The governor is proposing a major change in the community college system, which has three components:

 ·         A small carrot of more money, $10 million for the system as a whole, about a 5% increase

·         A re-structuring of the system to make it controlled from the top and reduce campus autonomy

·         A shift toward serving the interests of business and preparing students for the jobs business says it wants.  Reading the message it’s not clear whether community colleges will any longer prepare students to go on to four year degrees; certainly there is no mention of that.

Some quick reactions:

 Mess of pottage:  Sure, it’s nice to get a bit more money, but $10 million for the entire state is pathetic.  Basically we are talking about restoring the cuts made in the last year or two; it won’t get the system back to the budget it had in 2000 and it sure as hell won’t provide the quality system students and Massachusetts residents deserve.

 The real issues:  The proposal is a big step toward the “how can we better serve the 1%” model of higher education.  Shortly after Deval Patrick came into office he called for creating free community college.  That would do students and the Commonwealth a world more good than a “training for business, under the guidance and direction of business” model.  Also invisible and unmentioned is the need to hire full time tenure system faculty with benefits, instead of as-cheap-as-you-can-get-them adjuncts, which has been the direction for a decade.

 Centralization:  The Massachusetts higher education system is fragmented and without central planning.  In place of an overall vision we have a set of legislative deals; which school-district gets money is determined by who has a powerful legislator.  That’s a crazy system, but on the other hand a main way the system gets money is by having each of those legislators support higher education so they can claim credit for a quasi-earmark.  I expect centralization to be the major battle and for it to be fiercely resisted.  If it wins, I expect legislative support for higher education to drop.  We need sensible central direction, but only if there is a vision AND a high level of public support.  Being lap dogs to business is a vision, I guess, but it’s not my vision.

 Will be supported:  Some businesses will support the plan, in hopes of solving their workforce bottlenecks.  Some students will be enthusiastic in hopes of finally getting a job.  I worry the students will end up in the same place as those who respond to the “college” television ads for “learn to drive a big truck.”

 When did you stop beating your wife?  If we don’t have a plan and a vision, if we aren’t pro-active promoting our own vision, then we spend all our time responding to this kind of question.  We get caught by surprise, and spend several months with people offering a variety of answers:  “Two years ago; I haven’t beaten her in two years.”  “We have a new plan which we are just rolling out; that will solve the problem.”  “Despite what it looks like, I don’t really beat her.”  After six months, maybe a year, we develop a much better response and show how ludicrous and unfair the question was, that there is no truth to the accusation, that the real issues are entirely different.  Of course, by that time the issue is decided and our opponents have moved on to a new charge/proposal.

Dan Clawson, UMass Amherst, clawson.dan@gmail.com