2008–10 California budget crisis
 |
This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout. (January 2011)
Click [show] on right for more details.
|
The U.S. state of California had, and still currently does have, a budget crisis in which it faced a shortfall of at least $11.2 billion,[1] projected to top $40 billion over the 2009–2010 fiscal years.[2]
The budget crisis in California has had an effect on many programs, agencies, and departments, including the educational system of which California has long been proud. California has long held out the opportunity for every qualified child to attend a publicly funded school from kindergarten through graduate school, and one of the linchpins of this system has been the community college or junior college system, providing opportunities for higher education to students whose high school grades may not qualify them for a four-year college as yet and for students who may not yet be financially able to attend a four-year college. These colleges have been especially hard hit by the budgetary crisis and have been harmed by measures taken to cope with it.
Contents |
[edit] 2008
On September 23, 2008, about 3 months after its due date, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the 2008-2009 budget.[3][4] Worsening financial conditions that followed left the state with a large shortfall.
A two-thirds vote is required to pass a budget, and in both the original budget negotiations and in the attempt to revise the budget no political party by itself had enough votes to pass a budget. The majority Democrats fought to minimize cuts to programs, while most of the minority Republicans refused to accept any tax increase. The original budget was put together by Democrats and some Republicans using spending cuts, internal borrowing, and accounting maneuvers.[3][4]
In November 2008, Schwarzenegger proposed spending reductions including the following measures concerning state employees[5]:
- One furlough day per month, equivalent to a reduction in pay of about 5 percent.
- Elimination of the Columbus Day and Lincoln's Birthday holidays.
- Employees who must work on holidays would receive holiday credit for later use, as opposed to receiving time-and-a-half pay.
- Employees would more easily be able to work four ten-hour days per week.
- Overtime pay rules would be changed so that leave time would no longer be considered as part of time worked.
[edit] Other
In December 2008, Schwarzenegger ordered mandatory furloughs of three days per month for state employees, as well as "layoffs, reductions and other efficiencies" to achieve savings in the General Fund of up to 10%.[6][7]
The definition of "community college" and the reasons for the community college system have been questioned given the budgetary constraints being placed on the entire educational structure in California. The state legislature addressed the issue in 1988 when it systematically revised California's Master Plan for Higher Education, an omnibus community college reform bill signed into law that year. The 1988 reforms set priorities for the community college system as follows:
1) vocational education and equally the education of students planning to transfer to the California State University or the University of California;
2) remedial instruction;
3) continuing education or "community service" instruction.
Attempts have been made starting in 1992 to change these priorities in the face of the budget crisis. Governor Pete Wilson wanted to downgrade vocational education, especially short-term vocational education, while upgrading the two-year associate of arts degree an further upgrading transfer education. This took place in the context of a budget negotiation and was criticized as the wrong time to determine the future mission of higher education ("What Is a Community College?" B7).
The community colleges of California have traditionally taken up the slack when hard times hit the State University or University systems, and indeed the community colleges in 1992 were already filled to the brim, with many being so overcrowded that increasing numbers of students were watching lectures at home on television and venturing onto campus only rarely. At the same time, community colleges were facing reduced class offerings, scaled-back departments, an increasing work load for professors, and students suffering from the effects of these changes. While the entire system of higher education in California was faced with budget cutbacks, the junior colleges had felt the impact more, in part because of the requirement that all qualified students must be admitted. A report from Pasadena City College in 1992 showed that the college was allocated money from the state on the basis of the number of high school students it admitted from its district, but the college actually had 52 percent of its enrollment from outside the district, a group not including transfers due to cutbacks in the university and state university systems. The campus was also faced with the relatively new phenomenon of reverse transfers as university and state college students returned to community colleges because of tuition increases or prolonged waiting periods to get required courses at the other institutions. The community college has faced a five percent increase in enrolment each semester the previous year and a 25 percent increase for summer classes. One result, as noted, was an increase in "telecourses" enabling community colleges to accommodate the overflow and an increasing number of working students by enabling them to study at home. A less valuable change has been an increase in education by multiple-choice test, destroying the credibility of the institution's degree (Galloway M3).
