Search News


Browse Archives

News

'No Good Options'

May 18, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Seldom have higher education officials lobbied so hard for something that may not be in their ultimate best interest, but these are strange days in California.

As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger laid out dire budget cuts for the state Thursday, based on updated (and deteriorating) financial conditions, leaders of the state’s two university systems renewed calls for voters to pass a series of ballot measures that will minimize the cuts. But at least one of the measures is viewed by critics as something of a Faustian bargain, securing tax revenues in the near term while capping potential appropriations for colleges and universities in the long run.

California State University Chancellor Charles Reed has pledged his support for all of the ballot measures, but he conceded in a news release that “there are no good options.” The question of which is the worst, however, remains a matter of debate.

The severity of cuts for state agencies, including colleges and universities, will be significantly less -- while still painful -- if Californians approve six ballot measures Tuesday, according to Schwarzeneger. If the measures fail, California will have to trim $21.3 billion from its budget, compared with $15.4 billion if they pass, the governor said Thursday.

Of the six ballot measures Californians will vote on Tuesday, the first has become the most contentious in higher education circles. Proposition 1A extends for two years a recently enacted tax increase, which would bolster university coffers. At the same time, however, the measure caps future state funding. The cap stands to put a permanent chokehold on higher education by limiting future spending to the state’s existing tax base, according to the California Faculty Association, which represents 23,000 faculty and other employees at California State.

The divisions over Proposition 1A aren’t just within California State University, where the leadership’s position differs from that of the union. Also taking opposite sides are the California Faculty Association, which is affiliated with the National Education Association and the American Association of University Professors, and the California Teachers Association, an NEA-affiliated union which represents 340,000 education employees, including community college professors.

The two unions have joined forces in years past, opposing proposed caps on state spending. Loyalties changed, however, when Proposition 1B was put on the ballot. That measure would restore $9.3 billion to K-12 schools and community colleges so long as Proposition 1A passes, thereby earning the California Teachers Association's support.

“This time the governor bought off K-14 with a second proposition, so the whole thing is this delicately balanced effort to divide the voices,” said Lillian Taiz, statewide president of the California Faculty Association.

The CTA says it supports the measures for reasons larger than its parochial interests. The proposals stand to "stop California's economic decline" and "hold politicians accountable" by prohibiting pay raises for lawmakers in budget deficit years, according to the union.

Proposition 1A’s supporters , which include the Community College Association, say that failure to pass the measure will lead to $16 billion in total cuts to education. That potential cut is but a piece, however, of the troubling outcome higher education leaders predict if the ballot measures aren't approved.

For the University of California, revised budget scenarios suggest cuts for 2009-10 will total $322 million, or 10 percent, if the ballot measures fail. Even if the measures pass, university officials expect $240 million in cuts.

As for California State, officials there anticipate a cut of $410 million, or 10 percent, if the measures fail, compared with $292 million if voters approve the measures.

For community colleges, budget reductions are expected to total $939.9 million if the measures fail, as opposed to $758.8 million if they pass. Constance Carroll, chancellor of the San Diego Community College District, issued a statement Friday that said the college is "sailing into a gathering storm." The bleakest budget scenario laid out by the governor could eliminate enrollment growth completely for the college in the next academic year, Carroll wrote.

Despite the dire projections for colleges and universities, voters appear to have little appetite for the ballot measures, according to recent polls. Indeed, only measure 1F, which would freeze lawmakers' salaries in budget years, has majority support, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Program Cuts, Layoffs on Table

Leaders of California universities, already fatigued from cuts this year, anticipate more painful choices ahead given budget projections. The University of California, which has already reduced freshman enrollment targets by 2,300 students, is considering further reductions. Cuts in academic programs, mental health services and pay cuts or furloughs for employees are also possibilities.

For California State, the worst case budget scenario of a $410 million reduction would be the equivalent of reducing enrollment by 50,000 students or laying off between 4,000 and 5,000 employees, according to a news release.

Steve Dixon, vice chairman of external affairs for the California State Student Association, said students are growing weary of paying more and getting less.

“I put a lot of blame on the Legislature, which has just completely and utterly failed to fund higher education in the way they have promised [they would] for decades,” said Dixon, a student at Humboldt State University.

The student association, which represents 450,000 California State students, has not taken a public position on the ballot measures. While the measures have the potential to lessen the blow to higher education this year, it’s difficult to cheerlead for proposals that don’t address the root of California’s problems, Dixon said.

