead weight is the consequence of this launch-whoa-retrieve process and it spawns an inexcusable burden.

The government formulates and implements policies, however the struggle between opposing ideologies continues. The California Government consists of three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. Within the education realm, the situation becomes a menacing maze of bureaucrats and bureaucracies, too large for the scope of this paper. However, the government’s internal problems must be addressed. In “Why Reforms Won’t Work in California” (9 June 1999 Education Week) author John W. Myres identifies three problems the government faces: divided leadership, lack of knowledge, and influence of special interests. The problems of the past have not been solved.

Look to the recent recall election. Division within the legislature to realize its own out-of-control spending. Without leadership from the top, Davis exemplified the lack of knowledge and instead of demanding a limit to spending allowed the situation to worsen. Therefore, anger and resentment grew throughout the state. Special interest fueled the fire. Observe the electrical companies and their gouging of the consumer. The gouging occurred because the government failed to check itself and bent under the pressure of deregulation. I am confused. How could a government permit so much disorder? It is shocking to believe that even though lines can be drawn from one event to another, connecting the dots or individuals, is rather difficult. The man on the top is the dot where it starts and ends. Therefore, whenever some thing goes wrong, one person tends to receive most of the blame. In our case, the former governor was recalled and replaced.

Nevertheless, the problems which faced the recalled governor would face the incoming governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Dealing with the massive deficit left behind by the Davis administration, the California government nor the people are out of the woods. The new governor is label as a Republican or conservative, the complete opposite of the former governor. Competing ideologies between the executive and legislative would augment. However, the new governor has a mandate to bring the change the public wishes to see: fiscal reform and political consensus. Fiscal reform to control the apparent out-of-control spending the previous administration allowed. The public’s perception of government changes with a new governor. A new head of state means a clean slate for the entire government: executive and legislature. Governor Schwarzenegger now faces difficult choices and cuts. In “Choose Your Weapon, Arnold” (27 October 2003 Business Week) Katie Kerwin states that Schwarzenegger administration cannot cut education due to Proposition 98. Proposition 98 “requires K-12 [Kindergarten through Twelfth grade] education expenditures to increase in proportion to the growing student population, even during years when state revenues fall.” In addition to education, federal mandates on health and welfare spending make such programs “immune” from cuts. This means about 65% of state spending is safe from being slashed. The state, according to Kerwin will face “a potential cash crisis” in the future. The future is now.

It is clear that the government faces internal strife which produces a “cash crisis” but what does this mean to higher education. Before we see how higher education is impacted, let us take a glance at K-12. In “Schools’ funding expected to trickle” (18 March 2004 Contra Costa Times) Eric Louie states that Schwarzenegger proposed “suspending the guaranteed amount school districts get under 1988’s Proposition 98.” If the suspension goes through with the passage of the 2005 California Fiscal Budget, then K-12 will receive two of the four billion dollars which are entitled to school districts. Educators have accepted this deal, but K-12 schools still face an uphill battle. In “School Rankings Rankle Some” (10 March 2004 LA Times) the authors depict a picture of rolling a boulder up a hill. Schools “find themselves stuck among the state’s bottom 10% despite improved test scores.” The state designed ranking system, known as the Academic Performance Index (API) “gives every California school an API score of 200 to 1,000, with 800 being the target.” The state divides campuses into ten equal segments and classifies schools. “Beyond bragging rights, those rankings are used to help identify schools that need extra help or possible shakeups such as a new principal.” Ranking schools places pressure on teachers and district officials. If a “shakeup” is needed, then people are booted out. However, the root problem is lack of government policy to help address issues of low-income or non-English speaking students.

In “California 2004-2005 Education Budget Analysis” (14 January 2004 RPPI) Lisa Snell tells us “California’s complex school finance system” and consequently “too much revenue is targeted toward administering school programs and budgets rather than raising student achievement. This message is resonated through the Contra Costa and LA Times articles. However, Snell goes further and declares the “most significant problem” is fund allocation. There are two methods the government used to allocate funds to K-12: revenue limits and categorical funds. Revenue limits allow unrestricted per-pupil funds that can be spent at the school district’s discretion. On the other hand, categorical funding require specific requirements be met before funding is provided. According to Snell, the funding structure “results in unequal funding amounts at the student level.” The bottom line is that discrepancies in state funding lead to problem presented in the LA Times article of low test grades.

