اینترنت

برچسب: Californias

  • Should California’s college systems be merged into one university?

    Should California’s college systems be merged into one university?


    California State University, Dominguez Hills in Carson.

    Credit: Stephinie Phan / EdSource

    To better help students access and complete college, California should consider a major — and highly controversial — overhaul of its Master Plan for Higher Education that merges the state’s three public higher education systems into one mega-university, researchers argued Monday. 

    The bold proposal, detailed in a report from California Competes, a nonprofit research organization, suggests that the 10-campus University of California, the 23-campus California State University, and the state’s system of 116 community colleges be combined into a single California University that could accommodate a wide array of degree- and certificate-seeking students.

    Su Jin Jez, author of the report and CEO of California Competes, said merging the systems would eliminate transfer problems and make it easier for students to enter, succeed, and finish college, among other benefits. 

    “This proposal is intentionally provocative,” Jez said during a webinar Monday. “It’s designed to challenge existing paradigms and spark transformative discourse.” The original version of the report was released in December, but an updated version was published Monday when California Competes also hosted a webinar promoting the report. 

    Jez acknowledged that it might never come to be. The proposal would likely face challenges from the systems themselves, along with many stakeholders such as unions, faculties, legislators and alumni.  

    Other experts, reached by EdSource, questioned the proposal’s political feasibility, and one criticized the idea, saying it would not be possible to combine such large and complex institutions. 

    Jez argued that the original master plan, adopted in 1960, is outdated in part because of the rising costs of college and the changing racial and gender demographics of the state’s college students. Whereas the majority of students were white in 1960, Latinos now make up a majority of college-age individuals in California and a plurality of college students. Women also account for a majority of students in California colleges, a major change since 1960, when male students were the significant majority. 

    The original master plan said UC was to focus on research and enroll the top academically achieving eighth of high school graduates, while California State University was to consist mostly of undergraduate programs and serve the top third of high school graduates. The state’s community colleges were to offer open-access undergraduate classes, associate degrees for transfer, and vocational training. Those lines have since been blurred to some degree: CSU now offers some doctoral programs, and dozens of community colleges offer at least one bachelor’s degree. But over much of its time, that master plan arrangement was often hailed as a great strength for the state, helping during explosive population growth and supporting key scientific research.

    Under the proposed California University, the three segments would be merged into a network of regional campuses — such as California University, San Joaquin Valley, and California University, Los Angeles. 

    Each regional campus, which would be made up of one or several existing campuses, would offer a full range of programs and degrees, from certificates to doctorates. The LA campus, for example, would likely include the existing UCLA campus as well as the five CSU and many community college campuses in the county. It’s unclear how many regions would be included.

    There would be no admission requirements, and transfers would be completely eliminated, as students would be able to move seamlessly through their chosen regional campus.

    It would be highly challenging politically to merge the systems, which the report acknowledges. The co-directors of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA, which commissioned the report, urged Jez to “think boldly” in looking for a revised master plan, rather than come up with an immediately pragmatic solution, according to the report’s foreword.

    Jez said during Monday’s webinar that she believes there is a “hunger for a new vision for higher ed in our state” and noted that higher education leaders have previously urged changes to the master plan.

    Eloy Ortiz Oakley, the former chancellor of the state’s community college system, said in an interview that he agrees with the premise that the master plan is outdated and that he supports some of the report’s ideas, such as creating better coordination between the systems. But he rejected the idea of a single university.

    “I could not and would not support it,” said Oakley, who is now CEO of the College Futures Foundation. “There is just no way in my mind that you could form one comprehensive governance entity, given the size and the scope of the three public university systems.”

    Hans Johnson, a senior fellow at the PPIC Higher Education Center, previously called for modifications to the master plan in a 2010 report he wrote. He suggested at the time that, by 2025, the master plan be updated by setting explicit goals for improving eligibility, completion and transfer rates. 

    In a recent interview, Johnson said the state has made progress in increasing eligibility for UC and CSU and improving completion rates. He pointed to California residents’ enrollment being up significantly at both systems and noted graduation rates have improved greatly at CSU, particularly four-year rates. 

    Progress is still needed, though, in transferring more students to UC and CSU, he said. A state audit published last year found that, among students who began college between 2017 and 2019 and intended to transfer, only about 1 in 5 did so within four years. One thing that will be required, he said, is better coordination between the community college system, CSU and UC.

    “You could argue that the way to do that is to have one big system, and I think that’s a valid argument,” he said, referring to the California Competes proposal. “Politically, I don’t know how realistic it is.”

    The first step to better coordination could be some kind of coordinating council or board — similar to the California Postsecondary Education Commission, which was eliminated in 2011. Proponents say it would benefit the systems to be able to share data and information about their students and use that to strengthen transfers. 

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s January budget proposal included $5 million in annual funding to “establish a state planning and coordinating body for TK-12 education, higher education, and state economic and labor agencies,” though his revised budget released last week did not include that proposal.

    “Despite the very large state expenditure on colleges, universities and programs, the state is operating without any institutional body that coordinates these systems or even provides basic data that would be essential for the rational management, maximum efficiency and coordination of the system,” the California Competes report states, adding that creating such a board is “particularly urgent and doable.”

    Other proposals in the report may be less doable, Jez said Monday, adding that her proposal should be seen as a “vision,” even if making it happen would be “really tough.”

    “Our higher ed system is the best in the world, and I want us to stay there,” she said. “And I think that this is a moment that we can accelerate and ask, how do we stay on the vanguard? How do we continue to be the ones that are creating new models that the rest of the world will follow?”





    Source link

  • Q&A: Big drop in enrollment of low-income undocumented students at California’s public universities

    Q&A: Big drop in enrollment of low-income undocumented students at California’s public universities


    People rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 as oral arguments are heard in the wake of President Donald Trump’s decision to end the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The University of California brought the case to the court.

    Credit: AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    The number of low-income undocumented students newly enrolled in the University of California and California State University plummeted 50% between 2016-17 and 2022-23, according to a study released this month.

    The study by William C. Kidder of the UCLA Civil Rights Project and Kevin R. Johnson of the UC Davis School of Law comes at a moment of heightened debate about policy proposals aimed at defraying the cost of college for undocumented students, who are not eligible for federal Pell Grants and often lack legal work permits. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday vetoed Assembly Bill 2586, which would have cleared the way for undocumented students to take on-campus jobs at the state’s public colleges and universities.

    “Given the gravity of the potential consequences of this bill, which include potential criminal and civil liability for state employees, it is critical that the courts address the legality of such a policy and the novel legal theory behind this legislation before proceeding,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement. “Seeking declaratory relief in court — an option available to the University of California — would provide such clarity.”

    Johnson wrote in an email that Newsom’s veto of AB 2586, also called the Opportunity for All Act, “will make it more difficult for undocumented students to attend public universities in California.” 

    “I hope that the University of California and California State University systems will consider ways to help financially support undocumented students,” he wrote. “Scholarships, fee remissions, and the like must be considered if lawful employment, as would have been permitted by the Opportunity for All Act, is not possible.”

    Since 2012, the federal program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, has allowed certain undocumented immigrants to temporarily work legally in the U.S. and live without fear of immediate deportation, but the program has ceased processing new applicants due to legal challenges.

    “When we think that we’re seeing a decrease in enrollment in California, CSU and UC, with all the support provided by the university and by the legislature in terms of allowing undocumented students to pay resident fees, you have to imagine that in other states it’s much worse in terms of drop off in enrollment of undocumented students,” Johnson wrote.

    Johnson and Kidder’s study seeks to fill an important gap in California policymakers’ understanding of how undocumented student enrollment has changed over time. 

    The state’s colleges and universities historically have avoided collecting official data on undocumented students, mindful of those students’ vulnerable legal status. To solve that problem, Kidder and Johnson examined the number of students awarded a Cal Grant under the California Dream Act, a state financial aid program for which low-income undocumented students are eligible. The numbers likely represent a subset of all undocumented college students at Cal State and UC campuses, since they do not include students who applied for a Dream Act award but were not eligible or who were offered an award but didn’t accept it.

