UCSF offers furloughed employees little help via ‘hardship loans’ [The Public Press]
My latest piece for The Public Press was posted Wednesday afternoon. You can read the entire article below, or you can see the original posting here.
UCSF offers furloughed employees little help via ‘hardship loans’ By Christi Morales
The Public Press
To help employees suffering "additional financial stress" from pay cuts and furloughs, the University of California-San Francisco is letting workers borrow their lost wages and repay the money -- with interest.
UC fees to rise by additional $2,500 within the year [The Public Press]
Here's a follow up to the University of California stories I've covered for The Public Press. You can read the story below or on The Public Press website.
By Christi Morales
The cost to attend the University of California could skyrocket by more than 30 percent next fall, which would bring fees to a level like never before, the Associated Press and others news sources are reporting.
If approved by the UC Board of Regents, who will discuss details with President Mark Yudof next week, the proposed fee hike would include a 15 percent increase effective for the winter and spring semesters, as well as an additional 15 percent for fall 2010. This means in-state undergraduate students would pay $2,500 more in fees, about $10,302 a year. Graduate and out-of-state students would also have their tuition raised.
Yudof’s fee proposal comes at a time when UC labor leaders have clamored for him to step down, because of budgetary policies that include a contentious employee furlough program and layoffs. He said these measures and the student fee raises are necessary to preserve the quality of education.
In May, the regents had already approved a 9.3 percent fee increase for this fall semester. This newest proposal would make this the ninth time the 10-campus system has raised fees in seven years.
UC employees cast 'no-confidence' vote in Yudof [The Public Press]
My latest piece for The Public Press was posted yesterday evening. It highlighted the ongoing tensions between UC employee unions and the administration. I included the article below, but you can see the original posting here.
UC faculty say proposed cuts unfair, show favoritism [The Public Press]
This story was originally filed on August 2nd, just a few days after Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the $84.5 billion spending plan for California's 2009-2010 fiscal year. The budget removed a $24 billion deficit mostly by cutting funding to education, health and human services, prisons, and other state services. This story tells how the budget cuts are affecting the staff and programs of the state's higher education system. I'm reposting the article below, but you can see the original post on The Public Press website.
Public Press Story: UC regents approve furlough plan; standoff foreseen with unions
This story was originally filed on July 16th, which was the last day of the University of California Regents' three-day meeting in San Francisco. It resulted in the approval of a controversial, system-wide furlough program. I'm reposting the article below, but you can see the original post on The Public Press website.
By Christi Morales The Public Press
In a 20-1 vote, the University of California Board of Regents decided Thursday to move forward with a contentious furlough plan that will affect more than 108,000 employees, setting the stage for a standoff between UC officials and labor unions.
Beginning Sept. 1, UC faculty and staff members will have to take 11 to 26 days off a year, depending on their salary level, which amounts to pay cuts ranging from 4 percent to 10 percent. Those making $40,000 or less will have to take 11 furlough days, with the number of days off increasing for those with higher salaries.
The plan is expected to create $184 million in savings for the 10-campus university system, which is saddled with an $813 million deficit.
UC President Mark Yudof must negotiate with the unions in order to implement the furloughs for represented employees, whose contracts fall under collective bargaining agreements. Some lab and student employees, as well as others paid through grants, are exempt from the plan.
Jeff Myers, vice president of patient care for AFSCME Local 1399 and a UC San Francisco surgical technician, said he’s disappointed by the outcome, but not surprised.
“It’s a slap in the face,” Myers said. “We had a lot of people who gave testimonies against this plan -- faculty, students, workers -- during yesterday’s meetings, but [Yudof’s] determined to do what he wants to.”
While it’s too soon to say what the unions will do, he said, “there could be legal action” involved.
“People are not going to just take this lying down,” Myers added.
He explained that a broad coalition of union leaders plan to meet in the coming days to discuss the next move. Among the unions in the coalition are the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Coalition of University Employees and the University of Professional and Technical Employees.
