The 2018-19 Budget: California Education Learning Lab

The 2018-19 Budget: California Education Learning Lab MAC TAYLOR LEGISLATIVE ANALYST FEBRUARY 2018 Summary Governor Proposes New Online Education Initiative. The Governor proposes to provide $10 million ongoing General Fund for the Office of Planning and Research to launch a new online intersegmental higher education initiative. Specifically, the initiative would fund competitive grants for intersegmental teams of faculty to create new and redesign existing online or hybrid courses in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Teams would be required to include faculty from at least two of the three public higher education segments. Faculty teams that receive a grant under the program would be required to integrate learning science and adaptive learning technologies into the courses they develop. The Governor’s stated goal for this initiative is to increase college STEM participation, persistence, and completion rates of historically underrepresented students. Recommend Legislature Reject Proposal. Data consistently show that historically underrepresented students have lower participation, persistence, and completion rates in college STEM courses and programs. Given these findings, we believe the Governor’s focus on improving student outcomes in this area is warranted. Based on our review of national research, however, we believe his proposed solution is unlikely to address the root causes of STEM disparities among student groups. Moreover, the program overlaps with other existing state-funded online higher education initiatives and lacks any justification for the proposed funding level. For these reasons, we recommend the Legislature reject the proposal. Recommend Tailoring Solutions to Root Issues. Should the Legislature wish to focus in 2018-19 on improving STEM experiences for certain college students, we suggest it begin by identifying which root issues are most pronounced at each of the higher education segments. The Legislature then could consider alternative solutions (whether they be segment specific, intersegmental, or involving elementary and secondary schools) that are better tailored to addressing those root causes of STEM disparities. In this report, we first provide background on Background online education at the California Community State’s Public Higher Education Segments Offer Colleges (CCC), California State University (CSU), and Varying Amounts of Online Education. Though University of California (UC). We then describe the most courses at CCC, CSU, and UC still are taught Governor’s proposal to create a new intersegmental in-person, online education is becoming an increasingly online program, assess that proposal, and make an prevalent instructional method, particularly at CCC associated recommendation. analysis full gutter 2018-19 BUDGET and CSU. In 2016-17, community colleges served a fully online courses in lower-division subjects with total of 157,413 full-time equivalent (FTE) students via high enrollment demand. Participating faculty online education, representing 13 percent of all FTE must demonstrate that their courses have high students served by CCC that year. In 2016-17, CSU completion rates and agree to allow students served 23,700 FTE students (including 22,100 FTE attending other CSU campuses to enroll in undergraduate students), representing 5.8 percent of them. In addition, CSU provides professional students served. development opportunities to faculty throughout Segments Have Different Definitions of “Online” the year (such as through workshops) that focus Courses. Comparing CCC and CSU online enrollment on redesigning courses and adopting new, is difficult because the segments have different evidence-based approaches to teaching online or ways of classifying a course as “online.” Specifically, hybrid courses. CCC considers a course to be online if over half of • UC—$10 Million Ongoing for Online instructional content is delivered online. By contrast, and Hybrid Course Development and CSU defines a course as online only if 100 percent of Cross-Campus Enrollment. UC’s Innovative its content is delivered online, with no in-person class Learning Technology Initiative, which is housed attendance required. CSU defines a “hybrid” course at the Office of the President, provides grants for as one in which much instruction occurs online but faculty to develop online undergraduate courses students are expected to attend class a limited number that UC students at any campus may access. To of times for face-to-face instruction (such as to perform date, the initiative has developed 250 online and laboratory experiments). Hybrid courses likely are hybrid courses. comparable to many CCC online courses. CSU reports that 3.6 percent of its enrollment is in hybrid courses. Governor’s Proposal UC is not able to provide systemwide enrollment figures Proposes $10 Million Ongoing General Fund for online and hybrid courses but likely has a lower for New Online Program. The Governor proposes percentage of such enrollment than CSU. to create a new statewide program known as the State Funds Segment-Specific Online Initiatives. California Education Learning Lab. At least for the first Like traditional in-person instruction, campuses from few years, the program would focus exclusively on all three segments use their general purpose monies to creating new and redesigning existing lower-division cover instructional costs for online and hybrid courses. online and hybrid courses in science, technology, On top of this spending, the state recently has provided engineering, and math (STEM) at the three segments. ongoing augmentations for specific online initiatives at After three years, the program would be permitted to each of the segments. Beginning in 2013-14, the state add online and hybrid courses in other disciplines. has provided the following augmentations: Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to • CCC—$20 Million Ongoing for Online Administer Program. Under the proposal, OPR, Education Initiative. CCC’s Online Education which undertakes various projects on behalf of the Initiative consists of several components, Governor, would operate and oversee the program. including (1) trainings and other resources to Specifically, OPR staff would (1) solicit requests for help faculty design high-quality online courses; proposals from faculty at the three