    Kidder and Johnson find that Dream Act awardees at CSU and UC appear to have peaked around the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years.

    At CSU, they found that new and returning Dream Act awardees fell 30% between 2019-20 and 2022-23, outpacing an almost 7% decline in other Cal Grant awardees at CSU during the same period, as well as falling undergraduate enrollment within the university system.

    The story was similar at UC campuses, where Dream Act awardees dropped by roughly 31% between 2019-20 and 2022-23, a period in which other Cal Grant awardees only dipped 1%.

    Kidder and Johnson tie the decline in Dream Act awardees to the demise of the deferred action program. The Trump administration moved to rescind the program in 2017, and subsequent efforts to revive it have been stymied by court decisions that allow current DACA recipients to renew work permits but block new applicants. As a result, most current undergraduate college students are not eligible to apply for DACA and the youngest current DACA recipients are about 22 years old.

    That said, the study does not use the kind of granular data that would allow the researchers to test explicitly whether the rescission of DACA is causing the decline in Dream Act awardees. Previous research has found that the program boosted graduation rates among undocumented high school students and that harsher immigration enforcement correlated with lower academic achievement for undocumented K-12 students. Kidder and Johnson cite those studies — as well as the similar results they observed across UC and CSU — as pointing toward the likelihood that an external force is behind declining Dream Act awardees. 

    Supporters of AB 2586, the bill Newsom vetoed this weekend, argued that the UC system is not subject to a federal prohibition on hiring undocumented workers because it is part of the state of California. Johnson is among 29 scholars to sign a legal memo building that case, which was published by the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy.

    Neither CSU nor UC took a formal position on the bill. But in a letter to lawmakers, the UC expressed concerns that hiring undocumented students could jeopardize “billions of dollars in existing federal contracts and grants.” The university system also said the bill could expose students, their families and UC employees to criminal or civil prosecution. In July, CSU officials similarly said the bill rested on an untested legal theory that could result in litigation against the system. 

    EdSource recently spoke with Kidder and Johnson to discuss their forthcoming article in the Journal of College & University Law. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

    What do we understand about the impact that DACA had on undocumented high school students, and what has happened since the Trump administration began challenging the Obama-era program?

    Johnson: The data that we were able to put together shows that, basically, the dismantling of DACA —-the refusal to accept new applications – is having an impact that one might expect. While DACA created some kind of stability, initially, in high school students and boosted college enrollments, its dismantling has had the effect of reducing undocumented enrollment and destabilizing students and, the way I’d put it, it’s making them wonder whether they have a future in this country. …

    It’s a wake-up call in all kinds of ways for colleges and universities to claim that they want to be open, be more accessible.

    What did you find when you looked at how many students at Cal State and University of California campuses received California Dream Act grants in recent years?

    Kidder: New California Dream Act awardees, both freshmen and students, had declined by half between 2017 and 2023, which is just a remarkable drop. … I was a little surprised at the scale of the decline, just given the situation in California and how it’s different from Texas or Florida or some other states where there’s greater opposition and hostility to supporting undocumented students.

    Do you see the same pattern of decline in awards among California residents who are citizens and who received Cal Grants during this period?

    Kidder: We tried to adopt what social scientists call a “difference in difference” methodology. That’s where you study the rate of change over time with one group compared to a matched comparison group. 

    So, we looked at low-income students who are not undocumented, primarily U.S. citizen residents of California — who are going to the same high schools; the same age group; similar, but not exactly the same, income levels; very similar academic profiles in terms of high school GPAs, etc. We did that to confirm that there weren’t other systemic effects on the California budget and economy that might be unaccounted for outside factors. 

    What we found is that other Cal Grant students, both within UC and within CSU, were flat at the same time that both the undocumented students at UC and CSU had this 50% decline. So it did shore up our inference that there was something uniquely challenging in the current environment for undocumented college students.

    You write that back in the 2016-17 school year, 56% of new Dream Act students attended a UC or Cal State campus, while the remainder attended a California Community College campus. By the 2022-23 school year, that dynamic had flipped: 40% of those Dream Act students attended UC and Cal State, and the rest attended community college. What do you make of that shift?

    Kidder: We did include in the data that we are capturing not just new freshmen, but also new entering transfer students. It is of concern that somehow, in recent years … it’s not translating into those (community college) students still having higher education access to a university education through the transfer pathway. There’s a blockage there, and that was clear in the data. 

    From a public policy level, that’s troubling, given that these are students, many of whom have been living in California since age 5 or age 8, and the California taxpayers and the system of California laws has invested in their future. For those students to be blocked in their pathway lowers their future life chances. 

    State university officials can’t control what happens with DACA. If educators at UC and Cal State are concerned about losing undocumented students, what could they do to encourage those students to enroll and help them to stay enrolled?

    Johnson: I think one of the assumptions in the question is that there’s limited possibilities for what the university could do. It was the University of California that brought the lawsuit that ended up in the Supreme Court stopping the rescission of DACA, and that was a controversial move in some quarters. But I do think the university– legally, politically and otherwise — is a powerful advocate for students, and can and has, at various times, pushed for reform and change. 

    I think that the university, if they’re really committed to undocumented students, can support things like the Opportunity for All Act, which has been basically briefed and set on their desk, showing that it might be legal for the University of California to allow its students, all students, to be employed by the University of California. …

    I think that the university could also think about, “How do we create more scholarships and funding for undocumented students?” If we’re really designing, or we really want to have, a university that serves all, shouldn’t we commit ourselves to enrolling all students who we admit and making it possible for them to attend? 

    Then the question is, how you raise money, how you distribute that money, how you create scholarships. The University of California often takes great pride in bringing in large chunks of money for research projects and, for example, spends years talking about and invests mounds of money in Aggie Square in Sacramento for research. … Why not work to create more funding for all students, including undocumented students? Why not think carefully about your tuition increases at various points in time, and what impacts it has on the people that you say you want to enroll in the university?

    I want to talk to you about AB 2586. The first Cal State board of trustees meeting I attended was in July, and there was some discussion about this bill. The trustees were asking staff to brief them on what they think of this bill. The gist was, ‘We see this as risky. We see this as potentially putting us on a collision course with the federal government, where we would open ourselves up to litigation. What do you think about that approach?

    Johnson: I think it’s a cowardly approach. It’d be like the university saying “We’re not going to weigh in on the civil rights movement because it’s controversial politically, and it’s risky to do so, and we’re not going to move forward because we’re afraid of getting sued.” 

    It’s funny, but (former UC President) Janet Napolitano could have taken the same position, saying “We’re not going to challenge the rescission of DACA, don’t want to alienate the federal government, which gives a large amount of money to the University of California. We’re just going to sit on our hands and let these DACA recipients be poorly treated.” …

    I’m an attorney. I was dean of the (UC Davis School of Law) for 16 years. Attorneys are always going to tell you there are risks. There are also risks driving to the grocery store, but we still go to the store. So I don’t buy that risk assessment argument, and I think that this is the time for universities that are truly committed to these issues to show their commitment to these issues.

    Why should CSU and why should the UC prioritize helping undocumented students to get a college degree?

    Kidder: Both my data analysis as well as my personal experience as a university administrator working with lots of undocumented students confirms my conviction that this is a very talented pool of young people in California. If their hopes and dreams are allowed to flourish in California, it benefits all Californians, and I mean that both in an economic sense and in a larger democratic sense.





    Source link

  • Getting California’s millions of kids to access free money relies on community partnerships

    Getting California’s millions of kids to access free money relies on community partnerships


    Credit: Ekrulila/Pexels

    When Stephanie Martinez Anaya was a senior at Hamilton High in Anza in 2023, her college success coach told her about scholarship money for college or career training. 

    The money — between $500 and $1,500 automatically deposited and waiting in an interest-bearing savings account — is from the California Kids Investment and Development Savings program (CalKIDS), a state initiative for eligible low-income students and English learners enrolled in the public school system. 

