Search News


Browse Archives

News

A No-Risk Tuition Increase?

June 15, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

California's community colleges could soften the projected blow to their budget by tripling tuition with no net impact on most students, says a new report by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.

Released last Thursday, the report comes on the heels of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's May revision to the state budget, which proposes to slash nearly $700 million from the community colleges' 2009-10 budget.

In-state residents currently pay $20 per course credit, making California the cheapest state in the nation in which to attend community college. A typical class is three or four credits, totaling $60 to $80. According to the report, state and federal financial aid would offset tuition increases of up to $60 per credit.

According to the report, 90 percent of the state's community college students would qualify for either a tuition waiver or a full or partial tax offset to their tuition (which in California is referred to as "fees"). For example, the Board of Governors' waiver program waives tuition for all California residents who demonstrate financial need. A single parent with one child could earn up to $80,000 annually and still qualify for a full waiver, the report states.
The majority of those who do not qualify for the waivers are eligible for federal tax benefits that cover all or part of their tuition, according to the report. The federal American Opportunity Credit, for instance, reimburses up to $2,500 in tuition payments and textbook costs.

Should community colleges charge $60 per course credit, they would generate an additional estimated $500 million, according to the report.

Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for the California Community Colleges, said that in light of shrinking student incomes and course offerings, the colleges are considering a moderate increase of between $2 to $6 per credit, which would pull in an estimated $30 to $75 million.

However, a heightened cost of up to $60 would "undoubtedly have a harsh impact on student enrollment," Carbaugh said. She pointed to the 2002-03 and 2004-05 school years, during which tuition increased twice and community college enrollment dropped by about 300,000.

But other factors besides the tuition hikes explain those enrollment declines, says Paul Steenhausen, a senior fiscal and policy analyst at the Legislative Analyst's Office and the author of the report. For example, beginning in 2002 the legislature cracked down on concurrent enrollment, wherein some districts were illegally counting high school student-athletes as community college students.

Andrew Gillen, research director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, said raising tuition in California is "probably a reasonable response to a tough situation that they're facing." Yet, he said, the report's suggestion to offset increased tuition by filing for tax benefits may seem intimidating -- especially to inexperienced students.

"Even if they do a good job explaining that they're raising tuition, but (the students) get it back when they file taxes through the (American Opportunity Credit), some students are still going to be scared off by sticker shock," he said.

Bridgette Moody, a 19-year-old attending Pasadena City College in southern California, said she could not afford a per-course credit price tag of much higher than $20, much less $60. And even if she were to be reimbursed by tax credits in the spring, she says, she would still be unable to front the increased costs in the fall.

Moody, who is living with a friend and working part-time to pay for virtually all her college costs, says she has filed for financial aid, but has not received it for reasons unknown to her. To that end, she says the report's plan doesn't make sense for her or her classmates: "I know sometimes when they say, 'You can get it back in taxes,' they make it all super complicated and make you jump through all these hoops. Some people even give up and don't bother trying to get it back, or don't understand what they're asking."

"In this day and age," Moody said, "they make it almost impossible for almost anybody to get work without education -- but make it super difficult to get the education."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A No-Risk Tuition Increase?

  • Posted by Pennsylvanian on June 15, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • I paid $33 a credit to attend a CC in Pennsylvania in 1988. I used Stafford loans to pay for tuition and fees.

    When I was eventually admitted to an Ivy grad program in the 1990s, I discovered that 2 of the 3 "full-ride" fellowships went to California graduates. I discovered they paid next-to-nothing for their undergrad educations *AND* they didn't have to pay a thing for their grad degrees either. It was eye-opening considering how much in loans I had to use for my own education.

    Californians really do need to realize how privileged they have been to have access to incredibly cheap higher education for all these decades. It's time their children pay a bit more of a competitive entrance fee to get it now.

    That CC in Pennsylvania I attended? I think it's now close to $200 a credit...ten times the current fee per credit in California. If enrollment drops, then so be it; it'll just be a few less remedial English or Math classes taught by exploited adjuncts.