segments, (2) recruit (2) a common technology platform for faculty to members of a selection committee to score proposals deliver online courses; and (3) the Online Course and recommend awards, (3) monitor progress of award Exchange, a pilot project that enables students recipients, and (4) evaluate projects upon completion. to find, enroll in, and get credit for fully online As an alternative to using OPR, the administration courses offered by other colleges participating in has indicated that it is exploring the possibility of the exchange. contracting with an external grant administrator (such • CSU—$10 Million Ongoing for Faculty Support as a foundation or nonprofit organization) to manage in Online and Hybrid Courses. CSU has used the program. its funds to create incentives for faculty to offer 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2018-19 BUDGET Teams of Faculty Eligible to Apply for Grants. Many Factors Underlying Disparities in College These teams would be required to include faculty STEM Outcomes. Research identifies a number of from at least two of the three public higher education factors likely contributing to lower STEM enrollment, segments. The teams could include members from persistence, and completion rates among students private nonprofit institutions. As a condition of receiving from historically underrepresented groups. These grant funding, all faculty team members would include: (1) disproportionate attendance at elementary be required to teach the course and evaluate the and secondary schools that have less qualified math curriculum they jointly develop. and science teachers, (2) less access to advanced Grantees Required to Integrate Learning Science STEM courses in high school, (3) different parental and Adaptive Learning Technologies Into Courses. expectations about studying STEM in college, (4) lack The administration describes learning science as a field of exposure to role models and mentors with a STEM of study that seeks to further scientific understanding background, (5) perceptions of an unwelcoming of learning—that is, how individuals learn, the process academic culture in science and math departments, of learning in different contexts, and which learning and (6) inadequate support services. Research also strategies are best for students. Adaptive learning notes that STEM majors (particularly engineering) often technologies use artificial intelligence to assess and have course requirements beyond the typical 120 unit collect data on a learner’s current state of knowledge degree requirement, which can serve as an added about a particular subject, provide content and burden for students with limited financial means. resources appropriate to that learner’s level, and Proposed Solution Unlikely to Address Problem. adjust lessons in “real time” based on the learner’s Given these underlying causes, it is unclear how the performance. Governor’s proposed program would achieve its stated OPR Could Use Program Funds for Additional goals in a meaningful way. As the vast majority of CCC, Purposes in Future Years. Beginning in 2020, CSU, and UC students continue to take courses in a OPR would be permitted to (1) provide professional face-to-face environment, it also is unclear how creating development grants aimed at faculty interested in new and redesigning existing online and hybrid courses adopting the courses funded in the initial years of the would result in widespread improvement in STEM program and (2) curate a “best of” library of online and outcomes. hybrid courses that incorporate principles of learning Segments Already Have Funding to Develop and science. Redesign Online Courses. For the past five years, the Proposal Intended to Boost College Participation state has provided ongoing targeted funding to each and Success in STEM for Certain Student Groups. segment to improve and expand their use of online and The Governor’s stated goals in establishing this hybrid courses. Most of this funding has supported proposed program are to (1) increase the proportion course development and redesign for lower-division of students from historically underrepresented groups courses. Given these existing efforts, the need for a (including first-generation, low-income, and certain new program that also focuses on course development racial/ethnic student groups) that major in STEM and redesign is unclear. disciplines; (2) increase term-to-term persistence and Lack of Any Justification for Proposed Funding degree attainment of STEM students in those groups; Level. The administration has not provided a rationale and (3) close achievement gaps. as to how it determined the proposed $10 million annual funding level. The Governor’s proposal does Assessment and Recommendation not include key information such as how many grants Governor’s Overall Goals Are Laudable. National would be provided per year, the approximate amount and state data show that students from historically of each award, and why the administration believes underrepresented groups typically have lower those amounts would be sufficient to accomplish the enrollment rates and higher attrition rates in STEM program’s objectives. Absent such basic information, courses and programs than other college students. the Legislature is unable to evaluate whether the Given these findings, seeking to improve student requested funding amount is reasonable. participation and outcomes in this area is warranted. www.lao.ca.gov 3 analysis full gutter 2018-19 BUDGET Recommend Legislature Reject Governor’s of college students, we recommend it first identify Proposal. Given the Governor’s proposal (1) has a which of the root causes of STEM disparities are solution that does not clearly align with the problem, most pronounced at each of the three segments. The (2) would overlap with existing state-funded online Legislature then could consider alternative solutions initiatives, and (3) lacks any justification for the (whether they be segment specific, intersegmental, or proposed funding level, we recommend the Legislature involving elementary and secondary schools) that are reject it. Should the Legislature wish to focus on better tailored to addressing those problems. improving STEM experiences for certain groups LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Paul Steenhausen and reviewed by Jennifer Kuhn. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE