برچسب: campuses

  • Legislature must tackle sex discrimination and harassment on college campuses

    Legislature must tackle sex discrimination and harassment on college campuses


    Yin Yang /iStock

    Addressing and preventing sex discrimination and sexual harassment on college campuses continues to be one of the most foundational challenges to improving campus climate at higher education institutions in our country.

    In the fall of 2021, as the Biden-Harris administration began its reexamination of Title IX, the federal regulation that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education, the Assembly Higher Education Committee also began its own reexamination of California’s policies to address and prevent sex discrimination and sexual harassment in higher education.

    Three years later, the Higher Education Committee released a 30-plus page report that revealed we are not doing nearly enough to support our public higher education institutions to create an inclusive and safe campus culture for our students, faculty and staff.

    While each public higher education institution does have a nondiscrimination policy in place, it is clear that our campus communities do not trust these institutions to prevent nor properly handle sex discrimination and sexual harassment on campus. According to interviews conducted by the committee and various surveys of students and faculty, campus communities feel that current policy focuses on protecting higher education institutions and not survivors of sexual discrimination and harassment.

    It is the responsibility of campus leadership to provide our students with a safe and inclusive environment; however, the Legislature also has a responsibility to support our institutions in that mission, and to hold them accountable if they fall short.

    My bills, Assembly Bill (AB) 2047 and AB 2048 are a necessary step that the Legislature must take in order to support California’s higher education institutions and its campus communities.

    These two bills are a part of an ambitious, 12-bill legislative package, authored by myself and seven of my legislative colleagues, and predominantly based on recommendations from the committee’s report.

    The package as a whole is imperative in order to foster cultural change, accountability and trust at our higher education institutions. AB 2047 and AB 2048 focus on shifting campus culture and renewing trust.

    AB 2047 will establish an independent systemwide Title IX office to assist with monitoring compliance throughout all three of California’s higher education segments, and AB 2048 will establish an independent Title IX office on each California State University and University of California campus, and in each community college district.

    These offices, both on campus and at the systemwide level, will provide supportive measures to survivors of sexual harassment and discrimination and adjudicate cases in a clear and transparent manner. Furthermore, these bills will work in tandem with the overall legislative package to provide reporting measures to ensure the higher education institutions are preventing and addressing cases of sex discrimination.

    The importance of creating an identifiable authority that will properly adjudicate cases of sex discrimination and implement preventative measures cannot be minimized. These bills will renew community trust in our public institutions and establish a campus culture primed to detect, prevent and address all forms of sex discrimination and harassment with supportive measures and restorative justice. 

    AB 2047 and AB 2048 will provide substantial change for survivors of sexual harassment, but they will also result in substantial monetary cost from the state’s general fund, possibly costing millions of dollars, in order to establish and staff these offices.

    As we are confronted with a significant budget deficit this year, difficult policy decisions will be made, but these bills should be a priority for the Legislature.

    Fundamental change is costly, and as we assess the true costs of these bills and the impact they will have on our state, we must also not forget to consider the cost of doing nothing: the human cost of students who do not feel safe at these institutions and may not be able to experience all that higher education has to offer. The cost of those who carry invisible wounds and do not achieve their full educational potential.

    I am a firm believer in the power and promise of higher education and its ability to transform lives and communities. No student should be deprived of that power and promise due to sex discrimination or sexual harassment.

    We are falling short of our responsibility to these campus communities by further allowing this status quo of handling complaints through costly monetary settlements and lawsuits to remain.

    We cannot let this continue.

    •••

    Mike Fong (D-Alhambra) represents California’s 49th Assembly District and serves as chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee.

    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

  • Adult education on K-12 campuses is so much more than you might guess

    Adult education on K-12 campuses is so much more than you might guess


    Adult education students at Huntington Beach Adult School in the Huntington Beach Union School District

    Credit: Jorge Van Dyck / Huntington Beach Adult School

    There’s an incredibly important program that takes place in the back lots of a number of K-12 school sites.

    Adult Education serves students aged 18 and over in English as a second language (ESL), citizenship, adult basic education/adult secondary education (diploma and GED), and short-term career technical Education (CTE).

    But their services to the schools they are housed in and the surrounding community are so much more. In fact, adult education staff and supporters have been espousing the benefits associated with Community Schools before the term became popular. They are that link schools don’t know they have to make sure parents know about and attend their District English Language Advisory Committee to help plan how funds will be used to support English learners, and they are often the link to immigration attorneys, financial literacy programs and a bridge to the training that so many parents of K-12 students end up needing.

    Adult education also benefits students in the K-12 system. To put it simply, our immigrant students have immigrant parents, and assisting parents in learning the language and the school system’s processes in an English learner class is bound to pay off for the child as well. Also, offering short-term career technical education classes for those same parents to transition into once they have a grasp of the language (like in this medical assistant IET – integrated education and training program) is ultimately going to provide a more financially stable family structure that, again, benefits the child attending our K-12 schools. Finally, no matter how many redundant systems we put into K-12, students do drop out, and adult schools provide a place for that student to come back and finish their diploma or high school equivalency.

