Search News


Browse Archives

News

California Calamity

May 21, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

For community colleges in the Golden State, things have gone from worse to worst.

The state’s 110 two-year institutions will lose about $825 million in funding over the next 13 months, said Scott Lay, president of the Community College League of California. He added that, of this large cut, $200 million will be trimmed in the next 45 days. This drastic funding cut comes thanks to the defeat of a series of budget proposals, on the ballot of Tuesday’s special election, which would have minimized cuts to public higher education and other state agencies.

“The last time community colleges saw funding like this was in 1982, before the Internet, the Americans With Disabilities Act and other costly measures,” Lay said.

Per-student funding will be reduced by around 11 percent, he said, forcing colleges around the state to turn away nearly 250,000 students in the coming year. Lay also noted that a “large number” of full- and part-time faculty members will be laid off because of these state cuts. Though he did not make an estimate for full-time faculty, he said he anticipated nearly 6,000 part-time faculty members will lose their jobs.

In one community college district struggling to plan Wednesday, there is hope that faculty layoffs may be avoided. Still, there is every expectation that courses will be slashed and students turned away in large numbers.

Constance M. Carroll, chancellor of the San Diego Community College District, said her district’s conservative budget approach has braced it for the worst of these state budget cuts and will protect current faculty. For instance, she noted that, unlike many other districts around the state, San Diego currently has no debt. Even still, her district will have to make some significant sacrifices in the coming year.

“One of our big-ticket reductions is being carried out through a hiring freeze,” Carroll said. “Our philosophy has been to bring our payroll down by attrition rather than layoff. So, about 117 positions are being defunded, and we expect to do the same amount next year. The worst thing you can do in any organization, especially in higher education, is to lay off people. It takes a whole generation of faculty and staff to recover. We’d rather take the most draconian measures possible to avoid laying off permanent staff.”

Most troubling of all for Carroll and other San Diego officials, these budget cuts will adversely affect the one constituency that they have been trying to shield throughout these tough economic times: students. Even before Tuesday’s vote, Carroll said, the district trimmed nearly 600 courses, despite a 10 percent jump in enrollment. As a result, about 8,000 students were left on waiting lists and did not get into any classes this year.

This summer, she continued, the district will cut about 200 courses; it will also have to cut somewhere between 400 and 600 more before the next academic year. As the state has capped the community college’s enrollment growth to 2 percent a year, Carroll estimated that nearly 9,000 students in her district will be left without any classes to take in the fall. While there are plenty of colleges that boast about how many students they reject, these numbers horrify educators at this district, who view the community college's mission as providing access to a diverse and often needy population.

“This is a horrendous period for time for us and a massive public policy failure for community colleges,” said Carroll, who strongly advocates that California change the way in which it funds two-year institutions.

Currently, California Community Colleges are entirely funded by state appropriations and tuition, which they are prohibited from raising. In many other states, community colleges may levy or ask voters to levy local property taxes to fund their operations. For these institutions, this third revenue stream often proves more fruitful than state appropriations. The recent budget crisis is California has stirred Carroll and others to push for the ability to seek alternative funding beyond state appropriation.

“If the state is not ready to fund community colleges, then they should release them to take the steps they need to obtain funding and serve the public,” Carroll said.

While faceless discussion of policy changes and strategic budget planning dominates at the district and state level, the intensely personal impact of these cuts can be felt on the ground among officials who deal with students daily.

“We have done everything possible to keep these budget cuts as far away from the classroom as possible, but now we are out of options,” said Rita M. Cepeda, president of San Diego Mesa College. “By law, we are an open access institution. But students will come to our campus now and seek to be enrolled and there will be no courses for them to take.”

Courses once considered essential offerings, such as those in the core curriculum offered to students seeking transfer to four-year institutions, will be among those to have sections cut, Cepeda said. Additionally, she noted that some programs with a set of sequential courses will no longer offer certain courses every semester, as in years past. She said these scheduling changes will force many students to delay their progress toward graduation, potentially stranding many before they reach their goal.

“Whereas, at the policy level, the answers might be a little cleaner; at the college level, we cannot give up on trying to find more extraordinary ways to serve our students,” Cepeda said. “Our faculty and staff are seeking ways to do more with less. We’re asking, ‘Can you teach Saturday morning?’ and ‘Can you teach more students?’ Even students themselves are offering more resources to one another. Many are now sharing books, for example.”

Many students have come to Cepeda’s office in recent weeks, she said, bemoaning that the college is not offering the “one course that they need” at a time when they can take it. Cepeda said she can only encourage the students to “not give up” and hold on to finish their degrees.

“Some of these students cry,” Cepeda said. “Sometimes I have to almost hold it in myself. But, not one of them leave irate. They all leave saying, ‘I understand.’ It’s a resiliency they have. They’re amazing. I tell them that the financial picture may be dark right now, but the future isn’t.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on California Calamity

  • Administration Cuts?
  • Posted by CC Prof on May 21, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • Why is there no mention in this article of cuts in the administration and staff? If they are going to have fewer students, then don't they need fewer administrators? Instead of cutting faculty and then turning away students, wouldn't it be better to drastically cut administrative and staff positions? Most colleges have become very fat at the administrative level over the last several decades. There are too many positions, and they frequently pay too well. College officers are now receiving car allowances and other perks. This phenomenon mirrors issues with compensation for corporate officers. When the financial sector melted down the top officers fired the workers and paid themselves bonuses. We will now see a repeat performance at our colleges. This is not in the public interest. Our students need more full-time faculty and fewer administrators.

  • Posted by Mike Burke , Asst professor, English at St Louis Community College on May 21, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • I think the California CC system is going to have to raise tuition--San Diego Mesa College charges 20 bucks a credit hour--not much, alas, considering the value received.

  • Broken system
  • Posted by Jonathan Burdick , Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid at University of Rochester on May 21, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • For a higher education system to respond to economic difficulties by seeking less business is revealing. The heavy in-state subsidies of desirable and expensive opportunities at California colleges--subsides which at the flagship campuses often accrue to the children of affluent families--have for too long defied market realities.

    Objectively, a UC Berkeley education for an in-state resident should cost at least as much as the University of Michigan costs a Michigander, and CSULB should charge at least as much as Florida State. Etc. The model in other states is to charge more accurate (though still heavily subsidized) prices for the proponderance of students who can afford it, while offering sufficient financial aid subsidies to the neediest. Here's hoping that the current crisis helps some smart California leader muster the political will to reform the current ludicrous situation.

  • Bailing out the Titanic
  • Posted by CACCProf , Professor, English at Decline to state on May 21, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • CCProf is correct. I teach in a California multi-college district; our 2005-08 revenues increased 13.88%; management salaries went up 16.24% while faculty salaries increased 11.25%. Recent management preparations for state mandated cuts slashed summer and fall sections costing hundreds of part-time faculty colleages their assignments. Yet non instructional furniture expenditures went up 342%!  Management vacancies are being filled.Management numbers have increased over 20% while "Management consultant" expenditures have gone up 101%.  Management complains about declining revenues yet feathers its own nest and cuts back on revenue-generating sections. Around the state faculty gets pink slips while managers get reassigned and keep drawing their salaries. How many vice-chancellors and deans does it take to bail out the Titanic?

    Legislators are no help either; they listen to CC League (management) and union hacks who parrot the same shibboleth: repeal Prop 13 and end the 2/3 budget approval requirement. Voters want solutions from the Legislature, blame for our short-sightedness unwillingness to pay more taxes by the likes of the unions and political parties and LA Times. Legislators are elected to generate solutions. Voters have told them time and again, via the Iniative process, to (using a cliche) think outside the box. Instead, they still are boxed into attacking taxpayers for their unwillingness to share their dollars and blaming us for limits placed upon them. We work within limitations like class size demands; why can't they generate solutions that solve the problem?

