Last September, for the second time in the past 15 years, the promise of "access for all" to California community colleges was broken. Budget cuts capped state payments for student enrollments, resulting in the cancellation of thousands of classes.

Tens of thousands of students were turned away at the door, while many others never even attempted to register. Enrollments fell even as potential demand increased.

Unless conditions are substantially changed, an increasing number of Californians will lose the opportunity to attend college. The Public Policy Institute of California and other independent analysts estimate that between 2001 and 2010 the demand for community colleges will increase by over 400,000 students - more than double the entire postsecondary enrollment of the state of Oregon.

We are already seeing the initial effects of the increase. Labeled Tidal Wave II, the new influx of high school graduates will be comprised of large percentages of minority and poor students.
Why are community colleges important right now? Approximately 1.7 million students are currently enrolled for credit in California's 108 community colleges, and represent roughly 5 percent of the state's population. California's community colleges directly touch most of our lives or the lives of those close to us. For my part, one of my sons and my mother attended community college in California.

As the California community college system matured in the 1960s and 1970s it became a national and international model, standing tall as a deserved symbol of access for all to higher education and, for many, a uniquely American opportunity for a second chance.

Community colleges in California prepare many of our nurses, technicians, computer programmers and law officers. They teach college preparatory English and mathematics to hundreds of thousands of students who were failed by the K-12 system or who recently arrived in the golden state. These institutions also serve huge numbers of our senior citizens, for whom continuing education is important to their quality of life.

Every year community colleges transfer over 50,000 students to University of California and California State campuses as sophomores and juniors. As a group these students meet the demands of the four-year institutions as well as those who entered as freshmen. Indeed, a study in the 1990s by the California Postsecondary Education Commission found that the rates of overall graduation and persistence for community college transfers over a five-year time period surpass by far those of native freshmen at the CSU and surpass slightly those of the UC freshmen.

Finally, community colleges grapple everyday with a broad range of student interests and talents and very often respond with flair and a deep commitment to those greatest in need. Thirty-five percent of community college students are Latino, African American or Native American. For the CSU and for UC the comparable figures are 27 perfcent and 14 percent.

The trouble in which these extraordinary institutions now find themselves is not a one-time blip, although current state deficits surely exacerbate the situation. The problem results from funding policies that systematically undervalue community colleges, a persistent neglect by the state government extending over three decades, and a fragmented governance system.

One measure of undervaluing is how California compares to other states in its overall expenditures for a full-time equivalent community college student. The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) finds that California ranked 45th in the amount of revenue provided per student out of 49 states in 1999-2000, trailing only Arkansas, Tennessee, Nevada and Virginia.

Within California, community colleges rank well below the K-12, CSU and UC systems in state general fund and student fee revenues per full-time equivalent student. In fiscal year 2003, spending for a full-time equivalent student in community colleges was roughly $4,500 while the state spent about $6,900 for a K-12 student and the CSU and UC systems received approximately $10,000 and $20,000 per student respectively.

There are good reasons for differences in state full-time equivalent revenues for the different sets of institutions but not, I believe, for the size of these disparities. Even in a state where K-12 education is also undervalued, it almost seems as though the community colleges are being punished for being as successful as they have been in providing universal access with few resources.

What's more the relative magnitude of these gaps is not new - they have persisted in state budgets for over 30 years. PPIC points out that the gaps in revenue have actually increased. Over the past 30 years, during a time when the demands on the community colleges were increasing, the increase in revenues per student adjusted for inflation has been less than 5 percent while comparable figures for the CSU and UC increased slightly more than 20 percent.

The fragmentation in governance arises from the tension between a strong local governance system and state interests in ensuring accountability by exerting uniform standards. Unfortunately, the state uses a system of accountability that attempts to control what the colleges do, rather than what they accomplish. They do this by creating and then funding a multitude of categorical programs that limit the flexibility of financial support and by establishing requirements in such areas as who may teach and how much of the budget must be used for instruction.

While the impulses behind exerting such control are often exemplary the simple fact is that they often end up interfering with effective management at the local level. This leads to a potentially substantial loss of efficiency.

What might be done? As with many social issues, the fixes are simple in conception and difficult to implement. The Campaign for College Opportunity led by Steve Weiner and David Wolf makes three general points, which are echoed in the PPIC report.

While I do not speak for the campaign, I agree with its basic recommendations.

First, the state must increase its investment in public higher education to meet current demands and the future needs generated by Tidal Wave II. The long-term economic and social future of the state depends on having a strong base of citizens with post-secondary education. The UC and CSU systems must have the resources to meet their goal of accommodating 30 percent of each graduating class of high school students. The community colleges must be given the resources to meet the remaining demand. The campaign estimates the costs of meeting these goals over the next decade would be an additional 2 to 4 percent of the current state budget per year.

Second, we need to reduce the fragmentation of the governance system and thereby increase efficiency and effectiveness. One step is to get rid of the requirements of the categorical programs by consolidating them and eliminating regulations in areas better left to the local districts, such as instructional policies. At the same time, the state has a right to insure that the public's money is well spent - it should install a sensible and transparent form of performance accountability. The state should be concerned with student progress and achievement rather than placing one-size-fits-all input requirements on the 108 different institutions.

Another step might require altering the terms of collective bargaining to focus more on matters important to improving the effectiveness of the college. Finally, the community colleges need the flexibility to use their resources to explore new ways of organizing and improving instruction, including making greater use of technology.

The third general recommendation is that student costs should be linked more closely to ability to pay. In other words, increase tuition but with some strong caveats. Even with the current increases, tuition and fees for California community colleges are among the very lowest in the nation. Ironically, this policy favors those who have the income or wealth to pay more than it favors the truly needy in the society.

Students and families who can pay more for their higher education should do so while the availability of aid for truly needy students should be increased. PPIC points out that increased tuition will also make more money available from federal programs such as Pell grants and the Hope Scholarships. A smartly constructed policy could provide a win-win situation for both the truly needy and for the community colleges. The basic conditions, however, of the policy must be to allocate sufficient funds to thoroughly address the requirements of the most needy and to insure that anything left over goes to the colleges for their own improvements.

These three steps would require a long-term bipartisan effort by all relevant bodies in Sacramento. This effort should be done in concert with K-12 reform, which will require great political will on the part of influential members of both parties. The governor has shown an eagerness to take on California school reform - it is important that the community colleges be an important part of that effort.

Marshall S. Smith is program director for education with the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation in Menlo Park.