Fee hikes in the community college system were instituted because of the need to make up for lost revenues from the state and to pay for the programs that were being offered. These fee hikes posed a hardship for many students, and in particular they were found to affect illegal immigrants who had managed to make their way to the college system. As the result of a court decision in 1990, the 107 community colleges in California, following the lead of the University of California, began assessing new undocumented students the considerably higher fees already charged to those who are not California residents. Residents who are full-time students pay $60 per semester, while those who are not residents are charged tuition that averages $1,320 per semester. The community colleges have been especially affected by this decision, for they claim an estimated 14,000 illegal immigrants among their more than 1.5 million students statewide. Those who support the higher fees state that it is wrong for people who are here illegally to get the same cost break as legal residents. After 1985, illegal immigrants who could demonstrate that they had lived in California for at least a year and intended to stay were treated the same as other residents as far as tuition was concerned. This had been in response to an earlier court decision giving illegal immigrants these rights. After 1990, though, the situation was reversed (Merl, May 14, 1992 A1).
The community colleges have had to deal with a state-imposed funding cap, and as a result the 107 community college campuses were forced to dip into their discretionary funds simply to handle the student load they already had. The budget of a community college is allocated as follows: 80 percent is committed, and 20 percent can be spent on staff development, equipment, and supply purchases or on faculty trips. Pasadena City college can again serve as an example, for the campus now has 13 percent more students than it has money to educate. Plans to expand vocational education and to buy new equipment have been shelved. The cutbacks have been seen as an attack on the community-college mission to provide inexpensive vocational training to students or to adults who are seeking a new career and who do not intend to go on to a four-year college. It is ironic that this is coming at a time when corporations and businesses are experiencing a shortage of skilled workers that the community colleges are supposed to produce. Students who do want to transfer to four-year institutions are also being affected, and the diminishing availability of required courses has forced many of them either to delay their educational plans or to drop out entirely (Galloway M6).
These students, their professors, and administrators have protested the budget cuts that have been imposed on the community college system, and they have been especially critical of Governor Pete Wilson's plans in this regard. Wilson wanted to take up to $33 million from the Los Angeles system, which is equivalent to what it takes to run two of its campuses for a year. He proposed raising fees to $300 or more per student per semester, which wold put higher education beyond the grasp of a number of students because about a third of the district's 120,000 students have annual family incomes of $12,000 or less. Nearly 70 percent of the district's enrollment is from minority groups. For the system as a whole, Wilson wanted to give them an estimated $454 million less than he had originally proposed for 1992, or $178 million less than the state spent in 1991. the reason for this was to close a $10.7 billion state budget gap. There would also be an increase in general fees, then at $6 per unit with a maximum of $60 per semester, to $20 per unit, with no cap at all. For students who had already accumulated 90 college credits, the fee would increase to an average $90 per unit, and it was estimated that this would hit hard at unemployed workers returning to colleges for new careers. With the downturn in the aerospace industry in California, there were a large number of such students seeking education in the community college system (Merl, August 26, 1992 B1).
Critics charged that these fee increases would be disastrous and would lead to a drop in enrollment of 200,000 or more. Indeed, it was pointed out that this rise in fees would make the charges to students higher for the community college system than the fees charged at the University of California or the California State University systems. The fee increases would combine with the reduced budget to cause a lowered enrolment, from 1.5 million students to 1.3 million. Also of concern was the fact that the fee proposal was in effect setting admissions priorities for the 107 community colleges by offering preference to students who are preparing to transfer to a four-year college over those pursuing a vocational education. The systems Board of Governors wanted to set their own priorities and to work with local campuses to serve each community better (Trombley July 10, 1992 A3, A39). The state senate rejected this proposal by Wilson. The general fee was increased to $12 per unit, and for students with 90 credits the fee was raised to $50 per unit. The funds to be transferred to public schools had also been reduced. Officials still believed that these increases would mean that systemwide enrollment would drop by tens of thousands of students, and adults with four-year degrees would be especially hard hit. The colleges would also be forced to pay back a $227-million loan over the next two years, meaning that $113.5 million would be deducted from their appropriation for each year before budget negations begin (Trombley, August 30, 1992 A3).