In closing the UC Regents' three-day meeting at UCSF Mission Bay, Yudof warned that if the unions resist the plan, layoffs could follow.
Meanwhile, faculty and staff aren’t the only ones who will feel the pinch. UC students could be in for another fee hike. In addition to the 9.3 percent raise this fall, Yudof said it’s likely there will be another fee increase by January.
Reach the reporter at cmorales[AT]public-press.org.
Public Press Story: UC Regents back furloughs and pay cuts; staff protest
Yesterday, I covered part of the University of California Board of Regents' meeting, where faculty, staff and other UC employees expressed displeasure over the systemwide furlough plan with protests and sporadic outbursts during the public comment portion. In the end, a key committee moved forward in support of the furlough proposal, which will be voted on by the full board today. Included below is the full text article and you can see the original post on The Public Press website; the top of the story was written by Michael Winter, while the grafs under the subhead "Anger outside the meeting" were done by me.
By Christi Morales and Michael Winter The Public Press
More than 108,000 full-time University of California faculty and staff face extended unpaid furloughs and pay cuts under an emergency plan endorsed Wednesday by a Board of Regents' committee. Senior managers would also see their salaries cut an additional 5 percent.
The plan passed, 11-1. The full board will vote Thursday.
In addition to the estimated one-year, $184.1 million in payroll savings, the proposal calls for more than $300 million in cost cutting at the 10 UC campuses. Chancellors would decide those reductions as part of the effort to compensate for the projected loss of $813 million in state funding.
If approved, the plan would take effect Sept. 1. UC faculty and staff would be required to take from 11 to 26 unpaid days by Sept. 1, 2010, which works out to a pay cut of 4 to 10 percent. Higher earners would take more furlough days and deeper pay cuts.
The exact number of furlough days would be based on a sliding scale across seven pay grades — from under $40,000 to more than $240,000.
UC's senior management would be restricted to no more than 10 furlough days per year, although UC said "their actual pay cuts will be among the highest." Top managers who voluntarily agreed to a 5 percent salary cut in May would lose an additional 5 percent during the next year.
Roughly 27,000 staff and faculty would be exempt from the cuts — most student employees, including graduate students; researchers and staff funded entirely by grants; and employees of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
UC said it would negotiate the cuts with its unionized employees, who make up 35 to 40 percent of the workforce.
Other measures to close the $813 million gap include $200 million from a previously approved student fee increase and $100 million from additional spending cuts and refinancing of debt.
"There is no doubt that these reductions will be painful for our faculty and staff," said UC President Mark Yudof. "Unfortunately, the university is facing a financial crisis unprecedented in the past quarter century, and everyone is going to be called on to be part of the solution. No plan is perfect, but we have worked hard to make it as fair as possible while preserving, to the extent possible, excellence and access to opportunity for students, researchers and patients."
Anger outside the meeting
Outside the meeting, on the UC San Francisco Mission Bay campus, dozens of union workers expressed anger over a plan they said would cause great hardship.
“We represent the lowest paid in the system. So no matter whatever cut or furlough or whatever they give them, this is a difference between bread or medication for our workers,” said Lakesha Harrison, a licensed vocational nurse at UCLA and president of AFSCME Local 3299, which represents 20,000 hospital workers.
“Yudof’s going to take a 5 percent cut off his million-dollar salary. That’s arrogant and it’s a slap in the face, and they’re asking the worker that makes $30,000 a year to take a 4 percent cut,” she added.
Noting the additional pay cut being proposed, Lynn Tierney, UC associate vice president of communications, accused the unions of spreading "misinformation" to their members.
Joining the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees were members from the Coalition of University Employees and the University Professional and Technical Employees.
Jeffrey Branner has been an AFSCME member and UCSF senior custodial worker for six years. The father of seven said a 4 percent cut is equivalent to losing one day of pay.
