Bill Seeks Equal Funding for Community College Districts

Equalizing funding among community colleges statewide is the goal of a bill recently introduced by Assemblyman George Runner (R-Lancaster), who wants the state to allocate $35 million this year to close the gaps between rich and poor college districts.

Like public schools, community colleges throughout the state have historically been funded at different levels per student, a constant source of pique among leaders of poorer districts.

The debate over this inequality dates back to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, which essentially locked in funding formulas that were based on taxing levels of the time.

These levels differed across the state, and attempts to equalize funding little by little never fully succeeded.

Above-average districts, such as Los Angeles, still receive as much as $3,700 per student per year. Poorer ones, such as Los Rios in Northern California, receive as little as $3,200, said Gary Cook, fiscal services administrator for the state community college chancellor.

Schools for kindergarten through grade 12 have made strides toward greater equity, but politicians continue to debate how far they have to go, and how long it will take to close remaining gaps.

By contrast, the cure for community colleges lies tantalizingly within reach: Because the college system is relatively small, the state could put all districts on equal footing simply by injecting the modest sum of $35 million into the system in a single year, Runner contends.

“The expectation is that every community college will provide the same quality of education, but some have to do with less money,” said Runner. “It’s bad public policy.”

The bill, AB 206, which is backed by Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego), is similar to one that passed both the Assembly and the Senate last year but was vetoed by then-Gov. Pete Wilson.

Runner hopes that the bill will fare better this time.

But not everyone is enchanted with it. Although Los Angeles Community College District leaders are officially neutral on equalization, they are keenly aware that state funds are limited. They know every dollar that goes for equalization is one that won’t go to Los Angeles.

What the bill overlooks, district officials say, is the added cost of running an urban district, where funds must cover everything from graffiti cleanup to repair of old buildings.

“The idea that it costs the same to educate people in a small rural area as it does in Los Angeles is ridiculous. The cost of living is different,” said Bonnie James, the Los Angeles district’s vice chancellor of operations.

But the view is quite different from districts in San Diego, Santa Clarita and the Antelope Valley, Runner’s home district, all of which would benefit from equalization.

“We started a radio-television program on a prayer,” said Nick Ferguson, a vice president in the Santa Clarita district. If statewide funding were more equal, “we could have funded it properly from the beginning. . . . It’s a fairness issue.”