  • Posted by another comment on California on June 15, 2009 at 7:00am EDT
  • So many comments I have read during these economic difficulties seem to be made in anger, pointing fingers at this one or that group who seems to have gotten a better deal somehow, AND NOW IT'S TIME for them to lose that good deal (the good deal that somehow the one pointing fingers didn't get in on). I think in olden days, CCNY was free, and I myself didn't get to go there, and NOW IT'S TIME for the grandchildren of those folks to pay up. Like--why? What did the grandchildren do to deserve this? Tuition everywhere used to be as cheap as in California (Iowa State was $97 per quarter, when I went there), and NOW IT'S TIME for our children to take out loans big enough to pay for a house or car just for a 4-year degree? I don't think it is appropriate to point fingers and complain about anyone else's good luck or demand that their good fortune be taken away somehow, so they can be bad off too.

    And a system wherein the partiipants have to upfront the money and hope to get it back off in the future sometime is hard to get into and hard to work with--where does one get that first upfront money, and will the payback come in time to front the tuition for second semester? It doesn't look like it to me. I think the students would have to front the money for the whole year, and hope for their tax refunds in the springtime, or anyway after second semester had started.

  • net net
  • Posted by Steve , parent on June 15, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • Am I very dumb? this story indicates to me that the college raise the price because the state pays less to the colleges then the state takes the money they saved and pays it back to the students for a net increase in revenue of almost zero to the state. the only folks I see getting a benefit are all the folks who get the jobs processing the mountain of paper work and the big losers are going to be the students who need to spend the time they should be spending on their studies doing silly paperwork. Is this how America became great?

  • Steve,
  • Posted by DFS on June 15, 2009 at 12:31pm EDT
  • I hear you. It is my firm opinion -- if you read back over your post, with all of its necessary qualifiers -- that America became great before the educrats, bureaucrats, and lawyers took over every aspect of the educational system, and as we now see, all of society itself.

    We are therefore in decline, now, since government, believe it or not, is waxing.

    God help us.

  • Posted by Adjunct George on June 15, 2009 at 9:15pm EDT
  • I am a California resident and university adjunct. A major problem is that the junior colleges emphasize classes other than academic or vocational classes. For example, ballet is nice but is it necessary? Home repair of computers is nice but is it necessary? Look at the community college offerings and see which classes can be dropped without harming society. Do a praeto list and then start cutting to save money. Stop complaining and start doing the work for which you have been hired.

  • Adjunct George ...
  • Posted by ccinstructor on June 17, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • Adjunct George wrote: "A major problem is that the junior colleges emphasize classes other than academic or vocational classes."

    You're repeating one of the lies and misconceptions that people have about the CCs. Truth is, that vast majority of courses taught at community colleges are transfer-level core program courses or vocational / technological training. The "yoga and basket-weaving" type community interest courses are typically non-credit and do not receive FTES funding from the state. As many CCs have already cut their budgets this past year by a good 10%, don't you think non-core courses have been thoroughly scrutinized and eliminated?

    ...And by the way, since when have the fine arts been non-essential? Doesn't your university also offer ballet?

  • Posted by Eric on August 29, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • I agree we should debate these subjects without anger. The prior poster was clearly irritated by the burden he took on while fellow students from California received a free ride. Unfortunately, California's financial woes are making the news daily. Yet, the citizens of California continue to view as entitlements many things which the rest of the country knows are privileges. If your state is finacially able to provide such services, then it is a wonderful perk. However, California is acting like our fellow citizens who took out massive home loans they couldn't afford and then walked away. I think it's no surprise many of these same folks lived in California. When I read your statement explaining that you paid $97 a quarter at Iowa State, I wondered how much time has passed since then. Incomes changed drastically over the last 40-50 years. Think about the difference in housing costs for example. Bottom line, Californians need to start taking personal responsibility for the mess their state is in. Some folks have stated their state has been victimized by the cost associated with illegal aliens. Well many of California's elected officials pander to such groups and their advocacates who act as willing accomplices. Take personal responsibility Californians and vote the scoundrels out!