“It would devastate us,” said Branner. “It would not only set me back, but it would throw me to the fringe, where I would probably run into problems paying my bills.”
'Union needs to deal with reality'
Tierney said the furlough proposal is the only way to save jobs, adding that while 4 percent for the lowest paid workers hurts, everyone is sharing the pain. She also said that health coverage among other benefits would stay the same for all workers.
“Nobody likes this, but if we want to preserve the quality of the UC and preserve jobs, something has to be done,” she said. “We’re facing a severe crisis. The union needs to deal with reality and deal with the truth.”
But for Jeff Myers, vice president of patient care for AFSCME Local 1399 and UCSF surgical technician, that reality will mean sending less money to his sick mother in South Carolina.
“If my funds are cut, then I have to give her less funds,” said Myers. “In South Carolina, they don’t make hardly any money really. The cost of living is low, so she barely makes enough money to survive.
“A lot of us are hurting throughout the nation,” he continued. “But if you have a university like this one that is very wealthy — has a lot of resources and has good members who want to work and who are the backbone of the university — they should really consider our proposals to try to find other ways before making extreme cuts like this.”
Reach Christi Morales at cmorales[AT]public-press.org.
Public Press Story: Ideologies continue to divide same-sex marriage isse
On Tuesday, May 26th, The Public Press news team covered the California Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 - the voter approved ban on same-sex marriage - that was upheld 6 to 1. I led our team which consisted of myself and reporters Michael Pistorio, Kevin Stark, Stephen Robert Morse, along with photographers Monica Jensen (who also shot video) and Vivian Morales.
Below is the actual article that links to the original post which has video of clergy reactions to the decision and audio from an interview I conducted, featuring an argument between a Prop. 8 advocate and gay marriage supporter. As a result of this interview, I also ended up in New York Times's coverage of the news event here.
You can see the original post on The Public Press website. By Christi Morales The Public Press
As hundreds gathered in front of the Earl Warren Building on Tuesday waiting to hear the California Supreme Court’s ruling that upheld Proposition 8, a war of words erupted and some even turned into screaming battles that reinforced the deeply divided ideologies about same-sex marriage.
The scene of people arguing amidst the flurry of pro and anti-gay marriage banners illustrates the chasm among Californians that has played out since same-sex marriage took center stage in 2000, when voters passed Proposition 22. This was the original measure that banned this type of union, but was later ruled unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in May 2008 – which lead to Prop. 8’s inclusion on the 2008 ballot.
The Public Policy Institute of California found that more voters opposed same-sex marriage back when Prop. 22 passed – 38 percent in favor and 55 percent opposed. After Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed same-sex couples to get hitched at City Hall in 2004, attitudes shifted in 2005, splitting people in the middle with 46 percent supporting and the same number opposing. The numbers have remained relatively unchanged as the most recent institute survey shows 47 percent approve, while 48 percent oppose same-sex marriage showing just how deeply divided the two groups continue to be.
A March 2009 Field Poll revealed that among the general California population, 49 percent approved of the idea of same-sex marriage, while 44 percent disapproved – a slight drop from a May 2008 Field Poll, which pegged the number of supporters at 51 percent.
George Popko, a biology student from American River College in Sacramento, stood in front of the Warren Building Tuesday holding a pro-Prop. 8 banner and engaging in debates with at least three gay marriage supporters who initiated the confrontations. His school was the first college in the state to endorse Prop. 8 last year.
“What I've seen from the opposition, as you can tell with this gentleman here, I see a lot of oppression,” he said, as a familiar face from the opposite side stood right in front of him.
The face was that of “Sister Maudlin Mascara” -- a gay rights activist and member of a local group called the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence -- who was involved in a similar encounter with Popko during a past Civic Center Plaza rally on the issue. What ensued was a 10-minute heated exchange.
“You went to the ballot to stop a minority of individuals from having the right to have equal rights,” Mascara fired back at Popko. “If I choose to engage in homosexual behavior, how does that make me a bad person?"
