No on Proposition 92

Measure would increase cost to students, taxpayers

By Jaymes P. Dunsmore
From the February 2008 Print Edition

It isnt often that a ballot measure draws as diverse a group of opponents as Proposition 92 has. Both the San Francisco Democratic Party and the California Republican Party oppose the measure, which would mandate higher levels of state spending to community colleges at an increased cost to California students and taxpayers, while decreasing accountability.

Proponents of Proposition 92 arent technically lying when they say the measure wont raise taxes; the proposition itself is not a tax increase, but it does require nearly $1 billion in spending over the next three years. With our current $14.5 billion budget deficit forcing the governor to propose cutting programs and closing state parks, increasing the states commitment to community colleges by $300 million will necessitate tax increases and more cuts elsewhere in the budget. For that reason, the California Taxpayers Association, the California Teachers Association, and the UC Board of Regents all oppose the measure.

On November 15, the UC Regents voted to voice their opposition to the measure, noting that Proposition 92 requires more state funding and reduces student fees for one segment of higher education without regard to the needs of all of higher education. Since it does not create or identify any new revenue sources, unprotected state programs such as UC and CSU would be competing for a smaller share of available General Funds.

The Los Angeles Times was less subtle in its assessment, warning that, if Proposition 92 passes, lawmakers would have no choice but to rob other higher education programs to meet the new spending commitment.

The argument by proponents of the measure, that Proposition 92 will make a college education more accessible, is an outright lie. Reducing fees for community college students from $20 to $15 per unit will necessitate a fee increase for Cal students and other college students throughout the state, making the CSU and UC systems even less affordable for Californians, including transfer students from community colleges.

It is also misleading to argue that the measure will make community college more accessible; students who cant afford community college fees arent required to pay them. According to the Times, 52 percent of community college students were granted fee waivers.

California community college fees are already the lowest in the country, according to the Legislative Analyst. As Sacramento Bee columnist Peter Schrag observes, community college fees represent no more than maybe 5 percent of the real cost, which includes living expenses, books, transportation and a variety of other expenses. For students who dont live at home the fee reduction amounts to roughly 1 percent of total cost.

Further reducing Californias already lowest-in-the-nation community college fees wont make college more affordable, but it would make thousands of California students ineligible for federal aid, such as Pell grants, for which they currently qualify. Since many students attend community college for two years before transferring to UC and CSU campuses, while they may marginally benefit from the fee reduction their first two years of college, they would pay for it through increased fees after transferring into the UC or CSU system.

In addition to committing hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding which California can ill afford, Proposition 92 would reorganize the community college system in a way that the San Francisco Chronicle writes, would layer dysfunction on top of dysfunction.

This proposed change to the constitutional formula for school dollars would base funding on the number of college-age Californians, not on the number of students actually enrolled. There would be no direct relationship between required funding [for community colleges] and actual student enrollment, according to the Legislative Analysts report. Imagine if you could get paid for the amount of work you could potentially do, rather than for the tasks you actually accomplished. One can begin to see why the California Federation of Teachers, which represents community college faculty, supports the measure when all other associations of educators, including K-12 teachers, represented by the California Teachers Association, oppose it.

Among the other groups in opposition to Proposition 92 are the California Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters of California, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and all major California newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Diego Union-Tribune, and the Orange County Register, all of which agree that California cannot afford this latest attempt at ballot-box budgeting.

As a student of the University of California and as a California taxpayer, vote No on Proposition 92 on February 5th.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot