A late-session strategy by Democrats in the California Legislature to sabotage a tax-limitation initiative may determine whether citizen groups can propose a school parcel tax requiring only a majority of voters to pass.
The anti-tax initiative, called the Tax Protection and Government Accountability Act and organized by the California Business Roundtable and the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, has already qualified for the November 2024 election ballot. Among its provisions would be an expanded definition of taxes to include some revenue sources that state and local governments consider fees, thus making them harder to impose. And it would require all local special taxes — those passed to fund specific purposes, as opposed to general taxes, like sales and income taxes — to require a two-thirds majority to pass.
The initiative is partly aimed at school parcel taxes which, under a 1996 state ballot proposition, are considered special taxes, subject to the two-thirds vote majority. That’s a high threshold, which is why only about 1 in 8 school districts have passed a parcel tax, and only about 60% of the parcel taxes proposed historically have passed, according to Ed-Data. Many districts looked at the barrier and decided the odds of failure were too big to try.
Over the past two decades, two Bay Area state senators proposed lowering the threshold for passing a parcel tax to 55%, the same requirement for passing school construction bonds. But they couldn’t come up with the two-thirds majority in the Legislature needed to place a constitutional amendment on a state ballot. An analysis in 2019 by Michael Coleman, the creator of California Local Government Finance Almanac, found that historically 91% of parcel tax ballot measures would have passed, had the 55% threshold been in effect.
But two years ago, in a decision on a San Francisco ballot measure, a three-judge panel on the San Francisco-based California Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that a parcel tax initiated by citizens — and not put on the ballot by school boards and other government bodies — requires only a simple majority of 50% plus one vote for passage. The state Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the appeals court ruling as the guiding decision.
“The two-thirds majority requirement only benefited wealthy communities that could afford well-funded campaigns,” said Carol Kocivar, a former president of the California State PTA and a frequent contributor to the parent education website Ed-100. “It’s a question of equity, to let voters speak by a majority vote on initiatives brought by the people, not by government.”
However, the victory in court could be short-lived if the Howard Jarvis-Business Roundtable initiative passes in 2024. It would overrule the court decision and require a two-thirds vote for special taxes without exception.
Enter the Democratic lawmakers. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13, passed in the last week of the legislative session, is written to make the Tax Protection and Government Accountability Act harder to pass. It says that any state ballot measure put on the ballot after Jan. 1, 2024, that would raise the voter threshold for passing taxes would require the same proportion of voters to enact it.
In other words, an initiative raising all special taxes to a two-thirds threshold would need the authorization of two-thirds of voters. That could be hard to get in a tax-liberal state like California. Dozens of labor unions, including the California Teachers Association, and city and county governments supported the legislation.
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis group, called ACA 13 “a dagger at the heart” of the initiative and a “cynical attack” on the initiative process that is “too clever by half.”
Assemblymember Christopher Ward, D-San Diego, called it a “common sense measure” to counter a system that allowed a simple majority of voters to impose on future voters a higher threshold to raise revenue.
But Coupal responded that every ballot measure changing the California Constitution has required only a majority vote, including the landmark Proposition 13 in 1978, which requires two-thirds approval of the Legislature for future state tax increases.
Supporters of ACA 13 assert that its provision would take priority, though Coupal disputes that. It’s possible that if both ballot measures pass, the one with the most votes would govern the outcome; based on its polling, Coupal said he is confident that his initiative would prevail.
For cash-strapped districts, a parcel tax subject to a majority vote could be a major boon. With state revenues projected to fall in districts with declining enrollments and an end by Jan. 1, 2025, of the availability of federal Covid assistance, Kocivar expects more districts will take advantage of the option. And the proposed uses for the extra funding might change to better reflect what parents and the community view as priorities. Proponents would still need to gather enough signatures to place an initiative on the ballot — a significant challenge — but qualifying would signal popular support, she said.
Another challenge is the nature of a parcel tax. Because of the provisions of the 1978 anti-tax initiative Proposition 13, the amount of a parcel tax must be uniform and cannot be based on a property’s value. The owner of a mobile home and a 10-bedroom mansion both pay the same amount, from about $100 per year in many districts to upwards of $1,000 annually in wealthy communities. Some recent parcel taxes charge by the square footage of a home or building, generally making it less regressive.
For now, local teachers and parent groups should keep plans for lower threshold parcel taxes in their back pockets until it’s clear that the 2021 Court of Appeal’s decision will prevail.
Lauren Brown teaches seventh grade science at Madison Park Business and Arts Academy in Oakland.
Credit: Carolyn Jones/EdSource
More often than not, people perform up to what’s expected of them. It’s why goal setting is such an effective way to self-motivate as well as motivate others. It’s widely called the Pygmalion effect, and it’s been proven in education repeatedly. A Center for American Progress study run from 2002-2012, following students throughout their learning journeys, found that 10th grade students faced with higher goals and expectations from their teachers were three times more likely to graduate from college than peers who had not been challenged with the same expectations.
In order to set students and classrooms up for success, teachers must empower students by not only showing them what’s possible, but even more important, showing them the steps needed to get there. This second part is essential when creating positive, inclusive learning environments and advancing educational equity.
GoGuardian’s 2022-2023 State of Engagement Report, which was conducted in collaboration with the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education Center EDGE, found that 94.2% of teachers reported using high expectation setting as an engagement strategy often or very often, laying out stretch goals and holding students to a high classroom standard. Setting high expectations can improve educational equity by showing students what is possible.
Unfortunately, in the same Center for American Progress study, researchers found that secondary school teachers often had lower expectations of students of disadvantaged backgrounds. In fact, teachers predicted high-poverty students to be 53% less likely to graduate from college, which, when combined with the data proving students’ success is closely tied to the expectations teachers set for them, likely contributes to a cyclical problem.
Education can be a great equalizer. But it’s common for students who have experienced poverty or who have faced other institutional academic (or non-academic) challenges to have never been told they can achieve great things. Setting clear and high expectations for students can change that. If students haven’t been introduced to the idea of a growth mindset, it can be challenging to suddenly place goals in front of them, But doing so is fundamental to helping students learn to set their own academic goals. If we zoom out, it’s also the first step in building an equitable and inclusive classroom environment.
Research has shown personalized goal setting — where students track their own goals and determine their own progress — is a huge step in “self-regulated learning.” Setting personalized goals results in students having significant investment in their own learning and personalized goals. A recent study of 5 million K-eight students across the country found students who entered a school year “behind” grade level were more likely to catch up when set up with “aggressive” or “stretch” goals.
The challenge lies in ensuring students see their goals as growth-oriented rather than unreachable or even punitive. Especially when working with students who come from lower socio-economic environments, it’s essential that educators proactively articulate (and remind) students that what they’re asking is possible. Students also need to understand the why and the how behind the goals. Setting a goal and walking away without providing a road map is not a strong strategy, and will prove especially confusing for students who aren’t used to facing high expectations.
Humanizing expectations is extremely impactful. Students won’t achieve a goal if they don’t understand why they’re doing something. We must push students to do things that they may not even know they’re capable of, even as we keep in mind the ultimate goal of equipping them to go into the world, enabling them to compete and make the world a better place. That comes by expanding your world, being curious, and being in an environment where intellectual curiosity is supported. That originates with teachers showing each of their students that they are capable, and building equitable environments where all students can thrive.
Ultimately, teachers, educators and other education professionals need to walk the walk when it comes to goal setting and improving equity. Implicit bias is real and cannot be ignored. Teachers and administrators need to be actively aware of their own biases and actively work to mitigate them on an ongoing basis.
Setting high expectations also requires that teachers really understand their students, have established and nurtured relationships with them, and have demonstrated they care about all students and the unique challenges they face. Knowing what is going on with students outside of school is a key ingredient to effective goal setting. What do they have going on that may impact their ability to be all-in academically? This is perhaps the most essential step in building an inclusive learning environment.
Education technology, especially tools built with participation or collaboration at the heart, can aid in this process by helping teachers not only personalize learning, but also help streamline data analysis that can assist in setting goals that make sense, that are achievable, but that also stretch students outside their comfort zones and move learning outcomes forward. Meeting every student’s needs is required for building educational equity. Educational technologies are often developed to do just that, supporting teachers as they work to individualize learning in a time when they are underpaid, overworked and still motivated to meet students where they are.
Telling students you believe in them is wonderful. But showing them you believe in them — through high expectations and accountability — means you are preparing them for greatness.
•••
Dionna Smith is the chief diversity and public affairs officer at GoGuardian, an educational technology company that aims to help all learners feel ready and inspired to solve the world’s greatest challenges by combining the best in learning and science technology across every part of the learning journey.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
The Los Angeles Unified School District school board is considering a resolution that would exclude 346 schools serving its most vulnerable student populations from co-location arrangements with charter schools. Doing so could potentially undermine the integrity of Proposition 39, a statewide initiative that mandates public schools to share spaces with charter schools.
The resolution, authored by President Jackie Goldberg and member Rocio Rivas and discussed at a meeting Tuesday, would require the district to avoid co-location offers on LAUSD’s 100 Priority Schools, Black Student Achievement Plan campuses and community schools.
According to the proposal, LAUSD would also avoid charter co-location offers that “compromise district schools’ capacity to serve neighborhood children” or “grade span arrangements that negatively impact student safety and build charter school pipelines that actively deter students from attending district schools, so that the district can focus on supporting its most fragile students and schools, key programs, and student safety.”
The proposed criteria would guide the placement of new charter schools as well as those opting to change location and increase oversight of charter school co-locations, including site visits before location offers are made, frequent assessments of the average daily attendance of charter schools as well as regular reporting of their facilities payments.
Goldberg said that her goal was not to “undo” anything but rather to prioritize the needs of vulnerable students by making the co-location process more rational.
“We should have just some accountability practices, a common sense policy,” said Gloria Martinez, treasurer of United Teachers Los Angeles, the teacher’s union. “I don’t necessarily see this as an erosion of charter schools to exist. This is not an attack on charter schools or communities or parents or students. This is simply saying ‘Our district schools are drowning, and what’s our life vest?”
Eric Premack, the president and founder of the Charter Schools Development Center, disagrees, saying, “That display at the board meeting today was really stunning, that they were essentially offering an extended middle finger to the voters of California, to the taxpayers and to students and parents and families who have opted to go to charter schools.”
Board members will vote on the resolution at Tuesday’s meeting. It would give Superintendent Alberto Carvalho 45 days to report back to the board with an updated co-location policy reflecting the resolution.
Charter school co-locations have long polarized the Los Angeles community with proponents of the proposed policy maintaining that sharing campus spaces has led to hostile environments for the children and greater challenges with securing necessary resources.
Charter proponents, on the other hand, say the resolution would cause even more of their campuses to be split up and prolong commutes for students who are already disadvantaged.
Still, the resolution comes amid years of declining enrollment across LAUSD, which some say might be the real reason behind the efforts to curtail co-location.
Charters in LAUSD: The Basics
For the 2023-24 academic year, Los Angeles Unified authorized 272 charters — 51 affiliated with the district and 221 independent, according to a presentation by José Cole-Gutiérrez, the director of LAUSD’s charter schools division, which coordinates the district’s Proposition 39 program.
By the first day of November each year, charter schools must file a facilities request to LAUSD as part of a process outlined by the proposition. Those requests must include the charters’ must include their average daily attendance, which is used to determine how much space they would be allocated.
For its part, LAUSD must extend a final location offer to the charters by April 1, and the charters have a month to respond.
For years, the district has had charters share campuses with its regular public schools. This academic year, there are 52 co-locations at 50 campuses, representing 6.7% of district sites.
Los Angeles Unified has seen fewer facilities requests from charter schools in the past few years. In the 2015-2016 academic year, for example, the district received 101 facilities requests. That number shrank to 51 this year.
‘More to do with less’: Fighting for increased enrollment
The resolution comes as Los Angeles Unified — and schools throughout the state — have been reckoning with decreased enrollment despite the expansion of transitional kindergarten. Districts are working harder to retain and increase their current student populations.
“Parents have some choices, and they’re not shy about exercising them,” said Premack, the president and founder of the Charter Schools Development Center. “A lot of them have voted with their feet and gone to the charter sector for instruction to enroll their kids, and … the district sees that is costing them a lot of money.”
Decreased enrollment has led to fewer charters making facility requests, leading to more physical space open for student learning, said Myrna Castrejón, president of the California Charter Schools Association, which opposes the proposed resolution and staged a rally outside LAUSD’s headquarters during the recent meeting.
With enrollment at 538,295 in 2022-23, LAUSD suffered the second-largest percentage enrollment decline in the state — a nearly 16% drop from 639,337 in 2015-16.
“The cream of the crop left the district and went to charter schools, so did the money, and so did the funds, now we have to do with less,” Rivas, who co-authored the resolution, said during Wednesday’s board meeting.
She also said that charter management organizations have continually profited while eroding the money the district needs to support more vulnerable student populations.
“We’re pitted against each other to fight for the very few crumbs we’re given,” Rivas said.
Challenges with co-location
Parents and community organizations have long pointed to challenges with co-locating charters on regular LAUSD campuses, citing competition over spaces and contentious relationships between school communities.
“Co-locating charters are a burden placed on the shoulders of school communities. Campuses become divided spaces with drastically diminished resources, often at the expense of our most vulnerable students and families. As a result of co-locations, we have witnessed appalling and unacceptable uses of space,” reads a news release issued by the Facebook group Parents Supporting Teachers.
The group says some schools have had to hold speech therapy sessions in closets and auditoriums have been converted into administrative offices.
During Tuesday’s public comment segment, speakers and board members in favor of the proposed changes also cited challenges with district schools being able to access music and dance spaces — along with PE areas and rooms needed for individual education plan meetings.
Supporters of Los Angeles charter schools, however, emphasized that sharing spaces is not always associated with problems.
“Nobody likes to share,” said Castrejón, the president of the California Charter Schools Association. “But there are actually really good examples of … really good synergistic co-locations that actually amplify and serve both schools.”
Supporting campuses with higher needs
The new resolution would prevent Priority, Black Student Achievement Plan and community schools from sharing their campuses with a charter school. Board President Goldberg said during the meeting that the changes would offset “some of the worst impacts” of Proposition 39 on more vulnerable LAUSD schools and communities.
This academic year, LAUSD approved 13 co-locations on the district’s 100 Priority Schools, 19 co-locations on Black Student Achievement Plan campuses and seven on community schools campuses.
“We’re saying: Those schools where we are doubling our investment — and I don’t mean as far as dollars — but where we are doubling our efforts really to help those schools – we cannot subject them to being co-located and then having themselves … in a fight to be able to carry out that vision to be able to … hold on to rooms where we can actually carry out the needs of the community,” said Martinez, the treasurer of United Teachers Los Angeles.
The resolution’s opponents, however, have noted that many charters located on LAUSD campuses are community schools.
More than 70 of LAUSD’s independent charters have received State Community Schools Grants, according to Ana Tintocalis, California Charter Schools Association spokesperson.
“Based on CCSA’s analysis of the district data, there are more independent charter schools in LAUSD that have received State Community Schools Grants than district schools,” Tintocalis said in an email to EdSource.
Potential effects for charters
This academic year, 19 charter schools have been split over either two or three LAUSD campuses, and the proposed resolution is projected to increase that number.
“In attempting to avoid sites with special designations, it is likely that there will be more multi-site offers, leading to a larger overall number of co-locations Districtwide,” reads the interoffice correspondence from the office of the chief strategy officer on “Operational, Policy & Student Impact Statements” for the resolution.
“This may also lead to increased costs associated with renovation work to make sites ready for co-location, and would likely make it more challenging for the district when making ‘reasonable efforts’ to locate the charter school ‘near’ where it wishes to locate.”
Splitting a charter school across multiple sites can negatively impact students’ morale and can lead to unsustainable commutes for parents, said David Garner, the principal of Magnolia Science Academy-2.
“They were going to also offer us another school, which is Sepulveda Middle School, which is 6.9 miles away,” Garner said. “And 6.9 miles away is not a big deal if you have people that have cars. However, 88% of our students’ parents come from free-and-reduced lunch backgrounds.”
Eighty percent of the 4,000 students enrolled in his schools come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.
Garner calculated that the commute from Sepulveda Middle School to Magnolia Science Academy-2 is 55 minutes each way by bus — which can add up, particularly in cases where parents have children at various locations, spread out across grade levels, with different bell schedules.
“Let’s just say one of the kids is in, you know, one of our sites on (Birmingham Community High School’s) complex, and then she has another two kids at the Sepulveda Middle School site,” said Garner.
“That parent would have to take the bus to Sepulveda from our school (at Birmingham) for one hour just to drop her other kids, and then take a bus back one hour to pick up the kid from our school, and then the bus back one more hour to pick up her second kid, and then the bus home.”
Ultimately, he said, schools — public, charter or private — should all be held to the same standards in supporting their students.
“We all take to this industry because we care about the kids,” Garner added. “We care about their futures. We believe that education can be used as a means to social mobility, as a means to get out of some challenging circumstances and (give) them all the tools to be successful.”
K.D. was just starting to believe that the racial harassment her daughter had experienced at school for the last three years would finally be addressed.
Students had called her daughter the N-word, referred to her as a “black monkey” in an Instagram post, made jokes about the Ku Klux Klan and played whipping sounds on their phones during a history lesson about slavery, according to a statement by her mother, identified in court records as K.D.
“My daughter reported all of these incidents to teachers and was never told whether they were addressed, if at all,” K.D. stated in her declaration.
K.D. did what many parents do when they believe a school district has violated their child’s right to an education free of discrimination: She filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in May 2023.
In December, the office proposed a voluntary agreement to the school board of the district. The board requested more information.
“We were so close,” said K.D., whose daughter is identified as M.W. in court records. “The board was like, ‘Hey, we just need this one last piece.’”
