Proposition 92 seeks to grab K-14 education — particularly
the community college system — a big chunk of change in preparation for the
tight-budgeted future. The problem is, while funding education should be a top
state priority, the numbers just aren’t adding up and
most important programs are all feeling the sting of budget cuts. This instance
of special interest-driven ballot box budgeting helps only a subset of
students, and would place an extra burden on the California State University
and University of California systems as they deal with an extra $70 million of
lost revenue in the already tight fiscal future.
Supporters of Proposition 92 argue that by lowering costs
for community colleges, the measure provides a valuable educational gateway to the
middle class. But this ignores a glaring financial problem: By decreasing fee
revenue without raising taxes or offering any other method to balance the loss,
the proposal would create a massive funding deficit in a sector already being
severely slashed. Unless all of the state’s students stand together to bear
cuts equally, community colleges — which already charge the country’s lowest
tuition costs — stand to see an unnecessary gain by crippling their higher
education sister institutions.
Though supporters have a point — community colleges give
struggling high school graduates a pathway to four-year universities and
provide many adults with important career instruction — this proposition is
financially unrealistic and blatantly irresponsible, and would build upon a
dangerous precedent of education earmarking. It’s a fair assessment that K-14
schools need more support, but shorting the UC and CSU systems for community
colleges is not the way to solve the state’s education woes.
By locking up approximately $300 million annually for K-14
education while simultaneously throwing away $70 million of community college
fee revenue, Proposition 92 would create a deadly funding sinkhole, placing an
unmanageable burden on the CSU and UC systems. The idealistic initiative
provides neither a counter to the monetary loss it implies nor a method for how
the additional $300 million will be spent.
