The Haves, Have-Nots of 2-Year Colleges

Forget ivy-covered buildings. For Los Angeles’ largest group of college students--including most of its poor and minority pupils--graffiti-covered restrooms, weed-choked flower beds and dingy portable classrooms are the symbols of a higher education.

Meanwhile, in neighboring districts such as Glendale’s and Pasadena’s, community college campuses are clean and well lighted, full of new and remodeled buildings, painted in matching colors.

Why such disparities? Los Angeles Community College District officials blame a state funding system that favors growing suburban districts over urban ones. District leaders are trying to get the state to change its priorities and allocate a larger share of bond funds to Los Angeles at the expense of outlying districts.

“We aren’t getting our fair share,” said Los Angeles district spokesman Patrick McCallum.

But state officials say that funding formulas justly favor fast-growing and overcrowded suburban districts over urban systems such as Los Angeles’, where enrollment peaked years ago. They blame management practices within the Los Angeles district for the shabby state of some campuses.

Whether the state formula or district bungling is the culprit, the debate highlights the problem of divvying up scarce resources to build and maintain the state’s vast system of community colleges.

California’s community colleges are designed to be Fords, not Cadillacs. Access for the many, not luxury for the few, is their guiding philosophy.

The colleges are home to 70% of the state’s public college students, but they receive a smaller per-student share of state bond funds than the California State University system or the University of California campuses. School construction throughout California is paid for by voter-approved bonds.

Operational funds provided through state tax dollars also are disproportionately small: Community colleges deliver schooling at a considerably lower cost per student than either primary and secondary schools or four-year colleges.

This bare-bones approach may not yield pretty campuses.

But it has helped make California home to the most affordable higher education in the country, as measured by percentage of disposable personal income.

However, bare-bones budgeting has begun to look more and more like neglect to some college officials--especially those who believe not all districts benefit equally from state bond funds.

Statewide, the backlog of projects at community colleges totals about half a billion dollars, according to state officials.

Although community college enrollment is expected to hit a historic high of 1.5 million by next year, this year’s $186-million allocation for building projects was $64 million short of the system’s request.

Function, Not Appearance

In Los Angeles, the emphasis on function over appearance is especially apparent. Color schemes are mainly drab shades of beige. Some temporary classrooms are no more than four plywood walls, a roof and a chalkboard.

In recent years broken equipment, unbearable classroom temperatures and lack of lighting have provoked students’ complaints and employee grievances.

In addition, administrators worry that worn facilities are driving students out of Los Angeles to more attractive districts on the city’s periphery, such as Glendale and Pasadena.

Both these districts have spent more per student on facilities in recent years, and both have gained enrollment at Los Angeles’ expense.

If state formulas for spending bond money were weighted differently, McCallum argues, Los Angeles would be better able to compete with outlying districts.

That’s why the district strongly backs a bill proposed by state Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles) that would add modernization of old buildings to categories covered by bond money.

The change resembles the primary and secondary school formula, and would presumably make it easier for Los Angeles--which has some of the state’s oldest colleges--to qualify for funds.

“Urban districts [may not] have a need for new facilities,” said Polanco aide Saeed Ali, “but they definitely need to rehabilitate their old facilities.”

The Los Angeles district has 7.4% of all community college enrollment, but received only 3.4% of capital outlay funds in the recent fiscal year, McCallum said.

Since 1996, Los Angeles has received about $25 million in state capital outlay funds for new buildings, according to the district. Pasadena, with one-fourth of Los Angeles’ enrollment, has received $30 million.

Patrick Lenz, state vice chancellor for fiscal policy, said this is not as unfair as it may seem.

Districts that are critically short of space are rightly given priority in receiving bond funds, he said. And maintenance dollars, funded from a separate bond account, are not linked to enrollment growth. Los Angeles has an equal shot at that money, Lenz said.

He said the blame for Los Angeles’ problems lies with district management. The district’s priorities have not matched the state’s, he said. Nor have district officials been as aggressive as they could be, he said.

For example, Lenz said Los Angeles officials have been known to apply for projects in categories the state had previously declared ineligible.

A state audit last year also found numerous problems with district management.

District officials had failed to put aside enough money to meet matching fund requirements for maintenance projects, skimped on upkeep costs such as custodians and were slow getting projects started, auditors said.

One telling criticism dealt with the way the district has ranked its maintenance needs.

The state prioritizes projects based on urgency; leaky roofs come before faded paint. But Los Angeles has been prioritizing them by going down an alphabetical list of its nine colleges. That means the district hasn’t been submitting its most competitive projects at the top of its list for state funding.

Asked the reason for this practice, Los Angeles district Vice Chancellor Bonnie James said simply: “No reason. No excuse.” The problem is being fixed, James added. Earlier this year, state facilities experts visited Los Angeles to hold a workshop for district officials on state funding mechanisms.

McCallum cited the session as an example of the district’s efforts to improve its performance.

But some critics within the district wondered: Why--given the acute need for funds--didn’t officials already understand the rules of the funding system?

“It was unbelievable. . . . The district office just does not have the resources, staff, knowledge or expertise to assist nine colleges,” said one district official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The district has taken steps recently to improve its performance, adding to its facilities staff, halting deficit spending and bolstering reserves.

Long-awaited improvements, such as new air conditioning at Los Angeles City College and a new fine arts building at West Los Angeles College, are proceeding.

But Los Angeles’ historic habit of operating on the razor-thin edge of its resources has meant colleges have had trouble paying their utility bills--let alone paying for new air conditioners or copy machines.

Over the years, Los Angeles’ spending choices were weighted toward maintaining course offerings, not repainting classrooms, said Carl Friedlander, president of the district’s faculty union. The district’s multilayer bureaucracy has made it easier to diffuse responsibility for such decisions, he said.

There are sharp contrasts between Los Angeles’ efforts to improve facilities and those of Pasadena and Glendale. Both of these Los Angeles neighbors have benefited from enrollment growth. But both also have a track record of success attributed to expert staff, extensive planning and bureaucratic resourcefulness--resubmitting projects rejected in one category under another, for example.

Both Glendale and Pasadena have also raised funds locally for extra touches the state didn’t cover. And both have hoarded sufficient reserves to keep things spruced up without help from state capital funds.

The Appearance of Success

The results are plainly visible. Pasadena is now putting the finishing touches on $100 million in renovations, including such niceties as mirror ponds and a sculpture garden. Glendale this year learned the rewards of a pink color scheme and Mediterranean design: Two restaurant magnates made a rare $1-million gift to the college, citing the beauty of new campus buildings as an inspiration.

Los Angeles, by contrast, has lacked master plans for all of its campuses, according to last year’s audit--a problem that has since been fixed, district officials say.

Turnover among administrators has been high. Fund-raising has been weak. Chronic understaffing has hurt the district’s ability to apply for funds, said James, who has been vice chancellor for four years. “Los Angeles has not been aggressive. That is changing,” James said.