  • Market determines salary...
  • Posted by Administrator and Instructor on May 21, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • In response to the CC professor's comment, I'm not a big proponent of the "more administrators are better" scenario, however it is foolish to think that we can just eliminate certain perks and cut top administrators' salaries. There is a huge leadership gap occuring in recruiting and hiring senior executives throughout all of academia. They are already paid well below private sector executives (especially at community colleges) and work just as hard and long. Rather than advocating for less money for administrators, we should be advocating for more money for faculty. I'm sure if community college professors were offered a significant raise, they would not be complaining. I am both a part time CC instructor and full time 4-year institution administrator.

  • Eliminate Drop-Out Students
  • Posted by Taskmaster on May 21, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • Community colleges here in california need to filter their admissions to attract and retaiin more serious students. A Berkeley study found that 2/3 of students entering our community colleges do not return the next year. Most of enter with plans to transfer to a 4-year institution abandon those plans and either drop out or change to an easier curriculum. Instructors tell me that before a semester ends, more than half their classroom seats are empty because of dropouts.

    Let's focus our tax dollars on students who are motivated to work hard toward a career dream, not on passive, immature, lazy or pampered students who are easily distracted by immediate gratifications of a low-salaried job, romance, gangs, anything but having to study. Some may say that this is the population that community colleges have to work with, but with a 2/3 drop-out rate, community colleges need to improve their plan and in so doing would save major dollars.

  • Markets and Salaries
  • Posted by CC Prof on May 21, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • I would like to respond to the following comment from that appeared above:

    "In response to the CC professor's comment, I'm not a big proponent of the "more administrators are better" scenario, however it is foolish to think that we can just eliminate certain perks and cut top administrators' salaries. There is a huge leadership gap occuring in recruiting and hiring senior executives throughout all of academia. They are already paid well below private sector executives (especially at community colleges) and work just as hard and long. Rather than advocating for less money for administrators, we should be advocating for more money for faculty. I'm sure if community college professors were offered a significant raise, they would not be complaining. I am both a part time CC instructor and full time 4-year institution administrator."

    First, what does it mean to say that markets determine salaries? Does that mean that what people are getting is what they should be paid because the market determined it? So, everybody is being paid what they should be paid?

    Second, we hear about a leadership gap, but this reminds me of the bomber gap and the missile gap from the cold war. Those gaps didn't exist. Neither does this one. If you want more "leaders," then hire some people and give them opportunities to lead. If they can't do it, then replace them. This nonsense that college presidents must have previous college president experience, etc. needs to stop. This is the same nonsense we hear from CEO's in defense of their truly outrageous pay. They say that there is a very limited pool of top executives. Nonsense. There are a multitude of managers who could fill their shoes, but they don't want us to believe that because then their pay would not be justified.

    Third, the comparison to the private sector is misleading. The private sector is firing like mad right now. Does that mean the same should happen in the public sector? Also, why assume that private sector executives are not overcompensated? Of course, one would assume this if the market determines compensation, but then public college executives would be paid what they should be paid because the market determined that as well. The commentator can't have it both ways. If the market determines pay, then college administrators can't also be underpaid.

    Fourth, the community college executives and administrators I know are gone by five and never come in on weekends. I know this because I come in on weekends frequently. So, I don't think that they work as long and as hard as private sector executives, but as I mentioned before that is a flawed analogy.

    Fifth, the suggestion that faculty should be paid more is a red herring, if not disingenuous. How could faculty be paid more right now with such horrible budget situations around the country? My point was that there is fat at the administrative levels, and cuts there could save some faculty positions. (It is the faculty who actually teach the students.) It is a fantasy to believe that calls for higher pay for faculty are going to be answered. Also, such a suggestion from the administration is laughable because college administrations have been replacing full-time faculty with part-time faculty for decades now. This replacement has had the effect of reducing the average compensation for faculty over time, and this has been happening during a time when administrative salaries and perks have increased.

    To suggest that it is foolish to attempt to cut costs at the upper echelon of public education while costs are being cut drastically at the faculty level is exactly the sort of incredulous indignation displayed by America's CEO's when it is pointed out to them that they probably really don't deserve all that they are getting.