When the mass terminations were first announced, it didn’t sink in for K.D. what this meant. The attorney on her daughter’s case told K.D. that the office was still waiting to hear from the school district’s board, which was not identified in the court records. If the case wasn’t resolved, the attorney promised to flag it when it was transferred to the Seattle office along with all the other California cases, but that would mean a much longer timeline.
K.D. recalled: “Essentially, I would have to wait like six months to a year to even hear that someone’s picked up my case.”
Four months later, K.D. still hasn’t heard from anyone at the Office for Civil Rights. She told EdSource that she’s been left with “a lot of questions” but “little hope.”
‘We were already drowning’
Caseloads at the Office for Civil Rights reached a record high of 22,687 during the Biden administration, according to a 2024 report. That was an 18% increase from the previous year.
“We were already drowning,” said a San Francisco Office staffer, a member of the AFGE Local 252, impacted by the reduction in force.
Catherine Lhamon, former assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education under the Biden administration, said her department was always pleading with Congress for more staff to handle the increasing caseloads.
“There is no universe in which we would have needed fewer people,” said Lhamon, who now serves as executive director of the UC Berkeley School of Law’s Edley Center on Law & Democracy.
K.D. joined a national suit filed on behalf of other parents and students who have cases pending with the Office for Civil Rights, claiming that “gutting” the workforce and closing regional offices means that caseloads are two to three times higher for remaining staff, effectively halting investigations. It was unsuccessful in securing an injunction to stop the mass terminations.
In court documents, the Department of Education reported that between March 11 and June 27, OCR received 4,833 complaints, dismissed 3,424, opened 309 for investigation, and resolved 290 with voluntary agreements.
Lhamon said that represents a fraction of the work under the Biden administration.
“What we see right now are performative case openings and very little case closings,” Lhamon said.
The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals halted the mass firings, scheduled to take effect in June, through a preliminary injunction. The suit, joined by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, claimed the terminations were “not supported by any actual reasoning” about how to eliminate waste, but were “part and parcel of President Trump’s and Secretary McMahon’s opposition to the Department of Education’s entire existence.”
In her successful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon denied that the terminations were related to a desire to shutter the Department of Education. Her appeal claimed the preliminary injunction represents “judicial micromanagement of its day-to-day operations.”
“When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” Sotomayor wrote.
Cases in limbo
M.W.’s case was one of 772 in California pending before the Office for Civil Rights when the San Francisco branch was shuttered, according to a site that has not been updated since President Donald Trump took office.
Advocates say the office provides a venue to address a discrimination complaint, especially for those who haven’t had success appealing to their district or state and cannot afford to hire a personal attorney.
“No one’s going to OCR if they have any other option,” said Johnathan Smith, an attorney with the National Center for Youth Law, the Oakland-based nonprofit that represented K.D. in her suit. “The reason why K.D. turned to OCR was because she didn’t have options. And so for this administration to literally pull out the rug from under families, from children who are at their lowest point of need, is beyond cruel.”
The Department of Education updated its list of recent voluntary resolutions, which include seven cases in California during Trump’s second term.
The other resolutions involve agreements regarding disability cases, including those at San Diego State University, as well as the Belmont-Redwood Shores, Cupertino Union, Inglewood Unified and Tehachapi Unified school districts. Letters about the resolutions were signed by attorneys with phone numbers that contain Washington, D.C., or Seattle-based area codes.
It’s unclear whether most of the nearly 800 cases in California pending before the Office for Civil Rights when Trump took office have been addressed. The department did not respond to requests for comment.
Most deal with disability: the right to a free and appropriate public education, harassment or discipline.
The office also handles discrimination claims filed by students and parents or staff on the basis of gender, race, age, nationality or language. Over three-quarters of the pending cases in California deal with the TK-12 system — the rest are postsecondary. The office investigates discrimination claims at the state level.
“No state is immune for the need for a federal backstop against that harm,” said Lhamon. “We have had six-decade bipartisan recognition that it is true.”
‘Speaking her truth does matter’
M.W. will be a junior when she returns to school in the fall. Her mother, K.D., told EdSource that her daughter continues to be bullied by students and the issue remains unaddressed by the school district.
“The driving force for me has been just like her, knowing that what she has to say and her speaking her truth does matter,” K.D. said. “I want her to know, no matter how long this has taken — or will take — that it does matter.”
Schools are where students learn about academic subjects, but also how society functions.
“Schools are where we teach people how to participate in democracy,” Lhamon said.
She worries that if the federal system for addressing discrimination breaks down, students will receive the message that discrimination is allowed.
“If you are harmed and no one speaks up for you, what you take home is that it was OK,” Lhamon said. “That’s the worst part of the lesson.”
Students pass beneath Sather Gate and onto Sproul Plaza at UC Berkeley.
Credit: Steve McConnell / UC Berkeley
As a student of Mexican, Guatemalan and Salvadoran heritage at UC Berkeley, adjusting to life at a prestigious institution has been hard. Too often, my peers assume stereotypes about me and my parents — that I must have grown up poor, that my parents don’t have an education or speak English, that I must be loud and aggressive like the Latinos they see on TV. Sometimes, while walking on campus, I overhear conversations about the need to deport so-called “illegals.” Whenever professors mispronounce my name, it sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me.
Three years ago, I joined Mariachi Luz de Oro. For myself and student mariachis everywhere, our performance is a rejection of this kind of mistreatment and simultaneously a celebration of our heritage.
Today, student mariachis across the state persevere and celebrate Mexican culture at a time when it is being targeted by the Trump administration. The need for cultural preservation among young Latinos is more timely than ever.
Growing up, I was always on stage. But nothing ever stuck. From ballet at the age of 5 to piano at 9 to theater at 13 and even a cover band at 17, I eventually lost interest in every performing art I was involved in.
But as a college freshman in 2022, I finally found one that stuck — mariachi.
Daniela Castillo performs for Mariachi Luz de Oro at UC Berkeley.Camila Villanueva
In California, Latino students are more likely to have cultural ties to mariachi music. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, Latinos make up 40% of California’s population and 51.4% of Californians aged 24 years and younger. Mariachi programs help students achieve high levels of musicianship while also helping them stay connected to their culture, unlike music programs derived from European tradition, such as classical music or marching band.
This is why I have continued mariachi. No other art form has mattered to me in a way that also speaks to my roots, from preserving the language to being able to sing songs at family events like funerals and weddings.
When I first found Mariachi Luz de Oro, I’d just moved 400 miles away from Gardena in Southern California, the only home I’d ever known. I remember calling my family and then crying once we hung up because I longed to be home so badly.
Mariachi helped cure that. It gave me a community, a learning space and a newfound sense of closeness with my family. I’ll never forget how excited my grandma was to give me a crochet vihuela pin she made for me to wear on my traje de charro, the mariachi uniform. Homemade videos of me performing and singing in Spanish help my parents miss me a little less.
When I first saw Mariachi Luz de Oro perform, I was volunteering at a local Latino community event. The violins swelled, and the trumpets blared as the singer’s Spanish lyrics resonated in my ears. I knew then and there that this was something I wanted to be a part of.
To my surprise, the group offered to lend me a spare vihuela, an instrument similar to a guitar, but smaller. I hadn’t heard of a vihuela before, nor did I know how to play it or any other mariachi instrument. Even though I had no experience, I felt that this was something I needed to do. That day, amidst the chaos of adjusting to my first semester of college, I decided to pick up a brand-new instrument.
Today, I play and sing at nearly every performance we have. I am a member of the student board and helped organize this year’s third annual UC Berkeley Mariachi Conference.
The conference is a weekend-long event that started in 2023. More than 100 student mariachis from various middle schools, high schools and colleges across California are invited to campus. They get to perform in a showcase, build community, and participate in two days of classes taught by world-class mariachi instructors.
Through the UC Berkeley conference, I have met many inspirational student mariachis, including Karen Orozco, a senior at Garfield High School in East Los Angeles, who said that her participation in mariachi in high school prepared her for success. Orozco balances being a guitarist for the school’s mariachi group, Mariachi Los Alanos, and its all-girl group, Mariachi Las Mariposas. Orozco said that most mariachi members at her school plan to attend college and continue playing mariachi music.
“It’s helped us see how much we can achieve,” Orozco said. “It gives us motivation in both academics and performing.”
Orozco and I can both attest to the importance of mariachi programs. Although mariachi has taken a lot of hard work and time, I don’t have any regrets. It has helped me along my academic journey, while keeping me connected to my family and heritage at a time when keeping mariachi music alive is more important than ever.
•••
Daniela Castillo is student at UC Berkeley majoring in media studies with a concentration in global and cultural studies, as well as a double minor in journalism and ethnic studies, and a member of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Many come under supervision of their county Department of Children and Family Services after a reported allegation of child neglect or maltreatment, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, exploitation or emotional abuse; for others, it happens when a parent voluntarily requests support, often due to a child’s behavioral challenges.
Children in an out-of-home placement in the child welfare system have access to particular educational rights. This is meant to ensure stability for them during a time of uncertainty.
