BY HANK REICHMAN
Most Californians believe the overall affordability of the state’s public colleges and universities is a big problem, while few say the same about the quality of education. These are among the key findings of a survey of public opinion on the state’s public higher education system released December 8 by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).
“How are we going to make sure Californians are going to afford the cost of higher education is first and foremost on people’s minds,” said Mark Baldassare, president of the San Francisco-based nonpartisan institute. “There’s a strong belief that the state needs to invest more.”
As the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) consider raising tuition for the next academic year, 57 percent of residents said affordability is a big problem (28% somewhat of a problem, 13% not much of a problem). At least half of adults across all political, income, and age groups see affordability as a big problem. When asked to name the most important issue facing the state’s public colleges and universities, 46 percent of Californians mention affordability, cost, or student tuition and fees. All other issues were mentioned by less than 10 percent of adults.
In contrast, when asked to choose between affordability and quality as the main problem, only 15 percent of Californians said the quality of higher education is a big problem. Across political, age, racial/ethnic, and income groups, 25 percent or fewer in each demographic group said quality is a big problem. By contrast, concern about the quality of education in California’s public K–12 schools is much more widespread: in April, 40 percent of adults and 53 percent of likely voters rated it as a big problem.
When asked to name the most important issue facing California’s public colleges and universities today, 46 percent of adults mentioned affordability, cost,
or student tuition and fees. All other topics were mentioned by less than one in ten adults, including not enough government funding (5%); administrative costs, bureaucracy, and waste (4%); overall accessibility (4%); and political views (3%).
Affordability and cost was also the most important issue among likely voters (52%) and led other topic areas by wide margins across political parties and regions of the state, as well as across age, education, gender, income, and racial/ethnic groups. Respondents named affordability and cost as the most important issue in public higher education when PPIC first asked this open-ended question in its 2007 survey, as well as when it was last asked in November 2010. Today, however, affordability and cost are mentioned more often than in the earlier PPIC surveys.
“With many Californians saying that affordability is the most important problem facing public higher education, there is overwhelming support for free community college and for expanding student scholarships,” said Baldassare. Solid majorities of adults (73%) and likely voters (62%) responding favored increasing government funding to make community college free. Californians are even more supportive of increasing government funding for scholarships and grants for students attending four-year colleges and universities: 82 percent of adults and 80 percent of likely voters are in favor.
PPIC surveyed 1,711 California adults in English and Spanish from November 13 to November 22. The survey’s margin of sampling error was 3.5 percentage points. PPIC last surveyed Californians about higher education five years ago.
Most adults surveyed (67%) said state funding for California’s colleges and universities is inadequate, while far fewer said there is more than enough (10%) or just enough (19%) funding. Yet only 13 percent said that increased state funding alone will significantly improve the higher education system. Half (49%) said that both increasing state funding and using existing funds more wisely would significantly improve the system, and 36 percent said wiser use of existing funds alone would do so. Notably, 42 percent of those who said they had attended a community college or a CSU school said that existing funds need to be used more wisely, compared to just 22 percent of those who attended UC.
Shortly after California voters approved Proposition 51, a bond measure to pay for construction projects for K–12 and community colleges, the survey asked about the idea of a similar measure to fund higher education construction projects. Solid majorities of adults (65%) and likely voters (60%) said they would vote yes.
Support is much lower for two other ways to raise revenue for higher education. When respondents were asked if they would be willing to pay higher taxes to increase funding for the system, 48 percent of adults and 48 percent of likely voters say yes, while 50 percent in each group say no. Californians are even less likely to support raising student fees: only 23 percent of adults and 21 percent of likely voters are in favor.
“With two in three Californians saying that the public higher education system needs more state funding today, solid majorities support a state bond,” Baldassare said. “Half support a tax hike and one in four favor a student fee increase.”
Another way to raise funding is to increase the number of out-of-state students who pay higher tuition. Respondents were divided on this idea (46% yes, 50% no). Support dropped significantly, however, if this option would mean that fewer California students are admitted: just 21 percent of adults were in favor.