    Yes, these folks are flexible, and their services complement the goals of our K-12 districts, which is likely why a decision was made a long time ago to house adult education within these institutions.

    Unfortunately, flexibility is also a sore spot for adult educators. When the state budget gets pinched, adult education feels it first. In 2008-09, that meant cuts of 15% and 20%, and when the state government allowed for categorical programs — which previously could only be used for specific purposes — to be used flexibly, adult education funds were used to keep K-12 programs going, and many adult programs were decreased or even lost. By 2013-14, the Legislature introduced a package to eliminate school district categorical programs that targeted funding for adult education but salvage the adult education system by requiring districts to move into consortia beginning in 2015-16, joining community colleges and K-12 adult schools together in offering non-credit adult education. Schools moving to this system were asked to maintain 2011-12 levels of spending on adult education, which by then was at about 50% of 2008-09 levels.

    So, it is understandable when an adult educator winces at the word “flexibility” and would rather it not even be mentioned in these bleak financial times. But the good news for California, its schools, and communities around those schools, is that California still supports its adult education system like no other state. The budget for adult education has actually grown in recent years. And, despite a recent Legislative Analyst Office report second guessing the funding structure it helped to create, adult educators feel the more they let folks know about the incredible wraparound services they provide for adults and children in the K-12 districts that are lucky enough to house them, then the more likely it will be for that elusive respect to be gained and programs sustained into the distant future.

    The fundamental tasks of adult education are widely agreed upon and supported, even if many K-12 educators don’t know exactly what happens in those beige portables at the edge of their campus.

    As alluded to at the start, those classes for adults are often tucked away in corners of larger campuses that are hard to find, and some forget they are there, and that’s generally OK with those who work there, since adult school employees know the value of their work is about so much more than that; they are flexible. They know that being right there on the campus where adult school parents’ kids attend is a great start.

    Going back and forth between different sets and shades of beige portables on the four different campuses where Huntington Beach Adult School provides ESL classes, I have an appreciation for the often slighted portable and feel compelled to steal from William Carlos Williams to bring an end to this musing on the value of adult education.

    So much depends upon

    the beige portables

    at the edge of campus

    glazed in floodlights

    filled with adult students

    Credit: Jorge Van Dyck / Huntington Beach Adult School

    •••

    Philip Villamor is an assistant principal at Huntington Beach Adult School, which is a part of the Huntington Beach Union High School District.

    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

  • Cal State board anticipates a ‘painful year’ as campuses cut costs

    Cal State board anticipates a ‘painful year’ as campuses cut costs


    California State University officials meet for the July 2024 meeting of the board of trustees.

    Credit: Ashley Bolter / EdSource

    California State University is taking the forecast of a snowballing budget gap so seriously, even a recent message touting a new hire came with the equivalent of a financial weather advisory.

    The nation’s largest university system welcomed Emily F. Cutrer as the new interim president of Sonoma State University last week with the stern reminder that she must address “enormous financial pressures” facing the university, where fall 2023 enrollment was down more than 36% over the last decade.

    That sobering message was repeated to the system’s 23 campuses at the last board of trustees meeting before the fall term — a moment of truth when campus leaders aiming to reverse declines in student enrollment will find out if their bids to attract and retain students worked. Even if efforts to boost enrollment succeed, cutting costs could prove a necessity on many campuses, CSU officials warned. Board Chair Jack B. Clarke Jr., addressing school presidents directly, said they ultimately will determine how to manage limited resources. 

    “Presidents, we understand that you’re going to have to make some hard decisions and, within your campus communities and your general communities, you’re going to be criticized,” he said. “Understand that we’re behind you in terms of making the hard decisions.”

    CSU could be staring down a $1 billion budget gap in the 2025-26 school year as the result of dwindling state support for higher education and rising costs, staff said at the July board of trustees meeting.

    CSU has also unveiled a plan to reshuffle dollars from campuses that fall short of enrollment goals. In April, the system released a preliminary budget document sketching how the system could reallocate $32 million in enrollment funding from 12 campuses that didn’t meet resident enrollment targets or target increases and shift it into nine campuses where 2024-25 resident enrollment targets have been increased. A CSU spokesperson said the system is finalizing those plans over the coming weeks.

    The system expects more budgetary trade-offs going forward, CSU Chief Financial Officer Steve Relyea said to trustees at their July meeting. Major expenses include a backlog of facilities and infrastructure projects, employee compensation costs and obligations the schools must meet under legal mandates such as Title IX, the federal law barring sex-based discrimination in schools.

    “We anticipate negative impacts on academic offerings and student support services,” Relyea said. “The funding that we’re receiving, while it’s more, is still not sufficient to cover the increased cost on our current operations, and at this point universities will likely have to redirect significant dollars from existing university budgets to cover employee compensation commitments.”

    Enrollment drops lead to cuts

    CSU earlier this year agreed to a 10% raise for faculty represented by the California Faculty Association following a one-day strike. Trustees last week voted to approve salary increases for four campus leaders over the objections of some speakers during public comment. 

    The grim forecast underscores the challenges facing CSU at a time of flagging student enrollment across higher education amid declining public trust in the value of a college degree. Systemwide, fall 2023 enrollment stood ​more than 30,000 students shy of its 2020 peak. 

