ML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> econdary Subgroup

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[1] See Minutes of the working group’s second meeting, June 8, 2001, page 4.
[2] Very ably prepared by Michael Ricketts, consultant to the Working Group.
[3] Joint Committee, Interim Report, p. 3.
[4] See Minutes of the Working Group’s first meeting, May 11, 2001, page 4.
[5] Joint Committee, Interim Report, p. 5.
[6] Presently, all charges paid by resident California students are officially called “fees,” a semantic idiosyncrasy unique to California and often confusing to the public. In other states, mandatory statewide charges to students used for general support are usually called tuition and other payments for specific services (student body membership, cultural events, health care, parking, etc.) are called fees. Under California’s Master Plan, however, tuition (the cost of instruction) was not to be charged to state residents for fear that too tight a link with instructional salaries might cause large increases. Today, student charges, especially in the public universities, represent substantial sums. Although the Plan’s original purpose in such a semantic distinction has faded, the mandated practice is to continue referring to resident student charges as fees and to non-resident charges as tuition. The semantics, however, are not as important as how to establish the level of student charges and make their adjustment more rational.
[7] The cost of education (meaning the resources spent on instruction) should be distinguished from the price charged students, whether posted or net. The cost, especially in the public segments, is always more than the price charged students.
[8] For example, the University of California absorbed permanent cuts to campus budgets and the office of the president that totaled $433 million, or 20% of its state funded budget from FY 1991 to FY 1995. The other public segments faced similar cuts.
[9] For instance, the CSU received $64 million for “special initiatives” in the 2001 Budget Act (Richards, Final Budget Allocations, p. 5). The University of California lists 800 projects with K-12 schools and millions of dollars of state funds appropriated specifically for this link, including $32 million to develop a network for K-12 access to California’s portion of Internet2 (UC, 2001/02 Budget, pp. 235-7).
[10] CPEC, Fiscal Profiles, 2000, Display 2.
[11] CPEC, Providing for Progress, pp. 3-4.
[12] Gladieux, Student Debt, p. 13.
[13] California Higher Education Policy Center, Shared Responsibility (1996). CPEC, A Capacity for Growth (1995); Benjamin and Carroll, RAND’s Breaking the Social Contract (1997), California Education Roundtable Higher Education at the Crossroads (1998). California Citizens Commission on Higher Education, Toward a State of Learning (1999).
[14] The major exception to this generalization is the inclusion of the community colleges with K-12 under the revenue guarantee provisions of Proposition 98. The actual split between K-12 and Community Colleges however, is not constitutionally determined and has been subject to annual negotiation, generally to the detriment of the colleges. Another exception is SB 1644 (2000), landmark legislation that converted the Cal grant program into an entitlement guaranteeing aid to every graduating high school and transferring community college applicant who meets the program’s financial and academic requirements.
[15] Minutes of the working group’s meeting held August 23, 2001, page 5.
[16] Academic Senate of the CSU, p. 47.
[17] The cost of this buyout for CSU was $17 million in FY 2002 and $22 million at UC. Established seven years ago, this practice has appropriated hundreds of millions of state dollars into higher education’s base budgets in the place of fee revenue that would otherwise have been collected through authorized student fee increases.
[18] The level should be provided in conjunction with a performance budgeting and accountability partnership described on pages 10-11below.
[19] The following, helpful distinctions appear in Burke, “Linking State Resources to Campus Results.”
[20] Burke, “Linking State Resources to Campus Results,” p. 4
[21] See the listing of agreements in the “partnership” on page 11 and a more extensive description in Appendix C of the current measures.
[22] Unlike most other states, the California constitution seriously restricts the legislature’s ability to fund any private institutions directly: “No public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of...any school not under the exclusive control of the officers of the public schools...” (Article IX, section 8). In several cases, courts have held that the State cannot appropriate funds directly to private institutions for educational services, the most recent being a California Supreme court decision in 1978 that involved Stanford University. The state can, of course, appropriate money for student financial aid that flows to students in independent institutions or provide funds to them for public purposes, such as a pool of funds to be distributed by competitive bids with all institutions eligible.
[23] Education Code 35, δ 84754
[24] Bates, Managing Technological Change; CPEC, Coming of Information Age.
[25] CCC, “Distance Education Report,” p. 11.
[26] Ibid., p. 5.
[27] These ideas were elaborated by Dewayne Matthews, Director of State Relations for the Education Commission of the States, during his presentation to the working group. See the minutes of the working group’s meeting on August 23, 2001, pp. 5-9.
[28] For a strong objection to any fee increases or even to the existence of any student charges, see the minutes of the working group’s meeting held on June 8, 2001 (p. 8) and Appendix B, the statement by group member Hittleman. Other group members did not share these views.
[29] Heller, Effects, p. 10.
[30] Heller, Effects, pp. 8-9. Leslie and Brinkman, Economic Value, p. 132. Shires, Future. Careful targeting of aid and extensive outreach, however, can mute these effects. For example, the number and proportion of low-income undergraduates at the University of California increased between 1991 and 1994, years in which required fees increased most dramatically (see California Citizens Commission, State of Learning, p. 40.)
[31] The state general funds per FTES is based on the state’s annual appropriation to each segment, which represents the taxpayer support for activities related to each segment’s total mission. However, only a portion of state General Fund revenue directly supports instruction. The revenues per student for instructionally-related activities in 1999-2000, which include university revenue, students fees and other income sources in addition to a portion of state allocations, were as follows: UC = $15,196; CSU = $10,193; CCC = $4,767.
[32] The CCC figure are derived by dividing the $4,698,398,000 total of state appropriations and property taxes by the $157,242,000 collected as student fee revenues. The UC and CSU calculations are presented in the source table.
[33] Legislative Analyst, Analysis of 2001-02 Budget Bill-. Washington State Board, 1999-2000 Tuition and Fee Rates.
[34]The report, however, went on to say “California requires families to devote a relatively large share of family income, even after financial aid, to attend public four-year colleges and universities. Private institutions, which account for 17% of enrollment, also require a relatively high proportion of family income to attend. The state has done poorly in providing financial aid to low-income students. However, California’s overall grade in this category is very high because of the exceptionally low tuition at California’s community colleges (which represent 48% of student enrollment statewide) and the very low share of family income that the state’s poorest families need to pay for tuition at the community colleges” (p. 32).
[35] Halstead, Report Card, pp. 47, 49.
[36] Kipp, et al., Unequal Opportunity, pp. 23, 39.
[37] While the strongest surge of enrollments will occur through approximately 2010, there is no decline projected thereafter so that the facilities constructed for additional enrollments will not be surplus.
[38] The state’s budget act of 2000 approved a plan to provide $300 million in four annual increments for these centers, with the expectation that state funding will be matched on a two-to-one basis with non-state funds. See UC, Budget for Capital Improvements, p. 9.
[39] The bond act proposed in2001 contained funds for such joint use facilities.
[40] CPEC, Providing for Progress, p. 62.
[41] CCC, Study of Fee Impact, pp. 1-2. Emphasis added.
[42] CCC, 1993 Report, pp. iv, 4-7.
[43] Shires, Alternative Funding Models, pp. iii, 22.
[44] This was presented to the Finance and Facilities workgroup during its meeting on November 27, 2001. Members of our workgroup did not concur with most aspects of this proposal.


Table of Contents
Summary Introduction Recommendations
Appendices References Members