Is there a perfect storm brewing in higher education?

Stories by Sherry Posnick-Goodwin and Dale Martin
Photos by Scott Buschman

As waves of college students flood campuses throughout California over the next decade, the forecast for their future may be less than sunny. Some believe that a "perfect storm" looming on the horizon threatens California's higher education system.

The merging storm fronts of increased demand, tuition hikes and funding cuts may combine into a megastorm that will devastate everything in its path: college affordability, access for minorities, the promise to admit all eligible students, and the excellent reputation held by the state's public system of higher education.

Last year, citizens got a taste of what could be in store. The promise of the state's 44-year-old Master Plan for Higher Education — that all eligible students would be admitted — was broken in the face of a dire financial crisis. California State University (CSU) and University of California (UC) campuses turned away more than 26,000 eligible students. The California community college system was forced to bar 175,000 more.

"It's the first time in the history of the master plan that qualified students were intentionally diverted," says John Travis, president of the California Faculty Association, the CTA affiliate for CSU faculty. The plan, which guarantees Californians an affordable, accessible, high-quality education, is unique. As far as he knows, no other state has made such a far-reaching and visionary commitment to its citizenry. "I'm quite worried about what will happen if things continue [in the] status quo."

The worst may be yet to come: Predictions are that 1.8 million college-age Californians won't be able to find a place in the state's public university system over the next decade.

Increasing demand: For years, schools of higher education have been warned about Tidal Wave II, a surge in enrollment that the state Department of Finance projects is about to crest.

"Tidal Wave II is real. The bubble is now coming to us, but we've put up barriers to taking care of those students," says Carolyn Russell, a faculty representative on the California Community College System Board of Governors and an English instructor at Rio Hondo College in Whittier. "I think our ability to provide access to quality education is being challenged."

According to projections from the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC), undergraduate demand will total 2.83 million by year 2013, representing a 34 percent increase over the number of undergraduates participating in public colleges and universities in the fall of 2003. CPEC's 10-year forecast for 2003-13 shows undergraduate demand increasing from an estimated 1,785,000 to 2,179,000 at the community college level, from 330,000 to 453,000 at the California State University, and from 160,000 to 204,000 at the University of California.

But even these figures may be low. Factoring in the Department of Finance's most recent graduate projections, enrollment demand could reach 2.96 million by 2013, an increase of approximately 741,000 additional students.

To meet that demand, CPEC estimates, higher education will need at least $3.1 billion more in instruction-related funding than is currently provided through the state's general fund and student fees. That doesn't include facilities or student support services.

Dwindling support: At the University of California, the 2004-05 budget reduced state funding by 6 percent, from $2.9 billion to $2.72 billion, for the 10 UC campuses, which serve some 200,000 students. After four years of cuts, funding has dropped by 15 percent.

Because cuts were expected to go even deeper, 7,600 students who met UC requirements were told to attend community colleges this year in exchange for guaranteed admission to a UC campus of their choice in their junior year. At the last minute, 5,700 of those who were turned away were offered UC admission — not necessarily to their campus of choice. Approximately 1,500 students accepted the offer.

In addition, UC has seen a 25 percent reduction in state-funded research.

The 23-campus CSU system, which serves 400,000 students, received $200 million less in state funding this year than the previous year and turned away 10,000 eligible students. Last year's budget suffered a $311 million cut, resulting in a loss of more than half a billion dollars in just two years.

This year's budget is part of a 20-year trend in declining funds for the CSU system. In 1980-81, CSU received $10,742 per student (stated in 2002-03 dollars). By 2002-03, the state's contribution per student had declined to $8,426, a drop of 21.6 percent.

Originally this year, $240 million in budget cuts were proposed. Student and faculty action to oppose the budget cuts was heard loudly and clearly at rallies, press conferences and media events. The CFA-sponsored Coalition to Save the CSU, which included CTA, appealed to businesses, civic groups, educators, alumni and others to help. Their efforts convinced the Legislature to make higher education a top priority. Travis credits the coalition's efforts with restoring more than $40 million to CSU campuses this year — providing enrollment funding for more than 6,000 students who otherwise would have been denied access — as well as preserving the Equal Opportunity Program, which provides outreach to poor and minority students, and the Cal Grant program, which offers state-sponsored monetary awards to help students with college expenses.