    Campus efforts to entice students back to campus include easing transfers into the system, reengaging students who started but did not finish a degree and more support for students of color. And CSU leaders say they remain focused on long-term goals like boosting graduation rates for historically underrepresented students and rebuilding trust in Title IX and other anti-discrimination programs. 

    Funding those priorities will require hard choices. Officials anticipate they can partially plug holes in the budget with reserve funds, but they said school presidents and the system itself must tighten their belts to cover the rest — cuts they acknowledged could prove painful and unpopular. The university system also will have to contend with pressure from faculty, who argue they should have a greater say in university decision-making.

    Cuts are nothing new at some CSU campuses. In recent years, as enrollment fell more than 15% from pre-pandemic levels at schools including Cal State Channel Islands, San Francisco State and Sonoma State, campus leaders have held off on filling some open positions or launched voluntary separation programs to reduce staffing costs. Cal State Monterey Bay in May announced 16 layoffs and an additional 86 departures under an early retirement program. At Cal State East Bay, another campus that has seen a dip in enrollment, campus leaders in May announced that the school would no longer sponsor its women’s water polo to save money. 

    “Upending 19 student-athletes’ East Bay careers is without precedent,” said Jeff Newcomb, a lecturer and president of the California Faculty Association’s East Bay executive board, at the July meeting. “Going forward, authentic shared governance — it’s hard— but it’s crucial if we are to emerge from austerity measures with trust and strategic vitality.”

    Take Sonoma State as another example. 

    The school has weathered enrollment declines with serious cost-cutting. To manage a budget shortfall, spokesperson Jeffery Keating said in a statement, Sonoma State has trimmed $21.4 million from its base budget since 2020-21 and plans an additional $7.5 million cut in 2024-25. 

    Some of those savings have come from reducing the number of faculty and staff, including through attrition and early retirement programs. Keating said faculty and staff headcount fell 22% between 2019 and 2023.

    The aim has been “to protect student services and academic programs,” according to the statement, and the school doesn’t plan to scale back areas like financial aid, health services or career counseling. 

    He said the school sees some positive signs on the horizon: It projects that net student headcount will rise in 2024-25.  

    Across the system, CSU anticipates a $218 million shortfall this school year, according to a budget presentation. Making up the difference in funds likely will require tapping into reserves and “aggressively pursuing new students and working to retain current students,” said Ryan Storm, the system’s assistant vice chancellor for budget. 

    The budget presentation was not the first time Cal State has flashed financial warning signs. 

    The cost of educating CSU students far outstrips the money the system actually has to educate them, a 2023 report by CSU leaders found. Trustee Diego Arambula reminded colleagues last week that the gap between what the system estimated it should spend to meet student needs and what it does spend was $1.5 billion, and could grow as campuses trim their budgets.

    The search for savings

    The search for cost savings starts with the central office, Chancellor Mildred García said.  

    The Chancellor’s Office is reviewing each of its divisions in pursuit of “not efficiency for its own sake or purely for cost savings, but for mission-driven efficiency,” she said in a report to the trustees. In that vein, the office will split the division of academic and student affairs into two, a reorganization García said was estimated to save at least $500,000. 

    The July meeting also highlighted CSU’s smallest university — Cal Maritime — as both a cautionary tale and a possible inspiration for how the system’s campuses might share costs and academic programs in the future.

    The board considered a proposal to merge the maritime academy into Cal Poly San Luis Obispo in a bid to save the Vallejo-based maritime school following a steep drop in enrollment and rising overhead costs. The board will resume those discussions in September and make a final decision in November.

    Cal Maritime interim President Michael J. Dumont told the board the school has “taken a chainsaw to every expense on our campus” in pursuit of financial sustainability. Trustees praised the proposal to integrate the maritime academy into Cal Poly San Luis Obispo as an “elegant solution” that would save costs as the campuses consolidate administrative services and other operations.  

    CSU officials have left the door open for future campus mergers but say no additional integrations are immediately planned.

    A document announcing the integration proposal said it’s in keeping with CSU’s goal to look for cost savings “from consolidation of certain administrative functions and from inter-campus cooperation and collaboration in the offering of programs and services.” 

    In response to questions about whether future campus mergers are likely, a CSU spokesperson cited a document that says CSU “must remain open to considering all options in the future to ensure the financial health of the system and its universities.”

    That includes ongoing initiatives to save money short of full mergers, such as negotiating systemwide contracts with vendors and purchasing electricity for multiple campuses on the wholesale energy market. 

    “There are a lot of tools in the toolkit in addition to an integration like this,” CFO Relyea told trustees last week. 

    And Relyea noted that the $1 billion budget gap forecast for the 2025-26 school year is an estimate based on assumptions that could prove flawed. A shortfall could be avoided by making permanent cuts this school year, pausing new investments, bridging the gap with reserves and successfully lobbying the state for additional money, he added. 

    Some campuses might try to streamline their budgets in ways students won’t notice.

    That’s the goal at Cal State Northridge, where administrators said that measures like cutting nonessential staff travel or delaying plans to replace older technology and equipment were among the ways they hope to save money.