“They're oppressing those with what I would call the traditional values: This is what America was founded on -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, First Amendment [rights],” said Popko.
After the early morning gathering at the Warren Building, anti-Prop. 8 protestors moved down the street to Van Ness and Grove to engage in civil disobedience by sitting in the streets. Eventually about 160 of them were arrested.
Among the arrested was Dianna Gewing-Mullins who “married” her wife in a commitment ceremony 15 years ago and two other times, including the occasion when Newsom opened up City Hall for same-sex marriages in 2004.
“We're fed up with [this] and it's time for change,” Mullins said. She is standing in the street and getting arrested, she added, for her wife and their four adopted children – two of them stood in the streets with Mullins before she was arrested.
“We want changes for our little sister - she's 10,” said Mullins’s 20-year-old daughter Krystle, tears streamed down her face. “We have a lot of friends in school whose parents wouldn't let them come over to our house because of our parents.
“We need to do something for her (the sister),” she added. “I don't want her to go through the same thing that we had to go through.”
While Mullins has been steadfastly fighting for equal marriage rights for 15 years and says she intends to forge on, others who once agreed with her are having a change of heart.
Maria, 31, a San Francisco resident and recently converted Christian who would not permit use of her full name because of the nature of her work, said “the old me would have supported gay marriage” and stood against Prop. 8.
Six months ago she started becoming open to the teachings of the bible.
“I used to be very liberal,” said Maria. “Something just made me decide to start reading the bible and start living my life a certain way for myself, not for anyone else, but just for myself.”
If you go by the bible, she said, marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman.
“I'm leaning towards that,” Maria said.
She also said she feels torn and refrained from saying she is completely against the idea of same-sex marriage, adding that she doesn’t think that homosexuality itself is wrong.
The recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California found that staunch supporters of Prop. 8 had strong ties to religion. The findings show that evangelicals were most likely to support Prop. 8 at 85 percent, along with 60 percent of Catholics and 66 percent of Protestants. Meanwhile, the survey revealed that those with no religion very much opposed the measure with 79 percent voting against it.
But anti-Prop. 8 supporters like air force veteran Peter Fiske, who knew slain San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk back in the 1970s, said he refuses to let anti-gay marriage groups have the last word.
“We’ll put it on the ballot every two years until we win,” said Fiske. “We’ll never give up.”
On the scene:
Listen to a heated debate between pro and anti-gay marriage supporters
Watch video of clergy protest following the court's decision
Public Press Story: Closer Look at Propositions 1A & 1B
There's been extensive coverage done about California's May 19 special election. Basically, it boils down to two messages: one side says Propositions 1A through 1F will help the state out of its estimated two-year $42 billion budget hole and prevent deeper cuts to education and other social services; the other side considers them hastily drawn measures with short-term fixes that could end up causing more damage than good in the long run.
My post isn't meant to tell you how to vote, but instead to encourage voters to do their due diligence. If you simply watch the commercial ads and read the election mailers, there's not enough substance there to help voters truly make an informed decision.
The Public Press article, entitled "Whatever Happens, we're still in a deep hole," published today aims to help voters accomplish this by reading between the lines. This analysis piece is kicked off by Lizzy Tomei and is followed by links to further examination of the ballot measures by me and Michael Pistorio. My section, which I've included below, points out just some of the less obvious provisions of Propositions 1A and 1B.
Propositions 1A and 1B
Christi Morales The Public Press
Of the six propositions on the May 19 Special Election ballot, Proposition 1A — the “rainy-day fund” — has garnered the most attention, and for good reason. The measure seeks to change how the state’s general fund would be balanced at a time when revenues are faltering and the need for public services is great.
Pushing 1A are Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, his political allies, corporations and business leaders. Opposing it are largely the public university and state employee unions. In the media, much of the focus has been on the impact this measure would have on the state’s education systems because public universities and K-12 schools receive a large chunk of the general fund and have suffered the biggest cuts.
