A bill working its way through the California State Assembly could substantially alter the way College of the Canyons provides some classes to students in the SCV.
The bill, AB 515, would allow community colleges like COC to “establish and maintain an extension program offering credit courses,” similar to extension programs run out of universities like UCLA.
But perhaps more important for students in the SCV, the bill would “allow community college districts to charge students for the actual costs of the course.” What’s that mean? No more $36 per unit hour fee; COC would now charge students the actual cost of the course, without state subsidization. Instead of paying $99 for a given 3 unit course, you might pay $500, or $1000, or whatever the actual cost of hosting a class at COC is.
Now don’t freak out yet: community colleges were and remain the most affordable higher education option, and, I bet, would remain so under this program. I think this is actually a very nuanced issue that deserves some attention.
On the plus side, we’ve read for years how, during this terrible recession, enrollment is booming at colleges like COC at the same time that funding is on the decline. Which means that COC can’t put as many student butts in classroom seats as it would like. Just last year, COC told The Signal that:
COC has lost $12.3 million in revenue during the 2008-09 and current fiscal years. The college expects to have more than 1,300 students that the state will not pay for, Bozman said.
“They need to get an education and we cannot afford to add any classes for them,” Bozman said.
Despite the funding hurdles, COC has maintained a class fill rate of more than 90 percent and hopes to get as many students into class seats as possible.
More than 8,600 COC students have been placed on wait lists during the current spring semester.
I could see a future in which, under AB 515, courses that are not mainstream college courses, but rather are more “civic, vocational, literacy, health, homemaking, technical, and general education” in nature could be offered by COC at an at cost rate. That way, you open up classes to the demands of the market, and those who are willing to pay the full cost of the course would have guaranteed access to them. No more wait lists. No more frustrated students.
And, philosophically, why should the state subsidize a 3 unit course on drafting, or early childhood education, or Microsoft Exchange, for instance? Isn’t our goal to graduate these students to a four year university rather than train them in some vocation? Maybe these types of courses don’t deserve subsidies in the same way that English 101, Math 101, American Literature 150, and Political Science 101 do. By charging at cost rates for these types of courses, you free up money for the important courses that students who plan to transfer to 4 year universities need.
On the other hand, this idea sets up a troubling precedent. Who determines what should legitimately be thought of as a college-level course versus an extension-type course? And wouldn’t the college logically increase the amount of extension-type courses it offers, to the possible detriment of classic, subsidized courses? Don’t we want poorer students to have affordable access to classes in early childhood education or Information Technology? The bill says it has safeguards against these problems, but I’m skeptical.
Higher education is, in my view, a public good. We as a society benefit when people educate themselves. Community colleges, by accepting all-comers (including high school slackers like your’s truly), add tremendous value to the communities they serve and deserve large subsidies to keep them affordable. This bill would bifurcate their mission, making half the college into a privately-styled & expensive career college and the other half into a traditional, publicly-subsidized college focusing on college-level academics.
I can’t decide if that’s a good or a bad thing and I look forward to seeing this bill debated.
Comments (19)