A child under the supervision of the Department of Children and Family Services often comes into contact with multiple individuals. Depending on the details of their case, this could include social workers, child advocates, police officers, detectives, attorneys, judges and others. If they are removed from their home, they might be placed in foster care. While not all youth in the child welfare system are in foster care, all foster youth are in the child welfare system.
“When these rights were established, the purpose was to keep children in some kind of consistency, some kind of security, or something that felt just familiar to them,” said Jessica Gonzalez, youth justice program manager at CASA/LA, a national organization of court-appointed special advocates for youth in the child welfare system. CASA volunteers are sometimes appointed as educational rights holders for children. Even when they are not, they often advocate for education rights to be enforced, Gonzalez said.
A child’s case might also enter the juvenile dependency court. While the primary goal for youth in dependency court is to “preserve the family” by keeping a child either in the home of their parent or a relative, they might be placed in foster care or adopted.
Child welfare cases are complex, and outcomes depend on a multitude of factors, including the caretaking ability of a parent, whether a relative is able to take in the child, if an appeal is filed, and more.
This story includes information on whom the educational rights apply to as well as general insight into some of these rights. Many were implemented with the enactment of AB 490 in 2003 yet remain difficult to understand for many families due to the complexity of the child welfare system.
How many children are in the child welfare system?
This point-in-time count includes those who are under the age of 1 up to age 21 and who have “an open child welfare or probation supervised placement episode” in California’s Child Welfare Services/Case Management System. The count peaked in 2016, with nearly 63,000 open cases. The lowest number of open cases occurred this year.
Allegations of child maltreatment are much higher, however; between April 2022 and April 2023, there were more than 442,000 reported allegations.
Which children in the system have access to particular educational rights?
Youth in the child welfare system and in an out-of-home placement have access to specific educational rights. An out-of-home placement can include foster homes, group homes, shelters and hotels through the Department of Children and Family Services, and other similar placements.
The purpose of these rights is to accommodate the child’s education as much as possible during a time of instability.
What are some of the educational rights for those in the child welfare system?
A child in the welfare system and in an out-of-home placement has access to the following rights, among others:
School stability. This includes the right to remain enrolled at their school of origin, which is the school they were enrolled in at the time their child welfare case began, and the right to be transported to that school.
Enrichment access. Youth have the right to access the same type of enrichment activities as their peers. This can include academic resources and extracurricular activities.
Placement in the least restrictive setting. Students have the right to be placed in the academic setting that’s least restrictive, or least strictly controlled, for them to be able to achieve academic progress and success.
Immediate enrollment. Regardless of whether a student has all the enrollment documents ready, or has had contact with the juvenile justice system, or has any outstanding fees — they have the right to be immediately enrolled in school.
Each of the rights above are nuanced and dependent on each child’s case and the decisions of their educational rights holder.
Additional information for families and children can be found by contacting the county Foster Youth Services Coordinating Program (each county’s contact can be found here) or at the California Foster Youth Education Task Force.
What does it mean to place a child in the ‘least restrictive’ academic setting?
While a least restrictive academic setting depends on age and whether a student has disabilities, it’s often considered the academic environment that’s least strictly controlled.
For a high school student, the least restrictive setting might be a traditional public school where students walk from one classroom to another on their own, with sports and special events such as prom and field trips. A more restrictive academic setting is often a nonpublic school that provides a more strictly controlled environment in an effort to assist students who have specific behavioral, emotional or academic needs.
As Gonzalez described, students are often pushed out to a more restrictive setting if they exhibit ongoing behavioral challenges — which, she says, are often a result of trauma in that child’s life.
But students “have the right to be in a setting they feel safe in, they feel comfortable in, and they’re able to learn in,” Gonzalez said. “And so, if the child has demonstrated that they’re able to do this in a very restrictive setting, we have to give that student the opportunity to then be able to practice those skills in a less restrictive setting.”
Who holds the educational rights for youth in the child welfare system?
Every child has an educational rights holder with decision-making authority regarding their education. A parent often continues having the right to make educational and developmental decisions for their child even if they lose physical custody. Biological parents lose educational decision-making power only if they are explicitly limited or restricted by the juvenile court, if parental rights have been terminated (i.e., the child is up for adoption), or if the child is in a legal guardianship.
Parents “are not always encouraged to continue to be a part of their child’s educational journey, so a lot of times what we do as CASA when we’re appointed to a case is facilitate that engagement with a parent to preserve their involvement in the child’s education,” Gonzalez said.
Most often, organizations like CASA encourage relatives to hold educational rights. This is because once a child welfare case is closed, CASA is no longer the rights holder. Advocating for the biological parents or other relatives to remain as educational rights holders helps provide continuity in the child’s life, according to Gonzalez.
In the absence of parents or relatives, the educational rights holder role is often filled by a court-appointed special advocate, which is where CASA’s name comes from.
The person assigned as the educational rights holder is entitled to have “all of the educational decision-making rights normally held by a parent or guardian,” according to a recent fact sheet compiled by the California Foster Youth Education Task Force.
How are educational decisions made?
All educational decisions should be made with the child’s best interest in mind.
For example, a child can remain in their school of origin if they prefer to. But if they’ve been placed far from that school and they would need to spend hours on the road to reach it, then it may be in their best interest to be enrolled in a new school.
The educational rights holder can request a best-interest determination meeting that would include school district personnel, such as the school psychologist, before finalizing any educational decisions.
How can an educational rights holder avoid roadblocks in advocating for a child?
While educational rights are outlined, the rights holder may experience roadblocks in enforcing them.
For example, information about a child, like academic assessments and individualized education programs, might not have yet been finalized at their school of origin and a new educational rights holder might face pushback from the new school.
In such cases, children, their families and educational rights holders can contact an education attorney through the Educational Advocacy Unit at the Children’s Law Center. If the child is also in the juvenile justice system, they can contact a juvenile resource attorney through the public defender’s office.
A significant barrier is that while foster youth liaisons at schools are designated staff members who support students in the child welfare system, they are often overwhelmed by the number of students they serve.
Gonzalez said, “It’s a lot of just constantly showing up to the school, advocating, contacting, emailing, you know, all of those follow-ups to make sure that we’re getting the right support for each child that we serve.”
ChatGPT is all over the news these days, but when it was first released to the public in November 2022, one of us (Linda) was completely unaware of its existence, while the other (Candice) was already exploring the ways it could be used to creatively brainstorm solutions to complex policy problems in her graduate studies.
It wasn’t until after listening to a podcast on a road trip with her two teenage sons that Linda learned about ChatGPT’s incredible ability to generate creative content, write lines of code and summarize dense literature, and that one of her sons — like 33% of 12- to 17-year-olds nationwide — had already used ChatGPT to help with school assignments.
A recent meeting of the California Collaborative on District Reform focused on the future of K-12 education further pushed our awareness of artificial intelligence in education and the efforts schools are making to prepare students for a new world. Meeting participants walked away with a better understanding of the power and limitations of AI but expressed emerging and persistent concerns around bias and equity, asking questions about how to ensure that such a powerful tool can be accessed by all students. As history tells us, new technologies often widen the gaps between the rich and the poor. More recently, research shows us that 31% of students from low-income households lacked access to technologies needed for remote learning during the Covid-19 pandemic.
So, we asked ourselves how AI can be accessed equitably —and what does that even mean?
As the academic year launches, it’s imperative that school system leaders think about how to make access to AI more equitable and empower both students and educators to navigate these tools with more critical awareness.
A haphazard approach to integrating AI into schools poses potential threats to equity. Failure to ensure access to AI in resource-limited schools potentially widens the digital divide and perpetuates unequal learning opportunities and outcomes for historically underserved students and their communities. For example, OpenAI’s GPT-4 features can only be acquired through a paid premium account, meaning the most advanced AI tools, such as analyzing images and generating graphs, might be restricted to students and communities with greater financial resources. Therefore, implementing a thoughtful, realistic approach to ensuring all students, regardless of resources, can access AI tools that are changing how we learn and work, is necessary to furthering an equity agenda.
Additionally, prioritizing equity goes beyond merely ensuring access; it requires critical awareness to integrate AI into school systems. Redefining access will require comprehensive teacher training to effectively engage with AI and integrate its many capabilities into the school and classroom. A nationwide survey revealed that 72% of K-12 teachers had not received guidance and training on integrating AI into their curriculum. But training teachers to recognize the bias inherent in the tool, learning to fact-check the results AI produces, and incorporating nuanced, human details into its output is a necessity. And more essential is ensuring that teachers in both resource-rich and resource-restricted schools have access to this training.
Understanding how AI tools are built can help shine a light on the bias and systemic issues of equity associated with AI. The 2020 documentary “Coded Bias,” for example, reveals how the quality of AI output depends entirely on the data used to train it. A recent Boston Globe story shared the experience of an Asian MIT student who asked AI to make her headshot more professional, and it gave her lighter skin and blue eyes. Demographics show that 67% of AI specialists are white and 91% are men. If AI tools learn from sources primarily produced by white males, the output generated is likely to reflect the same homogenized knowledge, insights and resulting bias.