    “Everything that’s related to student success, we’re trying to shield that as much as we can,” said Edith Winterhalter, who leads the university’s budget department. “It’s really on the administrative side that we’re doing a lot of strategies to reduce our costs as much as we can.”

    ‘A painful year’

    A wild card in CSU’s finances is its reliance on the California Legislature, which has funded roughly 60% of the school system’s operating costs in recent years. That can expose the university system to swings in state revenue.

    CSU dodged the worst in this year’s budget. Early budget drafts proposed pushing a 5% funding hike that had been promised for 2024-25 into the following year. The final budget landed on a compromise: a one-time cut of $75 million, offset by an ongoing increase of $240 million. Staff attributed the improvement to an energetic lobbying campaign on behalf of the universities.

    The budget outlook going forward is less rosy. Anticipating more lean years ahead, state legislators envision an 8% cut to CSU’s ongoing state funding in 2025-26, according to a CSU budget presentation. On top of that, state legislators have proposed that CSU front $252 million in the 2025-26 school year, which the state would subsequently reimburse in 2026-27. A similar spend-and-reimburse maneuver would occur in the 2026-27 school year.

    Such an arrangement could prove risky for Cal State, Storm observed.

    “If we spend, in advance, hundreds of millions of dollars and the state does not reimburse us, it would significantly deplete our one-time balances and reserves, and we could be left with new ongoing commitments and no new funding to support them,” he said

    That reality has compelled Cal State to look to grow other funding sources, including what students pay to attend its universities. Trustee Christopher Steinhauser defended the board’s previous decision to increase tuition by 6% annually starting this fall, saying the additional revenue will allow the system to save hundreds of jobs. 

    “We heard earlier in the spring we have to do less with less,” Steinhauser said. “This is going to be a painful year. … If we didn’t pass that tuition, we would be in a whole big mess, much bigger than we’re in now.” 

    CSU leaders have also pointed to other possible sources of funding, including operating campuses year round and pursuing more public-private partnerships. Trustee Larry L. Adamson urged university presidents to think creatively about raising money from philanthropic sources as one additional revenue stream. 

    “How many endowed chairs do we do every year in the CSU? And I think the answer is few to none,” he said during last week’s meeting. “We have to start doing more and more of that kind of thinking, as the UCs and privates do constantly. And instead of trying to just raise money for buildings, which we do a lot of, let’s start trying to raise money that offsets our actual ongoing expenses.”





    Source link

  • California passes bill to limit student cellphone use on K-12 campuses

    California passes bill to limit student cellphone use on K-12 campuses


    Credit: Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle via AP

    California state legislators passed a bill Wednesday requiring school districts to ban or restrict student smartphone use on campuses during school hours.

    Assembly Bill 3216, renamed the Phone-Free School Act, requires that every school district, charter school and county office of education develop a policy limiting the use of smartphones by July 1, 2026.

    “Extended studies have demonstrated that the use of smartphones in classrooms can detract from students’ academic performances while contributing to higher rates of academic dishonesty and cyberbullying,” said the authors’ statement. “In consideration of California’s deficiency when it comes to academic performance, as compared to other states, it is imperative for the legislature to take action to resolve this issue.” 

    The Phone-Free School Act was authored by a bipartisan group of Assembly members that includes Republican Josh Hoover and Democrats Josh Lowenthal and Al Muratsuchi.

    The legislation comes as states, school districts and individual schools are increasingly banning cellphones, smartwatches and other personal devices on campuses in an effort to curb classroom distractions, bullying and addiction to the devices. 

    At least five other states, including Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, South Carolina and Ohio have similar laws in place.

    It is likely that Gov. Gavin Newsom will sign the legislation into law. He sent a letter to school district leaders earlier this month urging them to take immediate action to restrict cellphone use this school year. Excessive smartphone use increases anxiety, depression and other mental health issues in children, he said.

    The use of personal devices increased during pandemic school closures, resulting in some students doubling their recreational screen time, according to research. This has led to concerns about addiction to the devices.

    This legislation builds on a previous law passed in 2019 that gave school districts the authority, but did not require them, to regulate smartphones during school hours. 

    Assembly Bill 3216 allows school districts to enforce their cellphone policies by limiting student access to their smartphones. Currently, some schools enforce phone bans by requiring students to check them into “cellphone hotels” or stow them in locked pouches that can only be unlocked by school staff with a special magnet. 

    Many schools with cellphone prohibitions confiscate phones until the end of the school day if students flout the rules.

    The legislation allows for some exemptions. Students will not be prohibited from using their phones if there is an emergency, when they are given permission by school staff, when a doctor says that the student needs the phone for medical reasons or when a smartphone is required in a special education student’s individualized education program.

    The legislation also prohibits school officials and staff from accessing or monitoring a student’s online activities.

    School districts are required to have “significant stakeholder participation” in developing their cellphone policy to ensure it is responsive to the needs of students, teachers and parents, according to the legislation. The policies must be updated every five years.

    Adopting cellphone policies could collectively cost school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a state analysis of the legislation. Because it is a state mandate, the costs could be reimbursed by the state.