    Launched in 2022, CalKIDS is intended to help families save for and lower the costs of college or career training.

    “Even if expenses come up,” Martinez Anaya said, “I won’t have to worry about that.” 

    And unexpected expenses did arise once in college. She ended up using her $530, $30 of which was interest, to purchase homework access for her classes at the University of California Riverside. 

    Now, Martinez Anaya promotes CalKIDS as a coach for the California Student Opportunity and Access Program, or Cal-SOAP, assisting high schoolers with college and scholarship applications. 

    The Cal-SOAP-CalKIDS partnership illustrates how the state can raise awareness about CalKIDS by using personal, relatable stories in local communities, said Libby Schaaf, co-author of Advancing CalKIDS, a research report on strategies to increase the college participation rate for low-income families. 

    Her research reinforces that CalKIDS must increase, incorporate and integrate community partnerships into each aspect of its outreach to expand access among eligible students. 

    Schaaf, former mayor of Oakland and co-founder of Oakland Promise, a nationally recognized cradle-to-career program, conducted the research while a fellow at The EdRedesign Lab at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. 

    Who’s eligible?

    Low-income public school students and English learners, identified by the California Department of Education, are automatically awarded $500 if they: 

    • Were in grades 1-12 during the 2021-22 school year
    • Were enrolled in first grade during the 2022-23 school year, or 
    • Are first graders in subsequent school years, meaning the number of eligible student accounts grows each year. 

    An additional $500 is deposited for students identified as foster youth and another $500 for students classified as homeless. 

    Children born in California, regardless of their parents’ income, are now granted $100 in an account. More than 1 million newborn accounts are currently eligible.

    Over 3.9 million school-aged children now qualify for at least $500 in free money with CalKIDS. 

    As of March 31, only 12% of students had registered for their CalKIDS account, up by nearly 4 percentage points since last year but still far from reaching most of the state’s students.

    Not quite 3 years old, “CalKIDS is still in its early development stage, so now is an impactful time to explore potential refinements and additions to its operational and programmatic approaches,” Schaaf said in her report. 

    Schaaf’s research recommends strategic actions to increase the number of claimed accounts. 

    “A lot of the challenges are going to require other people to step up,” she said. “Some might require counties or school districts to take more actions.”

    The CalKIDS team has started implementing some of those strategies. 

    “My dad didn’t finish college, himself,” Schaaf said, reflecting on the personal experience that led to her work. “He was a traveling shoe salesman, and he made this big point of how important education was. He started investing and built up these little funds for me and my sister to go to college.”

    As the mayor of Oakland from 2015 to 2023,Schaaf built Oakland Promise, a cradle-to-career and savings account program that features personalized financial coaching and other resources and is now a national model for its comprehensive system.  

    Schaaf’s research, conducted over the past year, is based on her experience with Oakland Promise as well as a literature review; work with the CalKIDS Institute at UCLA; in-depth interviews with 14 CalKIDS partners and 15 college and career savings account experts and leaders of governmental groups, nonprofit organizations and school systems; an on-site community event; and parent focus groups. 

    Schaaf is also a 2026 candidate for state treasurer, whose office oversees the CalKIDS program. She announced her candidacy in January 2024, after being selected for the Harvard fellowship in 2023. Current State Treasurer Fiona Ma is running for lieutenant governor in 2026.

    “One of the reasons I actually got excited about running for state treasurer is the fact that the Treasurer’s office runs this program,” she said. “I’m somebody who doesn’t want to take on a job without feeling like I am the most competent person to do it.”

    Her research and recommendations, she said, educated her about the program and have empowered her to run for the position. But regardless of whether she wins the electon, she said “this work needs to happen.”

    Advancing CalKIDS

    Leverage community partnerships

    Schaaf’s report stated that automatically establishing the accounts at birth and at first grade minimizes barriers. But that doesn’t prevent or eliminate problems, because families must claim the accounts by registering online. 

    CalKIDS’ letters, notifying eligible students about accessing their accounts, are mailed out after students finish first grade, and letters for newborns are mailed within a few months of their birth. 

    Schaaf recommended that notifications be more aligned, for example, sending the award letter with newborns’ birth certificates, like Pennsylvania does for its Keystone Scholars program.  

    Advocates told EdSource last year that many people in low-income communities ignore the mailers because they question its credibility, even if it has an official letterhead.

    Schaaf’s research revealed two seemingly contradictory points: that families take action when encouraged by a government entity and that messages from community organizations are more effective in spurring action among families. 

    Parents said aspects of both concepts make programs trustworthy. For instance, they trusted the local, community-based Oakland Promise, which was set up by the city and involved the county.  

    “She (a parent) said, ‘These are the programs we trust, the ones where the government is involved,’” Schaaf said about realizing it’s not one way or the other. 

    Recommendation: CalKIDS ambassadors

    In fact, Schaaf recommends creating a certification for community-based partners to be CalKIDS ambassadors.

    “The fact that they (would be) certified by the state of California or by the treasurer’s office gives them the formality effect of government’s gravitas, but their community voice – their cultural competency – is the winning combination,” she said.

    “That’s what really made me realize both of these bodies of research are true. Where we are most effective is when we combine them.” 

    Embodying that collaboration, recent partnerships with community organizations have spread the word about CalKIDS and provided other benefits to families, such as: 

    • EverFi, which launched a financial literacy program in Los Angeles County  
    • Golden 1 Credit Union, which held four educational community events in April in Northern California and the Central San Joaquin Valley for families to learn about the bank’s financial services and claim their CalKIDS accounts. In all, 125 accounts were claimed
    • Covered California, which has tied well-child exams and immunizations to the ability to earn up to $1,000 in the newborn accounts until March 2026.

    Leveraging the community partnerships will remain imperative for the four-member CalKIDS team. 

    “Rather than trying to be everywhere all the time, all at once and feeling spread thin, we are being very intentional in how we do outreach,” the program’s new director, Cassandra DiBenedetto, said about a different approach to outreach. 

    According to the California Child Savings Account Coalition, as of February, there are 15 local child savings account programs, serving 180,000 youth with over $26 million. 

    California’s local child savings accounts

    The 15 local programs are:

    In places where there are local programs, claim rates were, at one time, much lower than the state percentage, perhaps because of a lack of clarity about CalKIDS. For example, in December 2023, 4.8% of eligible students in San Joaquin County and 7.3% in Los Angeles County had claimed their accounts. 

    However, partnerships between CalKIDS and local programs, joint promotion and branding of materials with both logos have nearly doubled the claim rates to 8.6% in San Joaquin County and 12.2% in Los Angeles County, as of March 31.

    Hardest part about CalKIDS outreach: A number

    To check student eligibility and claim the CalKIDS account, families must enter students’ Statewide Student Identifier (SSID), a 10-digit number that appears on student transcripts. EdSource found that many families are unsure where to find the ID numbers. 

    To alleviate this concern, the updated CalKIDS website instructs families to locate the ID number on a student’s transcript, school portal, or report card or to contact their child’s school directly.

    Schaaf suggested that school districts provide the student identification information at back-to-school events. 

    Fresno Unified officials at a Golden 1-CalKIDS event provided the ID numbers to make account registration easy, said a parent who registered her children in April. 

    Oakland Unified has granted Oakland Promise permission to access students’ ID numbers for CalKIDS enrollment events, Schaaf said. 

    Once aware, families must understand and trust information 

    Within the last year, to address language and literacy barriers, CalKIDS has created materials in other languages and used more accessible words, moving from terms such as “savings accounts” to “scholarships” or “free money.” 

    But Schaaf and others warned that the term “free money” can cause fear and distrust  among some cultures and communities.  For example, Thanh-Truc “April” Hoang, a second-year UC Riverside student of Vietnamese background, who claimed her CalKIDS funds and helped her younger cousins claim theirs, said one of the greatest obstacles was skepticism about the “free money.” Her grandparents, aunts and uncles learned English as a second language, and she had to carefully explain what CalKIDS was before she could convince them.  