Although the idea of a rainy-day fund may sound appealing, the most vocal opponent — the California Faculty Association union for California State University educators — argues that the restrictions put on how this rainy-day fund could be used are too rigid. Even in good economic years, there would be limits on its use. This is troubling to the CFA, which has seen several rounds of cuts fall on the CSU and University of California systems. CFA officials also say the fund wouldn’t resolve the current fiscal crisis anyway, since the state doesn’t expect revenues to come in until after two years.
“We could be coming out of this recession and see better revenues and better tax receipts and nevertheless, Prop. 1A will keep public higher education, healthcare, a whole lot of programs in the hole that they're already in,” said Lillian Taiz, who is a CSU professor and the president of the CFA. With such restrictions over how the reserve fund can be used, she said, the CSU budget will not be restored to the level it should be.
Parties on both sides of the issue have been busy spreading their messages about what the passage or failure of this measure would mean for Californians.
Budget Reform Now, the coalition backing Prop. 1A and the five other measures, said aside from the rainy-day fund, which the group argues would stabilize funding for public services, this measure would prevent the government from overspending.
But if you read the mailers and watch the TV ads in favor of Prop. 1A, they don’t mention the state tax hikes that would be extended if this becomes law. This includes, extending for up to two years, the 1 percent sales tax increase, vehicle registration fee and the state income tax rate, while reducing the dependent tax credit amount, according to the California Budget Project – a non-profit organization that conducts non-partisan research and analysis on the state’s fiscal matters. Prop. 1A would also give the governor power to make budget cuts without oversight from the Legislature.
In San Francisco, this means the sales tax jump of 9.5 percent experienced in April and scheduled to expire on July 2011 would remain; sales tax increases vary from county to county. The same extension would apply to the California vehicle registration fee, which is already set to increase from 0.65 percent to 1.15 percent on May 19, and 0.25 percent of a percentage point increase for personal income tax rates. This means a person’s tax rate would rise anywhere from 1 percent to 10.3 percent depending on income; the bigger the income, the higher the tax rate.
If voters approve Prop. 1A, these tax increases would provide California with $16 billion in revenues from 2010-11 through 2012-13, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Even if Prop. 1A passes and money starts going into the reserve, it would not help the current budget situation because the state would not see revenues until two years out. This detail is something not all voters realize, just as some are unaware of how Prop. 1A is linked to Prop. 1B — the “Education Funding. Payment Plan,” which aims to give back money reduced from the K-12 and community college budgets.
In a recent Field Poll, about 43 percent of those surveyed did not know that Prop. 1B would not take effect without the passage of Prop. 1A. Not only has this provision confused voters, it has also divided the CFA and its affiliate, the California Teachers Association, which represents 340,000 of the state’s K-12 educators.
"We parted company with CTA because we know that [1A] is going to hurt our program,” said Taiz of CFA. “Because 1B won't pass if 1A does not, we are on opposite sides.”
“We have not taken a position on 1B,” she added. “We have only taken a position on 1A because we think that that's the lynch pin.”
The CTA is backing all six ballot measures.
Even though the CFA and CTA are not on the same side, they have steered clear from any mud slinging. The CTA has stuck with focusing on how much Prop. 1B would help public schools and community colleges that have suffered budget reductions of $11.6 billion. The passage of Prop. 1B would restore $9 billion in funding to them.
“The repayment of some of the money cut from education will allow local school districts to restore student programs, reduce class sizes and rehire educators who have been laid off,” CTA President David Sanchez said in a statement released after the union's governing board endorsed the propositions in March.
“Many of these initiatives, especially Propositions 1A and B, are dependent on each other and if they fail, the state is back to square one in trying to balance the budget and our schools could face even deeper cuts,” said Sanchez.