    Source link

  • Graduation rates up at most Cal State campuses, but some worsen

    Graduation rates up at most Cal State campuses, but some worsen


    Cal State Fullerton commencement 2024.

    Credit: Cal State Fullerton/Flickr

    While 14 Cal State universities notched six-year graduation rate increases over the previous year, nine schools in the system saw their rates decline.

    San Jose (+ 4.6 percentage points), East Bay (+ 2.4 percentage points) and Fresno (+ 2.1 percentage points) were among the campuses with the greatest increases in six-year graduation rate. Those figures represent the difference in completion among first-time, full-time freshman students who started in 2018 and those who began in 2017.

    But several campuses’ graduation rates slipped year-over-year, with the deepest dips at three of Cal State’s smallest campuses. Cal Maritime posted the biggest downswing, falling 7 percentage points. Stanislaus (- 4.6 percentage points) and Monterey Bay (- 4.1 percentage points) recorded the next-largest decreases. Two of Cal State’s largest campuses — San Diego (- 1.8 percentage points) and Long Beach (- 1 percentage point) — also saw six-year freshman rates go down slightly. 

    That’s according to campus-level statistics the system unveiled this week, coinciding with Cal State’s November board of trustees meeting. The university system is nearing the end of a decadelong campaign to graduate more students, which will conclude in spring 2025. It has made marked improvement toward hitting top-line goals across the system, but is falling short on some targets. Cal State officials have said that the pandemic set back progress on some graduation metrics. They also cite a need to focus on retaining students entering their second and third years of school, particularly students of color.

    Cal State knows “that we have a leak, that in that second to third year we’re losing a significantly high number of our students of color and probably male students of color, quite honestly,” said Dilcie D. Perez, Cal State’s chief student affairs officer. “We’re bringing them in. But if the mechanism doesn’t change, we’re going to lose students.” 

    Systemwide data presented last month shows that Cal State’s freshman four-year graduation rate across all campuses increased slightly during the 2023-24 school year over the previous year, but that its six-year freshman rate plateaued and four-year transfer rate fell.

    Cal Maritime, the university system’s smallest campus, was an outlier in terms of how much graduation rates fell from spring 2023 to spring 2024. The school, which specializes in shipping and oceanography programs, experienced the system’s greatest decrease in four-year graduation rates among students transferring from the California Community Colleges over the past two school years. Flagging enrollment has plunged the school into financial difficulty, which culminated this week in a vote to merge the maritime academy with Cal Poly San Luis Obispo in order to keep it afloat. 

    Eight other campuses including Bakersfield (- 3 percentage points) showed declines in four-year transfer graduation rates. Humboldt (+ 5.8 percentage points) and Monterey Bay (+ 4.1 percentage points) gained the most, comparing four-year transfer graduation rates for the 2018 cohort to their peers a year earlier.

    Systemwide, Cal State is aiming to have 40% of first-year students graduate in four years and 70% of first-year students graduate in six years by spring 2025. Individual campuses also have their own graduation rate targets, which can be more or less ambitious than those that apply to the system as a whole. 

    None of the system’s universities met their individual campuses’ graduation rate targets for first-time, six-year graduation rates among students who started in 2018. There has been more success on four-year rates. San Diego, Long Beach, San Jose, Sacramento and Northridge met their four-year target for first-time students who started in 2020. 





    Source link

  • Enrollment climbs at some Cal State campuses, tumbles at others

    Enrollment climbs at some Cal State campuses, tumbles at others


    Students walk on a college campus.

    Students walking on the campus of Cal State San Marcos on Dec. 3, 2024.

    Credit: Amy DiPierro / EdSource

    Diego Lopez, a student in his last year at Cal State San Marcos, gives the north San Diego County campus high marks. The Army veteran likes his classes, feels the campus is generally well-managed and appreciates that at the school’s current size, “you can just chill, and relax, and not get too overwhelmed.” 

    But Lopez can tell the student body is expanding, especially at the start of the semester, when he has to navigate crowded parking lots.  

    “The parking lots are so full, so you have to make sure you get here early. And then just right across the street, you see all the construction being done,” he said. “You can definitely tell: This school is growing a lot, and it’s growing fast.”

    The number of students at the suburban Cal State San Marcos campus has mushroomed over the past decade. It’s now home to 14,655 students, an almost 15% jump since 2015, among the sharpest increases of any Cal State campus in that period.

    But that is not the case across the 23 campuses of the California State University system. Overall system enrollment has settled at 2.7% lower than a decade ago after tumbling more deeply during the pandemic. And behind that number is a more complicated picture, with some individual campuses showing double-digit percent increases even as others have experienced big decreases.

    While San Marcos students have raced to find parking in the first weeks of recent academic years, Sonoma State students in contrast can usually find dozens of empty spaces in the Bay Area school’s main parking lot. The campus has suffered the worst enrollment loss in the university system, contracting from 9,408 students in 2015 to 5,784 students in 2024. Recent statistics suggest it had the highest dorm vacancy rate in the Cal State system in spring 2023, prompting the university to open some housing to nonstudents.

    Falling enrollment has prompted a period of tight finances at the Sonoma State campus. Tess Wilkinson, a fourth-year transfer student studying communications, said she saw fewer courses being offered. She suspects budget cuts are one reason why.

