April 5th, 2013 CAS 138T Persuasive Essay Jonathan Marks, Section 018

Los Angeles Times Letters to the Editor Its no secret that California strives to promote higher education, [] to develop human resources as the State's greatest asset, to encourage the intellectual and personal development of each citizen over his lifetime to the fullest extent of his ability and application (Goals of California Higher Education vii-viii). As it stands, however, these promises ring more than a little hollow. Currently, upwards of five hundred thousand students in Californias public higher education system have been relegated to a veritable waitlist purgatory (Dorr 2)a massive policy failure that is nothing short of unconscionable. I am convinced that the SB 520, recently proposed by Senator Darrell Steinberg, is a viable solution to this problem. Put simply, this legislation would require public colleges to accredit online substitutes for oversubscribed gateway courses (Lewin). This approach deserves serious consideration because its economically efficient and caters to a heterogeneous student demographic. But before I elaborate, its beneficial to outline just how the current system shortchanges its students. In 1960, the Regents of the University of California and State Board of Education anticipated a surge in University enrollment as the Baby Boomer generation came of age. In response, they established the California Master Plan for Higher Education. The Plans

2 philosophy was both simple and admirable: ensure that all Californians had the opportunity to realize their academic potential and aspirations. To that end, the Plan transformed the University of California, California State University, and California Community College campuses into a cohesive, state-funded entity that guaranteed admission to qualified applicants regardless of their economic means (California Master Plan for Higher Education: Major Features). In both the 1970s and 80s, California legislature reviewed the Plan and found, by and large, that it promoted unity, quality, and equity ("The Master Plan Renewed" 6-7). That was then, and this is now. Increased demand and prolonged economic recession have rendered the Plans guiding premisethat admitted students would have access to degreeessential coursesinvalid. At the University of California, $800 million in budget cuts have resulted in TA shortages and more than 100 class terminations. Says President Mark Yudof, [] were struggling to come up with the money to sustain that basic undergraduate education (California Budget Woes Hurt University System). At California State University, only 16% of students graduate within four years; a survey of 2,800 students found that 50% delayed because of class unavailability (Capped Out: Governor Browns Proposal to Cap Education). And at California Community Colleges, more than 140,000 students were turned away during the 201011 academic year (Chen). For students like Kiyan Noyes-Apontewaitlisted for every class he needs to pursue mechanical engineering at Orange State Collegethe future is far from certain: I want to be successful, but I dont know if Im going to be able to reach my goalsIm going to be fighting for those classes (Rivera). It is clear that California is shirking its educational obligations. Something has to change. Let me be brief: every student would have access to the courses they needed with online accreditation. Few would dispute this logical conclusion; after all, for all intents and purposes,

3 the Internet has infinite resources. Whats actually worth noting is how the SB 520 would positively redefine colleges current business models and spur productivity. As it stands, public institutions have monopolized postsecondary education by bundling their services. Though this allows them to [] cross-subsidize money-losing business lines with the revenue from lucrative business-lines (Salam), it creates deadweight losses and ultimately marginalizes students. Under the SB 520, private organizations like Straighterline and textbook companies could supply an analogous product for less money. To stay competitive, universities would, in short, have to become cognizant of consumer demands. This would introduce a much-needed financial element into their decision-making processes and force them to innovate or lower costs. And importantly, schools, third-party providers, and students wouldnt necessarily have to play a zero-sum game. Last month, for example, Penn State partnered with Coursera to introduce Massive Open Online Courses like geospatial science, epidemic dynamics, and introduction to art. With more than 50,000 participants, the initial offerings signified a receptive market and were a mutually resounding success. Specifically, a surge in online learners counteracted the biggest one-year decline in student enrollment at Penn States main and branch campuses in three decades (Schackner). Coursera, for its part, amplified its publicity and expanded its user base (Carr). And finally, students enjoyed a greater curricula surplus. Applied to California, this format would ultimately engender a more educated populous, augment the work force, generate additional tax revenue, and equip citizens to meet the dynamic challenges of the 21st century. The SB 520 also meets the needs of an increasingly diverse student body. College was once the domain of well-to-do and well-equipped 18 to 22 year-olds. For various reasons, this is no longer the case. Many students in Californias public system work part-time or commute to help ease the financial burden of higher education. Consider, for instance, Elyery Landavazo,

4 who travels more than an hour and a half each way to study at Los Angeles City College: "I take a bus to the Metro station and then the Blue Line to the Red Line, but at least I get to do my homework on the way" (Rivera 1). Many adults are also seeking to reeducate themselves with marketable degrees during the countrys economic stagnation. Online accreditation would certainly be a flexible option for both groups, and importantly, would make work ethicnot class availabilitythe key variable in earning a diploma. Furthermore, the SB 520 would allow students who didnt learn best in a traditional classroom setting to still pursue their academic goals. Rather than pounding these square individuals into societys round peg hole, the Bill would instead provide an alternativeand perhaps more ideallearning environment. For parents like David Johnson, this is uplifting news: My son, who has a learning disability, thrives on online learning and is highly disciplined and motivated. His school resists having him do even one course online, which would allow him a Khan-style flipped approach that he finds enormously superior to the "listen to lecture, instantly regurgitate material on worksheet" approach they use for everything. Im doing a happy dance! (1) I too can personally attest to the merit of web-based instruction. In high-school, I took virtual English through the Community College of Allegheny County. It allowed me to graduate on time, forced me to interact with my peers, and marked the first time in 12 years of schooling that a teacher genuinely taught me how to write. Im confident that the SB 520 would do as muchif not morefor Californias struggling undergraduates. Critics of the Bill imply that it has no quality control mechanism. Nothing could be further from the truth. If implemented, the California Open Education Resources Council would