What some voters may not know, however, is that lawmakers are already mandated to provide K-12 schools and community colleges with a guaranteed amount of funding because of the passage of Proposition 98 in 1988. But since that amount was reduced by 20.3 percent because of the state’s fiscal crisis, what Prop. 1B is asking voters to do is decide on whether that money gets paid back starting in 2011.
Reach the reporter at cmorales[at]public-press.org.
PROPOSITION 1A - STATE BUDGET. CHANGES CALIFORNIA BUDGET PROCESS. LIMITS STATE SPENDING. INCREASES “RAINY DAY” BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND.
Public Press Story: UC, CSU students brace for budget cuts fallout
I wrote the following article which was published yesterday on The Public Press. It sheds light on the ways the state's budget crisis has impacted public college students. Below the article is also a video news segment I wrote and produced to accompany The Public Press article. The video focuses on the budget situation at UC Santa Cruz.
By Christi Morales The Public Press
Photo by Victor Morales
It’s yet another blow to Bay Area public college students who have already felt the negative effects of budget cuts spurred by California’s fiscal crisis – if university administrators have their way, educators say.
University of California and the California State University officials are in the process of raising tuition fees to offset the budget cuts. On Thursday, UC Board of Regents will discuss a $662 undergraduate fee increase during a meeting, while the CSU Board of Trustees will meet to consider raising fees by $306.
“Not only are we shutting people out of the university cause we’re not funding the institution, but now we’re piling barrier upon barrier upon barrier on all those kids whose families are not going to be able to pay the extra fees,” said Lillian Taiz, president of the California Faculty Association.
City College of San Francisco officials also are concerned that university fee increases could put additional pressure on junior colleges.
“If they cannot afford to go to a four-year college, they will explore the California community colleges,” said Martha Lucey, City College’s dean of marketing and public information. “We are funded at a certain level from year to year and if there is a spike in enrollment, the state will not reimburse us sufficiently for the growth.”
The proposed fee hike would bring full-time undergraduate fees to $3,354 per academic year, while graduate student fees would amount to $4,134. CSU officials said the fee hike would generate $127 million in revenues to help offset the loss in state funds, adding that even with a hike, CSU fees are still among the lowest in the nation.
Meanwhile, UC regents are proposing a $662 undergraduate fee increase, which would provide $152 million in revenues.
Federal stimulus funding and increases in the education tax credit will offset the higher fees for many students, according to UC officials.
"The average Pell Grant is going up almost as much as our fee increase," said UC President Mark Yudof in announcing Friday the proposed 9.3 percent increase. "More than 81 percent of the families below $180,000 in household income won't pay the increase as a result of the federal tax credit and the increased Pell Grants."
UC and CSU officials proposed the fee hikes to maintain the quality of education and cope with budget reductions, which come at a time when the state is grappling with a projected $42 billion deficit.
After Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released the proposed budget for 2009-10 earlier this year, CSU estimated that it would face a two-year fiscal deficit of $600 million, while UC’s shortfall would amount to $450 million over the same period. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, UC and CSU will split $537 million in stimulus funds – about $268 million per system. The money backfills cuts already made, bringing the two institutions no closer to filling the multi-million dollar gap each must tackle.
"We still face a major budget shortfall of at least $437 million at the University of California,” said Yudof in a statement about the stimulus funds.
Aside from proposed fee increases, UC and CSU officials have trimmed enrollment, frozen senior management salaries and curbed new hiring among other tactics. UC also instituted a voluntary separation option, which gives staff members the choice of leaving their positions with severance pay. Even with these measures, university officials have no illusions about what could lie ahead.
“We don't know how deep the cuts will be when everything settles, next summer or fall,” said George Breslauer, UC Berkeley executive vice chancellor and provost, in a discussion about the budget earlier this year.
UC Berkeley’s estimated shortfall could total between $60-70 million, which includes reductions for the coming school year and previous cuts carried over from 2008-09.