“Most people who are supporting 1A and 1B, they are holding their nose and doing it,” he said. “This is really a temporary fix to an institutional problem.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on 'No Good Options'

  • Posted on May 18, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • Of course great cost reductions would be realized if full time faculty significantly increased their teaching load and reduced their other activities.  A teaching load of just 15 hours a week along with eliminating classes with very small enrollments would produce a great reduction in the cost of college.  

  • Really?!
  • Posted on May 18, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • The previous comment demonstrates a complete ignorance of the Cal State system. It's actually an offensive suggestion. Most of the 23 campuses in the Cal State system require professors to teach 4 classes per semester, while still maintaining a full research and scholarly program, as well as advising and other administrative responsibilities. The CSUs are notorious for overworking faculty, junior faculty in particular, who spend so much time prepping new classes at the expense of their professional development. In the four years I worked in that system I never worked less than 60 hours a week, and never had a weekend that wasn't interrupted. And no, I did not have "summers off"; all faculty end up using summers and breaks to do their research and writing, since it's impossible to devote much time to that during the academic year. And by the way, expanded class sizes is how both the UC and CSU systems dealt with the last 3 recessions; they can't get any bigger without new buildings to house ever expanding class sizes. On a related note, who are these idiots who keep trolling IHE and making comments so utterly antagonistic toward faculty?

  • What if?
  • Posted by tom on May 18, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • We have gone from a basic 6th grade education to a 12th grade education to a 16th grade education for employment. (well, maybe 14th). Never-the-less no one has looked seriously at the difference in qualifications for faculty teaching at each step or level. What is the difference between a 12th grade teacher and a grade 13 level teacher? In point of fact, should the requirements for promotion and tenure be different, if so, why, if not, why are they not changed and thus, the teaching loads in the Cal system should be levelized between secondary school and grades 13-16. In effect, we do this with TA's, adjuncts and the effect due to the ability to transfer credits between secondary and post secondary institutions.

    We need to understand that many secondary school faculty have advanced degrees and other qualifications equal to, or even greater than those teaching in the grade 13-16 system.

    The second issue is overhead and the expectations of the difference between secondary and post secondary programs. Yet, globally, these differences are disappearing and the focus is more on obtaining the necessary skills with other elements becoming almost superfluous given that many students need to work and can't take advantage of a system built on a different social scenario.

    Yes, costs in post secondary are out of control because of the attempt to maintain a model of desire and history rather than pragmatics and demand.

    The entrance of courses from providers such as Straighterline and the recently launched Univ of the People point out that obtaining knowledge need not suffer the fiscal burden imposed by systems being maintained out of tradition and not the practice of the time, be it in the developing or developed world.

  • Posted by hs on May 18, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • As one who has since 2002 been an adjunct in both the CSU and UC systems, I can say that without question CSU has done far more with less than UC. And, I say this with great sympathy for UC faculty, for the glaring problem is not with them or their course loads but with an administration that is strangling the universities they purport to serve. Teaching in departments of comparative size and structure, I routinely see three to four times as many administrative staff at UC, who for the most part seem to work in a parallel universe to students, faculty, and adjuncts alike, and who seem to have no awareness of any educational mission, much less interest in one. Small, routine problems that at CSU are resolved in a day or even less routinely take a week at UC, going through multiple layers of authority and often are poorly resolved if at all. Class sizes are larger. Adjuncts are ill-treated compared to at CSU. The dreadful irony is that the upper eschelons of this administrative body, the very individuals whose mismanagement and misplaced priorities have allowed it to bloat, are now the ones charged with returning the system to health. The first place to look for cuts should be within their ranks, not faculty who are now reduced to voluntarily disconnecting their office telephones to save costs (this is the case at at least four UC campuses). Reducing administration to levels comparable to CSU would free up millions that could help both systems, and within that lower cost basis, perhaps even allow some other improvements, such as hiring adjuncts full time as lecturers, and returning both systems to the serious, hands-on business of education.

  • Really?!
  • Posted by DFS on May 18, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • I'm reminded of the All Fruit commercial where the woman has the Vapors when someone asks to "please pass the jelly."

    Let's ask the faculty to perhaps work past 2 O'clock p.m. and re-use the existing classrooms.

    Let's ask the faculty to conduct one class at night for the same reasons.

