While Willie Brown reads tea leaves, actual votes are taking place in Sacramento.  And the budget conference committee, in the end, rejected cuts to Cal Grants and Hastings College that the Governor requested.

California took a multimillion-dollar step backward Friday in cutting its budget.

Assembly and Senate members in a budget conference committee balked at derailing the Cal Grant program of college aid or stripping Hastings College of the Law of nearly all its state funding.

By rejecting the two proposals by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, the committee created a new $235 million headache in its bid to fix a gaping fiscal hole.

The panel is rushing to balance the state’s recession-wracked budget by curing a projected $24.3 billion shortfall.

Republicans actually claimed they were against eliminating Cal Grants but wanted to find additional offsets in the budget.  But in the end, they voted to get rid of every aid grant for 77,000 low- and middle-income California students who want to attend an institution of higher learning.  You would think that the Democrats could do something with that.

With respect to Hastings College, the budget committee averted what could have been a costly disaster.

Schwarzenegger’s Hastings proposal would have eliminated about $10.3 million in state funding for the University of California law school, leaving it with only $7,000 in general fund support and $153,000 from lottery revenue.

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, argued Friday that the cut was much deeper than those targeting other UC programs and would raise Hastings’ annual tuition from $28,600 to about $36,600.

Leno said the cut could launch a costly court fight over terms of the law school’s creation, which called for Judge S.C. Hastings to donate $100,000 to support the campus – and for the state to pay his heirs that sum, plus interest, if the state ever abandoned its financial support.

Leno said the governor is attempting to “privatize” the law school, and if the Hastings heirs sued, the state could wind up owing more from 130 years of accumulated interest than it could save from its budget-cutting proposal.

Seriously, did anyone in the Governor’s office even think about the possibility of paying 130 YEARS’ WORTH of accumulated interest on a $100,000 contribution in order to save $10 million, and how those numbers do not compute?

I think you can see where this goes.  The conference committee is not nearly in the mood to accept the most extreme of the Governor’s proposals – I don’t think they’ll tell those AIDS activists in the streets that they can no longer get their drugs, for example.  And then we’ll have a fairly large remaining gap after the committee’s work is done.  The first pot of money the budget committee will attack will be the absurdly large $4.5 billion reserve in the Governor’s plan, essentially ignoring the will of the people not to institute a spending cap and socking away billions of dollars in the middle of a near-depression.  After that, we’re going to see a big fight.  We need to continue to leverage grassroots pressure, wedge Republicans who are  starting to waver on a cuts-only approach, and let Democrats know that they must hold the line on things like eliminating welfare and children’s health care, and incorporate a majority-vote fee increase to make up the difference.  We’re already seeing cracks in the rush to shock doctrine California.  Let’s break it open.

Apologies to Russell from Fat Albert, but in this case I mean that literally.

The Los Angeles Unified School District announced Thursday it is canceling the bulk of its summer school programs, the latest in a statewide wave of cutbacks expected to leave hundreds of thousands of students struggling for classes.

The reductions, which will force many parents to scramble for child care, are the most tangible effect of the multibillion-dollar state financial cuts to education. Community colleges also have announced summer program cancellations.

Bridge learning has a direct throughline to academic achievement, and in the long run, the value of getting an at-risk youth a high school diploma far outweighs short-term spending.  But of course, summer-school programs extend beyond make-up classes for students behind the curve, but also playground and pool programs which keep kids out of trouble and off the streets.  In other words, the very kind of after-school programs that the Governor championed before he took office.

Of course, this is in line with Arnold 3.0’s Hooverist approach to education – cutting grants, raising fees.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plan to dismantle the Cal Grant program would make California the first state in the recession-battered nation to eliminate student financial aid while raising college tuition, experts said this week.

“Other states are cutting back, but not a complete phase-out,” said Haley Chitty, communications director for the National Assn. of Student Financial Aid Administrators.

