Search News


Browse Archives

News

Potential Boon for California Higher Ed

January 7, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

California's public colleges have had a brutal couple of years. It'd be ridiculously premature to say that things are turning around -- but Wednesday brought them at the very least a symbolic boost, in the form of a proposal that could lead to more of what they really want: a greater share of state funds.

In a State of the State speech that elevated education, and higher education in particular, above some competing state priorities, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed amending the state's Constitution to ensure that the state's two major public university systems receive no less than 10 percent of the state's operating funds each year. The additional funds would come by cutting spiraling state spending on prisons, the governor said.

Although higher education budget experts were scrambling Wednesday to reconcile the figures the governor used with their own figures, most agreed that the University of California and California State University systems now receive roughly 7 percent of the state budget, and that such an increase would bring them upwards of $2 billion a year more if it came to pass.

The plan faces enormous hurdles, though, in that it would require at least two-thirds of state voters to back a ballot measure and because Schwarzenegger proposes deriving the funds by privatizing the state's prison system, an idea that California's powerful union of prison guards, among others, will vigorously oppose. And the governor is a lame duck, so hardly at the peak of his political powers.

Those roadblocks notwithstanding, California's higher education leaders were almost exultant about the governor's proposals, even as they acknowledged its long-shot odds. That's because, after absorbing disproportionately large losses of state funds the last two years that have forced faculty and staff furloughs and other painful cuts on campuses (the California Community Colleges took an 8 percent cut, too), the universities heard Schwarzenegger use powerful language promising both to protect higher education in the short term and elevate it in the future.

Yes, more state budget cuts will be necessary to fill another nearly $20 billion gap, Schwarzenegger said Wednesday, "[b]ut I am drawing this line. Because our future economic well-being is so dependent upon education, I will protect education funding in this budget. And we can no longer afford to cut higher education either."

California's priorities have grown "out of whack," the governor said. Three decades ago, "10 percent of the general fund went to higher education and three percent went to prisons. Today, almost 11 percent goes to prisons and only 7.5 percent goes to higher education.... What does it say about any state that focuses more on prison uniforms than on caps and gowns? It simply is not healthy."

He added: "If you have two states and one spends more on educating and the other one spends more on incarcerating, in which state's economy would you invest?"

What's needed, Schwarzenegger said, is a "historic and transforming realignment of California's priorities," best accomplished, he argued, by "a constitutional amendment so that never again do we spend a greater percentage of our money on prisons than on higher education."

In a news release and draft legislative language that the governor's office released Wednesday afternoon, state leaders fleshed out the proposal.

Beginning in the 2014-5 fiscal year (five years from now, in other words), "no less than 10 percent of the General Fund expenditures" (which the proposal defines as excluding billions of dollars in debt payments and some other costs) would have to go toward "the support of public institutions of higher education," which the language defines as UC and Cal State, excluding state student aid programs and the California Community Colleges. (The legislative language specifically notes that any shift in funds could not take money away from Proposition 98, the state law under which community colleges and K-12 receive funds.)

Under the plan, the state prison system, meanwhile, would receive no more than 7 percent of state funds beginning in 2014-5.

Schwarzenegger's proposed change envisions funds to start shifting from prisons to universities as early as 2011-12, with higher education gaining any savings derived from privatizing the the prison system.

Leaders in higher education, who have issued increasingly dire warnings in recent months about the potential damage being done to both student access and institutional quality by the downward spiral in state support, cheered the governor's announcement.

"We appreciate the Governor’s intention to begin to reinvest in California’s public universities because there is a critical need in the state for a well educated workforce that can help us to remain competitive in the global economy," Charles B. Reed, chancellor of the Cal State system, said in a prepared statement. "The administration deserves credit for proposing this idea."

"This is a bold and visionary plan that represents a fundamental restoration of the values and priorities that have made California great," Mark G. Yudof, president of the University of California, said in a statement. "I am delighted that Governor Schwarzenegger recognizes the need for our state to invest again in education and innovation. I look forward to working with the governor and with the Legislature to see that this proposal reaches the ballot so that the people of California may have a voice in their own future."

"Wisdom and common sense remind us that tipping the scales back in favor of fully funding education means that fewer Californians will land in a prison cell and we will reduce costs associated with larger prison populations,” said Jack Scott, chancellor of the California Community Colleges. In an interview, Scott said that while the governor's proposal would not promise any increase directly for community colleges, he hoped that as the initiative took shape, some of the additional funds for Cal State and UC might be set aside to ensure additional enrollment slots at those institutions for students transferring from two-year institutions.

"That would certainly be fair, and would certainly increase community college support for the proposal. I would expect a receptive ear from both of those leaders," he said of Yudof and Reed.