Most heartening, those surveyed gave positive ratings to each branch of the higher education system, the California Community Colleges (15% excellent, 51% good), UC (14% excellent, 51% good), and CSU (10% excellent, 56% good). Notably, the proportion of Californians who gave the CSU system a positive rating has increased 10 points since 2011. UC’s rating increased by a more modest 6 points and the community college rating remained about the same. Among Californians who attended a public college or university, strong majorities said the branch of the system they attended is doing a good to excellent job (69% community college, 67% CSU, 71% UC).
However, about half of adults were very or somewhat concerned about the transfer rate at California’s community colleges (52%) and the graduation rate in the CSU system (54%). Three in four adults (76%) were concerned about the difficulty of admittance to the UC system.
One interesting finding in the context of growing concerns about campus diversity and tolerance is that 61 percent of adults said it is very important for public colleges and universities to have a racially diverse student body, while just 20 percent said it is not important. Similarly, 61 percent of adults said it is very important for these institutions to have an economically diverse student body (15% not important).
Opinions were split evenly about the economic value of a college education, with 49 percent saying it is necessary to succeed and 49 percent saying there are many ways to succeed in today’s economy without a college education. There were notable splits among demographic groups on this question, however. Solid majorities of adults with no college education (60%) and those with annual incomes below $40,000 (60%) said college is necessary to succeed. Majorities of those with more education and higher incomes said there are many ways to succeed without college (56% of those with at least some college, 57% with incomes of $40,000 or more). Latinos (67%) were much more likely than whites (36%) to say college is necessary. About half of African Americans (52%) and Asian Americans (49%) also expressed this view.
Nearly all those surveyed said the state’s higher education system is important (77% very, 19% somewhat) to the quality of life and economic vitality of California over the next two decades. Yet fewer than half (45%) agreed that the state will face a shortage of the college-educated residents needed for the jobs of the future, which previous reports from PPIC have demonstrated. A majority said they have confidence (16% a great deal, 43% some) in the state government to plan for the future of higher education, while 40 percent have little or none.
Ralph Washington Jr., president of the UC Student Association, said he hoped UC leaders would pay heed to the public sentiment and find alternative ways to raise the additional money needed for next year. Although UC provides substantial financial aid, he said, it does not cover all costs — forcing many students to work and struggle to afford good housing and food. “Students believe that the biggest barrier to diversity on campus and success is affordability,” he said. “If the public believes in giving us more money, give us more money and we can prevent tuition increases.”
CSU Chancellor Timothy P. White said he was encouraged that an independent survey confirmed widespread public support for Cal State’s goals of achieving adequate funding, student diversity and higher graduation rates. He reiterated that he did not want to impose tuition increases — which could amount to $270 annually — and hoped that policymakers would fill the budget gap of about $167.7 million between expected state funding and the needs of the university.
“I’m very pleased to see that this report emphasizes the role of the state government in doing its fair share to support our ability to teach students and to get them to degree,” White said. “This is about the common good.”
However, as the Los Angeles Times pointed out, “it is uncertain whether public support will translate into more state money for the two systems, which have been excluded from funding increases that voters have approved over the years for community colleges and primary and secondary schools. Competition for state money may also grow more intense under a new president, if Donald Trump makes good on campaign pledges to abolish Obamacare and deport immigrants — including students — who came into the country illegally. State costs for healthcare and services to immigrants could soar.”
California’s Higher Education Master Plan, enacted in 1960 as the Donahoe Act, promised tuition-free higher education to those qualified. Last year a number of California faculty, labor, student, and community organizations joined together in a project to reclaim the Master Plan, holding a strategy conference in September 2015 and a year ago writing a letter to Governor Jerry Brown calling on him to draft a budget “that provides adequate funding to enable all three public institutions of higher education to expand their enrollment, without increasing the financial burden on individual students and their families.” The letter offered specific proposals for each segment of higher education. Look for these organizations to unveil early next year a detailed proposal to return fully to the principles of the Master Plan.
To read the full PPIC report go to http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_1216MBS.pdf
