So reports today’s edition of Inside Higher Ed about state senate leader Darrell Steinberg’s bill to mandate MOOCs at UC, CSU, and the community colleges. You can find the article at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/01/controversial-california-bill-outsource-student-learning-dead-until-2014-or-later
Apparently, M-I-D-D-L-E C-L-A-S-S S-C-H-O-L-A-R-S-H-I-P:
From the Contra Costa Times: With the governor’s signature this week, California college students from middle-income families will soon be in line for a tuition discount. The state-funded Middle Class Scholarship will buffer tens of thousands of students from UC’s and Cal State’s frequent and unpredictable fee hikes… When the program begins in 2014 it will bring some relief to California’s middle-class families who have watched helplessly in recent years as public tuition and fees have nearly doubled since 2007. It will offer sliding-scale discounts of up to 40 percent for families who earn $150,000 or less and don’t qualify for Cal Grants, which support lower-income students. It was a separate bill signed Monday as part of the state budget… About 130,000 public university undergraduates each year will be eligible, according to the state’s estimate…
A prior post on this blog referred to the recent legislative hearing on California Senate president Darrell Steinberg’s bill that would create a “platform” for various online courses that could be taken for college credit. At the hearing, he offered amendments to the original bill (SB 520) and was asked to come back with the written versions. The amended bill can be read below:
But are you ready for the platform?
Update: Don't tell Steinberg:http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/02/survey-finds-presidents-are-skeptical-moocs
Update: Anyway, don't tell Steinberg unless you are sure it is him:http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-online-cheating-20130502,0,795806,full.story
All that said, there is such an effort underway (as noted in prior posts): …Conceived by UC-Berkeley students, the California Modernization and Economic Development Act places a 9.5 percent tax on oil and gas extracted from California; supporters say it would bring about $2 billion of new revenue per year. Of that, about $1.2 billion would be allocated in four equal parts towards K-12 education, California Community Colleges, California State University and the University of California. Another $400 million or so would be used to provide businesses with subsidies for switching to cleaner, cheaper forms of energy, and about $300 million would go to county governments for infrastructure repair, public works projects, and funding public services…
Powered by mp3skull.com
A California State Senate committee held a hearing yesterday on SB 520, a bill that in its original form mandated 50 online courses at UC, CSU, and the community colleges. The bill is being pushed by Senate President Steinberg.
At the hearing, he offered amendments setting 50 as a goal rather than a mandate and allowing “public-public” partnerships as opposed to public-private. The latter refers to deals with private MOOC companies. Public-public would include, for example, cross-campus courses. He also offered an amendment that no public monies would be used for the private side of any public-private partnerships. (It’s not exactly clear what the last would mean as a practical matter since money would come from both sides and whose was whose might be hard to define.) After the hearing, the committee asked for written versions of the amendments rather than the oral descriptions offered at the hearing. However, it was clear that the bill would eventually move ahead.
Since the amendments were new, the various witnesses did not have detailed comments on them. Concerns were raised by UC Academic Senate Chair Robert Powell. There was also testimony by the chair and vice chair of the UCLA Academic Senate. Below is a link to a video of the hearing. The portion on this bill runs from minute 9 to minute 136 (roughly). The UC Academic Senate testimony is at minute 25 to 30 and the UCLA portion is at minute 45 to 47. A short description of the hearing is at:
http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2013/04/25/california-senate-panel-mulls-course-outsource
The embedded version of the video of the hearing works poorly if at all. To see the hearing, go directly to
http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=1176 (and be patient while it loads).
An easier to use link to the Steinberg and Powell portions is at
http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2013/04/audio-of-steinberg-powell-on-higher-ed.html
 |
| The drawing board |
According to the LA Times, UC is not likely to like important elements of the forthcoming May revise budget to be issued by the governor:
…”We’d like to go back to the drawing board,” said Patrick Lenz, a top UC budget official. The university was not consulted in advance about the details of Brown’s proposal, he said…
And what are those elements?
Gov. Jerry Brown wants to tie some state funding for California’s public universities to a host of new requirements, including 10% increases in the number of transfer students from community colleges and the percentage of freshmen graduating within four years.