While they focused their public rhetoric on the potential long term benefits of the highly uncertain fate of the proposed funding shift, higher education leaders were perhaps most pleased about the governor's promise to shield them in the near term, given that state lawmakers will soon convene needing to cut about $6 billion from the remaining six months of the 2009-10 fiscal year and $13 billion more from the 2010-11 budget that Schwarzenegger will soon propose.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Potential Boon for California Higher Ed

  • Posted by Perry on January 7, 2010 at 9:30am EST
  • If the governor supported education, he wouldn't have imposed the huge cuts we are suffering under this year. This proposal is a plot to weaken the prison staff unions by pitting the faculty unions against them. There is not going to be any state constitutional ammendment to reform prison funding and the governor has not proposed any changes in sentencing, something that would affect the number of people incarcerated (and thus reduce prison costs). California's harsh 3-strikes law is partially responsible for the huge proportion of state costs going to prisons, not any explicit prioritization of prisons over higher ed. The governor needs to support and protect higher education because of its value to the state's economy and to the people of the state, not because it promotes other political goals, such as weakening unionization in the state. We should know that something is wrong with a proposal like this when both Reed and Yudof (and administrators up and down the line) are eagerly forwarding messages to faculty touting this wonderful new stance taken by a no-tax, pro-business Republican governor.

    Higher ed is not a political football -- it is an essential service that requires serious support from a leader who values it for what it contributes to the health of the state's economy.

  • Private prisons are not the answer
  • Posted by stacyesq , Dept of Criminal Justice on January 7, 2010 at 11:45am EST
  • While I appreciate the idea of investing more on higher education and spending less on prisons, the governor's plan ignores at least two obvious issues.

    1. Couldn't he have already proposed budgets allocating the funds in the way he is suggesting now without a constitutional amendment? Seriously, did the constitution prevent him from spending more on higher education before now? Given that it previously took up a larger part of the state's budget, I doubt that's the case.

    2. The easiest and most significant way to save money on prisons in California would be to eliminate the death penalty. The plan he has outlined calls for privatizing prisons which may provide some savings, but eliminating capital punishment would save substantially more money each year. Other states (like New Mexico) have realized the savings to the state from eliminating such an expensive and unnecessary sentencing option. It's time for California to do the same.

  • Just go away Arnold
  • Posted by Chris , BMF at HKU on January 7, 2010 at 3:00pm EST
  • Stacyesq,
    You are right on on point number 1. Of course Arnold could have spent more on higher education than prisons by a combination of a) proposing budgets to the legislature that did this (he never did), and b) using the line-item veto to reduce prison spending if the legislature did not go along with his proposal. He did neither of these things because he does not care one bit about higher education, or any other policy goals. He is a man completely devoid of any principles or core beliefs, other than his belief in promoting himself. A case can be made that he is the worst governor in the history of the state, but certainly since the railroad owned government in the late 1800's.

  • Posted by Prof Ed on January 7, 2010 at 7:00pm EST
  • I disagree with all three of the comments above. What a bunch of whiny partisan shills!

    It is the partisan legislators in California who have made that state the poster child of fiscal irresponsibility. The State spent beyond its means and did so foolishly, which is why no money was available for things that really mattered. Thanks to both Democrats and Republicans who lack courage to say "no" to lobbying by the vested interest groups, many states now have prison expenditures that outstrip those of higher education. This travesty shows that neither party really values education for citizens as much as they value punishment of citizens. Both rather dislike the idea of a nation of high-level critical thinkers who might question such government antics and not keep re-electing dynasty families.

    Please do not lay the irresponsible spending in California at the feet of this governor. Californians are lucky to have had him. After giving of himself, he can return to the profession he excelled in. How many partisan hacks can return to anything other than depending on connection to power? As soon as term limits lock them out, many get themselves appointed to jobs they don't excel in, including running universities.

  • Posted by Perry on January 7, 2010 at 8:30pm EST
  • The state hasn't spent beyond its means. It has cut taxes beyond its means. Spending on education, the poor and other services provided by any HUMANE state government are not "beyond the means" of a state as prosperous as California has traditionally been. Schwartzenegger has cut taxes to businesses even while revenues were decreasing due to recession. We cannot afford such tax cuts and that is why education and all other social services (and the people who need them) are suffering acutely this year.

  • Posted by Ralph Westfall , Professor at Cal Poly, Pomona on January 7, 2010 at 8:30pm EST
  • Perry said, "This proposal is a plot to weaken the prison staff unions by pitting the faculty unions against them."

    Funny, I don't recall seeing any members of the prison guards' union being out on the streets protesting when a lot of part time faculty were getting laid off where I work. Not only that, I don't expect them to be cheering about the governor wanting us to get more money either.

  • You have got to be kidding
  • Posted by LA Jerry , NSCS on January 8, 2010 at 10:15am EST
  • Perry...."the state hasn't spent beyond its means."???? Huh? With all due respect, this issue has been well documented and discussed the past few years, and just about everyone (including many legislators themselves) agree that the state of California has grown too much over the past 10 years or so. Its called irresponsible spending by the legislature. Up until recently tax REVENUE to the state had INCREASED every year. The state just recklously out-spent the revenue. Its pretty simple, really. Same thing has been happening in D.C.

    And all of this state spending? Yes - it has been on the "poor and other state services" that you cry for; and on education - California has one of the lowest priced CC systems in the country. In fact, its virutally free to many students (with Pell grants).

    Let's at least get this facts right - California has a SPENDING problem.