At UC Santa Cruz (UCSC) – where a large percentage of students are from the SF Bay Area – spokesman Jim Burns said officials are bracing for deeper cuts beyond its campus’s $13 million budget reduction figure.
“We don’t even have an official number yet,” Burns said. “Since these cuts have to take effect July 1, we’re using $13 million as a planning figure.”
The UC and CSU budget outlook also hinges on the outcome of Proposition 1A, which voters will take up during the state’s Special Election on May 19. Proponents of Prop 1A, including the governor, say this will restrict state spending while protecting education funding. Opponents counter that education will suffer further.
While officials from the UC and CSU systems feel the pressure to slash costs and implement cuts by July, both currently enrolled and aspiring college students are running into serious challenges of their own.
Tighter enrollment, stricter requirements
Photo by Victor Morales
In November, CSU officials announced for the first time that the system would have to turn away qualified students because of budget cuts. CSU Chancellor Charles Reed confirmed that the 23-campus system would receive $2.97 billion in state funds for 2008-09, the same amount as the previous year and $215 million less than what was needed to cover enrollment growth and other costs. UC system funding also stayed flat – at $3.3 billion – with no extra money for enrollment increases.
As a result, the CSU, with an enrollment of almost 450,000, is accepting 10,000 fewer students for the 2009-10 school year. UC officials followed saying it would reduce its enrollment by 2,300 students. Officials from both camps expressed their reluctance to cap enrollment, but said this was a necessary move to maintain the quality of education.
At San Francisco State University, about 300 fewer students are being accepted for the fall semester, which breaks down to 100 fewer freshmen and 200 fewer returning students or those with a Bachelor’s degree. To accomplish this, the university moved up registration date deadlines, considered students with slightly higher GPAs and test scores and required applicants to be living in one of nine Bay Area counties to get in, said Jo Volkert, SF State associate vice president of enrollment management.
While UC Berkeley’s enrollment is staying steady, UCSC has reduced its freshmen admissions by 335 students, employing tactics similar to CSU in deciding which students get accepted. UCSC had the biggest drop in its admission rate out of all the nine UC schools, accepting 10.6 percent fewer students than the previous year. About 30 percent of previously enrolled freshmen were from the San Francisco Bay Area, according to UCSC’s most recent statistics.
Although fewer freshmen were granted admission, the one bright spot for both university systems is an agreement to increase the number of transfer students. The UC is taking in 500 more transfer students for the 2009-10 school year, while CSU campuses like SFSU are admitting the same number of transfers as last year.
“High school graduates may not be as affected by the enrollment restrictions as transfer students who must move onto a four-year institution,” replied SF State’s Volkert, when asked why transfer rates would remain steady. “High school graduates still have the option of attending a community college.”
But senior Sarah Wong from Dinuba High School in the Central Valley believes many students who didn’t get into universities where they applied may be discouraged from going to college altogether.
“Getting rejected and then having to go to a community college may not be what they want to do,” she said.
Wong and her closest friends are set to go to CSU schools, but she worries about entering SF State at a time when the number of classes are shrinking.
Decline in quality of education
At SF State, Shell Ramos, 21, an international relations major, was supposed to graduate next May. But because of course reductions, she can’t get enough classes.
“It was kind of like a nightmare,” she said. “It’s really difficult not being able to get classes and then having to get on all these wait lists.”
Now, it could take up to two years more for her to graduate. By then she’ll have been in college for five to six years, which was not part of her plan.
SF State Assistant Professor Ramon Castellblanch, also president of the campus’s chapter of the California Faculty Association union, said the university cut 150 course sections this spring semester and about 141 last fall.
“There’s fewer classes,” he said. “It’s basically denying access to students, which affects their entire careers and lives.”
Because of course reductions, class sizes are ballooning, bringing down the quality of education at the university, said Castellblanch, who has taught upper-division courses in health education for seven years. At this level, he said, students should be able to work more closely with the professor to maximize their learning experience and receive mentoring. But since he has 60 students in each of his two classes instead of the ideal 30, he said it’s impossible to get to know all of them.
