How do you spell tuition relief?

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...

(O)bservers note that the scholarship is just another patch on the state's education finance predicament... Even at the maximum discounted rate of 40 percent, a student pays more than in 2008-09. The scholarship covers only systemwide tuition and fees -- not room and board, living expenses, textbooks or campus fees, which average nearly $20,000 a year. And, given the state's perennial budget gyrations, the scholarship could prove an unreliable financial aid. If the governor's May budget proposal shows a deficit, the program's funding -- $305 million when fully implemented in 2017 -- could drop by as much as one third...

Full story at www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_23607228/california-middle-class-scholarships-soon-available-college-students.

Vim and Vigor on UC Online Higher Ed

From the Sacramento Bee Capitol Alert blog:

Jerry Brown says UC, CSU leaders pledged to pursue online ed 'vigorously'

Gov. Jerry Brown said today that he vetoed his own budget proposal to earmark $20 million for online education at the University of California and California State University systems only after leaders of those institutions assured him they would pursue online course offerings on their own.
"I had an agreement from both the segments that they would carry out online vigorously," Brown told reporters at an event in Sacramento. "As the leader of both governing boards, I'm actively engaged with both the University of California and the Cal State."...

Full story at http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/07/jerry-brown-says-uc-csu-leaders-pledged-to-pursue-online-ed-vigorously.html

Wow!  All that vigor!

Middle-class scholarships to UC, CSU likely

But not this year!

So says the headline in the San Francisco Chronicle: [excerpt]

The "Middle-Class Scholarship" proposed by Assembly Speaker John Pérez, D-Los Angeles, would offer tuition discounts for students from families earning $80,000 to $150,000 a year. The program would start in the 2014-15 school year, with partial scholarships costing the state $107 million from its general fund. The state would increase spending on the program each year until it was fully implemented in 2017-18, at a cost of $305 million - assuming 75 percent of eligible students apply. Tuition discounts would decrease as family income rises...

Full story at http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Middle-class-scholarships-to-UC-CSU-likely-4597581.php

Of course, there are students that might not want to wait a year:

UPDATE: The LAO was not keen on this particular plan but was not asked:
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/14/v-print/5496173/perez-tuition-aid-plan-not-best.html

Gov. Jerry Brown's university plan is left unfinished in budget

That's what the headline in the LA Times says.  It goes on to say: [excerpt]

The final spending plan does not include the governor’s proposal to tie new money for public universities to specific requirements like improving graduation rates and increasing the number of transfer students from community colleges. Nor will the plan automatically cut funding if tuition is increased. The changes emerged after negotiations with lawmakers and officials at the University of California and California State University, who resisted much of Brown’s proposal. For now, universities will simply be required to track nine different benchmarks...

Full story at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/political/la-me-pc-jerry-brown-california-universities-20130612,0,6175034.story

Some background music while you read the full article is conveniently provided below:

Follow Up on the Steinberg Platform

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

Oil Tax for Higher Ed Initiative

As we have noted many times, it is very hard to get an initiative on the ballot without hiring signature-gathering firms (which will cost $1-$2 million).  And if the initiative gets on the ballot, millions more will be needed for TV ads, etc., if there is opposition.  An oil severance tax to fund higher ed would clearly have such opposition - from the oil industry. 

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…

Full article at http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2013/04/25/oil-severance-tax-measure-to-start-circulating/

At least there is a song to go with the effort:

Up Came Oil

Powered by mp3skull.com

Yesterday's State Senate Hearing on Online Higher Ed Bill

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

Thanks, But No Thanks

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:

Emisions Remissions?

UCLA co-generation plant

California's cash-strapped public universities would save millions of dollars under legislation by Orange County state Sen. Mimi Walters, but the bill's prospects are uncertain because it would alter a landmark global warming law beloved by environmentalists. Walters' proposal seeks to exempt University of California and California State University campuses from the new cap-and-trade program established under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, otherwise known as Assembly Bill 32 or AB32, one of the nation's most ambitious environmental laws...

At least five UC campuses, including Irvine, UCLA and San Diego, qualify for the cap-and-trade program in 2013...