The governor’s proposal would end all new Cal Grants, eventually eliminating the state’s main financial aid program for college students, and prevent existing awards from increasing. Grants awarded to 118,000 freshmen starting college in the fall would be canceled, as well as hikes in 82,255 continuing awards promised when the University of California and California State University raised fees this month by 10% and 9.3%, respectively.

Cal Grants awards focus on the lower-income population.  That’s on whom this budget is being balanced.

Arnold will deliver a joint address to the legislature this week.  I’d rather that be a joint address to all public school students.  Explain this to them.

I don’t know how many times I have read this kind of article this decade, but it’s still once too often:

Facing a significant budget shortfall, the University of California plans to increase tuition at its 10 campuses by nearly 10 percent by July, in time for the summer session.

The proposed 9.3 percent fee increase would raise basic tuition for undergraduate students from $7,126 a year to about $7,789. In addition, various student services fees are also expected to rise….

Birgeneau said middle-class families will bear the brunt of the tuition increase.

Under the proposal, families earning more than $100,000 would pay the full fee increase. Families earning from $60,000 to $100,000 would pay half the fee increase, or about 4.65 percent. Families earning less than $60,000 would not be subject to the fee increase.

Even considering this graduated level of increased tuition, the price is unsustainable. An annual tuition of $7,500 is out of the reach of most families, period. It’s nearly double what I paid from 1996 to 2000, and is a 570% increase over what a UC grad would have paid from 1961 to 1965. Student loans might make up the difference, but those are much more difficult to get during a credit crunch and even if you can get one, they’ll be an anchor around your neck for decades, preventing you from finding financial security.

As I argued here back in October 2007, this is all likely part of a deliberate move to privatize public education slowly but surely over time. The Schwarzenegger Administration in 2004 rolled out a plan to raise fees and cut funding in order to accomplish this privatization goal.

Although the UC and CSU systems (which are likely to follow UC in making their own fee increases soon) remain officially public entities, they have been effectively privatized over time, as their funding now depends on private giving or student payments. The state contribution is now becoming almost incidental – with this recent budget nearly 80% of UC funding is coming from sources other than the state of California.

Even with the massive fee increases, educational quality isn’t necessarily going to be sustained. New faculty hires are going to be dramatically scaled back, meaning new profs who bring new ideas and fresh blood to the university – and who often bring the best teaching to the classroom – will be fewer in number.

The original goal of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education was to guarantee access to college and affordability for those who were qualified in order to grow the middle class in California. It worked spectacularly, creating one of the leading economies of the globe over the last 50 years. But in the last 20 years this has begun to ebb, as fewer people can afford higher ed. And as the California Budget Project’s study A Generation of Inequality found, young college educated Californians have had a harder time finding work than those with just a high school diploma while they are saddled with debts they cannot pay off.

In Vietnam they “destroyed the village in order to save it.” Here in California, it seems clear that the goal is just to destroy higher education  and the economic mobility and the foundation of the middle class along with it. It’s time for us to determine how to reverse this trend.

I will be on KRXA 540 AM at 8 this morning to discuss this and other issues in California politics

In 1960 the state of California made a promise. All students who met eligibility requirements would be given a place in the state’s higher education system, and that education would be provided free of charge (although students would be responsible for room and board and books, they were not to be charged for the cost of instruction). Sure, that place might be at a UC, or a CSU, but under Governor Pat Brown both Republicans and Democrats agreed that for the good of the state, its economy, and its future, affordable higher education had to be guaranteed.

That was the essence of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education and it perhaps more than any other project of the Pat Brown era was responsible for catapulting California to global economic leadership, creating broadly shared prosperity, and making this state a better place to live. Without it we would be much worse off than we are today.

The Master Plan has been betrayed before, starting with Governor Ronald Reagan’s 1967 student fee hikes. Over the decades the promise of free college has eroded, but at least those who met the eligibility requirements could get a place. In recent years that opportunity became more remote and more dependent on debt, but at least it was there.

Under Arnold Schwarzenegger the slow but steady decline of California higher education has dramatically accelerated. Arnold has shown nothing but contempt for higher ed and no interest whatsoever in upholding the promises of the Master Plan or securing a prosperous future for all Californians.