With the rapid growth of AI technology, it is likely that AI will become increasingly integrated into schools. Students are already using AI to take notes in lectures, assist with language translation, and help solve math problems. Therefore, focused attention on redefining access is necessary to ensure that students from resource-rich schools are not the only ones with the opportunity to master AI tools that will increasingly be part of their daily lives.
We are at the beginning of a long journey of understanding and navigating the role of AI in all schools, but the conversation must begin with a thoughtful and proactive approach by system leaders to center equity and empower teachers to guide students on a pathway to more powerful learning experiences.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
After years of pandemic declines, enrollment at California’s community colleges may finally be starting to rebound in a significant way.
Several colleges across the state, from San Diego to San Jose, are reporting that their enrollments are up by double digit percentages this fall. Statewide data for the fall isn’t yet available, but enrollment in the spring was up 8% across the system of 116 colleges, according to a memo prepared by the state chancellor’s office.
College officials cited the expansion of dual enrollment and more interest in career-focused programs as being among the main drivers of the enrollment growth.
“In conversations with CEOs for fall 2023, I’m hearing good news, positive trends. And in fact, many of the districts are telling me that they’re seeing double-digit enrollment growth,” Sonya Christian, the statewide chancellor for the system, told the system’s board of governors Tuesday.
Given that, the memo prepared by the chancellor’s office says the system now has “a meaningful positive enrollment outlook for the first time in over five years.”
Still, enrollment across the system as of the spring was down 16% compared to pre-pandemic levels. And although the colleges are seeing big increases in dual enrollment and more enrollments from some older students, other students have not returned. Among students between the ages of 20 and 24, enrollment was down 27% as of the spring compared with pre-Covid levels. It was also down 22% among students between the ages of 25 and 34.
Christian’s goal for the colleges, outlined in her official Vision 2030 plan for the system, is to increase enrollment to greater than pre-pandemic levels by 2030. The board of governors voted Tuesday to begin formally implementing that vision. Among other goals, her plan calls to enroll more low-income adults, who she says have been historically left behind by the system. She also wants colleges to further expand dual enrollment by having every high school student taking a college class.
Dual enrollment has already been growing steadily across the state. In spring 2023, enrollment among students ages 19 and younger was up 14% compared with spring 2022, an increase that was largely aided by growth in dual enrollment programs. As of the spring, students in that age group had surpassed their pre-pandemic enrollment levels, making them the only age group to do so.
At the San Jose Evergreen Community College District, enrollment this fall is up by about 15% compared with a year ago, and the largest increases are among students aged 17 or younger, thanks to dual enrollment expansions. The district has specifically focused on expanding partnerships with high schools in East San Jose to enroll underserved high schoolers in that area, said Beatriz Chaidez, the district’s interim chancellor, in an interview.
“People see the value in community colleges, and that’s creating the increased interest, and we’re casting a wider net with our K-12 partners,” Chaidez added.
Colleges are also reporting growth in career training and skill-based programs. At Mt. San Jacinto College in Riverside County, where enrollment is up 13% compared with last fall, “there is a notable trend of students gravitating more towards career-focused educational paths,” said Brandon Moore, the college’s vice president of enrollment management, in an email.
Moore said there has been a “significant uptick” in enrollment in the college’s automotive and computer information systems programs. “Furthermore, budding programs such as culinary arts are also carving a niche, reflecting a growing interest in specialized skill-based education,” he added.
The San Diego Community College District, where enrollment is up by 14% this fall but still well below pre-pandemic levels, is similarly seeing increased demand for career training programs, said Ashanti Hands, president of San Diego Mesa College. That’s specifically the case for short-term certificate programs in subjects such as accounting, biotechnology and cybersecurity.
“These are students who want to come and really focus on being able to find work,” Hands said. “They can do that within a short amount of time. It’s the immediate return on their investment.”
Christian, who became statewide chancellor in June, wants to connect even more students to the workforce by targeting the state’s adults who have graduated from high school but don’t have a postsecondary degree. According to her office, there are 6.8 million of them in California between the ages of 25 and 54, and those individuals are disproportionately likely to be low-income and struggling to find well-paid work.
Under Christian’s Vision 2030, the colleges would enroll many of those individuals and help connect them to good jobs. The Vision 2030 planning document notes that if the colleges enrolled 5% of those individuals, it would generate 300,000 new students across the system. During the 2022-23 academic year, the system enrolled about 1.92 million students, down by more than 300,000 compared with pre-pandemic levels.
“Vision 2030 asks the fundamental question: Why have we not yet reached these individuals? When students cannot find their way to college, it is our responsibility to bring college to them,” Christian said.
Hands, the Mesa College president, said she’s confident that community colleges across the state, including the San Diego colleges, will be able to fully recover the enrollment they lost during the pandemic. But she added that, as those increases happen in areas like dual enrollment and workforce programs, the colleges won’t look the same as they did before the pandemic.
“We are not there yet, but the way that we are moving, I have no doubt that we will get back to those numbers,” she said. “But it won’t be business as usual because I think we’re going to need to be mindful that we may be seeing different students, a different group of students.”
California may have low public college tuition costs when compared to other colleges and universities nationally, but it is not enough to prevent students from taking high amounts of student loans.
A new study released exclusively to EdSource from The Century Foundation found Californians have higher average student debt balances, risky graduate school debt, a unique reliance on parent-held debt and significantly high student debt among Black families.
California’s high cost of living makes debt inevitable for many students, but the risk is greater for students from lower-income families and communities of color eager to use education as a ladder into the middle class. Open-ended loans aimed at parents and graduate students are particularly burdensome, including those used to attend for-profit colleges.
Despite having a smaller share of student loan borrowers when compared with other states, California’s borrowers are in the top third among states, with an average of $37,400 owed, according to national data from June 2022. That figure includes all borrowers, regardless of whether they attended college in California. The state ranks 16th out of 50 states and the District of Columbia for borrowers with high balances. This is despite having the fourth-lowest rate of student borrowers.
“One of California’s great successes is in college affordability and the fact that so many students go through college without debt,” said Peter Granville, a fellow at the foundation studying federal and state policy efforts to improve college affordability and author of the study. “Unfortunately, the Californians who do borrow take out some of the most risky debt around.” The foundation is a progressive, independent think tank that researches and promotes policy change to foster equity.
Besides the impact on individuals, student loan debt has become a larger problem for the American economy. Nationally, the current student loan debt totals $1.77 trillion.
“Student debt is something that is different from what it was 10 or 20 years ago,” U.S. Undersecretary of Education James Kvaal told higher education reporters earlier this month at UC Riverside. “People are borrowing more. They’re struggling more with those loans. It’s not just a problem for the 43 million Americans with student loan debt when they cannot afford to buy a house, start a new business or save for their own children or their retirement. It’s a problem for their families. It’s a problem for their communities. It’s a problem for our economy. It’s a fundamental crisis that we have to address in our country. We have to change how we’re financing higher education.”
Loan repayments restarting in October
With the Supreme Court rejecting President Joe Biden’s attempt to forgive $20,000 in loans for millions of borrowers, many are preparing to restart repayments in October. The situation underscores a larger student loan crisis in California and across the country. Millions of people, including those who never graduated from college and parents, are carrying student loan debt that they cannot afford and realistically may not ever pay back.
“Californians really struggle with repayment,” Granville said. “The state economy demands a college education, and I believe that demand drives up borrowing.”
And the situation is worse for graduates and families that borrow from the federal Parent PLUS and Grad PLUS loan programs that allow parents to borrow on behalf of their college students and graduate students to afford higher degrees, Granville said, adding that both programs offer high-interest, uncapped loans.
“These loans are probably the worst things to dangle in front of families with real genuine fears of being left behind economically,” he said. “But that leads to high balances that are difficult to manage.”
Graduate loan debt is larger in California than in the rest of the country, the study found. The state’s average annual Grad Plus loan is 25% higher than the rest of the country. In-state graduate students borrow on average $28,300 in loans each year compared with $22,400 nationally.
California places a premium on higher education in the state, Granville said. The average California worker with a graduate degree earns $108,500 – a 50% increase above the average income for bachelor’s degree holders.
The state also sees a disproportionate share of Black students borrowing student loans. In the 2015-16 academic year, 28% of Black in-state undergraduates borrowed loans compared with 21% of all undergraduates. At the graduate level, 81% of Black Californians took out student loans compared to 51% of all other graduate students.
“High borrowing among Black students in California locks in inequality that can last long into repayment,” Granville said. “Despite having a college degree and living in a higher income state, Black borrowers in California actually show worse financial security.”
Black women undergraduates borrow at the highest rates in any one year, with 31% taking loans in 2015-16 compared with 21% of all undergraduates, according to the study.
Granville said the data reflects the racial wealth gap.
“Black families have fewer financial resources than white families,” he said. “That leads to it being a lot harder to ask a Black family to self-finance education without debt. Homeownership also matters. You can take out a home equity loan for a much lower rate than a Parent Plus loan, for example.”