    “I even noticed some professors that had regularly taught courses in my major were no longer on the course schedule at all,” she said. “Some courses were thrown together to accommodate abrupt faculty changes — and student engagement in my classes felt like it had decreased.”

    The divergence between San Marcos and Sonoma shows how the enrollment challenge facing the nation’s largest university system defies a one-size-fits-all solution about how to serve students and where to spend money around the state.

    The trend continued this fall, with enrollment up from the year before at 15 campuses and down at eight. That uneven distribution of new students is in part due to regional differences in population, the cost of living and labor markets. It may also reflect whether they cater primarily to commuters or on-campus residents, offer higher- or lower-demand degrees and serve more or fewer students sensitive to last year’s federal financial aid delays.  

    Enrollment at community colleges, a major feeder into Cal State, also slipped during the pandemic, though student headcount has started to recover. Going forward, Cal State will have to grapple with a long-predicted decline in the number of recent high school graduates in California. The Public Policy Institute of California, a think tank, nonetheless projects that CSU enrollment will continue an upward trajectory through 2035, thanks to larger shares of high school students completing college preparatory courses and higher college-going rates. 

    Even in a year when enrollment across the Cal State system rose a modest 1.5%, some campus leaders enjoyed a banner college acceptance season. Cal State Monterey Bay, whose 16% enrollment bump was the system’s largest 2023-24, sold out on-campus housing for the first time in a decade this fall, according to Ben Corpus, its vice president for enrollment management and student affairs. 

    At the other extreme, lower-enrolled CSU campuses must contend with the financial fallout from less revenue from tuition and fees. Sonoma State and Cal State Los Angeles, which notched the largest year-to-year enrollment drop in the system, have instituted hiring freezes and cut course sections to bridge funding gaps.

    Starting this school year, Cal State also has reallocated funding to universities that exceeded enrollment targets or showed they have higher demand and away from those with dropping enrollments. Anticipated cuts in state funding because of overall state budget conditions may have additional ripple effects, even at campuses with flourishing student bodies. 

    Those stakes have not escaped the notice of campuses at both ends of the enrollment yo-yo. EdSource interviewed students, faculty and administrators at Sonoma State and Cal State San Marcos about how they think course offerings, student clubs, construction and, yes, parking are changing as their schools get bigger or smaller. 

    Students walk on the campus of Sonoma State University.
    Credit: Ally Valiente / EdSource

    Sonoma State

    An hour north of San Francisco, Sonoma State University celebrates its location on the edge of the Russian River Valley by naming its dorms for wine varietals and regions from Beaujolais to Zinfandel. 

    But wildfires have destroyed thousands of homes in this region of the state since 2017, a shock from which its population and already expensive housing market are still recovering. That has made it harder to recruit students from other parts of the state, who are a significant part of the student body, officials said. Sonoma State’s enrollment has slid almost 39% since 2015. Cal State’s 2022-23 financial statements put the school’s average residence hall occupancy at just 65%. The university has opened some of its student housing to faculty, staff, students with young children or even people visiting campus for a conference.

    Collapsing enrollment over the decade slowed to a 1% dip this year. Still, the smaller student body has prompted a serious cash crunch. Sonoma State, which has a $130 million operating budget this school year, anticipates a $21 million budget deficit going into 2025-26. 

    “It’s pretty simplistic sort of math: We just don’t have enough students paying the tuition to fully cover all of the expenses we have,” Emily F. Cutrer, the university’s interim president, said at an Oct. 28 town hall to discuss Sonoma State’s budget forecast. 

    Cutrer said the university would have to add more than 3,000 students — a 52% increase over fall 2024 — to cover its current deficit, a goal she estimated is likely three or four years away. The loss of tuition and fee revenue is compounded by rising employee benefits costs, state funding cuts and an estimated $3.6 million that Cal State is expected to reallocate to other campuses.

    Sonoma State is under a hiring freeze and is also pressing pause on some travel. The campus in recent years has offered employees early retirements and buyouts. Part-time and full-time lecturer headcount has fallen almost 25% in the last several years, a spokesperson said. Sonoma State notified the faculty union in October that layoffs could be on the way.    

    “I would ask people to stop asking us to do more with less. It’s exhausting,” Lauren S. Morimoto, who chairs the university’s department of kinesiology, said at the town hall. “We’re demoralized and we’re burnt out.”

    Sonoma State’s struggles are a comedown from a campaign under then-President Ruben Armiñana to bill the university as a “public Ivy” – offering plush new facilities at a state university price – in the 1990s through 2010s. Armiñana’s critics charged that the strategy attracted a wealthier and whiter student body compared with the state’s other public universities. 

    Judy Sakaki succeeded Armiñana in 2016 with the explicit goal of making Sonoma State more accessible and less elitist. Sakaki’s 2022 resignation ushered in a period of leadership turnover; Cutrer is the third person to lead the university since then.      

    Tim Wandling, who chairs the English department and serves on the board of the California Faculty Association at Sonoma State, said he’s concerned about leadership instability on campus. He also worries that the university’s top brass “want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on marketing blitzes and new programs, and what they really need to do is just downsize their administrative staff and focus on keeping the good faculty that they have, the good students they have.” 