So it comes as no surprise that he is again targeting higher ed for massive cuts, and cuts that are leading the Cal State system to turn away eligible freshmen for the first time ever:

Under one of the cost-cutting proposals, the CSU system may turn away eligible freshmen for the first time in its history. If the proposal from Chancellor Charles Reed is enacted, schools will give priority to freshmen in their “service area,” meaning CSUMB would first admit Monterey County residents. Students from outside the county would be put on a waiting list.

Institutions of higher education statewide stand to face a staggering $464.1 million in combined cuts under the governor’s plan to plug an $11 billion drop in state revenue projections.

During a recession, you want students to attend college. Regardless of age, students get education and job training that will help them grow the economy upon graduation. It is a tried and true form of economic stimulus. Arnold’s cuts are going to forestall this:

The community college system, which would be hardest hit by the cuts, would lose about 10 percent of its state funding under the governor’s plan….

“When unemployment goes up, enrollment at community colleges goes up,” Pyer said. “So we’ll have more students, and we won’t get money for that.”

Tough economic times also force some four-year students to drop down to two-year institutions, Pyer said.

The proposed budget cuts are not the only fiscal adjustment to education bouncing around Sacramento. The state Legislative Analyst’s Office has proposed fee increases that would raise community college tuition by 50 percent by fall 2009…

“It’s the community college’s feeling that it’s the worst time to raise fees when the economy is in a slump,” said Monterey Peninsula College spokesman Rich Montori.

Disclosure: I teach part-time at MPC but do not anticipate being affected by any of these cuts.

Community college cuts are especially pernicious. These schools are the primary location where working-class and lower middle-class Californians get a chance at upward mobility. Even small fee increases can put college and work skills further out of reach, especially since most of these students already work full-time.

As this budget crisis unfolds it is becoming clear to everyone that what is at stake is more than just a fiscal plan for the state government. Our very future is at risk here. I don’t know how to put it more clearly. If these cuts continue, if this overall situation is not reversed, California will simply not be sustainable for most of its residents. The prosperity of the 20th century will have given way to the aristocracy and inequality of the 21st.

Are we going to let the Yacht Party get away with it?

When I was an undergrad at Berkeley in the late ’90s we paid around $4400 in “student fees.” It was higher than it should have been given the cost of living at the time, but the state of California had held UC costs at a fixed level from 1995 to 2001.

Of course, during the 1960s the state and the UC system actually held to the promises of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, which included a promise to never charge students for the cost of instruction. In the 1960s when state treasurer Bill Lockyer attended UC Berkeley his total cost – for all 4 years – would have been $880. Figuring inflation and that’s $5,808 in 2007 dollars.

That’s going to be less than the per-year charge under a new UC fee increase plan being floated:

UC tuition will rise $490 to $7,126 plus campus fees, which average $881 this year. The tuition would reach $8,180 if raised to the 10 percent total.

Hume said students at UC’s nine undergraduate campuses can expect a more difficult time registering for some classes, larger class sizes, and cuts in student services.

“We will be less efficient. They will take longer to graduate. They will not be able to get classes. They will not be able to get their majors,” Hume said.

The CSU is following suit with a 10% increase of its own:

CSU Chancellor Charles Reed said during the same editorial board meeting that he is recommending that the CSU Board of Trustees approve a 10 percent tuition increase next week but that he will not go back for more later in the year. Fees at CSU will rise by $276 to $3,048 plus campus fees, which were an average of $749 per student this year.

These increases are going to make it even more difficult for qualified Californians to attend college, improve their earning power, and strengthen the state economy. With the credit crunch reducing the availability of student loans these increases leave me wondering whether this isn’t a sly way to drive students away – applications and freshman classes have been soaring year after year.