Yet another failure of the government to address the needs of the public. The government is inhibiting educators from doing their job due to lack of funding and stigmatization for their apparent lack of effort. Inhibiting educators means inhibiting students and the last time I checked, the students are the ones who move onto higher education. If their unprepared, then another burden is placed on higher education institutions. The public good faces a vertical climb. There is no wonderful proposition that protects higher education from cuts or fee increases. According to “California Crises Take a Heavy Toll on State Colleges” (28 August 2003 Wall Street Journal) the Davis administration increases in college fees and the increasing enrollment of Latinos and Asians placed a huge strain on students and institutions. Now, since the cost of attending CSU and UC increased, more students are and will be “flocking” to community colleges. The increase in demand for education is being caused by the children of baby boomers or people born during the 1950s and 60s. However, instead of the California government focusing on increasing the availability of education, it is cutting back.

“Higher Education: broken promise” (19 March 2004 Mercury News) states that the state’s budget crisis “is about to hit home for thousands of college applicants this month, as California’s public universities prepare to turn away a record number of eligible students.” Governor Schwarzenegger is proposing a 10 percent increasing in CSU and UC fees, on top of the increases of 30% of the Davis administration. Wait! Here is the real home-hitter: a proposed $8 dollar increase per unit for community colleges. 10 percent or $10,731,921 dollars (California: Facts at a Glance) of the California state budget is devoted to higher education, but it’s not enough. When the state plans on limiting the amount of students entering the CSU or UC, this creates a vacuum that the community colleges will have to fill. Increase fees and shift the burden and who loses? Higher education students and not just a regular student, but students who don’t have earn enough and considered low income. The satiric opening line of “Crisis in Higher Education: Colleges losing ground” (17 March 2004 SF Chronicle) puts it best “IN A TIME of budget cuts, the California community colleges should be grateful for any additional funds they receive.” The California government has proposed spending increases of $225 million for community colleges, but the funding is not enough to serve the already over-crowded institutions. Even at the present moment, the community colleges serve “15,000 students for whom the colleges receive no reimbursement from the state.” In the “Higher Education Introduction” the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office’s report states that the proposed budget depends on not providing funding for enrollment growth or cost-of-living adjustments and changes in other revenue sources, increasing total funding to higher education by $802 million, or 2.6 percent. “Other revenue sources” besides the proposed fee increase? Banking on potential positive externalities such as an improving national economy or additional federal funding is baseless. The future is bleak and the state is not helping.

I am on the front line of this confusing, fearing, depressing, and amazing battle. I see and hear the following: the woes of the administration, students signing petitions, K-12 living in their own world, student marching in Sacramento, my nine-month old niece laughing and my peers struggling to succeed. How is the government helping? It’s not! The facts are clear and the danger is present. Higher education is in the cross hairs of the California Government. Cuts are coming. Fee increases are coming. A tidal wave of students is coming.

I shall return to the “U” shaped setup and experience the flood of emotions. There is no doubt the California government inhibits higher education at the cost of the people. The public good is lost in a sea of confusion, fear, depression, and amazement. We can look around at the mayhem that consumes the state, but more importantly, we must look at the mayhem that consumes Cerritos College.

Works Cited

“California: Facts at a Glance.”Education Week < http://www.edweek.org/context/states/pdf/california.pdf>

“Crisis in Higher Education: Colleges losing ground.” San Francisco Chronicle 17 March 2004 < http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/17/EDGB95LGVU1.DTL>

Grover, Ronald, Kerwin, Katie & Palmeri, Christopher. “Choose Your Weapon, Arnold.” Business Week 27 October 2003.

“Higher Education Introduction.” Legislative Analyst’s Office February 2004. < http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2004/education/highered_01_intro_anl04.htm>

Hayasaki, Erika, Helfand, Duke, & Rubin, Joel. “School Rankings Rankle Some.” 10 March 2004. < http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-rankings10mar10,1,2444603.story?coll=la-news-learning>

Louie, Eric. “Schools’ funding expected to trickle.” Contra Costa Times 18 March 2004. < http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/living/education/8215678.htm>

Myres, John W. “Why Reforms Won’t Work in California.” Education Week. 9 June 1999. < http://www.edweek.com/ew/vol-18/39myres.h18>

Rundle, Rhonda L. “California Crises Take a Heavy Toll on State Colleges.” Wall Street Journal 8 August 2003.

Snell, Lisa. “California 2004-2005 Education Budget Analysis” Reason Public Policy Institute (RPPI) 14 January 2004. < http://www.rppi.org/edbudget.shtml>