Testimony Before the Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education - Kindergarten Through University

March 12, 2002

Presentation on Postsecondary Finance and Facilities Workgroup By VirginiaAnn Shadwick, CTA

Good afternoon, Madame chair and members:

I am VirginiaAnn Shadwick, a member of the Board of Directors of the California Teachers Association and a Librarian at San Francisco State University. I represent our higher education faculty.

Like my K-12 colleague, I would like to commend working group members for their hard work wrestling with an important and difficult subject.

Just as our K-12 education system has been plagued by years of underfunding, so too have our higher education entities been forced to grapple with a lack of resources for instruction and for facilities.

At the outset, let me say that we support adequate funding for both K-12 and our higher education system and a fair allocation of revenues between the two systems. We are particularly concerned about adequate funding for our community colleges and the California State University system because neither has access to the vast private resources of the University of California.

I commend the panel for calling for a stable and adequate stream of funding for the state’s postsecondary education system. We applaud the panel for recognizing that it is crucial to provide a system of funding that is not subject to sharp peaks and valleys. Our funding – both for program and facilities – must be stable and predictable so that our vital task for educating today’s students for tomorrow’s challenges can continue.

We are particularly supportive of recommendation 1.1, which calls for full funding of core programs and additional support in good times for new and expanded programs beyond this core.

We are greatly concerned about Recommendation 1.2, which counsels against using state funds to reduce student fees at UC and CSU. Despite increases in student grant programs, we believe that raising fees will have the effect of forcing out of our higher education system students who are otherwise qualified to attend.

We are also very concerned about Recommendation 2, which calls for the expansion to the Community Colleges of the so-called "partnership agreements" between CSU and UC. We believe the current arrangement is not truly a partnership agreement because a major segment of the higher education partners – faculty – has been left out, and because it perpetuates the funding disparities between the systems.

We are also concerned that the focus on "performance" will work only as long as enrollment growth continues. For instance, one of the performance indicators cited is increasing the number of teaching credentials and another refers to doubling the number of graduates in engineering and computer sciences. Stabilizing or declining enrollment might make such goals unreasonable. Nonetheless, this recommendation could lead to reductions in funding because the entities are under those conditions unable to produce the increase in absolute numbers required to demonstrate "performance."

Defining performance in these terms also misses important issues related to accountability of system and college administrators to the public. 

We have concerns with Recommendation 3, which calls for an expansion of electronic instruction or distance learning. The report rightly notes that instructors overwhelmingly believe that the classroom instruction is much superior to distance or electronic learning. The report also cites a five-year study by the California Community Colleges that found much higher completion rates in traditional classrooms, as compared to distance instruction.

We believe state resources would be better by supporting classroom instruction rather than by funding the expansion of distance learning programs and collaborations.

We have serious concerns about Recommendation 4, also relating to student fees. We believe California must maintain its low fee policies to guarantee access to higher education for all students. We oppose fee differentials, which would allow similar institutions to charge different fees. Fee inequities are a predictable result. We also oppose sharp increases in fees during times of state economic turmoil and shortfalls. It is at those times that higher education entities and students need stable and predictable fee structures so that students can afford to finish their educations.

We also have serious concerns about the panel’s recommendations relative to facilities funding. It is important to recognize that the UC can count on large sources of private capital for construction. Likewise, the community colleges have access to local bond funding. The CSU system, however, has neither. We are hopeful that all bond funds will be distributed among these entities in a fair and equitable way. Because of the UC’s private funding sources, an equitable split of revenue bond funds would actually allocate a higher percentage to the community colleges and CSU.

We would like to raise an issue that was not dealt with at length in the report. Currently, the state pays institutions different amounts of funding to perform the same level of instruction at each of the institutions – community colleges, CSU, and UC. Thus, the state pays less for the same course offered at the community colleges than it does at UC. We would argue that the funding level for the UC course should be given equally for the other institutions providing the same course. That would eliminate a current complication to efforts to cross-deliver courses.

As representatives of higher education faculty, we pledge to work closely with lawmakers as they seek to create an equitable and stable funding model for programs and facilities in California’s postsecondary education system.

I’ll be happy to answer any questions you might have.
 
 

masterpostfac.doc 3/12/2002 10:43 AM