It’s also a further step in the privatization of our higher education system. With decreasing public support the onus is now on students to self-finance their education, which is in direct contravention to the principles of the UC and CSU systems as laid out in the 1960 Master Plan. If California is to have an economic future in the 21st century – if we are to keep pace with European and Asian economies – we need trained and skilled Californians able to handle the tasks of a 21st century civilization. Instead the state of California is abandoning that mission – for the sake of preserving the 20th century, we are going to sacrifice the 21st.

Over 2,000 students from UC, CSU, and community colleges gathered today for a protest march from Raley Field in West Sac to the State Capitol to denounce Arnold’s planned higher ed cuts, and 200 more gathered at Arnold’s LA office. The protest is getting big coverage – it’s the featured article at SFGate this evening:

“Kick us out, we will vote you out,” the crowd in Sacramento chanted as they walked along a bridge crossing Highway 99, through downtown and onto the Capital steps. The line of students, which included hundreds from the Bay Area, stretched six blocks, and dozens of motorists honked in support as they drove by.

The fears, voiced again and again, where that if Schwarzenegger’s proposed funding cuts go through, students will end up paying more to attend, while reduced services and a narrower selection of classes….

One student from San Jose State, 24-year-old Joel Bridgeman, said raising the money for college was so tough that he was homeless – couch surfing – for about a year as he went to school.

“Most of the people who work in this building probably either went to CSU, UC or (community college), but as the next generation comes up they are looking for the easy solution,” he said. “They are looking for what is going to get them re-elected. They say our voice doesn’t matter, but I have a message for them… we are here to demand our chance.”

I especially liked that framing – it’s worth noting that millions of Californians owe their current wealth and prosperity to investments in higher ed made in earlier decades. Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, whose office helped organize the march, mentioned that both Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson increased taxes to prevent destructive education cuts.

Of course, Arnold has no interest in doing the same – he’s a true believer in Milton Friedman’s shock doctrine theories – but lying to the public seems right up his alley:

Aaron McLear, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger, said higher education continues to be high priority for the governor, but considering the scope of the budget deficit, it would be unfair to cut certain items in the state budget while leaving others untouched.

“The governor is as frustrated as the students are that he has to make these cuts. He doesn’t want to make these cuts,” McLear said.

Students weren’t buying it.

And they’re right to not buy it, because it’s a lie. Arnold doesn’t have to make these cuts at all. If he hadn’t cut the VLF and insisted on borrowing our way out of the last big deficit we’d have a much smaller hole now. And if he supported closing the tax loopholes he could potentially raise $12 billion, which would prevent budget cuts that would destroy California’s economic competitiveness.

Organizers of the protest tell me this is just the beginning of activism on the budget. This is the fight of this generation’s lives, and the longer the Yacht Party refuses to accept reality and the need to find new revenues, the more activism we’re going to be seeing from young Californians.

California higher education has not been having a good decade. When Arnold first took office a series of major cuts were made to the UC, CSU, and community college budgets. In 2004 a compact was agreed to between the UC and CSU leaders and Arnold, guaranteeing a stable, if low, level of funding. That agreement has been heavily criticized for having accepted a lower standard of state support – and that criticism looks to be merited, as Arnold now proposes to violate that agreement with his 10% cut of higher ed funding.

As a new study by the Campaign for College Opportunity shows, the proposed cuts would have the effect of severely curtailing enrollment by as much as 27,000 over the next two years, which is the size of an average UC or CSU undergraduate campus enrollment. And a study by the UC Academic Senate  found that “to maintain educational quality” student fees would have to rise from $7,500 to $10,500 – a staggering increase from an already high level.

“The Schwarzenegger revision accelerates the redefinition of the University of California away from a public university and toward a ‘public-private partnership,’ ” the UC study said. “The university becomes dependent on high student fees for delivering its core educational mission. . . . The university becomes quasi-private or poor — or perhaps both at once.”

UC has been suffering for years from what the Academic Senate study called a “hollowing out” because of lack of money. “From a distance, all appears normal; once one goes inside, the damage is clear,” it said. Leaky roofs go unrepaired; valuable faculty leave for better-paying universities…

The problem of “faculty brain drain” from public to private institutions is a serious one across the country but is hitting UC and CSU the hardest, as their funding has been the most dramatically impacted.