Latinos follow Black borrowers but with not as high graduate loan debt at 62%. But Latino families also have concerning trends. The majority of Latino borrowers in California don’t have a college degree, while only one-quarter of white borrowers don’t. The report explains that this could be due to a greater share of Latinos leaving college before they earn a degree or higher shares of parents borrowing on behalf of their children.
Granville said the state should examine whether all California families are “being potentially set up to fail.”
“Lawmakers should be looking at the colleges within California and asking, are colleges passing on high costs to students knowing that they can take out this uncapped loan debt?” he said. “I worry about how some loans are being sold to students by their colleges. Unless families are getting wise counsel, they may be unknowingly signing up for a pretty tough repayment experience.”
The racial wealth gap, along with California’s cost of living, makes it particularly challenging for Californians to pay their student debt, Granville said.
Repaying more than $200,000
In many ways, Richelle Brooks is a college success story. She’s also an outlier in the student debt crisis.
Credit: Courtesy of Richelle Brooks
Richelle Brooks
A first-generation college student, Brooks earned an associate degree from El Camino College, then went on to earn a bachelor’s and master’s degree from Cal State Dominguez Hills. She graduated with her doctorate in 2018 from Cal State Los Angeles.
Now, as a Los Angeles-area high school principal, she mentors and educates low-income students and students of color. She’s also facing more than $237,000 of student loan debt. The mom of three can’t fathom repaying it all, even with her $120,000 annual salary.
Enrolling in community colleges even after graduating with her doctorate, as well as the three-year pandemic pause, allowed her to put off making payments. But that could be coming to an end.
Brooks, who advocates for student loan forgiveness, participates in one of the federal government’s income-driven repayment plans, which slowly escalates her monthly payments based on her income as a high school principal. Her first payment, which restarts in October, is for $700. But by June 2024 it will increase to $2,600 a month.
“I ran the numbers,” Brooks, 36, said. “It’ll be cheaper to stay in school the rest of my life than to pay that $200,000.” (Federal loan repayments pause while a person is enrolled in school.)
About $33,000 of Brooks’ debt is just from interest that accumulated over the years. But because of the interest, Brooks said that her ability to pay off the debt “doesn’t exist.”
“On paper, it sounds like I make a lot of money,” she said. “But they’re not taking into consideration that I live in LA and I have three kids.”
Brook’s partner is a military veteran and teacher. He doesn’t have student loans because of his military service, but the couple found they’re unable to purchase a home for their family because of Brook’s debt-to-income ratio, a situation that affects many student borrowers. Brooks also supports her mother, who lives with the family after facing homelessness.
California’s high cost of living makes it difficult for young people coming out of college without significant family resources to accumulate assets like a home, especially if they have student loan debt. In California, 78% of Black households with student debt and 74% of Latino households with student debt have less than $50,000 in savings and investments, compared with 57% of white households with student loans, according to The Century Foundation.
In addition to her work as a principal, Brooks said she’s taken on other jobs to make ends meet, including driving Uber, and that’s before the loan repayments begin.
“Whatever it takes to make sure my kids have what they need and the bills are paid,” she said.
Brooks’ two oldest children are in high school and affording college is a common discussion in their home.
“I do not foresee a way for me to pay off my debt and figure out a way to pay my kids’ college, and I do not want them to go into debt,” she said. “I talked to my daughter about joining the military, but it’s kind of terrifying too because she’s a little Black girl. … So I’m trying to figure it out.”
As an educator, Brooks could apply for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, which she is considering once again. The program typically forgives the debt of people who work for a government or nonprofit employer, such as teachers, first responders and nurses. But forgiveness isn’t granted until after the borrower makes 120 or 10 years of payments.
Restarting repayments
Although Brooks’ debt amounts are larger than the average of most borrowers, her struggle to repay her college loans is common.
“In the popular imagination, there is this idea that student debt is a young people issue,” said Thomas Gokey, an organizer and co-founder of The Debt Collective, a union of advocates for publicly funded college, universal health care and guaranteed housing. “The truth is that the debt just doesn’t go away.”
People age, have children, grandchildren, and careers decades removed from graduation, and the “debt is still there,” Gokey said, adding that for many people, the monthly payments don’t cover the interest.
Some people have fully paid back their principle multiple times over, with the outstanding balance higher than the original balance. Other people may fall on hard times and can’t make payments, which leads to massive penalties, he said, referring to one case where a borrower defaulted on her student loan during the 2008 financial crisis and saw a $10,000 penalty added to her balance.
For undergraduates, even when their financial aid forms say they have $0 in expected family contributions, the cost of college attendance and tuition has increased to the point where aid doesn’t cover everything, he said. “The only option is Parent Plus loans to fill the gap. It’s just astonishing that a lot of parents will be paying off the loans for a longer period of time than they lived with or raised the children that they got the loan for.”
Granville said many, trying to get ahead, take on more loans after undergraduate loans.
“Students often turn to graduate education when they’re struggling with their undergraduate loans,” he said. “They may see the next degree as the thing that will give them the earning power to handle the debt that they have struggled with already.”
There is a misperception that a graduate degree means a person will be “really successful” and “make a lot of money,” Gokey said. “And that’s just not true if you’re a social worker,” he added, as an example of a lower salary job.
According to The Century Foundation’s data, a social worker with a bachelor’s degree earns on average $34,183 one year after completing their program, but has an average $15,599 in student loans. A social worker with a master’s degree earns an average of $54,223 one year after completing their program, but has on average nearly $80,000 in student loans. Licensed clinical social workers in California are required by the state to have a master’s degree in social work.
Gokey said that there’s no way to “financial literacy yourself” out of student loan debt.
Options and fixes
Although interest rates restarted in September and repayments resume in October, the federal government is giving borrowers a one-year grace period as it attempts to fix the loan system and offer solutions that significantly lower monthly payments.
“We really inherited a student loan system that was broken,” Kvaal said. “Before the student loan pause, we had a million students a year defaulting on their student loans.”
Kvaal said those defaults weren’t from people running from their responsibilities, but borrowers struggling with payments. Many of them were first-generation or students of color, he said.
Institution name
Type
Stafford (undergraduate)
Parent PLUS
Grad PLUS
Academy of Art University
For-profit
37%
30%
42%
Advanced Career Institute
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
Allan Hancock College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Alliant International University-San Diego
For-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
American Academy of Dramatic Arts-Los Angeles
Non-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
American Career College-Los Angeles
For-profit
34%
21%
n/a
American Career College-Ontario
For-profit
37%
32%
n/a
American College of Healthcare and Technology
For-profit
51%
n/a
n/a
American River College
Public
44%
n/a
n/a
Angeles Institute
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
Antelope Valley College
Public
43%
n/a
n/a
Antioch University-Los Angeles
Non-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
Art Center College of Design
Non-profit
29%
n/a
n/a
Asher College
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
Ashford University
For-profit
46%
37%
44%
Associated Technical College-Los Angeles
For-profit
49%
n/a
n/a
Associated Technical College-San Diego
For-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Avalon School of Cosmetology-Alameda
For-profit
41%
n/a
n/a
Aveda Institute-Los Angeles
For-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
Azusa Pacific University
Non-profit
25%
16%
42%
Bakersfield College
Public
43%
n/a
n/a
Bard College – MAT Program CA
Non-profit
24%
17%
n/a
Bellus Academy-Chula Vista
For-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
Bellus Academy-El Cajon
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
Bellus Academy-Poway
For-profit
29%
n/a
n/a
Berkeley City College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Bethel Seminary-San Diego
Non-profit
18%
22%
36%
Biola University
Non-profit
20%
22%
32%
Blake Austin College
For-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Brandman University
Non-profit
31%
n/a
39%
Brownson Technical School
For-profit
17%
n/a
n/a
Butte College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Cabrillo College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
California Aeronautical University
For-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
California Baptist University
Non-profit
31%
30%
43%
California Career Institute
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
California College of the Arts
Non-profit
26%
32%
47%
California College San Diego
Non-profit
44%
n/a
n/a
California Hair Design Academy
For-profit
26%
n/a
n/a
California Healing Arts College
For-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
California Institute of Integral Studies
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
California Institute of the Arts
Non-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
California Lutheran University
Non-profit
22%
26%
n/a
California Nurses Educational Institute
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo
Public
12%
14%
24%
California State Polytechnic University-Pomona
Public
21%
22%
38%
California State University Maritime Academy
Public
17%
n/a
n/a
California State University-Bakersfield
Public
29%
n/a
n/a
California State University-Channel Islands
Public
22%
17%
n/a
California State University-Chico
Public
23%
22%
n/a
California State University-Dominguez Hills
Public
27%
n/a
32%
California State University-East Bay
Public
25%
22%
35%
California State University-Fresno
Public
24%
n/a
34%
California State University-Fullerton
Public
20%
27%
29%
California State University-Long Beach
Public
20%
22%
37%