    I say that it is time to cut compensation and positions at the upper echelon of public higher education, and if the suggestion is that administrators will leave for the private sector, then I wish them good luck. The private sector is not exactly hiring robustly at the moment. It is simply wrong to think that these college administrators, on average, could find a better position in the private sector in today's economy.

  • Posted by Adjunct George on May 21, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • You can view it as a calamity or as an opportunity. This will let the CC's focus on education instead on such things as community Hip-Hop dance classes. Use the time to satsfy the real educational needs instead of desires and fun classes. Do a top to bottom scrub of the offerings instad of the fluff items I see in the CC catalogues I get mailed to me 3 times each year (another wasteful item.) Stop whining and begin earning your paychecks by making difficult decisions.

  • Times have changed & administrative pay is artificially high!
  • Posted by Julie , private sector at private sector on May 21, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • Holding the public hostage by claiming pay levels and perks administrators receive are justified by the need to match the private sector are no longer valid. Private sector jobs are disappearing en masse, perks dropped and paycuts the norm. It is time for the bloated salaries of educational administrators to be reevaluated and brought in line with the stark realities of our economy.

  • Inflated benes and salaries
  • Posted by Jay on May 21, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • I am with Julie and CACCProf here. Having worked in both private sector and in Ca.'s higher education system , I can attest that the state-run system has no concept of tightening its belt. While private companies suspend their 401 matching, the Calpers system matches sometimes as high as 3x the employee contribution. The system is unlike no other in its retirement benes where employees with only 5 years of tenure can retire with health insurance for life. Moreover, retirees are leaving with guarntees of 75-100% of their salaries for life. No private sector company is doing that. I also observed continuing salary increases to "compete" with the private sector. Evryone who works in the system knows the salaries are at partity or higher than private sector and, when combined with the multiple retirement shelters and entitlement benes, actually exceed any corporate plan. Too bad the voters in CA aren't being told about these rich deals and that reductions in student services, emergency services and class availability are being used as a scare tactic by administrators and employee unions that are raping the state taxpayers and students.

  • Not Cushy for California State Faculty
  • Posted by CSU Prof on May 21, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • The compromise that civil service offers, exemplified in the CSU system and to a lesser degree in UC, is lower salaries than in the private sector but with more benefits. A full professor in CSU might make $90 K a year, but over at a nearby small liberal arts college (with less publication expectations) the yearly pay is around $120K. Tenured faculty have more job security than in the private sector colleges and are probably subject to less arbitrary decisions and firings than in the private schools, but please don't begrudge us our health benefits or continued salary after retirement. We've already paid for it through lower salaries for decades. 

    If you want to compare state university professor salaries with private sector physicians, business executives,  or attorneys of equivalent educational attainment, then my case is even stronger. We could have made a lot more money going into those other graduate programs at career's start, and arranged our own health and retirement plans without having worry about the future fiscal security of California.

  • What retirement benes?
  • Posted by ucprof , Assistant prof music at University of California, Irvine on May 21, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • Jay, from whence comes your info? The governor and Legislature have cut $20 million allocation from the employer’s share of retirement contributions. The UC retirement plan has been living off of investments for almost 20 years!

  • administrator pay
  • Posted by california ccdean on May 21, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • I have a terminal degree and 20+ years of experience in teaching and administration. A faculty member with the same credentials on a 225-day contract (equivalent to my 12-month contract) will make $9,000 more per year than I do. And that doesn't include any overloads or summer teaching, which could easily add another $9,000-12,000 to the faculty member's pay.