The study and the cuts were the subject of an article in today’s LA Times which contained some quotes from higher ed leaders about the impact of these cuts:

Diane Woodruff, chancellor of the California Community Colleges, said the governor’s proposed cut would mean those campuses would not be able to provide classes for more than 50,000 students. An additional 18,500 would not receive financial aid.

The cutbacks would most affect low-income, first-generation and nonwhite students, who generally depend more on university services, she said…

“By 2025. if we continue on this same course of cumulative budget cuts on a cyclical basis, the California workforce will be 3 million short and California will not be competitive,” Cal State Chancellor [Charles] Reed said.

In other words, Arnold’s proposed 10% cut of higher education would have a crippling effect on California’s economy. The student fees increases would squeeze middle-class families even more dramatically, and would be difficult for young students to pay – especially as student loan availability is shrinking due to the credit cruch – even the notorious Sallie Mae claimed “we’re at the cusp of peak lending.”

But this is sadly part of a larger pattern for Arnold and his Republican allies. Don’t let their occasional bickering and infighting fool you – they stand shoulder to shoulder when it comes to this state’s future. They all agree that our economy and the middle- and working-classes should be sacrificed for the sake of a few wealthy Californians who don’t want to pay more taxes. They agree that to save voters $150 a year in vehicle license fees, public education – from kindergarten to undergraduate – should be destroyed.

The article notes that “Despite the dire situation the universities and community colleges find themselves in, education leaders have been reluctant to challenge the governor.” It looks like that task is going to fall to the students who, abandoned by their schools’ administrators, are launching a statewide protest on Monday, April 21 to oppose these cuts.

A few weeks back I brought you the story of the Quaker teacher who was fired by Cal State East Bay for altering the state’s ridiculous loyalty oath to conform to her religious beliefs. Today’s LA Times reports that she has happily won her job back – with help from her fellow teachers, her union, and even Attorney General Jerry Brown.

The university, averting a showdown over religious freedom, agreed to rehire Kearney-Brown after the office of state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown helped draft a statement declaring that the oath does not commit employees to bear arms in the country’s defense….

The firing of Kearney-Brown, who also is a graduate student at the campus, brought widespread criticism from faculty members, students, Quakers and civil-liberties advocates. Some faculty members began circulating a petition objecting to it. The United Auto Workers, which represents teaching assistants, pursued a grievance on Kearney-Brown’s behalf.

“People were outraged,” said Henry Reichman, a Cal State East Bay history professor and chairman of the Academic Senate. “I was very vocal on the campus that this was an outrageous thing.”

The ultimate resolution involved Kearney-Brown getting CSUEB to attach a document to her signed oath clarifying that the oath would not require her to take up arms to defend the state or the constitution, in conformance with her Quaker beliefs. Although the university resisted this, Jerry Brown’s office produced a document that read:

“You should know that signing the oath does not carry with it any obligation or requirement that public employees bear arms or otherwise engage in violence,” read the unsigned statement. “This has been confirmed by both the United States Supreme Court . . . and the California attorney general’s office.”

Although this particular story has a happy ending – and should set a precedent for others whose religious or personal beliefs would be violated by this ridiculous oath – it still raises the question of whether or not this ridiculous anachronism still has any place in California.

It also reminds us of the importance of unions in protecting not just wages and benefits, but civil liberties. Kearney-Brown, like most CSU TAs, is represented by UAW Local 4123. (Note: I was an organizer and steward in UAW Local 4121 at UW.) With her union on her side she had legal and political power, helping her get her job back within days. It also helped that our state Attorney General was willing to step in and defend her civil liberties, as opposed to trying to trample them like some other AGs we know.

Ultimately this reminds us of the importance of coalitions to protect civil liberties. Whether it’s a loyalty oath, FISA, or waterboarding, our basic rights must be supported and protected by the public. Once we start abandoning or refusing to defend the rights of others, we will quickly find we are losing our own.