    Sonoma State is not alone among Bay Area universities hurting for students. San Francisco State and Cal State East Bay are facing similar declines.

    Sonoma State’s relative distance from major population centers has long encouraged admissions staff to look outside their own backyard for prospective students.

    Sonoma currently draws 35% of its students from its home county, an additional 63% from elsewhere in California and 1.6% from out of state. University administrators and attendees speaking at the October town hall appeared to favor an all-of-the-above recruitment strategy. 

    Locally, the campus has struck guaranteed admissions deals with several of the region’s school districts and community colleges. And looking outside Sonoma State’s immediate region, the university is also recruiting in Southern California, looking at ways of retaining students it already has and bringing back students who do not immediately re-enroll each term.

    Students work at a library on the campus of Cal State San Marcos on Dec. 3, 2024.
    Credit: Amy DiPierro / EdSource

    Cal State San Marcos

    On a mild December afternoon, Cal State San Marcos student Diana Ortega Caballero was reading a book on a terrace overlooking construction cranes. Building sites are among the most visible cues of how the campus is expanding after some pandemic dips.

    Ortega Caballero, a transfer student from MiraCosta Community College in nearby Oceanside, said she had “a really easy transition” to San Marcos. Almost a third of San Marcos students start at a California community college.

    San Marcos is in good company among Southern California’s CSU campuses that have welcomed more students over the past decade due to regional population growth. San Diego State University is leading the system in enrollment gains since 2015, followed closely by Cal Poly Pomona and San Marcos. 

    Campus leaders have also taken concrete steps to steer more students to campus. Administrators have signed a series of guaranteed admissions agreements with school districts and other local education entities. They’ve also coordinated coursework with Murrieta Valley Unified School District and Mt. San Jacinto College to aid students earning software engineering degrees.

    Students interviewed at the campus said they’re largely satisfied with San Marcos. Several noted that the campus feels more accessible than larger CSU campuses. But they conceded experiencing occasional snags as the campus expands, like trouble getting into certain classes or a long wait time to see an academic adviser.

    Jackson Puddy, who is studying business administration, was standing outside the library waiting for students to arrive for a pickup chess game. He hoped the school’s growing enrollment would bring more money, more professors and perhaps even more members for the small chess club he runs. The only con? “The parking situation — it’s not going to get any better,” he said, even if students can now reliably find a space in a dirt lot downhill from the main quad. 

    Students recently approved a $210 per-semester fee increase to fund a new wellness and recreation center. Plans call for a turf field on a rooftop deck, indoor courts, cardio and strength training facilities and 550 beds for student housing. In addition, the campus opened a new dorm for 300 students two years ago and is currently building another one for 500.  

    Cal State system statistics suggest San Marcos has some of the busiest classroom and laboratory space of any school in the CSU system. One of the school’s most urgent goals is to meet surging demand for its engineering program, which began in 2019 with 300 students and has ballooned to 2,000. Campus leaders plan to build a three-story, $110 million building to house its College of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. The project is expected to break ground in July 2025.

    San Marcos’ growth does not immunize it from the belt-tightening other CSU campuses have begun in anticipation of lower state funding. At a board of trustees meeting in September, President Ellen Neufeldt said a lack of additional faculty could lead to larger class sizes and noted that the school has deferred maintenance on aging electrical systems. 

    “The challenge we now face is that while we are growing, we are unable to hire the essential employees needed to support our mission of student success,” Neufeldt said. “We urgently require more advisers, success coaches, tutors, financial aid specialists and counselors, and the list goes on and on, to assist our amazing students.”

    Ally Valiente, a student at Sonoma State University and a member of the Student Journalism Corps, contributed to this story.





    Source link

  • More Than 100 Universities Sign Statement Rejecting Trump’s Interference in and Control of Their Campuses

    More Than 100 Universities Sign Statement Rejecting Trump’s Interference in and Control of Their Campuses


    More than 100 universities joined forces to oppose the Trump administration’s efforts to control their curriculum, their hiring policies, and their admissions policies. The initial statement was released this morning and almost another 100 universities signed on.

    The Trump administration’s threat to academic freedom by suspending federal funding and threatening the universities’ tax-exempt status alarmed the universities and spurred them to resist the administration’s unprecedented effort to stifle academic freedom.

    CBS News reported:

    Washington — More than 100 U.S. universities and colleges, including Harvard, Princeton, Penn, Brown, MIT, Cornell and Tufts issued a joint letter Tuesday condemning President Trump’s “political interference” in the nation’s education system. 

    The move comes a day after Harvard University sued the Trump administration, which announced an initial funding freeze of $2.2 billion and later signaled its intention to suspend an additional $1 billion in grants. The moves came after weeks of escalation between the administration and Harvard, which had rejected the administration’s demands to change many of the school’s policies and leadership, including auditing the student body and faculty for “viewpoint diversity.”

    “We speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education,” Tuesday’s letter read. 

    “We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion,” it said, adding: “We must reject the coercive use of public research funding.” 

