Placeholder Text Blog

Inconsistency in student leadership in the California Community College system is not a new conundrum; it is an age-old problem which has not been solved since the system’s inception.  Pockets of quality leadership have sprung up, but inevitably both local and statewide student organizations rise and fall year after year.  There are many factors which contribute to this issue: personality dependent organizational structures, lack of institutional support, changing social context and, of course, that student leaders are all still students.  Above all, the significant disconnect between the statewide student organization and the local associated student organizations has been the most significant impediment to truly effective student representation both at the local and state level. A disconnect caused by the unsupported, cumbersome structure necessary for the organization to accurately represent the interests of all California Community College students.

In order to reasonably maintain effective student representation in the California Community College system, there must be a synergistic relationship between diverse local associated student organizations and a stable, supportive, well organized statewide leadership body.  This can only be made possible if the burden of operating both the state-level senate and the regional structures is mitigated with stable funding and in-house staff support.  This necessity was realized early on by the University of California and California State University students, and was addressed during the establishment of their respective state-wide student organizations. Both of the University of California Student Association and California State Student Association operate with a budget reasonable to support the structure established which provides for effective state-level representation and resources for local Associated Student Organizations or the equivalent.

Support for, and coordination of local advocacy and representation are critical aspects of creating an atmosphere which fosters effective and informed student representation. As recognized by the legislature with the passage of AB 1725 (Vasconcellos, 1988), having an effective and informed student voice in the decision making processes of the community college system is critical:

“70901. (b)(1)(E) Establish procedures not inconsistent with minimum standards established by the board of governors to ensure faculty, staff, and students the opportunity to express their opinions at the campus level and to ensure that these opinions are given every reasonable consideration, and the right to participate effectively in district and college governance, and the right of academic senates to assume primary responsibility for making recommendations in the areas of curriculum and academic standards.”

Because of the California State Legislature’s integral connection with the governance of the California Community College system, as well as the important collaboration between local governments and community college districts, the student representation fee was established to provide students  with a means to represent themselves in front of those governmental bodies. At the time of its passage in 1987, the Student Representation Fee (California Education Code §76060.5) addressed only the local aspect of student representation, with the expenditure of the funds being directly overseen by local student associations, their advisors and district administrators (California Education Code §76063). The student leadership of the California Community College system recognizes the need for a redefinition of the Student Representation Fee, as passed by a majority of representatives at the Fall 2012 Student Senate for California Community Colleges General Assembly in the 2012-2017 Strategic Plan. The General Assembly, composed of representation from a majority of student associations in the system, convenes twice each year, once in the spring and once in the fall, to provide legislative guidance to the Student Senate for California Community Colleges.

“(6) Secure stable funding to enable the organization to fully carry out its mission. 6.2 Secure steady funds through voluntary fees from campus student bodies. Raise Student Representation Fee to $2 with the revenues from the additional dollar ($) being allocated directly to the state student organization recognized by the Board of Governors.”

It is on this premise that the Student Representation Fee must be redefined to address student representation as a function of the state as a whole, and a supported method of voicing local issues. The recognition that local associated student organizations and the state-level student organization must exist in a synergistic relationship is critical. Without one, the other is essentially rendered ineffective.

Implementation

Local Associated Student Organizations who have already implemented a Student Representation Fee under the provisions currently in section 76060.5 of the California Education Code would have the amended provisions grandfathered in to the fee which they have established. Each Associated Student Organization would be required to hold a general election of the student body as set forth by section 76060.5, in accordance with local policies, to adopt the new provisions.

Only once a local student body has elected the new provisions of the Student Representation Fee upon themselves would the 50% funding split come into place. If a student body decides to maintain their current fee, the new provisions would not apply and all money would continue to be kept locally.

Cost Analysis

This amendment will save the State of California an undetermined amount of money, as the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office would no longer need to allocate as many personnel and as much funding (currently $30,000 per year) toward its obligation to the Student Senate for California Community Colleges.

The Chancellor’s Office also provides the following personnel services to the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, which would no longer be necessary with sustainable funding building a platform for an effective staffing structure.

Locally, districts are provided the ability to retain a portion of the funds necessary for administrative overhead:

The problem lies in the conflicting ideologies which construct the foundation on which our public education system is built:

The academic concept that education is the great equalizer, a liberator of minds, and

Industrial-capitalism, which instructs us that the assembly line is the most efficient way of creating a product, and the product is the only relevant thing to society.

As we attempt to reform and expand our schools, we are forced to forgo true academia, true education, to satisfy the need for a quantifiable, product that can be inspected at the end of the line. Through this process, we have found interchangeable parts to be one of the most inflexible ideologies which may work for saving money in a factory, but nearly chokes the life out of education in schools.

There is a fallacy emanating from the industrial era that protects this contradictory circumstance from true examination: that the only way for an education to have value is for the ingredients to be written on the label. This protective candy layer tells us that if we do not put a prescribed set of classes on a certificate, on a degree, on a path for success, that the award itself is useless. It tells us that we must abandon our American ideal of self determination and free market in order to have order.

This false premise under which we operate, this shaky foundation on which we have built our great systems of public education, has driven our policies and practices since the inception of public education. It has controlled the steering wheel without any of us exposing it since the inception of the idea that everyone should be afforded an education.

To address this issue we must first discard the notion that the value of degree is simply determined by a set of standardized ingredients which compose it. We must dispose of the idea that there is no greater truth than that which is bestowed upon us by tradition. California must embrace the founding principle of our great Nation that every human being has the unalienable right to self-determination.

Institutions will need to be turned upside down. The value of a degree must come from the ability of those institutions to bestow wisdom and skills upon their students. This is, at its core, a capitalist ideal: that the market will drive the value everything. This is, at its core, a capitalist ideal that works in synergy with the academic ideal that education is a liberator.

Turning institutions upside down may not be easy, but redesigning our programs to ask how the institution can fit the student, rather than how the student can fit the institution, is imperative. It is incumbent on us to have our institutions provide the stepping stones across the river, but not create this false construct that a certain number MUST be stepped on in order for a student to be of value to this society. The value of an education must be derived entirely from an institutions ability to guide students along pathways which best suit them. The value of an education must be derived entirely from how well those institutions of learning have guided their students through the plethora of choices, and how applicable the classes which those institutions guide students to take are to the goals of those students.