California State University-Los Angeles
Public
23%
n/a
37%
California State University-Monterey Bay
Public
24%
17%
37%
California State University-Northridge
Public
22%
17%
37%
California State University-Sacramento
Public
24%
20%
36%
California State University-San Bernardino
Public
27%
22%
40%
California State University-San Marcos
Public
23%
n/a
n/a
California State University-Stanislaus
Public
23%
17%
36%
California Western School of Law
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Cambridge Junior College-Yuba City
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
Career Academy of Beauty
For-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
Career Care Institute
For-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
Career Networks Institute
For-profit
33%
n/a
n/a
Carrington College-Sacramento
For-profit
37%
20%
n/a
Casa Loma College-Van Nuys
Non-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
CBD College
Non-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Central Coast College
For-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
Cerritos College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
CET-San Diego
Non-profit
40%
n/a
n/a
Chabot College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Chamberlain University-California
For-profit
26%
24%
30%
Chapman University
Non-profit
20%
18%
n/a
Charles R Drew University of Medicine and Science
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
37%
Cinta Aveda Institute
For-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
Citrus College
Public
33%
n/a
n/a
City College of San Francisco
Public
43%
n/a
n/a
Claremont Graduate University
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Coastline Community College
Public
43%
n/a
n/a
Cogswell University of Silicon Valley
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
College of Marin
Public
51%
n/a
n/a
College of the Canyons
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
College of the Redwoods
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
College of the Sequoias
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
College of the Siskiyous
Public
45%
n/a
n/a
Columbia College – Los Alamitos
Non-profit
39%
n/a
38%
Columbia College Hollywood
Non-profit
39%
32%
n/a
Concorde Career College-Garden Grove
For-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Concorde Career College-North Hollywood
For-profit
29%
n/a
n/a
Concorde Career College-San Bernardino
For-profit
35%
n/a
n/a
Concorde Career College-San Diego
For-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
Concordia University-Irvine
Non-profit
22%
27%
27%
Contra Costa College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Cosumnes River College
Public
45%
n/a
n/a
Cuesta College
Public
30%
n/a
n/a
Culinary Institute of America at Greystone
Non-profit
24%
33%
n/a
Cypress College
Public
30%
n/a
n/a
De Anza College
Public
34%
n/a
n/a
Design’s School of Cosmetology
For-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
DeVry University-California
For-profit
42%
29%
40%
Diablo Valley College
Public
27%
n/a
n/a
Diversified Vocational College
For-profit
51%
n/a
n/a
Dominican University of California
Non-profit
20%
n/a
37%
East Los Angeles College
Public
33%
n/a
n/a
Empire College
For-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Feather River Community College District
Public
41%
n/a
n/a
Federico Beauty Institute
For-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
FIDM-Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising-Los Angeles
For-profit
30%
32%
n/a
Fielding Graduate University
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
37%
Folsom Lake College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Foothill College
Public
35%
n/a
n/a
Fremont College
For-profit
43%
n/a
n/a
Fresno City College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Fresno Pacific University
Non-profit
28%
n/a
38%
Fuller Theological Seminary
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Fullerton College
Public
36%
n/a
n/a
Glendale Career College
For-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
Glendale Community College
Public
27%
n/a
n/a
Golden Gate University-San Francisco
Non-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Golden West College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Grossmont College
Public
30%
n/a
n/a
Gurnick Academy of Medical Arts
For-profit
25%
n/a
n/a
Harvey Mudd College
Non-profit
8%
n/a
n/a
High Desert Medical College
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
Holy Names University
Non-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
Homestead Schools
Non-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
Hope International University
Non-profit
30%
n/a
n/a
Humboldt State University
Public
29%
22%
37%
Humphreys University-Stockton and Modesto Campuses
Non-profit
41%
n/a
n/a
Hussian College-Los Angeles
For-profit
53%
n/a
n/a
Institute for Business and Technology
For-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
Institute of Culinary Education
For-profit
19%
n/a
n/a
Institute of Technology
For-profit
43%
n/a
n/a
InterCoast Colleges-Santa Ana
For-profit
40%
n/a
n/a
International School of Beauty Inc
For-profit
42%
n/a
n/a
International School of Cosmetology
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
Irvine Valley College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
John F. Kennedy University
Non-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
La Sierra University
Non-profit
33%
27%
n/a
Laguna College of Art and Design
Non-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Laney College
Public
47%
n/a
n/a
Laurus College
For-profit
53%
n/a
n/a
Life Chiropractic College West
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
47%
Life Pacific University
Non-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
Loma Linda University
Non-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
Long Beach City College
Public
36%
n/a
n/a
Los Angeles Center
Non-profit
29%
n/a
n/a
Los Angeles City College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Los Angeles Film School
For-profit
47%
37%
n/a
Los Angeles Mission College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Los Angeles Pierce College
Public
40%
n/a
n/a
Los Angeles Southwest College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Los Angeles Trade Technical College
Public
39%
n/a
n/a
Los Angeles Valley College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Loyola Marymount University
Non-profit
17%
24%
n/a
Lu Ross Academy
For-profit
26%
n/a
n/a
Make-up Designory
For-profit
19%
22%
n/a
Marshall B Ketchum University
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
32%
Marymount California University
Non-profit
35%
n/a
n/a
Mayfield College
For-profit
39%
n/a
n/a
Mendocino College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Menlo College
Non-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Merritt College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Miami Ad School-San Francisco
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey
Non-profit
14%
n/a
n/a
Milan Institute of Cosmetology-Fairfield
For-profit
49%
n/a
n/a
Milan Institute-Fresno
For-profit
46%
n/a
n/a
Milan Institute-Palm Desert
For-profit
45%
n/a
n/a
Milan Institute-Visalia
For-profit
34%
n/a
n/a
Mills College
Non-profit
26%
n/a
n/a
MiraCosta College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Moler Barber College
For-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Monterey Peninsula College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Moorpark College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Moreno Valley College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Mount Saint Mary’s University
Non-profit
28%
17%
n/a
Mt San Antonio College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
MTI College
For-profit
29%
n/a
n/a
Musicians Institute
For-profit
35%
32%
n/a
National Career College
For-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
National Holistic Institute
For-profit
28%
n/a
n/a
National University
Non-profit
32%
n/a
39%
New York Film Academy
For-profit
35%
n/a
n/a
North Adrian’s College of Beauty Inc
For-profit
46%
n/a
n/a
Northcentral University
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
37%
North-West College-Pomona
For-profit
24%
n/a
n/a
North-West College-Van Nuys
For-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
North-West College-West Covina
For-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
Notre Dame de Namur University
Non-profit
26%
32%
47%
NTMA Training Centers of Southern California
Non-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Occidental College
Non-profit
14%
n/a
n/a
Orange Coast College
Public
29%
n/a
n/a
Otis College of Art and Design
Non-profit
27%
32%
n/a
Pacific College
For-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Pacific College of Health and Science
For-profit
42%
n/a
47%
Pacific Oaks College
Non-profit
30%
n/a
n/a
Pacific Union College
Non-profit
29%
n/a
n/a
Pacifica Graduate Institute
For-profit
n/a
n/a
47%
Palo Alto University
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
47%
Palomar College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Palomar Institute of Cosmetology
For-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
Pasadena City College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Paul Mitchell the School-East Bay
For-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Paul Mitchell the School-Fresno
For-profit
41%
n/a
n/a
Paul Mitchell the School-Modesto
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
Paul Mitchell the School-Pasadena
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
Paul Mitchell the School-Sacramento
For-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
Paul Mitchell the School-Sherman Oaks
For-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Paul Mitchell the School-Temecula
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
Pepperdine University
Non-profit
20%
22%
39%
Pima Medical Institute-Chula Vista
For-profit
29%
20%
n/a
Pitzer College
Non-profit
17%
n/a
n/a
Platt College-Los Angeles
For-profit
34%
n/a
n/a
Point Loma Nazarene University
Non-profit
19%
27%
n/a
Premiere Career College
For-profit
29%
n/a
n/a
Reedley College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Relay Graduate School of Education – California
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
37%
Riverside City College
Public
34%
n/a
n/a
Sacramento City College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Saddleback College
Public
30%
n/a
n/a
SAE Expression College
For-profit
42%
n/a
n/a
Saint Mary’s College of California
Non-profit
19%
37%
32%
Salon Success Academy-Corona
For-profit
42%
n/a
n/a
Salon Success Academy-Upland
For-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
Samuel Merritt University
Non-profit
8%
n/a
36%
San Diego Christian College
Non-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
San Diego City College
Public
41%
n/a
n/a
San Diego Mesa College
Public
33%
n/a
n/a
San Diego Miramar College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
San Diego State University
Public
21%
16%
38%
San Francisco Art Institute
Non-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
San Francisco Institute of Esthetics & Cosmetology Inc
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
San Francisco State University
Public
24%
22%
35%
San Joaquin Delta College
Public
46%
n/a
n/a
San Joaquin Valley College-Visalia
For-profit
42%
22%