    Let's ask the faculty to hold one more office hour per day, over the week. Perhaps then they will actually see at least one more of their assigned advisees.

    Let's ask the faculty to work a little more, at the expense of their schmoozing on the internet.

    Then, and only then, should the Faculty put their feet down.

    Then, I will defend faculty. Else, you are just patricians.

  • Posted by CSU prof on May 18, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • The issue is not a problem of expanding teaching load to staff more courses. WE could do that already by instituting a Big-U system of lecture classes of 150-250 students. We don't have the graduate student cohorts to serve as TAs, but if raising the student-faculty ratio is the key, there's a solution. Even better, let's develop more online courses, because there's no classroom limit. Instructors don't have to lecture, so pre-prepared texts could be uploaded for students, and an expert scholar isn't needed. Videos and Powerpoint slideshows will fill the time and can be used repeatedly, saving costs. 

    The profound teacher-student discussions in "chat rooms" may get unwieldy with hundreds of students logging in, but most will vanish soon enough when they realize that no one knows they are there. It's not much of an education, but it's cheap, and there's few enough jobs out there for "graduates" anyway.

  • Re: if ignorance is bliss . . .
  • Posted by Peter C. herman , Professor, Department of English and Comparative Literature at San Diego State University (a CSU) on May 18, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Then some of those who have posted critical comments about CSU faculty must be among the happiest people in the world. I wonder if they have any first-hand knowledge of what they are talking about, or whether they are simply using this article as an excuse to vent their hatred of all academics. The problem, as so many have pointed out, is that as demand for entry to the CSU has increased, funding has been continuously reduced. The result is ever-increasing reliance on part-time faculty (since there is no hiring), ballooning class sizes (in my department, upper-division English literature classes are expected to have between 45-70 students), and decreasing support for research and the library. Granted, our administration is not always friendly toward faculty. Reed openly and unapologetically referred to CSU faculty as "workhorses" (and to UC faculty as "showhorses--the man is evidently fond of equestrian metaphors). But he is right to warn of disastrous consequences if and when more cuts have to be made. Asserting that all problems would be solved if only the faculty were not so lazy is pure fantasy, and a hateful one at that.

  • Posted on May 18, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • Well, I am going to agree and disagree a bit with both posters. On Post #1, faculty nationally pursue a program of teaching, research, and service because they are mandated to do so. There is a huge amount of time wasted in authoring grants that likely will never be funded at wanna-be research institutions. These are written because their wanna-be administrators seek to look good in increasing "research productivity." The administrators who do this really could care less about the research, their faculty, or the practicality of doing this at institutions that were constructed mainly to serve regional student bodies. The administrators are looking only to build their reputations on the backs of others so that they can move on to another campus for a more important-sounding job title and higher salary. Much "service" is mindless committee work where committees that accomplish nothing of substance meet ritually whether there is need or not. In a few of the worst-run institutions, these committees serve as places where administrators offload their work onto faculty. If faculty could  have 15 contact hours, devote themselves to teaching, do scholarship that interests them,and not be flogged by administrators into wasting time on other things, most would be happy to focus on that. Faculty & students would be better for it.

    On poster #2, I have to agree that there are bottom feeders who post to this site with axes to grind with education in general. They basically don't like people who think or have the courage to say no to stooging for either of our idiotic major political parties. 

    On my disagreement, this comes from working for private schools, state schools and systems east, west, midwest, and the People's Republic of California, I've seen no place where faculty are better treated and better supported than in the Cal State Campuses.. Granted, part-timer and adjuncts are truly exploited--but not so cruelly at Cal State as I've seen elsewhere. There are many places Cal State faculty could go for a sabbatical in hell that would make that them grateful for what they have. Faculty in Cal State who are the biggest whiners are CLUELESS about what their colleagues face in other states.

  • Dire Economic Straits for California
  • Posted by J. Angelo Corlett, Ph.D. , Professor of Philosophy & Ethics at San Diego State University on May 18, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT
  • As a California native and a proud faculty member at one of its largest universities, it saddens me that we are experiencing such difficulties. I am a philosopher-ethicist, and I do not have expertise in economics such that I can offer intelligent advice concerning the solution to our economic woes. I wish that I had such expertise. And while I lack expertise in economics, I do know how to identify bad or unfair proposals and arguments when I see them.