    Mr. Trump has sought to bring several prestigious universities to heel over claims they tolerated campus antisemitism, threatening their budgets and tax-exempt status and the enrollment of foreign students.

    The letter said the universities and colleges were committed to serving as centers where “faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation.”

    “Most fundamentally,” the letter reads, “America’s colleges and universities prepare an educated citizenry to sustain our democracy.

    “The price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society. On behalf of our current and future students, and all who work at and benefit from our institutions, we call for constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic.”

    Reuters reported that other higher education institutions added their names to the statement, which now has nearly 200 signatories.

    The New York Times reported today that some of Harvard’s major donors were urging it to settle with the administration. Eventually, the government’s threats to take control of the university made a settlement impossible.



    Source link

  • How CSU campuses are helping more students graduate on time, without debt

    How CSU campuses are helping more students graduate on time, without debt


    Student para-planners at the Chico State Financial Wellness Clinic provide the campus community with free financial planning and education services overseen by a licensed financial planner.

    Credit: Jessica Bartlett / Chico State

    There’s a group of students whose fate has largely been forgotten amid the shifting political and policy landscape of higher education. It’s young people from lower-income backgrounds who are taking classes and studying while also working, caring for their families, and struggling to afford housing and basic needs, such as food.

    As the shifts continue, institutions and their allies can step up and do more to ensure these students complete their studies and realize the lifelong benefits of graduating with a bachelor’s degree. And they can do so by prioritizing affordability, recognizing that cost is often a major barrier to student success.

    Consider the example of Dejanae Wilson, who graduated from California State University, Chico, last year with a bachelor’s degree in social science. While working toward her degree, she was also caring for three younger siblings. 

    “I had a lot on my plate trying to manage our finances and keep up with my courses,” she said. 

    To ensure that Dejanae could graduate on schedule and according to plan, she turned to the recently established Financial Wellness Clinic at Chico State. Thanks to consultations with both a student and a faculty adviser at the clinic, she managed the household budget and connected to campus resources (like the Hungry Wildcat Food Pantry), which offered her family crucial support.  

    “It’s easy to get caught up in the flow of life, your job, and taking care of people — and not realize there are resources on campus that can help,” Dejanae said.

    Across California State University’s 23 campuses, administrators, faculty and students are working diligently to support students like Dejanae to complete their studies on time and according to plan. From expanding mentorship, tutoring, and academic advising, to increasing access to financial counseling, to instituting early warning systems to identify and support struggling students, campuses are piloting a range of promising approaches to support student persistence and success. These approaches often build on existing campus policies and programs, making them impactful and achievable.

    The Financial Wellness Clinic at Chico State, led by finance professor Jaycob Arbogast in the university’s College of Business and staffed by finance students, is just one example of these practical and effective strategies. This well-organized and structured program, which seamlessly integrates classroom learning with practical experience to support student needs, was recognized for its effectiveness and bestowed the prestigious Catalyst Fund award by the National Association of Higher Education Systems. The awards recognize replicable programs and strategies that California’s public colleges and universities are pursuing to remove cost as a barrier to higher education.

    At CSU Channel Islands, another innovative initiative that received Catalyst Fund support has provided additional resources to students who are struggling academically so they can stay on track and reduce the time (and costs) of earning a degree. Launched in spring 2022, the initiative targets students who have nonpassing or incomplete grades and/or other indicators that they are not progressing academically. The program connects these students to faculty and peer mentors and special, cohort-based activities where they bond with other students and develop skills and mindsets that support their persistence and success.

    Early results from the program show that participating students’ average GPAs increased, and the percentage of students who graduated or returned for the following semester was higher than that of the general student population. Interestingly, one of the key benefits students point to is how the program builds connections with peers facing similar challenges. As one student said after participating in the program, “You are able to be part of a group that becomes your family, you learn about the experiences of other students, and realize you are not alone.”

    Supporting students to persist in their studies can take several forms. At Sonoma State University, students who are the first in their family to go to college are 47% of all undergraduates. As university officials started to see a decline in retention among these “first-gen” students during the Covid pandemic, they developed an early alert system that pings a student and connects them to their adviser and other support when a faculty member reports low test scores or attendance problems. At the end of the program’s pilot year in 2023-24, 97% of first-year, first-gen students enrolled in the program ended in good academic standing and returned the following fall.

    What’s happening at Sonoma State and the other CSU campuses is part of a broader commitment to closing the equity gap in higher education across a university system that, despite its uniquely diverse student population, continues to experience racial disparities in degree completion. It was in response to these disparities that CSU set a goal to increase graduation rates between 2015 and 2025. Thanks to Graduation Initiative 2025, the system has nearly doubled its four-year graduation rate for first-year students, and undergraduates are earning their degrees faster than ever before.

    Expanding access to a bachelor’s degree and supporting student persistence and success are core functions of the higher education system. In California and across the nation, campuses are showing it’s possible to do better, even in today’s uncertain political and policy environment. All it takes is creativity and a commitment to students who might otherwise struggle to achieve their college dreams.

    •••

    Dilcie Perez is a deputy vice chancellor and chief student affairs officer for the California State University system. Monica Martinez is program director for college success at the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund.

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





    Source link