  • Get real
  • Posted by Past CC Instructor at none on May 22, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • I have taught in both the CC system, in private colleges and in the state college system. I am now an attorney. College professors and instructors need to get real. Your salaries, at least in California are "way out of whack" compared to the "business world" salaries. You have benefits that far surpass anything you will find in the private sector. Your work hours don't come close to comparison and you are protected by a tenure system that protects many who should not have the protection. I know that none of you will agree with me, but I have been where you are and you have it GREAT. Most of you are excellent teachers, but some of you are not and you should not still be there. Most of you understand the system and why there are administrators, but some of you maintain the "them and us" mentality that only hurts the institution and the students. Most of you are dedicated and serve the students and make them the focal point of the educational system, but many of you think you are the focal point of the system. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the people who "foot" the bill for you are tired of doing it and listening to you complain constantly about your salaries. You need to help reform a broken system to get the "dead wood" out. Until the tenure system is revamped and the salaries brought into line, your institutions are at risk of not being properly funded. Each time a client calls your office and is told that you leave at 3:00 p.m. or you don't have classes or office hours on Fridays, or you don't show up for a class, or you dismiss a class early, or you lecture from the same notes for the last 10 years, and any other number of "perks" that come with teaching at the college level, you create further dissatisfaction with the taxpayer that pays your salaries. As I stated in the beginning of this "rant". You need to get real.

  • Ok, CC Prof,
  • Posted by DFS on May 22, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • I'll try to understand your post.

    There should be "cuts in the administration and staff" because "most colleges have become very fat at the administrative level over the last several decades"?

    Where are your trustees when you assert that "when the financial sector [in the real world] melted down the top officers fired the workers and paid themselves bonuses. We will now see a repeat performance at our colleges"?

    I agree that "our students need more full-time faculty and fewer administrators."

    This is why I am confused about you:
    "Second, we hear about a leadership gap, but this reminds me of the bomber gap and the missile gap from the cold war. Those gaps didn't exist. Neither does this one."

    Wrong! They did exist, and they were the only reason why the Left opposed repairing them. Leave the histrionics aside. When these gaps were repaired, we won. Deal with it.

    And, "The private sector is firing like mad right now. Does that mean the same should happen in the public sector? Also, why assume that private sector executives are not overcompensated?" Gee, I don't know for sure, but aren't public jobs required to be 'fired' when rendered unnecessary or obsolete?" After all, it is the Public which owns these jobs.

    Also "I don't think that they [community college executives and administrators] work as long and as hard as private sector executives, but as I mentioned before that is a flawed analogy." After all, you travel, I guess to your office to work on the weekends. Perhaps they, as do I, work also from home? You don't even allow this possibility. Long live the Proletariat!

    "Flawed analogy" is only relevant when your analogy is not flawed.

    Finally, "administrations have been replacing full-time faculty with part-time faculty for decades now. This replacement has had the effect of reducing the average compensation for faculty over time" means that -- so unfairly -- adminstrators have 'benefited' (at the sacrifice of who knows what) -- instead of us full-time faculty). Unions of the World unite!

    What a whiner.

  • Response to DFS
  • Posted by CC Prof on May 22, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Why is it whining to ask for full-time work? Would you be satisfied with part-time work? Some people are, but many people working part-time would like to work full-time. Why is it whining to want benefits with a job, including access to affordable health insurance? Just because you call it whining doesn't make it so.

    By the way, the community colleges in my state don't have unions, don't have tenure, full-time faculty teach 6 courses per semester, and faculty are not paid particularly well. We do have health coverage, but we will be paying about $500 a month to cover our families next year. But I was not discussing any of that in my post. I was simply pointing out that administration jobs in higher ed are too numerous, are full-time with good pay and benefits and that many faculty positions are not full-time.

    Finally, if you really think that there was a bomber gap and a missile gap and the "window of vulnerability," then you are deluded. We did not win the Cold War because we closed these non-existent gaps or windows. We won the Cold War because communism is an unsustainable social and economic system. It collapsed on itself while we contained it. That was our policy and it worked. I don't understand why conservative thinkers argue that communism could only be defeated by external events. That line of thinking undermines the more serious argument that communism is simply a bad and unworkable social philosophy.

  • CC Prof.
  • Posted by DFS on May 26, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • And the reasons communism still exists (Cuba, North Korea, China) is because . . .?