    “I said, ‘It was an aid. It wasn’t just free money for no reason; it’s there specifically to help them with college,” she said about how she eased their concerns about having to pay the money back or dealing with stipulations for use.

    CalKIDS recipients advocating for and about the program 

    Tapping the actual experiences of students who’ve registered for the accounts and used the funds is the best tool for convincing families about the potential of CalKIDS, Martinez Anaya, the UC Riverside student, said, echoing a sentiment Schaaf shared with EdSource. 

    The CalKIDS program has even started collecting student testimonials, such as those of UC Davis student Chloe Cota, who said the money helped relieve some of the financial stress of school, “allowing me to focus more on my classes.” 

    Rossalee Mina used her scholarship funds to fill the financial gap of transferring from the four-year Cal State Fullerton to Mt. San Jacinto College. 

    Also a Cal-SOAP coach, Mina takes pride in helping high schoolers access their accounts. 

    “It’s just really rewarding — coming from having CalKIDS too — that I can also help show these students, who are stressing out about how to pay for everything, that they do have this amount of money to use that’s available for them,” Mina said. “I’m always saying, ‘Congrats, you can use this towards college.’ They’re like,’Oh wow, it’s a lot of money.’” 

    As of December, 81,232 students enrolled in college or career programs have received their share of over $43 million in CalKIDS funds. 

    “This money,” DiBenedetto said, “is making an impact in real time with every single semester that goes by.”





    Source link

  • Understanding California’s test scores could hold the key to student improvement

    Understanding California’s test scores could hold the key to student improvement


    Credit: Alison Yin/EdSource

    As states across the nation release their annual data from tests administered to students in the 2023-24 school year, we’re beginning to get a clearer picture of how far along we are in our post-pandemic recovery. The release of California test data today shows our public schools are continuing to turn the corner on pandemic recovery, with gains on most assessments, while highlighting areas where we have more work to do.

    Overall, the percentages of California students meeting or exceeding the proficiency standards for English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science increased. This is encouraging given that the population of socioeconomically disadvantaged students tested increased again over the past year — as it has for each of the last three years — this time from 63% to 65% — an increase of more than 60,000 students. The number of students experiencing homelessness also rose once again. Despite the challenges they face, achievement levels for socioeconomically disadvantaged students increased more than the statewide average in all three subjects at every grade level. 

    Furthermore, Black and Latino students showed positive score trends in mathematics across all grades, and the stubborn achievement gaps long experienced by Black students began to close with gains larger than the statewide averages in math and ELA at several grade levels. The same was true for foster youth.

    These gains for California’s most vulnerable students are likely due in large part to the investments made by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration and efforts to target inequities in life circumstances and educational opportunities. These include programs like the California community schools initiative that provides wraparound whole child supports, the expanded learning opportunities program (ELO-P) that provides academic support and enrichment after school and over the summer, the literacy coaching initiative, and the equity multiplier — all targeted to high-poverty schools. Attracting and keeping better prepared teachers in these schools has also been enabled by the Golden State Teacher Grants for new teachers and incentives for accomplished veterans who are National Board certified. 

    It is encouraging that overall scores are up, but there is more work needed. And an accurate understanding of what’s being measured and what the scores mean is critically important for diagnosing and improving student learning.

    Smarter Balanced assessments are administered in California and 11 other states and territories that helped develop the tests. California’s Smarter Balanced assessments are more rigorous than those in most other states as they focus on higher-order skills and critical thinking, and measure more standards.

    For example, whereas most states’ English language arts assessments test only reading and use only multiple-choice questions, California’s tests include reading, writing, listening, and even research, as well as open-ended questions and performance tasks that require students to analyze multiple sources of evidence and explain their conclusions.

    Each Smarter Balanced assessment measures grade-level content along a continuum. Higher test score performance represents a student’s ability to handle greater complexity as they use evidence, analyze and solve real-world problems, and communicate their thinking.

    Smarter Balanced defines benchmarks at levels 2, 3 and 4 respectively as foundational, proficient, or advanced levels of grade-level skills, while a “1” shows “inconsistent” demonstrations of grade-level skills. In the case of English language arts, students as early as grade three who achieve levels 2 or above are reading, writing and demonstrating research skills.

    As an example, a sixth-grade writing prompt asks students to research and explain the impact of the 1893 World’s Fair, and different levels of performance show different levels of sophistication, from communicating a few facts to elaborating on how the activities of the fair led to other human accomplishments with long-term impact:

    To understand where improvements are most needed, educators can look at “claim scores” on the assessment — measures of what students have shown they know and can do on specific topics. These show, for example, that 25% of students statewide score below the standard in reading, but 31% score below the standard in writing — an area for greater focus. Since research shows that writing improves reading, ensuring that students are receiving regular writing instruction and practice will improve performance in both areas of literacy.  

    Similarly, in mathematics, California assessments are more sophisticated than those in many other states, as they measure math concepts and procedures (where many state tests begin and end), plus data analysis, problem-solving, and how well students communicate their reasoning through additional performance tasks in which students must solve a complex real-world problem and communicate their reasoning.  

    The states that created and use these assessments believe that when students are asked to learn and show higher-order skills, they are better prepared for later schooling and life than if they were only prepared to bubble in answers on a multiple-choice test.

    A recent study from Washington state provided evidence for this belief. The study found that over half of students who scored a “Level 2 / Nearly Meets” on the Smarter Balanced high school mathematics test (and more than one-third of those who scored a 1) successfully enrolled in post-secondary learning without additional remedial courses, and the large majority succeeded. Among those who scored a 3 or 4, 70% and 82% respectively attended college, and nearly all were successful.

    We hope that educators, parents and policymakers will not only understand and act on what they learn from these assessments, but also use the evidence productively for improving teaching and learning. Smarter Balanced assessments include lesson plans and interim assessments teachers can choose to examine student learning and adjust their teaching throughout the year. The score reports also provide information about the levels at which students are reading and computing, linked to resources parents can access directly to support their children — supplemented by what they know authentically about what their children are learning and doing at home and school. 

    Students’ engagement, parents’ observations, teachers’ reports and classroom-based assignments will always provide more detailed, timely and useful information about individual students’ interests, needs and progress. Hopefully, these assessments can provide a useful adjunct if we know what they mean and how to use them productively. 

    •••

    Linda Darling-Hammond is the president of the California State Board of Education.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Proposition 2 is essential for California’s students and run-down schools

    Proposition 2 is essential for California’s students and run-down schools


    Classrooms for career technical education are cramped, and the Wasco Union High School District hopes to expand them with Proposition 2.

    Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource

    After decades of disinvestment and neglect, it’s clear that California’s schools are in desperate need of repair. Many school districts across the state are struggling with dilapidated buildings, old classrooms and unsafe conditions for their students.

    According to a recent report from the Public Policy Institute of California, 38% of K-12 students in California are enrolled in schools that don’t meet our state’s minimum safety standards.  This is obviously dangerous and completely unacceptable. Unsurprisingly, countless studies have shown that bad environmental conditions — including dirty air, lack of light and lack of safe building facilities — significantly decrease students’ academic achievement.

    Unfortunately, with no dedicated resource pool and no new state school bond measures in almost a decade, California is almost out of money for school repairs. Unlike many other states, California does not have a dedicated funding stream for investments in school facilities, which makes districts across the state entirely reliant on raising money from state or local bonds for facility upgrades.

    As a result, California’s school repair fund is expected to be depleted by this upcoming January, which would leave countless schools across the state without any ability to repair or upgrade their resources, sans a well-resourced PTA or local bond measure providing the funding. Wealthier districts might be able to skate by, but districts in low-income communities would be devastated.

    As state superintendent of public instruction, I’ve overseen the administration of billions of dollars for K-12 school construction and modernization that came from the last state bond, but these funds were only a drop in the bucket that just scratched the surface of California’s immense needs and were depleted quickly.