Still, he says, "the CSU may never recover from this budget crisis. Students, faculty and the coalition must continue to stand together to preserve the future of the CSU system."

CSU Chancellor Charles Reed and UC President Robert Dynes both signed "compacts" with the governor agreeing not to fight this year's budget cuts in exchange for a promise of future funding. The compacts set fee increases and minimum funding levels for six years, promising enrollment growth funding for 5,000 UC students and 8,000 CSU students in the fall of 2005. Critics note, however, that such agreements may be abandoned or underfunded if tough economic times continue.

"The compact was negotiated in secret and was viewed as 'a handshake, a wink and a nod' that included no actual guarantees that future higher education budgets, in fact, would be protected," notes Travis. "The 'promises' contained in the compacts are not legally enforceable."

Also threatened are California's community colleges, which play a critical role in both educating and training the state's workforce. Earlier this year, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released a report that shows California's community colleges are among the most poorly funded in the country. In 1999-2000, California ranked 45th out of 49 states in revenue spent per community college student. Put another way, California spent 23 percent less per community college student than does the country as a whole.

And although the community college system enrolls far more students than UC and CSU, it has steadily lost financial ground to them in recent decades. Between 1971 and 2000, per-student revenue increased 23 and 24 percent for UC and CSU, respectively, while community college revenue rose only 4 percent. The report concludes that the state simply places a higher priority on funding four-year colleges.

"California community colleges can no longer provide open access when we have to turn away students from our campuses, and when others cannot take core classes because they are closed," says Dián Hasson, a Butte Community College political science professor who represents higher education on the CTA Board of Directors. "I have a fundamental problem with this because our democracy depends on an educated citizenry. Equality doesn't mean a thing if people can't get the education they need to participate in our society."

Rising cost of college: There is an "invisible tragedy" taking place on campus, says Susan Meisenhelder, the immediate past president of CFA. An English teacher at CSU-San Bernardino, she is referring to the many students who are no longer enrolled because they had difficulty paying higher tuition. Some of them have dropped out, while others are taking a semester off to save money. She worries that many will not come back.

"The vast majority of our students work, and many of them work full time to go to school," says Meisenhelder. "Tuition increases may not seem like a huge amount of dollars for solidly middle-class folks, but it's an enormous difficulty for students who have to plan every penny that they spend."

Undergraduate fees at CSU have risen 71 percent since 2002. In June of this year, the CSU Board of Trustees passed a 14 percent student fee increase to close the $100 million gap brought about by a shortfall in state funding. In October, they voted to raise fees another 8 percent for full-time resident undergraduates and graduate students working on their teaching credentials and 10 percent for graduate students beginning in fall 2005.

For the 2004-05 year, resident full-time student fees are $2,334 per year. Students in teacher credentialing programs pay $2,706 per year, and other graduate students pay $2,820 a year. Nonresident students pay $10,170 a year.

In September, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education reported that the CSU's ability to provide affordable and accessible education to all qualified Californians "may be at risk."

Students are working longer hours to pay for tuition increases, which were approved midyear without time for students to plan ahead, observes Meisenhelder. "When they increase their work hours to pay tuition, it takes a real toll on academic progress. They don't have that much time left to study. People making major sacrifices to go to college in the first place have to jeopardize their success in order to be here. It's tragic to watch."

It's a similar story at UC and in the community colleges.

Undergraduate fees for residents went up 14 percent in the UC system to $5,754 per year. Resident graduate fees were increased by 20 percent to $6,269. Out-of-state tuition is now $22,710.

Over the past two years, community college fees have gone from $11 to $18 to $26 per unit, a 136 percent increase. Unfortunately, that money has gone into the state's general fund, not the community college budget.

The fee increases have prompted the chancellor's office to launch a new website [www.icanaffordcollege.com] to increase awareness of financial aid opportunities. Net college costs (tuition, room and board minus financial aid) for low- and middle-income students to attend community colleges represent nearly 40 percent of their annual family income.