The UC system has budgeted $8 million to comply with AB32 – for just the next fiscal year.
For that much money, the UC system could accommodate another 800 students, UC Vice President Patrick Lenz told members of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee last month. He and the system later backed off those comments, saying there is "not a direct correlation" between student enrollment and the money for cap-and-trade. He also later noted in a letter to committee chairman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, that it's possible the system won't have to buy any credits to cover its 2014 emissions...

Full story at http://www.ocregister.com/news/trade-501273-cap-emissions.html

The following is the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in 2011 by UC campuses covered under the AB32 cap-and-trade program. The emissions are displayed in units of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

UCLA – 205,299
UC San Diego – 160,579
UC Irvine – 69,979
UC San Francisco – 68,566
UC Davis Medical Center – 63,693
UC Davis – 62,259

Well, the emissions could be worse:

LAO on Cost of College and Cost to State of Cal Grants

The chart above is self-explanatory.  The chart below shows that budget cuts produce tuition increases which then increase the cost of the state's Cal Grant program.

The LAO's full report is at:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/education/2013/Financial-Aid-and-the-State-Budget031313.pdf

Tobacco Tax Initiative for UC/CSU Student Aid Advances

As prior posts have noted, an initiative was filed featuring a tobacco tax to be used mainly for student aid at UC and CSU.  Unlike many initiatives that are filed, there seems to be serious money behind it since it is being handled by a professional law firm that deals with electoral matters. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has now come up with an analysis of the initiative, a step towards petition circulation.

According to the LAO, about $730 million, net, would be raised by this initiative annually.

Once the initiative is approved for circulation, we will see whether someone is willing to step forward with the money to hire a commercial firm to obtain the necessary signatures.  Such an initiative - if it made it on to the 2014 ballot - would be opposed by tobacco companies and a large budget for TV ads, etc., would be needed to counter their campaign.  The last tobacco tax on the ballot - earmarked for cancer research - was defeated.

You can read the LAO's report at:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2012/120658.aspx

Meanwhile, be happy...

More on the Tobacco Tax for UC & CSU Student Aid

Prior posts have noted that an initiative written by a law firm with experience in electoral matters has been filed that would impose a tobacco tax to fund student aid at UC and CSU.  As previously reported, the use of the law firm suggests some serious money is involved - which would be needed to fund a petition drive and then a subsequent election campaign which tobacco interests would surely oppose. We now have the official summary text that will be seen by voters who are asked to sign the petition. The text is below, courtesy of the California Secretary of State, at
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/cleared-for-circulation.htm#1590

Cigarette Tax to Fund Student Financial Aid at University of California and California State University. Initiative Statute.

Summary Date: 02/21/13 | Circulation Deadline: 07/22/13 | Signatures Required: 504,760

James C. Harrison c/o Thomas A. Willis (510) 346-6200

Increases cigarette tax by $1.00 per pack. Allocates revenues to expand financial aid for California residents enrolled at UC or CSU. If new tax causes decreased tobacco consumption, thus reducing existing tobacco-tax revenues, current tobacco funding for tobacco health education/research, medical care, environment, breast cancer research/services, early childhood development, and General Fund will be maintained by transferring new tax revenues to offset decrease. Requires annual independent audit and accounting. Establishes five-member oversight committee. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Additional annual state tax revenues of (1) $800 million from the cigarette excise tax increase of $1 per pack and (2) $45 million from the excise tax increase on other tobacco products triggered by the measure. The additional cigarette tax revenue would be spent on financial aid for resident students at the state's public universities ($730 million) and backfilling losses to existing tobacco programs ($70 million). The additional revenue from other tobacco products would be used for other existing programs, including tobacco-prevention and education.

Tobacco Tax Initiative for UC & CSU Student Aid Advances

Earlier posts on this blog in late December noted that an initiative had been filed to impose a tobacco tax with revenue largely earmarked for student aid at UC and CSU.  Unlike many initiatives filed by amateurs that go nowhere, this one was filed by a law firm noted for election work.  So there must be some serious funding behind it.  Whether there is enough serious money to fund a signature-gathering campaign is unclear.  In addition, a tobacco tax would attract well-funded opposition from tobacco firms.  (Remember that a  tobacco tax initiative for cancer research was narrowly defeated last June.)

In any event, the state attorney general has now assigned a title to the initiative.  You can find it at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/12-0018%20(tax_to_fund_higher_education).pdf

Our earlier posts on this initiative are at:
http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2012/12/proponents-of-tobacco-tax-for-uccsu.html
and
http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2012/12/tobacco-tax-for-uccsu-student-aid.html

Meanwhile,  those who puff away or take a drag on a cigarette are a tax target:

More on Oil Severance Tax for Higher Ed Bill

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.