When asked for a response from SF State officials about Castellblanch’s concerns, spokeswoman Ellen Griffin said comment should be reserved for Dean Don Taylor of the College of Health and Human Services to which Castellblanch’s program belongs. Taylor did not return phone calls or answer emails from The Public Press.
While CFA’s Taiz said it’s difficult to quantify how class size and course reductions impact the quality of education, she did say “with so many students and less classes, it makes it almost impossible to do the kind of job you want to do to help your students. It can’t help but hurt the education the kids are getting.”
“Those are very realistic concerns,” said Debbie Cochrane of the Institute for College Access & Success in Berkeley, a non-profit organization that conducts non-partisan research around higher education issues. “You can’t continue to decrease the amount of funding that a system has or that any program has and continue to maintain the level or amount of service that it’s currently providing.”
At Santa Cruz, the potential for growth in class sizes is a real possibility, according to university spokesman Jim Burns.
“Will there perhaps be larger classes? Possibly. Will there be reduced services if departments are consolidated or staff are let go? There’s no doubt about that,” said Burns. With the scale of cuts, he added, there will be pain and impact – something even UC Berkeley officials have acknowledged.
Lecturers and support staff jobs on the line
Late last month, more than 200 UCSC students staged a walkout and rally to protest budget cut proposals. Many of the students and supporters voiced their concerns that the budget axe would fall heavily on the Community Studies and the Latin American and Latino Studies departments. Earlier this month rumors surfaced that UCSC officials planned to eliminate the community studies program, a major focused on social activism and that two prominent LALS lecturers would be let go.
Photo by Victor Morales
“If they let go of the two lecturers, we’re losing 12 classes,” said student Robert Gutierrez, an LALS minor. “That’s 20 percent of the LALS department, so in a way they’re cutting classes because they’re not going to be able to find anyone else to teach those classes.”
Burns said students and supporters are assuming incorrectly that decisions have been made. School officials have until May 15 to decide how cuts will actually be implemented. Even before the student rally, Sheldon Kamieniecki, dean of the Social Sciences division that oversees community studies, attempted to allay students’ fears that the program would be eliminated.
“Contrary to rumors, there has been no decision, or even a formal proposal, to discontinue the community studies major," Kamieniecki said in a campus-wide memo. "We are considering eliminating administrative-support positions in community studies. Administrative support for this academic program will continue and will be provided by one or more of our social science departments.”
But community studies lecturer Sean Burns – who is not related to UCSC spokesman Jim Burns – said even if the major itself isn’t in danger of going away, the proposal to eliminate staff members could eventually lead to the program’s demise.
“The notion that, no, the administration is continuing the department, is disingenuous in the sense that, de facto, if you cut out the number of staff positions, the lecturers who have been teaching critical studies in the department and try to disperse the faculty in other places around campus, the 40-year-old program of community studies will end,” he said.
Both Sean Burns, a longtime UCSC lecturer, and Castellblanch of SF State agree that California’s public higher education is in crisis and that state and federal officials need to do more before it gets worse.
“Community college and the public university system is the gateway into being a worker in the 21st century,” said Burns. “For us to be undermining fiscally these programs from K through university is just so short-sighted.”
First Story for The Public Press...much ado about swine flu
For those who have been following my blog (hopefully still) or just happen to chance upon it, you will notice that I'm a little behind in posting. That's because I've been in researching and reporting mode for The Public Press. I'll be playing catch up over the next few weeks.
In April, I came on board as a contributing reporter for The Public Press. If you haven't heard of The Public Press, the sheet below basically spells out what the organization is all about:
I truly believe in what they're trying to achieve. Last Wednesday, I helped write a piece on swine flu and how San Francisco health officials have emphasized that there's no need to panic. You can check it out here. I will be working on more stories for The Public Press, so stay tuned. :-)