    That’s why Proposition 2, a bond measure this November that would provide $8.5 billion in facility renovations for TK-12 schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges, couldn’t come at a more urgent time. It’s a vitally necessary, common-sense step forward to provide critically needed upgrades to California’s schools.

    To receive state bond money, districts must attempt to raise a local bond of their own and then apply to the State Facilities Program for a funding match — though districts that are unable to raise more than $15 million from a local bond can receive up to a 100% match.

    The measure, along with the accompanying local bonds, would help upgrade facilities at public elementary, middle and high schools and community colleges across California to build more classrooms, modernize science labs, enhance gymnasiums, build performing arts centers, and replace aging buildings.

    But most critically, Proposition 2 would help ensure basic 21st-century facility standards in every school across the state — helping low-income districts receive desperately needed funding to repair heating and air conditioning systems, repair leaky roofs, and remediate hazardous black mold. Some of the money is also earmarked for removing lead from water, creating transitional kindergarten classrooms and building career and technical education facilities.

    Significantly, this proposal also includes significant equity-focused improvements to existing policy that would ensure this funding goes to the districts that most need it. Proposition 2 improves how state funds are distributed to school districts across the state, making it more equitable for less-affluent districts and those with higher numbers of English learners and foster youth.

    Ten percent of the funds would be dedicated to small school districts that currently struggle to amass the funding for facility upgrades, and the formula for allocating state funding establishes a higher match to low-wealth districts that cannot afford to generate much local funding, as well as those with a high percentage of disadvantaged students.

    Without Proposition 2, schools districts in smaller and lower-income areas would have no other way to pay for these critical improvements, as they struggle tremendously to raise enough local bond money to pay for school repair, making them completely reliant on funding from state bonds for facility repairs.

    Additionally, while not the focus of the measure, the investments provided by Proposition 2 will also create tens of thousands of good-paying construction jobs across the state, which will boost local economies.

    Ultimately, California’s schools have a desperate need to modernize our buildings, facilities and campuses, and the money needed to make the necessary repairs has been exhausted. Proposition 2 will provide an infusion of vitally important investments to our schools that will address the significant backlog of districts hoping to receive funding for repairs, and considerably improve the conditions of students across the state.

    •••

    Tony Thurmond is California’s superintendent of public instruction and a candidate for governor in 2026.

    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.





    Source link

  • California’s future demands higher-ed coordination now

    California’s future demands higher-ed coordination now


    Credit: Larry Gordon / EdSource

    Despite being the nation’s economic powerhouse with the largest postsecondary system in America, California stands alone among all 50 states without a higher education coordinating entity. This gap has resulted in missed opportunities and unrealized potential — and it’s a systemic failure that leaves real people behind every day.

    Ask Fred P., who applied for unemployment when he lost his job during the pandemic. What California’s systems failed to tell him was that he qualified for the Golden State Education and Training Grant designed to help displaced workers like him. As his savings dwindled and bills mounted, available support remained hidden in bureaucratic silos. Fred only discovered the program months after his unemployment benefits expired — and only because his partner happened to work in state policy and budget.

    Meanwhile, millions of other Californians, without such connections, remain unaware of potential pathways to economic mobility and continue to fall through the cracks of our state’s disconnected education and workforce systems. During the pandemic, over 19 million Californians lost jobs and applied for unemployment, yet very few were informed they qualified for this scholarship program, which should have connected them to training opportunities for career advancement. California allocated $500 million to this program, but two years later, only $20 million had reached just 6,100 individuals. Why? Because the agency administering scholarships couldn’t identify unemployed workers, and the unemployment office couldn’t connect people to the available education funding. Two state systems, both serving Californians, but operating in silos, left resources untapped and communities unsupported.

    This fragmentation creates a maze that widens opportunity gaps, particularly for those without the social capital or resources to guide them through complex systems. At the start of the pandemic, over 5 million Californians intended to enroll in college in the next two years, but many — especially especially Latino, Black, Native American residents, first-generation college students, Californians with children, and those working low-wage jobs — face a gauntlet of barriers that numerous disjointed access programs fail to address. Meanwhile, more than a billion dollars in education and workforce development funding goes unused, while Californians seeking better opportunities have trouble finding quality training opportunities to reach their career goals, and employers struggle to find qualified workers for open positions.

    These disconnected systems don’t just create inconvenience — they perpetuate cycles of poverty. For Californians living on the margins, the cost associated with college —an established path to economic mobility — is a huge barrier and makes it seem out of reach. Meanwhile, over a hundred programs exist that could defray the financial burden and increase college access. But, without coordination, these public benefit programs designed to improve economic stability remain inaccessible to those who need them most. When systems don’t talk to each other, the promise of these programs remains unfulfilled, leaving workers, families and employers struggling in an economy that demands better solutions.

    The solution is clear: coordination. And it’s now within reach. Both Gov. Gavin’s administration and key legislative champion Assemblymember Mike Fong have aligned in their support of establishing the California Education Interagency Council. This council would bridge the divides between our TK-12 education, higher education, workforce development, and social services systems, creating a coherent ecosystem that powers economic growth and resilience for individuals and the state.

    This isn’t about adding bureaucracy — it’s about setting up the needed infrastructure to fulfill the promise of economic mobility and good jobs for Californians — the driving reason so many pursue higher education in the first place. With this council in place:

    • Unemployed workers would be connected to education and training programs that would strengthen their re-entry to the workforce.
    • Residents experiencing financial hardship who receive public benefits would enter into education pathways that lead to living-wage careers, creating intergenerational economic mobility.
    • Students would easily navigate clear paths from high school through college to meaningful employment.
    • Schools and colleges would receive actionable labor market insights to shape programming.
    • Employers would find skilled workers to fill critical positions, strengthening California’s economy.

    Collectively, these outcomes strengthen California by fostering a robust economy and thriving communities built on shared prosperity.

    Finally, the council would enhance accountability by tracking outcomes across systems, identifying what works and what doesn’t, and ensuring programs reach their intended recipients. A coordinated approach is especially critical now, during challenging budget times. California must ensure every dollar works. The proposed council would maximize returns on billions of existing investments by eliminating redundancies, filling workforce gaps, and ensuring that programs help the people they are designed to serve.

    For too long, we’ve relied on spot-fixes and piecemeal solutions. We’ve watched promising initiatives fall short of their potential. The time has come, with alignment between the governor’s office and the Legislature, to build the coordination infrastructure that connects Californians with opportunity. Our state’s promises of prosperity and bright futures depend on it.

    •••

    Su Jin Jez is CEO of California Competes, a nonprofit working to solve California’s higher education and workforce issues through research, advocacy and collective action.

    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.





    Source link

  • Financial aid fraud is growing at California’s community colleges

    Financial aid fraud is growing at California’s community colleges


    The Foothill-De Anza Community College District is one of many across the state trying to combat bad actors who enroll to steal financial aid. The district, which includes Foothill College, shown above, is now using artificial intelligence to sniff our scammers.

    Credit: Barbara Kinney

    Since the Covid-19 pandemic, California’s community colleges have been plagued by scammers who pose as students and enroll to steal financial aid — and now it’s getting even worse. 

    The state’s 116-college system has lost more than $7.5 million to financial aid fraud this year, state data shows. That’s already much higher than the colleges reported losing all of last year. Most of it is federal aid, in the form of Pell Grants intended for low-income students. 

    Colleges have increased their efforts to detect and deter the fraud through both more human interaction and automated detection. Officials believe they are getting better at doing so, but the increasing losses show that the college system is still vulnerable to scammers, who are often part of sophisticated crime rings, some overseas. 

    Community colleges have long been susceptible to fraud, since they are generally open access and usually don’t deny admission to students who meet basic requirements as the more selective University of California and California State University do. The problem was made worse by the Covid-19 pandemic. The shift to remote instruction “created fertile ground” for fraudsters, said Paul Feist, a spokesperson for the chancellor’s office overseeing California’s community colleges. The scammers wanted to get their hands on the nearly $2 billion in federal stimulus dollars available for emergency student aid available across the colleges. 