5 systematically evaluate prospective courses through standardized review. At minimum, it would consider the extent to which a course provided instructional support, facilitated balanced discussion, promoted integrity, satisfactorily assessed student progress (perhaps through in-class, proctored exams), and included both adaptive learning technology and content recommended by the American Council on Education. Additionally, the Bill would collect, review, and publicize information related to the success of this platform. Metrics would includebut would not be limited toenrollment, retention, and completion rates, and would statistically diagnose any shortcomings. Finally, a panel of faculty from the University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges would select courses, allocate funds, and choose teachers. Emendations, as needed, would also be grounded their recommendations (SB-520 Student instruction: California Online Student Access Platform). Of course, for many unionized faculty members, these provisions and safeguards will never equate to a quality education. Such individuals worry that online accreditation would compromise intellectual property rights and [] collective bargaining agreements (Rivard). I think their concerns are at least partially rooted in job security, and I think they are understandable. However, I would remind these groups that higher education is not an immutable construct, and moreover, that such deliberation is irrelevant if students dont have an education to being with. Nelson Mandela once said that Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world. My views may strike some as hypothetical. To some extent, they are. But whats not hypothetical are the thousands of students denied their fundamental right to pursue higher education in Californias public sector. This is a daunting problem. The SB 520 is practical, sustainable solution.

6 Sincerely,

Jonathan Marks

7 Works Cited California. California Legislative Information. SB-520 Student instruction: California Online Student Access Platform.. California: , 2013. Web. <http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB520>. California. "Commission for the Review of the Master Plan for Higher Education". Master Plan Renewed: Unity, Equity, Quality, and Efficiency in California Postsecondary Education. Sacramento: , 1987. Web. <http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/MPComm1987.pdf>. "California Master Plan for Higher Education: Major Features." University of California. University of California Educational Relations Department: Office of the President, n.d. Web. 3 Apr 2013. <http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mpsummary.htm>. "Capped Out: Governor Brown's Proposal to Cap Education." CSU Students for Quality Education. California Faculty Association, 14 Mar 2013. Web. 3 Apr 2013. <http://csusqe.org/category/news/>. Carr, David. "Coursera Adds 29 University Partners From 13 Countries." Information Week. 21 Feb 2013: n. page. Web. 4 Apr. 2013. <http://www.informationweek.com/education/online-learning/coursera-adds-29university-partners-fro/240149011>. Chen, Grace. "Dire in California: More than 100,000 Students Turned Away from Community Colleges and Counting." Community College Review. N.p., 10 Feb 2011. Web. 3 Apr 2013. <http://www.communitycollegereview.com/articles/322>.

8 Dorr, Paige. "California Community Colleges Chancellors Office Brief s Student Newspaper Editors on Upcoming Enrollment Priority Changes." California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. N.p., 27 Mar 2013. Web. 3 Apr 2013. Johnson, David, comment on California Bill Seeks Campus Credit for Online Study, The New York Times, entry March 13, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/education/california-bill-would-force-colleges-tohonor-online-classes.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp Lewin, Tamar. "California Bill Seeks Campus Credit for Online Study ." New York Times 12 Mar 2013, n. pag. Web. 3 Apr. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/education/california-bill-would-force-colleges-tohonor-online-classes.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp>. Madaleine, Brand, prod. "California Budget Woes Hurt University System." All Things Considered. National Public Radio: 27 Jan 2010. Radio. Rivard, Ry. "Who Owns a MOOC?." Inside Higher Ed. N.p., 19 Mar 2013. Web. 4 Apr 2013. <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/19/u-california-faculty-union-saysmoocs-undermine-professors-intellectual-property>. Rivera, Carla. "n Community college class wait lists throw a wrench into students' plans." Los Angeles Times 04 Oct 2010, n. pag. Web. 3 Apr. 2013. <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/04/local/la-me-college-classes-20101004>.

9 Salam, Reihan. "Californias Move to Break the Higher Education Cartel." National Review Online. 13 Mar 2013: n. page. Web. 3 Apr. 2013. <http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/342875/californias-move-break-highereducation-cartel-reihan-salam>. Schackner, Bill. "Drop-off at Penn State branches tied to birth rates, scandal Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/education/drop-off-at-penn-state-branchestied-to-birth-rates-scandal-680662/ "The California Master Plan for Higher Education in the Seventies and Beyond." Goals of California Higher Education (1972): vii-viii. California Digital Library. Database. 3 Apr 2013.