Gov. Brown’s recent plans to improve UC, CSU meet criticism

Gov. Jerry Brown recently released new performance targets for the University of California and California State University, though UC officials have said the proposals would not be feasible for the University to undertake.

Brown’s newly updated plan for higher education would require universities to be more efficient and streamline students through the system, promising up to $511 million over the next four years in return, said H.D. Palmer, deputy director for external affairs for the California Department of Finance.

Brown’s vision includes increases in four-year graduation rates and transfer student enrollment rates, as well as a tuition freeze for the next four years.

Under Brown’s higher education plan, the UC and CSU would have to report the progress on various targets in order to receive funding increases.

The State Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance heard arguments on Brown’s higher education proposals on Wednesday, offering concerns and criticism for the administration.

One of the major goals of Brown’s higher education proposal is to encourage students to graduate within four years.

“The state is stepping up to the plate to commit to four years of spending increases,” Palmer said. “The state administration seeks to encourage students to graduate sooner so students do not pay the increasing cost of fees and add to their student debt.”

The governor’s proposal is part of his goal to reinvest in higher education despite general increases in student tuition and fees, Palmer said.

Patrick Lenz, vice president of budget and capital resources for the UC, said the University is grateful for the state’s commitment to increase funds and its emphasis on accountability and performance targets.

But Lenz said the $511 million in total funding would not cover the UC’s yearly spending on mandatory programs like retirement costs and health services. As a result, the UC would not be able to use the funding to reinvest in the system, encourage students to graduate on time and ultimately reach the proposal’s outlined goals, he added.

Despite the UC’s repeated efforts to collaborate with the Finance Department, Lenz said the administration did not work with the UC when it released the new details of the proposals.

“It would help if the administration would sit down with the UC to identify what is fair with the level of funding he is proposing,” Lenz said. “We will continue to work with the administration to get the best possible outcome for our students.”

Paul Golaszewski, a higher education specialist at the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan organization that advises the state legislature, said he agrees that it is reasonable for the state to require that universities meet performance targets. But he said he is concerned about the state’s commitment to give fixed funding for the UC over the next four years.

“In the past, almost all commitments to fix funding over a certain period of time don’t end up working at all,” Golaszewski said. “To commit to funding ahead of time when the state does not know its future revenues, locks flexibility for the legislature to move around money.”

Lenz said the UC cannot be expected to accept more transfer students and hire more faculty to help students graduate sooner when the new funding can’t even cover the UC’s mandatory costs. The UC would therefore, need to increase tuition to reach the proposal’s goal, he said.

Another part of Brown’s higher education proposal, the freeze on tuition until the 2016-2017 academic year means that any slight tuition increase would force the UC to forfeit the additional funding entirely.

“The state administration believes that after dramatic fee increases over the years, students and families need to have their costs be predictable,” Palmer said. “It is no longer sustainable to have these increases.”

Golaszewski, however, said tuition freezes are almost always followed by sharp tuition increases.

“(The Analyst’s Office) thinks it would be better to have steady, moderate and predictable increases in tuition every year,” he said. “Having these predictable increases is also a benefit in that it makes students and their families reconsider and graduate sooner.”

Brown released his state budget proposal for the 2013-2014 fiscal year in January. If enacted, it would allocate an additional $250 million to the UC compared to the current fiscal year.

The state legislature will review Brown’s higher education proposal over the next two months. The governor’s “May Revise,” a revised version of his budget proposal, will be released in mid-May and will likely include changes based on feedback, Golaszewski said.

A final version of the budget proposal will be presented to the legislature in June and will need to be signed into effect by Brown by June 30. The next fiscal year will begin July 1.