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. 

Oil tax for higher ed?

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.)

Also, see http://sd02.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-02-12-evans-introduces-bill-raise-billions-higher-ed-and-state-parks

(At this point, the actual text of the bill does not appear to be online.)

California GOP pushes higher ed tuition freeze/cheap degree

From the Sacramento Bee today:

What's a marginalized minority party to do? It's a key question for Republican lawmakers staring down a newly enshrined Democratic supermajority. Part of the answer so far seems to be a renewed emphasis on higher education. Both Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, and Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, R-Camarillo, have introduced a pair of bills that would freeze tuition at the University of California and California State University for the seven-year duration of the higher tax rates mandated by Proposition 30...

In a written response to the budget, Republican Connie Conway, R-Tulare, called the tuition freeze bills an effort to "ensure that this revenue goes to boost higher education funding and prevent tuition and fee increases at our public colleges and universities, just as the voters intended."...

Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Marysville, has also introduced a pair of higher education bills. They would create pilot programs enabling students to obtain a degree for $10,000 and $20,000, respectively, an effort to hold down ballooning tuition costs...

Full story at: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/03/v-print/5161070/minority-california-republicans.html

This might not end happily: 

Push to Freeze Tuition in Legislature (That Isn't Likely to be Enacted)

From the Ventura County Star:

Republicans in the state Legislature have proposed freezing tuition at California's public universities and community colleges for the next seven years. The legislation, which was introduced this week before the governor announced his budget, also would increase funding to California State University, the University of California and community colleges so they don't have to charge more to make ends meet. But it doesn't give any specifics on how to do that... The bill originally would have penalized the UC system if it raised tuition by decreasing state funding... But (the bill's author) said he removed that part to give the bill broader appeal...

Full story at http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/jan/11/bill-would-freeze-tuition-at-public-universities/

Republicans are now marginalized in the legislature so this bill is unlikely to be enacted.  Since UC said it would not raise tuition next year (see an earlier post), the chance that some Democratic version would be enacted and signed by the governor is also reduced.

Still, there is some political appeal to a freeze so the issue should be watched.  And today's weather is particularly cold up in Sacramento (31 degrees F at the time of this posting according to weather.com):

Listen to What the Governor Said About the Higher Ed Budget

In an earlier post, we described the elements of the state budget for 2013-14 proposed by the governor and noted that his remarks at the news conference where the budget was presented largely mirrored prior statements he made at the Regents.

Below is a link to an audio of his remarks on higher education (UC and CSU).  Although most of the time at the news conference was devoted to other aspects of the budget, higher education came up several times including once at the portion of the event with Budget Director Ana Matosantos.

You can hear his remarks - and hers - at the link below:

UPDATE: UC is now saying tuition won't go up next year:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/01/university-of-california-official-browns-budget-likely-enough-to-avert-tuit.html

Seven

There are seven years in a sabbatical.  Snow White had seven dwarfs.  There are seven deadly sins.  And Prop 30 - the governor's now-enacted tax initiative - raised taxes for seven years.

So legislative Republicans are pushing for a seven-year freeze on public university tuitions.  Now it is true that the Republicans are in a diminished situation with Democrats holding a supermajority in the state legislature.  But the idea of a tuition freeze will have an appeal beyond Republican ranks.

The PolitiCal blog of the LA Times has the story (excerpt):

Legislative Republicans on Monday proposed a seven-year freeze on tuition and fee increases at California’s public universities and community colleges to correspond with the length of tax increases under voter-approved Proposition 30.  Two bills were introduced that would seek to freeze fees at California State University and the University of California and make sure Proposition 30 money goes to the universities so fee increases would be unnecessary. The measures were proposed just days before Gov. Jerry Brown releases his budget for next year...

Full story at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2013/01/university-fee-hike-freeze-proposed.html

I guess there is no sin in asking for a tuition freeze:

Understanding California

The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) from time to time issues out a publication called "CalFacts" which, as the name suggests, contains a variety of data on California - including the chart above.  It's available at:
http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/calfacts/calfacts_010213.pdf

And for those who have forgotten our state song (previously posted):