Brown, who has repeatedly said the universities should be leaner and serve more students, is asking for equivalent increases in several other areas as well, according to a copy of his plan obtained by The Times. Those include raising the overall number of graduates and a stipulation that more students coming from community colleges finish their studies within two years. The document, which updates Brown’s January budget proposal for overhauling higher education, also reiterates his demand for a four-year freeze on tuition and fees for undergraduate and graduate students. If either university system hiked costs, it would forfeit $511 million in state funding — a roughly 20% increase — over the life of Brown’s plan…
Full story at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-brown-higher-ed-20130423,0,249490.story
The Regents have a meeting on May 14-16. It will be interesting to see if they continue to fawn over the governor as they did when online education was on the agenda. The meeting will be in Sacramento so there is a good chance the governor will attend.
And, of course, there is the question of what outgoing UC president Yudof will say to the governor. Will it be:
Inside Higher Ed today notes that it appears that the Academic Senates of the three tiers of California public higher ed are decidedly unenthusiastic about the proposed legislation to mandate online courses under certain conditions. Previous posts on this blog have reported on the controversy.
…Academic senate leaders from all three public higher ed systems – UC, Cal State and the California Community Colleges — now outright oppose the efforts, though their full senates have yet to take formal votes…
In particular, faculty representatives are concerned California lawmakers are preparing to hand over untold thousands of students to for-profit companies that have not proven their courses can pass muster…
Full article at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/28/california-academic-leaders-oppose-outsourcing-plan
The moral for state political leaders is not to pick up every seemingly-bright idea you find before checking out the consequences:
The LAO’s full report is at:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/education/2013/Financial-Aid-and-the-State-Budget031313.pdf
An earlier post on this blog noted an announcement of a bill in the legislature that would impose an oil severance tax dedicated to the three segments of higher ed. It was noted on that post that the actual text of the bill was not available at that time. Now the bill is available. As it turns out, some of the funding (7%) goes to the Dept. of Parks and Recreation. At present, that department is mired in a scandal about hidden funds. If you are unfamiliar with that scandal, you can start with http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/15/5192590/california-state-parks-had-hidden.html and then Google your way back over the past year. Singling out that department for earmarked funding seems like a move certain to reduce the chances of passage. (The other 93% of funding is split three ways among the three segments of higher ed and is not otherwise allocated. For example, it is not earmarked for tuition reduction or any other purpose.)
The bill would require a 2/3 vote, in principle possible if all Democrats voted for it. However, the governor has said he opposes new taxes without a vote of the people and it is not clear all Democrats would vote for it (or want to oppose the governor). Apart from his vote-of-the-people approach to taxes, the governor probably would not favor a general allocation with no more specific direction.
Bottom line: Don’t hold your breath.
The bill’s text is at:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB241
Just a little bit of history. California was once home to an oil boom as the film “There Will Be Blood” depicted.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml2Ae2SIXac?feature=player_detailpage]
And southern California was home to the major Julian oil stock/fraud scandal in the 1920s:
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/mar/16/local/me-then16 The state is still a significant oil producer and might increase its production, depending on how receptive it is to the controversial fracking technology. At some point, if that happens, the issue of obtaining oil revenue for the state will come to the fore.
 |
| Back in the day at Huntington Beach |
A debate that’s been raging now for several years in California is headed to the Legislature, as two Democratic lawmakers introduce legislation to impose an oil extraction tax, with the proceeds earmarked for higher education and state parks. SB 241 by state Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, and state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, brings front and center a long simmering discussion about whether California should impose a tax on oil production similar to other states. “California is the largest — and only — oil producing state in the nation that does not tax its vast oil resources,” said Evans in a written statement. The proposal, a 9.9 percent tax on oil drilled both on land and off the California coast, could generate some $2 billion a year in new state revenue (depending, of course, on the price of a barrel of oil and on in-state oil production). SB 241 says the money would be earmarked for all three branches of higher education — the University of California, the California State University, and community colleges — as well as state parks. Most of the money (93 percent, according to the legislative authors) would go to higher ed…
Full story at http://www.news10.net/capitol/article/230007/525/State-lawmakers-propose-new-oil-drilling-tax
(The article goes on to note that despite the fact that the Democrats have a 2/3 majority, not all might vote for a tax. It also notes that the governor is on record as opposing new taxes absent a vote of the people.)
(At this point, the actual text of the bill does not appear to be online.)