Minority students cast adrift? Real progress has been made when it comes to increasing the percentage of minorities who qualify for admission to California's public universities. However, the latest round of budget cuts might jeopardize that progress.

"Diversity always suffers when economics is a factor," says Cecil Canton, a criminal justice professor at CSU-Sacramento who serves as chair of CFA's Affirmative Action Committee. "The first folks to feel the brunt are individuals who are not normally represented here — either socially, politically or economically." He is very proud of CFA's successful battle to maintain outreach programs that were originally on the chopping block.

A new "eligibility study" from CPEC reveals a significant increase in the percentage of Latino and African American high school graduates who qualify for admission to the state's public universities. In 1996, 2.8 percent of African American students met UC eligibility requirements; 6.2 percent qualified in 2003. For Latinos, the rate has grown from 3.8 percent to 6.5 percent.

Recently, however, UC regents voted to increase the minimum GPA required for UC eligibility from 2.8 to 3.0, effective for fall 2007 entering freshmen. Minority advocates say the new requirements will impact mostly students of color who are underrepresented to begin with. The decision was made because 14.4 percent of the state's public high school graduates were eligible for UC, whereas the master plan set the target at 12.5 percent. The changes will bring the numbers closer to the target set in 1960.

The 2 percent growth in UC eligibility should be seen as a positive sign, rather than a negative, says Maria Blanco, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco. "The 12.5 percent goal is 40 years old, and it was never a law — it was an ideal. We should have planned for growth instead of bringing it back down because too many kids are succeeding."

At CSU, the eligibility figures for African Americans have grown from 13.2 percent in 1996 to 18.6 percent in 2003. For Latinos, eligibility has grown from 13.4 percent to 16 percent.

With 53 percent of the system's students qualifying as minorities, CSU is the most diverse university system in the nation. The percentage of students of color enrolled is more than double the national average for four-year public universities. But that could change, since higher tuition fees are likely to have more of an impact on minorities who face economic challenges.

Minorities made up at least 54 percent of the enrollment at community colleges as of last spring. Their percentage has remained stable or increased slightly since the fall of 2001. The only group that has suffered a disproportionate decrease is white students, many of them 25 or older. However, it doesn't appear to be because of fee increases. Instead, says Vice Chancellor Patrick C. Perry, the drop in headcounts "is directly attributable to the losses in course section offerings due to volatile budgets."

Can the tide be reversed? "In the movie The Perfect Storm, the events were completely accidental," asserts Craig Flanery, a lecturer at CSU-Los Angeles who serves on the CFA Board of Directors. He refers to the true story about three storms that met at one central point, capsizing a fishing vessel that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. "But in this case, there's nothing accidental about what is happening. It was structured into the system.

"Look at how higher education is funded and the way the economy operates in a normal 10- or 20-year cycle. It isn't happening by accident. But that doesn't mean that it's not preventable. We don't have to go down with the ship."

California's public colleges and universities are considered the state's crown jewel and have a reputation as one of the best higher education systems in the world. Unfortunately, they are often seen as the "budget balancers" when economic times are tough. Balancing the budget on the backs of college students is a short-term, short-sighted solution that affects much more than colleges and their students. Every dollar put into a state university generates $5 in the state's economy, according to a 2001 study by the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

Higher education, once considered a luxury, is a necessity in today's job market. Instead of being viewed as a public expenditure, supporters say it should be considered an investment and valued for its ability to infuse billions of dollars into the California economy — as well as for its vital social, cultural and intellectual contributions.

"When the master plan was put in place 44 years ago, it was very ambitious and forward-thinking," says Blanco. "The vision in the '60s was that we could build the state economically and socially through education. There was a sense of optimism and hope. You don't feel that today — or sense that education has the same priority.

"We have a very different population today. We have a lot of immigrant kids and kids from poor families. What we have to do to get these kids college-bound is huge. But even though the students are different than they were in the '60s, the goal should be the same, because these students are our future."

"We are showing a dangerous lack of investment," she adds. A college degree not only increases earning power and enables people to pay taxes, it results in a corresponding drop in the need to provide social services like welfare. "When is the state going to wake up and understand that in order to be vibrant again economically, investing in students has got to be part of the formula?"