On Wednesday night, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made a strong
plea to reform California’s budget and politics, perhaps at
the expense of the state’s future.
Education spending currently accounts for the largest portion of
the state budget, and measures like Proposition 98 mandate certain
minimum spending levels for K-12 classrooms.
But the state’s revenue stream is not large enough to
cover its expenses, and faces a $8.1 billion deficit.
Schwarzenegger has vowed not to raise taxes, and states cannot
legally run a deficit, so the only other way to close the gap is to
cut the scope of many programs.
Cutting education would mean going back on another promise
Schwarzenegger made during his campaign. He said he would find
enough “waste” in the system to allow education to be
spared from any significant cuts.
Already, this promise has not been kept. The University of
California system, the Cal State system, and K-12 education have
all seen reductions in their budgets since Schwarzenegger came to
power. Additional cuts are expected when Schwarzenegger releases
his proposed budget Monday.
But education must be seen as an investment. As any economist
would say, education has “positive externalities” or
good impacts on everything around it. With a global market, cutting
education will only ensure a weak economy for years to come.
And without strong state funding, the UC system may have to inch
toward privatization if it wants to remain a world-class
university. UCLA and other state universities are continuing to
increase their reliance on private donations for critical parts of
their budgets.
Further cuts would only increase that dependence and likely lead
to ever increasing student fees.
This pathway would leave UCLA looking at lot like a private
school: a revenue stream from a small number of wealthy students
and donors would support the majority of the school’s
operations.
But such a structure would betray the principles upon which the
UC system was founded. Family income would become a bigger factor
in the minds of potential students and big donors would have
unprecedented sway over important decisions.
Californians elected Schwarzenegger because he seemed to be a
hard-hitting reformer who would fix budget problems in creative
ways Gray Davis would not have tried.
But so far, Schwarzenegger has only stuck to his guns when it
comes to limiting tax increases.
In the end, it is up to education officials to make their voices
heard on the importance of fully funding K-12 and higher education.
So far, most leaders have been content with damage control and
unenforceable deals with Schwarzenegger.
This editorial board recommended one recent fee hike on the
assumption that the state would uphold its end of the deal.
But it’s time for education leaders to realize that
Schwarzenegger cares more about avoiding tax increases and
balancing the state’s budget than working toward long-term
educational goals.
Reforming California’s educational system is an admirable
goal. Unfortunately, Schwarzenegger’s plans seem fueled by a
vision of balanced budgets rather than achieving educational
excellence.