    That stimulus aid is now depleted, but the fraudsters aren’t slowing down, according to the data EdSource obtained through a public records request. In 2024, through September, community colleges in California reported disbursing more than $7.6 million in aid that they later wrote off as fraud. The data was provided to EdSource in late October, but the system did not yet have October data available.

    The $7.6 million is up from about $4.4 million that was reported lost all of last year. And that was much larger than the $2.1 million that was reported lost between September 2021 and the end of 2022. September 2021 is when the state chancellor’s office asked colleges to begin reporting monthly about application, enrollment and financial aid fraud. EdSource requested those reports via the state’s Public Records Act. In response, the state shared data on the amount of fraud reported each month but redacted the names of individual colleges. 

    Some officials attribute the latest spike in fraudulent activity to the Department of Education rolling back verification rules for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), requiring colleges to verify fewer applications. Fraudsters may have seen those changes and sensed an opportunity to get their hands on aid. 

    Pretending to be legitimate students, the fraudsters apply online for admission. Some frauds are caught there, but those who successfully get admitted and enroll in classes can request financial aid, which colleges often distribute to personal bank accounts via direct deposit. 

    Some colleges, as a result, are going back to the old-fashioned method of requiring students to show up in person and prove they are real before they can become eligible for aid. Others, acknowledging the possibility of human error, are also turning to automated methods, including using artificial intelligence to detect suspicious applicants. 

    It is also likely that the colleges are more consistently reporting the fraud. When the chancellor’s office first began asking the colleges to report monthly, there was only “modest participation,” a chancellor’s office official said in a 2022 memo. Now, colleges are reporting at higher rates, though some have still not submitted their reports for months. College officials also believe they have improved at detecting fraud over the past three years.  

    Feist said it can take more than six months from when a scammer applies online for colleges “to detect, investigate and confirm” the fraud. He added that he expects the college system to have better information about the scope of the fraud by the end of this year.

    The scams can have consequences for actual students. With a finite number of seats for each course, real students are often left on waiting lists and unable to enroll in necessary classes because fraudsters are taking up space.

    For the colleges, combating the fraud is a never-ending battle. They have to constantly adapt to the fraudsters, who themselves evolve and come up with new tactics. 

    “This past year, essentially, we would think we’re a step ahead and then the next day we would be a step behind. We were always playing cat-and-mouse,” said Nicole Albo-Lopez, vice chancellor of educational programs for the Los Angeles Community College District. 

    Fraud going up

    In total, colleges since fall 2021 have reported distributing $14.2 million in financial aid that they wrote off as fraud. Federal aid has accounted for the majority of that, but colleges have also distributed more than $3 million in state and local aid to the scammers.  

    Feist noted that is a small percentage — less than 1% — of the total aid the colleges have distributed to students in that time. 

    The fraud initially spiked in 2021, when the colleges had billions of dollars available in emergency financial aid grants for students. Between March 2020 and March 2021, the federal government passed three pandemic relief bills and awarded California’s community colleges $4.4 billion, of which $1.8 billion was allocated for emergency grants. 

    The financial aid office at East Los Angeles College in Monterey Park.

    Distribution of emergency grants ended in 2023, but the fraud did not. Some colleges have reported eye-popping losses of federal aid, leading to the $7.6 million the system has lost so far this year. 

    One college, its name redacted in the data shared with EdSource, reported losing $405,395 in April, $344,296 in July and $119,262 in May. Another college lost $193,286 in April and $76,303 in June. When colleges write off aid distributions as fraud, it’s typically because the recipient stops attending classes altogether after receiving the aid.

    At the same time, dozens of colleges did not report fraud numbers for at least one month this year, raising the possibility that the actual amount of aid lost to fraud is even higher than what has been reported.

    Some officials theorized that the federal government’s relaxed FAFSA verification requirements could be playing a role. Typically, about a quarter of FAFSA applications are selected for verification, which involves the colleges verifying the information a student reports on their application. Under the new rules, colleges are now required to verify a much lower share of FAFSA applications — even lower than during the pandemic, when rules were also relaxed, according to the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. 

    The changes were implemented to help colleges more quickly process aid applications, particularly after the FAFSA delays that plagued colleges and students last academic year.

    Victor DeVore, the dean of student services at the San Diego Community College District, said it is likely that the relaxed FAFSA verification led to more scams.

    “It’s letting people know that, ‘Oh look, they’re relaxing their verification rules, so now I have a better chance of trying to get some aid fraudulently,’” he said. 

    At the same time, colleges have also been have getting better at identifying the fraud. 

    This year, about 25% of applications have been flagged as possible fraud, up from 20% last year. “Part of the reason is that our systems are becoming more effective at detecting fraud, even as the attempts become more sophisticated,” Feist said.

    ‘Nobody’s trained in this’

    There are three stages of fraud: Application fraud, when scammers try to get admitted to the college; enrollment fraud, when they attempt to get a spot in a class; and financial aid fraud, when they successfully receive aid after enrolling.

    Fraudsters often target classes with no prerequisites, since those are easier to access, said Tina Vasconcellos, vice chancellor of the Peralta Community College District, which is based in Oakland and has four colleges in Alameda County.

    Spencer O’Bosky, a computer science major at Los Angeles Pierce College, tried several times in the spring to enroll in online math classes, only to see them fill up shortly after they opened for registrations. 

    When he eventually was able to enroll in one, some of the other students listed on the course roster didn’t turn in any work and were dropped as suspected scammers. 

    “I always thought I was the only one experiencing this, but then I heard about it happening a lot,” O’Bosky said. “I think it’s terrible. It stops people from being able to sign up for these classes.”

    To keep the fraudsters out, several college officials said they have turned to a simple yet effective tactic. When a student is flagged as suspicious, staff ask them to either come to campus in person or join a video meeting to prove they are a legitimate student. 

    But some still slip through the cracks, especially as scammers get more sophisticated.

    “Nobody’s trained in this. We have humans doing this all over the state, all over every state trying to figure out how to mitigate this issue that nobody’s trained for,” Vasconcellos, the Peralta vice chancellor, said.

    To reduce human error, colleges have looked for ways to automate fraud detection. 

    The state chancellor’s office last year piloted a new ID proofing system, working with the online platform ID.me to verify identities of applicants. Feist said the verification system “has been effective in helping to reduce the amount of fraud and help mitigate local workloads” but added that “bad actors continue to shift their attacks.”

    Some fraudsters now steal identities and submit the stolen but legitimate information — like a real address and real forms of identification — when applying, said Jory Hadsell, the vice chancellor of technology for the Foothill-De Anza Community College District. When the fraudster sets up direct deposit, they only need a bank account and routing number, not a name to match the one on their application. 

    Scammers also changed their approach at the San Diego district after officials there successfully started sniffing them out by detecting that they were using virtual private networks (VPNs), which create a connection between the user’s computer and a network in another location, making it appear like the fraudster is in that location. For example, one student applied with their VPN set to a Los Angeles location, but their IP address showed they were actually in China.

    Rather than VPNs, the fraudsters this past year started using burner phones, which come with a business IP address, said DeVore, adding that it’s harder to determine whether those are legitimate. “They switched up their game,” he said.

    To add another layer of fraud detection, the Foothill-De Anza district is one of two in a trial test with an artificial intelligence platform, Lightleap, to identify potential scammers by analyzing “key data and behavioral elements,” according to a report presented to the state’s board of governors this summer.

    The AI platform, for example, can identify “fraud clusters,” such as when many applications are coming from the same IP address, Hadsell said. 

    Vasconcellos, who wants to similarly use AI at the Peralta district, said she is hopeful it will become a more common fraud detection tool, both at her district and across California.

    “We just need to keep learning and keep trying to get ahead of it,” Vasconcellos added. “They keep changing, and we have to keep changing to address whatever new things, new ways they’re trying to get through.”

    Delilah Brumer, a former member of the EdSource California Student Journalism Corps, contributed reporting.





