On May 19, the California Community Colleges Board of Governors voted to grant exceptions to the 50% Law for three districts: Napa Valley, San Mateo, and Calbright.

Why does this matter?

The 50% Law exists to ensure a meaningful portion of college funding goes toward classroom instruction. If districts can repeatedly fall short and still be excused, many faculty worry the law could become less effective at protecting instructional spending over time.

Calbright was granted an exception because it has, to date, been unable to receive funding from the SCFF or meet other compliance requirements. Napa and San Mateo, however, both failed to meet the 50% Law requirement due to internal budgeting decisions — they chose to allocate their funds elsewhere. To be fair, Napa Valley has made slow improvements over the past several years, at least approaching the 50% mark, currently at 47%. San Mateo, however, is currently at 42% and has not moved the needle in recent years.

The rationale provided in the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO) request for the two districts’ exemptions was that they were experiencing financial “hardships” due to irregular cash flow caused by the timing of local tax revenue. There was also an acknowledgment that since both districts were funded by Basic Aid, meaning they rely primarily on local property tax revenue rather than state funding, the Chancellor’s Office had little ability to enforce the law through its usual penalty of withholding state funds. This meant that the Board of Governors’ vote would largely be symbolic. In essence, the Board of Governors had nothing to lose. If, in their oversight of the system, they chose to reject the exemptions, they would have stood firm in their requirement that all districts follow state law. But they did not. They voted 5-0, with three abstentions, to grant the exemptions.

I have heard members of the Board openly question the continued relevance of the 50% Law, describing it as outdated and suggesting it should be reconsidered or overturned. During both the first reading on March 24 and the second reading/action item on May 19, I was the only individual to offer public comment in support of maintaining the law.

Historically, the 50% Law has protected faculty salaries, class sizes, and classroom expenditures by requiring that 50% of the general fund budget be spent on instructional expenses, mostly faculty salaries and benefits. There have been proposals by faculty groups to include counseling, library, and student support faculty in the spending requirement by raising the percentage to absorb them (to 55-60%). On the flip side, there have been proposals from administrative groups to include all faculty in the 50% without moving the percentage, basically lowering the entire amount districts spend on faculty, period. They argue that the 50% is antiquated, created before the cost of technology and basic needs were accounted for.

But do we really spend 50% of our total general fund on instruction? Unequivocally, no.

It is true that the 50% Law has a much different impact on expenditures today than it did 25 years ago. But not in the way the League and the CCCCO are arguing, it is outdated. One significant change in the funding model for community colleges is the increase in categorical funding to the overall operational budget. In the 2000-01 budget, the Public Policy Institute reported that categorical funding constituted about 9.1% of the system's budget. Currently, that number is closer to 30%.

What does that mean?

The 50% Law ensured districts spent 46.7% of their budgets on instruction in 2000-2001. However, with the addition of categorical allocations, districts now spend between 35-40%. The categorical creep over the past 20 years has meant that districts could spend progressively less of the total budget on instruction. We have to ask, is spending 35%, 37%, or even 40% on instruction, our primary product, too much?

Just for comparison, the CSUs report spending between 50% and 55% of their annual expenditures on instruction. According to the National Center of Educational Statistics, the California K-12 system spends 66% on instruction and instructional support (this is facilitated more by state-mandated class sizes than the 50% Law). It seems ridiculous that we are now having to gear up for a fight to protect 37%.

Why do we need the 50% Law?

It is indeed arbitrary. However, in a system that has demonstrated an unwillingness to invest in full-time faculty, or make progress towards the 75/25 ideal full-time to part-time ratio, or deal effectively with the current faculty caste system between full-time and part-time faculty, the 50% Law is all we have to protect the integrity of instruction. If we abolish the 50% Law, what assurance do we have that instruction will still be our primary priority?

Students deserve access to full-time faculty; part-time faculty deserve the dignity afforded to their profession — the elimination of the 50% Law means that both of these battles are most likely lost.

FACCC blog posts are written independently by FACCC members (or their students) and reflect their experiences and recommendations. FACCC neither condemns nor endorses the recommendations herein and has not taken a position on the proposed revision discussed in this post.