2008 Woodie Awards
Prop 92 Goes Bust Amidst California's Budget Worries
David McAtee
Issue date: 2/26/08 Section: News
David McAtee
City Times
The dismal fate of Proposition 92 was decided on Feb 5th by voters in California, voted down by 57 percent despite support from many groups in the state.
The measure was to recalculate and stabilize the way that community colleges received their funding, limit the ability of lawmakers to increase fees, and reduce the cost of classes from twenty dollars a unit to fifteen for the 1.6 million students at 109 schools throughout the state.
If Prop 92 had passed in February, the budget arrangement would allow for community colleges throughout the state to receive their own vein of funding.
Under the current system of calculation, community colleges receive their funding based on the enrolled population of K-12th grade students.
City College President Terrence Burgess was a strong supporter of the measure. Burgess stated that Prop. 92 was important for California because K-12 enrollment is shrinking while community college enrollment is growing every year. Had it passed, the new calculation would have based the funding on the size of the state's young adult population and the unemployment rate.
"I was disappointed that it did not pass. The proposition would have provided more funding for expansion, which we will not now have the resources to do."
As for why in particular the measure didn't pass, Burgess states, "I think the timing was bad, given that the Governor had just reported a state budget shortfall of $14.5 billion, which has now grown to over $16 billion.
While the majority of Californians support community colleges, I think most folks felt that we could not afford the cost of Prop. 92 at this time."
But Burgess remains hopeful that the cause of higher education won't be abandoned for long. "We may be able to get a legislator to carry one or more bills sometime in the future that will effect portions of the proposition."
Opposition to the measure included teachers' union leaders and even the proposition's very authors, explaining that though the accessibility for classes would increase slightly, the lack of fiscal accountability written into the measure was unacceptable.
City Times
The dismal fate of Proposition 92 was decided on Feb 5th by voters in California, voted down by 57 percent despite support from many groups in the state.
The measure was to recalculate and stabilize the way that community colleges received their funding, limit the ability of lawmakers to increase fees, and reduce the cost of classes from twenty dollars a unit to fifteen for the 1.6 million students at 109 schools throughout the state.
If Prop 92 had passed in February, the budget arrangement would allow for community colleges throughout the state to receive their own vein of funding.
Under the current system of calculation, community colleges receive their funding based on the enrolled population of K-12th grade students.
City College President Terrence Burgess was a strong supporter of the measure. Burgess stated that Prop. 92 was important for California because K-12 enrollment is shrinking while community college enrollment is growing every year. Had it passed, the new calculation would have based the funding on the size of the state's young adult population and the unemployment rate.
"I was disappointed that it did not pass. The proposition would have provided more funding for expansion, which we will not now have the resources to do."
As for why in particular the measure didn't pass, Burgess states, "I think the timing was bad, given that the Governor had just reported a state budget shortfall of $14.5 billion, which has now grown to over $16 billion.
While the majority of Californians support community colleges, I think most folks felt that we could not afford the cost of Prop. 92 at this time."
But Burgess remains hopeful that the cause of higher education won't be abandoned for long. "We may be able to get a legislator to carry one or more bills sometime in the future that will effect portions of the proposition."
Opposition to the measure included teachers' union leaders and even the proposition's very authors, explaining that though the accessibility for classes would increase slightly, the lack of fiscal accountability written into the measure was unacceptable.
Be the first to comment on this story