n/a
San Jose City College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
San Jose State University
Public
18%
14%
33%
Santa Ana College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Santa Barbara Business College-Bakersfield
For-profit
45%
n/a
n/a
Santa Barbara Business College-Santa Maria
For-profit
34%
n/a
n/a
Santa Barbara City College
Public
36%
n/a
n/a
Santa Clara University
Non-profit
9%
27%
n/a
Santa Monica College
Public
33%
n/a
n/a
Santa Rosa Junior College
Public
31%
n/a
n/a
Saybrook University
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
37%
Shasta College
Public
39%
n/a
n/a
Sierra College
Public
40%
n/a
n/a
Simpson University
Non-profit
20%
n/a
n/a
Solano Community College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Sonoma State University
Public
21%
14%
37%
South Baylo University
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
South Coast College
For-profit
42%
n/a
n/a
Southern California Health Institute
For-profit
39%
n/a
n/a
Southern California Institute of Technology
For-profit
23%
n/a
n/a
Southern California University of Health Sciences
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
47%
Southwestern College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Southwestern Law School
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Spartan College of Aeronautics & Technology
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
Stanbridge University
For-profit
20%
n/a
n/a
Stanford University
Non-profit
12%
n/a
17%
SUM Bible College and Theological Seminary
Non-profit
47%
n/a
n/a
Summit College
For-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology at Anaheim
Non-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
The Master’s University and Seminary
Non-profit
12%
n/a
n/a
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Touro University California
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Touro University Worldwide
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
32%
Trident University International
For-profit
32%
n/a
33%
Trinity Law School
Non-profit
31%
n/a
38%
UEI College-Fresno
For-profit
50%
37%
n/a
UEI College-Gardena
For-profit
46%
22%
n/a
United Education Institute-Huntington Park Campus
For-profit
45%
37%
n/a
United States University
For-profit
42%
n/a
n/a
Unitek College
For-profit
21%
17%
n/a
Universal Technical Institute of California Inc
For-profit
37%
22%
n/a
Universal Technical Institute of Northern California Inc
For-profit
38%
22%
n/a
University of Antelope Valley
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
University of California-Berkeley
Public
13%
14%
30%
University of California-Davis
Public
12%
13%
37%
University of California-Hastings College of Law
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
University of California-Irvine
Public
15%
14%
37%
University of California-Los Angeles
Public
15%
18%
33%
University of California-Merced
Public
20%
18%
n/a
University of California-Riverside
Public
22%
19%
n/a
University of California-San Diego
Public
13%
12%
31%
University of California-San Francisco
Public
n/a
n/a
32%
University of California-Santa Barbara
Public
16%
19%
28%
University of California-Santa Cruz
Public
20%
18%
32%
University of La Verne
Non-profit
30%
27%
41%
University of Phoenix-California
For-profit
43%
35%
42%
University of Redlands
Non-profit
27%
27%
38%
University of San Diego
Non-profit
16%
24%
n/a
University of San Francisco
Non-profit
19%
22%
41%
University of Southern California
Non-profit
16%
25%
n/a
University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences
For-profit
n/a
n/a
32%
University of the Pacific
Non-profit
19%
22%
n/a
Vanguard University of Southern California
Non-profit
26%
27%
n/a
Ventura College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Victor Valley College
Public
46%
n/a
n/a
West Coast Ultrasound Institute
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
West Coast University-Los Angeles
For-profit
25%
30%
32%
West Hills College-Coalinga
Public
47%
n/a
n/a
West Hills College-Lemoore
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
West Los Angeles College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Western University of Health Sciences
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Westmont College
Non-profit
12%
n/a
n/a
Whittier College
Non-profit
29%
32%
n/a
William Jessup University
Non-profit
24%
n/a
n/a
Woodbury University
Non-profit
37%
27%
n/a
Source: College Scorecard
One fix the department has worked on is the loan forgiveness program for borrowers working in public service, which would help educators like Brooks. Prior to the pandemic, even people who were eligible for forgiveness were denied, Kvaal said, which is why fewer than 7,000 people saw forgiveness. Since the Biden Administration announced changes to the program, so far up to 660,000 people have had their loans forgiven through public service.
The Biden administration’s new repayment plan can also significantly cut loan payments or reduce them to $0, Kvaal said, adding that, so far, 4 million people have enrolled in the plan.
Kvaal said the administration is looking at other options.
“The president has asked us to offer loan forgiveness to as many people as possible and as quickly as possible,” Kvaal said. “We’re telling students it’s time for them to repay. At the same time, we’re doing everything we can to reform the student loan program to make sure that students have access to the loan forgiveness that they have earned … and that people are taking advantage of the most affordable payment plan that has ever been created.”
Kvaal said the Education Department is also looking into the amount of debt that comes out of for-profit programs, online graduate programs and the Parent Plus loan program.
Granville, from The Century Foundation, also has national recommendations. For example, Congress should lower the interest rate on student loans. According to The Debt Collective, Congress sets the interest rates for federal student loans. Those rates are tied to the 10-year Treasury note. Because the Federal Reserve has recently been increasing rates, the treasury bond rate has increased and so has the rate for new student loans.
The current fixed rates for new undergraduate loans are at 5.5%, for graduate, 7.05% for professional unsubsidized loans, and 8.05% for Parent Plus and Grad Plus loans.
At the state and local level, Granville said that loan counseling needs to significantly change. Much of the responsibility for understanding student loans is often put on 18- and 19-year-olds, who may be the first in their families to go to college, Granville said.
“The first answer is more grant aid for students so that we can reach a debt-free financing system, not just because it helps students as individuals, but because it helps the state,” he said. “We also haven’t done a great job setting up students for success despite all of their own personal investment in education. We can rectify that situation through more generous repayment plans, but we also need to make sure that we’re giving students high-quality options so they don’t need as much debt in the first place.”
For Brooks, the high school principal with student debt, the ultimate solution is free education.
“If you go to college, you’re stricken with debt,” Brooks said. “If you don’t go to college, then you don’t have a livable wage or enough money to survive. You have to do something.”
And college tuition in California, prior to the mid-1980’s was free, she said.
“I’m of the mindset that education is a public good and it serves everyone to have a highly educated populace,” Brooks said. “It should be free altogether.”
Rich Lyons, Chancellor, UC Berkeley, testifies during a House Committee on Education and Workforce Committee hearing on “Antisemitism in Higher Education: Examining the Role of Faculty, Funding, and Ideology” on Capitol Hill on July 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
Credit: Rod Lamkey, Jr. / AP Photo
UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons testified Tuesday in front of a U.S. House committee that his campus has “more work to do” to prevent antisemitism, though he also defended free speech and said that pro-Palestinian viewpoints are “not necessarily antisemitism.”
Lyons, along with the leaders of Georgetown University and The City University of New York, were called to face questioning at the U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce hearing focused on antisemitism on college campuses.
It was the latest of several such hearings held since late 2023 as some Republicans contend that Jewish students have been intimidated and threatened by U.S. campus protests against Israel’s military actions in Gaza, and antisemitism is rampant in academia.
In his opening remarks, Lyons said Berkeley “unequivocally condemns antisemitism” and that the campus has an “unwavering” commitment to its Jewish students and other community members.
“I am the first to say that we have more work to do. Berkeley, like our nation, has not been immune to the disturbing rise in antisemitism. And as a public university, we have a solemn obligation to protect our community from discrimination and harassment, while also upholding the First Amendment right to free speech,” he added.
The Trump administration is currently investigating Berkeley and many other campuses over possible antisemitism and has threatened to withhold funding if it believes those campuses aren’t protecting Jewish students.
Democrats, however, have said Republicans are insincere in their concerns and are weaponizing antisemitism to attack higher education. Democrats on Tuesday also criticized Republicans for ignoring other forms of hate on college campuses, such as Islamophobia.
Like many campuses across California, UC Berkeley was the scene of pro-Palestinian protests in spring 2024, when students there erected an encampment that stayed up for weeks. However, the encampment was dismantled in May after protesters reached an agreement with then-Chancellor Carol Christ, and the campus avoided violent conflicts that besieged some other campuses, including UCLA.
Lyons, who took over as chancellor last summer, faced less scrutiny Tuesday than CUNY Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez. But Lyons did field generic and generally hostile questions from Republican members of Congress about antisemitism on the campus, as well as ones focused on faculty hiring policies and the foreign funding the campus receives.
Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin, used most of his allotted five minutes to directly question Lyons, asking him why “antisemitism is so pervasive” at Berkeley.
“Antisemitism is pervasive in the world. It’s pervasive in this nation, in society,” Lyons responded. “I think our universities are reflections of our society, especially a large public university.”
During the same round of questioning, Lyons added that he believed that the increase in antisemitic incidents could be attributed to the war in Gaza, but also said that if somebody is expressing pro-Palestinian beliefs, that’s not necessarily antisemitic.”
Prior to Tuesday’s hearing, a group of 82Jewish faculty members at UC Berkeley in a letter to the House committee said they “reject the claim” that Berkeley has an antisemitic environment.
“We write to affirm that we feel secure on campus and support the administration’s efforts to balance safety with respect for free speech,” they added, referring to the Berkeley administration.