    Source link

  • California’s college financial aid chief on FAFSA chaos, concerns about Trump and more

    California’s college financial aid chief on FAFSA chaos, concerns about Trump and more


    Daisy Gonzales, the executive director of the California Student Aid Commission, speaking at Hancock College in 2019.

    Credit: California Community Colleges

    When Dr. Daisy Gonzales took over as executive director of the California Student Aid Commission in June, she stepped into the position at a tumultuous time on the financial aid front, marked by state budget deficits, outside schemes to defraud financial programs and concerns over what President-elect Donald Trump will mean for undocumented students.

    Among her first priorities: making sure more students apply for financial aid this year following declines in 2024 amid the chaotic and oft-delayed rollout of the federal government’s revamped Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). The U.S. Department of Education last month made the 2025-26 version available. Most students in California use that form to access both state and federal aid for college costs. FAFSA completions in the state declined by an estimated 10% among incoming freshmen in 2024, mirroring a national decline, as students and families found it difficult to access and complete the form in a timely manner.

    The state student aid commission (pronounced See-Sack by insiders) oversees more than $3.5 billion in state grants available to college students mainly based on need. That includes the Cal Grant, the state’s main financial aid awards that come in various types for tuition, living allowances and career or technical programs. The commission also oversees the Middle Class Scholarship, which can provide substantial grants to underwrite attendance at California’s public colleges and universities for students from families earning up to $217,000 a year.

    In addition, the commission runs the California Dream Act Application for undocumented students, who can use it to apply for Cal Grants despite not being eligible for federal aid. Some students, including those who have citizenship or legal residency but an undocumented parent, may still be fearful to fill out any financial aid applications out of concern that information will be shared with the federal government. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to deport undocumented residents when he takes office next year. State officials promise that Dream Act information will not be shared.

    Meanwhile, community colleges in California and across the country continue to be plagued by financial aid fraud. Scammers, posing as students, enroll at the colleges for the sole purpose of stealing financial aid. California’s community colleges have lost more than $7.5 million this year alone to such fraud. 

    Dr. Gonzales was deputy chancellor of California’s community college system before joining the aid commission in July. She also served as the system’s acting and then interim chancellor. She was selected to her current post by the 15 members of the commission, 11 of whom are appointed by the governor and another four by the Legislature.

    Previously, she was a consultant for the Budget and Appropriations Committees in the state Assembly. She has a bachelor’s degree from Mills College and received both a master’s degree and a doctorate in sociology from UC Santa Barbara.

    She recently spoke with EdSource. The following conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity. 

    What is the Student Aid Commission doing to ensure students are completing the FAFSA this year?

    We’ve been working differently with Cal Volunteers and training all of their volunteers to learn about financial aid, because they’re the boots on the ground. And even working differently with our segments. I’ve been really grateful to the community colleges. I gave them the data of those districts and colleges where we are leaving students behind, and they immediately got to work doing professional development, deploying messaging. (Cal Volunteers is a state office charged with increasing volunteering. Its College Corps program provides stipends for college students who volunteer.)

    It was also important that I could hear directly from students. So I’ve also launched a student council where all the student associations (at local community college districts) have appointments on that council, and then they are activating their associations to educate students about financial aid, the deadlines, and even solutions to some of the common barriers that they face.

    President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to deport undocumented residents. What guidance are you giving to undocumented students or students who have undocumented parents and are worried they could expose them by filling out the FAFSA?

    We believe in providing students and their families with the information that will allow them to consider all of their options. We know that there are many concerns around privacy protections for individuals without a Social Security number.

    Last year, the commission opened the Dream Act application to students from mixed-status families (those with both documented and undocumented individuals), and we are maintaining that. And so for any student, particularly if you’re a first-time applicant, if you have a family member, a parent, or a spouse that is a part of your application that does not have a Social Security number, you are being invited to complete the Dream Act application. We also have to inform you that as a part of not completing a FAFSA, you will not be able to benefit from federal aid. And our job is to help you understand that it’s your choice. And that applying is a family decision. Here at the commission, we protect your data. However, there are no similar federal reassurances that we can provide.

    Are you doing any messaging to make sure students know that any information they submit via the California Dream Act Application is not shared with the federal government?

    We redid our website so that we could have a very clear message around our data security. You can also then click on that message and it’ll show you additional information that’s important as you’re making your decision on whether to file a California Dream Act Application or FAFSA. We’ve also been deploying messages. For the first time, at least in the last several years, we actually sent out a notice that went to all education leaders — meaning the K-12 superintendents, the higher education presidents and CEOs. They all got the same message. And it was a message saying that our job is clear. We need students to stay enrolled. We need to offer them a safe option. And that is the California Dream Act Application.

    There has been a big push by lawmakers in recent years to reform the Cal Grant by simplifying it and making more students eligible for aid, especially low-income community college students. That reform hasn’t happened because of state budget constraints. Is it still a priority of yours?

    I’m here with a very clear mission to transform financial aid. I believe that it’s something that we can do together. And in doing so, then that means we are building financial aid pathways that are centered in student success. Yes, we need Cal Grant equity to be a reality, but that’s not yet funded.

    But there are still so many other things that we can be doing. So, for example, I envision a California financial aid system that’s actually predictable. What would it look like to have an expedited renewal process for aid? I hear that as the No. 1 burden for students and families. 

    Another example I can give you is foster youth. They end up having to fill out two to five different applications. So at the commission, they might do three applications, if they qualify for those programs. And then when they get to a college, they still have to fill out an application for institutional aid. And so I challenged the team here at the commission, and I said, “What would it look like to create one application where we can ask students about all of the additional special programs that California has?” We need to be able to do this differently. 

    Even though Cal Grant reform was not funded in the latest state budget deal, there have been other ideas floating around about how to come up with that funding. One suggestion was to create a new tax that would raise dollars for financial aid. Are there other creative ways to possibly raise new funding?

    There are many other states that do have additional taxes, particularly on alcoholic beverages. There are also so many different ways that I think we can move the needle here in California. I think we can do a better job in general communicating with students about what exists, how do they access it, and how we can actually help them achieve their end goal much faster. There are many other things that we can and should be doing.

    What are your expectations for the 2025-26 state budget? Are you worried there could be further cuts to financial aid?

    Nothing can be taken for granted, especially in a difficult year. We have a number of new legislators. So for me, it’s about reeducating, reaching out, building that relationship, especially with new elected officials. We’ve had to cut funding for the commission already by 7.95%. All state agencies received the same reduction. There was also a hiring freeze here at the commission. And all of this happened before I arrived. I don’t take anything for granted. I know it’s a really difficult year, but I also know that poverty has been increasing in the state. And so when I go out and advocate, I’m advocating for our students, and I’m defending the dollars that we have while helping California build pathways for many more Californians.

    On another topic, California’s community colleges have lost millions of financial aid dollars this year and in recent years to fraudsters. Is there anything the student aid commission can do or is doing to alleviate the fraud? Or does that responsibility fall to the colleges?

    I think the challenging thing about fraud is it keeps getting more sophisticated. Our campuses play a really critical role in identifying that fraud. And they are best positioned. But the commission can be a part of the alert system and a part of the professional development process. I’ve also asked for additional IT positions through the state budget process to be able to deal with some of these situations.





    Source link

  • When will Black minds matter in California’s actions, not just words?

    When will Black minds matter in California’s actions, not just words?


    restorative justice

    Alison Yin for EdSource

    During a recent work trip to another state, I ran into an acquaintance I’d met a few times at education conferences. After our initial chit-chat about jet lag, they brought up a sentiment I’ve increasingly heard lately: Surely I must be glad to do education work in California, where equity isn’t a bad word; where diversity is championed, and state leaders are quick to defend the programs, practices and policies that support students of color.

    It’s becoming harder to fix my face when I hear these words. Rhetoric is one thing, actions and data are another. And in a state where the current trajectory won’t have all Black students at grade level in math until at least 2089, I worry that our focus on saying the right words is taking the place of doing the right thing. 

