Plan Boosts School Funding, Asks Hefty Hike in College Fees : Education: Public schools would get 7.9% increase, community colleges 10.1%. Tuition at university systems would jump 24% to 40%.

California public school and community college educators were delighted by the favorable treatment they received in the 1992-93 budget proposal that Gov. Pete Wilson unveiled Thursday, but leaders of the public university systems had mixed feelings.

University of California and California State University officials were pleased that their budgets were not slashed to the point that enrollment cuts would be required, but they were unhappy about stiff student fee increases the governor has proposed--24% at UC and up to 40% at Cal State--and about the lack of cost-of-living pay raises for faculty and staff members.

But the 7.9% increase for public schools, and a 10.1% boost for community colleges, brought smiles to leaders of those systems for the first time in several budget years.

“I’m very gratified . . . that the governor has put such a high priority on education,” State Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig said at a news conference after the budget was made public. “This is not a great budget for schools--they’re still going to have to make cuts--but considering what could have happened . . . it’s good news.”

However, several sources familiar with school funding said that per-pupil spending, an important measure of the state’s commitment to public education, will be about the same next year as it was this year--roughly $4,800 per pupil.

Others complained that the budget’s “fine print” diminishes some of the apparent gains.

“But when you consider the circumstances of a possible $6-billion deficit (in the state budget), it’s a lot better than being a welfare mama,” one school finance expert said, alluding to deep cuts Wilson has proposed in the welfare program.

The unexpectedly large increase in funding for the state’s 107 community colleges means “we will be able to find a seat for every legitimate student who wants to come to a community college,” said David Mertes, statewide chancellor of the two-year college system.

The governor made it clear he favored schools and community colleges in putting together this recession-ravaged budget.

Kindergarten-through-12th-grade schools and community colleges both received cost-of-living increases of 1.5%--the only parts of state government to get such raises.

The governor also included $100 million for such “prevention” programs as expanded preschool opportunities, more early mental health counseling and an increase in funding for Healthy Start, which enables school districts to integrate health and social services for children.

The pitting of education against health, welfare and other state services makes many educators nervous.

“The governor is trying to do right by us, but we’re kind of antsy,” said a top Department of Education official who asked not to be identified. “We’d hate to see this develop into a battle between education on the one hand and health and welfare on the other.”

At his news conference, Honig took great pains to play down this conflict.

“This is a rough year and the governor had to make some tough choices,” he said. “But we’re not living high on the hog. We’re just getting our fair share.”

Although the budget proposal would fund an anticipated enrollment increase of 187,000 kindergarten-through-12th grade students in 1992-93, as well as provide the 1.5% cost-of-living increase, the schools still will fall at least 2% behind the expected inflation rate, Honig said.

Although Wilson said both UC and CSU would remain “incredible bargains,” even with the sharp student fee increases, both student and faculty leaders expressed concern that California’s traditional commitment to low-cost, high-quality public education might be in jeopardy.

Patrick Nichelson, president of the Cal State faculty union, said the budget “represents the loss of the California dream of general access to higher education. . . . No matter now many safety nets you say you have erected, a lot of families suffer every time you raise these fees. Students either stay away or reduce their class loads.”

Under Wilson’s plan, UC would receive $2.82 billion next year in state funds and student fees. That would be 4.5% more than last year, but less than half the increase UC sought. Current UC enrollment of 166,500 on nine campuses would rise by 2,700, the governor suggested.

The governor proposed increasing undergraduate student fees for state residents by 24%, or $550, to $2,824. These fees, which must be approved by the UC Board of Regents, would be on top of a 40% fee increase in the current year. These figures do not include average individual campus fees of $212, plus room, board and books, which add another $8,000 or so.

But the governor said UC undergraduate fees would still compare favorably with four large public universities that are used for faculty salary comparisons.

Excluding fee increases, the governor wants to give the Cal State system $1.66 billion, $127 million less than Cal State trustees requested. However, Wilson pleased trustees by allowing for the equivalent of 2,600 more full-time students, on top of the current 270,050. If the California State University trustees decide to increase student fees by the maximum 40% provided for in Wilson’s budget--a step that would also require legislative approval--that would bring basic fees for a full-time resident student in the 20-campus system to $1,310, up $374 from this year.

The governor said these fees would still “compare favorably” with those of similar institutions around the country.

William B. Baker, UC vice president for budget and university relations, said he regretted the fee increase and salary freezes. But he added that Wilson’s proposal “does meet our two principal objectives: to maintain the quality of this great university and to maintain access for all eligible California students who want to come.”

The Cal State trustees will discuss the fee increase amount at a meeting in Long Beach next week.

Barry Munitz, the system chancellor, said at least a 20% hike would be needed “to avoid putting the quality of education in jeopardy or cutting back on enrollment.”