    I find that professor Peter Herman's words are on target, and that there are no easy solutions to this complex set of difficulties facing us. Blaming much of the problems on university faculty is not the right solution, and smacks of a kind of anti-intellectualism that has pervaded this country since its foundation. It is by and large based on ignorance of what university-level faculty excellence amounts to. That kind of attitude is an embarrassment to humanity everywhere. And it has no place in any serious discussion of problems in higher education.

    However, one thing is relatively certain: while some college and university faculty are under-productive, most are productive and in various ways that make a genuine positive difference to their respective colleges and universities they serve and to the State of California more generally. And in case one is tempted to think that we ought to get rid of the unproductive faculty, this is only a fair solution if we wander through every other workplace (or at least public ones)and fire the underproductive employees. This includes politics, police and fire departments, and all other public employees. So unless one is willing to go to such lengths, having established a fair manner by which to measure productivity, then such talk is impractical.

    As a faculty member at a university that considers itself to be (among other things) research-oriented, the quality of the content of my teaching is highly, if not wholly, dependent on the quality of the content of my research. Insofar as this is true, then it is my professional duty to do what I can to balance the profesisonal obligations of research, teaching and service. And if I am already putting in an average of 60+ hours a week year-round toward such activities, I find it a bit disengenuous of anyone to suggest that faculty (as if we are all the same) ought to teach more than we do currently, or to devote even more time to seeing students. Why is there often a presumption that research-oriented faculty do not care about teaching and seeing students?Such comments or implications are based on a lack of knowledge of what university faculty in general do under normal conditions. There are faculty who devote more to teaching than they do to research, and vice-versa. But all in all, it seems to me that most faculty are devoted to higher education in various and meaningful ways.

    Having dispelled the rumor that faculty in general need to become more productive, perhaps it is time that we for the time being adopt a temporary measure of faculty hiring freezes, along with staff and administrative ones (In fact, these meausres have already been implemented on various campuses). Perhaps we (faculty in general) need to for the time being teach even greater numbers of larger courses or such, something that in general is not optimal for the higher educational learning process. If these are truly temporary measures (but there is guarantee that they would be), then I would support them, and have insofar as I volunteer to teach large sections of an undergraduate GE course every year.

    But it just might be that PART of the solution to our problem is what I have heard is a large part of the solution to the national economic crisis. Perhaps PART of the problem in CA is to raise taxes slightly in order to begin to get back on track. If so, then which taxes, and how much should they be raised? The difficulty is how to do this fairly. And this is itself an ethical problem that takes us afield from what I had in mind for this note.

    I wish us well in resolving these problems. They need to be resolved fairly and as quickly as reasonableness permits. Then we can get back, I hope, to being the strongest and greatest state in the country, as we used to be once upon a time. And I hope that my cautious optimism is not misplaced.

    Best to you all!

  • The Situation is more Complex Than Education Alone
  • Posted by Lawrence McHargue , Professor of Botany Emeritus at Vanguard University of Southern California on May 19, 2009 at 5:00am EDT
  • The situation in California is far more complex than overspending on education.  It does little good to blame those in education for all of the woes of the state.  There is undoubtedly waste in education, as there is in any activity of a corporate nature.  It appears to me that many or most of those who will vote against the measures on tomorrow's ballot will do so because they have come to the conclusion that taxation levels have either reached, or are very near, intolerable levels. Many believe that the state government has been grossly irresponsible in spending.  The state legislature has consistently voted to increase expenditures at a rate that has exceeded expanded tax revenues.  The voters have passed many bond issues over the years that have committed the state to spend large sums. Many of these were worthwhile, but now we cannot afford to service the debt.  Many voters are now convinced that the state has failed to deliver services that are commensurate with rates of spending.  Tax rates are now so high that some are leaving the state.  Indeed, I know some who have already done so, and I know others who are considering leaving. There is a wide spread perception that our legislature either does not understand business or, even worse, they are antagonistic to it.  Many employers have left the state and taken their jobs with them.  All of this is coming together with a level of resentment against the government of the State of California that I have never before seen in my lifetime.  If the measures are defeated, drastic cuts will be made with major impact on education and other areas as well.  Reductions in budgets of various state agencies that might have been made incrementally over many years will implemented all at once.  It will only be a bit less severe if the measures pass.  That will be painful, and there will be gnashing of teeth.  I cannot predict the outcome, but I do know that there is no easy answer to the economic, and difficult times lie ahead for the State of California.