    Before I get written off as too angry, let me be clear that there are absolutely things to celebrate in California’s approach to education. But here is where the conundrum lies for me. Why is it that California pursues so many positive steps forward in education, but continually sidesteps significant action that would lead to tangible results for Black students? 

    EdTrust—West’s report “Black Minds Matter 2025: Building Bright Black Futures,” comes a decade after we originally issued a call to action for California leaders by launching the Black Minds Matter campaign in 2015. We found a big disconnect between the dreams and aspirations of Black students and the opportunities our education systems give them to succeed. Black students are more likely to attend schools with novice teachers. Black students have the lowest high school graduation rate in California. Fewer Black students are going to college after high school than 10 years ago, and Black students are still underrepresented at California State University and the University of California. On nearly every indicator we analyzed, the education systems charged with caring for our students fail to support Black students. Wouldn’t you be angry if these were your kids or family members? 

    Our reports, policy work, and that of other researchers and advocacy organizations show how many efforts proclaimed as supportive to Black students are performative and piecemeal, or watered down or abandoned altogether, like the changes made to the Black Student Achievement Program in Los Angeles and the quashing of 2023’s Assembly Bill 2774. 

    This work, and some of our previous statements about the pace of progress in the state, have pissed people off. It confounds me that some folks in power are more upset about the ways we describe the data on how schools and colleges are doing for Black students than they are about how schools and colleges are doing for Black students. We have to remember that there are real people behind these data points.

    Some folks told us not to share this data and advocate strongly for Black students right now. The political climate is too tenuous to speak up for Black students, they said. We need to fly under the radar rather than speak loudly and boldly, they said. It is not lost on me that the individuals suggesting this quieter path are well-intentioned. However, as professor Shaun Harper points out, now is precisely the time for organizations and educational institutions “to showcase DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) activities to confirm that they are not the racist, divisive, discriminatory and anti-American activities that obstructionists erroneously claim”. 

    California may be in the crosshairs, but we are also at a crossroads.

    The dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education is being framed as returning education to the states. So, let’s take them up on that in ways that not only reaffirm our values verbally, but also through new, bolder actions.

    Many of our recommendations are not new, except one: We need a California Commission on Black Education Transformation. Our current education infrastructure is failing far too many Black students. As we outline in our report and will continue to share in upcoming materials, we are not proposing that this commission act as another task force, but rather that it serves as an entity with power and authority around resources and accountability measures. We need an overhaul, and now —when states are being told they are empowered to lead on education — is the time to do it. 

    What I reminded the colleague I saw at the recent conference is this: The fight for racial justice has always been an uphill battle, even in California. Yet what we have in California — or at least what I am hoping we have — are leaders who will not only not back down, but will embrace the call to be bold.

    I’ve advised college students and been an adjunct professor. I would never tell a student to temper their expectations for themselves. I would never say to a student not to fight for what is right because it is hard. I hope California doesn’t, either. 

    •••

    Christopher J. Nellum, Ph.D., is executive director of EdTrust—West, a nonprofit organization advancing policies and practices to dismantle the racial and economic barriers embedded in the California education system. 

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Ethnic studies standards can’t save California’s deeply flawed mandate

    Ethnic studies standards can’t save California’s deeply flawed mandate


    Alison Yin / EdSource

    Members of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus recently introduced a new bill (AB 1468) to address concerns that the state’s new ethnic studies mandate has been and will continue to be used as a vehicle for sneaking dangerous antisemitism and anti-Israel content into our classrooms. Unfortunately, AB 1468 will only serve to exacerbate, rather than mitigate, these concerns.

    In 2021, California became the first state to require an ethnic studies course for high school graduation with the passage of AB 101. Despite good intentions, this mandate has been plagued by fundamental and unresolved problems. Chief among them is that it allows school districts to choose their own curriculum, leading many to adopt materials and training from consulting groups such as the Liberated Ethnic Studies Consortium, which promote a highly politicized approach to ethnic studies, exacerbating concerns about classroom bias and antisemitism.

    Recognizing this looming threat and knowing that content standards are required for all other California courses required for high school graduation, the Jewish legislators have introduced a bill to establish state-approved standards to prevent antisemitic content and ensure ethnic studies is taught in a way that respects all communities.

    The lack of content standards, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. Far more troubling is the absence of any consensus on what kind of subject ethnic studies even is. Some proponents view it as an inclusive, objective examination of the history, culture and contributions of various ethnic groups in the state. This understanding appears to have guided California legislators in passing the ethnic studies mandate with AB 101, whose author stated, “California is one of the most diverse states in the country, and we should celebrate that diversity by teaching a curriculum that is inclusive of all of our cultures and backgrounds.”

    Others, however, hold a radically different view. They believe high school ethnic studies should replicate the university-level discipline, which focuses primarily on four racial groups and is rooted in ideologically driven frameworks that emphasize systemic oppression and promote political activism, often incorporating antisemitic content. This approach, championed by state university ethnic studies faculty, teachers unions and Liberated consulting groups, has infiltrated many school districts.

    The lack of consensus about the very nature of ethnic studies has led to fierce battles over curricula, which have played out in contentious school board meetings and costly legal challenges, underscoring the folly of implementing a mandatory ethnic studies course without any common understanding of the subject.

    The folly becomes even graver when considering that the primary justification for an ethnic studies mandate — its supposed improvement of student outcomes — is wholly unfounded. The single empirical study claiming to demonstrate the academic benefits of ethnic studies was thoroughly debunked by scholars at the University of California and the University of Pennsylvania, who warned that “no conclusion” could be drawn from its data. Worse, an ethnic studies mandate forces students to take a controversial course with no demonstrable academic benefits in place of one with clear value, such as world history.

    The mandate’s serious flaws were well-known before the passage of AB 101, which raises the question: How could state legislators establish a law requiring all students to take a course with no agreed-upon subject matter, content standards or proven academic benefits and, under the Liberated approach to ethnic studies, that was likely to sow divisiveness and incite antisemitism?

    Unfortunately, the Jewish Caucus’ idea of adding standards to a deeply flawed mandate, though well-intentioned, will not fix the problem. Given the entrenched influence of teachers unions, university ethnic studies faculty and Liberated consultants over who teaches high school ethnic studies and how it’s taught, any attempt to add standards will inevitably be co-opted by these groups, further entrenching an ideological version of ethnic studies that is divisive, controversial and harmful to Jewish students. Moreover, AB 1468 risks giving a false sense of security to concerned parents and community members while failing to address deeper issues.

    Now is the time to reconsider — not reinforce — the ethnic studies mandate.

    Thankfully, a critical provision in AB 101 has been largely overlooked: The mandate is only operative when the Legislature provides funding for it, which has not yet occurred. And given California’s current financial crisis and the fact that the mandate is estimated to cost the state a whopping $275 million annually, it’s unlikely to become operational anytime soon. This presents an opportunity for legislators to do what is best for all California students: Instead of trying to salvage a foolhardy mandate that is beyond repair, legislators must work to repeal it.

    Without a state-funded graduation requirement, school districts could still offer ethnic studies as an elective or even a local graduation requirement, allowing communities to decide whether the course serves their students’ needs. However, given the cost, controversy and administrative burden involved with implementing an ethnic studies requirement without state support, it is doubtful many districts will proceed with it on their own. As a result, the ethnic studies industry — especially consulting groups like Liberated and university-based teacher training programs —will lose their primary source of demand and begin to wither, removing a major driver of politicized and antisemitic content in California classrooms.

    Legislators now face a clear choice: double down on a mandate that divides communities, burdens schools, and fails students, or take this opportunity to end it before it does further harm. Repealing AB 101 isn’t just prudent policy — it’s a necessary course correction.

    •••

    Tammi Rossman-Benjamin is the director of AMCHA Initiative, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to combating antisemitism at colleges and universities in the United States. She was a faculty member at the University of California for 20 years.

    The opinions in this commentary are 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.





    Source link