The board of governors for the community college system had sought a budget agreement in 1992 that would include the following elements:
1) Maintain the existing 90 percent to 10 percent split in Proposition 98 funding between public schools and community colleges, as opposed to the Wilson plan which would reduce the share for community colleges.
2) Try to maintain the current level of state support.
3) Allow the board and the statewide staff to set admissions priorities, not the governor or the legislature (Trombley, July 10, 1992 A39).
This was close to what was done by the legislature in scotching Wilson's plan, but the reality of funding changes did force a shift in admissions priorities and created such a shift in any case by driving away many continuing education students. This year it was reported that many of the problems foreseen by analysts have indeed come to pass. Now that community colleges are charging higher graduate fees, few students have been paying. There were some exemptions provided for laid-off workers, displaced homemakers, and people on welfare, and some have qualified for these exemptions. However, in the spring semester of 1992, only 60,000 of the 118,000 degree holders who had enrolled in the fall returned after the higher fees took effect, accounting for a 10 percent decrease in enrollment over the previous spring semester (Merl, May 30, 1993 A3). It is clear that the community college system has been much affected by the budget problems of the state, perhaps to a greater degree than other agencies of the state government.
Works Cited
Galloway, Laura. "Undercutting California's Education of Last Resort," Los Angeles Times (April 14, 1992), M3, M14.
Merl, Jean. "Community College Fee Hike Hits Illegal Immigrants," Los Angeles Times (May 14, 1992), A3, A23.
Merl, Jean. "Community College Cuts Protested," Los Angeles Times (August 26, 1992), B1, B4.
Merl, Jean. "A Lesson in Economics," Los Angeles Times (May 30, 1993), A3, A26.
Trombley, William. "Critics Warn of Impact From College Fee-Hike," Los Angeles Times (July 10, 1992), A3, A39.
Trombley, William. "Senate Scales Back Huge Fee Hikes for Community Colleges,"Los Angeles Times (August 30, 1992), A3, A34.
"What Is A Community College?" Los Angeles Times (July 11, 1992), B7.
[edit] See also
- Bill Lockyer, California State Treasurer
- Karen Bass, 67th Speaker of the California State Assembly
- Darrell Steinberg, President Pro Tem of the California State Senate
[edit] References
- ^ "California 'faces budget crisis'". BBC News. 2008-12-02. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7760249.stm. Retrieved 2009-02-08.
- ^ "California delaying tax refunds amid cash crisis". Reuters. 2009-01-16. http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE50F6JH20090116. Retrieved 2009-02-08.
- ^ a b "Schwarzenegger signs record-late state budget". Sacramento Bee. 2008-09-23. Archived from the original on 2009-07-27. http://www.webcitation.org/5iapu9uoa. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
- ^ a b "Bill List". Leginfo.ca.gov. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_88&sess=PREV&house=B. Retrieved 2009-07-25.
- ^ "Governor's Open Letter to All State Employees Regarding Impact of Proposed Spending Cuts". California Department of Personnel Administration. 2008-11-06. http://www.dpa.ca.gov/news/news/2008/20081106-01.htm. Retrieved 2009-07-25.
- ^ Schwarzenegger, Arnold (2008-12-19). "Executive Order S-16-08". California Office of the Governor. Archived from the original on 2009-07-27. http://www.webcitation.org/5iapurPGj. Retrieved 2009-02-05.
- ^ "Governor's Open Letter to All State Employees Regarding Furloughs and Layoffs". California Department of Personnel Administration. 2008-12-19. http://www.dpa.ca.gov/news/news/2008/20081219-01.htm. Retrieved 2009-07-25.
[edit] External links
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
